Somone correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm not aware of Jehova's Witnesses having been discriminated in the past by Catholics as much as Protestants in general.
Ecclesiastical Anarchy is not just in Protestantism But can be found in Eastern Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism.I am Western Orthodox priest and accept the Bishop of Rome First among equals
The true church of Jesus Christ is a relationship, not a membership. It isn’t any particular protestant denomination or Roman catholic. It doesn't have a roof or an address. We are the Body of Christ, past, present and future from all around the world who have accepted Christ’s work on the cross for our sins 2000 years ago, once and for all. Our names have been written in the Book of Life from the beginning. 1 cross + 3 nails = 4 given.
The false assumption of the RC church is that God intends for oral tradition to always exist. Oral tradition was in place and relied upon till Moses, same situation for entire OT, same situation for the Apostles, THEN IT FINISHED. God is not giving any new revelation, His Word is sufficient to fully equip the man of faith for every good work. The church is not the ultimate authority HIS WORD IS!! We will never agree so there will always be a great chasm betwixt us. Only one of us has the truth.
@Ooftyman Hello friend. Something has to be the measuring stick by which all things are judged. And that would be God's Word, not the traditions of men.
@johnthreesixteen316 I agree wholeheartedly. I just got done writing the same exact thing. =). I was referencing the emergence of Talmud over Torah since the Middle Ages. Even further back, Jesus warned my ancestors of the dangers of holding their Midrashic traditions over Torah. This is not to suggest that the oral traditions held since the days of Moses and Aaron are useless though, because even Jesus quoted Hillel and other Jewish sages often throughout the Gospels. Shalom Yeshua HaMashiach!
@hockeyrulesus many doctrines of the RC church are certainly not from Christ or His apostles. "Unless you become as a little child you can no wise enter the kingdom of heaven". Your loyalty is to a church system, traditions etc and not to Christ and His Word. As Jesus said to the "religious leaders" of His day "you are of your father the devil" and "you nullify the Word of God for the sake of your traditions". Do not delude yourself thinking you will enter the kingdom of heaven.
The Tradition in the Catholic/Orthodox Churches come from the Apostles and can be read by anyone who wants to find the truth, in the writings of the Apostolic Fathers. These men were students of the Apostles, men like Ignatius of Antioch, Clement of Rome, Irenaeus of Lyon, and Justin Martyr. There you will find what the First Christians were taught by the Apostles, not what was taught by the Reformers of the 1500's.
I respect your view paleocrat, but I think it's just as true (probably even more so) to say that Catholocism is absolute tyranny. Let's see, tyranny or anarachy? I take anarchy.
Could we also open up that same book and find the 224 differering branches of Catholicism? Hmmmm..... so much for that argument.
Hey does Tobit still say you can 'buy' your way out of Purgatory? What's the going rate this days?
Why don't we just settle down and let the Holy Spirit speak to us and help us discern what is right and what is wrong... Without the help of the Holy Spirit, who is our Teacher, your discussions and arguments will go nowhere.
oseanic1980 - Holy Catholic Apostolic Church is the holiest church of the world. There may be some bad people in it as there were bad person in Jesus original church (Judas) and as there are bad people in Protestant churches.
Here in Asia obviously South Korea and the Philippines Catholicism does not practice what it preaches it makes society for the worst than better for example no family planning so you see the philippines is burdened by poverty and over population! The religion of Christ in the bible is so different from Catholicism and Protestantism. Undeniably there is the good and bad guys in the church not: I'm not anti Catholic people :)
oseanic1980 - Catholicism does not teach 'no Family planning'. Catholicism teaches 'Natural Family Planning', which is organic, healthy and side effect free. You see Europeans use too much artificial contraception and as a result Muslims are becoming majority in Europe. Artificial contraception also increases the immorality in a society; as a result you see that protestant countries of the world live the most sinful lives.
@mysteriumaenigma "Artificial contraception also increases the immorality in a society"
Where did you pull that from? Honestly, how can having protected sex increase immorality? Where's your proof? Scandinavian countries are largely atheistic and use contraception and have very low crime-rates. You make an unsubstantiated claim and say that protestants live more sinful lives. Take one look at the Mafia that was in Italy (a catholic country) and you can see that that isn't the case at all.
@joyontogomes I am an atheist, and no I do not think premarital sex is a sin? I do however think causing someone to feel so much guilt about a matter that is private, such as sex, gender and sexual orientation to be a sin.
This guy failed to understand how Catholics are strongly discriminated by the Protestants. They did it in America and they are still doing it in the United Kingdom. Even Ireland is doing it where they are terrorist there and in S. Africa and New Zealand.
That a bunch of BULL. My husband is from the Philippines. The reason why there's so much poverty there is because their government is corrupt.
You go to the Philippines and you'll see those people greeting you with a smile and even welcoming you to their home and sharing whatever food they have, even when they are poor. They really live up to their Catholic Faith, but unfortunately their greedy government don't because they are going to what US preach in separation of Church and State.
The problem is that the Presbyterian, Methodist, Baptist, Seventh Day Adventist, Pentecostal, Apostolic Faith, COGIC, Wesleyan, Evangelical Friends, Brethren, and every other denomination is packed with people who sincerely believe that their interpretation is the "Holy Spirit's interpretation." Still left with ecclesiastical anarchy.
You may say what you like but if there is "ecclesiastical anarchy" then some are NOT listening to the Holy Spirit. Are they? Or will you dare say that the Spirit is not sufficient to teach (1 John 2:27). Do you know Christ's Voice (John 10)?
All they who listen to Christ's inward Voice are untitedb in Faith and Worship around the world even if they have never heard of one another. On the other hand confusion reigns in the churches of those who put Scripture in Christ's place (calling it Word of God), who put their institution in Christ's place (calling it the Church). First unite Protestants among yourselves, Orthodox and Catholic Traditionalists among yourselves, and then come and preach to the true Church IN Christ.
2. "If any man will note in this our confession any article or sentence repugning to God's holy word, that it would please him of his gentleness, and for Christian charity's sake, to admonish us of the same in writing; and we, of our honour and fidelity, do promise unto him satisfaction from the mouth of God, or else reformation of that which he shall prove to be amiss." (Confessio Scotica)
At least Protestants know that they're not infallible ...
"For l delivered to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures."
I guess ALL Protestant denominations can agree on that one.
And on that one: "By grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone"
Institutional diversity doesn't necessarily mean Gospel-discord. As a Baptist I love my Methodist & Presbyterian brethren in Christ ...
I pray he does. And I ask that I never grow weary of defending the truth once and for all delivered to the saints and the Church which stands as both the pillar and bulwark of the faith that sets men free.
The video is a little jumpy, but you didn't refute Sola Fide with your red herring of Luther's drunkenness, you could have at least mentioned James, but you would still be wrong. I would refer back to Ephesians 2.8-10, it states emphatically that our works have been prepared beforehand, we as the elect are creations for the purpose of good works, and that we perform these as a necessary corollary of our faith but this doesn't mean we merit faith. Justification by faith was not created by Luther.
Obey your leaders and defer to them, for they keep watch over you and will have to give an account, that they may fulfill their task with joy and not with sorrow, for that would be of no advantage to you. Hb. 13:17
"Do not be carried away by all kinds of strange teaching" for "Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today, and forever." Hb. 13:9,8
"I exhort the presbyters among you... tend the flock of God in your midst. Likewise, you younger members, be subject to the presbyters." 1 Pt. 5:1,2,5
You misunderstand our position concerning infallibility. We do not hold that every action done, every word said or printed, it infallible. Even the Magisterium is separated by ordinary and extraordinary.
People in the Church err. Saints and Popes have written things that err. But the Church, when speaking of dogma that is to be believed by all people, at all times, in all places (ex cathedra statements, creeds, and councils in particular), then it is without err. Nothing more, nothing less.
You do concede that individual people in the curch can err. Okay, but what if a majority of people "within" the church does err. And what if this erring majority is accepted as orthodoxy? And what if this pseudo-orthodox majority is holding a council and is passing new "infallible" dogma? There is no means of surveillance when the pseudo-orthodox majority also is the only legitimate interpreter of scripture!
Of course I conceded that. The Church has never, ever said that infallibility is anything but a negative chrism that only applies when the Holy Ghost oversees definitions, decrees, and denouncements that apply to all people at all times and in all places. Our trust in this dogma isn't in the ontology of the bishops, cardinals, or popes. It is in the power of the Holy Ghost.
What the heck are they teaching you in seminary? Seriously. This is 101 stuff.
The point is that there is absolutely no surveillance!!! Of course you claim to trust in the Holy Ghost - but at the same time you proceed from the ungrounded presupposition that every council and every ex cathedra decision IS actually guided by the Holy Spirit. "Hey, the curch tells me that it is infallible. And it can't err, right? For it's infallible and all it's decisions are sanctioned by the Spirit!"
If you were consistent, you would level this same charge against the canon and internal truth claims unable to be empirically proven or infallibly overseen. Why is the Bible infallible? Because it says so... I think. Why is the canon closed? Why those books rather than others? Who said? Where was the surveillance? Be consistent.
In reality, the matter is presuppositional. One must, regardless of their position, invoke the transcendental argument of the impossibility of the contrary.
The authority of the Bible is grounded on the fact of it being inspired by God, who (1) ordained it to come into existence and (2) used the early church to make it known. But yes, you're right, there are presuppositions, too. But I rather prefer to hold to presuppositions directly grounded in scripture than in tradition.
You entirely miss the point. It is inspired by God. We agree. But how do we know? To what extent? Which books are included? Who or what has the authority and jurisdiction to make the answers to these binding as fundamentals for the faith? Self-attestation doesn't go far. Not every book claims as much. Furthermore, there is no self-attestation to the canon.
All you have done here is demonstrate that you are an expert with unargued assumptions and assertions.
You believe He oversaw the canonization process? Why? Because he is a God of providence. How do you know He is a God of providence? Because of your interpretation of certain books that were recognized by the Church as being inspired and consequently include in the canon. So you rely upon material that was placed within a book we refer to as a Bible that was assembled, translated, and preserved (our oldest MSS) by Catholics. Great.
What are the names and dates of our earliest manuscripts? We have fragments of some that are very old. Name them and their estimated dates. As for the works in their entirety, name them and their dates. Catholic through and through.
