Very good focus. I also frequently run into the struggle of people wanting to debate veneration of saints or relics or something when what MATTERS is Church authority and continuity. If you have the latter, everything else follows without question.
Excellent video and good point in the beginning about how frustrating it can be to stay on topic with Protestants. They tend to dismiss us because they have 10 - 20 false beliefs about the church and when you try to explain one of them, they dismiss the explanation and say yeah but what about these other 19 problems? When you try to talk about about another one, they dismiss us and say yeah well that’s only 2 things what about yaddayadda? It’s frustrating because I can tell they weren’t listening on the first two topics, I know they won’t listen to a 3rd but they’re acting like I have to address all 20 or they’ll dismiss me. Usually at that point I just go on the offense and start trashing their doctrines and we usually get nowhere lol.
This is a common problem with Catholics, Protestants and anyone else for that matter. Pride and being un kind and unloving are obstacles to being willing to listen to differing views in a true search for truth. It's easy to use logical fallacies and dismiss valid arguments. I am naturally predisposed to do just that, and I have to work at being intellectually honest and willing to admit that I may be wrong and I may not have all the information.... or I may be misapplying the information.
@@00CCJc00 Oh, i did not make it. Idk who did but you can find it from many sources. I just googles "Catholic Church timeline" and its there in the images. As a historian I can attest to its accuracy
We should stop fighting as God does not want Christian denominations fighting as we are the Christian Church, the true Church. We broke his Church into pieces and that's the fault of all of the Christian denominations. I have seen many people which were like: I can disprove Catholicism. Except this is just continuing the job given not by God but by Satan. I am Catholic and I think that we should focus on uniting the Church.
How is this fighting? The entire point is, if any protestant is right, then every student of the apostles and all following Christians for the next 1500 years, including the ones who canonized scripture, are in hell for following the false Gospel which protestants claim Catholics teach. If they make that claim, then they now have to come up with a reason Jesus and the Apostles utterly failed, why God waited 1500+ years to reveal the real Gospel, and how followers of the incorrect Gospel managed to assembled an entire book of infallible books. By revealing the truth we can unite the Church.
Unity over misinterpretation or false teaching is not true unity. The Bible tells us to expose evil in Ephesians and to correct and admonish false teachers. What you are saying sounds good on the surface but is contrary to what the Bible tells us to do. The Bible also tells us to be gentle in our correction and be mindful of weaker brothers so as not to destroy them. This gets tricky as we are all short on time but with lots to say.... so being quick to listen and slow to speak can be difficult in our fast paced world.
Im not sure what you're saying, but here's an explanation on Matthew 16:18 and its significance ruclips.net/video/0HY0PQ4Zuag/видео.htmlsi=HJvxqrrHdnJ2fl3M
Prove it. None of the Popes have been related to Peter in hundreds if not thousands of years. The emperor has no clothes here. Misinterpreting Scripture and misapplying Scripture is false teaching... not proof. Jesus is shown in the Old and New Testament to be the rock or cornerstone the church is built upon.... the promised Messiah that Peter acknowledged and Jesus affirmed that He (Himself) is the Christ... the Messiah.... the rock the church is built upon. Nowhere else in Scripture is it taught anything about Peter being the rock. The confusion is in the name of Petras itself, but the context of Scripture plainly shows us Jesus is the rock, so Papacy has nothing much to stand on except tradition. The Papacy has motives of finance and power to continue the ruse.... but the emperor has no clothes.
Yeah Jesus did build his Church upon Peter who he knew would deny him 3 times. He even prayed for Peter alone not the be sifted by Satan when strengthening, his brothers (papel infallibility when Ex Cathedra) after he returns from denying him 3 times (Luke 22:31-32) You're essentially saying you reject Jesus's choice for the rock because you don't like Peter as if you have a choice in the matter or Jesus cares about what you think about his pick to feed his sheep and tend his flock (John 21:15-17)
Even a cursory reading of the New Testament will reveal that the Catholic Church does not have its origin in the teachings of Jesus or His apostles. In the New Testament, there is no mention of the papacy, worship/adoration of Mary (or the immaculate conception of Mary, the perpetual virginity of Mary, the assumption of Mary, or Mary as co-redemptrix and mediatrix), petitioning saints in heaven for their prayers, apostolic succession, the ordinances of the church functioning as sacraments, infant baptism, confession of sin to a priest, purgatory, indulgences, or the equal authority of church tradition and Scripture. Which church-that is, which denomination of Christianity-is the “true church”? Which church is the one that God loves and cherishes and died for? Which church is His bride? The answer is that no visible church or denomination is the true church, because the bride of Christ is not an institution, but is instead a spiritual entity made up of those who have by grace through faith been brought into a close, intimate relationship with the Lord Jesus Christ (Ephesians 2:8-9). Those people, no matter which building, denomination, or country they happen to be in, constitute the true church
everything you said is under the assumption that the Bible is a catechesis. Its not. nor does it teach that everything was revealed in it, or that everything needs to be in it. despite that, you can't use the Bible to disprove any of the things you said are in it. They are all either there explicitly like the Papacy (Matthew 16:18-19, Luke 22:31-32, John 21:15-17) or implicitly taught like the trinity, even though that word isn't found. The irony is this idea that the church is this indivisible body not only isn't taught anywhere in Scripture, it is a belief that absolutely zero Christians believed for the first 1500 years or more of church history. so when Jesus said he would be with his church always, and he would send the Holy Spirit to guide into all truth, he is either a liar, or you are either a liar. if your interpretation of scripture is correct, then we should be able to find widespread acceptance of it held by Christians at every point in history, continuously. unfortunately for you, instead what we find is as soon as we have evidence for what all the churches established by the apostles believed, and by what their students believed, it is always profoundly Roman Catholic. also, most of your points can be disapproved by actually watching the video.🙃
You forget that church is NOT a building but an assembling. I can recommend the channel of Brotherly Advice to learn about actually Christianity. I ain't Catholic, Protestant, Orthodox, Anabaptist etc. Just a Christian.
