As a Protestant, I want the Catholic Church to remain in Christ as well. But I think we only differ on the justification bit of our salvation, the Bible tells us that faith alone saves, not works. But works is part of sanctification which makes us more like Christ.
Catholics like to quote James, but James was talking about actions that affirmed someone's claim to faith, not as a determinant to salvation. Would I be correct?
@Music4urGlory The Bible uses the words "faith alone" ONCE to say man is NOT saved by faith alone. And James says, explicitly, we are saved by faith and works and calls those who deny it ignorant.
i believe that the protestant "reformation" is a false doctrine because Jesus Christ said "the gates of hell shall not prevail" against his church. So why need to "reform" something that this world,the flesh, and the devil cannot destroy" ?
What about the argument that the Catholic Church was right until the 11th century and the reformation simply wanted to re-form the Catholic Church upon the doctrine of justification by faith, not start a new church?
@psalmblues I presume you mean the justification by faith ALONE, as that is the cornerstone of the Reformation? The answer would be found in James 2 - the only time the words "faith alone" appear in the Bible. They read that faith alone is NOT how one is saved, and specifically say one is saved by works. Any so-called "reformation" along those lines would be a denial of authentic truth and a new "church".
People,People,People one of the main reasons luther removed the 7 books was because in the book of 2 Maccabees it says pray for the dead, therefore talking about purgatory, and the protestants didnt know what to say, so they removed both books of Maccabees, Only one true Church, Jesus said i will build my Church NOT CHURCHES. if people dont believe this, then they believe the gates of hell prevailed over Gods Church.The Roman Catholic Church is the True Bride Of Christ.
O and jesus wasn't referring to Peter about being the foundation of the church it was in fact what peter said that would be the foundation of the church."You are the Christ, the Son of the living God."Upon this rock, I will build my church," It is Jesus that is the foundation not Peter! At the end of the day it only makes sense that jesus the son of God is the foundation of the church. lol that seems to be the only verse you know, sure after that everythings irrelevant right!
@Grace1725 No, I know lots more verses. But let's stick with this one - which you DELIBERATELY misquote. The FULL quote is "You are Peter and on this Rock I will build my Church." In Aramaic, which was the language Jesus spoke, the same word would be used for Peter and Rock - Cephas. And so Jesus is saying "You are Rock and on this Rock I will build my Church."
But you choose to instead misrepresent the Bible and just laugh and insult. How dishonest of you!
@Grace1725 That's NOT what the verse says! Jesus specifically says to Peter "thou art a rock, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. I give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. Whatsoever you bind on earth it shall be bound in heaven. Whatsoever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven." Your interpretation does not come even close to fitting this verse! How can you say that Jesus was not talking to Peter?
@SaintMichaelsMedia Actually those seven books were cut out from the old testement because it was felt that they didn't provide the same authority as the other books. However they are used as external readings. But it doesn't mean that everthing thing else in the bible isn't relavent, it is still gods word.
@BeCkY58470 Thank you for saying the books were cut - that is not what is usually said by non-Catholics, who claim Catholics added them. And thank you for saying people sliced the books out because they FELT they did not belong. I think we can all agree that the people who took them out used poor methodology and did so arrogantly; by what authority can a human edit the word of God?
@SaintMichaelsMedia Well i am a protestant Christian but all i am saying is that even though they were taken out they also weren't forgotten. Now i am aware that there are other reasons for why they were taken out but it doesn't away the fact that what is in the bible is relavent and is still gods word. I believe that the bible only is the all sufficient guide to salvation.
@BeCkY58470 So, you admit inspired books were hacked out of the Bible? Because for 1000 years before, those books were considered inspired by everyone. And the majority of Christians STILL think they are inspired, even after Luther et al taking them out because they FELT they did not belong. By what authority can a human edit the word of God?
And as for "all sufficient guide to salvation" - the Bible does not say so. The Bible does not support Bible only. Where do you get that idea from?
@SaintMichaelsMedia Why do you have a lot against the bible and dwell on the fact that seven books were taken out, the new testment was written by jesus' disciples. Sure acts is an account of the spreading of the gospel from jerusalem to Rome. And the teachings of Peter and Paul and the other disciples are very different from that of the catholic church. Well anyway i think they were also taken out because of jewish doctorine that is no longer needed, and fear of the reader adopting it.
@BeCkY58470 I have nothing against the Bible - my Church left it intact. Your sect hacked it to pieces. And you keep saying what Peter and Paul preached is against the Catholic Church. You haven't supported that or offered evidence. Given that Peter was the first Pope and Paul was a Catholic Bishop, your argument is wrong.
And Luther DID say he took books out for being "too Jewish" - he described them as being full of "heathen vice" and too Jewish. Unlike the anti-Semetic Luther, Catholics recognize our Jewish heritage - for we are the fulfilment of the promise of Abraham. Luther was embarassed and ashamed of it.
As a matter of interest; have you read the seven books of the Bible (I note you don't they aren't part of the Bible, just that you don't use them based on your feelings) or not?
@SaintMichaelsMedia Ok can i ask do you think the bible is relavent, or do you just use the dropping of the seven books as an excuse to not take what the bible says seriously.
@BeCkY58470 I'm done with you, Becky - because it is CLEAR from my other postings here Catholics DO take the Bible seriously - more seriously than Protestants, who pick and choose not only what they will INCLUDE in it, but also what they will listen to. Catholics respect the WHOLE Bible and are the ONLY Church in the world to do so. Your refusal to actually give examples of your claimed "differences" between the Bible and Catholic teaching is telling, as if your refusal to answer questions.
@SaintMichaelsMedia You're generalizing alot about Protestants brother. I am referring to: " because it is CLEAR from my other postings here Catholics DO take the Bible seriously - more seriously than Protestants, who pick and choose not only what they will INCLUDE in it, but also what they will listen to."
It's very redundant and subjective in that such collective oberservation of those who oppose Catholicism and call themself christian is generally an impossible task to accomplish.
@joker52mlb How am I generalzing? I speak about the issue of the canon of the Bible - which Protestants change and Catholics did not. It is a completely accurate statement, and not redundant or subjective. Protestants DO use a Bible which is missing books, and Catholics do not.
@BeCkY58470 Catholics consider the Bible very relevant, and take it completely seriously, and respect the WHOLE of the Bible (rather than the bits we "feel" have authority). We wrote the Bible, we protected the Bible, we published the Bible. Without us, there wouldn't BE a Bible!
Remember; you are the one who says her sect dropped books because they FELT like it - I hardly think you can start saying OTHER PEOPLE don't take the Bible seriously when you treat it like a Subway menu!
@BeCkY58470 Your beliefs are wrong. Simply put. If you believe that you will be saved by solely the Bible, then you're totally lost... lost in Luther, I must say. Good luck, Protestant.
@BeCkY58470 Bible alone (Sola Scriptura) is pure and utter heresy. You are worshiping an idol - the Bible is a book in which the reader must INTERPRET. If the reader is in a fallen, sinful state (i.e. all of us), then he or she is prone to ERROR, even if well-intentioned. Only the Holy Catholic Church, founded by Jesus upon St. Peter, has the AUTHORITY from Christ to interpret Scripture WITHOUT ERROR. He said so when He said that "The Gates of Hell shall not prevail against it".
Im learning about the early church, you can actually see how it became corrupt, yet people are saying its the true Church. It was used for dictatorship! Theres such a contrast between it and the spreading of the gospel by Peter and Paul and their teachings. Catholics clearly don't go by the bible, but rather go by the tradtions of man.
@RHGC07 Alright, I am blocking you - for this very simple reason. You posted this comment on this video and then (less than 2 minutes later) posted an IDENTICAL comment on another video of ours - a video which is more than 2 minutes long. So, you can't have actually WATCHED the video when you commented. You are just spamming with falsehoods.
@RHGC07 To answer your point - you don't provide any evidence. I have researched the early Church too, and would urge people to do so from SECULAR historical sources, rather than anything written by a particular Christian denomination. You will find it is very clear Catholicism was the first Church, is the only Church for 1000 years, and that it wrote and assembled the Bible. This is secular history, not religious propaganda.
Catholics don't go by the bible which is the WORD OF GOD! but rather go by the traditions of man! The catholic church became corrupt, they used the church for dictatorship. The reformation was going back to what the bible taught and not what money hungry church leaders taught. Within the church a person with a lot of money could sin more than a poor person. This is because they could pay more for their sins to be forgiven.
@RHGC07 Not true - the selling of indulgences (which is what I presume you are refering to) is firstly i) ILLEGAL and IMPOSSIBLE. No indulgence can be sold - which means that, yes, there were a few corrupt men doing bad things, but they were disobeying the Church laws - and ii) nothing to do with forgiving sins. The ignorance of history here is sad, but hardly surprising.
As for the Bible, the Protestants CUT 7 BOOKS out of it! Why? Because Luther said he didn't like them.
@johnphilipglynn The Church has no official position on the Dead Sea Scrolls, as they are too wide a subject to have a single position on.
Given the fact the only thing we have of the Old Testament is the written record, that question is impossible to answer. However, it is clear that (because of the inspiration of Holy Scripture) there are no substantial changes which impact the faith.
The bible was written before the catholic church was founded, how is it a catholic document? And if the catholic church has the Holy Spirit and is the true church then why did they burn people at the stake for preaching from it? I don't know about you but no true Christian or Christian peoples burn people at the stake.1 Corinthians 4:6..."Do not go beyond what is written"
@chadlerb The Church was founded in 33AD by Christ, and the books of the Bible were chosen by the Church at Church councils. That is a matter of history.
Another matter of history is that the Church did NOT burn people for preaching from the Bible! That is a lie made up by hateful Protestants who hope people won't actually look the history up and will just accept their lies.
