"Perspecuity is that all people of reason will come to ecclesial unity"--that's actually not what it's come to mean in most circles. The claim of the perspecuity of Scripture is that those things necessary to salvation are clear, not that everything is alike clear. I might do a video on this. Thanks for elevating the conversation productively, Suan! Would love to dialogue some time
Westminster Confession: "All things in Scripture are not alike plain in themselves, nor alike clear unto all; yet those things which are necessary to be known, believed, and observed for salvation, are so clearly propounded, and opened in some place of Scripture or other, that not only the learned, but the unlearned, in a due use of the ordinary means, may attain unto a sufficient understanding of them." (1.7)
@@anglicanaestheticsyou probably already know the Catholic response, so please respond to that if you do make a video: paedobaptism, necessity of baptism, regeneration, how many Prots disagree.
@@renjithjoseph7135 I will, but I'm an example of a person who came to be convinced of those things from Scripture who started as a Baptist. It just took more reading of Scripture
Hi, this is a good point. I think I acknowledged the plurality of definitions in the video and that I’m trying to capture how early reformers viewed perspicuity or at least what they thought they could accomplish with the Bible alone.
@@intellectualcatholicism Well, I quoted WCF because that codifies Calvin's view, which matched the English, Swiss, Reformed, and scholastic Lutheran Reformation
Re: Protestantism is the norm. Seeing that I thought like this is actually what started my conversion journey. I had a discussion with a Catholic where I just assumed that we could both agree on Sola Scriptura in some form to arrive at Sola Fide. He calmly told me that such conversations are good, because we can see how we bring different presuppositions to the table. I was "bothered" that he knew my position, but I had actually no idea about his. So I decided to "clear up this Reformation thing once and for all"... This Easter vigil, I will be a Catholic for two years.
As a lawyer, I see a similar analogy between the Bible/Constitution and the Magisterium/Supreme Court. In Civil Law, the Supreme Court is the final authority that interprets the Constitution or laws. It does not hold itself as above the Constitution but rather "safeguards" it. Imagine a country without a final, authoritative body to interpret laws. Everyone interprets the law as they see fit. Imagine the chaos. It really seems obvious to me that we need a Magisterium to interpret the Bible for us.
Absolutely. As a fellow lawyer, I completely understand and share your perspective. The analogy you draw between the Bible/Constitution and the Magisterium/Supreme Court is indeed quite apt. Just as the Supreme Court serves as the ultimate authority in interpreting the Constitution, ensuring uniformity and preventing legal chaos, so too does the Magisterium play a crucial role in interpreting the Bible. Without such a guiding authority, individual interpretations could lead to confusion and discord, much like a country without a final arbiter of its laws. It also seems clear to me the necessity of a Magisterium for providing definitive interpretations of the Bible. Even setting aside the biblical and historical support for a moment -- which I personally find persuasive -- the structure and essential role of such an authoritative body in maintaining coherence and unity remain compelling. If such a definitive authority is seen as necessary in civil society to prevent chaos, how much more vital is it in matters concerning the salvation of souls and the highest spiritual truths? The stakes in religious interpretation are infinitely greater, underscoring the need for a clear and authoritative voice in these matters.
I understand the spirit of the argument, but the courts are so bad right now that it might make people dig their feet in that there should not be a Magisterium. The Supreme Court is slightly better now than it has been for many decades, but has been a force for the Left's revolution since at least the 1950s.
You do realize the bible is written in plain language for the most part. It is available in over 1,500 different languages. What is very curious to me, as a follower of Jesus Christ, is how do Cathotholics accept the rewriting of the 10 Commandments for the Catechism? Jesus said that He came to fulfill the scripture, not to abolish it1. He also said that the scripture cannot be broken2. He warned against those who change or ignore the scripture. He taught that the scripture is the word of God and the authority for life5. Therefore, Jesus did not support or encourage any rewriting of scripture, but rather confirmed its truth and power. 📖
@@Sola_Scriptura_1.618 Let me address your curiosity. First of all, do you see any numbering in any of the verses from which the Ten Commandments were taken? I assure you, you will find none. Second, I assume you are primarily referring to the purported removal of the 2nd Commandment, aren't you? That's a common accusation among Protestant circles against Catholicism. But let me tell you, there are different ways of numbering and grouping the Ten Commandments in Christianity. Mainly adhering to St. Augustine, Catholics and Lutherans (which, as you may know, is a major Protestant denomination primarily following the theology of Martin Luther) did not remove what you would refer to as the “2nd Commandment”; instead, they combined it under the “1st Commandment.” The reason behind this is that the so-called “prohibition against graven images,” when properly understood and read in conjunction with other Bible passages, is actually a prohibition against idolatry (not a blanket prohibition against graven images per se), which is encompassed within the commandment to have no other gods before Him. This merging reflects an emphasis on monotheism and the exclusive worship of God. Catholics, in particular, did not remove the so-called “2nd Commandment” in your numbering but rather combined the content from Deut 5:6-10 (or the similar verses in Exo 20). You can verify this with the Catechism of the Catholic Church; you will find that the relevant verses in Exo 20 or Deut 5 should be quoted in full (so there’s no removal as some assert). Did that satisfy your curiosity? If not, then look for another Lutheran, and bicker among yourselves why that is so.
Your explanation of the Catholic view on salvation, and its coherence, was beautifully, beautifully presented. Thank you for that, and thank you for sharing the great gifts you have been given of explaining the truth of Catholicism--and doing so with love and respect. You are a blessing!!
I hear this. For me in my conversion from Protestantism, I had to unlearn total depravity and accept that God made me and all that I desire as truly ordered for the good.
Total depravity is not a heresy. I still believe in that as a Catholic in the sense that we are dead in sin and cannot do any good either to believe the gospel or do any good works without God's grace first acting on us.
With all due respect, to avoid misunderstanding, I have to say that, unless by "good works" you mean "meritorious works (profitable to salvation)", this is still wrong, as can be shown from e.g. the condemnation of the propositions of de Bay/Baius, and most evidently, the 55th: God would not have had the power from the beginning to create such a man as is born now (Denzinger a 1055). The Church teaches that the opposite is true, and that man is sufficient to accomplish true naturally (as opposed to supernaturally) good works (profitable to salvation), and, generally, that the fall is relative to the gratuitous gift of elevation to grace and the prospect of supernatural happiness, which is not "due to man from the natural exigency and condition of human nature", to quote a later condemnation of related Jansenist errors in the bull Auctorem Fidei (prop. 16, Denzinger 1516). So, while I believe that some of the statements of, say, the Westminster Confession on this can indeed be charitably read, we cannot properly say, for example, that "[f]rom this original corruption we are utterly indisposed, dis-abled, and made opposite to all good, and wholly inclined to all evil" (from West. Conf. VI, IV). This is false, as is (and "wholly" is, at best, ambiguous). Those with original sin can, contrary to the e.g. plausible implications of the teaching of Dordt (IV, article 4), be good even spirituallt/internally (even if not as good as God would have us). The Church has seen fit to defend this on numerous occasions, so hopefully this will not strike you as nitpicking, and all ambiguity should be avoided. To paraphrase/translate the esteemed theologian Fr. Matthias Scheeben), one does not praise God the Redeemer by blaspheming God the Creator.
@@shamuscrawfordtotal depravity describes believers too. It’s utterly false. Edit: it denies God’s grace working in us. So it denies God’s work, as well as the work we do which He has prepared for us. So why do reformed theologians teach it? So they can say we can do nothing to be saved , and therefore, there is nothing we can do to not be saved.
Great episode! As a cradle Catholic, understanding of he psychology behind the Protestant mind is really interesting to me. Really enjoyed this episode
Im a convert (6 years) from evangelical. I really like your point regarding the bible being treated like a constitution by Protestants. The basis of their beliefs is their own private interpretation and what they "think," Catholics believe. Its frustrating, Im the only Catholic in my family and the arguments are endless.
Stand in the Faith. Don't let yourself be troubled. For 60 years, I have seen theses that seemed unshakeable collapse over the generations - (Pope Benedict XVI). Please my friend, remain FOCUS on the Faith, Hope and charity/Love. Go to the sacrements, even if you are alone. No matter. pray everyday. learn everyday a little more about the person of Jesus Christ and the Gospel. and all the rest will fall in his time. God bless You !
Tell them that Personal Interpretation destroys the word of God and that Jesus left a magisterium for the proper interpretation of the Bible. Just let them think about the 30,000 different Protestant sects out there to prove your point.
Why i can never be a Protestant The protestant " service " is more like a bible study with each pastor giving his own interpretation of scripture .....and .... considering that theres 48000 different protestant " churches " or " Denominations" out there ....its not very advisable ..... majority of these pastors are untrained.... anybody can wakw up one morning and decide to be a pastor.....and the majority of them preach heresy.... Protestantism is all about the money ( tithes ) .....no tithes ....no church .....its that simple ......so you will find that in each protestant church the emphasis is on " the more you give the more you get " Also most protestants go to service to network.....i have seen this first hand from my protestant friends at work.... I'll fix your car whilst you fix my bathroom . A Protestant service is more like a club ....a tight knit group of people all having the same idea or goal .....and the kids are drilled from young against joining any other church especially the catholic church . BUT THE ONE MOST IMPORTANT ISSUE ......IS THE HOLY EUCHARIST ..... WITH CATHOLICISM WE GO TO MASS TO HAVE A PERSONAL RELATIONSHIP WITH JESUS .....EVERY MASS WE ARE AT THE FOOT OF THE CROSS JOINING IN THE PASSION OF OUR LORD AND SAVIOUR ....AND THEN WE PHYSICALLY TAKE JESUS INTO OUR SOULS VIA THE RECEPTION OF THE HOLY EUCHARIST ....ITS NOT SYMBOLIC ITS REALITY THIS IS THE BIGGEST DIFFERENCE ....AND THE MOST IMPORTANT DIFFERENCE.....OUR MASS IS ABOUT HOLINESS AND SACRIFICE AND LASTLY .....THE WAY THE PROTESTANTS BLASPHEME THE MOTHER OF GOD DUE TO HERETICAL TEACHING IS SO SCANDOLOUS .....YET THEIR FOUNDER MARTIN LUTHER LOVED MARY THE MOTHER OF GOD ......HOW DO THEY NOT KNOW THIS ? WHERE DID THEY GO WRONG SOME IF THEIR SLOGANS ARE SO UNEDUCATED....YOU WONDER IF THIS IS FROM SATAN OR NOT . 1. CALL NO MAN FATHER 2..WHY MUST YOU CONFESS YOUR SINS TO A MAN ETC ETC ......ITS ALL IN THE BIBLE ....SO MUCH FOR SOLA SCRIPTURA😂 For 1500 years after Jesus died and was resurrected there was only one church …..the Catholic church founded by Jesus Himself when He anointed the apostle Peter as the first pope " You are Peter and upon this rock I will build my church" Then 1500 years after that along comes Luther ( after Satan had whispered in his ear) and split the church apart ….just as Satan had instructed . Luther Calvin and others started the rot . ( Now remember this was 1500 years after Christ founded His church …..there was no protestant church ….it was the Catholic church Catholic means universal . From the Greek word KATOLIKOS. Martin Luther, an EX CATHOLIC wanted to reform the Catholic church but took it too far. He began the great division in the church in the 16th century .He believed he was inspired by God and that no one could criticize his ideas. He was a narcissist...he said " In a 1000 years no bishop has been bestowed with such gifts as God has bestowed upon me". He said he is certain that he has received his dogmas from heaven …..he said " I am the prophet of the Germans ". But the fact is he followed the teachings of Henry of Ockham. He started translating the bible from Greek without having any knowledge of Greek .He translated the " man is justified by faith " into " man is justified by faith alone " he added the word " alone " by himself .When someone criticized him for that he replied " Doctor Martin Luther translates it that way and that's how I want it."....over 1400 errors were found in his translation .He excluded certain books from the bible by his own authority …..he said the epistle of James is nothing more than straw because it does not present any evangelical character. Regarding the book of revelation he said that he does not find anything apostolic or prophetic in this book. He commissioned rude paintings of the pope of that time and got it published ( is that the conduct of a holy man ….a man inspired by God ?). When he blessed people he would say " May the Lord fill you with his blessing and hatred for the pope. ( Is that a blessing ? Or a curse?) On marriage he said that marriage is mandatory ….that woman was not created to be a wife but to beget children they only serve for marriage or prostitution. He said he hates divorce so much that he prefers bigamy. He allowed prince Phillip to have 2 wives and justified it based on the bible and when people found out…. he lied and said that one was his concubine and not his wife. He loved the virgin Mary and said she was the tender mother of God ….in his dining room He had the crucifix and and image of Mary holding the infant Jesus . He accepted baptism and the real presence of Jesus in the Holy Eucharist. He later said that Lutheranism was no better than catholicism Protestants are under this false illusion that they were around at the time of Christ ......and that ONLY they know Christ . If they did they would institute the Holy Eucharist It is their BIGGEST DOWNFALL.
I know Morgan Freeman has a great speaking voice, but you could totally be a great radio voice. Very smooth. Great video BTW. Born LCMS, to spiritual protestantism, back to Lutheranism, and finally home to RCC
I am a cradle Catholic and joined St Paul Street Evangelization. I have had the Holy Spirit help me get many to become Catholic. 1Tim 1:3 says to not teach any different doctrines.
I agree on everything you said - very good points! I think I've gone through much the same thought process in my conversion. One thing you did not mention, when talking about the perpetuity of Scripture, which struck one evening when I was discussing with my mom (a good Protestant Christian) was this: She believes that if she honestly asks the Holy Spirit for guidance on issue X, she will receive it. It seemed for her quite obvious that the Holy Spirit would not deny such revelation. It didn't matter that I could point out all the various disagreements among Protestants, because this belief in the guidance of the Holy Spirit seemed to her (and to some degree, also myself) as completely true. My answer is basically: God does not want to reveal directly to you as an individual, access to all truth. Why wouldn't he? I say: God wants us to not access the truth in a community - or rather - in a body. It's God's love for us that makes this believable since God wants to use you and me to help others. Obviously, I don't know if this is a true answer, but I think it could very well be. Many Protestants share the conviction of my mother, and it seems soo right to them. Protestantism is Individualism at its core. Catholicism is Communalism at its core. I think this is a huge deal and should be highlighted.
I'm very proud of you for being able to do that. It's not easy. Everyone I know who grew up in a cult (an oddly high number of people!) have largely given up on any religious or spiritual truths. 😎👍🏻 Keep it up, Hoss!
19:50 this is something I think needs to be made clear to Protestants. The Magisterium isn't something Catholics have to interpret in the same way the Bible needs to be interpreted. The Magisterium is living and we can dialogue with it. You can't have a dialogue with a book. You can't ask for clarification from a book.
For perspicuity, I usually ask someone if it’s reasonable to get two people in separate rooms, read the entire Bible, and expect them to have similar doctrines.
Clarifying question here since I think autocorrect may have distorted your spelling, did you intend to say perpetuity (which essentially means “forever” often used in a legal context to transfer property rights.) or did you mean to say perspicuity (which means “clarity”)? Hope you have a wonderful day!
Re: your studies on the Pseudepigrapha, have you checked out Dr. David Litwa’s work on the Nag Hammadi writings and the early church heresiologists? Fantastic, I highly recommend, and he’s joining the faculty of Boston College. Not Catholic himself, but his work is still of immense interest for anyone seeking more understanding of the early Catholic Church. Btw, are you studying at Harvard locally or remotely? If the former, we’re in the same area! Martha’s Vineyard here. Your work has been helpful in my conversion to Catholicism. Thanks for everything, God bless.
Lofton's point that Catholicism has unity of governance has always stuck with me. Doesn't matter how many schism from the Church if the unity of governance remains and uniquely so versus all the sects. The Catholic Church will always trump all challengers with respect to unity in this sense because of the papacy.
Yes, but his heretical teachings include the Protestant/Islamic/Man-made-religion idea that current teachings abrogate past teachings. Abrogation is the mark of a false religion invented by a creature, be that man or angel. A mark of the one true religion that comes from the ceator would necessarily be that past teachings supercede present teachings, becausing God is the author of history outside of time, and only He can see the end and the begining all at once, while his creatures are within, and subject to, time.
