I think most people can be categorized as being drawn to the Faith via one of the three transcendentals: truth, goodness, or beauty. For me it was beauty - the beauty of the Mass. I didn't learn to know the truth of the Church except later as a result of the beauty. It seems like for you the attraction was truth.
@Bible-dw6klthat isn't it. Here's the difference. Catholics, Orthodox, Anglicans and other older traditions view Salvation differently. Most Protestants see it as a single moment of accepting Christ or God choosing them, followed by sanctification. The older traditions would say "I have been saved, I am being saved and I shall be saved" They believe salvation is a process of making us more Christ like, redeeming our fallen nature. If you research the Greek words for saved and Salvation you'll understand why
@Bible-dw6kl you've clearly never studied Church History. No one until 1600s (at Earliest& Id say it's even more recent) saw salvation as a single moment. Are you saying everyone during those first years were wrong ?
It isnt related but can someone explain this to me, how does the Eastern Orthodox church have a valid eucharist but not be apart of the Roman Catholic church?
While Orthodox sacraments are valid (meaning they work, really distributing grace) they are illicit (meaning they are done without as authorization). The Orthodox are in schism, but they still participate in a certain way in the Church's sacraments because they have maintained a real (but illicit) priesthood and set of bishops. Any bishop can make a new bishop, though it is a schismatic act if done without the Pope's approval. There are many other theological differences that separate the Orthodox, but refusal to accept the role of the Pope is one of the most important. It's worth noting that other groups like the Anglicans have neither valid nor licit sacraments - meaning when they try to ordain a priest nothing happens at all, and the only sacrament they validly perform is baptism - since even a layman can technically baptize.
@@CatechesisVids thank you. Follow up question; how you phrased it, it'd seem like one could be saved by consuming an orthodox eucharist. Is there a difference between grace and salvation proper? Sorry if that sounds dumb but I want to understand the catholic teaching better.
@@ChristianEphraimsonin relation to 1 Corinthians 10:15-25, 1 Corinthians 11:17-34 25 After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, this cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me. 26 For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord's death till he come. 27 Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. 28 But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup. 29 For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord's body. 30 For this cause many are weak and sickly among you, and many sleep. 31 For if we would judge ourselves, we should not be judged. But the reason would be dividing the body of Christ which is his church. The key difference is how the pope is treated. There’s Eastern Orthodox Catholic Churches which are in communion with the chair of saint Peter which acknowledge the teaching authority of Christ’s church as laid out in 1 Timothy 3 14These things I write to thee, hoping that I shall come to thee shortly. 15But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth. 16And evidently great is the mystery of godliness, which was manifested in the flesh, was justified in the spirit, appeared unto angels, hath been preached unto the Gentiles, is believed in the world, is taken up in glory. And 2 Thessalonians 2 13But we ought to give thanks to God always for you, brethren, beloved of God, for that God hath chosen you firstfruits unto salvation, in sanctification of the spirit, and faith of the truth: 14Whereunto also he hath called you by our gospel, unto the purchasing of the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ. 15Therefore, brethren, stand fast; and hold the traditions which you have learned(taught), whether by word(spoken word), or by our epistle. 16Now our Lord Jesus Christ himself, and God and our Father, who hathloved us, and hath given us everlasting consolation, and good hope in grace, 17Exhort your hearts, and confirm you in every good work and word. The teaching authority of the church is acknowledged through these. 2 Thessalonians 3:6 Now we command you, brothers, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, to keep away from any brother who leads an undisciplined life that is not in keeping with the tradition you received from us 1 Corinthians 11:2 Now I commend you for remembering me in everything and for maintaining the traditions, just as I passed them on to you. Really a ton of verses about practicing the traditions from the apostles. The Holy See is something rather fascinating along with the Pope.
@@ChristianEphraimson I'm no expert, but I reckon that, by receiving the Eucharist in an Orthodox Divine Liturgy, although the sacrament itself would be valid, the recipient (the person) doesn't profit from it as they are in the grave sin of schism.
@@coindorni that'd make sense but I think the Pope Francis said if someone was in the situation where they couldn't recieve a catholic eucharist they could take an Orthodox eucharist if they were allowed by the parish.
This is just wrong. Socrates is estimated to be born 10-20 years after Christ’s death, making it entirely possible for him to be a Christian, and I am honestly taken aback by your blatant ignorance 😂
@owenlaymay63 Socrates was born to four centuries before Christ, so he certainly didn't live as a contemporary to him. But that's not really the meaning of calling him a Christian.
And of course, Jesus Christ is both co-eternal and co-substantial with God the creator of Heaven and Earth. Jesus was incarnated. Jesus was not "born after" Socrates. It's a subtle or not so subtle distinction.@@CatechesisVids
I guess you think that Jesus forgot his promise that the gates of he ll will not prevail against the Catholic Church after the second Vatican council..
