I cannot recommend the Apostasy That Wasn’t strongly enough. It is a well written, well researched book that puts to bed the fallacies associated with Constantine and the early church. Thanks for the interview!
@@danieldiazrazo1012 How do you propose to unite people in Jesus’ name when people continue to spread lies and distortions about the Church he founded and gave authority to teach and preach in his name? That’s what apologetics is all about. Setting the record straight and defending the teachings of the one Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church. The Saints have been doing that since the time of the Apostles. You cannot unite people around falsehood. Just look at the increasingly splintering Protestant Church.
The Romish Church now presents a fair front to the world, covering with apologies her record of horrible cruelties. She has clothed herself in Christ-like garments; but she is unchanged. Every principle of popery that existed in past ages exists today. The doctrines devised in the darkest ages are still held. Let none deceive themselves. Great Controversy 1888 p570. Well worth a read
I work in IT so when I hear the word "corrupt" I think of programming code. In my field, if code became corrupted, you would go back to the last known good revision of the code, not start a new program. That's what I feel like the Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, and Protestants are doing. If you really thought that the Church became corrupted during Constantine's reign, why would you not go back to an earlier version of the church before the heresy? That's because in each case, they're using the supposed corruption of the Church to justify the creation of new denominations.
The Romish Church now presents a fair front to the world, covering with apologies her record of horrible cruelties. She has clothed herself in Christ-like garments; but she is unchanged. Every principle of popery that existed in past ages exists today. The doctrines devised in the darkest ages are still held. Let none deceive themselves. Great Controversy 1888 p570. Well worth a read
@@maranatha5064 - lots of flowery words, but no content. You didn't answer the question I proposed - if the Catholic Church became corrupt, why not prune back to the vine where it was good? I'll give the Eastern Orthodox Church credit because this is exactly what they did. They do not accept Papal authority, but all other tenants of the faith, such as the Eucharist are accepted. Protestants just use church corruption as an excuse to rebrand the Christian church in man's image, not Christ.
@@Saul2PaulCatholic Great Controversy is Ellen G White's magnum opus, so Maranatha is a Seventh Day Adventist presumably. In my experience, debating a SDA is nearly pointless. Any argument I present always ends up with a massive copy/paste of talking points with Bible verses that supposedly support their view. I usually challenge their interpretation because it's not even close to what it means. Then they drop another copy paste and proclaim victory. I offer another rebuttal and never hear back.
@@maranatha5064 I actually read White's Great Controversy and wasn't persuaded. Rodney Stark (he's not Catholic by the way) has a pretty well researched book called "Bearing False Witness" that pretty thoroughly dismantles the claims regarding the Catholic church's "record of horrible cruelties".
The Jewish leaders became so corrupt that they crucified God. Yet God said they sat in the Seat of Moses (Mt. 23:1-3) and hadn't lost their authority (Mk. 1:44; Lk 17:14; & John 11:49-51). To link authority with spiritual perfection is insane. No matter how loose with men and high on booze your mama is, you still need to obey her when she tells you to not play in the street. As obviously ideal as it seems, to demand spiritual perfection of Church leaders is not only impractical and ridiculously judgemental, it is the heresy of Donatism. Donatism does not differentiate between personal holiness and ceremonial holiness. Donatism forgets that Aaron, the first Levitical priest, led the Israelites into idolatry. Donatism forgets that the 'gifts and calling of God don't require repentance (Romans 11:29).' Donatism forgets that the man who installed your computer system does not have to be a monk to do an adequate job. God's people need reliable leadership. Far too many are too proud and too stupid to interpret the Bible for themselves, making a complete mess of things. For example, we can't communicate with the saints in heaven? If that's so, then Jesus set a bad example when he communicated with Moses and Elijah on Mt. Tabor. And where does it say in the Bible that everybody can interpret scripture to suit themselves?
The Romish Church now presents a fair front to the world, covering with apologies her record of horrible cruelties. She has clothed herself in Christ-like garments; but she is unchanged. Every principle of popery that existed in past ages exists today. The doctrines devised in the darkest ages are still held. Let none deceive themselves. Great Controversy 1888 p570. Well worth a read
@@maranatha5064 Good scholars read hundreds of books and thousands of articles. It's very low academics to hang all your beliefs on one man's biased book, so don't stop there. I advise you to find out what good scholarship is before you perish as St. Peter prophetically warned all Protestants (II Peter 3:16). For starters, try the Bible, a product of the Catholic Church, without Satan's guidance. Don't bite the hand that feeds you! The Bible is a Catholic document that Christ gave the Church the authority to produce. He never revoked that authority and the gates of hell didn't prevail against it as you say they did. According to Christ in Mt. 23:1-3, the scribes and Pharisees sat in the Seat of Moses. Yet they committed the greatest murder of all time. The Levitical priesthood did this because "the gifts and the calling of God don't require repentance (Romans 11:29)." The Levitical priesthood was replaced with the Apostolic Succession that produced the NT and defined the OT. The entire Protestant movement is based on a rejection of this sound, biblical principle of holy authority apart from personal holiness. Such a heresy was defined long ago as 'Donatism.' There is both moral holiness and ceremonial holiness. With Trump, you get a rejection of both. He is a type of antichrist. No one in history has openly trashed the Ten Commandments as this Protestant has done. Since Protestants left God's One, Holy, Catholic, Apostolic Church (as the Orthodox also call themselves every Sunday) of the first 1,500 years, they are the antichrist according to I John 2:18-19. Arrogantly ripping the Body of Christ into over 10,000 shreds alone proves that. That's the work of Satan, not the Holy Spirit (Jude 19).
@@maranatha5064 We stopped all those atrocities once the Protestants left. Then they developed the atomic bomb to call down fire from the sky as the false prophet of Revelation does.
@YAJUN YUAN Yahun, Ellen White had absolutely no apostolic authority to create her own "church". The Gospel opposes her and every single protestant church or sect prerending to preach a different Gospel. You, therefore, are participating in such heresy. No amount of pretentious and false ideas you attempt to propagate will ever become true. Remember these words: Matthew 12:30 30 Whoever is not with me is against me, and whoever does not gather with me scatters. Luke 9:50 50 But Jesus said to him, “Do not stop him, for the one who is not against you is for you.” The fact! By your ideology you are both: Against Christ and against His one and only Church. Moreover: John 17:19-23 19. And it is for them that I sanctify myself, so that they, too, may be sanctified in TRUTH. 20. But I am not praying for them only, but also for those who through their word shall believe in me. 21. So may they all be ONE. Just as you, Father, are in me, and I am in you, so also may they be ONE in us: so that the world may believe that you have sent me. 22. And the glory that you have given to me, I have given to them, so that they may be ONE, just as we also are one. 23. I am in them, and you are in me. So may they be perfected as ONE. And may the world know that you have sent me and that you have loved them, just as you have also loved me. You are part of the heresy started in 1517. Now, you have been told God rejects divisions. There's nowhere to hide from or avoid the one truth. May God bless your discernment.
The Romish Church now presents a fair front to the world, covering with apologies her record of horrible cruelties. She has clothed herself in Christ-like garments; but she is unchanged. Every principle of popery that existed in past ages exists today. The doctrines devised in the darkest ages are still held. Let none deceive themselves. Great Controversy 1888 p570. Well worth a read
@@minterbell well, it's not that complicated. Infant Baptism should be considered an acceptable Christian practice because the objections that have been raised against it are ALL invalid. For example 1) there is an objection that infant Baptism shouldn't be practised in the church simply because there is nowhere in the new testament where it is mentioned that infant Baptism was practised in the early church. But such an objection is weak because the new testament is not an a record of ABSOLUTELY EVERYTHING that was taught and done by the Apostles, and so the fact that infant baptism wasn't explicitly mentioned in the new testament is not proof that it never happened in the early church. Besides, there is no record of any of the Apostles CONDEMNING the practice of infant baptism 2) Another objection is that infants cannot be baptized because they are unable to REPENT, and Peter did say that repentance should take place BEFORE baptism can take place (Acts 2:38). But this objection is also faulty because the reason why Peter mentioned repentance in Acts 2:38 is obvious --- in that verse he was talking to ADULTS, not INFANTS (and ADULTS need to REPENT because they are capable of commiting sin. Infant don't NEED repentance because they are incapable of commiting sin) So basically, Peter was was talking about ADULT BAPTISM in Acts 2:38 and so it would be inappropriate to try to apply his words in that verse to INFANT BAPTISM
Being raised Catholic I can say I'm really struggling with the Vatican, the popes and the general history of everything. I see a lot of corruption and deceit especially now.
For sure. Jesus at the gates of hell will not prevail against the church. Why did he say that? Because satan was going to try to attack it from without and from within. But Jesus said he would not win. It's very disheartening to see evil people in our church, but Christ is the head and the church is the bride and it will last forever. Definitely. Check out our videos as they will be inspiration for you. We have another video on this topic as well. On the evils in the church. Check out the video "Catholic Truth Church Crisis."
“Come out of her my people lest you partake of her sins and receive of her plagues. “- Revelation. This channel is either very ignorant of true history or has an agenda to bring about one world religion. They assume all people need to be under the Roman Church. It’s the antichrist counterfeit and Jesuits have long infiltrated the Church to discredit any kind of reform or return to biblical teachings. They don’t address the facts of killing Christians and burning biblesand don’t address how the Pope has said there are many ways to God. I recommend a book called the gospel according to Rome.
I'm a British Catholic but I am aware of my Celtic Christian heritage, whereby a mission from Rome arrived in approximately 597 AD, led by Augustine. By 664 AD, the regulations of the Roman Church were enforced much against the will of most of the clergy and the people. You could argue that they were effectively bullied into coming under the Roman umbrella which does help to explain a little why eventually the RCC was so dominant. One central organisation is not necessarily a bad thing but whereas Celtic Christian communities focused on living simply, treated women equally (most notable was Hilda, Abbess of Whitby) all whilst promoting the Gospels, Rome brought in uniformity but also an emphasis on comfort, pomp and yes - it has to be said, corruption.
It’s so sad. Right before Constantine became the sole emperor, the Church went through a terrible persecution under Diocletian. Thousands of Christian’s martyred. What sin they commit against the followers of Jesus who were tortured and killed for their faith in the Savior!
At 14:30 he ironically makes an excellent case for the Protestant view of the authority of scripture. It wasn’t a church counsel that constructed the Bible and gave it authority, it was the church recognizing the Bible as divinely inspired through the Holy Spirit which came hundreds of years prior to the church counsels that supposedly gave it its authority.
That's always been the Catholic position. They didn't bece divine because we chose them, they were divine because they were divinely inspired. Yet the truth remains that there were over 80 gospel written, and hundreds of epistles, and it was the Catholic Church who chose only those books which were inspired by God and which should have been part of the biblical canon. This is done by the guidance of the Holy Spirit and with a reliance on the tradition that came down from Christ.
His argument is that the canon was largely accepted by the church prior to Constantine and the church counsels. I am simply agreeing with this assertion made in the video which is more in line with the Protestant position on the construction and acceptance of the canon. Catholics tend to argue with Protestants that they wouldn’t have the canon without the church counsels declaring which books were in and which were out in an attempt to undermine Sola Scriptura. His argument is (accidentally) a great refutation of the Catholic Churches’ claims on the matter.
so- its safe to say "SOME of the church apostasized during persecution, but most did NOT and died for the faith/held strong". ? Or is it the other way around?
He didn't, Christianity was growing too fast and he feared an uprising. He co-opted the church with earthly power instead of having to try to kill it from outside. Human nature did the rest. Brilliant!
I once heard a very wise man tell me that as punishment for their rebellion God blinded Protestants to Jesus in the Eucharist and scattered them into thousands of pieces.
Satan has to be very pleased with himself regarding the protestant reformation which was sort of like satan's version of the Tower of Babel. Take the baptist for example, with southern, northern, central, independent, regular, and many more types of baptist, which are like Baskin Robbins Ice Cream with 31+ different flavors to choose from, regarding "faith alone", baptism, opposition to good works, pre tribulation rapture, etc. How does any reasonable person decide which baptist church to go to?
@@minterbell Yes, I know, there are 4 or 5 different baptist churches within 10 miles of our house and the ALL have different ideas. One thing in common though, is the ALL think Catholics are going to hell.
The Romish Church now presents a fair front to the world, covering with apologies her record of horrible cruelties. She has clothed herself in Christ-like garments; but she is unchanged. Every principle of popery that existed in past ages exists today. The doctrines devised in the darkest ages are still held. Let none deceive themselves. Great Controversy 1888 p570. Well worth a read
The Romish Church now presents a fair front to the world, covering with apologies her record of horrible cruelties. She has clothed herself in Christ-like garments; but she is unchanged. Every principle of popery that existed in past ages exists today. The doctrines devised in the darkest ages are still held. Let none deceive themselves. Great Controversy 1888 p570. Well worth a read
@@maranatha5064 the dark ages are a myth The Catholic church is the one true church There is no evidence of violence in the Catholic church Inquisition crusades etc
All that is needed is for someone to give this a tiny bit of thought. 3 Emperors attempted to destroy the Church over 3 centuries but now an emperor who decides to allow it and thus conquers it. But he doesn't just allow it but drastically changes it and ALL the Christians just ride along. Somehow the Bishops and Popes who had existed prior to Constantine are ignored. A wide spread community that had been well practiced in resisting the force of the empire now succumbs to it? Not only succumbs but allows huge changes? Maybe those changes were not changes but had always existed...like the Bishops and Popes? Instead of the Church that Jesus built being defeated by a Roman Emperor- maybe a Roman Emperor was defeated by Jesus Church?
And to think, it all happened without a single letter protesting the idea of popes or any of the alleged Catholic corruptions, despite every single heresy up until that point producing entire books worth of writings.
It seems to me Jesus said this would happen. The only Church today that has the same teaching and traditions as the Apostels is the Catholic Church. Well, clearly, the Catholic Church is still here after almost 2000 years. It has certainly been tried by many to overthrow it from without and from within, almost without reprieve for the entire two millennium. Jews, Romans, Vandals, Heretics, Islam, Protestants, the French Revolution, Modernists, Hitler, Communists, and many others, one group after another, have tried and failed, and yet the Church still stands. It is the oldest, and the largest, and the longest lasting institution on earth. Having said that, aren't you compelled to agree that the Catholic Church is of the work of GOD and not of men? Despite all of this constant attack, the Catholic Church has grown to well over one billion (1,045,000,000*) Thomas Aquinas once noted that no matter how flawless one's logic was, if it began with a faulty premise, then the end result would be a conclusion founded upon error.😢😢
@@biblealone9201 Yeah, that alone was appealing evidence to me. To this day, I marvel at how when I read Justin Martyr or even the Didache the liturgy is right there for me. The way the first Christians worshiped is completely foreign to modern Protestant churches.
@@ContendingEarnestly I'm not really sure what you mean. Are you denying that the position of bishop of Rome (called "pope" as early as the third century) didn't exist prior to Constantine? Because we have letters and writings.
The Bible should be enough to defend your faith. Are you a Protestant or a Catholic? If the Bible doesn’t defend your faith then you’re with the wrong denomination
The Romish Church now presents a fair front to the world, covering with apologies her record of horrible cruelties. She has clothed herself in Christ-like garments; but she is unchanged. Every principle of popery that existed in past ages exists today. The doctrines devised in the darkest ages are still held. Let none deceive themselves. Great Controversy 1888 p570. Well worth a read
@@CatholicTruthOfficial You like Maranatha's copy and paste from "The Great Controversy"? I actually converted to Catholicism in 2019 and just to make sure I was doing the right thing, I actually spent a lot of time searching out arguments against it while I was simultaneously reading a lot of modern Catholic authors and early church writings. I hit Hislop's Two Babylon's, White's Great Controversy, and C.J. Koster's Come Out Of Her My People. There arguments were weak, and sometimes actually just made up. Made me that much more resolved to join the Church.
Ty Rod Bennett!❣️🔥☦️ I just Handed Out my 9th or 10th Copy of, "Apostasy That Wasn't".... I Bought & Read it when 1st Published. It's an awesome Read, & irrefutable... (& Living in the Bible Belt, it's a perfect Hand Out!)
@@CatholicTruthOfficial 😏😂🤣😂 God Luck! Those following the Doctrines of Chick Comics, will be 1st in line to make us Martyrs! (While Citing Francis, Maccarrick, & Jaimie Martin, as Evidence THEY'VE been 'Right' all along!🥴😪)
The Romish Church now presents a fair front to the world, covering with apologies her record of horrible cruelties. She has clothed herself in Christ-like garments; but she is unchanged. Every principle of popery that existed in past ages exists today. The doctrines devised in the darkest ages are still held. Let none deceive themselves. Great Controversy 1888 p570. Well worth a read
All believes are the Bride, that can be believes from different places in the world. When I was in Catholic school one of the nuns told me, " we are the only true church". And as I began to search I found many churches said the same thing. So I just read the Bible on my own. I found one teaching in the scriptures, "Christ Crucified " the beginning and ending of faith" Thats what Paul taught. Yes there was the 7 churches in the book of Revelation, they are all gone. So that leaves me with " Christ Crucified " and no one can take Christ away from the true believers
If the church never became corrupt, why did they start burning people at the stake? Does that sound like something the one true, holy, universal church of Jesus would do if it hadn't been corrupted by Satan? I think not.
Why did people walk away from Jesus? Why do people pray from the apostles and the early church? Why have there been Schism since the earliest days? It's in the prideful nature of man, I suppose. Men have always rebelled and walked away from God.