Catholics assembled the canon. Monks, hermits and priests dedicated their lives to learning to translate and preserve Scripture. The versions you use rely upon MSS penned in the hands of a Catholic. Bottom line.
We'll talk about Church beliefs once you give dates.
Why say that God oversaw the compilation of the canon, lest we fall into the grave error of heresy, but then deny that the Holy Ghost did not, or does not, oversee the interpretation of the content? Answer as you may, it will be arbitrary at every turn.
And why did God wait 1,500 years for Luther to establish the "real" canon? Who did the Holy Ghost oversee? The anti-Christian Talmudists who established the Jewish OT after the Septuagint had been accepted by Christianity or a Catholic council?
He oversaw the compilation to give us an infallible guideline: Scripture. And the Holy Spirit does oversee the interpretation of the content by opening scripture to whom He wants.
The real canon already had been acknowledged before Luther by such meaningless groups and men as the Jews, Flavius Josephus, St. Jerome, St. Gregory ...
The roman canon was finally established at Trent in 1546? How does that fit in?
Your first two sentences are assertions without evidence. Your line where the Spirit oversaw councils (I never mentioned Trent) is arbitrary.
So he gives us an infallible standard, and then leaves men to their own devices. Enter sectarianism.
The Jews formalized their canon after Christianity had been in place for about 60 years or more. Ironically, the non-Christian Jews chose to exclude books accepted by the Church. So you trust the non-Christian Jews over the Church. Unfortunate.
Christ IS Risen! The Church recognized Jesus, NOT the Jewish community that met at Jamnia in the second century. NOTE: Jews at Jamnia threw out 2 Maccabees. IRONICALLY, in 2 Maccabees, Jamnia IS a place of idolatry: 2 Mc 12:40, 41-46 "But under the tunic of each of the dead they found amulets sacred to the idols of Jamnia... Turning to supplication, they prayed that the sinful deed might be fully blotted out...a holy and pious thought ...for the dead that they might be freed from this sin."
Since Jamnia's Jews did not accept Christ as Messiah, how does THAT lack of prophetic insight recommend itself to telling us which books should & should not be accepted by His Church as the inspired Old Testament ? But the early Church, which DID accept Christ & through Peter received the guarantee of teaching & admonishing the faithful, with authority to cite the official canon of scriptures we have. Martin Luther willfully deleted Old Testament books that Jamnin reject & the Church accepted!
There were many canons prior to Augustine's time. These only concerned the NT. The OT, as contained in the Catholic Scriptures, was not under controversy.
Jerome had personal feelings on the matter, but he included them in the Latin Vulgate because the consensus of the Church. Luther had much to learn from Jerome's humility and obedience.
Trent didn't "create" a canon. They formalized what already existed. This is what council's do.
Your take on Jerome is historical revisionism. If you would like, I will send you a site dealing with Jerome and the canon, his use of the deuterocanonicals in regards to doctrine as if they were as authoritative as any inspired word, and his identifying them as "Scripture" and cite them within a list of other Scripture verse without distinction.
Ecclesiastical anarchy has led to dictatorship, or rule by a single person. This is true of pulpit and radical individualism.
There was no canon, Silam. Not until the time of Augustine. There were a whole bunch of contradictory canons all over the Christian world. We aren't Muslim's, believing that God just sent it down on the clouds. He used Catholic men in human history to make a decision on behalf of and binding upon the universal Church concerning what books were inspired, which were good for liturgy or devotion, and which were anathema. God uses secondary causes, and he did so in regards to the canon.
TimotheosCauvin - Trent simply reaffirmed the historic canon of the Bible after it had been challenged by Protestants. The same books Trent affirmed had been affirmed by councils and popes prior to Trent. The first council recorded as dealing with the canon was the Council of Rome, which convened in A.D. 382 under Pope Damascus. Later councils, such as Hippo (393) and Carthage (397), and the ecumenical council of Florence (1438) reaffirmed the canon issued by the Council of Rome.
TimotheosCauvin - At all these councils the canon that was proclaimed included the seven deuterocanonical books—1 and 2 Maccabees, Tobit, Judith, Baruch, Wisdom, and Sirach—and rejected 1 and 2 Esdras. Far from being inconsistent; Trent reaffirmed what the Church had taught since the earliest centuries.
The infallible writings of the apostles and prophets weren't based on some different ontology. You are a bright guy, but you lack a consistent application of principle. Target the canon. Target the prophets and apostles. The same arguments apply, unless you say "Cuz the Bible told me so." But then we are left with identifying what Scripture is, to what degree it is infallible, whether statements made in some books apply to the whole, and who has authority to make those answers are binding on all
The Protestant confusion will always persist until they have come to respect a central authority in its doctrine and theology. Like all other religions without a central figure of authority, they will make struggles with each other and war on Christ's True Church.
The problem with prot-ism is, if they do not understand a doctrine they claim it is not true; sometimes we must accept a doctrine despite our lack of understanding.
Well, that's all you actually do, delegate your decisions to another authority. But what about the authority of the authority? One can say: "By the authority of it's apostolicity!" But if the roman church is apostolic, why then does it differ in doctrine from the doctrine of the apostles established in Scripture? I think the relation scripture/church is somekind of reciprocal - and before I submit to "sola ecclesia" I prefer "sola scriptura"!
Thats the debate here. We don't, in our reasoning, teach anything contray to what the Aposoles taught in Scripture. You set up a strawman that implicates us KNOWING that we teach things contrary to Scripture, but not care either way whether it is or not. You take the stance of absolutism when it comes to religious debate, which is foolish and gains no ground in civil conversation.
You're right: I do take the stance of absolutism. For it is plain to me that the RC nowadays teaches things which haven't been taught by the apostels and the early church (Immaculata, Assumption, jurisdictional primacy of the pope etc.). The RC also teaches that everyone who doesn't believe these things is anathema. So christians today have to believe additionals to get saved, things the apostles hadn't to believe.
You may call it development of dogma - I call it unapostolic new teachings.
JD the musicman - how can you say that the catholic religion is "false" and talk about scripture when Luther and co who gave birth to your twisted creed REMOVED WHOLE BOOKS FROM THE BIBLE!! (Maccabees & James).
Please spare us any more nonsense and when you protestants have worked out what you want to believe (not on make up as you go along basis) come back and have a debate.
Canons and Decrees of the Council of Trent: Seventh Session
Can. 4 If anyone says that the sacraments of the New Law are not necessary for salvation but...that without them or without the desire of them men obtain from God through faith alone the grace of justification...let him be anathema
Can. 8 If anyone says that by the sacraments of the New Law grace is not conferred ex opere operato, but that faith alone in the divine promise is sufficient to obtain grace, let him be anathema
I've watched a few of your videos now, and it's clear you have the low-level apologetics down. It's time to move on to real theology, both Catholic and Protestant, such as de Lubac or von Balthasar on the Catholic side and Karl Barth or Emil Brunner on the Protestant side. There's a much vaster intellectual field in which to situate these questions (such as the place of scripture, divine agency in justification, sacramental presence, and so on).
This is a reply to another YouTube vlogger, nothing more.
Move on to "real theology." Well, were it not for my being far from a theologian, I would have to wait on those men as I am still romping my way through a myriad of encyclicals, the writings of the Fathers, various ascetic works, and those men of letters known as Distributists. If I ever reach that place in life where "real theology" comes in, I'll let you know.
Catholicism is a false religion, part truth but mostly lies. When people read the scriptures and know what the truth is, instead of what the Roman Church says it is, then they should flee as fast as they can.
You obviously didn't watch the video. More apparent is your inability to see your declaration to be laughably absurd. Many Catholics, of which I would include myself, ran to the Church BECAUSE we read the Bible. But this "me and my Bible" concept simply won't fly here, and for reason I have laid out in this video as well as the one accusing Sola Scriptura of inevitably resulting in moral and theological relativism. People may flee, but they flee to cesspool of heresies and schism. Sad...
No its not its a sin and anyone who commits sin and dies in a state of mortal sin will be damned.This is the teaching of the church unlike protestant episcopals who ORDAIN and promote practicing Homosexual Bishops who publicly admit being SODOMITES they are an abomination.
every miracle in the bible gave proof that it was an actual miracle..the blind could see, the lame could walk, the dead came alive a virgin gave birth and so on....so there;s your proof. not one miracle in the bible was with out an actual change. which leads me to believe that JEsus was talking figurtively when He said "This is my Body" Oh and you can still attend a protestant church and be a catholic really...it's called being a spy. All through history the rcc couldn't be trusted
That is circumstantial. If you want to reason that way, then we would have to say that no miracle could happen outside of the regions mentioned in the Bible or that no miracle was done other than those recorded, although this is both absurd and arguing from silence. Try again.
If he was talking figuratively, why didn't he clarify that. He lost a lot of disciples over those remarks. The Church, for over 1,500 years understood it as we understand it. Then came the guru Luther! He knew better.haha
circumstantial? it is recorded by eye wittness, the apostles, hello! miracles do still happen, God healed me of a skin disease right before my eyes, it was gone! I praise His name for that and i don't care if you believe me one way or the other.
why did He lose disciples over those remarks? hello again, They didn't understand He was speaking of His crucifixtion that his body would be beaten and his blood would be shed..
history proves otherwise, not what your church teaches.
Once again, you cannot use history texts to prove normative doctrine. If this was the case, then I could say that every miracle happened in the middle east and was performed by someone who saw Jesus in person. Does this mean that no miracles happen but ones that meet these two standards? Of course not. Your argument sucks.
Eat my flesh and drink my blood means the crucifixion? Wow. That is the worst interpretation I have ever heard in my life.
you know what? the more i talk to you the more i'am convinenced you truly are a phoney. you make no sense whatsoever.
Why don't you read the whole context of the chapter in John and see that Jesus was speaking of himself...not a piece of bread and a cup of wine. That's one more proof you weren't a born again Christian. Water doesn't remove sin, blood does, Christ blood, not wine you purchase in a corner store.
I told my best friend (who is certainly not a friend of the Catholic Church) of your conspiracy theory. He, too, thinks you need medication.
Well, we take the Bible serious when it says that Baptism saves us, as in regeneration and cleansing from original sin. I'm sorry you hate the Bible so much.
