The bible is the final word. I agree with you the church the holy spirit etc etc are to word togheter with the bible. But the church is not the catholic church. It is made of people from many denominations. Honest people. Even catholics. but definitlely not the dictatorial papacy.
@medusa210562 --The ONLY Church founded by Jesus Christ is the Catholic Church both Roman and Eastern; all other non-catholic churches are illicit and need to come home to Rome.
@GoldenHarvest454 All other churches need to submit to the Catholic chruch. This subimission is dictatorship. Oppression of concience, even persecturion. Have a look at the inquisition of the heretics for example. The true church is spiritual. It is no denimination. And the bible is the only Authority. God protected the bible, if catholics were involved or not it means nothing , after all there are good christians in the catholic chruch as well.
@medusa210562 --You need to demonstrate from the Bible that it itself teaches its the only authority. And can you give me an example of "oppression of conscience" that the RCC does?
@GoldenHarvest454 I could write a book about catholic oppression of conscience. I was a very very devout young catholic. The preast would say to me that I had to just accept somethings regardless of the conflict in my conscience. the I learned that Galileo Galilei was scared to say that the earth moves. then I learned that during the concordat with Mussolini many protestants were in jail for doctrinally contradicting the catholic church. I can write a book on this topic.
@GoldenHarvest454 Apostolic succession as claimed by the catholic church says (in reality) "Let's us discuss from the scriptures 1john4::1 acts 17 11 but at the end of the day you MUST ABBEY THE CHURCH OF ROME because you cannot by yourself understand the trueth. if you don't agree with us you are and eretic ANATHEMA worth of death etc etc. "
@GoldenHarvest454 The priests and levites had succession and authority. and Jesus sayd to them "you don't know the scripture. that is the only way I cannot obbey blidly another man. I need the scriptures. Acts 17:11
(1)Vatican catechism 1260 "Every man who is ignorant of the Gospel of Christ and of his Church, but seeks the truth and does the will of God in accordance with his understanding of it, can be saved" How can ANY believer in Christ support this heresy ?Christ is the only way , truth and light !!! (2)total misrepresentation of the bible: How can the RCC claim that you can only be saved if you are baptized ? What about the man next to Jesus on the cross ? Was he baptized ? No.Thats why we need SS
Any "Scripture" mentioned within the text of Scripture could refer only to writings that were extant at the time. Thus, the Scripture named in the New Testament could refer only to the Old Testament writings, since this was all that the New-Testament writer had at his disposal at the time he was writing. The Old-Testament writers could not be referring to the New Testament. Sola scriptura folks, does this mean that acceptance of the New Testament is based on something OTHER THAN sola scriptura?
@PrincessSyntax "Any "Scripture" mentioned within the text of Scripture could refer only to writings that were extant at the time."
That is only partially true. Certainly when David said "Thy word oh Lord" so many times he was speaking of what was "written that were extant at the time".
However as we know even Malachi which came after David wrote the book of Psalms is also "Thy word oh Lord".
Also Peter referred to Paul's letters as scripture and that is in the new testament.
@PrincessSyntax "As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction." 2 Peter 3:16
Also it is evident from scripture that God did not even give the OT writers a list of all the books that would be included in the OT. In fact it appears that they did not even know there would be OT scripture as we have it today.
@PrincessSyntax So when an early writer of scripture made an statement about the authority of scripture not knowing that his writing would be later be part of scripture that did not render his writing void.
Many things that God has given men to do is in scripture including the ten commandments, the ordinances and ceremonies under the Levitical preisthood, baptism, the Lord's supper etc.
@PrincessSyntax "The Old-Testament writers could not be referring to the New Testament. Sola scriptura folks, does this mean that acceptance of the New Testament is based on something OTHER THAN sola scriptura?"
Actually it could and did since divine revelation from God was not complete. However it could not be referring to oral traditions SCRIPTURA ADDO CATHOLICUS folks.
It certainly means that it is based on something other than SCRIPTURA ADDO CATHOLICUS (scripture plus Catholicism).
@PrincessSyntax "The Old-Testament writers could not be referring to the New Testament. Sola scriptura folks, does this mean that acceptance of the New Testament is based on something OTHER THAN sola scriptura?"
Not true and in fact it was God whom gave the OT writers to write what they did so he is the author not them. Though they did not know that all the revelation of God was not complete including the grafting in of the Gentiles, God did.
@PrincessSyntax "The Old-Testament writers could not be referring to the New Testament. Sola scriptura folks, does this mean that acceptance of the New Testament is based on something OTHER THAN sola scriptura?"
It is oral traditions from those whom God did not give direct revelation to that the OT writers could not be referring to SCRIPTURA ADDO CATHOLICUS folks. This most certainly means that the acceptance of the NT is based on something other than SCRIPTURE ADDO CATHOLICUS.
@WayOfTheMaster454 BTW..............the church established by the Apostles was not once called by them Catholic. The 1st century church and the Apostles were non-catholic in the sense that the word is used as the name of the church. The church was and is universal but of the traditions that the Apostles taught the church naming the church Catholic, rosaries, purgatory, nuns, preist (other than the priesthood of all believers), mandatory celibacy for leaders, etc., etc., etc.,
@stevesilvia Steve what is important is the truth.
The truth is that Ignatius did not name the church "the Catholic church" he described the church as universal.
You give your opinion about "churches who believe in sola scriptura" in this video. I will finally be posting my video series tonight which offers truth about "those who believe in scriptura addo catholicus"
@stevesilvia You state @ 3:32 that "no where in the Bible does it say that the Bible alone is the only authority".
No where in the Bible does it say that "scripture plus Catholicism" together are the authorities. The fact is that scripture does say that it is authoritative. The Apostle Paul and Peter both said that their oral teaching and writings were authoritative. Neither ever said anything about any Catholic church having any authority.
@troysz “So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught, whether by word of mouth or by letter from us.” [2 Thes 2:15]
@PrincessSyntax “So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught, whether by word of mouth or by letter from us.” [2 Thes 2:15]"
The word "of" is not found anywhere in Thess 2:15, you added it.
It says "word" and the word "our" is found instead.
With your addition of "of", the apostles would have been saying to keep the traditions which you have been taught by word of mouth and our letters. That would exclude the apostles in person oral teaching.
@PrincessSyntax That would mean that the apostles letters were authoritative and the word of mouth of others rather than the apostles actual in person oral teaching.
That would be in direct contradiction to what Paul clearly states in 1 Corinthians 11:23
"I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you"
Paul states clealry enough for you and steve to understand that he personally delivered to the church what Jesus taught him through divine revelation not word of mouth.
@PrincessSyntax There is more evidence of what Paul meant in his 1st letter to the same Thessalonian church. "For this cause also thank we God without ceasing, because, when ye received the word of God which ye heard of us, ye received it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God, which effectually worketh also in you that believe"
" the word of God which ye heard of us" is not word of mouth it is the apostles oral teaching as in "our word and letters"
@PrincessSyntax And this is exactly why a written record is eventually necessarly because when people claim that the apostles said something they did not we can check an actual record of what they taught rather than blindly accept others claims as to what they taught.
It is the apostles oral teachings and letters that are authoritative not the word of mouth of others and that is cleary what the apostle Paul's writings state.
@troysz --"Catholic" is a description of the Christian Church; We go by the title "Catholic" because, since the begining, every heretical sect claimed to be the "true" Christians, so we went by Catholic mostly.
Non-catholic churches have pretty much robbed the word "christian" of all meaning, unfortunately.
-------------
Now book, chapter, and verse for Sola Scr. please.
@WayOfTheMaster454 --"Catholic" is a description of the Christian Church; We go by the title "Catholic" because, since the begining, every heretical sect claimed to be the "true" Christians, so we went by Catholic mostly.
So you admit that Catholics adopted the name not because it was a tradition which the Apostles gave the 1st century church to pass on but to distinguish itself (making it the mother of denomminations).
@WayOfTheMaster454 “Non-catholic churches have pretty much robbed the word "christian" of all meaning, unfortunately.”
Robbed the meaning to who? This reveals your error. The Apostles had already warned the church of Apostacy and a great falling away. Even with all this happening the church was never once instructed to come up with the name Catholic Church. This is what the church was instructed to do instead.
Did God instruct Israel to name itself Pharisees because of heretics NO! The church was commanded to standfast, hold to, continue in etc the things which they had already been taught by Apostles in the 1st century. Not once was the church instructed to add new traditions or to take on a new name. NOT ONCE! So try again.
I'll give you scriptures that cite scripture as at least one authority and you give me just one single scripture that cites Catholicism as an authority........JUST ONE! And I'll convert to Catholicism
You obviously don’t pay attention. I asked you to “Show us were the church in the Bible is once called the Catholic church by the Apostles who founded it.”
When you answer that question then I will answer yours.
Now book, chapter, and verse for Sola Addo Catholicus!
@stevesilvia “I'm still waiting for you to answer a simple question.... What is more important, the name of the church or the church itself?”
I have answered your question. The truth is what is most important. There is no Catholic church in scripture so the Catholic church is not the church in scripture.
@troysz Scriptures say " you should know how to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of truth." The church is the " pillar and foundation of truth.", the church is more important than the name.... So why do you banter so much about the name? Your question "Show us were the church in the Bible is called the Catholic church by the Apostles who founded it" is not important, per Scriptures, don't you agree?
@stevesilvia "Scriptures say " you should know how to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of truth."