🤔 I have heard and read a lot 🤔 I was raised Messianic Judaism ✡️✝️ and am very intrigued by anything I can find about early Christianity and it's links to Judaism ✡️✝️
The Hungarian Greek Catholic Church is a sui iuris Church in the Catholic Church. They are in communion with Rome, and the Roman Catholic Church. They use the Byzantine Rite, while the Roman Church uses the Latin Rite. The 23 sui iuris Church outnumber the 1 Roman Church, but the Roman Church overwhelmingly outnumbers the other 23 Church by population. What people think of as "The Catholic Church" is really just the "Roman/Latin Rite" of the Catholic Church.
Slight correction. What people think of as the "Catholic Church" is actually the Catholic church not just the Roman right of the church. But all 23 Rite in Union with the Roman Rite.
No, but we have one coming out very soon. We have an Islamic scholar coming on next month to speak about the beliefs in teachings of Islam and a little bit of the history.
Just watched and listened to the whole video as a Latter-Day Saint and I have to say I came away understanding and believing a great apostasy occurred even more. The guest spent a good chunk of time talking about how there were huge waves of apostasy, and actually validated the truth in the lds book that the host was criticizing. Sure there may be errors in it, but it's from the early 1900s so what do you expect. But overall it sounds like they both misunderstand the Lds concept of a great apostasy. It's not just changes in teachings, or people apostatizing from the church, though it can include that. The main point is that the apostleship was meant to continue in order for the priesthood and its associated keys to be valid. Ofcourse the church continued. Ofcourse many remained faithful and tried to keep the teachings pure. But without the apostles and valid priesthood, it's still a major apostasy. Don't forget the writings of early church fathers who talk about error creeping into the church as soon as they saw the apostles were dead. Don't forget about competing bishops lamenting in their letters that there were no more apostles to keep the teachings pure and the churches in line. As a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints I'm even more convinced now that the great apostasy did happen. Thanks for the content!
Thank you for the comment. I think you missed a few points or just overlooked them, so you can keep your doctrine. First, no teaching ever changed and the guest said that. Therefore, the truth did not apostatize. Second, the authority of the apostles was handed on, continued, and kept until this day, so it did not need to be restored. Third, there was no complete apostasy as the warm and church claims. Thus, there was no reason for Joseph Smith to ever restore anything. And this just ignores the fact that there was an explosion of restorationist churches in the early 1800s who all claim to be the restored church of Jesus, but they all contradict each other. Mormonism is just one of them, but there are the 7th day adventists, the church of Christ, the Church of God, Jehovah's witnesses, and others who all claim the same thing Mormons do, complete with visions and Jesus speaking to their founder, etc.
//Thank you for the comment. I think you missed a few points or just overlooked them, so you can keep your doctrine// You're welcome! I actually took pretty decent notes as I was watching, and pausing every minute or two to write them down, so I'm pretty sure I didn't overlook any major points, and I definitely don't overlook anything to try and keep my doctrine. My comment above is not the notes I took. The above comment was just intended to be a brief summary of my conclusions and reasons overall, and not an exhaustive address of your video. I think its important not to shy away from these topics or ignore any points, so I appreciate you and the other gentleman taking the time to dive deeper into this topic. If a person of my faith or another apostasy believing faith can't faithfully address rebuttals to it with actual evidence, or just ignores the issue, then I'm not sure that person's reasons for being part of that chosen faith are on solid ground. Though I would argue that the LDS faith has much more of a leg to stand on than other restorationist churches. //First, no teaching ever changed and the guest said that. Therefore, the truth did not apostatize.// I know this is the Catholic position, and I respect your right to have that view. Unfortunately this is something we won't agree on, even if your guest said it. To be clear, the LDS position is not that all truth was lost. I alluded to this in my comment above. We believe catholicism preserved and continued many truths, for which we should be very thankful. But we also recognize that catholicism declared some Christian truths as heresy at different councils, which should actually exist within the true church, but was removed, and needed to be restored, such as a premortal existence and baptism for the dead. But let's assume the catholic church made all the right calls and preserved all the truth perfectly, and that still isn't the main issue. The main issue is even if a church preserves and teaches everything perfectly, it doesn't matter much if they dont have valid priesthood and sacraments. This is what you address next: //Second, the authority of the apostles was handed on, continued, and kept until this day, so it did not need to be restored.// This is one of the foundational reasons you are Catholic. An authoritative church must have a continuing line of authority going back to Christ, and you believe Catholicism has that. We will have to respectfully disagree here as well though. Catholics and Latter-Day Saints have a different understanding of how church organization and priesthood work. I already explained the Lds view briefly in my original comment. We believe the apostleship was meant to continue, evidenced by the original apostles filling in vacancies when one died, such as when they replaced Judas with Matthias, and mentions of various other apostles throughout the text. We believe the keys must continue to be held and be active by the next head apostle. When all the apostles died faster than could be replenished, those who the apostles ordained were still valid, but they did not have the keys to continue passing on that authority validly. Those keys remained with the apostles who passed. I understand that the catholic view is that the apostles were meant to be temporary, and that the keys were indeed passed to the bishops, who were to take over once the apostles had passed. This is really what the issue boils down to, whether or not the apostleship was meant to continue. If it was, then a restoration was needed. If not, then the catholics have the valid line. I could reference scriptures and early church father to try and support my case, but I don't think a youtube comment section is really built for this kind of discussion. Just commenting my thoughts here is already beyond the scope of what these comments are meant to accommodate. I also know we would likely never agree with eachother on this point, since the logical conclusion of an agreement would mean one of us converting to the other side, and im sure we each feel we have an excellent foundation and reasons for why we are in the church we each chose. To me its pretty clear from the scriptures and church history that a general apostasy was coming, happened, that the apostleship was meant to continue, and that a restoration was needed. And we mean general apostasy, in terms of loss of priesthood authority and revelation to lead and guide the church. This can result in subtle changes in teachings or creeds that go against early christianity, that may go unnoticed, or erroneously discarded truths labeled as heresy. General apostasy does not mean losing all truth.
//Third, there was no complete apostasy as the [mormon?] church claims. Thus there was no reason for Joseph Smith to ever restore anything.// This ties heavily into what I already shared above. And like I said in my original comment, I'm not sure you're defining apostasy the same way we are. Not all truth was lost. Not all members apostatized. Your church is to be commended for preserving as much as it did and I have massive respect for faithful catholics and their church. We will just have to respectfully disagree. Based on what I have described so far, I do continue to believe God needed to restore the truth through calling a new prophet, just as He did over and over in the biblical text whenever His children strayed too far from the truth and true authority.
//And this just ignores the fact that there was an explosion of restorationist churches in the early 1800s who all claim to be the restored church of Jesus, but they all contradict eachother... others who all claim the same thing...// This last quote continues to the end trying to make the same point, so I won't quote the whole thing. I've looked into each of these other churches and they absolutely do not claim all the same things that Latter-Day Saints do. All restorationist churches will have superficial similarities such as claiming to restore the original christian church, but that's in the name. Some of those were kicked off by spiritual experiences like Smith's was, and we can talk about that. Jehovah's witnesses started off as just bible study groups who interpreted the bible differently than everyone else. No spiritual experience involved. No claim to a line of authority. No necessity of baptism, no new scripture etc. They are actually very different and have no claim to authority or revelation to stand on. So they arent really relevant. 7th day adventists are interesting, but it arose out of the Millerite movement and Ellen G. White was already a member. She did not found the church on the idea of a restoration, and from what I can tell the church is being called a protestant, not a restorationist church. Their official site says they claim to be protestant, so I don't think they are really relevant to the discussion either. The only similarity seems to be that she claimed to have spiritual experiences and the gift of prophecy. Yet on their website they downplay her being called a "prophet", and don't regard any of her writings as on equal grounds with scripture. But scripture exists because prophets wrote or had their experiences with God and people written down. Adventism also arose out of the Great Disappointment, so that's already not a good sign when your church arises out of a failed prophecy. Millerism itself was not restorationist, but formed on trying to restore the gift of prophecy, and made a prophecy that would fail regarding the return of Christ. The Church of Christ: Aside from claiming to be a bible-only church, I'm not seeing any claim to authority or visions or revelations anywhere. It sounds like they just did what the JWs did and decided to try and follow the bible and only the bible and came up with their own interpretations. Yes they were attempting to "restore" original Christian thought and worship, but not through any divine revelation or restoration of priesthood. I'm not seeing them compare well to the situation at hand either. Church of God (Cleveland, Tennessee): This is a protestant pentecostal denomination, not restorationist. R.G. Spurling believed that the church wasn't reformed enough, and thought protestantism needed further reforming. They did claim a spiritual experience of speaking in tongues at their revival, but this is not a restoration type spiritual experience. I'm not seeing how this is relevant to the apostasy conversation either, even though in a sense all protestants have to believe the catholic church was in apostasy to some degree to justify reforming, but that isn't what we are discussing. We are discussing an apostasy that required a restoration and not simply a reformation. There was a church that your guest talked about that did start with a supposed restoring spiritual experience, but I can't remember which one he said it was. If you could remind me which it was and where in the video it was I'd be happy to look into it, and sure there are other denominations that are more similar than the ones you listed, so feel free to mention those. I just didn't find the ones you did list very relevant or similar aside from some very superficial ideas. Overall, even if these, or other churches do believe an apostasy also occurred, I don't find that it weakens the LDS claim at all. Even if they claim an apostasy, they dont have/claim a restored priesthood line, or have continuing scripture on par with the bible, which is what you would expect if God called a new prophet or apostle through which to restore the church. It's not enough to claim an apostasy, you need to have the fruits that show your church is actually Christ's restored church, like Latter-Day Saints have. So as far as I can tell, no other restorationist churches claim all the same things the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints does. Ofcourse there are split offs of our church, but thats a different discussion as to why they aren't valid. It's not enough to say you are restorationist and heres the true interpretation of the bible when you don't have a means of restoring priesthood authority. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints just checks all the boxes. If this church didn't exist though I admit I might be a Catholic since you guys are probably the next closest to being true despite all the issues. Please forgive any typos as I'm just posting this in one go without proofreading.
@@juliopenaloza5655hilarious coming from a Mormon....your Joseph Smith was a con artist and a kid toucher....repent or you will see the depths of hell
Also definitely check out our video on it as well. We have a video on how the Catholic Church survived the first 300 years of persecution. It's an amazing story. ua-cam.com/video/CYrMq_wT8VE/v-deo.html
Why do we ask our friends and family to pray for us? There is nothing wrong with it. And there's nothing wrong with asking Mary and the saints to pray for us as well. :)
I don't agree with your last line. We have had heretics come back to the Church and come home. There is always hope through our prayers and the mercy of god. :-)
It is strange to me how Jesus would give a new convert, as in the case of Constantine, a vision to conquer (to acquire by force of arms/to overcome by force), which is exactly contrary to what Jesus taught His disciples. The Apostle Paul wrote to the churches many times, and in many ways, that the weapons of our warfare are NOT carnal, but mighty through God by the pulling down of (spiritual) strongholds." "For we wrestle NOT against flesh and blood, but against evil powers, principalities, rulers of darkness of this world, and all spiritual wickedness in high places." "Those who live by the sword shall perish by the sword." In the case of Constantine actually affirming his vision coming from the Lord Jesus, in the light of what the New Testament teaches, most definitely stands on extremely thin ice. To think that the first state/church, called the Roman Catholic Church, initially spawned from this one vision can only give more creedance to a vision, which was perceived from Jesus, as being from another source.
I always wondered about that. In my mind, the worst case scenario here is that Constantine either misinterpreted a legitimate vision or imagined that he had a vision, and that error, perhaps by divine providence (now that's a brain twister) allowed for the Church to survive and thrive.
And why then does the book of Revelation describe Christ as the King of kings and a triumphant Warrior Rider riding a white horse? (Apocalypse-Revelation 19:11-16) If you read the gospels carefully you will find out that Christ was not kind of a pacifist hippie. Certainly we as Christians, just as Christ sent his Apostles, are not called to make war or to be violent to preach the faith, but knowing that Constantine was an important general and heir to the throne in Rome, it would have been strange that Christ appeared to order him to cowardly flee from battle and let his army be defeated, and strangely prevent that rare opportunity to finally give peace and freedom to his Church throughout the Roman Empire after 3 centuries of cruel persecution. If you are a Catholic Christian you have your duties and if you are part of the military forces of your country you are called to fight for it, in this case Constantine was called to do a more important task knowing by Christ himself that this victory would be to serve the cause of God, in the manner of the ancient hosts of Israel in the Old Testament under the orders of the 'God of Hosts'. Just imagine for a moment that you are a soldier or a general and you face a foreign pagan antichristian army trying hard to take over your beloved nation, of course you have to fight and be violent to defend your people and the faith and values of your country. It is not the same what God requires from an apostle, a priest or a bishop than what He requires from a politician, a soldier, a mother, an artist, a disabled person, etc. everyone has a different call from Him to make His Will to be accomplished on Earth.
The Romish Church now presents a fair front to the world, covering with apologies her record of horrible cruelties. She has clothed herself in Christ-like garments; but she is unchanged. Every principle of popery that existed in past ages exists today. The doctrines devised in the darkest ages are still held. Let none deceive themselves. Great Controversy 1888 p570. Well worth a read
This is Gnosticism, the God of the Old Testament is the same God of the New Testament. The weapons of the Church are both spiritual and physical not either or.
Any theory that Constantine changed or invented any Christian doctrine is worthless conspiracy. I do disagree that Rome was predominantly Christian and that Constantine was simply jumping on the bandwagon, however. When Constantine converted at the Battle of the Milvian Bridge, Rome was very much still pagan. It's also important to note that Catholicism was far from monolithic for the first 1500 years. Orthodoxy, Oriental Orthodoxy, Coptics, Ethiopian, and many many more. Why is Orthodoxy always overlooked? Also the assertion that "the Catholic Church never became corrupt" is historically indefensible on an array of levels.
Thank you for your comment. I think you may have misunderstood our speaker. He didn't say that Rome was predominantly Catholic. He said it was about 15% of the population around that time. But it was growing fast and many miracles were happening with Catholics who were in The coliseums and such. It was changing the Roman Empire at a rapid pace. Coptic, orthodox, and others broke away from the Catholic Church for either heretical reasons or other. But once they left, similar to protestants, then they were no longer Catholic. When they were part of the Catholic Church they were Catholic. That's why the earliest Christians were Catholic, not Orthodox or coptic, cannot just universally Catholic but distinctively. Lastly, when we are talking about the fact that the Catholic Church never became corrupted, we are talking doctrinally. And that is true.
@@CatholicTruthOfficial Thanks for the reply as always. It's a fair point to qualify your statement to doctrinal corruption. Although I think this is more a natural outflow of the belief in papal infallibility or Sola Ecclesia, so it becomes an unfalsifiable tautology necessarily. In 1053 the eastern churches considered themselves Catholic Christian. Just as they did in 1055. Who split from whom is a matter of perspective.
@@brianfarley926 Hello Brian. Thanks for your reply. I'm not sure I understand. When are you thinking the Orthodox Church did separate? What does it mean to be an "Eastern Catholic Rite Church"? Are you thinking that the Eastern Catholic Rite churches continued to fall under the authority of the Bishop of Rome? Thanks!
What I heard once is that Constantine didn't change anything per se, but (nefariously) picked the already existing (corrupt, paganised) Catholic version of Christianity to be dominant instead of the (purely biblical) donatists. It tries to be a more balanced type of a great apostasy theory, but I know for a fact that he's just as much not a donatist as he's not a catholic.
@@generalguy6211 your entire post. Constantine converted to Catholicism. It’s a historical fact. Anything else put forth is conspiracy theory bs that can’t be backed up
@@brianfarley926 You might have misread me. My post is describing something "What I heard once". And the second sentence is about the person who I heard it from, that's who the 'he' is referring to, I might've not been clear enough on that point.
Catholic Church it’s the original one from the beginning all other religions or sects they are fake and sorry to say that but to me that’s that true that is my honest comment
You are correct. It is the original one. That is why scripture refers to it as the "mother of all harlots". All these other churches have inherited her false teachings eg Sunday worship, Easter, Christmas, strange feast days, the mass etc. The false gospel of the rcc is so bad and so frightening so much so that it was revealed to Daniel and John in the book of revelations way before it was established. "her sins have reached unto heaven. GET OUT OF HER MY PEOPLE, BEFORE IT'S TOO LATE, SO THAT YOU WILL NOT PARTAKE IN HER SINS AND RECEIVE ANY OF HER PLAGUES.", so proclaims OUR LORD!
Since you brought up Daniel, I thought it interesting to bring up that one prophecy of a statue with a gold head, silver chest and arms, bronze belly and thighs, and iron/tile legs. Daniel interprets this as a series of kingdoms that rule over Israel and take each other over successively. This is understood as Babylon, Persia, Seleucid, and finally Rome. After these are swept away, God sets up a new kingdom that will never be destroyed or conquered, and it will stand forever. This would seem to align strongly with the origin of the Catholic Church that Jesus instituted, maintaining the appearance of a visible kingdom while also never being conquered to this day. It was the Church that took over after the Roman Empire collapsed.
