A couple points I didn't include that may be useful are: 1) The reason I believe that the Church can't produce new books of the Bible is because the Church teaches that the Canon is closed. 2) Even within the Church, many things are believed with human faith. Some Marian apparitions and private devotions are examples of this. The Church encourages diversity within a certain purview. If someone steps out of line then the Church defines their error so no one else makes it in the future! 3) No one is disputing that the apostles and profits were infallible and that their infallibility comes from God; however, since none of the apostles or prophets, wrote the table of contents for the Bible in order to say that it is infallible there has to be a different entity, possessing infallibility besides the apostles and prophets. Otherwise we have a fallible list of infallible books. Do you think this argument works? Let me know!
I thought I remember Jimmy Akin or Trent Horn saying that the canon was not closed, that whatever council it was that defined them only attached anathemas to the 73 books. So in theory, if Eastern Orthodox ever come back into union their books could be added. I may be remembering incorrectly though.
@@Jonathan_214 correct. I have seen no citation of a Magisterial document asserting the canon is closed. If the Latin Church did in fact close the canon, it would create insurmountable difficulties for Eastern Christians that venerate more than 73 books as inspired Scripture.
@@sophia-proskomen Is it correct that the books beyond 73 recognized by eastern Christians are all related to the OT? They still accept only the same 27 books of the NT we do, right?
@ Ethiopian Orthodox (Tewahedo) do in fact have extra New Testament books Addendum: it depends if you’re considering the “narrower” or “broader” canon. One big difference between East and West is the insistence on establishing a canon of Scripture at all. The canon is viewed as much less relevant of an issue in the East than ecclesiology and theology as a whole
Sola scriptura in the first century: Apostles: here what God says... Disciple: where is it in the Bible? Apostles: hold on, let me write it down... 🤷♂️
@orpheemulemo8053 missing the point completely. Disciple did not have scripture of the new testament for once, and even the scripture of the old testament wasn't easily accessible, was expensive and mostly was held by the priesthood or scholars, not by commoners. Considering that most people were not literate they learn when scripture was taught by rabbis orally. People followed the apostles first. The apostles didn't give handouts of scriptures, even the epistles themeselves were sent to some disciples with authority, were not sent to commoners. People didn't have access to a personal bible until after the printing press, that is late in medieval times, after the reformation. People had access to scriptures only by the church for 1500 years.
@orpheemulemo8053no, they didnt lol, infact the early church didnt even held the new testament to be scripture but the old testament was, so the new testmant was just Christian tradition which was used to understand the old testament, so thats not sola scriptura at all, also what is scripture if not written tradition ?
Fantastic!! I have left the falsehoods of Protestantism after 12 yrs. Been attending the Catholic Church for a year and now in RCIA. Keep up the good work. There are many difficulties and challenges for converts.
@@1SigloUno Saint Peter is in heaven. Our Lord established His Church, the Catholic Church, on the rock of Saint Peter in Mattew 16:18-19. , He said, “You are Peter (rock) and upon this rock, I will build My church. I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. Whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.” This gives the Catholic Church the visible Head, the pope, who is a successor of Saint Peter.
@@RitaGatton it's built on the affirmation of what Peter said in Matthew 16:16. Jesus is the rock, cornerstone Matthew 7:24, 1 Corinthians 10:4, Ephesians 2:20. Peter is the small Stone John 1:42. Matthew 16:18 you are Peter ( Petros, small Stone) and upon this Rock (Petra, Jesus) I will build my church.
@@brucewmclaughlin9072 1 Corinthians 1:10-17 New International Version A Church Divided Over Leaders 10 I appeal to you, brothers and sisters,[a] in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree with one another in what you say and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be perfectly united in mind and thought. 11 My brothers and sisters, some from Chloe’s household have informed me that there are quarrels among you. 12 What I mean is this: One of you says, “I follow Paul”; another, “I follow Apollos”; another, “I follow Cephas[b]”; still another, “I follow Christ.” 13 Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Were you baptized in the name of Paul? 14 I thank God that I did not baptize any of you except Crispus and Gaius, 15 so no one can say that you were baptized in my name. 16 (Yes, I also baptized the household of Stephanas; beyond that, I don’t remember if I baptized anyone else.) 17 For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel-not with wisdom and eloquence, lest the cross of Christ be emptied of its power. Church Easton's Bible Dictionary - Church Church [N] [S] Derived probably from the Greek kuriakon (i.e., "the Lord's house"), which was used by ancient authors for the place of worship. In the New Testament it is the translation of the Greek word ecclesia, which is synonymous with the Hebrew kahal of the Old Testament, both words meaning simply an assembly, the character of which can only be known from the connection in which the word is found. There is no clear instance of its being used for a place of meeting or of worship, although in post-apostolic times it early received this meaning. Nor is this word ever used to denote the inhabitants of a country united in the same profession, as when we say the "Church of England," the "Church of Scotland," etc. We find the word ecclesia used in the following senses in the New Testament: • It is translated "assembly" in the ordinary classical sense ( Acts 19:32 Acts 19:39 Acts 19:41 ). • It denotes the whole body of the redeemed, all those whom the Father has given to Christ, the invisible catholic church ( Ephesians 5:23 Ephesians 5:25 Ephesians 5:27 Ephesians 5:29 ; Hebrews 12:23 ). • A few Christians associated together in observing the ordinances of the gospel are an ecclesia ( Romans 16:5 ; Colossians 4:15 ). • All the Christians in a particular city, whether they assembled together in one place or in several places for religious worship, were an ecclesia. Thus all the disciples in Antioch, forming several congregations, were one church ( Acts 13:1 ); so also we read of the "church of God at Corinth" ( 1 Corinthians 1:2 ), "the church at Jerusalem" ( Acts 8:1 ), "the church of Ephesus" ( Revelation 2:1 ), etc. • The whole body of professing Christians throughout the world ( 1 Corinthians 15:9 ; Galatians 1:13 ; Matthew 16:18 ) are the church of Christ. The church visible "consists of all those throughout the world that profess the true religion, together with their children." It is called "visible" because its members are known and its assemblies are public. Here there is a mixture of "wheat and chaff," of saints and sinners. "God has commanded his people to organize themselves into distinct visible ecclesiastical communities, with constitutions, laws, and officers, badges, ordinances, and discipline, for the great purpose of giving visibility to his kingdom, of making known the gospel of that kingdom, and of gathering in all its elect subjects. Each one of these distinct organized communities which is faithful to the great King is an integral part of the visible church, and all together constitute the catholic or universal visible church." A credible profession of the true religion constitutes a person a member of this church. This is "the kingdom of heaven," whose character and progress are set forth in the parables recorded in Matthew 13 . The children of all who thus profess the true religion are members of the visible church along with their parents. Children are included in every covenant God ever made with man. They go along with their parents ( Genesis 9:9-17 ; 12:1-3 ; 17:7 ; Exodus 20:5 ; Deuteronomy 29:10-13 ). Peter, on the day of Pentecost, at the beginning of the New Testament dispensation, announces the same great principle. "The promise [just as to Abraham and his seed the promises were made] is unto you, and to your children" ( Acts 2:38 Acts 2:39 ). The children of believing parents are "holy", i.e., are "saints", a title which designates the members of the Christian church ( 1 Corinthians 7:14 ). (See BAPTISM .) The church invisible "consists of the whole number of the elect that have been, are, or shall be gathered into one under Christ, the head thereof." This is a pure society, the church in which Christ dwells. It is the body of Christ. it is called "invisible" because the greater part of those who constitute it are already in heaven or are yet unborn, and also because its members still on earth cannot certainly be distinguished. The qualifications of membership in it are internal and are hidden. It is unseen except by Him who "searches the heart." "The Lord knoweth them that are his" ( 2 Timothy 2:19 ). The church to which the attributes, prerogatives, and promises appertaining to Christ's kingdom belong, is a spiritual body consisting of all true believers, i.e., the church invisible. • Its unity. God has ever had only one church on earth. We sometimes speak of the Old Testament Church and of the New Testament church, but they are one and the same. The Old Testament church was not to be changed but enlarged ( Isaiah 49:13-23 ; 60:1-14 ). When the Jews are at length restored, they will not enter a new church, but will be grafted again into "their own olive tree" ( Romans 11:18-24 ; Compare Ephesians 2:11-22 ). The apostles did not set up a new organization. Under their ministry disciples were "added" to the "church" already existing ( Acts 2:47 ). • Its universality. It is the "catholic" church; not confined to any particular country or outward organization, but comprehending all believers throughout the whole world. • Its perpetuity. It will continue through all ages to the end of the world. It can never be destroyed. It is an "everlasting kindgdom."
Protestantism naturally begets toleration of error. Rejecting the principle of authority in religion, it has neither criterion nor definition of faith. On the principal that every individual or sect may interpret the deposit of Revelation according to the dictates of private judgment, it gives birth to endless differences and contradictions. p. 8 from the book 📖 Liberalism Is A Sin
Well yes, it does tolerate error - outside the church. Which is right and proper as per Romans 13 and the example of the early church. Catholicism naturally tends towards being a state church, tyranny, and keeps adding more and more requirements to salvation, in contravention of the gospel.
I was expecting that you had prepare a silver bullet and I was skeptical about it. Instead you made a very coherent argument, well done brother. To me there is also the problem of personal interpretation that Peter argue against and also Acts 8:30-31
As much as this infighting destroys Christianity from within, the Church is the Bride of God. Protestants are divorcing God from his Bride, that is as evil as Muhammad when he told Zaid's wife to divorce her husband.
Wow What a claim!! "A Fallible church can't produce an infallible bible" this is the final nail on the coffin of the sola scriptura !!! I borrow this from you brother Cameron it's just mind blowing smart and synthetic !!
So what parts of the Bible are the fallible parts? The problem with this logic is that if the scriptures cannot be trusted, then neither does the church who uses them.
@@luxordfaith8506 watch the video again .. espacially the second part... Cameron is saying that the prots. can't consider the bible infallibile without implying the infallibility or the authority of the church which brought it togheter under the guidance of the Holy spirit.
@paulericn.mouafo6610 apologies, I have adhd, I typically reply to comments while watching the video (still making my way through it.) That aside that statement is not entirely true. In Galatians chapter 1, Paul writes that if either he (an apostle) or an angel (a divine messenger from God) were to say anything contrary to the Gospels, they were to be cursed. And due to apostolic succession, this rule applies to everyone within the church. Which implies that apostle successors can be wrong if they teach something that does not align with the scriptures, and there have been plenty of times within Roman Catholicism where this occurs. Thus, the scriptures can be infallible while the church itself is fallible.
Lucifer: I want more souls. Minion: I have an idea. Let's make them commit the same sin as us - to be their own gods. Lucifer: Interested. Explain. Minion: Break them off of the CC. Give them a pseudo-basis with Sola Scriptura non-sense, but it sounds legit. Then, they can all interpret it anyways they want. Lucifer: ... and in essence they all become their own gods. Brilliant.
@@budzwithbudz6729 We know there were worse pope than this pope in the past. The bad popes does not make the Catholic faith false. Try refuting Catholic teachings.
@@budzwithbudz6729 He also said "There is only one God, and religions are like languages, paths to reach God." after that. Think of it for a moment, for you can have a path that is not viable, like one that leads you off a cliff, yet it will still lead you to your destination if you were to overcome that. You can start from any religion, and among any culture, and with enough intellectual rigor or guidance you will rediscover God. The point was that there is nobody incapable of discovering God and we shouldn't deny the opportunity to use someone's faith to redirect them to the Truth. Ironically, the speech opened up talking about armchair critics and people talking from their comfort zone and with technology. "Young people are courageous and like to seek the truth but they have to be careful not to become what you referred to as 'armchair critics' with endless words. A young person must be a critical thinker, and it is not good never to be critical. But you must be constructive in criticism, because there is a destructive criticism, which only makes a lot of complaints but does not offer a new way forward." Even more ironically, you did destructive criticism, for you didn't even offer a way forward, demonstrating you're the exact armchair critic that is being talked about by the Pope. Prots, as demonstrated by you, keep taking everything out of context, when if you put it into context, the Pope was speaking about not being closeminded and refusing to enter interfaith debates just because your faith is true. Oh, and as was said in that same journey to Singapore, "Each one of us has our own abilities and limitations. Do we all have abilities? [Answer: “Yes!”] Do we all have some limitations? [Answer: “Yes!”] Even the Pope? Yes, all, all! As we have our limitations, we must respect the disabilities of others. Do you agree? This is important. Why do I say this? Because overcoming these things helps in your interfaith dialogue since it is built upon respect for others. This is very important." Rethink your disdain for the Catholic Church, and maybe inspect things before you regurgitate something in spite.
Sola Scriptura, an obvious and poor justification of dividing Christs Church, it has an inbuilt ‘virus’ that ensures the constant division of their denominations and so can never threaten the primacy of Christs Catholic Church. (And it’s Catholic Primacy that keeps them gnashing their teeth and wailing) Its a Babel virus, with the division being in ‘understanding’; Obviously there is no discernment to between pride and the Holy Spirit, as there were 240 new Christian religions by the time Luthifer (sic) died. It’s over 50,000 now.
@@budzwithbudz6729 "Your pope already said all religions lead to God..." - His words were, "All religions are paths to God." The Pope did not say all religions are equal or lead to God in the same way. Most people eagerly fill this in inside their own heads. The Catholic Church teaches that while other religions may contain elements of truth, the fullness of truth and salvation is found in Jesus Christ and His Church (The Catholic Church). Respect for others’ beliefs doesn’t negate this core teaching. "...so what does it matter?" - Because only in Jesus Christ and the Church he established, the Catholic Church, has the fullness of salvation. I'm no theologian so my wording may not be exact. - The Second Vatican Council's document Lumen Gentium states that non-Catholics "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." - So in other words, even those who are not Catholics, through no fault of their own, search for God sincerely in their hearts, they may have salvation available to them. In this day and age of internet and 10 second clips, it's very easy to take things out of context. But if you listen to the whole thing, take into consideration the people to whom he's speaking, and pause the "I know best" arrogance (for many of us including Catholics), it may not seem so scandalous. But even if the Pope did say something that is not theologically consistent with the teachings of the Catholic Church, it still doesn't prove or disprove anything. I'm sorry to disappoint many anti-Catholics, who may have a faulty understanding of Papal infallibility, but he is still only human and prone to error. Papal infallibility only applies in extremely rare cases, of which this incident was not. So for anyone thinking they have a "gotcha" moment, that gleeful moment is only out of ignorance of actual Catholic teachings and tradition. In other words, it's a straw man argument. A no-point argument.
There’s 3 requirements for divine authority: being chosen (John 15:16); ordained (Acts 6:6); and sent (John 20:22). This mental, physical, and spiritual formula is a “fingerprint” evidence that God is a Trinity.
Great analogy and presentation! Also, consider the fact that Jesus said "...the gates of hades will not stand against His church..." Many Catholics and non-Catholics defies this...
It’s “Melbuhn, Straya” mate. But what a nice surprise. Hello to you too. An excellent post as usual. You go bro. Amen to the Catholic faith, all glory to God!
@@jamiebussell2566 "Wherever the bishop appears, there let the people be; as wherever Jesus Christ is, is the Catholic Church". ,St Ignatius of Antioch.
@@jamiebussell2566 Didn’t the Jerusalem Church pretty much disperse after Stephen’s martyrdom? My understanding is that the new center of Christendom was Antioch. Then the Church spread all over the Roman Empire and the place of primacy eventually became Rome.
@@jamiebussell2566 Our Lord established the Catholic Church in Matthew 16:18-19. He said, “You are Peter (rock) and upon this rock, I will build My church. I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. Whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.” This gives the Catholic Church the visible Head, the pope, who is a successor of Saint Peter.
The oral preaching of the apostles was definitely divinely inspired! That inspiration is called PENTECOST (Paul had his experience with the Holy Spirit when his name went from Saul to Paul.)
At the risk of speaking prematurely, since I didn’t watch the entire 39 minutes, and I knew where you were going with this apologetically - and I cannot dispute your claim with facts - I will instead impart a nugget I heard first hand from the mouth of Dr. Scott Hahn: That for the first 400 years of Church history the Bible was, quite literally to my Protestant friends who are reading this, the Eucharist, to which the teachings of the early church fathers clearly attest!
11 years ago, my nephew married a woman who's family are apparently practicing Baptists. During their wedding, they had grape juice, not wine since drinking wine, for them is forbidden. Sadly, like a lot of the health experts, the bible encourages wine with a meal. Just based on that, I could never be a Baptist, period. Fast forward these past 11 years, they have no children, and don't plan to have children, since financial freedom and early retirement is their goal. The great thing is about the "bible alone" is that you can select what you read, and since "being fruitful and multiply" and such are not really outlined, you can create your own personal dogma as well.
Bro couldn’t stand not drinking wine and threw a fit 😂I’m confused you don’t have to have children to be happy and live a fulfilling life in Christ Jesus .Not everyone should have kids especially if they’re not financially stable .both horrible arguments
@@samo8240God did tell us to go forth and multiply. Also, about not being financially stable to not have children… if our ancestors followed that, mankind would have perished a long time ago. We most believe in God’s providence and have children!
@ I don’t understand why it’s a big deal tho it’s not going to make or break our salvation . Can having children lead to the spread of the gospel yes but at the same time I believe Gods will be carried out regardless of.
@@Wgaither1 Joseph & Mary are an exception because she is the Ark of the New Covenant & like the Ark of the OT, was untouchable as she was the Theotokos
That's great. I pray more will come to know Yeshua as the Messiah. There's a lot of good books about Judaism and its tie to Christianity. Here are some of them: 1. Salvation is from the Jews by Roy Schoeman 2. Jesus and the Jewish Roots of the Eucharist by Brant Pitre 3. Jesus and the Jewish Roots of Mary by Brant Pitre
Me too! I was received into the Catholic Church in 1991! I’m so thankful to the Lord for His Mercy, and for leading me to the Church He founded. All I want is to be as close as I can get to Jesus - Yeshua - forever! 🙏✝️✡️💟💒
I've NEVER heard anyone BLATANTLY twist and butcher the scripture like that! "Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world. 2 Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God: 3 And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world. 4 Ye are of God, little children, and have overcome them: because greater is he that is in you, than he that is in the world. 5 They are of the world: therefore speak they of the world, and the world heareth them. 6 We are of God: he that knoweth God heareth us; he that is not of God heareth not us. Hereby know we the spirit of truth, and the spirit of error."- 1 John 4 verses 1 to 6. To just TAKE OUT verse 6 and apply it ignoring the whole TEST that you are TRYING with is SOOO WICKED. YOU REMOVED whole concept of TRYING the spirits that they are OF GOD or not.
Protestants use scripture 📜 (the word of God Luke 24:25) while Catholics have Jesus Christ ✝ (the Incarnate Word of God John 1:1) to interpret scripture. Scripture 📜is something that… - Satan 😈 and deceivers use (Matthew 4:5; Galatians 1:6-8), - that is veiled (2 Corinthians 4:3), - that people deceive themselves into believing that it offers “eternal life” (John 5:39).
@@Bill-ic3nu Protestantism is still based on belief in Jesus Christ, Son of God. If anyone denies Christ's divinity or sonship, that person is neither Protestant nor Catholic, that person is a heretic. In a similar way to how Peter did not always uphold Christ's teaching (i.e. attacked a Roman guard violently, denied Jesus 3 times) and his own teaching and example (i.e. refused to eat with gentiles for fear of being judged), it shows that when people fail to follow a teaching, it doesn't mean the teaching is wrong. In this way, the idea that Protestants often interpret scripture on their own, it doesn't mean that Protestants do not trust Jesus to determine the meaning of Scripture for them, it means the people being examined are failing to follow the teaching of the church in general.
