pagans. Read the book right or you'll end up like Mormons. You can't even accept Jesus's own; Catholicism. You may not go to hell but maybe the trailer in downtown heaven
I agree that it would make sense for there to be an authoritative voice refereeing theological doctrines, but the simple fact is that there is no possible way to show that there is such a voice. All the divisions in Christianity actually suggests that there isn't, and unity within any particular denomination (Catholic, Baptist, Mormon, etc) is not objective evidence that "the voice" endorses any particular side. All this subjective mess is one of the many things that caused me to lose my faith.
@WorkOverTime The Catholic Church does indeed make this claim, and it does so on the basis of Jesus' own promise: "You are Peter and upon this rock I will build my church." What you quite properly call the "mess" of subjectivity was produced by Luther's insistence on private judgment.
@wordonfirevideo Why doesn't God, by whatever means, try and reduce some of the mess by guiding Christians who are off course (namely non-Catholics in your view, I assume) to correct doctrines? And how do you feel about the Protestant claim that Christianity is supposed to be a "personal relationship" with Jesus? If this is the case, then it would make sense for there to be private guidance / judgment by or through the Holy Spirit since the Holy Spirit would work on an individual level.
@WorkOverTime, any bit of truth that exists in Protestantism came from Catholicism. The Catholic Church brings Christ to each person in ways Protestantism cannot, so that each individual Catholic can have an authentic personal relationship with God, walking in friendship with Him. The Eucharist is the source and high point of that personal relationship. When we eat His Body, and drink His Blood, as Jesus told us to do, it just doesn't get more personal than that.
Father how would you respond to the criticism of the Orthodox that the absolute authority of the Bishop of Rome is not historical. Further, that the Pope was the first Protestant, evidenced by the fruitage of schism in the West. Whilst I know that in the East there is a schism between the Eastern and Oriental Orthodox, this pales in comparison to what we see in the West, as you described in your video about the number of Protestant denominations.
I wonder if Orthodox Church provides a better way than the extremes of Protestantism and RC. In the Catholic church you have one Pope. In Protestantism every man has become his own Pope. Instead, shouldnt the consensus of the leaders of the church, as modeled in the ecumencial councils, be the right way to govern the church. I think the East might represent a sensible way forward from this impasse on the issue of authority
@brendos444, Jesus is King. His Church is His Kingdom on earth. A Kingdom is not a democracy. King David was the foreshadowing of the real King to come. Jesus rebuilt the Davidic Kingdom, where He is King, has a Prime Minister (the Pope), His mother is Queen Mother just like the Davidic Kings had. There is one flock, one Shepherd in His Kingdom. We don't get to tell the Divine King Jesus what He should say and do, whether individually or by democratic vote.
@brendos444, when you call Catholicism extreme, you're calling Jesus extreme. I understand here you mean not within reason. However, the Catholic Church with the pope as head, is the only Church that will not make you divorce yourself from reason. With Protestantism and even Orthodox faiths, you must violate your sense of reason at some point in order to adhere to them. With Protestantism, you have to violate your reason in major ways.
Father Barron, your logic against Protestantism's "central problem" (as I think you put it) is cogent. However, you seem to overlook that its logic works just as well against Roman Catholicism which split from Eastern Orthodoxy in 1054. I suppose you could then argue that two dissenting referees is better than 30,000 - but in neither case can the game be successfully conducted.
@wordonfirevideo Given that the seedbed of Christianity sat to the east of Rome, I think you'd have the harder case to make.
More importantly, insofar as your original argument is concerned, it doesn't really matter who split from whom. What matters is that you don't have a "single living voice" to decide. As long as there is a choice people have to make about which voice is the right one, Catholics and Orthodox have the same problem you rightly describe Protestants as having.
@michaeldavidgantt Not at all! The authority of the bishop of Rome is recognized from the late first century. And it was precisely the living voice of authority provided by the Pope of Rome that the Orthodox church rejected.
@wordonfirevideo As for "the authority of the bishop of Rome is recognized from the late first century," can you cite your sources? That they will not be from the Scriptures is problematic.
@michaeldavidgantt Sure. St. Irenaeus in the Adversus Haereses from the 190's clearly affirms the authority and primacy of the Bishop of Rome. And if you want Scriptural sources, how about, "You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church."
@wordonfirevideo The 190's are late second century, not late first century. As for your allusion to Matthew 16, it contains no reference to Rome, nor to bishop, nor to pope. Moreover, if Peter thought this was Jesus' means of putting him in charge of the church and giving him the right to choose his successor in that regard, you'd never know it by reading either of Peter's two letters. As for the keys to the kingdom, Peter describes them in 2 Peter 1:5-11 as righteous living.
@wordonfirevideo The great irony of both the Greek Orthodox Church as well as the Roman Catholic Church is that they base their authority on apostolic succession, yet there is nothing in apostolic writings that confers it. Nevertheless, Fr. Barron's (your?) critique of Protestantism is valid as I said above.
@michaeldavidgantt, Scriptures record Paul having made Timothy a Bishop and telling Timothy to continue this with other approved men, by organic laying on of hands of ordination. The Scriptures were not written to make the Church, however. The Church already existed and made the Scriptures, which besides the Gospel writings are much ad-hoc writings of correction. It was never meant to make the Church, because the Church already existed. God's Church is pillar and foundation of the truth.
@mdkpubs You have it backwards if you think the church preceded the Scriptures. "The church preceded the New Testament" would be the more accurate statement to make.
Yes, Paul did give Timothy instruction about overseers, but that was only for the time until the kingdom of God would come. Since it has come and Jesus is King, we no longer need overseers. We should obey Jesus and not men.
@michaeldavidgantt, actually I have it correct. It's quite obvious from context that I'm speaking about the New Covenant Church preceding the New Covenant Scriptures. Are you not capable of understanding proper context in which something is written, or are you just being uncharitable? Next, if you can't even interpret what I say in proper context, what makes you think you can interpret the word of God in proper context?
@michaeldavidgantt, we're referring to the authoring of Scriptures, in this case New Covenant Scriptures. It is completely irrelevant for the purpose of that discussion what they refer to. It would be helpful if you worked on your logic and reasoning ability, in order to be able to hang in a conversation properly.
@mdkpubs The Old Testament declared the Old Covenant, but the Old Testament declares the New Covenant when interpreted in Christ. The New Testament helps us do that - that is, view the Old Testament according to the spirit (which makes it the New Covenant) rather than according to the flesh (which makes it the Old Covenant).
@michaeldavidgantt, yes, the OT prepares the way for the New Covenant. But, that wasn't the point at all. The point was there was only one way to interpret what I said about the Jesus' Church coming before the Scriptures, and that meant the New Covenant Scriptures. Yet, even though there was only one way to interpret, you ignorantly or uncharitably (out of your prejudice against anything Catholic) chose to wrongly interpret so you could unjustly criticize.
@michaeldavidganttwell, then you're ignorant and unable to read context. I did not say ALL Scriptures, did I? And, it's quite impossible for New Covenant Church to preceded Old Covenant Scriptures, isn't it? The other valid point was, if you can't read my context properly, i.e., not having to be told so explicitly that even a moron could not misunderstand, then how can you read the context of God's written word?
@michaeldavidgantt, nothing in Scriptures indicates you are correct about the Bishops of God's Church, Paul, Timothy and who they were to ordain being obsolete already. In fact, Jesus' Kingdom on earth (the Church Militant) will be in place until the end of time, certainly we have not yet experienced the end of time, right? At the end of time on Earth, there will only permanently be the Church Triumphant, i.e. Heaven.
@mdkpubs What the New Testament writers referred to as "the end" occurred at the end of the New Testament age - just when Jesus and His apostles said it would occur.
@michaeldavidgantt, your personal misinterpretation of Scriptures doesn't stand to reason. The end of the age, or as written elsewhere "behold I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the world" refers to the end of time (end of the world), not the end of public revelation. It means Jesus is with His one Catholic Church until the end of the world.
Haven't you read in Scriptures where St Peter said no Scripture is for private interpretation? That means your private interpretation.
@mdkpubs Saint Peter promised his readers that they'd be able to enter the kingdom, even though he himself would be martyred first. See the beginning of his second letter, culminating in verse 11. His promise to them would be empty if the kingdom didn't come in the 1st Century AD.
@michaeldavidgantt, if you're discussing 2 Peter 1-11, Peter is telling them to join all other virtues with their faith, in order to secure their salvation. Then, Peter tells them the he will die soon, according to what Jesus has told him. Peter was martyred in about 65 AD at Vatican Hill. He NEVER promised Heaven to anyone. He told them what to do to keep on the right path.
Then in 2 Pet 1:20, he tells the faithful that Scripture is NOT for private interpretation.
@michaeldavidgantt, Scriptures show Jesus sending out men to speak on His behalf. These men will receive the Holy Spirit to guide them to all truth. Jesus said we are to listen to them. Jesus also said listening to them is the same as listening to Him.
Sadly, you reject those Jesus sent, which rejects Jesus. You instead listen to yourself, a very fallible man with no promise from God whatsoever of being able to interpret Scriptures. The disobedient don't get grace and the Holy Spirit.
@mdkpubs Jesus sent apostles. His apostles wrote the New Testament, which interprets the Old Testament. I believe them. Jesus did not send the pope, the college of cardinals did. Jesus did not send the Baptist pastor, his congregation called him. I humble myself before those Jesus whom Jesus has sent, and I believe them.
@michaeldavidgantt, you neither believe Jesus nor His Apostles. You've shown us that you only believe yourself.
It's very clear that King Jesus established the office of Prime Minister in His Kingdom. Only the ignorant and those who twist Scriptures by their own misinterpretations deny this fact.
Not all Apostles wrote NT Scripture, and some authors of NT Scriptures were not Apostles. The Scriptures tell us to heed BOTH oral and written Tradition. Why do you reject their word?
@michaeldavidgantt, sadly, you arrogantly deny those Jesus sent. If you really want to listen to Jesus, by listening to those He sent, you will listen to the pope and Bishops in union with the Pope. He gave them authority to teach and govern His Church, but it would be with His protection. The Catholic Church is still Jesus' Church. He is Head.
You're right that Jesus did not send the Baptist pastor. Not one Protestant denomination is His Church. They're all man made.
@michaeldavidgantt Before the last book in the Bible was written, there already had been 4 popes... that's just a fact.
"Heretical teachers pervert Scripture and try to get into Heaven with a false key, for they have formed their HUMAN ASSEMBLIES later than the CATHOLIC CHURCH. From this PREVIOUSLY-EXISTING and MOST TRUE Church, it is very clear that these LATER HERESIES, and others which have come into being SINCE THEN, are COUNTEFEITS and novel INVENTIONS."- Pope St. Clement I (1st CENTURY)
@michaeldavidgantt "but that was only for the time until the kingdom of God would come. Since it has come and Jesus is King,"
Mmmmmmm... when exactly are you suggesting this happened? I'm just curious, give me a date and we'll see if it is logical to say that BEFORE that date the Kingdom didn't exist, and Jesus wasn't King... Bare in mind the DATING of the epistle...