That scripture does not however say that the name of that church was or was to be the Catholic Church.
"So why do you banter so much about the name?"
As you well know the church in scripture was not called the Catholic church. If it makes you feel good to call that fact bantering then pleae do so.
@stevesilvia " since no one said the name of the church is in the bible, your question borders on prejudice...."
and that accusation is nothing more than a lie. It is as fair a question as is sola scriptura found in scripture.
I see that once again when you cannot answer the question about scriptura addo catholicus that you ask of sola scriptura you resort to false claims. If my question borders on prejudice then so does yours.
@stevesilvia "Your question "Show us were the church in the Bible is called the Catholic church by the Apostles who founded it" is not important, per Scriptures, don't you agree?"
No I do not agree and neither do you. We were told to standfast in and hold to the traditions taught to the 1st century church by the Apostles orally and in writing (that is per scripture). I have yet to find where the Apostles left the tradition of calling the church the Catholic church.
@troysz my only reply to you is Scripture...." the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of truth." .. 1 Timothy 3 The word Catholic is only a name....
@stevesilvia "my only reply to you is Scripture...." the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of truth." .. 1 Timothy 3 The word Catholic is only a name...."
My response to you you is amen to 1 Timothy 3 which makes no mention of any church called the Catholic church. Amen to the entire scripture where Israel's name in found, where Jesus' name is found, where even the Rome's name is found; but where there is a church who's name is not once called the Catholic Church
@stevesilvia Show me in scripture where there are priest in the church other than the priesthood of all believers. Then show me where these priest could not marry.
@troysz in the bible they were called " PRESBYTERS" def :
: a member of the governing body of an early Christian church
: a member of the order of priests in churches having episcopal hierarchies that include bishops, priests, and deacons. 1Peter 5:5 " Likewise,... be subject to the presbyters" "And every one that hath forsaken houses, or brethren, ...wife, or children, or lands, for my name's sake, shall receive an hundredfold, and shall inherit everlasting life" .
“presbuteros” is not used one single time for priest. There were no priest in the NT church other than our high priest Jesus Christ, and all believers are said to be of a royal priesthood. If the priestly office seen in Catholicism was in the NT church then you would be able to give me examples in the NT; but there were none
@stevesilvia "or does your silence mean you can't?"
There has been no silence but tell yourself what ever you must to compensate for your inability to post scriptures showing priests operating in the NT church in scripture.
I understand why you feel that you must resort to certain petty tactics but let me assure you that they will not work.
There is no Catholic church in scripture not are there Popes, Nuns, priests in the NT church, rosaries. These are traditions of men PERIOD!
@stevesilvia I suppose that if someone told you that Jesus' mother name was Sally but that in the Bible she was called Mary; you would accept that as proof. That is essentially what you offered as so called proof.
"in the bible they were called " PRESBYTERS"
Wow! So we are supposed to ignore the fact that "hiereus" us used in all instances where we see priest. We are supposed to ignore the fact that " πρεσβύτερος (presbuteros)" was not once translated to "priest".
@stevesilvia "Your personal interpretations of the bible are of no interest to us.... we follow the truth."
You mean scripture is of no interest to you other than when you attempt to twist it as you did when you lied and said that priest were called presbyter in the Bible.
Priest were called priest in the Bible and presbyter were called presbyter....if you followed the truth you woud have acknowledged it.
I asked one of the angels from heaven how's Luther or Calvin doing? And the angel said "who are they? Never heard in the heavenly attendance list"... Ooops! ...But they are all excited of Karol W earthly beatification :) so thats the update!
@279cute Probably the Luther's and Calvin's hell consist in an eternal discussion between them about their different interpretations of Bible :)))))), poor evil having to listen......
Also Luther was the first to brand name the early christians "roman catholics" becausr he refused to be under the authority of the one, catholic and apostolic church. Then he claimed he has the full authority in interpreting the bible of the reformed group. Now he is more powerful than the pope.
All the plagues & the worst punishments are upon Martin Luther as PROMISED BY GOD, in Rev22 V17 & 18 for adding the word ALONE & removing SEVEN BOOKS{which are "still" part of Jewish Scripure!}. You are apostles of this demonic, mad man???!
@rufodsouza You mean to Romans 3:28 right? Also in Revelation, the verses you pulled up, St. John was saying not to add or take away from the Revelation, and Luther wanted to throw the whole book of Revelation away. He is suffering and burning in Hell right now, so are the millions of "Christians" who embraced his purley man-created religion of Protestantism.
YES, MY DEAR FRIEND, I was and AM refering to the VERY SAME thing you are !!Actually, Luther even wanted to REMOVE James and 2Peter !!! The Question to ask our protestant bros, is," IF YOUR SO CALLED RELIGION IS PURE & THE TRUTH, then, HOW could the Holy Spirit be saying OPPOSING THINGS (CONTRADICTIONS) to Luther, +Wesley +Calvin, +S(Z)wingly etc. etc etc?????
That IS WHY there are 40THOUSAND + denominations AND "VARIATIONS" on THE TRUTH !!!
@rufodsouza Luther threw out 7 OT books, and parts of Daniel and Eshter. He also wanted to throw out Jimmy(The Book of James), Hebrews, and Jude of the NT.
If you are a catholic, you must be either ignorant moron, or completely illogical person. If Bible is the Truth, then everything that contradicts the Bible is error, or the opposite. This is a basics of logics. How come can you so outrageously violate first 2 out of 10 commandments and still say that you believe that the Bible is the Word of God?
Decide at last, either the Bible is true and your traditions are false, or your traditions are true and the Bible is false. Be logical for God's sake!
@SerJahPhoto 1. Good thing we dont worship anyone but God.
2. Good thing we dont worship icons. Not all images are bad, God commands for us not to worship them. Exodus 25:18-20, 1 Chronicles 28:18-19, Ezekiel 41:17-18, Numbers 21:8-9. The Catholic Church condems polythesim. Read the Cathecisim. There were 6 nuns ex-communicated for Mary worship.
3. Purgatory and Indulgences are both in the Bible, they are completely Biblical, and YES they do have a ton of support from Sacred Scripture.
@YeshuaisYahweh1 Concerning the 2 Samuel. Looks to me that some mad man made up this absurd idea to manipulate the dark masses. And then after he was confronted by common sense of thinking people, he started to look for some support in the scriptures. It's like putting a wagon in front of a horse.
BTW, David was paying for his sin while he was still alive, not after he was dead. And there is not a hint on money.
@SerJahPhoto Read 1 Corothians 3:15, no matter how hard Protestants try to explain it away, it cannot be explained away. And for indulgences, Read 2 Samuel 11, and then go to chapter 12 and read verses 13-15. This is clearly indicating indulgences are nessesary.
@YeshuaisYahweh1 you make me chuckle a bit.. 1 Cor 3.15 addressed to those who believe in salvation by faith alone, and not by works. Works are the result of salvation, but not a way to get one. If you don't get it, you can throw your Bible out. If the salvation could be attained by human efforts and exertions, why would God give His only son to be tortured and crucified? If you cannot answer that, there is no need to continue our discussion.
@SerJahPhoto No, he was talking about purgatory. And Luther came up with Sola Fide while on the toilet, when throwing excrement back and forth with the devil. He claims the Holy Spirit talked to him while on the crapper. Salvation is both, faith and works. Read Psalm 106:31, and James 2:14-26, nowhere does the bible support faith without works. You Protestants try so hard to preach against good works its pathetic. And you didnt mention anything about indulgences, because I proved my case on that
YOU ARE MOST CERTAINLY "A SATINIST" according to your OWN Logic! Lies like Catholics REMOVED TWO COMMANDMENTS and ADDED SEVEN BOOKS, etc. comes from YOUR MASTER, "The LIAR & MURDERER" from the very begining, says JESUS !!!!
The EARLIEST BIBLE of the 4th .Cent "HAS ALL 73 BOOKS" in it !! This "IS" on public display at THE BRITISH MUSEUM>>>> TODAY !!! and ALL TEN COMMANDMENTS, that "WE" Catholics belive !!!
Bottom line: "YOUR GOD" IS " N O T " our Catholic GOD, at all !!!
@rufodsouza certainly not, we worship two different gods, that's for sure. Be honest, if possible, wouldn't you kill me as your predecessors killed and tortured those who would not bow before your mother-goddess?
@rufodsouza dude, i just visited your You-Tube profile. Good part of your subscriptions has some nude and porn-stars images, which tells me of who you really are. You use words that you would never use before your priest. Are these the works you are so proud of? Or there are some i don't even know of? Are you addicted to alcohol? Are you overweight? Do you oppress the defenseless? I would like to see some of your good works?
Sola Scriptura of Protestants is so easily debunked by the mere fact that the NT wasn’t published by the Church until around the year 380.
How for 350 years after Christ, were people “saved” since there were no Bibles? How was the Temple of Herod destroyed in 72ad? The answer is the simplicity of the Mass and the Sacraments and the Sacred Traditions. “But the Apostle calleth their pretended skill a knowledge falsely so called, being in truth high and deepe blindness.”
@YeshuaisYahweh1 you catholics, have been proving your works for centuries. Your devilish inquisition, crusades that was sweeping away whole cities of defenseless people. Priest-pedophiles, and popes that defend them. Let me guess, your next argument will be something like, "it's not a church, it's just some people of the church". But overall the works of catholics are not so bad? Am i right?
