Esta es la Gloria del Hombre. Del hombre mas vil sobre la faz de la tierra: el PAPA. No hay odio, hay estupefacción. Que esto haya sucedido en el pasado es lamentable... pero AUN sucede en el presente. El Papa actual es un nostálgico de los viejos tiempos. Un reaccionario que ambicionó esta posición de poder durante muchos años. Quería ser Papa, y ahí está ya como Papa. Qué vergüenza humana, que falta de moral.
If Peter was Bishop of Rome for 25 years, how could he meet Paul in Jerusalem in 42 AD, and then back in Jerusalem again in 43 AD, and in 56 AD have a dispute with Paul in Antioch about 800 miles from Rome, it appears Peter was not in Rome when RCC declare he was, Can you say that RCC is in error over the time Peter supposedly was in Rome, or has the Bible got it all mixed up?
the rcc says that evolution is in line with Christianity and catholics can believe in it. This is CONTRARY to the Bible. the rcc says mary was sinless. this is CONTRARY to the Bible. the rcc says confess your sins to a priest. this is CONTRARY to the Bible. the rcc says mary can save you. this is CONTRARY to the Bible. the rcc says peter was "the rock". this is CONTRARY to the Bible. The rcc murdered MILLIONS of Christians. This is CONTRARY to the Bible.
@misthia Well, i wouldn't know what protestants say. I do know that the Bible contains and claims to contain everything you need unto salvation. And, my friend, if that is the ONLY thing you can come back in defense of all the unbiblical facts i have presented, you truely have been brainwashed by the unbiblical, anti-Christian catholic cult, my friend.
@kiwichristian2009 Hey, whats your problem? It seems you've made it your job to go around Catholic videos here on Youtube and spread your filth! If you want to preach your idiocy, do it on YOUR OWN channel, and stop irritating Catholics who watch these videos for their own edification. You write accusation after accusation, lie after lie and say "its unbiblical" well choose a topic and try ME.
@drupes What have i said that is unbiblical and or untrue, my friend? How about edifying JESUS instead of yourselves? Remember, there is no salvation in the catholic organisation, nor in the anglican, muslim, baptist religions, etc. Acts4:12. "Nor is there salvation in any other, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved.”
@kiwichristian2009 First things first: DON'T call me friend. I have no friends among those who twist scripture for their PERVERSE interests. Now, WHERE is your proof that TRUE Christianity is not an organization? The Lord organized 12 Apostles, 72 disciples, and they in turn ordained bishops, presbyters (priests) and deacons. The church was organized along GEOGRAPHICAL lines (The CHURCH in Rome, Galatia, Corinth, Jerusalem, etc) HOW CAN YOU SAY THE TRUE CHURCH DOESN'T HAVE A "ZIP CODE"?
@drupes I may not be your friend, but that does not negate the fact that you are mine. So, you speak of "twisting" scripture. Do you mean like Matt. 16:13-20 and Luke 12:54, for example? The churches were local assemblies of believers, not the international hierarchy that we see today in the catholic organisation. Now, you mentioned "bishops". God also says that bishops must be married. What i am saying is your idea of a "church" and the Bibles' are different.
@kiwichristian2009 "I may not be your friend, but that does not negate the fact that you are mine." I have no friends among the children of satan, sorry.
@kiwichristian2009 "The churches were local assemblies of believers, not the international hierarchy that we see today in the catholic organisation." If they were mere local "assemblies", why would the Apostles stand as a council to discuss the obligations of ALL gentile converts? Why write a letter of instruction, a CIRCULAR to the ENTIRE Church for its OBEDIENCE afterwards? Why would they write to the Churches to INSTRUCT and COMMAND them, despite the fact that they had local leaders?
@kiwichristian2009 That's because the Church was ONE, in faith, in doctrine, in leadership. They were under the Deacons and Priests who answered to the Bishop, the Bishop answered to the Apostles, and the Apostles were led by Simon Peter. Not some fragmented group of people under the delusion that they could be separate politically and still claim to be the same entity, as protestantism is. You and your beliefs about the Christ's Church are self-contradictory, silly and PATHETIC.
@kiwichristian2009 The Church, being ONE in DOCTRINE, LEADERSHIP AND DISCIPLINE, ACKNOWLEDGING THE MOST BLESSED AND HOLY TRINITY AS GOD would NOT just be a simple, loose gathering of believers as you would wish us to believe. If that's the case, then even the Boy Scouts and Girl Scouts are better organized! You ascribe that sort of thinking to CHRIST? HE is not a SIMPLETON like you. He provided for a strong organization to withstand the assaults of hell, and not be given to schism.
@drupes Hello friend. The true church of Jesus Christ is a relationship, not a membership. It isn’t any particular protestant denomination or Roman catholic. It doesn't have a roof or an address. We are the Body of Christ, past, present and future from all around the world who have accepted Christ’s work on the cross for our sins 2000 years ago, once and for all. Our names have been written in the Book of Life from the beginning. 1 cross + 3 nails = 4 given.
@johnthreesixteen316 Care to give some BIBLICAL PROOF for your assertions? I DID. Like I've shown, the Church in the BIBLE had STRUCTURE AND HIERARCHY (THE APOSTLES UNDER THE LEADERSHIP OF PETER, UNDER THEM THE BISHOPS, PRESBYTERS OR PRIESTS, DEACONS, LAYPERSONS) THEY WERE ORGANIZED BY LOCATION (ROME, CORINTH, EPHESUS, GALATIA, ETC.) These were not a mere band of believers, they were an organized group, as CREATION is. If the UNIVERSE is organized what more the BODY OF CHRIST!
@johnthreesixteen316 I don't know if you're downright blind, stubborn or both. The Apostles were subject to Our Lord, they in turn had authority over the other disciples as Bishops (as shown by the Council of Jerusalem in Acts, when they decided if gentile Christians were subject to the Mosaic Law). They ordained deacons and appointed other leaders of the Church. When they died, others succeeded in their place. IF YOU SAY THAT THAT'S NOT HIERARCHY, THEN YOU'RE A MORON.
@johnthreesixteen316 "1 cross + 3 nails = 4 given" And what if Christ was actually nailed with four nails? "Five-given"? Is that pathetic sentimentalist foolishness what they teach you at "Bible" school? Oh please!
@drupes The early church as described in the NT did the following: shared all things in common, relationships, support missionaries/ministers, teaching & preaching, praying, worshiping, reading of scripture, evangelism, fostering spiritual gifts. No where does the NT dictate fancy buildings, robes, repetitive prayer, a priesthood, Mary worship, sectarianism, or any order of service, etc.. all these are MAN MADE traditions ADDED ON.
@kiwichristian2009 "all these are MAN MADE traditions ADDED ON." So here we fall, finally: IS THE DOCTRINE OF SOLA SCRIPTURA BIBLICAL? Hope to see your PROOFS soon.
@drupes The catholic organisation has a LONG history of torturing and murdering people that disagreed with it. They persecuted Galileo because he said the organisation was wrong. It turned out he was right! Popes making statements and rules, and other popes overturning them, etc. These are NOT the signs of "unity". Plus, what about all the catholic sects and denominations such as the Community of the Lady of All Nations, the Palmarian Catholic Church, the Philippine Independent Church, etc.
@kiwichristian2009 "They persecuted Galileo" Even protestants then believed that the center of the Universe was the Earth! It was difficult to accept Heliocentrism then because of the BIBLICAL VERSES "the world also is established, that it cannot be moved." (Psalm 93:1), and "And the sun rises and sets and returns to its place" (Ecclesiastes 1:5) The Church needed additional SCIENTIFIC DATA to reconcile these passages and Copernicus' and Galileo's (then) theories.
@kiwichristian2009 Point is, was the Church wrong in being wary of novel theories, particularly those suspect of being contrary to Scripture? NO! That's the responsibility of the Church, to defend its members from ideas which may lead them astray. Did it actually forbid Galileo from teaching Heliocentrism?: "Cardinal Robert Bellarmine himself considered that Galileo's model made "excellent good sense" on the ground of mathematical simplicity; that is, as a HYPOTHESIS"
@kiwichristian2009 "Bellarmine supported a ban on the teaching of the idea as anything but hypothesis." This is from Wikipedia. If you did a quick search on the internet and not rely on Jack Chick comics then you would have read this simple fact. When he died the remains of Galileo were buried in the Basilica of the Holy Cross in Jerusalem, Rome. So much for an "enemy" of Catholicism.
@kiwichristian2009 "Popes making statements and rules" Well duh, that's the role of the leader of the Church, of ALL leaders of the Church. What organization would survive without rules? "Hey what time do we go to Sunday service?" "Oh I don't know, we don't make rules, don't we?" Isn't your prerequisite of "accepting Jesus as personal lord and savior" before you consider someone a "Christian" a RULE? That's the most stupid statement I've read so far! LMAO!
@kiwichristian2009 "The catholic organisation has a LONG history of torturing and murdering people that disagreed with it." Examples, please. I love where this is heading...
@kiwichristian2009 The "Lady of all Nations" is a devotion that started from supposed apparitions in the Netherlands, the "Palmarian Catholic Church" is a cult with its (now deceased) leader claiming to be the true "pope", the "Philippine Independent Church" was established by rebel priests, masons and labor leaders in rebellion against the Pope's authority. THE LAST TWO ARE NOT CATHOLIC. They seem to be outwardly, but are nonetheless are like you protestants, SAME BREED OF REBELS AND IDIOTS.