@@stevedoetsch His who? Lofton? The Pope? Pope Francis? The fact of the matter is that Jesus and His apostles did indeed abrogate much of the Old Law. That doesn't make Christianity a false religion; it just means those with the authority to change it changed it. Strictly speaking, one might say there is a difference between law and teaching, and that Jesus and His apostles did not change any Jewish teachings but rather developed and added to them. Though there's a fine line between teachings and law/discipline/governance.
@@tonyl3762 Anyone who cites Jesus/Apostles to justify abrogations by the Episcopate/Papacy shows they have lost the plot entirely. Jesus started a new Religion! Did you miss that? We're not here trying to live the religion of the Israelites founded by Moses for the Hebrews. So you're arguing that the Episcopate/Papacy can start a new religion & abrogate the Religion Jesus founded! Do you not realize how utterly self-defeating this argument is? With it, you confirm what everyone fears about hyperpapalists: that you've replaced the Catholic papacy with a Mormon Prophet. New revelations/abrogations come with New Religions, buddy. You're claiming the Pope can introduce a new revelation like Jesus & the Apostles did, when this is literally denying the Catholic faith which teaches that the Revelation CLOSED with the death of the last Apostle, St. John. ALL the Magisterium is allowed to do is faithfully hand on the DEPOSIT the Church received from the Apostles. They cannot abrogate nothing! That's blasphemy and the equivalent of saying you believe in a third Revelation after Christ, whose new founder/prophet is a certain pope. That's NOT Catholicism. It's like founding a new society/church! Analogy is founding a new republic, like the US was founded out of the British Empire. No pope can "make" his own constitution, just like the Supreme Court doesn't have a right to do anything beyond correctly interpret the constitution it received. Unlike a country/state, though, the Church's "constitution" cannot be ammended: it comes from Jesus & his Apostles and is to be handed on without losing ANY part of it, until the Lord's return.
@@AuthenticityVeritas Anyone who says that Jesus started a new religion rather than developed and fulfilled Judaism has "lost the plot entirely." Clearly, you didn't even carefully read what I wrote and the distinctions I made, the same distinction that the Church has made in her own magisterial documents. Abrogating Jewish laws and disciplines and elaborating, developing, and clarifying Jewish teachings IS NOT starting a new religion. STOP PUTTING WORDS IN MY MOUTH. Never did I say "the Pope can introduce a new revelation." You're beating up a straw man. May be fun for you, but just puzzling and annoying to the person you're caricaturing. You can do better. By the way, I've recently been a critic Lofton and Fiducia Supplicans. Like so many YT commenters, you have no idea who you are interacting with and would do better to ask questions rather than pick a fight with what you imagine others are thinking/saying.
@@tonyl3762 This is nonsense. Of course Christianity is objectively a new religion, even if we believe we are the fulfilment of Temple Judaism. This is common sense! 1) We have a radical NEW revelation that no Hebrew had before the incarnation: We believe in a Trinity, and an incarnation of God who lived among men, was crucified, died, buried, resurrected, ascended, and will return, as our CORE belief, which Temple Judaism did NOT have by any stretch of the imagination. 2) Our worship and sacrifice is different, our practice is different, and our government is different. We do not worship at the Temple, nor offer their various MANDATED sacrifices, nor follow Moses' 613 laws, nor are we an earthly kingdom with political claims. We're not ruled by an earthly King, a Sanhedrin, nor served by the Levitical priesthood. Instead all this is subsumed into something MORE and different. It is simply NUTS to claim Christianity is not--and radically so--a new religion on the world stage, founded on the person of JESUS CHRIST which the Temple Judaism was objectively not, as any honest person with a functioning brain can see. We DO identify as the fulfilment of the old because we see the old as preparatory for US, but no Temple Jews saw their kingdom as coming to a radical end at any point and being supplanted by the Christian doctrine, practice, and religious government. And I'm not putting words in your mouth. I'm showing you that your analogy is EXTREMELY inappropriate and in fact undercuts what you seek to prove: that if the Church attempts to abrogate, it's just doing what Jesus and his Apostles did. What a terrifying thing to suggest! What Jesus and the Apostles did is REPLACE Temple Judaism with a radically NEW message/revelation, a radically new worship and practice, a radically new priesthood, and a radically new government to rule a radically new society/kingdom/church. It's simply absurd to say to someone who says/argues the Church has no duty to abrogate what was received from the Apostles, "But that's what Jesus did and you're cool with it, aren't you?" It shows you have no clue the huge difference there exists between the Christ and his Apostles on one hand and the Magisterium on the other. It's like comparing American Founding Fathers with the Supreme Court. If someone says, "Hey, the Court shouldn't just make up it's own constitution," you wouldn't, in your right mind, answer, "But why not? The Founders made a new Constitution unknown to the British, didn't they? And yet you're not complaining about that!" If you did answer thus and were accused of attempting to create your own Republic, and whined at the accusation, such whining would be as empty as the one you're doing now in response to my rebuking you for using that example to justify an abrogation by the Magisterium! In fact the American example is less egregious because technically, it's constitution is amendable. It's not as definitive compared to the Deposit handed to the Church by our equivalent of "founding fathers" ie. The Apostles. The Deposit they bequeathed the society THEY founded, is Divine. The Apostles' successors, both the Episcopate and Papacy, are NOT Apostles or Prophets or Oracles. They don't get to come in with their own "vision"/ideas/abrogations... God forbid! Pope BXVI explicitly said the pope should never impose his own ideas on the Church but only transmit the deposit of faith as is his job. We are Catholics, not Mormons whose prophets come in with brand new revelations abrogating previous ones. For Catholics, overiding previously revealed Divine communications and directions is literally CLAIMING the power of God! That was done by Jesus who was GOD the WORD/TRUTH/LOGOS himself, and his chosen witnesses (filled with the Holy Spirit) ONLY. Once again, pointing to them to say, "But they did it, too" is beyond ignorant! After them, the revelation is closed and the only job of the Magisterium is to govern the churches and transmit to all generations of Christians what the Church received from the Apostles (hence we call it "deposit": it was only received by us and entrusted to us, we don't tinker with it as if we made it ourselves), and to do so without polluting it with their own stupid, man-made ideas. The Magisterium has no positive inspiration from the Holy Spirit that the Apostles had, they use ordinary learning and reasoning to understand the deposit like everyone else. The protection they enjoy is NEGATIVE only, meant to protect US from their human stupidity, so that all generations will receive the same deposit. So again, the comparison is inappropriate and revealing of the deficits you're working with, along with those who casually invoke this literal DIVINE action of Christ (and the witnesses to whom he entrusted it under the positive inspiration of his Holy Spirit) to justify a magisterial act that is ultra vires.
@@joehouston2833 American :) But under the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America. The Orthodox Church is One Church and a communion of local churches. Sadly, we are not in communion with the Copts or Ethiopians - but by God's grace, that schism will be healed. Aside from that division, it would strike an Orthodox person as strange to refer to "orthodoxies" as if the faith varied between the Greeks, Russians, Serbs, Japanese or Americans - we believe in One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.
Ive been using somewhat of a straw man with Protestants, “if once saved always is the doctrine taught by Paul… why did he keep writing letters? Why didn’t the Corinthians or Galatians simply write back and say… don’t worry about it, we’re saved” Perhaps someone can steel man this or put some academic rigor behind it. Would also love to hear a counter argument.
interesting first example, i disagree as a Catholic, I think reasonable people of good will become Catholic i think many people are not reasonable and even fewer of of good will,, and reasonableness especially goes out the window when youre thinking of something emotionally loaded like your faith in God
I think even reasonable people can hold to logically fallacious position if they're handed down that position from people that can be reasonably discerned to be trustworthy. If we used reasonable to mean "using 100% accurate and selfaware reason", then I agree that you'll certaintly land on catholic, but I believe Suan was using reasonable to mean "able to evaluate arguments in support of an opposing view", and "of good will" to mean that "likely to change one's mind based on sound and valid arguments". Reasonableness in this sense wouldn't just refer to IQ, even a smart person shuts off the thinking part of their brain when emotions take the better of them.
@@antpassalacqua Your approach is made with reference to objective consideration of reality taken as a whole. Taffazzi's approach is made with reference to that subset of reality to which particular persons have access, whether through immanently generated knowledge or through the disseminated understanding of persons deemed trustworthy. It is true that faults can be found in non-Catholic systems of understanding, which can be exploited eventually to demonstrate the superior claims of Catholicism. Thus your position is correct. It remains that God has distributed His gifts as He sees fit, with the particular convergence of those elements by which people of good will finding themselves persuaded of the fullness of the means of salvation being found only in the Church remaining obscure. This is the meaning of Paul's obscure reference in Romans 2:14-16, the excommunication of Fr. Leonard Feeney, SJ, for heresy, and Paragraph 16 of the Dogmatic Constitution on the Church of the Second Vatican Council. What we can say is that, if they remained alive, alert, and vigorous long enough, then all people of good will would eventually become Catholic, but this happy combination does not occur for all. Thus it behoves us to continue zealously proclaiming the gospel, also with apologetics and polemics, but always with as much charity and respect as the particular relationship or encounter allows. We don't want to allow ourselves to fall into the presumption that the person we're encountering is beyond the operation of grace in his soul in ways hidden to us, nor do we want to interfere with that operation of grace by becoming ourselves the counterwitness of judgemental hypocrisy. Instead we want to be that vehicle of grace which demonstrates that grace is available in whatever condition we may happen to be, and in whatever stage in our journey towards the fulness of life in grace we may happen to be.
I appreciate your charitable interpretation of our separated brethren viewpoints. As a lifelong Catholic, who has had a great deal of ministry with my Protestant brothers, and sisters, I have found that they authentically wish to follow Christ. As a somewhat weak analogy, Catholicism is the trunk of the tree of faith, with our Jewish forebears being the root, and our Orthodox, and Protestant family being the branches, we are nourished by the same truth, even though the branches may not get the full extent of the feeding.
“We do not think that it is right to make their prevailing custom the law and rule of sound doctrine. For if custom is to avail for of soundness, we too, surely, may advance our we not bound to follow theirs. Let the inspired Scripture, then, be our umpire, and the vote of truth will surely be given to those whose dogmas are found to agree with the Divine words.” St. Gregory Nyssa On the Holy Trinity "For if we told you to be persuade by arguments, you might well be perplexed: but if we bid you believe the Scriptures, and these are simple and true, the decision is easy for you. If any agree with the Scriptures, he is the Christian." St. John Chrysostom Homilies on Acts Homily 33 "But since holy Scripture is of all things most sufficient for us, therefore recommending to those who desire to know more of these matters, to read the Divine word, I now hasten to set before you that which most claims attention, and for the sake of which principally I have written these things." St. Athanasius Ad Episcopus Aegypti et Libyae Chapter 1
@@dave1370 Hi, Dave. I'm sorry to put it so bluntly, but a closer reading of the passage reveals exactly the opposite. The Bereans could not have held to perspicuity, for several reasons. In the first place, they along with the rest of the Jewish community did not have a clear and correct understanding, for instance of the Messiah, which is why they needed, for instance Apostles to proclaim to them what the truth is in Christ. In the second place, they saw firsthand that the Thessalonians, being Sola Scriputrists, held a distinct and incompatible understanding of the essential message of revelation from themselves. In the third place, the Thessalonians in dispute with the Bereans were not able to come to clarity and unanimity of the essential message of revelation. Therefore, the Bereans had firsthand experience of the non-perspicuous nature of Scripture. Beyond this, even with respect to your claim, Dave, it is not in virtue of perspicuity of Scripture that the Bereans accepted what Paul had to say. Rather, the Bereans were well disposed to receive the gospel, and were therefore willing to discover that the Scripture in their possession, the Old Testament, admitted of such bizarre, unfamiliar, and out-of-context interpretations that Paul was putting on them in support of Paul's new, bizarre, unfamiliar proclamation of who and what the Messiah was and that such a Messiah had come with such a new, bizarre, and unfamiliar biography. While the Old Testament Scriptures admit of the interpretation that Paul was putting on them, there is no chance that anyone reading the Old Testament Scriptures that the Bereans had would have come up with the understanding that Paul was presenting as true. Perspicuity does not explain the Berean's openness. The nobility of spirit that Luke mentions does.
does anyone know where i can read a modern english m bible wich is fully derived from the vulgate? I know about the Douay Rheims but it just doesnt read well in my oppinion
The vulgate had some mistakes (like saying Moses' face had "horns"), and besides why would you want to read a translation of a translation? It's common sense that passing from a language to another, some intended nuance is lost and new unintended ambiguity is introduced because the range of meaning of terms varies from language to language. I don't know where you can find what you look for but I really don't see a single reason to look for it.
Hello sir! Protestant checking in. I listened to your whole talk intently. Here are a few things I would like to correct, or at least present an alternate viewpoint to, in regards to your words. First, praise be to God that you continue to embrace a faith in Jesus Christ. Maybe it would, or maybe it wouldn't surprise readers to know that practically every Protestant denomination (no, there aren't 30,000 of them) accepts and believes the words of the Nicene Creed. I commend you on your charitable and well thought out presentation. One of your first points that made me pause and want to respond was your position that Protestantism began in the 16th century. While I don't hold to a few of Calvin's doctrines, one thing he said rings true to me... In his response to Cardinal Sadoleto, "Our agreement with antiquity is far closer than yours." The point being, the Reformation's goal wasn't to create new doctrines or new denominations - they sincerely desired to stay in the bosom of the Catholic Church. It was to refresh the Church and bring it back to its original ancient form before a Roman Pontiff and councils brought in innovations in doctrine. Far too many passages were being read into beyond their intended meaning and false doctrines were making their way into worship. The Reformers did not think the Reformation was primarily a revolution for new, modern ideas, but a retrieval and renewal of the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic church. So, as someone who ties himself to a modern-day reformation movement, we're trying to achieve a way back to the worship of God as they did before various accretions took hold in Rome. We're not trying to invent new ways. Re: Perpescuity, again, the Reformers weren't trying to make up anything new. But let's move on. Some might say, "Well, Protestants believe in Sola Scriptura. They just read their bibles and come up with their own interpretations of what the words mean." If we look at a more reasonable, correct, definition, Sola Scriptura simply means, the bible is the only infallible word. And, any teachings or proclamations made by bishops, pastors, priests, councils of infallible men, etc., must be held against the light of scripture before being accepted as doctrinal truth. And, this is the view that many early church fathers ascribed to. For example, Augustine writes, "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, either by the discourse of some one who happens to be wiser in the matter than themselves, or by the weightier authority and more learned experience of other bishops, by the authority of Councils; and further, that the Councils themselves, which are held in the several districts and provinces, must yield, beyond all possibility of doubt, to the authority of plenary Councils which are formed for the whole Christian world; and that even of the plenary Councils, the earlier are often corrected by those which follow them, when, by some actual experiment, things are brought to light which were before concealed, and that is known which previously lay hid, and this without any whirlwind of sacrilegious pride, without any puffing of the neck through arrogance, without any strife of envious hatred, simply with holy humility, catholic peace, and Christian charity? (On Baptism 2.3.4) In short, the bible is infallible and, while church teachings are valuable, the men presenting the teaching are not infallible, so all teaching and doctrine need to be weighed against the holy scriptures before being accepted as truth. So, it is important that we aren't reading too much - or too little - into the texts. And, herein lies the contestation that has been happening regarding our holy texts for 2000 years. As you rightly acknowledge, we all have agendas as men that may taint our reading of the texts. What Protestants find confusing is trying to figure how the dogmas of Mariology (Mary being immaculately conceived, her title of Queen of Heaven, her veneration), and potential dogmas (the belief she is mediatrix - a co-mediator - with Jesus and advocate before the throne of the Father), came to be. There are so many inferences and extra-biblical beliefs there, it makes it extremely difficult to come to grips with. And how the single verse in Matthew 16:18 brought about an entire papal hierarchy and a doctrine of infallibility. And also how Catholics can justify the creation of graven images when everyone is clearly commanded not to make any graven image of anything in heaven, earth, or the sea. While I'm not the spokesperson for all of Protestantism, those would be our top 3, concerns, I believe. Transsubstantiation, prayers to deceased saints, etc., aren't as vital a concern to the state of one's soul as the worship of Mary, an infallible yet-agenda-driven papacy, and the creation of idols. Now, I know there are ways to justify each and every doctrine. But logically, and scripturally, these later doctrinal addons/innovations don't seem to stand up. That said, I don't think we're too far off in a familial sense. I'd say we're probably a good 80% in agreement with most of our beliefs and understanding of scripture. Okay wow, this was long. Sorry. I probably have more to say, but that's a lot. All of that said, I wish you God's blessings. May our Father lead us all to His truths - in whatever doctrinal form they may take. Take care.