@Gazdo01 Jesus said it would be in the generation of His contemporaries but after the destruction of the temple in Jerusalem. Therefore, it could not have been too many years after 70 AD. Therefore, we could safely say sometime in the late 1st Century.
@michaeldavidgantt, since Jesus came to rebuild the Davidic Kingdom, and established this Kingdom (His Church), why are you disobedient to the King? King Jesus established a Prime Minister (pope) for you to listen to. Jesus established His Church (Kingdom) on earth with Bishops, and you reject them too. Please do listen to King Jesus for a change, as He said you must listen to those He sent. Scriptures tell us His Catholic Church is the pillar and foundation of the truth.
@mdkpubs The King told me to call no man on earth my father; the king said we would have no leader but One, whose name is Christ (Matt 23:8-10). The King sent His apostles to proclaim and warn of His coming. I heeded them, which is why I believe what they said. Jesus came when He said He would. He does not need a prime minister. The kingdom is the Lord's (Ob 1:21), and the Lord alone is to be exalted in it (Is 2:11, 17).
@michaeldavidgantt, the King never told you not to use the word father. He was using hyperbole, as the context of Matthew 23 shows that Jesus didn’t intend for his words here to be understood literally, as you misinterpret. Jesus showed the scribes and Pharisees how sinful and proud they were for not looking humbly to God as the source of all authority and fatherhood and teaching, and instead setting themselves up as the ultimate authorities, father figures, and teachers.
@michaeldavidgantt, Christ is the One Head of His Catholic Church. Why do you reject Him as Head of His Catholic Church? His Prime Minister is just that, but the Church is Jesus' Church, not the pope's.
@michaeldavidgantt, sadly, you only heed your own interpretations, of which the ones you've shown us have all been in error. You have your own word then, not Jesus' word.
@michaeldavidgantt, if the King told you to call no man on earth your father, why did the King tell St Paul something different? See if you can spot below where St Paul tells the Corinthians he is their spiritual father....It even uses the word "father."
"I do not write this to make you ashamed, but to admonish you as my beloved children. For though you have countless guides in Christ, you do not have many fathers. For I became your father in Christ Jesus through the gospel" (1 Cor. 4:14–15).
@michaeldavidgant, Jesus established His one Church with a Prime Minister, or commonly called Pope. The Othodox rejected the Prime Minister Jesus established to lead His one Church. Quite clear that Orthodox communities left God's one Church with the Pope as head, rejecting what Jesus had established as His full Church.
@mdkpubs Maybe the Orthodox did that because they couldn't find scriptural warrant for a pope. For that, I would commend them. Blessed are they who put more faith in Scripture than in the institutions of man.
@michaeldavidgantt, no, the Orthodox rejected the papacy because of their arrogance and pride. The papacy has been present ever since Jesus set it into motion just after His resurrection. We have all their names.
John 1:42:
Jesus tells Simon that he will be called Rock.
Matthew 16:
Jesus changes Simon's name to Rock
Jesus tells Rock that he will be Rock of the Church
Jesus hands the keys of His rebuilt Davidic Kingdom to the man named Rock.
@michaeldavidgantt, how ironic is it that you reject the authority of Christ for your own man made misinterpretations. St Peter knew there were and would be people like you, when he said about Scriptures there "are certain things hard to be understood, which the unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, to their own destruction."
You have twisted the meanings of God's word in your mind so that you pridefully reject the proper meanings held for 2,000 years now.
@michaeldavidgantt, if you did put faith in the proper meaning of Scriptures, you would listen to the author who rightfully has authority to interpret and teach Scriptures, instead of arrogantly telling the author of Scriptures she doesn't know what she is talking about. For you, Scriptures are something that you pridefully interpret personally, so you can arrogantly tell what you think. You follow in the office of pharisee who rejected Christ because He was not what they thought He should be.
authority is in one way or another, by theologic contributions to the wider faith or being the cornerstone of doctrine or by historical precedent, is greater than that of the one chosen by the College of Cardinals? It seems to me evident that though everyone seems to give lip-service to the Bishop of Rome, you end up appealing to "greater" theologians for validity.
theologian that held the office of the Bishop of Rome was Leo the Great. The Tome has been a corner stone in Christian theology since its creation. Since then every other great and influential thinker of Catholicism has been someone else. Augustine, Aquinas, More, even Origen (that crafty old semi-gnostic). None of which including, the relatively contemporary John Henry Newman, whose authority you seem to appeal to often, were ever Popes. So is there a disconnect between the Pope and those whose
Okay, I think I have a legitimate question regarding this issue. And I think it is akin to the problem of Deistic arguments of God used by Christians. If we accept the need for a living authority in what way does the automatically default to the Bishop of Rome other than historical precedent. To use your analogy, the umpire is knowledgeable about the game. It does not seem every Pope has that gift of knowledge, in fact it has been suggest and to a certain level of accuracy that the last great...
...For after all the great religions have been preached and expounded, or have been revealed by brilliant scholars, or have been written in fine books and embellished in fine language with finer covers, man, - all man - is still confronted by the Great Mystery.
Furthermore, the source that says there are 30,000 Protestant denominations (World Christian Encyclopedia) includes JWs and Mormons in that number, which I'm sure even Father Barron would agree are not Protestants. Furthermore, this same source lists over 200 Catholic denominations. This turns the Catholic argument against itself. For if these denominations are considered to go against John 17, then Catholicism is just as guilty as Protestantism (according to the Catholic's reasoning).
@AgApE010 I have no idea what you mean when you speak of 200 Catholic "denominations." Perhaps the book is referring to institutions or to religious orders, but it surely doesn't mean that there is a variety of "Catholic" churches!
The book, which of course is a secular work, seems to mean it in the same sense as it does for the Protestant denominations. Regrettably, there is no online copy of the World Christian Encyclopedia for me to point you to as it is only available through purchase.
Thank you for taking the time to reply! I wasn't expecting it and am truly honored. Did you consider my previous comment about the unity of the Protestant denominations?
Though Catholics point out the various denominations in Protestantism and say it contradicts the unity Christ wanted, they often fail to acknowledge the agreement on the essential doctrines of the Faith. I have no problem extending a hand of fellowship to the Lutheran, Baptist, Anglican, or Presbyterian. Catholicism, on the other hand, ousts anyone who disagrees on nearly any matter (case in point, the Sedevacantists). This begs the question: who is really the schismatic here?
Thank you. Yes, the Orthodox believe in the priesthood of all believers. As such, the laity are 'watchdogs' of the faith who carefully watch their religious leaders for error. No one person, even if a saint, is infallible; only the church is infallible, as determined by council and prefigured in the first council of Jerusalem. Please see my Orthodox promotions on youtube under 'marykfilms.'
@Ettoredipugnar , Matthew 16:18 says this "And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church" KJV, here's the problem. When interpretation with the English translation it just a tad different to Greek and Aramaic but here's the thing brother. The early Church fathers had the sole conviction and understanding that St Peter was the rock that he wanted to build his church upon. Does the word itself not point directly to Peter?
@Ettoredipugnar..you see in 1 Timothy chapter 3, they were talking about deacons and how one ought to behave in the House of God "the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth" So the deacon is in the Church, it is an ecclesiastical institution founded by Jesus Christ himself with Peter as the one to Lead this Church right after his Ascension until the son of man returns.
@Seminarian89 Chap and verse .where and when did Jesus create the papacy ? 1st Peter chap 5 ver 1 " I am an elder amongs't you " Acts chap 10 ver 26 " Stand up; I myself am also a man . St. Peter belongs to all Christians , he dosent laud it over them.
The Church of Antioch is the continuation of the Christian community founded in Antioch by the Apostles Peter (who served as its first bishop) and Paul, who are its patron saints.
@mraNewfoundland Thats correct St. Peter was in Antioch first. The throne of Antioch is called " Twice Blessed " because of Peter and Paul. Yet never in history has the Patriarch of Antioch claimed primacy amongs't his brother apostles. The Bishop of rome in his book the apostles also said that Peter and Paul founded the church in rome.
The mistakes made by may of the protestant churches has been made by the Roman Church. I mean the whole thing between the Eastern Chruches and Western churches. I would argue that the Papal claims according to the whole Church Catholic are unfounded. And Rome must take responsiblility as well for much of the reason for the rise of Protestant churches. There were calls for reform and correction of errors within the Roman Chruch for years all went unheeded so people took it in their own hands.
Jesus established the Church on Peter, calling him the rock upon which He shall build his church, and what he shall bind on Earth shall be bound in Heaven. So, I mean, that's Christ, there, saying that.
Sure, there was need for reform, but Luther went way too far. A cursory examination of what he was doing would reveal that. At one point he went from being a reformer, to heretic.
@MaxxTheMerciless Well the Patriarch of Antioch also claims that its seat to be founded by Peter.
And it was the delay to reclaim Catholic Orthodox teaching that really started the movement in that direction. Not only that the Counter Reformation movement and the Council of Trent would not of even been started only for Luther the fact is that it took Luther for Rome to start any critical and effect any really reform itself, even though calls for reform had been around for decades.
@mraNewfoundland I don't really see how the Patriarch of Antioch can make that claim. After Jerusalem's destruction by the Romans, Rome became the primary church of Christianity, identified further that way with St Peter and Paul's deaths there.
I don't necessarily disagree with Luther's actions leading to serious reform. But if his goal was to reform the Church, I don't believe he needed to fuel rampant heresy to do it.
@MaxxTheMerciless Rome has tried to claim extra or special authority and therefore supreme authority through also claiming Peter and Paul as the source of their authority. That the popes therefore are directly descended what has been thought Peter being the first Bishop of Rome. Although there is a problem there because Iraeneus clearly states that Linus was the first bishop of Rome.
So did Peter or Paul step down for Linus to become Bishop of Rome? I was not aware that was the practice.
@mraNewfoundland Read your SAINT Iraeneus again. "Against Heresies III.3.3" "After the holy apostles had founded and set the Church in order they gave over exercise of the episcopal office to Linus." St Iraeneus, Julius Africanus, St Hippolytus, and Eusebius all declare that Pope St. Linus was Pope directly after St Peter.
@Sevenat1blow Both Saint's Peter and Paul had founded many Christain communities but they were not bishops of these communities and setting up the episcopate in Rome does not mean they were Bishop consecrated for the episcopate of Rome. Where Antioch does list Peter as it's first Bishop. Perhaps even read Pauls Epistle to the Roman's chapter 16:1-15 Paul addresses the Saints in Rome and extensively mentions many names but Peter is not one of them. It is generally accepted that the epistle was
@mraNewfoundland written in about the year 60 AD. It really seems to be not like Paul to greet Peter if he is there. Galations written around 54 AD in the 2nd chapter Paul is visiting Peter and the Christian community there in Jerusalem as he had done 14 years ealier as well so that would put it in about the year of 40 AD. Notice that in this letter Paul also mentions that Peter went up to Antioch.