Not always, but even if so, its not an assembly one can be in just by saying they are. The "assembly", singular, can kick you out with the gentiles and tax collectors if you refuses to listen to them about your sins (Matthew 18:15-18) Who is the only Church that assemble could be provide the historical evidence? The Bride of Jesus, The Roman Catholic Church. Jesus is not a polygamist.
@@AlphaStudios-lh1rz I find that nearly impossible to believe given we recite the Nicene creed every mass. Are you claiming the Catholic Church doesn't teach the Trinity?
A lot of theological errors. Assuming mostly Catholicism to prove Catholicism. I don’t think Matthew 16 can establish all these strong burden claims (especially in the light on contradictions in Catholic thought), you also basically assume Suan Sonna’s claims about the Sanhedrin is correct when it most likely isn’t. You proof text the common catholic variety to land on Catholicism.
Your opinion is irrelevant. I literally said in the video this is not an in depth explanation of all the things that have already explained. Its putting together all the things we always have to explain to establish this point. The case for the Catholic Church isn't just grounded in the book we wrote, assembled and identified as scripture because we knew what the Gospel was from Apostolic Tradition. Its the only Church you can literally trace back to Jesus. We weren't founded by Luther, or Calvin, or pastors bobs corner church. Jesus established the Catholic Church and no protestant can look to the first Christians for validation like we can. if you think the Gospel is wrong, then answer my questions at the end of the video.
@@MasterKeyMagic Just like you aren’t providing your exhaustive arguments, neither am I. So, this is a brief overview of what I unfortunately had to listen to. This is all founded on bad arguments and silly historical thesis you couldn’t defend and better men have long debunked from both Protestant and Catholic perspectives. The Gospel is the same as it ever was. Whoever is persuaded by your charlatan arguments and your counterfeit gospel deserves whatever wrath they heap upon themselves. When would you actually like to argue for your faith?
@@Dlee-eo5vv Someone forgot to tell the Apostle John that because this is what he taught his disciples/students: "See that you all follow the bishop, even as Jesus Christ does the Father, and the presbytery as you would the apostles; and reverence the deacons, as being the institution of God. Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is administered either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there, let the multitude of the people also be; even as wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church." ((Letter to the Smyrnaeans, Chapter 8). ~100AD
@MasterKeyMagic we have had many bishops who depart the faith, thus we don't follow blindly any one bishop. We follow those who hold tradition, the Saints, the councils, the whole church. The Apostle Paul makes it plain, follow ( me), for I follow Christ.
@@Dlee-eo5vv He's not just any bishop. He is the one Jesus picked to feed and tend his sheep. He has the keys to the kingdom of Heaven. He is the rock. If you aren't on the rock, you're not in the Church Jesus established. Could you imagine if someone tried what you'll do in Acts 15? The Apostles just had the council of Jerusalem and said Christians dont have to be circumcised anymore, and you EOC guys be like "Nope. Its tradition, and we don't like Peter because he denied Jesus 3 times. And the rest of the Apostles hid while Jesus was put to death." 💀🤦🏿♂️ You have NO tradition or scripture to break away from the rock. Your authority is your selfishness.
The Catholic Church is like the first car manufacturer. Then the Japanese imitated and improved the models, made it cheaper and dominated the market. :) I'm Catholic but the reality is that the Church is on a massive decline. The only way for a turnaround is to re embrace her essential identity and reconsider the non essentials
Its not a popularity contest, yet despite not "rembracing her essential identify and reconsider[ing] the non essentials, the Catholic Church is still by far the biggest Church. In fact the Catholic Church has expanded more in the last 100 years than it ever did in the last 2000 years. So i'm just curious by what metric are using to determine its declining? And how does any of that change what Jesus said?
The problems plaguing the Catholic Church in no way mean that the teachings, doctrines, the catechism, the sacraments, and past miracles are any less relevant or any less correct. The state of the Catholic Church is a symptom of the quality of the leadership running it, not the church itself. Where we have good priests and bishops, we have strong churches.
The Church (TM), as I call it, is an abjectly absurd concept and it grieves me that wise people submit themselves to it with all the resources we have available to us today to test its authority claims. You build an argument but have you ever tested it with outside challenges? Mathew 16:13-19 - haven't heard that one before (kidding). Now do Mathew 18:18-20 where he gives the exact same blessing word-for-word. Who is it directed at? It should be exclusively for Peter otherwise what meaning did Mathew 16's blessing have? The *Rock* is the claim that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, and all that entails. Read the dialogue in the verses again without the dogma. It's wild to claim one disciple as the rock just because he was martyred where the bishop of Rome later became a power-hungry titan. The cornerstone of the church has always been Jesus (though not an imaginary alternate Jesus that Mormons/Jehovah Witnesses/other cults conjure up). The church has always existed since Pentecost. Even when the church was oppressed by Rome believers existed within that system, just as the faithful existed within the Temple system before Jesus, just as the faithful existed during the expulsion to Babylon. They were grieved but not spiritually crippled without the Temple/Tabernacle. Catholic apologists think it's a slam dunk that Jesus said the gates of hell would not prevail against his church as if the man-made institution is the power. As if God could not possibly be faithful without priests and robes bearing the standard of his church. Martin Luther was one man but the Church (TM) rapidly disintegrated after, showing that it was a house of cards and it was only brutality and murder that was keeping the congregations together. Just as the Roman road networks reached Israel, Jesus came. Just as the printing press arrived to the scene the reformation occurred. Information was disseminated differently, so what? Scripture was always critical to Jews and Jesus referred to scripture repeatedly. They had the written word and it was important to them and practicing Jews today bear testimony to that. The church was never meant to be a man-made institution. This is the fundamental error of Catholics. The Papacy and the Catholic Priesthood has no legitimate basis whatsoever. At all. In the slightest. Jesus is the high priest. The believers are the Saints. We have direct access to the Father through Jesus. Heresies like 'prayer' (whatever you want to call it) to the saints or Mary *is what the enemy meant for evil* but it should open your eyes that something is a wee bit wrong with the institution and lead you away from it. In 1Samuel 28 Saul tried to contact an undeniably-holy man and all the advice he got was that he was going to die for it. In the information age, with no excuses to be had, it's amazing and frightening that people do this. The Catholic church is a few steps removed from the absurdity of the Mormons in its claims of authority. One or two of these issues should create doubts of the exclusivity claims. If they don't then you or your children will one day sniff out the lies and lose the faith altogether. I live in a community full of secular people who go to church twice a year and baptize their infants. Ireland should be a cautionary tale of the inevitable Catholic --> Secular conversion.