Good evening! I'm only going to reply to the third paragraph from the bottom, but there's plenty there to comment on. "While I'm not the spokesperson for all of Protestantism, those would be our top 3, concerns, I believe. Transsubstantiation, prayers to deceased saints, etc., aren't as vital a concern to the state of one's soul..." What I find interesting is that, to me, these two examples of "lesser" concerns feel like they should be toward the top. Transubstantiation: If Catholics are wrong, they've been worshipping bread for 2000 years. Even if we grant that Catholics think the bread is God, and are therefore worshipping God, just imperfectly, that would be the same as what the Israelites did at the foot of Mt. Sinai when they made the golden calf. They didn't see the calf as another god, but as God given form. Prayers to the Saints: In Catholic theology, the reason for the Communion of Saints existing at all is that Christ's righteousness is infused into the believer at Baptism. The living and dead are united spiritually by sharing in the One Spirit of Christ, and this bond enables the intercession of one party for the other, since death does not remove one from Christ's Body. This communication doesn't circumvent Christ, but happens through Him. Many Protestants believe in imputed righteousness instead, which would seem to eliminate the spiritual bond between the living and the dead, since Christ's righteousness is external to the believer. This makes prayer to the saints look like necromancy, as it is sometimes characterized. Feel free to correct me on anything I got wrong, but that's how I often read the room when this topic comes up-- the two groups often talk past each other because they use very different theological frameworks. "as the worship of Mary": No Catholic would say they worship Mary, since Worship, in Catholic thinking, involves sacrifice (The Mass), which is offered to God alone. In the Catholic mind, prayer and worship are two different things. Joe Heschmeyer did at least one video on this on his channel Shameless Popery if you'd like to go deeper there. The title of Mediatrix, mentioned above, doesn't seek to place Mary as an intercessor before the Father (We agree, only Jesus does this), but celebrates her unique role in cooperating with God to bring about the Incarnation. There are a lot misconceptions about this title, which is admittedly confusing. As such, there's a lot to read about it on Catholic Answers. www.catholic.com/qa/isnt-calling-mary-the-mediatrix-of-all-graces-contrary-to-the-doctrine-that-jesus-is-the-sole "an infallible yet-agenda-driven papacy": I'm struggling to see this one. The Pope and Bishops are people, and people can be flawed and agenda-driven. Jesus' apostles were far from perfect, and so are their successors. Yes, this can cause scandal, but it doesn't have any bearing on the official teachings of the Church. An opinion or poorly-worded comment isn't an authoritative pronouncement, and the fact that the magisterium is a living teaching body allows it to issue clarification when necessary. "and the creation of idols.": "Idol" refers to something that is worshipped, and no Catholic is going to claim to worship images. The prohibition on creating images in Exodus pertains to those which were meant to be treated as gods, which were common in the ancient world, or to give form to God, like the calf, since God had not revealed a form for Himself at that point. In the incarnation, however, He did real Himself in the person of Jesus Christ, and this is the starting point for the Catholic/Orthodox view of icons. I know there's plenty on UA-cam on this topic; Seraphim Hamilton has produced a ton of content addressing specific objections. I enjoyed your comment, and could be here all day responding to the whole thing. Those are some surface-level thoughts though. God bless!
@@danielcavi4917 Hello! Thanks for your kind reply. Re: Transubstantiation. If Catholics are wrong, they've still been remembering Christ's sacrifice per his command. I can't tell you how many times I've read through John 6. I keep arriving at the conclusion that when Jesus tells the crowd that they must eat of him, he is referring to the reason for his crucifixion. We must believe in his sacrifice for our sins. Why do I think so? The Jews knew Jesus was speaking figuratively. Otherwise, they might have killed him on the spot. The entire chapter of John 6, except 52-58, is about the crowd not accepting that Jesus descended from heaven. He was trying to convince them of his deity and his having come from heaven at the command of God. This is confirmed in verse 62, "Then what if you were to see the Son of Man ascending to where he was before?" The context is also confirmed in the other gospels. If you read about the feeding of the 5000, the conversations then turn to "who do the people say I am? Who do you say I am?" Peter's answer pleases Jesus. Re: Prayers to the Saints. To absent from our bodies is to be present with the Lord. I believe that believers are in heaven now. And, while I'm not denying God's power to do this, there is no indication in scripture that we then watch the going's on here on earth or are imparted with the ability to hear the prayers of the living. Without being all seeing/hearing/knowing, I imagine saints could generally be praying for us. What I know for sure is that twice in the New Testament, Jesus taught us to pray directly to God - in Jesus' name - because God loves us. That does not mean we don't ask friends to intercede for us and pray to God also... living friends. To your second point in this topic, yes. Most Protestants would say that praying to dead saints is a form of necromancy or mediumship. Re: Mary worship. I think this point depends on the Catholic. I have heard some very zealous prayers that border on people dedicating their lives to Mary instead of God. For example: My queen, my mother, I offer myself to you .And to show my devotion to you, I offer you this day, my eyes, my ears, my mouth, my heart, my whole being without reserve. Wherefore, good Mother, as I am your own, Keep me, guard me as thy property and possession. Or, We turn to you for protection, holy Mother of God. Listen to our prayers and help us in our needs. Save us from every danger, glorious and blessed Virgin. It is God who saves. It is to Him that we should be pledging our devotion. Mary's act of obedience is counted to her as righteousness, for sure. But that doesn't mean she shares in the salvific or redemptive acts. Adding these extra biblical titles to her places her in the middle of our relationship with God. But Jesus' sole purpose of coming to earth was to bridge that spiritual gap through his perfect sacrifice. Re: Papacy. I'll skip this one. We seem to agree that church hierarchy has the capacity to be fallible. And, since the bible is infallible, makes it the sole source of infallibility when it comes to teaching and doctrine. Re: Graven images/Idols. The 10 Commandments were not written for unbelievers. They were written for the Jews whom God was creating a spiritual foundation with. A common argument I hear in essence is, "we're creating these things in honor of God, not in spite of him." The fact remains that this prohibition is for believers specifically and especially. The danger in putting a face to things is, we have the possibility of recalling those made up faces whilst we pray to them. We have no idea what these early saints looked like. We have no idea what Jesus on the cross looked like. There is no need to pray through them, because God is invisible. While I talk with Jesus, and the Holy Spirit, I worship and pray to our Father. Who is invisible. Images are a distraction and potentially dangerous thing if in your mind you are praying to the image that you have memorized. Most, if not all, of the above were doctrines that came many centuries after the beginning of Jesus' church. And, at the risk of sounding inhospitable, quite unnecessary to the increase of our faith. Jesus is the only salvific force. Thanks again for your thoughtful reply. God bless!
@@ToeTag1968 Thanks for your reply! I'm not looking for an extended debate or anything, so I'll just respond with one point and one thought rather than hitting on every point, though they are greatly appreciated. If I had nothing but time, I'd love to discuss them all. If you have one in particular you'd like to talk about, I can pick up the conversation in a few days. In the meantime, I'll leave this here and will let you go on with your weekend. A point on papal infallibility: The members of the Church hierarchy obviously aren't perfect, but this isn't what the claim of papal infallibility is. The claim of infallibility is that, while teaching definitively on faith and morals, the Magisterium is protected from error. This is independent of the moral character of the leaders themselves, and is seen as a fulfillment of Jesus' promise that the Holy Spirit would lead His Church "into all truth" (John 16:13). One can affirm this while still admitting we've had bad leaders mixed in with the good ones. To do so is to be consistent with Jesus' teaching in the parable of the Weeds and the Wheat (Mt. 13:24-30). A thought on the intercession of the saints, which ties into other issues: Both Catholic/Orthodox and Protestants use the Bible to defend their teachings on justification. The former believe in Infused righteousness, which Suan explains well in this video, and the latter in Imputed righteousness. The thing about this is that each of these systems carry with them huge implications, and the idea of intercession of the saints is one of the implications of Infused Righteousness, as are many other teaching which are often regarded as accretions by Protestants. I firmly believe that if we can sort out the issue of Infused vs. Imputed righteousness, many other areas of disagreement will fall into place. A UA-cam comment section isn't a great place to dive deep into this, since it could probably be its own book, but perhaps this can provide a new way of looking at these disagreements. It's helpful to try to see the whole framework being used by each party in the argument. Unrelated, but if I may make a book recommendation, since you talked about reading John 6 many times, you may enjoy "Jesus and the Jewish Roots of the Eucharist" by Brant Pitre. Even if you don't come away agreeing with it, it's a fascinating read. He has a similar book about Mary, which you may find edifying as well. Neither are very long. I've enjoyed this, and may God bless your day. I hope to see you in another comment section soon!
Jesus prays that we may all be one (unified). We assume that we understand what that means to Jesus. Somewhere in Isaia God says "For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways" declares the Lord. "As the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts than your thoughts".
Eucharistic miracles are a thing. Scientific studies on the host are interesting and evidence that miracles happen every Sunday for the past 2000 years.
RE: the problem of Jesus not “knowing” - the “know” re day or hour means “decree” and is reference to the Jewish wedding where the father announces the time of the wedding, not the son. So Jesus would have been saying it is the Father who will announce the day and hour of the Son’s return
As a Protestant, I love Catholics, but I cannot believe a lot of things that are not Biblical. I agree that there are head issues that keep people from being Christian as well as heart issues, be it love of sin or hurt from someone who was Christian etc... There was a time I genuinely looked at Catholicism and was seeking to be nearer to Christ but I was confusing rituals and penance for being Christlike. So I was incapable of bridging the Bible with the catechism. From the hierarchy, prayer to anyone but God, pergatory, the most egregious thing to me (not in the catechism) idea that Christ is less loving than his mother, that the Bible is not inspired by the creator but merely a product of men and that Christ founded the Catholic Church who produced the Bible, and when was Peter was in Rome, the Apostles wrote letters to churches they established directly, they didn't ask Peter to write to them. Now they are blessing people openly in sinful relationships more than that if a tribe in the jungle of anywhere were to come across a Bible they could read, even in 10000 years they wouldn't come up with the RCC, the only way to get to the RCC is with the remnants of Roman and Greek pagan structure...
We don't “pray” to saints in the way we pray to God. We just ask the saints to pray for us and because they see our actions on earth, they hear us and pray for us. The word “praying” misleads Protestants because they have a different definition of it than we do. In Protestant terms, we don’t “pray” to saints, we ask them to pray for us. Pray in old English literally means to ask. Christ is not less loving than Mary. Idk where you came up with that. We also believe that the Bible is divinely inspired, I’m not sure how you came up with otherwise. And I don’t see anything wrong with blessing sinful people as long as priests don’t bless the sin. There’s a lot more I can say but I think you need to do a lot more research on Catholicism. Even after researching Catholic beliefs for months, going to mass regularly, and attending RCIT classes, it was still hard for me to digest Catholic beliefs. Coming from someone who was Protestants, it very hard to truly understand catholic beliefs until you see them the way a Catholic does. Please continue looking into Catholicism. You’re going to face obstacles, but if you hold out and pray about it, I think it will all be worth it. God bless!
Hi, Joel. Yes, I sympathise with your litany of objections, and they do indeed make a cogent presentation. What is more, there are many Catholics who will be totally unable in principle (as opposed to simply in virtue of various practical constraints) to answer your objections, so you have good reason to think that your position is unassailable, and that your commitment is in fact correct. Judging from your post, it seems that, as you have gained experience, this perspective has often been reinforced. The problem is, it's not simply reinforced. Suan was once a Protestant Christian, and he progressed, not through ignorance and misinformation but through further encounter with correct information, to abandon Protestantism an embrace Catholicism, as have several prominent converts from Protestantism. He, and they (and since I am a revert I can say we), came to regard the litany of objections as satisfactorily invalidated, both each in their own right and as a system of understanding, in the face of authentic Catholic claims. In the first place, most of your objections to Catholicism are objections that Catholicism itself would make to anyone positing such a claim, and so do not constitute Catholic belief. I'm not sure whether you are acknowledging that your difficulties that you list just before "...bridging the Bible with the catechism...." are psychological impediments rather than valid objections. If you do view them as your personal difficulties, then yes, we all have barriers to overcome for us to be able to deal with reality. I'll address what comes after. The correct understanding of Scripture is that it deals with reality. There is no lack of indication that the Church understands Herself to be hierarchical. The Apostles made no bones about telling the Pharisees and Doctors of the Law to fly a kite, even after such had become members of the Church. There is no indication of egalitarian status in the Church. The Apostles are on top, and they know it, and use that power to put upstarts in their place. They have their authority immediately from Christ, who has it from His Father. The Apostles have coadjutor bishops as successors, priests as their representatives, and deacons as their collaborators. Each member of the Church is subject, first to God, to Christ, to the Apostles, to their coadjutors, to the local priests and deacons, with each of those being subject to their immediate superior, as befits a military organisation, in which they were to put on the armour of Christ and march under His banner, and as a bride subject to her husband, with each member taking its proper place. As a Protestant, you are at a distinct disadvantage, Joel. Your understanding of meaningful worship, and religion generally, is likely limited to prayer and preaching, but this is a phenomenally truncated vision of religion. In the first place, religion is so large that James has no problem including the spiritual and corporal works of mercy as being specifically acts of religion. You are correct that the heart of religion is worship. The heart of worship, however, is not words per se, whether the words of men spoken in prayer to God, the words of men spoken in proclamation to other men, or the words of God spoken to men. The heart of worship, which may well and indeed does include these things, is rather sacrifice offered by man to God. The best sacrifice that man could offer to God is what God Himself has given, which is Himself. This removes the objection that prayer which is directed other than to God is idolatry. Only that is idolatry which is sacrifice offered to something other than God. The word prayer simply means to speak in the context of presenting a petition. This is exactly what you do when you ask your neighbour to pray for you about an upcoming event of significance in your life. The objection that your neighbour is not dead and therefore that such request does not constitute necromancy is easily dismissed with reference to Jesus' words as recorded in John 11:26 that whoever lives and believes in Christ will never die. The objection that the members of the Church who are in heaven are nonetheless separated from the members of the Church on earth is easily dismissed with reference to Jesus' words in His high priestly prayer in John 17:20-21 that we who believe in Christ through the words of the Apostles and their successors may be one with each other in Christ even as Christ is one with His Father. Purgatory is God's tremendous mercy which makes heaven possible for most of those now in heaven. Since nothing impure can exist in God's presence, and most of the members of the Church are imperfectly purified from their overattachment to the goods of this earth at the time of their, perhaps untimely, death, the process of weaning them from a mixed love of God to a pure love of God is completed after death. None but those who are friends of God when they die experience purgatory, and of those, only those whose friendship with God was imperfect. I suspect that you may have gotten your idea that Catholics think that Christ is less loving than His Mother from some Italian devotional guide on Mary, at however many degrees of separation. You're right that it's not in the Catechism, Joel, and for good reason. Your cultural heritage traces its roots to England, which was an early adopter of Protestantism, so its cultural appreciations are telescoped, whereas Italian cultural appreciations are extended. Accordingly they tend not to understand or appreciate each other. What Marian devotional aids attend to is the phenomenally exalted status of a creature. What you are used to is that what is exalted is God. This naturally provides occasion for misunderstanding, especially when such manuals feel no need constantly to be recalling what is patently obvious, that a creature derives any measure of greatness from its Creator. When you speak of the Bible not being inspired, Joel, certain distinctions need to be drawn. As is characteristic of God, grace was widely diffused in the production of the Bible. God inspired the several diverse authors to be true human authors each of their own documents, but in such manner that in each case the Holy Spirit affirms whatever the inspired author affirms, and provides that the inspired author included what the Holy Spirit wanted included in that document. So that document was and is inspired. How do we know that that document is inspired? Those entrusted with the authority that the Father gave to Christ, after prayerful discernment and collaboration, declared on their authority that it is inspired. This was repeated with the various documents, and the canon thereby determined. All alternative Protestant explanations of the canon fail, whether by including too many documents of the hundreds which were proposed and considered or even several of more recent vintage which even Protestants would exclude, by excluding too many documents which even Protestants would include, or both, so that the canon can be recognised to have its true form only on the basis of the Church fulfilling Her role of being the pillar and ground of truth. This is enough to go on. I could go on, but circumstances impose limits. If you wish, Joel, we can discuss these matters further, or, if you wish, I could answer the further elements of your litany.