@kiwichristian2009 And indeed, the CHURCH, through its structure, by the grace of GOD has withstood the FRACTURING common to protestant "churches". That is something they cannot get rid of, and to cope they invented the belief that Christianity is not a church, but a "personal relationship" with Christ (not a dot of which is found in the BIBLE). HE who bears the NAME at which even hell trembles FOUNDED a Church, gave it its leadership, tested it as gold is tested in fire, and it is still HERE.
@kiwichristian2009 Why wait for your answer when I can fire the opening salvo: If Catholicism is false, which of the almost 23,000 competing and often contradictory denominations worldwide (as of 1989 according to the U.N.! 12 years ago! think how many times they've multiplied like crazy amoebas since then!) is TRUE? Or are you one of those prots who believe in the "personal" interpretation of Scripture?
@drupes Christianity is NOT a religion or a denomination, my friend. Jesus NEVER preached a religion, but a relationship. The true church isn't catholic or protestant. It doesn't have a mailing address or a zip code. It is the body of believers in Jesus Christ the world over. Christ has written their names in the book of life. Christ knows who His friends are.
@kiwichristian2009 "Christianity is NOT a religion" WHO would I believe, YOU, an apostle of hell, or St. James, Apostle of Christ Jesus: "RELIGION clean and undefiled before God and the Father, is this: to visit the fatherless and widows in their tribulation: and to keep one's self unspotted from this world. " James 1:27. Charity and Purity are precepts of the ONE TRUE FAITH, and their fulfillment is part of the RELIGION PLEASING to GOD.
Shame! Ppl wasting their time on Catholic bashing!
Christians are being persecuted in Pakistan...blatantly!
Let us pray for them!
Read up on the very recent case of Mr. Bhatti (Minister to Minorities in Pakistan) a Catholic, who was martyred last week for his faith. He refused to back down, he was willing to die for Christ, as he predicted would happen,4 months in a video before he was shot by many bullets in broad daylight!
Read up on Asia Bibi too. A Christian woman killed for her beliefs.
@theyanna Yes but who committed unspeakable crimes against humanity in 2000 years? Until recently. The church. Look up the books. Those paid choires dont impress me,
There are so many verses in scripture that contradict RCC theology Rom 4:5 utterly condemns the System of salvation by masses penance priests etc, bible teaches that salvation is gift of God not of works & this gift is freely given by God to those who trust in the merits of Christ's finished work on Calvary, the RCC SYSTEM is a demonic counterfeit to keep the lost RCs on the broad road to hell
In 2001, while he was a cardinal, the pope issued a secret Vatican edict to Catholic bishops all over the world, instructing them to put the Church's interests ahead of child safety. The document recommended that rather than reporting sexual abuse to the relevant legal authorities, bishops should encourage the victim, witnesses and perpetrator not to talk about it. And, to keep victims quiet, it threatened that if they repeat the allegations they would be excommunicated.
"We hold upon this earth the place of God Almighty". Pope Leo XIII Encyclical Letter of June 20, 1894.Writers on the Canon Law say, "The Pope and God are the same, so he has all power in heaven and earth." Barclay Cap. XXVII, p. 218. Cities Petrus Bertrandus, Pius V. - Cardinal Cusa supports his statement.So, are these Popes wrong in saying they are basically God on Earth? This is a statement on faith and morals, is it not? How is this reconcilable?
"For thou art the shepherd, thou art the physician, thou art the director, thou art the husbandman, finally thou art another God on earth." Labbe and Cossart's "History of the Councils." Vol. XIV, col. 109. BLASPHEMY!
Bis auf die Tatsache, dass es ein bisschen voll ist auf der Loggia, ist das ein sehr würdevoles, wertvolles Zeugnis des seligen Papstes Johannes XXIII! :)
jesus would have punished all of them, What a feeble and ridiculous show, Pomp and deceit, NO wonder ppl are turning away from these disgusting impostors
OOH what a rare peice of history and images, man I never knew the flabellum fans were that long and huge, and look at all the cergy around him, really conveys that he is filling an important office, for which he was chosen by God.
Sadly we can never do this today the offices and attendants needed were done away with around vatican 2. Though the pope still have many beautiful things to celebrate with it is not the same as the old days, when nothing was left to doubt.
Due to a false understanding of christian simplicity, the present day popes do not wear the Tiara; but they do not realize that the honor given to them is not due to their person but due to the person of Jesus Christ whose representatives, they are.
@josh76765 So Jesus would have worn the tiara, were he here? I think that He would be the LAST one to want to wear the tiara. I mean, after all, Jesus is God incarnate in the body of a man! God chose to make Himself known through Jesus Christ, a human being, I think that God had the ability to send Jesus as a King, but instead He chose man.
@amiryachum Personally, I HIGHLY doubt He would. But I can't speak for my Lord. Guess we'll have to wait until we are with Him and then we can ask Him if He would wear a tiara.
@amrascarpathia You highly doubt? Did he refuse the expensive oil which was used to anoint His feet? When Judas questioned why it was not sold to the poor, our Lord corrected Him. It is like this: if given the option, do we offer our Lord the best we have, or do we simply treat Him as one of us? The latter constitutes a great arrogance on our part. We will do well to offer the best to our Lord and Hs servants if we truly love Him.
"On August 24, 1527, Roman Catholics in France, by prearranged plan, under Jesuit influence, murdered 70,000 Protestants within the space of two months. The Pope rejoiced when he heard the news of the successful outcome."-Western Watchman, Nov.21, 1912 (Catholic)Therefore the pope ordered "that malicious and abominable sect of malignants," if they "refuse to abjure, to be crushed like venomous snakes."--Wylie, b. 16, ch. 1.
In 2001, while he was a cardinal, the pope issued a secret Vatican edict to Catholic bishops all over the world, instructing them to put the Church's interests ahead of child safety. The document recommended that rather than reporting sexual abuse to the relevant legal authorities, bishops should encourage the victim, witnesses and perpetrator not to talk about it. And, to keep victims quiet, it threatened that if they repeat the allegations they would be excommunicated.
The Pope, is, of course, an Antichrist, while the religious machinery of the Vatican itself is the Whore of Babylon (as it derives its rituals and symbolism from the Babylonian religion of the seductive Semiramis). The Beast is the political structure of the so called "Holy Roman Empire of the Vatican, which will eventually amalgamate into a One World Religion and Government.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Just as Cain vainly tried to impress God with the works of his hands, so do Catholics try to impress God with their good works and ceremonialism. Catholicism is a damnable lie that has been in the world since Cain. God will smash the Catholic Whore with His judgments.
No mention is made of Peter ever being in Rome at ANY time in the 27 documents of the oldest existing record of the Christian Faith. The Apostle Paul wrote an Epistle to the church at Rome, named approximately SIXTEEN (16) people, by name, and never mentioned Peter. That was NO oversight on his part. Peter was never there! Peter's tomb was also discovered outside *Jerusalem*; there is historical documentation to verify this factor. There is no evidence for the Papacy from Peter himself.
@browncello The Roman Catholic Church was not really in effect as an organization in the first couple hundred years of the Christian Church. The Christian church was under persecution and official church gatherings were risky business in the Roman Empire. Catholicism as an organization with a central figure located in Rome did not occur for quite some time, in spite of its claim they can trace the papacy back to Peter.
Pope John XIII, very bad boy. I hope that he made a good and sincere confession before he took leave of his body. He usher in the destruction of the true faith.
Maybe ONE DAY my dearest son and I will have an opportunity to see this in person! What a blessing!! Un giorno ci vedremo di persona!! Benedizione a tutti!
How sad to see so much antipathy between Roman Catholics and Anglicans here - I'm an Anglican priest and we have so much more that unites us, beginning with Christ and the most holy sacrament of the altar.
I find it strange that you would consider the Blessed Sacrament to unite Catholics and Anglicans, since Anglicans deny the Real Presence of our Lord (transubstantiation), that the Sacrament is a true sacrifice for sins, and that It ought to be adored as Christ himself. If you want points of agreement, look to the Divinity of Christ and the Trinity, not to the Blessed Sacrament.
@baldwalrus7 - There is no official Anglican doctrine with regard to the Real Presence of our Lord. The article on Wikipedia, "Anglican Eucharistic theology," provides a good run-down of the available options. As you are undoubtedly aware, transubstantiation is a doctrine of the Middle Ages - and the consubstantiationalist view affirms just as strongly the Real Presence of our Lord as does transubstantiation.
If, as you admit, there is no single Anglican doctrine on the Blessed Sacrament, how can the Blessed Sacrament be considered a point of union with Catholics? Some Anglicans accept some form of the Real Presence, many would deny even a spiritual presence, like Evangelicals. Eucharistic Adoration is rejected in Articles 25 and 28 of the Thirty-Nine Articles, and Christ's Body is said to be eaten "after an heavenly and spiritual manner" and Christ's Body is "eaten by faith". Article 29 says that
It's a point of union because Anglicanism encompasses the doctrine of the Real Presence. Are there other views? Of course. But it is an inclusive doctrine. As for the Thirty-Nine Articles, I can think of no jurisdiction in which this is considered a statement of Anglican doctrine.