@SerJahPhoto You have showed you ignorantence by saying that stuff. You dident metion any of my arguments, its just your last defence, you were losing, so you had to find a way out, but ill adress what you said anyway.
@SerJahPhoto The inquisition and crusades were a good thing. We spred Christianity and made it what it is to day because of that. God commanded us to kill heretics all throught the Bible, why would we let people reject the Catholic faith and go to Hell? We did a just deed. And as for pedophiles, dont you have them in your church also? Yes you do. And "popes" that defend them are not real popes, but they are anti-popes. Your arguments you make are primitive and make no sense.
@YeshuaisYahweh1 if an inquisition was a good thing for you, then you will be judged together with your brothers-murderers. Trust me, you will be tortured for whole eternity and there will be not a torture that you will not have a chance to experience.
Go ahead and finish what your ancestors started! How will you escape being condemned to hell? You are son of the devil! Go head and do your "sacred" duty. Can i ask you a favor though? Can you kill me quickly? There is no way i will be like you.
@SerJahPhoto Luther is the one who said that he and his followers should kill the pope and cardnal, and that they should wash their "hands in their blood" Luther was extreamly evil. Thats fighting words there.
@YeshuaisYahweh1 you didn't answer why the Father gave His Son for brutal death if there was other way to save us? Your theology cheapens His sacrifice, therefore it's not of God but of the devil. The good deeds are the result of realizing what He did for you and submission to Him out of gratitude. Any other way is heresy and perversion.
BTW, why would you take Luther so personally? Why so much hate? There are countless reasons to hate those who shed innocent blood, but why this guy?
The ONLY Ecumenical Canon that declares that Clergy are to put away their wives is Canon# 48 of the Council of Trullo, & even that decree contradicts other decrees set before it, and the Holy Scriptures set long before all councils.
"A bishop must not, out of favour to a brother or a son, or any other relation, ordain whom he will to the episcopal dignity; for it is not right to make heirs of the bishopric, giving the things of God to human affections. Neither is it fitting to subject the Church of God to heirs. But if anyone shall do so let the ordination be void, and the ordainer himself be punished with excommunication."
This too is something that Rome is been guilty of, for many Popes did this.
True the Council of Orange is not ecumenical, but the Council of Chalcedon was. Also, the Quintisext Council of Trullo is counted as ecumenical, and that council declares that the Canons of the Holy Apostles written by Clement were valid. Canon#5 written by Clement states "Let not a Bishop, Presbyter, or Deacon, put away his wife under pretence of religion; but if he put her away, let him be excommunicated; and if he persists, let him be deposed.", something Rome violates....(continued)
Yet even in this the Church Fathers at times contradicted the will of God, & you know it. Orange (441 AD) in its 26th canon forbids the appointment of deaconesses, & the Second council of Tile decrees that Deaconesses who married were to be excommunicated unless they renounced the men they were living with, & that, on account of the weakness of the sex, none for the future were to be ordained.
Historical documentations show that many of the Apostolic Fathers considered women unclean. The Ecumenical Council of Chalcedon stated "A woman shall not receive the laying on of hands as a Deaconess under forty years of age, & then only after searching examination. And if, after she has had hands laid on her, & has continued for a time to minister, she shall despise the Grace of God & give herself in marriage, she shall be anathematized & the man who is united to her."
@streets2apostle This would be the same for a priest as well you know if he marries he will either have to renounce his priesthood or be ecommunicated. And the councils you gave are not ecumentical there have bin thousands of robber councils.
The Pope can sin, look at the first Pope, St Peter denied Jesus three times but Christians of the Catholic Church don't say he is perfect, we simply believe that when defining a matter of faith he is infallible. He might not act on what he teaches but his excatedra teachings r infallible. Just try to be fair and present the right info, honesty is a great Christian virtue. God bless all.
Since the Roman Pope holds a position of "first amongst equals", do the other "equals" hold such an authority just as well? Does the Alexandrian Pope hold "Papal Infallibility"? What about the the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople? What about the Jerusalem Patriarch? What about the Patriarchs of Antioch, since they come from Peter & John? No one Bishop can claim infallibility, for all men are fallible. Infallibility is found within the Catholic Church Bishops.
@streets2apostle but a primacy is given to Peter, whereby it is made clear that there is but one Church and one chair. . . . If someone does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he [should] desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that he is in the Church?" (The Unity of the Catholic Church 4; 1st edition [A.D. 251]).- St Cyprian of Carthage
@streets2apostle "You cannot deny that you are aware that in the city of Rome the episcopal chair was given first to Peter; the chair in which Peter sat, the same who was head—that is why he is also called Cephas [‘Rock’]—of all the apostles; the one chair in which unity is maintained by all" (The Schism of the Donatists 2:2 [A.D. 367]).
@streets2apostle "of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church," - St Irenaeus mid 2st century
@gtepp031387 I agree with all that the Apostolic Fathers stated. However, once one steps into heresy, this authority is forfeited. Would you continue to follow a Bishop who is in error? "Follow me as I continue to follow Christ"- Apostle Paul. The Pope, no longer continued that path after 1054 AD, but made himself the supreme head. Pope Leo sold indulgences to repair the St. Peter's Basilica. Was the Chair of Peter still correct in doing this, which according to Canon law, was an abuse of power?
@streets2apostle The Pope the person just like every other person is evil and flawed. The person is not what leads us and yes he can be in error and is constanly is error for he is just a man. It is Christ and the grace of christ confered to the chair that leads us. I will not follow man like so man others. EVERY man is evil including the man who is pope including all patriares that are today were yesterday and will be tommarow
@streets2apostle Further more no to say the person of leo was not evil and in need of a savyior but in the best of my knowledge he had nothing to do with the indulgences of st Peters that was the bishop in charge of the building which was not the pope.
@gtepp031387 It was Pope Leo who made that particular call. He knew all about it, & when Luther apposed it, instead of debating him like it was originally requested, a Cardinal was sent to him to demand he recant. Pope Leo was also guilty or suspected of other issues. Therefore, Protestants cannot be blamed for rejecting the RCC at the time, for the RCC was corrupt.
@streets2apostle uhmm Pope Leo had a cardinal sent to him becaues of his 95 cethies not becaues of indulgences. You should do your research b4 speaking. Anyway i have already stated that the Pope the person is evil and in need of a savyior
@gtepp031387 Before you talk to me about research, how about you mention what was on that document that Martin Luther posted up? Indulgences was on the list!
@gtepp031387 1) You really dont know much about other Churches do you? Constantinople was planted by Apostle Andrew, Peter's brother; 2) You mistaken me for an Eastern Orthodox! I am not Eastern Orthodox at all.
@streets2apostle Why was constaninople raised to a Patriarchy was it becaues it was the seat of the apostal Andrew? Can u pleasse tell me why(if you dont know mabey u should study the 2nd ecumentical counci ill give you a hint IT HAS ABSOULUTYLY NOTHING TO DO WITH ANDREW)? And what church are u from?
@gtepp031387 Quick question before we even go there: what does this have to do with the heretical actions of Rome? All your questions have little to do with the fact that we discussed, that Rome messed up, has alot to apologies for, admit to, and repent from.
@streets2apostle The seat of Peter has nothing to repent from not did it ever mess up. Rome the county has messed up Rome the church never shall we move on
@gtepp031387 You as a RCC really dont know much about RCC history, do you? Thats like saying you only know about WWII from learning from a Nazi. Do you even know what the issues were that Martin Luther, a former RCC Priest, addresssed? Before you talk up about Rome, learn about Rome.
@gtepp031387 You really wouldn't even take the time to examine that, would you? You would dare ignore the cries of those who have suffered due to Roman heretical Popes? Shame on you!
@gtepp031387 Shame on you on behalf of Father Martin Luther who was nearly martyred for rejecting Pope Leo X's heretical lust for money, selling indulgences all to fix a Church! Shame on you on behalf of Bishop Carlos Duarte Costa, who was excommunicated because he spoke out openly for Rome hiding Nazis & neglecting Brazil's poverty. Should I continue?
@streets2apostle The Popes words are easy to look up so i would have u refference were you got this info from. And Martin Luther was not a very nice person have you ever read - THE JEWS AND THERE LIES- ? The Popes the persons are not sinless and many have bin heritics i do not question this, the Pope the office, the grace that Jesus bestowed to the head and rock of the church, has never bin in error.The church has never taught herisy and is the largest most charitible organization in the world
Certain Popes have sinned in ways that are the exact cause of separation within the church, yet these Popes have not only not been questioned & apologized for, but even defended by people like you. I am not against the Archbishop of Rome totally, I am against the heresy that has been allowed & not corrected. Bishop Costa was excommunicated for reasons that were later taken up by Vatican II. I long for the correction of the Church. Luther wasnt any better in the end, but that doesnt excuse Leo X!
@streets2apostle The Pope the person is not impeccible of incapable of sin did you know that he goes to confession every week? And did you know that when pronouncing excommunications the Pope is not infallible?
This is treated as such in theory, but in practice, the Pope has been allowed to (sometimes literally) get away with murder. Pronouncing excommunication works along doctrinal lines, and errors have happened in that area. You run to the defense of the Pope, yet you dont acknowledge that there have been errors committed by some Popes. Admitting outright that some Popes messed up (including in areas of doctrine) does not make one a bad Catholic or a traitor, its just a Catholic telling the truth.