There are five mysteries to meditate on Eucharistic devotion. 1. the wedding feast at Cana (Jesus changes water 💦 into wine 🍷(John2:1-12) 2. multiplication of loaves and fishes (John 6:1-15). 3. the teaching on the bread of life (John 6:22-71). 4. the last supper (John 14:1-1726). 5. the road to Emmaus (John 24:13-35). Rev. Robert Stein wrote A Scriptural Rosary for Eucharistic Devotion. As Jesus told Thomas: Blessed are those who do not see, yet believe. Paul says in 1 Corinthians 11:29: “For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily eateth and drinketh judgment to himself, not discerning the body of the Lord.” Question, why would there be judgement on anyone IF IT’s ONLY A SYMBOL⁉
Do you think 🤔 that when Jesus Christ taught us to pray 🙏🏽 and inserted “give us this day our daily bread 🥖”, He was referring to normal food❓ No! He was referring to the Eucharist‼ The Catechism of the Catholic Church explains: The usual Greek word for “daily,” hemera, is, after all, used elsewhere in the New Testament, but not in this instance. Why did St. Matthew and St. Luke feel compelled to create a new Greek word to accurately reflect the words of Jesus? They most likely had to use a new word to faithfully translate a novel idea or a unique Aramaic word that Jesus used in His prayer. What was Jesus’ new idea? Although there are multiple levels of meanings to epiousios, Jesus is making a clear allusion to the Eucharist. “Our daily bread” is one translation of a word that goes far above our basic needs for sustenance, and invokes our supernatural needs. St. Jerome translated the Bible in the 4th century from the original Latin, Hebrew and Greek texts to form the Latin Vulgate Bible. When it came to the mysterious word epiousios, St. Jerome hedged his bets. In Luke 11:3, St. Jerome translated epiousios as “daily.” Yet, in Matthew 6:11, he translated epiousios as “supersubstantial.” The root words are: epi, meaning “above” or “super;” and ousia, meaning “being,” “essence,” or “substance.” When they are read together, we come to the possible translations of “super-substantial,” “above-essence,” or, in effect, “supernatural” bread. This translation as supersubstantial is still found today in the Douay-Rheims Bible. Taken literally, our supersubstantial bread is the Eucharist. (CCC 2837)
John the Baptist called Jesus the “lamb of God” (John 1:29 & 1:36)? Jesus is the pascal lamb 🐑 to be sacrificed. The Passover tradition started when Moses and the Israelites sacrificed an unblemished lamb 🐑 . In order to have the angel of death 💀 to Passover them, THEY HAD TO EAT THE SACRIFICIAL LAMB 🐑 (Exodus 12:8).
THE EUCHARIST IS THE WORD OF GOD & the SACRED HEART 🫀OF JESUS: If you look up Eucharistic miracles you’ll discover Jesus literally gave us his heart for spiritual sustenance. When it came to the mysterious word epiousios, St. Jerome hedged his bets. In Luke 11:3, St. Jerome translated epiousios as “daily.” Yet, in Matthew 6:11, he translated epiousios as “supersubstantial (Douay-Rheims Bible). The correlation between the Lamb 🐑 of God, the Bread 🥖 of Life, the Light of the World, the Word of God, the Sacred ❤🔥Heart 🫀of Jesus, and the Eucharist. Protestants use scripture 📜 (the word of God Luke 24:27) while Catholics have Jesus Christ ✝ (the Incarnate Word of God John 1:1) to interpret scripture. Scripture 📜is something that… - Satan 😈 and deceivers use (Matthew 4:5; Galatians 1:6-8), - that is veiled (2 Corinthians 4:3), - that people deceive themselves into believing that it offers “eternal life” (John 5:39). The paradox 🤔 of what Jesus said, that we do not “live by bread 🥖 alone, but by every word that comes forth from the mouth of God” (Matthew 4:4); we must remember that the WORD BECAME FLESH (John 1:14). It is this “flesh” (John 6:55) through which the “bread 🥖of life” (John 6:48) reveals the scriptures 📜 veiled meaning (2 Corinthians 3:14 & Luke 24:35) to His Church (1 Timothy 3:15). Jesus Christ gave us his Sacred Heart 🫀 (2 Cor. 3:3) to reveal these secret truths to us. What does this demonstrate? It explains why there’s tens of thousands of Protestant denominations who interpret scripture 📜 the way Satan 😈 does: according to their perverted interpretation. It also explains why there’s one ☝ Catholic ✝ faith that is older and and larger than all Protestant denominations combined. It has Jesus Christ truly present in the Eucharist that interprets scripture for us just as He did for the two disciples on the road to Emmaus (Luke 24:13-35).
Sola scriptura assumes the Bible is inerrant and sufficient, but here’s the thing: How do we even know which books belong in the Bible? The Bible doesn’t give us a list of its own books. That decision came through the Church, guided by the Holy Spirit, using apostolic teaching and Sacred Tradition. Without that authority, a Protestant has to prove why every book in their Bible belongs there-and that proof can’t come from the Bible itself. That’s circular reasoning. The challenge for Reformed Calvinists isn’t that they deny all authority-they actually misunderstand what apostolic teaching is. It’s not "made up" or "changed" over time; it’s the teaching of the Apostles, faithfully handed down through the Church. If we can help them see this, the idea of duo fontibus-Scripture and Tradition together-makes a lot more sense. They’re not in competition; they’re two sides of the same coin. Great conversation Cameron! YBIC
@@SaintlySaavy - Why the King James Version of the bible is wrong. Did the Jews reject part of their own scripture? On page 📄 38 of Fr. Arthur, B. Klyber‘s (a Jew who converted to Catholicism) book, “Queen of the Jews”, he says: …the only way for Jewish scholars to invade. This evidence was to disown their own Septuagint translation altogether. Did they do so? It seems they did. This is attested in VALENTINE’S JEWISH ENCYCLOPEDIA as follows under the heading “Septuagint”: the appearance of the Septuagint was greeted with enthusiasm by Jews everywhere; BUT, with the rise of the Christian Sect and Its adoption of the Septuagint as Its Bible too, the Jews began to denounce the Septuagint vehemently. Jewish believers in Jesus were saddened and confused about that about face by the Jews. They could not understand why a Jewish - Greek Bible, which “had been greeted with enthusiasm by Jews everywhere”, and had been honored and read in synagogues throughout the world, for some two hundred years, should suddenly become heretical and obnoxious to Jews? Simply put: 1. for over 200 years those 7 books were accepted by the Jews. 2. Jesus Christ and his apostles also used those 7 books. 3. after Jesus died and resurrected and was proclaimed the messiah, the Jews wanted to refute the claim. 4. the Jews mysteriously rejected those 7 books after the claim they had crucified the true messiah. 5. The Catholic Church published the first Bible with those 7 books included. 6. King James and his scholars originally had those 7 books in the original KJV. 7. Later on, because the Jews rejected those 7 books in the OT, the KJV bibles deleted them too. So why do you use a counterfeit bible in a counterfeit church, teaching a counterfeit faith about Jesus Christ?
Cameron brilliant EXEGESIS. As an 78 yo Australian Catholic woman catechized by the Sisters of Mercy in primary & high school; the element of mystery in faith was clearly taught. My summation of protestant faith, which guarantees salvation by faith alone, is unbelievably wrong thinking. This dogma puts God in a small humanlike box. God is righteous, and just; judgement is His alone (NO get out of jail excuses accepted). I'm proud of your clear explanation. Keep it going. There are a lot of scales to be shifted! I guess you're somewhere in America, whereas I live in a lovely regional town in NSW Australia with gorgeous beaches and koalas. God bless 😊
This guy's opening statement is that he can prove the infallibility of the Catholic Church how dare you we have the Bible we don't need the church for salvation.
@@CameronRiecker John 10:28-29 I give them eternal life, and they will never perish, and no one will snatch them out of my hand. My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all, and no one is able to snatch them out of the Father's hand. 1 John 5:11-13 And this is the testimony, that God gave us eternal life, and this life is in his Son. Whoever has the Son has life; whoever does not have the Son of God does not have life. I write these things to you who believe in the name of the Son of God, that you may know that you have eternal life. What scripture shows the Catholic Church or church in general giving eternal salvation?
Peace of Christ be with you. I think you're mistaking Cameron's view. People are fallible and can write scripture, why? Because the Holy Spirit makes it possible, and when scripture is being written, that person could be considered infallible. Same with the Church, it may be fallible, but when it is recognising anonymous texts like the 4 Gospels, Acts, Hebrews as canonical, it is recognising them as canon infallibly, why? Because teachings and traditions have passed down through to them from the Apostles by the power of the Holy Spirit to then recognise which of these multitudes of texts are to be declared canonical. Are youaware that Shepherd of Hermas and 1st Letter of Clement were being read in Liturgies at Church as if they were canonical?
Always use common sense and LOGIC. If people agree to all your premises but not your logical conclusion, then they are not using common sense and LOGIC.
Protestants use scripture 📜 (the word of God Luke 24:25) while Catholics have Jesus Christ ✝ (the Incarnate Word of God John 1:1) to interpret scripture. Scripture 📜is something that… - Satan 😈 and deceivers use (Matthew 4:5; Galatians 1:6-8), - that is veiled (2 Corinthians 4:3), - that people deceive themselves into believing that it offers “eternal life” (John 5:39).
The definition of Scriptural typology or "types" is a biblical person, thing, actions, or event that foreshadows ne truths, new actions, or new events. In the Old Testament, Melchizedech and Jonah are types of Jesus Christ. A likeness must exist between the type and the archetype, but the latter is always greater. Both are independent of each other. God's call for the return of the Israelites from Pharaoh's bondage typifies the return of Jesus Christ from his flight into Egypt. In the New Testament the destruction of Jerusalem, foretold by Christ, was the antitype of the end of the world. This is why so many Protestants don't understand or interpret scripture accurately. There's literally hundreds of thousands of types in scripture. Abraham offering up his only son is a type of God the Father offering up his only Son.
Jesus, Himself quoted scripture. And the Bereans checked everything Paul said against scripture. Its a big mistake for us to think we can make up our own rules.
He also said to hold to what the Pharisees taught because it comes from the chair of Moses. They had authority over the believers. That role has passed on to Peter, the apostles and whoever they appointed as bishops.
A high view of scripture doesn't mean that sola scriptura makes sense. Us Catholics have a very high view of scripture but we still believe that Tradition and Magisterium are infallible
The longer I am Catholic, the more I see the absolute fallacy of SS because no matter what, but t still has to be interpreted through the reader's lens and personal biases.
The cheat sheets that you have added are great. I've made a habit of doing this in the past to help my apologetics. I have tons of notes on various subject matters that I could always reference. I haven't however, found a good way to organize them. Do you just use Google docs? Or do you have some sort of software that you do Bible study on? Thank you and God bless 🙏
Saying an fallible list of infallible books is an impossibility. If the list is fallible, then at least one book on it has to be fallible. If they were all infallible, then the list wouldn't be fallible, it would have nailed it.
@budzwithbudz6729 obviously. Are you saying the rest of the inspired bible is meaningless? It adds nothing of value to John? And is salvation really the only thing you find important to understand? And how can you just read John as a modern person and have the hubris to think you have the same understanding of the book as a learned, 1st century jew would? The word "faith" itself just in scripture is used to identify a minimum of 3 distinct levels and concepts. Which one does John mean and when? We don't care about salvation history? the covenential systems throughout the ages? divine revelation? Nothing? We don't don't care about the dozens of other teachings on salvation outside of John? That is where we differ I think my friend. Scripture all works together to show a full picture. You can't isolate a single aspect of a single teaching like only looking to John and make that single reference the entirety of the topic. Its mentioned dozens of other times in many other ways for a reason. I like to look to them all and make sense of the total message as best I can, with the guidance of the magisterium. It all matters.
There is no reason why there would have to be a fallible book just because the list was fallible. The Protestant Bible is missing Books. That doesn’t mean that a Book in it is fallible, only that their list is fallible.
@@MarilynBoussaid-yd1vk that wouldn't make it fallible. That would make it incomplete, but that isn't the same thing as making an error. A list can be free from error and incomplete if its still being open to completion. If you say the list is final and can't be completed, then objectively that would make it fallible because it says some books that are inspired were mistakenly not included. And if a list messed that up, it can't be trusted. Either way its sliced, its a very weird belief.
This is a Supurb clear presentation for I as a catholic understand you clearly but as always other people will always have their own opinion understanding or explanation, but after all is said I want to thank you for your splendid work yeah amen Alleluia Deo Gratis 🙏🐑✨🕊️🔥
Nothing can be more precise than the instrument used to measure it. If the Bible is an infallible collection of infallible books, the the organization that promulgated it must itself be infallible. Otherwise, you have, at best, a fallible list of infallible books.
@MichaelAChristian1 God never said what was and wasn't his word. There was never a prophet, not an apostle, that gave a list of what Scripture is. Nor did the Bible appear in one go. It was argued over for a period of almost 1000 years (between the OT and NT canons).
@@irritated888 Thou hast KNOWN THE SCRIPTURES. You say "there was no known scripture and no one knew what scripture was". So who is lying? The Bible or your doctrine?
@MichaelAChristian1 would probably take a quick trip down history lane beloved! St. Paul was talking about the Old Testament when Timothy was a child. Large parts of the New Testament hadn't been written yet. Nor does it give any list of what Scriptures he knew. We know there was disagreement over what was, and wasn't scripture. The collection that Timothy, a Jew with a Greek father, would have accepted was the Septuiagent, which contained books you would consider non canonical. There are long debates recorded among early Christians on whether the Apocalypse was scripture, 2nd peter was contested for decades, Hebrews had many detractors. Lots of people held that Shepard of Hermas, the Didache, and the Acts of Peter were Scripture. It's unfortunate, but there is no source for your canon outside of the Church Christ founded and promised to be with until the end of the age.
I think there is a misunderstanding that disbelieving Sola Scriptura makes you not-protestant. There are some catholic traditions which the protestant church believes are unnecessary. For example, most protestants believe in 2 sacraments instead of 7. There is also a different ministerial hierarchy in the protestant church, a different order of salvation, and vastly different perspectives contributing to a unified belief system.
Jesus instituted 7, the sign of perfection, sacraments incl existing matrimony which are all biblical. Protestants recognising only 2 is both disobedient & unbiblical. In any event, without validly ordained priest in the unbroken line of apostolic succession, Protestants don’t have the Real True Presence in the Eucharist, hence, to them, it has to be symbolic!
@@MarilynBoussaid-yd1vk - if you ever see statues of St. Peter he's holding two keys. Dr. Taylor Marshall explained about the two keys significance. If fact, there's a church down in South America that Bergolio was at and it has a statue of St. Peter that got struck by lightning. Interestingly enough, the things that got destroyed was the keys Peter was holding and the halo over his head. A lot of people believe this act of God indicates Pope Francis is an anti-pope. They show before and after photos of the lightning striking the statue.
@@MarilynBoussaid-yd1vk - A lot of statues of St. Peter show two keys 🔑 , in Matthew 16:19 Jesus says “keys” 🔑, and Dr. Taylor Marshall explained what the keys represent. A statue outside of a church in Buenos Aires that Bergolio was at was struck by lightning ⚡️. It destroyed the keys 🔑 and the halo 😇 of the statue as if God is saying Bergolio is not an authentic pope or God doesn’t approve of him.
@@MarilynBoussaid-yd1vk - I simply mentioned where I got the information from. You are falsely accusing me. SHAME ON YOU‼️ Pope Francis doesn’t need anyone to vilify him, he does it all by himself especially being in apostasy by idol worship of Pachamama in the Vatican. That’s just one ☝️ of many examples this pontificate has done to attack the tradition of the faithful.
If you're having coffee and Jesus appears to you & begins talking to you, I am going to ask what's in your coffee! 😄 But all levity aside, if "Jesus" appears and tells you that you should show reverence to Lucifer because Lucifer is his brother, are you going to believe him with divine faith? What if the apparition tells you that he never physically died on the cross? Are you going to believe him with divine faith? Your reasoning is so messed up. A Christian evaluates what he is told by the infallible written word of God as he (the Christian) reads it in proper context and with the aid of the church's traditional understanding as a fallible, lesser authority. This is why Galatians 1 says: Gal 1:6 I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel: Gal 1:7 Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ. Gal 1:8 But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. Gal 1:9 As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.
@rexlion4510 remember, Jesus the the way the truth & the life. How can He preach or tell to you & me that Lucifer is His brother, or He didn’t die on the cross? Go back to the Bible, the divine Tradition & the Magisterium office of the Church! For us not to fall in heretical hands & ways.
@@raybacasmas8466 2Cor 11:14 "...for even Satan disguises himself as an angel of light." Cameron said he would believe anything told to him by an apparition of "Jesus." My point was that the apparition might not really be Jesus, and that is why we must compare whatever an apparition tells us to the Truth of the Bible. This is how the Marian apparitions have deceived Catholics who failed to compare against Scripture what (allegedly) "Mary" (actually a demon impersonating Mary) said. So I agree with you... go back to the Bible!
I see Protestants as believing God inspired 73 writings and gave them to the Church in 34 AD...instead of the Church debating the legitimacy of thousands of documents 400 years after Jesus' resurrection. That's their error. God inspired the writings, but the Church decided which writings were actually the Word of God. So, your tweet is 100% correct.
Very interesting stuff. I can only really speak for myself (I’m not a Protestant expert like you Catholics seem to be) but I think many Protestants DO believe in the infallibility of the early Church Canon scholars. We just aren’t sure “infallible” is the best description of the WHOLE Church.
The protestant's error occurs in the concepts of Orthodoxy and Orthopraxy. The scriptures record right doctrine (orthodoxy) and require that the Christian follow right practice (orthopraxy), however, orthopraxy is not recorded as diligently as orthodoxy as right practice can change over time based on different circumstances (as it has), and any documents about orthopraxy are internal church documents all the way back through the Apostolic Church even unto the Didache. Orthopraxy helps to define orthodoxy and vice versa, ie. The Church. Without the governing authority of the Church, everyone is their own Pope.