[cont'd] unworthy partakers of the Sacrament "in no wise are partakers of Christ". This means that Christ isn't made objectively and substantially present in the Bread (consubstantiation) but is received only in faith. This isn't the Real Presence of Catholic and Orthodox theology. Likewise, Article 31 denies that the Eucharist is a real re-presentation of Christ's sacrifice, and in fact calls it a "blasphemous fable". Whatever you may say, it is clear that the Blessed Sacrament is not a
[cont'd] point of unity between Catholics and Anglicans. It is a point of unity with Catholics and Eastern (and Oriental) Orthodox, but all Protestants deny our doctrine, even if they affirm some form of Real Presence (like Lutherans).
Anglicans of a more Catholic bent do not deny the doctrine of transubstantiation - and again, by what reasoning do you conclude that the Thirty-Nine Articles are a statement of doctrine? The doctrinal statements of Anglicanism include the authority of scripture, the ecumenical creeds, the rulings of the ancient ecumenical councils, and such marks of the Catholic church outlined in the Lambeth Quadrilateral, included the apostolic succession of the episcopate.
Well, now you're clearly a very high church Anglo-Catholic. But that isn't representative of Anglicanism as a whole; in fact it is the result of 19th-century Oxford Movement Anglicans who wanted to bring their religion more into line with historical Christianity. If you had've asked any 16th-18th century Anglican "do you believe in Transubstantiation?", he would have said, just like the 39 Articles, that it was a papist error and a blasphemous fable. The 39 Articles are what Anglicans
have traditionally understood as their faith, and if I'm not mistaken new Anglican priests/bishops had to assent to them. The Catholic Encyclopedia says: "the Eucharistic teaching of the Prayer Book is subject to various and opposed interpretations", i.e. it's deliberately ambiguous; because there is no Anglican doctrine of the Real Presence, though individual Anglicans can believe in it if they want. And if you accepted the authority of the early Councils you would believe in the papacy.
The authority of the early councils is not absolute. For instance, there is no absolute ban on ordaining castrated men to the priesthood - I'm unaware if the Roman Catholic Church maintains that ban.
In any event, it is not as if the papacy is disbelieved, the assertion of the English church was simply that no bishop would have any jurisdiction outside his diocese or province. If you'll recall, it was Rome that subsequently broke with England, not the other way around. As for the Articles, priests in my national church (Canada) have never had to assent to them
Are you referring to the first canon of Nicaea? It says that men who have willing castrated themselves can't be ordained, but men who have "been castrated by barbarians" can be ordained. So already it's not absolute!
I have no idea if this disciplinary measure has been revoked by a subsequent Pope or Council; but, barring that possibility, yes it would have authority on us. The authority of all councils (early and late) in their doctrinal decrees are absolute.
Regarding your second post, I'm sure you're away that the papacy claims jurisdiction over the universal church. You presumably believe that the Bishop of Rome is the first bishop in the church, but who is nevertheless equal to others and has no jurisdiction outside of Rome. Well, if you believe that, you reject the papacy.
I have no idea what you mean by "it was Rome that subsequently broke with England". Everyone knows that the English Church was in communion with Rome, and subject to her
from the time of St. Augustine of Canterbury up until Cranmer under Henry VIII, whose Act of Supremacy in 1534 split himself off from the Catholic Church and created a new church with Catholic doctrine, but which had the Erastian doctrine of the king as supreme head of the church. A church with truly Anglican doctrine wasn't established until Elizabeth I, when she forcibly resplit the English church from the Catholic Church (again).
My point was simply that the English church never declared itself out of communion with Rome; that declaration was made by Rome. In any event, what does that have to do with the original point - which was the unity we do share through the Blessed Sacrament? Regardless of how one regards the nature of Christ's presence in the sacrament, Catholics and Anglicans agree that He is present. Unity is of more material validity and worth than varying opinions on the details of what that presence means.
Rome declared England out of communion with the Church because she had made herself so--Rome merely recognised an objective fact, not created it. It was still the English who broke with the Church.
If you're going to reduce the Real Presence to the lowest common denominator--that we both believe "that He is present"--yes, we are in agreement. But St. Athanasius might as well have said to the Arians, "there is too much antipathy between us, when in fact we should look at where we agree—
"We both believe in God, we believe that He is one, and we believe that Jesus is divine. Of course, all the above points are true, and Catholics and Arians are full agreement about the first two. On the third, although the words look similar (Jesus is divine, Christ is present) when said by Arians and by Catholics, they mean completely different things to each group—that Christ is a created being similar to the Father, or that he is consubstantial and co-eternal with the Father.
Likewise, the doctrine that Christ is somehow present in bread and wine (which still substantially exist!) is very different from the doctrine that bread and wine are transformed entirely into Christs body and blood so that the bread no longer exists.
LORD I beg thee that your Spirit may once again fill the Catholic Church, that it may be Holy. Remove from it, all heresy, corruption, apostacy and apathy. Return Your Church to its place of glory and honor. Then it shall spread with fire and pure light and truth to all of your creation. Then the wicked shall be no more, and Your name HE WHO IS shall be praised, honored and glorified forever and ever. Amen
Such a majestic ceremony! the shiny garments, the chanting, the prayers, the benediction, THE TIARA!! im only 15 and i still wish our holy father could return this ceremony if only for one last time!!!
Such a beautiful tradition, uplifting music and a moving liturgy.
The Church Triumphant still strong and growing, having survived the murdering dictators of WWll as it survived Attila the Hun and Napoleon and as it will triumph over our own pathetic, hedonistic, murderous abortion culture. Vivat Jesus !
For the record ....Pope Paul VI symbolically gave his papal tiara to the poor . As a coronation item it was never used again.. Some ancient tiaras are displayed in the vatican & are truly outrageous. Not something you'd wear to a rave.
We have been too long without this type of ceremony within our Holy Church. In recovering out traditions this should be part of it...Afterall it was not celebrated that offen...Ceremony often draws people to their first encounter with the Catholic Church...It was a mistake to disregard it..
what an incredible waste of money a ceremony like this was. times thankfully have changed.
for what purpose do you propose such a waste be imposed on humanity...to flaunt in the face of the poor how the church wastes MY money?
are you looking for a ceremony for your own benefit.
a REAL catholic would forgo this and ask the money be spent totally on the poor. let the tv cameras follow a small ceremony to verify to the world that the church thinks more of it's people than of it's own richness.
I agree with you!!!! However, after John Paul II's papacy, no Pope can risk the wrath of the "progressives" in the Church. In my opinion we should bring back the coronation AND mass in Latin. Jesus spoke Latin, and so should the Church.
Jesus spoke Aramaic, as all the Semetic natives of that region at that time. There were Greeks and Romans who spoke Greek and Latin, but there is no evidence that Jesus spoke those languages.
True there is no evidence that Jesus spoke Latin, but it stands to reason that he would have. Most of the world at that time spoke Latin to some degree and it would have been difficult to reach as many people as he did without the ability to speak Latin. I also doubt that the bible would have been written ( or compiled) in a language that Jesus didn't speak.
Really? Didn't realize that you were there when the apostles compiled the new testament. The oldest known copy of the new testament sits in a well-guarded glass case in St. Peter's Basicilica. I have not seen it, but it is written in Latin ( according to Cardinal Daneels).
Are you afraid of the history of your religion, Christians, or just ignorant of it?
I'll be delighted to educate anyone who makes the claim that the gospels were written by apostles, or that they were written when anyone who knew Jesus was still alive.
True there is no evidence that they were compiled by ( or written by) the apostles, or even at there time. Oh wait a minute, the oldest known copy of the new testament was carbon dated by Vatican historians. According to their carbon dating - that version of the new testament dated to around 70 AD.
Right, 70AD is the conservative estimate for the earliest recording of the existence of Jesus. If you do further research, you discover that the life expectancy in those days was about 35-40 years. If Jesus died in 33CE, this means that the author would have been maybe 1 or 2 years old at the time of his crucifixion. Not exactly what I'd call an eyewitness. Most likely, everyone who was alive at the time of Jesus was dead before a single word was mentioned about him. They are hearsay, at best.
I would doubt that. St. Peter ( one of the apostles and the first Pope) lived until 64 AD. If the carbon dating done by Vatican Scientists is accurate, eyewitness accounts to certain parts of the new testament would have been readily available.
Yet, the epistles and other writing accredited to Peter were NOT written during his lifespan, which you admit ended in 64AD. The earliest of his writings mentions Christian Persecution, which did not begin until 80AD, according to most sources. Furthermore, he mentions details that did not occur until 136AD.
So, although these are attributed to Peter, there is little chance he is the actual author. Even if he was, it cannot be verified that he actually was an eyewitness, or just claiming to be.
Kinda hot. Not a lot of people really. I mean the cities could get crowded but you know...lol you made the statement first. did you know him personally 2000 years ago? You know that unlike every other Jew he could speak latin? If so you need to bring that up in the historical community. They are out the loop....
LOL! I keep trying, but no one will believe me!! Obviously I am joking, but I have a hard time believing that God's only son, who was sent to save mankind, would not have been given the ability to speak several if not all of the languages spoken at the time.
Well, let's ignore, for a moment, that we also believe as dogma that Jesus was fully man and as such could not have known these other languages. How and why did he know chinese, or early forms of hindi, or South American languages lol. You're fighting a losing a battle.
"Police in the Irish Republic are examining if criminal charges can be brought over a damning report on child sex abuse at Catholic institutions.
The investigation found that sexual abuse was "endemic" in boys' institutions, and church leaders knew what was going on.
The Irish deputy prime minister, Mary Coughlan, described the abuse of children in Catholic-run institutions as one of the "darkest chapters" in Irish history. "
@migely The main problem here is that the roman catholic "church" is the only organization that has offered peverts of every stripe and pedophiles in particular a career, protection and access to children. Over time this has led to more and more perverts being attracted to the Church.