Catholics have biblical justifications for all of their beliefs. Just because Protestants do not agree with Catholic interpretations of the bible does not mean Catholic beliefs are "unbiblical". It's false witness against Catholics to say we don't get our beliefs from the bible. Church hierarchy is found in the Acts of the Apostles and St Paul's letters. "Purgatory" comes straight from the Latin translation of 1 Cor 3: 11-15. Prayer to Saint is shown in the Book of Revelation. It is NOT true that Catholics believe Mary is more loving than Christ. That is once again false witness against Catholic beliefs. It is also NOT true Catholics believe the bible is not inspired. The Catholic Church is where Protestants received the doctrine of biblical inspiration. See CCC 105: God is the author of Sacred Scripture. "The divinely revealed realities, which are contained and presented in the text of Sacred Scripture, have been written down under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit." "For Holy Mother Church, relying on the faith of the apostolic age, accepts as sacred and canonical the books of the Old and the New Testaments, whole and entire, with all their parts, on the grounds that, written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, they have God as their author, and have been handed on as such to the Church herself." And finally, the Catholic Church does not bless "sinful relationships". You are referring to Fiducia Supplicans, and the text is free for you to read yourself on the Vatican's website. It very clearly states that any irregular relationship cannot receive a blessing, but individuals can be blessed who are seeking healing from irregular relationships. This is referring both to homosexual relationships and divorced/remarried relationships. You should take a step back and consider if you even understand the Catholic Church before you go around spreading lies about it.
Converts to Catholic Dr Gavin Ashenden the Queens Chaplin Dr James Whites sister converted to Catholic Dr. Scott Hahn Protestant to Catholic convert Dr David Anders Protestant to Catholic convert Dr. John Bergsma Protestant to Catholic convert Dr Thomas Howard Protestant to Catholic Dr Thomas Scheck Protestant to Catholic Dr. Travis Lacy Dr Ian Murphy Protestant to Catholic convert Dr Doug Beaumont Protestant to Catholic Dr Frank Hermann Baptist to Catholic Candace Owens Evangelical to Catholic Joe Heschmeyer JD Protestant to Catholic Dr. Francis Beckwith Protestant to Catholic Edith Stein Jewish to Catholic convert Rabbi Israeli Zolli Jewish to Catholic convert Dr Charles Spivak atheist to Catholic convert Dr. Dawn Goldstein Jewish to Catholic convert Dr Ray Guarendi revert from Evangelical Dr Ronda Chervin Jewish Atheist to Catholic Dr Robin Pierucci Jewish to Catholic Dr Ross Porter Presbyterian to Catholic Dr Richard Smith Anglican to Catholic Dr Richard Sherlock Mormon to Catholic Dr James Prothro Protestant to Catholic Dr Justus Hunter Methodist to Catholic Dr John Gresham Assembly of God • Catholic Dr John Haas Episcopalian • Catholic Dr. Jeff Schwehm JW to Catholic convert Dr Peter Williamson Protestant Catholic convert Dr Peter Kreeft Protestant to Catholic convert Dr Petroc Willey Evangelical to Catholic Dr Paul Young Protestant to Catholic Dr Paul Thigpen Pentecostal to Catholic Dr Paul Williams Buddhist to Catholic Dr Pamela Hollins Baptist to Catholic Dr. Ken Craycraft C of C to Catholic convert Dr. Kenneth Howell Protestant to Catholic. Dr Kevin Vost atheist to Catholic convert Dr Taylor Marshall Protestant to Catholic Dr Mathew Cabeen Evangelical to Catholic Dr Matthew Thomas Protestant to Catholic Dr Mary Burchard Protestant to Catholic convert Dr. Bev. Whelton seven day Adventist • Catholic Dr David Hall Protestant to Catholic convert Dr Ryan Messmore Protestant to Catholic Dr Ryan Topping Protestant to Catholic Dr Jim Shelton Episcopalian to Catholic Dr Annie Bullock Baptist to Catholic convert Dr Allen Hunt Methodist to Catholic Dr Ben Lewis Protestant to Catholic convert Dr. Brant Pitre Protestant to Catholic Dr. Tim Gregson Protestant • Catholic Dr Dolores Grier Baptist to Catholic convert Dr David Mosley Protestant to Catholic convert Dr Diego Ospina Protestant to Catholic convert Dr Deal Hudson Baptist to Catholic Dr. Jason Reed Protestant to Catholic convert Dr Bill Saunders Protestant to Catholic convert Ronald Knox Protestant to Catholic Lila Rose Protestant to Catholic Steve Ray Protestant to Catholic convert Tim Staples Protestant to Catholic convert Ken Hensley Protestant to Catholic convert St John Henry Newman Catholic convert Leah Libresco atheist to Catholic Eva Vlaardingerbroek Protestant•Catholic Abby Johnson Planned Parenthood to RCC Bishop Jonathan Goodall Bishop Nazir Ali Bishop Edwin Barnes Bishop David Silk Bishop John Broadhurst Bishop Kieth Newton Bishop Andrew Burnham GK Chesterton Graham Greene St. Paul St. Augustine Ulf Ekman ( the billy Graham of Sweden ) Malcom Muggeridge All converted to Roman Catholic
Our unity is achieved by the work of the Holy Spirit through God's word. If we are basing our salvation on why men act certain ways, we only need to look at the scriptures to see. "Truly, this only I have found: That God made man upright, But they have sought out many schemes.” Ecclesiastics 7:29 The Holy Spirit is the one that would lead us into all the truth. When Jesus was leaving, He specifically said, He will send the Holy Spirit to be our helper. Even when Paul preached to the Bereans, they searched the Bible to make sure what he was saying lined up with it. May God open our eyes to pray and desire the Holy Spirit to lead us into all the truth. "However, when He, the Spirit of truth, has come, He will guide you into all truth; for He will not speak on His own authority, but whatever He hears He will speak; and He will tell you things to come." John 16:13
Welcome to Catholicism brother! The Church that Jesus established by conferring authority to St Peter and his disciples, the Magisterium of the Catholic Church.
So, if I have good understand the protestants/Evangelicals, to be a Christian (I mean like them) I have to reject my baptismal promises and get baptized again and again! Then, I must reject the Saints, the apostles, the doctors of the Church, the Cross and even our Holy Mother Mary and the teachings of the GOSPEL too. Then I will be “born again” and my place in heaven will be assured, whatever I do in my life. That's right ?? ah yes, I forgot: on Sunday, instead of going to celebrate the body and blood of Christ, I will go to a pop-rock concert and I will call it the " christian worship ".
I do not really understand the Sola Scripture debate (Ways of looking at scripture): Catholics believe God infuses you with grace until Faith is enkindled in you. You work (sacraments) to keep that Faith burning inside you. Through your actions, however, the fire of Faith can extinguish. Protestants believe God infuses you with grace until Faith is enkindled in you. Once you have Faith you are compelled to live a Christian life. If you do not live a Christian life, you never had Faith. You were never covered with snow! Seems like the same thing. God is the first mover, and you can lose salvation. It really just seems that I have contempt for my neighbor Abel, and I find a reason to align myself against him.
The Canon of scripture was set once and for all at the council of Rome 382AD, pope Damasus I, number 37 since Peter presented the bible and solemnly declared that she is the word of God! 73 books total Nowhere in the bible says that the Bible is the word of God!
Regarding unity, the church is the body of Christ who has only one body, not bodies. Therefore, having multiple churches or multiple denominations is bad !
@@MeisterBeefington Yes, that "different parts of the whole" almost instantly occurred to me, too. In that analogy, the Catholic Church should be the head because as we see "new" questions arise, we see that Rome has already pondered these questions centuries ago. Many will see it otherwise.
Jesus said, Matthew 10:34 (NKJV) “Do not think that I came to bring peace on earth. I did not come to bring peace but a sword. Yahweh is calling out a people for his “Names sake.” In Genesis 12 God gave Abraham four promises. A personal promise, a family promise, a national promise and an international promise. He promised a land, a people and a king. This promise was to be eternal. Where would that be? On the earth. Revelation 5:10 (KJV) And hast made us unto our God kings and priests: and we shall reign on the earth. “1000 years” God does not allow us to worship as we wish. Examples; Adam and Eve. They tried to worship another way by choosing to cover their nakedness with leaves. Cain and Abel. At the end of Genesis 3 Cherubim (angels) were placed on the east of the garden so they could see the tree of life. These angels were put their to guard or keep the way of life open. God was not ready to give up on humanity. The sword which turned every which way represented Yahweh or God is where we find the the word of truth. Hebrews 4:12 (NKJV) For the word of God [is] living and powerful, and sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the division of soul and spirit, and of joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart. Revelation 1:16 (NKJV) He had in His right hand seven stars, out of His mouth went a “sharp two-edged sword,” and His countenance [was] like the sun shining in its strength. God was not pleased with Cain’s offering. Next, the people that tried to build the Tower of Babel were trying to set up a parallel religion to Yahweh’s word. The wanted to make a name for themselves like Yahweh. So he stopped their path by changing their languages. Notice that Yahweh did not kill Cain, Lamech, or the Tower of Babel group that he dispersed. Why? His mercy? It’s like he gave mankind every chance he could to come to him. I feel like you are seeking God through man’s writings. I am a Christadelphian. There are about 50,000 Christadelphians world wide. We do not have a paid ministry or a central leadership committee. We have a statement of faith that contains a summery of our faith. It’s called the Birmingham Amended Statement of Faith. Birmingham is the city in England where the document was formed. The amendment made to the document because of a book that was published early in in the development of the faith. It was not excepted by most of the world wide community. As most religions have sub groups that brake away we too have smaller groups that separate for various reasons. I have a group in my messenger where I work with others to help them understand Yahweh’s word.
Your got your analogy on the constitution and the bible wrong, it is th e other way around! It was rhe freemasonic founders who took the bible as a sample to create the constitution and the authority of the Catholic Church to createv the supteme court!!! the Catholic Church explains and interprets the Scriptures!!! An exterior authority to explain them infallibly since both were inspired by the Holy Spirit !! God created the church first! Thatsxwht
Interesting video. The irony is that the Catholic magisterium itself is less than perspicuous these days. Also, it's probably not good to lump all protestantism together. Different Traditions hold different views. (For that matter, the Eastern Orthodox think that Rome are the first protestants, so there's that.)
Out of the whole document, one paragraph is contested, and it honestly doesn't take that much time and effort to understand that the critics are wrong.
Shall we believe you or the hundreds if not thousands of former staunch anti Catholic Protestant Bible Scholars,Pastors,Theologians,Historians,Intellectuals to name a few ,who have already converted to Catholicism?Many more are following their footsteps Btw,what are your theological credentials?
I think from what I can tell - podcasts / homily’s / UA-camrs etc. the RCC is unified in a qualified sense. But the amount of division is pretty substantial and if you have true unity then the amount of schism and papal confusion etc. should not exist to the degree it does. So it briefs well - but scandal/ controversy /disagreement / sin / corruption / is not exclusive to Protestantism. I think Suan would agree. So in simple terms same stink different horse stable
There is division unfortunately, but there is one clear faith being taught in the Catholic Church. Even two Catholics who disagree in the maximum degree will agree on much more than a pair of Protestants from separate denominations.
@@bcampbell8344 I can see your point - but let’s not conflate someone who says “I am willing to prescribe to Marian dogmas in full…because I can trust and hold to everything else…” that’s a type of unity. But Catholics talk and that’s often the narrative - some again uniformity? Sure. Unity? Sure I’ll grant that…but one mind or one spirit like Jesus and Paul says? Long shot. And I am a classical Protestant - you and I haven’t more in common than me and a low church Protestant but even Scott Hahn has said this…I’d say unity in the profession of faith but in the heart? I don’t know. But I’m teachable
I think people are purposely stirring and creating papal confusion from both the liberal media and the rad trads who both have a goal, to destroy the Church that Christ founded with lies. A document meant for German bishops for example is released and to the laity and non Catholics whose eyes it is not meant for and like protestants have thousands of multiple interpretations
The Catholic Church has apostatised! What has happened this month is very significant and professing Christians should pay attention to scriptures on eschatology.. Please read 1Corinthians 6:9-20, and 2 Thessalonians 2:1-12. If you arrogate to yourself the power to bless what God has cursed, then you have apostatised. Scripture is not fluid, else we will all swim a flux of human opinions.
3 characteristics of The New Mass/ Lutheranism 1. Denial of the supernatural 2. Evolution of dogma; that dogma evolves 3. That the basis of religion is one’s personal experience with God = focus on us. Why priests face the people. All Protestantism.
1. There is no denial of the supernatural at Mass. That is ludicrous. 2. Dogma does not evolve. Understanding and interpretation can improve. 3. In the earliest Roman churches, the priest faced East and the apse with the altar faced west. The Priest stood behind the altar, facing the people. No Protestants were in attendance, since they would not exist for more than a thousand years.
Now "gay union blessings" will be done at St Peter's Basilica by orders of the administrator......Spanish priests in Madrid are ordered to comply with FS EDICT.....very tragic !
"Perspecuity is that all people of reason will come to ecclesial unity"--that's actually not what it's come to mean in most circles. The claim of the perspecuity of Scripture is that those things necessary to salvation are clear, not that everything is alike clear. I might do a video on this.
Thanks for elevating the conversation productively, Suan! Would love to dialogue some time
Westminster Confession:
"All things in Scripture are not alike plain in themselves, nor alike clear unto all; yet those things which are necessary to be known, believed, and observed for salvation, are so clearly propounded, and opened in some place of Scripture or other, that not only the learned, but the unlearned, in a due use of the ordinary means, may attain unto a sufficient understanding of them." (1.7)
@@anglicanaestheticsyou probably already know the Catholic response, so please respond to that if you do make a video: paedobaptism, necessity of baptism, regeneration, how many Prots disagree.
@@renjithjoseph7135 I will, but I'm an example of a person who came to be convinced of those things from Scripture who started as a Baptist. It just took more reading of Scripture
Hi, this is a good point. I think I acknowledged the plurality of definitions in the video and that I’m trying to capture how early reformers viewed perspicuity or at least what they thought they could accomplish with the Bible alone.
@@intellectualcatholicism Well, I quoted WCF because that codifies Calvin's view, which matched the English, Swiss, Reformed, and scholastic Lutheran Reformation
Re: Protestantism is the norm.
Seeing that I thought like this is actually what started my conversion journey. I had a discussion with a Catholic where I just assumed that we could both agree on Sola Scriptura in some form to arrive at Sola Fide.
He calmly told me that such conversations are good, because we can see how we bring different presuppositions to the table.
I was "bothered" that he knew my position, but I had actually no idea about his. So I decided to "clear up this Reformation thing once and for all"...
This Easter vigil, I will be a Catholic for two years.
Welcome to the Church to all those in the community! I am a 61 yo cradle Catholic and I am still learning and growing in the faith.🕊️🕊️🕊️🙏🙏🙏
As a lawyer, I see a similar analogy between the Bible/Constitution and the Magisterium/Supreme Court.
