Видео

I am fortunate to have a nicely bound Vulgate. Some years ago, I found an old, battered, Vulgate from an online second hand book shop. I ordered it and nothing arrived for several weeks. Then, a brand new Vulgate, still in its original film wrapping arrived. The book shop apologised for the delay, explaining that they had mistakenly accepted two orders for the old, battered, version, so they had bought me a brand new one. I hope the Lord rewards them for their integrity. The Vulgate is still the official translation of the Church. Fortunately, I know enough Latin to be able to read it, with Monsignor Knox’s excellent translation alongside, to help me out, if necessary. My edition of the Vulgate is the current, revised, official version approved by the Church. It incorporates the most recent scholarship, so is not identical to Jerome’s translation, but the differences are very minor.

Ha ha ! I think it's shit.

Most people don't realize the first 12 or so 'popes' were Jewish, like their Messiah, Yeshua.

Dude! "AD" always comes BEFORE the number of the year because it stands for, Anno Domini (The Year of Our Lord). "BC" comes after the numbers because it means, "Before Christ." The confusion started because too many folks STILL think AD means "After Death," which is just adorable because it would mean the 33 years of the Lord's earthly life (give or take) would retroactively at least be without numbers...a blank spot on the calendar at the center and apex of history. LOL now that would be funny.

As a translation from the Vulgate, I prefer the Knox translation. The English is more up to date. Monsignor Ronald Knox was a Biblical scholar, with a good knowledge of Greek and Hebrew. He translates the Vulgate accurately into English with footnotes referring to any divergence in the Vulgate from the best modern versions of the original texts.

Petra and Petros are Greek words. Jesus spoke Aramaic, in Aramaic there’s only one word for rock, it’s Kepha. There’s no masculine and feminine words in Aramaic. The Petra and Petros were just the translation in Greek!

Another excellent presentation!

Didn't Jesus and the Apostles attend the Temple in Jerusalem every year for Passover. Jews had the Paschal Lamb Sacrifice which is symbolic of Christs Sacrifice. Particular prayers were said over that Paschal Lamb. Those Passover Prayers are His Death Prayand are Perpetual. Jesus Christ is God and attended true worship. Jews had true worship. The Temple fell because it was the end of time for the Paschal Lamb Sacrifice. Only the Tridentine Latin Mass holds His Death Prayers. Scripture tells us Shortly after the Jews gain Israel the Perpetual Sacrifice will be removed and the Abomination of Desolation replaced therin then comes the end of time for the Gentiles for Salvation comes from the Jews. Jews got Israel in 1948 Vatican11 1960's. The Temple in Jerusalem was demolished by the Romans in 70A.D Communism in 70 A.D. Communism lasted 70 years but no doubt about it Rome's time is coming to an end . Novus Ordo Church is a Counterfeit and the great Apostasy started in 1960's. .It is called Novus Ordo New Order. Don't mention St Peter's Basilica it was given its Pagan name 'The Vatican ' Next step after WW111 is Jerusalem. They will hear the Passover Prayers. Why Jerusalem? Remember The Jews said "We have no King but Caesar Crucify Him give us Barrabbas" in front of the crowds. Barrabbas represents a false church.

No protestant has a problem with the following: A) Living saint -> God Departed saint -> God B) The problem is with: Living saint -> departed saint -> God Literally zero of the biblical passages presented show the Romanist idea of praying to departed saints in heaven. Show me just one passage of Paul praying to Abraham to ask him to pray in heaven. Give me just one of Peter saying "pray to Moses for intercession." This is just the Romanists trying to baptize pagan ancestor worship.

There is nothing new under the sun. I have heard all of these heresies from Protestants and Modernists over the years.

Montanus: founder of the charismatic movement

Do not think heretics are members of the Body of Christ. But we do now. We print stamps and make statues of them, and will no doubt soon start proclaiming them saints. I wonder what Irenaeus would write about the Church today?

They knew the Church was the House of Israel but with a New Covenant.

Thank you and God bless you. I understand John Mark may have accompanied St Peter later and scribed the Gospel of St Mark. I look forward to learning more of this. And I liked that you alluded to St Luke’s time with St Mary for the special detail of Our Lady in his Gospel. I look forward to more on that too. You are doing a terrific job.