@@killianmiller6107 Brother, it seems like you interpreted the dream of Nebuchadnezzar wrongly. The rcc is state and "church" ruling in one, in a boastful manner. The little horn that uprooted three other horns. The fourth and final beast that Daniel sees is the most dreadful-“terrifying and frightening and very powerful” (Daniel 7:7). This fourth beast has “bronze claws” (verse 19) and “large iron teeth” with which it annihilates its prey (verse 7). Daniel sees that the terrible beast has ten horns. As he ponders the meaning of the horns, a little horn begins to grow from the midst of the ten. This little horn is quite unusual. As it emerges, three of the original horns are plucked out by the roots. Daniel sees that the little horn has “eyes like the eyes of a human being and a mouth that spoke boastfully” (Daniel 7:8). The proud, boastful words of the little horn continue until the day of judgment (verses 9-10). At that time, “the beast was slain and its body . . . thrown into the blazing fire” (verse 11). That is the end of the little horn. TERRIFYING, isn't it! We can discuss this further if you wish. But get out of her before it's too late, proclaims the Lord!
In a sense I’ll agree that Jesus knows the hearts of everyone and it’s not our place to judge based on formal church membership or denomination. I’ll even mention the Church has a teaching on the salvation of those outside the visible boundaries of the Church, it’s called invincible ignorance (this is nuanced). However, we apparently disagree on what constitutes the Church, because I believe Jesus built the Catholic Church upon his apostles (especially Peter, the rock), whereas it seems you believe it is and has always been just you, the Bible, maybe the Holy Spirit inspires your private reading, you listen to pastors you agree with, and that’s it. If there is a dispute on a matter and the Church decides on it, if you reject the Church’s decision, you are to be as a gentile or tax collector, which means out of communion. To reject the Church is to reject Christ, just as to reject Christ is to reject the one who sent him.
False Doctrine at it's Core, the Council of Nicaea from 325-381 where the Nicene Creed was instituded, here is where the Church compromised, and the Name of Jesus Christ was offically removed, you must go to the Book of the Acts of the Apostles to see how they Baptized their converts, Acts 2:38-40 Acts chapter 8, Acts chapter 10, Acts chapter 19. Acts 2:38 is the Foundation of the Church, if any Church builds on any other Foundation, they are build on the wrong Foundation.
Actually, look at all of the Christians before 3:25 and you will see that they all believed the exact same thing that the Catholic church was teaching at the Council of nicea. All except one man in the 200s named sibelius. He was a heretic. That is where you get your doctrine from because it was never hurt again until the 1900s with the Oneness Pentecostals who baptize in the name of Jesus instead of the name of the Trinity as Jesus commanded us to and as Christians did for 2,000 years. The book of Acts does not tell you to baptize in the name of Jesus. Jesus told you how to baptize in Matthew 28:19. They were just distinguishing the baptism of Jesus from the other baptisms around like the baptism of John, Jewish baptisms, Pagan baptism, and so on.
@@CatholicTruthOfficial My Friend Jesus never said repeat Matthew 28:19, Jesus said Baptize in the “NAME OF” the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, do you not know the difference in the phrase of the Scripture “IN THE NAME OF” Our Lord never said repeat Matthew 28:19. Satan used Constantine to get the Church to Compromise, Trading Peace for Doctrine, for None of the Early Church Converts in the Book of Acts were Baptized Repeating Matthew 28:19, they were all Baptized in the Name Jesus Christ, Acts 2:38-40, Acts Chapter 8, Acts chapter q0, Acts chapter 19. The purpose of satan using the Council of Nicaea, 325-381 AD. Was to officially remove the Name of Jesus Christ from Water Baptism, and that’s exactly what happened in the Nicene Creed that was officially put forth in 381 AD. One other thing my Friend, the Trinity Doctrine is False Doctrine, for you declare the Godhead is made up of 3 (three) persons which is completely untrue, Jesus Christ is the Image of the One True God.
The Catholic Church teaches idol worship, anything that is made of man’s hands, the Catholic Church teaches their converts they can pray to Mary, this is idol worship. The Catholic pope goes all over the world today teaching heads of states that no matter what they believe we can worship together, this is how the One World Religion is being setup as we speak, and it is done by the Catholic Church.
That is true and the Church came before the NT scriptures, that is historical and scriptural as well, Christianity would have survived without it because Christ never told His Apostales to write down the events which took place while He was alive and afterwards within the first century of the early Church plus your comments are full of old typical, protestant/conspiracy misunderstandings which have been passed down from generation to generation, much of these misunderstanding are fairly recent, even the early protestants would not have agreed with them.
Yes, the Catholic church is the one true universal church. Any church can claim they "save" people and do good works however only the Catholic church doctrines are the most consistent for over 2000 years. I admire the passion of Evangelicals but they are mislead and don't agree on many doctrines - that's why I left. (Cue the Praise Band!) Sola scriptura and sola fide are false. Praying you do your research, brother. May His grace be with you and yours.
He mentioned Flat Earthers. Its true heres the proof. 1.. The majority of the Earths surface is water..... True fact. 2. Only a minuscule fraction of a fraction of a fraction of that water is CARBONATED by natural springs. 3. Therefore the Earth is indead flat, now where am I wrong. Sory couldn't resist lol. Love this talk very informative.
Trinity (father sun and holly ghosts) Or is it The father (who is) the sun, & The Holy Ghost (who is the moon that glows and floats like a ghost and has holes = Holy Ghost. The Trinity is the duality ? Isn’t it odd that the son of god with one letter changed becomes the opposite sun of Satan 🤔
I like the fact that he explained more on why Catholics hold Mary in high esteem, for me I never really bought into the idea Catholics were the enemy from an SDA friend but I don't understand praying to her. I guess that is why I can't become a catholic even though I was as a child I just can't get past the prayers to more than our Lord, however I don't believe that protestant have all the answers and Catholics are going to hell thay idea to me sounds crazy.
Thank you for the comment. We would respond by saying, don't you ask friends and family to pray for you? Is that against God? You would say no because our friends and family pray to Jesus for us. Then Jesus takes our prayers perfectly before the Father. But it's the same thing with Mary and the saints. The word pray, it just means to ask or implore. So we are not praying to Mary instead of God or as God, we are asking her to intercede for us to Jesus just as we ask our friends and family to do that. So it's the same thing but the prayers of our brothers and sisters in heaven are more powerful because James 5:16 says the prayer of the righteous man avails much with God and they are perfected in his righteousness. Revelation 5:8 shows people in Evan bringing our prayers before jesus. And Revelation 8:3 and following shows the Angels doing the same thing. So there is a Biblical and historical basis to this. I hope this helps. God bless.
@@CatholicTruthOfficial Now when He had taken the scroll, the four living creatures and the twenty-four elders fell down before the Lamb, each having a harp, and golden bowls full of incense, which are the prayers of the saints. Revelation 5:8 I took a look I'm not seeing that they are bringing our prayers to God can you expand on this?
@@CatholicTruthOfficial I do see James 5:16 I'm just under the impression that is speaking of us still here on earth not those who have passed on. Again I think this is just different interpretations of scripture not sure it is Salvational in the sense that Salvation only comes by Grace through our believe in Christ.
So flat Earth was brought up. What do you believe regarding Earth and its place in the universe? Biblical Earth in Genesis is very different than what is taught in school and in every aspect of our lives. Your thoughts? Also, as someone who is trying to gain further knowledge about Catholism, your guest kind of turned me off because he's lumping non believers with flat earthers, moon landing deniers and holocaust deniers together. Then he dismisses the research they've done because it's not really important. As a daughter of a war child in Germany I have learned and researched on my own about things we are have never been taught. So to dismiss these other topics as conspiracy theory is a bit too arrogant for me.
KJV Matthew 5:18 18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.
since when are you to dam lazy to Open any Catholic Bible or the Catechism and see with your own Lying eyes they were not Changed and are all their slanderer liar and Bigot😂😂
Praise Jesus for giving us your real presence in the Holy Eucharist and the holy sacrifice of the mass in every Catholic Church. If the protestant commenters here learned their Christian charity in the churches of Luther, Zwingli or Calvin may God have mercy on their souls. Pray for them. God bless you.
When Constantine was dying. it was a bishop who forgave him of the sins and told him he was a Christian. That was a lie. Jesus is the only one who can anoint you Christian and forgive you of your sins when he tells you so
Of course Jesus is the only one who can forgive sins, but he does so through the priests. John 20:21-23. Also he was baptized on bis deathbed and God forgives all sins in baptism.
Catholics confess their sins to priests because-- as it is clearly stated in Sacred Scripture--God in the Person of Jesus Christ authorized the priests of His Church to hear confessions and empowered them to forgive sins in His Name. To the Apostles, the first priests of His Church, Christ said: ``Peace be to you. As the Father hath sent me, I also send you.... Receive ye the Holy Ghost. Whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them; and whose sins you shall retain, they are retained.'' (John 20:21-23). Then again: ``Amen I say to you, whatsoever you shall bind upon earth, shall be bound also in heaven; and whatsoever you shall loose upon earth, shall be loosed also in heaven.'' (Matt. 18:18). In other words, Catholics confess their sins to priests because priests are God's duly authorized agents in the world, representing Him in all matters pertaining to the ways and means of attaining eternal salvation. When Catholics confess their sins to a priest they are, in reality, confessing their sins to God, for God hears their confessions and it is He who, in the final analysis, does the forgiving. If their confessions are not sincere, their sins are not forgiven. Furthermore, Catholics do confess their sins directly to God as Protestants do: Catholics are taught to make an act of contrition at least every night before retiring, to ask God to forgive them their sins of that day. Catholics are also taught to say this same prayer of contrition if they should have the misfortune to commit a serious sin (called a ``mortal sin'' by Catholics). Jesus gives his power to forgive sins to His priests Matthew 16:19 - (Jesus gives the apostles the power to bind and loose sins) Matthew 18:18 - whatever you bind and loose on earth, so it is in heaven John 20:22 - If you forgive anyone’s sins, they are forgiven; if you retain anyone’s sins, they are retained. John 20:23 - After saying this he breathed on them and said: Receive the Holy Spirit. (recall Genesis 2:7) 2 Corinthians 5:17-20 - "God ... has reconciled us to himself ... given us the ministry of reconciliation" James 5:14-15 - "presbyters of the church ... pray over him ... he will be forgiven" (prayer of presbyters forgives sin) See also: - Luke 22:29-30, James 5:16 After forgiveness, the need for reparation can remain. 2 Samuel 12:13-14 - "The LORD ... has forgiven your sin ... but ... child born to you must surely die" Luke 19:8-9 - (Jesus praises Zacchaeus for his promise of reparation) Penance as satisfaction for sins. Matthew 3:8 - "Produce good fruit as evidence of your repentance." 2 Corinthians 7:10 - "godly sorrow produces a salutary repentance without regret" See also: - Luke 3:8, Acts 2:38 You ARE joking right?? Are you that ignorant of the Holy Scriptures?? Lord, have mercy! You want some Bible? Here's some Bible for ya: I. Jesus Christ Granted the Apostles His Authority to Forgive Sins John 20:21 - before He grants them the authority to forgive sins, Jesus says to the apostles, "as the Father sent me, so I send you." As Christ was sent by the Father to forgive sins, so Christ sends the apostles and their successors forgive sins. John 20:22 - the Lord "breathes" on the apostles, and then gives them the power to forgive and retain sins. The only other moment in Scripture where God breathes on man is in Gen. 2:7, when the Lord "breathes" divine life into man. When this happens, a significant transformation takes place. John 20:23 - Jesus says, "If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven. If you retain the sins of any, they are retained." In order for the apostles to exercise this gift of forgiving sins, the penitents must orally confess their sins to them because the apostles are not mind readers. The text makes this very clear. Matt. 9:8 - this verse shows that God has given the authority to forgive sins to "men." Hence, those Protestants who acknowledge that the apostles had the authority to forgive sins (which this verse demonstrates) must prove that this gift ended with the apostles. Otherwise, the apostles' successors still possess this gift. Where in Scripture is the gift of authority to forgive sins taken away from the apostles or their successors? Matt. 9:6; Mark 2:10 - Christ forgave sins as a man (not God) to convince us that the "Son of man" has authority to forgive sins on earth. Luke 5:24 - Luke also points out that Jesus' authority to forgive sins is as a man, not God. The Gospel writers record this to convince us that God has given this authority to men. This authority has been transferred from Christ to the apostles and their successors. Matt. 18:18 - the apostles are given authority to bind and loose. The authority to bind and loose includes administering and removing the temporal penalties due to sin. The Jews understood this since the birth of the Church. John 20:22-23; Matt. 18:18 - the power to remit/retain sin is also the power to remit/retain punishment due to sin. If Christ's ministers can forgive the eternal penalty of sin, they can certainly remit the temporal penalty of sin (which is called an "indulgence"). 2 Cor. 2:10 - Paul forgives in the presence of Christ (some translations refer to the presences of Christ as "in persona Christi"). Some say that this may also be a reference to sins. 2 Cor. 5:18 - the ministry of reconciliation was given to the ambassadors of the Church. This ministry of reconciliation refers to the sacrament of reconciliation, also called the sacrament of confession or penance. James 5:15-16 - in verse 15 we see that sins are forgiven by the priests in the sacrament of the sick. This is another example of man's authority to forgive sins on earth. Then in verse 16, James says “Therefore, confess our sins to one another,” in reference to the men referred to in verse 15, the priests of the Church. 1 Tim. 2:5 - Christ is the only mediator, but He was free to decide how His mediation would be applied to us. The Lord chose to use priests of God to carry out His work of forgiveness. Lev. 5:4-6; 19:21-22 - even under the Old Covenant, God used priests to forgive and atone for the sins of others. II. The Necessity and Practice of Orally Confessing Sins James 5:16 - James clearly teaches us that we must “confess our sins to one another,” not just privately to God. James 5:16 must be read in the context of James 5:14-15, which is referring to the healing power (both physical and spiritual) of the priests of the Church. Hence, when James says “therefore” in verse 16, he must be referring to the men he was writing about in verses 14 and 15 - these men are the ordained priests of the Church, to whom we must confess our sins. Acts 19:18 - many came to orally confess sins and divulge their sinful practices. Oral confession was the practice of the early Church just as it is today. Matt. 3:6; Mark 1:5 - again, this shows people confessing their sins before others as an historical practice (here to John the Baptist). 1 Tim. 6:12 - this verse also refers to the historical practice of confessing both faith and sins in the presence of many witnesses. 1 John 1:9 - if we confess are sins, God is faithful to us and forgives us and cleanse us. But we must confess our sins to one another. Num. 5:7 - this shows the historical practice of publicly confessing sins, and making public restitution. 2 Sam. 12:14 - even though the sin is forgiven, there is punishment due for the forgiven sin. David is forgiven but his child was still taken (the consequence of his sin). Neh. 9:2-3 - the Israelites stood before the assembly and confessed sins publicly and interceded for each other. Sir. 4:26 - God tells us not to be ashamed to confess our sins, and not to try to stop the current of a river. Anyone who has experienced the sacrament of reconciliation understands the import of this verse. Baruch 1:14 - again, this shows that the people made confession in the house of the Lord, before the assembly. 1 John 5:16-17; Luke 12:47-48 - there is a distinction between mortal and venial sins. This has been the teaching of the Catholic Church for 2,000 years, but, today, most Protestants no longer agree that there is such a distinction. Mortal sins lead to death and must be absolved in the sacrament of reconciliation. Venial sins do not have to be confessed to a priest, but the pious Catholic practice is to do so in order to advance in our journey to holiness. Matt. 5:19 - Jesus teaches that breaking the least of commandments is venial sin (the person is still saved but is least in the kingdom), versus mortal sin (the person is not saved). Please....take a class in "Basic Christianity 101" that includes study of the Church before 1600 A.D. (about the time your way of interpreting Scripture came about!) and you just might find out a few things about the "Faith Once Delivered really show me in the bible This office has now expired then show me where thiese have expired as well John 20:21 John 20:22 John 20:23 Matt. 9:8 Matt. 9:6; Mark 2:10 Luke 5:24 Matt. 18:18 John 20:22-23; Matt. 18:18 2 Cor. 2:10 2 Cor. 5:18 James 5:15-16 1 Tim. 2:5 Lev. 5:4-6; 19:21-22 James 5:16 James 5:14-15 Acts 19:18 Matt. 3:6; Mark 1:5 1 Tim. 6:12 1 John 1:9 Num. 5:7 2 Sam. 12:14 Neh. 9:2-3 Sir. 4:26 Baruch 1:14 1 John 5:16-17; Luke 12:47-48 Matt. 5:19🐱🏍🐱🏍
@@frekigeri4317 . Yes I pretty much ignored the scriptures pretty much all my life I read Adam and Eve I noticed it wasn't complete. So that kept me out of the scriptures in the Bible. I heard from other people but I didn't take it to heart. In 2016. Jesus convicted my heart but I didn't know what to do. In 2018 he convicted my heart and I asked him when I before I went to sleep. What church are denomination you want me to belong to you. he pointed me to his family. Then I started learning. The Bible is an idol the Bible is the mark of the beast. When your faith is in the Bible it leads you and guides you and tells you what to do the Bible has no authority over me. Now I have been touched by the Holy Spirit. Yes the real Holy Spirit. Jesus doesn't want us to be in religion or churches or even in the Bible. Actually our faith in the Bible he only wants us to be Christians. One in the body of Christ that's all period and were led by the Holy Spirit
Jesus said the gates of hell would not prevail against his church, he didn’t say his church would not be attacked. Why then, would you leave that church (Martin Luther)? It’s the church Jesus gave us, it CAN’T fail. It will be attacked, but IT WILL NOT FAIL. If you believe it is, you and Jesus, then at least listen to his words.
interesting, but why catholic church has care about eucharisty like the first century christians and the other protestant doesnt? that s why im staying and you cannot take that from none. Argument is free but waste of time, im not denying my lord in body, blood, soul and divinity because of others. Hell no.
@@irmaosrodrigues1289 Jewish-Roman Wars that lasted almost 70 years caused the Jewish Christian schism. Christians started adopting and making new rituals to distance themselves from the Jewish people.
