Wikipedia:"King Ptolemy gathered 72 Elders, placing them in 72 chambers, each of them in a separate one, without revealing to why they were summoned. He entered each one's room & said: 'Write for me the Torah of Moshe, your teacher.' God put it in the heart of each one to translate identically as all the others did". Jesus Himself, used the bible with all the OT books, including the one on Purgatory. Luther even tried to removed James & Rev (NT) since they prove salvation is NOT "faith alone".
The bible, for 3600 years before KJ version in 1611 (2000 OT years & 1600 NT years), taught there IS a Purgatory, salvation CAN be lost, & Mary had only ONE child (Jesus). During the third century B.C., the Egyptian ruler King Ptolemy II Philadelphus wanted to know the “Law” of his Jewish subjects, & had the Hebrew bible translated into Greek. The Greek translation was known as the Septuagint (a reference in Greek to the 72 Rabbi scholars who translated the bible, all 46 books into Greek.)
the catholic church did not add 7 OT books, KJ removed 7 OT books in 1611. There was a valid OT for 3600 years (2000 OT and 1600 NT years) before a king removed 7 books, one, explaining Purgatory. Pray for KJ, in case he made it to Purgatory, and is not in Hell.
the bible states that it is a sin to add/remove books from the bible so how can either argue the other is right when the bible which both claim to believe in and live by clearly forbids it. that makes it okay to do either?
@danielleVIDZ I'm not sure what you mean. The canon of Scripture was definitively set at the Council of Hippo in the late fourth century and for over 1,000 years that is the canon that was used until seven books were removed during the Protestant Reformation. I'm saying it was wrong of them to remove those books, but we certainly never added any.
@danielleVIDZ The Jews and Protestants removed them and the Catholic church knew they were important and part of the bible and kept them. They were never "added" because they are already part of the bible.
I'm not Catholic. I am non-denominational Evangelical. While I do not believe that the Catholic Church has that last canonical word in all things doctrinal, I want to say that this is a very good video in respects to matters of canon and Holy Scripture. The modern protestants have missed the mark by not remaining faithful to the Septuagint's canon. Thank you. God bless you too.
@leonardoarancibia75 That's very interesting. I've never met a Christian (not Catholic or Orthodox) who accepts the Deuterocanon as part of the Holy Canon of Scripture.
@SeptemberCatholic18 I can accept it too, as well as many other parts of catholic teachings. Do you think it would be safe for me to convert to the catholic church without taking too many risks according to the faith of the place where I live?
@M3town33 It depends on where you live. I don't know the kind of risks you might get yourself into. If it's safe, you might look for a priest to get advice. In any case, just pray.
ERROR OF THE APOCRYPHA! Tobit claims to have been alive when Jeroboam revolted (931 B.C.) and when Assyria conquered Israel (722 B.C.). These two events were separated by over 200 years and yet the total lifespan of Tobit was 158 years (Tobit 1:3-5; 14:11)! Judith mistakenly identifies Nebuchadnezzar as king of the Assyrians (1:1, 7) when in fact he was the king of Babylon (2 Kings 24:1).
@kiwichristian2009 These are not contradictions. They are very common, and very weak objections that Protestants raise. You can easily find an explanation for each of these on Catholic dot com.
@kiwichristian2009 Ahhh, the Fruitychristian is back again. Are you going to tell me now what your denomination is. Or are you going to keep running me and spamming every Catholic site?
While this entire video is truthful, don't expect to change the minds of Protestant heretics. They have built themselves up above the Church as, each of them individually, as the sole authority on Scripture, interpretation and doctrine. It is the religion that worships the will of man rather than the will of God.
Seek communion with the Church Christ Himself established, the Catholic Church, or continue worshiping yourselves. You shall answer before God on how you choose.
The Catholic Church is the only Church that Jesus founded. Period. Read the Bible. Stop listening to your false prophets. Christian sects are born as we speak. They all have a little truth. And yes.. truth in heresy.
@ChrisDaron the catholic church doesnt go by the bible. the catholic church teaches that the church is above the bible so that would mean that the traditions that the church invented/teaches are also above the bible in catholic belief. I find i laughable (no offense) when a catholic tells protestants to read a book that catholics dont even accept as authoritative over their church.
@ShavenYakk Jesus founded the Church. What else do you need? Is Protestantism in the Bible? perhaps in the Apocalypses, as a sign of the devil trying to ruin God's work.
I find it hilarious when protestants make commercials for people to come to their little sects and stuff.
@ShavenYakk Actually, we do accept the Bible as authoritative, but the difference between Catholics and Protestants is that Catholics accept ALL of the Bible, not just a verse here and there that we find convenient. Where does the Bible say that the Scriptures are the ultimate authority? It doesn't, but it does refer to the CHURCH as the pillar and ground of truth.
Jerome plainly rejects all the apocryphal books from the canon. In his Prologus Galeatus he says As there are twenty and two letters, so there are counted twenty and two books. Therefore the Wisdom of Solomon, and Jesus, and Judith, and Tobit, are not in the canon. (See the introduction to the Vulgate in his own hand.) Gregory the Great, in his commentaries on Job, (Lib. XIX. Cap. 16.) expressly writes that the books of Macabees is not canonical, as well as the rest. Josephus also agrees.
@TheCatholicWolf Go to your library and look under "catholic inquisition". Mr Galileo springs to mind. Gee, was he right or "the church"? I think you will find he was!
@kiwichristian2009 Oh, how little you know of history. Galileo was actually opposed by the majority of scientists of his time because he was not able to answer for the stellar parellax problem in his theory. Only years later after the discovery that the stars are actually light years away could we answer that problem, but in that time, this was a very problematic objection that Galileo could not answer. Plus, Galileo said that the universe was heliocentric, which isn't true.
@SeptemberCatholic18 Galileo came up before the inquisitors. They summoned Galileo to a hearing and threatened to throw him into a dungeon and possibly torture him until he recanted. Galileo knew this was no idle threat since they had tortured and burnt Father Bruno at the stake along with many other heritics over the years....
@SeptemberCatholic18 Galileo’s defense was that scriptures were not wrong, only the theologian’s interpretations of the scriptures were wrong. His defense did not prevail, so in the end, rather then suffer the consequenses, he recanted his theories and went into house arrest knowing that the truth would someday be known.
@kiwichristian2009 That was his defense as far as the Scriptures were concerned (and the Church didn't condemn that), but the the stellar parallax problem was the primary reason his theories were rejected. The theologians were willing to accept that their interpretations were incorrect so long as Galileo could prove his theory. Unfortunately, Galileo could not provide an answer for the parallax problem, and so his theories remained rejected.
@kiwichristian2009 NO, I said name people at the time of JEROME who were killed - AS YOU ALLEGED - for "opposing Rome". You made the accusation, therefore the burden of proof rests with you.
@TheCatholicWolf@kiwichristian2009 As for Galileo, as I recall there were Catholics coming to similar conclusions; however, Galileo was saying that Scripture was wrong whereas these others were not.
@kiwichristian2009 I deleted that post for a reason, but since you bring it up, how else would you interpret the particular Scripture? By the way, where's the list of these Bible martyrs at the time of Jerome?
@ShavenYakk I agree that we're to submit to God. What does that submission mean? We obey EVERYTHING. If I tell my children to listen to the babysitter while go to the doctor's office or whatever, and they disobey the babysitter, have they not disobeyed me? Christ gave authority to the apostles and said that they were to be obeyed. The apostles gave authority to others the same way Christ did. Paul says that to disobey authority is to disobey the God from Whom all authority comes.
Martin Luther omitted First and Second Esdras from the Apocrypha of his German Bible in 1534, and both books were also rejected by the Roman Catholics at the Council of Trent in 1546. The Roman Catholic Church did not officially canonize the Apocrypha until the Council of Trent (1546 AD). This was in part because the Apocrypha contained material which supported certain Catholic doctrines, such as purgatory, praying for the dead, and the treasury of merit.
Though these books were considered non-canonical, slowly over the years they came to be regarded by the Roman Catholic Church as part of the Bible, and were finally officially labeled as such. But the Historical Hebrew Religion, and the Historical Christian Religion growing from it, understood that these writings were non-canonical.
According to the Catholic Encyclopedia, St. Jerome was hesitant to include most of the apocryphal books in the canon, due to numerous errors. Even after he did concede to include them (in the fourth century), they were not decreed to be inspired scripture until April 8, 1546 at the Council of Trent. So for 1100 years, they were part of the canon, but not officially scripture. The reason for this is again, because of the numerous errors....
in actuality the apocryphia was taken out because the apocryphia, proficied clearly of what the roman catholic church would do......no apostilic catholic uses the apocryphia. please get your facts together. all these dark tales came about during the dark ages to erase the real owners of the BIBLE who are the Israelites.
...We (POPES) hold upon this earth the place of God Almighty..." Pope Leo XIII, in Praeclara Gratulationis Publicae (The Reunion of Christendom), Encyclical promulgated on June 20, 1894.
The quote by Pope Pius V is clearly a hoax. The pope never said that, and even if he did, he would be wrong. Plain and simple. The Catholic Church does not teach that "the pope and God are the same."
The second and third quotes are valid. The pope is considered to be the steward to the King (Christ), and thus he holds his place until the Second Coming. This notion can be seen in Isaiah 22:22 and Jesus reiterated it through the papacy in Matthew 16:18-19.
Hoax eh? Please post your DOCUMENTATION that it is clearly a hoax or quit making excuses.
you and I werent there, but someone who documented it was. He said it.
you should be careful because saying your popes are wrong could get you excommunicated from the "church".
you also forget that when the pope speaks on faith and morals, he speaks excathedra and it is "impossible" for him to be in error. this statement would definitely fit the faith and morals category. believe it or leave it.
It's clearly a HOAX that you Protestants fabricated. This is a HOOK, LINE, SINKER for you Protestant in order to prove your point that the Pope is the beast.
No where in his writing was there an indication of Pope and God are the same. Mainly it talks about being in UNION with GOD.
It to long to post it here so I'm PM it to you. You can read Pope Pius V writing for yourself.
your popes BLASPHEMY..."But since We (popes) hold upon this earth the place of God Almighty..."
No mere MAN can hold the place of GOD on earth or anywhere else.
heres your pope:
2Th 2:4 Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God.
I sent you a PM showing your popes BLASPHEMY in his own letter.
the RCC is the biggest religious HOAX on the face of the earth. total pagan lies and a man who claims to be God...and catholics who worship him like he's Jesus.
I didn't delete your quotes. The only thing I deleted was one quote that you accidentally posted twice.
I think you have the burden of proof the wrong way. Please provide documentation that the quote is VALID or quote making things up. The person making the positive claim bears the burden of proof, not the objector.
Saying the pope is wrong does not get you excommunicated. Saying the CHURCH is wrong does, because it is the pillar and ground of truth (1 Tim 3:15).