@streets2apostle The Popes words should be respected at all times and if he pronounces someone to be excommunicated then untill or if the person is proved to be right or the Pope to be wrong or the person in question is obsolved in my eyes that person is excommunicated.This however doesnt make the Popes desision infallible he is only infallible when he first either declares or defines something to be true then he must be speaking from the chair and he must be speaking to and 4 the intire church.
@streets2apostle so you must understand since he can not be speaking to the intire church when excommunicating one person he is unable to give any infallible stand on an ecommunication or personal event only when writting doctrin that involves the intire church.
@gtepp031387 & @cathomania All that you stated contradicts the claims of "Papal Supremacy" & "Papal Infallibility". Excommunication is indeed a matter of & doctrine because all like that one excommunicated are to share the same fate. Church discipline and Church doctrine go hand-n-hand. Church doctrine without Church discipline is as dead as faith without works. If an excommunication is wrongfully given, then Church doctrine is perverted for justice & righteousness has been ignored.
@streets2apostle Papel infalliblility has its conditions and Papel supremacy has its limits. Papel infalliblility has 3 conditions f#1 Must be speaking to and for INTIRE church. #2 Must be speaking on matters to do with faith and morals. #3 must use the words declare or define or some similar term. Papel supremacy has its limits. It is the temperal sword(the church) and must submit to the heavenly sword(Jesus). This would mean at any time if something was divinly revealed say that
@streets2apostle wemon should be priests the temperal sword would have to take back its stand on the matter. For instance Peter and the eating of unclean animals
@gtepp031387 Ecumenical Council law OVERRULES any one Bishop's decree or any one Church's Canon, for the Holy Spirit spoke directly through all the Bishops of the one holy Catholic & Apostolic Church. It just so happens that Ecumenical Council of Chalcedon Canon #15 states: "No woman under 40 years of age is to be ordained a deacon, and then only after close scrutiny." Hmmm, sounds like an ordination into holy orders to me, what about anyone else?
@streets2apostle First off the bishop of Rome did overrule the council b4 u should look at the 28th cannon of the fourth ecumentical council which was overruled by the bishop of Rome and bared from the cannons. And the Catholic church practises that the wife of decon is in fact part of the ministry and role of the deacon and as such is a deacon herself. But we feal to make a woman a deacon in full alone whould be in violation of the bible that says " women should remain silent in...
@streets2apostle the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the Law says" 1 Corinthians 14:34 and "I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority" 1 Timothy 2:12
@gtepp031387 Thats funny, because Priscilla was far from silent, and taught Silas. Also, Romans 16 speaks directly against the rejection of female Ministers. So either Paul contradicted himself, or you have it all wrong.
@streets2apostle The term "deacon" as it appears in some english translations is the greek word diakonos. Diakonos is used in the New Testament both in a general (e.g. Matthew 22:13) and the specific
sense as a church official (I Timothy 3:8). In the secular world, the diakonos was used to describe various types of
service, such as messengers, bakers and even statesmen. On the one hand some would argue that Paul often uses diakonos in the general sense of servant or minister.
The bible is the final word. I agree with you the church the holy spirit etc etc are to word togheter with the bible. But the church is not the catholic church. It is made of people from many denominations. Honest people. Even catholics. but definitlely not the dictatorial papacy.
medusa210562 2 months ago
@medusa210562 --The ONLY Church founded by Jesus Christ is the Catholic Church both Roman and Eastern; all other non-catholic churches are illicit and need to come home to Rome.
GoldenHarvest454 1 month ago
@GoldenHarvest454 All other churches need to submit to the Catholic chruch. This subimission is dictatorship. Oppression of concience, even persecturion. Have a look at the inquisition of the heretics for example. The true church is spiritual. It is no denimination. And the bible is the only Authority. God protected the bible, if catholics were involved or not it means nothing , after all there are good christians in the catholic chruch as well.
medusa210562 1 month ago
@medusa210562 --You need to demonstrate from the Bible that it itself teaches its the only authority. And can you give me an example of "oppression of conscience" that the RCC does?
GoldenHarvest454 1 month ago
@GoldenHarvest454 I could write a book about catholic oppression of conscience. I was a very very devout young catholic. The preast would say to me that I had to just accept somethings regardless of the conflict in my conscience. the I learned that Galileo Galilei was scared to say that the earth moves. then I learned that during the concordat with Mussolini many protestants were in jail for doctrinally contradicting the catholic church. I can write a book on this topic.
medusa210562 1 month ago
@GoldenHarvest454 Apostolic succession as claimed by the catholic church says (in reality) "Let's us discuss from the scriptures 1john4::1 acts 17 11 but at the end of the day you MUST ABBEY THE CHURCH OF ROME because you cannot by yourself understand the trueth. if you don't agree with us you are and eretic ANATHEMA worth of death etc etc. "
medusa210562 1 month ago
@GoldenHarvest454 The priests and levites had succession and authority. and Jesus sayd to them "you don't know the scripture. that is the only way I cannot obbey blidly another man. I need the scriptures. Acts 17:11
medusa210562 1 month ago
Pls. read John 21:25 & John 20: 30 to 31,,, i hope you understand that GOD establish His church not a Book!!
shemae25 5 months ago
@shemae25 yeah Church of Body of Christ! not catholic church! every christian is part of the body of christ!
oceanistoosmall 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
(1)Vatican catechism 1260 "Every man who is ignorant of the Gospel of Christ and of his Church, but seeks the truth and does the will of God in accordance with his understanding of it, can be saved" How can ANY believer in Christ support this heresy ?Christ is the only way , truth and light !!! (2)total misrepresentation of the bible: How can the RCC claim that you can only be saved if you are baptized ? What about the man next to Jesus on the cross ? Was he baptized ? No.Thats why we need SS
davidanful 5 months ago
Any "Scripture" mentioned within the text of Scripture could refer only to writings that were extant at the time. Thus, the Scripture named in the New Testament could refer only to the Old Testament writings, since this was all that the New-Testament writer had at his disposal at the time he was writing. The Old-Testament writers could not be referring to the New Testament. Sola scriptura folks, does this mean that acceptance of the New Testament is based on something OTHER THAN sola scriptura?
PrincessSyntax 6 months ago
@PrincessSyntax "Any "Scripture" mentioned within the text of Scripture could refer only to writings that were extant at the time."
That is only partially true. Certainly when David said "Thy word oh Lord" so many times he was speaking of what was "written that were extant at the time".
However as we know even Malachi which came after David wrote the book of Psalms is also "Thy word oh Lord".
Also Peter referred to Paul's letters as scripture and that is in the new testament.
troysz 5 months ago
@PrincessSyntax "As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction." 2 Peter 3:16
Also it is evident from scripture that God did not even give the OT writers a list of all the books that would be included in the OT. In fact it appears that they did not even know there would be OT scripture as we have it today.
troysz 5 months ago
@PrincessSyntax So when an early writer of scripture made an statement about the authority of scripture not knowing that his writing would be later be part of scripture that did not render his writing void.
Many things that God has given men to do is in scripture including the ten commandments, the ordinances and ceremonies under the Levitical preisthood, baptism, the Lord's supper etc.
troysz 5 months ago
@PrincessSyntax Can you give me a short list of all the things that Jesus and the apostles taught us to do that are not recorded in the NT?
troysz 5 months ago
@PrincessSyntax "The Old-Testament writers could not be referring to the New Testament. Sola scriptura folks, does this mean that acceptance of the New Testament is based on something OTHER THAN sola scriptura?"
Actually it could and did since divine revelation from God was not complete. However it could not be referring to oral traditions SCRIPTURA ADDO CATHOLICUS folks.
It certainly means that it is based on something other than SCRIPTURA ADDO CATHOLICUS (scripture plus Catholicism).
troysz 5 months ago
@PrincessSyntax "The Old-Testament writers could not be referring to the New Testament. Sola scriptura folks, does this mean that acceptance of the New Testament is based on something OTHER THAN sola scriptura?"
Not true and in fact it was God whom gave the OT writers to write what they did so he is the author not them. Though they did not know that all the revelation of God was not complete including the grafting in of the Gentiles, God did.
troysz 5 months ago
@troysz You don't make sense.....thats what happens when you interpret the bible on your own. Try again.
stevesilvia 5 months ago
Comment removed
troysz 5 months ago
Comment removed
troysz 5 months ago
@stevesilvia Thank you!
PrincessSyntax 5 months ago
Comment removed
ttsqas 5 months ago
Comment removed
troysz 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@PrincessSyntax "The Old-Testament writers could not be referring to the New Testament. Sola scriptura folks, does this mean that acceptance of the New Testament is based on something OTHER THAN sola scriptura?"
It is oral traditions from those whom God did not give direct revelation to that the OT writers could not be referring to SCRIPTURA ADDO CATHOLICUS folks. This most certainly means that the acceptance of the NT is based on something other than SCRIPTURE ADDO CATHOLICUS.
troysz 5 months ago
Interesting!
T8D8T 7 months ago
To all non-catholics: why do you believe in "sola scriptura" when it itself is not in the bible?
WayOfTheMaster454 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@WayOfTheMaster454 "To all non-catholics: why do you believe in "sola scriptura" when it itself is not in the bible?"
To all Catholics why do you believe in "scriptura addō catholicus" when it is not in the Bible?
To all Catholics which does the NT letters mention specifically to follow?
a. The traditions taught to the 1st century church by the Apostles orally and in writing
b. The written teaching of the Apostles and Catholicsm?