@kiwichristian2009 LOOOL. Please provie me with substantiated proof, that perverts of every stripe have been offered protection and access to children as a concerted effort by the Catholic Church. REMEMEBER, there is good and bad in every institution, hence th reason why the Catholic Church only seeks to make good what is alright until Our Lord comes again in his full regalia which will outstrip anything beyond compare, hence the reason also that the Pope is crowned like this.
@Robotnik Certainly. In 2001, while he was a cardinal, the pope issued a secret Vatican edict to Catholic bishops all over the world, instructing them to put the Church's interests ahead of child safety. The document recommended that rather than reporting sexual abuse to the relevant legal authorities, bishops should encourage the victim, witnesses and perpetrator not to talk about it. And, to keep victims quiet, it threatened that if they repeat the allegations they would be excommunicated.
@Robotnik Also go to bishop accountability site and see the evidence that "priests" ( unbiblical ) were NOT prosecuted or handed to police, but was simply moved on to new "fresh" victims in other churches. Absolutely there is good and bad, and i am not talking so much about the individual people who rape children. It happens everywhere. What i am talking about is how the vatican treated these children.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
I am so happy to see that recent popes have chosen simple inaugurations compared to this. Jesus was a humble fisherman... the manmade opulent trappings of the pope's office is almost vulgar in a world filled with poverty, conflict and hopelessness.
Rightfully so, Christ was a simple man, but son of God, king of Kings, the coronation of the Pope is not sinful, contray it is the cermony whence the new Pope is inargurated, if Popes want a simple mass then they could choose so, how ever remember the great Popes who had coronations full om Pomp and pagentry and were also great kings such as St.pius Xi, St.Gregory the great..................
If Christ is opposed to this, why did he institute such elaborate and expensive eremonies in the Old Covenant for his priests, especially the High Priest?
hardly foolish... but theologically significant... Christ as priest, prophet, and King
John XXIII will rightly be canonized, but Catholicism is hardly in a better position today than it was the 1950's. Vatican II is fine, but its implementation has been rocky at best.
So, on the (reply/spam) column of the comments, there are numbers, some in the positive and some in the negative. When people have received so many negatives, is that because they disagree, or because they simply do not like what they're reading. Jetsetjordan noted that Roman liturgy can be quite messy compared to Anglican liturgy. Unfortunately, if you compare videos of lituries, he's right. Anglican liturgy is practiced until it is flawless. Sorry folks, it's the truth if you like or not
Why all this need to be right? It's almost cultish! The reason so many people are loyal to religion at the expense of spirituality,is because it gives one a sense of superiority to point a finger at someone and say, "HA! You're wrong, and I'm right!! Ha, ha, ha we got them." What is really our motive in doing this? If we were really interested in following in the footsteps of Paul and the Apostles, we'd be killing ourselves for the sake of ecumenicalism.
We may be Anglicans, and our schismatic churches may be dying, but our spirits are very much alive, and our hearts are on fire! I'd rather be a passionate Anglican worshiping God with glorious liturgy and music, than a lifeless noodle of a Catholic stumming Kum-ba-ya on the guitar during Eucharist.
This video shows the rich tradtions of the Church. It was awesome hearing the actual voice of Blessed John XXIII, I had never heard his voice before just seen video or photos of this holy man.
I am not even a Roman Catholic but I think that Europe is losing it´s heritage. Even Thought we done bad things to each other for centuries, we should try to create peace between ourselves, because we share so much, despite our differences.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
The Anglican Communion is the third largest Christian Denomination. That said, they can still do pomp and majesty much better, even when there are only four of them. You people can't even march in a straight line. It's from all the beer.
This has been flagged as spam show
Esta es la Gloria del Hombre. Del hombre mas vil sobre la faz de la tierra: el PAPA. No hay odio, hay estupefacción. Que esto haya sucedido en el pasado es lamentable... pero AUN sucede en el presente. El Papa actual es un nostálgico de los viejos tiempos. Un reaccionario que ambicionó esta posición de poder durante muchos años. Quería ser Papa, y ahí está ya como Papa. Qué vergüenza humana, que falta de moral.
MrNigara 3 weeks ago
This will never come back!!!! Its a sad truth!!!
The Vatican has changed forever!!!
MrEhemaliger 10 months ago
If Peter was Bishop of Rome for 25 years, how could he meet Paul in Jerusalem in 42 AD, and then back in Jerusalem again in 43 AD, and in 56 AD have a dispute with Paul in Antioch about 800 miles from Rome, it appears Peter was not in Rome when RCC declare he was, Can you say that RCC is in error over the time Peter supposedly was in Rome, or has the Bible got it all mixed up?
kiwichristian2009 10 months ago
the rcc says that evolution is in line with Christianity and catholics can believe in it. This is CONTRARY to the Bible. the rcc says mary was sinless. this is CONTRARY to the Bible. the rcc says confess your sins to a priest. this is CONTRARY to the Bible. the rcc says mary can save you. this is CONTRARY to the Bible. the rcc says peter was "the rock". this is CONTRARY to the Bible. The rcc murdered MILLIONS of Christians. This is CONTRARY to the Bible.
kiwichristian2009 10 months ago
@kiwichristian2009 Protestants say Bible contains the whole truth. This is CONTRARY to che Bible!!
misthia 9 months ago
@misthia Well, i wouldn't know what protestants say. I do know that the Bible contains and claims to contain everything you need unto salvation. And, my friend, if that is the ONLY thing you can come back in defense of all the unbiblical facts i have presented, you truely have been brainwashed by the unbiblical, anti-Christian catholic cult, my friend.
kiwichristian2009 9 months ago
@kiwichristian2009 Hey, whats your problem? It seems you've made it your job to go around Catholic videos here on Youtube and spread your filth! If you want to preach your idiocy, do it on YOUR OWN channel, and stop irritating Catholics who watch these videos for their own edification. You write accusation after accusation, lie after lie and say "its unbiblical" well choose a topic and try ME.
drupes 8 months ago
@drupes What have i said that is unbiblical and or untrue, my friend? How about edifying JESUS instead of yourselves? Remember, there is no salvation in the catholic organisation, nor in the anglican, muslim, baptist religions, etc. Acts4:12. "Nor is there salvation in any other, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved.”
kiwichristian2009 8 months ago
@kiwichristian2009 First things first: DON'T call me friend. I have no friends among those who twist scripture for their PERVERSE interests. Now, WHERE is your proof that TRUE Christianity is not an organization? The Lord organized 12 Apostles, 72 disciples, and they in turn ordained bishops, presbyters (priests) and deacons. The church was organized along GEOGRAPHICAL lines (The CHURCH in Rome, Galatia, Corinth, Jerusalem, etc) HOW CAN YOU SAY THE TRUE CHURCH DOESN'T HAVE A "ZIP CODE"?
drupes 8 months ago
@drupes I may not be your friend, but that does not negate the fact that you are mine. So, you speak of "twisting" scripture. Do you mean like Matt. 16:13-20 and Luke 12:54, for example? The churches were local assemblies of believers, not the international hierarchy that we see today in the catholic organisation. Now, you mentioned "bishops". God also says that bishops must be married. What i am saying is your idea of a "church" and the Bibles' are different.
kiwichristian2009 8 months ago
@kiwichristian2009 "I may not be your friend, but that does not negate the fact that you are mine." I have no friends among the children of satan, sorry.
drupes 8 months ago
@kiwichristian2009 "The churches were local assemblies of believers, not the international hierarchy that we see today in the catholic organisation." If they were mere local "assemblies", why would the Apostles stand as a council to discuss the obligations of ALL gentile converts? Why write a letter of instruction, a CIRCULAR to the ENTIRE Church for its OBEDIENCE afterwards? Why would they write to the Churches to INSTRUCT and COMMAND them, despite the fact that they had local leaders?
drupes 8 months ago
@kiwichristian2009 That's because the Church was ONE, in faith, in doctrine, in leadership. They were under the Deacons and Priests who answered to the Bishop, the Bishop answered to the Apostles, and the Apostles were led by Simon Peter. Not some fragmented group of people under the delusion that they could be separate politically and still claim to be the same entity, as protestantism is. You and your beliefs about the Christ's Church are self-contradictory, silly and PATHETIC.
drupes 8 months ago
@kiwichristian2009 The Church, being ONE in DOCTRINE, LEADERSHIP AND DISCIPLINE, ACKNOWLEDGING THE MOST BLESSED AND HOLY TRINITY AS GOD would NOT just be a simple, loose gathering of believers as you would wish us to believe. If that's the case, then even the Boy Scouts and Girl Scouts are better organized! You ascribe that sort of thinking to CHRIST? HE is not a SIMPLETON like you. He provided for a strong organization to withstand the assaults of hell, and not be given to schism.
drupes 8 months ago
@drupes Hello friend. The true church of Jesus Christ is a relationship, not a membership. It isn’t any particular protestant denomination or Roman catholic. It doesn't have a roof or an address. We are the Body of Christ, past, present and future from all around the world who have accepted Christ’s work on the cross for our sins 2000 years ago, once and for all. Our names have been written in the Book of Life from the beginning. 1 cross + 3 nails = 4 given.