What was usually happening when the Church was seen to be 'burning bibles' or burning those who" preached" it, was that the 'bibles' being burnt were spurious and unauthorized translations. The "preachers" who were burnt were usually persistant in teaching error and speaking against the legitimate authority of the Church.
@kimkreate It is certainly His Word - as it was written by His Church, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit.
We know who wrote many books of the Bible, and for many more there are pious traditions of the author. NONE of the books of the Bible are "the Gospel According to Jesus Christ" or "The Holy Spirit's Letter to Rome". They are books written by men, inspired by the Spirit, and chosen by the Chuch under the guidance of the Spirit.
Works which save are the things Jesus talks about in the parable of sheep and goats; feeding the hungry, clothing the naked, etc. as well as prayer, worship and so forth.
We have to do these things IN UNION with Christ to be saved. But we have to DO something.
@SanderDolce >> When jesus was talking about building his church on a rock, he was talking about himself not peter
Don't be ridiculous. YOU are Rock and on THIS ROCK I will build my Church? Why does EVERYONE who wrote about that for the first millenium agree with ME, and not YOU?
@SanderDolce Sorry, but no. Thanks for playing, but you loose.
The NT is written in a dialect of Greek where there is NO such distinction. Even in the dialect where there IS a distinction, it wasn't the case by the time the NT was written.
And finally Jesus spoke ARAMAIC - where the same word, Cephas, would be used for both. So, Jesus says "You are Cephas and on this Cephas I will build my Church."
i believe that God wrote the Bible not the catholic church. I believe that God is all powerful and therefore he reveals himself and communicates to us through that book. The Bible is the word of God in spite of the catholic church's authority, not because of it. thats a personal belief.
@OnlyhopeisJesus >> The Bible is the word of God in spite of the catholic church's authority
So, you admit the Church has authority? Thank you for that.
Now, if the Church has authority - why do you think Protestants reject it?
And how can God communicate "though that book" when people have different opinions on it. Remember; Scripture is NOT a matter for private interpretation!
The protestants reject the churchs athourity because that authority was a product of mass illeteracy, not divine God given authority. The church had authority because they had the Bible. And scriputure IS a matter for private interpretation. I dont like people TELLING me the right interpretation as opposed to ASKING me to think for myself. CULTS tell you what to believe, a good CHURCH asks you what you believe because it IS a matter OF private interpretation
You are seriously saying Scripture is a matter of private interpretation?
Okay - we are done here. If you are so ignorant of Scripture you are going to go against the divinely-inspired word in 2 Pet 1:20 where it says exactly the opposite of what you say, we are done here!
Were the fathers Roman Catholic? I thought the Bishops were all the same except maybe the Jerusalem ones who through James had greater influence which collapsed when Jerusalem fell. Irenaus was the first guy to lay down the power of the Roman bishop. I think he was well after the Apostles had died.
Yes, the Fathers were Catholic. Perhaps if you could tell me WHERE in the writings of the Fathers your ideas come from that would be helpful. I suspect you have not read the Fathers in any great detail, and are simply relying on selected quotes provided by Protestant apologists.
One of the main reason for the split was the Protestants believe that salvation is by faith and faith alone in Jesus Christ. Whereas the Catholics believe in justification by works. The problem is no man is justified by works.
Well, Paul clearly states in Romans the confession of the Church in 3:28 "For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from the works of the Law." You see James was not saying that salvation is by works, but by faith in Jesus Christ and the evidence of salvation is a changed life (regeneration).
Read the passage IN CONTEXT - it is clear that this refers to works of the MOSAIC Law.
Given the insulting tone of your other comment (which I have not approved) you are clearly incapable of polite dialog.
The Bible states that works DO save and says that "works of the Law" do not. So, what do we conclude? That works of the law do save, but other works (such as the works Jesus requires us to do) DO save.
yes it does say that in james. but your taking it out of context. FAITH is their first. then works. the works come from a true faith, james is trying to show the difference between confessing believers and true christians. if works are a requirement then will you please explain to me how the theif on the cross got into heaven when he couldnt possibly do any works before he died.
>> it does say that in james. but your taking it out of context
There is no context needed for "you are not saved by faith alone" when Protestants claim to be saved by faith alone!
And the thief DID do works! Praying to Jesus (which is what he did) is a WORK. He DID something. He also SUFFERED WITH CHRIST. That is a work right there.
Is it possible you don't have the first idea what Catholics believe about faith and works and salvation?
Thats wrong... thats what all the protestant denominations tell you. Marthen Luther was so sure of salvation that he declared that if he slept that night with a hore he still would be a holy man doing sin. But its the other way around... you are stil a sinner but by the offer of Christ you are redeemed. The sheeps in matth 25 are unaware of who jesus is but they DID to jesus all the things they did for those who believied in him.
I think there's a problem when either protestants or catholics start saying that you have to attend/belong/recognized the authority of our church in order to be a real christian.
I say, follow those who are following the teachings of Christ in their fullness. No one is pleasing God by going to a cold catholic church run by a preist who doesn't love God. Likewise, a true christian is not served by going to a cold protestant church.
>> follow those who are following the teachings of Christ in their fullness.
That would be the Catholic Church - although, admitedly, not all Catholics.
>> No one is pleasing God by going to a cold catholic church run by a preist who doesn't love God.
Actually, they are - because, even if the priest does not love God, he can still teach the truth. Only the teachings of the Catholic Church are the full teachings of God.
I have had People, who profess to be Protestant Christians, call the Roman Catholic Church every evil name under the Sun and then try to tell me what the Church Fathers had to say about this or that and I have to remind them that those Church Fathers they are trying to quote were all good Roman Catholics.
"Visible Church" means an institutional, organized, hierarchical Church which can be seen, observed, and gone to for advice and correction - as suggested in Matthew chapter 16.
What does Mike mean when he says that "If you do not believe that Christ founded a visible Church, you're not Christian, you may think you are, but you're not. What does he mean?
Also, is it ok for a Catholic to attend a Protestant service on Sundays?
You know? time ago, a Pentecostal girl and an Evangelical one invited me to their services.. I saidL "For sure. No problem. Only if you'll come with me to Mass".. they both disagreed by saying, "I could never go to a Catholic Church... I would feel weird", to which I replied, "you know who else feels weird in a Catholic church? SATAN"...
Both chicks didn't know what else to say... hehehe.
Anglicans do not have apostolic succesiosn. The only churches that have apostolicicty are the Catholic, orthodox and oriental Churches. The rest come from schisms and heresys.
I have come home to God's church. I have crossed the Tiber. Thank you Mike. You, Scott Hahn and GK Chesterton have opened my eyes and changed my life. Peace be upon you and may the Lord always be with you. Keep up the good work...
I renounce this as evil. The rock was referring to ALL of the apostles, the foundation of the church was built on the apostles and prophets
So then you are no longer strangers and aliens, but you are fellow citizens with the saints, and are of God's household, having been built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus Himself being the corner stone.
Also keep in mind, it said Peter, so even if it was peter to be the rock,he didn't say peters successors or children.
Petrine Primacy is well-documented; it is attested by the very earliest documents and Christians. And it is logical that what was needed for the first century would be needed after Peter was executed.
Luke, Paul, Peter, James, John - all the authors of the New Testament are Catholic. What ELSE would they be? There WAS no other Christian community at the time other than the one Church.
Sola Scriptura is heresy from the not so small fact that when St Paul wrote his 2nd letter to the Thessalonians, the Holy Spirit issued a command "Stand firm and hold fast the traditions you were taught, whether by an ORAL STATEMENT or by a letter from us [2nd Thess 2:15] This command by the Holy Spirit completely contradicts Sola Scriptura and proves that the doctrine of Sola Scriptura is completely unbiblical, because the Spirit commands the adherence to two rules of faith and not one.
The Scripture says that every fact shall be confirmed in the mouth of two or more witnesses. You've given one reference to support tradition. Can you give the second? There are many to support Sola Scriptura.
Absolute rubbish - there isn't a SINGLE one to support Sola Scriptura. Not one - because it is a dangerous lie and a heresy.
How about the fact that the Bible didn't EXIST until 405AD when the Catholic Church compiled it? So, what did Christians use before then? You can't have "Sola something which didn't exist".
You are teflon coated against hearing the Gospel. Catholicism has nothing to do with re-birth, but about outward commitment to an institution.
Your comment above is false. In Acts 17, the Bereans were looking at the Old Testament to prove what was being taught was the word of God. The existence of the Septuagint proves the O.T. Scriptures were considered the Word of God long before the institution of Catholicism.
Yet, you refuse to come out and are what the Scripture calls "spiritually blind".
>> The existence of the Septuagint proves the O.T. Scriptures were considered the Word of God long before the institution of Catholicism.
Well, only 180 years, as the Septuagint was finished about 150BC :)
Anyway, this is (again) irrelevant - you advocate "sola scriptura". How can it be "Scripture alone" when loads of the Scriptures didn't even EXIST when Christianity was founded?
And why should I "come out" of the single Church Jesus founded to be the ordinary means of salvation?
The scriptures were still around before the bible. They still had the word of god, just not in a handy little book. they could still rebuke each other with it and correct each other, otherwise why would Paul of written;
2Tim 3:16 "All scripture is God breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting ad training in righteousness."
>> The scriptures were still around before the bible.
But the New Testament did not exist for years after Christ's ascension. So, how CAN Sola Scriptura be true - when the very first Christians DIDN'T HAVE the whole scriptures? If the Old Testament is enough, then why bother with the New Testament?
In original Greek "ophelimos" means "useful" NOT "sufficient", also "passa" means not "all" (as often rendered), but "every". If you wanted to translate the passage literally it would have to start with "Every scripture is God breathed and is useful...". Now if you wish to replace or understand "useful" as "sufficient", the whole thing turns into a nonsense since that would mean that every scripture (ex. Jn, Mat, Rev etc) can stand on its own and it obviously cannot :)
>> the catholic chuch will persecute again in the near future.