You don't even know me and yet you judge me. You are beyond ignorant, you are dangerous... to yourself.
when Jesus said "destroy this temple and in 3 days i'll raise it up again" Jesus was speaking of his ressurection.oh and guess what? people left & walked away from Him and Jesus didn't explain to them what He meant...same thing when He said you must eat my flesh and drink my blood and HE didn't explain to them what he meant either and they walked away, He was then speaking of his crucifixtion. Not a literal temple and not literal flesh and blood, but symbolic of him Him dying and resurecting.
He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood... For my flesh is meat indeed: and my blood is drink indeed. He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood, abideth in me, and I in him.
Food and drink indeed. Hmm... He could have said food and drink symbolically.
His disciples said it was a hard teaching, wondering who could accept it.
Can you please show me where indeed is meant figuratively in the text?
You're playing pick-and-choose here. Line-item-veto with the Bible is not good.
"Sir" they said "from now on give us this bread" Then Jesus declared, "I am the bread of life. He who comes to me will never go hungry, and he who believes in me will never be thirsty."
Now was Jesus double talking here or was He speaking figurtivly when HE said the "This is my body?" like when He said He was the light of the world or a vine or a door? like i said before, JESUS IS THE BREAD, THE BREAD ISN'T JESUS! HE IS THE SUSTANANCE FOR SALVATION!
You ignored the fact that he said that it was "meat and drink indeed." Or maybe he meant "meat and drink figuratively." Ah, that's it!
You ignored the fact that after they strove amongst themselves over his meaning that he didn't clarify the fact that he was talking symbolically and not in a manner that could be rightfully misconstrued as cannibalism. Convenient.
You may take it figuratively; we do not. This is actually the center of contention in the follow-up video to this one.
why do think He has to clairfy what he said? he didnt when he said "destroy this temple and in 3 days i'll raise it up again"..He was God in the flesh and did everyone at that time accept that? so why didn't JEsus clarify that so everyone would believe he was Messiah? You catholics say that all the time but you have to remember Jesus didn't have to clairfy anything he said. He's God remember? And that is what he wants all to believe, is that HE is the Messiah...not a piece of bread.
Finding one instance where he didn't clarify himself immediately and then presuming that it equally applies to another instance is pathetic exegesis.
Who said he had to clarify himself? I simply point out that in many (if not most) cases, he did. And in this case, he did. He follows by saying that it is food and drink "indeed." In fact, the word for eat can be translated "to gnaw."
The bread has the Real Presence, as does the wine, but that doesn't take away from his being ontologically.
The greek word for remembrance means to bring to mind, not to digest.
And when you say "the word for eat "can" be translated to gnaw" what your really saying is that ther is another meaning also..but i'm sure your going to say "the church hasn't made an official statment on which one it means yet" PALEEESE!
That is one of the worst arguments I have ever seen in my life. You are making an either-or out of a both-and. It is both a meal and a memorial. It is a meal done in memory. Doing something out of remembrance doesn't mean that it must be nothing more than Oyster crackers and grape juice.
Yes, there are various words in the Scripture that could be translated differently. Have you studied Hebrew or Greek? I have.
Reject what as nonsense? "All of this" is rather vague.
By definition, a theologian is nothing other than one who studies God. Everyone has their own theology. Every pastor considers himself to be a theologian, divinely revealing the text for the "common man" in the pew. Or maybe it is the gurus putting together your arbitrary Confessions of Faith or Norms for Faith and Practice? Never know with a hodge-podge of religions loosely associated by their despise for the Bride of Christ.
When Jesus performed miracles there was evident change. your so called "transubstantation" doesn't change into flesh or blood! Hello,not a miracle!!
Johns revelation of the future in the book of Revelations. and us now a days seeing possible helicopters is a possiblity,not a fact. get it? It has to be something in our time or the future that John in his time wouldn't have know of.geez, thats a strawman if i ever seen one. your not an ex protestant either. We're hip to that scam, it's obvious
Can you please show me in the Bible where it says that any and all miracles have to be evident to the naked eye? Circumstantial evidence from historical passages won't work.
Rapture theory is so nonsensical that I won't even deal with it here.
I was a youth pastor and an associate pastor. I went to 3 protestant Bible colleges. I debated against Catholics for over a year on my old blog, condemning them to hell. I have videos on this site of my Protestant sermons. No scam. Your just ignorant.
omg! dude! go a little easier on Luther! i mean, ok, so he was a heretic...but c'mon! he was a supporter of the perpetual virginity of Mary--gotta at least soften the slap.
This show me that you have no concept of Biblical interpretation. This passage says nothing about the Catholic church being the one true church. It says that the only foundation of truth is found in the LORD. not the pope, not mary, not the church. THE LORD, wich is CHRIST JESUS!
Psalms 127:1 "unless the lord builds the house, those who built it labor in vain" - to my knowledge, Jesus Christ only founded one church, and one church only.....
1Cor 2:13 "for God has already placed Jesus Christ as the one and only foundation, and NO OTHER FOUNDATION CAN BE LAID". Jesus NEVER gives permission for any other church to be founded. Jesus Christ founded the Catholic church, any other church is man made, and does not teach the fullness of truth.
what exactly is your definition of "Church"? Royce555. Is it a building? A denomination? If its a groups of believers that make a church, then what are the believers believing about? are they believing in that belief in a Catholic church alone? If we agree in the salvation aspect of Christianity (hypothetically speaking, because I know we don't agree), but not a practicing catholic, am I a believer of God or not?
You may believe in God, but the demons do too. You are a heretic in so far as you advance heresies publicly (YouTube is pretty public). You are a schismatic in so far as you are a member of an unauthorized assembly. Furthermore, if you were to believe in the salvation aspect of Christianity, you would be fully Catholic. We do not admit of common ground that does not require full adherence to our doctrines, or even to full communion with the Bride of Christ.
The Protestant sect started as a revolt, protesting the Church of Christ and pretending to accept Christ without Peter, the authority He established on earth.With this split, they left the Church and became heretics..Lk 10:16("He who hears you (Peter) hears me, and he who rejects you, rejects me." The Protestant who rejects the head, rejects Christ himself, and should not be granted the name Christian.
Protestants do not reject Peter. We reject the pope and the Catholic religion, because it strayed away from the teachings of God. It is now a corrupted institution dictated by a man who claims to be the mediator between God and man. ITimothy 2:5
BUT PETER WAS THE FIRST POPE! come now!!! of course Christ is the only mediator between God and man (well, that is of course if you don't count Mary, his mother, as co-mediator) . but!
why wouldn't he want to involve the very creatures he saves in the work of their own salvation???
Co-Mediator????!!!!! where in the Bible does it state that Mary is equal to Jesus? NOWHERE! It's Blasphemous catholic idlolatry! and what difference does it matter what position peter had? Its not his position we should be concerned about, it's his beliefs. But thats the catholic church for you. Catholics are concerned about numbers and status and position in rank than that if what is being taught is Biblical.
okay, let's remember that being a co-mediator doesn't mean they're on the same level. two co-workers may work together, but one may be on a different level in the workplace.
i agree, the bible doesn't show mary equal to christ, but it does show her as a mediator between Christ and his people, as we see at the Wedding at Cana and also Christ's exhortation to John the Beloved about Mary his mother, echoed to all men.
now for peter's importance. "cathaustralia" has the gist of what i mean to say. It is peter to whom Christ entrusts his kingdom while he is away; if you look at Isaiah 22:22, you realize that the keys to the kingdom displayed authority subject only to that person that GAVE the keys. in our case, though peter (and consequently the pope) is indeed the head of the Catholic clerical bodies and the laity, it is Christ to whom we all answer, for he is head of the Mystical Body (the Church).
it has PLENTY to do with the new coevenant! The Old Covenant had a physical instrument used to convey and remind the Israelites of the covenant made between them and God. This Ark of the Covenant, if you remember, was the center of the Israelite liturgy.
As for the New Covenant, the ecclesiastical body that Peter was head of (the "church") is the "ark" of the New Covenant established through the salvific ministry of Christ. Both covenants have active symbols.
Then why is it that Christian's are called, "Ambassador's", "Royal Priesthoods"? Christ enthrusted his kingdom to ALL Christians! That's why he commands ALL Christians to spread the Gospel. If he wanted one person to be the leader, he would have left a leader.
God called the Israelites a "priestly nation", yet they too were led by Moses. Yes, indeed--christ entrusted his kingdom to each of us, in a special and unique way. However, it just so happens that he also entrusted his kingdom to a certain person in a similarly unique way: leadership. We've already discussed Christ giving Simon Bar-Jonah (Peter) the "keys to the kingdom". That designates Peter and his successors leadership.
All Christians would include the catholic priesthood. Because the Catholic church preaches that Jesus is God, the catholic church is Christian, and must therefore also be the new testament royal priesthood.
What you just said K12d14 is Blasphemy! The Bible strictly say's "for there is one God and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus". (1 Tim. 2:5) no where in the Bible does it state anything about marie having any kind of authority. In fact, there is a passage that has jesus saying, after a man told HIM, "blessed be the mother that bore you". and Im paraphrasing here, "Blessed rather those that obey and keep my commandments".
I'm very glad you brought up Paul, because his conversion on the road to damascus is a remarkable example of the inseparability of Christ and his Church. Christ told Paul "Why are you persecuting ME?" when he persecuted his believers, his Church. Paul kept those words in mind his whole life--when he wrote to Timothy he knew that he was just echoing what Jesus said. Christ and his Church are co-operators in the mediation between God the Father and Man. Our evidence is right there.
But see, this is the very fact that Im talking about. You say Peter is the head, when he in fact is NOT. Jesus is the head of the Church. Not peter, not the pope, not mary, not anybody else but Christ. This is the problem with the catholic church, and why the reformation took place, because your church practices Idolatry.
idolatry is the worship and service to an physical object, e.g. a statue of some sort. In idolatry, the object itself is what is being worshipped, and this is why God throughout to the Old Testament cries out to Israel to the effect of "they are merely wood and stone, they cannot save you". If God was not talking about the objects themselves, then this would never have been said in response to idol worship in the respective scenes.
what catholics practice which people often mistake for idolatry is veneration through the use of images.
in this case, it is not the object that contains the image of the subject (a statue of Mary, perhaps) that is being prayed to, or venerated, but rather, the SUBJECT. Prayer is assisted through the imaginative upbringing of artistic images--statues of Christ and Mary, Saints and Angels only assist men to concentrate on the subject which they address.