Catholicism is a form of truth. In other words, it points towards truth. Humans have a spirt that is built to serve things bigger than them selves. The important thing to remember is we are fallible and we could be wrong. The truth of life is to grow and endure with god. Catholicism has many great things, but you have have to ask the question if it’s limiting your true human potential. We must become ourselves in truth and beautify and hard work. Always question and work towards a stoic mind, a balanced way of living. Transform from within.
What does it even mean to “become yourself?” I am myself, and myself is a spiritually weak and sinful person. It is Jesus who transforms me, if I did it all by myself I know I would fail. My goal is to be a Saint, seeking the beatific vision with God in the next life and preparing for it in this life.
@harrison hagan You sound very “new age” in that statement. There aren’t “forms” of truth. Either something is true or it isn’t. In my 42 years of being a Catholic, I have yet to see anything in the Faith that isn’t true, nor have I seen anything that’s a “form of truth.”
According to “my church,” the Baltimore catechism says the purpose of life is to “know, love, and serve God in this life in order to live with him forever in the next.” We are called to start to live out the kingdom of God now to be prepared to live in it forever after death. Becoming a saint is not merely going to heaven, it’s the duty of every Christian to take up our cross and follow Jesus right now, which sometimes entails getting into the stink of the poor (as Pope Francis says, the smell of the sheep), being martyred for the faith, being imprisoned in an unwelcoming nation, etc. I may or may not be called to those in particular, but I hope and pray God gives me the grace to remain faithful if such situation would arise. Read the lives of our Saints and you wouldn’t dare have a leg to stand on in regard to this.
What a disingenuous presentation. The simple fact is that most people have cognitive dissonance when they read the Bible and compare it to Catholic doctrine and practice. Something went wrong.
Your basic (birth to death) Mormons (although unknowingly confused on some things) are good, God fearing, Jesus loving, family oriented, obedient, and repentant souls, seeking God, and doing his will as best they know how. We pray for God's mercy for; "Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience - those too may achieve eternal salvation". CCC 847
839 "Those who have not yet received the Gospel are related to the People of God in various ways."325 The relationship of the Church with the Jewish People. When she delves into her own mystery, the Church, the People of God in the New Covenant, discovers her link with the Jewish People,326 "the first to hear the Word of God."327 The Jewish faith, unlike other non-Christian religions, is already a response to God's revelation in the Old Covenant. To the Jews "belong the sonship, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the worship, and the promises; to them belong the patriarchs, and of their race, according to the flesh, is the Christ",328 "for the gifts and the call of God are irrevocable."329 840 And when one considers the future, God's People of the Old Covenant and the new People of God tend towards similar goals: expectation of the coming (or the return) of the Messiah. But one awaits the return of the Messiah who died and rose from the dead and is recognized as Lord and Son of God; the other awaits the coming of a Messiah, whose features remain hidden till the end of time; and the latter waiting is accompanied by the drama of not knowing or of misunderstanding Christ Jesus. 841 The Church's relationship with the Muslims. "The plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place amongst whom are the Muslims; these profess to hold the faith of Abraham, and together with us they adore the one, merciful God, mankind's judge on the last day."330 842 The Church's bond with non-Christian religions is in the first place the common origin and end of the human race: All nations form but one community. This is so because all stem from the one stock which God created to people the entire earth, and also because all share a common destiny, namely God. His providence, evident goodness, and saving designs extend to all against the day when the elect are gathered together in the holy city. . .331 843 The Catholic Church recognizes in other religions that search, among shadows and images, for the God who is unknown yet near since he gives life and breath and all things and wants all men to be saved. Thus, the Church considers all goodness and truth found in these religions as "a preparation for the Gospel and given by him who enlightens all men that they may at length have life."332 844 In their religious behavior, however, men also display the limits and errors that disfigure the image of God in them: Very often, deceived by the Evil One, men have become vain in their reasonings, and have exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and served the creature rather than the Creator. Or else, living and dying in this world without God, they are exposed to ultimate despair.333 845 To reunite all his children, scattered and led astray by sin, the Father willed to call the whole of humanity together into his Son's Church. The Church is the place where humanity must rediscover its unity and salvation. The Church is "the world reconciled." She is that bark which "in the full sail of the Lord's cross, by the breath of the Holy Spirit, navigates safely in this world." According to another image dear to the Church Fathers, she is prefigured by Noah's ark, which alone saves from the flood Outside the Church there is no salvation" 846 How are we to understand this affirmation, often repeated by the Church Fathers?335 Re-formulated positively, it means that all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body: Basing itself on Scripture and Tradition, the Council teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the Church. He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and Baptism, and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through Baptism as through a door. Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it.336 847 This affirmation is not aimed at those who, through no fault of their own, do not know Christ and his Church: Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience - those too may achieve eternal salvation.337 848 "Although in ways known to himself God can lead those who, through no fault of their own, are ignorant of the Gospel, to that faith without which it is impossible to please him, the Church still has the obligation and also the sacred right to evangelize all men."338
4 Their idols are silver and gold, the work of men’s hands. 5 They have mouths, but they speak not: eyes have they, but they see not: 6 They have ears, but they hear not: noses have they, but they smell not: 7 They have hands, but they handle not: feet have they, but they walk not: neither speak they through their throat. 8 They that make them are like unto them; so is every one that trusteth in them.
The Bible verses that you mentioned are not for catholicism because the Catholic Church has no commandment to worship a statue. It's not the statue itself that we worship or honor but the person who represents the image or statue. You misunderstand again the Catholic Faith.
Like I said, if the protestant church is the true Church, we would not find errors and discrepancies of your doctrines in the Bible. But you have many errors and discrepancies in the Bible.
The Catholic Church teaches that when the statues of Jesus, Mary, saints and angels are blessed by a priest already, their spirits dwell in those statues. Thus, the blessed catholic images become sacred statues. Disrespecting and destroying those blessed images of Jesus, Mary, saints and angels are a grave sin of sacrilege. A person who disrespects and destroys a blessed catholic statue commits a grave sin of sacrilege.
It evolved from the Way and during Pentacost in the Book of Acts became Universal (Catholic) including all nations. John the evangelist pass the keys to the church in Antioch to Ignatius.
but, miss or mister, why catholic church has care about eucharisty like the first century christians and the other protestant doesnt? that s why im staying and you cannot take that from none. Argument is free but waste of time, im not denying my lord in body, blood, soul and divinity because of others. Hell no
According to the bible, Jesus started the Catholic Church. The bible also states that the church Jesus started would inherit the Roman Empire. This happened in the 4th Century.
@@ContendingEarnestly It is part of an old testament prophecy from Daniel 2 and Revelation 17. This was fulfilled in the 4th century. But there is more, according to the bible all works of the old law will come to an end except for the sacrifice of bread and wine (Mal 1:11). Agains this is only the RCC. The bible also states that the churhc is headed by the man with the keys of David (Matt 16:19). Again only RCC and it goes on like this.
@@ContendingEarnestly Malachi 1:11 is talking about the sacrifice of bread and wine. In the NT Paul speaks about the same sacrifice claiming that if you eat it under a state of sin you are guilty of the body of Christ. Paul says this sacrifice will continue till the return of Christ (1 Cor 11:26-29). In the line of Davidic Kings, the kings would set up prime ministers to act on their behalf. The king would give his full authority symbolised as keys to the PMs and they would be known as a Father (Pope) to the people of God (Is 21-22). Jesus is a Davidic King (Luke 1:32), and He gave His full authority symbolised as keys to Peter (Matt 16:19). In verse 18, Jesus states that this church is protected from the gates of hell. This means that the church has to still exists today, headed by the man with the key of David in an apostolic line back to Peter. Jesus tells Peter that his job is to lead the other apostles (Luke 22:32). There was only one Roman Empire and it has gone to the Catholic Church. No other church or Christian belief today existed back then. The biblical Church as a league of celebate priests which again fits RCC. The church will praise Mary for all generations and intercede to Christ through her, which again is only the RCC (Ps 45, Luke 1:48). According to the bible Christ has left in His church a perpetual succession of orthodox pastors and teachers, to preserve the faithful in unity and truth (Eph 4:10-15). Only the RCC can claim to have fulfilled this, no other faith can provide any evidence to make this claim.
The Orthodox broke away from the Catholic Church and the authority of the Pope in the 11th century. Read the earliest Christians. They were all Catholic not Orthodox. Not in a generic sense only but in a specifically Catholic sense. The Orthodox came back and returned to the Catholic Church twice in history and submitted to the pope again only to break away again later. It never happened the other way showing they were the ones who broke away in the first place. Plus there's no one Orthodox church. The are nationalized and fight with each other and excommunicate each other. They have never even had an ecumenical Council since the seventh Council early in the church because they have no authority.
*St. Theodore the Studite [Venerated in the Catholic Church and the Orthodox churches]* "I borrow now the cry of the coryphaeus of the apostles, calling Christ to his assistance when the waves of the sea had surged upwards, and I say to your Christ-imitating Beatitude: O arch-shepherd of the church which is under heaven [Pope], save us now; we perish. Imitate Christ your Master; stretch out your hand to the Church which is among us as he stretched out his hand to Peter... Emulate, we beg you, the great pope whose name you bear, and just as he, when the heresy of Eutyches appeared, stood erect spiritually as a lion with his dogmatic letters, so in your turn (I dare to say it because of your name) roar divinely, or rather send forth your thunder against the present heresy. For if they, usurping an authority which does not belong to them, have dared to convene a heretical council, whereas those who follow ancient custom do not even have the right of convening an orthodox one without your knowledge, it seems absolutely necessary, we dare to say to you, *that your divine primacy* should call together a lawful council, so that the Catholic dogma may drive out heresy and that your primacy may neither be anathematized by these new voices lacking authority, nor may wills disposed to evil find in this adulterous council an excuse for being involved in sin. It is in order to obey your *divine authority as chief pastor* that we have set forth these things as it befitted our nothingness, we the least members of the church. For the rest, we beg Your Holiness to count us among your sheep and to enlighten and strengthen us by your holy prayers... my father and companion the monk, as well as my brother the archbishop of Thessalonica, are imprisoned on other islands. But they say the same things that I do, and with me they prostrate themselves at the sacred feet of Your Beatitude" [PG 99: 1017-21]. "To the most holy father, leading luminary of the universe, our lord and master, the apostolic pope... We truly believe that Christ has not deserted the Church here (Constantinople), for assistance from you has been our one and only aid from of old and from the beginning by the providence of God in the critical times. *For from the beginning, you are the ever pure and ever limpid stream of orthodoxy; you are the tranquil harbor where the whole church finds sure shelter against all the tempests of heresy, you are the citadel chosen by God to be the assured refuge of salvation"* [PG 99: 1153-6]. "Byzantium has shaken off the yoke of the gospel as a heifer pricked by the goad; she shakes off the harness. She is furiously agitated like the Corybantes; she is intoxicated with blood as a lioness; as the serpent she stops her ears; she kicks against the censure. *A voice made itself heard to warn her, equal to a voice from heaven - the voice of the supreme throne of Rome:* ‘what have you done? You have denied Christ by forbidding his image, that of the Mother of God and all the saints... Open your ear to obedience; listen to the words of the gospel, an apostle, a prophet, a father.’ But Byzantium did not listen, did not receive those words. She raised her head against almighty God, outraging Christ and trampling upon his chosen saints..." [PG 99: 1280]. *St. Maximus the Confessor [Venerated in the Catholic Church and the Orthodox churches]* "How much more in the case of the clergy and Church of the Romans, which from old until now, as the elder of all the Churches which are under the sun, *presides over all?* Having surely received this canonically, as well from councils and apostles, as from the princes of the latter [Peter & Paul], and being numbered in their company, she is subject to no writings or issues of synodical documents, on account of the *eminence of her pontificate,* even as in all these things all are equally subject to her according to sacerdotal law‘' [PL 129.585-6]. "For the very ends of the earth and those in every part of the world who purely and rightly confess the Lord, look directly to the most holy Church of the Romans and its confession and faith as though it were a sun of unfailing light, expecting from it the illuminating splendour of the Fathers and sacred dogmas…For ever since the Incarnate Word of God came down to us, all the churches of Christians everywhere have held that greatest Church there *to be their sole base and foundation,* since on the one hand, it is in no way overcome by the gates of Hades, according to the very promise of the Saviour, *but holds the keys of the orthodox confession and faith in him and opens the only true and real religion to those who approach with godliness, and on the other hand, it shuts up and locks every heretical mouth that speaks unrighteousness against the most High"* [PG 91.137-140].
@@HenryBonesJr I do appreciate the reply, but can you add some context for me? What are you thinking this wall of text demonstrates? I can be a little slow... Thanks!
Last Apostle Saint John 100 AD! Deposit of Faith Sealed. Xsatan confuses, lies on on.. Pagan/Unbelievers:( UnGodly…False for SUREX X X 💝🎚Jesus’ Only One True Apostolic Church Hallelujah SO EXCITING 💝🎚🕊Deo gratias AMEN🤲📿🎚⛪️📖🙌📿🧎♀️
I cannot recommend the Apostasy That Wasn’t strongly enough. It is a well written, well researched book that puts to bed the fallacies associated with Constantine and the early church. Thanks for the interview!
We agree! Thank you for your comment.
This video was very informative. Thank you.
Plan on reading it. Thanks! ❤️🙏❤️
the people who invent and propagate anti-Catholic fallacies dont read. The book will not help
@@danieldiazrazo1012 How do you propose to unite people in Jesus’ name when people continue to spread lies and distortions about the Church he founded and gave authority to teach and preach in his name? That’s what apologetics is all about. Setting the record straight and defending the teachings of the one Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church. The Saints have been doing that since the time of the Apostles. You cannot unite people around falsehood. Just look at the increasingly splintering Protestant Church.
I wish I had a dollar for every time I heard the Constantine argument
Us too
We’d all be rich!
We could all quit jobs and retire!
The Romish Church now presents a fair front to the world, covering with apologies her record of horrible cruelties. She has clothed herself in Christ-like garments; but she is unchanged. Every principle of popery that existed in past ages exists today. The doctrines devised in the darkest ages are still held. Let none deceive themselves. Great Controversy 1888 p570. Well worth a read
@@maranatha5064
What does that quote have to do with anything??
I work in IT so when I hear the word "corrupt" I think of programming code. In my field, if code became corrupted, you would go back to the last known good revision of the code, not start a new program. That's what I feel like the Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, and Protestants are doing. If you really thought that the Church became corrupted during Constantine's reign, why would you not go back to an earlier version of the church before the heresy? That's because in each case, they're using the supposed corruption of the Church to justify the creation of new denominations.
The Romish Church now presents a fair front to the world, covering with apologies her record of horrible cruelties. She has clothed herself in Christ-like garments; but she is unchanged. Every principle of popery that existed in past ages exists today. The doctrines devised in the darkest ages are still held. Let none deceive themselves. Great Controversy 1888 p570. Well worth a read
@@maranatha5064 - lots of flowery words, but no content. You didn't answer the question I proposed - if the Catholic Church became corrupt, why not prune back to the vine where it was good? I'll give the Eastern Orthodox Church credit because this is exactly what they did. They do not accept Papal authority, but all other tenants of the faith, such as the Eucharist are accepted. Protestants just use church corruption as an excuse to rebrand the Christian church in man's image, not Christ.
@@Saul2PaulCatholic Great Controversy is Ellen G White's magnum opus, so Maranatha is a Seventh Day Adventist presumably. In my experience, debating a SDA is nearly pointless. Any argument I present always ends up with a massive copy/paste of talking points with Bible verses that supposedly support their view. I usually challenge their interpretation because it's not even close to what it means. Then they drop another copy paste and proclaim victory. I offer another rebuttal and never hear back.
@@maranatha5064 I actually read White's Great Controversy and wasn't persuaded. Rodney Stark (he's not Catholic by the way) has a pretty well researched book called "Bearing False Witness" that pretty thoroughly dismantles the claims regarding the Catholic church's "record of horrible cruelties".
Wonderful analogy!
God bless you Brian I absolutely love Rod Bennett‘s testimony and knowledge 🙏🏻
The Jewish leaders became so corrupt that they crucified God. Yet God said they sat in the Seat of Moses (Mt. 23:1-3) and hadn't lost their authority (Mk. 1:44; Lk 17:14; & John 11:49-51). To link authority with spiritual perfection is insane. No matter how loose with men and high on booze your mama is, you still need to obey her when she tells you to not play in the street.
As obviously ideal as it seems, to demand spiritual perfection of Church leaders is not only impractical and ridiculously judgemental, it is the heresy of Donatism. Donatism does not differentiate between personal holiness and ceremonial holiness. Donatism forgets that Aaron, the first Levitical priest, led the Israelites into idolatry. Donatism forgets that the 'gifts and calling of God don't require repentance (Romans 11:29).' Donatism forgets that the man who installed your computer system does not have to be a monk to do an adequate job.
God's people need reliable leadership. Far too many are too proud and too stupid to interpret the Bible for themselves, making a complete mess of things. For example, we can't communicate with the saints in heaven? If that's so, then Jesus set a bad example when he communicated with Moses and Elijah on Mt. Tabor. And where does it say in the Bible that everybody can interpret scripture to suit themselves?
Makes sense!👍
The Romish Church now presents a fair front to the world, covering with apologies her record of horrible cruelties. She has clothed herself in Christ-like garments; but she is unchanged. Every principle of popery that existed in past ages exists today. The doctrines devised in the darkest ages are still held. Let none deceive themselves. Great Controversy 1888 p570. Well worth a read
@@maranatha5064 Good scholars read hundreds of books and thousands of articles. It's very low academics to hang all your beliefs on one man's biased book, so don't stop there. I advise you to find out what good scholarship is before you perish as St. Peter prophetically warned all Protestants (II Peter 3:16).