In Civil Law, the Supreme Court is the final authority that interprets the Constitution or laws. It does not hold itself as above the Constitution but rather "safeguards" it.
Imagine a country without a final, authoritative body to interpret laws. Everyone interprets the law as they see fit. Imagine the chaos.
It really seems obvious to me that we need a Magisterium to interpret the Bible for us.
Absolutely. As a fellow lawyer, I completely understand and share your perspective. The analogy you draw between the Bible/Constitution and the Magisterium/Supreme Court is indeed quite apt. Just as the Supreme Court serves as the ultimate authority in interpreting the Constitution, ensuring uniformity and preventing legal chaos, so too does the Magisterium play a crucial role in interpreting the Bible. Without such a guiding authority, individual interpretations could lead to confusion and discord, much like a country without a final arbiter of its laws. It also seems clear to me the necessity of a Magisterium for providing definitive interpretations of the Bible. Even setting aside the biblical and historical support for a moment -- which I personally find persuasive -- the structure and essential role of such an authoritative body in maintaining coherence and unity remain compelling. If such a definitive authority is seen as necessary in civil society to prevent chaos, how much more vital is it in matters concerning the salvation of souls and the highest spiritual truths? The stakes in religious interpretation are infinitely greater, underscoring the need for a clear and authoritative voice in these matters.
This is gold!!
I understand the spirit of the argument, but the courts are so bad right now that it might make people dig their feet in that there should not be a Magisterium. The Supreme Court is slightly better now than it has been for many decades, but has been a force for the Left's revolution since at least the 1950s.
You do realize the bible is written in plain language for the most part. It is available in over 1,500 different languages.
What is very curious to me, as a follower of Jesus Christ, is how do Cathotholics accept the rewriting of the 10 Commandments for the Catechism?
Jesus said that He came to fulfill the scripture, not to abolish it1. He also said that the scripture cannot be broken2. He warned against those who change or ignore the scripture. He taught that the scripture is the word of God and the authority for life5. Therefore, Jesus did not support or encourage any rewriting of scripture, but rather confirmed its truth and power. 📖
@@Sola_Scriptura_1.618 Let me address your curiosity. First of all, do you see any numbering in any of the verses from which the Ten Commandments were taken? I assure you, you will find none. Second, I assume you are primarily referring to the purported removal of the 2nd Commandment, aren't you? That's a common accusation among Protestant circles against Catholicism. But let me tell you, there are different ways of numbering and grouping the Ten Commandments in Christianity. Mainly adhering to St. Augustine, Catholics and Lutherans (which, as you may know, is a major Protestant denomination primarily following the theology of Martin Luther) did not remove what you would refer to as the “2nd Commandment”; instead, they combined it under the “1st Commandment.” The reason behind this is that the so-called “prohibition against graven images,” when properly understood and read in conjunction with other Bible passages, is actually a prohibition against idolatry (not a blanket prohibition against graven images per se), which is encompassed within the commandment to have no other gods before Him. This merging reflects an emphasis on monotheism and the exclusive worship of God. Catholics, in particular, did not remove the so-called “2nd Commandment” in your numbering but rather combined the content from Deut 5:6-10 (or the similar verses in Exo 20). You can verify this with the Catechism of the Catholic Church; you will find that the relevant verses in Exo 20 or Deut 5 should be quoted in full (so there’s no removal as some assert). Did that satisfy your curiosity? If not, then look for another Lutheran, and bicker among yourselves why that is so.
Your explanation of the Catholic view on salvation, and its coherence, was beautifully, beautifully presented. Thank you for that, and thank you for sharing the great gifts you have been given of explaining the truth of Catholicism--and doing so with love and respect. You are a blessing!!
I hear this. For me in my conversion from Protestantism, I had to unlearn total depravity and accept that God made me and all that I desire as truly ordered for the good.
Total depravity is not a heresy. I still believe in that as a Catholic in the sense that we are dead in sin and cannot do any good either to believe the gospel or do any good works without God's grace first acting on us.
With all due respect, to avoid misunderstanding, I have to say that, unless by "good works" you mean "meritorious works (profitable to salvation)", this is still wrong, as can be shown from e.g. the condemnation of the propositions of de Bay/Baius, and most evidently, the 55th:
God would not have had the power from the beginning to create such a man as is born now (Denzinger a
1055).
The Church teaches that the opposite is true, and that man is sufficient to accomplish true naturally (as opposed to supernaturally) good works (profitable to salvation), and, generally, that the fall is relative to the gratuitous gift of elevation to grace and the prospect of supernatural happiness, which is not "due to man from the natural exigency and condition of human nature", to quote a later condemnation of related Jansenist errors in the bull Auctorem Fidei (prop. 16, Denzinger 1516).
So, while I believe that some of the statements of, say, the Westminster Confession on this can indeed be charitably read, we cannot properly say, for example, that "[f]rom this original corruption we are utterly indisposed, dis-abled, and made opposite to all good, and wholly inclined to all evil" (from West. Conf. VI, IV).
This is false, as is (and "wholly" is, at best, ambiguous).
Those with original sin can, contrary to the e.g. plausible implications of the teaching of Dordt (IV, article 4), be good even spirituallt/internally (even if not as good as God would have us).
The Church has seen fit to defend this on numerous occasions, so hopefully this will not strike you as nitpicking, and all ambiguity should be avoided.
To paraphrase/translate the esteemed theologian Fr. Matthias Scheeben), one does not praise God the Redeemer by blaspheming God the Creator.
@@shamuscrawfordtotal depravity describes believers too. It’s utterly false.
Edit: it denies God’s grace working in us. So it denies God’s work, as well as the work we do which He has prepared for us. So why do reformed theologians teach it? So they can say we can do nothing to be saved , and therefore, there is nothing we can do to not be saved.
The Nicene Creed summarizes the basics of what we need to know about our Catholic faith.
Great episode! As a cradle Catholic, understanding of he psychology behind the Protestant mind is really interesting to me. Really enjoyed this episode
No brother hour-long videos are fantastic. Keep it up we love this
Im a convert (6 years) from evangelical. I really like your point regarding the bible being treated like a constitution by Protestants. The basis of their beliefs is their own private interpretation and what they "think," Catholics believe. Its frustrating, Im the only Catholic in my family and the arguments are endless.
Stand in the Faith. Don't let yourself be troubled. For 60 years, I have seen theses that seemed unshakeable collapse over the generations - (Pope Benedict XVI).
Please my friend, remain FOCUS on the Faith, Hope and charity/Love. Go to the sacrements, even if you are alone. No matter. pray everyday. learn everyday a little more about the person of Jesus Christ and the Gospel. and all the rest will fall in his time. God bless You !
Tell them that Personal Interpretation destroys the word of God and that Jesus left a magisterium for the proper interpretation of the Bible. Just let them think about the 30,000 different Protestant sects out there to prove your point.
As I get older I also believe more and more that epistemic humility is important, and with it openness to new ideas.
Why i can never be a Protestant
The protestant " service " is more like a bible study with each pastor giving his own interpretation of scripture .....and .... considering that theres 48000 different protestant " churches " or " Denominations" out there ....its not very advisable ..... majority of these pastors are untrained.... anybody can wakw up one morning and decide to be a pastor.....and the majority of them preach heresy....
Protestantism is all about the money ( tithes ) .....no tithes ....no church .....its that simple ......so you will find that in each protestant church the emphasis is on " the more you give the more you get "
Also most protestants go to service to network.....i have seen this first hand from my protestant friends at work.... I'll fix your car whilst you fix my bathroom .
A Protestant service is more like a club ....a tight knit group of people all having the same idea or goal .....and the kids are drilled from young against joining any other church especially the catholic church .
BUT THE ONE MOST IMPORTANT ISSUE ......IS THE HOLY EUCHARIST ..... WITH CATHOLICISM WE GO TO MASS TO HAVE A PERSONAL RELATIONSHIP WITH JESUS .....EVERY MASS WE ARE AT THE FOOT OF THE CROSS JOINING IN THE PASSION OF OUR LORD AND SAVIOUR ....AND THEN WE PHYSICALLY TAKE JESUS INTO OUR SOULS VIA THE RECEPTION OF THE HOLY EUCHARIST ....ITS NOT SYMBOLIC ITS REALITY
THIS IS THE BIGGEST DIFFERENCE ....AND THE MOST IMPORTANT DIFFERENCE.....OUR MASS IS ABOUT HOLINESS AND SACRIFICE
AND LASTLY .....THE WAY THE PROTESTANTS BLASPHEME THE MOTHER OF GOD DUE TO HERETICAL TEACHING IS SO SCANDOLOUS .....YET THEIR FOUNDER MARTIN LUTHER LOVED MARY THE MOTHER OF GOD ......HOW DO THEY NOT KNOW THIS ? WHERE DID THEY GO WRONG
SOME IF THEIR SLOGANS ARE SO UNEDUCATED....YOU WONDER IF THIS IS FROM SATAN OR NOT .
1. CALL NO MAN FATHER
2..WHY MUST YOU CONFESS YOUR SINS TO A MAN ETC ETC ......ITS ALL IN THE BIBLE ....SO MUCH FOR SOLA SCRIPTURA😂
For 1500 years after Jesus died and was resurrected there was only one church …..the Catholic church founded by Jesus Himself when He anointed the apostle Peter as the first pope
" You are Peter and upon this rock I will build my church"
Then 1500 years after that along comes Luther ( after Satan had whispered in his ear) and split the church apart ….just as Satan had instructed .
Luther Calvin and others started the rot . ( Now remember this was 1500 years after Christ founded His church …..there was no protestant church ….it was the Catholic church
Catholic means universal .
From the Greek word KATOLIKOS.
Martin Luther, an EX CATHOLIC wanted to reform the Catholic church but took it too far. He began the great division in the church in the 16th century .He believed he was inspired by God and that no one could criticize his ideas. He was a narcissist...he said " In a 1000 years no bishop has been bestowed with such gifts as God has bestowed upon me". He said he is certain that he has received his dogmas from heaven …..he said " I am the prophet of the Germans ". But the fact is he followed the teachings of Henry of Ockham.
He started translating the bible from Greek without having any knowledge of Greek .He translated the " man is justified by faith " into " man is justified by faith alone " he added the word " alone " by himself .When someone criticized him for that he replied " Doctor Martin Luther translates it that way and that's how I want it."....over 1400 errors were found in his translation .He excluded certain books from the bible by his own authority …..he said the epistle of James is nothing more than straw because it does not present any evangelical character. Regarding the book of revelation he said that he does not find anything apostolic or prophetic in this book. He commissioned rude paintings of the pope of that time and got it published
( is that the conduct of a holy man ….a man inspired by God ?).
When he blessed people he would say "
May the Lord fill you with his blessing and hatred for the pope.
( Is that a blessing ? Or a curse?)
On marriage he said that marriage is mandatory ….that woman was not created to be a wife but to beget children they only serve for marriage or prostitution.
He said he hates divorce so much that he prefers bigamy. He allowed prince Phillip to have 2 wives and justified it based on the bible and when people found out…. he lied and said that one was his concubine and not his wife.
He loved the virgin Mary and said she was the tender mother of God ….in his dining room
He had the crucifix and and image of Mary holding the infant Jesus .
He accepted baptism and the real presence of Jesus in the Holy Eucharist. He later said that Lutheranism was no better than catholicism
Protestants are under this false illusion that they were around at the time of Christ ......and that ONLY they know Christ .
If they did they would institute the Holy Eucharist
It is their BIGGEST DOWNFALL.
I know Morgan Freeman has a great speaking voice, but you could totally be a great radio voice. Very smooth. Great video BTW. Born LCMS, to spiritual protestantism, back to Lutheranism, and finally home to RCC
I am a cradle Catholic and joined St Paul Street Evangelization. I have had the Holy Spirit help me get many to become Catholic. 1Tim 1:3 says to not teach any different doctrines.
I agree on everything you said - very good points! I think I've gone through much the same thought process in my conversion. One thing you did not mention, when talking about the perpetuity of Scripture, which struck one evening when I was discussing with my mom (a good Protestant Christian) was this: She believes that if she honestly asks the Holy Spirit for guidance on issue X, she will receive it. It seemed for her quite obvious that the Holy Spirit would not deny such revelation. It didn't matter that I could point out all the various disagreements among Protestants, because this belief in the guidance of the Holy Spirit seemed to her (and to some degree, also myself) as completely true.
My answer is basically: God does not want to reveal directly to you as an individual, access to all truth. Why wouldn't he? I say: God wants us to not access the truth in a community - or rather - in a body. It's God's love for us that makes this believable since God wants to use you and me to help others. Obviously, I don't know if this is a true answer, but I think it could very well be. Many Protestants share the conviction of my mother, and it seems soo right to them. Protestantism is Individualism at its core. Catholicism is Communalism at its core. I think this is a huge deal and should be highlighted.
I grew up in a cult, so i had to let go of almost everything. Even seemingly simple verses were distorted in the sect
I'm very proud of you for being able to do that. It's not easy. Everyone I know who grew up in a cult (an oddly high number of people!) have largely given up on any religious or spiritual truths. 😎👍🏻
Keep it up, Hoss!
@@MeanBeanComedy thank you!
19:50 this is something I think needs to be made clear to Protestants. The Magisterium isn't something Catholics have to interpret in the same way the Bible needs to be interpreted. The Magisterium is living and we can dialogue with it. You can't have a dialogue with a book. You can't ask for clarification from a book.
For perspicuity, I usually ask someone if it’s reasonable to get two people in separate rooms, read the entire Bible, and expect them to have similar doctrines.
Clarifying question here since I think autocorrect may have distorted your spelling, did you intend to say perpetuity (which essentially means “forever” often used in a legal context to transfer property rights.) or did you mean to say perspicuity (which means “clarity”)? Hope you have a wonderful day!
@@kellymccarthy-uy4fn Perspicuity. Thanks.
@@kellymccarthy-uy4fnHe meant perspicuity.
My 3 things were:
- marriage
- contraception
- women as priests.
Re: your studies on the Pseudepigrapha, have you checked out Dr. David Litwa’s work on the Nag Hammadi writings and the early church heresiologists? Fantastic, I highly recommend, and he’s joining the faculty of Boston College. Not Catholic himself, but his work is still of immense interest for anyone seeking more understanding of the early Catholic Church.
Btw, are you studying at Harvard locally or remotely? If the former, we’re in the same area! Martha’s Vineyard here. Your work has been helpful in my conversion to Catholicism. Thanks for everything, God bless.
Lofton's point that Catholicism has unity of governance has always stuck with me. Doesn't matter how many schism from the Church if the unity of governance remains and uniquely so versus all the sects. The Catholic Church will always trump all challengers with respect to unity in this sense because of the papacy.
Yes, but his heretical teachings include the Protestant/Islamic/Man-made-religion idea that current teachings abrogate past teachings. Abrogation is the mark of a false religion invented by a creature, be that man or angel.
A mark of the one true religion that comes from the ceator would necessarily be that past teachings supercede present teachings, becausing God is the author of history outside of time, and only He can see the end and the begining all at once, while his creatures are within, and subject to, time.
@@stevedoetsch His who? Lofton? The Pope? Pope Francis?
The fact of the matter is that Jesus and His apostles did indeed abrogate much of the Old Law. That doesn't make Christianity a false religion; it just means those with the authority to change it changed it. Strictly speaking, one might say there is a difference between law and teaching, and that Jesus and His apostles did not change any Jewish teachings but rather developed and added to them. Though there's a fine line between teachings and law/discipline/governance.
@@tonyl3762 Anyone who cites Jesus/Apostles to justify abrogations by the Episcopate/Papacy shows they have lost the plot entirely. Jesus started a new Religion! Did you miss that? We're not here trying to live the religion of the Israelites founded by Moses for the Hebrews. So you're arguing that the Episcopate/Papacy can start a new religion & abrogate the Religion Jesus founded! Do you not realize how utterly self-defeating this argument is? With it, you confirm what everyone fears about hyperpapalists: that you've replaced the Catholic papacy with a Mormon Prophet.