Excellent historic analysis 😃

I just thought about this but it seems odd Jesus didn't teach the apostles, during His time with them, that baptism could be given to the Gentiles without the mosaic law. It's , in my estimation, the most integral aspect to the whole new covenant and just a weird thing not to cover to me. I wonder what the Church fathers said to explain it 😅

Mary was not the "mother of God". That would suggest God had a beginning and Mary predated him.

Are we gonna ignore the fact that the claims of paul were never authoritative and paul had serious disagreements and antagonisms with actual apostles??? He said he had visions and he is bringing out entirely new doctrines from his visions and no one was like , wait!!? Thousands of people claim divine visions every year, even today, WHY should we take your "visions" as an authority? If pauls "visions/musings" are authoritative, in spite of his disagreements with all other congregations, why are Joseph Smith's visions not authoritative??

Thank you for a list and history of the early saints.

What is meant by all the bishops?

Great points describing the human & divine nature of the church entity. Thank you and bless you.

God bless you sir 🙏 keep defending the faith and i hope you stand strong in the faith

Excellent

Can you tell me where to get that beautiful artwork or icon behind you. It is beautiful

Thank you for your videos, I have learned from the few I have watched! Re: correcting the Pope, are you familiar with Ron Conte's (Reproach Of Christ website)? From my limited perspective, his position seems different than yours, and seems to hold up better. Very important issue in our times. Thank you!

Hello.... They were alive or haven't been born yet. A third grader could understand that.

At 30:50 or so you said that Japanese Christians kept the faith by only praying. This is true, but I also believe that certain laymen or possibly laywomen in dire situations, baptized children and new converts. Has anyone else heard something to this effect?

Nope.. You're an indoctrinated liar

Your videos are a blessing to the Church, as a new convert I love Church history 🙏 ❤️ 🎉

Thanks again for the good video

I grew up Catholic and know that St.Peter (an uneducated illiterate) was the first Bishop/Patriarch of Rome and *NOT* the first Pope. "Pope" started out simply as a term of endearment. The earliest record of the use of the title of 'pope' was in regard to the by-then-deceased patriarch of Alexandria, Heraclas (232-248). And Rome was one of 5 autonomous/autocephalous (self governing) churches within the Roman empire. The other churches also have had and continue to have their own popes. Many Pope's were absolutely horrible people And the the R.Catholic church is full of pius lies

Incredible 😲

Can I donate to you? I am so grateful for all of the videos you have already made and again for the videos you continue to make. Love from NYC

Thanks for these videos

The orthodox have patriarchs .

Can someone explain to me the purpose of ad orientum. Why is facing east so important? I would think that what's important is facing the sacrafice of the mass. That what's important is the reverance toward the eucharist, not a direction. I feel like if TLM only people brought their talents and reverance to the novus ordo, we'd have a much more beautiful rite. We have an organ in my parish but only 2 people can play and they aren't very good at it. If we had the talents of the TLM come.to novus ordo, we'd have more beautiful liturgies.

In all fairness to Luther, you should know what he did when some of the blood from the chalice was accidentally spilled. On one occasion some of the blood touched the fur coat of a woman. He tried to lap up as much as he could from the coat and then drink it. He ordered that the woman immediately hand over the coat and he cut the patch that had been touched and had it burnt. On another occasion some of the blood hit the floor. Luther got down on his hands and knees and lapped up the blood with his tongue. I wonder if this would happen today in a post Vatican II church? I suspect that they would bring out the wipes.

Most of the things you speak about that were removed were not removed due to vatican 2. They were removed for convenience, and I would agree that it was wrong in many instances to do so, but that's something that we should return as a church. That wasn't the councils decision but the people's. Instead of leaving the church or going to a tlm only church. Why not bring the good of the tlm to the novus ordo.

I had to laugh when you called John Calvin St. John or almost said it. Actually as you point out some of his ideas are catholic, but some are not.

Can't blame vatican 2. People were leaving the church long before vatican 2. I'd say it was the failers of those who came before and didn't do more against the enlightenment and against protestantism. Also, that 30% is inaccurate. The recently did another study using the words that the church uses, and it's closer to 70% who believe in the real presence. Could novus ordo masses be more reverant and take from the TLM the good and beauty? Yes. Is it the cause of people leaving the church. I don't think so. I think it's secularism that caused that. Vatican 2 calls people to be more sacramental and to read and understand scripture more and wants the people to do more for and within the church.