@MaxxTheMerciless I do agree with you that Luther did take reform too far and basically tried to destroy Apostolic succession hence why I do not believe that Lutherians can claim Apostolic succession (although I do not know if they try to do so I am not Lutherian)
Unlike most Protestants, I believe in church/divine authority. However, the central problem, in my eyes, to Catholicism (or more accurately the primacy of the Pope) is teaching against Scripture. Benedict 16th, for example, disbelieves, discredits, and denies parts of Scripture. (See his book 'Jesus of Nazareth' where he denies the historical accuracy of Matthew 27:25). He is theologically liberal. Papal opinions change; Scripture doesn't. Living authority isn't the solution; it's the problem.
Huzzah! Cheers to you! I just discovered this series. Many happy views ahead... Might even post to FB. Wonderfully casual, and still thought through. Thank you Fr. Barron.
J. H. Newman became a Roman Catholic so he could live with his boyfriend, a R. Catholic priest. There were too many married men in the Anglican church for him to be comfortable there. He was a huge hypocrite so is a very bad example to use.
@Onetruthrgv I seldom say this...but you are a foolish person. Roman Catholic exists yes because of the divisions within the Catholic church (Eastern Orthodox etc.) who didn't recognize the papacy, but the Southern Baptist church did NOT stem from this schism. SB church is a Protestant church which came FAR after the protestant reformation. Rome has been the center of Christianity for centuries. John the Baptist was indeed a great man, highest of all men to walk the Earth, but even John told hi
@Ndftblwannabe1 Did you know that the HEAD OF THE SOUTHERN BAPTIST CONVENTION RECENTLY CONVERTED TO CATHOLICISM? He stated that the others churches are like TENTS AROUND THE MOTHER CHURCH & eventually WE SHALL ALL UNITE & when this happens...CHRIST SHALL RETURN...HE HAS PROMISED SO.. PAX VIA MUSIC..VIVA MARIA!
@Onetruthrvg except that the southern baptist church didn't exist until atleast the reformation...which was over 1500 years after Christ. Your logic is false sir.
@Ndftblwannabe1 No sir we were originally called Catholic. That's why the church fathers say Catholic church instead of roman catholic. John the baptist was given that name so his church may know their authority. Sorry but the numbers are on our side 1 vs 33,000 heretical denominations. Sorry but we have unity and you have disunity out of all the 33,000 denominations.
It's easy to interpret the Word of God the way you see fit. It gives you the freedom to live your life the way you want to. It was not meant that way. There are rules. But.. God is merciful. How holy one wants to be, one decides for ones self. It doesn't mean you're not going to heaven. If the church would make a mistake in its teachings, it would be holy to simply keep obeying the church, in silence and humility, only praying for a change to take place. The church is sometimes a test to us.
@xchanxzenx- Please do. I always appreciate prayers. And as for you, I pray you take the log out of your own eye before you judge a speck in mine. I pray God grants you His peace. (also I'm sure Jesus loves your insults...)
And you say "trying to give the pope that authority of the Holy Spirit"...what do you mean? Authority as in he is above it, or that he lacks the Spirit in general?
@bella50008- I don't follow it as in things we do go against it? Thank you for such a claim, and providing no details. The pope has authority, I just explained it. The fact there are over tens of thousands of Protestant denominations is testament to the necessity of authority to guid, guard, and keep CHRIST'S church as one. Besides, boast? I'm not going to boast, except in Christ. Please say something with substance if you are going to post here.
@Ndftblwannabe1 The only true church is the southern Baptist church, All other churches who are not Southern Baptist are called heretic, So that means there are 30,000 heretic churches and only 1 unified holy southern baptist church, The Southern Baptist Church which was granted authority when John the Baptist Had the position alone to Baptize Jesus and was called The greatest human besides Jesus to be Born Matthew 11:11. Sorry but there is disunity in the heretic churches (non Southern Baptist)
@hodriguinhohunter I did and it all points to the southern baptist, What ever historical evidence you have against us is because you misinterpreted it and need the true church (Southern baptist) to interpret it for you. God gave John the Baptist the authority and infallibly to recognize Jesus as messiah therefore we have authority to interpret the fathers and scripture alone. Go join the other 33,000 anti baptist denomination denomination
So i am debunked by a Bible of English translation written in the 1500's by bitter reformers? Hmm. I will stick with the Catholic Bible, since ya know, we put it together, made it tidy with chapter and verse. Your welcome by the way.
Or perhaps you mean the Eucharist? Which Jesus establishes at the Last Supper? He also emphasizes very clearly in John 6 His flesh is TRUE food and blood TRUE drink. brother, we're all far from perfect...let's not judge anyone, for only Christ can judge. Love your enemies, bless those who curse you, and pray for those who persecute you. If anyone is damned, let Jesus judge it. Peace xchanxzenx. Always peace.
Popery? You mean the Pope? As in, the one Jesus established in Peter when He fulfilled Isaiah 22:15-23 in Matthew 16:19 giving him the keys to the house of David (where Jesus is King) and gives him the power to bind and loose? That pope? Idolatry? You mean the statues that put our eyes on Jesus, and remind us of Jesus and are in no circumstance actually divine? Or is it Mary who is only honored, not worshipped and intercedes to the King (Jesus) just like at the wedding in Canaa, which is shown
@Ndftblwannabe1 *The preachers of the Gospel open the gates of heaven with the word of God, which is the right key; so that where this word is not purely taught, there is neither key, nor authority. *John 20,21. You have been debunked by the Geneva Bible.
@xchanxzenx How can u,A Protestant tht believe tht the bible is the sole rule of faith N practice, say tht a FOOTNOTE of a BIBLE is an authority? R U INSANE? u r Contradicting ur OWN BELIEF (SOLA SCRIPTURA).
Or do u think tht the Footnote U quoted IS PART OF THE CANON? That's incredible, a text tht is wrintten more then1400 years after the biblical canon is part of the canon. How did the bishops in the 4th century know tht this text was supposed 2b part of the Canon? THAT'S A MIRACLE
@hodriguinhohunter 150 million Christians were killed by the Pagan Catholic Church. The last person to be burnt alive by the Catholic church was in 1844, the crime, owning a Bible in Italian. During that time Christians from all over Christendom fleed to Geneva or the mountains of Switzerland. There they worked on their countries (French, German, English, Spanish, etc) Bible in peace and with the help of the Holy Ghost. What other Bible has that history? The notes are right when they are right
@xchanxzenx This is an absurd statement. If you are referring to the Inquisitions, most reputable historians put the number executed by the Inquisition at no more than 4,000. That's over the entire 300 year history of the Inquisition. If you claim that deaths due to "religious" wars, then I am pretty sure this number is also inflated. Protestants gave as good as they got in the religious wars. Your numbers are complete b.s. Just like your heretical bible thumping religion.
@particlelight The Roman Pagan Catholic church was started by Constantine, he merged Roman Paganism with the Holy Scriptures and killed any one that did not agree, mostly Christians. So from that time all the way up 1844, 150 million true Saints over come. Last no Bible that I know of is mentioned in the Bible it self (any edition). Nahum I:I5 reads about a religious festival in the mountains and that HIM made the word of peace. The Geneva Bible comes from the mountains, Its God's work.
@xchanxzenx You are a fool. Constantine called a council, but had nothing to do with codifying books of the bible, elucidating dogma or beliefs of the church. The CATHOLIC Church is the church founded by Christ. You risk your eternal soul by believing these paranoid protestant myths. The Geneva Bible comes from the mountains. LOL!!! Read the Church Fathers. They believed the same things that the Catholic Church still teaches. You really need a history lesson or two.
@particlelight Isaiah 52,7 reads: How beautifull upon the mountaines are the fete of him(LORD), that declareth and publisheth peace? that declareth good tidings(Gospel), and publisheth salvation(Christ is the end of the Law), saying unto Zion(Christendom), Thy God reigneth? The Geneva Bible is being described here. If you had the Holy Ghost, it would be shown to you. But because you are under a faluse sprit, you turn to dumb and dead idols. Submerge yourself in God's word and you are saved.
@xchanxzenx Well, I guess that is one way of looking at it. Of course there is no evidence for your contention that the Geneva Bible came from the "mountains". There is a lot of evidence that it is the same bible that Catholics gave to the world, only translated and interpreted by a bunch of rabid, heretical protestants. Keep on believing damn fool things, xchanxzenx. Maybe it gets you to heaven, but I doubt it. So do the Church Fathers.
The Bible is authority absolutely, and God trusted it's compilation to the Catholic church-that is undeniable historical fact. However, the basis that it is the only source of truth is inaccurate. The apostles undoubtedly passed on apostolic tradition when they prayed and elected someone to take Judas' place among the 12. Also it says that not everything Jesus said and did is written in the Bible, for if it was it would be incredibly long. A living authoritative voice and structure is needed, o
@xchanxzenx You poor man to judge so harshly. You need to read Romans 9. Though it says He has mercy on whom He wills, and hardens who He wills, He waits patiently (or long suffers with) those whom He hardens. It's all about grace my friend, and by no means can you EVER claim to know. Jesus would be appalled at your lack of love for those who do not yet know God's love, those who He so desperately waits for.
@Ndftblwannabe1 Yes I am not perfect, their has only been one, who was and is perfect. Jesus would be appalled by your Roman Popery and Idolatry. May the Christian LORD guild my right hand against those who practice religion under pretence, for their own profit. And may that harlot be damned with the Devil.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Father Barron is a hell bound hound. The Bible is the final authority. When Christ comes back, he will choose the correct Church. Roman Pagan Catholics are an abomination in God's eyes.
@xchanxzenx Do you really think comments like this do any good? It is unreasonable and uncharitable words such as these that lead people to reject Christianity altogether. Kudos to Fr. Barron for his fine work.
@akasseb It's in the Geneva Bible buddy. People don't choose God, the LORD out of love and mercy chooses who HE wills. If people reject Christianity then they were dammed since the beginning of time.
To generalize Protestant belief is simplistic. Authority is worked out differently at different times, even in the Roman church. The Roman Empire's solution to authority is not necessarily spiritual. Glad you believe this and because of it, I would say you are in the right place. That doesn't work so well for me or many of my companions. Rome is not always right and Newman was not so thrilled with his move in the long haul. Read the facts.
I ruther have 10000000 denominations ruther then have my conscience oppressed. My conscience oppressed. Millions of heretics were burned at the stake. many friends of martin Luther died like this. Let millions disagree. for example I will never confess my sins to another man. And I think it is sinful to replicate my sins in someone else s mind.(unless of course someone I hurt needs to be defended) So please don't persecute me, I believe in fact the catholic church will have to be feared one day.
@WorshipInTruth And that's precisely the problem: it can't be as simple as that. 30,000 different Protestant denominations all claim that they are under the authority of the Word of God. The Word of God requires reception and interpretation.
@wordonfirevideo If they are in line with what Scripture says then they are following the Word of God. The Bible is not nearly as hard to understand and interpret as you papists would like to make it out to be. Most of the heresies developed by apostate "Protestants" are nothing more then a rehashing of the same old catholic errors and innovations.
@123MrBee - That is interpretation, too. Are you familiar with the literary principle of intentional fallacy? It says you can't read a text and assume you know the motivations of the writer.