No, these statements do not count as ex cathedra, although I agree with the last two you quotes by Pope Leo XIII. (Only the one by Pope Pius V is a hoax).
It is only ex cathedra when the pope makes a declaration on faith or morals with the intention of making it a dogmatic statement. It is usually in communion with the college of bishops, and it is NEVER contained in an encyclical like the ones you posted. Encyclicals are not ex cathedra. They are a step below being dogmatic.
ok, sorry I found it, so you didnt delete it. my mistake, my apology.
I supplied the source of the quote in the post itself. Until you show documentation proving your accusation that it is not factual, there is nothing else to discuss.
Actually I tracked down that source and it led to a dead end. There is no reference to a book title, and all you gave me was the surname of some obscure author. That document does not exist.
After doing some research, I found an article that tears that quote apart and gives several reasons to conclude it is a hoax. The main reason: the document is nonexistent.
No dead end, i gave the source, it is correct. the popes make the most blasphemous quotes and so do the catholics that follow them. but believe what you want.
You misunderstood me. I see that you posted an obscure source, but the source itself is an invention; it doesn't exist.
Try to look it up yourself and you'll never find it. I tried and tried and finally I stumbled on an article disproving the validity of that statement.
It's sad that anti-Catholics have to resort to hoaxes to promote their cause. If you support truth, you will look into that source and see for yourself if what I am telling you is a lie.
"But since We (popes) hold upon this earth the place of God Almighty..."
NICE TRY, the Pope simply represents our Lord Jesus here on earth until His return. Just as the Prime Minister Hezekiah stood in the place of the King of Israel until his return.
This is what the AUTHORITY OF THE POPE:
Matt. 16:19 "Onto Thee I give the KEY to the Kingdom of Heaven. Whatever you loosen on earth shall be loose in Heaven. Whatever you bound on earth shall be bound in Heaven."
this is what Jesus said about power given to any one follower of His:
Mat 20:26 But it SHALL NOT BE SO among YOU (His followers)...
pope can say he holds the place of God all he wants but scripture doesnt support it anywhere. office of pope is a lie and total foolishness. the pope only represents paganism and false gospel.
Again, NICE TRY. Why don't you post the whole thing: Jesus called them together and said, "You know that the rulers of this world rule over them. Not so with you. Instead, whoever wants to become great among you must be your servant, and whoever wants to be first must be your slave just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many."
Matt. 20:26 talks about service and humility. It is a supplement to Matt. 16:19-21. What else do you have?
@Naturalhit service/humility? where is that in the papacy?. pope lives in luxury in a castle, Jesus had NOWHERE to lay His head. Pope is chauffeured by private jet & pope-mobile, Jesus WALKED. pope HAS servants by the dozen, Jesus IS the SERVANT. Pope CLAIMS to be God, Jesus IS God. RCC says sbumit to pope for salvation, bible says submit to Jesus. RCC claims to forgive sin, bible says only God can forgive sin. May God bless u and lead u out of error into His marvelous light.
@ShavenYakk Why do YOU have a bed, house, and car?
The pope does not live in a castle, he lives in a private apartment room. The pope needs vehicles to get around because he cannot get everywhere on his feet. How would he get to America? The pope's title is "The Servant of the Servants of God." In other words, the pope is not a master who is served, he is a servant himself. The pope does not claim to be God. We never claim that the pope saves. John 20:23 proves Confession.
@SeptemberCatholic18 you dont know your own church teaching: "Christ Jesus left...His Vicar whom you are ALL OBLIGED to OBEY until death. whoever is outside his (pope's) obedience is in a state of DAMNATION (NO SALVATION)." St. Catherine of Siena, MCH, reference #374, (quoted in Apostolic Digest, by Michael Malone, Book 5: "The Book of Obedience", Chapter 1: "There is NO SALVATION Without Personal SUBMISSION to the Pope").
RCC says no salvation without the pope. pope is ur saviour not Christ.
@ShavenYakk We obey they Pope because Christ made him the *visible* head of the Church on earth. All authority comes from God, to disobey those whom God says to obey is to disobey God.
@ShavenYakk Funny, you mentioned that the Pope lives in luxury. Can you tell me how much money he has in his bank account and what personal material belongings does he own?
When I was an Evangelical my Pastor was lived in a Mason, drives Maserati, has a yacht, and a young wife. So you wanna tell me who is following Christ here? Yet, my former Pastor has to audacity to ask for a 10% tid from us in order to support his mega-church and his 6 digit income.
@Naturalhit living in luxury has nothing to do with OWNING the luxuries. it doesnt matter if others supply it, it's still a castle, cheauffer & servants.
your old pastor has nothing to do with it, he was just a protestant version of the pope. one thing doesnt excuse the other.
Jesus didnt hoard riches, he had no house, no vehicle (horse/chariot etc) and no servants (He served them instead).
@TheCatholicWolf the pope has no "official" authority over anyone, Christ Himself said to the apostles/disciples that "it shall not be so among" them Mat 20:26. the pope owns nothing in the house of christianity. he has usurped authority that does not belong to him. we owe our obedience to Christ, not to a sinful man who claims he's God's vicar on earth.
you did quite a bit more than just out of context...like removing almost the whole verse. My quote was in context for the bible...it was just not in context for what you want to believe.
RCC is the true meaning of out of context. but hey if you want to follow a sinful pope rather than Jesus, thats your choice. I dont need a pope, I have Christ as my High Priest.
Not really. I was being sarcastic. Teehee. Actually, I once hated Catholics like you. So I understand...
Funny thing you mention that. I follow Christ. Also, I just made a video describing how Christ is High Priest. He's also the sacrifice. Did you know that in the Old Testament, the sacrificial lamb was eaten? If not, it was not effective and was invalid. Jesus is the our new Lamb. Jesus commanded the Eucharist. "Eat, this is my Body...drink, this is my blood."
@CatholicCross1393 if I hated catholics I would let them die in ignorance rather than enlighten them so they can be saved. if you stay in RCC till Jesus returns you will be lost, period.
yes the lamb was eaten, but you seem to forget that Jesus offered His sacrifice ONCE for all 2K years ago. unlike in OT times, now we REMEMBER that sacrifice symbolically because it cannot be repeated over & over like animal sacrifice could and like the popes heretical mass tries to do.
The Eucharist is not a new sacrifice over and over. It is the same sacrifice, presented again according to the way Christ insisted ("do this in memory of me.")
@SeptemberCatholic18 so you nail the cracker to the cross? thats a new one on me.
allow me to quote from catholic(*#*)com
"The Eucharist is a TRUE SACRIFICE, not just a commemorative meal, as "Bible Christians" insist. The first Christians knew that it was a sacrifice and proclaimed this in their writings. They recognized the SACRIFICIAL character of Jesus instruction, "Do this in remembrance of me" (Luke 22:19, 1 Cor. 11:2425)
It is the same sacrifice because Jesus transcends space and time. That makes it possible for the Church to re-present (present again) the same sacrifice which Jesus offered once and for all.
protestants have it right, the bread and wine are symbolic of the sacrifice of Christ, thats why He said REMEMBER ME when you do this. if it's the same sacrifice available every week or any time they want to sacrifice Him again, then there is no need to remember because its there again every week. REMEMBERING Him is not the same as RE SACRIFICING Him.
That's not true. We are presenting again the SAME sacrifice. Jesus' sacrifice transcends time, so it is possible to present it again without making it a new sacrifice. That's why Paul says in Hebrews 11:26 that "as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord's death till he come."
We are showing the Lord's death, NOT a representation of his death. Paul says we are actually showing his death.
By the way, we have Mass every day, not just weekly.
@ChrisDaron yea you mean like the catholic church that say they are the true church ( Sooo chosen) and that no one can be saved outside the catholic church and you want to say we think we are chosen? gimme a break.
hey Chris, if you want to worship a man who claims to be God on earth/Jesus in the flesh, that is certainly your choice. I would never try and force you not to. but dont expect me to say that the catholic cult will lead you to heaven, I am warning you now, get out while you can. if you stay till Jesus returns you WILL be lost. as for me and my house, we will serve the Lord.
@TheCatholicWolf the RCC teaches the pope is "god" on earth and "jesus" in the veil of flesh...that is worship of a man plain and clear.
I hope your user name does not reflect your character, but it certainly relfects the character of the RCC for killing millions upon millions during the dark ages.
@ShavenYakk You're last remark comes from one who obviously knows nothing about wolves, but whatever. Millions huh? Care to document this from a neutral source, that the Church killed "millions" for the "crime" of not being Catholic?
And where does the Church teach that the Pope is God? Provide a document, not your interpretation of that document. Use the words themselves, and label the document. Paul says to obey authority, because to disobey them is to disobey God. It makes perfect sense.
@SeptemberCatholic18 "All names which in the Scriptures are applied to Christ, by virtue of which it is established that He is over the church, all the same names are applied to the Pope."
On the Authority of the Councils, book 2, chapter 17
@SeptemberCatholic18 Father A. Pereira says: "It is quite certain that Popes have never approved or rejected this title 'Lord God the Pope,' for the passage in the gloss referred to appears in the edition of the Canon Law published in Rome in 1580 by Gregory XIII."
@SeptemberCatholic18 Writers on the Canon Law say, "The Pope and God are the same, so he has all power in heaven and earth." Barclay Cap. XXVII, p. 218. Cities Petrus Bertrandus, Pius V. - Cardinal Cusa supports his statement.
Pope Nicholas I declared: "the appellation of God had been confirmed by Constantine on the Pope, who, being God, cannot be judged by man." Labb IX Dist.: 96 Can. 7, Satis evidentur, Decret Gratian Primer Para."
The answer is no. History shows that they were part of the original canon compiled in 393 and stayed there until the 16th century, when Martin Luther questioned them and they were later thrown out by Protestants.
That's not true at all; most Christians use the Deuterocanonical books. Protestants are the only ones who do not use them, and only because Martin Luther said so. Is Martin Luther the Holy Spirit?
Even worse (for you) is that Jesus used the Septuagint canon, meaning even he would have had those seven books in his canon.
Catholics alone comprise half of all Christians, and the Eastern Orthodox (which is the second largest Christian group) also uses the Deuterocanon.
But that is irrelevant. My main point was that the Deuterocanon is valid Scripture that was removed by Martin Luther just because he didn't agree with it.
My information comes from studying history and leaning about the early Christian church through its development in time.
NO, the pope is NOT the Holy Spirit. That would be utter blasphemy.
No, we do not do that. God is already on earth despite the pope. Jesus is already in the flesh despite the pope. The pope is not either of those and Catholics have never said that he was.
However, we DO say that he is the vicar (representative) of Christ, because we believe that Jesus assigned Peter the papacy 2,000 years ago in Matt 16:18-19 in order that the pope might serve certain duties until Christ's return. When Peter died, that authority was passed down a linage of popes till today.