The principle you are assuming is Sola Scriptura. Scripture never ever calls itself the sole authority. Instead it states that the Church is the pillar and ground of truth. Your own Bible never says there will never be an institutional church. That is in your mind. The Catholic Church has existed since the beginning. Open your mind a bit.
We are literally told who Matthew 18 :18-20 applies to in the previous verse. The Church. And we see who the authorities of the Church are and how they function in Acts 15. The power to bind and loose is not given to individual apostles when acting alone, it is given to them when they are together as in Acts and only when in communion with Peter. Peter however, as we see in Matthew 16:18, does in fact have the ability by himself to bind and loose. This as well as the prayer in Luke 22 that Jesus made for only Peter, forms the doctrine of Papel infallibility. If you do not trust Catholic souces on Peter being the rock, how about 7 top protestant Biblical scholars from all sorts of denominations who consent that here Jesus is making Peter the rock: Albert Barnes Nineteenth-Century Presbyterian “The meaning of this phrase may be thus expressed: ‘Thou, in saying that I am the Son of God, hast called me by a name expressive of my true character. I, also, have given to thee a name expressive of your character. I have called you Peter, a rock. . . . I see that you are worthy of the name and will be a distinguished support of my religion” [Barnes’ Notes on the New Testament, 170]. John Broadus Nineteenth-Century Calvinistic Baptist “As Peter means rock, the natural interpretation is that ‘upon this rock’ means upon thee. . . . It is an even more far-fetched and harsh play upon words if we understand the rock to be Christ and a very feeble and almost unmeaning play upon words if the rock is Peter’s confession” [Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew, 356]. Craig L. Blomberg Contemporary Baptist “The expression ‘this rock’ almost certainly refers to Peter, following immediately after his name, just as the words following ‘the Christ’ in verse 16 applied to Jesus. The play on words in the Greek between Peter’s name (Petros) and the word ‘rock’ (petra) makes sense only if Peter is the Rock and if Jesus is about to explain the significance of this identification” [New American Commentary: Matthew, 22:252]. J. Knox Chamblin Contemporary Presbyterian “By the words ‘this rock’ Jesus means not himself, nor his teaching, nor God the Father, nor Peter’s confession, but Peter himself. The phrase is immediately preceded by a direct and emphatic reference to Peter. As Jesus identifies himself as the builder, the rock on which he builds is most naturally understood as someone (or something) other than Jesus himself” [“Matthew” in Evangelical Commentary on the Bible, 742]. R. T. France Contemporary Anglican “The word-play, and the whole structure of the passage, demands that this verse is every bit as much Jesus’ declaration about Peter as verse 16 was Peter’s declaration about Jesus. Of course it is on the basis of Peter’s confession that Jesus declares his role as the Church’s foundation, but it is to Peter, not his confession, that the rock metaphor is applied” (Gospel According to Matthew, 254). Herman Ridderbos Contemporary Dutch Reformed “It is well known that the Greek word petra translated ‘rock’ here is different from the proper name Peter. The slight difference between them has no special importance, however. The most likely explanation for the change from petros (‘Peter’) to petra is that petra was the normal word for ‘rock.’ . . . There is no good reason to think that Jesus switched from petros to petra to show that he was not speaking of the man Peter but of his confession as the foundation of the Church. The words ‘on this rock [petra]’ indeed refer to Peter” [Bible Student’s Commentary: Matthew, 303]. Donald Hagner Contemporary Evangelical “The frequent attempts that have been made, largely in the past, to deny [that Peter is the rock] in favor of the view that the confession itself is the rock . . . seem to be largely motivated by Protestant prejudice against a passage that is used by the Roman Catholics to justify the papacy” (Word Biblical Commentary 33b:470). But the Catholic Church is not a man made institution. In fact, its the only institution on Earth that isn't man made. As Siri right now on your phone, who founded Lutheranism. Who founded Calvinism. Who founded Anglicanism. And then ask it who founded the Catholic Church. Its Jesus. And he very specifically laid out how his Church would look, function, the powers it had and that he would guide it to all truth and be with it always. And maybe most assuring, that the gates of hell shall not prevail against us. Which guess what! They haven't. For without lifting a finger we conquered the entire Roman Empire, perhaps the greatest empire ever, and out lasted it and every Empire for the next 2000 years. How can you fail to recognize this promise from Jesus? Does the Catholic Church being the oldest institution on earth not do it for you? Nobody is saying scripture isn't important. It is! Its critical! We wrote it, preserved it, died for it, canonized it and still remain the only infallible interpreters of its meaning. Its part of the deposit of faith. Our priests hold it high every mass, because the Bible is the book we put together to be the exclusive source of our liturgy. Yes, Jesus did say the LXX is important, so why isn't it in protestant bibles? Especially those made after 1825. But what it is not is what protestants who believe in sola scriptura make it out to be. God alone > Scripture alone. I'm not about to let you use 1 Samuel 28 out of context like that. Saul is literally using the Witch of Endor to conjure up Samuel. Which is absolutely not the same thing as an intercessory prayer. The Church has always banned witchcraft and belief in magic because of passages like these that tell us it leads to death. We don't go through a local Witch to ask Mary to pray for us. The act of speaking to someone in Heaven is not the act that got Saul killed, who is given 2 different death stories in the Bible. In Revelation 5:8 John see's the saints/priests in Heaven offer to Jesus