New subscriber here! What an amazing channel and so much needed - especially for those of us who are so lost and alone without the Tridentine mass, no catechism, no way of any spiritual direction. So grateful this popped up in my feed - surely God's providence!🙏 Thank you for the wonderful work you are doing - will watch every single video! God bless and greetings from South Africa

It's not abrogated. Abrogated means that it should not be allowed to be done. But the mass is allowed. Just because they changed, it doesn't mean it's abrogated. This anathema was speaking of protestants who tried to prevent the mass from being said in general. They are anathema.

Love your videos sir. I find them edifying and educational. Keep up the great content. God bless.

At 24:57 the translation that you use of the Didache seems to mix formal and informal pronouns Thou and You and Thy/Thine and Your. It comes across as a bit cumbersome. Who made such a strange translation from the Greek?

What is the weird picture that you placed at about 4:50 and again and again in other places. It looks like someone put a rosary in the chalice and left it there. That is not allowed. The only thing allowed into the chalice is wine and a bit of water. After the consecration the priest drops a small portion of the true Body of Christ into the chalice. You talk about reverence for the Eucharist. I find that picture irreverent if not silly. It seems to be your theme photo. How can I take anyone seriously who uses such a ridiculous image? I cannot imagine that it comes from any pre-Vatican II period. It looks too modern and too unorthodox. It takes away from your otherwise almost Orthodox presentation.

Thy way, O God, is in thy sanctuary, who is so great a God as our God? {Psalm77:13} ...as Moses was admonished of God when he was about to make the tabernacle: for, See, saith God, that thou make all things according to *the pattern* shewed to thee in the mount. {Hebrews 8:5} The *sanctuary* [tabernacle] was a pattern of types and shadows of the heavenly temple, and Jesus Christ is the substance of those types and shadows. Jesus Christ is the door to the sanctuary; He is the door to the Kingdom of heaven. He is the inner court surrounded by white linen; which is symbolic of being covered Christ prefect righteousness. He is our passover sacrificed for us on burnt alter for sacrifice. He is the laver for washing; symbolic of the rebirth, being born again of the Spirit. He is the table of Showbread; the two stacks of loves of bread are symbolic of the word of God (the bread of life) in two testaments / witnesses, also the twelve tribes of Israel and the twelve Apostles. He is the Lampstand; the oil being symbolic of his Spirit; the Lampstand symbolic of his light unto the world. He is our Altar of incense; making intercession for his saints. He is our Mercy seat covering the Ark of the covenant; Jesus is both our advocate standing for his saints with the Father and He is our judge in judment. Jesus Christ caused the sacrifices and their oblations to cease, (Dan 9:27) by his one perfect sacrifice. In contrast to the time of the Gentiles, wherefore the sanctuary of God is trodden under foot for forty and two months. How so? This church who calls herself the mother church, claims to be *the door* to salvation. And the white linen surrounding the inner court is the righteousness of Mary and the saints of the Roman church. She claims that Christ sacrifice and Atonement for sin was not sufficient, for she instituted seven (works) sacraments. She through infant baptism makes a mockery of the rebirth of the new man. Her Catechism thinks to replace the inspired word of God. Her prayers to dead saints and to Mary, thinks to replace Christ work of intercession at the altar of incense. Hers is a false spirit which thinks to cover the light of truth. This beast and her king think to change times and laws of God. And goeth into perdition.

