Protestant here. It's impossible now for me to unsee all this. Been on the journey for a few years now trying to reconcile my charismatic Protestant faith with the history of the Church. I'm now finding it hard not to view protestantism like how I've viewed Mormonism I.e a recent development that strays beyond the bounds of historic faith and tradition. I anticipate I become Cat or E.O in the near future.
Protestant here (EFC) yeah this seems to make sense. It's interesting to learn more about the Catholic Church, as growing up I was taught that y'all were heretics, but the more I learn the more I start to think that maybe I have been in the wrong all this time.
careful friend, a 'heretic' is one who is contrary God's Word -- catholicism is heretical -- see John 14:15 and compare with Ex 20:8-11 if you keep your focus on Truth (John 17:17, Psalm 119:142, 151) -- it will keep you grounded with a firm foundation.
@@jonanolakers1567 Tony is an 7da troll don't pay him anymind he loves to lie abt catholic doctrine and claimed to have been a member for 35 years but can't explain antthing in doctrine. He is only a lier pray for him
Most protestants simply did not know better, having learned scripture with what Steve Ray calls "protestant lens". This view forced them to continually bring up "sola scriptura" or "sola fide" when reading the Bible. These lenses prevented a LOT of protestants to figure out the obvious by fear of "giving up" their fight against the "boogeyman Catholic Church" protestant literature created over the past centuries, out of pure hate.
Thank you for making this amazing video. Well done on presenting the argument and backing it up in a way that is bullet proof. Fellow Catholic here, this will be useful in defending the faith.
Cameron, I love how you are so on fire for your faith. I'm not quite ready to join the Catholic Church, but I will acknowledge that Catholics tend to have a much better appreciation of church history. Protestants often don't seem to care of the great saints of the past. Catholics understand that they are following centuries of other Catholics who have followed Jesus long before they were alive. The doctrine of apostolic succession ensures that the faith of past believers is valued.
The problem with your comment is that there are no grounds for supposing that apostolic succession is valid. The apostles were there for the forming of the scriptures, they were 'completed' by the apostle John with the book of Revelation. There is absolutely no need of continuing what is already complete. It is like the Catholic teaching on salvation, they try to add to the 'completed' and 'finished' work of Christ on the cross, by adding works as a requisite for salvation. That is totally wrong. Salvation is ALL of God. God the Father planned it. God the Son carried out the Father's will and accomplished it, then God the Holy Spirit applies it to the believing sinner and indwells us as a guarantee of our inheritance in Heaven with Christ and 'in Christ'.
Hey Cameron, I appreciate the work you put into your channel! I'm a former Protestant in the process of joining the Catholic Church. Just a personal opinion - the thumbnail text "they hide this" isn't my favorite because it suggests bad faith from protestants. Most protestants that I've known and met don't hide stuff about their beliefs - they are wrong sincerely. Since I appreciate what you're doing, I wanted to share my 2 cents. God bless!
There really are two Protestant types: - Some that a quiet and don't really run into Catholics. This is most. - However, there is a group of some very Anti-Catholic Protestant that attack all sorts of doctrines or dogmas. Many aggressive Protestant pastors will: 1) call us satanist cults, 2) that the Pope is the anti-Christ, 3) they attack the Eucharist some calling blasphemous names 4) some will attack the Virgin Mary. Jesus gave us the 5 First Saturdays to REPAIR THE IMMACULATE HEART OF MARY the 5 blasphemies against the Virgin Mary. Jesus Christ is saying enough... don't do repeat the blasphemies. They also call us different types of names. Anyeays, I undestand you are trying to protect those Protestants that are down to earth good people. The videomaker says that they hide... More they misinterpret scripture... We as Catholics are called to correct them because they tell us WHAT WE BELIEVE. But they do it day and night.
I was deep into history and I couldn’t remain Protestant anymore but I saw the innovation of Catholicism from now to the 1st century and it’s changed a lot, for example you guys changed the Nicene creed and later changed the bread of the Eucharist and also made changes on how baptism was done to both adults and children as well with distribution of the Eucharist on the hands, and the supreme jurisdiction of the pope and the infallibility of the pope, and purgatory doctrine, and the immaculate conception of the blessed Virgin Mary, indulgences I agree with the concept of it but it ultimately lead to corruption within some bishops and clergy, which helped spark the reformation and the schisms that went on in the 16th century, oh and not to mention the Catholic Church is in communion with the CCR (Catholic charismatic renewal) which is basically a mix of some Protestant rock concert with Catholic doctrine…all this lead me to become Eastern Orthodox.
@gloriapatriparcedomine start slowly, His Ten are written on stone and deemed 'Truth' -- Psalm 119:142, 151 the catholic 'church' teaches contrary Them, proving it's not Christianity, nor ever has been or will be.
@@tony1685 that lie, that the Catholics don’t hold to the Ten Commandments or else changed them, is the first domino that dropped for me. When I heard it, I thought it sounded too convenient for Protestants, and after a few minutes research identified the dishonesty in the argument. Then I started probing other straw-man arguments against Catholicism, then I started wrestling with the actually good arguments, but over and over again found the Catholic logic to be superior, and over and over again found that “Bible believing Christians” don’t believe the Bible, only the parts that fit their theology. That’s even true of Martin Luther who wanted to exclude the books of James, Hebrews, and Revelation from the Canon because those books were inconvenient for his theology. You can’t simultaneously say you believe the Bible is the infallible word of truth and also deny the plain meaning of any passage. Case in point, Peter the rock on which Christ will build his church. Christ giving the apostles authority to forgive sins (John 20:22-23). We are not justified by faith alone (James 2:24). Baptism now saves you (1 Peter 3:21) - yes I know the denial of this one isn’t universal in Protestantism. It is the Protestant, not the Catholic Church, that has a Bible problem.
@@tony1685 by the way, I sincerely hope to see your username in one of these comments sections one day defending Catholicism. Come on in, the water’s fine.
Well done! Clearly the Catholic Church is the church Jesus promised he would build. He assured that his church would survive until the end of the age by a succession of Bishops to that day. The Catholic Church is the only Christian church of the Bible. It adopted its name from the Greek, Acts 9:31 ekklesia cath oles tes. (See Bib le hub Greek interlinear Bible version) The Church throughout all, the universal Christian church Jesus established. The Catholic Church. Protestants, Jesus told us in John14:15, If you love me you will keep my commandments. If you are not part of his Catholic Church you are not keeping his commandments.
Protestants, Jesus told us in John14:15, If you love me you will keep my commandments. If you are not part of his Catholic Church you are not keeping his commandments. There is only one church and it is made up of all believers in Christ 1 Corinthians 12:12,. The believers are the body of Christ and Jesus is at it's head according to Coll 1:17 He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together. 18 And He is the head of the body, the church; He is the beginning and firstborn from among the dead, so that in all things He may have preeminence. 19 For God was pleased to have all His fullness dwell in Him,… Only one church to choose from and you as a believer in Christ are in it. Acts 16:28-32
Absolutely. Jesus didn't establish any of the thousands of Luther, Zwingli, Calvin inspired protestant denominations. Jesus never gave any of these men authority to build a Church. All protestant denominations are conceived by men who are in rebellion against Jesus because they didn’t keep his commandments!
@@peterzinya1 Catholic Christians do not bow down to graven images so stop lying. To make a false statement like that may be a mortal sin depending on what your level of culpability is. In your case you know you are bearing false witness against Catholics. Besides the video was about Jesus establishing the Catholic Church. You can’t refute it so you have to deflect.
@@Spiritof76Catholic Friend, sorry if i gave the idea of deflecting. Here is what i was commenting on; "If you are not part of his Catholic Church you are not keeping his commandments." So i replied; Yeah, right. I refuse to bow down befor catholic graven images. Here is you accusing me falsely; Catholic Christians do not bow down to graven images so stop lying. I said that I, refuse to bow to catholic graven images. I didnt mention anyone else. . "In your case you know you are bearing false witness against Catholics." if i did say catholic bow to graven images, which i didnt, it would be 100% true. At least ive seen millions of pics of them on their knees befor graven (Carved,engraved) images. Hey, maybe im wrong!
Honestly... The mere fact that Jesus *changes Simon's name* to Cephas (rock/Peter) right before telling him that He will build His Church on "this rock" *should be make things clear enough for anyone reading the passage. Otherwise, what's Jesus's point with all the name changing? It's utterly useless UNLESS Peter is the rock on which Christ builds His Church.
St. Augustine (354-430), in his writings, offers a nuanced interpretation of this passage. He does not exclusively equate "this rock" with Peter himself but sees it as a reference to Christ or Peter’s confession of faith. In some of his earlier writings, Augustine acknowledges a common interpretation that Peter is the rock upon which the Church is built. However, as his thought matured, he leaned more heavily toward an alternative understanding. Augustine argues that "the rock" refers to Peter’s confession of faith in Christ as the Son of the living God (Matthew 16:16). This faith in Christ, not Peter himself, is the true foundation of the Church. He writes in Sermon 229: “For the Rock [Petra] was Christ; and on this foundation was Peter himself built. For other foundation no man can lay than that which is laid, which is Christ Jesus.” Augustine also interprets "this rock" to mean Christ Himself, not Peter. He emphasizes that Christ is the cornerstone of the Church, and Peter’s role is derivative and subordinate to Christ’s. In his Exposition of Psalm 61, Augustine states: “For they were not told, ‘You are the rock,’ but ‘You are Peter.’ But the Rock was Christ, on which foundation also Peter himself was built.” Other church fathers that seemed to shar the same interpretation as Augustine were Origen, Cyril of Alexandria, Ambrose of Milan, John Chrysostom and Tertullian.
@@pedroguimaraes6094 Ultimately - no matter how people want to interpret his writings - St-Augustine sided with the definitive interpretation of the Catholic Church, as he acknowledged her God-given authority over those who constitute the Body of Christ.
@@MystoRobot St. Augustine did recognize the Church's authority, particularly in terms of preserving the integrity of the faith, resolving theological disputes, and guiding believers. He did, at times, defer to the authority of the Church, including the See of Rome, as a final arbiter in certain matters (like the Pelagian controversy). However, this should not be confused with the later Catholic doctrine of papal supremacy or the infallibility of the papacy as defined by the First Vatican Council (1870), which was not clearly articulated or universally accepted in Augustine's time. Augustine never clearly supported the idea that the bishop of Rome possessed an exclusive and supreme authority over all other bishops or Christians in the way that later papal supremacy would be defined. The problem with Roman Catholic apologetics, especially concerning Church tradition, is that it claims interpretive authority over tradition itself. This creates a system where it becomes virtually impossible for the Catholic Church to be in error. The apologetic approach often involves taking selected statements from the Church Fathers and interpreting them as if they are speaking directly to later Catholic doctrines, because the Church, through its magisterium, holds the exclusive authority to interpret these writings. This makes it easy to assume that the Fathers’ words align with what the Church later defined-whether or not this was the case in their time. In essence, this creates an intellectual ghetto.
@@pedroguimaraes6094 "This creates a system where it becomes virtually impossible for the Catholic Church to be in error." That _WOULD_ the whole point of a Church founded by Christ, at least on matters of faith and morals. It sure isn't impossible, because that's literally how God organized "the chosen people", through the lineage of one of Noah's sons : A tribe walking amongst others, but who -- contrary to all others -- would preserve the TRUTH in a supernatural way (overseen by God), incapable of teaching error (in their religion - faiths and morals), although themselves capable of sinning, and suffering consequences for said sins. You write as if you thought this advantage (of being incapable of teaching error) was unfair, somehow...
@@MystoRobot I see your point, but I think there’s an important distinction between the role of Israel in the Old Testament and the claim of the Catholic Church to be infallible in its interpretation of faith and morals. In the Old Testament, Israel was chosen by God to preserve His truth, but that did not mean Israel was infallible. Throughout the Old Testament, Israel was constantly warned, rebuked, and corrected by prophets for its failures, disobedience, and deviations from God's law. Even the priesthood and the leaders of Israel were capable of sin and error, and at times the people were led astray by false teachings. God did not shield Israel from making mistakes; rather, He continually called them to repentance and alignment with His Word. This is where the distinction lies. When Jesus sent His apostles, He did not establish a new "infallible" Israel. Instead, He called people to follow Him, to interpret and fulfill the law through Him, and to teach what He had revealed. The Apostles, even though they were divinely inspired, never claimed infallibility in everything they say. In fact, they actively encouraged believers to test what they were saying against the Scriptures (Acts 17:11). The Bereans, for example, were commended for examining Paul’s words to ensure they were in line with God’s revealed Word. The Bible itself also gives ample space for ongoing interpretation, dialogue, and correction within the body of Christ, rather than establishing an infallible institution. The progressive revelation of God’s truth continues, as we see in the New Testament, where the Apostles were still working through understanding and applying God's will in different contexts. Thus, the claim of infallibility in the Catholic Church seems to go beyond the model seen in the New Testament, where the Apostles invited scrutiny and comparison of their teachings with the Old Testament Scriptures. The Apostles were careful to anchor their teachings in the Word of God, allowing for the ongoing exploration and clarification of God’s truth as revealed in Christ. The Church, therefore, may certainly be guided by the Holy Spirit in preserving the faith, but claiming infallibility in the interpretation of doctrine seems to go further than the example set by the early Church or the model of Israel in the Old Testament.
Short Version, Peter being the rock is a very contentious verse, even the Catholic Catechism says that Peter’s faith is what the church is built (among many other things) The “Bishops” clement refers to are church elders not only Apostles. Even if I accept that the Catholic Church is valid in its structure a the time of the great schism (a very big if) Catholics don’t have an answer to the questions of the reformation. Luther didn’t leave to start a new church, he was kicked out. When the Protestants tried to reform the church they were removed. If I believe that Catholic teaching conflicts with scripture, the scripture takes precedence. TL;DR even if the Pope was the Vicar of Christ Trent anathematized the Papacy because they declared incorrect doctrine to be sacrosanct. Saint Paul, in his letter to the Galatians “But if we or an angel of heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be accursed” What that “gospel” is it what Catholics and Protestants have argued about for over 500 years.
Protestantism in 1517 was the first attack on Catholicism followed by Freemasonry in 1717 & Communism in 1917, none of which has succeeded as Jesus said that the gates of hell would not prevail Mt 16:18-19 Luther was excommunicated when he refused to recant, which he was given plenty of opportunity to do, but refused!
Arius appealed to Scripture, quoting verses such as John 14:28: "the Father is greater than I", as well as Colossians 1:15: "the firstborn of all creation." Thus, Arius insisted that the Father's Divinity was greater than the Son's, and that the Son was under God the Father, and not co-equal or co-eternal with him. He believed that the Catholic Church's stance on Jesus being Co-eternal with the Father was unbiblical. Are you saying that his interpretation should take precedence then? If not, and if Arius was unwilling to submit, would the Catholic church have the right to excommunicate Arius since he is saying that Jesus Christ isn't the eternal triune God, but basically a demigod?
Wonderfully brought up argument! I think there is no real defense here, its seems to be a clear case. What a time it is to live in the age of information and share thoughts with one another.
Back in July, I read the Bible to test Martin Luther's criteria against the 5 sacraments rejected by Protestants and I became a Catholic after that. I am undergoing my Catechism now.
I was Baptist for 70 years until I read the Bible through Catholic lens. That blew the doors off my constricted view of Scripture. It's like we had the recipe without the ingredients. I realize it's up to each of us to choose but it made all the different in The world to me. God bless
@@billlee2194 Catholicism certainly has more ingredients. The problem is that Jesus didn't put a lot of those ingredients in his recipe for the Church. Think of what the Catholic church is known for, resplendent dress uniforms, statues of those who attained sainthood, etc. What you see is as far from Jesus' ministry as you can imagine ... and, in large part, results from the Catholic church's allying with worldly powers, in complete violation of James' admonition in his scriptural letter ... James 4:4 You adulterers and adulteresses, do you not know that friendship with the world is enmity with God? Whosoever therefore will be a friend of the world is the enemy of God.
So what you are implying is a protestant lives a worldly existence? That is really an ignorant statement to imply. All believers in Christ are part of the body of Christ and you do not become a part of the body of Christ by going to a church group and believing everything they tell you,
@@brucewmclaughlin9072 If your opinion is true. Then why does Jesus say that there is only 1 body? If there is only one body and Jesus and Paul both say that you can be removed from the body for unrepented sin(s), then how does that work in Protestantism when you can just go wherever you want when you don't like what is being said? Jesus said that the world would know he was the Messiah because of one Church (John 17). Paul says that schism is a sin. So, splintering from the one body and continuing to split and splinter is a sin. No where is there an invisible body in the Bible. It was ALWAYS an actual physical Church comprised of believers that could be looked at and pointed to. A finger can't cut itself off from the body and then claim that it is the body.
@@hirakisk1973 Paul both say that you can be removed from the body for unrepented sin(s), then how does that work in Protestantism when you can just go wherever you want when you don't like what is being said? Just where do you get your information on protestants from? What is a believer according to scripture? How do I get saved ? Acts 16:28-32 tells me 1 John 1:9 points out that when I confess my sins to God He cleans me completely , Jesus has washed me sanctified me and justified me before God 1 Cor 6:11 Eph 2:1-22 is the believer who was and is no longer as he was . Paul both say that you can be removed from the body for unrepented sin(s), Are you sure it says removed from the body?/ church? Jesus said that the world would know he was the Messiah because of one Church (John 17). Yes and Jesus also said He did not want division , so that means satan and man does . Paul says that schism is a sin. So, splintering from the one body and continuing to split and splinter is a sin. Ahh I see that you are looking at the roman Catholic church as "the body" when that is not true according to scripture. The church is the body of Christ on earth made up of all believers in Jesus Christ our savior . Jesus according to scripture is the head of the church which is His body. Someone who is unrepentant and forsakes Christ can be seen as leaving the church assuming that church is a building where said person went as no believer is unrepentant .Acts 3:19 Acts 16:28-32 Someone who walks away from a church group that claims to be the one and only and yet teaches false doctrines as if they are true , is not walking away from Christ they are walking away from a church group. No where is there an invisible body in the Bible. It was ALWAYS an actual physical Church comprised of believers that could be looked at and pointed to. Yes Jesus being the head of the church and the church being made up of all physical believers walking the streets alive is obviously a visible church. A finger can't cut itself off from the body and then claim that it is the body. So here is the fallacy you somehow learned from somewhere. I have yet to find a denominational church that has ever said they are the one true church, nor have I ever heard that a denominational church group claims to be separate from the body of Christ. There is only one church , one body of believers , and one Christ who is head of the church. The roman Catholic church may be part of the body of Christ but it is not the only body of Christ.!
@@brucewmclaughlin9072 You don't have to agree, but if you devoted your time and energy to truly seeking the truth, it would be much better spent than defending a fake, fragmented, man-made church. Could you provide scriptures that support the fragmentation of Protestantism (Lutheranism, Anglicanism, Calvinism, Methodism, Baptism, Pentecostalism, Adventism, Congregationalism, and thousands more)? Which scriptures affirm this division? While the Catholic Church may have its own issues, it still remains united.
@@healingvibesplus 1. there is only one church and that is the body of Christ on earth visible ,with Christ at it's head. 2. No one else on this planet has ever founded a church as there is only one. Man and satan have worked together to create a mess for believers in Christ. Satan comes to do 3 things kill, steal or destroy , and this is found in every belief system in the world of christianinity that we can see. 3. denominations are divisions of the body of Christ and NOT condoned by Christ Himself. There are believers and unrepentant sinners n denominations and in all groups that call themselves the church. 4. No church on this planet will save you , it is only a personal choice to repent and follow Christ . Acts 16:28-32 Acts 3:19 5. it would be much better spent than defending a fake, fragmented, man-made church. No one is defending a fake church as there is only one church and that is not an institution it is the body of Christ, made up of all believers in Christ as Lord over all. There is no man made church .
I think the Petra Petros argument is really weak and a number of Protestants are seeing that already. I'm surprised that some would place their entire faith on that argument. Anyway, enjoyed your content and passion. May God bless you and your ministry.
This is beautiful and i love your videos. I Have a question, since Judas was replaced by Mathias to fill in the 12 Apostles. Paul was also an Apostle at that time, so there are 13 Apostles at that time? Thank you for your answer.
Kind of. The word Apostle is used in different senses in the Scripture. There is even one verse in Revelation that refers to Jesus as the "Apostle." Generally speaking, an Apostle is one who is sent.
Well, for once, I am impressed. Good work! I can see you've gone into this deeply. I have also been reading all the apocrypha, studying church history, church fathers, scripture, in this regard. Im really keen to respond but it's going to require deeper study so I hope to respond later. Very busy right now. Sneak-peak. I think the conclusion will be that protestants won't be able to disprove it. But neither will you be able to prove it. It's the "state of unclear" But we will see 👍
I think you misunderstood my question. But now I think I figured it out. I didn’t realize it before that St. Clement had written a letter to the Corinthians. I guess you are referring to that one at time stamp 8:44 and not the one in the Bible written by St. Paul. Thank you anyway.