Again? We've never done it - check your history; and not the rubbish most of the rapid anti-Catholics like Alberto Rivera and Jack Chick teach!
>> i will make my mind up on what to beleive. therefore i am a heretic
No - unless you are a Catholic, you can't be a heretic. If you make up your mind and you disagree with Jesus (who was the one who gave the Church her teachings) then you are just wrong.
lol, this guy doesn't even know who wrote the bible. The Christians didn't write the Old testament. How does he think people can believe a word he says after that lie.
Actually, they did - the Old Testament is put together by the Catholic Church from Jewish documents. The Jewish Tanakh is very different from the Old Testament.
Don't call us liars when we simply disagree with people like you who can't be bothered (or are incapable) of accademic research.
Let's put the brakes on what you say. Protestants didnt fight because they were greedy. They fought to protect the truth. Why did the Catholic church not want the Bible translated from latin? Because it didnt want people to read the truth for themselves. Even though the bible encourages believers not to just take someone's word about the bible, but seek the scriotures themselves.
The Pope never even appoligized for all the tortures done to Protestants by the Catholic Church
So why did they change the Bible and remove whole books AND change the ancient faith? Protestants didn't protect the truth - that is a laughable claim.
>> Why did the Catholic church not want the Bible translated from latin?
The Catholic Church translated the Bible into the vernacular from the 5th century onwards. So, your question is meaningless. It assumes something which isn't true.
A little factoid is that the Douay-Rheims English Bible actually pre-dates the KJV. The original KJV also included all the books the Catholics used, although the 'apocryphal' books were separate from the rest.
an interesting opinion, but if you are going to take the time to post a video, why not really do some academic work and provide a substantial argument
The catholic church wrote the bible! are you saying that the catholic church created Christ? created God? In the beginning was the Word, the Word was with God and the Word was God.!!!HERESIE!!!???
>> are you saying that the catholic church created Christ? In the beginning was the Word, the Word was with God and the Word was God.
No, I am saying that the Catholic Church wrote and assembled the Bible. 'The Word' that passage is not the Bible, it refers to Jesus Christ. The Bible is not eternal, and is not even as old as the Church. It was assembled around 400AD.
I think the bible teaches that all have sinned, including peter, anyway this could go on for a while so all i will say is, peter i have not met, luther i have not met, Jesus i have met, he set me free from sin, religious bigotry growing up in n.ireland,i hated catholics with a passion, but he set me free,... He set my feet upon the ROCK CHRIST JESUS. i shall not be moved "Hosanna" May God bless you and keep you.
Given the fact Catholicism comprises over half of all Christians and is the largest religion in the world with 1.2 billion members, you have a very strange defintion of dead.
Yeah, Catholicism's dead - about as dead as Jesus Christ!
If they were, everyone who ever read them would all come to exactly the same conclusion as to their meaning. However, after 500 years of Protestants believing that every individual is able, with the help of the Holy Spirit, to read Scripture and come to all truth, the fact is, there is NO UNITY. There are over 40,000 different Protestant denominations. And every single one of them proclaim their church to be led by the Holy Spirit. But, since God is not a God of confusion
teresafol,excellent explanation! I'm constantly challenged by my Protestant friends on this subject specifically,it goes without saying they only hear/believe what they want (many of them disgruntled former Catholics). Thanks for the comment! Proud Catholic!!!!!!!!!!!
Only the Catholic Church that has not changed her doctrines to suit the prevailing winds of culture for 2000 years. Protestant churches do change.The reason they don't think they do is because when their church starts going down the road of accommodating the culture & compromising Truth, a remnant will leave the decadent church&start a new one. Because there is no final authority that speaks for God it is just a matter of time before the new &faithful church will be corrupted by Enemy.
mdbl, Why do you think thaMatt. 10:1,40 - Jesus declares to His apostles, "he who receives you, receives Me, and he who rejects you, rejects Me and the One who sent Me."
@teresasfsol No doubt. Ignorant Catholics also leave the Church because they don't even know a thing about their faith and get sugarculted by Protestants.
It's funny how the news go: "Millions of Catholics are leaving the Church!" and they never mention anything about the Protestants or Atheists who daily become Catholics.
>> Let the uncontaminated version of the HOLY SCRIPTURE of the OLD KING JAMES 1900 version answer your disengenious question: JOHN 1:1-5
A number of questions;
i) What question are you answering?
ii) How can the 1900 KJV be "old"? Esp. as the original KJV is 1611.
iii) How can the KJV be uncontaminated when it was put together specifically to be different to the versions which had come before it, and which had been used by all Christians for centuries?
Faith alone does not exist in the Bible. Martin Luther deformed the church..not reformed it. 35.000 protestant faiths all in contradiction with each other. Mormons, Fundies, Watchtowers, Methodist, Anglicans, prosperaty thumpers, cool aid drinkers, etc... What a mess, come back to Rome.
not really. I'm an evangelical protestant and each one I meet or know believes that christ is the only way to god. Luther tried to remove corruption like praying to the saints and indulgences. Luther is a hero because he pointed out the what the controlling catholic church did.
>> Luther tried to remove corruption like praying to the saints and indulgences.
Those things aren't corruptions. Sola fides and sola scriptura are corruptions. Luther removed seven whole books from the Bible and then added extra words in - and when questioned, responded with arrogance! He also had vile personal habits I won't go into here.
I wouldn't consider Anglicans ( the Anglo - Catholics ) as protestants. They actually identify themselves as a branch from Catholicism. They hold ( what I've read ) Apostolic Succession.
The Anglican Church of America even engaged in talks with the Roman Catholic Church and is seeking to come into unity with Rome while still retaining some aspects of its Anglican heritage.
I don't know if that's true, can someone verify that?
>> I wouldn't consider Anglicans ( the Anglo - Catholics ) as protestants.
Anglo-Catholics are distinct from Anglicans - but both are Protestant. They are not Catholic or Orthodox.
SOME Anglicans are planning to come to Rome and yes they would retain certain aspects of their heritage, but they will have to get rid of anything which is not Catholic.
I've read some of their history on Wikipedia ( shame on me ).
"Via Media" They are neither. While the high church movement ( Anglo-catholics or whatever you call them ) is more catholic, the low church movement within Anglicanism is more protestant-like.
It's confusing, agreed!
By the way, you seem very active! Are you getting paid for this? If so, awesome job you got there ;)
>> Worship of mary is not appropriate for Jesus Christ is the only way to come to the Father God.
Very true! And that is EXACTLY what the Catholic Church teaches! The Catholic Church teaches that Jesus is the way, the truth, and the life. And she teaches that Mary is a creature. She is the highest of God's creatures (as God chose to incarnate in her womb) but she is just a creature.
Heresies? Why-because the one true faith teaches you have to work your way into heaven? Works are important and God commands them, but they won't save you on their own. we could NEVER do enough to earn salvation, period.
Certainly, Luther wasn't a rich landowner - but the German barons who financed and supported the social revolt which was the Reformation were certainly rich and powerful; and wanted more power.
Well done with this and all your other videos. The Catholic Church sorely needs you in this day. Gifted people like you are helping steer the true Church through the storms and attacks and back to safe harbour. I sincerely hope you will continue in this ministry.
But you didn't respond to gleatherman's comment. Roman Catholicism has risen from a disagreement in the midieval Church about whether the Spirit proceeds from only the Father. Athenasius is no more Catholic than he is Orthodox. If you want to claim that works are neccessary for salvation, then it is not possible to know how many works are neccessary. Further, if something other than the cross is neccessary for salvation, then Jesus has died in vain.
You have your history exactly backwards. Catholicism pre-existed the Orthodox "religion". All the individuals churches were under the authority of the bishop of Rome as far back as Chritian history records. Rome always claimed this authority and no other church ever claimed it for itself.
In fact, there are numerous letters and documents from the eastern churches acknowldging the authority of the bishop of Rome as supreme. Athanasius is certainly Catholic in that there were no other Chritians faiths except Catholic in the 4th century. The word Catholic was first used in the first century to describe Chritians.
I do not claim that works are necessary for Salvation. The Holy Spirit does. Read the Epitsle of James cited above. Catholics merely repeat what the Holy Spirit inspired.
As to "not knowing how many works are necessary" - the answer is - as many as are necessary. Just because we don't know that answer doesn't mean there isn't one. If God don't want us performing good works - He wouldn't have commanded us to do them.
Why do protestants persist in cherry-picking Scripture. Either accept the scriptures as inspired or don't -but stop paying homage to one verse while ignoring another. It's dishonest.
Jesus christ himself says in MT. that we will be judged on the actions we did and did not do for the least of our brothers.
Protestants continually repeat back memorized lines of scriptures like robots while NEVER answering or even acknowledging passages that Catholics bring up.
So let me ask those who disagree with Catholic teaching - directly answer this question.
What does the Epistle of James mean in those verses. And what does Our Lord mean in MT?
DIRECTKY ANSWER the CAtholic interpretation. DO NOT just quote another scripture passage. ANSWER THE QUESTION HOW DO YOU EXPLAIN INSPIRED SCIPTURE THAT SAYS FAITH WITHOUT WORKS IS DEAD and THAT JESUS CRIST HIMSELF SAYS WE WILL BE JUDGED ON OUR WORKS?
Admittedly, after having paid more attention to the epistle of James, which I believe Martin Luther refered to as "an epsitel fo straw," I cannot, at present, answer your question by suggesting that Catholic teaching is incorrect in this regard.
the term "catholic" just means universal church. The "Roman Catholic" church came about as a later development through the middle ages and the disagreement with Eastern Orthodoxy. The problem with Roman Catholicism is that they have become apostate in the fact that the deny the Gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ and have works righteousness basis for salvation.
The original Christians were Catholics. The name "Catholic" was given to them within the first hundred years.
The "Roman" Catholic designation appears in history merely to distinguish them from Catholics of other rites, which all still belong to the Catholic Church unified under the Pope, the Bishop of Rome.