The answer is a!
troysz 7 months ago
@WayOfTheMaster454 BTW..............the church established by the Apostles was not once called by them Catholic. The 1st century church and the Apostles were non-catholic in the sense that the word is used as the name of the church. The church was and is universal but of the traditions that the Apostles taught the church naming the church Catholic, rosaries, purgatory, nuns, preist (other than the priesthood of all believers), mandatory celibacy for leaders, etc., etc., etc.,
troysz 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@WayOfTheMaster454 were not among them
troysz 7 months ago
@WayOfTheMaster454 So instead of parroting the question asked by many Catholics, "does the Bible teach sola scriptura?"
show us non-catholics were the Bible teaches "scriptura addo catholicus".
Show us were the church in the Bible is once called the Catholic church by the Apostles who founded it.
troysz 7 months ago
@troysz What is more important....the name of the church or the church it self?
stevesilvia 7 months ago
@stevesilvia Steve what is important is the truth.
The truth is that Ignatius did not name the church "the Catholic church" he described the church as universal.
You give your opinion about "churches who believe in sola scriptura" in this video. I will finally be posting my video series tonight which offers truth about "those who believe in scriptura addo catholicus"
troysz 7 months ago
@stevesilvia You state @ 3:32 that "no where in the Bible does it say that the Bible alone is the only authority".
No where in the Bible does it say that "scripture plus Catholicism" together are the authorities. The fact is that scripture does say that it is authoritative. The Apostle Paul and Peter both said that their oral teaching and writings were authoritative. Neither ever said anything about any Catholic church having any authority.
troysz 7 months ago
@troysz as always you can't answer our questions....
stevesilvia 7 months ago
@stevesilvia “as always you can't answer our questions....”
If that lie makes you feel good then continue with it.
troysz 7 months ago
@troysz “So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught, whether by word of mouth or by letter from us.” [2 Thes 2:15]
PrincessSyntax 5 months ago
@PrincessSyntax “So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught, whether by word of mouth or by letter from us.” [2 Thes 2:15]"
The word "of" is not found anywhere in Thess 2:15, you added it.
It says "word" and the word "our" is found instead.
With your addition of "of", the apostles would have been saying to keep the traditions which you have been taught by word of mouth and our letters. That would exclude the apostles in person oral teaching.
ttsqas 5 months ago
@PrincessSyntax That would mean that the apostles letters were authoritative and the word of mouth of others rather than the apostles actual in person oral teaching.
That would be in direct contradiction to what Paul clearly states in 1 Corinthians 11:23
"I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you"
Paul states clealry enough for you and steve to understand that he personally delivered to the church what Jesus taught him through divine revelation not word of mouth.
ttsqas 5 months ago
@PrincessSyntax There is more evidence of what Paul meant in his 1st letter to the same Thessalonian church. "For this cause also thank we God without ceasing, because, when ye received the word of God which ye heard of us, ye received it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God, which effectually worketh also in you that believe"
" the word of God which ye heard of us" is not word of mouth it is the apostles oral teaching as in "our word and letters"
ttsqas 5 months ago
Comment removed
ttsqas 5 months ago
@PrincessSyntax And this is exactly why a written record is eventually necessarly because when people claim that the apostles said something they did not we can check an actual record of what they taught rather than blindly accept others claims as to what they taught.
It is the apostles oral teachings and letters that are authoritative not the word of mouth of others and that is cleary what the apostle Paul's writings state.
ttsqas 5 months ago
@troysz --"Catholic" is a description of the Christian Church; We go by the title "Catholic" because, since the begining, every heretical sect claimed to be the "true" Christians, so we went by Catholic mostly.
Non-catholic churches have pretty much robbed the word "christian" of all meaning, unfortunately.
-------------
Now book, chapter, and verse for Sola Scr. please.
WayOfTheMaster454 7 months ago
@WayOfTheMaster454 --"Catholic" is a description of the Christian Church; We go by the title "Catholic" because, since the begining, every heretical sect claimed to be the "true" Christians, so we went by Catholic mostly.
So you admit that Catholics adopted the name not because it was a tradition which the Apostles gave the 1st century church to pass on but to distinguish itself (making it the mother of denomminations).
troysz 7 months ago
@troysz --The two words go together.
WayOfTheMaster454 7 months ago
@WayOfTheMaster454 “Non-catholic churches have pretty much robbed the word "christian" of all meaning, unfortunately.”
Robbed the meaning to who? This reveals your error. The Apostles had already warned the church of Apostacy and a great falling away. Even with all this happening the church was never once instructed to come up with the name Catholic Church. This is what the church was instructed to do instead.
troysz 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@WayOfTheMaster454 “Nevertheless the foundation of God standeth sure, having this seal, The Lord knoweth them that are his.”
1st realize that God knows who are His people.
Another instruction...“continue thou in the things which thou hast learned and hast been assured of, knowing of whom thou hast learned them”
troysz 7 months ago
@WayOfTheMaster454
Did God instruct Israel to name itself Pharisees because of heretics NO! The church was commanded to standfast, hold to, continue in etc the things which they had already been taught by Apostles in the 1st century. Not once was the church instructed to add new traditions or to take on a new name. NOT ONCE! So try again.
troysz 7 months ago
@troysz --What church are you a member of?
WayOfTheMaster454 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@WayOfTheMaster454 "What church are you a member of?"
The same church as in scripture.
troysz 7 months ago
@WayOfTheMaster454 Why are you avoiding the question I asked you 1st but yet ezpext me to answer your questions?
as you yourself put it;
"Book, chapter, and verse for Sola Addo Catholicus please!"
or do you admit that scripture plus Catholicism is unscriptural?
troysz 7 months ago
@WayOfTheMaster454 correction: expect
troysz 7 months ago
@WayOfTheMaster454 How about this one;
I'll give you scriptures that cite scripture as at least one authority and you give me just one single scripture that cites Catholicism as an authority........JUST ONE! And I'll convert to Catholicism
Tell me when you are ready.
troysz 7 months ago
@WayOfTheMaster454 “Now book, chapter, and verse for Sola Scr. please.”
You obviously don’t pay attention. I asked you to “Show us were the church in the Bible is once called the Catholic church by the Apostles who founded it.”
When you answer that question then I will answer yours.
Now book, chapter, and verse for Sola Addo Catholicus!
troysz 7 months ago
@troysz I'm still waiting for you to answer a simple question.... What is more important, the name of the church or the church itself?
stevesilvia 7 months ago
@stevesilvia “I'm still waiting for you to answer a simple question.... What is more important, the name of the church or the church itself?”
I have answered your question. The truth is what is most important. There is no Catholic church in scripture so the Catholic church is not the church in scripture.
That is my answer
troysz 7 months ago
@troysz Scriptures say " you should know how to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of truth." The church is the " pillar and foundation of truth.", the church is more important than the name.... So why do you banter so much about the name? Your question "Show us were the church in the Bible is called the Catholic church by the Apostles who founded it" is not important, per Scriptures, don't you agree?
stevesilvia 7 months ago
@stevesilvia "Scriptures say " you should know how to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of truth."
That scripture does not however say that the name of that church was or was to be the Catholic Church.
"So why do you banter so much about the name?"
As you well know the church in scripture was not called the Catholic church. If it makes you feel good to call that fact bantering then pleae do so.
troysz 7 months ago
@troysz since no one said the name of the church is in the bible, your question borders on prejudice....
stevesilvia 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@stevesilvia " since no one said the name of the church is in the bible, your question borders on prejudice...."
and that accusation is nothing more than a lie. It is as fair a question as is sola scriptura found in scripture.
I see that once again when you cannot answer the question about scriptura addo catholicus that you ask of sola scriptura you resort to false claims. If my question borders on prejudice then so does yours.
troysz 7 months ago
@stevesilvia "Your question "Show us were the church in the Bible is called the Catholic church by the Apostles who founded it" is not important, per Scriptures, don't you agree?"
No I do not agree and neither do you. We were told to standfast in and hold to the traditions taught to the 1st century church by the Apostles orally and in writing (that is per scripture). I have yet to find where the Apostles left the tradition of calling the church the Catholic church.
troysz 7 months ago
@troysz my only reply to you is Scripture...." the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of truth." .. 1 Timothy 3 The word Catholic is only a name....
stevesilvia 7 months ago
@stevesilvia "my only reply to you is Scripture...." the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of truth." .. 1 Timothy 3 The word Catholic is only a name...."
My response to you you is amen to 1 Timothy 3 which makes no mention of any church called the Catholic church. Amen to the entire scripture where Israel's name in found, where Jesus' name is found, where even the Rome's name is found; but where there is a church who's name is not once called the Catholic Church
troysz 7 months ago
@troysz the church was there, but not the name....
stevesilvia 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@stevesilvia "the church was there, but not the name...."
Scriptural evidence proves otherwise.
There was no Catholic church established in the 1st century by the Apostles.
troysz 7 months ago
@stevesilvia Show me in scripture where there are priest in the church other than the priesthood of all believers. Then show me where these priest could not marry.
troysz 7 months ago
@troysz in the bible they were called " PRESBYTERS" def :
: a member of the governing body of an early Christian church
: a member of the order of priests in churches having episcopal hierarchies that include bishops, priests, and deacons. 1Peter 5:5 " Likewise,... be subject to the presbyters" "And every one that hath forsaken houses, or brethren, ...wife, or children, or lands, for my name's sake, shall receive an hundredfold, and shall inherit everlasting life" .
stevesilvia 7 months ago
@stevesilvia " in the bible they were called " PRESBYTERS"
Priest in the Bible were not once called " πρεσβύτερος (presbuteros)".