If you come to know God through his words, then you will not need a visiual. You will know how HE operates and how HE presents Himself to you, and your eyes will become open to His way of communicating with you that you will be able to see HIM. Not literally, like you practice, but experiencially.
We have statues, but so does Washington D.C. We have icons, but most houses also have paintings or pictures of family and friends on their walls. The issue isn't with statues or pictures, but with worship. It is giving someone or something the kind of worship that is due only to God. Luckily, this keeps us from idolatry! We give to no creature the worship that is due for the Triune God, and He alone. Not Mary, not Michael the Archangel, not Peter or Paul. None. Your saying so is absurd.
note the difference. Worship (greek: "Latria") is due only to God. Veneration (greek: "Dulia") is given to the saints. to Give Latria to a Saint or Dulia to God would both be improper; for a saint, "worship" is far too much and is indeed idolatry, as you say. for God, "veneration" is far too little and is disrespectful.
Remember what Christ said. "Give to Caesar what is Caesar, and God what is God's."
The only Christian is the one who accepts Our Lord Jesus Christ and the Church he established. Who can seperate the Head, the only-begotten Son of God, from the body, which is His Church? Only those who profess the one Catholic Faith and are united with the Mystical Body of Christ are members of the Church of Christ. And only those members can legitimately bear the title of honor of Christian.
where in the Bible does it say that we have to believe in Jesus AND the Catholic church to be saved? Mystical body of Christ???? That's exactly why there is protestanism. Turn away from your paganistic dogma and surrender your life to Christ, then you can be called a child of God, which is a Christian. Not by belief in legalistic religious dictators suppressing the truth from you, but by God himself, through His word, the Bible.
"For as with the human body which is a unity although it has many parts-all the parts of the body, though many, still making up one single body-so it is with Christ. We were baptised into one body in a single Spirit, Jews as well as Greeks, slaves as well as free men, and we were all given the same Spirit to drink. And indeed the body consists not of one member but of many." (1 Cor. 12:12)
"He has put all things under his feet, and made him, as he is above all things, the head of the Church; which is his Body, the fullness of him who is filled, all in all." (Ephesians 1:23)
Each interpret the Bible differently and feel that they are guided by the Spirit when they do so. Clearly it is impossible for this chaos to have come from God. The only solution is a return to the Church which existed before the Bible, compiled the books contained in it, and has always authoritatively given its proper interpretation, the Catholic Church.
how do you know for a fact that its interpreting correctly? Because the Pope says it is? Get real! What about all the controversies with the Catholic church and it's pope? no death penalty? It's Biblical.
How do you? Did not the Apostles and Church fathers advise the faithful on the faith or did people just make it up for themselves. The Bible also says Thal SHal not kill thats biblical as well.
In1517, the new concept of forming religions based on the individual's interpretation of the Bible was born with Martin Luther. The result of this break from the Catholic Church by Luther has been utter confusion among Christians, there are now over 33,800 different Protestant religions, with several new ones being formed next week.
lmao...charasmatic catholics, regular catholics, roman catholics are different sects of catholicism? you know you're catholicism alright. protestants claim to be under Christ...you just can't agree on what Christ teaches. Catholics can and have for 2,000 years with a direct lineage to Christ himself. Protestants don't...oh, and that book you like to read, the Bible...yeah, we came up with that.
Catholics did not come up with the Bible, GOD did! where in the name of God do you position yourself to think that Catholics "came up with the Bible"? Do you hear yourself? Explain to me how Catholics have a lineage and Protestants don't? Please write down what verses you get this from.
this video is nuts! The protestants get their authority from the Bible, the word of God. The Catholics are suppose to be doing that as well, but because of them, the whole reformation and cults and different churches came to be. You cannot stand there and say my church is better because it has an authoritative figure, because your AF is responsible for the Reformation!
John the Baptist teached a different message than what the "Religious Leaders" of that time were teaching. John Baptisted Jesus, not for salvation, mind you, Jesus did not need saving. CHrist is the Authoritative Figure for the Protestant Church. if people take the time to read the Bible, we can rule out a whole number of "churches'.
Naturally the mark of orthodoxy and true meaning of Christ teachings lies in your own fallible intepretation of Scripture? Wow, Luther died in vain. The Papacy still lives in the hearts of his children.
You evade the real subject at hand. How is your "Tradition" the infalible one, and the only one?
Where does Peter document this to be the "Only Authority" passed through these bishops, and how is that authority carrying the infablible authority of the very apostles
That was not the subject at hand. I dealt with his arguments, nothing more.
Nobody claims he is the ONLY authority. Pope Benedict's recent apostolic letter dealing with why Protestant bodies are not properly called churches readily admits that Eastern Orthodox churches have apostolic succession. The issue is not with whether or not the EO have bishops in apostolic lineage; rather, it is with the primacy of one among others.
Somone correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm not aware of Jehova's Witnesses having been discriminated in the past by Catholics as much as Protestants in general.
HornetFellow 4 months ago
PROTESTANTS SUCK
JAMOACHA 4 months ago in playlist Defending Catholic Church
Ecclesiastical Anarchy is not just in Protestantism But can be found in Eastern Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism.I am Western Orthodox priest and accept the Bishop of Rome First among equals
Vicarapostolic 9 months ago 2
Awesome! You have a gift my friend! God Bless your ministry!
hockeyrulesus 11 months ago
The true church of Jesus Christ is a relationship, not a membership. It isn’t any particular protestant denomination or Roman catholic. It doesn't have a roof or an address. We are the Body of Christ, past, present and future from all around the world who have accepted Christ’s work on the cross for our sins 2000 years ago, once and for all. Our names have been written in the Book of Life from the beginning. 1 cross + 3 nails = 4 given.
johnthreesixteen316 1 year ago
The false assumption of the RC church is that God intends for oral tradition to always exist. Oral tradition was in place and relied upon till Moses, same situation for entire OT, same situation for the Apostles, THEN IT FINISHED. God is not giving any new revelation, His Word is sufficient to fully equip the man of faith for every good work. The church is not the ultimate authority HIS WORD IS!! We will never agree so there will always be a great chasm betwixt us. Only one of us has the truth.
gthumb123 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@gthumb123 Can you prove this?
GMANFREAK 1 year ago
@gthumb123 and it is the roman catholic church. thank you
wjm7259 1 year ago
@gthumb123
No where in Scripture does it say that oral Tradition is abolished. Nowhere. This is a man made belief you are trying to force on us.
Childinfaith 1 year ago
@Childinfaith Hello friend. The problem arises when oral tradition contradicts scriptures.
johnthreesixteen316 1 year ago
@johnthreesixteen316 As a former atheist Jew, I concur with the problems of oral tradition when they stand above the Scriptures...
Ooftyman 11 months ago
@Ooftyman Hello friend. Something has to be the measuring stick by which all things are judged. And that would be God's Word, not the traditions of men.
johnthreesixteen316 11 months ago
@johnthreesixteen316 I agree wholeheartedly. I just got done writing the same exact thing. =). I was referencing the emergence of Talmud over Torah since the Middle Ages. Even further back, Jesus warned my ancestors of the dangers of holding their Midrashic traditions over Torah. This is not to suggest that the oral traditions held since the days of Moses and Aaron are useless though, because even Jesus quoted Hillel and other Jewish sages often throughout the Gospels. Shalom Yeshua HaMashiach!
Ooftyman 11 months ago
sola ecclesia = doctrine of demons which is the true definition of the RC church
gthumb123 1 year ago
@gthumb123 These Catholic Doctrines come from Christ, So, you believe Christ is a Demon?
hockeyrulesus 1 year ago
@hockeyrulesus many doctrines of the RC church are certainly not from Christ or His apostles. "Unless you become as a little child you can no wise enter the kingdom of heaven". Your loyalty is to a church system, traditions etc and not to Christ and His Word. As Jesus said to the "religious leaders" of His day "you are of your father the devil" and "you nullify the Word of God for the sake of your traditions". Do not delude yourself thinking you will enter the kingdom of heaven.
gthumb123 1 year ago
@gthumb123 Can you be more specific? What doctrines are you speaking of, that weren't taught by either Christ or His Apostles?
The Bible on Christian Oral Tradition
1Cor 11:2-hold fast to traditions I hand on to you
2thess 2:15- hold fast to traditions, whether oral or written
2Thess 3:6- Shun those acting not according to tradition
Jn 21:25- not everything Jesus said was recorded in scripture
Acts20:35- Paul records a saying not found in the Gospels " It is better to give then receive"
hockeyrulesus 1 year ago
The Tradition in the Catholic/Orthodox Churches come from the Apostles and can be read by anyone who wants to find the truth, in the writings of the Apostolic Fathers. These men were students of the Apostles, men like Ignatius of Antioch, Clement of Rome, Irenaeus of Lyon, and Justin Martyr. There you will find what the First Christians were taught by the Apostles, not what was taught by the Reformers of the 1500's.
hockeyrulesus 1 year ago
I respect your view paleocrat, but I think it's just as true (probably even more so) to say that Catholocism is absolute tyranny. Let's see, tyranny or anarachy? I take anarchy.
Could we also open up that same book and find the 224 differering branches of Catholicism? Hmmmm..... so much for that argument.
Hey does Tobit still say you can 'buy' your way out of Purgatory? What's the going rate this days?
SkiesVibrant 1 year ago
Bible is the name that Prostestants give to themselves. I live in Brazil.
daltonagre 1 year ago
Why don't we just settle down and let the Holy Spirit speak to us and help us discern what is right and what is wrong... Without the help of the Holy Spirit, who is our Teacher, your discussions and arguments will go nowhere.