I don't care what other "Catholics" say. I am telling you what the pope himself says and what the Catechism of the Catholic Church teaches. If anyone says any different, then you can consider them misguided and unorthodox catholics.
Your POPES speak: "The Pope and God are the SAME, so he (pope) has ALL POWER in Heaven and earth." Pope Pius V, quoted in Barclay, Chapter XXVII, p. 218, "Cities Petrus Bertanous".
...We (POPES) hold upon this earth the place of God Almighty..." Pope Leo XIII, in Praeclara Gratulationis Publicae (The Reunion of Christendom), Encyclical promulgated on June 20, 1894.
Clearly popes are BLASPHEMERS and the RCC is a false church.
I've spoken to plenty of Protestants coming out of theological colleges and protestant chaplins, and amazingly as knowledgeable as they are of the scripture, most have no understanding of the history of the deutercanoncal books.
Instead of venerating anyone or anything else, why not just focus on God through His Son Jesus? He died and rose again to become our High Priest forever so we COULD go straight to Him.
Going through anyone else (Mary, etc.) just seems to render His role and His purpose absolete. "I am the way, the truth and the life. No man comes to the father but by me (John 14:6)." With this in mind, why create other methods of getting to God?
I have read Catholic literature (written by Catholics) who admit that much of what they do developed over time.
Even in the first century Christian church, there were churches going astray with their practices as we see in Paul's letters and the churches mentioned in Revelation.
How certain can you be certain that the well respected Church Fathers (who many times differ from the Bible in their teachings) are actually following Sacred Traditions that are not simply of their own making?
It was Martin Luther who threw out several books of the Old and New Testament which contradicted his erroneous belief 'justification by faith alone'... St James was one such book. St James said faith without works is DEAD. So Luther was wrong... The Catholic Church was founded by Christ himself who gave St Peter the authority to be the leader. He passed it on to our first pope Linus in AD66. Till today ... We DO NOT worship idols. We worship GOD alone.. We honour Mary ... Read Macabees!
Please read St. Basil's work "On the Mysteries" -- the entire thing and not ripping things out of context -- and you will then see what I am talking about.
The Greek word for 'mystery' (musterion) is translated into Latin as 'Sacramentum.' As St. Paul says in Eph 5:32, that the great mystery/sacrament he just described (about being one body with the Lord -- an allusion to the sacrament of Eucharist) is in reference to Christ and the Church. Also, due to the persecutions, early Christians kept the dogma of the Eucharist secret, since Rome would (and did) use it to claim the Christians were cannibals, not understanding it.
To armandosainz: either you have never read the context of these Early Church Fathers you quote, or you are purposefully trying to deceive. The Early Church used the term "mysteries" to refer to the Sacraments of Baptism and Eucharist. Basil wrote, "to speak of the Mysteries, and to set forth the purport of the sacraments, which if we had ...to those who were not yet initiated, we should be considered rather to have betrayed than to have portrayed the Mysteries."
Conspiracy theories like that belong with big foot, crop circles and the fake moon landing. All have evidence, but it is easily proven fabricated with a serious investigation. Some people just like to believe in that crap because they are bored.
Baal worship, lol. I guess christmas should be scrapped to then hey. It does have pagan conections after all.
Yes Jesus has a church. It is made up of true Christians. Bible believers. Not some organization. Your last post shows you are just parroting what you've been told rather than seeking after the TRUTH.
My facts are historic and true. The bible warned that there would be a falling away. What makes you think it has not happened? In the bible, God is completely against Baal worship and all sorts of paganism. What makes you think it is not around today? It most certainly is.
I'm not parroting anything. I constructed that entire message myself based on the conclusions I have reached from studying my Bible.
Your facts are very inaccurate. Ripping texts out of context does not qualify as being "historical." Nor are they true.
The Catholic Church has nothing to do with Baal worship. That is something your anti-Catholic sources tell you. The Church is very much against paganism.
If anyone is parroting, it is you. Please stop reading Jack Chick; read the Bible instead.
I have some questions concerning Catholicism. 'When' and 'why' did the veneration of Mary and other Apostles start? We don't see it happening in the early church(es) of the New Testament. We also don't see any one titled Pope or any special preferences given to Peter by the other Apostles if he was considered the Pope. So my question is 'when' and 'why' did all these things begin within the Catholic church?
Actually, yes, there was saint veneration in the early Church. Take a look at pretty much any of the early Cristian writings! Clement, Origin, Cyprian, etc.
Pope was a title later given to the office assigned to Peter in Matthew 16:18-19 and John 21:15-17. Those verses show Peter having a special place among the apostles.
Of course doctrine develops. For instance, the Trinity is never found in Scripture! The Church had to develop the doctrine based on what we already knew.
I can be certain that the early church Fathers are accurate because their writings are in line with what Scripture teaches. They also represent what all early Christians had believed at the time. Lastly, some of them (like Ignatius) were students of the apostles themselves.
We venerate the saints because we want to honor God. Is it wrong to admire an artist's work? God is the artist and his creation is the work. However, our primary focus in on God.
No, the Trinity term is not found in scripture but we do find the triune Godhead in scripture. We can create or uncreate a name for it. It's irrelevant.
In your theology, isn't Mary a co-ruler/author with Christ for our salvation? Does this make her equal or in any way a type of deity?
No, it's not wrong to respect or honor people of awesome accomplishments or character. However, it is wrong to put the honor of people as a part of our worship to God. God wants us to worship Him as the Creator; not to worship His creation.
To worship the creation is similar to what happens often in witchcraft (i.e. worshipping nature).
The EARLY church fathers are just as fallible as the EARLIEST church fathers we find in the New Testament christian churches. We see the Apostles traveling and correcting these churches as early as the 1st century. So if the EARLIEST church fathers were 'getting it wrong', the church fathers you are quoting could have been even more wrong due to their lack of living Apostles to correct them.
So the concept of the Trinity is found in Scripture, but the actual name for it came later as a development. That is an example of what we mean by developing doctrine. We don't create new concepts, we just piece together what we know in order to get a clearer picture of what God is telling us.
Mary is understood to have a role in salvation, but then again we all have a role in salvation. We must pray for each other (1 Tim 2:1) and fill up what is lacking in Christ's afflictions (Col 1:24).
Mary is not to be honored as a deity, just a very blessed mother and saint of Jesus Christ.
We do not worship the saints; we just honor and respect them as Romans 13:7 urges.
We acknowledge that the early Fathers were fallible. Never did we make the claim that they spoke infallibly.
However when the consensus of the early Christian writings all say the same thing about a subject, it is safe to suggest that what they are saying is true. For instance, every early Father believed in the Trinity.
I agree when the church fathers words echo scripture. I have an issue when they take liberties with scripture.
The liberties I speak of include the accepted traditions of the church. Let me ask this question: knowing that the earliest churches were very primitive, could a Catholic have a full and meaningful worship in the park (without stained glass windows, incense, statues, music, bells, etc.)? This type of worship would echo the 1st century churches; especially as they were hiding out.
The concept of Trinity is found in scripture but the office of the Pope (and all his duties and responsibilities), we don't find it in scripture.
The mannerism and humility of Peter is vastly different than the mannerism of the Popes of today. Peter never allowed anyone to bow and kiss him.
Why is Mary understood to have a role in our salvation? Again, is that scriptual from Jesus or the Apostles or did it come later from someone who put their own spin on it?
The church Fathers do not take liberty with the Scriptures. They are simply reiterating what they've received from the apostles, or from Apostolic Tradition.
The traditions you mentioned normally associated with Catholic worship are not part of the faith. Therefore it doesn't matter if stained glass was not in the Bible; it is not a teaching. To refute the Catholic Church, you must dispute doctrine, not liturgy.
Any saint has a role in salvation as far as they can pray for us (James 5:16).
(cont.) Mary is considered the greatest saint because she was chosen to deliver God in the flesh into the world.
Regarding the papacy, I would argue that the office of pope and its fundamental duties ARE found, not only in Apostolic Tradition, but also Scripture. I have made several videos on this topic.
The mannerisms are unimportant. The only thing that matters is if the office and its fundamental duties are found in Scripture. How a pope carries himself is secondary and irrelevant.
The point being that if the Bible states the power and affectiveness of scripture alone, who has the authority to come along and say traditions are needed for salvation as well?
Okay. Give me those scriptures on the Popes 'unique' role.
You wouldn't think the mannerisms of a Pope are important? I saw a video where a Catholic apologist admitted that there were several (earlier) Popes who were not Heaven bound due to their disgraceful actions in office. Didn't mention 'who', though.
The Pope represents Christ on Earth (vicar) and the entire Catholic Church, correct? His behavior reflects all he represents and can show the beauty of the Catholic church or the depravity of the Catholic church.
If he carries himself on a level of 'rockstar' or 'diva' to be adorned....well, I'm sure all the Apostles would have liked their lives to be filled with such comfort and respect. Instead, their lives were spent in tireless service, jail and eventual death.
I appreciate your information. 90% of all the Catholics I have spoken to don't have half of your knowledge regarding their own faith. Kudos to you. Why do you think that is, though?
So if the church fathers are reiterating what they recieved from the Apostles, why did none of the Apostles (or their companions) take care to place it in their Gospels or letters to the 1st century churches?
Question: can I be a Christian in good standing with God through scripture alone? 2 Timothy 3:15-17.
I think Catholics need to wake up. I agree, most are ignorant.
The information that the early Fathers are reiterating can sometimes not be found in Scripture because we do not have all of the Apostles' writings; some of them were lost. For instance, we do not have this letter from Paul (1 Cor. 5:9-11).
I will not comment on what you need to do to be in good standing with God, but I can tell you that Scripture alone is not sufficient for a full faith. Tradition is urged too (2 Thess 2:15).
As far as the way the pope carries himself, I would say that he certainly does not portray himself as a rockstar or diva. He is dedicated to a life of humility and study. However, since he is a high-profile figure, it is natural that people react the way they do.
Nevertheless, it is irrelevant. Even if he was a terrible pope (killing and raping), that would not disprove the doctrine of the papacy; only that the pope can be sinful, which he can be.
Scripture itself never claims to be sufficient for the faith. Indeed, how could it do so? The Bible was not even compiled into one book until around the late 4th century!
Also, if Scripture alone is sufficient, where can I find an infallible "table of contents" in the Bible? Nowhere, because the Church (guided by the Spirit) was the one that chose which books would be canon in 393 AD at the Council of Hippo.
To see some verses proving the papacy please watch the video I made on Peter the rock.
@kiwichristian2009 Many of your sources are actually made up. The Catholic Church officially rejects the notion that the pope is in any way equal to God, or even close to him in nature. Anyone who says anything different is misrepresenting the faith, and they are just plain wrong.