The apostles said nothing about red pointy hats or expensive vaticans. It would be really hard to argue that the Catholic Church is exactly what it is because that's exactly what God wants it to be. It is a profoundly human institution with all the shortcomings of humans--neither inevitable nor infallible.
@badpanda84 - Yeah, it is, though I'd love to see a true Catholic respond to my little multiple choice test.
I think every religion and denomination, when it comes right down to it, has to believe that they know and love God the best, and vice versa. Otherwise, what is the point of forming and maintaining a separate entity. One of the things I like least about religion is this need to assert that "Our understanding of the universe is the best, the right one, etc.". I think they are all wrong.
@wordonfirevideo Then how does your interpretation place above anyone else's? Because by your explanation, you're still having someone interpret it. You say there should be a voice, then that voice should be the holy spirit alone. I agree there are a lot of denominations, but it doesn't mean all of them are so different, we share many core beliefs. You also have to have a way to guarantee that the umpire you mention is credible and wise. To this I only trust God. Jesus died to give us that.
@mikeytheaznking The Apostles taught what Jesus taught them. Their teachings, which were elaborated on by early church fathers as well, are what make up the teachings of the Catholic Church today (which are ever expanding as humanity matures).
@badpanda84 - Burning heretics is the unfortunate result of believing you have all the answers, and that anyone who disagrees is a threat to all that's good and true.
The indulgences thing was just greed, pure and simple. It was a way to offer the prize of salvation to morally repugnant wealthy people, and make a tidy church profit at the same time. Luther was right about it: there is no theological defense for that practice, which is why Catholics eventually abandoned it as well.
@123MrBee I don't dispute that. However the Church itself has not always been the most reliable source. Especially after the Renaissance it saw corruption...one of the main causes of the reformation. However simply because early church teachings were based on apostles, it doesn't mean that other Christians don't also believe this. The apostles teachings are also in the Bible, which is thereby open to everyone.
@wordonfirevideo What you are saying is the opposite of what is true. The many Protestant denominations should be the Protestant Abominations. I have to agree, even though I hold the Word in the highest standard over ANY other teaching of God, that the many churches just are religious efforts that confuse. That is what happends when men stick their wicked minds in the pot. Howiever, the Word came first amigo!
@121jigawatts Well first of all, the Word didn't come first. It was compiled and canonized by the Church. And secondly, how do you interpret the Word? Pace Luther, the Word is open to a wild variety of readings. Which one is right? Another reason why you need the authoritative voice of the church.
@wordonfirevideo So, what you are saying in effect, is that men put words into the mouth of Jesus and THEN He spoke them. If that is how you or your church interpret scripture that is dangerous theology. The message is not confusing, Jesus has personal relationships with people. The church is there to edify that those relationships, which in turn glorifies God.
@WorshipInTruth Don't you see that nobody agree on what the Bible teaches? If the Bible was this clear authority, then everyone would agree.
We need the Sacred Magistarium (Catholic Tradition) to help us have the proper understanding.
But let's go back to fundamentals... You say the Word of God is authority. That's understood... But how do we know WHAT is that Word? A self acclaimed book won't do.
Plus, care to show me what verse teaches that Scripture is our ONLY authority?
We've all seen umps and refs making bad calls, and we've also seriously questioned the authoriy of the church in this or that area. I think we just need to learn how to get comfortable with not being sure.
@wordonfirevideo - Catholics probably shouldn't be joking about religiously motivated executions, but I took it as a bad joke. I'm not sure what's "paranoid" about what I've written, however. I am still trying to understand how this bizarre system Fr. Barron's referring to actually works. I don't know how he can be so certain of something he can't provide a more concrete vision of. But I guess that's the power of faith, huh....
Irony--I follow the Occupy movement pretty closely, and I'm struck by how their "consensus building" attempts (and inevitable failures ) echo the description you give.
@DJMahon - No consensus process is ever going to be "perfect", but "perfect" is a human fantasy. We have to do the best we can. We can do pretty well, if we go about it in a rational, humane way.
@jontv Last night, the Occupy Boston GA failed (for the 4th time) to come up with a policy to protect its members from Level 3 sex offenders because a minority of members argue that the American justice system is broken, and that it would be unfair to ban any sex offender due to their past!
I don't expect perfection -- I'd be happy if they exercised some sanity!
@DJMahon - I'm not familiar with the situation you're referring to, but if you're defending Catholic authority and its superiority to democratic consensus-building, you probably don't want to be bringing up a failure to protect people from sex offenders.
What Occupy Anywhere has in common with the Catholic Church is that they are all human institutions and therefore fallible. Self-affirming references to moral objectivity have not exempted Catholicism from this basic reality.
One more thing about the game/referee analogy. What struck me as odd is not the stuff you addressed, but this: what is this game people are supposed to be playing? What is the object? Why does it matter--except in an institutional sense--who wins? What happens to the losers?
Your Holy Spirit trick is not very helpful, either. Why should one believe that the Holy Spirit resides in one particular church hierarchy, and not another (or many others)? When authorities declare themselves to be authorities, you have the problems of circular logic and institutional self-promotion.
You seem to be saying that God wants unity, and yet tolerates division--why? Conveniently, Catholicism is the answer. Couldn't God speak clearly and bring about unity, if desired?
@jontv "Why should one believe that the Holy Spirit resides in one particular church hierarchy, and not another (or many others)?"
You said it... it's a matter of BELIEF. If you believe in Jesus, then you know he founded ONE Church on Peter (Mt 16.18-19). He promised that His One True Apostollic Church would never fail.
If it's not true, then there are 2 billion popes in the christian world, and there is not way to know the ABSOLUTE TRUTH on doctrinal matters.
@Gazdo01 - It sounds as though you are admitting that there's no inherent authority in the Pope, but you are willing to accept him as an authority simply because you think there needs to be one.
I would agree that there's no way to know the "ABSOLUTE TRUTH" about anything, but I'd say that applies to Popes as well. I don't believe in absolute truth. I think we just have to do the best we can, and fighting over fantasies like "absolute truth" just clouds the issue.
pagans. Read the book right or you'll end up like Mormons. You can't even accept Jesus's own; Catholicism. You may not go to hell but maybe the trailer in downtown heaven
Sturmgehwehr 4 days ago
I agree that it would make sense for there to be an authoritative voice refereeing theological doctrines, but the simple fact is that there is no possible way to show that there is such a voice. All the divisions in Christianity actually suggests that there isn't, and unity within any particular denomination (Catholic, Baptist, Mormon, etc) is not objective evidence that "the voice" endorses any particular side. All this subjective mess is one of the many things that caused me to lose my faith.
WorkOverTime 1 week ago
@WorkOverTime The Catholic Church does indeed make this claim, and it does so on the basis of Jesus' own promise: "You are Peter and upon this rock I will build my church." What you quite properly call the "mess" of subjectivity was produced by Luther's insistence on private judgment.
wordonfirevideo 1 week ago 5
@wordonfirevideo Why doesn't God, by whatever means, try and reduce some of the mess by guiding Christians who are off course (namely non-Catholics in your view, I assume) to correct doctrines? And how do you feel about the Protestant claim that Christianity is supposed to be a "personal relationship" with Jesus? If this is the case, then it would make sense for there to be private guidance / judgment by or through the Holy Spirit since the Holy Spirit would work on an individual level.
WorkOverTime 1 week ago
@WorkOverTime, any bit of truth that exists in Protestantism came from Catholicism. The Catholic Church brings Christ to each person in ways Protestantism cannot, so that each individual Catholic can have an authentic personal relationship with God, walking in friendship with Him. The Eucharist is the source and high point of that personal relationship. When we eat His Body, and drink His Blood, as Jesus told us to do, it just doesn't get more personal than that.
mdkpubs 5 hours ago
Father how would you respond to the criticism of the Orthodox that the absolute authority of the Bishop of Rome is not historical. Further, that the Pope was the first Protestant, evidenced by the fruitage of schism in the West. Whilst I know that in the East there is a schism between the Eastern and Oriental Orthodox, this pales in comparison to what we see in the West, as you described in your video about the number of Protestant denominations.
brendos444 1 week ago
I wonder if Orthodox Church provides a better way than the extremes of Protestantism and RC. In the Catholic church you have one Pope. In Protestantism every man has become his own Pope. Instead, shouldnt the consensus of the leaders of the church, as modeled in the ecumencial councils, be the right way to govern the church. I think the East might represent a sensible way forward from this impasse on the issue of authority
brendos444 1 week ago
@brendos444, Jesus is King. His Church is His Kingdom on earth. A Kingdom is not a democracy. King David was the foreshadowing of the real King to come. Jesus rebuilt the Davidic Kingdom, where He is King, has a Prime Minister (the Pope), His mother is Queen Mother just like the Davidic Kings had. There is one flock, one Shepherd in His Kingdom. We don't get to tell the Divine King Jesus what He should say and do, whether individually or by democratic vote.
mdkpubs 5 hours ago
@brendos444, when you call Catholicism extreme, you're calling Jesus extreme. I understand here you mean not within reason. However, the Catholic Church with the pope as head, is the only Church that will not make you divorce yourself from reason. With Protestantism and even Orthodox faiths, you must violate your sense of reason at some point in order to adhere to them. With Protestantism, you have to violate your reason in major ways.
mdkpubs 5 hours ago
Father Barron, your logic against Protestantism's "central problem" (as I think you put it) is cogent. However, you seem to overlook that its logic works just as well against Roman Catholicism which split from Eastern Orthodoxy in 1054. I suppose you could then argue that two dissenting referees is better than 30,000 - but in neither case can the game be successfully conducted.
michaeldavidgantt 2 weeks ago
@michaeldavidgantt Well, that depends upon who you think split from whom in 1054!
wordonfirevideo 2 weeks ago
@wordonfirevideo Given that the seedbed of Christianity sat to the east of Rome, I think you'd have the harder case to make.
More importantly, insofar as your original argument is concerned, it doesn't really matter who split from whom. What matters is that you don't have a "single living voice" to decide. As long as there is a choice people have to make about which voice is the right one, Catholics and Orthodox have the same problem you rightly describe Protestants as having.
michaeldavidgantt 2 weeks ago
@michaeldavidgantt Not at all! The authority of the bishop of Rome is recognized from the late first century. And it was precisely the living voice of authority provided by the Pope of Rome that the Orthodox church rejected.
wordonfirevideo 2 weeks ago
@wordonfirevideo As for "the authority of the bishop of Rome is recognized from the late first century," can you cite your sources? That they will not be from the Scriptures is problematic.
michaeldavidgantt 2 weeks ago
@michaeldavidgantt Sure. St. Irenaeus in the Adversus Haereses from the 190's clearly affirms the authority and primacy of the Bishop of Rome. And if you want Scriptural sources, how about, "You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church."
wordonfirevideo 2 weeks ago 6
@wordonfirevideo The 190's are late second century, not late first century. As for your allusion to Matthew 16, it contains no reference to Rome, nor to bishop, nor to pope. Moreover, if Peter thought this was Jesus' means of putting him in charge of the church and giving him the right to choose his successor in that regard, you'd never know it by reading either of Peter's two letters. As for the keys to the kingdom, Peter describes them in 2 Peter 1:5-11 as righteous living.
michaeldavidgantt 2 weeks ago
@wordonfirevideo The great irony of both the Greek Orthodox Church as well as the Roman Catholic Church is that they base their authority on apostolic succession, yet there is nothing in apostolic writings that confers it. Nevertheless, Fr. Barron's (your?) critique of Protestantism is valid as I said above.
michaeldavidgantt 2 weeks ago
@michaeldavidgantt, Scriptures record Paul having made Timothy a Bishop and telling Timothy to continue this with other approved men, by organic laying on of hands of ordination. The Scriptures were not written to make the Church, however. The Church already existed and made the Scriptures, which besides the Gospel writings are much ad-hoc writings of correction. It was never meant to make the Church, because the Church already existed. God's Church is pillar and foundation of the truth.
mdkpubs 5 hours ago
@mdkpubs You have it backwards if you think the church preceded the Scriptures. "The church preceded the New Testament" would be the more accurate statement to make.