22:25. I see what you did there. You played a sleight of hand conflating a bishop with being an apostle. While one would agree that the apostles most definitely were in leadership roles, this ignores the fact that in the early church, presbyters were the same as bishops. For example, St. Jerome wrote in his commentary on Titus: ‘The Presbyter is the same as Bishop, and before the parties had been raised up in religion by the provocations of Satan, the churches were governed by the Senate of the Presbyters. But as each one sought to appropriate to himself those whom he had baptized, instead leading them to Christ, it was appointed that one of the Presbyters, elected by his colleagues, should be set over the others, and have chief supervision over the general well-being of the community… Without a doubt it is the duty of the Presbyters to bear in mind that by the Disciplines of the Church they are subordinated to him who had been given to them as their head, but it is fitting that the Bishops, on their side, do not forget that if they are set over the Presbyters, it is a result of tradition, and not by the fact of a particular institution by the Lord.’ Even the Roman Scholar Eamon Duffy admits this. Furthermore, he affirms St. Jerome’s assessment on the early governance of Rome. He wrote: ‘Clement made no claim to write as a Bishop. His letter was sent in the name of the whole Roman community, he never identifies himself or writes in his own person… The letter itself makes no distinction between Presbyters and Bishops, about which it always speaks in the plural, suggesting that at Corinth AS AT ROME the church at this time was organized under a group of Bishops or Presbyters, rather than a single ruling Bishop.’ (Emphasis added)(Saints and Sinner: A History of the Popes). To accept your sleight of hand, one would have to accept all presbyters and bishops were also apostles. This is obviously wrong. One can give the Apostles the honorific of bishops or even presbyters if he likes, but one must also admit the only difference in office was the title used. They were otherwise the same. So it is either ignorant or disingenuous to frame the Apostles as bishops, without this proper context. Furthermore, the Apostles held their authority as Apostles, not bishops or presbyters. Looking back at your reference to Acts 1, we do find the Apostles replacing Judas. But what was left out, was the requirement for a replacement in this manner. Verses 22-23 says: “Therefore IT IS NECESSARY TO CHOOSE ONE OF THE MEN WHO HAVE BEEN WITH US THE WHOLE TIME the Lord Jesus was living among us, beginning from John’s baptism to the time when Jesus was taken up from us. FOR ONE OF THESE MUST BECOME A WITNESS WITH US OF HIS RESURRECTION.” (Emphasis added) The replacement of Judas’ office came with very specific requirements including that the replacement must have been a follower of Christ from the time of His baptism until his ascension. Very few could have filled those requirements. No one from the end of the First Century or the beginning of the Second could fill these requirements. As such, while suitable men could fill the office of Apostle did not exist. This explains why the church recognizes the Apostolic Age ended with St. John, the end of witnesses from Christ’s baptism until his ascension, and appointed by Christ himself, or the Apostles like St. Matthias. Just before this you assert that one must be in union with the successors of the Apostles. Obviously you cannot mean a successor like St. Matthias. Therefore, these successors are Apostles themselves and cannot have the authority as the Apostles held. Obviously, these successors cannot write new canon. They are lesser than the Apostles. These lessor successors are the bishops and presbyters the Apostles tell us of in their writings. Since these successors of the Apostles are lesser in authority, and cannot write new scripture, we can only judge to be in union with them by judging them by what the Apostles did leave us, Holy Scripture. 22:47 I see the framing you were attempting there. You appear to be saying that the teaching office of Christ’s Church only exists with the Apostles. (If I am wrong, please correct me.) This is provably false. Let’s look at St. Paul’s protege, St. Timothy. He was no Apostle, yet no one cannot deny that St. Timothy preached and taught what he had himself been taught. Furthermore, does one think that all the presbyters and bishops appointed by the Apostles did not preach and teach? 25:32. I see what you did there. You added the Roman denomination into that chain of authority, without providing any evidence. Let’s add context to St. Ignatius of Antioch quote you used at 26:02. “Catholic Church” should be properly translated as the “Universal Church”, that is Christ’s Church. It is disingenuous to present this in a manner that infers it is the modern Roman denomination. An even bigger problem with this quote is you do not properly attribute it. And this is a very important point because you appear to have parsed together parts of it to say what you want it to say. St. Ignatius of Antioch wrote in The Epistle of Ignatius to the Smyrnaeans, Chapter 8. “Let nothing be done without the bishop”: “See that you all follow the bishop, even as Jesus Christ does the Father, and the presbytery as you would the apostles; and reverence the deacons, as being the institution of God. Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is [administered] either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude [of the people] also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church. It is not lawful without the bishop either to baptized or to celebrate a love-feast; but whatsoever he shall approve of, that is also pleasing to God, so that everything that is done may be secure and valid.” You should have used the full quote, or at least added ellipsis to demonstrate the quote properly. Finally, you should have added context to what St. Ignatius of Antioch was addressing. The Smyrnaeans were dealing with docetist heretics. Obviously, St. Ignatius of Antioch trusted the Bishop of Smyrna to prevent the Docetist heretics from infecting the Church at Smyrna, thus advising the congregation to not only honor him, but also to obey him, thus preventing the heretics from leading the church astray. Do you know what St. Ignatius isn’t saying? Anything about appealing to a bishop in Rome to settle issues… ⬇️⬇️⬇️
26:20 What is St. Ignatius saying? In context, he is saying the Smyrnaeans need to follow their bishop as Christ follows the Father to deal with the Docetist heretics. 26:59 Despite your buildup, you are wrong. A bishop does not have the Office of Apostle. I have clearly demonstrated this above. Did Christ Himself appoint every bishop? No. Did the Apostles themselves appoint every bishop? No. Do any bishops today meet the requirements of Act 1:22-24? No. You are baselessly making a claim at this point. What can be argued is this. Did Christ appoint his Apostles? Yes. Did the Apostles use their office to appoint a replacement for Judas and other witnesses of Christ’s baptism, His ministry, His death, His resurrection, and His ascension? Yes. Did the Apostles establish successors by calling and ordaining bishops and presbyters? Yes. Did those bishops and presbyters, continue to call and ordain successors? Yes. But this is not the argument you made. Instead you are adding your Roman biases to actual history to arrive at your conclusions. 27:59 You again add the Roman denomination when you say the that the ability to teach things with divine faith comes from the father to the Roman denomination based upon St. Augustine. So what can one say to St. Augustine? "St Augustine is quoted as having written in the book against the Letter of the Manicheans, ‘I would not believe the Gospel if I did not believe the Church.’ Here you see we are to believe the Church more than the Gospel. ⬇️⬇️⬇️ I answer: Even if Augustine had used those words, who gave him authority, that we must believe what he says? What Scripture does he quote to prove the statement? What if he erred here, as we know that he frequently did, as did all the fathers? Should one single sentence of Augustine be so mighty as to refute all the texts quoted above… ? That is not what God wills; St. Augustine must yield to them. Further, if that were St. Augustine's meaning he would contradict himself; for in very many places he exalts the HoIy Scriptures above the opinions of all teachers, above the decrees of all councils and churches, and will have men judge of him and of the teachings of all men according to the Scriptures. Why then do the faithful shepherds pass by those sayings of St. Augustine, plain and clear as they are, and light on this lonely one, which is so obscure and sounds so unlike Augustine as we know him from all his writings? It can only be because they want to bolster up their tyranny with idle, empty words. Furthermore, they are deceivers, in that they not only ascribe to St. Augustine an opinion he did not hold, but they also falsify and pervert his words. For St. Augustine's words really are 'I would not have believed the Gospel if the authority of the whole Church had not moved me.'
Augustine speaks of the whole Church, and says that throughout the world it with one consent preaches the Gospel and not the Letter of the Manicheans; and this unanimous authority of the Church moves him to consider it the true Gospel. But our tyrants apply this name of the Church to themselves, as if the laymen and the common people were not also Christians. And what they teach they want men to consider as the teaching of the Christian Church, although, they are a minority, and we, who are universal Christendom, should also be consulted about what is to be taught in the name of universal Christendom. See, so cleverly do they quote the words of St. Augustine: what he says of the Church throughout all the world, they would have us understand of the Roman See. But how does it follow from this saying that the doctrines of men are also to be observed? What doctrine of men has ever been devised that has been accepted and preached by all of the universal Church throughout the world? Not one; the Gospel alone is accepted by all Christians everywhere. But then we must not understand St. Augustine to say that he would not believe the Gospel unless he were moved thereto by the authority of the whole Church. For that were false and unchristian. Every man must believe only because it is God's Word, and because he in convinced in his heart that it is true, although an, angel from heaven and all the world preached the contrary. His meaning is rather, as he himself says, that he finds the Gospel nowhere except in the Church, and that this external proof can be given heretics that their doctrine is not right, but that that is right which all the world has with one accord accepted. For the eunuch in Acts viii, 37, believed on the Gospel as preached by Philip, although he did not know whether many or few believed on it. So also Abraham believed the promise of God all by himself, when no man knew of it, Romans iv, 18. And Mary, Luke i, 38, believed the message of Gabriel by herself, and there was no one on earth who believed with her. In this way Augustine also had to believe, and all the saints, and we too, every one for himself alone. For this reason St. Augustine's words cannot bear the interpretation they put upon them; but they must be understood of the external proof of faith, by which heretics are refuted and the weak strengthened in faith, when they see that all the world preaches and regards as Gospel that which they believe. And if this meaning cannot be found in St. Augustine's words; for they are contrary to the Scriptures and all to experience if they have that other meaning." (Dr. M. Luther) 28:10. He who hears the “catholic church” (see above), that is Christ’s Church, not the Roman denomination you claim… 28:22 Yes, Christ’s Church came first, and then the Gospels. But you infer this is the Roman denomination. And again, you provide no proof that it is the Roman denomination. 28:48 Rome did not define its canon until 8 April, 1546 at Trent, more than a decade later than Luther’s German translation was published! Do you even know history or your own tradition? Your claim that the Roman demolition “causes the Scriptures to be” is not only probably false, it is absolutely stated out of delusion! Look back at your earlier reference to St. Ignatius. Even in the early Second Century, he was quoting New Testament Scripture. It existed before Rome declared her biblical canon 14 centuries later! 30:15 And why were the books that weren’t Scripture eliminated? If one actually reads Scripture, he will find that God himself tells us that He would preserve His Word for us. (Psalms 12:6-8, Isaiah 40:6-8) God also tells us that the Holy Spirit will guide us to His Word (Jn. 14:26), guide us to the truth (Jn. 16:13-14), and that the Holy Spirt helps believers interpret spiritual truth like God’s Breathed Word. (1Cor 2:13-15) Leave it to Rome to claim for herself what God Himself has done! The arrogance! Did God use Rome to preserve Scripture? Maybe? Rome cannot make a claim as Rome until 1054. And even then, the Western Church of 1054 is not the Church of Rome today. The Roman denomination of today was created at Trent. And even that isn’t necessarily true because Vatican II, changed many things, rejecting much of Trent! Furthermore, this is proven by the Apostles themselves. “Therefore, beloved, since you are waiting for these, be diligent to be found by him without spot or blemish, and at peace. And count the patience of our Lord as salvation, JUST AS OUR BELOVED BROTHER PAUL ALSO WROTE TO YOU ACCORDING TO THE WISDOM GIVEN HIM, AS HE DOES IN ALL HIS LETTERS WHEN HE SPEAKS IN THEM OF THESE MATTERS. There are some things in them that are hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, AS THEY DO THE OTHER SCRIPTURES.” (Emphasis added) St. Peter himself attests to knowledge of at least some of St. Paul’s letters being Scripture. Even in the Apostolic Age, we can see from this verse that the Epistles shared and St. Peter was obviously aware of what St. Paul wrote. More over, in 1 Timothy 5:18, St. Paul quotes St. Luke (10:7) affirming this Gospel as Scripture, again in the Apostolic Age. Add to that, St. Ignatius of Antioch himself, in he Second Century, himself mentions the Gospels and quotes New Testament Scripture in your own reference, before there is even a historically proven monarchal Bishop in Rome! So how could “Rome” give us the Scripture? Did Rome give us the Old Testament even as she was vile pagan polity? 32:32. You reject the inerrancy of Scripture! Can the Bible “communicate with the modern issues”? Do you reject 2 Timothy 3:16-17? Especially answer verse 17 in reference to verse 16. Those in Rome ignore this. 33:47 You add Papal infallibility out of the blue. Where is your evidence? You are making a baseless claim. Just because a Bishop of Rome was n 1870, involved in war and faced with the loss of lands, declares himself “infallible” in a Hail Mary attempt to prevent those losses, we must accept this political decision as “theological”? Again, you ignore all context. It is sad. 34:57 The Roman Pornocracy proves that Rome is not infallible. Furthermore, the current Bishop of Rome is accelerating the heresy of the Roman See. But that is not the worst part of this. The worst part is Rome claiming for herself God’s Work and Promise in Psalms 12:6-8, Isaiah 40:6-8. 37:40 You claim the Roman Magisterium is infallible. Based on what? Your claim? It will always teach the truth? Well, pre-Reformation the Magisterium taught that people may buy their way out of purgatory for themselves or those who are dead with Roman indulgences. (Granted, the Bishop of Rome received fifty percent of the revenue.) But Tridentine Rome said that indulgences cannot be sold. So which is right? Regardless of the answer, this alone disproves the claims of an infallible Magisterium. Of the Magisterium was infallible, this paradox would not exist. This alone prove that John Newman’s quote of, “to be deep in history is to cease to be Protestant” is absolutely false. To be deep in history proves the claims of Rome are false. 37:57 What do you mean by saying the table of contents are infallible? (This is another sophomoric Roman statement often heard.) What is the authority? Have you read the Bible? (Look above.) 38:26. You are right to say, “the [Romans] would say it is the Pope.” You are absolutely wrong because God Himself tells us that it is He in Psalms 12:6-8, Isaiah 40:6-8. And to make the point, Rome had absolutely nothing to do with the canonicity of these verses. 38:42 When you say, “the church produces the Bible infallibly” is only true if you mean Christ’s Church. This does not mean Rome as you infer. For it is God Himself who preserves His own Word. (Psalms 12:6-8, Isaiah 40:6-8) You disproved nothing in this video. But you have demonstrated circumstances to make one question your presentations as even valid. Yes, we know you must present the Roman demonstration’s views, regardless of how unbiblical they are. You must make claims that were only made in the last 250 years, and worse yet push those heretical views back another 1900 years. We understand the ahistorical and impossible biblical views you must state. What is sad, you, in all your apparent logic, cannot see these facts. Sadly the “Roman truth” is as obnoxious as the “our truth” arguments of the secular and worldly “churches” who reject the inerrancy of the Scriptures and add modern lifestyles as “holy”. Unfortunately for you, your own Bishop of Rome pushes the same heresies. Yet, you are blind to them.
@ The Apostles ordained the Bishops and Presbyters. The Apostles were an complete different office, and office that a believing man could only hold if he was appointed an Apostle by Christ Himself, or, if appointed by other Apostles, was a follower and witness of Christ’s entire ministry , from His baptism until His assumption.
Could somebody assemble a large load of Clips repeating the False Nostrim that the Scriptures created the Church. That is simply impossible. My 1 sentence rebuttal of Sola Scriptura. Sincerely in Xto Mike B. B. From Philly, P.A. U.S.A.
Protestants use scripture 📜 (the word of God Luke 24:25) while Catholics have Jesus Christ ✝ (the Incarnate Word of God John 1:1) to interpret scripture. Scripture 📜is something that… - Satan 😈 and deceivers use (Matthew 4:5; Galatians 1:6-8), - that is veiled (2 Corinthians 4:3), - that people deceive themselves into believing that it offers “eternal life” (John 5:39).
Scripture above Tradition. When Tradition supercedes scripture, I'll go with the scripture. And for that reason I won't go with the Catholics, because they value their human tradition higher than the scriptures. Nothing wrong with tradition in itself, as long as the tradition doesn't go against scripture. Also, the whole "Oral teachings are on par with written teachings" is exactly the same line of reasoning that the Pharisees used to try and bolster the Mishnah, the Talmud and the Midrash. They claim Moses created an Oral Torah (the above) at the same time as the written Torah, and that the oral Torah was equally binding on the Jews. Ultra Orthodox Jews still hold to this today. Karaite Jews stick to Tanakh. Pharisees used the exact same arguments for "Apostolic succession" but just swap Jesus out for Moses. That's why the Synagogues had "Moses seats". Everything needed from the oral teachings of the Apostles was recorded by the close of the first century. That's what was needed when things started. But then, they started writing things down.
It is basic logic via the law of noncontradiction. Catholicism teaches that Sacred Scripture was authored by God, this is a tradition itself. Therefore, since Sacred Scripture is written, verifiable, unchanging and true it is the perfect measure of all other Tradition. Any Tradition which goes against Sacred Scripture cannot be a Tradition, this is the law of noncontradiction. The Catechism of the Catholic Church affirms Sola Scriptura yet they run around squawking 'where in the bible does it say Sola Scriptura' yet if any one of them read their Catechism that can see Sola Scriptura right there. They are blinded all by hatred and ignorance.
Why the King James Version of the bible is wrong. Did the Jews reject part of their own scripture? On page 📄 38 of Fr. Arthur, B. Klyber‘s (a Jew who converted to Catholicism) book, “Queen of the Jews”, he says: …the only way for Jewish scholars to invade. This evidence was to disown their own Septuagint translation altogether. Did they do so? It seems they did. This is attested in VALENTINE’S JEWISH ENCYCLOPEDIA as follows under the heading “Septuagint”: the appearance of the Septuagint was greeted with enthusiasm by Jews everywhere; BUT, with the rise of the Christian Sect and Its adoption of the Septuagint as Its Bible too, the Jews began to denounce the Septuagint vehemently. Jewish believers in Jesus were saddened and confused about that about face by the Jews. They could not understand why a Jewish - Greek Bible, which “had been greeted with enthusiasm by Jews everywhere”, and had been honored and read in synagogues throughout the world, for some two hundred years, should suddenly become heretical and obnoxious to Jews? Simply put: 1. for over 200 years those 7 books were accepted by the Jews. 2. Jesus Christ and his apostles also used those 7 books. 3. after Jesus died and resurrected and was proclaimed the messiah, the Jews wanted to refute the claim. 4. the Jews mysteriously rejected those 7 books after the claim they had crucified the true messiah. 5. The Catholic Church published the first Bible with those 7 books included. 6. King James and his scholars originally had those 7 books in the original KJV. 7. Later on, because the Jews rejected those 7 books in the OT, the KJV bibles deleted them too. So why do you use a counterfeit bible in a counterfeit church, teaching a counterfeit faith about Jesus Christ?
Why the King James Version of the bible is wrong. Did the Jews reject part of their own scripture? On page 📄 38 of Fr. Arthur, B. Klyber‘s (a Jew who converted to Catholicism) book, “Queen of the Jews”, he says: …the only way for Jewish scholars to invade. This evidence was to disown their own Septuagint translation altogether. Did they do so? It seems they did. This is attested in VALENTINE’S JEWISH ENCYCLOPEDIA as follows under the heading “Septuagint”: the appearance of the Septuagint was greeted with enthusiasm by Jews everywhere; BUT, with the rise of the Christian Sect and Its adoption of the Septuagint as Its Bible too, the Jews began to denounce the Septuagint vehemently. Jewish believers in Jesus were saddened and confused about that about face by the Jews. They could not understand why a Jewish - Greek Bible, which “had been greeted with enthusiasm by Jews everywhere”, and had been honored and read in synagogues throughout the world, for some two hundred years, should suddenly become heretical and obnoxious to Jews? Simply put: 1. for over 200 years those 7 books were accepted by the Jews. 2. Jesus Christ and his apostles also used those 7 books. 3. after Jesus died and resurrected and was proclaimed the messiah, the Jews wanted to refute the claim. 4. the Jews mysteriously rejected those 7 books after the claim they had crucified the true messiah. 5. The Catholic Church published the first Bible with those 7 books included. 6. King James and his scholars originally had those 7 books in the original KJV. 7. Later on, because the Jews rejected those 7 books in the OT, the KJV bibles deleted them too.
Would you say that the apostles are infallibly as an individual? I dont think so but I wanted to ask to make it sure. The apostles preaching is not infallible because they are still humans. They are infallible within and through their communion with each other, but not as an individual. I mean it is preatty obvious that the apostles sometimes had different opions about certain topics.
Again with the Roman caricature of “40,000” different churches. This is why it makes it difficult to take a lot of what you say seriously. If you insist using outright false statistics, one has a tough time accepting what you say in apparent good faith as reasonable.
Any more than the Catholic, Orthodox & Lutheran Churches are too many as Jesus willed unity, not the confusion, division & scandal of 000’s of Protestant sects which is not of Jesus who willed unity Jn 17:11-23
@ Rome walked away from the debates, and the Western Catholic Church. She did not create her denomination until Trent, abandoning the Western Catholic Church allowing Luther and the Reformers to cleanse the Western Catholic Church of the Roman heresies with the Gospel. Worse yet, Rome’s Vatican II rejected much of her own denominations foundation at Trent!
@@stephenkneller9318 What elates are you referring to? The CC has no denominations, that is Protestant! Instead, she has 24 cultural rites, all loyal to Rome. The word Roman is a pejorative first used by Anglicans & blindly followed by Protestants
this redeemerzoomer argument I wonder how this argument works in the minds of Protestants. Can they prove that when the apostles were writing the books of the new testament, the apostles knew they were writing inspired by the holy spirit? and if they knew, can they also prove that it was revealed to the apostles that the material that was being written would be collected by the bishops and compiled into a single volume? Is this how they believe the bible was born? and How do we explain the many historical and archaeological evidences of the role of the church in the development of the biblical canon? It takes a lot of argumentative gymnastics to not see the truth
Also... where in the Bible does it say the Apostles knew it would be compiled into the Bible? To believe in Sola Scriptura requires a belief in more than Scripture alone. Ergo, it is self-contradictory.
Apostle Paul says scripture is Inspired by God, unless you believe he lied. The role of the church is not an issue or even an argument, strawman. What is it you want us to see? no gymnastics needed, church history is ambiguous concerning doctrine and not till the apologists do we see doctrine being better defined.
Correction: “a fallible church cannot *infallibly* produce an infallible Bible.” Said differently: the Bible could be infallible in some possible worlds, but the Bible would not be infallible in all possible worlds. That is, the infallibility of the Bible could not be known with certainty. We’re it infallible, it would be so by happy accident. And if it appeared to be infallible up to a certain time (meaning, not proven to have some error), one would still need to admit that this perception could be wrong, and that the Bible could be proven errant at some future time. There could be, ultimately, only a tentative belief in the general correctness of the Bible with the caveat that some errors may also be present, and not an absolute belief that the Bible contains no errors in faith and morals.
I would probably be Catholic if they had Apostolic continuation, where they continued the 12 Apostles and passed down the Apostle keys. In my view and opinion, the pope and cardinals are a man made office. They are elected by man, not God.
@@geoffjsThis fella is a Mormon. Mormonism is not technically Protestant which are groups linked to the original Deformers. We dont have a word to describe all the heretical groups that have spawned from the Deformers groups.
Really? The Book of Mormon: Another Gospel of Jesus Christ is in direct violation of what Paul said in Galatians 1:8. "But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach a gospel to you besides that which we have preached to you, let him be anathema". Mormons, as nice as they may be, are damned.
More worried about your human authority that you can see instead of focusing on the divine authority which we can not see. One is corruptible the other is not
Tobit can’t be in the canon because this verse is heretical. Why did Jesus have to die then? Revised Standard Version Catholic Edition 9 For almsgiving delivers from death, and it will purge away every sin. Those who perform deeds of charity[a] and of righteousness will have fulness of life;
@@Wgaither1 As previously stated, paying for indulgences is not Catholic teaching. I think that you’re reading too much into Fr Peter’s comment which was more ad lib or tongue-in-cheek. As a Catholic, I find James’s personality too supercilious, lacking humility & a false teacher. Just because he is articulate, doesn’t make him credible. Why does James White not allow comments on his videos?