St. Jerome did not hesitate on the Deuterocanonicals because of errors. He had other issues, but nevertheless trusted the authority of the Church (1 Tim 3:15). They were always inspired, even before Trent.
@SeptemberCatholic18 According to the Catholic Encyclopedia, St. Jerome was hesitant to include most of the apocryphal books in the canon, due to numerous errors. Even after he did concede to include them (in the fourth century), they were not decreed to be inspired scripture until April 8, 1546 at the Council of Trent. So for 1100 years, they were part of the canon, but not officially scripture. The reason for this is again, because of the numerous errors....
@SeptemberCatholic18 ...It appears they were ultimately accepted at Trent, because without doing so, the Catholic Church had no scripture upon which to base the doctrine of purgatory, invocation and intercession of the saints, the worship of angels, the redemption of souls after death, etc. ...
@SeptemberCatholic18 ... In fact, if you'll look at the Catholic Encyclopedia, you'll find discussion of "problems" or "errors" with most of the apocryphal books. Perhaps you should ask yourself why the Jews and Protestants have rejected the divine inspiration of the Apocrypha.
@SeptemberCatholic18 Neither their authors nor the circumstances of their writings are known. Neither the Jews nor the early Christians accepted them as inspired scripture. The books themselves do not claim inspiration. There are no "Thus saith the Lord" 's . Although the New Testament has 263 direct quotations from and 370 allusions to the Old Testament, there is not a single reference to the books of the apocrypha. ...
@SeptemberCatholic18 ...It was at the Council of Trent, on April 8th, 1546, that the pope declared tradition and the apocrypha to be canonical and authoritative. These books teach several false doctrines and contain many inaccurate historical facts.
So when these men spoke of the mysteries, they were talking about Babylonian Baal worship and not Christ. Everything in the RCC is mystery this and mystery that but the bible is not like that at all. You don't know this because you are not at the top of the food chain so to speak in the RCC. I'm sorry friend but I speak the truth to you.
Nothing was hidden from those in the bible. Paul - Behold, I SHEW YOU a mystery Read again how the early church fathers hid things from the Catechumens.
Your facts are simply incorrect. The early Christian Fathers were not speaking of ancient Baal worship. You are terribly ripping their words of of context as an atheist rips the Bible out of context. Provide me your sources of those quotes and I will personally examine them. If I reach the same conclusion as you, I will convert from Catholicism.
Jesus Christ established one Church on earth (Matthew 16:18), "the pillar and foundation of truth (1 Timothy 3:15)." He positioned Peter as the first pope to guide the flock (John 21:15-17), and that position has been passed down through a linage of popes (Acts 1:20) to our current Pope Benedict XVI. And the gates of hell shall not prevail against this Church (Matthew 16:19).
The Catholic Church is the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic church that Jesus Christ himself established and sustains.
Tertullian says - None are admitted to the religious Mysteries without an oath of secrecy. Far hence, ye Profane! is the prohibition from all holy Mysteries."
Origen - Inasmuch as the essential doctrines of Christianity are openly taught, there are other things that are RECONDITE; this is common to Christian discipline that some things were EXOTERIC and some ESOTERIC:
Bishop Archelaus -The Mysteries are not explained to the Gentiles
The RCC have been running a game on you from the start.
I don't understand what you intend to demonstrate with these quotes. Get to your point because I'm not seeing it.
To me, it seems that you are taking many of these men out of context. For one thing, the early Fathers KNEW the apostles and learned from them; so surely they speak the truth of Christ.
Second of all (the thing you seem to be completely oblivious to), for the first 1,050 years, EVERY Christian was Catholic.
Ok fair enough. The "mysteries" these men are talking about are of the mystery religions spoken of in the bible as Baal worship. This is what happened to the church fathers right after John's death. So no they no longer spoke the truth of Christ. They began to add the "mysteries" of Egypt and Babylon.
Yes after Constantine everyone was Catholic because it became the law. You know many people began to go against the RCC teachings because they were not biblical and paid for it with their lives.
I don't know enough about the comments of these particular men to correct you, but if you would provide me the original sources, I would gladly read over them and give you the proper context which you seem to have torn them out of.
No, Catholicism existed BEFORE Constantine took Rome. We have evidence of it existing as far back as 80 AD; after all, Jesus did establish it.
And the men who died for going against Christianity died because of ROME. Rome became a monster; the Church was not Rome.
Jesus fulfilled the Jewish religion. He did NOT establish anything Catholic. Please study friend.
Mat 10:5-6 These twelve Jesus sent forth, and commanded them, saying, Go not into the way of the Gentiles, and into any city of the Samaritans enter ye not: But go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.
It was the Lord's original mission. AD 70 happened because the Jews rejected him so He went after Gentiles
Rome became Catholic and they killed. Haven't you heard of the Inquisition?
St. Basil, the Bishop of Caesarea "several things have been handed to us without writing, lest the vulgar, too familiar with our dogmas, should lose respect for them"
St. Ambrose, Archbishop of Milan "All the Mystery should be kept concealed, guarded by faithful silence lest it should be inconsiderately divulged to the ears of the Profane. Every Mystery ought to be kept secret,lest it should rashly be divulged to the ears of the Profane. Take heed not to reveal the Mysteries!"
Wikipedia:"King Ptolemy gathered 72 Elders, placing them in 72 chambers, each of them in a separate one, without revealing to why they were summoned. He entered each one's room & said: 'Write for me the Torah of Moshe, your teacher.' God put it in the heart of each one to translate identically as all the others did". Jesus Himself, used the bible with all the OT books, including the one on Purgatory. Luther even tried to removed James & Rev (NT) since they prove salvation is NOT "faith alone".
Brooks33snow 16 hours ago
The bible, for 3600 years before KJ version in 1611 (2000 OT years & 1600 NT years), taught there IS a Purgatory, salvation CAN be lost, & Mary had only ONE child (Jesus). During the third century B.C., the Egyptian ruler King Ptolemy II Philadelphus wanted to know the “Law” of his Jewish subjects, & had the Hebrew bible translated into Greek. The Greek translation was known as the Septuagint (a reference in Greek to the 72 Rabbi scholars who translated the bible, all 46 books into Greek.)
Brooks33snow 17 hours ago
the catholic church did not add 7 OT books, KJ removed 7 OT books in 1611. There was a valid OT for 3600 years (2000 OT and 1600 NT years) before a king removed 7 books, one, explaining Purgatory. Pray for KJ, in case he made it to Purgatory, and is not in Hell.
Brooks33snow 17 hours ago
the bible states that it is a sin to add/remove books from the bible so how can either argue the other is right when the bible which both claim to believe in and live by clearly forbids it. that makes it okay to do either?
danielleVIDZ 1 year ago
@danielleVIDZ I'm not sure what you mean. The canon of Scripture was definitively set at the Council of Hippo in the late fourth century and for over 1,000 years that is the canon that was used until seven books were removed during the Protestant Reformation. I'm saying it was wrong of them to remove those books, but we certainly never added any.
SeptemberCatholic18 1 year ago
@danielleVIDZ The Jews and Protestants removed them and the Catholic church knew they were important and part of the bible and kept them. They were never "added" because they are already part of the bible.
tlcorrenti 2 months ago
I'm not Catholic. I am non-denominational Evangelical. While I do not believe that the Catholic Church has that last canonical word in all things doctrinal, I want to say that this is a very good video in respects to matters of canon and Holy Scripture. The modern protestants have missed the mark by not remaining faithful to the Septuagint's canon. Thank you. God bless you too.
leonardoarancibia75 1 year ago
@leonardoarancibia75 That's very interesting. I've never met a Christian (not Catholic or Orthodox) who accepts the Deuterocanon as part of the Holy Canon of Scripture.
SeptemberCatholic18 1 year ago
@SeptemberCatholic18 I can accept it too, as well as many other parts of catholic teachings. Do you think it would be safe for me to convert to the catholic church without taking too many risks according to the faith of the place where I live?
M3town33 1 month ago in playlist Uploaded videos
@M3town33 It depends on where you live. I don't know the kind of risks you might get yourself into. If it's safe, you might look for a priest to get advice. In any case, just pray.
SeptemberCatholic18 1 month ago
The luther Bible and the KJV did have the Deutrocanonical books but they were not part of the OT.
daming209 1 year ago
ERROR OF THE APOCRYPHA! Tobit claims to have been alive when Jeroboam revolted (931 B.C.) and when Assyria conquered Israel (722 B.C.). These two events were separated by over 200 years and yet the total lifespan of Tobit was 158 years (Tobit 1:3-5; 14:11)! Judith mistakenly identifies Nebuchadnezzar as king of the Assyrians (1:1, 7) when in fact he was the king of Babylon (2 Kings 24:1).
kiwichristian2009 1 year ago
@kiwichristian2009 These are not contradictions. They are very common, and very weak objections that Protestants raise. You can easily find an explanation for each of these on Catholic dot com.
SeptemberCatholic18 1 year ago
@kiwichristian2009 Ahhh, the Fruitychristian is back again. Are you going to tell me now what your denomination is. Or are you going to keep running me and spamming every Catholic site?
Naturalhit 1 year ago
Contradictions between the aprocrypha and scripture. Sirach 3:3, 30 contradicts Leviticus 17:11. Wisdom 8:19,20 contradicts Romans 3:10. Sirach 12:4-7 contradicts Luke 6:27,30.
kiwichristian2009 1 year ago
@kiwichristian2009 Contradicitons between Protestantism and the Bible: Bible doesn't teach Scripture alone, Protestants do.
TheCatholicWolf 1 year ago
While this entire video is truthful, don't expect to change the minds of Protestant heretics. They have built themselves up above the Church as, each of them individually, as the sole authority on Scripture, interpretation and doctrine. It is the religion that worships the will of man rather than the will of God.
Seek communion with the Church Christ Himself established, the Catholic Church, or continue worshiping yourselves. You shall answer before God on how you choose.
Nothwithstanding 1 year ago
The Catholic Church is the only Church that Jesus founded. Period. Read the Bible. Stop listening to your false prophets. Christian sects are born as we speak. They all have a little truth. And yes.. truth in heresy.
ChrisDaron 1 year ago
@ChrisDaron the catholic church doesnt go by the bible. the catholic church teaches that the church is above the bible so that would mean that the traditions that the church invented/teaches are also above the bible in catholic belief. I find i laughable (no offense) when a catholic tells protestants to read a book that catholics dont even accept as authoritative over their church.
ShavenYakk 1 year ago
@ShavenYakk Jesus founded the Church. What else do you need? Is Protestantism in the Bible? perhaps in the Apocalypses, as a sign of the devil trying to ruin God's work.
I find it hilarious when protestants make commercials for people to come to their little sects and stuff.
By the way, what religion are you?
ChrisDaron 1 year ago
@ChrisDaron Christian.