our prayers. Read Psalm 141:2, Tobit 12:15, Philippians 4:6 to understand the context of Rev. 5:8 first. Plus the Catacombs, with inscriptions going back to the first century, during the life of the Apostles are littered with prayers of intercession from the dead because they believe Christ when he said those who do the will of God shall have eternal LIFE. " Matronata Matronata, who lived a year and 52 days. Pray for your parents." "Anatolius made this for his well-deserving son, who lived 7 years 7 months and 20 days. May your spirit rest well in God. Pray for your sister." The Catholic Church did not read the Bible out of a hat from the source of one man, who couldn't even duplicate it when the original translation was "lost". History proves Catholicism. History disproves mormonism. Mormonism proves the reformation was Satan opening pandoras box. mormons don't believe in the Trinity, let alone the nature of Jesus. They're not Christians. We are the first Christians. mormons have more in common with Protestants then they do with the Church Jesus established. Actually answer my questions in the video.
You're citing protestant scholars as if I'm beholden to a 19th century Calvinist the same way you are subservient to the Vatican's writings. A lot of people say a lot of things. God does not owe us a clear historiography void of bad teachers. No theologian from the early church fathers onward perfectly represents Jesus and no respectable one claims to. The apostles had a direct commission and authority from Jesus. We (the public) have some of their writings just as we have writings from the prophets. The scholarship and validity of this is not monopolized by The Church (TM). Among non-Catholics we have basic theology that is true and some differences and different interpretations, some of which we're passionate about. Some cults have developed and led people utterly astray. We all (aside from the various denominations of Catholicism) agree that the Catholic Church's claims are completely baseless, a blatant historical power seizure with no originality to speak. There are varying interpretations of whether Simon Peter is being renamed. So what if he is? There isn't the slightest evidence of the supremacy of the Bishop of Rome or Peter's supremacy except a *real stretch* of the text in Acts. You know it's weak when James seems to be in charge in Jerusalem in Acts and they still try to say it's at the permission of Peter when James clearly makes a decision. This is why they burned people to death for translating the word from God's chosen language of ... .... ... Latin. Like, maybe, just maybe guys like Paul should have told the church's about this Peter inherent supremacy? Just one letter or a mention of this doctrine in Acts? Not a shred of evidence *anywhere.* Not from the early church fathers either. Can't you see that it's a lie. This is not what the gospel is built on. Peter was not supreme in the slightest. He had the privilege of giving the first sermon through the Holy Spirit. That's a big deal. The church literally began then. Catholic apologists wear him like a skin suit. The bishop of Rome had no special control until he seized it unlawfully. Jesus did not make a new priesthood (nor did he make 'pastors'). I'll spare you the comparisons but Jesus' words for the religious order of his day couldn't apply much more. The believers *are the priesthood.* 1 Peter 2:9 The priesthood that was developed by Rome weren't forbidden to marry until 1,000 years after Christ. Why? TBH this was probably a power play to try and prevent a 2nd class of nobility. Either way it's insane, illogical, and unbiblical. The veil on the temple was torn. Ya'll built a new temple system and hold sacrifices daily to atone for your new sins just as the Jews did. Think whatever you want about transubstantiation but claiming to re-sacrifice Jesus again and again minimizes the real Passover lamb and the testimony about his real life and death. OFC the priesthood wants you to come to them for this. It's power and control, not believers in fellowship through the Holy Spirit. You say that you know who Matthew 18 :18-20 applies to but you use the same verbiage to justify Peter's supremacy. Your connection between Revelation and Psalm 141:2 is interesting (a stretch) but Tobit doesn't seem convincing even if I did subscribe to that book. Those 7 'missing' books add about as much to the Gospel as Ester does (which is about nothing save perhaps God being faithful, if that). I can see you're passionate about this but save yourself the time on me and I will do the same. I'd rather you be a Catholic than an atheist. I just don't believe you diehards will do anything but fall away once your Church (TM) turns progressive, which is inevitable. The path of least resistance is to conform to the world. It's coming. Your church might do it slow but it still does it. You try and shoehorn 'protestants' into being representing of these awful heresies we see and I don't think your faith will be able to stand your Rock falling into the same. The information age will accelerate the change. My Rock, my cornerstone, is Jesus Christ. The building I worship in is going to burn with the rest of them. @MasterKeyMagic
@@refugeeca The purpose to show the confessions of many professional protestant biblical scholars on Peter being the rock is to show you this isn't a protestant vs Catholic debate. Its a Catholic and Protestant vs Protestant debate. Its also to show that the idea that lacking unity is okay as Jesus prayed his Church would be united (John 17:20-23) and that God cannot be the protestant God as God is not the God of confusion but of peace ( 1 Corinthians 14:33) "God does not owe us..." You're strawmanning as I never said God does not does the Catholic Church teach that. Jesus did say the holy spirit would lead his Church into all truth (John 16:13-15) so its not that he owes us the truth, he promised us it. Jesus never said nor has the church ever claimed his church would be perfect. In fact in Luke 22:30-38 Jesus tells us Satan is going to sift everyone except Peter when he is strengthening his brothers, after Peter denies Jesus 3 times. The Apostles themselves were not perfect. So why are you holding the Catholic