Yup that's why the early church didn't have any problems about the catholic church authority until the split of the catholic and the orthodox as shown by William Albrecht of partistic pillars.
Eh, I can quote the fathers and it's not that precarious. For example "But who can fail to be aware that the sacred canon of Scripture, both of the Old and New Testament, is confined within its own limits, and that it stands so absolutely in a superior position to all later letters of the bishops, that about it we can hold no manner of doubt or disputation whether what is confessedly contained in it is right and true; but that all the letters of bishops which have been written, or are being written, since the closing of the canon, are liable to be refuted if there be anything contained in them which strays from the truth" --Augustine.
Yes. And the church holds that all sacred tradition does not conflict with scriptures and no teaching of bishops can contradict scripture or sacred tradition. So Augustine was in no way defending the notion of a Proto Protestant view of sola scriptura because he also believed in the magisterial teaching authority of the church - not the “private judgment” of individual Christians, which is the cornerstone of Protestant theology
@@henrytucker7189 I'm a little bit confused here, I never mentioned private judgement, nor did Augustine in the quote. You seem to be reading that idea in yourself. I am also not under the illusion that Augustine is teaching full blown modern-day Sola Scriptura, but he is very clearly teaching the supremacy of scripture which is the heartbeat Sola Scriptura proper. Later in the same letter (On Baptism) Augustine presses the superiority of scripture by stating that "even of the plenary Councils, the earlier are often corrected by those which follow them." Which stand in stark contrast to the quote above "[scripture] stands so absolutely in a superior position to all later letters of the bishops, that about it we can hold no manner of doubt or disputation whether what is confessedly contained in it is right and true". The highest councils can error and be corrected by later councils, but scripture stand superior.
@@SaltyMonarch sola Scriptura relies on a teaching authority for it to mean anything, otherwise we’re into the field of spiritual relativism. And the Protestant view of Sola Scriptura presumes the absolute right of private judgement in exegesis. But Augustine believed in the teaching magisterium of the church- which was binding on him and everyone else. That’s nothing like the sola Scriptura I was taught for 46 years.
John Chrysostom: “You are Peter, and upon this rock will I build my Church; Matthew 16:18 that is, on the faith of his confession. Hereby He signifies that many were now on the point of believing, and raises his spirit, and makes him a shepherd.” Now Protestants have no problem with submitting to the authority of Peter or the other apostles. The question I have is: when did public revelation end? If it is at the death of the last apostle, then Peter’s successors do not speak with the same authority as Peter himself spoke. Secondly: can someone be disqualified despite their office? If public revelation has ended then the church is not bound to that which was not revealed by the apostles. If someone tries to bind you by something not revealed by the apostles, are they disqualified?
A key thing that Jesus never forced or killed anyone who disagreed with him, it is the Catholic movement and kings did shed blood who disagreed with such church, Catholic church admits about %15 with such doings and claims it's all for the good & authority.
@hirakisk1973 The Jesus I preach is the one who mentioned in the Bible, "no greater love than who lays its own life for one another" in John 15:13: No one & no nations can eliminate Christianity, and shouldn't be enforced.
First of all, where in the Bible Jesus instructed the creation of multiple churches that could disagree or contradict each other. It seems unreasonable to delve into complex theological debates without first considering the qualifications of the individuals protestants are following. Who are these reformers you place your trust in? Which Bible verse supports the fragmentation of the Church into numerous denominations (Lutheranism, Anglicanism, Calvinism, Methodism, Baptist, Pentecostalism, Adventism, Congregationalism, and thousands more)? Where in Scripture does Jesus indicate that such fragmentation, with thousands of conflicting denominations, is acceptable? Show me the verse.
@@peterzinya1 Kneeling before a statue of Jesus on the cross reminds us of His sacrifice. Kneeling before Blessed Mary reminds us of her obedience to God and that she was given to us as our mother. Kneeling before saints reminds us of how they followed Jesus. Some things don't need to be written down because they are just common sense. How we practice our faith is different from causing division, which God didn't intend. How can division be common sense, especially when it's caused by different interpretations of the same Bible verse?
@@peterzinya1 No verse is needed...it's just COMMON SENSE and FREE WILL on how you want to express your love for God...Well, this is exactly how protestants dodge questions they cannot answer😃 Please don't change the topic, answer the question if you can. If you can't, it might be a good time to reflect on what you believe and whom you believe.
Don't delude yourself, just because something is in the Bible, makes sense and is backed up by other writings will not stop a person from inventing a ridiculous reason why it isn't true. Usually it is _figurative_ and not _Literal._ When they can't apply that they simply remove the entire thing from reality and introduce fiction.
Ephesians 2:19-22 The cornerstone is the first stone in the foundation. So is the first stone is Jesus in the foundation. Peter continued to build that foundation. If you want to truly test your belief then study Exodus 20 and God willing your eyes should start to see
Can honestly say that I've never watched a theological monologue with such a clickbaity, UA-cam scam ad-style delivery. It's like an ad for some 'new' method of learning guitar, with continual promises that 'this information is being HIDDEN from you by other pro players'... but the information is actually nothing new, so it's really all in the delivery to convince people. God bless you mate, I'm sure your heart is for the Lord. But yeah just this really aint it, and I'd genuinely encourage you to look for better ways to engage with Protestants.
Acts 1:20 New Revised Standard Version Catholic Edition 20 “For it is written in the book of Psalms, ‘Let his homestead become desolate, and let there be no one to live in it’; and ‘Let another take his position of overseer.’ The word 'overseer' in the Greek is ἐπισκοπή (episkopē). This word correlates to mean Bishop in the early Church.
From the website of Blue Letter Bible. ἐπισκοπή episkopḗ, ep-is-kop-ay'; from G1980; inspection (for relief); by implication, superintendence; specially, the Christian "episcopate":-the office of a "bishop", bishoprick, visitation. I believe this website is even Protestant.
@@danielh2945 How so? Judas was no longer with them. "‘Let another take his position of overseer.’" It is also not the only time this word was used in the Greek of the New Testament. First Timothy 3:1 "It is a trustworthy statement: if any man aspires to the office overseer, it is a fine work he desires to do."
@@claybody why would prophecy be required for a normal practice? If you start following out that logic you start to get into a two office bite of the church. I can provide more explanation later.
@@CameronRiecker OK, lets pick one in the area of morals: The Scriptures, The Apostolic Fathers, and the first Popes in Rome taught that the practice of usury and charging interest is a mortal sin. Is that still a teaching of the Roman Catholic Church ?
You're talking about development of doctrine in it's application, not a change in the underlying moral truth. Exploitation of the poor is still condemned by the Church. The practice of charging interest during those times was very different than what we have today with very different economic realities. Exploiting the poor should be and always has been condemned. The underlying moral principle that transactions should be moral and just and not exploit the poor remains, only the application of the principle has changed in order to consider the nature of money, the purpose of loans, and the broader economic systems in play.
Don't wait until you are in your 60s or 70s before converting to the Catholic church. You have already missed a lot, like the Eucharist, the sacraments, the different devotions to different saints and especially to Mary, the Rosary. Protestant reformers completely erased the 2,000 yrs. old sacred traditions of the true church of Jesus Christ.
@@CameronRiecker No worries. I responded to several objections a viewer attempted to make against the points you made in your video. One objection was that you were wrong about the Peter being the rock. I told the viewer that it goes beyond the Greek and gendered nouns and referring to a confession and that Christ spoke Aramaic to the apostles and used the word Cephas as Paul indicates in many of his writings. Therefore, it would not make sense to interpret the Scripture in any other way. The viewer then stated that if the Pope was infallible then the early ecumenical councils should not have such authority and that it should have been up to the Pope. I responded by stating that the very tradition he is refuting is the reason such councils were held. I also referenced Irenaeus, who stated that because of Rome’s superior origin (referring to Peter), that all others must obey Against Heresies 3:3:2 [A.D. 189]). In addition I quoted Cyprian of Carthage, and Ignatius of Antioch showing that they also held to the Papal authority and Apostolic succession. Furthermore, I stated that the Apostolic Churches all hold a similar view of Mary, since this was a rebuttal of his. He stated the years of canonization but I rebutted that claim by stating that The RCC, Coptic, Eastern Orthodox and Eastern Oriental churches, for all intents and purposes hold a similar view of the Marian doctrines. Some of these churches were in schism in the first millennium so the fact that the Marian doctrines were not canonized until the 1800-1900s (not all but some) means nothing. It is often not until doctrines are challenged that they become official Canon and are usually built into the Liturgy before then. Lastly, I stated that the Biblical Canon was established by the Catholic Church. So, every time he opens the Bible, he stands on the shoulders of those he is refuting. I asked that if he agreed with the canon then he must concurrently believe that the Catholic Church was led by the Holy Spirit and that if he does not agree, I asked when did the Holy Spirit abandoned the church and reiterated that the gates of hades shall not prevail as stated by Jesus himself. God bless you Cameron. Thank you for defending our faith and the Apostolic Church!
@@ABZ163 "Lastly, I stated that the Biblical Canon was established by the Catholic Church. " Seems that most of the CCs clergy have failed to read their own book they put together. Marciel Maciel come to mind, out of thousands.
@@peterzinya1 Do you have anything of substance in response to my comment or are you just trying to be inflammatory? Any misconceptions I can clear up for you?
@@ABZ163 Hello, yes, there is something. The claim the CC gave us/wrote, the bible, is misleading. Men, directed by the holy spirit put together what we call the bible, per se. Then the other constant claim that the CC is such an authority on bible cause it is their book. They must not read it, cause catholic clergy are noted for constant villainy. Its even in todays news.
@@peterzinya1 Well, that would be strange, since we are to spread the gospel all over the world; why would you see a bunch of churches in Rome? Besides, Christianity was illegal in Rome until the 4th century.
@@2196logan Good try. So, Jesus didnt know that there would be churches in Rome is what you are saying? No need to ask me why Jesus said he has 7 churches and none of them are in Rome. catholics dont believe the bible anyway. So they shouldnt care what it says.
@@peterzinya1 That is just your opinion; normally I would have a discussion with you, but you already hate all Catholics, so there is no need to continue.
You really need to stop saying Protestants have no answer to things that Protestant apologists have been dealing with for ages. Matthias’ appointment has been argued so many times it’s not even funny. I’m not even the first person in this comment section to point out that Irenaeus is clearly wrong about who founded the church in Rome. Further, there actually is at least one other option besides Catholicism being true or Jesus allowing the church he founded to crumble-a third is that he didn’t found a capital C Church, but a small c church, which is defined not by identifiable hierarchy, but simply by the ones “called out” (the literal meaning of ekklesia) as his body, ie all believers. But let’s take your claim that you would stop being Catholic if it could be proved that Francis isn’t Peter’s successor. What would it take to prove that, in your mind? Or to put it another way, what is the set of propositions which must all be true for the papacy to be true, any of which being proven false shows the papacy is false? If you can provide the criteria by which a person could actually meet this challenge, it might be one worth taking on. If not, it’s just tilting at windmills.
Do you believe that the validity of the Catholic Church stands or falls on Peter founding the Christian Church in Rome? It does not matter if Peter founded the Roman Church, the reason the Roman Church has primacy is that both Peter and Paul were both martyred there. The chair of Peter was even moved to France for some 70 years❤in Avignon France in the 14th century and the Church leadership did not lose its primacy because it no longer resided in Rome.
The very first time Jesus meets Simon he tells him that he would be called Cephas which means rock, and then three years later at Caesarea Philippi as recorded in math 16:18 he most probably said to Simon you are kepha and on this kepha a will build my Church,because he spoke Aramaic,but the translator translating in Greek changed kepha to Petra which means rock or Peter. The Bible states that Christ’s Churches foundation is built on the prophets and Apostles
Is not Peter an Apostle, so why would one be obligated to deny scriptures description of Christ’s Churches foundation being built on the prophets and Apostles?
@@bobmccamon5056 none of your comments seem to address anything I actually said. My comment does two things-A) it identifies Protestant responses to things Cameron said Protestants have no answer to, and B) asks for specific criteria by which someone could disprove the papacy since he says that is the one thing he hangs his salvation on.
Yes, but we need to consider the beliefs of the Oriental, and Eastern Orthodox Churches, as they also consider themselves to be the original Catholic Church, and they already started to separate in the 5th century. I'm definitely not a complete Protestant.
Sure, but this brings us back to Peter being given the title of the rock upon which the Church is founded. This clearly reflects the hierarchical structure Jesus intended. To maintain unity, there must be someone with the keys, a single authority with the final word. Eastern Catholics do not have this.
Every spilt from the Catholic Church is a result of pride and disobedience. Regardless of whether the split occurred in the 5th century AD, or 2018, it is a deviation from the one and only Church that Jesus established and continues today through apostolic succession.
Don't forget that the catholic church is actually made up of 24 churches/rites. One is the latin church, commonly referred to as rome. The other 23 are Eastern, russian, and oriental traditions that are ancient and tied to apostolic succession and celebrate mass in communion with rome.
St. Augustine (354-430), in his writings, offers a nuanced interpretation of this passage. He does not exclusively equate "this rock" with Peter himself but sees it as a reference to Christ or Peter’s confession of faith. In some of his earlier writings, Augustine acknowledges a common interpretation that Peter is the rock upon which the Church is built. However, as his thought matured, he leaned more heavily toward an alternative understanding. Augustine argues that "the rock" refers to Peter’s confession of faith in Christ as the Son of the living God (Matthew 16:16). This faith in Christ, not Peter himself, is the true foundation of the Church. He writes in Sermon 229: “For the Rock [Petra] was Christ; and on this foundation was Peter himself built. For other foundation no man can lay than that which is laid, which is Christ Jesus.” Augustine also interprets "this rock" to mean Christ Himself, not Peter. He emphasizes that Christ is the cornerstone of the Church, and Peter’s role is derivative and subordinate to Christ’s. In his Exposition of Psalm 61, Augustine states: “For they were not told, ‘You are the rock,’ but ‘You are Peter.’ But the Rock was Christ, on which foundation also Peter himself was built.” Other church fathers that shared this interpretation (emphasizing either Christ or Peter's confession as the "rock" rather than Peter personally) were Origen, Cyril of Alexandria, Ambrose of Milan, John Chrysostom and Tertullian.
Fair enough; however, none of them detach Peter's confession of faith from his office and the office of his successors. Augustine says this: “Number the bishops from the see of Peter itself. And in that order of Fathers see who succeeded whom, That is the rock against which the gates of hell do not prevail.” (Saint Augustine, Father and Doctor of the Church, Psalmus contra partem Donati, 18, GCC 51 [A.D. 393]). It's hard to imagine a stronger attestation of Peter's unique prerogative as the foundation of the Church from a Church Father. Augustine himself, in practice, submits to the supreme authority of Rome. When dealing with the Pelagian heresy, he considers Rome to have the final say. He says this: “For already have two councils on this question been sent to the Apostolic see; and rescripts also have come from thence. The question has been brought to an issue; would that their error may sometime be brought to an issue too!” (Sermons 131, 10). Regardless of whether the Rock is Peter's person or Peter's confession of faith (both or which are orthodox interpretations), the Fathers (especially Agustine) see the Rock upon which the Church is built continuing in the office of the Papacy. Augustine flat out says the succession of bishops who hold Peter's see is the Rock. For Augustine, the Papacy is the Rock upon which the Church is built.
@@CameronRiecker Thank you for your response, Cameron. But a more nuanced reading of Augustine and the broader patristic tradition reveals that this interpretation is, at best, selective and overstated. In dealing with the Pelagian heresy, Augustine did recognize the authority of Rome’s rulings, as seen in Sermons 131. However, this was not because he saw Rome as holding unilateral, supreme authority. Instead, Augustine valued the role of councils and the broader Church in resolving disputes. For him, Rome’s rulings were significant because they aligned with the collective teaching of the Church. It’s important to note that while Augustine and others acknowledged the importance of apostolic succession, they did not equate Peter’s successors with an exclusive, supreme authority. For example: Origen: Taught that anyone who shares Peter’s faith becomes "a rock." (Commentary on Matthew 12.10) John Chrysostom: Emphasized the faith of Peter rather than his person as the foundation of the Church. (Homily 54 on Matthew 16:18) Cyprian of Carthage: Affirmed the unity of the episcopate but rejected Rome’s unilateral authority, particularly during the rebaptism controversy. (Letter 71:3 On the Rebaptism Controversy) While some Fathers acknowledged the Roman See’s special role due to its apostolic origins, the concept of papal supremacy as defined later was not a universal belief. The early Church emphasized the collegiality of bishops and the authority of ecumenical councils over any singular bishopric.
@@pedroguimaraes6094 Isaiah 22 speaks of Shebna driven out of his office and the authority given to another, same language was used by Jesus in Matthew 16:19. Now in Matthew 16:18 Jesus says “ and I tell you, you are Kepha And on this, Kepha I will build my church and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. Jesus is the architect who builds , Peter is the foundation stone of the church, making him head and superior of the family, but not founder of the church, administrator, but not the Lord of the church . Now back to Mathew 16:19 here Jesus says I will give you the keys of the kingdom of Heaven. The power of the keys has to do with ecclesiastical discipline and administrative authority with regard to requirements of the faith as in Isaiah 22:22 and Isaiah 9:6 Job 12:14 and revelation 3:7, this entails the use of excommunication absolution, and position of penances and legislative powers. In the Old Testament, a steward or Prime Minister is a man who is over a house. Back to Matthew 1619 Jesus says whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven and whatever you loose on earth shall be loose in heaven he is speaking to Peter here. So Peter (and by logical extension future popes) is given the authority to determine binding rules for the churches doctrine and life. Binding and losing represents the legislative and judicial powers of the papacy and bishops, and the power to absolve. Peter is the only apostle who receives these powers by name and in a singular sense making him pre-eminent. Again Peter alone receives a new solemnly conferred name (Kepha). Peter’s name occurs first in all lists of apostles. Matthew even calls him the first, Judas iscariot is mentioned last this means something. Another event that takes place is Jesus teaches from Peter’s boat, and a miraculous catch of fish follows. Peter was also the first to enter the empty tomb of the risen Jesus. Peter is also specified by an Angel as the leader and representative of the apostles. Peter is also regarded by Jesus as the chief shepherd after himself, singularly by name and over the universal church, even though others have a similar but subordinate role. Peter alone among the apostles is mentioned by name as having been prayed for by Jesus in order that his faith may not fail. Peter alone among the apostles is exhorted by Jesus to strengthen the Christian brethren. Cornelius was told by an Angel to seek out Peter for instructions in Christianity. I can go on and on and on and on let me know if you’d like more cause there’s plenty more. Do you know what theology is? And don’t say it doesn’t say this or that word isn’t there, cause that’s what we call the Muslim shuffle perhaps you would like to convert to Islam. That’s exactly what Muslims say they completely ignore the theology and say Jesus never claimed to be God there is no trinity God never said he was a trinity, where did Jesus explicitly say this or that? I hope you see how silly your argument is. I know Protestants spent a lot of time with Muslims some centuries ago to kill the Catholics but come on you don’t have to be like them I’m sure you’re better than that. Be blessed.
@@pedroguimaraes6094 Cyprian of Carthage states “If someone does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he [should] desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that he is in the Church?” (The Unity of the Catholic Church 4; 1st edition [A.D. 251]). Then 2 years later stated: “Cyprian to [Pope] Cornelius, his brother. Greeting. . . . We decided to send and are sending a letter to you from all throughout the province [where I am] so that all our colleagues might give their decided approval and support to you and to your communion, that is, to both the unity and the charity of the Catholic Church” (Letters 48:1, 3 [A.D. 253]). You’re misinterpreting Chrysostom’s homily. Indeed he pointed to the faith of Peter but he also pointed to the Peter himself being a man of such faith therefore making him the shepherd of the church. Tertullian was a heretic that committed apostasy so he should not even be considered in such discourse.
@@ABZ163 Cyprian’s reference to the "Chair of Peter" in his writings emphasizes unity in the faith, not a supreme authority of a single bishop over the entire Church. For Cyprian, the "chair" symbolizes the unity and equality of all bishops as successors of the apostles. This is evident in Cyprian's broader ecclesiology, where he firmly argues for the collegiality and equality of bishops. For example, in his letter “On the Unity of the Church,” Cyprian asserts that no single bishop has authority over the others: “None of us claims to be bishop of bishops, or by tyrannical terror forces his colleagues to the necessity of obeying.” His disputes with Pope Stephen I over the issue of re-baptism further demonstrate his rejection of papal supremacy. Cyprian disagreed with Pope Stephen’s position and did not recognize him as having the ultimate authority to settle the matter. While it is true that Tertullian later became a Montanist and fell into heresy, that does not automatically invalidate his earlier writings when he was within the orthodox Church. Tertullian's interpretation of Matthew 16:18, which identifies the "rock" as Peter’s confession, reflects an early and widely accepted understanding of the passage that is echoed by many other Fathers.