JonUjan 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Roman Catholic Church = Holy Outside - Unholy inside tsk tsk social cancer!
oseanic1980 2 years ago
oseanic1980 - Holy Catholic Apostolic Church is the holiest church of the world. There may be some bad people in it as there were bad person in Jesus original church (Judas) and as there are bad people in Protestant churches.
mysteriumaenigma 2 years ago
Here in Asia obviously South Korea and the Philippines Catholicism does not practice what it preaches it makes society for the worst than better for example no family planning so you see the philippines is burdened by poverty and over population! The religion of Christ in the bible is so different from Catholicism and Protestantism. Undeniably there is the good and bad guys in the church not: I'm not anti Catholic people :)
oseanic1980 2 years ago
oseanic1980 - Catholicism does not teach 'no Family planning'. Catholicism teaches 'Natural Family Planning', which is organic, healthy and side effect free. You see Europeans use too much artificial contraception and as a result Muslims are becoming majority in Europe. Artificial contraception also increases the immorality in a society; as a result you see that protestant countries of the world live the most sinful lives.
mysteriumaenigma 2 years ago 2
@mysteriumaenigma "Artificial contraception also increases the immorality in a society"
Where did you pull that from? Honestly, how can having protected sex increase immorality? Where's your proof? Scandinavian countries are largely atheistic and use contraception and have very low crime-rates. You make an unsubstantiated claim and say that protestants live more sinful lives. Take one look at the Mafia that was in Italy (a catholic country) and you can see that that isn't the case at all.
spursdude92 8 months ago
@spursdude92 - Are you a protestant?
Do you think pre-marital sex is sinful or not?
joyontogomes 8 months ago
@joyontogomes I am an atheist, and no I do not think premarital sex is a sin? I do however think causing someone to feel so much guilt about a matter that is private, such as sex, gender and sexual orientation to be a sin.
spursdude92 8 months ago
oseanic1980 - Poverty is there because many rich protestant nations exploit the wealth of the world and keep that in their own hands.
Religion of Christ is truly and fully found only in Catholic Church.
mysteriumaenigma 2 years ago
This guy failed to understand how Catholics are strongly discriminated by the Protestants. They did it in America and they are still doing it in the United Kingdom. Even Ireland is doing it where they are terrorist there and in S. Africa and New Zealand.
adreecage 2 years ago
That a bunch of BULL. My husband is from the Philippines. The reason why there's so much poverty there is because their government is corrupt.
You go to the Philippines and you'll see those people greeting you with a smile and even welcoming you to their home and sharing whatever food they have, even when they are poor. They really live up to their Catholic Faith, but unfortunately their greedy government don't because they are going to what US preach in separation of Church and State.
adreecage 2 years ago
@mysteriumaenigma There is nothing but evil in the Protestant church because they preach lies
MaestroInfernus 1 year ago
The Holy Spirit's interpretation of Scripture my friend!
thequakerchannel 2 years ago
Ah, that's it! How could I have missed it?
The problem is that the Presbyterian, Methodist, Baptist, Seventh Day Adventist, Pentecostal, Apostolic Faith, COGIC, Wesleyan, Evangelical Friends, Brethren, and every other denomination is packed with people who sincerely believe that their interpretation is the "Holy Spirit's interpretation." Still left with ecclesiastical anarchy.
paleocrat 2 years ago 5
You may say what you like but if there is "ecclesiastical anarchy" then some are NOT listening to the Holy Spirit. Are they? Or will you dare say that the Spirit is not sufficient to teach (1 John 2:27). Do you know Christ's Voice (John 10)?
thequakerchannel 2 years ago
All they who listen to Christ's inward Voice are untitedb in Faith and Worship around the world even if they have never heard of one another. On the other hand confusion reigns in the churches of those who put Scripture in Christ's place (calling it Word of God), who put their institution in Christ's place (calling it the Church). First unite Protestants among yourselves, Orthodox and Catholic Traditionalists among yourselves, and then come and preach to the true Church IN Christ.
thequakerchannel 2 years ago
Comment removed
TimotheosCauvin 8 months ago
1. You can add Roman Catholics to the list
2. "If any man will note in this our confession any article or sentence repugning to God's holy word, that it would please him of his gentleness, and for Christian charity's sake, to admonish us of the same in writing; and we, of our honour and fidelity, do promise unto him satisfaction from the mouth of God, or else reformation of that which he shall prove to be amiss." (Confessio Scotica)
At least Protestants know that they're not infallible ...
TimotheosCauvin 8 months ago
"For l delivered to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures."
I guess ALL Protestant denominations can agree on that one.
And on that one: "By grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone"
Institutional diversity doesn't necessarily mean Gospel-discord. As a Baptist I love my Methodist & Presbyterian brethren in Christ ...
TimotheosCauvin 8 months ago
keep up the good work. Dominus Vobiscum!
sabaw1172 2 years ago
God bless this paleocrat !
michiganois 2 years ago
I pray he does. And I ask that I never grow weary of defending the truth once and for all delivered to the saints and the Church which stands as both the pillar and bulwark of the faith that sets men free.
paleocrat 2 years ago
Paleocrat You are awesome man. You give great explanations.
GMANFREAK 2 years ago 4
Thank you very much for the remark. I haven't been active on YouTube in some time, but I hope to begin posting again very soon.
paleocrat 2 years ago
@paleocrat The things you have posted regard the Catholic Church has helped me a lot. I just became catholic this last easter. God bless you!!!
GMANFREAK 1 year ago
paleocrat - I like you man. Keep up the good work.
legolasegb 2 years ago 2
Thank you very much. I hope to be making new videos in the near future.
paleocrat 2 years ago
The video is a little jumpy, but you didn't refute Sola Fide with your red herring of Luther's drunkenness, you could have at least mentioned James, but you would still be wrong. I would refer back to Ephesians 2.8-10, it states emphatically that our works have been prepared beforehand, we as the elect are creations for the purpose of good works, and that we perform these as a necessary corollary of our faith but this doesn't mean we merit faith. Justification by faith was not created by Luther.
espunde 2 years ago
Obey your leaders and defer to them, for they keep watch over you and will have to give an account, that they may fulfill their task with joy and not with sorrow, for that would be of no advantage to you. Hb. 13:17
"Do not be carried away by all kinds of strange teaching" for "Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today, and forever." Hb. 13:9,8
"I exhort the presbyters among you... tend the flock of God in your midst. Likewise, you younger members, be subject to the presbyters." 1 Pt. 5:1,2,5
ApostleofMary 3 years ago
In my opinion the erring of an "infallible" institution makes it fallible!
TimotheosCauvin 3 years ago
You misunderstand our position concerning infallibility. We do not hold that every action done, every word said or printed, it infallible. Even the Magisterium is separated by ordinary and extraordinary.
People in the Church err. Saints and Popes have written things that err. But the Church, when speaking of dogma that is to be believed by all people, at all times, in all places (ex cathedra statements, creeds, and councils in particular), then it is without err. Nothing more, nothing less.
paleocrat 3 years ago
You do concede that individual people in the curch can err. Okay, but what if a majority of people "within" the church does err. And what if this erring majority is accepted as orthodoxy? And what if this pseudo-orthodox majority is holding a council and is passing new "infallible" dogma? There is no means of surveillance when the pseudo-orthodox majority also is the only legitimate interpreter of scripture!
TimotheosCauvin 3 years ago
Of course I conceded that. The Church has never, ever said that infallibility is anything but a negative chrism that only applies when the Holy Ghost oversees definitions, decrees, and denouncements that apply to all people at all times and in all places. Our trust in this dogma isn't in the ontology of the bishops, cardinals, or popes. It is in the power of the Holy Ghost.
What the heck are they teaching you in seminary? Seriously. This is 101 stuff.
paleocrat 3 years ago
The point is that there is absolutely no surveillance!!! Of course you claim to trust in the Holy Ghost - but at the same time you proceed from the ungrounded presupposition that every council and every ex cathedra decision IS actually guided by the Holy Spirit. "Hey, the curch tells me that it is infallible. And it can't err, right? For it's infallible and all it's decisions are sanctioned by the Spirit!"
TimotheosCauvin 3 years ago
If you were consistent, you would level this same charge against the canon and internal truth claims unable to be empirically proven or infallibly overseen. Why is the Bible infallible? Because it says so... I think. Why is the canon closed? Why those books rather than others? Who said? Where was the surveillance? Be consistent.
In reality, the matter is presuppositional. One must, regardless of their position, invoke the transcendental argument of the impossibility of the contrary.
paleocrat 3 years ago
The authority of the Bible is grounded on the fact of it being inspired by God, who (1) ordained it to come into existence and (2) used the early church to make it known. But yes, you're right, there are presuppositions, too. But I rather prefer to hold to presuppositions directly grounded in scripture than in tradition.
TimotheosCauvin 3 years ago
You entirely miss the point. It is inspired by God. We agree. But how do we know? To what extent? Which books are included? Who or what has the authority and jurisdiction to make the answers to these binding as fundamentals for the faith? Self-attestation doesn't go far. Not every book claims as much. Furthermore, there is no self-attestation to the canon.
All you have done here is demonstrate that you are an expert with unargued assumptions and assertions.
paleocrat 3 years ago
... or that I have faith in God above and believe in His absolute sovereignty even in the development of the canon. It's a matter of faith at last.
TimotheosCauvin 3 years ago
You believe He oversaw the canonization process? Why? Because he is a God of providence. How do you know He is a God of providence? Because of your interpretation of certain books that were recognized by the Church as being inspired and consequently include in the canon. So you rely upon material that was placed within a book we refer to as a Bible that was assembled, translated, and preserved (our oldest MSS) by Catholics. Great.
paleocrat 3 years ago
Assembled, translated and preserved by Catholics - but catholic not in the roman sense, but in the sense of the greek term ...
As I mentioned earlier, there is no complete continuity between the RCC and the early church.
You refer to the first christians as Catholics and take it for granted that they would believe and teach all the RCC doctrines. But I don't think so.
TimotheosCauvin 3 years ago
What are the names and dates of our earliest manuscripts? We have fragments of some that are very old. Name them and their estimated dates. As for the works in their entirety, name them and their dates. Catholic through and through.
Catholics assembled the canon. Monks, hermits and priests dedicated their lives to learning to translate and preserve Scripture. The versions you use rely upon MSS penned in the hands of a Catholic. Bottom line.
We'll talk about Church beliefs once you give dates.
paleocrat 3 years ago
I have to admit that I'm not an expert when it comes to manuscripts and their dates.
I have to study on this topic before I can go on debating responsibly.
TimotheosCauvin 3 years ago
Why say that God oversaw the compilation of the canon, lest we fall into the grave error of heresy, but then deny that the Holy Ghost did not, or does not, oversee the interpretation of the content? Answer as you may, it will be arbitrary at every turn.
And why did God wait 1,500 years for Luther to establish the "real" canon? Who did the Holy Ghost oversee? The anti-Christian Talmudists who established the Jewish OT after the Septuagint had been accepted by Christianity or a Catholic council?
paleocrat 3 years ago
He oversaw the compilation to give us an infallible guideline: Scripture. And the Holy Spirit does oversee the interpretation of the content by opening scripture to whom He wants.