As to your reference about the Church's teaching about the neccesity of workd for salvation - tell your congreagation to read James 2:14-26.
No wonder Martin Luther despised this epistle (inspired by the Holy Spirit). The Holy Spirit calls people who beleive as you do (that faith does not demand works) an ignoramus.
The Protestants got this wrong 500 years ago and they still have it worng today. By the way, the hundreds of millions of Christians (Catholics) who lived for 15 centuries before Luther believed this (as obviously did the Apostlem Saint James).
The whole Church, for 15 centuries before Luther knew and beleived that works were also necessary for salvation as well as Faith. Jesus even said so. (Mt. 25:31-46) He judges people based on their works. That's why the Church has always believed this.
You are teaching people who follow you a lie and you bear repsonsibility for leading them astray.
You better get the whole Scripture and teaching of the Apostles straight before preaching to people.
Good works are indicative of faith. Good works mirror faith. Good works flow naturally from strong faith. Lack of good works indicate a low level of faith or presumtuousness. Furthermore, good works can INSPIRE faith. So, that where faith is weak, performing good works can re-dispose a person to faith.
The first followers of the "Way"(christians)I think you'll find were mainly Jewish converts. Also "Upon THIS rock" I believe Jesus was referring to Himself, Jesus is the foundation of the church, not peter.
What you believe is irrelevant. "You are ROCK and on this ROCK I will build my Church"? How much clearer can it be made?
You might believe that - the Apostles didn't, the writers of the Bible didn't, and the Church Fathers didn't. The vast majority of Christians throughout history didn't either. Now, you are perfectly at liberty to say that all these men are wrong and you are right . . .
As for the Jewish converts thing; yes, of course they were Jewish converts. Converts to Christianity, converts to the Catholic Church. That doesn't make them Jewish in a religious sense - it makes them Catholic Christians.
Thou art Petros (piece of rock) and upon this Petra (rock) I will build my church, why did Jesus or the writer use 2 different uses of the word in Greek?
Because Petros is masculine and petra is female; that would be like calling someone called John "Joan"! Also, petros does NOT just mean "small rock"; there are many examples in Greek literature of the time where it is used to mean "monolith" or "landmark".
As a Protestant, I want the Catholic Church to remain in Christ as well. But I think we only differ on the justification bit of our salvation, the Bible tells us that faith alone saves, not works. But works is part of sanctification which makes us more like Christ.
Catholics like to quote James, but James was talking about actions that affirmed someone's claim to faith, not as a determinant to salvation. Would I be correct?
Music4urGlory 3 months ago
@Music4urGlory The Bible uses the words "faith alone" ONCE to say man is NOT saved by faith alone. And James says, explicitly, we are saved by faith and works and calls those who deny it ignorant.
SaintMichaelsMedia 2 months ago
i believe that the protestant "reformation" is a false doctrine because Jesus Christ said "the gates of hell shall not prevail" against his church. So why need to "reform" something that this world,the flesh, and the devil cannot destroy" ?
jofo817 3 months ago
What about the argument that the Catholic Church was right until the 11th century and the reformation simply wanted to re-form the Catholic Church upon the doctrine of justification by faith, not start a new church?
psalmblues 5 months ago
@psalmblues I presume you mean the justification by faith ALONE, as that is the cornerstone of the Reformation? The answer would be found in James 2 - the only time the words "faith alone" appear in the Bible. They read that faith alone is NOT how one is saved, and specifically say one is saved by works. Any so-called "reformation" along those lines would be a denial of authentic truth and a new "church".
SaintMichaelsMedia 5 months ago
People,People,People one of the main reasons luther removed the 7 books was because in the book of 2 Maccabees it says pray for the dead, therefore talking about purgatory, and the protestants didnt know what to say, so they removed both books of Maccabees, Only one true Church, Jesus said i will build my Church NOT CHURCHES. if people dont believe this, then they believe the gates of hell prevailed over Gods Church.The Roman Catholic Church is the True Bride Of Christ.
MysticalCity 8 months ago 2
O and jesus wasn't referring to Peter about being the foundation of the church it was in fact what peter said that would be the foundation of the church."You are the Christ, the Son of the living God."Upon this rock, I will build my church," It is Jesus that is the foundation not Peter! At the end of the day it only makes sense that jesus the son of God is the foundation of the church. lol that seems to be the only verse you know, sure after that everythings irrelevant right!
Grace1725 11 months ago
@Grace1725 No, I know lots more verses. But let's stick with this one - which you DELIBERATELY misquote. The FULL quote is "You are Peter and on this Rock I will build my Church." In Aramaic, which was the language Jesus spoke, the same word would be used for Peter and Rock - Cephas. And so Jesus is saying "You are Rock and on this Rock I will build my Church."
But you choose to instead misrepresent the Bible and just laugh and insult. How dishonest of you!
SaintMichaelsMedia 11 months ago 3
@Grace1725 That's NOT what the verse says! Jesus specifically says to Peter "thou art a rock, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. I give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. Whatsoever you bind on earth it shall be bound in heaven. Whatsoever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven." Your interpretation does not come even close to fitting this verse! How can you say that Jesus was not talking to Peter?
agentjs09 6 months ago
@SaintMichaelsMedia Actually those seven books were cut out from the old testement because it was felt that they didn't provide the same authority as the other books. However they are used as external readings. But it doesn't mean that everthing thing else in the bible isn't relavent, it is still gods word.
BeCkY58470 11 months ago
@BeCkY58470 Thank you for saying the books were cut - that is not what is usually said by non-Catholics, who claim Catholics added them. And thank you for saying people sliced the books out because they FELT they did not belong. I think we can all agree that the people who took them out used poor methodology and did so arrogantly; by what authority can a human edit the word of God?
SaintMichaelsMedia 11 months ago
@SaintMichaelsMedia Well i am a protestant Christian but all i am saying is that even though they were taken out they also weren't forgotten. Now i am aware that there are other reasons for why they were taken out but it doesn't away the fact that what is in the bible is relavent and is still gods word. I believe that the bible only is the all sufficient guide to salvation.
BeCkY58470 11 months ago
@BeCkY58470 So, you admit inspired books were hacked out of the Bible? Because for 1000 years before, those books were considered inspired by everyone. And the majority of Christians STILL think they are inspired, even after Luther et al taking them out because they FELT they did not belong. By what authority can a human edit the word of God?
And as for "all sufficient guide to salvation" - the Bible does not say so. The Bible does not support Bible only. Where do you get that idea from?
SaintMichaelsMedia 11 months ago
@SaintMichaelsMedia Why do you have a lot against the bible and dwell on the fact that seven books were taken out, the new testment was written by jesus' disciples. Sure acts is an account of the spreading of the gospel from jerusalem to Rome. And the teachings of Peter and Paul and the other disciples are very different from that of the catholic church. Well anyway i think they were also taken out because of jewish doctorine that is no longer needed, and fear of the reader adopting it.
BeCkY58470 11 months ago
@BeCkY58470 I have nothing against the Bible - my Church left it intact. Your sect hacked it to pieces. And you keep saying what Peter and Paul preached is against the Catholic Church. You haven't supported that or offered evidence. Given that Peter was the first Pope and Paul was a Catholic Bishop, your argument is wrong.
SaintMichaelsMedia 11 months ago
@BeCkY58470
And Luther DID say he took books out for being "too Jewish" - he described them as being full of "heathen vice" and too Jewish. Unlike the anti-Semetic Luther, Catholics recognize our Jewish heritage - for we are the fulfilment of the promise of Abraham. Luther was embarassed and ashamed of it.
As a matter of interest; have you read the seven books of the Bible (I note you don't they aren't part of the Bible, just that you don't use them based on your feelings) or not?
SaintMichaelsMedia 11 months ago
@SaintMichaelsMedia Ok can i ask do you think the bible is relavent, or do you just use the dropping of the seven books as an excuse to not take what the bible says seriously.
BeCkY58470 11 months ago
@BeCkY58470 I'm done with you, Becky - because it is CLEAR from my other postings here Catholics DO take the Bible seriously - more seriously than Protestants, who pick and choose not only what they will INCLUDE in it, but also what they will listen to. Catholics respect the WHOLE Bible and are the ONLY Church in the world to do so. Your refusal to actually give examples of your claimed "differences" between the Bible and Catholic teaching is telling, as if your refusal to answer questions.
SaintMichaelsMedia 11 months ago
@SaintMichaelsMedia You're generalizing alot about Protestants brother. I am referring to: " because it is CLEAR from my other postings here Catholics DO take the Bible seriously - more seriously than Protestants, who pick and choose not only what they will INCLUDE in it, but also what they will listen to."
It's very redundant and subjective in that such collective oberservation of those who oppose Catholicism and call themself christian is generally an impossible task to accomplish.
joker52mlb 10 months ago
@joker52mlb How am I generalzing? I speak about the issue of the canon of the Bible - which Protestants change and Catholics did not. It is a completely accurate statement, and not redundant or subjective. Protestants DO use a Bible which is missing books, and Catholics do not.
SaintMichaelsMedia 10 months ago
@BeCkY58470 Catholics consider the Bible very relevant, and take it completely seriously, and respect the WHOLE of the Bible (rather than the bits we "feel" have authority). We wrote the Bible, we protected the Bible, we published the Bible. Without us, there wouldn't BE a Bible!
Remember; you are the one who says her sect dropped books because they FELT like it - I hardly think you can start saying OTHER PEOPLE don't take the Bible seriously when you treat it like a Subway menu!
SaintMichaelsMedia 11 months ago
@BeCkY58470 Your beliefs are wrong. Simply put. If you believe that you will be saved by solely the Bible, then you're totally lost... lost in Luther, I must say. Good luck, Protestant.