Jesus said "On this Rock (seat of Peter) I (Jesus) will build My (Jesus) Church." Jesus's Church. Satan entered the Church in Jesus's time, and the Hierarchy killed Him. Jesus remained in a corrupt Church and died. Two things: Jesus needs labourers, not builders. Jesus is the builder of His Church. He needs labourers. And Satan will attack where Christ is. Satan does not attack where Christ isn't. Protestantism. Disagree with Christ's Church, so go off and build a church in their own image. The result? From one breakaway we now have 40000 Protestant denominations. Protestants continually break away and build their own churches in their own image. And the Catholic Church. Even with crisis after crisis through 2000 years, it remains standing incredibly diverse and incredibly united in that amazing diversity. Jesus
@@larrys4383 The author of the video says that the Pope sits on Peter's chair from proper selection... and yet utters things that St. Peter would have cast him out of the church for.... I would ask...why not answer the question?
@Golfinthefamily because Pope Francis hasn't magisterely or Infallibly taught a dogma that's heretical or against apostolic tradition. Any controversial things we have heard from Pope Francis are things that were said privately as a person who's as much of a sinner as any of us or has been taken out of context from the media to sew division. Peter denied Jesus after all. The error of popes acting as men, doesn't take away from the rational evidence based argument of apostolic succession.
@@rbaffi Peter didn't deny Jesus after having been appointed to lead the church and was indwelled by the Holy Spirit! We do know he did make an error.... but listen... CCC841 is patently false. Muslims and Catholics don't adore the same God nor claim to. (Muslims deny the deity of Christ and despise the trinity) The church did a u-turn on Capital Punishment (which one of those rulings was infallible?) And, as Gavin Ortlund has well stated and shown, Nicea II was another theological u-turn that made the previous actions and teachings of church fathers cursed effectively. Peter never would have said not to evangelize, never would have pronounced an atheist as probably saved, etc... it's a hot mess. I have yet to meet a catholic that can defend Francis with a clear conscience. I've read of more who think he is an anti-pope... but the problem is that he was properly installed....
@@equine2020 only a few bunch of satanic cult believing bastards of sola scriptura a man made tradition invented by a devil possessed man refuse to accept this truth and these idiots are not realising the fact that what they are doing is tantamount to falsely testifying against Jesus himself just like the ones who crucified him
What did Jesus call His church? Matthew 16: 17 Jesus replied, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by flesh and blood, but by my Father in heaven. 18 And I tell you that you are Peter,[a] and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades[b] will not overcome it.
The apostles were born again christians. there is no mention of any particular church in the bible. So no man can claim tht his church is from the bible. Jesus started a church, a church tht obeys his word. Period.
I think because the church, being the mystical body of Christ, is Christ in a sense. And the Magisterium of the Catholic Church represents the Authority of Christ himself. Basically, to reject the Catholic Church would be to reject Christ.
@@rbaffi the church is NOT Christ. the Magisterium has made contradictory pronouncements and errors. You are forcing a false dichotomy where one is not required. What is required of one to be saved? Romans 10:9 and John 3:16 let us know...
@Golfinthefamily The Catholic Church is considered the Mystical Body of Christ because it is a spiritual organism united with Christ as its head and with its members as its body. This understanding is deeply rooted in Scripture and Tradition. Scriptural Basis: 1. St. Paul's Teachings: In 1 Corinthians 12:12-27, St. Paul explicitly compares the Church to a body, where Christ is the head, and all members are interconnected. He writes, "Now you are the body of Christ and individually members of it" (1 Cor. 12:27). 2. Union with Christ: In Ephesians 1:22-23, Paul says Christ is the head of the Church, which is "the fullness of him who fills all in all." 3. Vine and Branches: In John 15:5, Jesus describes Himself as the vine and His disciples as the branches, emphasizing the intimate unity between Himself and His followers. Theological Explanation: The Church as the Mystical Body of Christ means: 1. Unity with Christ: Through baptism, all believers are incorporated into Christ. They share in His divine life, making the Church a living extension of His presence on Earth. 2. Diverse Roles in One Body: Just as a body has many parts working together, each member of the Church has a unique role. This diversity contributes to the unity and mission of the Church. 3. Christ as the Head: Christ governs, nourishes, and sanctifies the Church, analogous to how the head guides and sustains a physical body. 4. Sacramental Life: The sacraments, especially the Eucharist, deepen this unity. In receiving Christ’s Body and Blood, members are united more intimately with Him and with one another. Mystical Aspect: The term mystical highlights that this union transcends physical or visible bonds. While the Church is a visible institution with human leaders, her deeper reality is spiritual and divine. The Holy Spirit animates the Church, making her both a human and divine reality. Implications for Believers: 1. Interconnectedness: Each member shares in the joys and sufferings of others (1 Cor. 12:26). This calls Catholics to solidarity and charity. 2. Holiness: As part of Christ’s body, each member is called to live in holiness and reflect Christ’s love. 3. Mission: The Church continues Christ’s mission to teach, sanctify, and shepherd until His return. The Church as the Mystical Body of Christ emphasizes her divine origin, unity, and mission, showing how believers are called into a profound communion with Christ and each other.
@ No they weren’t, the word Catholic wasn’t even around at the time of the formation of these churches these were early Jewish and Gentile Believers in Jesus Christ! The Roman Catholic Church as we know it today was not around at that time. The term Catholic wasn’t around then much less Roman Catholic! The word "Catholic" was first used by Saint Ignatius of Antioch in his Letter to the Smyrnaeans around 110 AD. The term "Catholic Church" literally translates to "universal church".
What are you talking about?Eastern churches were in communion with Rome as there are today. There are 23 eastern churches (rites)that are in communion with the pope.
@@EBeautiful-f9d The new term "Catholic" was introduced to describe what already existed. It didn't change the reality that all churches, regardless of what they were called, operated in communion with the pope🤷♂
Paul never learned from the Apsotles. He received the mystery of the gospel of grace (that he taught the apostles at the Jersualem council) directly from the ascended Christ in Arabia. He was given the mystery of the gospel of grace, mystery of the body of christ, mystery of the Christ and Church, and the partial hardening upon Israel, and the mystery of resurrection and transmission, and the mystery of lawlessness. Paul's authority and calling did not come from the 12.
Note that the Christians in Rome were called to faith through the preaching of the gospel but not the personal preaching of Paul himself. Contrary to the claims of many people, especially those seeking to strengthen the papacy, neither Paul nor Peter established the church in Rome. The best evidence for this is the book of Romans, which is clearly written to an existing church that Paul did not plant, and the letter also contains no reference to the Apostle Peter. In all likelihood, the "visitors from Rome" who heard Peter preach on the day of Pentecost planted the church in Rome, and the two Apostles only later had any association with the congregation there (Acts 2:1-41). Given the extensive discussion of Jew-Gentile relations throughout the epistle, it seems quite clear that the Roman church Paul addressed was made up of both Jews and Gentiles who believed in Jesus the Messiah.❤️✝️
Peter is the Rock. He founded the Church of Jerusalem. Peter founded, and was the first Pope of the Antiochian Church. Peter was the first Pope of the Roman Church, Linus was the second. Clement followed as a Pope in Rome. Peter is the rock because he was Christ's right hand man. But why does the modern Roman Church get to claim the claims they make, just because Peter ruled there at the end of his life ?
@@Spiritof76Catholic Where does Jesus say that Rome would be the chair of Peter's seat ? Peter's seat was in Jerusalem, although St. James ruled over the first council.
You apparently have never heard of Strongs Greek Concordance. 16:13 When 1161 Jesus 2424 came 2064 5631 into 1519 the coasts 3313 of Caesarea 2542 Philippi 5376, he asked 2065 5707 his 846 disciples 3101, saying 3004 5723, Whom 5101 do men 444 say 3004 5719 that I 3165 the Son 5207 of man 444 am 1511 5750? 16:14 And 1161 they said 2036 5627, Some [say that thou art] 3303 John 2491 the Baptist 910: 1161 some 243, Elias 2243; and 1161 others 2087, Jeremias 2408, or 2228 one 1520 of the prophets 4396. 16:15 He saith 3004 5719 unto them 846, But 1161 whom 5101 say 3004 5719 ye 5210 that I 3165 am 1511 5750? 16:16 And 1161 Simon 4613 Peter 4074 answered 611 5679 and said 2036 5627, Thou 4771 art 1488 5748 the Christ 5547, the Son 5207 of the living 2198 5723 God 2316. 16:17 And 2532 Jesus 2424 answered 611 5679 and said 2036 5627 unto him 846, Blessed 3107 art thou 1488 5748, Simon 4613 Barjona 920: for 3754 flesh 4561 and 2532 blood 129 hath 601 0 not 3756 revealed 601 5656 [it] untee 4671, but 235 my 3450 Father 3962 which 3588 is in 1722 heaven 3772. 16:18 And 1161 I say 3004 5719 also 2504 unto thee 4671, That 3754 thou 4771 art 1488 5748 Peter 4074, and 2532 upon 1909 this 5026 rock 4073 I will build 3618 5692 my 3450 church 1577; and 2532 the gates 4439 of hell 86 shall 2729 0 not 3756 prevail against 2729 5692 it 846.(Peter: this name signifies a 4073, used as a proper name; “a stone” or “a boulder,” Peter, one of the twelve apostles:a pebble. A small rock that you can pick up.
One issue there. They weren't speaking greek. They were speaking Aramaic. The gospel is written in Greek because it was the lingua franca of the time but that doesn't mean that Jesus and his disciples were speaking it in their day to day lives. And Peter's name in Aramaic is...Kepha which means stone or rock. There's no distinction. The reason that he's called Petros rather than Petras is to masculinize the word from feminine to masculine. The distinction you are trying to draw between boulder or pebble wasn't even a thing at that time nor does it exist in Aramaic which is what Jesus spoke. Refer to him being quoted speaking Aramaic on several occasions.
@BlakeMaxwell-o3h In Aramaic Kepha for rock Sela for mountain of rock, as Petros is small hand held rock and Petra is a mountain a city can be built on. Yes, it's likely that Jesus and the apostles spoke Greek: Evidence There's evidence that Jesus spoke Greek in the Gospels, including conversations with a Roman centurion and Pontius Pilot. The Gospels also use Greek word play, which suggests that Jesus was teaching in Greek. Language of the time Greek was the common language of the Mediterranean world in the first century, and was necessary for trade and business. New Testament The New Testament was written in Greek to reach the widest audience possible. Paul the Apostle Paul was fluent in Koine Greek, the language he used to write his letters. Peter the Apostle Peter may have learned spoken Greek, but dictated his letters to a secretary who could write Greek. However, some scholars still believe that Jesus only spoke Aramaic. Aramaic was the regional lingua franca at the time, and was the language of the Hebrews until the Bar Kokhba revolt.
@BlakeMaxwell-o3h Jesus is the rock Sela or Petra is used. It is never used for anyone else. So it is a definition in the Bible. The phrase "Jesus is the rock" is mentioned 128 times in the Bible. Some Bible verses that refer to Jesus as the rock include: Isaiah 26:4 "Trust in the LORD forever, for the LORD GOD is an everlasting Rock" Matthew 7:24-27 "Anyone who listens to my teaching and follows it is wise, like a person who builds a house on solid rock" Acts 4:10-11 and 1 Cor. 3:10-15 The "rock" is the confession of Peter that Christ is the foundation of the church Matthew 16:18 A common Protestant interpretation is that Jesus is petra, the rock, while Peter is petros, a small stone
@@kennethprather9633 Your conclusion says that scholars agree that Jesus likely spoke only aramaic lol. And if peter didnt speak greek, why would Jesus speak in a language he didnt know. Even then, we KNOW Jesus spoke Aramaic primarily because he is quoted speaking aramaic at his Crucifixion. He may have been able to speak greek but that doesn't matter. If two men who knew aramaic were speaking, why would they speak in greek? Even then, Kepha means rock or stone without a distinction of size. Sela is Hebrew for rock, not Aramaic. Besides, you're ignoring the entire point. Name changes in the bible are IMPORTANT. Abram to Abraham. Jacob to Israel. Simon to Peter. They also demonstrate their roles in salvation history. Abraham means "father of a nation". Israel means "He who wrestles with God." Peter means rock. What's the significance of that name change? Jesus explains right after. The rock that he will build his church on. Unless you're trying to say Jesus changed his name for no reason.
@@kennethprather9633 Jesus is the rock. And he chose another rock to build his church on. The foundation of a structure is not made up of a singular rock. Peters rock is his confession and because of that he is made Peter, the rock that the church will be built on. So then you are no longer strangers and sojourners, but you are fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God, built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the cornerstone, - Ephesians 2:19-20 Consider Ephesians 2. Christ is the cornerstone, without him the church would not exist. But the prophets and the apostles are also part of the foundation. Christ chose Peter for a significant role and demonstrated that by his renaming. Combine that with the obvious parallel Christ makes to Isaiah 22 when giving Peter the keys to the kingdom and the authority to act as Steward of the king.
The problem is that a lot of protestants believe that the rock is Peter. Peter being the rock in Matthew does not get you to the papacy, at most it gets you to Peter having a special role. You talk about not mixing metaphors yet you have to mix metaphors and scripture to build the case for the papacy, as no one passage gets you there. To state that Peter is the pope in scripture requires God to act in a way He didn't show himself to act in the OT. God makes it abundantly clear who Aaron is, and what his role is, heck, we even know what his clothes are. This is abundantly clear throughout scripture, yet God supposedly institutes a NT equivalent and all we get is a few odd verses that don't get you there, and apparently submitting to this man is required for our salvation? I don't buy it.
@danielh2945 - Peter doesn't replace Aaron- therein lies your mistake! JESUS is indeed our High Priest now (read Hebrews) - Peter is the steward (read Isaiah 22) handed the keys and left in charge to shepherd the flock in the King's (Jesus) absence (physically)!
@ the type anti type of Jesus-Moses and Peter-Aaron is well established. You mean the steward that God says he’s going to drive out of office? If you follow that type out you don’t get the papacy. Regardless of how you want to compare the roles of Aaron and Peter the point stands. God made important people clear, Abraham, Aaron, Moses, David, John the Baptist, Jesus. If Peters role as pope was unclear it’s unlikely that’s what God intended
List a single verse where the bible says peter was the leader of any church. And that that church was the head of all the other churches. It doesnt exisit. Apostolic seccession is not a biblical idea.
I am not here to dezbate the Catholic Church at all but … if you place your trust in the Pope for your salvation you are lost my friend. The only Name, the only person in which one should place its trust for its salvation is Jesus Christ. The Pope, the Church, apostolic succession…. These are good teachings and should be held close to one’s heart but for salvation…. You should only look to Jesus!
Great. And some said they follow Paul and others Apollos and Peter he said we follow Jesus If your ekklesia follows Jesus you’re part of the 1 ekklesia (assuming you don’t have some crazy heretical doctrine that doesn’t have you follow some other Jesus)
Welcome, my brother! It's time to start preparing to come back home. The good news is, we don’t worship Mary or the saints; we simply ask them to pray for us, just as you would ask your pastor or a friend to pray for you. We also believe that Jesus don't throw people under the bus once they done serving him. While they may be physically dead, they are alive with Him in heaven. Many Marian apparitions affirm this truth. Our Blessed Mother is continually calling us to repent and return to her Son, Jesus, our Lord. As for Sola Fide, I honestly can’t understand how anyone could take issue with it. In James 2:26, it’s clearly stated: "For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also." So, welcome back, and may you now do some good works too. Having heard many Protestant objections, I can already anticipate your next question. But It seems unreasonable to dive into complex theological debates without first considering the qualifications of those you follow. Who are the reformers you place your trust in? Which Bible verse supports their division of the Church into numerous denominations (Lutheranism, Anglicanism, Calvinism, Methodism, Baptist, Pentecostalism, Adventism, Congregationalism, and countless others)? Where in Scripture does Jesus indicate that such fragmentation, with thousands of conflicting denominations, is acceptable? Does that even sound like the plan of Jesus?
@@PatOnCloud09 I just saw a video of people bowing down and hugging a Mary statue and how do you ask them to pray for you? You pray to them to pray for you so yes you do pray to them
@@PatOnCloud09 and I don’t place my trust in a church that’s what Catholics do I place my trust in Christ ALONE Not baptism Not works Not sacraments Not Mary Because Christ sacrifice is the only payment for sins not works
If Peter were given a supreme authority by Christ as the Catholic church interprets, then Paul wouldn't have been able to oppose Peter (Galatians 2:11). But what really bothers me are your lies about Protestants(They Hide This).