For starters, try the Bible, a product of the Catholic Church, without Satan's guidance. Don't bite the hand that feeds you! The Bible is a Catholic document that Christ gave the Church the authority to produce. He never revoked that authority and the gates of hell didn't prevail against it as you say they did.
According to Christ in Mt. 23:1-3, the scribes and Pharisees sat in the Seat of Moses. Yet they committed the greatest murder of all time. The Levitical priesthood did this because "the gifts and the calling of God don't require repentance (Romans 11:29)." The Levitical priesthood was replaced with the Apostolic Succession that produced the NT and defined the OT.
The entire Protestant movement is based on a rejection of this sound, biblical principle of holy authority apart from personal holiness. Such a heresy was defined long ago as 'Donatism.' There is both moral holiness and ceremonial holiness. With Trump, you get a rejection of both. He is a type of antichrist. No one in history has openly trashed the Ten Commandments as this Protestant has done.
Since Protestants left God's One, Holy, Catholic, Apostolic Church (as the Orthodox also call themselves every Sunday) of the first 1,500 years, they are the antichrist according to I John 2:18-19. Arrogantly ripping the Body of Christ into over 10,000 shreds alone proves that. That's the work of Satan, not the Holy Spirit (Jude 19).
@@maranatha5064 We stopped all those atrocities once the Protestants left. Then they developed the atomic bomb to call down fire from the sky as the false prophet of Revelation does.
@@maranatha5064 I've been scrolling through the comments awhile now and have you seen that comment like eight times now. What else have you got?
I’m blessed with three videos about Catholics on my subscription feed today. #proudcatholic
@YAJUN YUAN There’s no such video. Except a short on Sola Fide which is wrong.
@YAJUN YUAN there u go again, u devil spawn. Either ur brain damaged like ur false prophetess, twisted, evil or all 3 above.
@YAJUN YUAN
Yahun,
Ellen White had absolutely no apostolic authority to create her own "church". The Gospel opposes her and every single protestant church or sect prerending to preach a different Gospel. You, therefore, are participating in such heresy.
No amount of pretentious and false ideas you attempt to propagate will ever become true.
Remember these words:
Matthew 12:30
30 Whoever is not with me is against me, and whoever does not gather with me scatters.
Luke 9:50
50 But Jesus said to him, “Do not
stop him, for the one who is not
against you is for you.”
The fact! By your ideology you are both: Against Christ and against His one and only Church.
Moreover:
John 17:19-23
19. And it is for them that I sanctify myself, so that they, too, may be sanctified in TRUTH.
20. But I am not praying for them only, but also for those who through their word shall believe in me.
21. So may they all be ONE. Just as you, Father, are in me, and I am in you, so also may they be ONE in us: so that the world may believe that you have sent me.
22. And the glory that you have given to me, I have given to them, so that they may be ONE, just as we also are one.
23. I am in them, and you are in me. So may they be perfected as ONE. And may the world know that you have sent me and that you have loved them, just as you have also loved me.
You are part of the heresy started in 1517.
Now, you have been told God rejects divisions. There's nowhere to hide from or avoid the one truth.
May God bless your discernment.
@YAJUN YUAN It's been a while since I bumped into you in a comments section.
@YAJUN YUAN what is your main channel?
Infant baptism was practiced in Acts and the epistles when 'entire households' are baptized.
The Romish Church now presents a fair front to the world, covering with apologies her record of horrible cruelties. She has clothed herself in Christ-like garments; but she is unchanged. Every principle of popery that existed in past ages exists today. The doctrines devised in the darkest ages are still held. Let none deceive themselves. Great Controversy 1888 p570. Well worth a read
@@maranatha5064 Is it Hate Week again in your denomination? 💗
@@minterbell there's nothing wrong with infant Baptism.
@@minterbell what's wrong with a discussion on this channel?
@@minterbell well, it's not that complicated. Infant Baptism should be considered an acceptable Christian practice because the objections that have been raised against it are ALL invalid.
For example
1) there is an objection that infant Baptism shouldn't be practised in the church simply because there is nowhere in the new testament where it is mentioned that infant Baptism was practised in the early church.
But such an objection is weak because the new testament is not an a record of ABSOLUTELY EVERYTHING that was taught and done by the Apostles, and so the fact that infant baptism wasn't explicitly mentioned in the new testament is not proof that it never happened in the early church. Besides, there is no record of any of the Apostles CONDEMNING the practice of infant baptism
2) Another objection is that infants cannot be baptized because they are unable to REPENT, and Peter did say that repentance should take place BEFORE baptism can take place (Acts 2:38).
But this objection is also faulty because the reason why Peter mentioned repentance in Acts 2:38 is obvious --- in that verse he was talking to ADULTS, not INFANTS (and ADULTS need to REPENT because they are capable of commiting sin. Infant don't NEED repentance because they are incapable of commiting sin)
So basically, Peter was was talking about ADULT BAPTISM in Acts 2:38 and so it would be inappropriate to try to apply his words in that verse to INFANT BAPTISM
Being raised Catholic I can say I'm really struggling with the Vatican, the popes and the general history of everything. I see a lot of corruption and deceit especially now.
For sure. Jesus at the gates of hell will not prevail against the church. Why did he say that? Because satan was going to try to attack it from without and from within. But Jesus said he would not win. It's very disheartening to see evil people in our church, but Christ is the head and the church is the bride and it will last forever. Definitely. Check out our videos as they will be inspiration for you. We have another video on this topic as well. On the evils in the church. Check out the video "Catholic Truth Church Crisis."
“Come out of her my people lest you partake of her sins and receive of her plagues. “- Revelation.
This channel is either very ignorant of true history or has an agenda to bring about one world religion. They assume all people need to be under the Roman Church. It’s the antichrist counterfeit and Jesuits have long infiltrated the Church to discredit any kind of reform or return to biblical teachings. They don’t address the facts of killing Christians and burning biblesand don’t address how the Pope has said there are many ways to God. I recommend a book called the gospel according to Rome.
I'm a British Catholic but I am aware of my Celtic Christian heritage, whereby a mission from Rome arrived in approximately 597 AD, led by Augustine. By 664 AD, the regulations of the Roman Church were enforced much against the will of most of the clergy and the people. You could argue that they were effectively bullied into coming under the Roman umbrella which does help to explain a little why eventually the RCC was so dominant. One central organisation is not necessarily a bad thing but whereas Celtic Christian communities focused on living simply, treated women equally (most notable was Hilda, Abbess of Whitby) all whilst promoting the Gospels, Rome brought in uniformity but also an emphasis on comfort, pomp and yes - it has to be said, corruption.
It’s so sad. Right before Constantine became the sole emperor, the Church went through a terrible persecution under Diocletian. Thousands of Christian’s martyred. What sin they commit against the followers of Jesus who were tortured and killed for their faith in the Savior!
Indeed! Those early Christians were Catholics. We have a whole video on that. ua-cam.com/video/CYrMq_wT8VE/v-deo.htmlsi=YWqTY3ax279-n3gY
At 14:30 he ironically makes an excellent case for the Protestant view of the authority of scripture. It wasn’t a church counsel that constructed the Bible and gave it authority, it was the church recognizing the Bible as divinely inspired through the Holy Spirit which came hundreds of years prior to the church counsels that supposedly gave it its authority.
That's always been the Catholic position. They didn't bece divine because we chose them, they were divine because they were divinely inspired. Yet the truth remains that there were over 80 gospel written, and hundreds of epistles, and it was the Catholic Church who chose only those books which were inspired by God and which should have been part of the biblical canon. This is done by the guidance of the Holy Spirit and with a reliance on the tradition that came down from Christ.
His argument is that the canon was largely accepted by the church prior to Constantine and the church counsels. I am simply agreeing with this assertion made in the video which is more in line with the Protestant position on the construction and acceptance of the canon. Catholics tend to argue with Protestants that they wouldn’t have the canon without the church counsels declaring which books were in and which were out in an attempt to undermine Sola Scriptura. His argument is (accidentally) a great refutation of the Catholic Churches’ claims on the matter.
What does it have to do with Sola scriptura
so- its safe to say "SOME of the church apostasized during persecution, but most did NOT and died for the faith/held strong". ? Or is it the other way around?
That's correct. Some did apostrophize, but many, perhaps most did not.
Can You go over the 16 documents of Vatican II this semester? ... Starting next week at SFU -- so much reading.....
What is wrong if Constsntine wanted to believe and follow Jesus Christ???
He didn't, Christianity was growing too fast and he feared an uprising. He co-opted the church with earthly power instead of having to try to kill it from outside. Human nature did the rest. Brilliant!
I once heard a very wise man tell me that as punishment for their rebellion God blinded Protestants to Jesus in the Eucharist and scattered them into thousands of pieces.
Wow, interesting…
Satan has to be very pleased with himself regarding the protestant reformation which was sort of like satan's version of the Tower of Babel.
Take the baptist for example, with southern, northern, central, independent, regular, and many more types of baptist, which are like Baskin Robbins Ice Cream with 31+ different flavors to choose from, regarding "faith alone", baptism, opposition to good works, pre tribulation rapture, etc.
How does any reasonable person decide which baptist church to go to?
@@minterbell Yes, I know, there are 4 or 5 different baptist churches within 10 miles of our house and the ALL have different ideas. One thing in common though, is the ALL think Catholics are going to hell.
@@johns1834, perfect!👍
You hit the nail right on the head!😚
@@chommie5350, you bet!
Former SDA here. They love the Constantine argument lol
Yes they do. Too bad Ellen G white didn't study actual history before she started writing about it.
So glad you got out.
The Romish Church now presents a fair front to the world, covering with apologies her record of horrible cruelties. She has clothed herself in Christ-like garments; but she is unchanged. Every principle of popery that existed in past ages exists today. The doctrines devised in the darkest ages are still held. Let none deceive themselves. Great Controversy 1888 p570. Well worth a read
I went to a SDA church for a baptism years ago, I wasn’t impressed.
@@maranatha5064 name one horrible cruelty of the church?
Wow, presentation is loud and clear. Thank you very much
Great video.
God Bless
Love the Catholic church
The Romish Church now presents a fair front to the world, covering with apologies her record of horrible cruelties. She has clothed herself in Christ-like garments; but she is unchanged. Every principle of popery that existed in past ages exists today. The doctrines devised in the darkest ages are still held. Let none deceive themselves. Great Controversy 1888 p570. Well worth a read
@@maranatha5064 the dark ages are a myth
The Catholic church is the one true church
There is no evidence of violence in the Catholic church
Inquisition crusades etc
@@maranatha5064 I'm Catholic because God lead me to the Catholic church
My goodness, I appreciate the knowledge on display, but public speaking is definitely not for some people.
All that is needed is for someone to give this a tiny bit of thought.
3 Emperors attempted to destroy the Church over 3 centuries but now an emperor who decides to allow it and thus conquers it. But he doesn't just allow it but drastically changes it and ALL the Christians just ride along.
Somehow the Bishops and Popes who had existed prior to Constantine are ignored.
A wide spread community that had been well practiced in resisting the force of the empire now succumbs to it? Not only succumbs but allows huge changes?
Maybe those changes were not changes but had always existed...like the Bishops and Popes?
Instead of the Church that Jesus built being defeated by a Roman Emperor- maybe a Roman Emperor was defeated by Jesus Church?
And to think, it all happened without a single letter protesting the idea of popes or any of the alleged Catholic corruptions, despite every single heresy up until that point producing entire books worth of writings.
It seems to me Jesus said this would happen. The only Church today that has the same teaching and traditions as the Apostels is the Catholic Church.
Well, clearly, the Catholic Church is still here after almost 2000 years. It has certainly been tried by many to overthrow it from without and from within, almost without reprieve for the entire two millennium. Jews, Romans, Vandals, Heretics, Islam, Protestants, the French Revolution, Modernists, Hitler, Communists, and many others, one group after another, have tried and failed, and yet the Church still stands. It is the oldest, and the largest, and the longest lasting institution on earth. Having said that, aren't you compelled to agree that the Catholic Church is of the work of GOD and not of men? Despite all of this constant attack, the Catholic Church has grown to well over one billion (1,045,000,000*)
Thomas Aquinas once noted that no matter how flawless one's logic was, if it began with a faulty premise, then the end result would be a conclusion founded upon error.😢😢
@@biblealone9201 Yeah, that alone was appealing evidence to me. To this day, I marvel at how when I read Justin Martyr or even the Didache the liturgy is right there for me. The way the first Christians worshiped is completely foreign to modern Protestant churches.
@@ContendingEarnestly I'm not really sure what you mean. Are you denying that the position of bishop of Rome (called "pope" as early as the third century) didn't exist prior to Constantine? Because we have letters and writings.
@@bigfootapologetics The bible says the church will inherit the Roman Empire. Only the Catholic Church fits this prophecy.
I’m would like to learn how to defend my faith more, is there a book like an “encyclopedia” that you recommend for common Protestant oppositions?
The Bible should be enough to defend your faith. Are you a Protestant or a Catholic? If the Bible doesn’t defend your faith then you’re with the wrong denomination
I try Catholic Answers, they are excellent
Meeting the Protestant Challenge and Meeting the Protestant Response, both by Karlo Broussard
Umm. The B I B L E ? ! ?
If, as claimed the Arians, Jesus is not equal to the Father, He isn't God at all.
Yes, that is what the Arians claimed. And Muslims, Jehovah's Witnesses, and the Church of God.
@@CatholicTruthOfficial Your guest speaker does not understand how un-Christian is Arianism.
I couldn't find a link to Mr. Bennett's book anywhere. Did I miss it? Maybe you can pin a link to it in the comments?
Great talk, thank you.
www.amazon.com/Rod-Bennett/e/B001KMIBFS%3Fref=dbs_a_mng_rwt_scns_share
Thank you for letting us know. It's in the description section now.
The Romish Church now presents a fair front to the world, covering with apologies her record of horrible cruelties. She has clothed herself in Christ-like garments; but she is unchanged. Every principle of popery that existed in past ages exists today. The doctrines devised in the darkest ages are still held. Let none deceive themselves. Great Controversy 1888 p570. Well worth a read
@@CatholicTruthOfficial You like Maranatha's copy and paste from "The Great Controversy"? I actually converted to Catholicism in 2019 and just to make sure I was doing the right thing, I actually spent a lot of time searching out arguments against it while I was simultaneously reading a lot of modern Catholic authors and early church writings. I hit Hislop's Two Babylon's, White's Great Controversy, and C.J. Koster's Come Out Of Her My People. There arguments were weak, and sometimes actually just made up. Made me that much more resolved to join the Church.
Ty Rod Bennett!❣️🔥☦️
I just Handed Out my 9th or 10th Copy of, "Apostasy That Wasn't".... I Bought & Read it when 1st Published.
It's an awesome Read, & irrefutable... (& Living in the Bible Belt, it's a perfect Hand Out!)
One of my dreams is to come down to the Bible belt for a week and evangelize every Protestant I see. ;)
@@CatholicTruthOfficial
😏😂🤣😂 God Luck! Those following the Doctrines of Chick Comics, will be 1st in line to make us Martyrs! (While Citing Francis, Maccarrick, & Jaimie Martin, as Evidence THEY'VE been 'Right' all along!🥴😪)
The Romish Church now presents a fair front to the world, covering with apologies her record of horrible cruelties. She has clothed herself in Christ-like garments; but she is unchanged. Every principle of popery that existed in past ages exists today. The doctrines devised in the darkest ages are still held. Let none deceive themselves. Great Controversy 1888 p570. Well worth a read
Joe Heschmeyer also a legend
Amen 🙏
Abstain from all APPEARANCE of evil 1 Thessalonians 5:22
You said, " The church started out with Jesus". Thankyou I will go no further than "Christ and Him crucified.
Except that the church is the bride of Christ and so you can't have Christ without his bride and his body. They form an inseparable unity.
All believes are the Bride, that can be believes from different places in the world. When I was in Catholic school one of the nuns told me, " we are the only true church". And as I began to search I found many churches said the same thing. So I just read the Bible on my own. I found one teaching in the scriptures, "Christ Crucified " the beginning and ending of faith" Thats what Paul taught. Yes there was the 7 churches in the book of Revelation, they are all gone. So that leaves me with " Christ Crucified " and no one can take Christ away from the true believers
They shouldn't be referred to as a "Religions" , but sects and cults.
If the church never became corrupt, why did they start burning people at the stake? Does that sound like something the one true, holy, universal church of Jesus would do if it hadn't been corrupted by Satan? I think not.
If it was the true church why were there different schisms
Why did people walk away from Jesus? Why do people pray from the apostles and the early church? Why have there been Schism since the earliest days?
It's in the prideful nature of man, I suppose. Men have always rebelled and walked away from God.
@@CatholicTruthOfficial the church is the body it's not a building or institution
🤔 I have heard and read a lot 🤔 I was raised Messianic Judaism ✡️✝️ and am very intrigued by anything I can find about early Christianity and it's links to Judaism ✡️✝️
What´s the difference between the Roman Catholic Church and the Hungarian Catholic Church?
The Hungarian Greek Catholic Church is a sui iuris Church in the Catholic Church. They are in communion with Rome, and the Roman Catholic Church. They use the Byzantine Rite, while the Roman Church uses the Latin Rite. The 23 sui iuris Church outnumber the 1 Roman Church, but the Roman Church overwhelmingly outnumbers the other 23 Church by population. What people think of as "The Catholic Church" is really just the "Roman/Latin Rite" of the Catholic Church.