Yes, Paul did give Timothy instruction about overseers, but that was only for the time until the kingdom of God would come. Since it has come and Jesus is King, we no longer need overseers. We should obey Jesus and not men.
michaeldavidgantt 5 hours ago
@michaeldavidgantt, actually I have it correct. It's quite obvious from context that I'm speaking about the New Covenant Church preceding the New Covenant Scriptures. Are you not capable of understanding proper context in which something is written, or are you just being uncharitable? Next, if you can't even interpret what I say in proper context, what makes you think you can interpret the word of God in proper context?
mdkpubs 4 hours ago
@mdkpubs I am not being uncharitable. You said Scriptures; you didn't delineate that you were only speaking of a subset of the Scriptures.
You should note also that almost every time a New Testament document refers to the Scriptures it is referring to what we call the Old Testament.
michaeldavidgantt 3 hours ago
Comment removed
mdkpubs 3 hours ago
@michaeldavidgantt, we're referring to the authoring of Scriptures, in this case New Covenant Scriptures. It is completely irrelevant for the purpose of that discussion what they refer to. It would be helpful if you worked on your logic and reasoning ability, in order to be able to hang in a conversation properly.
mdkpubs 3 hours ago
@mdkpubs The Old Testament declared the Old Covenant, but the Old Testament declares the New Covenant when interpreted in Christ. The New Testament helps us do that - that is, view the Old Testament according to the spirit (which makes it the New Covenant) rather than according to the flesh (which makes it the Old Covenant).
michaeldavidgantt 1 hour ago
@michaeldavidgantt, yes, the OT prepares the way for the New Covenant. But, that wasn't the point at all. The point was there was only one way to interpret what I said about the Jesus' Church coming before the Scriptures, and that meant the New Covenant Scriptures. Yet, even though there was only one way to interpret, you ignorantly or uncharitably (out of your prejudice against anything Catholic) chose to wrongly interpret so you could unjustly criticize.
mdkpubs 54 minutes ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@michaeldavidganttwell, then you're ignorant and unable to read context. I did not say ALL Scriptures, did I? And, it's quite impossible for New Covenant Church to preceded Old Covenant Scriptures, isn't it? The other valid point was, if you can't read my context properly, i.e., not having to be told so explicitly that even a moron could not misunderstand, then how can you read the context of God's written word?
mdkpubs 3 hours ago
@michaeldavidgantt, nothing in Scriptures indicates you are correct about the Bishops of God's Church, Paul, Timothy and who they were to ordain being obsolete already. In fact, Jesus' Kingdom on earth (the Church Militant) will be in place until the end of time, certainly we have not yet experienced the end of time, right? At the end of time on Earth, there will only permanently be the Church Triumphant, i.e. Heaven.
mdkpubs 4 hours ago
@mdkpubs What the New Testament writers referred to as "the end" occurred at the end of the New Testament age - just when Jesus and His apostles said it would occur.
michaeldavidgantt 3 hours ago
@michaeldavidgantt, your personal misinterpretation of Scriptures doesn't stand to reason. The end of the age, or as written elsewhere "behold I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the world" refers to the end of time (end of the world), not the end of public revelation. It means Jesus is with His one Catholic Church until the end of the world.
Haven't you read in Scriptures where St Peter said no Scripture is for private interpretation? That means your private interpretation.
mdkpubs 3 hours ago
@mdkpubs Saint Peter promised his readers that they'd be able to enter the kingdom, even though he himself would be martyred first. See the beginning of his second letter, culminating in verse 11. His promise to them would be empty if the kingdom didn't come in the 1st Century AD.
michaeldavidgantt 1 hour ago
@michaeldavidgantt, if you're discussing 2 Peter 1-11, Peter is telling them to join all other virtues with their faith, in order to secure their salvation. Then, Peter tells them the he will die soon, according to what Jesus has told him. Peter was martyred in about 65 AD at Vatican Hill. He NEVER promised Heaven to anyone. He told them what to do to keep on the right path.
Then in 2 Pet 1:20, he tells the faithful that Scripture is NOT for private interpretation.
Why don't you listen?
mdkpubs 24 minutes ago
@michaeldavidgantt, Scriptures show Jesus sending out men to speak on His behalf. These men will receive the Holy Spirit to guide them to all truth. Jesus said we are to listen to them. Jesus also said listening to them is the same as listening to Him.
Sadly, you reject those Jesus sent, which rejects Jesus. You instead listen to yourself, a very fallible man with no promise from God whatsoever of being able to interpret Scriptures. The disobedient don't get grace and the Holy Spirit.
mdkpubs 4 hours ago
@mdkpubs Jesus sent apostles. His apostles wrote the New Testament, which interprets the Old Testament. I believe them. Jesus did not send the pope, the college of cardinals did. Jesus did not send the Baptist pastor, his congregation called him. I humble myself before those Jesus whom Jesus has sent, and I believe them.
michaeldavidgantt 2 hours ago
@michaeldavidgantt, you neither believe Jesus nor His Apostles. You've shown us that you only believe yourself.
It's very clear that King Jesus established the office of Prime Minister in His Kingdom. Only the ignorant and those who twist Scriptures by their own misinterpretations deny this fact.
Not all Apostles wrote NT Scripture, and some authors of NT Scriptures were not Apostles. The Scriptures tell us to heed BOTH oral and written Tradition. Why do you reject their word?
mdkpubs 1 hour ago
@michaeldavidgantt, sadly, you arrogantly deny those Jesus sent. If you really want to listen to Jesus, by listening to those He sent, you will listen to the pope and Bishops in union with the Pope. He gave them authority to teach and govern His Church, but it would be with His protection. The Catholic Church is still Jesus' Church. He is Head.
You're right that Jesus did not send the Baptist pastor. Not one Protestant denomination is His Church. They're all man made.
mdkpubs 1 hour ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@michaeldavidgantt Before the last book in the Bible was written, there already had been 4 popes... that's just a fact.
"Heretical teachers pervert Scripture and try to get into Heaven with a false key, for they have formed their HUMAN ASSEMBLIES later than the CATHOLIC CHURCH. From this PREVIOUSLY-EXISTING and MOST TRUE Church, it is very clear that these LATER HERESIES, and others which have come into being SINCE THEN, are COUNTEFEITS and novel INVENTIONS."- Pope St. Clement I (1st CENTURY)
Gazdo01 4 hours ago
@michaeldavidgantt "but that was only for the time until the kingdom of God would come. Since it has come and Jesus is King,"
Mmmmmmm... when exactly are you suggesting this happened? I'm just curious, give me a date and we'll see if it is logical to say that BEFORE that date the Kingdom didn't exist, and Jesus wasn't King... Bare in mind the DATING of the epistle...
Gazdo01 4 hours ago
@Gazdo01 Jesus said it would be in the generation of His contemporaries but after the destruction of the temple in Jerusalem. Therefore, it could not have been too many years after 70 AD. Therefore, we could safely say sometime in the late 1st Century.
michaeldavidgantt 1 hour ago
@michaeldavidgantt, since Jesus came to rebuild the Davidic Kingdom, and established this Kingdom (His Church), why are you disobedient to the King? King Jesus established a Prime Minister (pope) for you to listen to. Jesus established His Church (Kingdom) on earth with Bishops, and you reject them too. Please do listen to King Jesus for a change, as He said you must listen to those He sent. Scriptures tell us His Catholic Church is the pillar and foundation of the truth.
mdkpubs 4 hours ago
@mdkpubs The King told me to call no man on earth my father; the king said we would have no leader but One, whose name is Christ (Matt 23:8-10). The King sent His apostles to proclaim and warn of His coming. I heeded them, which is why I believe what they said. Jesus came when He said He would. He does not need a prime minister. The kingdom is the Lord's (Ob 1:21), and the Lord alone is to be exalted in it (Is 2:11, 17).
michaeldavidgantt 1 hour ago
@michaeldavidgantt, the King never told you not to use the word father. He was using hyperbole, as the context of Matthew 23 shows that Jesus didn’t intend for his words here to be understood literally, as you misinterpret. Jesus showed the scribes and Pharisees how sinful and proud they were for not looking humbly to God as the source of all authority and fatherhood and teaching, and instead setting themselves up as the ultimate authorities, father figures, and teachers.
mdkpubs 59 minutes ago
@michaeldavidgantt, Christ is the One Head of His Catholic Church. Why do you reject Him as Head of His Catholic Church? His Prime Minister is just that, but the Church is Jesus' Church, not the pope's.
mdkpubs 58 minutes ago
@michaeldavidgantt, sadly, you only heed your own interpretations, of which the ones you've shown us have all been in error. You have your own word then, not Jesus' word.
mdkpubs 57 minutes ago
@michaeldavidgantt, if the King told you to call no man on earth your father, why did the King tell St Paul something different? See if you can spot below where St Paul tells the Corinthians he is their spiritual father....It even uses the word "father."
"I do not write this to make you ashamed, but to admonish you as my beloved children. For though you have countless guides in Christ, you do not have many fathers. For I became your father in Christ Jesus through the gospel" (1 Cor. 4:14–15).
mdkpubs 7 seconds ago
@michaeldavidgant, Jesus established His one Church with a Prime Minister, or commonly called Pope. The Othodox rejected the Prime Minister Jesus established to lead His one Church. Quite clear that Orthodox communities left God's one Church with the Pope as head, rejecting what Jesus had established as His full Church.
mdkpubs 3 hours ago
@mdkpubs Maybe the Orthodox did that because they couldn't find scriptural warrant for a pope. For that, I would commend them. Blessed are they who put more faith in Scripture than in the institutions of man.
michaeldavidgantt 1 hour ago
@michaeldavidgantt, no, the Orthodox rejected the papacy because of their arrogance and pride. The papacy has been present ever since Jesus set it into motion just after His resurrection. We have all their names.
John 1:42:
Jesus tells Simon that he will be called Rock.
Matthew 16:
Jesus changes Simon's name to Rock
Jesus tells Rock that he will be Rock of the Church
Jesus hands the keys of His rebuilt Davidic Kingdom to the man named Rock.