You are misunderstanding what “authority” means. It doesn’t mean there can’t be disagreements with the Pope - those can still happen. The point is that he has the final say and we have to respect his authority as the Vicar of Christ. That is, of course, except in cases where he is teaching something that clearly contradicts what the Church has always taught (and nowadays we have plenty of examples for that)
@@derekshoemaker8990 the verse you brought up is just an example of the apostles discussing a theological matter. One view prevailed, and we cannot ask Peter what happened there but we can assume he gave in, you can see that Paul didn't feel compelled to create a separate Church. This still happens nowadays-Popes and bishops may discuss and even hold opposing views, but always within the framework of a hierarchical structure that reflects the natural order we see in families, society, and nature itself. Hierarchy is essential for maintaining order and unity
@ His “Question” that must be disproven is: “Either Jesus said what he didn’t mean, or Jesus meant what he didn’t say. And I don’t think you can do that.” Of course, Mr. Reicker has framed this question upon Roman dogmas, not what is in the Bible. Any Protestant will make simple points like: “But, linguistically, the word play does not affect the clear meaning of the sentence. By Christ referring to ταύτῃ (this, demonstrative pronoun, dative feminine singular). ταύτῃ (this) cannot refer to Πέτρος (Peter) because ταύτῃ is referencing a feminine object and Πέτρος is a masculine noun. So ταύτῃ has to refers to πέτρᾳ (rock). Also Christ changed the subject of the sentence from 2nd person “you” (referring to Peter) to 3rd person“this” (referring to the rock). So what is Christ referring to by “rock”? In this Bible passage, what is a “this” and not a “you”. Previously Peter confessed his faith (πίστις, feminine gender). Often times those who speak gendered languages will sometime refer to obvious references in the gender of the reference. Linguistically, the “this” would lead one to think of the confession of faith Peter had made in verses 16 and 17”… Or, “While no one will disagree that St. Peter was given the Office of the Keys first, Mr. Riecker left out that in Matthew 18:15-20 Christ extended the Office of the Keys to all the Apostles. So this power does not belong to St. Peter alone”… Or, “Ok. So if we are asking the Church Fathers about the first Bishop of Rome, was Irenaeus correct when he said that St. Peter and St. Paul appointed Linus? Or was Tertullian correct when he said it was just St. Peter and he appointed Clement?” Or, “You maintain this Office of Peter has always existed for the Bishop of Rome. So how do you address St. Jerome when she wrote in his commentary on Titus: ‘The Presbyter is the same as Bishop, and before the parties had been raised up in religion by the provocations of Satan, the churches were governed by the Senate of the Presbyters. But as each one sought to appropriate to himself those whom he had baptized, instead leading them to Christ, it was appointed that one of the Presbyters, elected by his colleagues, should be set over the others, and have chief supervision over the general well-being of the community… Without a doubt it is the duty of the Presbyters to bear in mind that by the Disciplines of the Church they are subordinated to him who had been given to them as their head, but it is fitting that the Bishops, on their side, do not forget that if they are set over the Presbyters, it is a result of tradition, and not by the fact of a particular institution by the Lord.’ Is not St. Jerome testifying to the fact that counsels of Presbyters and Bishops collectively ruled the Churches at first and that the elevation of one over the others is an earthly development, not one commanded or instituted by Christ? Furthermore, if this is true, then the claims by Rome of an ever existing monarchal Papacy since the time of St. Peter are provably false.” Or, “While no one denies the a line of Popes from the mid-Second Century until this day based upon solid historical evidence, any claims before this are just tradition. Even the Roman Scholar Eamon Duffy admits this. Furthermore, he affirms St. Jerome’s assessment on the early governance of Rome. He wrote: ‘Clement made no claim to write as a Bishop. His letter was sent in the name of the whole Roman community, he never identifies himself or writes in his own person… The letter itself makes no distinction between Presbyters and Bishops, about which it always speaks in the plural, suggesting that at Corinth AS AT ROME the church at this time was organized under a group of Bishops or Presbyters, rather than a single ruling Bishop.’ (Emphasis added)(Saints and Sinner: A History of the Popes) Again, if this Roman scholar is correct, the claims by Rome of an ever existing monarchal Papacy since the time of St. Peter are provably false.” Or: “Rome, while an important church, was a backwater compared to the dioceses in the East. And it was not until Constantine’s conversion, that Rome rapidly rose to an equal level of her Eastern siblings. And despite this, none of the Seven Ecumenical Councils affirmed by Rome was called or presided over by a Bishop of Rome, but instead were called and presided over by Roman Emperors. Why would the “Vicar of Christ” be so lowly held if the Roman claims of a monarchal Papacy were true?” And on and on and on. Mr. Riecker cannot question the dogma’s of Rome and be a faithful member of the Roman church. This is why he framed his question and the history to them firmly in Roman dogmas. While Protestants should be aware of these dogmas, no Protestant accepts the claims of the dogmas as biblical unless they are supported in God’s infallible Word. Otherwise these dogmas are just Roman opinions, and as such, have no bearing on framing or deciding a discussion. This is why one cannot “disprove” what Mr. Riecker claims. For example, his claim on the line of the Popes until the mid-Second Century is merely tradition, supported by scant historical evidence. However, he cannot admit the historical facts AND remain faithful to his Roman dogmas. So he will reject all historical evidence, and even scholars in his own tradition, on the basis of dogma alone. Furthermore, Mr. Riecker’s constant use of painting false dichotomies to make his points demonstrates the weakness of his arguments. And when he goes so far to claim that those watching his video either must admit Christ was a liar, or the Roman church is the one true faith. (≈27:35) No Christian would ever claim Christ was a liar, regardless of their tradition. But only Rome claims that Rome is the “one true faith”. In a simpler way, one cannot use logic to disprove his Roman dogmas. He maintains a faith in those dogmas to such a point where he cannot logically view history and evidence to draw a logical conclusion. Of so, he would have admitted, like Eamon Duffy, there is scant historical evidence during the first century and a half to such a powerful office as that Rome claims. Hence, he would not have made this video the way he had. He would have to admit that absent that evidence, there is nothing in Matthew 16:18 to demonstrate the office of the Bishop of Rome as Rome claims today. All that must be read into the verse. And no, his claims that Protestants cannot answer his Acts 1 claim is laughable. Yes, the Apostles appointed a replacement to Judas. But what were the requirements for such a man? That he must have accompanied the Apostles “during the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us, beginning from the baptism of John until the day when he was taken up from us.” (Verses 21-22) So Matthias was such a man. Can any Pope make a valid claim that he accompanied the Apostles “during the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us, beginning from the baptism of John until the day when he was taken up from us”? No. This is why this argument is absolutely ignorant to use as supporting the Papacy. This is why the Apostolic Age ended. This is why there were no Apostolic successors to St. Peter, St. Paul, or the others. This leads us to the other claimed conundrum that Protestants cannot say they have “apostolic succession”. Mr. Liecker does not provide a clear definition to what he means by “apostolic succession”. Acts 1, which he mentions, precludes anyone who did not “during the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us, beginning from the baptism of John until the day when he was taken up from us” from being an Apostle, including the Bishops of Rome. Yet his example of “apostolic succession” is merely ordination. And of this, Lutherans and Anglicans can most definitely claim “apostolic succession”. The first pastors of the Lutheran and Anglican churches were ordained Roman priests before. They were ordained in the same way as those in Rome, by the same authorities. Lutherans and Anglicans continue to ordain their pastors in the same manner to this day. If Mr. Riecker means ordination as “apostolic succession” he cannot deny Lutherans and Anglicans have apostolic succession without also disproving Rome doesn’t have it. Here is where you see him conflate ideas of the Pope is an apostle or holding an Apostle’s office with the standards of ordination which we find in the Bible and through church history. Mr. Riecker cannot have his cake and eat it too. There is nothing new or novel in Mr. Riecker’s video. It is just the same standard Roman pop apologetics content, all demonstrated be wrong long ago.
@@ABZ163 And if Rome has this deposit of faith, as she claims, why did she condemn all previous Romans to hell in 1854 and again in 1950 for not adhering to the supposed knowledge Rome claims ti have held since the time of the Apostles for not believing the Immaculate Conception and St. Mary’s Assumption?
@@stephenkneller9318 @Cameron Riecker Christ only called Peter rock or Cephas, as Paul also wrote. Christ spoke to his apostles in Aramaic, Greek was the predominant written language of the time, but not so when it came to oral communication in the areas with Semitic roots. This negates any word play you speak of. Any other interpretation is reading one’s belief into the verse. Moreover, the masculine and feminine noun argument holds no water regardless of what side you argue from. Also, only Peter was given the ability to bind and loose. The other apostles were not. This may not mean much to us today but those words meant authority in the Jewish tradition and could not be interpreted any other way if one is being honest. You also brought up Tertullian who was a heretic and became an apostate. I am not sure why you would utilize him as a source. He is not a church father and is a great example of a heretic and as I mentioned, an apostate. Furthermore, St. Irenaeus said “Do nothing without the bishop, even as Christ did without The Father”. What does this mean to you? There is clearly a hierarchy that Christ established and this corresponds to the Biblical corpus as we know it. Ignatius of Antioch stated that “Rome holds the presidency” and that “all others must obey Rome”. This is not ambiguous. I also encourage you look into Cyprian of Carthage who also affirmed St. Peter’s position as The Vicar and head of The Church. This, of course, means the Catholic or Universal Church (katholikos) in Greek and was the only Christian church established at the time. I recommend you read St. Cyprian's writings dated back to AD 251. They may clarify some of your misconceptions. In your response, one point that was puzzling is your reference to the ecumenical councils as evidence against the Papacy? Such ecumenical councils were held due to the same tradition you are attempting to dispute. The fact that the Vicar did not have to make an ex cathedra decree does not invalidate the position. You can also find where the Catholic Church utilized the scripture THEY canonized in many of the early councils such as Hippo and Carthage. More on that later. To top things off, isn’t it funny how all of the apostolic churches, even those in schism have the same view of Mary? The Eastern, Assyrian, Coptic and Orthodox churches all separated some within the first millennium of the church and the dogmas are identical for all intents and purposes. Zwingli and Luther, among most of all the reformers also strongly held to the same views of Mary. The fact of the matter is, the Marian dogmas did not become canonized until the years you stated, but were universally held far before that. I’m sure you know the many things do not become canonical until challenged by heretics. This is why the Church has to REaffirm the canon at The Council of Trent. This was not good for Luther. Especially since he used the deuterocanon quite a bit in his arguments until Johann Eck did the same to show how purgatory was in fact biblical in accordance to complete canon. Protestants are fortunate that many of the other reformers had influenced Luther to preserve The Book of Revelation, as he held strong reservations against it being inspired. He also called James' epistle and "epistle of straw" and held it to a much lower standard than the other Gospel texts. The bottom line is that the Biblical Canon was completely assembled by the Catholic Church through the Apostolic Paradigm. Do you believe the New Testament canon is wrong? If not why? How could a church that was not God’s true church have been able to determine such a thing if not led by the Holy Spirit? If you do believe the Holy Spirit did lead the Catholics to assemble the Canon correctly, when did It no longer lead the church? I hope you now see why the Catholic and Apostolic churches have the fullness of the faith. You are standing on their shoulders every time you open the Bible. Scripture would be foreign to you if not for the Catholics.
@@ABZ163 Yes he called him πέτρᾳ and Cephas. And?This is no answer the linguistic facts I presented. Answer that. Yes, they spoke Aramaic. However, God chose to have His infallible Word in the New Testament revealed in Koine Greek. As such, the laughable Roman arguments concerning Aramaic, do not address the points raised. Yes the other Apostles were give the same powers of the Office of the Keys as Peter. Read Matthew 18. Christ talking to all the Apostles (verse 1) gives all of them the same power to loose or bind sins (verse 18). Ok, a quote mined quote from St. Irenaeus. And? Everyone is entitled to his opinion. But since that was around the time Bishops began to be elected over the common Presbyter in the East, it is not surprising he would make an argument. It still does not address what St. Jerome said. As far as the Roman Marian dogmas, by Roman rules, those who do not confess the Immaculate Conception and St. Mary’s Assumption like they confess belief in Christ Himself, are damned to hell. So why, if Rome had this deposit of faith since the time of the Apostles, did she not reveal these immediately for the salvation of all? And because Rome, by her own rules, waited so long to reveal these “truths” condemned even her own flock to hell? Again, you didn’t answer. As far as the Biblical Canon, one merely need the read his Bible. God says He will preserve His Word (Psalms 12:6-8, Isaiah 40:6-8). God also tells us that the Holy Spirit will guide us to His Word (Jn. 14:26), guide us to the truth (Jn. 16:13-14), and that the Holy Spirt helps believers interpret spiritual truth like God’s Breathed Word. (1Cor 2:13-15) This is why widely dispersed churches quickly arrived at the same basic canon, especially the standardized 66 book canon, long before any one tradition officially decreed what was Biblical Canon. It was not Rome who gave Christ’s Church the Biblical Canon, it was God. Rome was merely one of many bishoprics at that time. Rome, as you see it, did not come into existence until 1054. Worse yet for your argument, Luther established what was to become the Protestant Biblical Canon decades before Rome finally established her Biblical Canon at Trent! Until long after that point, Rome had a Biblical Canon that varied widely by diocese. (It did take time for Rome to distribute a standardized Bible to all its diocese.) So this entire tangent that you interjected damns your argument even more. Now please, actually address the claims I made. Stop deflecting.
Jesus Christ is the cornerstone (Ephesians 2:20-22, Acts 4:11, Matthew 21:42/Psalms 118:22). Isaiah 28:16 tells us the cornerstone is the foundation. Jesus asks his disciples “who do they say I am” in which the answers John the Baptist, Elijah, or a prophet. Jesus then asked “who do you say I am” in which Peter responds “the messiah, the Son of the living God”. Jesus tells Peter that God himself showed him that. Jesus then says, “you are Peter and on this rock I will build my church”. If Jesus was talking about Peter himself being that rock the why is Jesus known as the cornerstone. Are you really trying to take Gods glory and put it upon Peter who a couple of verses later is rebuked by Jesus when He told his disciples that He must be handed over to be killed. It’s not who Peter is but what he claimed about Jesus. Paul also made the claim that he knows nothing but Christ crucified (1 Corinthians 2:1-2). I don’t understand why Jesus wouldn’t be the main focus. Everything Peter did was through the Holy Spirit which is God.
The Father revealed to Peter, Jesus is the Christ. This is a spiritual matter, 1 John 5:1. The church is not built on flesh and blood (1 Corinthians 15). Your interpretation lacks any spiritual discernment with the text. Peter never overcame hades (2nd half of Matthew 16:18), Jesus did, Revelation 1:8.
1) You claimed that if your argument could be shown to be wrong, that you would leave the Church of Rome. 2) You went on to argue that "Peter ALONE" is the person upon which the Church of Christ is built. And with your very first premise, we have a problem. Nowhere does Scripture or Jesus say (to our knowledge) to Peter "upon you alone will I build my Church." Even the Church of Rome admits that the keys were given to ALL of the apostles. You added the word "alone" to try to justify yourself. You add to the words of Christ, the words of the Bible, to justify yourself. 3) You went on to claim that Peter ALONE was given the power to bind and loose. However, Scripture and history show that this power was given to all of the apostles (and probably all disciples, pastors, etc.). You lied. 4) "You'll be able to defeat every single Protestant argument." The role of the Christian is not to defeat each other, but to (with Christ's power) defeat sin and be filled with love. You are becoming completely misguided. 5) You claim that your "argument" has to do with being able to trace a church's leadership to Peter. However, there are countless churches that are completely authentic and Christian, can even trace their existence to various apostles, yet are not part of the Church of Rome. 6) Whether someone in the second century (Irenaeus) claimed that uniformity with Rome was necessary has nothing whatsoever to do with the teachings of Christ. Lots of people make lots of claims. There are and have always been countless churches that are authentically Christian and not in union with Rome. 7) Whether someone in the second century claimed that the Church is infallible is also irrelevant. Again, lots of people make lots of claims. You finding some claim that you agree with and feel good about is not evidence of its truth. And with this, we are merely half way through your video. There is probably little reason to continue, as all of your claims range from openly false to half-truths. Now, as is the case in pretty much all of your videos, your arguments and claims are quite immature, false, and absurd. There is nothing valid or sound about it. However, I am sure that you believe your rhetoric and errors, much as I did at your age. I would not hold you to your (obviously disingenuous) promise here to leave Rome. Rather, you should remain wherever you are subjectively most exposed to God's love, can live it out in your own life, and share it with others. If that is Rome, then you should stay there. However, given your record of false statements, it isn't clear that this is the case. The Church of Rome seems to be prompting you to perpetuate falsehoods. Perhaps some other church would be a better path for you, though I could hardly claim to know where that is for you.
@@pabtorre Which are those seven churches? Are they among the thousands founded by Protestants, such as Lutheranism, Anglicanism, Calvinism, Methodism, Baptist, Pentecostalism, Adventism, Congregationalism, and countless others?
Ex-Catholic Protestant here. Obviously Matthew 16 refers to Peter and the church he led. The Classical Protestants don’t refute that, they disagree that Rome is the exclusive holder of that apostolic deposit based upon the errors that built up over the centuries.
@@HDwedge012 the Church He "led"? The one that Jesus said the gates of hell will not prevail against it? Was He wrong? Was He lying? May I point out that the RCC is the oldest institution alive in this planet
Was Peter not the first Pope? And of course Christ was not lying, but that’s exactly our point. There will always be a body of true believers (the invisible church) who may (at times) be at odds with visible church institutions.
To say the body of believers is an invisible church goes directly against 1 Timothy 3-15 if I am delayed, you may know how one ought to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and bulwark of the truth. This church is visible and has the truth.
There are, and Anglicans/Lutherans/Reformed churches are a good place to start. They correctly recognize that they are fallible, human institutions, and their magisteriums are not above scripture.
acts 20:27-32. just hold fast to the apostles doctrine in the scriptures. and assemble yourselves anytime and "anywhere" you choose. matt 7:24-27 iranaeus? so much pig headed fluff.
Then please stop. Its Peter confession of faith revealed to him by the Father. Two different words used. Jesus is the foundation. Please read the whole chapter in context. Verse 23. Jesus turned to Peter, Get behind me Satan. You are a stumbling block to me; you do not have in mind the concerns of God, but merely human concerns. Next, if you think people should follow a church that actively had men and women killed who would not convert or were reading a Bible during Luther's time, before and after, think again.
Two different Greek words used. You sir are doing the word play. The Rock is Jesus. Jesus is referring to Peter’s faith. The keys are Jesus teachings not added to scripture. Really sad you think you have a gotcha moment. I was Catholic. Jesus is the foundation. Period.
Jesus was speaking of Peter’s spirit. The fact that he called Him the Christ, Son of God. Upon that notion He would and did build His church. Jesus is the foundation. No one else. Clement is not in the Bible anymore than the rest of cath false books. Original churches since the time of the apostles: Mormons, Church of Christ, Jehovah’s Witnesses, Two by Twos, Primitive Baptists. Only Jesus is infallible. The cath church has done more harm than good over the years. From crusades to the ecumenical spirit today. Not even mentioning raising a human, sinful woman to be equal to the Savior. Jesus didn’t start the cath church. He does stay with true, Bible believing churches. And those churches DO have Christ as the cornerstone. Read my Bible. Doesn’t seem to be at all like the cath church. Jesus is the foundation of the church. The scriptures are the Holy Words of God to instruct mankind. Catholicism founded on pagan goddess worship and hoodoo. Your salvation hinges on whether the leader of your false church is a successor to an apostle and not on whether Jesus is your savior and you’ve been washed in His blood? I’d seriously start thinking about your priorities, my friend.
This rock is not Peter. It is what God the Father revealed to Peter. Word play is on you. Two different words used here. Try doing correct sentence diagramming. You immediately need to stop. A few verses down Jesus tells Peter, get behind me Satan. Just sad.
Why does anyone have to change for anyone..be who you are..be kind to people..be inclusive..non judgemental..helpful..caring..sympathetic..show empathy..good will toward your fellow man..that's it in a nutshell..works for me..but then..I'm not making money off a podcast..guess we all have to do what we gotta do to support ourselves and our families
With all due respect, friend, half of those are truly shallow, generic statements. If you love, you change [for the better]. A lot of people are lost in their wickedness, why should they be "who they [supposedly] are" instead of what they could be? Or why should anyone be inclusive to wrongness? Also, being able to judge is what help us progress and not fall in errors. Being kind, helpful, caring, sympathetic and showing empathy are all good, but the rest are a very low-bar way of thinking [so to speak]. Again, with all due respect.
How can you possibly believe such nonsense. In the Old Testament God is clearly referred to as the Rock. The Lord Jesus Christ is the Son of God, He is the Rock, the sure foundation on which all scripture stands. Read Peter's first epistle which the man who you think was the first pope, states freely that we, that is all Christians are 'living stones' not rocks, forming a habitation of God by the Spirit. If you are depending on the lies which you are spreading in this video, then I am sorry, but you are 'still' condemned already according to John ch. 3 v 17-18.
Protestant here. It's impossible now for me to unsee all this. Been on the journey for a few years now trying to reconcile my charismatic Protestant faith with the history of the Church. I'm now finding it hard not to view protestantism like how I've viewed Mormonism I.e a recent development that strays beyond the bounds of historic faith and tradition. I anticipate I become Cat or E.O in the near future.
Peter is calling you home brother :)
Protestant here (EFC) yeah this seems to make sense.
It's interesting to learn more about the Catholic Church, as growing up I was taught that y'all were heretics, but the more I learn the more I start to think that maybe I have been in the wrong all this time.
👀
careful friend, a 'heretic' is one who is contrary God's Word -- catholicism is heretical -- see John 14:15 and compare with Ex 20:8-11
if you keep your focus on Truth (John 17:17, Psalm 119:142, 151) -- it will keep you grounded with a firm foundation.
@@jonanolakers1567 TROLL ALERT @tony1685
@@jonanolakers1567 Tony is an 7da troll don't pay him anymind he loves to lie abt catholic doctrine and claimed to have been a member for 35 years but can't explain antthing in doctrine. He is only a lier pray for him
Most protestants simply did not know better, having learned scripture with what Steve Ray calls "protestant lens". This view forced them to continually bring up "sola scriptura" or "sola fide" when reading the Bible. These lenses prevented a LOT of protestants to figure out the obvious by fear of "giving up" their fight against the "boogeyman Catholic Church" protestant literature created over the past centuries, out of pure hate.
The ante-Nicene/apostolic fathers are why I returned to the Catholic Church after 20 years away.
Thank you for making this amazing video. Well done on presenting the argument and backing it up in a way that is bullet proof. Fellow Catholic here, this will be useful in defending the faith.
My Protestant friend is too intelligent to remain Protestant.
i've met plenty wise people who sadly are brainwashed by this system. catholicism isn't Christianity, friend. put your pride aside.
So is your friend becoming Orthodox ?
Cameron, I love how you are so on fire for your faith. I'm not quite ready to join the Catholic Church, but I will acknowledge that Catholics tend to have a much better appreciation of church history. Protestants often don't seem to care of the great saints of the past. Catholics understand that they are following centuries of other Catholics who have followed Jesus long before they were alive. The doctrine of apostolic succession ensures that the faith of past believers is valued.
The problem with your comment is that there are no grounds for supposing that apostolic succession is valid. The apostles were there for the forming of the scriptures, they were 'completed' by the apostle John with the book of Revelation. There is absolutely no need of continuing what is already complete. It is like the Catholic teaching on salvation, they try to add to the 'completed' and 'finished' work of Christ on the cross, by adding works as a requisite for salvation. That is totally wrong. Salvation is ALL of God. God the Father planned it. God the Son carried out the Father's will and accomplished it, then God the Holy Spirit applies it to the believing sinner and indwells us as a guarantee of our inheritance in Heaven with Christ and 'in Christ'.
Follow Jesus
This is an excellent explanation of the truth! Thank you for this video.
Glory be to the Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Spirit, as it was in the beginning, is now, and ever shall be, world without end. Amen
Good Job. I hope your efforts win a lot of Protestant souls to the Church. It’s about time to bring those sheep back to the true herd!
So you want prots who worship the invisible god to bowing down befor a golden sun symbol trinket with a cracker in it?
Excellent Cameron!