johnthreesixteen316 8 months ago
@johnthreesixteen316 Care to give some BIBLICAL PROOF for your assertions? I DID. Like I've shown, the Church in the BIBLE had STRUCTURE AND HIERARCHY (THE APOSTLES UNDER THE LEADERSHIP OF PETER, UNDER THEM THE BISHOPS, PRESBYTERS OR PRIESTS, DEACONS, LAYPERSONS) THEY WERE ORGANIZED BY LOCATION (ROME, CORINTH, EPHESUS, GALATIA, ETC.) These were not a mere band of believers, they were an organized group, as CREATION is. If the UNIVERSE is organized what more the BODY OF CHRIST!
drupes 8 months ago
@drupes Hello friend. None of the 'heirarchy' you mentioned is in the bible.
johnthreesixteen316 8 months ago
@johnthreesixteen316 I don't know if you're downright blind, stubborn or both. The Apostles were subject to Our Lord, they in turn had authority over the other disciples as Bishops (as shown by the Council of Jerusalem in Acts, when they decided if gentile Christians were subject to the Mosaic Law). They ordained deacons and appointed other leaders of the Church. When they died, others succeeded in their place. IF YOU SAY THAT THAT'S NOT HIERARCHY, THEN YOU'RE A MORON.
drupes 8 months ago
@johnthreesixteen316 "1 cross + 3 nails = 4 given" And what if Christ was actually nailed with four nails? "Five-given"? Is that pathetic sentimentalist foolishness what they teach you at "Bible" school? Oh please!
drupes 8 months ago
@drupes The early church as described in the NT did the following: shared all things in common, relationships, support missionaries/ministers, teaching & preaching, praying, worshiping, reading of scripture, evangelism, fostering spiritual gifts. No where does the NT dictate fancy buildings, robes, repetitive prayer, a priesthood, Mary worship, sectarianism, or any order of service, etc.. all these are MAN MADE traditions ADDED ON.
kiwichristian2009 8 months ago
@kiwichristian2009 "all these are MAN MADE traditions ADDED ON." So here we fall, finally: IS THE DOCTRINE OF SOLA SCRIPTURA BIBLICAL? Hope to see your PROOFS soon.
drupes 8 months ago
@drupes The catholic organisation has a LONG history of torturing and murdering people that disagreed with it. They persecuted Galileo because he said the organisation was wrong. It turned out he was right! Popes making statements and rules, and other popes overturning them, etc. These are NOT the signs of "unity". Plus, what about all the catholic sects and denominations such as the Community of the Lady of All Nations, the Palmarian Catholic Church, the Philippine Independent Church, etc.
kiwichristian2009 8 months ago
@kiwichristian2009 "They persecuted Galileo" Even protestants then believed that the center of the Universe was the Earth! It was difficult to accept Heliocentrism then because of the BIBLICAL VERSES "the world also is established, that it cannot be moved." (Psalm 93:1), and "And the sun rises and sets and returns to its place" (Ecclesiastes 1:5) The Church needed additional SCIENTIFIC DATA to reconcile these passages and Copernicus' and Galileo's (then) theories.
drupes 8 months ago
@kiwichristian2009 Point is, was the Church wrong in being wary of novel theories, particularly those suspect of being contrary to Scripture? NO! That's the responsibility of the Church, to defend its members from ideas which may lead them astray. Did it actually forbid Galileo from teaching Heliocentrism?: "Cardinal Robert Bellarmine himself considered that Galileo's model made "excellent good sense" on the ground of mathematical simplicity; that is, as a HYPOTHESIS"
drupes 8 months ago
@kiwichristian2009 "Bellarmine supported a ban on the teaching of the idea as anything but hypothesis." This is from Wikipedia. If you did a quick search on the internet and not rely on Jack Chick comics then you would have read this simple fact. When he died the remains of Galileo were buried in the Basilica of the Holy Cross in Jerusalem, Rome. So much for an "enemy" of Catholicism.
drupes 8 months ago
@kiwichristian2009 "Popes making statements and rules" Well duh, that's the role of the leader of the Church, of ALL leaders of the Church. What organization would survive without rules? "Hey what time do we go to Sunday service?" "Oh I don't know, we don't make rules, don't we?" Isn't your prerequisite of "accepting Jesus as personal lord and savior" before you consider someone a "Christian" a RULE? That's the most stupid statement I've read so far! LMAO!
drupes 8 months ago
@kiwichristian2009 "and other popes overturning them" Care to give me an example?
drupes 8 months ago
@kiwichristian2009 "The catholic organisation has a LONG history of torturing and murdering people that disagreed with it." Examples, please. I love where this is heading...
drupes 8 months ago
Comment removed
drupes 8 months ago
@kiwichristian2009 The "Lady of all Nations" is a devotion that started from supposed apparitions in the Netherlands, the "Palmarian Catholic Church" is a cult with its (now deceased) leader claiming to be the true "pope", the "Philippine Independent Church" was established by rebel priests, masons and labor leaders in rebellion against the Pope's authority. THE LAST TWO ARE NOT CATHOLIC. They seem to be outwardly, but are nonetheless are like you protestants, SAME BREED OF REBELS AND IDIOTS.
drupes 8 months ago
Wonder where those two idiots are? Just when I was enjoying this discussion...
drupes 7 months ago
@kiwichristian2009 And indeed, the CHURCH, through its structure, by the grace of GOD has withstood the FRACTURING common to protestant "churches". That is something they cannot get rid of, and to cope they invented the belief that Christianity is not a church, but a "personal relationship" with Christ (not a dot of which is found in the BIBLE). HE who bears the NAME at which even hell trembles FOUNDED a Church, gave it its leadership, tested it as gold is tested in fire, and it is still HERE.
drupes 8 months ago
@kiwichristian2009 Why wait for your answer when I can fire the opening salvo: If Catholicism is false, which of the almost 23,000 competing and often contradictory denominations worldwide (as of 1989 according to the U.N.! 12 years ago! think how many times they've multiplied like crazy amoebas since then!) is TRUE? Or are you one of those prots who believe in the "personal" interpretation of Scripture?
drupes 8 months ago in playlist videos
@drupes Christianity is NOT a religion or a denomination, my friend. Jesus NEVER preached a religion, but a relationship. The true church isn't catholic or protestant. It doesn't have a mailing address or a zip code. It is the body of believers in Jesus Christ the world over. Christ has written their names in the book of life. Christ knows who His friends are.
kiwichristian2009 8 months ago
@kiwichristian2009 "Christianity is NOT a religion" WHO would I believe, YOU, an apostle of hell, or St. James, Apostle of Christ Jesus: "RELIGION clean and undefiled before God and the Father, is this: to visit the fatherless and widows in their tribulation: and to keep one's self unspotted from this world. " James 1:27. Charity and Purity are precepts of the ONE TRUE FAITH, and their fulfillment is part of the RELIGION PLEASING to GOD.
drupes 8 months ago
i stand for truth, And the church stands for phantasy and deception, thats the difference
lunafringe10 10 months ago
If Jesus was king of kings, what is a mere mortal? How dare those clowns talk about coronation.
lunafringe10 11 months ago
Shame! Ppl wasting their time on Catholic bashing!
Christians are being persecuted in Pakistan...blatantly!
Let us pray for them!
Read up on the very recent case of Mr. Bhatti (Minister to Minorities in Pakistan) a Catholic, who was martyred last week for his faith. He refused to back down, he was willing to die for Christ, as he predicted would happen,4 months in a video before he was shot by many bullets in broad daylight!
Read up on Asia Bibi too. A Christian woman killed for her beliefs.
theyanna 11 months ago
@theyanna thats a different matter, In return european politicians are courting Islam,
how idiotic
lunafringe10 11 months ago
@lunafringe10 different or not, it is something all Christians should know about.
theyanna 11 months ago
@theyanna this fucking church should be closed down. And those fuckers in their robes sent to siberia.
To do some labour for a change. Instead of poisoning the minds of children, You dont have to poison and
indoctrinate adults minds, They are already poisoned.
lunafringe10 11 months ago
@lunafringe10 Words like yours are the true poison.
theyanna 11 months ago
@theyanna Yes but who committed unspeakable crimes against humanity in 2000 years? Until recently. The church. Look up the books. Those paid choires dont impress me,
lunafringe10 10 months ago
There are so many verses in scripture that contradict RCC theology Rom 4:5 utterly condemns the System of salvation by masses penance priests etc, bible teaches that salvation is gift of God not of works & this gift is freely given by God to those who trust in the merits of Christ's finished work on Calvary, the RCC SYSTEM is a demonic counterfeit to keep the lost RCs on the broad road to hell
kiwichristian2009 11 months ago
In 2001, while he was a cardinal, the pope issued a secret Vatican edict to Catholic bishops all over the world, instructing them to put the Church's interests ahead of child safety. The document recommended that rather than reporting sexual abuse to the relevant legal authorities, bishops should encourage the victim, witnesses and perpetrator not to talk about it. And, to keep victims quiet, it threatened that if they repeat the allegations they would be excommunicated.
kiwichristian2009 11 months ago
"We hold upon this earth the place of God Almighty". Pope Leo XIII Encyclical Letter of June 20, 1894.Writers on the Canon Law say, "The Pope and God are the same, so he has all power in heaven and earth." Barclay Cap. XXVII, p. 218. Cities Petrus Bertrandus, Pius V. - Cardinal Cusa supports his statement.So, are these Popes wrong in saying they are basically God on Earth? This is a statement on faith and morals, is it not? How is this reconcilable?
kiwichristian2009 11 months ago
"For thou art the shepherd, thou art the physician, thou art the director, thou art the husbandman, finally thou art another God on earth." Labbe and Cossart's "History of the Councils." Vol. XIV, col. 109. BLASPHEMY!
kiwichristian2009 11 months ago
Bis auf die Tatsache, dass es ein bisschen voll ist auf der Loggia, ist das ein sehr würdevoles, wertvolles Zeugnis des seligen Papstes Johannes XXIII! :)
MrMarmeladow 11 months ago
jesus would have punished all of them, What a feeble and ridiculous show, Pomp and deceit, NO wonder ppl are turning away from these disgusting impostors
lunafringe10 1 year ago
@lunafringe10 um highspeed the Church is growing now Shirnking
rcarnes1988 1 year ago
@lunafringe10 Amen! There is NOTHING like this in the Bible. No wonder the roman catholic church is so unbiblical, satanic and anti-Christian.
kiwichristian2009 11 months ago
¡Qué hermosa liturgia!
isaacabensurv 1 year ago
what is the name of the song sung by the choir at the beginning?
neelm7 1 year ago
OOH what a rare peice of history and images, man I never knew the flabellum fans were that long and huge, and look at all the cergy around him, really conveys that he is filling an important office, for which he was chosen by God.