ShavenYakk 1 year ago
@ShavenYakk Yeah, that's my name... what about it?
ChrisDaron 1 year ago
@ShavenYakk Actually, we do accept the Bible as authoritative, but the difference between Catholics and Protestants is that Catholics accept ALL of the Bible, not just a verse here and there that we find convenient. Where does the Bible say that the Scriptures are the ultimate authority? It doesn't, but it does refer to the CHURCH as the pillar and ground of truth.
TheCatholicWolf 1 year ago
Jerome plainly rejects all the apocryphal books from the canon. In his Prologus Galeatus he says As there are twenty and two letters, so there are counted twenty and two books. Therefore the Wisdom of Solomon, and Jesus, and Judith, and Tobit, are not in the canon. (See the introduction to the Vulgate in his own hand.) Gregory the Great, in his commentaries on Job, (Lib. XIX. Cap. 16.) expressly writes that the books of Macabees is not canonical, as well as the rest. Josephus also agrees.
kiwichristian2009 1 year ago
@kiwichristian2009 Jerome personally may have disagreed, but more importantly, he submitted to the judgment of the Church.
TheCatholicWolf 1 year ago
@TheCatholicWolf Of course he did. He would of been tortured and murdered as a heretic like those other millions who rejected rome.
kiwichristian2009 1 year ago
@kiwichristian2009 Is that right? Care to back that statement up by naming some people who were killed at that time for "reject[ing] Rome"?
TheCatholicWolf 1 year ago
@TheCatholicWolf Go to your library and look under "catholic inquisition". Mr Galileo springs to mind. Gee, was he right or "the church"? I think you will find he was!
kiwichristian2009 1 year ago
@kiwichristian2009 Oh, how little you know of history. Galileo was actually opposed by the majority of scientists of his time because he was not able to answer for the stellar parellax problem in his theory. Only years later after the discovery that the stars are actually light years away could we answer that problem, but in that time, this was a very problematic objection that Galileo could not answer. Plus, Galileo said that the universe was heliocentric, which isn't true.
SeptemberCatholic18 1 year ago
@SeptemberCatholic18 Galileo came up before the inquisitors. They summoned Galileo to a hearing and threatened to throw him into a dungeon and possibly torture him until he recanted. Galileo knew this was no idle threat since they had tortured and burnt Father Bruno at the stake along with many other heritics over the years....
kiwichristian2009 1 year ago
@SeptemberCatholic18 Galileo’s defense was that scriptures were not wrong, only the theologian’s interpretations of the scriptures were wrong. His defense did not prevail, so in the end, rather then suffer the consequenses, he recanted his theories and went into house arrest knowing that the truth would someday be known.
kiwichristian2009 1 year ago
@kiwichristian2009 That was his defense as far as the Scriptures were concerned (and the Church didn't condemn that), but the the stellar parallax problem was the primary reason his theories were rejected. The theologians were willing to accept that their interpretations were incorrect so long as Galileo could prove his theory. Unfortunately, Galileo could not provide an answer for the parallax problem, and so his theories remained rejected.
SeptemberCatholic18 1 year ago
@kiwichristian2009 NO, I said name people at the time of JEROME who were killed - AS YOU ALLEGED - for "opposing Rome". You made the accusation, therefore the burden of proof rests with you.
TheCatholicWolf 1 year ago
Comment removed
TheCatholicWolf 1 year ago
@TheCatholicWolf @kiwichristian2009 As for Galileo, as I recall there were Catholics coming to similar conclusions; however, Galileo was saying that Scripture was wrong whereas these others were not.
kiwichristian2009 1 year ago
@kiwichristian2009 Wrong. Galileo was saying that the churches interpretation of the scriptures was wrong. And on this occasion, he was right.
kiwichristian2009 1 year ago
@kiwichristian2009 I deleted that post for a reason, but since you bring it up, how else would you interpret the particular Scripture? By the way, where's the list of these Bible martyrs at the time of Jerome?
TheCatholicWolf 1 year ago
@TheCatholicWolf we are to submitt to God only, not the church or the pope.
ShavenYakk 1 year ago
@ShavenYakk I agree that we're to submit to God. What does that submission mean? We obey EVERYTHING. If I tell my children to listen to the babysitter while go to the doctor's office or whatever, and they disobey the babysitter, have they not disobeyed me? Christ gave authority to the apostles and said that they were to be obeyed. The apostles gave authority to others the same way Christ did. Paul says that to disobey authority is to disobey the God from Whom all authority comes.
TheCatholicWolf 1 year ago
Martin Luther omitted First and Second Esdras from the Apocrypha of his German Bible in 1534, and both books were also rejected by the Roman Catholics at the Council of Trent in 1546. The Roman Catholic Church did not officially canonize the Apocrypha until the Council of Trent (1546 AD). This was in part because the Apocrypha contained material which supported certain Catholic doctrines, such as purgatory, praying for the dead, and the treasury of merit.
kiwichristian2009 1 year ago
Though these books were considered non-canonical, slowly over the years they came to be regarded by the Roman Catholic Church as part of the Bible, and were finally officially labeled as such. But the Historical Hebrew Religion, and the Historical Christian Religion growing from it, understood that these writings were non-canonical.
kiwichristian2009 1 year ago
According to the Catholic Encyclopedia, St. Jerome was hesitant to include most of the apocryphal books in the canon, due to numerous errors. Even after he did concede to include them (in the fourth century), they were not decreed to be inspired scripture until April 8, 1546 at the Council of Trent. So for 1100 years, they were part of the canon, but not officially scripture. The reason for this is again, because of the numerous errors....
kiwichristian2009 1 year ago
The Bible was compiled into one book way before the printing press ;)
CatholicCross1393 2 years ago
in actuality the apocryphia was taken out because the apocryphia, proficied clearly of what the roman catholic church would do......no apostilic catholic uses the apocryphia. please get your facts together. all these dark tales came about during the dark ages to erase the real owners of the BIBLE who are the Israelites.
Elijah31791 2 years ago
and another:
...We (POPES) hold upon this earth the place of God Almighty..." Pope Leo XIII, in Praeclara Gratulationis Publicae (The Reunion of Christendom), Encyclical promulgated on June 20, 1894.
ShavenYakk 2 years ago
The quote by Pope Pius V is clearly a hoax. The pope never said that, and even if he did, he would be wrong. Plain and simple. The Catholic Church does not teach that "the pope and God are the same."
The second and third quotes are valid. The pope is considered to be the steward to the King (Christ), and thus he holds his place until the Second Coming. This notion can be seen in Isaiah 22:22 and Jesus reiterated it through the papacy in Matthew 16:18-19.
However, they are not the same.
SeptemberCatholic18 2 years ago
Hoax eh? Please post your DOCUMENTATION that it is clearly a hoax or quit making excuses.
you and I werent there, but someone who documented it was. He said it.
you should be careful because saying your popes are wrong could get you excommunicated from the "church".
you also forget that when the pope speaks on faith and morals, he speaks excathedra and it is "impossible" for him to be in error. this statement would definitely fit the faith and morals category. believe it or leave it.
ShavenYakk 2 years ago
@ShavenYakk
It's clearly a HOAX that you Protestants fabricated. This is a HOOK, LINE, SINKER for you Protestant in order to prove your point that the Pope is the beast.
No where in his writing was there an indication of Pope and God are the same. Mainly it talks about being in UNION with GOD.
It to long to post it here so I'm PM it to you. You can read Pope Pius V writing for yourself.
Naturalhit 2 years ago
Also sending you the Praeclara Gratulationis Publicae encylical. I want you to tell me where it is written that the Pope and God are the same.
Naturalhit 2 years ago
your popes BLASPHEMY..."But since We (popes) hold upon this earth the place of God Almighty..."
No mere MAN can hold the place of GOD on earth or anywhere else.
heres your pope:
2Th 2:4 Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God.
ShavenYakk 2 years ago
I sent you a PM showing your popes BLASPHEMY in his own letter.
the RCC is the biggest religious HOAX on the face of the earth. total pagan lies and a man who claims to be God...and catholics who worship him like he's Jesus.
ShavenYakk 2 years ago
I didn't receive it. I will unlock my mail box. So do it again. Be sure to add references and source.
I already proven the LIES that you Protestants fabricated. I showed you the document itself. Which shows nothing that you claim.
I used to be an Evangelical and I can tell you the LIES that I used to believe that I got from going to that church.
RCC is the original Christianity. Everything else is a HOAX You guys fabricated. You guys can't even agree on anything.
Naturalhit 2 years ago
you can delete the quotes all you like but they are up in videos on YT so it wont do any good to try and cover up.
ShavenYakk 2 years ago
I didn't delete your quotes. The only thing I deleted was one quote that you accidentally posted twice.
I think you have the burden of proof the wrong way. Please provide documentation that the quote is VALID or quote making things up. The person making the positive claim bears the burden of proof, not the objector.
Saying the pope is wrong does not get you excommunicated. Saying the CHURCH is wrong does, because it is the pillar and ground of truth (1 Tim 3:15).
SeptemberCatholic18 2 years ago
No, these statements do not count as ex cathedra, although I agree with the last two you quotes by Pope Leo XIII. (Only the one by Pope Pius V is a hoax).
It is only ex cathedra when the pope makes a declaration on faith or morals with the intention of making it a dogmatic statement. It is usually in communion with the college of bishops, and it is NEVER contained in an encyclical like the ones you posted. Encyclicals are not ex cathedra. They are a step below being dogmatic.
SeptemberCatholic18 2 years ago
ok, sorry I found it, so you didnt delete it. my mistake, my apology.
I supplied the source of the quote in the post itself. Until you show documentation proving your accusation that it is not factual, there is nothing else to discuss.
ShavenYakk 2 years ago
Actually I tracked down that source and it led to a dead end. There is no reference to a book title, and all you gave me was the surname of some obscure author. That document does not exist.
After doing some research, I found an article that tears that quote apart and gives several reasons to conclude it is a hoax. The main reason: the document is nonexistent.
SeptemberCatholic18 2 years ago
No dead end, i gave the source, it is correct. the popes make the most blasphemous quotes and so do the catholics that follow them. but believe what you want.
ShavenYakk 2 years ago
You misunderstood me. I see that you posted an obscure source, but the source itself is an invention; it doesn't exist.
Try to look it up yourself and you'll never find it. I tried and tried and finally I stumbled on an article disproving the validity of that statement.
It's sad that anti-Catholics have to resort to hoaxes to promote their cause. If you support truth, you will look into that source and see for yourself if what I am telling you is a lie.
SeptemberCatholic18 2 years ago
Sir thank you for always answering my questions in your other videos...
Actually, I only had a limited knowledge about the church & religion because Im an engineering student here in our country...
I'm so Blessed that GOD sent me people like you to explain me about the church teachings...