Hey hey hey. As a hobo i take offense to that statement. Hobo just means homeward bound. Which equals a pilgrim or sojourner just passing through here on the way home. Id like to think Jesus was a hobo. Minus the canned beans
@@salj.5459 Yes, we believe and have always believed that we shall love our enemies. Now, "love your enemy" does not mean "let your enemy run rampant and spread evil". It does not mean "tolerate your enemy's wickedness". You can punish evil-doers without hating the evil-doer, or else even punitive justice would be a sinful act. But it could not be further from the truth. Punishment is not contrary to love.
@@coindorni Loving your enemy is incompatible with colonialism and imperialism. The Roman Empire never believed in the actual teachings of Jesus, and neither did the rest of Western Europe.
This video discusses the conversion of righteousness pagans in limbo during the death and resurrection of Christ - the harrowing of Hell - and to Justin Martyr's consideration of Socrates as a Christian. It's not clickbait, it's just theology.
Do not think that I have come to bring peace to the earth; I have not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I have come to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother etc.
@JohnDoe-hr4xj I did not delete anything. Your comment is still there. I just didn't find it worth responding to as it didn't make any kind of point with regard to your Muslim comment.
While I can certainly have dialogue over questions about his godhood, the existence of Jesus of Nazareth as a historical person is certain - and not worth debating.
@@4real51 the fact that there are ancient documents talking about the person of Jesus? Even outside the books gathered in the Bible? The fact that people who knew Him ended up martyrs in defense of the Faith? You could really benefit from looking these things up instead of spreading nonsense online for the sake of spreading nonsense online.
I’ve always had this fascination for Tertullian. In a way, logic and reason were building blocks that helped me return to Catholicism.
I think most people can be categorized as being drawn to the Faith via one of the three transcendentals: truth, goodness, or beauty. For me it was beauty - the beauty of the Mass. I didn't learn to know the truth of the Church except later as a result of the beauty. It seems like for you the attraction was truth.
@Bible-dw6klthat isn't it. Here's the difference. Catholics, Orthodox, Anglicans and other older traditions view Salvation differently. Most Protestants see it as a single moment of accepting Christ or God choosing them, followed by sanctification. The older traditions would say "I have been saved, I am being saved and I shall be saved"
They believe salvation is a process of making us more Christ like, redeeming our fallen nature. If you research the Greek words for saved and Salvation you'll understand why
@Bible-dw6kl look up the Greek words for saved and salvation.
@Bible-dw6kl I explained differing views. For you to get that offended shows a lot about your character.
@Bible-dw6kl you've clearly never studied Church History. No one until 1600s (at Earliest& Id say it's even more recent) saw salvation as a single moment. Are you saying everyone during those first years were wrong ?
Outstanding. Thank you and God bless you.
Fantastic work!
Great videos. I’m glad I found this channel.
Thanks!
Great video, well done. 🙏☦
Thank you very much!
It isnt related but can someone explain this to me, how does the Eastern Orthodox church have a valid eucharist but not be apart of the Roman Catholic church?
While Orthodox sacraments are valid (meaning they work, really distributing grace) they are illicit (meaning they are done without as authorization).
The Orthodox are in schism, but they still participate in a certain way in the Church's sacraments because they have maintained a real (but illicit) priesthood and set of bishops. Any bishop can make a new bishop, though it is a schismatic act if done without the Pope's approval.
There are many other theological differences that separate the Orthodox, but refusal to accept the role of the Pope is one of the most important.
It's worth noting that other groups like the Anglicans have neither valid nor licit sacraments - meaning when they try to ordain a priest nothing happens at all, and the only sacrament they validly perform is baptism - since even a layman can technically baptize.
@@CatechesisVids thank you. Follow up question; how you phrased it, it'd seem like one could be saved by consuming an orthodox eucharist. Is there a difference between grace and salvation proper? Sorry if that sounds dumb but I want to understand the catholic teaching better.
@@ChristianEphraimsonin relation to 1 Corinthians 10:15-25, 1 Corinthians 11:17-34 25 After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, this cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me.
26 For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord's death till he come.
27 Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord.
28 But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup.
29 For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord's body.
30 For this cause many are weak and sickly among you, and many sleep.
31 For if we would judge ourselves, we should not be judged.
But the reason would be dividing the body of Christ which is his church. The key difference is how the pope is treated. There’s Eastern Orthodox Catholic Churches which are in communion with the chair of saint Peter which acknowledge the teaching authority of Christ’s church as laid out in 1 Timothy 3
14These things I write to thee, hoping that I shall come to thee shortly. 15But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.
16And evidently great is the mystery of godliness, which was manifested in the flesh, was justified in the spirit, appeared unto angels, hath been preached unto the Gentiles, is believed in the world, is taken up in glory.
And 2 Thessalonians 2
13But we ought to give thanks to God always for you, brethren, beloved of God, for that God hath chosen you firstfruits unto salvation, in sanctification of the spirit, and faith of the truth: 14Whereunto also he hath called you by our gospel, unto the purchasing of the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ. 15Therefore, brethren, stand fast; and hold the traditions which you have learned(taught), whether by word(spoken word), or by our epistle.