ChrisDaron 10 months ago
@BeCkY58470 Bible alone (Sola Scriptura) is pure and utter heresy. You are worshiping an idol - the Bible is a book in which the reader must INTERPRET. If the reader is in a fallen, sinful state (i.e. all of us), then he or she is prone to ERROR, even if well-intentioned. Only the Holy Catholic Church, founded by Jesus upon St. Peter, has the AUTHORITY from Christ to interpret Scripture WITHOUT ERROR. He said so when He said that "The Gates of Hell shall not prevail against it".
drdst17 6 months ago
Im learning about the early church, you can actually see how it became corrupt, yet people are saying its the true Church. It was used for dictatorship! Theres such a contrast between it and the spreading of the gospel by Peter and Paul and their teachings. Catholics clearly don't go by the bible, but rather go by the tradtions of man.
RHGC07 11 months ago
@RHGC07 Alright, I am blocking you - for this very simple reason. You posted this comment on this video and then (less than 2 minutes later) posted an IDENTICAL comment on another video of ours - a video which is more than 2 minutes long. So, you can't have actually WATCHED the video when you commented. You are just spamming with falsehoods.
SaintMichaelsMedia 11 months ago
@RHGC07 To answer your point - you don't provide any evidence. I have researched the early Church too, and would urge people to do so from SECULAR historical sources, rather than anything written by a particular Christian denomination. You will find it is very clear Catholicism was the first Church, is the only Church for 1000 years, and that it wrote and assembled the Bible. This is secular history, not religious propaganda.
SaintMichaelsMedia 11 months ago
Catholics don't go by the bible which is the WORD OF GOD! but rather go by the traditions of man! The catholic church became corrupt, they used the church for dictatorship. The reformation was going back to what the bible taught and not what money hungry church leaders taught. Within the church a person with a lot of money could sin more than a poor person. This is because they could pay more for their sins to be forgiven.
RHGC07 11 months ago
@RHGC07 Not true - the selling of indulgences (which is what I presume you are refering to) is firstly i) ILLEGAL and IMPOSSIBLE. No indulgence can be sold - which means that, yes, there were a few corrupt men doing bad things, but they were disobeying the Church laws - and ii) nothing to do with forgiving sins. The ignorance of history here is sad, but hardly surprising.
As for the Bible, the Protestants CUT 7 BOOKS out of it! Why? Because Luther said he didn't like them.
SaintMichaelsMedia 11 months ago
Thank you for defending the faith. Were any changes made to the old testiment in the process of writing down and preserving the word?
Also, there is lots of hub bub about the dead sea scrolls, what is the Church's official view on these?
johnphilipglynn 1 year ago
@johnphilipglynn The Church has no official position on the Dead Sea Scrolls, as they are too wide a subject to have a single position on.
Given the fact the only thing we have of the Old Testament is the written record, that question is impossible to answer. However, it is clear that (because of the inspiration of Holy Scripture) there are no substantial changes which impact the faith.
SaintMichaelsMedia 1 year ago
The bible was written before the catholic church was founded, how is it a catholic document? And if the catholic church has the Holy Spirit and is the true church then why did they burn people at the stake for preaching from it? I don't know about you but no true Christian or Christian peoples burn people at the stake.1 Corinthians 4:6..."Do not go beyond what is written"
chadlerb 1 year ago
@chadlerb The Church was founded in 33AD by Christ, and the books of the Bible were chosen by the Church at Church councils. That is a matter of history.
Another matter of history is that the Church did NOT burn people for preaching from the Bible! That is a lie made up by hateful Protestants who hope people won't actually look the history up and will just accept their lies.
SaintMichaelsMedia 1 year ago
@chadlerb
What was usually happening when the Church was seen to be 'burning bibles' or burning those who" preached" it, was that the 'bibles' being burnt were spurious and unauthorized translations. The "preachers" who were burnt were usually persistant in teaching error and speaking against the legitimate authority of the Church.
uxordepp 1 year ago
@SaintMichaelsMedia And Protestants DID kill Catholics during the Reformation. I wonder if Protestants know that..
ChrisDaron 1 year ago
@chadlerb
Remember that 'what was written' at the time of the Letter to the Corinthians, would have not included the New Testament...or at least not all of it.
uxordepp 1 year ago
it is interesting that you would say that the Bible is a Catholic document???
i thought it was written by God, and it is His Word~
kimkreate 1 year ago
@kimkreate It is certainly His Word - as it was written by His Church, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit.
We know who wrote many books of the Bible, and for many more there are pious traditions of the author. NONE of the books of the Bible are "the Gospel According to Jesus Christ" or "The Holy Spirit's Letter to Rome". They are books written by men, inspired by the Spirit, and chosen by the Chuch under the guidance of the Spirit.
SaintMichaelsMedia 1 year ago
@kimkreate written by men under God's inspiration and delivered to His church.
RPenta 1 year ago
you said works that jesus requires us to do are the works that save.... what works are you talking about?
gammatriton 1 year ago
Works which save are the things Jesus talks about in the parable of sheep and goats; feeding the hungry, clothing the naked, etc. as well as prayer, worship and so forth.
We have to do these things IN UNION with Christ to be saved. But we have to DO something.
SaintMichaelsMedia 1 year ago
@SaintMichaelsMedia When jesus was talking about building his church on a rock, he was talking about himself not peter
SanderDolce 1 year ago
@SanderDolce >> When jesus was talking about building his church on a rock, he was talking about himself not peter
Don't be ridiculous. YOU are Rock and on THIS ROCK I will build my Church? Why does EVERYONE who wrote about that for the first millenium agree with ME, and not YOU?
SaintMichaelsMedia 1 year ago 2
@SaintMichaelsMedia Peter's name means little stone NOT rock
SanderDolce 1 year ago
@SanderDolce Sorry, but no. Thanks for playing, but you loose.
The NT is written in a dialect of Greek where there is NO such distinction. Even in the dialect where there IS a distinction, it wasn't the case by the time the NT was written.
And finally Jesus spoke ARAMAIC - where the same word, Cephas, would be used for both. So, Jesus says "You are Cephas and on this Cephas I will build my Church."
Is that the best you can do?
SaintMichaelsMedia 1 year ago
@SanderDolce Then Jesus was talking to Himself in front of Peter? hehehehe
ChrisDaron 1 year ago
i believe that God wrote the Bible not the catholic church. I believe that God is all powerful and therefore he reveals himself and communicates to us through that book. The Bible is the word of God in spite of the catholic church's authority, not because of it. thats a personal belief.
OnlyhopeisJesus 1 year ago
@OnlyhopeisJesus >> The Bible is the word of God in spite of the catholic church's authority
So, you admit the Church has authority? Thank you for that.
Now, if the Church has authority - why do you think Protestants reject it?
And how can God communicate "though that book" when people have different opinions on it. Remember; Scripture is NOT a matter for private interpretation!
SaintMichaelsMedia 1 year ago
The protestants reject the churchs athourity because that authority was a product of mass illeteracy, not divine God given authority. The church had authority because they had the Bible. And scriputure IS a matter for private interpretation. I dont like people TELLING me the right interpretation as opposed to ASKING me to think for myself. CULTS tell you what to believe, a good CHURCH asks you what you believe because it IS a matter OF private interpretation
OnlyhopeisJesus 1 year ago
You are seriously saying Scripture is a matter of private interpretation?
Okay - we are done here. If you are so ignorant of Scripture you are going to go against the divinely-inspired word in 2 Pet 1:20 where it says exactly the opposite of what you say, we are done here!
Come back when you know the Bible, please.
SaintMichaelsMedia 1 year ago
Were the fathers Roman Catholic? I thought the Bishops were all the same except maybe the Jerusalem ones who through James had greater influence which collapsed when Jerusalem fell. Irenaus was the first guy to lay down the power of the Roman bishop. I think he was well after the Apostles had died.
Newtonstewart 2 years ago
Yes, the Fathers were Catholic. Perhaps if you could tell me WHERE in the writings of the Fathers your ideas come from that would be helpful. I suspect you have not read the Fathers in any great detail, and are simply relying on selected quotes provided by Protestant apologists.
SaintMichaelsMedia 2 years ago
One of the main reason for the split was the Protestants believe that salvation is by faith and faith alone in Jesus Christ. Whereas the Catholics believe in justification by works. The problem is no man is justified by works.
ryno200 2 years ago
If you are going to lie, please don't make it so obvious; You say no man is justified by works.
The Bible says; "man is justified by works and NOT by faith alone" James 2:24-26
Come back when you can tell the truth.
SaintMichaelsMedia 2 years ago
Well, Paul clearly states in Romans the confession of the Church in 3:28 "For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from the works of the Law." You see James was not saying that salvation is by works, but by faith in Jesus Christ and the evidence of salvation is a changed life (regeneration).
ryno200 2 years ago
Read the passage IN CONTEXT - it is clear that this refers to works of the MOSAIC Law.
Given the insulting tone of your other comment (which I have not approved) you are clearly incapable of polite dialog.
The Bible states that works DO save and says that "works of the Law" do not. So, what do we conclude? That works of the law do save, but other works (such as the works Jesus requires us to do) DO save.
SaintMichaelsMedia 2 years ago
In the parable of the sheep and the goats, Jesus separates people based SPECIFICALLY and EXCLUSIVELY on deeds done. These are the deeds which save.
We need faith AND works. Not just one. Works of the Law do not save, but OTHER works do.
And, as I said above, you are incapable of polite dialog. So, your account is blocked.
SaintMichaelsMedia 2 years ago
@saintmichaelsmedia
yes it does say that in james. but your taking it out of context. FAITH is their first. then works. the works come from a true faith, james is trying to show the difference between confessing believers and true christians. if works are a requirement then will you please explain to me how the theif on the cross got into heaven when he couldnt possibly do any works before he died.
gammatriton 1 year ago
>> it does say that in james. but your taking it out of context
There is no context needed for "you are not saved by faith alone" when Protestants claim to be saved by faith alone!