The real canon already had been acknowledged before Luther by such meaningless groups and men as the Jews, Flavius Josephus, St. Jerome, St. Gregory ...
The roman canon was finally established at Trent in 1546? How does that fit in?
TimotheosCauvin 3 years ago
Your first two sentences are assertions without evidence. Your line where the Spirit oversaw councils (I never mentioned Trent) is arbitrary.
So he gives us an infallible standard, and then leaves men to their own devices. Enter sectarianism.
The Jews formalized their canon after Christianity had been in place for about 60 years or more. Ironically, the non-Christian Jews chose to exclude books accepted by the Church. So you trust the non-Christian Jews over the Church. Unfortunate.
paleocrat 3 years ago
Christ IS Risen! The Church recognized Jesus, NOT the Jewish community that met at Jamnia in the second century. NOTE: Jews at Jamnia threw out 2 Maccabees. IRONICALLY, in 2 Maccabees, Jamnia IS a place of idolatry: 2 Mc 12:40, 41-46 "But under the tunic of each of the dead they found amulets sacred to the idols of Jamnia... Turning to supplication, they prayed that the sinful deed might be fully blotted out...a holy and pious thought ...for the dead that they might be freed from this sin."
michiganois 2 years ago
Since Jamnia's Jews did not accept Christ as Messiah, how does THAT lack of prophetic insight recommend itself to telling us which books should & should not be accepted by His Church as the inspired Old Testament ? But the early Church, which DID accept Christ & through Peter received the guarantee of teaching & admonishing the faithful, with authority to cite the official canon of scriptures we have. Martin Luther willfully deleted Old Testament books that Jamnin reject & the Church accepted!
michiganois 2 years ago
There were many canons prior to Augustine's time. These only concerned the NT. The OT, as contained in the Catholic Scriptures, was not under controversy.
Jerome had personal feelings on the matter, but he included them in the Latin Vulgate because the consensus of the Church. Luther had much to learn from Jerome's humility and obedience.
Trent didn't "create" a canon. They formalized what already existed. This is what council's do.
paleocrat 3 years ago
Comment removed
Silam81 2 years ago
Your take on Jerome is historical revisionism. If you would like, I will send you a site dealing with Jerome and the canon, his use of the deuterocanonicals in regards to doctrine as if they were as authoritative as any inspired word, and his identifying them as "Scripture" and cite them within a list of other Scripture verse without distinction.
Ecclesiastical anarchy has led to dictatorship, or rule by a single person. This is true of pulpit and radical individualism.
(cont.)
paleocrat 2 years ago
Can you send me that website paleocrat? thanks!
DeiVerbum777 2 years ago
There was no canon, Silam. Not until the time of Augustine. There were a whole bunch of contradictory canons all over the Christian world. We aren't Muslim's, believing that God just sent it down on the clouds. He used Catholic men in human history to make a decision on behalf of and binding upon the universal Church concerning what books were inspired, which were good for liturgy or devotion, and which were anathema. God uses secondary causes, and he did so in regards to the canon.
paleocrat 2 years ago
TimotheosCauvin - Trent simply reaffirmed the historic canon of the Bible after it had been challenged by Protestants. The same books Trent affirmed had been affirmed by councils and popes prior to Trent. The first council recorded as dealing with the canon was the Council of Rome, which convened in A.D. 382 under Pope Damascus. Later councils, such as Hippo (393) and Carthage (397), and the ecumenical council of Florence (1438) reaffirmed the canon issued by the Council of Rome.
mysteriumaenigma 1 year ago
TimotheosCauvin - At all these councils the canon that was proclaimed included the seven deuterocanonical books—1 and 2 Maccabees, Tobit, Judith, Baruch, Wisdom, and Sirach—and rejected 1 and 2 Esdras. Far from being inconsistent; Trent reaffirmed what the Church had taught since the earliest centuries.
mysteriumaenigma 1 year ago
Of course the RC doesn't teach that it's decisions are based on the ontological condition of their officeholders, but de facto it is based on it.
TimotheosCauvin 3 years ago
The infallible writings of the apostles and prophets weren't based on some different ontology. You are a bright guy, but you lack a consistent application of principle. Target the canon. Target the prophets and apostles. The same arguments apply, unless you say "Cuz the Bible told me so." But then we are left with identifying what Scripture is, to what degree it is infallible, whether statements made in some books apply to the whole, and who has authority to make those answers are binding on all
paleocrat 3 years ago
Maybe I used the wrong expression by using the word "to concede" - I beg your pardon, but I'm not a native speaker ...
TimotheosCauvin 3 years ago
The Protestant confusion will always persist until they have come to respect a central authority in its doctrine and theology. Like all other religions without a central figure of authority, they will make struggles with each other and war on Christ's True Church.
smitten508 3 years ago
The problem with prot-ism is, if they do not understand a doctrine they claim it is not true; sometimes we must accept a doctrine despite our lack of understanding.
StudentOfRabbiYeshua 3 years ago
Well, that's all you actually do, delegate your decisions to another authority. But what about the authority of the authority? One can say: "By the authority of it's apostolicity!" But if the roman church is apostolic, why then does it differ in doctrine from the doctrine of the apostles established in Scripture? I think the relation scripture/church is somekind of reciprocal - and before I submit to "sola ecclesia" I prefer "sola scriptura"!
TimotheosCauvin 3 years ago
Thats the debate here. We don't, in our reasoning, teach anything contray to what the Aposoles taught in Scripture. You set up a strawman that implicates us KNOWING that we teach things contrary to Scripture, but not care either way whether it is or not. You take the stance of absolutism when it comes to religious debate, which is foolish and gains no ground in civil conversation.
Childinfaith 3 years ago
You're right: I do take the stance of absolutism. For it is plain to me that the RC nowadays teaches things which haven't been taught by the apostels and the early church (Immaculata, Assumption, jurisdictional primacy of the pope etc.). The RC also teaches that everyone who doesn't believe these things is anathema. So christians today have to believe additionals to get saved, things the apostles hadn't to believe.
You may call it development of dogma - I call it unapostolic new teachings.
TimotheosCauvin 3 years ago
JD the musicman - how can you say that the catholic religion is "false" and talk about scripture when Luther and co who gave birth to your twisted creed REMOVED WHOLE BOOKS FROM THE BIBLE!! (Maccabees & James).
Please spare us any more nonsense and when you protestants have worked out what you want to believe (not on make up as you go along basis) come back and have a debate.
Thorwulf18 3 years ago
Canons and Decrees of the Council of Trent: Seventh Session
Can. 4 If anyone says that the sacraments of the New Law are not necessary for salvation but...that without them or without the desire of them men obtain from God through faith alone the grace of justification...let him be anathema
Can. 8 If anyone says that by the sacraments of the New Law grace is not conferred ex opere operato, but that faith alone in the divine promise is sufficient to obtain grace, let him be anathema
dspreston74 3 years ago
Paleocrat,
I've watched a few of your videos now, and it's clear you have the low-level apologetics down. It's time to move on to real theology, both Catholic and Protestant, such as de Lubac or von Balthasar on the Catholic side and Karl Barth or Emil Brunner on the Protestant side. There's a much vaster intellectual field in which to situate these questions (such as the place of scripture, divine agency in justification, sacramental presence, and so on).
rockpaperscissors82 3 years ago
This is a reply to another YouTube vlogger, nothing more.
Move on to "real theology." Well, were it not for my being far from a theologian, I would have to wait on those men as I am still romping my way through a myriad of encyclicals, the writings of the Fathers, various ascetic works, and those men of letters known as Distributists. If I ever reach that place in life where "real theology" comes in, I'll let you know.
paleocrat 3 years ago
Catholicism is a false religion, part truth but mostly lies. When people read the scriptures and know what the truth is, instead of what the Roman Church says it is, then they should flee as fast as they can.
JDtheMusicMan 3 years ago
You obviously didn't watch the video. More apparent is your inability to see your declaration to be laughably absurd. Many Catholics, of which I would include myself, ran to the Church BECAUSE we read the Bible. But this "me and my Bible" concept simply won't fly here, and for reason I have laid out in this video as well as the one accusing Sola Scriptura of inevitably resulting in moral and theological relativism. People may flee, but they flee to cesspool of heresies and schism. Sad...
paleocrat 3 years ago
BECAUSE we read the Bible.
My point exactly.
Silam81 3 years ago
who the heck is gunna watch 5 video responces to this one? lol
Childinfaith 3 years ago
Nobody. haha
paleocrat 3 years ago
Good comments..talking protestants lets talk Episcopal,,since when was Homosexual Bishops scriptual..haha they are a joke.
cathaustralia 3 years ago
ok, then, when are homosexual priest scriptural? yes, they are a joke.
Ajntb2Sli 3 years ago
No its not its a sin and anyone who commits sin and dies in a state of mortal sin will be damned.This is the teaching of the church unlike protestant episcopals who ORDAIN and promote practicing Homosexual Bishops who publicly admit being SODOMITES they are an abomination.
cathaustralia 3 years ago
I'm a protestant but you are right on the $ about the relativism and the phone book thing lol that's true, true true
ninjacup 3 years ago
every miracle in the bible gave proof that it was an actual miracle..the blind could see, the lame could walk, the dead came alive a virgin gave birth and so on....so there;s your proof. not one miracle in the bible was with out an actual change. which leads me to believe that JEsus was talking figurtively when He said "This is my Body" Oh and you can still attend a protestant church and be a catholic really...it's called being a spy. All through history the rcc couldn't be trusted
shanana000 3 years ago
That is circumstantial. If you want to reason that way, then we would have to say that no miracle could happen outside of the regions mentioned in the Bible or that no miracle was done other than those recorded, although this is both absurd and arguing from silence. Try again.