16Now our Lord Jesus Christ himself, and God and our Father, who hathloved us, and hath given us everlasting consolation, and good hope in grace, 17Exhort your hearts, and confirm you in every good work and word.
The teaching authority of the church is acknowledged through these.
2 Thessalonians 3:6
Now we command you, brothers, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, to keep away from any brother who leads an undisciplined life that is not in keeping with the tradition you received from us
1 Corinthians 11:2
Now I commend you for remembering me in everything and for maintaining the traditions, just as I passed them on to you.
Really a ton of verses about practicing the traditions from the apostles. The Holy See is something rather fascinating along with the Pope.
@@ChristianEphraimson I'm no expert, but I reckon that, by receiving the Eucharist in an Orthodox Divine Liturgy, although the sacrament itself would be valid, the recipient (the person) doesn't profit from it as they are in the grave sin of schism.
@@coindorni that'd make sense but I think the Pope Francis said if someone was in the situation where they couldn't recieve a catholic eucharist they could take an Orthodox eucharist if they were allowed by the parish.
Nope.
Socrates was born long before Jesus Christ, and would probably never have learned about Judaism, the religion that birthed Christianity.
Sorry.
me when i don’t watch the video
This is just wrong. Socrates is estimated to be born 10-20 years after Christ’s death, making it entirely possible for him to be a Christian, and I am honestly taken aback by your blatant ignorance 😂
@owenlaymay63 Socrates was born to four centuries before Christ, so he certainly didn't live as a contemporary to him. But that's not really the meaning of calling him a Christian.
And of course, Jesus Christ is both co-eternal and co-substantial with God the creator of Heaven and Earth. Jesus was incarnated. Jesus was not "born after" Socrates. It's a subtle or not so subtle distinction.@@CatechesisVids
Using Vatican 2 as an argument is like using the words of a drunk hobo...
I'm willing to bet the farm that you haven't read any of the documents from Vatican II.
Each and every Ecumenical Council promulgates what is willed by the holy spirit.
I guess you think that Jesus forgot his promise that the gates of he ll will not prevail against the Catholic Church after the second Vatican council..
@@Lone-Leeim sure he wasnt talking about the cath church
Hey hey hey. As a hobo i take offense to that statement. Hobo just means homeward bound. Which equals a pilgrim or sojourner just passing through here on the way home. Id like to think Jesus was a hobo. Minus the canned beans
The Romans distorted Christianity and never followed it anyway
On the contrary, it is only the Roman Church that preserves the True Faith.
@@CatechesisVids Really? The Romans never seemed to believe in "loving your enemies".
@@CatechesisVidsyou don’t believe the Orthodox Church has the true faith?
@@salj.5459 Yes, we believe and have always believed that we shall love our enemies. Now, "love your enemy" does not mean "let your enemy run rampant and spread evil". It does not mean "tolerate your enemy's wickedness". You can punish evil-doers without hating the evil-doer, or else even punitive justice would be a sinful act. But it could not be further from the truth. Punishment is not contrary to love.
@@coindorni Loving your enemy is incompatible with colonialism and imperialism. The Roman Empire never believed in the actual teachings of Jesus, and neither did the rest of Western Europe.
Christian? He was born 470 years before Christ!
Watch the video before commenting
@@CatechesisVids You obviously mean "fall for the clickbait before commenting."
This video discusses the conversion of righteousness pagans in limbo during the death and resurrection of Christ - the harrowing of Hell - and to Justin Martyr's consideration of Socrates as a Christian. It's not clickbait, it's just theology.
@@CatechesisVids It's OK. As soon as I saw limbo was part of your theology, I realised I was in the wrong place.
I thought Jesus was a Muslim.
I'm not sure what you mean? Islam was invented by Muhammad many centuries after Christ.
Do not think that I have come to bring peace to the earth; I have not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I have come to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother etc.
@@CatechesisVids why did you delete my response, I quoted Jesus. Matthew 10: 34-36
@JohnDoe-hr4xj I did not delete anything. Your comment is still there. I just didn't find it worth responding to as it didn't make any kind of point with regard to your Muslim comment.
@@CatechesisVids I wasn't waiting for you to respond. on my device it is erased, strange days.
Jesus never existed... The church completely fooled all you guys
While I can certainly have dialogue over questions about his godhood, the existence of Jesus of Nazareth as a historical person is certain - and not worth debating.
@@CatechesisVids prove it
Search for Tacitus in, FLÁVIO JOSEFO and PLÍNIO. They all weren't christians but wrote about jesus in the first century@@4real51
@@CatechesisVids there is no proof that exists. That's why I assume you don't answer
@@4real51 the fact that there are ancient documents talking about the person of Jesus? Even outside the books gathered in the Bible? The fact that people who knew Him ended up martyrs in defense of the Faith? You could really benefit from looking these things up instead of spreading nonsense online for the sake of spreading nonsense online.