Sadly we can never do this today the offices and attendants needed were done away with around vatican 2. Though the pope still have many beautiful things to celebrate with it is not the same as the old days, when nothing was left to doubt.
signed Jeremy manga12
manga12 1 year ago
Due to a false understanding of christian simplicity, the present day popes do not wear the Tiara; but they do not realize that the honor given to them is not due to their person but due to the person of Jesus Christ whose representatives, they are.
josh76765 1 year ago
@josh76765 So Jesus would have worn the tiara, were he here? I think that He would be the LAST one to want to wear the tiara. I mean, after all, Jesus is God incarnate in the body of a man! God chose to make Himself known through Jesus Christ, a human being, I think that God had the ability to send Jesus as a King, but instead He chose man.
amrascarpathia 1 year ago
@amrascarpathia If it were offered to Him, He would wear it.
amiryachum 1 year ago
@amiryachum Personally, I HIGHLY doubt He would. But I can't speak for my Lord. Guess we'll have to wait until we are with Him and then we can ask Him if He would wear a tiara.
amrascarpathia 1 year ago
@amrascarpathia You highly doubt? Did he refuse the expensive oil which was used to anoint His feet? When Judas questioned why it was not sold to the poor, our Lord corrected Him. It is like this: if given the option, do we offer our Lord the best we have, or do we simply treat Him as one of us? The latter constitutes a great arrogance on our part. We will do well to offer the best to our Lord and Hs servants if we truly love Him.
amiryachum 1 year ago
"On August 24, 1527, Roman Catholics in France, by prearranged plan, under Jesuit influence, murdered 70,000 Protestants within the space of two months. The Pope rejoiced when he heard the news of the successful outcome."-Western Watchman, Nov.21, 1912 (Catholic)Therefore the pope ordered "that malicious and abominable sect of malignants," if they "refuse to abjure, to be crushed like venomous snakes."--Wylie, b. 16, ch. 1.
kiwichristian2009 1 year ago
In 2001, while he was a cardinal, the pope issued a secret Vatican edict to Catholic bishops all over the world, instructing them to put the Church's interests ahead of child safety. The document recommended that rather than reporting sexual abuse to the relevant legal authorities, bishops should encourage the victim, witnesses and perpetrator not to talk about it. And, to keep victims quiet, it threatened that if they repeat the allegations they would be excommunicated.
kiwichristian2009 1 year ago
The Pope, is, of course, an Antichrist, while the religious machinery of the Vatican itself is the Whore of Babylon (as it derives its rituals and symbolism from the Babylonian religion of the seductive Semiramis). The Beast is the political structure of the so called "Holy Roman Empire of the Vatican, which will eventually amalgamate into a One World Religion and Government.
kiwichristian2009 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Just as Cain vainly tried to impress God with the works of his hands, so do Catholics try to impress God with their good works and ceremonialism. Catholicism is a damnable lie that has been in the world since Cain. God will smash the Catholic Whore with His judgments.
kiwichristian2009 1 year ago
No mention is made of Peter ever being in Rome at ANY time in the 27 documents of the oldest existing record of the Christian Faith. The Apostle Paul wrote an Epistle to the church at Rome, named approximately SIXTEEN (16) people, by name, and never mentioned Peter. That was NO oversight on his part. Peter was never there! Peter's tomb was also discovered outside *Jerusalem*; there is historical documentation to verify this factor. There is no evidence for the Papacy from Peter himself.
kiwichristian2009 1 year ago
@kiwichristian2009 It must be awfully nice to rewrite history to suit one's own diabolical ends. Good job!
browncello 1 year ago
@browncello The Roman Catholic Church was not really in effect as an organization in the first couple hundred years of the Christian Church. The Christian church was under persecution and official church gatherings were risky business in the Roman Empire. Catholicism as an organization with a central figure located in Rome did not occur for quite some time, in spite of its claim they can trace the papacy back to Peter.
kiwichristian2009 1 year ago
Damn!Monty Python does good stuff!--
slavonice 1 year ago
Pope John XIII, very bad boy. I hope that he made a good and sincere confession before he took leave of his body. He usher in the destruction of the true faith.
FishEaster 1 year ago
This is what we need. Vatican II was a disaster but not by his hands.
mburns8395 1 year ago
Maybe ONE DAY my dearest son and I will have an opportunity to see this in person! What a blessing!! Un giorno ci vedremo di persona!! Benedizione a tutti!
Lorettar 1 year ago
Coronacion del anti-papa Juan XXIII, el comienzo de la destruccion de la Iglesia por los infiltrados herejes!!!
garciadelacadena 1 year ago
This was the last Papal coronation!
rhbalduino 1 year ago
@rhbalduino no not really Paul VI was the last Pope to be crowned.
etclamoradteveniat 1 year ago
YAY I love pissing contests between Christains, but hey, isnt that what all religion is about?
Right from Judaism to foot fetism its just the old tale of keeping up with the "Jones" and lol'ing at others misfortunes
but back to the video.
Did these guys never hear of a "DRESS REHEARSAL?"
very amateur ladies, comeon, chop chop and snap the pose!
The8thDOCTOR 1 year ago
@The8thDOCTOR of course someone else commenting on something he/she knows nothing about!
etclamoradteveniat 1 year ago
Tu es Petrus,et super hanc petram aedificabo ecclesiam meam,et portae inferi non praevalebunt adversum eam!!Etiam,lingua latina vivit!
Schmok66 2 years ago
How sad to see so much antipathy between Roman Catholics and Anglicans here - I'm an Anglican priest and we have so much more that unites us, beginning with Christ and the most holy sacrament of the altar.
fishhead06 2 years ago
I find it strange that you would consider the Blessed Sacrament to unite Catholics and Anglicans, since Anglicans deny the Real Presence of our Lord (transubstantiation), that the Sacrament is a true sacrifice for sins, and that It ought to be adored as Christ himself. If you want points of agreement, look to the Divinity of Christ and the Trinity, not to the Blessed Sacrament.
baldwalrus7 2 years ago
@baldwalrus7 - There is no official Anglican doctrine with regard to the Real Presence of our Lord. The article on Wikipedia, "Anglican Eucharistic theology," provides a good run-down of the available options. As you are undoubtedly aware, transubstantiation is a doctrine of the Middle Ages - and the consubstantiationalist view affirms just as strongly the Real Presence of our Lord as does transubstantiation.
fishhead06 2 years ago
If, as you admit, there is no single Anglican doctrine on the Blessed Sacrament, how can the Blessed Sacrament be considered a point of union with Catholics? Some Anglicans accept some form of the Real Presence, many would deny even a spiritual presence, like Evangelicals. Eucharistic Adoration is rejected in Articles 25 and 28 of the Thirty-Nine Articles, and Christ's Body is said to be eaten "after an heavenly and spiritual manner" and Christ's Body is "eaten by faith". Article 29 says that
baldwalrus7 2 years ago
It's a point of union because Anglicanism encompasses the doctrine of the Real Presence. Are there other views? Of course. But it is an inclusive doctrine. As for the Thirty-Nine Articles, I can think of no jurisdiction in which this is considered a statement of Anglican doctrine.
fishhead06 2 years ago
[cont'd] unworthy partakers of the Sacrament "in no wise are partakers of Christ". This means that Christ isn't made objectively and substantially present in the Bread (consubstantiation) but is received only in faith. This isn't the Real Presence of Catholic and Orthodox theology. Likewise, Article 31 denies that the Eucharist is a real re-presentation of Christ's sacrifice, and in fact calls it a "blasphemous fable". Whatever you may say, it is clear that the Blessed Sacrament is not a
baldwalrus7 2 years ago
[cont'd] point of unity between Catholics and Anglicans. It is a point of unity with Catholics and Eastern (and Oriental) Orthodox, but all Protestants deny our doctrine, even if they affirm some form of Real Presence (like Lutherans).
baldwalrus7 2 years ago
Anglicans of a more Catholic bent do not deny the doctrine of transubstantiation - and again, by what reasoning do you conclude that the Thirty-Nine Articles are a statement of doctrine? The doctrinal statements of Anglicanism include the authority of scripture, the ecumenical creeds, the rulings of the ancient ecumenical councils, and such marks of the Catholic church outlined in the Lambeth Quadrilateral, included the apostolic succession of the episcopate.