GOD BLESS....
pRiMeJeSsz 2 years ago
"But since We (popes) hold upon this earth the place of God Almighty..."
NICE TRY, the Pope simply represents our Lord Jesus here on earth until His return. Just as the Prime Minister Hezekiah stood in the place of the King of Israel until his return.
This is what the AUTHORITY OF THE POPE:
Matt. 16:19 "Onto Thee I give the KEY to the Kingdom of Heaven. Whatever you loosen on earth shall be loose in Heaven. Whatever you bound on earth shall be bound in Heaven."
Naturalhit 2 years ago
this is what Jesus said about power given to any one follower of His:
Mat 20:26 But it SHALL NOT BE SO among YOU (His followers)...
pope can say he holds the place of God all he wants but scripture doesnt support it anywhere. office of pope is a lie and total foolishness. the pope only represents paganism and false gospel.
ShavenYakk 2 years ago
Again, NICE TRY. Why don't you post the whole thing: Jesus called them together and said, "You know that the rulers of this world rule over them. Not so with you. Instead, whoever wants to become great among you must be your servant, and whoever wants to be first must be your slave just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many."
Matt. 20:26 talks about service and humility. It is a supplement to Matt. 16:19-21. What else do you have?
Naturalhit 2 years ago
@Naturalhit service/humility? where is that in the papacy?. pope lives in luxury in a castle, Jesus had NOWHERE to lay His head. Pope is chauffeured by private jet & pope-mobile, Jesus WALKED. pope HAS servants by the dozen, Jesus IS the SERVANT. Pope CLAIMS to be God, Jesus IS God. RCC says sbumit to pope for salvation, bible says submit to Jesus. RCC claims to forgive sin, bible says only God can forgive sin. May God bless u and lead u out of error into His marvelous light.
ShavenYakk 1 year ago
@ShavenYakk Why do YOU have a bed, house, and car?
The pope does not live in a castle, he lives in a private apartment room. The pope needs vehicles to get around because he cannot get everywhere on his feet. How would he get to America? The pope's title is "The Servant of the Servants of God." In other words, the pope is not a master who is served, he is a servant himself. The pope does not claim to be God. We never claim that the pope saves. John 20:23 proves Confession.
Any questions?
SeptemberCatholic18 1 year ago
@SeptemberCatholic18 you dont know your own church teaching: "Christ Jesus left...His Vicar whom you are ALL OBLIGED to OBEY until death. whoever is outside his (pope's) obedience is in a state of DAMNATION (NO SALVATION)." St. Catherine of Siena, MCH, reference #374, (quoted in Apostolic Digest, by Michael Malone, Book 5: "The Book of Obedience", Chapter 1: "There is NO SALVATION Without Personal SUBMISSION to the Pope").
RCC says no salvation without the pope. pope is ur saviour not Christ.
ShavenYakk 1 year ago
@ShavenYakk We obey they Pope because Christ made him the *visible* head of the Church on earth. All authority comes from God, to disobey those whom God says to obey is to disobey God.
TheCatholicWolf 1 year ago
@ShavenYakk Funny, you mentioned that the Pope lives in luxury. Can you tell me how much money he has in his bank account and what personal material belongings does he own?
When I was an Evangelical my Pastor was lived in a Mason, drives Maserati, has a yacht, and a young wife. So you wanna tell me who is following Christ here? Yet, my former Pastor has to audacity to ask for a 10% tid from us in order to support his mega-church and his 6 digit income.
You are brainwashed my friend.
Naturalhit 1 year ago
@Naturalhit living in luxury has nothing to do with OWNING the luxuries. it doesnt matter if others supply it, it's still a castle, cheauffer & servants.
your old pastor has nothing to do with it, he was just a protestant version of the pope. one thing doesnt excuse the other.
Jesus didnt hoard riches, he had no house, no vehicle (horse/chariot etc) and no servants (He served them instead).
the pope is the complete Anti of Christ.
ShavenYakk 1 year ago
@ShavenYakk Is the father of a household an anti-Christ for holding authority, being obeyed, and being the official owner of everything in the house?
TheCatholicWolf 1 year ago
@TheCatholicWolf the pope has no "official" authority over anyone, Christ Himself said to the apostles/disciples that "it shall not be so among" them Mat 20:26. the pope owns nothing in the house of christianity. he has usurped authority that does not belong to him. we owe our obedience to Christ, not to a sinful man who claims he's God's vicar on earth.
ShavenYakk 1 year ago
@ShavenYakk If you disobey one that Christ says to obey, you disobey Him. This is not a difficult concept.
TheCatholicWolf 1 year ago
@ShavenYakk Psalm 14:1
"There is no God."
Hey look, I can make the Bible say anything by taking things out of context too!
CatholicCross1393 2 years ago
you did quite a bit more than just out of context...like removing almost the whole verse. My quote was in context for the bible...it was just not in context for what you want to believe.
RCC is the true meaning of out of context. but hey if you want to follow a sinful pope rather than Jesus, thats your choice. I dont need a pope, I have Christ as my High Priest.
ShavenYakk 2 years ago
Wow, you've impressed me.
Not really. I was being sarcastic. Teehee. Actually, I once hated Catholics like you. So I understand...
Funny thing you mention that. I follow Christ. Also, I just made a video describing how Christ is High Priest. He's also the sacrifice. Did you know that in the Old Testament, the sacrificial lamb was eaten? If not, it was not effective and was invalid. Jesus is the our new Lamb. Jesus commanded the Eucharist. "Eat, this is my Body...drink, this is my blood."
CatholicCross1393 2 years ago
@CatholicCross1393 if I hated catholics I would let them die in ignorance rather than enlighten them so they can be saved. if you stay in RCC till Jesus returns you will be lost, period.
yes the lamb was eaten, but you seem to forget that Jesus offered His sacrifice ONCE for all 2K years ago. unlike in OT times, now we REMEMBER that sacrifice symbolically because it cannot be repeated over & over like animal sacrifice could and like the popes heretical mass tries to do.
ShavenYakk 1 year ago
@ShavenYakk
The Eucharist is not a new sacrifice over and over. It is the same sacrifice, presented again according to the way Christ insisted ("do this in memory of me.")
SeptemberCatholic18 1 year ago
@SeptemberCatholic18 so you nail the cracker to the cross? thats a new one on me.
allow me to quote from catholic(*#*)com
"The Eucharist is a TRUE SACRIFICE, not just a commemorative meal, as "Bible Christians" insist. The first Christians knew that it was a sacrifice and proclaimed this in their writings. They recognized the SACRIFICIAL character of Jesus instruction, "Do this in remembrance of me" (Luke 22:19, 1 Cor. 11:2425)
I can send you more quotes from catholic sources.
ShavenYakk 1 year ago
@ShavenYakk
I never denied that the Eucharist is a sacrifice. I said the Eucharist is ONE sacrifice; the same exact one which Jesus offered at Calvary.
SeptemberCatholic18 1 year ago
@SeptemberCatholic18 how can it be the same one Jesus offered if He offered it 2000 years ago and the pope offers one today? not possible.
ShavenYakk 1 year ago
@ShavenYakk
It is the same sacrifice because Jesus transcends space and time. That makes it possible for the Church to re-present (present again) the same sacrifice which Jesus offered once and for all.
SeptemberCatholic18 1 year ago
@SeptemberCatholic18 ONCE for all is no longer ONCE if you do it weekly.
protestants have it right, the bread and wine are symbolic of the sacrifice of Christ, thats why He said REMEMBER ME when you do this. if it's the same sacrifice available every week or any time they want to sacrifice Him again, then there is no need to remember because its there again every week. REMEMBERING Him is not the same as RE SACRIFICING Him.
ShavenYakk 1 year ago
@ShavenYakk
That's not true. We are presenting again the SAME sacrifice. Jesus' sacrifice transcends time, so it is possible to present it again without making it a new sacrifice. That's why Paul says in Hebrews 11:26 that "as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord's death till he come."
We are showing the Lord's death, NOT a representation of his death. Paul says we are actually showing his death.
By the way, we have Mass every day, not just weekly.
SeptemberCatholic18 1 year ago
@ShavenYakk How can you DIE in ignorance? that's the funniest statement I've heard in at least a week and s half..
Man, Protestants are funny. They "want to save the ignorance of Catholics".. they are so "chosen"..
Sure...
ChrisDaron 1 year ago
@ChrisDaron yea you mean like the catholic church that say they are the true church ( Sooo chosen) and that no one can be saved outside the catholic church and you want to say we think we are chosen? gimme a break.
ShavenYakk 1 year ago
@ShavenYakk Break given to you.
ChrisDaron 1 year ago
@ChrisDaron thanks dude :)
ShavenYakk 1 year ago
@ShavenYakk Thanks for what? I didn't join your sect, dude. Why are you thanking me? I'm not a Luther minion, dawg.
ChrisDaron 1 year ago
hey Chris, if you want to worship a man who claims to be God on earth/Jesus in the flesh, that is certainly your choice. I would never try and force you not to. but dont expect me to say that the catholic cult will lead you to heaven, I am warning you now, get out while you can. if you stay till Jesus returns you WILL be lost. as for me and my house, we will serve the Lord.
ShavenYakk 1 year ago
@ShavenYakk Where does the Church teach us to worship the Pope?
TheCatholicWolf 1 year ago
@TheCatholicWolf the RCC teaches the pope is "god" on earth and "jesus" in the veil of flesh...that is worship of a man plain and clear.
I hope your user name does not reflect your character, but it certainly relfects the character of the RCC for killing millions upon millions during the dark ages.
ShavenYakk 1 year ago
@ShavenYakk Wrong. Where, when, how does the Catholic Church say that the Pope is a god??? tssss... that's just plain nuts.
ChrisDaron 1 year ago
@ShavenYakk You're last remark comes from one who obviously knows nothing about wolves, but whatever. Millions huh? Care to document this from a neutral source, that the Church killed "millions" for the "crime" of not being Catholic?
And where does the Church teach that the Pope is God? Provide a document, not your interpretation of that document. Use the words themselves, and label the document. Paul says to obey authority, because to disobey them is to disobey God. It makes perfect sense.
TheCatholicWolf 1 year ago
@SeptemberCatholic18 "All names which in the Scriptures are applied to Christ, by virtue of which it is established that He is over the church, all the same names are applied to the Pope."
On the Authority of the Councils, book 2, chapter 17
,
kiwichristian2009 1 year ago
@SeptemberCatholic18 Father A. Pereira says: "It is quite certain that Popes have never approved or rejected this title 'Lord God the Pope,' for the passage in the gloss referred to appears in the edition of the Canon Law published in Rome in 1580 by Gregory XIII."
kiwichristian2009 1 year ago
@SeptemberCatholic18 Writers on the Canon Law say, "The Pope and God are the same, so he has all power in heaven and earth." Barclay Cap. XXVII, p. 218. Cities Petrus Bertrandus, Pius V. - Cardinal Cusa supports his statement.