Priest were called "hiereus"..........1) a priest, one who offers sacrifices and in general in busied with
sacred rites Presbyter which means "elder" was never used synonomously with "hierus" in the Bible.
Of the the following times that priest is used in the NT the greek word used in every case was "hierus".
troysz 7 months ago
@stevesilvia Mt 12:5,4, Mr 2:26,Lu 5:14, 6:4,17:14,Joh 1:19,Acts 4:1,6:7,14:13, Heb 5:6, 7:1, 3, 11, 15, 17, 21, 23, 8:4,9:6,10:11, 21, Rev 1:6, 5:10,20:6
“presbuteros” is not used one single time for priest. There were no priest in the NT church other than our high priest Jesus Christ, and all believers are said to be of a royal priesthood. If the priestly office seen in Catholicism was in the NT church then you would be able to give me examples in the NT; but there were none
troysz 7 months ago
@troysz I gave you proof....you can disagree if you want. Still waiting for you to answer my question, or does your silence mean you can't?
stevesilvia 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@stevesilvia "I gave you proof...."
"" in the bible they were called " PRESBYTERS" is not proof but it is a lie which I have proven.
"you can disagree if you want"
You are correct I tend to disagree with lies concerning scripture.
"Still waiting for you to answer my question"
No you are not waiting you are just playing childish games because you can't support your beliefs with truth.
troysz 7 months ago
@stevesilvia "or does your silence mean you can't?"
There has been no silence but tell yourself what ever you must to compensate for your inability to post scriptures showing priests operating in the NT church in scripture.
I understand why you feel that you must resort to certain petty tactics but let me assure you that they will not work.
There is no Catholic church in scripture not are there Popes, Nuns, priests in the NT church, rosaries. These are traditions of men PERIOD!
troysz 7 months ago
@stevesilvia correction: nor are there Popes........
troysz 7 months ago
@stevesilvia I suppose that if someone told you that Jesus' mother name was Sally but that in the Bible she was called Mary; you would accept that as proof. That is essentially what you offered as so called proof.
"in the bible they were called " PRESBYTERS"
Wow! So we are supposed to ignore the fact that "hiereus" us used in all instances where we see priest. We are supposed to ignore the fact that " πρεσβύτερος (presbuteros)" was not once translated to "priest".
I think not!
troysz 7 months ago
@stevesilvia I have finally posted my 1st in a series of videos. My 1st video is titled
"Scriptura Addo Catholicus".
It asks the same question which Catholic have been asking of "Sola Scriptura"; is it taught in the Bible?.
It brings out the fact that of the two, scripture does cite itself as authoritative but nowhere does it once mention Catholicism.
I will be following up with more videos on traditions taught by Catholic and protestant sects not taught in scripture.
troysz 7 months ago
@troysz Your personal interpretations of the bible are of no interest to us.... we follow the truth.
stevesilvia 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@stevesilvia "Your personal interpretations of the bible are of no interest to us.... we follow the truth."
You mean scripture is of no interest to you other than when you attempt to twist it as you did when you lied and said that priest were called presbyter in the Bible.
Priest were called priest in the Bible and presbyter were called presbyter....if you followed the truth you woud have acknowledged it.
troysz 7 months ago
@troysz The church is the priesthood in the Bible.
Danielezerable 7 months ago
Comment removed
troysz 7 months ago
@stevesilvia "Catholic is only a name...."
Not true!
The word Catholic is not just a name it identifies for many a systems of traditions and beliefs many of which are not found in scripture.
troysz 7 months ago
Comment removed
troysz 7 months ago
@troysz stop your gossip, and just show me the Scripture....
stevesilvia 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@stevesilvia "stop your gossip, and just show me the Scripture...."
Gossip? Stop your false accusations, lies and attitude and show me the Catholic church in Scripture.
troysz 7 months ago
@stevesilvia " just show me the Scripture...."
How many scriptures have you provided showing that the Apostles and the church in scripture followed Catholicism?
Do not be a hypocrite practice what you preach.
troysz 7 months ago
@troysz So Steve is pretty much saying that only certain people are in a "royal priesthood"? What the Catholic doctrine teaches. I am on your side.
Danielezerable 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Danielezerable "So Steve is pretty much saying that only certain people are in a "royal priesthood"? What the Catholic doctrine teaches"
Correct. Sorry.......I just watched your video. Excellent work!
troysz 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Danielezerable Take a look at my video that I posted today entitled "Scriptura Addo Catholicus" (Scripture plus Catholicism).
troysz 7 months ago
I asked one of the angels from heaven how's Luther or Calvin doing? And the angel said "who are they? Never heard in the heavenly attendance list"... Ooops! ...But they are all excited of Karol W earthly beatification :) so thats the update!
279cute 10 months ago
@279cute Probably the Luther's and Calvin's hell consist in an eternal discussion between them about their different interpretations of Bible :)))))), poor evil having to listen......
MVAsenjo 10 months ago
Also Luther was the first to brand name the early christians "roman catholics" becausr he refused to be under the authority of the one, catholic and apostolic church. Then he claimed he has the full authority in interpreting the bible of the reformed group. Now he is more powerful than the pope.
279cute 10 months ago
All the plagues & the worst punishments are upon Martin Luther as PROMISED BY GOD, in Rev22 V17 & 18 for adding the word ALONE & removing SEVEN BOOKS{which are "still" part of Jewish Scripure!}. You are apostles of this demonic, mad man???!
rufodsouza 10 months ago
@rufodsouza You mean to Romans 3:28 right? Also in Revelation, the verses you pulled up, St. John was saying not to add or take away from the Revelation, and Luther wanted to throw the whole book of Revelation away. He is suffering and burning in Hell right now, so are the millions of "Christians" who embraced his purley man-created religion of Protestantism.
YeshuaisYahweh1 10 months ago
@YeshuaisYahweh1
YES, MY DEAR FRIEND, I was and AM refering to the VERY SAME thing you are !!Actually, Luther even wanted to REMOVE James and 2Peter !!! The Question to ask our protestant bros, is," IF YOUR SO CALLED RELIGION IS PURE & THE TRUTH, then, HOW could the Holy Spirit be saying OPPOSING THINGS (CONTRADICTIONS) to Luther, +Wesley +Calvin, +S(Z)wingly etc. etc etc?????
That IS WHY there are 40THOUSAND + denominations AND "VARIATIONS" on THE TRUTH !!!
rufo_dsouza@yahoo.com
rufodsouza 10 months ago
@rufodsouza Luther threw out 7 OT books, and parts of Daniel and Eshter. He also wanted to throw out Jimmy(The Book of James), Hebrews, and Jude of the NT.
YeshuaisYahweh1 10 months ago
If you are a catholic, you must be either ignorant moron, or completely illogical person. If Bible is the Truth, then everything that contradicts the Bible is error, or the opposite. This is a basics of logics. How come can you so outrageously violate first 2 out of 10 commandments and still say that you believe that the Bible is the Word of God?
Decide at last, either the Bible is true and your traditions are false, or your traditions are true and the Bible is false. Be logical for God's sake!
SerJahPhoto 11 months ago
Comment removed
YeshuaisYahweh1 11 months ago
@YeshuaisYahweh1 i didn't get the question. Well, they both exist it's a fact, but one of them must be false.
I don't know much about catholic theology, but i'll give you what i know.
1. Worshipping and praying to anyone except God is idolatry and violation of 1st Commandment.
2. Making images and worshipping them. According to 2 Commandment and Romans 1.22 it's idolatry and foolishness.
3. Purgatory, a fib to manipulate ignorant masses to pay indulgences. Heresy, has no support in the Bible.
SerJahPhoto 11 months ago
@SerJahPhoto 1. Good thing we dont worship anyone but God.
2. Good thing we dont worship icons. Not all images are bad, God commands for us not to worship them. Exodus 25:18-20, 1 Chronicles 28:18-19, Ezekiel 41:17-18, Numbers 21:8-9. The Catholic Church condems polythesim. Read the Cathecisim. There were 6 nuns ex-communicated for Mary worship.
3. Purgatory and Indulgences are both in the Bible, they are completely Biblical, and YES they do have a ton of support from Sacred Scripture.
YeshuaisYahweh1 11 months ago
@YeshuaisYahweh1 Concerning the 2 Samuel. Looks to me that some mad man made up this absurd idea to manipulate the dark masses. And then after he was confronted by common sense of thinking people, he started to look for some support in the scriptures. It's like putting a wagon in front of a horse.
BTW, David was paying for his sin while he was still alive, not after he was dead. And there is not a hint on money.
SerJahPhoto 11 months ago
@SerJahPhoto give me couple of scriptures that support purgatory and indulgences, preferably from Old and New testament.
SerJahPhoto 11 months ago
@SerJahPhoto Read 1 Corothians 3:15, no matter how hard Protestants try to explain it away, it cannot be explained away. And for indulgences, Read 2 Samuel 11, and then go to chapter 12 and read verses 13-15. This is clearly indicating indulgences are nessesary.
YeshuaisYahweh1 11 months ago
@YeshuaisYahweh1 you make me chuckle a bit.. 1 Cor 3.15 addressed to those who believe in salvation by faith alone, and not by works. Works are the result of salvation, but not a way to get one. If you don't get it, you can throw your Bible out. If the salvation could be attained by human efforts and exertions, why would God give His only son to be tortured and crucified? If you cannot answer that, there is no need to continue our discussion.