John 21:
Jesus commands Rock to feed His sheep.
mdkpubs 18 minutes ago
@michaeldavidgantt, how ironic is it that you reject the authority of Christ for your own man made misinterpretations. St Peter knew there were and would be people like you, when he said about Scriptures there "are certain things hard to be understood, which the unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, to their own destruction."
You have twisted the meanings of God's word in your mind so that you pridefully reject the proper meanings held for 2,000 years now.
mdkpubs 16 minutes ago
@michaeldavidgantt, if you did put faith in the proper meaning of Scriptures, you would listen to the author who rightfully has authority to interpret and teach Scriptures, instead of arrogantly telling the author of Scriptures she doesn't know what she is talking about. For you, Scriptures are something that you pridefully interpret personally, so you can arrogantly tell what you think. You follow in the office of pharisee who rejected Christ because He was not what they thought He should be.
mdkpubs 13 minutes ago
authority is in one way or another, by theologic contributions to the wider faith or being the cornerstone of doctrine or by historical precedent, is greater than that of the one chosen by the College of Cardinals? It seems to me evident that though everyone seems to give lip-service to the Bishop of Rome, you end up appealing to "greater" theologians for validity.
MobiusCoin 2 weeks ago
theologian that held the office of the Bishop of Rome was Leo the Great. The Tome has been a corner stone in Christian theology since its creation. Since then every other great and influential thinker of Catholicism has been someone else. Augustine, Aquinas, More, even Origen (that crafty old semi-gnostic). None of which including, the relatively contemporary John Henry Newman, whose authority you seem to appeal to often, were ever Popes. So is there a disconnect between the Pope and those whose
MobiusCoin 2 weeks ago
Okay, I think I have a legitimate question regarding this issue. And I think it is akin to the problem of Deistic arguments of God used by Christians. If we accept the need for a living authority in what way does the automatically default to the Bishop of Rome other than historical precedent. To use your analogy, the umpire is knowledgeable about the game. It does not seem every Pope has that gift of knowledge, in fact it has been suggest and to a certain level of accuracy that the last great...
MobiusCoin 2 weeks ago
...For after all the great religions have been preached and expounded, or have been revealed by brilliant scholars, or have been written in fine books and embellished in fine language with finer covers, man, - all man - is still confronted by the Great Mystery.
---Chief Luther Standing Bear - Oglala Sioux
bozolazic 2 weeks ago
Furthermore, the source that says there are 30,000 Protestant denominations (World Christian Encyclopedia) includes JWs and Mormons in that number, which I'm sure even Father Barron would agree are not Protestants. Furthermore, this same source lists over 200 Catholic denominations. This turns the Catholic argument against itself. For if these denominations are considered to go against John 17, then Catholicism is just as guilty as Protestantism (according to the Catholic's reasoning).
AgApE010 3 weeks ago
@AgApE010 I have no idea what you mean when you speak of 200 Catholic "denominations." Perhaps the book is referring to institutions or to religious orders, but it surely doesn't mean that there is a variety of "Catholic" churches!
wordonfirevideo 3 weeks ago
@wordonfirevideo
The book, which of course is a secular work, seems to mean it in the same sense as it does for the Protestant denominations. Regrettably, there is no online copy of the World Christian Encyclopedia for me to point you to as it is only available through purchase.
Thank you for taking the time to reply! I wasn't expecting it and am truly honored. Did you consider my previous comment about the unity of the Protestant denominations?
God bless.
AgApE010 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Though Catholics point out the various denominations in Protestantism and say it contradicts the unity Christ wanted, they often fail to acknowledge the agreement on the essential doctrines of the Faith. I have no problem extending a hand of fellowship to the Lutheran, Baptist, Anglican, or Presbyterian. Catholicism, on the other hand, ousts anyone who disagrees on nearly any matter (case in point, the Sedevacantists). This begs the question: who is really the schismatic here?
AgApE010 3 weeks ago
Thank you. Yes, the Orthodox believe in the priesthood of all believers. As such, the laity are 'watchdogs' of the faith who carefully watch their religious leaders for error. No one person, even if a saint, is infallible; only the church is infallible, as determined by council and prefigured in the first council of Jerusalem. Please see my Orthodox promotions on youtube under 'marykfilms.'
marykfilms 3 weeks ago
When Jesus said " and apon This Rock I shall build my church " Was he pointing to Peter or Himself ?
Ettoredipugnar 3 weeks ago
@Ettoredipugnar , read just a tad prior to that quote and you shall have your answer son.
Seminarian89 3 weeks ago
@Seminarian89 what page did I respond to your post > I see the two posts that I made but they were to a post other than your's My red headed stepson.
Ettoredipugnar 3 weeks ago
@Ettoredipugnar , Matthew 16:18 says this "And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church" KJV, here's the problem. When interpretation with the English translation it just a tad different to Greek and Aramaic but here's the thing brother. The early Church fathers had the sole conviction and understanding that St Peter was the rock that he wanted to build his church upon. Does the word itself not point directly to Peter?
Seminarian89 3 weeks ago
@Ettoredipugnar..you see in 1 Timothy chapter 3, they were talking about deacons and how one ought to behave in the House of God "the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth" So the deacon is in the Church, it is an ecclesiastical institution founded by Jesus Christ himself with Peter as the one to Lead this Church right after his Ascension until the son of man returns.
Seminarian89 3 weeks ago
@Seminarian89 Chap and verse .where and when did Jesus create the papacy ? 1st Peter chap 5 ver 1 " I am an elder amongs't you " Acts chap 10 ver 26 " Stand up; I myself am also a man . St. Peter belongs to all Christians , he dosent laud it over them.
Ettoredipugnar 3 weeks ago
@Ettoredipugnar ...Yes, you are highlighting one of the most humbling proclamations that the Pope is the Servant of the Servants of God.
Seminarian89 3 weeks ago
@Seminarian89 As all the other Patriarchs are. : ) Pope , Papa what ever understanding of the name.
Ettoredipugnar 3 weeks ago
According to Orthodox Wiki:
The Church of Antioch is the continuation of the Christian community founded in Antioch by the Apostles Peter (who served as its first bishop) and Paul, who are its patron saints.
mraNewfoundland 3 weeks ago
@mraNewfoundland Thats correct St. Peter was in Antioch first. The throne of Antioch is called " Twice Blessed " because of Peter and Paul. Yet never in history has the Patriarch of Antioch claimed primacy amongs't his brother apostles. The Bishop of rome in his book the apostles also said that Peter and Paul founded the church in rome.
Ettoredipugnar 3 weeks ago
The mistakes made by may of the protestant churches has been made by the Roman Church. I mean the whole thing between the Eastern Chruches and Western churches. I would argue that the Papal claims according to the whole Church Catholic are unfounded. And Rome must take responsiblility as well for much of the reason for the rise of Protestant churches. There were calls for reform and correction of errors within the Roman Chruch for years all went unheeded so people took it in their own hands.
mraNewfoundland 3 weeks ago
@mraNewfoundland Why?
Jesus established the Church on Peter, calling him the rock upon which He shall build his church, and what he shall bind on Earth shall be bound in Heaven. So, I mean, that's Christ, there, saying that.
Sure, there was need for reform, but Luther went way too far. A cursory examination of what he was doing would reveal that. At one point he went from being a reformer, to heretic.
MaxxTheMerciless 3 weeks ago
@MaxxTheMerciless Well the Patriarch of Antioch also claims that its seat to be founded by Peter.
And it was the delay to reclaim Catholic Orthodox teaching that really started the movement in that direction. Not only that the Counter Reformation movement and the Council of Trent would not of even been started only for Luther the fact is that it took Luther for Rome to start any critical and effect any really reform itself, even though calls for reform had been around for decades.
mraNewfoundland 3 weeks ago
@mraNewfoundland I don't really see how the Patriarch of Antioch can make that claim. After Jerusalem's destruction by the Romans, Rome became the primary church of Christianity, identified further that way with St Peter and Paul's deaths there.
I don't necessarily disagree with Luther's actions leading to serious reform. But if his goal was to reform the Church, I don't believe he needed to fuel rampant heresy to do it.
MaxxTheMerciless 3 weeks ago
@MaxxTheMerciless Rome has tried to claim extra or special authority and therefore supreme authority through also claiming Peter and Paul as the source of their authority. That the popes therefore are directly descended what has been thought Peter being the first Bishop of Rome. Although there is a problem there because Iraeneus clearly states that Linus was the first bishop of Rome.
So did Peter or Paul step down for Linus to become Bishop of Rome? I was not aware that was the practice.
mraNewfoundland 3 weeks ago
@mraNewfoundland Read your SAINT Iraeneus again. "Against Heresies III.3.3" "After the holy apostles had founded and set the Church in order they gave over exercise of the episcopal office to Linus." St Iraeneus, Julius Africanus, St Hippolytus, and Eusebius all declare that Pope St. Linus was Pope directly after St Peter.
Sevenat1blow 3 weeks ago
@Sevenat1blow Both Saint's Peter and Paul had founded many Christain communities but they were not bishops of these communities and setting up the episcopate in Rome does not mean they were Bishop consecrated for the episcopate of Rome. Where Antioch does list Peter as it's first Bishop. Perhaps even read Pauls Epistle to the Roman's chapter 16:1-15 Paul addresses the Saints in Rome and extensively mentions many names but Peter is not one of them. It is generally accepted that the epistle was
mraNewfoundland 3 weeks ago
@mraNewfoundland written in about the year 60 AD. It really seems to be not like Paul to greet Peter if he is there. Galations written around 54 AD in the 2nd chapter Paul is visiting Peter and the Christian community there in Jerusalem as he had done 14 years ealier as well so that would put it in about the year of 40 AD. Notice that in this letter Paul also mentions that Peter went up to Antioch.
mraNewfoundland 3 weeks ago
@MaxxTheMerciless I do agree with you that Luther did take reform too far and basically tried to destroy Apostolic succession hence why I do not believe that Lutherians can claim Apostolic succession (although I do not know if they try to do so I am not Lutherian)
mraNewfoundland 3 weeks ago
Unlike most Protestants, I believe in church/divine authority. However, the central problem, in my eyes, to Catholicism (or more accurately the primacy of the Pope) is teaching against Scripture. Benedict 16th, for example, disbelieves, discredits, and denies parts of Scripture. (See his book 'Jesus of Nazareth' where he denies the historical accuracy of Matthew 27:25). He is theologically liberal. Papal opinions change; Scripture doesn't. Living authority isn't the solution; it's the problem.
SlideshowArt 3 weeks ago
Huzzah! Cheers to you! I just discovered this series. Many happy views ahead... Might even post to FB. Wonderfully casual, and still thought through. Thank you Fr. Barron.
ToebuckWindminnow 3 weeks ago
J. H. Newman became a Roman Catholic so he could live with his boyfriend, a R. Catholic priest. There were too many married men in the Anglican church for him to be comfortable there. He was a huge hypocrite so is a very bad example to use.
dwdouglas 4 weeks ago
@dwdouglas You, sir, are a liar and a fool. How about a reference for your claim that Newman was gay. False witness is a sin, by the way.
particlelight 3 weeks ago
John the Baptist had no church...he sent his followers after Jesus, and in his own words "I must decrease, while He must increase".