@@robertweidner2480 Ok, but I hungarian catholic, but my parish is exercise roman/latin rite!
Slight correction. What people think of as the "Catholic Church" is actually the Catholic church not just the Roman right of the church. But all 23 Rite in Union with the Roman Rite.
What people think is the Roman Catholic Church is really just the Roman Rite of the Church. Maybe you meant to say that.
Do you have a series debunking islam
David Wood has done the best work in this area, on UA-cam anyway.
@@stueve And Christian Prince also in UA-cam
I would recommend Sam Shamoun. He has a page called Answering-Islam.
No, but we have one coming out very soon. We have an Islamic scholar coming on next month to speak about the beliefs in teachings of Islam and a little bit of the history.
Just watched and listened to the whole video as a Latter-Day Saint and I have to say I came away understanding and believing a great apostasy occurred even more. The guest spent a good chunk of time talking about how there were huge waves of apostasy, and actually validated the truth in the lds book that the host was criticizing. Sure there may be errors in it, but it's from the early 1900s so what do you expect. But overall it sounds like they both misunderstand the Lds concept of a great apostasy. It's not just changes in teachings, or people apostatizing from the church, though it can include that. The main point is that the apostleship was meant to continue in order for the priesthood and its associated keys to be valid. Ofcourse the church continued. Ofcourse many remained faithful and tried to keep the teachings pure. But without the apostles and valid priesthood, it's still a major apostasy. Don't forget the writings of early church fathers who talk about error creeping into the church as soon as they saw the apostles were dead. Don't forget about competing bishops lamenting in their letters that there were no more apostles to keep the teachings pure and the churches in line.
As a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints I'm even more convinced now that the great apostasy did happen.
Thanks for the content!
Thank you for the comment. I think you missed a few points or just overlooked them, so you can keep your doctrine. First, no teaching ever changed and the guest said that. Therefore, the truth did not apostatize. Second, the authority of the apostles was handed on, continued, and kept until this day, so it did not need to be restored. Third, there was no complete apostasy as the warm and church claims. Thus, there was no reason for Joseph Smith to ever restore anything. And this just ignores the fact that there was an explosion of restorationist churches in the early 1800s who all claim to be the restored church of Jesus, but they all contradict each other. Mormonism is just one of them, but there are the 7th day adventists, the church of Christ, the Church of God, Jehovah's witnesses, and others who all claim the same thing Mormons do, complete with visions and Jesus speaking to their founder, etc.
//Thank you for the comment. I think you missed a few points or just overlooked them, so you can keep your doctrine//
You're welcome! I actually took pretty decent notes as I was watching, and pausing every minute or two to write them down, so I'm pretty sure I didn't overlook any major points, and I definitely don't overlook anything to try and keep my doctrine. My comment above is not the notes I took. The above comment was just intended to be a brief summary of my conclusions and reasons overall, and not an exhaustive address of your video. I think its important not to shy away from these topics or ignore any points, so I appreciate you and the other gentleman taking the time to dive deeper into this topic. If a person of my faith or another apostasy believing faith can't faithfully address rebuttals to it with actual evidence, or just ignores the issue, then I'm not sure that person's reasons for being part of that chosen faith are on solid ground. Though I would argue that the LDS faith has much more of a leg to stand on than other restorationist churches.
//First, no teaching ever changed and the guest said that. Therefore, the truth did not apostatize.//
I know this is the Catholic position, and I respect your right to have that view. Unfortunately this is something we won't agree on, even if your guest said it. To be clear, the LDS position is not that all truth was lost. I alluded to this in my comment above. We believe catholicism preserved and continued many truths, for which we should be very thankful. But we also recognize that catholicism declared some Christian truths as heresy at different councils, which should actually exist within the true church, but was removed, and needed to be restored, such as a premortal existence and baptism for the dead. But let's assume the catholic church made all the right calls and preserved all the truth perfectly, and that still isn't the main issue. The main issue is even if a church preserves and teaches everything perfectly, it doesn't matter much if they dont have valid priesthood and sacraments. This is what you address next:
//Second, the authority of the apostles was handed on, continued, and kept until this day, so it did not need to be restored.//
This is one of the foundational reasons you are Catholic. An authoritative church must have a continuing line of authority going back to Christ, and you believe Catholicism has that. We will have to respectfully disagree here as well though. Catholics and Latter-Day Saints have a different understanding of how church organization and priesthood work. I already explained the Lds view briefly in my original comment. We believe the apostleship was meant to continue, evidenced by the original apostles filling in vacancies when one died, such as when they replaced Judas with Matthias, and mentions of various other apostles throughout the text. We believe the keys must continue to be held and be active by the next head apostle. When all the apostles died faster than could be replenished, those who the apostles ordained were still valid, but they did not have the keys to continue passing on that authority validly. Those keys remained with the apostles who passed. I understand that the catholic view is that the apostles were meant to be temporary, and that the keys were indeed passed to the bishops, who were to take over once the apostles had passed. This is really what the issue boils down to, whether or not the apostleship was meant to continue. If it was, then a restoration was needed. If not, then the catholics have the valid line. I could reference scriptures and early church father to try and support my case, but I don't think a youtube comment section is really built for this kind of discussion. Just commenting my thoughts here is already beyond the scope of what these comments are meant to accommodate. I also know we would likely never agree with eachother on this point, since the logical conclusion of an agreement would mean one of us converting to the other side, and im sure we each feel we have an excellent foundation and reasons for why we are in the church we each chose. To me its pretty clear from the scriptures and church history that a general apostasy was coming, happened, that the apostleship was meant to continue, and that a restoration was needed. And we mean general apostasy, in terms of loss of priesthood authority and revelation to lead and guide the church. This can result in subtle changes in teachings or creeds that go against early christianity, that may go unnoticed, or erroneously discarded truths labeled as heresy. General apostasy does not mean losing all truth.
//Third, there was no complete apostasy as the [mormon?] church claims. Thus there was no reason for Joseph Smith to ever restore anything.//
This ties heavily into what I already shared above. And like I said in my original comment, I'm not sure you're defining apostasy the same way we are. Not all truth was lost. Not all members apostatized. Your church is to be commended for preserving as much as it did and I have massive respect for faithful catholics and their church. We will just have to respectfully disagree. Based on what I have described so far, I do continue to believe God needed to restore the truth through calling a new prophet, just as He did over and over in the biblical text whenever His children strayed too far from the truth and true authority.
//And this just ignores the fact that there was an explosion of restorationist churches in the early 1800s who all claim to be the restored church of Jesus, but they all contradict eachother... others who all claim the same thing...//
This last quote continues to the end trying to make the same point, so I won't quote the whole thing. I've looked into each of these other churches and they absolutely do not claim all the same things that Latter-Day Saints do. All restorationist churches will have superficial similarities such as claiming to restore the original christian church, but that's in the name. Some of those were kicked off by spiritual experiences like Smith's was, and we can talk about that.
Jehovah's witnesses started off as just bible study groups who interpreted the bible differently than everyone else. No spiritual experience involved. No claim to a line of authority. No necessity of baptism, no new scripture etc. They are actually very different and have no claim to authority or revelation to stand on. So they arent really relevant.
7th day adventists are interesting, but it arose out of the Millerite movement and Ellen G. White was already a member. She did not found the church on the idea of a restoration, and from what I can tell the church is being called a protestant, not a restorationist church. Their official site says they claim to be protestant, so I don't think they are really relevant to the discussion either. The only similarity seems to be that she claimed to have spiritual experiences and the gift of prophecy. Yet on their website they downplay her being called a "prophet", and don't regard any of her writings as on equal grounds with scripture. But scripture exists because prophets wrote or had their experiences with God and people written down. Adventism also arose out of the Great Disappointment, so that's already not a good sign when your church arises out of a failed prophecy. Millerism itself was not restorationist, but formed on trying to restore the gift of prophecy, and made a prophecy that would fail regarding the return of Christ.
The Church of Christ: Aside from claiming to be a bible-only church, I'm not seeing any claim to authority or visions or revelations anywhere. It sounds like they just did what the JWs did and decided to try and follow the bible and only the bible and came up with their own interpretations. Yes they were attempting to "restore" original Christian thought and worship, but not through any divine revelation or restoration of priesthood. I'm not seeing them compare well to the situation at hand either.
Church of God (Cleveland, Tennessee): This is a protestant pentecostal denomination, not restorationist. R.G. Spurling believed that the church wasn't reformed enough, and thought protestantism needed further reforming. They did claim a spiritual experience of speaking in tongues at their revival, but this is not a restoration type spiritual experience. I'm not seeing how this is relevant to the apostasy conversation either, even though in a sense all protestants have to believe the catholic church was in apostasy to some degree to justify reforming, but that isn't what we are discussing. We are discussing an apostasy that required a restoration and not simply a reformation.
There was a church that your guest talked about that did start with a supposed restoring spiritual experience, but I can't remember which one he said it was. If you could remind me which it was and where in the video it was I'd be happy to look into it, and sure there are other denominations that are more similar than the ones you listed, so feel free to mention those. I just didn't find the ones you did list very relevant or similar aside from some very superficial ideas.
Overall, even if these, or other churches do believe an apostasy also occurred, I don't find that it weakens the LDS claim at all. Even if they claim an apostasy, they dont have/claim a restored priesthood line, or have continuing scripture on par with the bible, which is what you would expect if God called a new prophet or apostle through which to restore the church. It's not enough to claim an apostasy, you need to have the fruits that show your church is actually Christ's restored church, like Latter-Day Saints have. So as far as I can tell, no other restorationist churches claim all the same things the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints does. Ofcourse there are split offs of our church, but thats a different discussion as to why they aren't valid. It's not enough to say you are restorationist and heres the true interpretation of the bible when you don't have a means of restoring priesthood authority.
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints just checks all the boxes. If this church didn't exist though I admit I might be a Catholic since you guys are probably the next closest to being true despite all the issues.
Please forgive any typos as I'm just posting this in one go without proofreading.
@@juliopenaloza5655hilarious coming from a Mormon....your Joseph Smith was a con artist and a kid toucher....repent or you will see the depths of hell
Oh, amazing Infos!
I hope I can get my hands on that book. I was wondering how the whole 'roman empire became christian' thing went down anyway
www.amazon.com/Rod-Bennett/e/B001KMIBFS%3Fref=dbs_a_mng_rwt_scns_share
Also definitely check out our video on it as well. We have a video on how the Catholic Church survived the first 300 years of persecution. It's an amazing story. ua-cam.com/video/CYrMq_wT8VE/v-deo.html
That Constantine ..
Should we dig him up and put him on trial..do you think?
For what? Protecting the Christian church, legalizing christianity, and allowing Christians to worship freely?;-)
Why do we pray to Mary? God is the only one that we should seek anything from. That’s in the Bible
Why do we ask our friends and family to pray for us? There is nothing wrong with it. And there's nothing wrong with asking Mary and the saints to pray for us as well. :)
I have heard that argument, but I never want to listen to those heretic groups. Once heretic forever heretic.
I don't agree with your last line. We have had heretics come back to the Church and come home. There is always hope through our prayers and the mercy of god. :-)
It is strange to me how Jesus would give a new convert, as in the case of Constantine, a vision to conquer (to acquire by force of arms/to overcome by force), which is exactly contrary to what Jesus taught His disciples.
The Apostle Paul wrote to the churches many times, and in many ways, that the weapons of our warfare are NOT carnal, but mighty through God by the pulling down of (spiritual) strongholds." "For we wrestle NOT against flesh and blood, but against evil powers, principalities, rulers of darkness of this world, and all spiritual wickedness in high places." "Those who live by the sword shall perish by the sword."
In the case of Constantine actually affirming his vision coming from the Lord Jesus, in the light of what the New Testament teaches, most definitely stands on extremely thin ice. To think that the first state/church, called the Roman Catholic Church, initially spawned from this one vision can only give more creedance to a vision, which was perceived from Jesus, as being from another source.
I always wondered about that. In my mind, the worst case scenario here is that Constantine either misinterpreted a legitimate vision or imagined that he had a vision, and that error, perhaps by divine providence (now that's a brain twister) allowed for the Church to survive and thrive.
And why then does the book of Revelation describe Christ as the King of kings and a triumphant Warrior Rider riding a white horse? (Apocalypse-Revelation 19:11-16) If you read the gospels carefully you will find out that Christ was not kind of a pacifist hippie. Certainly we as Christians, just as Christ sent his Apostles, are not called to make war or to be violent to preach the faith, but knowing that Constantine was an important general and heir to the throne in Rome, it would have been strange that Christ appeared to order him to cowardly flee from battle and let his army be defeated, and strangely prevent that rare opportunity to finally give peace and freedom to his Church throughout the Roman Empire after 3 centuries of cruel persecution. If you are a Catholic Christian you have your duties and if you are part of the military forces of your country you are called to fight for it, in this case Constantine was called to do a more important task knowing by Christ himself that this victory would be to serve the cause of God, in the manner of the ancient hosts of Israel in the Old Testament under the orders of the 'God of Hosts'. Just imagine for a moment that you are a soldier or a general and you face a foreign pagan antichristian army trying hard to take over your beloved nation, of course you have to fight and be violent to defend your people and the faith and values of your country. It is not the same what God requires from an apostle, a priest or a bishop than what He requires from a politician, a soldier, a mother, an artist, a disabled person, etc. everyone has a different call from Him to make His Will to be accomplished on Earth.
The Romish Church now presents a fair front to the world, covering with apologies her record of horrible cruelties. She has clothed herself in Christ-like garments; but she is unchanged. Every principle of popery that existed in past ages exists today. The doctrines devised in the darkest ages are still held. Let none deceive themselves. Great Controversy 1888 p570. Well worth a read
This is Gnosticism, the God of the Old Testament is the same God of the New Testament. The weapons of the Church are both spiritual and physical not either or.
@@michaelibach9063
Not in the New Covenant.
Any theory that Constantine changed or invented any Christian doctrine is worthless conspiracy. I do disagree that Rome was predominantly Christian and that Constantine was simply jumping on the bandwagon, however.
When Constantine converted at the Battle of the Milvian Bridge, Rome was very much still pagan.
It's also important to note that Catholicism was far from monolithic for the first 1500 years. Orthodoxy, Oriental Orthodoxy, Coptics, Ethiopian, and many many more. Why is Orthodoxy always overlooked?
Also the assertion that "the Catholic Church never became corrupt" is historically indefensible on an array of levels.
Thank you for your comment. I think you may have misunderstood our speaker. He didn't say that Rome was predominantly Catholic. He said it was about 15% of the population around that time. But it was growing fast and many miracles were happening with Catholics who were in The coliseums and such. It was changing the Roman Empire at a rapid pace.
Coptic, orthodox, and others broke away from the Catholic Church for either heretical reasons or other. But once they left, similar to protestants, then they were no longer Catholic. When they were part of the Catholic Church they were Catholic. That's why the earliest Christians were Catholic, not Orthodox or coptic, cannot just universally Catholic but distinctively.
Lastly, when we are talking about the fact that the Catholic Church never became corrupted, we are talking doctrinally. And that is true.
@@CatholicTruthOfficial Thanks for the reply as always. It's a fair point to qualify your statement to doctrinal corruption. Although I think this is more a natural outflow of the belief in papal infallibility or Sola Ecclesia, so it becomes an unfalsifiable tautology necessarily.
In 1053 the eastern churches considered themselves Catholic Christian. Just as they did in 1055. Who split from whom is a matter of perspective.
Sounds similar to the idea that the first Protestants believed they were the true continuation of Catholicism.
Orthodoxy didn’t exist at that time separated from the Catholic Church. They were All Eastern Catholic Rite Church’s
@@brianfarley926 Hello Brian. Thanks for your reply. I'm not sure I understand. When are you thinking the Orthodox Church did separate? What does it mean to be an "Eastern Catholic Rite Church"? Are you thinking that the Eastern Catholic Rite churches continued to fall under the authority of the Bishop of Rome? Thanks!
What I heard once is that Constantine didn't change anything per se, but (nefariously) picked the already existing (corrupt, paganised) Catholic version of Christianity to be dominant instead of the (purely biblical) donatists. It tries to be a more balanced type of a great apostasy theory, but I know for a fact that he's just as much not a donatist as he's not a catholic.
Sure back up your assertion
@@brianfarley926 Which assertion? Do you want me to show the video of him saying it? It's in Hungarian and I watched it a long time ago.
@@generalguy6211 your entire post. Constantine converted to Catholicism. It’s a historical fact. Anything else put forth is conspiracy theory bs that can’t be backed up
@@brianfarley926 You might have misread me. My post is describing something "What I heard once". And the second sentence is about the person who I heard it from, that's who the 'he' is referring to, I might've not been clear enough on that point.
What evidence do u have that the Catholic Church turned pagan
Catholic Church it’s the original one from the beginning all other religions or sects they are fake and sorry to say that but to me that’s that true that is my honest comment
You are correct. It is the original one. That is why scripture refers to it as the "mother of all harlots". All these other churches have inherited her false teachings eg Sunday worship, Easter, Christmas, strange feast days, the mass etc. The false gospel of the rcc is so bad and so frightening so much so that it was revealed to Daniel and John in the book of revelations way before it was established. "her sins have reached unto heaven. GET OUT OF HER MY PEOPLE, BEFORE IT'S TOO LATE, SO THAT YOU WILL NOT PARTAKE IN HER SINS AND RECEIVE ANY OF HER PLAGUES.", so proclaims OUR LORD!