fishhead06 2 years ago
Well, now you're clearly a very high church Anglo-Catholic. But that isn't representative of Anglicanism as a whole; in fact it is the result of 19th-century Oxford Movement Anglicans who wanted to bring their religion more into line with historical Christianity. If you had've asked any 16th-18th century Anglican "do you believe in Transubstantiation?", he would have said, just like the 39 Articles, that it was a papist error and a blasphemous fable. The 39 Articles are what Anglicans
baldwalrus7 2 years ago
have traditionally understood as their faith, and if I'm not mistaken new Anglican priests/bishops had to assent to them. The Catholic Encyclopedia says: "the Eucharistic teaching of the Prayer Book is subject to various and opposed interpretations", i.e. it's deliberately ambiguous; because there is no Anglican doctrine of the Real Presence, though individual Anglicans can believe in it if they want. And if you accepted the authority of the early Councils you would believe in the papacy.
baldwalrus7 2 years ago
The authority of the early councils is not absolute. For instance, there is no absolute ban on ordaining castrated men to the priesthood - I'm unaware if the Roman Catholic Church maintains that ban.
fishhead06 2 years ago
In any event, it is not as if the papacy is disbelieved, the assertion of the English church was simply that no bishop would have any jurisdiction outside his diocese or province. If you'll recall, it was Rome that subsequently broke with England, not the other way around. As for the Articles, priests in my national church (Canada) have never had to assent to them
fishhead06 2 years ago
Are you referring to the first canon of Nicaea? It says that men who have willing castrated themselves can't be ordained, but men who have "been castrated by barbarians" can be ordained. So already it's not absolute!
I have no idea if this disciplinary measure has been revoked by a subsequent Pope or Council; but, barring that possibility, yes it would have authority on us. The authority of all councils (early and late) in their doctrinal decrees are absolute.
baldwalrus7 2 years ago
Regarding your second post, I'm sure you're away that the papacy claims jurisdiction over the universal church. You presumably believe that the Bishop of Rome is the first bishop in the church, but who is nevertheless equal to others and has no jurisdiction outside of Rome. Well, if you believe that, you reject the papacy.
I have no idea what you mean by "it was Rome that subsequently broke with England". Everyone knows that the English Church was in communion with Rome, and subject to her
baldwalrus7 2 years ago
from the time of St. Augustine of Canterbury up until Cranmer under Henry VIII, whose Act of Supremacy in 1534 split himself off from the Catholic Church and created a new church with Catholic doctrine, but which had the Erastian doctrine of the king as supreme head of the church. A church with truly Anglican doctrine wasn't established until Elizabeth I, when she forcibly resplit the English church from the Catholic Church (again).
baldwalrus7 2 years ago
My point was simply that the English church never declared itself out of communion with Rome; that declaration was made by Rome. In any event, what does that have to do with the original point - which was the unity we do share through the Blessed Sacrament? Regardless of how one regards the nature of Christ's presence in the sacrament, Catholics and Anglicans agree that He is present. Unity is of more material validity and worth than varying opinions on the details of what that presence means.
fishhead06 2 years ago
Rome declared England out of communion with the Church because she had made herself so--Rome merely recognised an objective fact, not created it. It was still the English who broke with the Church.
If you're going to reduce the Real Presence to the lowest common denominator--that we both believe "that He is present"--yes, we are in agreement. But St. Athanasius might as well have said to the Arians, "there is too much antipathy between us, when in fact we should look at where we agree—
11000001100000 2 years ago
"We both believe in God, we believe that He is one, and we believe that Jesus is divine. Of course, all the above points are true, and Catholics and Arians are full agreement about the first two. On the third, although the words look similar (Jesus is divine, Christ is present) when said by Arians and by Catholics, they mean completely different things to each group—that Christ is a created being similar to the Father, or that he is consubstantial and co-eternal with the Father.
11000001100000 2 years ago
Likewise, the doctrine that Christ is somehow present in bread and wine (which still substantially exist!) is very different from the doctrine that bread and wine are transformed entirely into Christs body and blood so that the bread no longer exists.
11000001100000 2 years ago
Those mitres are just ridiculously huge!
fishhead06 2 years ago 2
They had to be seen from a distance, they had not screens on st Peter square . . .
supermouse974 2 years ago
Latina lingua erat viva lingua.
MaBu888 2 years ago
Orribilmente cantano. :)
MaBu888 2 years ago
LORD I beg thee that your Spirit may once again fill the Catholic Church, that it may be Holy. Remove from it, all heresy, corruption, apostacy and apathy. Return Your Church to its place of glory and honor. Then it shall spread with fire and pure light and truth to all of your creation. Then the wicked shall be no more, and Your name HE WHO IS shall be praised, honored and glorified forever and ever. Amen
catholicpeter 2 years ago 16
NICELY said my brother in Christ!
OrganOfPraise7 2 years ago
Amen and amen!
baldwalrus7 2 years ago
It... can always come back.....
damoose663 2 years ago 2
It's on its way as we speak. We still must wait for Russia to be consecrated to Our Lady's Immaculate Heart.
justdobbs 2 years ago
Such a majestic ceremony! the shiny garments, the chanting, the prayers, the benediction, THE TIARA!! im only 15 and i still wish our holy father could return this ceremony if only for one last time!!!
av3rRageGameName 2 years ago 3
This comment has received too many negative votes show
dam catholics. they just won't stop messing around with the truth. God save these heretics.
amrite 2 years ago
Damn you
richardquartimain 2 years ago
What a beautiful ceremony. The should do it again.
LEIREANN 2 years ago 18
the lord humbled himself to share in humanity..
John Paul said..open your mind to christ..
and his mother..
open yourself up to the greater good then a ceremony..
pray the rosary
linee2009 2 years ago 2
@LEIREANN what nonsense, it turns the church back into the dark ages
willcallaghan1 1 year ago
@LEIREANN you can rehearse it in your bedroom if you like
lunafringe10 10 months ago
Such a beautiful tradition, uplifting music and a moving liturgy.
The Church Triumphant still strong and growing, having survived the murdering dictators of WWll as it survived Attila the Hun and Napoleon and as it will triumph over our own pathetic, hedonistic, murderous abortion culture. Vivat Jesus !
JPGiardina 2 years ago 4
For the record ....Pope Paul VI symbolically gave his papal tiara to the poor . As a coronation item it was never used again.. Some ancient tiaras are displayed in the vatican & are truly outrageous. Not something you'd wear to a rave.
Bartskibeat 2 years ago
We have been too long without this type of ceremony within our Holy Church. In recovering out traditions this should be part of it...Afterall it was not celebrated that offen...Ceremony often draws people to their first encounter with the Catholic Church...It was a mistake to disregard it..
SanLUZARDO 2 years ago 3
what an incredible waste of money a ceremony like this was. times thankfully have changed.
for what purpose do you propose such a waste be imposed on humanity...to flaunt in the face of the poor how the church wastes MY money?
are you looking for a ceremony for your own benefit.
a REAL catholic would forgo this and ask the money be spent totally on the poor. let the tv cameras follow a small ceremony to verify to the world that the church thinks more of it's people than of it's own richness.
wntoply6 2 years ago
They SOOOOOOOOOO need 2 bring this ceremony back!
av3rRageGameName 2 years ago 5
I agree with you!!!! However, after John Paul II's papacy, no Pope can risk the wrath of the "progressives" in the Church. In my opinion we should bring back the coronation AND mass in Latin. Jesus spoke Latin, and so should the Church.
voisindo 2 years ago 3
Jesus spoke Aramaic, as all the Semetic natives of that region at that time. There were Greeks and Romans who spoke Greek and Latin, but there is no evidence that Jesus spoke those languages.
marsmoke 2 years ago 2
True there is no evidence that Jesus spoke Latin, but it stands to reason that he would have. Most of the world at that time spoke Latin to some degree and it would have been difficult to reach as many people as he did without the ability to speak Latin. I also doubt that the bible would have been written ( or compiled) in a language that Jesus didn't speak.
voisindo 2 years ago
The new testament was compiled in Greek, not Latin.
blif72 2 years ago
Really? Didn't realize that you were there when the apostles compiled the new testament. The oldest known copy of the new testament sits in a well-guarded glass case in St. Peter's Basicilica. I have not seen it, but it is written in Latin ( according to Cardinal Daneels).
voisindo 2 years ago
The gospels were not written by the apostles. The apostles, if they existed, were dead before the earliest gospel was written.
painstrulove 2 years ago
Which is why they spoke of things as still being referred to as current. Right! Know your history, brah
justdobbs 2 years ago
Wait a minute...you think because someone writes in the present tense, means that they are actually writing in the time they describe?
I am an American soldier landing on Iwo Jima. I am holding a gun and looking at Mt. Suribachi.
^Would you say that because I wrote in the present tense, I really am a solider?
If you don't know when the gospels are written, then look it up! Do research for about 5 minutes.
Know YOUR history, "brah".
painstrulove 2 years ago
I like how people thumb down historical fact.
Are you afraid of the history of your religion, Christians, or just ignorant of it?
I'll be delighted to educate anyone who makes the claim that the gospels were written by apostles, or that they were written when anyone who knew Jesus was still alive.
They are heresay, at best.