I believe in the holy catholic and apostolic church; it is not Roman or protestant it is all true Christians. How do you disproved Scripture given by good Scripture is the only truth given to us and reliable.
I believe in the Catholic Church established by Our Lord in Matthew 16:18-19 on the rock of Saint Peter, with the keys and authority to bind and loose that fulfill Isaiah 22:22.
Jesus est His One True Church, Mt 16 18-19 with Peter as His first representative or Prime Minister Isa 22:22 which is the pillar & foundation of Truth 1 Tim 3:15 which Ignatius named as Katholikos or Universal in 107AD which codified your bible in 382AD which has existed for 2000 yrs, in spite of sinful men & is the longest existing human institution. Eph 4:3-6 One Lord, One Faith, One Baptism. Fact check if you don’t believe me. Without altars & no liturgical sacrificial worship, Protestantism generally, doesn’t have proper worship, so n
@ Easy! Even secular history confirms the list of apostolic succession from Peter as Linus was named and is recognised as the second Bishop of Rome (pope), followed by Anacletus, Clement of Rome, Evaristus, Alexander, Sixtus, Telesphorus, Hyginus, Pius, Anicetus, Soter and ... Why are Protestants in denial about the Truth!
@@geoffjs I believe you have misconstrued my remark, which was intended for the person who wrote the comment about an alleged “catholic and apostolic church” that is not Roman or Protestant, but just consisting of true Christians. Well, as far as I know, there are no apostolic churches other than Catholic and Orthodox. I was just questioning what that person meant by “apostolic.” Or what that person thinks “apostolic” means. PS - I am NOT Protestant!
Nice try dude, “He who hears you hears me” actually can be interpreted as read instead of hearing. The Greek work akouō just means to adhere, listen, take head, or hear
Your Pope said are religions pathways to God, so that would infer that the Roman Catholic Church is not the supreme authority on God. Which way Catholic man?
During her 2000 yr history, the CC has had some bad popes who never officially taught error, proof of her divine origin. The church recovered then & will do so again as He promised that the gates of hell would not prevail Mt 16:18
The authority can simply be God allowed the church to decide what books to use, but even then, God's revelation goes much beyond the book and Into His creations reality. Infallible dogma is not needed to know what is truth.
@ of course I accept the Orthodox popes and the office of the papacy as occupied by them as first amongst equals. If his holiness pope Francis repents of his error. We will welcome him back. 😀
@@EricAlHarb I do not understand what you mean by "We will welcome him back." It was the Orthodox Church which left the Catholic Church in 1054. The Catholic Church had existed ever since Our Lord established it in Matthew 16:18-19. It would be Pope Francis and the Catholic Church which welcomed the Orthodox members back home.
How do priests know how many Hail Mary’s and Our Fathers to assign for specific sins in order to absolve the person of their sins? And where did that tradition come from as a means to absolution of sins?
You confuse absolution of sins with penance. It's not saying some amount of prayers like Ave Maria or Pater noster that leads to absolution of sins. The priest can grant the absolution (check the conditions under which he can effectively do so in the Catechism of CC, it's available online). The priest may/should put an obligation of penance on the absolved person, which doesn't actually have to be saying the prayers you mentioned and which is important in spiritual life but is not what merits the absolution (Jesus Christ merited the absolution, obviously).
Why the King James Version of the bible is wrong. Did the Jews reject part of their own scripture? On page 📄 38 of Fr. Arthur, B. Klyber‘s (a Jew who converted to Catholicism) book, “Queen of the Jews”, he says: …the only way for Jewish scholars to invade. This evidence was to disown their own Septuagint translation altogether. Did they do so? It seems they did. This is attested in VALENTINE’S JEWISH ENCYCLOPEDIA as follows under the heading “Septuagint”: the appearance of the Septuagint was greeted with enthusiasm by Jews everywhere; BUT, with the rise of the Christian Sect and Its adoption of the Septuagint as Its Bible too, the Jews began to denounce the Septuagint vehemently. Jewish believers in Jesus were saddened and confused about that about face by the Jews. They could not understand why a Jewish - Greek Bible, which “had been greeted with enthusiasm by Jews everywhere”, and had been honored and read in synagogues throughout the world, for some two hundred years, should suddenly become heretical and obnoxious to Jews? Simply put: 1. for over 200 years those 7 books were accepted by the Jews. 2. Jesus Christ and his apostles also used those 7 books. 3. after Jesus died and resurrected and was proclaimed the messiah, the Jews wanted to refute the claim. 4. the Jews mysteriously rejected those 7 books after the claim they had crucified the true messiah. 5. The Catholic Church published the first Bible with those 7 books included. 6. King James and his scholars originally had those 7 books in the original KJV. 7. Later on, because the Jews rejected those 7 books in the OT, the KJV bibles deleted them too. So why do you use a counterfeit bible in a counterfeit church, teaching a counterfeit faith about Jesus Christ?
Paul’s words in Galatians don’t exactly support these conclusions. Paul specifically tells us he was not appointed by any group of people or any human authority, but by Jesus Christ himself and God the father. Yes, Paul was concerned with clarifying the gospel he’d been preaching aligned with the other apostles but, this was years after his journey began. He wasn’t preaching illegitimately before meeting the others because the message was in agreement. Ultimately, the apostles aren’t who is sending someone to spread the gospel message it’s the Holy Spirit. The message must agree with the gospel message that was given to the apostles by God through Jesus and the Holy Spirit. The difference in opinions come after this. Protestants basically believe that you still must be in agreement with the apostles but not all successors have been in complete agreement with the apostles. Roman Catholics basically believe that you must be in agreement with the apostles and all of their successors and that all of successors have been in agreement with the apostles. That’s how I see the distinction, beyond the support or denial of the papacy.
Did Jesus give His authority to the Apostles? No. Does Jesus say we have to acknowledge the authority of a particular body of leaders? No. "All power is given umto me in heaven and earth. Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen." Nowhere here does Jesus say He gives that power to anyone, but rather He gives the promise of His presence in this mission. We don't need power or authority, we stand in His. The fact that different leaders have diverged in some opinions doesn't bother Jesus. It bothers men with unproven claims to authority.
The Keys of the Kingdom which Jesus gave to Peter are the proof that Jesus gave His authority to Peter until Jesus returns. If you had read the Hebrew Scriptures (the OT), you would have understood the significance of the Keys. A King would traditionally leave the Keys of his Kingdom to his Chief Steward when the King was away from the Kingdom. Jesus and the Apostles were Jews and very familiar with this Davidic tradition. The Apostles would have understood exactly what Jesus meant.
Jesus Christ gave Peter the keys 🔑 (authority) over the other apostles. The Synoptic Gospels agree that Peter served as spokesman, the outstanding member of the group, and enjoyed a certain precedence over the other disciples. For example: -- whenever the disciples not belonging to the immediate followers of Jesus also recognized the authority of Peter (Mt 17:24); --Sought clarification from Jesus on behalf of the disciples (Mt 15:15); --Peter is mentioned by name, while others are indicated as merely accompanying him (Mk 1:36; Luke 8:35); --Even when the three disciples closest to Jesus, (“the pillars” - Peter, James and John) figure in a particular incident, it is frequently Peter alone who is named when the three are named, Peter’s name appears first (Mt 17:1, 26:37); --Peter was charged by Jesus affecting the strengthening of others (Luke 22:31,32); --The fact that Peter is emphasized in John and charged by Jesus to “tend my sheep” and “feed my lambs” at the same time The role of the disciples as a whole, is being de-emphasized attests to the prestige of Peter in the apostolic church (John 21:15,16). IT WAS PETER WHO: --Confessed the Sonship of Jesus (Mt 16:16); --was commissioned to lend strength to his brothers ((Luke 22:32); --on the morning of the resurrection, ran to the tomb, that the resurrected Christ first appeared (Luke 24:12); --whose priority as a witness to the resurrection, is found in the letters of Paul (1 Cor 15:5); --presided over the appointment of Matthias as an apostle (Acts 1:23-26); --first, raised his voice and preached at Pentecost the day, when the church came into being (Acts 1:14-39); --exercise the role of judge in the disciplining of those who erred within the church (Acts 5:1-10); --Let the 12 apostles in extending the church “here and there among them all” ((Acts 9:32); --walked on water towards Jesus (Mt 14:28-33); --witnessed, and spoke at the transfiguration of Jesus (Mt 17:1-8 & 2 Peter 1:16-18); --at the garden of Gethsemane (Mt:26:37). JESUS SAID TO PETER: --Blessed are you, Simon, son of Jonah (Mt 16:17-19); --for flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Heavenly Father --and so, I say to you, you are Peter --and upon this rock, I will build my church; --and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it; --I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven; --whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven; --Tend my sheep, and feed my lambs (John 21:15 & 16).
@ - Why the King James Version of the bible is wrong. Did the Jews reject part of their own scripture? On page 📄 38 of Fr. Arthur, B. Klyber‘s (a Jew who converted to Catholicism) book, “Queen of the Jews”, he says: "…the only way for Jewish scholars to invade. This evidence was to disown their own Septuagint translation altogether. Did they do so? It seems they did. This is attested in VALENTINE’S JEWISH ENCYCLOPEDIA as follows under the heading “Septuagint”: the appearance of the Septuagint was greeted with enthusiasm by Jews everywhere; BUT, with the rise of the Christian Sect and Its adoption of the Septuagint as Its Bible too, the Jews began to denounce the Septuagint vehemently. Jewish believers in Jesus were saddened and confused about that about face by the Jews. They could not understand why a Jewish - Greek Bible, which “had been greeted with enthusiasm by Jews everywhere”, and had been honored and read in synagogues throughout the world, for some two hundred years, should suddenly become heretical and obnoxious to Jews?" Simply put: 1. for over 200 years those 7 books were accepted by the Jews. 2. Jesus Christ and his apostles also used those 7 books. 3. after Jesus died and resurrected and was proclaimed the messiah, the Jews wanted to refute the claim. 4. the Jews mysteriously rejected those 7 books after the claim they had crucified the true messiah. 5. The Catholic Church published the first Bible with those 7 books included. 6. King James and his scholars originally had those 7 books in the original KJV. 7. Later on, because the Jews rejected those 7 books in the OT, the KJV bibles deleted them too. So why do you use a counterfeit bible in a counterfeit church, teaching a counterfeit faith about Jesus Christ?
You keep saying that the church taught, but if it's truth it's everlasting to everlasting. It doesn't need the church's authority to declare it as truth.
Great commentary. I still like the basic premise that in the 1500s AD it was absurd as a matter of common sense for humans then to invent and develop 180 degree opposite interpretations of what the apostles and founding fathers established as the teachings and statements uttered by Jesus and the recitation of events by the authors of the New Testament. Especially how starting in the 1500s and in the last 500 years the sola scriptura ideology has evolved to contend that the Catholic and Orthodox Churches don’t through the mass’ liturgy of the Eucharist consecrate and accomplish transubstantiation of the bread and wine into the real presence of the body and blood of Jesus. In other words after 1500 years certain humans foolhardily decided to contest and reject the holy Eucharist being the body and blood of Jesus.
Excellent point! Protestantism was the first satanic attack in 1517 followed by Freemasonry in 1717 & Communism in 1917, none of which has been successful! Mt 16:18
"But there are some of you that believe not. For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were that believed not, and who should betray him."- John 6:64. Judas NEVER believed. From BEGINNING. It's a LIE to say otherwise.
Do you truly believe Jesus in that the Eucharist is TRULY the Body and Blood of Christ, TRULY, in that TRANSUBSTIATION is False? Because many of the 'early Christians' TRULY believed they were digesting REAL BLOOD AND REAL HUMAN FLESH.....and you do not.
It’s not the one true faith. You don’t see anyone in the Bible devoting themselves to marry. Praying rosary beads. Praying to Saints. Going to mass. Viewing Peter as a pope. This is the reason why you guys have to fight against using the Bible alone. It allows you to teach whatever you want without having to have a basis for other than your church teaches it so.
@ When Jesus gave the model prayer, he always prayed to the father. Also, don’t try to justify praying to God through the Holy Spirit is the same as praying to Mary. We don’t consecrate ourselves to marry either. But you see your church doing that. You give more devotion to Mary than you do, Jesus. You might claim that you don’t, but you do. I go outside of your church. The first thing I see is a holy statue of Mary. Nobody gave her veneration. That’s even why after Pentecost you never see from her again.
If a fallible church cannot produce a fallible book. I get where you’re coming from. However following that statement then. Can a fallible person write infallible scripture or not? Or is it not the same thing? I don’t know if I agree with the one sentence statement. I see throughout the Bible and History that God uses fallible people to share his message with the exception of Jesus. Knowing this then is it possible that He could. do that with the Bible. I’m just curious to see your perspective from your Catholic tradition. God bless brother in Christ! 😁❤️
Peace of Christ be with you. I think you're mistaking Cameron's view. People are fallible and can write scripture, why? Because the Holy Spirit makes it possible, and when scripture is being written, that person could be considered infallible. Same with the Church, it may be fallible, but when it is recognising anonymous texts like the 4 Gospels, Acts, Hebrews as canonical, it is recognising them as canon infallibly, why? Because teachings and traditions have passed down through to them from the Apostles by the power of the Holy Spirit to then recognise which of these multitudes of texts are to be declared canonical. Are youaware that Shepherd of Hermas and 1st Letter of Clement were being read in Liturgies at Church as if they were canonical?
The bible is not infalible though scripture is. If scripture NEEDS an infalible church then the jews should also have an infalible church but correct me if im wrong i dont think anybody believes the jews were infalible. So then how do we know scripture is infalible? Well infalibility DOES belong to god and to an extent the church but "the church" ≠ a building. The church is the body of christ, the bride of God. This extends well past 4 walls and a roof. God guides his church which is so much bigger than the Catholic church.
"The foundation of Truth is not the bible, according to the Bible, the foundation of Truth is not the Word of God, according to the Bible, the foundation of Truth is the (Roman Catholic) Church." a very nice summary of what the Catholic position is on the topic... Though a pretty obvious terrible interpretation of the passage...Good rule of thumb if something is elevating you/your organization above God there may be something wrong with your interpretation. The church is your touchstone to be in the Spirit, and the Holy Spirit brings truth. Seems to me from the Acts 13 passage that The Holy Spirit sent out Paul and Barnabas through the church, the Spirit gave them office and the church's role was only to discern the Spirit... Why do you ignore the Spirit in your chain of authority? Why is the Holy Spirit's infallibility insufficient to preserve an infallible cannon? Also your Ignatius quote assumes something that is anathema to your message... That "wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church"(not RC) so "those who are led by the Spirit of God are the children of God"(Romans 8:14) not just those submitting to leaders who claim to be a part of the apostolic succession. As a protestant I do not understand why so many RC content creators seem to divvy up the role of the Holy Spirit between the RC Church and Mary, and leave the Holy spirit as a complete afterthought or non impactful part of our connection/relation to God.
If you read John 10:4 Jesus says that the sheep 🐑 follow him because they know (recognize) his voice. Luke 24:16, 31, and 35 is about 2 disciples on the road to Emmaus who meet up with Jesus on the way, but they are kept from recognizing him. After Jesus interprets the scriptures to them and he “breaks bread 🥖 “ do they recognize him, and he disappears. Do you know why? Read Luke 24:35. Then in 2 Cor. 3:13-18, Paul describes how when Moses came down the mountain from seeing God, his face shined like the sun ☀️. They put a veil over his face until the light subsided. Light represents truth. Paul says even today a veil covers the hearts 🫀 of men (meaning they can’t interpret scripture). He continues to say that the veil is removed only when a person is joined to Christ (2 Cor. 3:16). Jesus told us in John 6:56: “He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood abideth in me: and I in him.” This means Jesus in the Eucharist as the “bread 🥖of life” interprets scripture for us.
A couple points I didn't include that may be useful are:
1) The reason I believe that the Church can't produce new books of the Bible is because the Church teaches that the Canon is closed.
2) Even within the Church, many things are believed with human faith. Some Marian apparitions and private devotions are examples of this. The Church encourages diversity within a certain purview. If someone steps out of line then the Church defines their error so no one else makes it in the future!
3) No one is disputing that the apostles and profits were infallible and that their infallibility comes from God; however, since none of the apostles or prophets, wrote the table of contents for the Bible in order to say that it is infallible there has to be a different entity, possessing infallibility besides the apostles and prophets. Otherwise we have a fallible list of infallible books.
Do you think this argument works? Let me know!
I thought I remember Jimmy Akin or Trent Horn saying that the canon was not closed, that whatever council it was that defined them only attached anathemas to the 73 books. So in theory, if Eastern Orthodox ever come back into union their books could be added. I may be remembering incorrectly though.
@@Jonathan_214 correct. I have seen no citation of a Magisterial document asserting the canon is closed. If the Latin Church did in fact close the canon, it would create insurmountable difficulties for Eastern Christians that venerate more than 73 books as inspired Scripture.
@@sophia-proskomen Is it correct that the books beyond 73 recognized by eastern Christians are all related to the OT? They still accept only the same 27 books of the NT we do, right?
@ Ethiopian Orthodox (Tewahedo) do in fact have extra New Testament books
Addendum: it depends if you’re considering the “narrower” or “broader” canon. One big difference between East and West is the insistence on establishing a canon of Scripture at all. The canon is viewed as much less relevant of an issue in the East than ecclesiology and theology as a whole
A failed church clearly can we have seen constantly God taking out his people from the mud Biblical it's possible and highly likely
Sola scriptura in the first century:
Apostles: here what God says...
Disciple: where is it in the Bible?
Apostles: hold on, let me write it down...
🤷♂️
The deciples themselves claimed scripture over there own authority scripture was written with the holy spirit it was not a work of man alone
@orpheemulemo8053 missing the point completely. Disciple did not have scripture of the new testament for once, and even the scripture of the old testament wasn't easily accessible, was expensive and mostly was held by the priesthood or scholars, not by commoners.
Considering that most people were not literate they learn when scripture was taught by rabbis orally.
People followed the apostles first. The apostles didn't give handouts of scriptures, even the epistles themeselves were sent to some disciples with authority, were not sent to commoners.
People didn't have access to a personal bible until after the printing press, that is late in medieval times, after the reformation.
People had access to scriptures only by the church for 1500 years.
Lol!! True. 🙏🙏
@orpheemulemo8053no, they didnt lol, infact the early church didnt even held the new testament to be scripture but the old testament was, so the new testmant was just Christian tradition which was used to understand the old testament, so thats not sola scriptura at all, also what is scripture if not written tradition ?
@orpheemulemo8053and authority is the Holy Spirit in action. Jesus says so.
Fantastic!!
I have left the falsehoods of Protestantism after 12 yrs.
Been attending the Catholic Church for a year and now in RCIA.
Keep up the good work.
There are many difficulties and challenges for converts.
Thank you Cameron for your continued work. I'm coming into the Church this Easter. Please pray for me.
I will pray for you!
@ thank you Rita!
Prayers and blessings!
I’m a convert from Judaism. So thankful for my Catholic Faith!
@@jcolebusi You're welcome!
"Where Peter is, there is the Church." St. Ambrose.
"Wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church".
Ignatius of Antioch 107 AD.
Peter is in heaven..Antioch is not in Rome
@@1SigloUno Saint Peter is in heaven. Our Lord established His Church, the Catholic Church, on the rock of Saint Peter in Mattew 16:18-19. , He said, “You are Peter (rock) and upon this rock, I will build My church. I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. Whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.” This gives the Catholic Church the visible Head, the pope, who is a successor of Saint Peter.
@@RitaGatton it's built on the affirmation of what Peter said in Matthew 16:16. Jesus is the rock, cornerstone Matthew 7:24, 1 Corinthians 10:4, Ephesians 2:20. Peter is the small Stone John 1:42. Matthew 16:18 you are Peter ( Petros, small Stone) and upon this Rock (Petra, Jesus) I will build my church.
"And I tell you, you are Bible,.and on this Bible I will build my church" 😅😂
😂🙃
All church members are god-breathed and profitable for instruction...this cuts both ways.
What chapter and verse did you get that from? 🤣
haha i gotta use that one😂
@@Bill-ic3nu Matt 16:18 in any Protestant Bible.
GOD BLESS HIS ONE AND ONLY CATHOLICH CHURCH ✝️
GOD BLESS HIS ONE AND ONLY CHURCH .
rev says it will destroyed
@ Rev said the world wide church will be destroyed not His church which is all believers in Christ.