SerJahPhoto 11 months ago
@SerJahPhoto No, he was talking about purgatory. And Luther came up with Sola Fide while on the toilet, when throwing excrement back and forth with the devil. He claims the Holy Spirit talked to him while on the crapper. Salvation is both, faith and works. Read Psalm 106:31, and James 2:14-26, nowhere does the bible support faith without works. You Protestants try so hard to preach against good works its pathetic. And you didnt mention anything about indulgences, because I proved my case on that
YeshuaisYahweh1 11 months ago
Comment removed
SerJahPhoto 11 months ago
TO:@SerJahPhoto
YOU ARE MOST CERTAINLY "A SATINIST" according to your OWN Logic! Lies like Catholics REMOVED TWO COMMANDMENTS and ADDED SEVEN BOOKS, etc. comes from YOUR MASTER, "The LIAR & MURDERER" from the very begining, says JESUS !!!!
The EARLIEST BIBLE of the 4th .Cent "HAS ALL 73 BOOKS" in it !! This "IS" on public display at THE BRITISH MUSEUM>>>> TODAY !!! and ALL TEN COMMANDMENTS, that "WE" Catholics belive !!!
Bottom line: "YOUR GOD" IS " N O T " our Catholic GOD, at all !!!
rufodsouza 10 months ago
@rufodsouza certainly not, we worship two different gods, that's for sure. Be honest, if possible, wouldn't you kill me as your predecessors killed and tortured those who would not bow before your mother-goddess?
SerJahPhoto 10 months ago
Comment removed
MrChristianBeliever 10 months ago
@SerJahPhoto
As per your stupid LOGIC, would I honestly, want to kill you for not "worshiping A MOTHER GODDESS ??
The obvious answer is N !! There are BILLIONS who bow down to whoever pleases them !! Are you saying that I own every human being?
Where have I EVER revealed that I HAVE A, so called "MOTHER GODDESS ????"
& HONESTLY, "YOU ARE MORE SATANIC" than I thought you were !! YOUR COMMENS SURELY, INDICATE THIS !!!!
AND "MOST CERTAINLY" we do worship "DIFFERENT" GODS !!
rufo_dsouza@yahoo.com
rufodsouza 10 months ago
@rufodsouza dude, i just visited your You-Tube profile. Good part of your subscriptions has some nude and porn-stars images, which tells me of who you really are. You use words that you would never use before your priest. Are these the works you are so proud of? Or there are some i don't even know of? Are you addicted to alcohol? Are you overweight? Do you oppress the defenseless? I would like to see some of your good works?
SerJahPhoto 10 months ago
Sola Scriptura of Protestants is so easily debunked by the mere fact that the NT wasn’t published by the Church until around the year 380.
How for 350 years after Christ, were people “saved” since there were no Bibles? How was the Temple of Herod destroyed in 72ad? The answer is the simplicity of the Mass and the Sacraments and the Sacred Traditions. “But the Apostle calleth their pretended skill a knowledge falsely so called, being in truth high and deepe blindness.”
StSimonMartyr 8 months ago
Respond to this video... YES !!! BOW DOWN, PROSTRATE YOURSELF BEFORE " MY MOTHER GODDESS" or I WILL KILL YOU !!!
IS this the "shit" you want me respond to ????
Where have I "EVER" indicated that I have a "mother-goddess???"
By your logic, would you like it if I made up a story about your MOTHER being a "PROSTITUTE ???"
Where DO you get this SHIT from????
and, you worship a GOD, with this sort of a mind & heart ???
rufodsouza 10 months ago
@YeshuaisYahweh1 you catholics, have been proving your works for centuries. Your devilish inquisition, crusades that was sweeping away whole cities of defenseless people. Priest-pedophiles, and popes that defend them. Let me guess, your next argument will be something like, "it's not a church, it's just some people of the church". But overall the works of catholics are not so bad? Am i right?
SerJahPhoto 11 months ago
@SerJahPhoto You have showed you ignorantence by saying that stuff. You dident metion any of my arguments, its just your last defence, you were losing, so you had to find a way out, but ill adress what you said anyway.
YeshuaisYahweh1 11 months ago
@SerJahPhoto The inquisition and crusades were a good thing. We spred Christianity and made it what it is to day because of that. God commanded us to kill heretics all throught the Bible, why would we let people reject the Catholic faith and go to Hell? We did a just deed. And as for pedophiles, dont you have them in your church also? Yes you do. And "popes" that defend them are not real popes, but they are anti-popes. Your arguments you make are primitive and make no sense.
YeshuaisYahweh1 11 months ago
@YeshuaisYahweh1 if an inquisition was a good thing for you, then you will be judged together with your brothers-murderers. Trust me, you will be tortured for whole eternity and there will be not a torture that you will not have a chance to experience.
Go ahead and finish what your ancestors started! How will you escape being condemned to hell? You are son of the devil! Go head and do your "sacred" duty. Can i ask you a favor though? Can you kill me quickly? There is no way i will be like you.
SerJahPhoto 11 months ago
@SerJahPhoto Luther is the one who said that he and his followers should kill the pope and cardnal, and that they should wash their "hands in their blood" Luther was extreamly evil. Thats fighting words there.
YeshuaisYahweh1 11 months ago
@SerJahPhoto
"if an inquisition was a good thing for you"
What according to you was the inquisition for ? Was it aimed at Catholics or non Catholics ?
MrJamesthecatholic 11 months ago
@SerJahPhoto Yep the catholic church the most charitable organization on the planet has been showing there works for centuries
gtepp031387 11 months ago
@YeshuaisYahweh1 you didn't answer why the Father gave His Son for brutal death if there was other way to save us? Your theology cheapens His sacrifice, therefore it's not of God but of the devil. The good deeds are the result of realizing what He did for you and submission to Him out of gratitude. Any other way is heresy and perversion.
BTW, why would you take Luther so personally? Why so much hate? There are countless reasons to hate those who shed innocent blood, but why this guy?
SerJahPhoto 11 months ago
The ONLY Ecumenical Canon that declares that Clergy are to put away their wives is Canon# 48 of the Council of Trullo, & even that decree contradicts other decrees set before it, and the Holy Scriptures set long before all councils.
streets2apostle 1 year ago
Canon LXXVI.
"A bishop must not, out of favour to a brother or a son, or any other relation, ordain whom he will to the episcopal dignity; for it is not right to make heirs of the bishopric, giving the things of God to human affections. Neither is it fitting to subject the Church of God to heirs. But if anyone shall do so let the ordination be void, and the ordainer himself be punished with excommunication."
This too is something that Rome is been guilty of, for many Popes did this.
streets2apostle 1 year ago
True the Council of Orange is not ecumenical, but the Council of Chalcedon was. Also, the Quintisext Council of Trullo is counted as ecumenical, and that council declares that the Canons of the Holy Apostles written by Clement were valid. Canon#5 written by Clement states "Let not a Bishop, Presbyter, or Deacon, put away his wife under pretence of religion; but if he put her away, let him be excommunicated; and if he persists, let him be deposed.", something Rome violates....(continued)
streets2apostle 1 year ago
Yet even in this the Church Fathers at times contradicted the will of God, & you know it. Orange (441 AD) in its 26th canon forbids the appointment of deaconesses, & the Second council of Tile decrees that Deaconesses who married were to be excommunicated unless they renounced the men they were living with, & that, on account of the weakness of the sex, none for the future were to be ordained.
streets2apostle 1 year ago
Historical documentations show that many of the Apostolic Fathers considered women unclean. The Ecumenical Council of Chalcedon stated "A woman shall not receive the laying on of hands as a Deaconess under forty years of age, & then only after searching examination. And if, after she has had hands laid on her, & has continued for a time to minister, she shall despise the Grace of God & give herself in marriage, she shall be anathematized & the man who is united to her."
streets2apostle 1 year ago
@streets2apostle This would be the same for a priest as well you know if he marries he will either have to renounce his priesthood or be ecommunicated. And the councils you gave are not ecumentical there have bin thousands of robber councils.
gtepp031387 1 year ago
The Pope can sin, look at the first Pope, St Peter denied Jesus three times but Christians of the Catholic Church don't say he is perfect, we simply believe that when defining a matter of faith he is infallible. He might not act on what he teaches but his excatedra teachings r infallible. Just try to be fair and present the right info, honesty is a great Christian virtue. God bless all.
cathomania 1 year ago
Since the Roman Pope holds a position of "first amongst equals", do the other "equals" hold such an authority just as well? Does the Alexandrian Pope hold "Papal Infallibility"? What about the the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople? What about the Jerusalem Patriarch? What about the Patriarchs of Antioch, since they come from Peter & John? No one Bishop can claim infallibility, for all men are fallible. Infallibility is found within the Catholic Church Bishops.
streets2apostle 1 year ago
@streets2apostle but a primacy is given to Peter, whereby it is made clear that there is but one Church and one chair. . . . If someone does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he [should] desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that he is in the Church?" (The Unity of the Catholic Church 4; 1st edition [A.D. 251]).- St Cyprian of Carthage
gtepp031387 1 year ago
@streets2apostle "You cannot deny that you are aware that in the city of Rome the episcopal chair was given first to Peter; the chair in which Peter sat, the same who was head—that is why he is also called Cephas [‘Rock’]—of all the apostles; the one chair in which unity is maintained by all" (The Schism of the Donatists 2:2 [A.D. 367]).