Look it up for yourself.
painstrulove 2 years ago
True there is no evidence that they were compiled by ( or written by) the apostles, or even at there time. Oh wait a minute, the oldest known copy of the new testament was carbon dated by Vatican historians. According to their carbon dating - that version of the new testament dated to around 70 AD.
voisindo 2 years ago
Right, 70AD is the conservative estimate for the earliest recording of the existence of Jesus. If you do further research, you discover that the life expectancy in those days was about 35-40 years. If Jesus died in 33CE, this means that the author would have been maybe 1 or 2 years old at the time of his crucifixion. Not exactly what I'd call an eyewitness. Most likely, everyone who was alive at the time of Jesus was dead before a single word was mentioned about him. They are hearsay, at best.
painstrulove 2 years ago
I would doubt that. St. Peter ( one of the apostles and the first Pope) lived until 64 AD. If the carbon dating done by Vatican Scientists is accurate, eyewitness accounts to certain parts of the new testament would have been readily available.
voisindo 2 years ago
Yet, the epistles and other writing accredited to Peter were NOT written during his lifespan, which you admit ended in 64AD. The earliest of his writings mentions Christian Persecution, which did not begin until 80AD, according to most sources. Furthermore, he mentions details that did not occur until 136AD.
So, although these are attributed to Peter, there is little chance he is the actual author. Even if he was, it cannot be verified that he actually was an eyewitness, or just claiming to be.
painstrulove 2 years ago
Our Lord spoke Hebrew and Aramaic. Latin came later with the establishment of Christianity as the State Religon of Rome.
NickyP9010 2 years ago
Thank you lol.
sheltonjoey77 2 years ago
for the record jesus barely knew latin and spoke aramaic lol. just so you know.
sheltonjoey77 2 years ago
I am sorry, I didn't realize that you knew him personally. What was the middle east like back 2000 years ago? Was it really hot? Many people?
voisindo 2 years ago
Kinda hot. Not a lot of people really. I mean the cities could get crowded but you know...lol you made the statement first. did you know him personally 2000 years ago? You know that unlike every other Jew he could speak latin? If so you need to bring that up in the historical community. They are out the loop....
sheltonjoey77 2 years ago
LOL! I keep trying, but no one will believe me!! Obviously I am joking, but I have a hard time believing that God's only son, who was sent to save mankind, would not have been given the ability to speak several if not all of the languages spoken at the time.
voisindo 2 years ago
Well, let's ignore, for a moment, that we also believe as dogma that Jesus was fully man and as such could not have known these other languages. How and why did he know chinese, or early forms of hindi, or South American languages lol. You're fighting a losing a battle.
sheltonjoey77 2 years ago
you call those who think more of the people, who are concerned with the ill, poor & less fortunate "progressives" & not for the good of the church?
why do you think the church has become less significiant today voisindo? it's because of those who think like you.
god himself put progressives here on earth to check on the extravagance you prefer the elite of the church enjoy.
your kind insults the laity with much power and money rome can waste!
shame on you & your wayward christian thought.
wntoply6 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
THE REAL CATHOLIC CHURCH
"Police in the Irish Republic are examining if criminal charges can be brought over a damning report on child sex abuse at Catholic institutions.
The investigation found that sexual abuse was "endemic" in boys' institutions, and church leaders knew what was going on.
The Irish deputy prime minister, Mary Coughlan, described the abuse of children in Catholic-run institutions as one of the "darkest chapters" in Irish history. "
migely 2 years ago
@migely The main problem here is that the roman catholic "church" is the only organization that has offered peverts of every stripe and pedophiles in particular a career, protection and access to children. Over time this has led to more and more perverts being attracted to the Church.
kiwichristian2009 11 months ago
@kiwichristian2009 LOOOL. Please provie me with substantiated proof, that perverts of every stripe have been offered protection and access to children as a concerted effort by the Catholic Church. REMEMEBER, there is good and bad in every institution, hence th reason why the Catholic Church only seeks to make good what is alright until Our Lord comes again in his full regalia which will outstrip anything beyond compare, hence the reason also that the Pope is crowned like this.
Robotnik 10 months ago
@Robotnik Certainly. In 2001, while he was a cardinal, the pope issued a secret Vatican edict to Catholic bishops all over the world, instructing them to put the Church's interests ahead of child safety. The document recommended that rather than reporting sexual abuse to the relevant legal authorities, bishops should encourage the victim, witnesses and perpetrator not to talk about it. And, to keep victims quiet, it threatened that if they repeat the allegations they would be excommunicated.
kiwichristian2009 10 months ago
@Robotnik Also go to bishop accountability site and see the evidence that "priests" ( unbiblical ) were NOT prosecuted or handed to police, but was simply moved on to new "fresh" victims in other churches. Absolutely there is good and bad, and i am not talking so much about the individual people who rape children. It happens everywhere. What i am talking about is how the vatican treated these children.
kiwichristian2009 10 months ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
I am so happy to see that recent popes have chosen simple inaugurations compared to this. Jesus was a humble fisherman... the manmade opulent trappings of the pope's office is almost vulgar in a world filled with poverty, conflict and hopelessness.
bmltaggert 2 years ago
Rightfully so, Christ was a simple man, but son of God, king of Kings, the coronation of the Pope is not sinful, contray it is the cermony whence the new Pope is inargurated, if Popes want a simple mass then they could choose so, how ever remember the great Popes who had coronations full om Pomp and pagentry and were also great kings such as St.pius Xi, St.Gregory the great..................
priest008 2 years ago 7
If Christ is opposed to this, why did he institute such elaborate and expensive eremonies in the Old Covenant for his priests, especially the High Priest?
baldwalrus7 2 years ago 5
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Thank God Good Pope John did away with so much of that foolishness. You can almost see how uncomfortable he is with all that pompt and ceremony.
oldpsyd 2 years ago
hardly foolish... but theologically significant... Christ as priest, prophet, and King
John XXIII will rightly be canonized, but Catholicism is hardly in a better position today than it was the 1950's. Vatican II is fine, but its implementation has been rocky at best.
BillyT92679 2 years ago 5
Are you sure he is uncomfortable? Maybe it's just that he's very nervous.
CanCatholic 2 years ago
John XXIII hardly changedany of tihs. It was all the work of that sad Paul VI.
Gutsy9 2 years ago 2
So awesome! I wish they still use this crowning ceremony.
adamgemelli 3 years ago 4
sic transit gloria mundi
jacintojoao 3 years ago 2
seems to me the mitres have gotten smaller as the years go by...
kungpw27 3 years ago
The traditional Papal throne was brought back to the central loggia of the Basilica by Benedict XVI on Christmas 2007
MARTINKUK1 3 years ago 7
it is the throne og Leo XIII. (1878-1903)
Lets wait for the tiara.....
fabseitz 3 years ago
So, on the (reply/spam) column of the comments, there are numbers, some in the positive and some in the negative. When people have received so many negatives, is that because they disagree, or because they simply do not like what they're reading. Jetsetjordan noted that Roman liturgy can be quite messy compared to Anglican liturgy. Unfortunately, if you compare videos of lituries, he's right. Anglican liturgy is practiced until it is flawless. Sorry folks, it's the truth if you like or not
TrackerAction 3 years ago
Why all this need to be right? It's almost cultish! The reason so many people are loyal to religion at the expense of spirituality,is because it gives one a sense of superiority to point a finger at someone and say, "HA! You're wrong, and I'm right!! Ha, ha, ha we got them." What is really our motive in doing this? If we were really interested in following in the footsteps of Paul and the Apostles, we'd be killing ourselves for the sake of ecumenicalism.
TrackerAction 3 years ago
We may be Anglicans, and our schismatic churches may be dying, but our spirits are very much alive, and our hearts are on fire! I'd rather be a passionate Anglican worshiping God with glorious liturgy and music, than a lifeless noodle of a Catholic stumming Kum-ba-ya on the guitar during Eucharist.
TrackerAction 3 years ago
Is it?Anglican Church is a heresy.^^
richardquartimain 3 years ago 3
Your bishop Gene Robinson certainly does have his heart on fire...well at least I hear he's a flamer.
wjweigand 3 years ago
and why not anymore? I hope the next pope will be coronated.
Azarien 3 years ago
This video shows the rich tradtions of the Church. It was awesome hearing the actual voice of Blessed John XXIII, I had never heard his voice before just seen video or photos of this holy man.
MaxwellSr 3 years ago 3
I love Cardinal Tisserant's French accent as he recites the prayers. ¡Viva el Papa y viva la Iglesia Católica! ¡Viva la missa tridentina!
starchyp92 3 years ago
Tu es Petrus et tibi dabo claves regni coelorum
pollochicke 3 years ago 6
What a beautiful tradition.
dannyboythegreat 3 years ago 4
Laudetur Iesus et Maria
Tu es Petrus
m3a3t 3 years ago 2
I am not even a Roman Catholic but I think that Europe is losing it´s heritage. Even Thought we done bad things to each other for centuries, we should try to create peace between ourselves, because we share so much, despite our differences.
seastorm1979 3 years ago 2
This comment has received too many negative votes show
What a mess. It's a shame the Roman Church always looks so hectic.
It's a mess when you compare it to a royal coronation...or even evening prayers at Westminster Abby.
jetsetjordan 3 years ago
a royal coronation for a the defender of a church that is dead is on its deathbed.
jurisdude 3 years ago
Yes, just because there are still 4 anglicans left..
Catholics are a few more:DD.. I love our celebrations:D
deutscheseele 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
The Anglican Communion is the third largest Christian Denomination. That said, they can still do pomp and majesty much better, even when there are only four of them. You people can't even march in a straight line. It's from all the beer.
jetsetjordan 3 years ago