If he was talking figuratively, why didn't he clarify that. He lost a lot of disciples over those remarks. The Church, for over 1,500 years understood it as we understand it. Then came the guru Luther! He knew better.haha
paleocrat 3 years ago
circumstantial? it is recorded by eye wittness, the apostles, hello! miracles do still happen, God healed me of a skin disease right before my eyes, it was gone! I praise His name for that and i don't care if you believe me one way or the other.
why did He lose disciples over those remarks? hello again, They didn't understand He was speaking of His crucifixtion that his body would be beaten and his blood would be shed..
history proves otherwise, not what your church teaches.
shanana000 3 years ago
Once again, you cannot use history texts to prove normative doctrine. If this was the case, then I could say that every miracle happened in the middle east and was performed by someone who saw Jesus in person. Does this mean that no miracles happen but ones that meet these two standards? Of course not. Your argument sucks.
Eat my flesh and drink my blood means the crucifixion? Wow. That is the worst interpretation I have ever heard in my life.
paleocrat 3 years ago
you know what? the more i talk to you the more i'am convinenced you truly are a phoney. you make no sense whatsoever.
Why don't you read the whole context of the chapter in John and see that Jesus was speaking of himself...not a piece of bread and a cup of wine. That's one more proof you weren't a born again Christian. Water doesn't remove sin, blood does, Christ blood, not wine you purchase in a corner store.
shanana000 3 years ago
I told my best friend (who is certainly not a friend of the Catholic Church) of your conspiracy theory. He, too, thinks you need medication.
Well, we take the Bible serious when it says that Baptism saves us, as in regeneration and cleansing from original sin. I'm sorry you hate the Bible so much.
You don't even know me and yet you judge me. You are beyond ignorant, you are dangerous... to yourself.
paleocrat 3 years ago
when Jesus said "destroy this temple and in 3 days i'll raise it up again" Jesus was speaking of his ressurection.oh and guess what? people left & walked away from Him and Jesus didn't explain to them what He meant...same thing when He said you must eat my flesh and drink my blood and HE didn't explain to them what he meant either and they walked away, He was then speaking of his crucifixtion. Not a literal temple and not literal flesh and blood, but symbolic of him Him dying and resurecting.
shanana000 3 years ago
He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood... For my flesh is meat indeed: and my blood is drink indeed. He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood, abideth in me, and I in him.
Food and drink indeed. Hmm... He could have said food and drink symbolically.
His disciples said it was a hard teaching, wondering who could accept it.
Can you please show me where indeed is meant figuratively in the text?
You're playing pick-and-choose here. Line-item-veto with the Bible is not good.
paleocrat 3 years ago
you want the ansswer? then read John 6:34,35
"Sir" they said "from now on give us this bread" Then Jesus declared, "I am the bread of life. He who comes to me will never go hungry, and he who believes in me will never be thirsty."
Now was Jesus double talking here or was He speaking figurtivly when HE said the "This is my body?" like when He said He was the light of the world or a vine or a door? like i said before, JESUS IS THE BREAD, THE BREAD ISN'T JESUS! HE IS THE SUSTANANCE FOR SALVATION!
shanana000 3 years ago
You ignored the fact that he said that it was "meat and drink indeed." Or maybe he meant "meat and drink figuratively." Ah, that's it!
You ignored the fact that after they strove amongst themselves over his meaning that he didn't clarify the fact that he was talking symbolically and not in a manner that could be rightfully misconstrued as cannibalism. Convenient.
You may take it figuratively; we do not. This is actually the center of contention in the follow-up video to this one.
paleocrat 3 years ago
why do think He has to clairfy what he said? he didnt when he said "destroy this temple and in 3 days i'll raise it up again"..He was God in the flesh and did everyone at that time accept that? so why didn't JEsus clarify that so everyone would believe he was Messiah? You catholics say that all the time but you have to remember Jesus didn't have to clairfy anything he said. He's God remember? And that is what he wants all to believe, is that HE is the Messiah...not a piece of bread.
shanana000 3 years ago
Finding one instance where he didn't clarify himself immediately and then presuming that it equally applies to another instance is pathetic exegesis.
Who said he had to clarify himself? I simply point out that in many (if not most) cases, he did. And in this case, he did. He follows by saying that it is food and drink "indeed." In fact, the word for eat can be translated "to gnaw."
The bread has the Real Presence, as does the wine, but that doesn't take away from his being ontologically.
paleocrat 3 years ago
why did you remove my last post?
The greek word for remembrance means to bring to mind, not to digest.
And when you say "the word for eat "can" be translated to gnaw" what your really saying is that ther is another meaning also..but i'm sure your going to say "the church hasn't made an official statment on which one it means yet" PALEEESE!
shanana000 3 years ago
I don't remove posts.
That is one of the worst arguments I have ever seen in my life. You are making an either-or out of a both-and. It is both a meal and a memorial. It is a meal done in memory. Doing something out of remembrance doesn't mean that it must be nothing more than Oyster crackers and grape juice.
Yes, there are various words in the Scripture that could be translated differently. Have you studied Hebrew or Greek? I have.
Are you KJV Only?
paleocrat 3 years ago
Paleocrat: If it was not for theologians, the common man would reject all this as nonsense.
It`s the theologians job, to put a rational cloak on irrational propositions.
Philos2006 3 years ago
Reject what as nonsense? "All of this" is rather vague.
By definition, a theologian is nothing other than one who studies God. Everyone has their own theology. Every pastor considers himself to be a theologian, divinely revealing the text for the "common man" in the pew. Or maybe it is the gurus putting together your arbitrary Confessions of Faith or Norms for Faith and Practice? Never know with a hodge-podge of religions loosely associated by their despise for the Bride of Christ.
paleocrat 3 years ago
When Jesus performed miracles there was evident change. your so called "transubstantation" doesn't change into flesh or blood! Hello,not a miracle!!
Johns revelation of the future in the book of Revelations. and us now a days seeing possible helicopters is a possiblity,not a fact. get it? It has to be something in our time or the future that John in his time wouldn't have know of.geez, thats a strawman if i ever seen one. your not an ex protestant either. We're hip to that scam, it's obvious
shanana000 3 years ago
Can you please show me in the Bible where it says that any and all miracles have to be evident to the naked eye? Circumstantial evidence from historical passages won't work.
Rapture theory is so nonsensical that I won't even deal with it here.
I was a youth pastor and an associate pastor. I went to 3 protestant Bible colleges. I debated against Catholics for over a year on my old blog, condemning them to hell. I have videos on this site of my Protestant sermons. No scam. Your just ignorant.
paleocrat 3 years ago
omg! dude! go a little easier on Luther! i mean, ok, so he was a heretic...but c'mon! he was a supporter of the perpetual virginity of Mary--gotta at least soften the slap.
k12d14 3 years ago
You Catholics are so caught up with your numbers and legalism, that you cannot see your errors.
Ajntb2Sli 3 years ago
"For no other foundations can be laid which is the lord" - 1corinthians 3:11
i pray that our protestant brothers will convert to the one true faith.
royce555 3 years ago
This show me that you have no concept of Biblical interpretation. This passage says nothing about the Catholic church being the one true church. It says that the only foundation of truth is found in the LORD. not the pope, not mary, not the church. THE LORD, wich is CHRIST JESUS!
Ajntb2Sli 3 years ago
Psalms 127:1 "unless the lord builds the house, those who built it labor in vain" - to my knowledge, Jesus Christ only founded one church, and one church only.....
1Cor 2:13 "for God has already placed Jesus Christ as the one and only foundation, and NO OTHER FOUNDATION CAN BE LAID". Jesus NEVER gives permission for any other church to be founded. Jesus Christ founded the Catholic church, any other church is man made, and does not teach the fullness of truth.
royce555 3 years ago
what exactly is your definition of "Church"? Royce555. Is it a building? A denomination? If its a groups of believers that make a church, then what are the believers believing about? are they believing in that belief in a Catholic church alone? If we agree in the salvation aspect of Christianity (hypothetically speaking, because I know we don't agree), but not a practicing catholic, am I a believer of God or not?
Ajntb2Sli 3 years ago
You may believe in God, but the demons do too. You are a heretic in so far as you advance heresies publicly (YouTube is pretty public). You are a schismatic in so far as you are a member of an unauthorized assembly. Furthermore, if you were to believe in the salvation aspect of Christianity, you would be fully Catholic. We do not admit of common ground that does not require full adherence to our doctrines, or even to full communion with the Bride of Christ.
paleocrat 3 years ago
Great video and GOD BLESS THE CATHOLIC CHURCH!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Monkies97 4 years ago
This is really good. Similar to my "Shopping for Truth" video
seltian 4 years ago
The Protestant sect started as a revolt, protesting the Church of Christ and pretending to accept Christ without Peter, the authority He established on earth.With this split, they left the Church and became heretics..Lk 10:16("He who hears you (Peter) hears me, and he who rejects you, rejects me." The Protestant who rejects the head, rejects Christ himself, and should not be granted the name Christian.
mediator4u 4 years ago
Protestants do not reject Peter. We reject the pope and the Catholic religion, because it strayed away from the teachings of God. It is now a corrupted institution dictated by a man who claims to be the mediator between God and man. ITimothy 2:5
Ajntb2Sli 3 years ago
BUT PETER WAS THE FIRST POPE! come now!!! of course Christ is the only mediator between God and man (well, that is of course if you don't count Mary, his mother, as co-mediator) . but!
why wouldn't he want to involve the very creatures he saves in the work of their own salvation???
k12d14 3 years ago
Co-Mediator????!!!!! where in the Bible does it state that Mary is equal to Jesus? NOWHERE! It's Blasphemous catholic idlolatry! and what difference does it matter what position peter had? Its not his position we should be concerned about, it's his beliefs. But thats the catholic church for you. Catholics are concerned about numbers and status and position in rank than that if what is being taught is Biblical.
Ajntb2Sli 3 years ago
whoa. i'm late.
okay, let's remember that being a co-mediator doesn't mean they're on the same level. two co-workers may work together, but one may be on a different level in the workplace.
i agree, the bible doesn't show mary equal to christ, but it does show her as a mediator between Christ and his people, as we see at the Wedding at Cana and also Christ's exhortation to John the Beloved about Mary his mother, echoed to all men.
k12d14 3 years ago
now for peter's importance. "cathaustralia" has the gist of what i mean to say. It is peter to whom Christ entrusts his kingdom while he is away; if you look at Isaiah 22:22, you realize that the keys to the kingdom displayed authority subject only to that person that GAVE the keys. in our case, though peter (and consequently the pope) is indeed the head of the Catholic clerical bodies and the laity, it is Christ to whom we all answer, for he is head of the Mystical Body (the Church).
k12d14 3 years ago
Isaiah 22:22 has nothing to do with the new covenant.