Hey Cameron, I appreciate the work you put into your channel! I'm a former Protestant in the process of joining the Catholic Church. Just a personal opinion - the thumbnail text "they hide this" isn't my favorite because it suggests bad faith from protestants. Most protestants that I've known and met don't hide stuff about their beliefs - they are wrong sincerely. Since I appreciate what you're doing, I wanted to share my 2 cents. God bless!
Well said 😄
Thanks for the feedback! I will keep this in mind
There really are two Protestant types:
- Some that a quiet and don't really run into Catholics. This is most.
- However, there is a group of some very Anti-Catholic Protestant that attack all sorts of doctrines or dogmas.
Many aggressive Protestant pastors will:
1) call us satanist cults,
2) that the Pope is the anti-Christ,
3) they attack the Eucharist some calling blasphemous names
4) some will attack the Virgin Mary. Jesus gave us the 5 First Saturdays to REPAIR THE IMMACULATE HEART OF MARY the 5 blasphemies against the Virgin Mary. Jesus Christ is saying enough... don't do repeat the blasphemies.
They also call us different types of names. Anyeays, I undestand you are trying to protect those Protestants that are down to earth good people.
The videomaker says that they hide...
More they misinterpret scripture...
We as Catholics are called to correct them because they tell us WHAT WE BELIEVE.
But they do it day and night.
I was deep into history and I couldn’t remain Protestant anymore but I saw the innovation of Catholicism from now to the 1st century and it’s changed a lot, for example you guys changed the Nicene creed and later changed the bread of the Eucharist and also made changes on how baptism was done to both adults and children as well with distribution of the Eucharist on the hands, and the supreme jurisdiction of the pope and the infallibility of the pope, and purgatory doctrine, and the immaculate conception of the blessed Virgin Mary, indulgences I agree with the concept of it but it ultimately lead to corruption within some bishops and clergy, which helped spark the reformation and the schisms that went on in the 16th century, oh and not to mention the Catholic Church is in communion with the CCR (Catholic charismatic renewal) which is basically a mix of some Protestant rock concert with Catholic doctrine…all this lead me to become Eastern Orthodox.
Protestants need to read their bibles right.
tell me what John 14:15 clearly says to do, myron.
thanks in advance.
@@tony1685 15 “If you love me, keep my commands.
@gloriapatriparcedomine start slowly, His Ten are written on stone and deemed 'Truth' -- Psalm 119:142, 151
the catholic 'church' teaches contrary Them, proving it's not Christianity, nor ever has been or will be.
@@tony1685 that lie, that the Catholics don’t hold to the Ten Commandments or else changed them, is the first domino that dropped for me. When I heard it, I thought it sounded too convenient for Protestants, and after a few minutes research identified the dishonesty in the argument. Then I started probing other straw-man arguments against Catholicism, then I started wrestling with the actually good arguments, but over and over again found the Catholic logic to be superior, and over and over again found that “Bible believing Christians” don’t believe the Bible, only the parts that fit their theology. That’s even true of Martin Luther who wanted to exclude the books of James, Hebrews, and Revelation from the Canon because those books were inconvenient for his theology.
You can’t simultaneously say you believe the Bible is the infallible word of truth and also deny the plain meaning of any passage. Case in point, Peter the rock on which Christ will build his church. Christ giving the apostles authority to forgive sins (John 20:22-23). We are not justified by faith alone (James 2:24). Baptism now saves you (1 Peter 3:21) - yes I know the denial of this one isn’t universal in Protestantism.
It is the Protestant, not the Catholic Church, that has a Bible problem.
@@tony1685 by the way, I sincerely hope to see your username in one of these comments sections one day defending Catholicism. Come on in, the water’s fine.
Well done! Clearly the Catholic Church is the church Jesus promised he would build. He assured that his church would survive until the end of the age by a succession of Bishops to that day. The Catholic Church is the only Christian church of the Bible. It adopted its name from the Greek, Acts 9:31 ekklesia cath oles tes. (See Bib le hub Greek interlinear Bible version) The Church throughout all, the universal Christian church Jesus established. The Catholic Church.
Protestants, Jesus told us in John14:15, If you love me you will keep my commandments. If you are not part of his Catholic Church you are not keeping his commandments.
Protestants, Jesus told us in John14:15, If you love me you will keep my commandments. If you are not part of his Catholic Church you are not keeping his commandments.
There is only one church and it is made up of all believers in Christ 1 Corinthians 12:12,. The believers are the body of Christ and Jesus is at it's head according to Coll 1:17 He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together. 18 And He is the head of the body, the church; He is the beginning and firstborn from among the dead, so that in all things He may have preeminence. 19 For God was pleased to have all His fullness dwell in Him,…
Only one church to choose from and you as a believer in Christ are in it. Acts 16:28-32
Absolutely. Jesus didn't establish any of the thousands of Luther, Zwingli, Calvin inspired protestant denominations. Jesus never gave any of these men authority to build a Church. All protestant denominations are conceived by men who are in rebellion against Jesus because they didn’t keep his commandments!
Yeah, right. I refuse to bow down befor catholic graven images.
@@peterzinya1 Catholic Christians do not bow down to graven images so stop lying. To make a false statement like that may be a mortal sin depending on what your level of culpability is. In your case you know you are bearing false witness against Catholics. Besides the video was about Jesus establishing the Catholic Church. You can’t refute it so you have to deflect.
@@Spiritof76Catholic Friend, sorry if i gave the idea of deflecting. Here is what i was commenting on;
"If you are not part of his Catholic Church you are not keeping his commandments."
So i replied;
Yeah, right. I refuse to bow down befor catholic graven images.
Here is you accusing me falsely;
Catholic Christians do not bow down to graven images so stop lying.
I said that I, refuse to bow to catholic graven images. I didnt mention anyone else.
. "In your case you know you are bearing false witness against Catholics."
if i did say catholic bow to graven images, which i didnt, it would be 100% true. At least ive seen millions of pics of them on their knees befor graven (Carved,engraved) images. Hey, maybe im wrong!
Honestly...
The mere fact that Jesus *changes Simon's name* to Cephas (rock/Peter) right before telling him that He will build His Church on "this rock" *should be make things clear enough for anyone reading the passage. Otherwise, what's Jesus's point with all the name changing? It's utterly useless UNLESS Peter is the rock on which Christ builds His Church.
St. Augustine (354-430), in his writings, offers a nuanced interpretation of this passage. He does not exclusively equate "this rock" with Peter himself but sees it as a reference to Christ or Peter’s confession of faith. In some of his earlier writings, Augustine acknowledges a common interpretation that Peter is the rock upon which the Church is built. However, as his thought matured, he leaned more heavily toward an alternative understanding. Augustine argues that "the rock" refers to Peter’s confession of faith in Christ as the Son of the living God (Matthew 16:16). This faith in Christ, not Peter himself, is the true foundation of the Church. He writes in Sermon 229: “For the Rock [Petra] was Christ; and on this foundation was Peter himself built. For other foundation no man can lay than that which is laid, which is Christ Jesus.” Augustine also interprets "this rock" to mean Christ Himself, not Peter. He emphasizes that Christ is the cornerstone of the Church, and Peter’s role is derivative and subordinate to Christ’s. In his Exposition of Psalm 61, Augustine states: “For they were not told, ‘You are the rock,’ but ‘You are Peter.’ But the Rock was Christ, on which foundation also Peter himself was built.”
Other church fathers that seemed to shar the same interpretation as Augustine were Origen, Cyril of Alexandria, Ambrose of Milan, John Chrysostom and Tertullian.
@@pedroguimaraes6094
Ultimately - no matter how people want to interpret his writings - St-Augustine sided with the definitive interpretation of the Catholic Church, as he acknowledged her God-given authority over those who constitute the Body of Christ.
@@MystoRobot St. Augustine did recognize the Church's authority, particularly in terms of preserving the integrity of the faith, resolving theological disputes, and guiding believers. He did, at times, defer to the authority of the Church, including the See of Rome, as a final arbiter in certain matters (like the Pelagian controversy). However, this should not be confused with the later Catholic doctrine of papal supremacy or the infallibility of the papacy as defined by the First Vatican Council (1870), which was not clearly articulated or universally accepted in Augustine's time. Augustine never clearly supported the idea that the bishop of Rome possessed an exclusive and supreme authority over all other bishops or Christians in the way that later papal supremacy would be defined.
The problem with Roman Catholic apologetics, especially concerning Church tradition, is that it claims interpretive authority over tradition itself. This creates a system where it becomes virtually impossible for the Catholic Church to be in error. The apologetic approach often involves taking selected statements from the Church Fathers and interpreting them as if they are speaking directly to later Catholic doctrines, because the Church, through its magisterium, holds the exclusive authority to interpret these writings. This makes it easy to assume that the Fathers’ words align with what the Church later defined-whether or not this was the case in their time.
In essence, this creates an intellectual ghetto.
@@pedroguimaraes6094
"This creates a system where it becomes virtually impossible for the Catholic Church to be in error."
That _WOULD_ the whole point of a Church founded by Christ, at least on matters of faith and morals.
It sure isn't impossible, because that's literally how God organized "the chosen people", through the lineage of one of Noah's sons : A tribe walking amongst others, but who -- contrary to all others -- would preserve the TRUTH in a supernatural way (overseen by God), incapable of teaching error (in their religion - faiths and morals), although themselves capable of sinning, and suffering consequences for said sins.
You write as if you thought this advantage (of being incapable of teaching error) was unfair, somehow...
@@MystoRobot I see your point, but I think there’s an important distinction between the role of Israel in the Old Testament and the claim of the Catholic Church to be infallible in its interpretation of faith and morals.
In the Old Testament, Israel was chosen by God to preserve His truth, but that did not mean Israel was infallible. Throughout the Old Testament, Israel was constantly warned, rebuked, and corrected by prophets for its failures, disobedience, and deviations from God's law. Even the priesthood and the leaders of Israel were capable of sin and error, and at times the people were led astray by false teachings. God did not shield Israel from making mistakes; rather, He continually called them to repentance and alignment with His Word.
This is where the distinction lies. When Jesus sent His apostles, He did not establish a new "infallible" Israel. Instead, He called people to follow Him, to interpret and fulfill the law through Him, and to teach what He had revealed. The Apostles, even though they were divinely inspired, never claimed infallibility in everything they say. In fact, they actively encouraged believers to test what they were saying against the Scriptures (Acts 17:11). The Bereans, for example, were commended for examining Paul’s words to ensure they were in line with God’s revealed Word.
The Bible itself also gives ample space for ongoing interpretation, dialogue, and correction within the body of Christ, rather than establishing an infallible institution. The progressive revelation of God’s truth continues, as we see in the New Testament, where the Apostles were still working through understanding and applying God's will in different contexts.
Thus, the claim of infallibility in the Catholic Church seems to go beyond the model seen in the New Testament, where the Apostles invited scrutiny and comparison of their teachings with the Old Testament Scriptures. The Apostles were careful to anchor their teachings in the Word of God, allowing for the ongoing exploration and clarification of God’s truth as revealed in Christ. The Church, therefore, may certainly be guided by the Holy Spirit in preserving the faith, but claiming infallibility in the interpretation of doctrine seems to go further than the example set by the early Church or the model of Israel in the Old Testament.
Short Version, Peter being the rock is a very contentious verse, even the Catholic Catechism says that Peter’s faith is what the church is built (among many other things)
The “Bishops” clement refers to are church elders not only Apostles.
Even if I accept that the Catholic Church is valid in its structure a the time of the great schism (a very big if)
Catholics don’t have an answer to the questions of the reformation. Luther didn’t leave to start a new church, he was kicked out. When the Protestants tried to reform the church they were removed.
If I believe that Catholic teaching conflicts with scripture, the scripture takes precedence.
TL;DR even if the Pope was the Vicar of Christ Trent anathematized the Papacy because they declared incorrect doctrine to be sacrosanct.
Saint Paul, in his letter to the Galatians
“But if we or an angel of heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be accursed”
What that “gospel” is it what Catholics and Protestants have argued about for over 500 years.
Protestantism in 1517 was the first attack on Catholicism followed by Freemasonry in 1717 & Communism in 1917, none of which has succeeded as Jesus said that the gates of hell would not prevail Mt 16:18-19
Luther was excommunicated when he refused to recant, which he was given plenty of opportunity to do, but refused!
Nonsense
@@fredicksyenito Which part?
@@fredicksyenito Good answer ...
Arius appealed to Scripture, quoting verses such as John 14:28: "the Father is greater than I", as well as Colossians 1:15: "the firstborn of all creation." Thus, Arius insisted that the Father's Divinity was greater than the Son's, and that the Son was under God the Father, and not co-equal or co-eternal with him.
He believed that the Catholic Church's stance on Jesus being Co-eternal with the Father was unbiblical. Are you saying that his interpretation should take precedence then? If not, and if Arius was unwilling to submit, would the Catholic church have the right to excommunicate Arius since he is saying that Jesus Christ isn't the eternal triune God, but basically a demigod?
Wonderfully brought up argument! I think there is no real defense here, its seems to be a clear case.
What a time it is to live in the age of information and share thoughts with one another.
Back in July, I read the Bible to test Martin Luther's criteria against the 5 sacraments rejected by Protestants and I became a Catholic after that. I am undergoing my Catechism now.
Strange, ... I read the Bible and have been non-Catholic for 40 years ...
I was Baptist for 70 years until I read the Bible through Catholic lens. That blew the doors off my constricted view of Scripture. It's like we had the recipe without the ingredients. I realize it's up to each of us to choose but it made all the different in The world to me.
God bless
@@billlee2194 Catholicism certainly has more ingredients. The problem is that Jesus didn't put a lot of those ingredients in his recipe for the Church. Think of what the Catholic church is known for, resplendent dress uniforms, statues of those who attained sainthood, etc. What you see is as far from Jesus' ministry as you can imagine ... and, in large part, results from the Catholic church's allying with worldly powers, in complete violation of James' admonition in his scriptural letter ...
James 4:4 You adulterers and adulteresses, do you not know that friendship with the world is enmity with God? Whosoever therefore will be a friend of the world is the enemy of God.
If you want something like a family here on earth choose protestant, if you want a true family in heaven choose the universal church 🙏
So what you are implying is a protestant lives a worldly existence? That is really an ignorant statement to imply. All believers in Christ are part of the body of Christ and you do not become a part of the body of Christ by going to a church group and believing everything they tell you,
@@brucewmclaughlin9072 If your opinion is true. Then why does Jesus say that there is only 1 body? If there is only one body and Jesus and Paul both say that you can be removed from the body for unrepented sin(s), then how does that work in Protestantism when you can just go wherever you want when you don't like what is being said?
Jesus said that the world would know he was the Messiah because of one Church (John 17). Paul says that schism is a sin. So, splintering from the one body and continuing to split and splinter is a sin. No where is there an invisible body in the Bible. It was ALWAYS an actual physical Church comprised of believers that could be looked at and pointed to. A finger can't cut itself off from the body and then claim that it is the body.
@@hirakisk1973 Paul both say that you can be removed from the body for unrepented sin(s), then how does that work in Protestantism when you can just go wherever you want when you don't like what is being said?
Just where do you get your information on protestants from?
What is a believer according to scripture? How do I get saved ? Acts 16:28-32 tells me 1 John 1:9 points out that when I confess my sins to God He cleans me completely , Jesus has washed me sanctified me and justified me before God 1 Cor 6:11
Eph 2:1-22 is the believer who was and is no longer as he was .
Paul both say that you can be removed from the body for unrepented sin(s),
Are you sure it says removed from the body?/ church?
Jesus said that the world would know he was the Messiah because of one Church (John 17).
Yes and Jesus also said He did not want division , so that means satan and man does .
Paul says that schism is a sin. So, splintering from the one body and continuing to split and splinter is a sin.
Ahh I see that you are looking at the roman Catholic church as "the body" when that is not true according to scripture.
The church is the body of Christ on earth made up of all believers in Jesus Christ our savior . Jesus according to scripture is the head of the church which is His body.
Someone who is unrepentant and forsakes Christ can be seen as leaving the church assuming that church is a building where said person went as no believer is unrepentant .Acts 3:19 Acts 16:28-32
Someone who walks away from a church group that claims to be the one and only and yet teaches false doctrines as if they are true , is not walking away from Christ they are walking away from a church group.
No where is there an invisible body in the Bible. It was ALWAYS an actual physical Church comprised of believers that could be looked at and pointed to.
Yes Jesus being the head of the church and the church being made up of all physical believers walking the streets alive is obviously a visible church.
A finger can't cut itself off from the body and then claim that it is the body.
So here is the fallacy you somehow learned from somewhere.
I have yet to find a denominational church that has ever said they are the one true church, nor have I ever heard that a denominational church group claims to be separate from the body of Christ. There is only one church , one body of believers , and one Christ who is head of the church.
The roman Catholic church may be part of the body of Christ but it is not the only body of Christ.!
@@brucewmclaughlin9072 You don't have to agree, but if you devoted your time and energy to truly seeking the truth, it would be much better spent than defending a fake, fragmented, man-made church. Could you provide scriptures that support the fragmentation of Protestantism (Lutheranism, Anglicanism, Calvinism, Methodism, Baptism, Pentecostalism, Adventism, Congregationalism, and thousands more)? Which scriptures affirm this division? While the Catholic Church may have its own issues, it still remains united.
@@healingvibesplus 1. there is only one church and that is the body of Christ on earth visible ,with Christ at it's head.
2. No one else on this planet has ever founded a church as there is only one. Man and satan have worked together to create a mess for believers in Christ. Satan comes to do 3 things kill, steal or destroy , and this is found in every belief system in the world of christianinity that we can see.
3. denominations are divisions of the body of Christ and NOT condoned by Christ Himself. There are believers and unrepentant sinners n denominations and in all groups that call themselves the church.
4. No church on this planet will save you , it is only a personal choice to repent and follow Christ . Acts 16:28-32 Acts 3:19
5. it would be much better spent than defending a fake, fragmented, man-made church.
No one is defending a fake church as there is only one church and that is not an institution it is the body of Christ, made up of all believers in Christ as Lord over all.
There is no man made church .
I think the Petra Petros argument is really weak and a number of Protestants are seeing that already. I'm surprised that some would place their entire faith on that argument. Anyway, enjoyed your content and passion. May God bless you and your ministry.
This is beautiful and i love your videos. I Have a question, since Judas was replaced by Mathias to fill in the 12 Apostles. Paul was also an Apostle at that time, so there are 13 Apostles at that time?
Thank you for your answer.
Kind of. The word Apostle is used in different senses in the Scripture. There is even one verse in Revelation that refers to Jesus as the "Apostle."
Generally speaking, an Apostle is one who is sent.
Amen!
Well, for once, I am impressed. Good work! I can see you've gone into this deeply. I have also been reading all the apocrypha, studying church history, church fathers, scripture, in this regard.
Im really keen to respond but it's going to require deeper study so I hope to respond later. Very busy right now.
Sneak-peak. I think the conclusion will be that protestants won't be able to disprove it. But neither will you be able to prove it. It's the "state of unclear"
But we will see
👍
At timestamp 8:44, is the Letter to the Corinthians in the Bible? I can’t find it.
The last verse in 1 Corinthians 11 is what I was talking about. It's in the Bible New Testament.
I think you misunderstood my question. But now I think I figured it out.
I didn’t realize it before that St. Clement had written a letter to the Corinthians. I guess you are referring to that one at time stamp 8:44 and not the one in the Bible written by St. Paul. Thank you anyway.
Yup that's why the early church didn't have any problems about the catholic church authority until the split of the catholic and the orthodox as shown by William Albrecht of partistic pillars.
Eh, I can quote the fathers and it's not that precarious. For example "But who can fail to be aware that the sacred canon of Scripture, both of the Old and New Testament, is confined within its own limits, and that it stands so absolutely in a superior position to all later letters of the bishops, that about it we can hold no manner of doubt or disputation whether what is confessedly contained in it is right and true; but that all the letters of bishops which have been written, or are being written, since the closing of the canon, are liable to be refuted if there be anything contained in them which strays from the truth" --Augustine.
Yes. And the church holds that all sacred tradition does not conflict with scriptures and no teaching of bishops can contradict scripture or sacred tradition. So Augustine was in no way defending the notion of a Proto Protestant view of sola scriptura because he also believed in the magisterial teaching authority of the church - not the “private judgment” of individual Christians, which is the cornerstone of Protestant theology
@@henrytucker7189 I'm a little bit confused here, I never mentioned private judgement, nor did Augustine in the quote. You seem to be reading that idea in yourself. I am also not under the illusion that Augustine is teaching full blown modern-day Sola Scriptura, but he is very clearly teaching the supremacy of scripture which is the heartbeat Sola Scriptura proper.