New revelations/abrogations come with New Religions, buddy. You're claiming the Pope can introduce a new revelation like Jesus & the Apostles did, when this is literally denying the Catholic faith which teaches that the Revelation CLOSED with the death of the last Apostle, St. John. ALL the Magisterium is allowed to do is faithfully hand on the DEPOSIT the Church received from the Apostles. They cannot abrogate nothing! That's blasphemy and the equivalent of saying you believe in a third Revelation after Christ, whose new founder/prophet is a certain pope.
That's NOT Catholicism. It's like founding a new society/church! Analogy is founding a new republic, like the US was founded out of the British Empire. No pope can "make" his own constitution, just like the Supreme Court doesn't have a right to do anything beyond correctly interpret the constitution it received. Unlike a country/state, though, the Church's "constitution" cannot be ammended: it comes from Jesus & his Apostles and is to be handed on without losing ANY part of it, until the Lord's return.
@@AuthenticityVeritas Anyone who says that Jesus started a new religion rather than developed and fulfilled Judaism has "lost the plot entirely."
Clearly, you didn't even carefully read what I wrote and the distinctions I made, the same distinction that the Church has made in her own magisterial documents. Abrogating Jewish laws and disciplines and elaborating, developing, and clarifying Jewish teachings IS NOT starting a new religion.
STOP PUTTING WORDS IN MY MOUTH. Never did I say "the Pope can introduce a new revelation." You're beating up a straw man. May be fun for you, but just puzzling and annoying to the person you're caricaturing. You can do better.
By the way, I've recently been a critic Lofton and Fiducia Supplicans. Like so many YT commenters, you have no idea who you are interacting with and would do better to ask questions rather than pick a fight with what you imagine others are thinking/saying.
@@tonyl3762 This is nonsense. Of course Christianity is objectively a new religion, even if we believe we are the fulfilment of Temple Judaism. This is common sense!
1) We have a radical NEW revelation that no Hebrew had before the incarnation: We believe in a Trinity, and an incarnation of God who lived among men, was crucified, died, buried, resurrected, ascended, and will return, as our CORE belief, which Temple Judaism did NOT have by any stretch of the imagination.
2) Our worship and sacrifice is different, our practice is different, and our government is different. We do not worship at the Temple, nor offer their various MANDATED sacrifices, nor follow Moses' 613 laws, nor are we an earthly kingdom with political claims. We're not ruled by an earthly King, a Sanhedrin, nor served by the Levitical priesthood. Instead all this is subsumed into something MORE and different.
It is simply NUTS to claim Christianity is not--and radically so--a new religion on the world stage, founded on the person of JESUS CHRIST which the Temple Judaism was objectively not, as any honest person with a functioning brain can see.
We DO identify as the fulfilment of the old because we see the old as preparatory for US, but no Temple Jews saw their kingdom as coming to a radical end at any point and being supplanted by the Christian doctrine, practice, and religious government.
And I'm not putting words in your mouth. I'm showing you that your analogy is EXTREMELY inappropriate and in fact undercuts what you seek to prove: that if the Church attempts to abrogate, it's just doing what Jesus and his Apostles did. What a terrifying thing to suggest!
What Jesus and the Apostles did is REPLACE Temple Judaism with a radically NEW message/revelation, a radically new worship and practice, a radically new priesthood, and a radically new government to rule a radically new society/kingdom/church.
It's simply absurd to say to someone who says/argues the Church has no duty to abrogate what was received from the Apostles, "But that's what Jesus did and you're cool with it, aren't you?" It shows you have no clue the huge difference there exists between the Christ and his Apostles on one hand and the Magisterium on the other.
It's like comparing American Founding Fathers with the Supreme Court. If someone says, "Hey, the Court shouldn't just make up it's own constitution," you wouldn't, in your right mind, answer, "But why not? The Founders made a new Constitution unknown to the British, didn't they? And yet you're not complaining about that!"
If you did answer thus and were accused of attempting to create your own Republic, and whined at the accusation, such whining would be as empty as the one you're doing now in response to my rebuking you for using that example to justify an abrogation by the Magisterium!
In fact the American example is less egregious because technically, it's constitution is amendable. It's not as definitive compared to the Deposit handed to the Church by our equivalent of "founding fathers" ie. The Apostles. The Deposit they bequeathed the society THEY founded, is Divine.
The Apostles' successors, both the Episcopate and Papacy, are NOT Apostles or Prophets or Oracles. They don't get to come in with their own "vision"/ideas/abrogations... God forbid! Pope BXVI explicitly said the pope should never impose his own ideas on the Church but only transmit the deposit of faith as is his job. We are Catholics, not Mormons whose prophets come in with brand new revelations abrogating previous ones.
For Catholics, overiding previously revealed Divine communications and directions is literally CLAIMING the power of God! That was done by Jesus who was GOD the WORD/TRUTH/LOGOS himself, and his chosen witnesses (filled with the Holy Spirit) ONLY. Once again, pointing to them to say, "But they did it, too" is beyond ignorant!
After them, the revelation is closed and the only job of the Magisterium is to govern the churches and transmit to all generations of Christians what the Church received from the Apostles (hence we call it "deposit": it was only received by us and entrusted to us, we don't tinker with it as if we made it ourselves), and to do so without polluting it with their own stupid, man-made ideas.
The Magisterium has no positive inspiration from the Holy Spirit that the Apostles had, they use ordinary learning and reasoning to understand the deposit like everyone else. The protection they enjoy is NEGATIVE only, meant to protect US from their human stupidity, so that all generations will receive the same deposit.
So again, the comparison is inappropriate and revealing of the deficits you're working with, along with those who casually invoke this literal DIVINE action of Christ (and the witnesses to whom he entrusted it under the positive inspiration of his Holy Spirit) to justify a magisterial act that is ultra vires.
I converted to Orthodox Christianity from Protestantism and had to unlearn the same things. The journey is very similar. Great video!
Which orthodoxy? Coptic? Ethiopian? Russian? Greek?
@@joehouston2833 American :) But under the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America. The Orthodox Church is One Church and a communion of local churches. Sadly, we are not in communion with the Copts or Ethiopians - but by God's grace, that schism will be healed. Aside from that division, it would strike an Orthodox person as strange to refer to "orthodoxies" as if the faith varied between the Greeks, Russians, Serbs, Japanese or Americans - we believe in One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.
Super interesting stuff! Great stream
Ohhh can’t wait to get a chance to watch this
We gotta link up again soon, brother!
The Bible is a Library of books, as Bp. Barron often puts it, and in that regards the Catechism might look more like the Constitution.
There are three things in life that are unavoidable: death, taxes, and Bishop Barron.
Great show Suan!
Oh boy. You have come into limelight.
Thank you
By the way you look so lean.
Keep up the good work suan
Kevin, suan answers your followup question at 47:59
Ive been using somewhat of a straw man with Protestants, “if once saved always is the doctrine taught by Paul… why did he keep writing letters? Why didn’t the Corinthians or Galatians simply write back and say… don’t worry about it, we’re saved”
Perhaps someone can steel man this or put some academic rigor behind it. Would also love to hear a counter argument.
I too converted. I need to unlearn a TON
interesting first example, i disagree as a Catholic, I think reasonable people of good will become Catholic
i think many people are not reasonable and even fewer of of good will,, and reasonableness especially goes out the window when youre thinking of something emotionally loaded like your faith in God
I think even reasonable people can hold to logically fallacious position if they're handed down that position from people that can be reasonably discerned to be trustworthy. If we used reasonable to mean "using 100% accurate and selfaware reason", then I agree that you'll certaintly land on catholic, but I believe Suan was using reasonable to mean "able to evaluate arguments in support of an opposing view", and "of good will" to mean that "likely to change one's mind based on sound and valid arguments". Reasonableness in this sense wouldn't just refer to IQ, even a smart person shuts off the thinking part of their brain when emotions take the better of them.
yeah i agree you can salvage suan's position if you equivocate on both reason and good will, but I prefer not to water either of those terms down.
@@antpassalacqua Your approach is made with reference to objective consideration of reality taken as a whole. Taffazzi's approach is made with reference to that subset of reality to which particular persons have access, whether through immanently generated knowledge or through the disseminated understanding of persons deemed trustworthy.
It is true that faults can be found in non-Catholic systems of understanding, which can be exploited eventually to demonstrate the superior claims of Catholicism. Thus your position is correct. It remains that God has distributed His gifts as He sees fit, with the particular convergence of those elements by which people of good will finding themselves persuaded of the fullness of the means of salvation being found only in the Church remaining obscure. This is the meaning of Paul's obscure reference in Romans 2:14-16, the excommunication of Fr. Leonard Feeney, SJ, for heresy, and Paragraph 16 of the Dogmatic Constitution on the Church of the Second Vatican Council.
What we can say is that, if they remained alive, alert, and vigorous long enough, then all people of good will would eventually become Catholic, but this happy combination does not occur for all. Thus it behoves us to continue zealously proclaiming the gospel, also with apologetics and polemics, but always with as much charity and respect as the particular relationship or encounter allows. We don't want to allow ourselves to fall into the presumption that the person we're encountering is beyond the operation of grace in his soul in ways hidden to us, nor do we want to interfere with that operation of grace by becoming ourselves the counterwitness of judgemental hypocrisy. Instead we want to be that vehicle of grace which demonstrates that grace is available in whatever condition we may happen to be, and in whatever stage in our journey towards the fulness of life in grace we may happen to be.
"Gabi after hours" for a UA-camr that does a lot of Marian devotion videos
Seems to me that the perspicuity of scripture is so obviously false as it’s lead to a promiscuity of interpretation.
wonderfully said
I appreciate your charitable interpretation of our separated brethren viewpoints. As a lifelong Catholic, who has had a great deal of ministry with my Protestant brothers, and sisters, I have found that they authentically wish to follow Christ. As a somewhat weak analogy, Catholicism is the trunk of the tree of faith, with our Jewish forebears being the root, and our Orthodox, and Protestant family being the branches, we are nourished by the same truth, even though the branches may not get the full extent of the feeding.
“We do not think that it is right to make their prevailing custom the law and rule of sound doctrine. For if custom is to avail for of soundness, we too, surely, may advance our we not bound to follow theirs. Let the inspired Scripture, then, be our umpire, and the vote of truth will surely be given to those whose dogmas are found to agree with the Divine words.”
St. Gregory Nyssa
On the Holy Trinity
"For if we told you to be persuade by arguments, you might well be perplexed: but if we bid you believe the Scriptures, and these are simple and true, the decision is easy for you. If any agree with the Scriptures, he is the Christian."
St. John Chrysostom
Homilies on Acts
Homily 33
"But since holy Scripture is of all things most sufficient for us, therefore recommending to those who desire to know more of these matters, to read the Divine word, I now hasten to set before you that which most claims attention, and for the sake of which principally I have written these things."
St. Athanasius
Ad Episcopus Aegypti et Libyae
Chapter 1
Also, the Bereans obviously held to perspicuity, since that's how they validated Paul.
@@dave1370 Hi, Dave.
I'm sorry to put it so bluntly, but a closer reading of the passage reveals exactly the opposite. The Bereans could not have held to perspicuity, for several reasons. In the first place, they along with the rest of the Jewish community did not have a clear and correct understanding, for instance of the Messiah, which is why they needed, for instance Apostles to proclaim to them what the truth is in Christ. In the second place, they saw firsthand that the Thessalonians, being Sola Scriputrists, held a distinct and incompatible understanding of the essential message of revelation from themselves. In the third place, the Thessalonians in dispute with the Bereans were not able to come to clarity and unanimity of the essential message of revelation. Therefore, the Bereans had firsthand experience of the non-perspicuous nature of Scripture.
Beyond this, even with respect to your claim, Dave, it is not in virtue of perspicuity of Scripture that the Bereans accepted what Paul had to say. Rather, the Bereans were well disposed to receive the gospel, and were therefore willing to discover that the Scripture in their possession, the Old Testament, admitted of such bizarre, unfamiliar, and out-of-context interpretations that Paul was putting on them in support of Paul's new, bizarre, unfamiliar proclamation of who and what the Messiah was and that such a Messiah had come with such a new, bizarre, and unfamiliar biography. While the Old Testament Scriptures admit of the interpretation that Paul was putting on them, there is no chance that anyone reading the Old Testament Scriptures that the Bereans had would have come up with the understanding that Paul was presenting as true. Perspicuity does not explain the Berean's openness. The nobility of spirit that Luke mentions does.
this photo is from Santa Maria Church in İstanbul, have you ever been there,
Little question, what is that icon behind you? What the name of it?
It’s an icon of a painting called Our Lady of the Streets
Thanks:)
does anyone know where i can read a modern english m bible wich is fully derived from the vulgate? I know about the Douay Rheims but it just doesnt read well in my oppinion
The vulgate had some mistakes (like saying Moses' face had "horns"), and besides why would you want to read a translation of a translation? It's common sense that passing from a language to another, some intended nuance is lost and new unintended ambiguity is introduced because the range of meaning of terms varies from language to language.
I don't know where you can find what you look for but I really don't see a single reason to look for it.
Hello sir!
Protestant checking in. I listened to your whole talk intently. Here are a few things I would like to correct, or at least present an alternate viewpoint to, in regards to your words.
First, praise be to God that you continue to embrace a faith in Jesus Christ. Maybe it would, or maybe it wouldn't surprise readers to know that practically every Protestant denomination (no, there aren't 30,000 of them) accepts and believes the words of the Nicene Creed. I commend you on your charitable and well thought out presentation.
One of your first points that made me pause and want to respond was your position that Protestantism began in the 16th century. While I don't hold to a few of Calvin's doctrines, one thing he said rings true to me... In his response to Cardinal Sadoleto, "Our agreement with antiquity is far closer than yours." The point being, the Reformation's goal wasn't to create new doctrines or new denominations - they sincerely desired to stay in the bosom of the Catholic Church. It was to refresh the Church and bring it back to its original ancient form before a Roman Pontiff and councils brought in innovations in doctrine. Far too many passages were being read into beyond their intended meaning and false doctrines were making their way into worship. The Reformers did not think the Reformation was primarily a revolution for new, modern ideas, but a retrieval and renewal of the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic church.
So, as someone who ties himself to a modern-day reformation movement, we're trying to achieve a way back to the worship of God as they did before various accretions took hold in Rome. We're not trying to invent new ways.
Re: Perpescuity, again, the Reformers weren't trying to make up anything new. But let's move on. Some might say, "Well, Protestants believe in Sola Scriptura. They just read their bibles and come up with their own interpretations of what the words mean." If we look at a more reasonable, correct, definition, Sola Scriptura simply means, the bible is the only infallible word. And, any teachings or proclamations made by bishops, pastors, priests, councils of infallible men, etc., must be held against the light of scripture before being accepted as doctrinal truth. And, this is the view that many early church fathers ascribed to.
For example, Augustine writes, "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, either by the discourse of some one who happens to be wiser in the matter than themselves, or by the weightier authority and more learned experience of other bishops, by the authority of Councils; and further, that the Councils themselves, which are held in the several districts and provinces, must yield, beyond all possibility of doubt, to the authority of plenary Councils which are formed for the whole Christian world; and that even of the plenary Councils, the earlier are often corrected by those which follow them, when, by some actual experiment, things are brought to light which were before concealed, and that is known which previously lay hid, and this without any whirlwind of sacrilegious pride, without any puffing of the neck through arrogance, without any strife of envious hatred, simply with holy humility, catholic peace, and Christian charity? (On Baptism 2.3.4)
In short, the bible is infallible and, while church teachings are valuable, the men presenting the teaching are not infallible, so all teaching and doctrine need to be weighed against the holy scriptures before being accepted as truth.
So, it is important that we aren't reading too much - or too little - into the texts. And, herein lies the contestation that has been happening regarding our holy texts for 2000 years. As you rightly acknowledge, we all have agendas as men that may taint our reading of the texts. What Protestants find confusing is trying to figure how the dogmas of Mariology (Mary being immaculately conceived, her title of Queen of Heaven, her veneration), and potential dogmas (the belief she is mediatrix - a co-mediator - with Jesus and advocate before the throne of the Father), came to be. There are so many inferences and extra-biblical beliefs there, it makes it extremely difficult to come to grips with. And how the single verse in Matthew 16:18 brought about an entire papal hierarchy and a doctrine of infallibility. And also how Catholics can justify the creation of graven images when everyone is clearly commanded not to make any graven image of anything in heaven, earth, or the sea.