It was Peters confession of faith that Jesus would build his church on. Not on Peter himself. When Jesus came into the coasts of *Caesarea Philippi* he asked his disciples, saying, "Whom do men say that I the Son of man am?" And they said, Some say that thou art John the Baptist: some, Elias; and others, Jeremias, or one of the prophets. He saith unto them, "But whom say ye that I am?" And Simon Peter answered and said, *Thou art the Christ the Son of the living God* And Jesus answered and said unto him, "Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven. And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and *upon this rock I will build my church* and *the gates of hell* shall not prevail against it.” {Matthew 16:13-18} "upon *this rock* I will build my church" is a demonstrated pronoun. No different than, Jesus answered and said unto them, "Destroy *this temple* and in three days I will raise it up.” {John 2:19} "the gates of hell" Here Jesus was using satire, for the pagans believed that the gates of hades was at a cave in Caesarea Philippi. “And I will give unto thee *the keys of the kingdom of heaven* and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.” {Matthew 16:19} The keys to the kingdom is not exclusive to Peter, for anyone can open the kingdom of heaven by their witness of the gospel to unbelievers. <> “Whosoever therefore shall confess me before men, him will I confess also before my Father which is in heaven.” {Matthew 10:32} That *if thou shalt confess with thy mouth* the Lord Jesus and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved. For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and *with the mouth confession is made unto salvation* {Romans 10:9-10} And that *every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord* to the glory of God the Father. {Philippians 2:11} Whosoever shall confess that Jesus is the Son of God, God dwelleth in him, and he in God. {1 John 4:15} And as they went on their way, they came unto a certain water: and the eunuch said, See, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized? And Philip said, *If thou believest with all thine heart thou mayest* And he answered and said, *I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God* {Acts 8:35-36}

-- "On the day of preperation, at the hour of dinner, there came out pursuers and horsemen" and Polycarp was killed "on *the great day of the Sabbath* at the eighth hour" (The encyclical epistle of the church at Smyrna, the Martyrdom of Polycarp, Bishop of Smyrna. Verses 7.1 & 8.1 Charles H. Hoole's 1885 translation.) -- "Again as to the assertion that Sabbath has been abolished. We deny that He has abolished it plainly; for He was Himself Lord of the Sabbath." (Archelaus c. 3rd century.) -- "Gnostic 8th day Origins" "They affirm that man was formed on the eighth day, for sometimes they will have him been made on the sixth day, and sometimes on the eighth, unless perchance they mean that the earthly part was formed on the sixth day, but his fleshly part on the eighth, for these two things are distinguished by them." (Irenaeus of Lyons c. 2nd century.) -- The Gnostic "Eight Day" origins of Sunday rest. "But the works of the Nicolaitans in that time were false and troublesome men, who, as ministers under the name of Nicholas, had made for themselves a hersey, to the effect that what might be offered to Idols might be exorcised and eaten, and whoever should have committed fornication might receive peace on the eighth day." (Victorinious of Pettau c. 3rd century.) -- "For almost all the churches throughout the world celebrate the mysteries on the Sabbath of every week, yet the Christians of *Alexandria and Rome* on account of some *ancient tradition* cease to do this." (Socrates Scholasticus c. 380 - 439 A.D.) -- "There are many here among us now, who fast on the same day as the Jews, [Rome made the Sabbath day a fast] and keep the Sabbaths in the same mannor." (John Chrysostom c. 339 - 407 A.D.) -- 'Primitive Christianity' Athanasius Bishop of Alexandria tells us that "They assemble on Saturday, not that they are infected with Judaism, but only to worship Christ the Lord of the Sabbath" (Pseudo Athanasius; William Cave c. 1676) -- "Thus Christ did not at all rescind the Sabbath, He kept the law thereof.....even in the case before us He fulfilled the law while interpreting its condition; moreover, He exhibits in a clear light the different kinds of work, while doing what the law excepts from the sacredness of the Sabbath and while imparting to the Sabbath itself, which from the beginning had been consecrated by the Benediction of the Father. An additional sanctity by His own Beneficent action. For He furnished to this day divine safeguards..... *a course which His adversary would have pursued for some other days, to avoid honouring the Creator's Sabbath* and restoring to the Sabbath the works which were proper for it." (3rd century Tertillian on the Sabbath.) *Council of Laodicea* canon 29 A.D. 363 "Christians must not Judaize by resting on the sabbath day, but must work on that day, rather honoring --the Lord's Day-- [Sun-day] and, if they can, resting as Christians. But if they they shall be found to be Judaizers, let them be an anathema from Christ." ^ Proof that true Christianity still remembered the sabbath day, to keep it Holy, even in the fourth century A.D.

Great beginning to the video (I love your beginnings). Again, encyclopedic coverage of your topics. We so often forget that lots of people had a role in the spread of (early) Catholicism. Thanks.