Ndftblwannabe1 1 month ago
@Onetruthrgv I seldom say this...but you are a foolish person. Roman Catholic exists yes because of the divisions within the Catholic church (Eastern Orthodox etc.) who didn't recognize the papacy, but the Southern Baptist church did NOT stem from this schism. SB church is a Protestant church which came FAR after the protestant reformation. Rome has been the center of Christianity for centuries. John the Baptist was indeed a great man, highest of all men to walk the Earth, but even John told hi
Ndftblwannabe1 1 month ago
@Ndftblwannabe1 Did you know that the HEAD OF THE SOUTHERN BAPTIST CONVENTION RECENTLY CONVERTED TO CATHOLICISM? He stated that the others churches are like TENTS AROUND THE MOTHER CHURCH & eventually WE SHALL ALL UNITE & when this happens...CHRIST SHALL RETURN...HE HAS PROMISED SO.. PAX VIA MUSIC..VIVA MARIA!
magcarril 4 weeks ago
@Onetruthrvg except that the southern baptist church didn't exist until atleast the reformation...which was over 1500 years after Christ. Your logic is false sir.
Ndftblwannabe1 1 month ago
@Ndftblwannabe1 No sir we were originally called Catholic. That's why the church fathers say Catholic church instead of roman catholic. John the baptist was given that name so his church may know their authority. Sorry but the numbers are on our side 1 vs 33,000 heretical denominations. Sorry but we have unity and you have disunity out of all the 33,000 denominations.
Onetruthrgv 1 month ago
It's easy to interpret the Word of God the way you see fit. It gives you the freedom to live your life the way you want to. It was not meant that way. There are rules. But.. God is merciful. How holy one wants to be, one decides for ones self. It doesn't mean you're not going to heaven. If the church would make a mistake in its teachings, it would be holy to simply keep obeying the church, in silence and humility, only praying for a change to take place. The church is sometimes a test to us.
blablabla1864 1 month ago
@xchanxzenx- Please do. I always appreciate prayers. And as for you, I pray you take the log out of your own eye before you judge a speck in mine. I pray God grants you His peace. (also I'm sure Jesus loves your insults...)
Ndftblwannabe1 1 month ago
I enjoy the commentary shot outside. It's more lively.
montetoro 1 month ago
We have the power to convict and not to condemn. Loving the Church that Jesus built and left St Peter in charge.
rudyem71 1 month ago
But truly, I love Protestants. Really I do. For a time, I thought I would become one, but after my own research, I simply cannot.
Ndftblwannabe1 1 month ago
And you say "trying to give the pope that authority of the Holy Spirit"...what do you mean? Authority as in he is above it, or that he lacks the Spirit in general?
Ndftblwannabe1 1 month ago
@bella50008- I don't follow it as in things we do go against it? Thank you for such a claim, and providing no details. The pope has authority, I just explained it. The fact there are over tens of thousands of Protestant denominations is testament to the necessity of authority to guid, guard, and keep CHRIST'S church as one. Besides, boast? I'm not going to boast, except in Christ. Please say something with substance if you are going to post here.
Ndftblwannabe1 1 month ago
@Ndftblwannabe1 The only true church is the southern Baptist church, All other churches who are not Southern Baptist are called heretic, So that means there are 30,000 heretic churches and only 1 unified holy southern baptist church, The Southern Baptist Church which was granted authority when John the Baptist Had the position alone to Baptize Jesus and was called The greatest human besides Jesus to be Born Matthew 11:11. Sorry but there is disunity in the heretic churches (non Southern Baptist)
Onetruthrgv 1 month ago
@Onetruthrgv YOU ARE OUT OF YOUR MIND.
STUDY CHURCH'S HISTORY DUDE.
hodriguinhohunter 1 month ago
@hodriguinhohunter I did and it all points to the southern baptist, What ever historical evidence you have against us is because you misinterpreted it and need the true church (Southern baptist) to interpret it for you. God gave John the Baptist the authority and infallibly to recognize Jesus as messiah therefore we have authority to interpret the fathers and scripture alone. Go join the other 33,000 anti baptist denomination denomination
Onetruthrgv 1 month ago
@Onetruthrgv LOL
You Must Be Kidding...
hodriguinhohunter 1 month ago
@hodriguinhohunter I hear no rebuttal
Onetruthrgv 1 month ago
@Ndftblwannabe1 The Numbers show we are the true church. 30,000 vs 1.
Onetruthrgv 1 month ago
This hireling is trying to give the pope that authority of the Holy Spirit. It's not going to work. He deceives only those who cannnot read.
bella50008 1 month ago
So i am debunked by a Bible of English translation written in the 1500's by bitter reformers? Hmm. I will stick with the Catholic Bible, since ya know, we put it together, made it tidy with chapter and verse. Your welcome by the way.
Ndftblwannabe1 1 month ago
@Ndftblwannabe1 ...You'd hav a reason to boast if you actually followed the teachings of that same Bible...but ya don't so...no thanks.
bella50008 1 month ago
@Ndftblwannabe1 Totally debunked, the LORD works in mysterious ways LOL. I'll pray for you, poor bastard...
xchanxzenx 1 month ago
Or perhaps you mean the Eucharist? Which Jesus establishes at the Last Supper? He also emphasizes very clearly in John 6 His flesh is TRUE food and blood TRUE drink. brother, we're all far from perfect...let's not judge anyone, for only Christ can judge. Love your enemies, bless those who curse you, and pray for those who persecute you. If anyone is damned, let Jesus judge it. Peace xchanxzenx. Always peace.
Ndftblwannabe1 1 month ago
Popery? You mean the Pope? As in, the one Jesus established in Peter when He fulfilled Isaiah 22:15-23 in Matthew 16:19 giving him the keys to the house of David (where Jesus is King) and gives him the power to bind and loose? That pope? Idolatry? You mean the statues that put our eyes on Jesus, and remind us of Jesus and are in no circumstance actually divine? Or is it Mary who is only honored, not worshipped and intercedes to the King (Jesus) just like at the wedding in Canaa, which is shown
Ndftblwannabe1 1 month ago
@Ndftblwannabe1 *The preachers of the Gospel open the gates of heaven with the word of God, which is the right key; so that where this word is not purely taught, there is neither key, nor authority. *John 20,21. You have been debunked by the Geneva Bible.
xchanxzenx 1 month ago
@xchanxzenx How can u,A Protestant tht believe tht the bible is the sole rule of faith N practice, say tht a FOOTNOTE of a BIBLE is an authority? R U INSANE? u r Contradicting ur OWN BELIEF (SOLA SCRIPTURA).
Or do u think tht the Footnote U quoted IS PART OF THE CANON? That's incredible, a text tht is wrintten more then1400 years after the biblical canon is part of the canon. How did the bishops in the 4th century know tht this text was supposed 2b part of the Canon? THAT'S A MIRACLE
hodriguinhohunter 1 month ago
@hodriguinhohunter 150 million Christians were killed by the Pagan Catholic Church. The last person to be burnt alive by the Catholic church was in 1844, the crime, owning a Bible in Italian. During that time Christians from all over Christendom fleed to Geneva or the mountains of Switzerland. There they worked on their countries (French, German, English, Spanish, etc) Bible in peace and with the help of the Holy Ghost. What other Bible has that history? The notes are right when they are right
xchanxzenx 4 weeks ago
@xchanxzenx This is an absurd statement. If you are referring to the Inquisitions, most reputable historians put the number executed by the Inquisition at no more than 4,000. That's over the entire 300 year history of the Inquisition. If you claim that deaths due to "religious" wars, then I am pretty sure this number is also inflated. Protestants gave as good as they got in the religious wars. Your numbers are complete b.s. Just like your heretical bible thumping religion.
particlelight 3 weeks ago
@particlelight The Roman Pagan Catholic church was started by Constantine, he merged Roman Paganism with the Holy Scriptures and killed any one that did not agree, mostly Christians. So from that time all the way up 1844, 150 million true Saints over come. Last no Bible that I know of is mentioned in the Bible it self (any edition). Nahum I:I5 reads about a religious festival in the mountains and that HIM made the word of peace. The Geneva Bible comes from the mountains, Its God's work.
xchanxzenx 3 weeks ago
@xchanxzenx You are a fool. Constantine called a council, but had nothing to do with codifying books of the bible, elucidating dogma or beliefs of the church. The CATHOLIC Church is the church founded by Christ. You risk your eternal soul by believing these paranoid protestant myths. The Geneva Bible comes from the mountains. LOL!!! Read the Church Fathers. They believed the same things that the Catholic Church still teaches. You really need a history lesson or two.
particlelight 3 weeks ago
@particlelight Isaiah 52,7 reads: How beautifull upon the mountaines are the fete of him(LORD), that declareth and publisheth peace? that declareth good tidings(Gospel), and publisheth salvation(Christ is the end of the Law), saying unto Zion(Christendom), Thy God reigneth? The Geneva Bible is being described here. If you had the Holy Ghost, it would be shown to you. But because you are under a faluse sprit, you turn to dumb and dead idols. Submerge yourself in God's word and you are saved.
xchanxzenx 3 weeks ago
@xchanxzenx Well, I guess that is one way of looking at it. Of course there is no evidence for your contention that the Geneva Bible came from the "mountains". There is a lot of evidence that it is the same bible that Catholics gave to the world, only translated and interpreted by a bunch of rabid, heretical protestants. Keep on believing damn fool things, xchanxzenx. Maybe it gets you to heaven, but I doubt it. So do the Church Fathers.
particlelight 3 weeks ago
The Bible is authority absolutely, and God trusted it's compilation to the Catholic church-that is undeniable historical fact. However, the basis that it is the only source of truth is inaccurate. The apostles undoubtedly passed on apostolic tradition when they prayed and elected someone to take Judas' place among the 12. Also it says that not everything Jesus said and did is written in the Bible, for if it was it would be incredibly long. A living authoritative voice and structure is needed, o
Ndftblwannabe1 1 month ago
@xchanxzenx You poor man to judge so harshly. You need to read Romans 9. Though it says He has mercy on whom He wills, and hardens who He wills, He waits patiently (or long suffers with) those whom He hardens. It's all about grace my friend, and by no means can you EVER claim to know. Jesus would be appalled at your lack of love for those who do not yet know God's love, those who He so desperately waits for.
Ndftblwannabe1 1 month ago
@Ndftblwannabe1 Yes I am not perfect, their has only been one, who was and is perfect. Jesus would be appalled by your Roman Popery and Idolatry. May the Christian LORD guild my right hand against those who practice religion under pretence, for their own profit. And may that harlot be damned with the Devil.
xchanxzenx 1 month ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Father Barron is a hell bound hound. The Bible is the final authority. When Christ comes back, he will choose the correct Church. Roman Pagan Catholics are an abomination in God's eyes.
xchanxzenx 1 month ago
@xchanxzenx Thanks! God bless you too.
wordonfirevideo 1 month ago 8
@xchanxzenx Do you really think comments like this do any good? It is unreasonable and uncharitable words such as these that lead people to reject Christianity altogether. Kudos to Fr. Barron for his fine work.
akasseb 1 month ago
@akasseb It's in the Geneva Bible buddy. People don't choose God, the LORD out of love and mercy chooses who HE wills. If people reject Christianity then they were dammed since the beginning of time.
xchanxzenx 1 month ago
@xchanxzenx I encourage people to research Bible history.