Pope Nicholas I declared: "the appellation of God had been confirmed by Constantine on the Pope, who, being God, cannot be judged by man." Labb IX Dist.: 96 Can. 7, Satis evidentur, Decret Gratian Primer Para."
kiwichristian2009 1 year ago
Did the Catholic Church Add Seven Books to the OT?
YES.
ShavenYakk 2 years ago
The answer is no. History shows that they were part of the original canon compiled in 393 and stayed there until the 16th century, when Martin Luther questioned them and they were later thrown out by Protestants.
SeptemberCatholic18 2 years ago
the answer is Yes....those uninspired books were added by the RCC and removed by direction of the Holy Spirit.
ShavenYakk 2 years ago
That's not true at all; most Christians use the Deuterocanonical books. Protestants are the only ones who do not use them, and only because Martin Luther said so. Is Martin Luther the Holy Spirit?
Even worse (for you) is that Jesus used the Septuagint canon, meaning even he would have had those seven books in his canon.
SeptemberCatholic18 2 years ago
"most"? where do you get your info a catechism?
is the pope the Holy Spirit?
ShavenYakk 2 years ago
Catholics alone comprise half of all Christians, and the Eastern Orthodox (which is the second largest Christian group) also uses the Deuterocanon.
But that is irrelevant. My main point was that the Deuterocanon is valid Scripture that was removed by Martin Luther just because he didn't agree with it.
My information comes from studying history and leaning about the early Christian church through its development in time.
NO, the pope is NOT the Holy Spirit. That would be utter blasphemy.
SeptemberCatholic18 2 years ago
"NO, the pope is NOT the Holy Spirit. That would be utter blasphemy"
yea just like when the popes and catholics call pope "God on earth" and "Jesus under the veil of flesh". thats blasphemy, but they do it.
ShavenYakk 2 years ago
No, we do not do that. God is already on earth despite the pope. Jesus is already in the flesh despite the pope. The pope is not either of those and Catholics have never said that he was.
However, we DO say that he is the vicar (representative) of Christ, because we believe that Jesus assigned Peter the papacy 2,000 years ago in Matt 16:18-19 in order that the pope might serve certain duties until Christ's return. When Peter died, that authority was passed down a linage of popes till today.
SeptemberCatholic18 2 years ago
I can supply you with quotes from catholics that say otherwise...I can send them by pm if you want to see them.
ShavenYakk 2 years ago
I don't care what other "Catholics" say. I am telling you what the pope himself says and what the Catechism of the Catholic Church teaches. If anyone says any different, then you can consider them misguided and unorthodox catholics.
SeptemberCatholic18 2 years ago
From reliable Catholic Apologetic and Evangelization website and reading Catholic material, and the Bible. That is where he got his information from.
The Pope is the successor of St. Peter not the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit protects the Pope when he teaches Ex-Cathedra.
mannyfit75 2 years ago
You are totally wrong and you shouldnt speak out against the Holy Spirit.
Hebrews 11:35 refers to 2 Maccabees chapter 7.
There are all sorts of references and you speak from a false doctrine that is a false teaching.
I would suggest you repent, if you can.
bronco3250 2 years ago
I will not repent of exposing the catholic heresy.
ShavenYakk 2 years ago
And you are falsely taught, you you dont have the ears to hear.
It is sad.
Your judgement of others will be the judgement against you.
As it is written. You are simply with out understanding and I pray for you.
bronco3250 2 years ago
Your POPES speak: "The Pope and God are the SAME, so he (pope) has ALL POWER in Heaven and earth." Pope Pius V, quoted in Barclay, Chapter XXVII, p. 218, "Cities Petrus Bertanous".
...We (POPES) hold upon this earth the place of God Almighty..." Pope Leo XIII, in Praeclara Gratulationis Publicae (The Reunion of Christendom), Encyclical promulgated on June 20, 1894.
Clearly popes are BLASPHEMERS and the RCC is a false church.
ShavenYakk 2 years ago
No. The Catholic Church added 27 NT in the Bible...
mannyfit75 2 years ago
Thank you that was very interesting.
I've spoken to plenty of Protestants coming out of theological colleges and protestant chaplins, and amazingly as knowledgeable as they are of the scripture, most have no understanding of the history of the deutercanoncal books.
maghdhd 2 years ago
Instead of venerating anyone or anything else, why not just focus on God through His Son Jesus? He died and rose again to become our High Priest forever so we COULD go straight to Him.
Going through anyone else (Mary, etc.) just seems to render His role and His purpose absolete. "I am the way, the truth and the life. No man comes to the father but by me (John 14:6)." With this in mind, why create other methods of getting to God?
blakdak 2 years ago
I have read Catholic literature (written by Catholics) who admit that much of what they do developed over time.
Even in the first century Christian church, there were churches going astray with their practices as we see in Paul's letters and the churches mentioned in Revelation.
How certain can you be certain that the well respected Church Fathers (who many times differ from the Bible in their teachings) are actually following Sacred Traditions that are not simply of their own making?
blakdak 2 years ago
revised your statement that this books are not qouted in the new testament they are for Mary canticle has a quote from sirach...
justcoolforyou 2 years ago
It was Martin Luther who threw out several books of the Old and New Testament which contradicted his erroneous belief 'justification by faith alone'... St James was one such book. St James said faith without works is DEAD. So Luther was wrong... The Catholic Church was founded by Christ himself who gave St Peter the authority to be the leader. He passed it on to our first pope Linus in AD66. Till today ... We DO NOT worship idols. We worship GOD alone.. We honour Mary ... Read Macabees!
TroyeHaryanto 3 years ago
Please read St. Basil's work "On the Mysteries" -- the entire thing and not ripping things out of context -- and you will then see what I am talking about.
deliveringit 3 years ago
Sorry, I said "Basil" I meant AMBROSE. Same mistake a few comments down.
deliveringit 3 years ago
The Greek word for 'mystery' (musterion) is translated into Latin as 'Sacramentum.' As St. Paul says in Eph 5:32, that the great mystery/sacrament he just described (about being one body with the Lord -- an allusion to the sacrament of Eucharist) is in reference to Christ and the Church. Also, due to the persecutions, early Christians kept the dogma of the Eucharist secret, since Rome would (and did) use it to claim the Christians were cannibals, not understanding it.
deliveringit 3 years ago
To armandosainz: either you have never read the context of these Early Church Fathers you quote, or you are purposefully trying to deceive. The Early Church used the term "mysteries" to refer to the Sacraments of Baptism and Eucharist. Basil wrote, "to speak of the Mysteries, and to set forth the purport of the sacraments, which if we had ...to those who were not yet initiated, we should be considered rather to have betrayed than to have portrayed the Mysteries."
deliveringit 3 years ago
Yeah. I think this video pretty much just owned all other Christian communities.
Patriarch00 3 years ago
Thank you. God Bless.
jplaysem 3 years ago
Conspiracy theories like that belong with big foot, crop circles and the fake moon landing. All have evidence, but it is easily proven fabricated with a serious investigation. Some people just like to believe in that crap because they are bored.
Baal worship, lol. I guess christmas should be scrapped to then hey. It does have pagan conections after all.
JDZwiers19 3 years ago
Yes Jesus has a church. It is made up of true Christians. Bible believers. Not some organization. Your last post shows you are just parroting what you've been told rather than seeking after the TRUTH.
My facts are historic and true. The bible warned that there would be a falling away. What makes you think it has not happened? In the bible, God is completely against Baal worship and all sorts of paganism. What makes you think it is not around today? It most certainly is.
I emailed sources 2U
armandosainz 3 years ago
I'm not parroting anything. I constructed that entire message myself based on the conclusions I have reached from studying my Bible.
Your facts are very inaccurate. Ripping texts out of context does not qualify as being "historical." Nor are they true.
The Catholic Church has nothing to do with Baal worship. That is something your anti-Catholic sources tell you. The Church is very much against paganism.
If anyone is parroting, it is you. Please stop reading Jack Chick; read the Bible instead.
SeptemberCatholic18 3 years ago
I have some questions concerning Catholicism. 'When' and 'why' did the veneration of Mary and other Apostles start? We don't see it happening in the early church(es) of the New Testament. We also don't see any one titled Pope or any special preferences given to Peter by the other Apostles if he was considered the Pope. So my question is 'when' and 'why' did all these things begin within the Catholic church?
blakdak 2 years ago
Actually, yes, there was saint veneration in the early Church. Take a look at pretty much any of the early Cristian writings! Clement, Origin, Cyprian, etc.
Pope was a title later given to the office assigned to Peter in Matthew 16:18-19 and John 21:15-17. Those verses show Peter having a special place among the apostles.
Of course doctrine develops. For instance, the Trinity is never found in Scripture! The Church had to develop the doctrine based on what we already knew.
SeptemberCatholic18 2 years ago
I can be certain that the early church Fathers are accurate because their writings are in line with what Scripture teaches. They also represent what all early Christians had believed at the time. Lastly, some of them (like Ignatius) were students of the apostles themselves.
We venerate the saints because we want to honor God. Is it wrong to admire an artist's work? God is the artist and his creation is the work. However, our primary focus in on God.
Mary does not supersede Christ.
SeptemberCatholic18 2 years ago
No, the Trinity term is not found in scripture but we do find the triune Godhead in scripture. We can create or uncreate a name for it. It's irrelevant.
In your theology, isn't Mary a co-ruler/author with Christ for our salvation? Does this make her equal or in any way a type of deity?
blakdak 2 years ago
No, it's not wrong to respect or honor people of awesome accomplishments or character. However, it is wrong to put the honor of people as a part of our worship to God. God wants us to worship Him as the Creator; not to worship His creation.
To worship the creation is similar to what happens often in witchcraft (i.e. worshipping nature).
blakdak 2 years ago
The EARLY church fathers are just as fallible as the EARLIEST church fathers we find in the New Testament christian churches. We see the Apostles traveling and correcting these churches as early as the 1st century. So if the EARLIEST church fathers were 'getting it wrong', the church fathers you are quoting could have been even more wrong due to their lack of living Apostles to correct them.
blakdak 2 years ago
So the concept of the Trinity is found in Scripture, but the actual name for it came later as a development. That is an example of what we mean by developing doctrine. We don't create new concepts, we just piece together what we know in order to get a clearer picture of what God is telling us.
Mary is understood to have a role in salvation, but then again we all have a role in salvation. We must pray for each other (1 Tim 2:1) and fill up what is lacking in Christ's afflictions (Col 1:24).
SeptemberCatholic18 2 years ago
Mary is not to be honored as a deity, just a very blessed mother and saint of Jesus Christ.
We do not worship the saints; we just honor and respect them as Romans 13:7 urges.