@@brucewmclaughlin9072 1 Corinthians 1:10-17
New International Version
A Church Divided Over Leaders
10 I appeal to you, brothers and sisters,[a] in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree with one another in what you say and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be perfectly united in mind and thought. 11 My brothers and sisters, some from Chloe’s household have informed me that there are quarrels among you. 12 What I mean is this: One of you says, “I follow Paul”; another, “I follow Apollos”; another, “I follow Cephas[b]”; still another, “I follow Christ.”
13 Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Were you baptized in the name of Paul? 14 I thank God that I did not baptize any of you except Crispus and Gaius, 15 so no one can say that you were baptized in my name. 16 (Yes, I also baptized the household of Stephanas; beyond that, I don’t remember if I baptized anyone else.) 17 For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel-not with wisdom and eloquence, lest the cross of Christ be emptied of its power.
Church
Easton's Bible Dictionary - Church
Church [N] [S]
Derived probably from the Greek kuriakon (i.e., "the Lord's house"), which was used by ancient authors for the place of worship.
In the New Testament it is the translation of the Greek word ecclesia, which is synonymous with the Hebrew kahal of the Old Testament, both words meaning simply an assembly, the character of which can only be known from the connection in which the word is found. There is no clear instance of its being used for a place of meeting or of worship, although in post-apostolic times it early received this meaning. Nor is this word ever used to denote the inhabitants of a country united in the same profession, as when we say the "Church of England," the "Church of Scotland," etc.
We find the word ecclesia used in the following senses in the New Testament:
• It is translated "assembly" in the ordinary classical sense ( Acts 19:32 Acts 19:39 Acts 19:41 ).
• It denotes the whole body of the redeemed, all those whom the Father has given to Christ, the invisible catholic church ( Ephesians 5:23 Ephesians 5:25 Ephesians 5:27 Ephesians 5:29 ; Hebrews 12:23 ).
• A few Christians associated together in observing the ordinances of the gospel are an ecclesia ( Romans 16:5 ; Colossians 4:15 ).
• All the Christians in a particular city, whether they assembled together in one place or in several places for religious worship, were an ecclesia. Thus all the disciples in Antioch, forming several congregations, were one church ( Acts 13:1 ); so also we read of the "church of God at Corinth" ( 1 Corinthians 1:2 ), "the church at Jerusalem" ( Acts 8:1 ), "the church of Ephesus" ( Revelation 2:1 ), etc.
• The whole body of professing Christians throughout the world ( 1 Corinthians 15:9 ; Galatians 1:13 ; Matthew 16:18 ) are the church of Christ.
The church visible "consists of all those throughout the world that profess the true religion, together with their children." It is called "visible" because its members are known and its assemblies are public. Here there is a mixture of "wheat and chaff," of saints and sinners. "God has commanded his people to organize themselves into distinct visible ecclesiastical communities, with constitutions, laws, and officers, badges, ordinances, and discipline, for the great purpose of giving visibility to his kingdom, of making known the gospel of that kingdom, and of gathering in all its elect subjects. Each one of these distinct organized communities which is faithful to the great King is an integral part of the visible church, and all together constitute the catholic or universal visible church." A credible profession of the true religion constitutes a person a member of this church. This is "the kingdom of heaven," whose character and progress are set forth in the parables recorded in Matthew 13 .
The children of all who thus profess the true religion are members of the visible church along with their parents. Children are included in every covenant God ever made with man. They go along with their parents ( Genesis 9:9-17 ; 12:1-3 ; 17:7 ; Exodus 20:5 ; Deuteronomy 29:10-13 ). Peter, on the day of Pentecost, at the beginning of the New Testament dispensation, announces the same great principle. "The promise [just as to Abraham and his seed the promises were made] is unto you, and to your children" ( Acts 2:38 Acts 2:39 ). The children of believing parents are "holy", i.e., are "saints", a title which designates the members of the Christian church ( 1 Corinthians 7:14 ). (See BAPTISM .)
The church invisible "consists of the whole number of the elect that have been, are, or shall be gathered into one under Christ, the head thereof." This is a pure society, the church in which Christ dwells. It is the body of Christ. it is called "invisible" because the greater part of those who constitute it are already in heaven or are yet unborn, and also because its members still on earth cannot certainly be distinguished. The qualifications of membership in it are internal and are hidden. It is unseen except by Him who "searches the heart." "The Lord knoweth them that are his" ( 2 Timothy 2:19 ).
The church to which the attributes, prerogatives, and promises appertaining to Christ's kingdom belong, is a spiritual body consisting of all true believers, i.e., the church invisible.
• Its unity. God has ever had only one church on earth. We sometimes speak of the Old Testament Church and of the New Testament church, but they are one and the same. The Old Testament church was not to be changed but enlarged ( Isaiah 49:13-23 ; 60:1-14 ). When the Jews are at length restored, they will not enter a new church, but will be grafted again into "their own olive tree" ( Romans 11:18-24 ; Compare Ephesians 2:11-22 ). The apostles did not set up a new organization. Under their ministry disciples were "added" to the "church" already existing ( Acts 2:47 ).
• Its universality. It is the "catholic" church; not confined to any particular country or outward organization, but comprehending all believers throughout the whole world.
• Its perpetuity. It will continue through all ages to the end of the world. It can never be destroyed. It is an "everlasting kindgdom."
Excellent video. This deserves several listens. And you just got a new subscriber
Protestantism naturally begets toleration of error. Rejecting the principle of authority in religion, it has neither criterion nor definition of faith. On the principal that every individual or sect may interpret the deposit of Revelation according to the dictates of private judgment, it gives birth to endless differences and contradictions. p. 8 from the book 📖 Liberalism Is A Sin
Well yes, it does tolerate error - outside the church. Which is right and proper as per Romans 13 and the example of the early church.
Catholicism naturally tends towards being a state church, tyranny, and keeps adding more and more requirements to salvation, in contravention of the gospel.
I was expecting that you had prepare a silver bullet and I was skeptical about it. Instead you made a very coherent argument, well done brother.
To me there is also the problem of personal interpretation that Peter argue against and also Acts 8:30-31
As much as this infighting destroys Christianity from within, the Church is the Bride of God. Protestants are divorcing God from his Bride, that is as evil as Muhammad when he told Zaid's wife to divorce her husband.
You have to say that about the orthodox as well not just protestants
Wow What a claim!! "A Fallible church can't produce an infallible bible" this is the final nail on the coffin of the sola scriptura !!! I borrow this from you brother Cameron it's just mind blowing smart and synthetic !!
So what parts of the Bible are the fallible parts?
The problem with this logic is that if the scriptures cannot be trusted, then neither does the church who uses them.
@@luxordfaith8506 watch the video again .. espacially the second part... Cameron is saying that the prots. can't consider the bible infallibile without implying the infallibility or the authority of the church which brought it togheter under the guidance of the Holy spirit.
@paulericn.mouafo6610 apologies, I have adhd, I typically reply to comments while watching the video (still making my way through it.) That aside that statement is not entirely true. In Galatians chapter 1, Paul writes that if either he (an apostle) or an angel (a divine messenger from God) were to say anything contrary to the Gospels, they were to be cursed. And due to apostolic succession, this rule applies to everyone within the church. Which implies that apostle successors can be wrong if they teach something that does not align with the scriptures, and there have been plenty of times within Roman Catholicism where this occurs. Thus, the scriptures can be infallible while the church itself is fallible.
@@paulericn.mouafo6610So you are saying God cant use non perfect people to deliver his word?
I question if you have read the bible at all then.
Where in the Bible does it say "Bible Only"?
Lucifer: I want more souls.
Minion: I have an idea. Let's make them commit the same sin as us - to be their own gods.
Lucifer: Interested. Explain.
Minion: Break them off of the CC. Give them a pseudo-basis with Sola Scriptura non-sense, but it sounds legit. Then, they can all interpret it anyways they want.
Lucifer: ... and in essence they all become their own gods. Brilliant.
Your pope already said all religions lead to God so what does it matter?
@@budzwithbudz6729
We know there were worse pope than this pope in the past. The bad popes does not make the Catholic faith false.
Try refuting Catholic teachings.
@@budzwithbudz6729 He also said "There is only one God, and religions are like languages, paths to reach God." after that. Think of it for a moment, for you can have a path that is not viable, like one that leads you off a cliff, yet it will still lead you to your destination if you were to overcome that. You can start from any religion, and among any culture, and with enough intellectual rigor or guidance you will rediscover God. The point was that there is nobody incapable of discovering God and we shouldn't deny the opportunity to use someone's faith to redirect them to the Truth.
Ironically, the speech opened up talking about armchair critics and people talking from their comfort zone and with technology.
"Young people are courageous and like to seek the truth but they have to be careful not to become what you referred to as 'armchair critics' with endless words. A young person must be a critical thinker, and it is not good never to be critical. But you must be constructive in criticism, because there is a destructive criticism, which only makes a lot of complaints but does not offer a new way forward." Even more ironically, you did destructive criticism, for you didn't even offer a way forward, demonstrating you're the exact armchair critic that is being talked about by the Pope.
Prots, as demonstrated by you, keep taking everything out of context, when if you put it into context, the Pope was speaking about not being closeminded and refusing to enter interfaith debates just because your faith is true.
Oh, and as was said in that same journey to Singapore, "Each one of us has our own abilities and limitations. Do we all have abilities? [Answer: “Yes!”] Do we all have some limitations? [Answer: “Yes!”] Even the Pope? Yes, all, all! As we have our limitations, we must respect the disabilities of others. Do you agree? This is important. Why do I say this? Because overcoming these things helps in your interfaith dialogue since it is built upon respect for others. This is very important."
Rethink your disdain for the Catholic Church, and maybe inspect things before you regurgitate something in spite.
Sola Scriptura, an obvious and poor justification of dividing Christs Church, it has an inbuilt ‘virus’ that ensures the constant division of their denominations and so can never threaten the primacy of Christs Catholic Church. (And it’s Catholic Primacy that keeps them gnashing their teeth and wailing)
Its a Babel virus, with the division being in ‘understanding’; Obviously there is no discernment to
between pride and the Holy Spirit, as there were 240 new Christian religions by the time Luthifer (sic) died. It’s over 50,000 now.
@@budzwithbudz6729 "Your pope already said all religions lead to God..."
- His words were, "All religions are paths to God." The Pope did not say all religions are equal or lead to God in the same way. Most people eagerly fill this in inside their own heads. The Catholic Church teaches that while other religions may contain elements of truth, the fullness of truth and salvation is found in Jesus Christ and His Church (The Catholic Church). Respect for others’ beliefs doesn’t negate this core teaching.
"...so what does it matter?"
- Because only in Jesus Christ and the Church he established, the Catholic Church, has the fullness of salvation. I'm no theologian so my wording may not be exact.
- The Second Vatican Council's document Lumen Gentium states that non-Catholics "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."
- So in other words, even those who are not Catholics, through no fault of their own, search for God sincerely in their hearts, they may have salvation available to them.
In this day and age of internet and 10 second clips, it's very easy to take things out of context. But if you listen to the whole thing, take into consideration the people to whom he's speaking, and pause the "I know best" arrogance (for many of us including Catholics), it may not seem so scandalous.
But even if the Pope did say something that is not theologically consistent with the teachings of the Catholic Church, it still doesn't prove or disprove anything. I'm sorry to disappoint many anti-Catholics, who may have a faulty understanding of Papal infallibility, but he is still only human and prone to error. Papal infallibility only applies in extremely rare cases, of which this incident was not. So for anyone thinking they have a "gotcha" moment, that gleeful moment is only out of ignorance of actual Catholic teachings and tradition.
In other words, it's a straw man argument. A no-point argument.
There’s 3 requirements for divine authority: being chosen (John 15:16); ordained (Acts 6:6); and sent (John 20:22). This mental, physical, and spiritual formula is a “fingerprint” evidence that God is a Trinity.
Great analogy and presentation! Also, consider the fact that Jesus said "...the gates of hades will not stand against His church..." Many Catholics and non-Catholics defies this...
Thank you Cameron for your effort ,as a Catholic myself i get to learn more about our faith everyday from you .God bless you 🙏
It’s “Melbuhn, Straya” mate. But what a nice surprise. Hello to you too. An excellent post as usual. You go bro. Amen to the Catholic faith, all glory to God!
Hey Cameron. I see 16K subscribers. All glory to God, congratulations. 😊
Hope we can bring our Protestant brothers and sisters back to Christ’s Church like their ancestors were.
We need to pray for them & to be good examples
I'm so tired of this argument " God wrote the Scriptures, not a church ". Like the Bible just came from the sky to fall in their laps.
in a manner of speaking
Prots and Muslimsare treading on the same logic
So God didn't? Confused by this.
This is a poor argument because it’s there to have a relationship with god that’s it.
@@dianareed3364 scripture was scripture before it was decided by a council.
40 minutes? Bruh....christ founded a church not a Bible. Done
@@jamiebussell2566 The Catholic Church
@@jamiebussell2566 "Wherever the bishop appears, there let the people be; as wherever Jesus Christ is, is the Catholic Church". ,St Ignatius of Antioch.
@@jamiebussell2566
Didn’t the Jerusalem Church pretty much disperse after Stephen’s martyrdom? My understanding is that the new center of Christendom was Antioch. Then the Church spread all over the Roman Empire and the place of primacy eventually became Rome.
@@jamiebussell2566 Our Lord established the Catholic Church in Matthew 16:18-19. He said, “You are Peter (rock) and upon this rock, I will build My church. I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. Whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.” This gives the Catholic Church the visible Head, the pope, who is a successor of Saint Peter.
@@MarilynBoussaid-yd1vkthe Antiochean Orthodox jurisdiction still has parishioners and is in communion with the other Orthodox jurisdictions. ☦️
The oral preaching of the apostles was definitely divinely inspired! That inspiration is called PENTECOST (Paul had his experience with the Holy Spirit when his name went from Saul to Paul.)
At the risk of speaking prematurely, since I didn’t watch the entire 39 minutes, and I knew where you were going with this apologetically - and I cannot dispute your claim with facts - I will instead impart a nugget I heard first hand from the mouth of Dr. Scott Hahn: That for the first 400 years of Church history the Bible was, quite literally to my Protestant friends who are reading this, the Eucharist, to which the teachings of the early church fathers clearly attest!
I love the reference to John 6. Many Protestants are those who don’t have the TRUST and so join those referred to in John 6:66.
BRILLIANT VIDEO CAMERON!!!!! ❤✝️ BLESSINGS ALL THE WAY FROM MONTERREY MÉXICO 😃
11 years ago, my nephew married a woman who's family are apparently practicing Baptists. During their wedding, they had grape juice, not wine since drinking wine, for them is forbidden. Sadly, like a lot of the health experts, the bible encourages wine with a meal. Just based on that, I could never be a Baptist, period. Fast forward these past 11 years, they have no children, and don't plan to have children, since financial freedom and early retirement is their goal. The great thing is about the "bible alone" is that you can select what you read, and since "being fruitful and multiply" and such are not really outlined, you can create your own personal dogma as well.
How come Mary and Joseph didn’t want to be fruitful and multiply?
Bro couldn’t stand not drinking wine and threw a fit 😂I’m confused you don’t have to have children to be happy and live a fulfilling life in Christ Jesus .Not everyone should have kids especially if they’re not financially stable .both horrible arguments
@@samo8240God did tell us to go forth and multiply.
Also, about not being financially stable to not have children… if our ancestors followed that, mankind would have perished a long time ago.
We most believe in God’s providence and have children!
@ I don’t understand why it’s a big deal tho it’s not going to make or break our salvation . Can having children lead to the spread of the gospel yes but at the same time I believe Gods will be carried out regardless of.
@@Wgaither1 Joseph & Mary are an exception because she is the Ark of the New Covenant & like the Ark of the OT, was untouchable as she was the Theotokos
Very well articulated.
Thank you for doing Gods work bro! I have learned so much because of you!!🙏🙏🙏
You really jam packed this video with such great info. Thank you!!!
I like the "Immune System" analogy!
Thanks!
You’re welcome ☺️
I’m a Jew who practices Judaism ✡️ and I come to accept yeshua as the messiah.
Cool
That's great. I pray more will come to know Yeshua as the Messiah.
There's a lot of good books about Judaism and its tie to Christianity. Here are some of them:
1. Salvation is from the Jews by Roy Schoeman
2. Jesus and the Jewish Roots of the Eucharist by Brant Pitre
3. Jesus and the Jewish Roots of Mary by Brant Pitre
@@Maria-dd1wi there’s also typology.
Me too! I was received into the Catholic Church in 1991! I’m so thankful to the Lord for His Mercy, and for leading me to the Church He founded. All I want is to be as close as I can get to Jesus - Yeshua - forever! 🙏✝️✡️💟💒
@@Maria-dd1wi
Yes! Wonderful books!
Also love Roy Schoeman’s Honey from the Rock!
I've NEVER heard anyone BLATANTLY twist and butcher the scripture like that!
"Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world.
2 Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God:
3 And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world.
4 Ye are of God, little children, and have overcome them: because greater is he that is in you, than he that is in the world.
5 They are of the world: therefore speak they of the world, and the world heareth them.
6 We are of God: he that knoweth God heareth us; he that is not of God heareth not us. Hereby know we the spirit of truth, and the spirit of error."- 1 John 4 verses 1 to 6. To just TAKE OUT verse 6 and apply it ignoring the whole TEST that you are TRYING with is SOOO WICKED. YOU REMOVED whole concept of TRYING the spirits that they are OF GOD or not.
Protestants use scripture 📜 (the word of God Luke 24:25) while Catholics have Jesus Christ ✝ (the Incarnate Word of God John 1:1) to interpret scripture. Scripture 📜is something that…
- Satan 😈 and deceivers use (Matthew 4:5; Galatians 1:6-8),
- that is veiled (2 Corinthians 4:3),
- that people deceive themselves into believing that it offers “eternal life” (John 5:39).
@@Bill-ic3nu Protestantism is still based on belief in Jesus Christ, Son of God. If anyone denies Christ's divinity or sonship, that person is neither Protestant nor Catholic, that person is a heretic. In a similar way to how Peter did not always uphold Christ's teaching (i.e. attacked a Roman guard violently, denied Jesus 3 times) and his own teaching and example (i.e. refused to eat with gentiles for fear of being judged), it shows that when people fail to follow a teaching, it doesn't mean the teaching is wrong. In this way, the idea that Protestants often interpret scripture on their own, it doesn't mean that Protestants do not trust Jesus to determine the meaning of Scripture for them, it means the people being examined are failing to follow the teaching of the church in general.
Godspeed, brother!
Wow great video Brother! Protestants! Watch this video in its entirety and examine yourselves.
If you don’t want the Eucharist, then truly, you don’t want Jesus!! it’s a no-brainer… even a caveman can figure this out!!!
I have read a book of Eucharistic miracles where even a donkey knelt down before the Blessed Sacrament.
There are five mysteries to meditate on Eucharistic devotion. 1. the wedding feast at Cana (Jesus changes water 💦 into wine 🍷(John2:1-12) 2. multiplication of loaves and fishes (John 6:1-15). 3. the teaching on the bread of life (John 6:22-71). 4. the last supper (John 14:1-1726). 5. the road to Emmaus (John 24:13-35). Rev. Robert Stein wrote A Scriptural Rosary for Eucharistic Devotion.
As Jesus told Thomas: Blessed are those who do not see, yet believe. Paul says in 1 Corinthians 11:29: “For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily eateth and drinketh judgment to himself, not discerning the body of the Lord.” Question, why would there be judgement on anyone IF IT’s ONLY A SYMBOL⁉
Do you think 🤔 that when Jesus Christ taught us to pray 🙏🏽 and inserted “give us this day our daily bread 🥖”, He was referring to normal food❓ No! He was referring to the Eucharist‼ The Catechism of the Catholic Church explains: The usual Greek word for “daily,” hemera, is, after all, used elsewhere in the New Testament, but not in this instance. Why did St. Matthew and St. Luke feel compelled to create a new Greek word to accurately reflect the words of Jesus? They most likely had to use a new word to faithfully translate a novel idea or a unique Aramaic word that Jesus used in His prayer. What was Jesus’ new idea? Although there are multiple levels of meanings to epiousios, Jesus is making a clear allusion to the Eucharist. “Our daily bread” is one translation of a word that goes far above our basic needs for sustenance, and invokes our supernatural needs.