And the thief DID do works! Praying to Jesus (which is what he did) is a WORK. He DID something. He also SUFFERED WITH CHRIST. That is a work right there.
Is it possible you don't have the first idea what Catholics believe about faith and works and salvation?
SaintMichaelsMedia 1 year ago
Thats wrong... thats what all the protestant denominations tell you. Marthen Luther was so sure of salvation that he declared that if he slept that night with a hore he still would be a holy man doing sin. But its the other way around... you are stil a sinner but by the offer of Christ you are redeemed. The sheeps in matth 25 are unaware of who jesus is but they DID to jesus all the things they did for those who believied in him.
Archangeloftheandes 1 year ago
I think there's a problem when either protestants or catholics start saying that you have to attend/belong/recognized the authority of our church in order to be a real christian.
I say, follow those who are following the teachings of Christ in their fullness. No one is pleasing God by going to a cold catholic church run by a preist who doesn't love God. Likewise, a true christian is not served by going to a cold protestant church.
Lane208 2 years ago
>> follow those who are following the teachings of Christ in their fullness.
That would be the Catholic Church - although, admitedly, not all Catholics.
>> No one is pleasing God by going to a cold catholic church run by a preist who doesn't love God.
Actually, they are - because, even if the priest does not love God, he can still teach the truth. Only the teachings of the Catholic Church are the full teachings of God.
SaintMichaelsMedia 2 years ago
Awesome. Direct and to the point.
h00sha 2 years ago 4
I have had People, who profess to be Protestant Christians, call the Roman Catholic Church every evil name under the Sun and then try to tell me what the Church Fathers had to say about this or that and I have to remind them that those Church Fathers they are trying to quote were all good Roman Catholics.
Franciscus1958 2 years ago 4
Yeah, but what does he mean by visible church?
MultiJoe84 2 years ago
"Visible Church" means an institutional, organized, hierarchical Church which can be seen, observed, and gone to for advice and correction - as suggested in Matthew chapter 16.
SaintMichaelsMedia 2 years ago
Hey guys,
What does Mike mean when he says that "If you do not believe that Christ founded a visible Church, you're not Christian, you may think you are, but you're not. What does he mean?
Also, is it ok for a Catholic to attend a Protestant service on Sundays?
MultiJoe84 2 years ago
He means that, if you don't think Christ founded a visible Church, you aren't Christian. The idea of a visibile Church is bound up with Christianity.
And, no, it is generally NOT acceptable for a Catholic to attend Protestant services. That would imply a unity which does not exist.
SaintMichaelsMedia 2 years ago
@MultiJoe84 Hey Miltijoe!
You know? time ago, a Pentecostal girl and an Evangelical one invited me to their services.. I saidL "For sure. No problem. Only if you'll come with me to Mass".. they both disagreed by saying, "I could never go to a Catholic Church... I would feel weird", to which I replied, "you know who else feels weird in a Catholic church? SATAN"...
Both chicks didn't know what else to say... hehehe.
ChrisDaron 1 year ago
very nice answer...the catolic church is the autority....{:<)
kooler1027 2 years ago
Catholics love their religion but they will have no hope until the believe the gospel.
desutterml1 2 years ago
>> Catholics love their religion
Catholics love Jesus. We love Jesus MORE than anyone else because ONLY WE do EVERYTHING He commanded.
>> they will have no hope until the believe the gospel.
We wrote the Gospel!
We gave the Gospel to the world!
The religion the Protestants stole and peverted is the Catholic religion.
SaintMichaelsMedia 2 years ago
Anglicans do not have apostolic succesiosn. The only churches that have apostolicicty are the Catholic, orthodox and oriental Churches. The rest come from schisms and heresys.
CreedChrist 2 years ago
I have come home to God's church. I have crossed the Tiber. Thank you Mike. You, Scott Hahn and GK Chesterton have opened my eyes and changed my life. Peace be upon you and may the Lord always be with you. Keep up the good work...
Yankeegator 3 years ago 12
@Yankeegator Welcome home.
TenderTrap86 11 months ago
I renounce this as evil. The rock was referring to ALL of the apostles, the foundation of the church was built on the apostles and prophets
So then you are no longer strangers and aliens, but you are fellow citizens with the saints, and are of God's household, having been built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus Himself being the corner stone.
Also keep in mind, it said Peter, so even if it was peter to be the rock,he didn't say peters successors or children.
Lyran2 3 years ago
>> I renounce this as evil.
I renounce you as foolish.
>> The rock was referring to ALL of the apostles
Why then does Jesus use the SINGULAR "you", refering JUST to Peter?
>> Also keep in mind, it said Peter, so even if it was peter to be the rock,
Wait, so you admit we might be right? You were hasty about calling us evil, right? Stop with the knee-jerk reactions.
>> he didn't say peters successors or children.
No, but plenty of other people did :)
SaintMichaelsMedia 3 years ago
Petrine Primacy is well-documented; it is attested by the very earliest documents and Christians. And it is logical that what was needed for the first century would be needed after Peter was executed.
SaintMichaelsMedia 3 years ago
they put it together...okay
they preserved it...I'll give you that.
they wrote it....say what?
hoogys 3 years ago
>> they wrote it....say what?
Luke, Paul, Peter, James, John - all the authors of the New Testament are Catholic. What ELSE would they be? There WAS no other Christian community at the time other than the one Church.
SaintMichaelsMedia 3 years ago
Sola Scriptura is heresy from the not so small fact that when St Paul wrote his 2nd letter to the Thessalonians, the Holy Spirit issued a command "Stand firm and hold fast the traditions you were taught, whether by an ORAL STATEMENT or by a letter from us [2nd Thess 2:15] This command by the Holy Spirit completely contradicts Sola Scriptura and proves that the doctrine of Sola Scriptura is completely unbiblical, because the Spirit commands the adherence to two rules of faith and not one.
TheManGadoosh 3 years ago
The Scripture says that every fact shall be confirmed in the mouth of two or more witnesses. You've given one reference to support tradition. Can you give the second? There are many to support Sola Scriptura.
DanWright1966 3 years ago
>> There are many to support Sola Scriptura.
Absolute rubbish - there isn't a SINGLE one to support Sola Scriptura. Not one - because it is a dangerous lie and a heresy.
How about the fact that the Bible didn't EXIST until 405AD when the Catholic Church compiled it? So, what did Christians use before then? You can't have "Sola something which didn't exist".
There are plenty more references on our website.
SaintMichaelsMedia 3 years ago
You are teflon coated against hearing the Gospel. Catholicism has nothing to do with re-birth, but about outward commitment to an institution.
Your comment above is false. In Acts 17, the Bereans were looking at the Old Testament to prove what was being taught was the word of God. The existence of the Septuagint proves the O.T. Scriptures were considered the Word of God long before the institution of Catholicism.
Yet, you refuse to come out and are what the Scripture calls "spiritually blind".
DanWright1966 3 years ago
>> You are teflon coated against hearing the Gospel.
So why bother trying? :)
In any case, you lack logic.
>> In Acts 17, the Bereans were looking at the Old Testament to prove what was being taught was the word of God.
True - but that does NOT mean that it is Scripture ALONE. It means that Scripture is valuable and true, not that there is nothing other than it.
SaintMichaelsMedia 3 years ago
>> The existence of the Septuagint proves the O.T. Scriptures were considered the Word of God long before the institution of Catholicism.
Well, only 180 years, as the Septuagint was finished about 150BC :)
Anyway, this is (again) irrelevant - you advocate "sola scriptura". How can it be "Scripture alone" when loads of the Scriptures didn't even EXIST when Christianity was founded?
And why should I "come out" of the single Church Jesus founded to be the ordinary means of salvation?
SaintMichaelsMedia 3 years ago
The scriptures were still around before the bible. They still had the word of god, just not in a handy little book. they could still rebuke each other with it and correct each other, otherwise why would Paul of written;
2Tim 3:16 "All scripture is God breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting ad training in righteousness."
Chriskg1989 3 years ago
>> The scriptures were still around before the bible.
But the New Testament did not exist for years after Christ's ascension. So, how CAN Sola Scriptura be true - when the very first Christians DIDN'T HAVE the whole scriptures? If the Old Testament is enough, then why bother with the New Testament?
The only answer is that sola scriptura is a lie.
SaintMichaelsMedia 3 years ago
These are the kind of answers catholics need to hear as do our protestant brothers and sisters.
icimblind 2 years ago 8
In original Greek "ophelimos" means "useful" NOT "sufficient", also "passa" means not "all" (as often rendered), but "every". If you wanted to translate the passage literally it would have to start with "Every scripture is God breathed and is useful...". Now if you wish to replace or understand "useful" as "sufficient", the whole thing turns into a nonsense since that would mean that every scripture (ex. Jn, Mat, Rev etc) can stand on its own and it obviously cannot :)
hicnar 3 years ago
Hi. Great response. God Bless You.
PaulsGoodFight 2 years ago 3
the catholic chuch will persecute again in the near future. i will make my mind up on what to beleive. therefore i am a heretic
m1onie 3 years ago
>> the catholic chuch will persecute again in the near future.
Again? We've never done it - check your history; and not the rubbish most of the rapid anti-Catholics like Alberto Rivera and Jack Chick teach!
>> i will make my mind up on what to beleive. therefore i am a heretic
No - unless you are a Catholic, you can't be a heretic. If you make up your mind and you disagree with Jesus (who was the one who gave the Church her teachings) then you are just wrong.
SaintMichaelsMedia 3 years ago
lol, this guy doesn't even know who wrote the bible. The Christians didn't write the Old testament. How does he think people can believe a word he says after that lie.
Riverfrog72 3 years ago
>> The Christians didn't write the Old testament.
Actually, they did - the Old Testament is put together by the Catholic Church from Jewish documents. The Jewish Tanakh is very different from the Old Testament.