THE PRIMACY of the Roman Catholic Church depends upon one fundamental doctrine: the claim that Peter was the first Bishop of Rome and the founder of the Roman Church. The teaching of Catholic historians tells us that Simon Peter went to Rome at the same time as Simon Magus in order to thwart his evils. This was during the reign of Claudius. After successfully combating the Magus, they tell us, Peter assumed the Roman bishopric and ruled it until the Neronian persecutions of 68 A.D., during which Peter was supposed to have been crucified upside down on Vatican hill. This is the basic story and Catholic writers never shirk in attempting to defend it. Some of them say that this general account is one of the most provable of historical events. But is it? The fact remains, many ecclesiastical authors of the second century, Justin Martyr among them, give information completely negating Peter's supposed Roman bishopric. This is admitted by virtually all scholars - except conservative Catholics (Ency. Biblica, col. 4554). But, more important than this, the records of the True Church of God - the writings of the New Testament - absolutely refute the Roman Catholic claim. It is time that the world gets its eyes open to the truth of this matter - the truth, which is clearly revealed in the Word of God. The Apostle Peter was NEVER the Bishop of Rome! The Bible Teaching There are ten major New Testament proofs which completely disprove the claim that Peter was in Rome from the time of Claudius until Nero. These Biblical points speak for themselves and ANY ONE of them is sufficient to prove the ridiculousness of the Catholic claim. Notice what God tells us! The truth IS conclusive! PROOF ONE: We should consider Christ's commission to Peter. This is often very embarrassing to Catholics, because Christ commissioned Peter to become chief minister to the CIRCUMCISED, not to uncircumcised Gentiles. "The gospel of the CIRCUMCISION was unto Peter; (For He that wrought effectually in Peter to the apostleship of the circumcision, the same was mighty in me toward the Gentiles:)" (Gal. 2:7-8). Here we have it in the clearest of language. It was Paul, NOT Peter, who was commissioned to be the chief Apostle to the Gentiles. And who was it that wrote the Epistle to the ROMANS? It certainly WASN'T Peter! "And when James, Cephas [Peter], and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace [i.e., the gift or office] that was given unto me, they gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship; that we should go unto the heathen, and they unto the circumcision" (Gal. 2:9). Paul further mentioned his special office as the Gentile Apostle in II Timothy 1:11: "Whereunto I am appointed a preacher, and an apostle, and a teacher of the Gentiles." PETER is NOWHERE called the Apostle to the Gentiles! This precludes him from going to Rome to become the head of a Gentile community. PROOF TWO: Paul specifically told the Gentile Romans that HE had been chosen to be their Apostle, not Peter. "I should be the minister of Jesus Christ to the Gentiles, ministering the gospel of God, that the offering up of the Gentiles might be acceptable" (Rom. 15:16). How clear! Paul had the direct charge from Christ in this matter. He even further relates in Romans 15:18 that it was Christ who had chosen him "to make the Gentiles obedient, by word and deed." PAUL Established Only TRUE Church at Rome PROOF THREE: We are told by Paul himself that it was he - not Peter - who was going to officially found the Roman Church. "I long to see you, that I may impart unto you some spiritual gift, to the end ye may be established" (Rom. 1:11). Amazing! The Church at Rome had not been ESTABLISHED officially even by 55 or 56 A.D. However, the Catholics would have us believe that Peter had done this some ten years before - in the reign of Claudius. What nonsense! Of course you understand that NEITHER Peter nor Paul established the Catholic Church! But these proofs are given to illustrate that it is utterly impossible for PETER to have been in any way associated with ANY Church at Rome. PROOF FOUR: We find Paul not only wanting to establish the Church at Rome, but he emphatically tells us that his policy was NEVER to build upon another man's foundation. "Yea, so have I strived to preach the gospel, not where Christ was named, LEST I SHOULD BUILD UPON ANOTHER MAN'S FOUNDATION" (Rom. 15:20). If Peter had "founded" the Roman Church some ten years before this statement, this represents a real affront to Peter. This statement alone is proof that Peter had never been in Rome before this