St. Jerome translated the Bible in the 4th century from the original Latin, Hebrew and Greek texts to form the Latin Vulgate Bible. When it came to the mysterious word epiousios, St. Jerome hedged his bets. In Luke 11:3, St. Jerome translated epiousios as “daily.” Yet, in Matthew 6:11, he translated epiousios as “supersubstantial.” The root words are: epi, meaning “above” or “super;” and ousia, meaning “being,” “essence,” or “substance.” When they are read together, we come to the possible translations of “super-substantial,” “above-essence,” or, in effect, “supernatural” bread. This translation as supersubstantial is still found today in the Douay-Rheims Bible. Taken literally, our supersubstantial bread is the Eucharist. (CCC 2837)
John the Baptist called Jesus the “lamb of God” (John 1:29 & 1:36)? Jesus is the pascal lamb 🐑 to be sacrificed. The Passover tradition started when Moses and the Israelites sacrificed an unblemished lamb 🐑 . In order to have the angel of death 💀 to Passover them, THEY HAD TO EAT THE SACRIFICIAL LAMB 🐑 (Exodus 12:8).
THE EUCHARIST IS THE WORD OF GOD & the SACRED HEART 🫀OF JESUS: If you look up Eucharistic miracles you’ll discover Jesus literally gave us his heart for spiritual sustenance. When it came to the mysterious word epiousios, St. Jerome hedged his bets. In Luke 11:3, St. Jerome translated epiousios as “daily.” Yet, in Matthew 6:11, he translated epiousios as “supersubstantial (Douay-Rheims Bible). The correlation between the Lamb 🐑 of God, the Bread 🥖 of Life, the Light of the World, the Word of God, the Sacred ❤🔥Heart 🫀of Jesus, and the Eucharist.
Protestants use scripture 📜 (the word of God Luke 24:27) while Catholics have Jesus Christ ✝ (the Incarnate Word of God John 1:1) to interpret scripture. Scripture 📜is something that…
- Satan 😈 and deceivers use (Matthew 4:5; Galatians 1:6-8),
- that is veiled (2 Corinthians 4:3),
- that people deceive themselves into believing that it offers “eternal life” (John 5:39).
The paradox 🤔 of what Jesus said, that we do not “live by bread 🥖 alone, but by every word that comes forth from the mouth of God” (Matthew 4:4); we must remember that the WORD BECAME FLESH (John 1:14). It is this “flesh” (John 6:55) through which the “bread 🥖of life” (John 6:48) reveals the scriptures 📜 veiled meaning (2 Corinthians 3:14 & Luke 24:35) to His Church (1 Timothy 3:15). Jesus Christ gave us his Sacred Heart 🫀 (2 Cor. 3:3) to reveal these secret truths to us.
What does this demonstrate? It explains why there’s tens of thousands of Protestant denominations who interpret scripture 📜 the way Satan 😈 does: according to their perverted interpretation. It also explains why there’s one ☝ Catholic ✝ faith that is older and and larger than all Protestant denominations combined. It has Jesus Christ truly present in the Eucharist that interprets scripture for us just as He did for the two disciples on the road to Emmaus (Luke 24:13-35).
Sola scriptura assumes the Bible is inerrant and sufficient, but here’s the thing: How do we even know which books belong in the Bible? The Bible doesn’t give us a list of its own books. That decision came through the Church, guided by the Holy Spirit, using apostolic teaching and Sacred Tradition. Without that authority, a Protestant has to prove why every book in their Bible belongs there-and that proof can’t come from the Bible itself. That’s circular reasoning.
The challenge for Reformed Calvinists isn’t that they deny all authority-they actually misunderstand what apostolic teaching is. It’s not "made up" or "changed" over time; it’s the teaching of the Apostles, faithfully handed down through the Church. If we can help them see this, the idea of duo fontibus-Scripture and Tradition together-makes a lot more sense. They’re not in competition; they’re two sides of the same coin.
Great conversation Cameron! YBIC
This has been addressed ad nauseam.
@ yea, but there are more and more motivational speakers coming out with Jesus in the cover claiming sola’s.
Where in the Bible does it say Sola Scriptura?
@@SaintlySaavy - Why the King James Version of the bible is wrong.
Did the Jews reject part of their own scripture? On page 📄 38 of Fr. Arthur, B. Klyber‘s (a Jew who converted to Catholicism) book, “Queen of the Jews”, he says: …the only way for Jewish scholars to invade. This evidence was to disown their own Septuagint translation altogether. Did they do so? It seems they did. This is attested in VALENTINE’S JEWISH ENCYCLOPEDIA as follows under the heading “Septuagint”: the appearance of the Septuagint was greeted with enthusiasm by Jews everywhere; BUT, with the rise of the Christian Sect and Its adoption of the Septuagint as Its Bible too, the Jews began to denounce the Septuagint vehemently. Jewish believers in Jesus were saddened and confused about that about face by the Jews. They could not understand why a Jewish - Greek Bible, which “had been greeted with enthusiasm by Jews everywhere”, and had been honored and read in synagogues throughout the world, for some two hundred years, should suddenly become heretical and obnoxious to Jews?
Simply put:
1. for over 200 years those 7 books were accepted by the Jews.
2. Jesus Christ and his apostles also used those 7 books.
3. after Jesus died and resurrected and was proclaimed the messiah, the Jews wanted to refute the claim.
4. the Jews mysteriously rejected those 7 books after the claim they had crucified the true messiah.
5. The Catholic Church published the first Bible with those 7 books included.
6. King James and his scholars originally had those 7 books in the original KJV.
7. Later on, because the Jews rejected those 7 books in the OT, the KJV bibles deleted them too.
So why do you use a counterfeit bible in a counterfeit church, teaching a counterfeit faith about Jesus Christ?
@ agreed
Cameron brilliant EXEGESIS. As an 78 yo Australian Catholic woman catechized by the Sisters of Mercy in primary & high school; the element of mystery in faith was clearly taught. My summation of protestant faith, which guarantees salvation by faith alone, is unbelievably wrong thinking. This dogma puts God in a small humanlike box. God is righteous, and just; judgement is His alone (NO get out of jail excuses accepted). I'm proud of your clear explanation. Keep it going. There are a lot of scales to be shifted! I guess you're somewhere in America, whereas I live in a lovely regional town in NSW Australia with gorgeous beaches and koalas. God bless 😊
This guy's opening statement is that he can prove the infallibility of the Catholic Church how dare you we have the Bible we don't need the church for salvation.
Can you show me a Bible verse that says that? :)
@@CameronRiecker John 10:28-29
I give them eternal life, and they will never perish, and no one will snatch them out of my hand. My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all, and no one is able to snatch them out of the Father's hand.
1 John 5:11-13
And this is the testimony, that God gave us eternal life, and this life is in his Son. Whoever has the Son has life; whoever does not have the Son of God does not have life. I write these things to you who believe in the name of the Son of God, that you may know that you have eternal life.
What scripture shows the Catholic Church or church in general giving eternal salvation?
I'm using that one. Wow that's powerful.
Peace of Christ be with you. I think you're mistaking Cameron's view. People are fallible and can write scripture, why? Because the Holy Spirit makes it possible, and when scripture is being written, that person could be considered infallible.
Same with the Church, it may be fallible, but when it is recognising anonymous texts like the 4 Gospels, Acts, Hebrews as canonical, it is recognising them as canon infallibly, why? Because teachings and traditions have passed down through to them from the Apostles by the power of the Holy Spirit to then recognise which of these multitudes of texts are to be declared canonical.
Are youaware that Shepherd of Hermas and 1st Letter of Clement were being read in Liturgies at Church as if they were canonical?
Always use common sense and LOGIC. If people agree to all your premises but not your logical conclusion, then they are not using common sense and LOGIC.
Protestants use scripture 📜 (the word of God Luke 24:25) while Catholics have Jesus Christ ✝ (the Incarnate Word of God John 1:1) to interpret scripture. Scripture 📜is something that…
- Satan 😈 and deceivers use (Matthew 4:5; Galatians 1:6-8),
- that is veiled (2 Corinthians 4:3),
- that people deceive themselves into believing that it offers “eternal life” (John 5:39).
@Bill-ic3nu Yep! Only the Catholic way employs common sense and logic. Don't turn your brain off.
The definition of Scriptural typology or "types" is a biblical person, thing, actions, or event that foreshadows ne truths, new actions, or new events. In the Old Testament, Melchizedech and Jonah are types of Jesus Christ. A likeness must exist between the type and the archetype, but the latter is always greater. Both are independent of each other. God's call for the return of the Israelites from Pharaoh's bondage typifies the return of Jesus Christ from his flight into Egypt. In the New Testament the destruction of Jerusalem, foretold by Christ, was the antitype of the end of the world.
This is why so many Protestants don't understand or interpret scripture accurately. There's literally hundreds of thousands of types in scripture. Abraham offering up his only son is a type of God the Father offering up his only Son.
Jesus, Himself quoted scripture. And the Bereans checked everything Paul said against scripture. Its a big mistake for us to think we can make up our own rules.
He also said to hold to what the Pharisees taught because it comes from the chair of Moses.
They had authority over the believers.
That role has passed on to Peter, the apostles and whoever they appointed as bishops.
A high view of scripture doesn't mean that sola scriptura makes sense. Us Catholics have a very high view of scripture but we still believe that Tradition and Magisterium are infallible
And the chair of Moses came from my two tradition ie. The Mishnah (sp??).
We just keep in mind the Bereans would have been searching the Torah and prophets in what we now call the OT.
The longer I am Catholic, the more I see the absolute fallacy of SS because no matter what, but t still has to be interpreted through the reader's lens and personal biases.
The cheat sheets that you have added are great. I've made a habit of doing this in the past to help my apologetics. I have tons of notes on various subject matters that I could always reference.
I haven't however, found a good way to organize them. Do you just use Google docs? Or do you have some sort of software that you do Bible study on?
Thank you and God bless 🙏
Last chapter and last parágraf from gospel of John is something that would come into mind.
Sola Scriptura!!
“But I can’t read.”
Don’t worry, I’ll tell you MY interpretation of it. And if anyone disagrees, I’ll get mad.
Saying an fallible list of infallible books is an impossibility.
If the list is fallible, then at least one book on it has to be fallible. If they were all infallible, then the list wouldn't be fallible, it would have nailed it.
@@gainsofglory6414 it's an oxymoron!! ie something and his opposite acquainted.. For exemple a hot ice !!
Do you need more than the Gospel of John to understand salvation?
@budzwithbudz6729 obviously.
Are you saying the rest of the inspired bible is meaningless? It adds nothing of value to John? And is salvation really the only thing you find important to understand?
And how can you just read John as a modern person and have the hubris to think you have the same understanding of the book as a learned, 1st century jew would? The word "faith" itself just in scripture is used to identify a minimum of 3 distinct levels and concepts. Which one does John mean and when?
We don't care about salvation history? the covenential systems throughout the ages? divine revelation? Nothing?
We don't don't care about the dozens of other teachings on salvation outside of John?
That is where we differ I think my friend. Scripture all works together to show a full picture. You can't isolate a single aspect of a single teaching like only looking to John and make that single reference the entirety of the topic. Its mentioned dozens of other times in many other ways for a reason. I like to look to them all and make sense of the total message as best I can, with the guidance of the magisterium. It all matters.
There is no reason why there would have to be a fallible book just because the list was fallible. The Protestant Bible is missing Books. That doesn’t mean that a Book in it is fallible, only that their list is fallible.
@@MarilynBoussaid-yd1vk that wouldn't make it fallible. That would make it incomplete, but that isn't the same thing as making an error.
A list can be free from error and incomplete if its still being open to completion.
If you say the list is final and can't be completed, then objectively that would make it fallible because it says some books that are inspired were mistakenly not included.
And if a list messed that up, it can't be trusted.
Either way its sliced, its a very weird belief.
Thank you, well explained, helps a lot. By the way you look like Ragnar Lothbrok =)
This is a Supurb clear presentation for I as a catholic understand you clearly but as always other people will always have their own opinion understanding or explanation, but after all is said I want to thank you for your splendid work yeah amen Alleluia Deo Gratis 🙏🐑✨🕊️🔥
Nothing can be more precise than the instrument used to measure it. If the Bible is an infallible collection of infallible books, the the organization that promulgated it must itself be infallible.
Otherwise, you have, at best, a fallible list of infallible books.
Well said
This implies what? God told you He would preserve his words. He is infallible. You imply God had nothing to do with it which is false.
@MichaelAChristian1 God never said what was and wasn't his word. There was never a prophet, not an apostle, that gave a list of what Scripture is. Nor did the Bible appear in one go. It was argued over for a period of almost 1000 years (between the OT and NT canons).
@@irritated888 Thou hast KNOWN THE SCRIPTURES. You say "there was no known scripture and no one knew what scripture was". So who is lying? The Bible or your doctrine?
@MichaelAChristian1 would probably take a quick trip down history lane beloved!
St. Paul was talking about the Old Testament when Timothy was a child. Large parts of the New Testament hadn't been written yet. Nor does it give any list of what Scriptures he knew. We know there was disagreement over what was, and wasn't scripture. The collection that Timothy, a Jew with a Greek father, would have accepted was the Septuiagent, which contained books you would consider non canonical.
There are long debates recorded among early Christians on whether the Apocalypse was scripture, 2nd peter was contested for decades, Hebrews had many detractors. Lots of people held that Shepard of Hermas, the Didache, and the Acts of Peter were Scripture.
It's unfortunate, but there is no source for your canon outside of the Church Christ founded and promised to be with until the end of the age.
Sola Scriptura echoes what the Pharisees and the Scribes did to Lord Jesus and the Apostles
Wow! This is great! Thank you!
Judas died? I didn't even know he was sick.
Nicely put
I think there is a misunderstanding that disbelieving Sola Scriptura makes you not-protestant. There are some catholic traditions which the protestant church believes are unnecessary. For example, most protestants believe in 2 sacraments instead of 7. There is also a different ministerial hierarchy in the protestant church, a different order of salvation, and vastly different perspectives contributing to a unified belief system.
Jesus instituted 7, the sign of perfection, sacraments incl existing matrimony which are all biblical. Protestants recognising only 2 is both disobedient & unbiblical. In any event, without validly ordained priest in the unbroken line of apostolic succession, Protestants don’t have the Real True Presence in the Eucharist, hence, to them, it has to be symbolic!
Damn !! That's good. May I borrow that statement.
The two ✌️keys Jesus Christ gave to Peter represents the divine and temporal authority given to Peter (Matthew 16:17-19).
How do you know it was two? I have never heard anyone say how many.
@@MarilynBoussaid-yd1vk - if you ever see statues of St. Peter he's holding two keys. Dr. Taylor Marshall explained about the two keys significance. If fact, there's a church down in South America that Bergolio was at and it has a statue of St. Peter that got struck by lightning. Interestingly enough, the things that got destroyed was the keys Peter was holding and the halo over his head. A lot of people believe this act of God indicates Pope Francis is an anti-pope. They show before and after photos of the lightning striking the statue.
@@MarilynBoussaid-yd1vk - A lot of statues of St. Peter show two keys 🔑 , in Matthew 16:19 Jesus says “keys” 🔑, and Dr. Taylor Marshall explained what the keys represent. A statue outside of a church in Buenos Aires that Bergolio was at was struck by lightning ⚡️. It destroyed the keys 🔑 and the halo 😇 of the statue as if God is saying Bergolio is not an authentic pope or God doesn’t approve of him.
@@wallsign4575
Your disrespect of Our Holy Father Pope Francis and your obvious adulation of Taylor Marshall tells me everything I need to know.
@@MarilynBoussaid-yd1vk - I simply mentioned where I got the information from. You are falsely accusing me. SHAME ON YOU‼️ Pope Francis doesn’t need anyone to vilify him, he does it all by himself especially being in apostasy by idol worship of Pachamama in the Vatican. That’s just one ☝️ of many examples this pontificate has done to attack the tradition of the faithful.
If you're having coffee and Jesus appears to you & begins talking to you, I am going to ask what's in your coffee! 😄 But all levity aside, if "Jesus" appears and tells you that you should show reverence to Lucifer because Lucifer is his brother, are you going to believe him with divine faith? What if the apparition tells you that he never physically died on the cross? Are you going to believe him with divine faith? Your reasoning is so messed up. A Christian evaluates what he is told by the infallible written word of God as he (the Christian) reads it in proper context and with the aid of the church's traditional understanding as a fallible, lesser authority. This is why Galatians 1 says:
Gal 1:6 I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel:
Gal 1:7 Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ.
Gal 1:8 But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.
Gal 1:9 As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.
How do you know the verses he just quoted are Scripture?
"...with the aid of the church's traditional understanding..."
Except when that traditional understanding involves something I dont like
@rexlion4510 remember, Jesus the the way the truth & the life. How can He preach or tell to you & me that Lucifer is His brother, or He didn’t die on the cross?
Go back to the Bible, the divine Tradition & the Magisterium office of the Church! For us not to fall in heretical hands & ways.
@@secessionblog3189 Except when tradition says something contrary to Scripture.
@@raybacasmas8466 2Cor 11:14 "...for even Satan disguises himself as an angel of light." Cameron said he would believe anything told to him by an apparition of "Jesus." My point was that the apparition might not really be Jesus, and that is why we must compare whatever an apparition tells us to the Truth of the Bible. This is how the Marian apparitions have deceived Catholics who failed to compare against Scripture what (allegedly) "Mary" (actually a demon impersonating Mary) said. So I agree with you... go back to the Bible!
I see Protestants as believing God inspired 73 writings and gave them to the Church in 34 AD...instead of the Church debating the legitimacy of thousands of documents 400 years after Jesus' resurrection. That's their error. God inspired the writings, but the Church decided which writings were actually the Word of God. So, your tweet is 100% correct.
Very interesting stuff. I can only really speak for myself (I’m not a Protestant expert like you Catholics seem to be) but I think many Protestants DO believe in the infallibility of the early Church Canon scholars. We just aren’t sure “infallible” is the best description of the WHOLE Church.
The early scholars were not infallible. That term only applies on limited occasions when the popes & bishops teach officially on faith & morals.
The protestant's error occurs in the concepts of Orthodoxy and Orthopraxy. The scriptures record right doctrine (orthodoxy) and require that the Christian follow right practice (orthopraxy), however, orthopraxy is not recorded as diligently as orthodoxy as right practice can change over time based on different circumstances (as it has), and any documents about orthopraxy are internal church documents all the way back through the Apostolic Church even unto the Didache.
Orthopraxy helps to define orthodoxy and vice versa, ie. The Church. Without the governing authority of the Church, everyone is their own Pope.
22:25. I see what you did there. You played a sleight of hand conflating a bishop with being an apostle. While one would agree that the apostles most definitely were in leadership roles, this ignores the fact that in the early church, presbyters were the same as bishops. For example, St. Jerome wrote in his commentary on Titus:
‘The Presbyter is the same as Bishop, and before the parties had been raised up in religion by the provocations of Satan, the churches were governed by the Senate of the Presbyters. But as each one sought to appropriate to himself those whom he had baptized, instead leading them to Christ, it was appointed that one of the Presbyters, elected by his colleagues, should be set over the others, and have chief supervision over the general well-being of the community… Without a doubt it is the duty of the Presbyters to bear in mind that by the Disciplines of the Church they are subordinated to him who had been given to them as their head, but it is fitting that the Bishops, on their side, do not forget that if they are set over the Presbyters, it is a result of tradition, and not by the fact of a particular institution by the Lord.’
Even the Roman Scholar Eamon Duffy admits this. Furthermore, he affirms St. Jerome’s assessment on the early governance of Rome. He wrote:
‘Clement made no claim to write as a Bishop. His letter was sent in the name of the whole Roman community, he never identifies himself or writes in his own person… The letter itself makes no distinction between Presbyters and Bishops, about which it always speaks in the plural, suggesting that at Corinth AS AT ROME the church at this time was organized under a group of Bishops or Presbyters, rather than a single ruling Bishop.’ (Emphasis added)(Saints and Sinner: A History of the Popes).
To accept your sleight of hand, one would have to accept all presbyters and bishops were also apostles. This is obviously wrong. One can give the Apostles the honorific of bishops or even presbyters if he likes, but one must also admit the only difference in office was the title used. They were otherwise the same. So it is either ignorant or disingenuous to frame the Apostles as bishops, without this proper context. Furthermore, the Apostles held their authority as Apostles, not bishops or presbyters.