Later in the same letter (On Baptism) Augustine presses the superiority of scripture by stating that "even of the plenary Councils, the earlier are often corrected by those which follow them." Which stand in stark contrast to the quote above "[scripture] stands so absolutely in a superior position to all later letters of the bishops, that about it we can hold no manner of doubt or disputation whether what is confessedly contained in it is right and true". The highest councils can error and be corrected by later councils, but scripture stand superior.
@@SaltyMonarch sola Scriptura relies on a teaching authority for it to mean anything, otherwise we’re into the field of spiritual relativism. And the Protestant view of Sola Scriptura presumes the absolute right of private judgement in exegesis. But Augustine believed in the teaching magisterium of the church- which was binding on him and everyone else. That’s nothing like the sola Scriptura I was taught for 46 years.
John Chrysostom: “You are Peter, and upon this rock will I build my Church; Matthew 16:18 that is, on the faith of his confession. Hereby He signifies that many were now on the point of believing, and raises his spirit, and makes him a shepherd.”
Now Protestants have no problem with submitting to the authority of Peter or the other apostles. The question I have is: when did public revelation end? If it is at the death of the last apostle, then Peter’s successors do not speak with the same authority as Peter himself spoke.
Secondly: can someone be disqualified despite their office? If public revelation has ended then the church is not bound to that which was not revealed by the apostles. If someone tries to bind you by something not revealed by the apostles, are they disqualified?
A key thing that Jesus never forced or killed anyone who disagreed with him, it is the Catholic movement and kings did shed blood who disagreed with such church, Catholic church admits about %15 with such doings and claims it's all for the good & authority.
As did all other Christian groups during that time. If making mistakes negates legitimacy than there is no Christianity.
@hirakisk1973 The Jesus I preach is the one who mentioned in the Bible, "no greater love than who lays its own life for one another" in John 15:13:
No one & no nations can eliminate Christianity, and shouldn't be enforced.
@@hirakisk1973 At least the CC is honest about its followers waking up in flames.
1 Thessalonians 5:22, which says, "Abstain from all appearance of evil":
First of all, where in the Bible Jesus instructed the creation of multiple churches that could disagree or contradict each other. It seems unreasonable to delve into complex theological debates without first considering the qualifications of the individuals protestants are following. Who are these reformers you place your trust in? Which Bible verse supports the fragmentation of the Church into numerous denominations (Lutheranism, Anglicanism, Calvinism, Methodism, Baptist, Pentecostalism, Adventism, Congregationalism, and thousands more)? Where in Scripture does Jesus indicate that such fragmentation, with thousands of conflicting denominations, is acceptable? Show me the verse.
Just to clarify, my question above is directed at all the Protestants trolling here.
@@healingvibesplus You forgot to mention which verse supports getting on your knees befor images/statues?
@@peterzinya1 Kneeling before a statue of Jesus on the cross reminds us of His sacrifice. Kneeling before Blessed Mary reminds us of her obedience to God and that she was given to us as our mother. Kneeling before saints reminds us of how they followed Jesus. Some things don't need to be written down because they are just common sense. How we practice our faith is different from causing division, which God didn't intend. How can division be common sense, especially when it's caused by different interpretations of the same Bible verse?
@@healingvibesplus Thanks for all that. You forgot to mention the verse where its a good thing to bow down befor images/statues. Thanks in advance.
@@peterzinya1 No verse is needed...it's just COMMON SENSE and FREE WILL on how you want to express your love for God...Well, this is exactly how protestants dodge questions they cannot answer😃
Please don't change the topic, answer the question if you can. If you can't, it might be a good time to reflect on what you believe and whom you believe.
Correct
Doesn't Jesus call Peter "Satan" and a stumbling block a few verses after calling him the rock?
Don't delude yourself, just because something is in the Bible, makes sense and is backed up by other writings will not stop a person from inventing a ridiculous reason why it isn't true.
Usually it is _figurative_ and not _Literal._ When they can't apply that they simply remove the entire thing from reality and introduce fiction.
Ephesians 2:19-22 The cornerstone is the first stone in the foundation. So is the first stone is Jesus in the foundation. Peter continued to build that foundation. If you want to truly test your belief then study Exodus 20 and God willing your eyes should start to see
Jeremiah 31:31 is what Jesus did when he came
Can honestly say that I've never watched a theological monologue with such a clickbaity, UA-cam scam ad-style delivery. It's like an ad for some 'new' method of learning guitar, with continual promises that 'this information is being HIDDEN from you by other pro players'... but the information is actually nothing new, so it's really all in the delivery to convince people.
God bless you mate, I'm sure your heart is for the Lord. But yeah just this really aint it, and I'd genuinely encourage you to look for better ways to engage with Protestants.
Triggered & salty ☺️
This is like the fifth thumbnail change
Acts 1:20
New Revised Standard Version Catholic Edition
20 “For it is written in the book of Psalms,
‘Let his homestead become desolate,
and let there be no one to live in it’;
and
‘Let another take his position of overseer.’
The word 'overseer' in the Greek is ἐπισκοπή (episkopē). This word correlates to mean Bishop in the early Church.
From the website of Blue Letter Bible.
ἐπισκοπή episkopḗ, ep-is-kop-ay'; from G1980; inspection (for relief); by implication, superintendence; specially, the Christian "episcopate":-the office of a "bishop", bishoprick, visitation.
I believe this website is even Protestant.
@@claybody a specific prophecy about Judas being replaced certainly makes it seem more like the exception than the rule
@@danielh2945 How so? Judas was no longer with them.
"‘Let another take his position of overseer.’"
It is also not the only time this word was used in the Greek of the New Testament.
First Timothy 3:1
"It is a trustworthy statement: if any man aspires to the office overseer, it is a fine work he desires to do."
Look into the King James Version interpretation of these passages.
You may be stunned.
@@claybody why would prophecy be required for a normal practice?
If you start following out that logic you start to get into a two office bite of the church. I can provide more explanation later.
But Rome today does not agree with Rome in the day of Irenaeus; so how is that puzzle solved ?
Can you give a specific example?
Disciplines can change the teaching of the Apostles cannot
@@CameronRiecker OK, lets pick one in the area of morals: The Scriptures, The Apostolic Fathers, and the first Popes in Rome taught that the practice of usury and charging interest is a mortal sin. Is that still a teaching of the Roman Catholic Church ?
You're talking about development of doctrine in it's application, not a change in the underlying moral truth. Exploitation of the poor is still condemned by the Church. The practice of charging interest during those times was very different than what we have today with very different economic realities. Exploiting the poor should be and always has been condemned. The underlying moral principle that transactions should be moral and just and not exploit the poor remains, only the application of the principle has changed in order to consider the nature of money, the purpose of loans, and the broader economic systems in play.
Cameron, what books do you recommend for reading about the early church fathers?
A book by Jurgens
Don't wait until you are in your 60s or 70s before converting to the Catholic church. You have already missed a lot, like the Eucharist, the sacraments, the different devotions to different saints and especially to Mary, the Rosary. Protestant reformers completely erased the 2,000 yrs. old sacred traditions of the true church of Jesus Christ.
@CameronRiecker why was my post removed? It was both respectful and in defense of our Apostolic Church as well as accurate
I did not remove any comments :) Sorry if there was a mistake! What did you say?
@@CameronRiecker No worries. I responded to several objections a viewer attempted to make against the points you made in your video.
One objection was that you were wrong about the Peter being the rock. I told the viewer that it goes beyond the Greek and gendered nouns and referring to a confession and that Christ spoke Aramaic to the apostles and used the word Cephas as Paul indicates in many of his writings. Therefore, it would not make sense to interpret the Scripture in any other way.
The viewer then stated that if the Pope was infallible then the early ecumenical councils should not have such authority and that it should have been up to the Pope. I responded by stating that the very tradition he is refuting is the reason such councils were held.
I also referenced Irenaeus, who stated that because of Rome’s superior origin (referring to Peter), that all others must obey Against Heresies 3:3:2 [A.D. 189]).
In addition I quoted Cyprian of Carthage, and Ignatius of Antioch showing that they also held to the Papal authority and Apostolic succession.
Furthermore, I stated that the Apostolic Churches all hold a similar view of Mary, since this was a rebuttal of his. He stated the years of canonization but I rebutted that claim by stating that The RCC, Coptic, Eastern Orthodox and Eastern Oriental churches, for all intents and purposes hold a similar view of the Marian doctrines. Some of these churches were in schism in the first millennium so the fact that the Marian doctrines were not canonized until the 1800-1900s (not all but some) means nothing. It is often not until doctrines are challenged that they become official Canon and are usually built into the Liturgy before then.
Lastly, I stated that the Biblical Canon was established by the Catholic Church. So, every time he opens the Bible, he stands on the shoulders of those he is refuting. I asked that if he agreed with the canon then he must concurrently believe that the Catholic Church was led by the Holy Spirit and that if he does not agree, I asked when did the Holy Spirit abandoned the church and reiterated that the gates of hades shall not prevail as stated by Jesus himself.
God bless you Cameron. Thank you for defending our faith and the Apostolic Church!
@@ABZ163 "Lastly, I stated that the Biblical Canon was established by the Catholic Church. "
Seems that most of the CCs clergy have failed to read their own book they put together. Marciel Maciel come to mind, out of thousands.
@@peterzinya1 Do you have anything of substance in response to my comment or are you just trying to be inflammatory? Any misconceptions I can clear up for you?
@@ABZ163 Hello, yes, there is something. The claim the CC gave us/wrote, the bible, is misleading.
Men, directed by the holy spirit put together what we call the bible, per se.
Then the other constant claim that the CC is such an authority on bible cause it is their book. They must not read it, cause catholic clergy are noted for constant villainy. Its even in todays news.
Patrick coffin said he could no longer defend pope Francis, that's why he quit catholic answers.
What say you??
Where are the resources you talked about? I want the Google Doc that I can show my protestant friends.
@2196logan - www.newadvent.org/fathers/1010.htm www.newadvent.org/fathers/0109.htm
Show your prot friends this;
Jesus has 7 churches, (Rev 1-3) and none of them are in Rome.
@@peterzinya1 Well, that would be strange, since we are to spread the gospel all over the world; why would you see a bunch of churches in Rome? Besides, Christianity was illegal in Rome until the 4th century.
@@2196logan Good try. So, Jesus didnt know that there would be churches in Rome is what you are saying? No need to ask me why Jesus said he has 7 churches and none of them are in Rome. catholics dont believe the bible anyway. So they shouldnt care what it says.
@@peterzinya1 That is just your opinion; normally I would have a discussion with you, but you already hate all Catholics, so there is no need to continue.
You really need to stop saying Protestants have no answer to things that Protestant apologists have been dealing with for ages. Matthias’ appointment has been argued so many times it’s not even funny. I’m not even the first person in this comment section to point out that Irenaeus is clearly wrong about who founded the church in Rome. Further, there actually is at least one other option besides Catholicism being true or Jesus allowing the church he founded to crumble-a third is that he didn’t found a capital C Church, but a small c church, which is defined not by identifiable hierarchy, but simply by the ones “called out” (the literal meaning of ekklesia) as his body, ie all believers. But let’s take your claim that you would stop being Catholic if it could be proved that Francis isn’t Peter’s successor. What would it take to prove that, in your mind? Or to put it another way, what is the set of propositions which must all be true for the papacy to be true, any of which being proven false shows the papacy is false? If you can provide the criteria by which a person could actually meet this challenge, it might be one worth taking on. If not, it’s just tilting at windmills.
Do you believe that the validity of the Catholic Church stands or falls on Peter founding the Christian Church in Rome? It does not matter if Peter founded the Roman Church, the reason the Roman Church has primacy is that both Peter and Paul were both martyred there. The chair of Peter was even moved to France for some 70 years❤in Avignon France in the 14th century and the Church leadership did not lose its primacy because it no longer resided in Rome.
The very first time Jesus meets Simon he tells him that he would be called Cephas which means rock, and then three years later at Caesarea Philippi as recorded in math 16:18 he most probably said to Simon you are kepha and on this kepha a will build my Church,because he spoke Aramaic,but the translator translating in Greek changed kepha to Petra which means rock or Peter. The Bible states that Christ’s Churches foundation is built on the prophets and Apostles
Is not Peter an Apostle, so why would one be obligated to deny scriptures description of Christ’s Churches foundation being built on the prophets and Apostles?
I forgot to mention that Kepha in Aramaic means rock!
@@bobmccamon5056 none of your comments seem to address anything I actually said. My comment does two things-A) it identifies Protestant responses to things Cameron said Protestants have no answer to, and B) asks for specific criteria by which someone could disprove the papacy since he says that is the one thing he hangs his salvation on.
Yes, but we need to consider the beliefs of the Oriental, and Eastern Orthodox Churches, as they also consider themselves to be the original Catholic Church, and they already started to separate in the 5th century. I'm definitely not a complete Protestant.
Sure, but this brings us back to Peter being given the title of the rock upon which the Church is founded. This clearly reflects the hierarchical structure Jesus intended. To maintain unity, there must be someone with the keys, a single authority with the final word. Eastern Catholics do not have this.
Every spilt from the Catholic Church is a result of pride and disobedience. Regardless of whether the split occurred in the 5th century AD, or 2018, it is a deviation from the one and only Church that Jesus established and continues today through apostolic succession.
Don't forget that the catholic church is actually made up of 24 churches/rites. One is the latin church, commonly referred to as rome. The other 23 are Eastern, russian, and oriental traditions that are ancient and tied to apostolic succession and celebrate mass in communion with rome.
In communion with the original Church, not the original.
St. Augustine (354-430), in his writings, offers a nuanced interpretation of this passage. He does not exclusively equate "this rock" with Peter himself but sees it as a reference to Christ or Peter’s confession of faith. In some of his earlier writings, Augustine acknowledges a common interpretation that Peter is the rock upon which the Church is built. However, as his thought matured, he leaned more heavily toward an alternative understanding. Augustine argues that "the rock" refers to Peter’s confession of faith in Christ as the Son of the living God (Matthew 16:16). This faith in Christ, not Peter himself, is the true foundation of the Church. He writes in Sermon 229: “For the Rock [Petra] was Christ; and on this foundation was Peter himself built. For other foundation no man can lay than that which is laid, which is Christ Jesus.” Augustine also interprets "this rock" to mean Christ Himself, not Peter. He emphasizes that Christ is the cornerstone of the Church, and Peter’s role is derivative and subordinate to Christ’s. In his Exposition of Psalm 61, Augustine states: “For they were not told, ‘You are the rock,’ but ‘You are Peter.’ But the Rock was Christ, on which foundation also Peter himself was built.”
Other church fathers that shared this interpretation (emphasizing either Christ or Peter's confession as the "rock" rather than Peter personally) were Origen, Cyril of Alexandria, Ambrose of Milan, John Chrysostom and Tertullian.
Fair enough; however, none of them detach Peter's confession of faith from his office and the office of his successors.
Augustine says this:
“Number the bishops from the see of Peter itself. And in that order of Fathers see who succeeded whom, That is the rock against which the gates of hell do not prevail.” (Saint Augustine, Father and Doctor of the Church, Psalmus contra partem Donati, 18, GCC 51 [A.D. 393]).
It's hard to imagine a stronger attestation of Peter's unique prerogative as the foundation of the Church from a Church Father.
Augustine himself, in practice, submits to the supreme authority of Rome. When dealing with the Pelagian heresy, he considers Rome to have the final say. He says this:
“For already have two councils on this question been sent to the Apostolic see; and rescripts also have come from thence. The question has been brought to an issue; would that their error may sometime be brought to an issue too!” (Sermons 131, 10).
Regardless of whether the Rock is Peter's person or Peter's confession of faith (both or which are orthodox interpretations), the Fathers (especially Agustine) see the Rock upon which the Church is built continuing in the office of the Papacy.
Augustine flat out says the succession of bishops who hold Peter's see is the Rock. For Augustine, the Papacy is the Rock upon which the Church is built.
@@CameronRiecker Thank you for your response, Cameron. But a more nuanced reading of Augustine and the broader patristic tradition reveals that this interpretation is, at best, selective and overstated.
In dealing with the Pelagian heresy, Augustine did recognize the authority of Rome’s rulings, as seen in Sermons 131. However, this was not because he saw Rome as holding unilateral, supreme authority. Instead, Augustine valued the role of councils and the broader Church in resolving disputes. For him, Rome’s rulings were significant because they aligned with the collective teaching of the Church.
It’s important to note that while Augustine and others acknowledged the importance of apostolic succession, they did not equate Peter’s successors with an exclusive, supreme authority. For example:
Origen: Taught that anyone who shares Peter’s faith becomes "a rock." (Commentary on Matthew 12.10)
John Chrysostom: Emphasized the faith of Peter rather than his person as the foundation of the Church. (Homily 54 on Matthew 16:18)
Cyprian of Carthage: Affirmed the unity of the episcopate but rejected Rome’s unilateral authority, particularly during the rebaptism controversy. (Letter 71:3 On the Rebaptism Controversy)
While some Fathers acknowledged the Roman See’s special role due to its apostolic origins, the concept of papal supremacy as defined later was not a universal belief. The early Church emphasized the collegiality of bishops and the authority of ecumenical councils over any singular bishopric.
@@pedroguimaraes6094 Isaiah 22 speaks of Shebna driven out of his office and the authority given to another, same language was used by Jesus in Matthew 16:19. Now in Matthew 16:18 Jesus says “ and I tell you, you are Kepha And on this, Kepha I will build my church and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
Jesus is the architect who builds , Peter is the foundation stone of the church, making him head and superior of the family, but not founder of the church, administrator, but not the Lord of the church . Now back to Mathew 16:19 here Jesus says I will give you the keys of the kingdom of Heaven. The power of the keys has to do with ecclesiastical discipline and administrative authority with regard to requirements of the faith as in Isaiah 22:22 and Isaiah 9:6 Job 12:14 and revelation 3:7, this entails the use of excommunication absolution, and position of penances and legislative powers. In the Old Testament, a steward or Prime Minister is a man who is over a house. Back to Matthew 1619 Jesus says whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven and whatever you loose on earth shall be loose in heaven he is speaking to Peter here.
So Peter (and by logical extension future popes) is given the authority to determine binding rules for the churches doctrine and life.
Binding and losing represents the legislative and judicial powers of the papacy and bishops, and the power to absolve.
Peter is the only apostle who receives these powers by name and in a singular sense making him pre-eminent.
Again Peter alone receives a new solemnly conferred name (Kepha).
Peter’s name occurs first in all lists of apostles. Matthew even calls him the first, Judas iscariot is mentioned last this means something.
Another event that takes place is Jesus teaches from Peter’s boat, and a miraculous catch of fish follows. Peter was also the first to enter the empty tomb of the risen Jesus.
Peter is also specified by an Angel as the leader and representative of the apostles.
Peter is also regarded by Jesus as the chief shepherd after himself, singularly by name and over the universal church, even though others have a similar but subordinate role.
Peter alone among the apostles is mentioned by name as having been prayed for by Jesus in order that his faith may not fail.
Peter alone among the apostles is exhorted by Jesus to strengthen the Christian brethren.
Cornelius was told by an Angel to seek out Peter for instructions in Christianity.
I can go on and on and on and on let me know if you’d like more cause there’s plenty more.
Do you know what theology is? And don’t say it doesn’t say this or that word isn’t there, cause that’s what we call the Muslim shuffle perhaps you would like to convert to Islam.
That’s exactly what Muslims say they completely ignore the theology and say Jesus never claimed to be God there is no trinity God never said he was a trinity, where did Jesus explicitly say this or that? I hope you see how silly your argument is.
I know Protestants spent a lot of time with Muslims some centuries ago to kill the Catholics but come on you don’t have to be like them I’m sure you’re better than that. Be blessed.
@@pedroguimaraes6094 Cyprian of Carthage states “If someone does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he [should] desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that he is in the Church?” (The Unity of the Catholic Church 4; 1st edition [A.D. 251]). Then 2 years later stated: “Cyprian to [Pope] Cornelius, his brother. Greeting. . . . We decided to send and are sending a letter to you from all throughout the province [where I am] so that all our colleagues might give their decided approval and support to you and to your communion, that is, to both the unity and the charity of the Catholic Church” (Letters 48:1, 3 [A.D. 253]).
You’re misinterpreting Chrysostom’s homily. Indeed he pointed to the faith of Peter but he also pointed to the Peter himself being a man of such faith therefore making him the shepherd of the church.
Tertullian was a heretic that committed apostasy so he should not even be considered in such discourse.