Church to a standard it never claimed to be at because Jesus said we cannot be at? Jesus says it is "monopolized" by this church, "Whoever listens to you listens to me." ( Luke 10:16) Not, "400 years from now, my Church will assembled a collection of their books and it will be called the Bible, and then Christianity will be like Burger King as anyone can use it to form their own beliefs and you don't need the Church who made it to tell you what it means" How is that not what you are saying? Who is this "we"? What protestants and even secular textual academic fail to do is read the Bible from the shoes of the audience it was intended. In the case of Matthews Gospel, he's assuming you know everything a first century Jew would know, including Koine Greek and Aramaic, not english. What when Jesus is speaking there, that you immediately pick up that, "Jesus is installing Peter as a form of chief steward or prime minister under the King of Kings by giving him the keys to the kingdom. As can be seen in Isaiah 22:22, kings in the Old Testament appointed a chief steward to serve under them in a position of great authority to rule over the inhabitants of the kingdom. Jesus quotes almost verbatim from this passage in Isaiah, and so it is clear what he has in mind. He is raising Peter up as a father figure to the household of faith (Isa. 22:21), to lead them and guide the flock (John 21:15-17). This authority of the prime minister under the king was passed on from one man to another down through the ages by the giving of the keys, which were worn on the shoulder as a sign of authority. Likewise, the authority of Peter has been passed down for 2000 years by means of the papacy.” Peter ends the debate in Acts 15. All James is doing is essentially saying what we know today to be , "Rome has spoken" And the fact that Peter's there at all lends to the necessity of Peter being present for the Church to function and wield its spiritual authority on matters of faith and morals. If Peter was not there, then you can say the Pope is not essential. The Church never condemned vernacular translations of scripture. The Catholic Churches of the east have always used Bibles in their languages. Its the unauthorized translations the Church rightfully attempted to condemn that altered the meaning of the scriptures, like Luther adding the word alone after faith in Romans 3:28. And it was not the Church that killed anyone but the states. The Pope was obvious to the 1st century Jewish converts who knew the context of their time, which so many protestants lack a understanding of. What you are saying is like what republicans do when talking about the civil war. Everybody back then knew it was about slavery. But conservative ideology would become the largest support for the continuation of segregation later, and the republican party would eventually be the party of conservatism. So 150 years later, these conservatives either out of ignorance or deliberate deception, attempt to make the civil war about "states rights". Which is true, but states rights... to do what? Determine slaves. What you don't see as obvious was obvious to those there. Including the Church fathers. You're just factually wrong about the Pope not being affirmed in the early Church. The Corinthians had a choice between writing to Clement the Pope or John the Apostle, who was still alive, and writing and much closer to them on the island of Patmos, and they chose to take their dispute to the successor of Peter over an actual living Apostles. Case closed. The cherry on top? After Jesus, guess who is mentioned second most, with a very big gap between him and the 3rd most mentioned in the New Testament? Peter. All 1 Peter 2:9 says is unlike in the old covenant where only descendants of Aaron could become Priests, in the new covenant all Christians could become priests. The Church still teaches that the priesthood of all believers exists, its just tended to by the Melchizedek priesthood: ruclips.net/video/Zih9pv74hpM/видео.htmlsi=9aTfclXiEUWhotBl ruclips.net/video/aP1oxGv8nps/видео.htmlsi=lkv4b4BfsoBg5LG2 Which is real, which is why we see it, and not the priesthood of all believers being the authoritative body in Acts 15. Priests are not forbidden to marry🤦🏿♂️ Peter himself had been married. There are married Catholic priests. The Church does not forbid it, the Priests volunteer to take a vow of celibacy so unlike protestant pastors, they do not offer us a conflict of interest. You making this claim proves you do not actually know what the Catholic Church teaches. Again, how do you say celibacy when Jesus himself was💀And Paul recommends it in 1 Corinthians 7. Jesus told us to break bread for the forgiveness of our sins. If you don't, you're not obeying Jesus. 100% of Christians from the Apostles to the reformation do not share your belief of the Eucharist. Therefore, the debating isn't what you think it means, but how could every single Christian for 3/4 of Christian history get this wrong? Answer the question and stop strawmanning. Jesus wants you to receive the Eucharist (John 6:25-58), which is why Priests want you to too. You're not understanding that everything the Church does is because Jesus told us to. And everything we don't do, is because Jesus told us not to. ... Peter and his successors can bind and loose. (Matthew 16:18) Separate the rest of the Apostles cannot bind and loose. But together they can when with Peter (Matthew 15-18👉🏽Acts 15) Idk how to make that any more simple for you. And I want to know how you answer my question on Matthew 15-17 in the description. It means nothing for protestants. You cannot believe in Jesus and reject those he appointed to teach you about him and spread the good news. You don't believe in Jesus if you think the gates of hell shall prevail against the very real Church he established, the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. Progressivism is not the threat. Conservatives, capitalism, materialism, protestantism (which opened pandoras box), and authoritarianism are. Anything that calls people to be sheep(The Parable of the sheep and the goats in Matthew 25:31-46) (left-libertarianism) instead of goats (all other 3 corners of the political spectrum) is welcomed into the Kingdom of God.