Looking back at your reference to Acts 1, we do find the Apostles replacing Judas. But what was left out, was the requirement for a replacement in this manner. Verses 22-23 says:
“Therefore IT IS NECESSARY TO CHOOSE ONE OF THE MEN WHO HAVE BEEN WITH US THE WHOLE TIME the Lord Jesus was living among us, beginning from John’s baptism to the time when Jesus was taken up from us. FOR ONE OF THESE MUST BECOME A WITNESS WITH US OF HIS RESURRECTION.” (Emphasis added)
The replacement of Judas’ office came with very specific requirements including that the replacement must have been a follower of Christ from the time of His baptism until his ascension. Very few could have filled those requirements. No one from the end of the First Century or the beginning of the Second could fill these requirements. As such, while suitable men could fill the office of Apostle did not exist. This explains why the church recognizes the Apostolic Age ended with St. John, the end of witnesses from Christ’s baptism until his ascension, and appointed by Christ himself, or the Apostles like St. Matthias.
Just before this you assert that one must be in union with the successors of the Apostles. Obviously you cannot mean a successor like St. Matthias. Therefore, these successors are Apostles themselves and cannot have the authority as the Apostles held. Obviously, these successors cannot write new canon. They are lesser than the Apostles. These lessor successors are the bishops and presbyters the Apostles tell us of in their writings.
Since these successors of the Apostles are lesser in authority, and cannot write new scripture, we can only judge to be in union with them by judging them by what the Apostles did leave us, Holy Scripture.
22:47 I see the framing you were attempting there. You appear to be saying that the teaching office of Christ’s Church only exists with the Apostles. (If I am wrong, please correct me.) This is provably false. Let’s look at St. Paul’s protege, St. Timothy. He was no Apostle, yet no one cannot deny that St. Timothy preached and taught what he had himself been taught. Furthermore, does one think that all the presbyters and bishops appointed by the Apostles did not preach and teach?
25:32. I see what you did there. You added the Roman denomination into that chain of authority, without providing any evidence.
Let’s add context to St. Ignatius of Antioch quote you used at 26:02. “Catholic Church” should be properly translated as the “Universal Church”, that is Christ’s Church. It is disingenuous to present this in a manner that infers it is the modern Roman denomination.
An even bigger problem with this quote is you do not properly attribute it. And this is a very important point because you appear to have parsed together parts of it to say what you want it to say.
St. Ignatius of Antioch wrote in The Epistle of Ignatius to the Smyrnaeans, Chapter 8. “Let nothing be done without the bishop”:
“See that you all follow the bishop, even as Jesus Christ does the Father, and the presbytery as you would the apostles; and reverence the deacons, as being the institution of God. Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is [administered] either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude [of the people] also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church. It is not lawful without the bishop either to baptized or to celebrate a love-feast; but whatsoever he shall approve of, that is also pleasing to God, so that everything that is done may be secure and valid.”
You should have used the full quote, or at least added ellipsis to demonstrate the quote properly. Finally, you should have added context to what St. Ignatius of Antioch was addressing.
The Smyrnaeans were dealing with docetist heretics. Obviously, St. Ignatius of Antioch trusted the Bishop of Smyrna to prevent the Docetist heretics from infecting the Church at Smyrna, thus advising the congregation to not only honor him, but also to obey him, thus preventing the heretics from leading the church astray.
Do you know what St. Ignatius isn’t saying? Anything about appealing to a bishop in Rome to settle issues… ⬇️⬇️⬇️
26:20 What is St. Ignatius saying? In context, he is saying the Smyrnaeans need to follow their bishop as Christ follows the Father to deal with the Docetist heretics.
26:59 Despite your buildup, you are wrong. A bishop does not have the Office of Apostle. I have clearly demonstrated this above. Did Christ Himself appoint every bishop? No. Did the Apostles themselves appoint every bishop? No. Do any bishops today meet the requirements of Act 1:22-24? No. You are baselessly making a claim at this point.
What can be argued is this. Did Christ appoint his Apostles? Yes. Did the Apostles use their office to appoint a replacement for Judas and other witnesses of Christ’s baptism, His ministry, His death, His resurrection, and His ascension? Yes. Did the Apostles establish successors by calling and ordaining bishops and presbyters? Yes. Did those bishops and presbyters, continue to call and ordain successors? Yes.
But this is not the argument you made. Instead you are adding your Roman biases to actual history to arrive at your conclusions.
27:59 You again add the Roman denomination when you say the that the ability to teach things with divine faith comes from the father to the Roman denomination based upon St. Augustine.
So what can one say to St. Augustine?
"St Augustine is quoted as having written in the book against the Letter of the Manicheans, ‘I would not believe the Gospel if I did not believe the Church.’ Here you see we are to believe the Church more than the Gospel. ⬇️⬇️⬇️
I answer: Even if Augustine had used those words, who gave him authority, that we must believe what he says? What Scripture does he quote to prove the statement? What if he erred here, as we know that he frequently did, as did all the fathers? Should one single sentence of Augustine be so mighty as to refute all the texts quoted above… ? That is not what God wills; St. Augustine must yield to them.
Further, if that were St. Augustine's meaning he would contradict himself; for in very many places he exalts the HoIy Scriptures above the opinions of all teachers, above the decrees of all councils and churches, and will have men judge of him and of the teachings of all men according to the Scriptures. Why then do the faithful shepherds pass by those sayings of St. Augustine, plain and clear as they are, and light on this lonely one, which is so obscure and sounds so unlike Augustine as we know him from all his writings? It can only be because they want to bolster up their tyranny with idle, empty words.
Furthermore, they are deceivers, in that they not only ascribe to St. Augustine an opinion he did not hold, but they also falsify and pervert his words. For St. Augustine's words really are 'I would not have believed the Gospel if the authority of the whole Church had not moved me.'
Augustine speaks of the whole Church, and says that throughout the world it with one consent preaches the Gospel and not the Letter of the Manicheans; and this unanimous authority of the Church moves him to consider it the true Gospel. But our tyrants apply this name of the Church to themselves, as if the laymen and the common people were not also Christians. And what they teach they want men to consider as the teaching of the Christian Church, although, they are a minority, and we, who are universal Christendom, should also be consulted about what is to be taught in the name of universal Christendom. See, so cleverly do they quote the words of St. Augustine: what he says of the Church throughout all the world, they would have us understand of the Roman See.
But how does it follow from this saying that the doctrines of men are also to be observed? What doctrine of men has ever been devised that has been accepted and preached by all of the universal Church throughout the world? Not one; the Gospel alone is accepted by all Christians everywhere.
But then we must not understand St. Augustine to say that he would not believe the Gospel unless he were moved thereto by the authority of the whole Church. For that were false and unchristian. Every man must believe only because it is God's Word, and because he in convinced in his heart that it is true, although an, angel from heaven and all the world preached the contrary. His meaning is rather, as he himself says, that he finds the Gospel nowhere except in the Church, and that this external proof can be given heretics that their doctrine is not right, but that that is right which all the world has with one accord accepted. For the eunuch in Acts viii, 37, believed on the Gospel as preached by Philip, although he did not know whether many or few believed on it. So also Abraham believed the promise of God all by himself, when no man knew of it, Romans iv, 18. And Mary, Luke i, 38, believed the message of Gabriel by herself, and there was no one on earth who believed with her. In this way Augustine also had to believe, and all the saints, and we too, every one for himself alone.
For this reason St. Augustine's words cannot bear the interpretation they put upon them; but they must be understood of the external proof of faith, by which heretics are refuted and the weak strengthened in faith, when they see that all the world preaches and regards as Gospel that which they believe. And if this meaning cannot be found in St. Augustine's words; for they are contrary to the Scriptures and all to experience if they have that other meaning." (Dr. M. Luther)
28:10. He who hears the “catholic church” (see above), that is Christ’s Church, not the Roman denomination you claim…
28:22 Yes, Christ’s Church came first, and then the Gospels. But you infer this is the Roman denomination. And again, you provide no proof that it is the Roman denomination.
28:48 Rome did not define its canon until 8 April, 1546 at Trent, more than a decade later than Luther’s German translation was published! Do you even know history or your own tradition? Your claim that the Roman demolition “causes the Scriptures to be” is not only probably false, it is absolutely stated out of delusion! Look back at your earlier reference to St. Ignatius. Even in the early Second Century, he was quoting New Testament Scripture. It existed before Rome declared her biblical canon 14 centuries later!
30:15 And why were the books that weren’t Scripture eliminated? If one actually reads Scripture, he will find that God himself tells us that He would preserve His Word for us. (Psalms 12:6-8, Isaiah 40:6-8) God also tells us that the Holy Spirit will guide us to His Word (Jn. 14:26), guide us to the truth (Jn. 16:13-14), and that the Holy Spirt helps believers interpret spiritual truth like God’s Breathed Word. (1Cor 2:13-15)
Leave it to Rome to claim for herself what God Himself has done! The arrogance!
Did God use Rome to preserve Scripture? Maybe? Rome cannot make a claim as Rome until 1054. And even then, the Western Church of 1054 is not the Church of Rome today. The Roman denomination of today was created at Trent. And even that isn’t necessarily true because Vatican II, changed many things, rejecting much of Trent!
Furthermore, this is proven by the Apostles themselves. “Therefore, beloved, since you are waiting for these, be diligent to be found by him without spot or blemish, and at peace. And count the patience of our Lord as salvation, JUST AS OUR BELOVED BROTHER PAUL ALSO WROTE TO YOU ACCORDING TO THE WISDOM GIVEN HIM, AS HE DOES IN ALL HIS LETTERS WHEN HE SPEAKS IN THEM OF THESE MATTERS. There are some things in them that are hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, AS THEY DO THE OTHER SCRIPTURES.” (Emphasis added)
St. Peter himself attests to knowledge of at least some of St. Paul’s letters being Scripture. Even in the Apostolic Age, we can see from this verse that the Epistles shared and St. Peter was obviously aware of what St. Paul wrote.
More over, in 1 Timothy 5:18, St. Paul quotes St. Luke (10:7) affirming this Gospel as Scripture, again in the Apostolic Age. Add to that, St. Ignatius of Antioch himself, in he Second Century, himself mentions the Gospels and quotes New Testament Scripture in your own reference, before there is even a historically proven monarchal Bishop in Rome! So how could “Rome” give us the Scripture? Did Rome give us the Old Testament even as she was vile pagan polity?
32:32. You reject the inerrancy of Scripture! Can the Bible “communicate with the modern issues”? Do you reject 2 Timothy 3:16-17? Especially answer verse 17 in reference to verse 16. Those in Rome ignore this.
33:47 You add Papal infallibility out of the blue. Where is your evidence? You are making a baseless claim. Just because a Bishop of Rome was n 1870, involved in war and faced with the loss of lands, declares himself “infallible” in a Hail Mary attempt to prevent those losses, we must accept this political decision as “theological”? Again, you ignore all context. It is sad.
34:57 The Roman Pornocracy proves that Rome is not infallible. Furthermore, the current Bishop of Rome is accelerating the heresy of the Roman See. But that is not the worst part of this. The worst part is Rome claiming for herself God’s Work and Promise in Psalms 12:6-8, Isaiah 40:6-8.
37:40 You claim the Roman Magisterium is infallible. Based on what? Your claim? It will always teach the truth? Well, pre-Reformation the Magisterium taught that people may buy their way out of purgatory for themselves or those who are dead with Roman indulgences. (Granted, the Bishop of Rome received fifty percent of the revenue.) But Tridentine Rome said that indulgences cannot be sold. So which is right? Regardless of the answer, this alone disproves the claims of an infallible Magisterium. Of the Magisterium was infallible, this paradox would not exist. This alone prove that John Newman’s quote of, “to be deep in history is to cease to be Protestant” is absolutely false. To be deep in history proves the claims of Rome are false.
37:57 What do you mean by saying the table of contents are infallible? (This is another sophomoric Roman statement often heard.) What is the authority? Have you read the Bible? (Look above.)
38:26. You are right to say, “the [Romans] would say it is the Pope.” You are absolutely wrong because God Himself tells us that it is He in Psalms 12:6-8, Isaiah 40:6-8. And to make the point, Rome had absolutely nothing to do with the canonicity of these verses.
38:42 When you say, “the church produces the Bible infallibly” is only true if you mean Christ’s Church. This does not mean Rome as you infer. For it is God Himself who preserves His own Word. (Psalms 12:6-8, Isaiah 40:6-8)
You disproved nothing in this video. But you have demonstrated circumstances to make one question your presentations as even valid.
Yes, we know you must present the Roman demonstration’s views, regardless of how unbiblical they are. You must make claims that were only made in the last 250 years, and worse yet push those heretical views back another 1900 years. We understand the ahistorical and impossible biblical views you must state. What is sad, you, in all your apparent logic, cannot see these facts. Sadly the “Roman truth” is as obnoxious as the “our truth” arguments of the secular and worldly “churches” who reject the inerrancy of the Scriptures and add modern lifestyles as “holy”. Unfortunately for you, your own Bishop of Rome pushes the same heresies. Yet, you are blind to them.
The apostles were the first bishops who ordained successors & priests to act on their behalf
@ The Apostles ordained the Bishops and Presbyters.
The Apostles were an complete different office, and office that a believing man could only hold if he was appointed an Apostle by Christ Himself, or, if appointed by other Apostles, was a follower and witness of Christ’s entire ministry , from His baptism until His assumption.
Thanks! 1000% rock solid! I can now marry Catholicisn!
Could somebody assemble a large load of Clips repeating the False Nostrim that the Scriptures created the Church.
That is simply impossible.
My 1 sentence rebuttal of Sola Scriptura.
Sincerely in Xto
Mike B. B. From Philly, P.A. U.S.A.
Jesus left us His Church, not the Bible which the CC codified in 382
Apostle to each other:
"Guys, let's not teach about Jesus before Paul repent & John gets Revelation. We must use Scripture only, agree guys?"
Protestants use scripture 📜 (the word of God Luke 24:25) while Catholics have Jesus Christ ✝ (the Incarnate Word of God John 1:1) to interpret scripture. Scripture 📜is something that…
- Satan 😈 and deceivers use (Matthew 4:5; Galatians 1:6-8),
- that is veiled (2 Corinthians 4:3),
- that people deceive themselves into believing that it offers “eternal life” (John 5:39).
Scripture above Tradition.
When Tradition supercedes scripture, I'll go with the scripture. And for that reason I won't go with the Catholics, because they value their human tradition higher than the scriptures.
Nothing wrong with tradition in itself, as long as the tradition doesn't go against scripture.
Also, the whole "Oral teachings are on par with written teachings" is exactly the same line of reasoning that the Pharisees used to try and bolster the Mishnah, the Talmud and the Midrash. They claim Moses created an Oral Torah (the above) at the same time as the written Torah, and that the oral Torah was equally binding on the Jews. Ultra Orthodox Jews still hold to this today. Karaite Jews stick to Tanakh. Pharisees used the exact same arguments for "Apostolic succession" but just swap Jesus out for Moses. That's why the Synagogues had "Moses seats".
Everything needed from the oral teachings of the Apostles was recorded by the close of the first century. That's what was needed when things started. But then, they started writing things down.
It is basic logic via the law of noncontradiction. Catholicism teaches that Sacred Scripture was authored by God, this is a tradition itself. Therefore, since Sacred Scripture is written, verifiable, unchanging and true it is the perfect measure of all other Tradition. Any Tradition which goes against Sacred Scripture cannot be a Tradition, this is the law of noncontradiction.
The Catechism of the Catholic Church affirms Sola Scriptura yet they run around squawking 'where in the bible does it say Sola Scriptura' yet if any one of them read their Catechism that can see Sola Scriptura right there. They are blinded all by hatred and ignorance.
which part of the bible is not from God?
Protestant and post Vatican II Catholic bibles. Just kidding....sort of
Why the King James Version of the bible is wrong.
Did the Jews reject part of their own scripture? On page 📄 38 of Fr. Arthur, B. Klyber‘s (a Jew who converted to Catholicism) book, “Queen of the Jews”, he says: …the only way for Jewish scholars to invade. This evidence was to disown their own Septuagint translation altogether. Did they do so? It seems they did. This is attested in VALENTINE’S JEWISH ENCYCLOPEDIA as follows under the heading “Septuagint”: the appearance of the Septuagint was greeted with enthusiasm by Jews everywhere; BUT, with the rise of the Christian Sect and Its adoption of the Septuagint as Its Bible too, the Jews began to denounce the Septuagint vehemently. Jewish believers in Jesus were saddened and confused about that about face by the Jews. They could not understand why a Jewish - Greek Bible, which “had been greeted with enthusiasm by Jews everywhere”, and had been honored and read in synagogues throughout the world, for some two hundred years, should suddenly become heretical and obnoxious to Jews?
Simply put:
1. for over 200 years those 7 books were accepted by the Jews.
2. Jesus Christ and his apostles also used those 7 books.
3. after Jesus died and resurrected and was proclaimed the messiah, the Jews wanted to refute the claim.
4. the Jews mysteriously rejected those 7 books after the claim they had crucified the true messiah.
5. The Catholic Church published the first Bible with those 7 books included.
6. King James and his scholars originally had those 7 books in the original KJV.
7. Later on, because the Jews rejected those 7 books in the OT, the KJV bibles deleted them too.
So why do you use a counterfeit bible in a counterfeit church, teaching a counterfeit faith about Jesus Christ?
Why the King James Version of the bible is wrong.
Did the Jews reject part of their own scripture? On page 📄 38 of Fr. Arthur, B. Klyber‘s (a Jew who converted to Catholicism) book, “Queen of the Jews”, he says: …the only way for Jewish scholars to invade. This evidence was to disown their own Septuagint translation altogether. Did they do so? It seems they did. This is attested in VALENTINE’S JEWISH ENCYCLOPEDIA as follows under the heading “Septuagint”: the appearance of the Septuagint was greeted with enthusiasm by Jews everywhere; BUT, with the rise of the Christian Sect and Its adoption of the Septuagint as Its Bible too, the Jews began to denounce the Septuagint vehemently. Jewish believers in Jesus were saddened and confused about that about face by the Jews. They could not understand why a Jewish - Greek Bible, which “had been greeted with enthusiasm by Jews everywhere”, and had been honored and read in synagogues throughout the world, for some two hundred years, should suddenly become heretical and obnoxious to Jews?
Simply put:
1. for over 200 years those 7 books were accepted by the Jews.
2. Jesus Christ and his apostles also used those 7 books.
3. after Jesus died and resurrected and was proclaimed the messiah, the Jews wanted to refute the claim.
4. the Jews mysteriously rejected those 7 books after the claim they had crucified the true messiah.
5. The Catholic Church published the first Bible with those 7 books included.
6. King James and his scholars originally had those 7 books in the original KJV.
7. Later on, because the Jews rejected those 7 books in the OT, the KJV bibles deleted them too.
Would you say that the apostles are infallibly as an individual? I dont think so but I wanted to ask to make it sure. The apostles preaching is not infallible because they are still humans. They are infallible within and through their communion with each other, but not as an individual. I mean it is preatty obvious that the apostles sometimes had different opions about certain topics.
Again with the Roman caricature of “40,000” different churches. This is why it makes it difficult to take a lot of what you say seriously. If you insist using outright false statistics, one has a tough time accepting what you say in apparent good faith as reasonable.
How many is too many?
Any more than the Catholic, Orthodox & Lutheran Churches are too many as Jesus willed unity, not the confusion, division & scandal of 000’s of Protestant sects which is not of Jesus who willed unity Jn 17:11-23
@ Rome walked away from the debates, and the Western Catholic Church. She did not create her denomination until Trent, abandoning the Western Catholic Church allowing Luther and the Reformers to cleanse the Western Catholic Church of the Roman heresies with the Gospel.
Worse yet, Rome’s Vatican II rejected much of her own denominations foundation at Trent!
@@stephenkneller9318 What elates are you referring to? The CC has no denominations, that is Protestant! Instead, she has 24 cultural rites, all loyal to Rome. The word Roman is a pejorative first used by Anglicans & blindly followed by Protestants
@@stephenkneller9318
So Luther didn't promise to submit to the supreme pontiff?
Regardless of it's verdict?
this redeemerzoomer argument I wonder how this argument works in the minds of Protestants.
Can they prove that when the apostles were writing the books of the new testament, the apostles knew they were writing inspired by the holy spirit? and if they knew, can they also prove that it was revealed to the apostles that the material that was being written would be collected by the bishops and compiled into a single volume?
Is this how they believe the bible was born?
and How do we explain the many historical and archaeological evidences of the role of the church in the development of the biblical canon?
It takes a lot of argumentative gymnastics to not see the truth
Also... where in the Bible does it say the Apostles knew it would be compiled into the Bible?
To believe in Sola Scriptura requires a belief in more than Scripture alone. Ergo, it is self-contradictory.
Paul wrote WITH PERMISSION. Remember? And so on?
Apostle Paul says scripture is Inspired by God, unless you believe he lied. The role of the church is not an issue or even an argument, strawman. What is it you want us to see? no gymnastics needed, church history is ambiguous concerning doctrine and not till the apologists do we see doctrine being better defined.