Ajntb2Sli 3 years ago
Golly Moses!
it has PLENTY to do with the new coevenant! The Old Covenant had a physical instrument used to convey and remind the Israelites of the covenant made between them and God. This Ark of the Covenant, if you remember, was the center of the Israelite liturgy.
As for the New Covenant, the ecclesiastical body that Peter was head of (the "church") is the "ark" of the New Covenant established through the salvific ministry of Christ. Both covenants have active symbols.
k12d14 3 years ago
Then why is it that Christian's are called, "Ambassador's", "Royal Priesthoods"? Christ enthrusted his kingdom to ALL Christians! That's why he commands ALL Christians to spread the Gospel. If he wanted one person to be the leader, he would have left a leader.
Ajntb2Sli 3 years ago
God called the Israelites a "priestly nation", yet they too were led by Moses. Yes, indeed--christ entrusted his kingdom to each of us, in a special and unique way. However, it just so happens that he also entrusted his kingdom to a certain person in a similarly unique way: leadership. We've already discussed Christ giving Simon Bar-Jonah (Peter) the "keys to the kingdom". That designates Peter and his successors leadership.
Think about it. there are always leaders.
k12d14 3 years ago 2
All Christians would include the catholic priesthood. Because the Catholic church preaches that Jesus is God, the catholic church is Christian, and must therefore also be the new testament royal priesthood.
Silam81 3 years ago
What you just said K12d14 is Blasphemy! The Bible strictly say's "for there is one God and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus". (1 Tim. 2:5) no where in the Bible does it state anything about marie having any kind of authority. In fact, there is a passage that has jesus saying, after a man told HIM, "blessed be the mother that bore you". and Im paraphrasing here, "Blessed rather those that obey and keep my commandments".
Ajntb2Sli 3 years ago
I'm very glad you brought up Paul, because his conversion on the road to damascus is a remarkable example of the inseparability of Christ and his Church. Christ told Paul "Why are you persecuting ME?" when he persecuted his believers, his Church. Paul kept those words in mind his whole life--when he wrote to Timothy he knew that he was just echoing what Jesus said. Christ and his Church are co-operators in the mediation between God the Father and Man. Our evidence is right there.
k12d14 3 years ago
But see, this is the very fact that Im talking about. You say Peter is the head, when he in fact is NOT. Jesus is the head of the Church. Not peter, not the pope, not mary, not anybody else but Christ. This is the problem with the catholic church, and why the reformation took place, because your church practices Idolatry.
Ajntb2Sli 3 years ago
Christ is the Head,,Christ himself established the Church and put peter as its early head below that of Christ. mat 16
cathaustralia 3 years ago
this is not what is being referred in this passage.
Ajntb2Sli 3 years ago
my church in fact does not practice idolatry.
here's why:
idolatry is the worship and service to an physical object, e.g. a statue of some sort. In idolatry, the object itself is what is being worshipped, and this is why God throughout to the Old Testament cries out to Israel to the effect of "they are merely wood and stone, they cannot save you". If God was not talking about the objects themselves, then this would never have been said in response to idol worship in the respective scenes.
k12d14 3 years ago
what catholics practice which people often mistake for idolatry is veneration through the use of images.
in this case, it is not the object that contains the image of the subject (a statue of Mary, perhaps) that is being prayed to, or venerated, but rather, the SUBJECT. Prayer is assisted through the imaginative upbringing of artistic images--statues of Christ and Mary, Saints and Angels only assist men to concentrate on the subject which they address.
k12d14 3 years ago
If you come to know God through his words, then you will not need a visiual. You will know how HE operates and how HE presents Himself to you, and your eyes will become open to His way of communicating with you that you will be able to see HIM. Not literally, like you practice, but experiencially.
Ajntb2Sli 3 years ago
Idolatry is the worship of something or someone other than God. You worship mary and your statues, and Angels, more than God (Jesus)
Ajntb2Sli 3 years ago
We have statues, but so does Washington D.C. We have icons, but most houses also have paintings or pictures of family and friends on their walls. The issue isn't with statues or pictures, but with worship. It is giving someone or something the kind of worship that is due only to God. Luckily, this keeps us from idolatry! We give to no creature the worship that is due for the Triune God, and He alone. Not Mary, not Michael the Archangel, not Peter or Paul. None. Your saying so is absurd.
paleocrat 3 years ago
Thank you sooo much! This was what I was trying to get at.
k12d14 3 years ago
note the difference. Worship (greek: "Latria") is due only to God. Veneration (greek: "Dulia") is given to the saints. to Give Latria to a Saint or Dulia to God would both be improper; for a saint, "worship" is far too much and is indeed idolatry, as you say. for God, "veneration" is far too little and is disrespectful.
Remember what Christ said. "Give to Caesar what is Caesar, and God what is God's."
k12d14 3 years ago
The only Christian is the one who accepts Our Lord Jesus Christ and the Church he established. Who can seperate the Head, the only-begotten Son of God, from the body, which is His Church? Only those who profess the one Catholic Faith and are united with the Mystical Body of Christ are members of the Church of Christ. And only those members can legitimately bear the title of honor of Christian.
mediator4u 4 years ago
where in the Bible does it say that we have to believe in Jesus AND the Catholic church to be saved? Mystical body of Christ???? That's exactly why there is protestanism. Turn away from your paganistic dogma and surrender your life to Christ, then you can be called a child of God, which is a Christian. Not by belief in legalistic religious dictators suppressing the truth from you, but by God himself, through His word, the Bible.
Ajntb2Sli 3 years ago
"For as with the human body which is a unity although it has many parts-all the parts of the body, though many, still making up one single body-so it is with Christ. We were baptised into one body in a single Spirit, Jews as well as Greeks, slaves as well as free men, and we were all given the same Spirit to drink. And indeed the body consists not of one member but of many." (1 Cor. 12:12)
PatristicEchoes 3 years ago
"He has put all things under his feet, and made him, as he is above all things, the head of the Church; which is his Body, the fullness of him who is filled, all in all." (Ephesians 1:23)
PatristicEchoes 3 years ago
Each interpret the Bible differently and feel that they are guided by the Spirit when they do so. Clearly it is impossible for this chaos to have come from God. The only solution is a return to the Church which existed before the Bible, compiled the books contained in it, and has always authoritatively given its proper interpretation, the Catholic Church.
Pontmain7 4 years ago
how do you know for a fact that its interpreting correctly? Because the Pope says it is? Get real! What about all the controversies with the Catholic church and it's pope? no death penalty? It's Biblical.
Ajntb2Sli 3 years ago
How do you? Did not the Apostles and Church fathers advise the faithful on the faith or did people just make it up for themselves. The Bible also says Thal SHal not kill thats biblical as well.
cathaustralia 3 years ago
ok, where did the Apostles and the "Church" fathers come up with the information to advise. It all comes back to Jesus. He is the head of the Church.
Ajntb2Sli 3 years ago
In1517, the new concept of forming religions based on the individual's interpretation of the Bible was born with Martin Luther. The result of this break from the Catholic Church by Luther has been utter confusion among Christians, there are now over 33,800 different Protestant religions, with several new ones being formed next week.
Pontmain7 4 years ago
I can say the same thing about the Catholics. you have differnt forms of Catholicism.
Ajntb2Sli 4 years ago
hmmm...last i checked, catholics are under ONE pope and ONE faith.
vint7107 4 years ago
there's the Charasmatic Catholics
Roman Catholics
Regular Catholics
all the sects that came out of Catholicsm.
Lutherans
Protestants are not under a Dictator, we are under Christ.
Ajntb2Sli 3 years ago
lmao...charasmatic catholics, regular catholics, roman catholics are different sects of catholicism? you know you're catholicism alright. protestants claim to be under Christ...you just can't agree on what Christ teaches. Catholics can and have for 2,000 years with a direct lineage to Christ himself. Protestants don't...oh, and that book you like to read, the Bible...yeah, we came up with that.
vint7107 3 years ago
Catholics did not come up with the Bible, GOD did! where in the name of God do you position yourself to think that Catholics "came up with the Bible"? Do you hear yourself? Explain to me how Catholics have a lineage and Protestants don't? Please write down what verses you get this from.
Ajntb2Sli 3 years ago
Leo XIII described Protestants quite wonderfully. He called them "struggling innovators."
Jitpring 4 years ago 2
Which came first, the Bible or the Church? The Church. Discover the implications.
Jitpring 4 years ago 3
i agree with every word you said.
+God bless the Catholic Church, the West and the East.
In Nomine Christi!
gostav0 4 years ago
Hi, I want to thank you for replying to a religion-related post like this. We (Christians) really need discussions like this.
dkchickenlittle 4 years ago
this video is nuts! The protestants get their authority from the Bible, the word of God. The Catholics are suppose to be doing that as well, but because of them, the whole reformation and cults and different churches came to be. You cannot stand there and say my church is better because it has an authoritative figure, because your AF is responsible for the Reformation!
Ajntb2Sli 4 years ago
John the Baptist teached a different message than what the "Religious Leaders" of that time were teaching. John Baptisted Jesus, not for salvation, mind you, Jesus did not need saving. CHrist is the Authoritative Figure for the Protestant Church. if people take the time to read the Bible, we can rule out a whole number of "churches'.
Ajntb2Sli 4 years ago
Naturally the mark of orthodoxy and true meaning of Christ teachings lies in your own fallible intepretation of Scripture? Wow, Luther died in vain. The Papacy still lives in the hearts of his children.
Nicholasgn 4 years ago
and therein lies the catholic problem. You put the Pope and the Church above CHRIST!!!!
Ajntb2Sli 3 years ago
Wrong- Christ is the of the Church
cathaustralia 3 years ago
You evade the real subject at hand. How is your "Tradition" the infalible one, and the only one?
Where does Peter document this to be the "Only Authority" passed through these bishops, and how is that authority carrying the infablible authority of the very apostles
MRKetter81 4 years ago
That was not the subject at hand. I dealt with his arguments, nothing more.
Nobody claims he is the ONLY authority. Pope Benedict's recent apostolic letter dealing with why Protestant bodies are not properly called churches readily admits that Eastern Orthodox churches have apostolic succession. The issue is not with whether or not the EO have bishops in apostolic lineage; rather, it is with the primacy of one among others.
paleocrat 4 years ago