Since you brought up Daniel, I thought it interesting to bring up that one prophecy of a statue with a gold head, silver chest and arms, bronze belly and thighs, and iron/tile legs. Daniel interprets this as a series of kingdoms that rule over Israel and take each other over successively. This is understood as Babylon, Persia, Seleucid, and finally Rome. After these are swept away, God sets up a new kingdom that will never be destroyed or conquered, and it will stand forever. This would seem to align strongly with the origin of the Catholic Church that Jesus instituted, maintaining the appearance of a visible kingdom while also never being conquered to this day. It was the Church that took over after the Roman Empire collapsed.
Correction, the Church is the Bride of Christ. It has a lot to do with being Catholic.
@@killianmiller6107 Brother, it seems like you interpreted the dream of Nebuchadnezzar wrongly. The rcc is state and "church" ruling in one, in a boastful manner. The little horn that uprooted three other horns.
The fourth and final beast that Daniel sees is the most dreadful-“terrifying and frightening and very powerful” (Daniel 7:7). This fourth beast has “bronze claws” (verse 19) and “large iron teeth” with which it annihilates its prey (verse 7). Daniel sees that the terrible beast has ten horns. As he ponders the meaning of the horns, a little horn begins to grow from the midst of the ten. This little horn is quite unusual. As it emerges, three of the original horns are plucked out by the roots. Daniel sees that the little horn has “eyes like the eyes of a human being and a mouth that spoke boastfully” (Daniel 7:8). The proud, boastful words of the little horn continue until the day of judgment (verses 9-10). At that time, “the beast was slain and its body . . . thrown into the blazing fire” (verse 11). That is the end of the little horn.
TERRIFYING, isn't it! We can discuss this further if you wish. But get out of her before it's too late, proclaims the Lord!
In a sense I’ll agree that Jesus knows the hearts of everyone and it’s not our place to judge based on formal church membership or denomination. I’ll even mention the Church has a teaching on the salvation of those outside the visible boundaries of the Church, it’s called invincible ignorance (this is nuanced). However, we apparently disagree on what constitutes the Church, because I believe Jesus built the Catholic Church upon his apostles (especially Peter, the rock), whereas it seems you believe it is and has always been just you, the Bible, maybe the Holy Spirit inspires your private reading, you listen to pastors you agree with, and that’s it. If there is a dispute on a matter and the Church decides on it, if you reject the Church’s decision, you are to be as a gentile or tax collector, which means out of communion. To reject the Church is to reject Christ, just as to reject Christ is to reject the one who sent him.
False Doctrine at it's Core, the Council of Nicaea from 325-381 where the Nicene Creed was instituded, here is where the Church compromised, and the Name of Jesus Christ was offically removed, you must go to the Book of the Acts of the Apostles to see how they Baptized their converts, Acts 2:38-40 Acts chapter 8, Acts chapter 10, Acts chapter 19. Acts 2:38 is the Foundation of the Church, if any Church builds on any other Foundation, they are build on the wrong Foundation.
Actually, look at all of the Christians before 3:25 and you will see that they all believed the exact same thing that the Catholic church was teaching at the Council of nicea. All except one man in the 200s named sibelius. He was a heretic. That is where you get your doctrine from because it was never hurt again until the 1900s with the Oneness Pentecostals who baptize in the name of Jesus instead of the name of the Trinity as Jesus commanded us to and as Christians did for 2,000 years. The book of Acts does not tell you to baptize in the name of Jesus. Jesus told you how to baptize in Matthew 28:19. They were just distinguishing the baptism of Jesus from the other baptisms around like the baptism of John, Jewish baptisms, Pagan baptism, and so on.
@@CatholicTruthOfficial My Friend Jesus never said repeat Matthew 28:19, Jesus said Baptize in the “NAME OF” the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, do you not know the difference in the phrase of the Scripture “IN THE NAME OF” Our Lord never said repeat Matthew 28:19. Satan used Constantine to get the Church to Compromise, Trading Peace for Doctrine, for None of the Early Church Converts in the Book of Acts were Baptized Repeating Matthew 28:19, they were all Baptized in the Name Jesus Christ, Acts 2:38-40, Acts Chapter 8, Acts chapter q0, Acts chapter 19. The purpose of satan using the Council of Nicaea, 325-381 AD. Was to officially remove the Name of Jesus Christ from Water Baptism, and that’s exactly what happened in the Nicene Creed that was officially put forth in 381 AD. One other thing my Friend, the Trinity Doctrine is False Doctrine, for you declare the Godhead is made up of 3 (three) persons which is completely untrue, Jesus Christ is the Image of the One True God.
What really corrupted the entire Christain church occurred in 380 A.D., when it became the official religion of the Roman Empire.
The Catholic Church teaches idol worship, anything that is made of man’s hands, the Catholic Church teaches their converts they can pray to Mary, this is idol worship. The Catholic pope goes all over the world today teaching heads of states that no matter what they believe we can worship together, this is how the One World Religion is being setup as we speak, and it is done by the Catholic Church.
And without the Catholic Church, you probably wouldn't have a canonized NT OT Bible.
@@johnsteiner2960 God could raise up a stone to give us the Scripture, if He wanted to.
That is true and the Church came before the NT scriptures, that is historical and scriptural as well, Christianity would have survived without it because Christ never told His Apostales to write down the events which took place while He was alive and afterwards within the first century of the early Church plus your comments are full of old typical, protestant/conspiracy misunderstandings which have been passed down from generation to generation, much of these misunderstanding are fairly recent, even the early protestants would not have agreed with them.
@@JesusChristisThePeaceSpeaker May the Good Lord Bless you 🙏.
Yes, the Catholic church is the one true universal church. Any church can claim they "save" people and do good works however only the Catholic church doctrines are the most consistent for over 2000 years. I admire the passion of Evangelicals but they are mislead and don't agree on many doctrines - that's why I left. (Cue the Praise Band!) Sola scriptura and sola fide are false. Praying you do your research, brother. May His grace be with you and yours.
Is Bryan Canadian?
1/2
@@CatholicTruthOfficial what do you mean? Are you from Canada or not?
@@CatholicTruthOfficial , Which half Bryan?
@@petrasant5495 The first half. 😅
@@francescogorbechov4192 My grandparents are Canadian and from canada. My dad is 100% French canadian. But I was born here in the US.
Would have fooled Constantine's MOTHER, a Baptised Catholic
👍
He mentioned Flat Earthers.
Its true heres the proof.
1.. The majority of the Earths surface is water..... True fact.
2. Only a minuscule fraction of a fraction of a fraction of that water is CARBONATED by natural springs.
3. Therefore the Earth is indead flat, now where am I wrong.
Sory couldn't resist lol.
Love this talk very informative.
Trinity (father sun and holly ghosts)
Or is it The father (who is) the sun, & The Holy Ghost (who is the moon that glows and floats like a ghost and has holes = Holy Ghost. The Trinity is the duality ?
Isn’t it odd that the son of god with one letter changed becomes the opposite sun of Satan 🤔
Sorry, don't agree. I will never agree. The catholic religion is the one truth faith, always was and always will be.
The brainwashing is strong with this one, Master Yoda.
I like the fact that he explained more on why Catholics hold Mary in high esteem, for me I never really bought into the idea Catholics were the enemy from an SDA friend but I don't understand praying to her. I guess that is why I can't become a catholic even though I was as a child I just can't get past the prayers to more than our Lord, however I don't believe that protestant have all the answers and Catholics are going to hell thay idea to me sounds crazy.
Thank you for the comment. We would respond by saying, don't you ask friends and family to pray for you? Is that against God? You would say no because our friends and family pray to Jesus for us. Then Jesus takes our prayers perfectly before the Father. But it's the same thing with Mary and the saints. The word pray, it just means to ask or implore. So we are not praying to Mary instead of God or as God, we are asking her to intercede for us to Jesus just as we ask our friends and family to do that. So it's the same thing but the prayers of our brothers and sisters in heaven are more powerful because James 5:16 says the prayer of the righteous man avails much with God and they are perfected in his righteousness. Revelation 5:8 shows people in Evan bringing our prayers before jesus. And Revelation 8:3 and following shows the Angels doing the same thing. So there is a Biblical and historical basis to this. I hope this helps. God bless.
@@CatholicTruthOfficial Thank you I will research the info. God bless
@@CatholicTruthOfficial Now when He had taken the scroll, the four living creatures and the twenty-four elders fell down before the Lamb, each having a harp, and golden bowls full of incense, which are the prayers of the saints.
Revelation 5:8 I took a look I'm not seeing that they are bringing our prayers to God can you expand on this?
@@CatholicTruthOfficial I do see James 5:16 I'm just under the impression that is speaking of us still here on earth not those who have passed on. Again I think this is just different interpretations of scripture not sure it is Salvational in the sense that Salvation only comes by Grace through our believe in Christ.
@@CatholicTruthOfficial Don't forget about me I really am just trying to find truth.
Hey Ryan can you give insight and Bible reference to why we are to be baptized and have first communion before we can partake in communion??
So flat Earth was brought up. What do you believe regarding Earth and its place in the universe? Biblical Earth in Genesis is very different than what is taught in school and in every aspect of our lives. Your thoughts? Also, as someone who is trying to gain further knowledge about Catholism, your guest kind of turned me off because he's lumping non believers with flat earthers, moon landing deniers and holocaust deniers together. Then he dismisses the research they've done because it's not really important. As a daughter of a war child in Germany I have learned and researched on my own about things we are have never been taught. So to dismiss these other topics as conspiracy theory is a bit too arrogant for me.
Constantine was Arian.
He called the Council of Nicea to refute Arianism.
@@fantasia55 so. He was persuaded by his sister to follow arianism
@@philipcorr8225 link?
Why did the catholic church changes God's law by (literally discarding) removing the second commandment... Because she loves her idol worship...
KJV Matthew 5:18
18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.
May God bless your heart, mind and soul now and forever. In the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Amen. ❤️🙏❤️
It n ever did.
Didn’t happen
since when are you to dam lazy to Open any Catholic Bible or the Catechism and see with your own Lying eyes they were not Changed and are all their slanderer liar and Bigot😂😂
Praise Jesus for giving us your real presence in the Holy Eucharist and the holy sacrifice of the mass in every Catholic Church. If the protestant commenters here learned their Christian charity in the churches of Luther, Zwingli or Calvin may God have mercy on their souls. Pray for them. God bless you.
When Constantine was dying. it was a bishop who forgave him of the sins and told him he was a Christian. That was a lie. Jesus is the only one who can anoint you Christian and forgive you of your sins when he tells you so
Of course Jesus is the only one who can forgive sins, but he does so through the priests. John 20:21-23. Also he was baptized on bis deathbed and God forgives all sins in baptism.
Catholics confess their sins to priests because-- as it is clearly stated in Sacred Scripture--God in the Person of Jesus Christ authorized the priests of His Church to hear confessions and empowered them to forgive sins in His Name. To the Apostles, the first priests of His Church, Christ said: ``Peace be to you. As the Father hath sent me, I also send you.... Receive ye the Holy Ghost. Whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them; and whose sins you shall retain, they are retained.'' (John 20:21-23). Then again: ``Amen I say to you, whatsoever you shall bind upon earth, shall be bound also in heaven; and whatsoever you shall loose upon earth, shall be loosed also in heaven.'' (Matt. 18:18). In other words, Catholics confess their sins to priests because priests are God's duly authorized agents in the world, representing Him in all matters pertaining to the ways and means of attaining eternal salvation. When Catholics confess their sins to a priest they are, in reality, confessing their sins to God, for God hears their confessions and it is He who, in the final analysis, does the forgiving. If their confessions are not sincere, their sins are not forgiven.
Furthermore, Catholics do confess their sins directly to God as Protestants do: Catholics are taught to make an act of contrition at least every night before retiring, to ask God to forgive them their sins of that day. Catholics are also taught to say this same prayer of contrition if they should have the misfortune to commit a serious sin (called a ``mortal sin'' by Catholics).
Jesus gives his power to forgive sins to His priests
Matthew 16:19 - (Jesus gives the apostles the power to bind and loose sins)
Matthew 18:18 - whatever you bind and loose on earth, so it is in heaven
John 20:22 - If you forgive anyone’s sins, they are forgiven; if you retain anyone’s sins, they are retained.
John 20:23 - After saying this he breathed on them and said: Receive the Holy Spirit. (recall Genesis 2:7)
2 Corinthians 5:17-20 - "God ... has reconciled us to himself ... given us the ministry of reconciliation"
James 5:14-15 - "presbyters of the church ... pray over him ... he will be forgiven" (prayer of presbyters forgives sin)
See also: - Luke 22:29-30, James 5:16
After forgiveness, the need for reparation can remain.
2 Samuel 12:13-14 - "The LORD ... has forgiven your sin ... but ... child born to you must surely die"
Luke 19:8-9 - (Jesus praises Zacchaeus for his promise of reparation)
Penance as satisfaction for sins.
Matthew 3:8 - "Produce good fruit as evidence of your repentance."
2 Corinthians 7:10 - "godly sorrow produces a salutary repentance without regret"
See also: - Luke 3:8, Acts 2:38
You ARE joking right?? Are you that ignorant of the Holy Scriptures??
Lord, have mercy!
You want some Bible? Here's some Bible for ya:
I. Jesus Christ Granted the Apostles His Authority to Forgive Sins
John 20:21 - before He grants them the authority to forgive sins, Jesus says to the apostles, "as the Father sent me, so I send you." As Christ was sent by the Father to forgive sins, so Christ sends the apostles and their successors forgive sins.
John 20:22 - the Lord "breathes" on the apostles, and then gives them the power to forgive and retain sins. The only other moment in Scripture where God breathes on man is in Gen. 2:7, when the Lord "breathes" divine life into man. When this happens, a significant transformation takes place.
John 20:23 - Jesus says, "If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven. If you retain the sins of any, they are retained." In order for the apostles to exercise this gift of forgiving sins, the penitents must orally confess their sins to them because the apostles are not mind readers. The text makes this very clear.
Matt. 9:8 - this verse shows that God has given the authority to forgive sins to "men." Hence, those Protestants who acknowledge that the apostles had the authority to forgive sins (which this verse demonstrates) must prove that this gift ended with the apostles. Otherwise, the apostles' successors still possess this gift. Where in Scripture is the gift of authority to forgive sins taken away from the apostles or their successors?
Matt. 9:6; Mark 2:10 - Christ forgave sins as a man (not God) to convince us that the "Son of man" has authority to forgive sins on earth.
Luke 5:24 - Luke also points out that Jesus' authority to forgive sins is as a man, not God. The Gospel writers record this to convince us that God has given this authority to men. This authority has been transferred from Christ to the apostles and their successors.
Matt. 18:18 - the apostles are given authority to bind and loose. The authority to bind and loose includes administering and removing the temporal penalties due to sin. The Jews understood this since the birth of the Church.
John 20:22-23; Matt. 18:18 - the power to remit/retain sin is also the power to remit/retain punishment due to sin. If Christ's ministers can forgive the eternal penalty of sin, they can certainly remit the temporal penalty of sin (which is called an "indulgence").
2 Cor. 2:10 - Paul forgives in the presence of Christ (some translations refer to the presences of Christ as "in persona Christi"). Some say that this may also be a reference to sins.
2 Cor. 5:18 - the ministry of reconciliation was given to the ambassadors of the Church. This ministry of reconciliation refers to the sacrament of reconciliation, also called the sacrament of confession or penance.
James 5:15-16 - in verse 15 we see that sins are forgiven by the priests in the sacrament of the sick. This is another example of man's authority to forgive sins on earth. Then in verse 16, James says “Therefore, confess our sins to one another,” in reference to the men referred to in verse 15, the priests of the Church.
1 Tim. 2:5 - Christ is the only mediator, but He was free to decide how His mediation would be applied to us. The Lord chose to use priests of God to carry out His work of forgiveness.
Lev. 5:4-6; 19:21-22 - even under the Old Covenant, God used priests to forgive and atone for the sins of others.
II. The Necessity and Practice of Orally Confessing Sins
James 5:16 - James clearly teaches us that we must “confess our sins to one another,” not just privately to God. James 5:16 must be read in the context of James 5:14-15, which is referring to the healing power (both physical and spiritual) of the priests of the Church. Hence, when James says “therefore” in verse 16, he must be referring to the men he was writing about in verses 14 and 15 - these men are the ordained priests of the Church, to whom we must confess our sins.
Acts 19:18 - many came to orally confess sins and divulge their sinful practices. Oral confession was the practice of the early Church just as it is today.
Matt. 3:6; Mark 1:5 - again, this shows people confessing their sins before others as an historical practice (here to John the Baptist).
1 Tim. 6:12 - this verse also refers to the historical practice of confessing both faith and sins in the presence of many witnesses.
1 John 1:9 - if we confess are sins, God is faithful to us and forgives us and cleanse us. But we must confess our sins to one another.
Num. 5:7 - this shows the historical practice of publicly confessing sins, and making
public restitution.
2 Sam. 12:14 - even though the sin is forgiven, there is punishment due for the forgiven sin. David is forgiven but his child was still taken (the consequence of his sin).
Neh. 9:2-3 - the Israelites stood before the assembly and confessed sins publicly and interceded for each other.
Sir. 4:26 - God tells us not to be ashamed to confess our sins, and not to try to stop the current of a river. Anyone who has experienced the sacrament of reconciliation understands the import of this verse.
Baruch 1:14 - again, this shows that the people made confession in the house of the Lord, before the assembly.