40 min for 1 tweet? 🙃😇
Correction: “a fallible church cannot *infallibly* produce an infallible Bible.”
Said differently: the Bible could be infallible in some possible worlds, but the Bible would not be infallible in all possible worlds. That is, the infallibility of the Bible could not be known with certainty. We’re it infallible, it would be so by happy accident. And if it appeared to be infallible up to a certain time (meaning, not proven to have some error), one would still need to admit that this perception could be wrong, and that the Bible could be proven errant at some future time. There could be, ultimately, only a tentative belief in the general correctness of the Bible with the caveat that some errors may also be present, and not an absolute belief that the Bible contains no errors in faith and morals.
I would probably be Catholic if they had Apostolic continuation, where they continued the 12 Apostles and passed down the Apostle keys.
In my view and opinion, the pope and cardinals are a man made office. They are elected by man, not God.
Yeah. Just like how a modern-day prophet is a man made office. And how the melchizedek priesthood is a man made office
More Protestant bias & ignorance.
Of course the CC has apostolic succession, even secular history agrees!
all popes and cardinals are bishops
@@geoffjsThis fella is a Mormon. Mormonism is not technically Protestant which are groups linked to the original Deformers.
We dont have a word to describe all the heretical groups that have spawned from the Deformers groups.
Really? The Book of Mormon: Another Gospel of Jesus Christ is in direct violation of what Paul said in Galatians 1:8. "But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach a gospel to you besides that which we have preached to you, let him be anathema". Mormons, as nice as they may be, are damned.
More worried about your human authority that you can see instead of focusing on the divine authority which we can not see. One is corruptible the other is not
Tobit can’t be in the canon because this verse is heretical. Why did Jesus have to die then? Revised Standard Version Catholic Edition
9 For almsgiving delivers from death, and it will purge away every sin. Those who perform deeds of charity[a] and of righteousness will have fulness of life;
The book of Tobit was considered by the CC, guided by the HS, to be inspired & thus included in the canon which was accepted until the Deformation
@ So you agree with Father Peter M.J. Stravinskas that you could write a check to get someone in purgatory sins purged
@ That is not Catholic teaching, money has no relevance. Pls quote the context of Fr Peter’s quote!
@@geoffjs Go watch the video of the debate with him and James White, the q&a part
@@Wgaither1 As previously stated, paying for indulgences is not Catholic teaching. I think that you’re reading too much into Fr Peter’s comment which was more ad lib or tongue-in-cheek.
As a Catholic, I find James’s personality too supercilious, lacking humility & a false teacher. Just because he is articulate, doesn’t make him credible. Why does James White not allow comments on his videos?
I believe in the holy catholic and apostolic church; it is not Roman or protestant it is all true Christians. How do you disproved Scripture given by good Scripture is the only truth given to us and reliable.
I believe in the Catholic Church established by Our Lord in Matthew 16:18-19 on the rock of Saint Peter, with the keys and authority to bind and loose that fulfill Isaiah 22:22.
Jesus est His One True Church, Mt 16 18-19 with Peter as His first representative or Prime Minister Isa 22:22 which is the pillar & foundation of Truth 1 Tim 3:15 which Ignatius named as Katholikos or Universal in 107AD which codified your bible in 382AD which has existed for 2000 yrs, in spite of sinful men & is the longest existing human institution. Eph 4:3-6 One Lord, One Faith, One Baptism. Fact check if you don’t believe me.
Without altars & no liturgical sacrificial worship, Protestantism generally, doesn’t have proper worship, so n
In what way is this alleged church you call “catholic and apostolic” actually apostolic? Can it prove it has Apostolic Succession?
@ Easy! Even secular history confirms the list of apostolic succession from Peter as Linus was named and is recognised as the second Bishop of Rome (pope), followed by Anacletus, Clement of Rome, Evaristus, Alexander, Sixtus, Telesphorus, Hyginus, Pius, Anicetus, Soter and ...
Why are Protestants in denial about the Truth!
@@geoffjs
I believe you have misconstrued my remark, which was intended for the person who wrote the comment about an alleged “catholic and apostolic church” that is not Roman or Protestant, but just consisting of true Christians.
Well, as far as I know, there are no apostolic churches other than Catholic and Orthodox.
I was just questioning what that person meant by “apostolic.” Or what that person thinks “apostolic” means.
PS - I am NOT Protestant!
Nice try dude, “He who hears you hears me” actually can be interpreted as read instead of hearing. The Greek work akouō just means to adhere, listen, take head, or hear
Lord I tried to tell
Em that the Bible alone wasn’t good enough. We need man’s traditions also! How’s that good to sound?
Your Pope said are religions pathways to God, so that would infer that the Roman Catholic Church is not the supreme authority on God.
Which way Catholic man?
During her 2000 yr history, the CC has had some bad popes who never officially taught error, proof of her divine origin.
The church recovered then & will do so again as He promised that the gates of hell would not prevail Mt 16:18
@geoffjs by what means are bad Popes determined?
The authority can simply be God allowed the church to decide what books to use, but even then, God's revelation goes much beyond the book and Into His creations reality. Infallible dogma is not needed to know what is truth.
How is this a you position when it's been the position of Church for ,2000 years?
I’m cradle Orthodox Catholic 😂 , does that count?
As long as you accept the papacy 😊
@ of course I accept the Orthodox popes and the office of the papacy as occupied by them as first amongst equals.
If his holiness pope Francis repents of his error. We will welcome him back. 😀
As first*
@@josephtacitus9400 let’s stop playing these games. The east in line with the undivided church awaits the primus inter parus.
@@EricAlHarb I do not understand what you mean by "We will welcome him back." It was the Orthodox Church which left the Catholic Church in 1054. The Catholic Church had existed ever since Our Lord established it in Matthew 16:18-19. It would be Pope Francis and the Catholic Church which welcomed the Orthodox members back home.
How do priests know how many Hail Mary’s and Our Fathers to assign for specific sins in order to absolve the person of their sins? And where did that tradition come from as a means to absolution of sins?
Jn 20:23
Priests use their training & experience to determine penance & often voluntarily take on additional penance iro the penitents
@@geoffjsWhat’s the penance for someone that left the Catholic Church for 40 years and decided to return?
You confuse absolution of sins with penance. It's not saying some amount of prayers like Ave Maria or Pater noster that leads to absolution of sins. The priest can grant the absolution (check the conditions under which he can effectively do so in the Catechism of CC, it's available online). The priest may/should put an obligation of penance on the absolved person, which doesn't actually have to be saying the prayers you mentioned and which is important in spiritual life but is not what merits the absolution (Jesus Christ merited the absolution, obviously).
@ If the priest gives someone prayers to do for their temporal punishment, how is that punishment?
@@bartoszjerzykaczkowski2384 Where in the bible does it say a priest should or can do this?
Ephesians 4:5 - 5 one Lord, *ONE FAITH,* one baptism,
I'm sorry, butyou're objectively wrong. Hope you have a blessed day!
Did the 1st century synogogues have accurate scripture? I think so. They were plagued with falliability
Accurate? Then you should take the Deuterocanonical because there was never a universal canon amongst the Hebrews if you go by that argument
Why the King James Version of the bible is wrong.
Did the Jews reject part of their own scripture? On page 📄 38 of Fr. Arthur, B. Klyber‘s (a Jew who converted to Catholicism) book, “Queen of the Jews”, he says: …the only way for Jewish scholars to invade. This evidence was to disown their own Septuagint translation altogether. Did they do so? It seems they did. This is attested in VALENTINE’S JEWISH ENCYCLOPEDIA as follows under the heading “Septuagint”: the appearance of the Septuagint was greeted with enthusiasm by Jews everywhere; BUT, with the rise of the Christian Sect and Its adoption of the Septuagint as Its Bible too, the Jews began to denounce the Septuagint vehemently. Jewish believers in Jesus were saddened and confused about that about face by the Jews. They could not understand why a Jewish - Greek Bible, which “had been greeted with enthusiasm by Jews everywhere”, and had been honored and read in synagogues throughout the world, for some two hundred years, should suddenly become heretical and obnoxious to Jews?
Simply put:
1. for over 200 years those 7 books were accepted by the Jews.
2. Jesus Christ and his apostles also used those 7 books.
3. after Jesus died and resurrected and was proclaimed the messiah, the Jews wanted to refute the claim.
4. the Jews mysteriously rejected those 7 books after the claim they had crucified the true messiah.
5. The Catholic Church published the first Bible with those 7 books included.
6. King James and his scholars originally had those 7 books in the original KJV.
7. Later on, because the Jews rejected those 7 books in the OT, the KJV bibles deleted them too.
So why do you use a counterfeit bible in a counterfeit church, teaching a counterfeit faith about Jesus Christ?
Greetings to fellow PopeDefenders watching this video ❤
Paul’s words in Galatians don’t exactly support these conclusions. Paul specifically tells us he was not appointed by any group of people or any human authority, but by Jesus Christ himself and God the father. Yes, Paul was concerned with clarifying the gospel he’d been preaching aligned with the other apostles but, this was years after his journey began. He wasn’t preaching illegitimately before meeting the others because the message was in agreement. Ultimately, the apostles aren’t who is sending someone to spread the gospel message it’s the Holy Spirit. The message must agree with the gospel message that was given to the apostles by God through Jesus and the Holy Spirit.
The difference in opinions come after this. Protestants basically believe that you still must be in agreement with the apostles but not all successors have been in complete agreement with the apostles. Roman Catholics basically believe that you must be in agreement with the apostles and all of their successors and that all of successors have been in agreement with the apostles. That’s how I see the distinction, beyond the support or denial of the papacy.
Did Jesus give His authority to the Apostles? No. Does Jesus say we have to acknowledge the authority of a particular body of leaders? No.
"All power is given umto me in heaven and earth. Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen."
Nowhere here does Jesus say He gives that power to anyone, but rather He gives the promise of His presence in this mission. We don't need power or authority, we stand in His.
The fact that different leaders have diverged in some opinions doesn't bother Jesus. It bothers men with unproven claims to authority.
The Keys of the Kingdom which Jesus gave to Peter are the proof that Jesus gave His authority to Peter until Jesus returns.
If you had read the Hebrew Scriptures (the OT), you would have understood the significance of the Keys. A King would traditionally leave the Keys of his Kingdom to his Chief Steward when the King was away from the Kingdom. Jesus and the Apostles were Jews and very familiar with this Davidic tradition. The Apostles would have understood exactly what Jesus meant.
Jesus Christ gave Peter the keys 🔑 (authority) over the other apostles.
The Synoptic Gospels agree that Peter served as spokesman, the outstanding member of the group, and enjoyed a certain precedence over the other disciples. For example:
-- whenever the disciples not belonging to the immediate followers of Jesus also recognized the authority of Peter (Mt 17:24);
--Sought clarification from Jesus on behalf of the disciples (Mt 15:15);
--Peter is mentioned by name, while others are indicated as merely accompanying him (Mk 1:36; Luke 8:35);
--Even when the three disciples closest to Jesus, (“the pillars” - Peter, James and John) figure in a particular incident, it is frequently Peter alone who is named when the three are named, Peter’s name appears first (Mt 17:1, 26:37);
--Peter was charged by Jesus affecting the strengthening of others (Luke 22:31,32);
--The fact that Peter is emphasized in John and charged by Jesus to “tend my sheep” and “feed my lambs” at the same time The role of the disciples as a whole, is being de-emphasized attests to the prestige of Peter in the apostolic church (John 21:15,16).
IT WAS PETER WHO:
--Confessed the Sonship of Jesus (Mt 16:16);
--was commissioned to lend strength to his brothers ((Luke 22:32);
--on the morning of the resurrection, ran to the tomb, that the resurrected Christ first appeared (Luke 24:12);
--whose priority as a witness to the resurrection, is found in the letters of Paul (1 Cor 15:5);
--presided over the appointment of Matthias as an apostle (Acts 1:23-26);
--first, raised his voice and preached at Pentecost the day, when the church came into being (Acts 1:14-39);
--exercise the role of judge in the disciplining of those who erred within the church (Acts 5:1-10);
--Let the 12 apostles in extending the church “here and there among them all” ((Acts 9:32);
--walked on water towards Jesus (Mt 14:28-33);
--witnessed, and spoke at the transfiguration of Jesus (Mt 17:1-8 & 2 Peter 1:16-18);
--at the garden of Gethsemane (Mt:26:37).
JESUS SAID TO PETER:
--Blessed are you, Simon, son of Jonah (Mt 16:17-19);
--for flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Heavenly Father
--and so, I say to you, you are Peter
--and upon this rock, I will build my church;
--and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it;
--I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven;
--whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven;
--Tend my sheep, and feed my lambs (John 21:15 & 16).
@@Bill-ic3nu
Very thorough answer. Thanks. 🙏
I think maybe some Protestants think King James was one of the Apostles.
@ - Why the King James Version of the bible is wrong.
Did the Jews reject part of their own scripture? On page 📄 38 of Fr. Arthur, B. Klyber‘s (a Jew who converted to Catholicism) book, “Queen of the Jews”, he says: "…the only way for Jewish scholars to invade. This evidence was to disown their own Septuagint translation altogether. Did they do so? It seems they did. This is attested in VALENTINE’S JEWISH ENCYCLOPEDIA as follows under the heading “Septuagint”: the appearance of the Septuagint was greeted with enthusiasm by Jews everywhere; BUT, with the rise of the Christian Sect and Its adoption of the Septuagint as Its Bible too, the Jews began to denounce the Septuagint vehemently. Jewish believers in Jesus were saddened and confused about that about face by the Jews. They could not understand why a Jewish - Greek Bible, which “had been greeted with enthusiasm by Jews everywhere”, and had been honored and read in synagogues throughout the world, for some two hundred years, should suddenly become heretical and obnoxious to Jews?"
Simply put:
1. for over 200 years those 7 books were accepted by the Jews.
2. Jesus Christ and his apostles also used those 7 books.
3. after Jesus died and resurrected and was proclaimed the messiah, the Jews wanted to refute the claim.
4. the Jews mysteriously rejected those 7 books after the claim they had crucified the true messiah.
5. The Catholic Church published the first Bible with those 7 books included.
6. King James and his scholars originally had those 7 books in the original KJV.
7. Later on, because the Jews rejected those 7 books in the OT, the KJV bibles deleted them too.
So why do you use a counterfeit bible in a counterfeit church, teaching a counterfeit faith about Jesus Christ?
Mr 16:19 Mt 18:18
You keep saying that the church taught, but if it's truth it's everlasting to everlasting. It doesn't need the church's authority to declare it as truth.
Does God declare things Outside his kingdom?
@Akhgy what authority does man have to grant what his kingdom is
@Akhgy and yes
@@budzwithbudz6729 can you prove that He declare things outside his Church?
@@budzwithbudz6729 God giving Authority
Great commentary. I still like the basic premise that in the 1500s AD it was absurd as a matter of common sense for humans then to invent and develop 180 degree opposite interpretations of what the apostles and founding fathers established as the teachings and statements uttered by Jesus and the recitation of events by the authors of the New Testament.
Especially how starting in the 1500s and in the last 500 years the sola scriptura ideology has evolved to contend that the Catholic and Orthodox Churches don’t through the mass’ liturgy of the Eucharist consecrate and accomplish transubstantiation of the bread and wine into the real presence of the body and blood of Jesus.
In other words after 1500 years certain humans foolhardily decided to contest and reject the holy Eucharist being the body and blood of Jesus.
Excellent point! Protestantism was the first satanic attack in 1517 followed by Freemasonry in 1717 & Communism in 1917, none of which has been successful! Mt 16:18
"But there are some of you that believe not. For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were that believed not, and who should betray him."- John 6:64. Judas NEVER believed. From BEGINNING. It's a LIE to say otherwise.
The pope though. Orthodox.
Do you truly believe Jesus in that the Eucharist is TRULY the Body and Blood of Christ, TRULY, in that TRANSUBSTIATION is False? Because many of the 'early Christians' TRULY believed they were digesting REAL BLOOD AND REAL HUMAN FLESH.....and you do not.
Do you worship the same god as the Muslims?
It’s not the one true faith. You don’t see anyone in the Bible devoting themselves to marry. Praying rosary beads. Praying to Saints. Going to mass. Viewing Peter as a pope. This is the reason why you guys have to fight against using the Bible alone. It allows you to teach whatever you want without having to have a basis for other than your church teaches it so.
- Can we pray directly to the Holy Spirit?
- Is God a Trinity?
@
When Jesus gave the model prayer, he always prayed to the father. Also, don’t try to justify praying to God through the Holy Spirit is the same as praying to Mary. We don’t consecrate ourselves to marry either. But you see your church doing that. You give more devotion to Mary than you do, Jesus. You might claim that you don’t, but you do. I go outside of your church. The first thing I see is a holy statue of Mary. Nobody gave her veneration. That’s even why after Pentecost you never see from her again.
@@alisterrebelo9013 b
I didn't ask if we can pray THROUGH the Holy Spirit, *the question is can we pray TO THE Holy Spirit?*
If a fallible church cannot produce a fallible book. I get where you’re coming from.
However following that statement then. Can a fallible person write infallible scripture or not? Or is it not the same thing?
I don’t know if I agree with the one sentence statement. I see throughout the Bible and History that God uses fallible people to share his message with the exception of Jesus. Knowing this then is it possible that He could. do that with the Bible. I’m just curious to see your perspective from your Catholic tradition.
God bless brother in Christ! 😁❤️
Peace of Christ be with you. I think you're mistaking Cameron's view. People are fallible and can write scripture, why? Because the Holy Spirit makes it possible, and when scripture is being written, that person could be considered infallible.
Same with the Church, it may be fallible, but when it is recognising anonymous texts like the 4 Gospels, Acts, Hebrews as canonical, it is recognising them as canon infallibly, why? Because teachings and traditions have passed down through to them from the Apostles by the power of the Holy Spirit to then recognise which of these multitudes of texts are to be declared canonical.
Are youaware that Shepherd of Hermas and 1st Letter of Clement were being read in Liturgies at Church as if they were canonical?
The bible is not infalible though scripture is. If scripture NEEDS an infalible church then the jews should also have an infalible church but correct me if im wrong i dont think anybody believes the jews were infalible.
So then how do we know scripture is infalible? Well infalibility DOES belong to god and to an extent the church but "the church" ≠ a building. The church is the body of christ, the bride of God. This extends well past 4 walls and a roof.
God guides his church which is so much bigger than the Catholic church.
The Bible is inerrant, not infallible which the CC is!
"The foundation of Truth is not the bible, according to the Bible, the foundation of Truth is not the Word of God, according to the Bible, the foundation of Truth is the (Roman Catholic) Church." a very nice summary of what the Catholic position is on the topic... Though a pretty obvious terrible interpretation of the passage...Good rule of thumb if something is elevating you/your organization above God there may be something wrong with your interpretation. The church is your touchstone to be in the Spirit, and the Holy Spirit brings truth.
Seems to me from the Acts 13 passage that The Holy Spirit sent out Paul and Barnabas through the church, the Spirit gave them office and the church's role was only to discern the Spirit... Why do you ignore the Spirit in your chain of authority? Why is the Holy Spirit's infallibility insufficient to preserve an infallible cannon?
Also your Ignatius quote assumes something that is anathema to your message... That "wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church"(not RC) so "those who are led by the Spirit of God are the children of God"(Romans 8:14) not just those submitting to leaders who claim to be a part of the apostolic succession.
As a protestant I do not understand why so many RC content creators seem to divvy up the role of the Holy Spirit between the RC Church and Mary, and leave the Holy spirit as a complete afterthought or non impactful part of our connection/relation to God.
If you read John 10:4 Jesus says that the sheep 🐑 follow him because they know (recognize) his voice. Luke 24:16, 31, and 35 is about 2 disciples on the road to Emmaus who meet up with Jesus on the way, but they are kept from recognizing him. After Jesus interprets the scriptures to them and he “breaks bread 🥖 “ do they recognize him, and he disappears. Do you know why? Read Luke 24:35.
Then in 2 Cor. 3:13-18, Paul describes how when Moses came down the mountain from seeing God, his face shined like the sun ☀️. They put a veil over his face until the light subsided. Light represents truth. Paul says even today a veil covers the hearts 🫀 of men (meaning they can’t interpret scripture). He continues to say that the veil is removed only when a person is joined to Christ (2 Cor. 3:16). Jesus told us in John 6:56: “He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood abideth in me: and I in him.” This means Jesus in the Eucharist as the “bread 🥖of life” interprets scripture for us.