gtepp031387 1 year ago
@streets2apostle "of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church," - St Irenaeus mid 2st century
gtepp031387 1 year ago
@gtepp031387 I agree with all that the Apostolic Fathers stated. However, once one steps into heresy, this authority is forfeited. Would you continue to follow a Bishop who is in error? "Follow me as I continue to follow Christ"- Apostle Paul. The Pope, no longer continued that path after 1054 AD, but made himself the supreme head. Pope Leo sold indulgences to repair the St. Peter's Basilica. Was the Chair of Peter still correct in doing this, which according to Canon law, was an abuse of power?
streets2apostle 1 year ago
@streets2apostle The Pope the person just like every other person is evil and flawed. The person is not what leads us and yes he can be in error and is constanly is error for he is just a man. It is Christ and the grace of christ confered to the chair that leads us. I will not follow man like so man others. EVERY man is evil including the man who is pope including all patriares that are today were yesterday and will be tommarow
gtepp031387 1 year ago
@streets2apostle Further more no to say the person of leo was not evil and in need of a savyior but in the best of my knowledge he had nothing to do with the indulgences of st Peters that was the bishop in charge of the building which was not the pope.
gtepp031387 1 year ago
@gtepp031387 It was Pope Leo who made that particular call. He knew all about it, & when Luther apposed it, instead of debating him like it was originally requested, a Cardinal was sent to him to demand he recant. Pope Leo was also guilty or suspected of other issues. Therefore, Protestants cannot be blamed for rejecting the RCC at the time, for the RCC was corrupt.
streets2apostle 1 year ago
@streets2apostle uhmm Pope Leo had a cardinal sent to him becaues of his 95 cethies not becaues of indulgences. You should do your research b4 speaking. Anyway i have already stated that the Pope the person is evil and in need of a savyior
gtepp031387 1 year ago
@gtepp031387 Before you talk to me about research, how about you mention what was on that document that Martin Luther posted up? Indulgences was on the list!
streets2apostle 1 year ago
@streets2apostle If we are going to talk about Martin Luther as if he is someone to be listen to lets talk first about - The Jews and there lies-
gtepp031387 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@streets2apostle
Based on your theological position, I am surprised that you even mentione Luther, as you brand of Christianity does not even believe as did Luther.
Do you even know what an indulgence is and why Luther spoke out against its usage at that time?
Your answer to that question will be one of many proofs of your knowledge.
baldonebear 1 year ago
@streets2apostle Let me ask you why does Constaninople who was not a chair of any apostal head your church?
gtepp031387 1 year ago
@gtepp031387 1) You really dont know much about other Churches do you? Constantinople was planted by Apostle Andrew, Peter's brother; 2) You mistaken me for an Eastern Orthodox! I am not Eastern Orthodox at all.
streets2apostle 1 year ago
@streets2apostle Why was constaninople raised to a Patriarchy was it becaues it was the seat of the apostal Andrew? Can u pleasse tell me why(if you dont know mabey u should study the 2nd ecumentical counci ill give you a hint IT HAS ABSOULUTYLY NOTHING TO DO WITH ANDREW)? And what church are u from?
gtepp031387 1 year ago
@gtepp031387 Quick question before we even go there: what does this have to do with the heretical actions of Rome? All your questions have little to do with the fact that we discussed, that Rome messed up, has alot to apologies for, admit to, and repent from.
streets2apostle 1 year ago
@streets2apostle The seat of Peter has nothing to repent from not did it ever mess up. Rome the county has messed up Rome the church never shall we move on
gtepp031387 1 year ago
@gtepp031387 You as a RCC really dont know much about RCC history, do you? Thats like saying you only know about WWII from learning from a Nazi. Do you even know what the issues were that Martin Luther, a former RCC Priest, addresssed? Before you talk up about Rome, learn about Rome.
streets2apostle 1 year ago
@streets2apostle Rome the place is flawed Rome the see is Just as Jesus left it with all the authority it was given.
gtepp031387 1 year ago
@gtepp031387 You really wouldn't even take the time to examine that, would you? You would dare ignore the cries of those who have suffered due to Roman heretical Popes? Shame on you!
streets2apostle 1 year ago
@gtepp031387 Shame on you on behalf of Father Martin Luther who was nearly martyred for rejecting Pope Leo X's heretical lust for money, selling indulgences all to fix a Church! Shame on you on behalf of Bishop Carlos Duarte Costa, who was excommunicated because he spoke out openly for Rome hiding Nazis & neglecting Brazil's poverty. Should I continue?
streets2apostle 1 year ago
@streets2apostle The Popes words are easy to look up so i would have u refference were you got this info from. And Martin Luther was not a very nice person have you ever read - THE JEWS AND THERE LIES- ? The Popes the persons are not sinless and many have bin heritics i do not question this, the Pope the office, the grace that Jesus bestowed to the head and rock of the church, has never bin in error.The church has never taught herisy and is the largest most charitible organization in the world
gtepp031387 1 year ago
Certain Popes have sinned in ways that are the exact cause of separation within the church, yet these Popes have not only not been questioned & apologized for, but even defended by people like you. I am not against the Archbishop of Rome totally, I am against the heresy that has been allowed & not corrected. Bishop Costa was excommunicated for reasons that were later taken up by Vatican II. I long for the correction of the Church. Luther wasnt any better in the end, but that doesnt excuse Leo X!
streets2apostle 1 year ago
@streets2apostle The Pope the person is not impeccible of incapable of sin did you know that he goes to confession every week? And did you know that when pronouncing excommunications the Pope is not infallible?
gtepp031387 1 year ago
This is treated as such in theory, but in practice, the Pope has been allowed to (sometimes literally) get away with murder. Pronouncing excommunication works along doctrinal lines, and errors have happened in that area. You run to the defense of the Pope, yet you dont acknowledge that there have been errors committed by some Popes. Admitting outright that some Popes messed up (including in areas of doctrine) does not make one a bad Catholic or a traitor, its just a Catholic telling the truth.
streets2apostle 1 year ago
@streets2apostle The Popes words should be respected at all times and if he pronounces someone to be excommunicated then untill or if the person is proved to be right or the Pope to be wrong or the person in question is obsolved in my eyes that person is excommunicated.This however doesnt make the Popes desision infallible he is only infallible when he first either declares or defines something to be true then he must be speaking from the chair and he must be speaking to and 4 the intire church.
gtepp031387 1 year ago
@streets2apostle so you must understand since he can not be speaking to the intire church when excommunicating one person he is unable to give any infallible stand on an ecommunication or personal event only when writting doctrin that involves the intire church.
gtepp031387 1 year ago
@gtepp031387 & @cathomania All that you stated contradicts the claims of "Papal Supremacy" & "Papal Infallibility". Excommunication is indeed a matter of & doctrine because all like that one excommunicated are to share the same fate. Church discipline and Church doctrine go hand-n-hand. Church doctrine without Church discipline is as dead as faith without works. If an excommunication is wrongfully given, then Church doctrine is perverted for justice & righteousness has been ignored.
streets2apostle 1 year ago
@streets2apostle Papel infalliblility has its conditions and Papel supremacy has its limits. Papel infalliblility has 3 conditions f#1 Must be speaking to and for INTIRE church. #2 Must be speaking on matters to do with faith and morals. #3 must use the words declare or define or some similar term. Papel supremacy has its limits. It is the temperal sword(the church) and must submit to the heavenly sword(Jesus). This would mean at any time if something was divinly revealed say that
gtepp031387 1 year ago
@streets2apostle wemon should be priests the temperal sword would have to take back its stand on the matter. For instance Peter and the eating of unclean animals
gtepp031387 1 year ago
@gtepp031387 Ecumenical Council law OVERRULES any one Bishop's decree or any one Church's Canon, for the Holy Spirit spoke directly through all the Bishops of the one holy Catholic & Apostolic Church. It just so happens that Ecumenical Council of Chalcedon Canon #15 states: "No woman under 40 years of age is to be ordained a deacon, and then only after close scrutiny." Hmmm, sounds like an ordination into holy orders to me, what about anyone else?
streets2apostle 1 year ago
@streets2apostle First off the bishop of Rome did overrule the council b4 u should look at the 28th cannon of the fourth ecumentical council which was overruled by the bishop of Rome and bared from the cannons. And the Catholic church practises that the wife of decon is in fact part of the ministry and role of the deacon and as such is a deacon herself. But we feal to make a woman a deacon in full alone whould be in violation of the bible that says " women should remain silent in...
gtepp031387 1 year ago
@streets2apostle the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the Law says" 1 Corinthians 14:34 and "I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority" 1 Timothy 2:12
gtepp031387 1 year ago
@gtepp031387 Thats funny, because Priscilla was far from silent, and taught Silas. Also, Romans 16 speaks directly against the rejection of female Ministers. So either Paul contradicted himself, or you have it all wrong.
streets2apostle 1 year ago
@streets2apostle The term "deacon" as it appears in some english translations is the greek word diakonos. Diakonos is used in the New Testament both in a general (e.g. Matthew 22:13) and the specific
sense as a church official (I Timothy 3:8). In the secular world, the diakonos was used to describe various types of
service, such as messengers, bakers and even statesmen. On the one hand some would argue that Paul often uses diakonos in the general sense of servant or minister.
gtepp031387 1 year ago