We acknowledge that the early Fathers were fallible. Never did we make the claim that they spoke infallibly.
However when the consensus of the early Christian writings all say the same thing about a subject, it is safe to suggest that what they are saying is true. For instance, every early Father believed in the Trinity.
SeptemberCatholic18 2 years ago
I agree when the church fathers words echo scripture. I have an issue when they take liberties with scripture.
The liberties I speak of include the accepted traditions of the church. Let me ask this question: knowing that the earliest churches were very primitive, could a Catholic have a full and meaningful worship in the park (without stained glass windows, incense, statues, music, bells, etc.)? This type of worship would echo the 1st century churches; especially as they were hiding out.
blakdak 2 years ago
The concept of Trinity is found in scripture but the office of the Pope (and all his duties and responsibilities), we don't find it in scripture.
The mannerism and humility of Peter is vastly different than the mannerism of the Popes of today. Peter never allowed anyone to bow and kiss him.
Why is Mary understood to have a role in our salvation? Again, is that scriptual from Jesus or the Apostles or did it come later from someone who put their own spin on it?
blakdak 2 years ago
The church Fathers do not take liberty with the Scriptures. They are simply reiterating what they've received from the apostles, or from Apostolic Tradition.
The traditions you mentioned normally associated with Catholic worship are not part of the faith. Therefore it doesn't matter if stained glass was not in the Bible; it is not a teaching. To refute the Catholic Church, you must dispute doctrine, not liturgy.
Any saint has a role in salvation as far as they can pray for us (James 5:16).
SeptemberCatholic18 2 years ago
(cont.) Mary is considered the greatest saint because she was chosen to deliver God in the flesh into the world.
Regarding the papacy, I would argue that the office of pope and its fundamental duties ARE found, not only in Apostolic Tradition, but also Scripture. I have made several videos on this topic.
The mannerisms are unimportant. The only thing that matters is if the office and its fundamental duties are found in Scripture. How a pope carries himself is secondary and irrelevant.
SeptemberCatholic18 2 years ago
The point being that if the Bible states the power and affectiveness of scripture alone, who has the authority to come along and say traditions are needed for salvation as well?
Okay. Give me those scriptures on the Popes 'unique' role.
You wouldn't think the mannerisms of a Pope are important? I saw a video where a Catholic apologist admitted that there were several (earlier) Popes who were not Heaven bound due to their disgraceful actions in office. Didn't mention 'who', though.
blakdak 2 years ago
The Pope represents Christ on Earth (vicar) and the entire Catholic Church, correct? His behavior reflects all he represents and can show the beauty of the Catholic church or the depravity of the Catholic church.
If he carries himself on a level of 'rockstar' or 'diva' to be adorned....well, I'm sure all the Apostles would have liked their lives to be filled with such comfort and respect. Instead, their lives were spent in tireless service, jail and eventual death.
blakdak 2 years ago
I appreciate your information. 90% of all the Catholics I have spoken to don't have half of your knowledge regarding their own faith. Kudos to you. Why do you think that is, though?
So if the church fathers are reiterating what they recieved from the Apostles, why did none of the Apostles (or their companions) take care to place it in their Gospels or letters to the 1st century churches?
Question: can I be a Christian in good standing with God through scripture alone? 2 Timothy 3:15-17.
blakdak 2 years ago
I think Catholics need to wake up. I agree, most are ignorant.
The information that the early Fathers are reiterating can sometimes not be found in Scripture because we do not have all of the Apostles' writings; some of them were lost. For instance, we do not have this letter from Paul (1 Cor. 5:9-11).
I will not comment on what you need to do to be in good standing with God, but I can tell you that Scripture alone is not sufficient for a full faith. Tradition is urged too (2 Thess 2:15).
SeptemberCatholic18 2 years ago
(cont...) That is, Apostolic Tradition.
As far as the way the pope carries himself, I would say that he certainly does not portray himself as a rockstar or diva. He is dedicated to a life of humility and study. However, since he is a high-profile figure, it is natural that people react the way they do.
Nevertheless, it is irrelevant. Even if he was a terrible pope (killing and raping), that would not disprove the doctrine of the papacy; only that the pope can be sinful, which he can be.
SeptemberCatholic18 2 years ago
Scripture itself never claims to be sufficient for the faith. Indeed, how could it do so? The Bible was not even compiled into one book until around the late 4th century!
Also, if Scripture alone is sufficient, where can I find an infallible "table of contents" in the Bible? Nowhere, because the Church (guided by the Spirit) was the one that chose which books would be canon in 393 AD at the Council of Hippo.
To see some verses proving the papacy please watch the video I made on Peter the rock.
SeptemberCatholic18 2 years ago
@SeptemberCatholic18 Show me the verses in the Bible that shows saint veneration.
kiwichristian2009 1 year ago
@kiwichristian2009 Many of your sources are actually made up. The Catholic Church officially rejects the notion that the pope is in any way equal to God, or even close to him in nature. Anyone who says anything different is misrepresenting the faith, and they are just plain wrong.
St. Jerome did not hesitate on the Deuterocanonicals because of errors. He had other issues, but nevertheless trusted the authority of the Church (1 Tim 3:15). They were always inspired, even before Trent.
SeptemberCatholic18 1 year ago
@SeptemberCatholic18 According to the Catholic Encyclopedia, St. Jerome was hesitant to include most of the apocryphal books in the canon, due to numerous errors. Even after he did concede to include them (in the fourth century), they were not decreed to be inspired scripture until April 8, 1546 at the Council of Trent. So for 1100 years, they were part of the canon, but not officially scripture. The reason for this is again, because of the numerous errors....
kiwichristian2009 1 year ago
@SeptemberCatholic18 ...It appears they were ultimately accepted at Trent, because without doing so, the Catholic Church had no scripture upon which to base the doctrine of purgatory, invocation and intercession of the saints, the worship of angels, the redemption of souls after death, etc. ...
kiwichristian2009 1 year ago
@SeptemberCatholic18 ... In fact, if you'll look at the Catholic Encyclopedia, you'll find discussion of "problems" or "errors" with most of the apocryphal books. Perhaps you should ask yourself why the Jews and Protestants have rejected the divine inspiration of the Apocrypha.
kiwichristian2009 1 year ago
@SeptemberCatholic18 BTW: what does the title monsignor mean? It means "My Lord". In the Word of God, WHO is our Lord?
kiwichristian2009 1 year ago
@SeptemberCatholic18 Neither their authors nor the circumstances of their writings are known. Neither the Jews nor the early Christians accepted them as inspired scripture. The books themselves do not claim inspiration. There are no "Thus saith the Lord" 's . Although the New Testament has 263 direct quotations from and 370 allusions to the Old Testament, there is not a single reference to the books of the apocrypha. ...
kiwichristian2009 1 year ago
@SeptemberCatholic18 ...It was at the Council of Trent, on April 8th, 1546, that the pope declared tradition and the apocrypha to be canonical and authoritative. These books teach several false doctrines and contain many inaccurate historical facts.
kiwichristian2009 1 year ago
So when these men spoke of the mysteries, they were talking about Babylonian Baal worship and not Christ. Everything in the RCC is mystery this and mystery that but the bible is not like that at all. You don't know this because you are not at the top of the food chain so to speak in the RCC. I'm sorry friend but I speak the truth to you.
Nothing was hidden from those in the bible. Paul - Behold, I SHEW YOU a mystery Read again how the early church fathers hid things from the Catechumens.
armandosainz 3 years ago
Your facts are simply incorrect. The early Christian Fathers were not speaking of ancient Baal worship. You are terribly ripping their words of of context as an atheist rips the Bible out of context. Provide me your sources of those quotes and I will personally examine them. If I reach the same conclusion as you, I will convert from Catholicism.
SeptemberCatholic18 3 years ago
Jesus Christ established one Church on earth (Matthew 16:18), "the pillar and foundation of truth (1 Timothy 3:15)." He positioned Peter as the first pope to guide the flock (John 21:15-17), and that position has been passed down through a linage of popes (Acts 1:20) to our current Pope Benedict XVI. And the gates of hell shall not prevail against this Church (Matthew 16:19).
The Catholic Church is the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic church that Jesus Christ himself established and sustains.
SeptemberCatholic18 3 years ago
Tertullian says - None are admitted to the religious Mysteries without an oath of secrecy. Far hence, ye Profane! is the prohibition from all holy Mysteries."
Origen - Inasmuch as the essential doctrines of Christianity are openly taught, there are other things that are RECONDITE; this is common to Christian discipline that some things were EXOTERIC and some ESOTERIC:
Bishop Archelaus -The Mysteries are not explained to the Gentiles
The RCC have been running a game on you from the start.
armandosainz 3 years ago
I don't understand what you intend to demonstrate with these quotes. Get to your point because I'm not seeing it.
To me, it seems that you are taking many of these men out of context. For one thing, the early Fathers KNEW the apostles and learned from them; so surely they speak the truth of Christ.
Second of all (the thing you seem to be completely oblivious to), for the first 1,050 years, EVERY Christian was Catholic.
We are the true body of Christians.
SeptemberCatholic18 3 years ago
Ok fair enough. The "mysteries" these men are talking about are of the mystery religions spoken of in the bible as Baal worship. This is what happened to the church fathers right after John's death. So no they no longer spoke the truth of Christ. They began to add the "mysteries" of Egypt and Babylon.
Yes after Constantine everyone was Catholic because it became the law. You know many people began to go against the RCC teachings because they were not biblical and paid for it with their lives.
armandosainz 3 years ago
I don't know enough about the comments of these particular men to correct you, but if you would provide me the original sources, I would gladly read over them and give you the proper context which you seem to have torn them out of.
No, Catholicism existed BEFORE Constantine took Rome. We have evidence of it existing as far back as 80 AD; after all, Jesus did establish it.
And the men who died for going against Christianity died because of ROME. Rome became a monster; the Church was not Rome.
SeptemberCatholic18 3 years ago
Jesus fulfilled the Jewish religion. He did NOT establish anything Catholic. Please study friend.
Mat 10:5-6 These twelve Jesus sent forth, and commanded them, saying, Go not into the way of the Gentiles, and into any city of the Samaritans enter ye not: But go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.
It was the Lord's original mission. AD 70 happened because the Jews rejected him so He went after Gentiles
Rome became Catholic and they killed. Haven't you heard of the Inquisition?
armandosainz 3 years ago
St. Basil, the Bishop of Caesarea "several things have been handed to us without writing, lest the vulgar, too familiar with our dogmas, should lose respect for them"
St. Ambrose, Archbishop of Milan "All the Mystery should be kept concealed, guarded by faithful silence lest it should be inconsiderately divulged to the ears of the Profane. Every Mystery ought to be kept secret,lest it should rashly be divulged to the ears of the Profane. Take heed not to reveal the Mysteries!"
Not christian!
armandosainz 3 years ago