123MrBee 1 month ago
To generalize Protestant belief is simplistic. Authority is worked out differently at different times, even in the Roman church. The Roman Empire's solution to authority is not necessarily spiritual. Glad you believe this and because of it, I would say you are in the right place. That doesn't work so well for me or many of my companions. Rome is not always right and Newman was not so thrilled with his move in the long haul. Read the facts.
pfpnewhope 1 month ago
@pfpnewhope Are you referring to Blessed John Henry Newman? Please tell us how he 'was not so thrilled with his move in the long haul.'
akasseb 1 month ago
I always use the referee point to my friends when I have to defend my Catholicism.
"No temporal man may be the head of the spirituality."
- St Thomas More.
The quote clearly applies in reverse, too.
DCdabest 1 month ago
I ruther have 10000000 denominations ruther then have my conscience oppressed. My conscience oppressed. Millions of heretics were burned at the stake. many friends of martin Luther died like this. Let millions disagree. for example I will never confess my sins to another man. And I think it is sinful to replicate my sins in someone else s mind.(unless of course someone I hurt needs to be defended) So please don't persecute me, I believe in fact the catholic church will have to be feared one day.
medusa210562 1 month ago
The Word of God is our authority. Simple as that.
WorshipInTruth 1 month ago
@WorshipInTruth And that's precisely the problem: it can't be as simple as that. 30,000 different Protestant denominations all claim that they are under the authority of the Word of God. The Word of God requires reception and interpretation.
wordonfirevideo 1 month ago 15
@wordonfirevideo If they are in line with what Scripture says then they are following the Word of God. The Bible is not nearly as hard to understand and interpret as you papists would like to make it out to be. Most of the heresies developed by apostate "Protestants" are nothing more then a rehashing of the same old catholic errors and innovations.
WorshipInTruth 1 month ago
@WorshipInTruth "If they are in line with what Scripture says then they are following the Word of God"
Name me one Church that claims NOT to be in line with what Scripture says.
"The Bible is not nearly as hard to understand and interpret as you papists would like to make it out to be."
Tell that to the disciples on the road to Emmaus...(Lk 24.25)
Gazdo01 1 month ago
@wordonfirevideo "The Word of God requires reception and interpretation."
yeah but how is the catholic churches interpeation ( which we know was corrupt) any more reilable that my interpreation.
The point is that after the selling indulgence scam and all the burnting and torturing of hertics -- how can we trust the popes interpeation
badpanda84 1 month ago
@badpanda84 - Possible answers for why the Catholic interpretation is the best:
God loves Catholics the most?
Catholics love God the most?
Catholics are smarter than Protestants?
At one point, Catholics ruled the world?
Having one fallible authority is better than no authority at all?
Jesus touched Peter and Peter touched the next guy and so on, and so on, and so on...?
jontv 1 month ago
@jontv it all boils down to what the apostles taught and why.
123MrBee 1 month ago
@123MrBee - That is interpretation, too. Are you familiar with the literary principle of intentional fallacy? It says you can't read a text and assume you know the motivations of the writer.
The apostles said nothing about red pointy hats or expensive vaticans. It would be really hard to argue that the Catholic Church is exactly what it is because that's exactly what God wants it to be. It is a profoundly human institution with all the shortcomings of humans--neither inevitable nor infallible.
jontv 1 month ago
@jontv LOL that is a good one -- that is scarasm right??
Although alot of catholic probably genuinely belive that God loves catholics the most..
badpanda84 1 month ago
@badpanda84 - Yeah, it is, though I'd love to see a true Catholic respond to my little multiple choice test.
I think every religion and denomination, when it comes right down to it, has to believe that they know and love God the best, and vice versa. Otherwise, what is the point of forming and maintaining a separate entity. One of the things I like least about religion is this need to assert that "Our understanding of the universe is the best, the right one, etc.". I think they are all wrong.
jontv 1 month ago
@wordonfirevideo Then how does your interpretation place above anyone else's? Because by your explanation, you're still having someone interpret it. You say there should be a voice, then that voice should be the holy spirit alone. I agree there are a lot of denominations, but it doesn't mean all of them are so different, we share many core beliefs. You also have to have a way to guarantee that the umpire you mention is credible and wise. To this I only trust God. Jesus died to give us that.
mikeytheaznking 1 month ago
@mikeytheaznking The Apostles taught what Jesus taught them. Their teachings, which were elaborated on by early church fathers as well, are what make up the teachings of the Catholic Church today (which are ever expanding as humanity matures).
123MrBee 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@123MrBee "he Apostles taught what Jesus taught them. Their teachings, which were elaborated on by early church fathers as well"
So where did they get the idea of burning hertics at the stake and selling indulgences from.
badpanda84 1 month ago
@badpanda84 - Burning heretics is the unfortunate result of believing you have all the answers, and that anyone who disagrees is a threat to all that's good and true.
The indulgences thing was just greed, pure and simple. It was a way to offer the prize of salvation to morally repugnant wealthy people, and make a tidy church profit at the same time. Luther was right about it: there is no theological defense for that practice, which is why Catholics eventually abandoned it as well.
jontv 1 month ago
@123MrBee I don't dispute that. However the Church itself has not always been the most reliable source. Especially after the Renaissance it saw corruption...one of the main causes of the reformation. However simply because early church teachings were based on apostles, it doesn't mean that other Christians don't also believe this. The apostles teachings are also in the Bible, which is thereby open to everyone.
mikeytheaznking 1 month ago
@wordonfirevideo What you are saying is the opposite of what is true. The many Protestant denominations should be the Protestant Abominations. I have to agree, even though I hold the Word in the highest standard over ANY other teaching of God, that the many churches just are religious efforts that confuse. That is what happends when men stick their wicked minds in the pot. Howiever, the Word came first amigo!
121jigawatts 1 month ago 2
@121jigawatts Well first of all, the Word didn't come first. It was compiled and canonized by the Church. And secondly, how do you interpret the Word? Pace Luther, the Word is open to a wild variety of readings. Which one is right? Another reason why you need the authoritative voice of the church.
wordonfirevideo 1 month ago 5
@wordonfirevideo So, what you are saying in effect, is that men put words into the mouth of Jesus and THEN He spoke them. If that is how you or your church interpret scripture that is dangerous theology. The message is not confusing, Jesus has personal relationships with people. The church is there to edify that those relationships, which in turn glorifies God.
121jigawatts 1 month ago
@wordonfirevideo :) THIS IS SUMMED UP SO WELL
DarwynxRivver 3 weeks ago
YES YES YES!!!
bateman88 1 month ago
@WorshipInTruth Don't you see that nobody agree on what the Bible teaches? If the Bible was this clear authority, then everyone would agree.
We need the Sacred Magistarium (Catholic Tradition) to help us have the proper understanding.
But let's go back to fundamentals... You say the Word of God is authority. That's understood... But how do we know WHAT is that Word? A self acclaimed book won't do.
Plus, care to show me what verse teaches that Scripture is our ONLY authority?
Gazdo01 1 month ago
We've all seen umps and refs making bad calls, and we've also seriously questioned the authoriy of the church in this or that area. I think we just need to learn how to get comfortable with not being sure.
amjPeace 1 month ago
@wordonfirevideo - Catholics probably shouldn't be joking about religiously motivated executions, but I took it as a bad joke. I'm not sure what's "paranoid" about what I've written, however. I am still trying to understand how this bizarre system Fr. Barron's referring to actually works. I don't know how he can be so certain of something he can't provide a more concrete vision of. But I guess that's the power of faith, huh....
jontv 1 month ago
Irony--I follow the Occupy movement pretty closely, and I'm struck by how their "consensus building" attempts (and inevitable failures ) echo the description you give.
DJMahon 1 month ago
@DJMahon - No consensus process is ever going to be "perfect", but "perfect" is a human fantasy. We have to do the best we can. We can do pretty well, if we go about it in a rational, humane way.
jontv 1 month ago
@jontv Last night, the Occupy Boston GA failed (for the 4th time) to come up with a policy to protect its members from Level 3 sex offenders because a minority of members argue that the American justice system is broken, and that it would be unfair to ban any sex offender due to their past!
I don't expect perfection -- I'd be happy if they exercised some sanity!
DJMahon 1 month ago
@DJMahon - I'm not familiar with the situation you're referring to, but if you're defending Catholic authority and its superiority to democratic consensus-building, you probably don't want to be bringing up a failure to protect people from sex offenders.
What Occupy Anywhere has in common with the Catholic Church is that they are all human institutions and therefore fallible. Self-affirming references to moral objectivity have not exempted Catholicism from this basic reality.
jontv 1 month ago
One more thing about the game/referee analogy. What struck me as odd is not the stuff you addressed, but this: what is this game people are supposed to be playing? What is the object? Why does it matter--except in an institutional sense--who wins? What happens to the losers?
jontv 1 month ago
@jontv The game is the splendid conversation of the theological tradition. And the losers, I'm afraid, are burned at the stake. (I'm joking).
wordonfirevideo 1 month ago
@wordonfirevideo - Well, yeah, that's how it used to work. But I wasn't even thinking along those lines....
jontv 1 month ago
Your Holy Spirit trick is not very helpful, either. Why should one believe that the Holy Spirit resides in one particular church hierarchy, and not another (or many others)? When authorities declare themselves to be authorities, you have the problems of circular logic and institutional self-promotion.
You seem to be saying that God wants unity, and yet tolerates division--why? Conveniently, Catholicism is the answer. Couldn't God speak clearly and bring about unity, if desired?
jontv 1 month ago
@jontv "Why should one believe that the Holy Spirit resides in one particular church hierarchy, and not another (or many others)?"
You said it... it's a matter of BELIEF. If you believe in Jesus, then you know he founded ONE Church on Peter (Mt 16.18-19). He promised that His One True Apostollic Church would never fail.
If it's not true, then there are 2 billion popes in the christian world, and there is not way to know the ABSOLUTE TRUTH on doctrinal matters.
Gazdo01 1 month ago
@Gazdo01 - It sounds as though you are admitting that there's no inherent authority in the Pope, but you are willing to accept him as an authority simply because you think there needs to be one.
I would agree that there's no way to know the "ABSOLUTE TRUTH" about anything, but I'd say that applies to Popes as well. I don't believe in absolute truth. I think we just have to do the best we can, and fighting over fantasies like "absolute truth" just clouds the issue.
jontv 1 month ago
@jontv "there's no inherent authority in the Pope"
His authority comes from Jesus' own authority (Mt 16.18-19). There is a reason why Jesus changed Simon's name into "rock" (Peter) (Jn 1.42)
"I don't believe in absolute truth"
Is that statement "true"? ;)
Isn't a mathematical proof "absolute"?
Gazdo01 1 month ago