@@ABZ163 Cyprian’s reference to the "Chair of Peter" in his writings emphasizes unity in the faith, not a supreme authority of a single bishop over the entire Church. For Cyprian, the "chair" symbolizes the unity and equality of all bishops as successors of the apostles. This is evident in Cyprian's broader ecclesiology, where he firmly argues for the collegiality and equality of bishops. For example, in his letter “On the Unity of the Church,” Cyprian asserts that no single bishop has authority over the others: “None of us claims to be bishop of bishops, or by tyrannical terror forces his colleagues to the necessity of obeying.” His disputes with Pope Stephen I over the issue of re-baptism further demonstrate his rejection of papal supremacy. Cyprian disagreed with Pope Stephen’s position and did not recognize him as having the ultimate authority to settle the matter.
While it is true that Tertullian later became a Montanist and fell into heresy, that does not automatically invalidate his earlier writings when he was within the orthodox Church. Tertullian's interpretation of Matthew 16:18, which identifies the "rock" as Peter’s confession, reflects an early and widely accepted understanding of the passage that is echoed by many other Fathers.
Protestant beliefs vary to much in general.
Jesus said "On this Rock (seat of Peter) I (Jesus) will build My (Jesus) Church."
Jesus's Church.
Satan entered the Church in Jesus's time, and the Hierarchy killed Him. Jesus remained in a corrupt Church and died.
Two things:
Jesus needs labourers, not builders. Jesus is the builder of His Church. He needs labourers. And Satan will attack where Christ is.
Satan does not attack where Christ isn't.
Protestantism. Disagree with Christ's Church, so go off and build a church in their own image.
The result? From one breakaway we now have 40000 Protestant denominations. Protestants continually break away and build their own churches in their own image.
And the Catholic Church. Even with crisis after crisis through 2000 years, it remains standing incredibly diverse and incredibly united in that amazing diversity.
Jesus
🙏
What does everyone have to say about the current Pope?
Irrelevant comment or trolling? Hard to tell.
@@larrys4383 The author of the video says that the Pope sits on Peter's chair from proper selection... and yet utters things that St. Peter would have cast him out of the church for.... I would ask...why not answer the question?
@Golfinthefamily because Pope Francis hasn't magisterely or
Infallibly taught a dogma that's heretical or against apostolic tradition. Any controversial things we have heard from Pope Francis are things that were said privately as a person who's as much of a sinner as any of us or has been taken out of context from the media to sew division. Peter denied Jesus after all. The error of popes acting as men, doesn't take away from the rational evidence based argument of apostolic succession.
@@rbaffi Peter didn't deny Jesus after having been appointed to lead the church and was indwelled by the Holy Spirit! We do know he did make an error.... but listen...
CCC841 is patently false. Muslims and Catholics don't adore the same God nor claim to. (Muslims deny the deity of Christ and despise the trinity)
The church did a u-turn on Capital Punishment (which one of those rulings was infallible?)
And, as Gavin Ortlund has well stated and shown, Nicea II was another theological u-turn that made the previous actions and teachings of church fathers cursed effectively.
Peter never would have said not to evangelize, never would have pronounced an atheist as probably saved, etc... it's a hot mess.
I have yet to meet a catholic that can defend Francis with a clear conscience. I've read of more who think he is an anti-pope... but the problem is that he was properly installed....
@@rbaffi So sometimes the man in the pope costume is infallible and sometimes hes not.
Peter was the foundation on which Gods church was built.
Easy to understand.
Thank you.
@@equine2020 only a few bunch of satanic cult believing bastards of sola scriptura a man made tradition invented by a devil possessed man refuse to accept this truth and these idiots are not realising the fact that what they are doing is tantamount to falsely testifying against Jesus himself just like the ones who crucified him
What did Jesus call His church? Matthew 16: 17 Jesus replied, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by flesh and blood, but by my Father in heaven. 18 And I tell you that you are Peter,[a] and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades[b] will not overcome it.
@brucewmclaughlin9072
The universal church. Which was the catholic church.
World wide.
@@equine2020 Ok so Catholic church as defined by St, Ignatius , but not the roman Catholic church as defined by the roman Catholic magisterium?
The apostles were born again christians. there is no mention of any particular church in the bible. So no man can claim tht his church is from the bible. Jesus started a church, a church tht obeys his word. Period.
Why are you hinging your salvation upon an argument?
yes, instead of Jesus... that would be an issue.
I think because the church, being the mystical body of Christ, is Christ in a sense. And the Magisterium of the Catholic Church represents the Authority of Christ himself. Basically, to reject the Catholic Church would be to reject Christ.
@@rbaffi the church is NOT Christ. the Magisterium has made contradictory pronouncements and errors.
You are forcing a false dichotomy where one is not required.
What is required of one to be saved? Romans 10:9 and John 3:16 let us know...
@@Golfinthefamilyso true
@Golfinthefamily The Catholic Church is considered the Mystical Body of Christ because it is a spiritual organism united with Christ as its head and with its members as its body. This understanding is deeply rooted in Scripture and Tradition.
Scriptural Basis:
1. St. Paul's Teachings: In 1 Corinthians 12:12-27, St. Paul explicitly compares the Church to a body, where Christ is the head, and all members are interconnected. He writes, "Now you are the body of Christ and individually members of it" (1 Cor. 12:27).
2. Union with Christ: In Ephesians 1:22-23, Paul says Christ is the head of the Church, which is "the fullness of him who fills all in all."
3. Vine and Branches: In John 15:5, Jesus describes Himself as the vine and His disciples as the branches, emphasizing the intimate unity between Himself and His followers.
Theological Explanation:
The Church as the Mystical Body of Christ means:
1. Unity with Christ: Through baptism, all believers are incorporated into Christ. They share in His divine life, making the Church a living extension of His presence on Earth.
2. Diverse Roles in One Body: Just as a body has many parts working together, each member of the Church has a unique role. This diversity contributes to the unity and mission of the Church.
3. Christ as the Head: Christ governs, nourishes, and sanctifies the Church, analogous to how the head guides and sustains a physical body.
4. Sacramental Life: The sacraments, especially the Eucharist, deepen this unity. In receiving Christ’s Body and Blood, members are united more intimately with Him and with one another.
Mystical Aspect:
The term mystical highlights that this union transcends physical or visible bonds. While the Church is a visible institution with human leaders, her deeper reality is spiritual and divine. The Holy Spirit animates the Church, making her both a human and divine reality.
Implications for Believers:
1. Interconnectedness: Each member shares in the joys and sufferings of others (1 Cor. 12:26). This calls Catholics to solidarity and charity.
2. Holiness: As part of Christ’s body, each member is called to live in holiness and reflect Christ’s love.
3. Mission: The Church continues Christ’s mission to teach, sanctify, and shepherd until His return.
The Church as the Mystical Body of Christ emphasizes her divine origin, unity, and mission, showing how believers are called into a profound communion with Christ and each other.
I guess all the Churches that Paul Started in Asia weren’t Real Churches either Right?
They were regional Catholic dioceses!
@ No they weren’t, the word Catholic wasn’t even around at the time of the formation of these churches these were early Jewish and Gentile Believers in Jesus Christ! The Roman Catholic Church as we know it today was not around at that time. The term Catholic wasn’t around then much less Roman Catholic!
The word "Catholic" was first used by Saint Ignatius of Antioch in his Letter to the Smyrnaeans around 110 AD. The term "Catholic Church" literally translates to "universal church".
What are you talking about?Eastern churches were in communion with Rome as there are today. There are 23 eastern churches (rites)that are in communion with the pope.
@@EBeautiful-f9d The new term "Catholic" was introduced to describe what already existed. It didn't change the reality that all churches, regardless of what they were called, operated in communion with the pope🤷♂
Paul never learned from the Apsotles. He received the mystery of the gospel of grace (that he taught the apostles at the Jersualem council) directly from the ascended Christ in Arabia.
He was given the mystery of the gospel of grace, mystery of the body of christ, mystery of the Christ and Church, and the partial hardening upon Israel, and the mystery of resurrection and transmission, and the mystery of lawlessness.
Paul's authority and calling did not come from the 12.
Why does anyone has to
Note that the Christians in Rome were called to faith through the preaching of the gospel but not the personal preaching of Paul himself. Contrary to the claims of many people, especially those seeking to strengthen the papacy, neither Paul nor Peter established the church in Rome. The best evidence for this is the book of Romans, which is clearly written to an existing church that Paul did not plant, and the letter also contains no reference to the Apostle Peter. In all likelihood, the "visitors from Rome" who heard Peter preach on the day of Pentecost planted the church in Rome, and the two Apostles only later had any association with the congregation there (Acts 2:1-41). Given the extensive discussion of Jew-Gentile relations throughout the epistle, it seems quite clear that the Roman church Paul addressed was made up of both Jews and Gentiles who believed in Jesus the Messiah.❤️✝️
Peter is the Rock. He founded the Church of Jerusalem. Peter founded, and was the first Pope of the Antiochian Church. Peter was the first Pope of the Roman Church, Linus was the second. Clement followed as a Pope in Rome. Peter is the rock because he was Christ's right hand man. But why does the modern Roman Church get to claim the claims they make, just because Peter ruled there at the end of his life ?
Why? Because Jesus said so. Watch the video again. Richter explained why. Also see my comment just below yours in the comment section.
@@Spiritof76Catholic Where does Jesus say that Rome would be the chair of Peter's seat ? Peter's seat was in Jerusalem, although St. James ruled over the first council.
You apparently have never heard of Strongs Greek Concordance.
16:13 When 1161 Jesus 2424 came 2064 5631 into 1519 the coasts 3313 of Caesarea 2542 Philippi 5376, he asked 2065 5707 his 846 disciples 3101, saying 3004 5723, Whom 5101 do men 444 say 3004 5719 that I 3165 the Son 5207 of man 444 am 1511 5750?
16:14 And 1161 they said 2036 5627, Some [say that thou art] 3303 John 2491 the Baptist 910: 1161 some 243, Elias 2243; and 1161 others 2087, Jeremias 2408, or 2228 one 1520 of the prophets 4396.
16:15 He saith 3004 5719 unto them 846, But 1161 whom 5101 say 3004 5719 ye 5210 that I 3165 am 1511 5750?
16:16 And 1161 Simon 4613 Peter 4074 answered 611 5679 and said 2036 5627, Thou 4771 art 1488 5748 the Christ 5547, the Son 5207 of the living 2198 5723 God 2316.
16:17 And 2532 Jesus 2424 answered 611 5679 and said 2036 5627 unto him 846, Blessed 3107 art thou 1488 5748, Simon 4613 Barjona 920: for 3754 flesh 4561 and 2532 blood 129 hath 601 0 not 3756 revealed 601 5656 [it] untee 4671, but 235 my 3450 Father 3962 which 3588 is in 1722 heaven 3772.
16:18 And 1161 I say 3004 5719 also 2504 unto thee 4671, That 3754 thou 4771 art 1488 5748 Peter 4074, and 2532 upon 1909 this 5026 rock 4073 I will build 3618 5692 my 3450 church 1577; and 2532 the gates 4439 of hell 86 shall 2729 0 not 3756 prevail against 2729 5692 it 846.(Peter: this name signifies a
4073, used as a proper name; “a stone” or “a boulder,” Peter, one of the twelve apostles:a pebble.
A small rock that you can pick up.
One issue there. They weren't speaking greek. They were speaking Aramaic. The gospel is written in Greek because it was the lingua franca of the time but that doesn't mean that Jesus and his disciples were speaking it in their day to day lives. And Peter's name in Aramaic is...Kepha which means stone or rock. There's no distinction. The reason that he's called Petros rather than Petras is to masculinize the word from feminine to masculine. The distinction you are trying to draw between boulder or pebble wasn't even a thing at that time nor does it exist in Aramaic which is what Jesus spoke. Refer to him being quoted speaking Aramaic on several occasions.
@BlakeMaxwell-o3h
In Aramaic Kepha for rock Sela for mountain of rock, as Petros is small hand held rock and Petra is a mountain a city can be built on.
Yes, it's likely that Jesus and the apostles spoke Greek:
Evidence
There's evidence that Jesus spoke Greek in the Gospels, including conversations with a Roman centurion and Pontius Pilot. The Gospels also use Greek word play, which suggests that Jesus was teaching in Greek.
Language of the time
Greek was the common language of the Mediterranean world in the first century, and was necessary for trade and business.
New Testament
The New Testament was written in Greek to reach the widest audience possible.
Paul the Apostle
Paul was fluent in Koine Greek, the language he used to write his letters.
Peter the Apostle
Peter may have learned spoken Greek, but dictated his letters to a secretary who could write Greek.
However, some scholars still believe that Jesus only spoke Aramaic. Aramaic was the regional lingua franca at the time, and was the language of the Hebrews until the Bar Kokhba revolt.
@BlakeMaxwell-o3h Jesus is the rock Sela or Petra is used. It is never used for anyone else. So it is a definition in the Bible.
The phrase "Jesus is the rock" is mentioned 128 times in the Bible. Some Bible verses that refer to Jesus as the rock include:
Isaiah 26:4
"Trust in the LORD forever, for the LORD GOD is an everlasting Rock"
Matthew 7:24-27
"Anyone who listens to my teaching and follows it is wise, like a person who builds a house on solid rock"
Acts 4:10-11 and 1 Cor. 3:10-15
The "rock" is the confession of Peter that Christ is the foundation of the church
Matthew 16:18
A common Protestant interpretation is that Jesus is petra, the rock, while Peter is petros, a small stone
@@kennethprather9633 Your conclusion says that scholars agree that Jesus likely spoke only aramaic lol. And if peter didnt speak greek, why would Jesus speak in a language he didnt know. Even then, we KNOW Jesus spoke Aramaic primarily because he is quoted speaking aramaic at his Crucifixion. He may have been able to speak greek but that doesn't matter. If two men who knew aramaic were speaking, why would they speak in greek? Even then, Kepha means rock or stone without a distinction of size. Sela is Hebrew for rock, not Aramaic. Besides, you're ignoring the entire point. Name changes in the bible are IMPORTANT. Abram to Abraham. Jacob to Israel. Simon to Peter. They also demonstrate their roles in salvation history. Abraham means "father of a nation". Israel means "He who wrestles with God." Peter means rock. What's the significance of that name change? Jesus explains right after. The rock that he will build his church on. Unless you're trying to say Jesus changed his name for no reason.
@@kennethprather9633 Jesus is the rock. And he chose another rock to build his church on. The foundation of a structure is not made up of a singular rock. Peters rock is his confession and because of that he is made Peter, the rock that the church will be built on.
So then you are no longer strangers and sojourners, but you are fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God, built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the cornerstone, - Ephesians 2:19-20
Consider Ephesians 2. Christ is the cornerstone, without him the church would not exist. But the prophets and the apostles are also part of the foundation. Christ chose Peter for a significant role and demonstrated that by his renaming.
Combine that with the obvious parallel Christ makes to Isaiah 22 when giving Peter the keys to the kingdom and the authority to act as Steward of the king.
The problem is that a lot of protestants believe that the rock is Peter. Peter being the rock in Matthew does not get you to the papacy, at most it gets you to Peter having a special role. You talk about not mixing metaphors yet you have to mix metaphors and scripture to build the case for the papacy, as no one passage gets you there. To state that Peter is the pope in scripture requires God to act in a way He didn't show himself to act in the OT. God makes it abundantly clear who Aaron is, and what his role is, heck, we even know what his clothes are. This is abundantly clear throughout scripture, yet God supposedly institutes a NT equivalent and all we get is a few odd verses that don't get you there, and apparently submitting to this man is required for our salvation? I don't buy it.
@danielh2945 - Peter doesn't replace Aaron- therein lies your mistake! JESUS is indeed our High Priest now (read Hebrews) - Peter is the steward (read Isaiah 22) handed the keys and left in charge to shepherd the flock in the King's (Jesus) absence (physically)!
@ the type anti type of Jesus-Moses and Peter-Aaron is well established. You mean the steward that God says he’s going to drive out of office? If you follow that type out you don’t get the papacy. Regardless of how you want to compare the roles of Aaron and Peter the point stands. God made important people clear, Abraham, Aaron, Moses, David, John the Baptist, Jesus. If Peters role as pope was unclear it’s unlikely that’s what God intended
@@danielh2945Isaiah 22.
@@wm6134 if you want me to respond in an intelligent way you need to say more then that.
Read book Pope Peter by Heschmeyer
List a single verse where the bible says peter was the leader of any church. And that that church was the head of all the other churches. It doesnt exisit. Apostolic seccession is not a biblical idea.
If you love the CC, thats fine, just leave the children at home.
@darrellperez1029 What school?
@darrellperez1029 Friend, i said leave the kids at home, so they wont get mlstd.
@darrellperez1029 Hello. It was a sad comment about the state of affairs in the CC.
@darrellperez1029 McCarrick and maciel were at it 40 and 50 yrs respectively, and no one said Jack.
@darrellperez1029 Yes, you are them. One was the founder and leader of a giant catholic order and the other was the head of the whole CC in america.
I am not here to dezbate the Catholic Church at all but … if you place your trust in the Pope for your salvation you are lost my friend. The only Name, the only person in which one should place its trust for its salvation is Jesus Christ. The Pope, the Church, apostolic succession…. These are good teachings and should be held close to one’s heart but for salvation…. You should only look to Jesus!
You completely misunderstand his position.
I still feel as if your time would be better spent teaching people who don’t know Jesus about Jesus instead of going after followers of Jesus
If they're in the wrong Church then they're not following Jesus
What church was Paul in?
@@Qwertyabcdefghijk the ONE that Jesus founded. ONE, not many
Great. And some said they follow Paul and others Apollos and Peter he said we follow Jesus
If your ekklesia follows Jesus you’re part of the 1 ekklesia (assuming you don’t have some crazy heretical doctrine that doesn’t have you follow some other Jesus)
I will convert to Catholicism when they stop preaching works based salvation stop worshipping Mary and the saints and believe in sola fide
Welcome, my brother! It's time to start preparing to come back home. The good news is, we don’t worship Mary or the saints; we simply ask them to pray for us, just as you would ask your pastor or a friend to pray for you. We also believe that Jesus don't throw people under the bus once they done serving him. While they may be physically dead, they are alive with Him in heaven. Many Marian apparitions affirm this truth. Our Blessed Mother is continually calling us to repent and return to her Son, Jesus, our Lord.
As for Sola Fide, I honestly can’t understand how anyone could take issue with it. In James 2:26, it’s clearly stated: "For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also." So, welcome back, and may you now do some good works too.
Having heard many Protestant objections, I can already anticipate your next question. But It seems unreasonable to dive into complex theological debates without first considering the qualifications of those you follow. Who are the reformers you place your trust in? Which Bible verse supports their division of the Church into numerous denominations (Lutheranism, Anglicanism, Calvinism, Methodism, Baptist, Pentecostalism, Adventism, Congregationalism, and countless others)? Where in Scripture does Jesus indicate that such fragmentation, with thousands of conflicting denominations, is acceptable? Does that even sound like the plan of Jesus?
@@PatOnCloud09 I just saw a video of people bowing down and hugging a Mary statue and how do you ask them to pray for you? You pray to them to pray for you so yes you do pray to them
@@PatOnCloud09 Romans 4:5 “But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.”
@@PatOnCloud09 and I don’t place my trust in a church that’s what Catholics do I place my trust in Christ ALONE
Not baptism
Not works
Not sacraments
Not Mary
Because Christ sacrifice is the only payment for sins not works
If Peter were given a supreme authority by Christ as the Catholic church interprets, then Paul wouldn't have been able to oppose Peter (Galatians 2:11).
But what really bothers me are your lies about Protestants(They Hide This).
Peter has authority. That doesn’t mean he never misuses it.
@CameronRiecker but what authority does Paul have to oppose him?
You are misunderstanding what “authority” means. It doesn’t mean there can’t be disagreements with the Pope - those can still happen. The point is that he has the final say and we have to respect his authority as the Vicar of Christ. That is, of course, except in cases where he is teaching something that clearly contradicts what the Church has always taught (and nowadays we have plenty of examples for that)
@vmorozco-gonzalez9656 but Paul didn't simply disagree, he outright opposed.
@@derekshoemaker8990 the verse you brought up is just an example of the apostles discussing a theological matter. One view prevailed, and we cannot ask Peter what happened there but we can assume he gave in, you can see that Paul didn't feel compelled to create a separate Church. This still happens nowadays-Popes and bishops may discuss and even hold opposing views, but always within the framework of a hierarchical structure that reflects the natural order we see in families, society, and nature itself. Hierarchy is essential for maintaining order and unity
0:14 One does not disprove something. They use evidence to prove something. Are you sure you know how this works?
To disprove is simply to prove the opposite of a claim. Do you have evidence against his claim?
@ His “Question” that must be disproven is:
“Either Jesus said what he didn’t mean, or Jesus meant what he didn’t say. And I don’t think you can do that.”
Of course, Mr. Reicker has framed this question upon Roman dogmas, not what is in the Bible. Any Protestant will make simple points like:
“But, linguistically, the word play does not affect the clear meaning of the sentence.