Bad interpretation.... Scripture is to be interpreted in light of Scripture. Peter is not the rock the church is built upon.... it is Jesus. All throughout Scripture, it is the Messiah who is the rock and cornerstone the church will be built upon. The RCC has to interpret this verse improperly or their entire organization falls apart. The RCC has motive and opportunity to misinterpret the verse... and they do.
@@MasterKeyMagic False Gospels have been around from the beginning. Paul warned of false gospels and false teachers who were prevalent even while Jesus was walking in Jerusalem, so it is not surprising that if the synagogues were full of false teachers for thousands of years.... it also no surprise that there would be false teaching in the RCC for thousands of years. Jesus said , "woe to you lawyers.... scribes.... heretics". The church has always been full of heretics , so we have to interpret Scripture properly to expose the heresies and false teachings. God doesn't lead Christians into false Gospels, but God does allow us to choose to sin or to obey. Let's not blame God for our bad choices or for the idolatrous choices of early RCC "fathers". Anytime we elevate our opinion above God's... it's idolatry of self. I've done it plenty of times, so I've learned to spot it quickly.
@@MasterKeyMagic Who says God led *all* of them? Another false assumption. God led the few who would not be corrupted, but the majority who took control were following their own desires, and some of them were led around by the devil himself. Just look at some of the lousy church leaders you've had; you can't deny history.
Let me explain to you the consequences of what you are claiming. Absolutely no protestant Gospel can be found anywhere for the first 3/4 of Church history. Other than the gnostic gospel we both agree is wrong, the ONLY Gospel to emerge out of the Apostolic Era is the Catholic Gospel. So what you are saying is, every single Church the Apostles founded all over the known world not only failed to learn from the Apostles what you claim to be the Gospel, but also they each independently happened to all preached the same exact Gospel: The Catholic Gospel. This means that you don't believe Jesus when he said the gates of hell shall not prevail against his Church (Matthew 16:18) since only the (what you claim to be false) Catholic Gospel was there to keep the gates of hell shut. And you believe Jesus was lying when in John 16:22-23 Jesus promised: " "I have much more to say to you, more than you can now bear. But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all truth." because you believe this didn't happen for 1500+ years💀 And worst! Since only the Catholic Gospel existed before the Bible, if what you claim is true, then what you are saying is the "false" Gospel believing Catholic Church that infallibly identified what is and what is not scripture in the late 4th century, assembled the entire Bible despite being heretics💀So what that means is, the Bible is a heretical book made by and canonized by heretics💀 Or maybe you're wrong and the first Christians, who were Catholic, were taught the correct Gospel by the Apostles. 🙃
... You're making a claim from silence since there exists absolutely 0 evidence anyone before Martin Luther believed in your Gospel. All the evidence proves the Catholic Gospel was the one the Apostles passed on and was the one who knew how to identify what is and what is not scripture in the late 4th century. And like in my above comment, it denies what Jesus said, therefore, its not an assumption. Its the only conclusion that can be drawn given the evidence.
catholic church blessed same sex couples, unleavened bread, the filioque, created grace, papal surpremacy, unmarried priests, unleavened bread, no wine in communion, adoration and more. True Orthodoxy, (I know for a fact the ROCOR) hasn't changed the rules and still follows the true Jesus Christ.
🤦🏿♂️ No, we did not. You believe corporate media over the vicar of Christ. Im convinced there is no such thing as "true orthodoxy" because you'll hate each other. Your churches don't agree on anything and are more concerned with your individual national identity than actually evangelizing and continuing Christs ministry. How protestants looks at the Catholic Church i look at you'll, completely missing the point of being the instrument of Gods love in exchange for over empathize of
First of all, you shouldn't throw stones from a glass house. Many of the popes in the Roman Church have been of Italian descent and many churches are either Polish/Italian immigrants. Not to mention that the Eastern rite in your church is structured the same way: Ukrainian, Rusyn, and Romanian eparchies. I can personally attest to ethnophyletism being present in the Eastern rite as I used to be an Eastern Catholic. Finally, the Eastern rite concedes to us on many key doctrinal issues. For instance, the filioque is omitted from the creed, St Gregory Palamas and St Seraphim of Sarov who died outside of the papist communion are venerated as saints, and the Ukrainian Catholic patriarch rejects Fidiucia Supplicans. That all being said, while many parishes are ethnic it simply isn't true that one cannot be Orthodox if they aren't a certain race this is considered a heresy in our Church. @@MasterKeyMagic
@@Sebastian-ct5ek The Catholic Church has the most evidence to support it being the Church Jesus established. Its not the house of glass, its the pillar of truth. The Eastern rite is in communion with Peter and thats what makes them Catholic. Sure there is ethnophypetism in the eastern rites, but they're the minority and are such in spite of what Rome requests. In Orthodoxy im not aware of any "branch" that is immune from ethnophypetism, its like, foundational. And don't tell me anyone can be Orthodox, tell that to the Orthodox who kick people out because of their nationality/race/culture/language, because they do it all the time. Look it up!