1 John 5:16-17; Luke 12:47-48 - there is a distinction between mortal and venial sins. This has been the teaching of the Catholic Church for 2,000 years, but, today, most Protestants no longer agree that there is such a distinction. Mortal sins lead to death and must be absolved in the sacrament of reconciliation. Venial sins do not have to be confessed to a priest, but the pious Catholic practice is to do so in order to advance in our journey to holiness.
Matt. 5:19 - Jesus teaches that breaking the least of commandments is venial sin (the person is still saved but is least in the kingdom), versus mortal sin (the person is not saved).
Please....take a class in "Basic Christianity 101" that includes study of the Church before 1600 A.D. (about the time your way of interpreting Scripture came about!) and you just might find out a few things about the "Faith Once Delivered
really show me in the bible This office has now expired then show me where thiese have expired as well John 20:21 John 20:22 John 20:23 Matt. 9:8 Matt. 9:6; Mark 2:10 Luke 5:24 Matt. 18:18 John 20:22-23; Matt. 18:18 2 Cor. 2:10 2 Cor. 5:18 James 5:15-16 1 Tim. 2:5 Lev. 5:4-6; 19:21-22 James 5:16 James 5:14-15 Acts 19:18 Matt. 3:6; Mark 1:5 1 Tim. 6:12 1 John 1:9 Num. 5:7 2 Sam. 12:14 Neh. 9:2-3 Sir. 4:26 Baruch 1:14 1 John 5:16-17; Luke 12:47-48 Matt. 5:19🐱🏍🐱🏍
You have to ignore scripture to get that idea
@@frekigeri4317 . Yes I pretty much ignored the scriptures pretty much all my life I read Adam and Eve I noticed it wasn't complete. So that kept me out of the scriptures in the Bible. I heard from other people but I didn't take it to heart. In 2016. Jesus convicted my heart but I didn't know what to do. In 2018 he convicted my heart and I asked him when I before I went to sleep. What church are denomination you want me to belong to you. he pointed me to his family. Then I started learning. The Bible is an idol the Bible is the mark of the beast. When your faith is in the Bible it leads you and guides you and tells you what to do the Bible has no authority over me. Now I have been touched by the Holy Spirit. Yes the real Holy Spirit. Jesus doesn't want us to be in religion or churches or even in the Bible. Actually our faith in the Bible he only wants us to be Christians. One in the body of Christ that's all period and were led by the Holy Spirit
Jesus said the gates of hell would not prevail against his church, he didn’t say his church would not be attacked. Why then, would you leave that church (Martin Luther)? It’s the church Jesus gave us, it CAN’T fail. It will be attacked, but IT WILL NOT FAIL. If you believe it is, you and Jesus, then at least listen to his words.
The Roman Pagan Church has always remained Pagan. It simply took on Christian characteristics.
Who are they? 🤡
interesting, but why catholic church has care about eucharisty like the first century christians and the other protestant doesnt?
that s why im staying and you cannot take that from none. Argument is free but waste of time, im not denying my lord in body, blood, soul and divinity because of others. Hell no.
@@irmaosrodrigues1289 Jewish-Roman Wars that lasted almost 70 years caused the Jewish Christian schism. Christians started adopting and making new rituals to distance themselves from the Jewish people.
@@Kitiwake I see you put your makeup on
It’s been a year. Have you found any of these “real” Christians that were calling the church pagan in the 4th century? We should have writings
Do catholics believe in reincarnation?
No.
Absolutely not.
Are you a troll?
No. The Bible says we die once and then immediately comes judgment day. Hope that helps. If you have any more questions, Let us know.
@@SabbatarianSundayer. The top comment.
Jesus as both human and divine gave as the physical which is through the sacraments.
Catholicism is a form of truth. In other words, it points towards truth. Humans have a spirt that is built to serve things bigger than them selves. The important thing to remember is we are fallible and we could be wrong. The truth of life is to grow and endure with god. Catholicism has many great things, but you have have to ask the question if it’s limiting your true human potential. We must become ourselves in truth and beautify and hard work. Always question and work towards a stoic mind, a balanced way of living. Transform from within.
What does it even mean to “become yourself?” I am myself, and myself is a spiritually weak and sinful person. It is Jesus who transforms me, if I did it all by myself I know I would fail. My goal is to be a Saint, seeking the beatific vision with God in the next life and preparing for it in this life.
It’s not about you. It’s about the worship of God.
Wdym? As far as I know, they go hand in hand. To be a saint on earth now involves blessing God and our neighbor, right?
@harrison hagan
You sound very “new age” in that statement.
There aren’t “forms” of truth. Either something is true or it isn’t.
In my 42 years of being a Catholic, I have yet to see anything in the Faith that isn’t true, nor have I seen anything that’s a “form of truth.”
According to “my church,” the Baltimore catechism says the purpose of life is to “know, love, and serve God in this life in order to live with him forever in the next.” We are called to start to live out the kingdom of God now to be prepared to live in it forever after death. Becoming a saint is not merely going to heaven, it’s the duty of every Christian to take up our cross and follow Jesus right now, which sometimes entails getting into the stink of the poor (as Pope Francis says, the smell of the sheep), being martyred for the faith, being imprisoned in an unwelcoming nation, etc. I may or may not be called to those in particular, but I hope and pray God gives me the grace to remain faithful if such situation would arise. Read the lives of our Saints and you wouldn’t dare have a leg to stand on in regard to this.
What a disingenuous presentation. The simple fact is that most people have cognitive dissonance when they read the Bible and compare it to Catholic doctrine and practice. Something went wrong.
Your basic (birth to death) Mormons (although unknowingly confused on some things) are good, God fearing, Jesus loving, family oriented, obedient, and repentant souls, seeking God, and doing his will as best they know how. We pray for God's mercy for; "Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience - those too may achieve eternal salvation". CCC 847
839 "Those who have not yet received the Gospel are related to the People of God in various ways."325
The relationship of the Church with the Jewish People. When she delves into her own mystery, the Church, the People of God in the New Covenant, discovers her link with the Jewish People,326 "the first to hear the Word of God."327 The Jewish faith, unlike other non-Christian religions, is already a response to God's revelation in the Old Covenant. To the Jews "belong the sonship, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the worship, and the promises; to them belong the patriarchs, and of their race, according to the flesh, is the Christ",328 "for the gifts and the call of God are irrevocable."329
840 And when one considers the future, God's People of the Old Covenant and the new People of God tend towards similar goals: expectation of the coming (or the return) of the Messiah. But one awaits the return of the Messiah who died and rose from the dead and is recognized as Lord and Son of God; the other awaits the coming of a Messiah, whose features remain hidden till the end of time; and the latter waiting is accompanied by the drama of not knowing or of misunderstanding Christ Jesus.
841 The Church's relationship with the Muslims. "The plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place amongst whom are the Muslims; these profess to hold the faith of Abraham, and together with us they adore the one, merciful God, mankind's judge on the last day."330
842 The Church's bond with non-Christian religions is in the first place the common origin and end of the human race:
All nations form but one community. This is so because all stem from the one stock which God created to people the entire earth, and also because all share a common destiny, namely God. His providence, evident goodness, and saving designs extend to all against the day when the elect are gathered together in the holy city. . .331
843 The Catholic Church recognizes in other religions that search, among shadows and images, for the God who is unknown yet near since he gives life and breath and all things and wants all men to be saved. Thus, the Church considers all goodness and truth found in these religions as "a preparation for the Gospel and given by him who enlightens all men that they may at length have life."332
844 In their religious behavior, however, men also display the limits and errors that disfigure the image of God in them:
Very often, deceived by the Evil One, men have become vain in their reasonings, and have exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and served the creature rather than the Creator. Or else, living and dying in this world without God, they are exposed to ultimate despair.333
845 To reunite all his children, scattered and led astray by sin, the Father willed to call the whole of humanity together into his Son's Church. The Church is the place where humanity must rediscover its unity and salvation. The Church is "the world reconciled." She is that bark which "in the full sail of the Lord's cross, by the breath of the Holy Spirit, navigates safely in this world." According to another image dear to the Church Fathers, she is prefigured by Noah's ark, which alone saves from the flood
Outside the Church there is no salvation"
846 How are we to understand this affirmation, often repeated by the Church Fathers?335 Re-formulated positively, it means that all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body:
Basing itself on Scripture and Tradition, the Council teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the Church. He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and Baptism, and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through Baptism as through a door. Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it.336
847 This affirmation is not aimed at those who, through no fault of their own, do not know Christ and his Church:
Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience - those too may achieve eternal salvation.337
848 "Although in ways known to himself God can lead those who, through no fault of their own, are ignorant of the Gospel, to that faith without which it is impossible to please him, the Church still has the obligation and also the sacred right to evangelize all men."338
@@biblealone9201 Good Stuff. Thanks.
4 Their idols are silver and gold, the work of men’s hands. 5 They have mouths, but they speak not: eyes have they, but they see not: 6 They have ears, but they hear not: noses have they, but they smell not: 7 They have hands, but they handle not: feet have they, but they walk not: neither speak they through their throat. 8 They that make them are like unto them; so is every one that trusteth in them.
The Bible verses that you mentioned are not for catholicism because the Catholic Church has no commandment to worship a statue. It's not the statue itself that we worship or honor but the person who represents the image or statue. You misunderstand again the Catholic Faith.
Like I said, if the protestant church is the true Church, we would not find errors and discrepancies of your doctrines in the Bible. But you have many errors and discrepancies in the Bible.
Pray one Hail Mary everyday and you will understand the Catholic Faith correctly.
The Catholic Church teaches that when the statues of Jesus, Mary, saints and angels are blessed by a priest already, their spirits dwell in those statues. Thus, the blessed catholic images become sacred statues. Disrespecting and destroying those blessed images of Jesus, Mary, saints and angels are a grave sin of sacrilege. A person who disrespects and destroys a blessed catholic statue commits a grave sin of sacrilege.
@@marietav7342 Lest ye corrupt yourselves, and make you a graven image, the similitude of any figure, the likeness of male or female,
Deuteronomy 4:16
It evolved from the Way and during Pentacost in the Book of Acts became Universal (Catholic) including all nations. John the evangelist pass the keys to the church in Antioch to Ignatius.
Yikes. Avoid this kind of propaganda.
Perhaps the chanel should be renamed to catholic lies... History and Revelation speaks for itself!
Don't just read the catholic history... Read the real history
@@maranatha5064 Catholic history is real history, your propaganda isn’t real history
@@maranatha5064 invincibly” ignorant
@@maranatha5064 do you believe that Jesus is St Michael?
but, miss or mister, why catholic church has care about eucharisty like the first century christians and the other protestant doesnt?
that s why im staying and you cannot take that from none. Argument is free but waste of time, im not denying my lord in body, blood, soul and divinity because of others. Hell no
Rome and Vatican started the catholic church and not founded by Jesus.
According to the bible, Jesus started the Catholic Church. The bible also states that the church Jesus started would inherit the Roman Empire. This happened in the 4th Century.
@@ContendingEarnestly It is part of an old testament prophecy from Daniel 2 and Revelation 17. This was fulfilled in the 4th century. But there is more, according to the bible all works of the old law will come to an end except for the sacrifice of bread and wine (Mal 1:11). Agains this is only the RCC. The bible also states that the churhc is headed by the man with the keys of David (Matt 16:19). Again only RCC and it goes on like this.
@@ContendingEarnestly Malachi 1:11 is talking about the sacrifice of bread and wine. In the NT Paul speaks about the same sacrifice claiming that if you eat it under a state of sin you are guilty of the body of Christ. Paul says this sacrifice will continue till the return of Christ (1 Cor 11:26-29).
In the line of Davidic Kings, the kings would set up prime ministers to act on their behalf. The king would give his full authority symbolised as keys to the PMs and they would be known as a Father (Pope) to the people of God (Is 21-22). Jesus is a Davidic King (Luke 1:32), and He gave His full authority symbolised as keys to Peter (Matt 16:19). In verse 18, Jesus states that this church is protected from the gates of hell. This means that the church has to still exists today, headed by the man with the key of David in an apostolic line back to Peter. Jesus tells Peter that his job is to lead the other apostles (Luke 22:32).
There was only one Roman Empire and it has gone to the Catholic Church. No other church or Christian belief today existed back then.
The biblical Church as a league of celebate priests which again fits RCC.
The church will praise Mary for all generations and intercede to Christ through her, which again is only the RCC (Ps 45, Luke 1:48). According to the bible Christ has left in His church a perpetual succession of orthodox pastors and teachers, to preserve the faithful in unity and truth (Eph 4:10-15). Only the RCC can claim to have fulfilled this, no other faith can provide any evidence to make this claim.
Actually the Orthodox Church is the true church
The Orthodox broke away from the Catholic Church and the authority of the Pope in the 11th century. Read the earliest Christians. They were all Catholic not Orthodox. Not in a generic sense only but in a specifically Catholic sense. The Orthodox came back and returned to the Catholic Church twice in history and submitted to the pope again only to break away again later. It never happened the other way showing they were the ones who broke away in the first place. Plus there's no one Orthodox church. The are nationalized and fight with each other and excommunicate each other. They have never even had an ecumenical Council since the seventh Council early in the church because they have no authority.
@@CatholicTruthOfficial The anathemas were issued by both sides.
There's isn't an Orthodox "church" anymore but rather national churches based in orthodoxy.
*St. Theodore the Studite [Venerated in the Catholic Church and the Orthodox churches]*
"I borrow now the cry of the coryphaeus of the apostles, calling Christ to his assistance when the waves of the sea had surged upwards, and I say to your Christ-imitating Beatitude: O arch-shepherd of the church which is under heaven [Pope], save us now; we perish. Imitate Christ your Master; stretch out your hand to the Church which is among us as he stretched out his hand to Peter... Emulate, we beg you, the great pope whose name you bear, and just as he, when the heresy of Eutyches appeared, stood erect spiritually as a lion with his dogmatic letters, so in your turn (I dare to say it because of your name) roar divinely, or rather send forth your thunder against the present heresy. For if they, usurping an authority which does not belong to them, have dared to convene a heretical council, whereas those who follow ancient custom do not even have the right of convening an orthodox one without your knowledge, it seems absolutely necessary, we dare to say to you, *that your divine primacy* should call together a lawful council, so that the Catholic dogma may drive out heresy and that your primacy may neither be anathematized by these new voices lacking authority, nor may wills disposed to evil find in this adulterous council an excuse for being involved in sin. It is in order to obey your *divine authority as chief pastor* that we have set forth these things as it befitted our nothingness, we the least members of the church. For the rest, we beg Your Holiness to count us among your sheep and to enlighten and strengthen us by your holy prayers... my father and companion the monk, as well as my brother the archbishop of Thessalonica, are imprisoned on other islands. But they say the same things that I do, and with me they prostrate themselves at the sacred feet of Your Beatitude" [PG 99: 1017-21].
"To the most holy father, leading luminary of the universe, our lord and master, the apostolic pope... We truly believe that Christ has not deserted the Church here (Constantinople), for assistance from you has been our one and only aid from of old and from the beginning by the providence of God in the critical times. *For from the beginning, you are the ever pure and ever limpid stream of orthodoxy; you are the tranquil harbor where the whole church finds sure shelter against all the tempests of heresy, you are the citadel chosen by God to be the assured refuge of salvation"* [PG 99: 1153-6].
"Byzantium has shaken off the yoke of the gospel as a heifer pricked by the goad; she shakes off the harness. She is furiously agitated like the Corybantes; she is intoxicated with blood as a lioness; as the serpent she stops her ears; she kicks against the censure. *A voice made itself heard to warn her, equal to a voice from heaven - the voice of the supreme throne of Rome:* ‘what have you done? You have denied Christ by forbidding his image, that of the Mother of God and all the saints... Open your ear to obedience;
listen to the words of the gospel, an apostle, a prophet, a father.’ But Byzantium did not listen, did not receive those words. She raised her head against almighty God, outraging Christ and trampling upon his chosen saints..." [PG 99: 1280].
*St. Maximus the Confessor [Venerated in the Catholic Church and the Orthodox churches]*
"How much more in the case of the clergy and Church of the Romans, which from old until now, as the elder of all the Churches which are under the sun, *presides over all?* Having surely received this canonically, as well from councils and apostles, as from the princes of the latter [Peter & Paul], and being numbered in their company, she is subject to no writings or issues of synodical documents, on account of the *eminence of her pontificate,* even as in all these things all are equally subject to her according to sacerdotal law‘' [PL 129.585-6].
"For the very ends of the earth and those in every part of the world who purely and rightly confess the Lord, look directly to the most holy Church of the Romans and its confession and faith as though it were a sun of unfailing light, expecting from it the illuminating splendour of the Fathers and sacred dogmas…For ever since the Incarnate Word of God came down to us, all the churches of Christians everywhere have held that greatest Church there *to be their sole base and foundation,* since on the one hand, it is in no way overcome by the gates of Hades, according to the very promise of the Saviour, *but holds the keys of the orthodox confession and faith in him and opens the only true and real religion to those who approach with godliness, and on the other hand, it shuts up and locks every heretical mouth that speaks unrighteousness against the most High"* [PG 91.137-140].
@@HenryBonesJr I do appreciate the reply, but can you add some context for me? What are you thinking this wall of text demonstrates? I can be a little slow... Thanks!
Last Apostle Saint John 100 AD! Deposit of Faith Sealed. Xsatan confuses, lies on on.. Pagan/Unbelievers:( UnGodly…False for SUREX X X
💝🎚Jesus’ Only One True Apostolic Church Hallelujah SO EXCITING 💝🎚🕊Deo gratias AMEN🤲📿🎚⛪️📖🙌📿🧎♀️
😂 no