Don't call us liars when we simply disagree with people like you who can't be bothered (or are incapable) of accademic research.
SaintMichaelsMedia 3 years ago
Let's put the brakes on what you say. Protestants didnt fight because they were greedy. They fought to protect the truth. Why did the Catholic church not want the Bible translated from latin? Because it didnt want people to read the truth for themselves. Even though the bible encourages believers not to just take someone's word about the bible, but seek the scriotures themselves.
The Pope never even appoligized for all the tortures done to Protestants by the Catholic Church
LiquidSmooth 3 years ago
>> Protestants fought to protect the truth.
So why did they change the Bible and remove whole books AND change the ancient faith? Protestants didn't protect the truth - that is a laughable claim.
>> Why did the Catholic church not want the Bible translated from latin?
The Catholic Church translated the Bible into the vernacular from the 5th century onwards. So, your question is meaningless. It assumes something which isn't true.
SaintMichaelsMedia 3 years ago
>> The Pope never even appoligized for all the tortures done to Protestants by the Catholic Church
Because there weren't any. Individual Christians hurt other Christians, the Church NEVER authorized torture against Protestants.
And where are the apologies for Queen Elizabeth burning Catholics at the stake? And for the theft of Church lands and property?
But that pales beside the fact that Protestantism moves away from the truth of the Christian faith. Protestantism damages salvation.
SaintMichaelsMedia 3 years ago
"....the Church NEVER authorized torture against Protestants...."
To what does one attribute the acts of the Inquisition[s] then? Did not the papacy implement, or at least sanction, the inquisition[s]?
Thank you for your time.
Mechanized0 2 years ago
>> Did not the papacy implement, or at least sanction, the inquisition[s]?
Yes, but they were not authorized to use torture. Some people DID torture, but that does not mean the Church authorized it.
The most infamous inquisition was the Spanish one - and that was mostly a political movement of the Spanish government, NOT a religious exercise.
SaintMichaelsMedia 2 years ago
@LiquidSmooth
A little factoid is that the Douay-Rheims English Bible actually pre-dates the KJV. The original KJV also included all the books the Catholics used, although the 'apocryphal' books were separate from the rest.
uxordepp 1 year ago
an interesting opinion, but if you are going to take the time to post a video, why not really do some academic work and provide a substantial argument
santiageo1 3 years ago
>> why not really do some academic work and provide a substantial argument
We did - did you BOTHER to check out the website in the description?
You can also listen to the whole video as a podcast, or watch it on RealCatholicTV (link in profile).
Why didn't you bother to do any research - especially given the fact you have chosen a CATHOLIC username, "Saint James"?
SaintMichaelsMedia 3 years ago
The catholic church wrote the bible! are you saying that the catholic church created Christ? created God? In the beginning was the Word, the Word was with God and the Word was God.!!!HERESIE!!!???
weemucksGRFC 3 years ago
>> The catholic church wrote the bible!
Yes, she did.
>> are you saying that the catholic church created Christ? In the beginning was the Word, the Word was with God and the Word was God.
No, I am saying that the Catholic Church wrote and assembled the Bible. 'The Word' that passage is not the Bible, it refers to Jesus Christ. The Bible is not eternal, and is not even as old as the Church. It was assembled around 400AD.
SaintMichaelsMedia 3 years ago
Rock; translated as pebble or stone, Jesus is the ROCK, no other foundation will hold.
weemucksGRFC 3 years ago
>> Rock; translated as pebble or stone
No, Cepha, translated as rock. Not a small rock or a pebble, but a regular rock.
>> Jesus is the ROCK
Yes, He is. And so is Peter. This is why Jesus calls Peter "rock".
>> no other foundation will hold
Very true - which is why Protestants are in trouble, because they are founded on a sinful man (such as Martin Luther) rather than God Himself.
Peter is a secure foundation - because Jesus MADE HIM a secure foundation.
SaintMichaelsMedia 3 years ago
I think the bible teaches that all have sinned, including peter, anyway this could go on for a while so all i will say is, peter i have not met, luther i have not met, Jesus i have met, he set me free from sin, religious bigotry growing up in n.ireland,i hated catholics with a passion, but he set me free,... He set my feet upon the ROCK CHRIST JESUS. i shall not be moved "Hosanna" May God bless you and keep you.
weemucksGRFC 3 years ago
>> the bible teaches that all have sinned, including peter
It does - but Jesus did not sin, and Jesus founded the Catholic Church. He founded it ON Peter, but Peter did not found it.
Luther founded it on nothing more than his own views and opinions.
SaintMichaelsMedia 3 years ago
catholicism is dead
mdbfl386 3 years ago
>> catholicism is dead
Given the fact Catholicism comprises over half of all Christians and is the largest religion in the world with 1.2 billion members, you have a very strange defintion of dead.
Yeah, Catholicism's dead - about as dead as Jesus Christ!
SaintMichaelsMedia 3 years ago
If they were, everyone who ever read them would all come to exactly the same conclusion as to their meaning. However, after 500 years of Protestants believing that every individual is able, with the help of the Holy Spirit, to read Scripture and come to all truth, the fact is, there is NO UNITY. There are over 40,000 different Protestant denominations. And every single one of them proclaim their church to be led by the Holy Spirit. But, since God is not a God of confusion
teresasfsol 3 years ago
teresafol,excellent explanation! I'm constantly challenged by my Protestant friends on this subject specifically,it goes without saying they only hear/believe what they want (many of them disgruntled former Catholics). Thanks for the comment! Proud Catholic!!!!!!!!!!!
chavyz32 3 years ago
Only the Catholic Church that has not changed her doctrines to suit the prevailing winds of culture for 2000 years. Protestant churches do change.The reason they don't think they do is because when their church starts going down the road of accommodating the culture & compromising Truth, a remnant will leave the decadent church&start a new one. Because there is no final authority that speaks for God it is just a matter of time before the new &faithful church will be corrupted by Enemy.
teresasfsol 3 years ago
mdbl, Why do you think thaMatt. 10:1,40 - Jesus declares to His apostles, "he who receives you, receives Me, and he who rejects you, rejects Me and the One who sent Me."
t way.
teresasfsol 3 years ago
mdbfl, If you understood scriptures in truth, and understood the history of Catholic Chruch you would convert to Catholoscim in your heart beat.
teresasfsol 3 years ago
@teresasfsol No doubt. Ignorant Catholics also leave the Church because they don't even know a thing about their faith and get sugarculted by Protestants.
It's funny how the news go: "Millions of Catholics are leaving the Church!" and they never mention anything about the Protestants or Atheists who daily become Catholics.
ChrisDaron 1 year ago
Let the uncontaminated version of the HOLY SCRIPTURE of the OLD KING JAMES 1900 version answer your disengenious question: JOHN 1:1-5
fotograh 3 years ago
>> Let the uncontaminated version of the HOLY SCRIPTURE of the OLD KING JAMES 1900 version answer your disengenious question: JOHN 1:1-5
A number of questions;
i) What question are you answering?
ii) How can the 1900 KJV be "old"? Esp. as the original KJV is 1611.
iii) How can the KJV be uncontaminated when it was put together specifically to be different to the versions which had come before it, and which had been used by all Christians for centuries?
SaintMichaelsMedia 3 years ago
Faith alone does not exist in the Bible. Martin Luther deformed the church..not reformed it. 35.000 protestant faiths all in contradiction with each other. Mormons, Fundies, Watchtowers, Methodist, Anglicans, prosperaty thumpers, cool aid drinkers, etc... What a mess, come back to Rome.
Snotra 3 years ago 2
not really. I'm an evangelical protestant and each one I meet or know believes that christ is the only way to god. Luther tried to remove corruption like praying to the saints and indulgences. Luther is a hero because he pointed out the what the controlling catholic church did.
gengrievous07 3 years ago
>> Luther tried to remove corruption like praying to the saints and indulgences.
Those things aren't corruptions. Sola fides and sola scriptura are corruptions. Luther removed seven whole books from the Bible and then added extra words in - and when questioned, responded with arrogance! He also had vile personal habits I won't go into here.
SaintMichaelsMedia 3 years ago
@gengrievous07 What kind of "hero" would mess up Christ's teachings??
"Hero" is you're a Satanist, for sure.
ChrisDaron 1 year ago
I wouldn't consider Anglicans ( the Anglo - Catholics ) as protestants. They actually identify themselves as a branch from Catholicism. They hold ( what I've read ) Apostolic Succession.
The Anglican Church of America even engaged in talks with the Roman Catholic Church and is seeking to come into unity with Rome while still retaining some aspects of its Anglican heritage.
I don't know if that's true, can someone verify that?
- Pax Christi.
SwordsmanOfFaith 3 years ago
>> I wouldn't consider Anglicans ( the Anglo - Catholics ) as protestants.
Anglo-Catholics are distinct from Anglicans - but both are Protestant. They are not Catholic or Orthodox.
SOME Anglicans are planning to come to Rome and yes they would retain certain aspects of their heritage, but they will have to get rid of anything which is not Catholic.
SaintMichaelsMedia 3 years ago
Strange, they claim to be another branch of Catholicism. Seems not so.
I'd love them to come to Rome, though.
- Deus Tibiscum.
SwordsmanOfFaith 3 years ago
>> Strange, they claim to be another branch of Catholicism. Seems not so.
There is an Anglican rite in the Church, I believe - but they are LIKE the Anglicans, and not ACTUALLY Anglicans!
It is very confusing!
SaintMichaelsMedia 3 years ago
I've read some of their history on Wikipedia ( shame on me ).
"Via Media" They are neither. While the high church movement ( Anglo-catholics or whatever you call them ) is more catholic, the low church movement within Anglicanism is more protestant-like.
It's confusing, agreed!
By the way, you seem very active! Are you getting paid for this? If so, awesome job you got there ;)
- Pax.