@@MasterKeyMagicThe term phyletism was used for the first time by a synod convened by the Ecumenical Patriarchate in Constantinople, then the capital of the Ottoman Empire, in 1872 to define and condemn an alleged heretical teaching espoused by the Bulgarian Exarchate in response to the latter′s establishment as a de facto autocephaly on May 23 [O.S. May 11] 1872, in the Bulgarian church in Constantinople in pursuance of the March 12 [O.S. February 28] 1870 firman of Sultan Abdülaziz of the Ottoman Empire. The unilateral promulgation of the Bulgarian exarchate followed the protracted struggle of the Bulgarians against the domination of the Greek hierarchy
Furthermore, The term phyletism from phili (Hellenic: φυλή): race or tribe was coined at the Holy and Great pan-Orthodox Synod that met in Constantinople in 1872. The meeting was prompted by the creation of a separate bishopric by the Bulgarian community of Constantinople for parishes only open to Bulgarians. It was the first time in Church history that a separate diocese was established based on ethnic identity rather than principles of Orthodoxy and territory. Phyletism, however, should not be confused with patriotism (which was known at that time as φιλοπατρία) as the latter simply means devotion and loyalty to one's nation and/or culture and is not at odds with Orthodoxy. Here is the Synod’s official condemnation of ecclesiastical racism, or “ethno-phyletism”: We renounce, censure and condemn phyletism, that is racial discrimination, ethnic feuds, hatreds and dissensions within the Church of Christ, as contrary to the teaching of the Gospel and the holy canons of our blessed fathers which “support the holy Church and the entire Christian world, embellish it and lead it to divine godliness.”
Very good focus. I also frequently run into the struggle of people wanting to debate veneration of saints or relics or something when what MATTERS is Church authority and continuity. If you have the latter, everything else follows without question.
I love the Catholic Church
I love Jesus.
@IAmYourBestFriend1 So does the Catholic Church! Thats why we're obedient to him and don't ignore anything he taught
Thank you Peter❣️This so Awesome🕊️✝️♥️
Solid video, brother. God bless you!
Excellent video and good point in the beginning about how frustrating it can be to stay on topic with Protestants. They tend to dismiss us because they have 10 - 20 false beliefs about the church and when you try to explain one of them, they dismiss the explanation and say yeah but what about these other 19 problems? When you try to talk about about another one, they dismiss us and say yeah well that’s only 2 things what about yaddayadda? It’s frustrating because I can tell they weren’t listening on the first two topics, I know they won’t listen to a 3rd but they’re acting like I have to address all 20 or they’ll dismiss me. Usually at that point I just go on the offense and start trashing their doctrines and we usually get nowhere lol.
This is a common problem with Catholics, Protestants and anyone else for that matter. Pride and being un kind and unloving are obstacles to being willing to listen to differing views in a true search for truth. It's easy to use logical fallacies and dismiss valid arguments. I am naturally predisposed to do just that, and I have to work at being intellectually honest and willing to admit that I may be wrong and I may not have all the information.... or I may be misapplying the information.
Great video man! People need simplicity in their lives!
Wonderful apologetics!!
where do we get a copy of this slide?
Would be super helpful! thank you!
The one with all the verses on it?
@@MasterKeyMagic the church hisotry timeline and the branching of churches in 1500
@@00CCJc00 Oh, i did not make it. Idk who did but you can find it from many sources. I just googles "Catholic Church timeline" and its there in the images. As a historian I can attest to its accuracy
We should stop fighting as God does not want Christian denominations fighting as we are the Christian Church, the true Church. We broke his Church into pieces and that's the fault of all of the Christian denominations. I have seen many people which were like: I can disprove Catholicism. Except this is just continuing the job given not by God but by Satan. I am Catholic and I think that we should focus on uniting the Church.
How is this fighting? The entire point is, if any protestant is right, then every student of the apostles and all following Christians for the next 1500 years, including the ones who canonized scripture, are in hell for following the false Gospel which protestants claim Catholics teach. If they make that claim, then they now have to come up with a reason Jesus and the Apostles utterly failed, why God waited 1500+ years to reveal the real Gospel, and how followers of the incorrect Gospel managed to assembled an entire book of infallible books. By revealing the truth we can unite the Church.
Unity over misinterpretation or false teaching is not true unity. The Bible tells us to expose evil in Ephesians and to correct and admonish false teachers. What you are saying sounds good on the surface but is contrary to what the Bible tells us to do. The Bible also tells us to be gentle in our correction and be mindful of weaker brothers so as not to destroy them. This gets tricky as we are all short on time but with lots to say.... so being quick to listen and slow to speak can be difficult in our fast paced world.
Good video
Main issue is papacy. If papacy is true, we should all be Catholic. Papacy is true and we should all be Catholic.
Im not sure what you're saying, but here's an explanation on Matthew 16:18 and its significance
ruclips.net/video/0HY0PQ4Zuag/видео.htmlsi=HJvxqrrHdnJ2fl3M
@@MasterKeyMagic he is just answering his own rhetorical question
Prove it. None of the Popes have been related to Peter in hundreds if not thousands of years. The emperor has no clothes here. Misinterpreting Scripture and misapplying Scripture is false teaching... not proof. Jesus is shown in the Old and New Testament to be the rock or cornerstone the church is built upon.... the promised Messiah that Peter acknowledged and Jesus affirmed that He (Himself) is the Christ... the Messiah.... the rock the church is built upon. Nowhere else in Scripture is it taught anything about Peter being the rock. The confusion is in the name of Petras itself, but the context of Scripture plainly shows us Jesus is the rock, so Papacy has nothing much to stand on except tradition. The Papacy has motives of finance and power to continue the ruse.... but the emperor has no clothes.
Sure. Jesus founded His Church upon the man who would soon deny Him three times. Hey there Mr. Gullible, I have a bridge for sale, cheap!
Yeah Jesus did build his Church upon Peter who he knew would deny him 3 times. He even prayed for Peter alone not the be sifted by Satan when strengthening, his brothers (papel infallibility when Ex Cathedra) after he returns from denying him 3 times (Luke 22:31-32) You're essentially saying you reject Jesus's choice for the rock because you don't like Peter as if you have a choice in the matter or Jesus cares about what you think about his pick to feed his sheep and tend his flock (John 21:15-17)
I love being a high church Protestant, but love to my separated brethren in the Catholic Church
Why not become Catholic?