While I'm not the spokesperson for all of Protestantism, those would be our top 3, concerns, I believe. Transsubstantiation, prayers to deceased saints, etc., aren't as vital a concern to the state of one's soul as the worship of Mary, an infallible yet-agenda-driven papacy, and the creation of idols.
Now, I know there are ways to justify each and every doctrine. But logically, and scripturally, these later doctrinal addons/innovations don't seem to stand up. That said, I don't think we're too far off in a familial sense. I'd say we're probably a good 80% in agreement with most of our beliefs and understanding of scripture. Okay wow, this was long. Sorry. I probably have more to say, but that's a lot.
All of that said, I wish you God's blessings. May our Father lead us all to His truths - in whatever doctrinal form they may take. Take care.
Good evening! I'm only going to reply to the third paragraph from the bottom, but there's plenty there to comment on.
"While I'm not the spokesperson for all of Protestantism, those would be our top 3, concerns, I believe. Transsubstantiation, prayers to deceased saints, etc., aren't as vital a concern to the state of one's soul..."
What I find interesting is that, to me, these two examples of "lesser" concerns feel like they should be toward the top.
Transubstantiation: If Catholics are wrong, they've been worshipping bread for 2000 years. Even if we grant that Catholics think the bread is God, and are therefore worshipping God, just imperfectly, that would be the same as what the Israelites did at the foot of Mt. Sinai when they made the golden calf. They didn't see the calf as another god, but as God given form.
Prayers to the Saints: In Catholic theology, the reason for the Communion of Saints existing at all is that Christ's righteousness is infused into the believer at Baptism. The living and dead are united spiritually by sharing in the One Spirit of Christ, and this bond enables the intercession of one party for the other, since death does not remove one from Christ's Body. This communication doesn't circumvent Christ, but happens through Him.
Many Protestants believe in imputed righteousness instead, which would seem to eliminate the spiritual bond between the living and the dead, since Christ's righteousness is external to the believer. This makes prayer to the saints look like necromancy, as it is sometimes characterized. Feel free to correct me on anything I got wrong, but that's how I often read the room when this topic comes up-- the two groups often talk past each other because they use very different theological frameworks.
"as the worship of Mary": No Catholic would say they worship Mary, since Worship, in Catholic thinking, involves sacrifice (The Mass), which is offered to God alone. In the Catholic mind, prayer and worship are two different things. Joe Heschmeyer did at least one video on this on his channel Shameless Popery if you'd like to go deeper there.
The title of Mediatrix, mentioned above, doesn't seek to place Mary as an intercessor before the Father (We agree, only Jesus does this), but celebrates her unique role in cooperating with God to bring about the Incarnation. There are a lot misconceptions about this title, which is admittedly confusing. As such, there's a lot to read about it on Catholic Answers.
www.catholic.com/qa/isnt-calling-mary-the-mediatrix-of-all-graces-contrary-to-the-doctrine-that-jesus-is-the-sole
"an infallible yet-agenda-driven papacy": I'm struggling to see this one. The Pope and Bishops are people, and people can be flawed and agenda-driven. Jesus' apostles were far from perfect, and so are their successors. Yes, this can cause scandal, but it doesn't have any bearing on the official teachings of the Church. An opinion or poorly-worded comment isn't an authoritative pronouncement, and the fact that the magisterium is a living teaching body allows it to issue clarification when necessary.
"and the creation of idols.": "Idol" refers to something that is worshipped, and no Catholic is going to claim to worship images. The prohibition on creating images in Exodus pertains to those which were meant to be treated as gods, which were common in the ancient world, or to give form to God, like the calf, since God had not revealed a form for Himself at that point. In the incarnation, however, He did real Himself in the person of Jesus Christ, and this is the starting point for the Catholic/Orthodox view of icons. I know there's plenty on UA-cam on this topic; Seraphim Hamilton has produced a ton of content addressing specific objections.
I enjoyed your comment, and could be here all day responding to the whole thing. Those are some surface-level thoughts though. God bless!
@@danielcavi4917 Hello! Thanks for your kind reply.
Re: Transubstantiation. If Catholics are wrong, they've still been remembering Christ's sacrifice per his command. I can't tell you how many times I've read through John 6. I keep arriving at the conclusion that when Jesus tells the crowd that they must eat of him, he is referring to the reason for his crucifixion. We must believe in his sacrifice for our sins. Why do I think so? The Jews knew Jesus was speaking figuratively. Otherwise, they might have killed him on the spot. The entire chapter of John 6, except 52-58, is about the crowd not accepting that Jesus descended from heaven. He was trying to convince them of his deity and his having come from heaven at the command of God. This is confirmed in verse 62, "Then what if you were to see the Son of Man ascending to where he was before?" The context is also confirmed in the other gospels. If you read about the feeding of the 5000, the conversations then turn to "who do the people say I am? Who do you say I am?" Peter's answer pleases Jesus.
Re: Prayers to the Saints. To absent from our bodies is to be present with the Lord. I believe that believers are in heaven now. And, while I'm not denying God's power to do this, there is no indication in scripture that we then watch the going's on here on earth or are imparted with the ability to hear the prayers of the living. Without being all seeing/hearing/knowing, I imagine saints could generally be praying for us. What I know for sure is that twice in the New Testament, Jesus taught us to pray directly to God - in Jesus' name - because God loves us. That does not mean we don't ask friends to intercede for us and pray to God also... living friends. To your second point in this topic, yes. Most Protestants would say that praying to dead saints is a form of necromancy or mediumship.
Re: Mary worship. I think this point depends on the Catholic. I have heard some very zealous prayers that border on people dedicating their lives to Mary instead of God. For example:
My queen, my mother, I offer myself to you .And to show my devotion to you, I offer you this day, my eyes, my ears, my mouth, my heart, my whole being without reserve.
Wherefore, good Mother, as I am your own, Keep me, guard me as thy property and possession.
Or,
We turn to you for protection, holy Mother of God. Listen to our prayers and help us in our needs. Save us from every danger, glorious and blessed Virgin.
It is God who saves. It is to Him that we should be pledging our devotion. Mary's act of obedience is counted to her as righteousness, for sure. But that doesn't mean she shares in the salvific or redemptive acts. Adding these extra biblical titles to her places her in the middle of our relationship with God. But Jesus' sole purpose of coming to earth was to bridge that spiritual gap through his perfect sacrifice.
Re: Papacy. I'll skip this one. We seem to agree that church hierarchy has the capacity to be fallible. And, since the bible is infallible, makes it the sole source of infallibility when it comes to teaching and doctrine.
Re: Graven images/Idols. The 10 Commandments were not written for unbelievers. They were written for the Jews whom God was creating a spiritual foundation with. A common argument I hear in essence is, "we're creating these things in honor of God, not in spite of him." The fact remains that this prohibition is for believers specifically and especially. The danger in putting a face to things is, we have the possibility of recalling those made up faces whilst we pray to them. We have no idea what these early saints looked like. We have no idea what Jesus on the cross looked like. There is no need to pray through them, because God is invisible. While I talk with Jesus, and the Holy Spirit, I worship and pray to our Father. Who is invisible. Images are a distraction and potentially dangerous thing if in your mind you are praying to the image that you have memorized.
Most, if not all, of the above were doctrines that came many centuries after the beginning of Jesus' church. And, at the risk of sounding inhospitable, quite unnecessary to the increase of our faith. Jesus is the only salvific force.
Thanks again for your thoughtful reply. God bless!
@@ToeTag1968 Thanks for your reply! I'm not looking for an extended debate or anything, so I'll just respond with one point and one thought rather than hitting on every point, though they are greatly appreciated. If I had nothing but time, I'd love to discuss them all. If you have one in particular you'd like to talk about, I can pick up the conversation in a few days. In the meantime, I'll leave this here and will let you go on with your weekend.
A point on papal infallibility: The members of the Church hierarchy obviously aren't perfect, but this isn't what the claim of papal infallibility is. The claim of infallibility is that, while teaching definitively on faith and morals, the Magisterium is protected from error. This is independent of the moral character of the leaders themselves, and is seen as a fulfillment of Jesus' promise that the Holy Spirit would lead His Church "into all truth" (John 16:13). One can affirm this while still admitting we've had bad leaders mixed in with the good ones. To do so is to be consistent with Jesus' teaching in the parable of the Weeds and the Wheat (Mt. 13:24-30).
A thought on the intercession of the saints, which ties into other issues: Both Catholic/Orthodox and Protestants use the Bible to defend their teachings on justification. The former believe in Infused righteousness, which Suan explains well in this video, and the latter in Imputed righteousness. The thing about this is that each of these systems carry with them huge implications, and the idea of intercession of the saints is one of the implications of Infused Righteousness, as are many other teaching which are often regarded as accretions by Protestants. I firmly believe that if we can sort out the issue of Infused vs. Imputed righteousness, many other areas of disagreement will fall into place.
A UA-cam comment section isn't a great place to dive deep into this, since it could probably be its own book, but perhaps this can provide a new way of looking at these disagreements. It's helpful to try to see the whole framework being used by each party in the argument.
Unrelated, but if I may make a book recommendation, since you talked about reading John 6 many times, you may enjoy "Jesus and the Jewish Roots of the Eucharist" by Brant Pitre. Even if you don't come away agreeing with it, it's a fascinating read. He has a similar book about Mary, which you may find edifying as well. Neither are very long.
I've enjoyed this, and may God bless your day. I hope to see you in another comment section soon!
@@danielcavi4917 Hello again :) Thanks for taking the time to write again. God bless and keep you. Sleep well and have a lovely weekend!
Jesus prays that we may all be one (unified). We assume that we understand what that means to Jesus. Somewhere in Isaia God says "For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways" declares the Lord. "As the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts than your thoughts".
Eucharistic miracles are a thing.
Scientific studies on the host are interesting and evidence that miracles happen every Sunday for the past 2000 years.
RE: the problem of Jesus not “knowing” - the “know” re day or hour means “decree” and is reference to the Jewish wedding where the father announces the time of the wedding, not the son. So Jesus would have been saying it is the Father who will announce the day and hour of the Son’s return
Sola/book alone&Faith alone is fake from enemy
As a Protestant, I love Catholics, but I cannot believe a lot of things that are not Biblical. I agree that there are head issues that keep people from being Christian as well as heart issues, be it love of sin or hurt from someone who was Christian etc... There was a time I genuinely looked at Catholicism and was seeking to be nearer to Christ but I was confusing rituals and penance for being Christlike. So I was incapable of bridging the Bible with the catechism. From the hierarchy, prayer to anyone but God, pergatory, the most egregious thing to me (not in the catechism) idea that Christ is less loving than his mother, that the Bible is not inspired by the creator but merely a product of men and that Christ founded the Catholic Church who produced the Bible, and when was Peter was in Rome, the Apostles wrote letters to churches they established directly, they didn't ask Peter to write to them. Now they are blessing people openly in sinful relationships more than that if a tribe in the jungle of anywhere were to come across a Bible they could read, even in 10000 years they wouldn't come up with the RCC, the only way to get to the RCC is with the remnants of Roman and Greek pagan structure...
We don't “pray” to saints in the way we pray to God. We just ask the saints to pray for us and because they see our actions on earth, they hear us and pray for us. The word “praying” misleads Protestants because they have a different definition of it than we do. In Protestant terms, we don’t “pray” to saints, we ask them to pray for us. Pray in old English literally means to ask.
Christ is not less loving than Mary. Idk where you came up with that.
We also believe that the Bible is divinely inspired, I’m not sure how you came up with otherwise. And I don’t see anything wrong with blessing sinful people as long as priests don’t bless the sin. There’s a lot more I can say but I think you need to do a lot more research on Catholicism. Even after researching Catholic beliefs for months, going to mass regularly, and attending RCIT classes, it was still hard for me to digest Catholic beliefs. Coming from someone who was Protestants, it very hard to truly understand catholic beliefs until you see them the way a Catholic does.
Please continue looking into Catholicism. You’re going to face obstacles, but if you hold out and pray about it, I think it will all be worth it.
God bless!
Hi, Joel.
Yes, I sympathise with your litany of objections, and they do indeed make a cogent presentation. What is more, there are many Catholics who will be totally unable in principle (as opposed to simply in virtue of various practical constraints) to answer your objections, so you have good reason to think that your position is unassailable, and that your commitment is in fact correct. Judging from your post, it seems that, as you have gained experience, this perspective has often been reinforced.
The problem is, it's not simply reinforced. Suan was once a Protestant Christian, and he progressed, not through ignorance and misinformation but through further encounter with correct information, to abandon Protestantism an embrace Catholicism, as have several prominent converts from Protestantism. He, and they (and since I am a revert I can say we), came to regard the litany of objections as satisfactorily invalidated, both each in their own right and as a system of understanding, in the face of authentic Catholic claims.
In the first place, most of your objections to Catholicism are objections that Catholicism itself would make to anyone positing such a claim, and so do not constitute Catholic belief.
I'm not sure whether you are acknowledging that your difficulties that you list just before "...bridging the Bible with the catechism...." are psychological impediments rather than valid objections. If you do view them as your personal difficulties, then yes, we all have barriers to overcome for us to be able to deal with reality. I'll address what comes after.
The correct understanding of Scripture is that it deals with reality. There is no lack of indication that the Church understands Herself to be hierarchical. The Apostles made no bones about telling the Pharisees and Doctors of the Law to fly a kite, even after such had become members of the Church. There is no indication of egalitarian status in the Church. The Apostles are on top, and they know it, and use that power to put upstarts in their place. They have their authority immediately from Christ, who has it from His Father. The Apostles have coadjutor bishops as successors, priests as their representatives, and deacons as their collaborators. Each member of the Church is subject, first to God, to Christ, to the Apostles, to their coadjutors, to the local priests and deacons, with each of those being subject to their immediate superior, as befits a military organisation, in which they were to put on the armour of Christ and march under His banner, and as a bride subject to her husband, with each member taking its proper place.
As a Protestant, you are at a distinct disadvantage, Joel. Your understanding of meaningful worship, and religion generally, is likely limited to prayer and preaching, but this is a phenomenally truncated vision of religion. In the first place, religion is so large that James has no problem including the spiritual and corporal works of mercy as being specifically acts of religion. You are correct that the heart of religion is worship. The heart of worship, however, is not words per se, whether the words of men spoken in prayer to God, the words of men spoken in proclamation to other men, or the words of God spoken to men. The heart of worship, which may well and indeed does include these things, is rather sacrifice offered by man to God. The best sacrifice that man could offer to God is what God Himself has given, which is Himself. This removes the objection that prayer which is directed other than to God is idolatry. Only that is idolatry which is sacrifice offered to something other than God. The word prayer simply means to speak in the context of presenting a petition. This is exactly what you do when you ask your neighbour to pray for you about an upcoming event of significance in your life. The objection that your neighbour is not dead and therefore that such request does not constitute necromancy is easily dismissed with reference to Jesus' words as recorded in John 11:26 that whoever lives and believes in Christ will never die. The objection that the members of the Church who are in heaven are nonetheless separated from the members of the Church on earth is easily dismissed with reference to Jesus' words in His high priestly prayer in John 17:20-21 that we who believe in Christ through the words of the Apostles and their successors may be one with each other in Christ even as Christ is one with His Father.
Purgatory is God's tremendous mercy which makes heaven possible for most of those now in heaven. Since nothing impure can exist in God's presence, and most of the members of the Church are imperfectly purified from their overattachment to the goods of this earth at the time of their, perhaps untimely, death, the process of weaning them from a mixed love of God to a pure love of God is completed after death. None but those who are friends of God when they die experience purgatory, and of those, only those whose friendship with God was imperfect.