By Christ referring to ταύτῃ (this, demonstrative pronoun, dative feminine singular). ταύτῃ (this) cannot refer to Πέτρος (Peter) because ταύτῃ is referencing a feminine object and Πέτρος is a masculine noun. So ταύτῃ has to refers to πέτρᾳ (rock).
Also Christ changed the subject of the sentence from 2nd person “you” (referring to Peter) to 3rd person“this” (referring to the rock). So what is Christ referring to by “rock”? In this Bible passage, what is a “this” and not a “you”.
Previously Peter confessed his faith (πίστις, feminine gender). Often times those who speak gendered languages will sometime refer to obvious references in the gender of the reference. Linguistically, the “this” would lead one to think of the confession of faith Peter had made in verses 16 and 17”…
Or,
“While no one will disagree that St. Peter was given the Office of the Keys first, Mr. Riecker left out that in Matthew 18:15-20 Christ extended the Office of the Keys to all the Apostles. So this power does not belong to St. Peter alone”…
Or,
“Ok. So if we are asking the Church Fathers about the first Bishop of Rome, was Irenaeus correct when he said that St. Peter and St. Paul appointed Linus? Or was Tertullian correct when he said it was just St. Peter and he appointed Clement?”
Or,
“You maintain this Office of Peter has always existed for the Bishop of Rome. So how do you address St. Jerome when she wrote in his commentary on Titus:
‘The Presbyter is the same as Bishop, and before the parties had been raised up in religion by the provocations of Satan, the churches were governed by the Senate of the Presbyters. But as each one sought to appropriate to himself those whom he had baptized, instead leading them to Christ, it was appointed that one of the Presbyters, elected by his colleagues, should be set over the others, and have chief supervision over the general well-being of the community… Without a doubt it is the duty of the Presbyters to bear in mind that by the Disciplines of the Church they are subordinated to him who had been given to them as their head, but it is fitting that the Bishops, on their side, do not forget that if they are set over the Presbyters, it is a result of tradition, and not by the fact of a particular institution by the Lord.’
Is not St. Jerome testifying to the fact that counsels of Presbyters and Bishops collectively ruled the Churches at first and that the elevation of one over the others is an earthly development, not one commanded or instituted by Christ? Furthermore, if this is true, then the claims by Rome of an ever existing monarchal Papacy since the time of St. Peter are provably false.”
Or,
“While no one denies the a line of Popes from the mid-Second Century until this day based upon solid historical evidence, any claims before this are just tradition. Even the Roman Scholar Eamon Duffy admits this. Furthermore, he affirms St. Jerome’s assessment on the early governance of Rome. He wrote:
‘Clement made no claim to write as a Bishop. His letter was sent in the name of the whole Roman community, he never identifies himself or writes in his own person… The letter itself makes no distinction between Presbyters and Bishops, about which it always speaks in the plural, suggesting that at Corinth AS AT ROME the church at this time was organized under a group of Bishops or Presbyters, rather than a single ruling Bishop.’ (Emphasis added)(Saints and Sinner: A History of the Popes)
Again, if this Roman scholar is correct, the claims by Rome of an ever existing monarchal Papacy since the time of St. Peter are provably false.”
Or:
“Rome, while an important church, was a backwater compared to the dioceses in the East. And it was not until Constantine’s conversion, that Rome rapidly rose to an equal level of her Eastern siblings. And despite this, none of the Seven Ecumenical Councils affirmed by Rome was called or presided over by a Bishop of Rome, but instead were called and presided over by Roman Emperors. Why would the “Vicar of Christ” be so lowly held if the Roman claims of a monarchal Papacy were true?”
And on and on and on.
Mr. Riecker cannot question the dogma’s of Rome and be a faithful member of the Roman church. This is why he framed his question and the history to them firmly in Roman dogmas. While Protestants should be aware of these dogmas, no Protestant accepts the claims of the dogmas as biblical unless they are supported in God’s infallible Word. Otherwise these dogmas are just Roman opinions, and as such, have no bearing on framing or deciding a discussion.
This is why one cannot “disprove” what Mr. Riecker claims. For example, his claim on the line of the Popes until the mid-Second Century is merely tradition, supported by scant historical evidence. However, he cannot admit the historical facts AND remain faithful to his Roman dogmas. So he will reject all historical evidence, and even scholars in his own tradition, on the basis of dogma alone.
Furthermore, Mr. Riecker’s constant use of painting false dichotomies to make his points demonstrates the weakness of his arguments. And when he goes so far to claim that those watching his video either must admit Christ was a liar, or the Roman church is the one true faith. (≈27:35) No Christian would ever claim Christ was a liar, regardless of their tradition. But only Rome claims that Rome is the “one true faith”.
In a simpler way, one cannot use logic to disprove his Roman dogmas. He maintains a faith in those dogmas to such a point where he cannot logically view history and evidence to draw a logical conclusion. Of so, he would have admitted, like Eamon Duffy, there is scant historical evidence during the first century and a half to such a powerful office as that Rome claims. Hence, he would not have made this video the way he had. He would have to admit that absent that evidence, there is nothing in Matthew 16:18 to demonstrate the office of the Bishop of Rome as Rome claims today. All that must be read into the verse.
And no, his claims that Protestants cannot answer his Acts 1 claim is laughable. Yes, the Apostles appointed a replacement to Judas. But what were the requirements for such a man? That he must have accompanied the Apostles “during the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us, beginning from the baptism of John until the day when he was taken up from us.” (Verses 21-22) So Matthias was such a man. Can any Pope make a valid claim that he accompanied the Apostles “during the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us, beginning from the baptism of John until the day when he was taken up from us”? No. This is why this argument is absolutely ignorant to use as supporting the Papacy. This is why the Apostolic Age ended. This is why there were no Apostolic successors to St. Peter, St. Paul, or the others.
This leads us to the other claimed conundrum that Protestants cannot say they have “apostolic succession”. Mr. Liecker does not provide a clear definition to what he means by “apostolic succession”. Acts 1, which he mentions, precludes anyone who did not “during the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us, beginning from the baptism of John until the day when he was taken up from us” from being an Apostle, including the Bishops of Rome.
Yet his example of “apostolic succession” is merely ordination. And of this, Lutherans and Anglicans can most definitely claim “apostolic succession”. The first pastors of the Lutheran and Anglican churches were ordained Roman priests before. They were ordained in the same way as those in Rome, by the same authorities. Lutherans and Anglicans continue to ordain their pastors in the same manner to this day. If Mr. Riecker means ordination as “apostolic succession” he cannot deny Lutherans and Anglicans have apostolic succession without also disproving Rome doesn’t have it. Here is where you see him conflate ideas of the Pope is an apostle or holding an Apostle’s office with the standards of ordination which we find in the Bible and through church history. Mr. Riecker cannot have his cake and eat it too.
There is nothing new or novel in Mr. Riecker’s video. It is just the same standard Roman pop apologetics content, all demonstrated be wrong long ago.
@@ABZ163 And if Rome has this deposit of faith, as she claims, why did she condemn all previous Romans to hell in 1854 and again in 1950 for not adhering to the supposed knowledge Rome claims ti have held since the time of the Apostles for not believing the Immaculate Conception and St. Mary’s Assumption?
@@stephenkneller9318 @Cameron Riecker Christ only called Peter rock or Cephas, as Paul also wrote. Christ spoke to his apostles in Aramaic, Greek was the predominant written language of the time, but not so when it came to oral communication in the areas with Semitic roots. This negates any word play you speak of. Any other interpretation is reading one’s belief into the verse. Moreover, the masculine and feminine noun argument holds no water regardless of what side you argue from.
Also, only Peter was given the ability to bind and loose. The other apostles were not. This may not mean much to us today but those words meant authority in the Jewish tradition and could not be interpreted any other way if one is being honest.
You also brought up Tertullian who was a heretic and became an apostate. I am not sure why you would utilize him as a source. He is not a church father and is a great example of a heretic and as I mentioned, an apostate.
Furthermore, St. Irenaeus said “Do nothing without the bishop, even as Christ did without The Father”. What does this mean to you? There is clearly a hierarchy that Christ established and this corresponds to the Biblical corpus as we know it.
Ignatius of Antioch stated that “Rome holds the presidency” and that “all others must obey Rome”. This is not ambiguous.
I also encourage you look into Cyprian of Carthage who also affirmed St. Peter’s position as The Vicar and head of The Church. This, of course, means the Catholic or Universal Church (katholikos) in Greek and was the only Christian church established at the time. I recommend you read St. Cyprian's writings dated back to AD 251. They may clarify some of your misconceptions.
In your response, one point that was puzzling is your reference to the ecumenical councils as evidence against the Papacy? Such ecumenical councils were held due to the same tradition you are attempting to dispute. The fact that the Vicar did not have to make an ex cathedra decree does not invalidate the position. You can also find where the Catholic Church utilized the scripture THEY canonized in many of the early councils such as Hippo and Carthage. More on that later.
To top things off, isn’t it funny how all of the apostolic churches, even those in schism have the same view of Mary? The Eastern, Assyrian, Coptic and Orthodox churches all separated some within the first millennium of the church and the dogmas are identical for all intents and purposes. Zwingli and Luther, among most of all the reformers also strongly held to the same views of Mary. The fact of the matter is, the Marian dogmas did not become canonized until the years you stated, but were universally held far before that. I’m sure you know the many things do not become canonical until challenged by heretics. This is why the Church has to REaffirm the canon at The Council of Trent. This was not good for Luther. Especially since he used the deuterocanon quite a bit in his arguments until Johann Eck did the same to show how purgatory was in fact biblical in accordance to complete canon.
Protestants are fortunate that many of the other reformers had influenced Luther to preserve The Book of Revelation, as he held strong reservations against it being inspired. He also called James' epistle and "epistle of straw" and held it to a much lower standard than the other Gospel texts.
The bottom line is that the Biblical Canon was completely assembled by the Catholic Church through the Apostolic Paradigm. Do you believe the New Testament canon is wrong? If not why? How could a church that was not God’s true church have been able to determine such a thing if not led by the Holy Spirit? If you do believe the Holy Spirit did lead the Catholics to assemble the Canon correctly, when did It no longer lead the church?
I hope you now see why the Catholic and Apostolic churches have the fullness of the faith. You are standing on their shoulders every time you open the Bible. Scripture would be foreign to you if not for the Catholics.
@@ABZ163 Yes he called him πέτρᾳ and Cephas. And?This is no answer the linguistic facts I presented. Answer that.
Yes, they spoke Aramaic. However, God chose to have His infallible Word in the New Testament revealed in Koine Greek. As such, the laughable Roman arguments concerning Aramaic, do not address the points raised.
Yes the other Apostles were give the same powers of the Office of the Keys as Peter. Read Matthew 18. Christ talking to all the Apostles (verse 1) gives all of them the same power to loose or bind sins (verse 18).
Ok, a quote mined quote from St. Irenaeus. And? Everyone is entitled to his opinion. But since that was around the time Bishops began to be elected over the common Presbyter in the East, it is not surprising he would make an argument. It still does not address what St. Jerome said.
As far as the Roman Marian dogmas, by Roman rules, those who do not confess the Immaculate Conception and St. Mary’s Assumption like they confess belief in Christ Himself, are damned to hell. So why, if Rome had this deposit of faith since the time of the Apostles, did she not reveal these immediately for the salvation of all? And because Rome, by her own rules, waited so long to reveal these “truths” condemned even her own flock to hell? Again, you didn’t answer.
As far as the Biblical Canon, one merely need the read his Bible. God says He will preserve His Word (Psalms 12:6-8, Isaiah 40:6-8). God also tells us that the Holy Spirit will guide us to His Word (Jn. 14:26), guide us to the truth (Jn. 16:13-14), and that the Holy Spirt helps believers interpret spiritual truth like God’s Breathed Word. (1Cor 2:13-15) This is why widely dispersed churches quickly arrived at the same basic canon, especially the standardized 66 book canon, long before any one tradition officially decreed what was Biblical Canon.
It was not Rome who gave Christ’s Church the Biblical Canon, it was God. Rome was merely one of many bishoprics at that time. Rome, as you see it, did not come into existence until 1054. Worse yet for your argument, Luther established what was to become the Protestant Biblical Canon decades before Rome finally established her Biblical Canon at Trent! Until long after that point, Rome had a Biblical Canon that varied widely by diocese. (It did take time for Rome to distribute a standardized Bible to all its diocese.) So this entire tangent that you interjected damns your argument even more.
Now please, actually address the claims I made. Stop deflecting.
Jesus Christ is the cornerstone (Ephesians 2:20-22, Acts 4:11, Matthew 21:42/Psalms 118:22). Isaiah 28:16 tells us the cornerstone is the foundation. Jesus asks his disciples “who do they say I am” in which the answers John the Baptist, Elijah, or a prophet. Jesus then asked “who do you say I am” in which Peter responds “the messiah, the Son of the living God”. Jesus tells Peter that God himself showed him that. Jesus then says, “you are Peter and on this rock I will build my church”. If Jesus was talking about Peter himself being that rock the why is Jesus known as the cornerstone. Are you really trying to take Gods glory and put it upon Peter who a couple of verses later is rebuked by Jesus when He told his disciples that He must be handed over to be killed. It’s not who Peter is but what he claimed about Jesus. Paul also made the claim that he knows nothing but Christ crucified (1 Corinthians 2:1-2). I don’t understand why Jesus wouldn’t be the main focus. Everything Peter did was through the Holy Spirit which is God.
The Father revealed to Peter, Jesus is the Christ. This is a spiritual matter, 1 John 5:1. The church is not built on flesh and blood (1 Corinthians 15). Your interpretation lacks any spiritual discernment with the text. Peter never overcame hades (2nd half of Matthew 16:18), Jesus did, Revelation 1:8.
1) You claimed that if your argument could be shown to be wrong, that you would leave the Church of Rome.
2) You went on to argue that "Peter ALONE" is the person upon which the Church of Christ is built. And with your very first premise, we have a problem. Nowhere does Scripture or Jesus say (to our knowledge) to Peter "upon you alone will I build my Church." Even the Church of Rome admits that the keys were given to ALL of the apostles. You added the word "alone" to try to justify yourself. You add to the words of Christ, the words of the Bible, to justify yourself.
3) You went on to claim that Peter ALONE was given the power to bind and loose. However, Scripture and history show that this power was given to all of the apostles (and probably all disciples, pastors, etc.). You lied.
4) "You'll be able to defeat every single Protestant argument." The role of the Christian is not to defeat each other, but to (with Christ's power) defeat sin and be filled with love. You are becoming completely misguided.
5) You claim that your "argument" has to do with being able to trace a church's leadership to Peter. However, there are countless churches that are completely authentic and Christian, can even trace their existence to various apostles, yet are not part of the Church of Rome.
6) Whether someone in the second century (Irenaeus) claimed that uniformity with Rome was necessary has nothing whatsoever to do with the teachings of Christ. Lots of people make lots of claims. There are and have always been countless churches that are authentically Christian and not in union with Rome.
7) Whether someone in the second century claimed that the Church is infallible is also irrelevant. Again, lots of people make lots of claims. You finding some claim that you agree with and feel good about is not evidence of its truth.
And with this, we are merely half way through your video. There is probably little reason to continue, as all of your claims range from openly false to half-truths.
Now, as is the case in pretty much all of your videos, your arguments and claims are quite immature, false, and absurd. There is nothing valid or sound about it. However, I am sure that you believe your rhetoric and errors, much as I did at your age. I would not hold you to your (obviously disingenuous) promise here to leave Rome. Rather, you should remain wherever you are subjectively most exposed to God's love, can live it out in your own life, and share it with others. If that is Rome, then you should stay there. However, given your record of false statements, it isn't clear that this is the case. The Church of Rome seems to be prompting you to perpetuate falsehoods. Perhaps some other church would be a better path for you, though I could hardly claim to know where that is for you.
Well said. God bless you.
In Revelation 1 & 2, Jesus dictates epistles to the 7 churches. Not to the 1 church.
@@pabtorre bravo 👍
@@pabtorre Which are those seven churches? Are they among the thousands founded by Protestants, such as Lutheranism, Anglicanism, Calvinism, Methodism, Baptist, Pentecostalism, Adventism, Congregationalism, and countless others?
Ex-Catholic Protestant here. Obviously Matthew 16 refers to Peter and the church he led.
The Classical Protestants don’t refute that, they disagree that Rome is the exclusive holder of that apostolic deposit based upon the errors that built up over the centuries.
@@HDwedge012 the Church He "led"? The one that Jesus said the gates of hell will not prevail against it? Was He wrong? Was He lying? May I point out that the RCC is the oldest institution alive in this planet
Was Peter not the first Pope?
And of course Christ was not lying, but that’s exactly our point.
There will always be a body of true believers (the invisible church) who may (at times) be at odds with visible church institutions.
@@HDwedge012 it's kind of unfair that there is not a single visible church that we can ask for matters where our salvation is in risk, isn't it?
To say the body of believers is an invisible church goes directly against 1 Timothy 3-15
if I am delayed, you may know how one ought to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and bulwark of the truth.
This church is visible and has the truth.
There are, and Anglicans/Lutherans/Reformed churches are a good place to start.
They correctly recognize that they are fallible, human institutions, and their magisteriums are not above scripture.
acts 20:27-32. just hold fast to the apostles doctrine in the scriptures.
and assemble yourselves anytime and "anywhere" you choose.
matt 7:24-27
iranaeus? so much pig headed fluff.
Then please stop. Its Peter confession of faith revealed to him by the Father. Two different words used. Jesus is the foundation. Please read the whole chapter in context. Verse 23. Jesus turned to Peter, Get behind me Satan. You are a stumbling block to me; you do not have in mind the concerns of God, but merely human concerns. Next, if you think people should follow a church that actively had men and women killed who would not convert or were reading a Bible during Luther's time, before and after, think again.
Two different Greek words used. You sir are doing the word play. The Rock is Jesus. Jesus is referring to Peter’s faith. The keys are Jesus teachings not added to scripture. Really sad you think you have a gotcha moment. I was Catholic. Jesus is the foundation. Period.
Jesus was speaking of Peter’s spirit. The fact that he called Him the Christ, Son of God. Upon that notion He would and did build His church.
Jesus is the foundation. No one else.
Clement is not in the Bible anymore than the rest of cath false books.
Original churches since the time of the apostles: Mormons, Church of Christ, Jehovah’s Witnesses, Two by Twos, Primitive Baptists.
Only Jesus is infallible. The cath church has done more harm than good over the years. From crusades to the ecumenical spirit today. Not even mentioning raising a human, sinful woman to be equal to the Savior.
Jesus didn’t start the cath church.
He does stay with true, Bible believing churches. And those churches DO have Christ as the cornerstone.
Read my Bible. Doesn’t seem to be at all like the cath church.
Jesus is the foundation of the church. The scriptures are the Holy Words of God to instruct mankind.
Catholicism founded on pagan goddess worship and hoodoo.
Your salvation hinges on whether the leader of your false church is a successor to an apostle and not on whether Jesus is your savior and you’ve been washed in His blood? I’d seriously start thinking about your priorities, my friend.
This rock is not Peter. It is what God the Father revealed to Peter. Word play is on you. Two different words used here. Try doing correct sentence diagramming. You immediately need to stop. A few verses down Jesus tells Peter, get behind me Satan. Just sad.
The Church actually agrees with your first statement. It states it was both what was revealed to Peter as well as Peter himself.
God bless
Why does anyone have to change for anyone..be who you are..be kind to people..be inclusive..non judgemental..helpful..caring..sympathetic..show empathy..good will toward your fellow man..that's it in a nutshell..works for me..but then..I'm not making money off a podcast..guess we all have to do what we gotta do to support ourselves and our families
With all due respect, friend, half of those are truly shallow, generic statements. If you love, you change [for the better]. A lot of people are lost in their wickedness, why should they be "who they [supposedly] are" instead of what they could be? Or why should anyone be inclusive to wrongness? Also, being able to judge is what help us progress and not fall in errors. Being kind, helpful, caring, sympathetic and showing empathy are all good, but the rest are a very low-bar way of thinking [so to speak]. Again, with all due respect.
How can you possibly believe such nonsense. In the Old Testament God is clearly referred to as the Rock. The Lord Jesus Christ is the Son of God, He is the Rock, the sure foundation on which all scripture stands. Read Peter's first epistle which the man who you think was the first pope, states freely that we, that is all Christians are 'living stones' not rocks, forming a habitation of God by the Spirit. If you are depending on the lies which you are spreading in this video, then I am sorry, but you are 'still' condemned already according to John ch. 3 v 17-18.
Why'd you have to make AI Father Mike look so sad?
you are confused with the Scripture verses you used!
No he is not. He gets them right. Is you who is confused. May God delivers your from your errors.