SwordsmanOfFaith 3 years ago
Worship of mary is not appropriate for Jesus Christ is the only way to come to the Father God.
tguodong 3 years ago 3
>> Worship of mary is not appropriate for Jesus Christ is the only way to come to the Father God.
Very true! And that is EXACTLY what the Catholic Church teaches! The Catholic Church teaches that Jesus is the way, the truth, and the life. And she teaches that Mary is a creature. She is the highest of God's creatures (as God chose to incarnate in her womb) but she is just a creature.
SaintMichaelsMedia 3 years ago
Faith alone, grace alone,scripture alone.
debster001 3 years ago
>> Faith alone, grace alone,scripture alone.
Thank you for giving us a one-line summation of the worst and most prevelant heresies of the last 500 years.
SaintMichaelsMedia 3 years ago
alone, alone, alone?
How can there be 3 alones when there can only be one alone? Should'nt you say faith+grace+scripture alone?
Or, you simply have to pick one...this isn't a buffet. There can only be one "alone" (which means, by itself)...otherwise, it's 3 and not 1.
So, which one is it and alone for what? Salvaton?
:^]
TemplarRican 3 years ago
Heresies? Why-because the one true faith teaches you have to work your way into heaven? Works are important and God commands them, but they won't save you on their own. we could NEVER do enough to earn salvation, period.
debster001 3 years ago
>> we could NEVER do enough to earn salvation, period.
You need to learn what Catholicism actually teaches, Debster. It does not teach that we earn our way into Heaven.
May I suggest that you learn what the Catholic Church actually teaches before attacking her?
SaintMichaelsMedia 3 years ago
Bible only has 66 books and not more than that.
tguodong 3 years ago
>> Bible only has 66 books and not more than that.
A shame that the following people disagree with you;
i) The people who compiled the Bible
ii) The people who died to defend the Bible
iii) The people who put together all Bibles before 1517 AD
iv) The vast majority of Christians today
v) Jesus
So, while you are entitled to your opinion, you have to accept it isn't supported by historical evidence.
SaintMichaelsMedia 3 years ago
@debster001 You're alone.... very much.
ChrisDaron 1 year ago
"I would not believe the Gospel unless moved thereto by the Church."
-St. Augustine of Hippo, Doctor of the Catholic Church
seltian 3 years ago
Wow, well said MR. Speaker Guy.
Monkies97 4 years ago
Luther was hardly a rich man. In fact, were it not for his wife he would have died penniless. She kept him from giving away what little he had.
bsweinkauf 4 years ago
Certainly, Luther wasn't a rich landowner - but the German barons who financed and supported the social revolt which was the Reformation were certainly rich and powerful; and wanted more power.
SaintMichaelsMedia 4 years ago
Well done with this and all your other videos. The Catholic Church sorely needs you in this day. Gifted people like you are helping steer the true Church through the storms and attacks and back to safe harbour. I sincerely hope you will continue in this ministry.
pbaylis1 4 years ago 4
long live saintmichaelsmedia...bravo..
EYANFIAN 4 years ago 7
Thank you SaintMichaelsMedia and Mr. Voris for these videos. Very educational and inspiring. Keep up the good work.
hplar48 4 years ago
But you didn't respond to gleatherman's comment. Roman Catholicism has risen from a disagreement in the midieval Church about whether the Spirit proceeds from only the Father. Athenasius is no more Catholic than he is Orthodox. If you want to claim that works are neccessary for salvation, then it is not possible to know how many works are neccessary. Further, if something other than the cross is neccessary for salvation, then Jesus has died in vain.
madenewbyfaith 4 years ago
You have your history exactly backwards. Catholicism pre-existed the Orthodox "religion". All the individuals churches were under the authority of the bishop of Rome as far back as Chritian history records. Rome always claimed this authority and no other church ever claimed it for itself.
SaintMichaelsMedia 4 years ago
In fact, there are numerous letters and documents from the eastern churches acknowldging the authority of the bishop of Rome as supreme. Athanasius is certainly Catholic in that there were no other Chritians faiths except Catholic in the 4th century. The word Catholic was first used in the first century to describe Chritians.
SaintMichaelsMedia 4 years ago
I do not claim that works are necessary for Salvation. The Holy Spirit does. Read the Epitsle of James cited above. Catholics merely repeat what the Holy Spirit inspired.
As to "not knowing how many works are necessary" - the answer is - as many as are necessary. Just because we don't know that answer doesn't mean there isn't one. If God don't want us performing good works - He wouldn't have commanded us to do them.
SaintMichaelsMedia 4 years ago
Why do protestants persist in cherry-picking Scripture. Either accept the scriptures as inspired or don't -but stop paying homage to one verse while ignoring another. It's dishonest.
Jesus christ himself says in MT. that we will be judged on the actions we did and did not do for the least of our brothers.
Protestants continually repeat back memorized lines of scriptures like robots while NEVER answering or even acknowledging passages that Catholics bring up.
SaintMichaelsMedia 4 years ago
So let me ask those who disagree with Catholic teaching - directly answer this question.
What does the Epistle of James mean in those verses. And what does Our Lord mean in MT?
DIRECTKY ANSWER the CAtholic interpretation. DO NOT just quote another scripture passage. ANSWER THE QUESTION HOW DO YOU EXPLAIN INSPIRED SCIPTURE THAT SAYS FAITH WITHOUT WORKS IS DEAD and THAT JESUS CRIST HIMSELF SAYS WE WILL BE JUDGED ON OUR WORKS?
SaintMichaelsMedia 4 years ago
Admittedly, after having paid more attention to the epistle of James, which I believe Martin Luther refered to as "an epsitel fo straw," I cannot, at present, answer your question by suggesting that Catholic teaching is incorrect in this regard.
Mechanized0 2 years ago
All I have been seeing on youtube has been protestants attaching The Church. I'm gladd you have put this on here. Thank you very much!
iammick66 4 years ago
Exellent presentation! It is exactly what the Church needs these days, a powerful witness to the truth of the faith.
antonemo 4 years ago
woah. pretty interesting.
goldenage 4 years ago
All the writings of the New Testament were written by divinely inspired Catholics of the first generation I beleive...
I doubt many protestants want to know that little fact. :-)
actionjackws6 4 years ago
No Catholics were around during the first generation.
gleatherman 4 years ago
The word "Catholic" comes from the same bishop (Ignatius) of Antioch who first used the term "Christian" as outlined in Acts 11:24-26.
The original Christians were Catholic - simply meaning they were everywhere.
SaintMichaelsMedia 4 years ago
the term "catholic" just means universal church. The "Roman Catholic" church came about as a later development through the middle ages and the disagreement with Eastern Orthodoxy. The problem with Roman Catholicism is that they have become apostate in the fact that the deny the Gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ and have works righteousness basis for salvation.
gleatherman 4 years ago
You are committing a very common error of logic - equating the name for something with the actual thing.
The name "Roman Catholic" appearing in later centuries does not mean the actual Roman Catholic Church only appeared then.
SaintMichaelsMedia 4 years ago
The original Christians were Catholics. The name "Catholic" was given to them within the first hundred years.
The "Roman" Catholic designation appears in history merely to distinguish them from Catholics of other rites, which all still belong to the Catholic Church unified under the Pope, the Bishop of Rome.
SaintMichaelsMedia 4 years ago
As to your reference about the Church's teaching about the neccesity of workd for salvation - tell your congreagation to read James 2:14-26.
No wonder Martin Luther despised this epistle (inspired by the Holy Spirit). The Holy Spirit calls people who beleive as you do (that faith does not demand works) an ignoramus.
SaintMichaelsMedia 4 years ago
Please pay special attention to verses 24 & 26.
The Protestants got this wrong 500 years ago and they still have it worng today. By the way, the hundreds of millions of Christians (Catholics) who lived for 15 centuries before Luther believed this (as obviously did the Apostlem Saint James).
SaintMichaelsMedia 4 years ago
The whole Church, for 15 centuries before Luther knew and beleived that works were also necessary for salvation as well as Faith. Jesus even said so. (Mt. 25:31-46) He judges people based on their works. That's why the Church has always believed this.
You are teaching people who follow you a lie and you bear repsonsibility for leading them astray.
You better get the whole Scripture and teaching of the Apostles straight before preaching to people.
Pride goes before the Fall.
SaintMichaelsMedia 4 years ago
Good works are indicative of faith. Good works mirror faith. Good works flow naturally from strong faith. Lack of good works indicate a low level of faith or presumtuousness. Furthermore, good works can INSPIRE faith. So, that where faith is weak, performing good works can re-dispose a person to faith.
pbaylis1 4 years ago 6
The first followers of the "Way"(christians)I think you'll find were mainly Jewish converts. Also "Upon THIS rock" I believe Jesus was referring to Himself, Jesus is the foundation of the church, not peter.
goldeelox62 4 years ago
What you believe is irrelevant. "You are ROCK and on this ROCK I will build my Church"? How much clearer can it be made?
You might believe that - the Apostles didn't, the writers of the Bible didn't, and the Church Fathers didn't. The vast majority of Christians throughout history didn't either. Now, you are perfectly at liberty to say that all these men are wrong and you are right . . .
SaintMichaelsMedia 4 years ago
As for the Jewish converts thing; yes, of course they were Jewish converts. Converts to Christianity, converts to the Catholic Church. That doesn't make them Jewish in a religious sense - it makes them Catholic Christians.
SaintMichaelsMedia 4 years ago
Matthew 16v18
Thou art Petros (piece of rock) and upon this Petra (rock) I will build my church, why did Jesus or the writer use 2 different uses of the word in Greek?
goldeelox62 4 years ago
Because Petros is masculine and petra is female; that would be like calling someone called John "Joan"! Also, petros does NOT just mean "small rock"; there are many examples in Greek literature of the time where it is used to mean "monolith" or "landmark".
SaintMichaelsMedia 4 years ago