time to "found" any church. Peter Not in Rome PROOF FIVE: At the end of Paul's Epistle to the Romans he greets no fewer than 28 different individuals, but never mentions Peter once! See Romans 16 - read the whole chapter! Remember, Paul greeted these people in 55 or 56 A.D. Why didn't he mention Peter? - Peter simply wasn't there! PROOF SIX: Some four years after Paul wrote Romans, he was conveyed as a prisoner to Rome in order to stand trial before Caesar. When the Christian community in Rome heard of Paul's arrival, they all went to meet him. "When THE brethren [of Rome] heard of us, they came to meet us" (Acts 28:15). Again, there is not a single mention of Peter among them. This would have been extraordinary had Peter been in Rome, for Luke always mentions by name important Apostles in his narration of Acts. But he says nothing of Peter's meeting with Paul. Why? Because Peter was not in Rome! PROOF SEVEN: When Paul finally arrived at Rome, the first thing he did was to summon "the chief of the Jews together" (Acts 28:17) to whom he "expounded and testified the kingdom of God" (Verse 23). But what is amazing is that these chief Jewish elders claimed they knew very little even about the basic teachings of Christ. All they knew was that ''as concerning this sect, we know that everywhere it is spoken against" (Verse 22). Then Paul began to explain to them the basic teachings of Christ on the Kingdom of God. Some believed - the majority didn't. Now, what does all this mean? It means that if Peter, who was himself a strongly partisan Jew, had been preaching constantly in Rome for 14 long years before this time, AND WAS STILL THERE - how could these Jewish leaders have known so little about even the basic truths of Christianity? This again is clear proof Peter had not been in Rome prior to 59 A.D. No Mention of Peter in Paul's Letters PROOF EIGHT: After the rejection of the Jewish elders, Paul remained in his own hired house for two years. During that time he wrote Epistles to the Ephesians, the Philippians, the Colossians, Philemon, and to the Hebrews. And while Paul mentions others as being in Rome during that period, he nowhere mentions Peter. The obvious reason is - the Apostle to the circumcision wasn't there! PROOF NINE: With the expiration of Paul's two year's imprisonment, he was released. But about four years later (near 65 A.D.), he was again sent back a prisoner to Rome. This time he had to appear before the throne of Caesar and was sentenced to die. Paul describes these circumstances at length in II Timothy. In regard to his trial, notice what Paul said in II Timothy 4:16. "At my first answer no man stood with me, but all men [in Rome] forsook me: I pray God that it may not be laid to their charge." This means, if we believe the Catholics, that Peter forsook Paul, for they tell us Peter was very much present at Rome during this time! Peter once denied Christ, but that was before he was converted. To believe that Peter was in Rome during Paul's trial, is untenable! PROOF TEN: The Apostle Paul distinctly informs us that Peter was not in Rome in 65 A.D. - even though Catholics say he was. Paul said: "Only Luke is with me" (II Tim. 4:11). The truth becomes very plain. Paul wrote TO Rome; he had been IN Rome; and at the end wrote at least six epistles FROM Rome; and not only does he NEVER mention Peter, but at the last moment says: "Only Luke is with me." Peter, therefore, was never Bishop of Rome! Where Was Peter? Near 45 A.D., we find Peter being cast into prison at Jerusalem (Acts 12:3, 4). In 49 A.D., he was still in Jerusalem, this time attending the Jerusalem Council. About 51 A.D., he was in Antioch of Syria where he got into differences with Paul because he wouldn't sit or eat with Gentiles. Strange that the "Roman bishop" would have nothing to do with Gentiles in 51 A.D.! Later in about 66 A.D., we find him in the city of Babylon among the Jews (I Pet. 5:13). Remember that Peter was the Apostle to the CIRCUMCISED. Why was he in Babylon? Because history shows that there were as many Jews in the Mesopotamian areas in Christ's time as there were in Palestine. It is no wonder we find him in the East. Perhaps this is the reason why scholars say Peter's writings are strongly Aramaic in flavor - the type of Aramaic spoken in Babylon. Why of course! Peter was used to their eastern dialect. At the times the Catholics believe Peter was in Rome, the Bible clearly shows he was elsewhere. The evidence is abundant and conclusive. By paying attention to God's own words, no one need be deceived. Peter was NEVER the Bishop of Rome!