I suspect that you may have gotten your idea that Catholics think that Christ is less loving than His Mother from some Italian devotional guide on Mary, at however many degrees of separation. You're right that it's not in the Catechism, Joel, and for good reason. Your cultural heritage traces its roots to England, which was an early adopter of Protestantism, so its cultural appreciations are telescoped, whereas Italian cultural appreciations are extended. Accordingly they tend not to understand or appreciate each other. What Marian devotional aids attend to is the phenomenally exalted status of a creature. What you are used to is that what is exalted is God. This naturally provides occasion for misunderstanding, especially when such manuals feel no need constantly to be recalling what is patently obvious, that a creature derives any measure of greatness from its Creator.
When you speak of the Bible not being inspired, Joel, certain distinctions need to be drawn. As is characteristic of God, grace was widely diffused in the production of the Bible. God inspired the several diverse authors to be true human authors each of their own documents, but in such manner that in each case the Holy Spirit affirms whatever the inspired author affirms, and provides that the inspired author included what the Holy Spirit wanted included in that document. So that document was and is inspired. How do we know that that document is inspired? Those entrusted with the authority that the Father gave to Christ, after prayerful discernment and collaboration, declared on their authority that it is inspired. This was repeated with the various documents, and the canon thereby determined. All alternative Protestant explanations of the canon fail, whether by including too many documents of the hundreds which were proposed and considered or even several of more recent vintage which even Protestants would exclude, by excluding too many documents which even Protestants would include, or both, so that the canon can be recognised to have its true form only on the basis of the Church fulfilling Her role of being the pillar and ground of truth.
This is enough to go on. I could go on, but circumstances impose limits. If you wish, Joel, we can discuss these matters further, or, if you wish, I could answer the further elements of your litany.
Catholics have biblical justifications for all of their beliefs. Just because Protestants do not agree with Catholic interpretations of the bible does not mean Catholic beliefs are "unbiblical". It's false witness against Catholics to say we don't get our beliefs from the bible.
Church hierarchy is found in the Acts of the Apostles and St Paul's letters. "Purgatory" comes straight from the Latin translation of 1 Cor 3: 11-15. Prayer to Saint is shown in the Book of Revelation.
It is NOT true that Catholics believe Mary is more loving than Christ. That is once again false witness against Catholic beliefs.
It is also NOT true Catholics believe the bible is not inspired. The Catholic Church is where Protestants received the doctrine of biblical inspiration. See CCC 105:
God is the author of Sacred Scripture. "The divinely revealed realities, which are contained and presented in the text of Sacred Scripture, have been written down under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit." "For Holy Mother Church, relying on the faith of the apostolic age, accepts as sacred and canonical the books of the Old and the New Testaments, whole and entire, with all their parts, on the grounds that, written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, they have God as their author, and have been handed on as such to the Church herself."
And finally, the Catholic Church does not bless "sinful relationships". You are referring to Fiducia Supplicans, and the text is free for you to read yourself on the Vatican's website. It very clearly states that any irregular relationship cannot receive a blessing, but individuals can be blessed who are seeking healing from irregular relationships. This is referring both to homosexual relationships and divorced/remarried relationships.
You should take a step back and consider if you even understand the Catholic Church before you go around spreading lies about it.
Converts to Catholic
Dr Gavin Ashenden the Queens Chaplin
Dr James Whites sister converted to Catholic
Dr. Scott Hahn Protestant to Catholic convert
Dr David Anders Protestant to Catholic convert
Dr. John Bergsma Protestant to Catholic convert
Dr Thomas Howard Protestant to Catholic
Dr Thomas Scheck Protestant to Catholic
Dr. Travis Lacy
Dr Ian Murphy Protestant to Catholic convert
Dr Doug Beaumont Protestant to Catholic
Dr Frank Hermann Baptist to Catholic
Candace Owens Evangelical to Catholic
Joe Heschmeyer JD Protestant to Catholic
Dr. Francis Beckwith Protestant to Catholic
Edith Stein Jewish to Catholic convert
Rabbi Israeli Zolli Jewish to Catholic convert
Dr Charles Spivak atheist to Catholic convert
Dr. Dawn Goldstein Jewish to Catholic convert
Dr Ray Guarendi revert from Evangelical
Dr Ronda Chervin Jewish Atheist to Catholic
Dr Robin Pierucci Jewish to Catholic
Dr Ross Porter Presbyterian to Catholic
Dr Richard Smith Anglican to Catholic
Dr Richard Sherlock Mormon to Catholic
Dr James Prothro Protestant to Catholic
Dr Justus Hunter Methodist to Catholic
Dr John Gresham Assembly of God • Catholic
Dr John Haas Episcopalian • Catholic
Dr. Jeff Schwehm JW to Catholic convert
Dr Peter Williamson Protestant Catholic convert
Dr Peter Kreeft Protestant to Catholic convert
Dr Petroc Willey Evangelical to Catholic
Dr Paul Young Protestant to Catholic
Dr Paul Thigpen Pentecostal to Catholic
Dr Paul Williams Buddhist to Catholic
Dr Pamela Hollins Baptist to Catholic
Dr. Ken Craycraft C of C to Catholic convert
Dr. Kenneth Howell Protestant to Catholic.
Dr Kevin Vost atheist to Catholic convert
Dr Taylor Marshall Protestant to Catholic
Dr Mathew Cabeen Evangelical to Catholic
Dr Matthew Thomas Protestant to Catholic
Dr Mary Burchard Protestant to Catholic convert
Dr. Bev. Whelton seven day Adventist • Catholic
Dr David Hall Protestant to Catholic convert
Dr Ryan Messmore Protestant to Catholic
Dr Ryan Topping Protestant to Catholic
Dr Jim Shelton Episcopalian to Catholic
Dr Annie Bullock Baptist to Catholic convert
Dr Allen Hunt Methodist to Catholic
Dr Ben Lewis Protestant to Catholic convert
Dr. Brant Pitre Protestant to Catholic
Dr. Tim Gregson Protestant • Catholic
Dr Dolores Grier Baptist to Catholic convert
Dr David Mosley Protestant to Catholic convert
Dr Diego Ospina Protestant to Catholic convert
Dr Deal Hudson Baptist to Catholic
Dr. Jason Reed Protestant to Catholic convert
Dr Bill Saunders Protestant to Catholic convert
Ronald Knox Protestant to Catholic
Lila Rose Protestant to Catholic
Steve Ray Protestant to Catholic convert
Tim Staples Protestant to Catholic convert
Ken Hensley Protestant to Catholic convert
St John Henry Newman Catholic convert
Leah Libresco atheist to Catholic
Eva Vlaardingerbroek Protestant•Catholic
Abby Johnson Planned Parenthood to RCC
Bishop Jonathan Goodall
Bishop Nazir Ali
Bishop Edwin Barnes
Bishop David Silk
Bishop John Broadhurst
Bishop Kieth Newton
Bishop Andrew Burnham
GK Chesterton
Graham Greene
St. Paul
St. Augustine
Ulf Ekman ( the billy Graham of Sweden )
Malcom Muggeridge
All converted to Roman Catholic
The idea that Jesus is less loving than Mary is NOT Catholic
Our unity is achieved by the work of the Holy Spirit through God's word. If we are basing our salvation on why men act certain ways, we only need to look at the scriptures to see.
"Truly, this only I have found:
That God made man upright,
But they have sought out many schemes.” Ecclesiastics 7:29 The Holy Spirit is the one that would lead us into all the truth. When Jesus was leaving, He specifically said, He will send the Holy Spirit to be our helper. Even when Paul preached to the Bereans, they searched the Bible to make sure what he was saying lined up with it. May God open our eyes to pray and desire the Holy Spirit to lead us into all the truth. "However, when He, the Spirit of truth, has come, He will guide you into all truth; for He will not speak on His own authority, but whatever He hears He will speak; and He will tell you things to come." John 16:13
I fond it funny that you oppose the university with the well-ordered society. The university today is very much in disorder.
Are they acting like Protestants or Catholics?
Welcome to Catholicism brother! The Church that Jesus established by conferring authority to St Peter and his disciples, the Magisterium of the Catholic Church.
❤
👍
So, if I have good understand the protestants/Evangelicals, to be a Christian (I mean like them) I have to reject my baptismal promises and get baptized again and again! Then, I must reject the Saints, the apostles, the doctors of the Church, the Cross and even our Holy Mother Mary and the teachings of the GOSPEL too. Then I will be “born again” and my place in heaven will be assured, whatever I do in my life. That's right ?? ah yes, I forgot: on Sunday, instead of going to celebrate the body and blood of Christ, I will go to a pop-rock concert and I will call it the " christian worship ".
I do not really understand the Sola Scripture debate (Ways of looking at scripture):
Catholics believe God infuses you with grace until Faith is enkindled in you. You work (sacraments) to keep that Faith burning inside you. Through your actions, however, the fire of Faith can extinguish.
Protestants believe God infuses you with grace until Faith is enkindled in you. Once you have Faith you are compelled to live a Christian life. If you do not live a Christian life, you never had Faith. You were never covered with snow!
Seems like the same thing. God is the first mover, and you can lose salvation. It really just seems that I have contempt for my neighbor Abel, and I find a reason to align myself against him.
The Canon of scripture was set once and for all at the council of Rome 382AD, pope Damasus I, number 37 since Peter presented the bible and solemnly declared that she is the word of God! 73 books total
Nowhere in the bible says that the Bible is the word of God!
Regarding unity, the church is the body of Christ who has only one body, not bodies. Therefore, having multiple churches or multiple denominations is bad !
As a case in point, one could easily reinterpret that scriptural metaphor. Just conceive the many churches as parts of the one body.
@@MeisterBeefington
Yes, that "different parts of the whole" almost instantly occurred to me, too.
In that analogy, the Catholic Church should be the head because as we see "new" questions arise, we see that Rome has already pondered these questions centuries ago. Many will see it otherwise.
The Catholic Church is a mystery
The Protestant Church is a club
Jesus said, Matthew 10:34 (NKJV)
“Do not think that I came to bring peace on earth. I did not come to bring peace but a sword.
Yahweh is calling out a people for his “Names sake.”
In Genesis 12 God gave Abraham four promises. A personal promise, a family promise, a national promise and an international promise. He promised a land, a people and a king. This promise was to be eternal. Where would that be? On the earth.
Revelation 5:10 (KJV) And hast made us unto our God kings and priests: and we shall reign on the earth. “1000 years”
God does not allow us to worship as we wish. Examples;
Adam and Eve. They tried to worship another way by choosing to cover their nakedness with leaves.
Cain and Abel. At the end of Genesis 3 Cherubim (angels) were placed on the east of the garden so they could see the tree of life. These angels were put their to guard or keep the way of life open. God was not ready to give up on humanity. The sword which turned every which way represented Yahweh or God is where we find the the word of truth.
Hebrews 4:12 (NKJV)
For the word of God [is] living and powerful, and sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the division of soul and spirit, and of joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.
Revelation 1:16 (NKJV)
He had in His right hand seven stars, out of His mouth went a “sharp two-edged sword,” and His countenance [was] like the sun shining in its strength.
God was not pleased with Cain’s offering.
Next, the people that tried to build the Tower of Babel were trying to set up a parallel religion to Yahweh’s word. The wanted to make a name for themselves like Yahweh. So he stopped their path by changing their languages.
Notice that Yahweh did not kill Cain, Lamech, or the Tower of Babel group that he dispersed. Why? His mercy?
It’s like he gave mankind every chance he could to come to him.
I feel like you are seeking God through man’s writings.
I am a Christadelphian. There are about 50,000 Christadelphians world wide. We do not have a paid ministry or a central leadership committee. We have a statement of faith that contains a summery of our faith. It’s called the Birmingham Amended Statement of Faith. Birmingham is the city in England where the document was formed. The amendment made to the document because of a book that was published early in in the development of the faith. It was not excepted by most of the world wide community. As most religions have sub groups that brake away we too have smaller groups that separate for various reasons.
I have a group in my messenger where I work with others to help them understand Yahweh’s word.
Go Catholic!
Your got your analogy on the constitution and the bible wrong, it is th e other way around!
It was rhe freemasonic founders who took the bible as a sample to create the constitution and the authority of the Catholic Church to createv the supteme court!!!
the Catholic Church explains and interprets the Scriptures!!! An exterior authority to explain them infallibly since both were inspired by the Holy Spirit !! God created the church first!
Thatsxwht
Interesting video.
The irony is that the Catholic magisterium itself is less than perspicuous these days.
Also, it's probably not good to lump all protestantism together. Different Traditions hold different views. (For that matter, the Eastern Orthodox think that Rome are the first protestants, so there's that.)
Out of the whole document, one paragraph is contested, and it honestly doesn't take that much time and effort to understand that the critics are wrong.
I thought you was a cradle Catholic lol
The Roman Church has diluted the gospel with traditions to the point where the church is not considered Christians but a religion of Christianity.
Shall we believe you or the hundreds if not thousands of former staunch anti Catholic Protestant Bible Scholars,Pastors,Theologians,Historians,Intellectuals to name a few ,who have already converted to Catholicism?Many more are following their footsteps Btw,what are your theological credentials?
I think from what I can tell - podcasts / homily’s / UA-camrs etc. the RCC is unified in a qualified sense.
But the amount of division is pretty substantial and if you have true unity then the amount of schism and papal confusion etc. should not exist to the degree it does.
So it briefs well - but scandal/ controversy /disagreement / sin / corruption / is not exclusive to Protestantism. I think Suan would agree. So in simple terms same stink different horse stable
There is division unfortunately, but there is one clear faith being taught in the Catholic Church. Even two Catholics who disagree in the maximum degree will agree on much more than a pair of Protestants from separate denominations.
@@bcampbell8344 I can see your point - but let’s not conflate someone who says “I am willing to prescribe to Marian dogmas in full…because I can trust and hold to everything else…” that’s a type of unity. But Catholics talk and that’s often the narrative - some again uniformity? Sure. Unity? Sure I’ll grant that…but one mind or one spirit like Jesus and Paul says? Long shot. And I am a classical Protestant - you and I haven’t more in common than me and a low church Protestant but even Scott Hahn has said this…I’d say unity in the profession of faith but in the heart? I don’t know. But I’m teachable
I think people are purposely stirring and creating papal confusion from both the liberal media and the rad trads who both have a goal, to destroy the Church that Christ founded with lies. A document meant for German bishops for example is released and to the laity and non Catholics whose eyes it is not meant for and like protestants have thousands of multiple interpretations
None of you understand God yet, for his ways are not our ways.
You are still trying to save yourself
The Catholic Church has apostatised! What has happened this month is very significant and professing Christians should pay attention to scriptures on eschatology.. Please read 1Corinthians 6:9-20, and 2 Thessalonians 2:1-12. If you arrogate to yourself the power to bless what God has cursed, then you have apostatised. Scripture is not fluid, else we will all swim a flux of human opinions.
Proof?
How much time needs to pass for your view to be proven wrong?
Thank you for proving your protestant ways
Protestantism is a flux of human opinions.
3 characteristics of The New Mass/ Lutheranism
1. Denial of the supernatural
2. Evolution of dogma; that dogma evolves
3. That the basis of religion is one’s personal experience with God = focus on us. Why priests face the people. All Protestantism.
1. There is no denial of the supernatural at Mass. That is ludicrous.
2. Dogma does not evolve. Understanding and interpretation can improve.
3. In the earliest Roman churches, the priest faced East and the apse with the altar faced west. The Priest stood behind the altar, facing the people. No Protestants were in attendance, since they would not exist for more than a thousand years.
You waste time on non issues.
Now "gay union blessings" will be done at St Peter's Basilica by orders of the administrator......Spanish priests in Madrid are ordered to comply with FS EDICT.....very tragic !
Fake news. Unions are not being blessed.
The Pope specifically forbade gay liturgical blessings. Stop spreading nasty rumors.
Lies come from Satan himself, so who do you speak for?
YOUR VIDEO IS TOO DAMN LONG...PLEASE MAKE SHORTER VIDEOS...OMG !!!
@johnlong8037 then don't watch it.
@@Catholicmom2567 I DIDN'T WATCH ASSHOLE....
he makes his point in 22 minutes, after that there's a Q&A
👍