Even a cursory reading of the New Testament will reveal that the Catholic Church does not have its origin in the teachings of Jesus or His apostles. In the New Testament, there is no mention of the papacy, worship/adoration of Mary (or the immaculate conception of Mary, the perpetual virginity of Mary, the assumption of Mary, or Mary as co-redemptrix and mediatrix), petitioning saints in heaven for their prayers, apostolic succession, the ordinances of the church functioning as sacraments, infant baptism, confession of sin to a priest, purgatory, indulgences, or the equal authority of church tradition and Scripture. Which church-that is, which denomination of Christianity-is the “true church”? Which church is the one that God loves and cherishes and died for? Which church is His bride? The answer is that no visible church or denomination is the true church, because the bride of Christ is not an institution, but is instead a spiritual entity made up of those who have by grace through faith been brought into a close, intimate relationship with the Lord Jesus Christ (Ephesians 2:8-9). Those people, no matter which building, denomination, or country they happen to be in, constitute the true church
everything you said is under the assumption that the Bible is a catechesis. Its not. nor does it teach that everything was revealed in it, or that everything needs to be in it. despite that, you can't use the Bible to disprove any of the things you said are in it. They are all either there explicitly like the Papacy (Matthew 16:18-19, Luke 22:31-32, John 21:15-17) or implicitly taught like the trinity, even though that word isn't found.
The irony is this idea that the church is this indivisible body not only isn't taught anywhere in Scripture, it is a belief that absolutely zero Christians believed for the first 1500 years or more of church history. so when Jesus said he would be with his church always, and he would send the Holy Spirit to guide into all truth, he is either a liar, or you are either a liar.
if your interpretation of scripture is correct, then we should be able to find widespread acceptance of it held by Christians at every point in history, continuously. unfortunately for you, instead what we find is as soon as we have evidence for what all the churches established by the apostles believed, and by what their students believed, it is always profoundly Roman Catholic. also, most of your points can be disapproved by actually watching the video.🙃
You forget that church is NOT a building but an assembling. I can recommend the channel of Brotherly Advice to learn about actually Christianity. I ain't Catholic, Protestant, Orthodox, Anabaptist etc. Just a Christian.
Not always, but even if so, its not an assembly one can be in just by saying they are. The "assembly", singular, can kick you out with the gentiles and tax collectors if you refuses to listen to them about your sins (Matthew 18:15-18) Who is the only Church that assemble could be provide the historical evidence? The Bride of Jesus, The Roman Catholic Church. Jesus is not a polygamist.
@@MasterKeyMagic you know that Constantine was a Unitarian?
@@AlphaStudios-lh1rz No, he was likely an Arian, since he sided with them against the Roman Catholic Church. Whats your point?
@@MasterKeyMagic that in my 20 years in the Catholic Church no one ever called Jesus God
@@AlphaStudios-lh1rz I find that nearly impossible to believe given we recite the Nicene creed every mass. Are you claiming the Catholic Church doesn't teach the Trinity?
A lot of theological errors. Assuming mostly Catholicism to prove Catholicism. I don’t think Matthew 16 can establish all these strong burden claims (especially in the light on contradictions in Catholic thought), you also basically assume Suan Sonna’s claims about the Sanhedrin is correct when it most likely isn’t. You proof text the common catholic variety to land on Catholicism.
Your opinion is irrelevant. I literally said in the video this is not an in depth explanation of all the things that have already explained. Its putting together all the things we always have to explain to establish this point. The case for the Catholic Church isn't just grounded in the book we wrote, assembled and identified as scripture because we knew what the Gospel was from Apostolic Tradition. Its the only Church you can literally trace back to Jesus. We weren't founded by Luther, or Calvin, or pastors bobs corner church. Jesus established the Catholic Church and no protestant can look to the first Christians for validation like we can. if you think the Gospel is wrong, then answer my questions at the end of the video.
@@MasterKeyMagic
Just like you aren’t providing your exhaustive arguments, neither am I. So, this is a brief overview of what I unfortunately had to listen to.
This is all founded on bad arguments and silly historical thesis you couldn’t defend and better men have long debunked from both Protestant and Catholic perspectives.
The Gospel is the same as it ever was. Whoever is persuaded by your charlatan arguments and your counterfeit gospel deserves whatever wrath they heap upon themselves.
When would you actually like to argue for your faith?
@@MasterKeyMagic YOU are irrelevant.
@@rexlion4510 I know, but the Catholic Gospel i explain that could only have come from the Apostles, isn't irrelevant. Its the word of God
Mr Magic... yes love the vocal fry ... I love it
Don't leave off they apostasy from the truth, and Apostolic faith in 1054, now a failed community.
You mean when some of the eastern churches stopped being on the rock?
@@MasterKeyMagic a bishop is not the church.
@@Dlee-eo5vv Someone forgot to tell the Apostle John that because this is what he taught his disciples/students:
"See that you all follow the bishop, even as Jesus Christ does the Father, and the presbytery as you would the apostles; and reverence the deacons, as being the institution of God. Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is administered either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there, let the multitude of the people also be; even as wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church." ((Letter to the Smyrnaeans, Chapter 8). ~100AD
@MasterKeyMagic we have had many bishops who depart the faith, thus we don't follow blindly any one bishop. We follow those who hold tradition, the Saints, the councils, the whole church. The Apostle Paul makes it plain, follow ( me), for I follow Christ.
@@Dlee-eo5vv He's not just any bishop. He is the one Jesus picked to feed and tend his sheep. He has the keys to the kingdom of Heaven. He is the rock. If you aren't on the rock, you're not in the Church Jesus established. Could you imagine if someone tried what you'll do in Acts 15? The Apostles just had the council of Jerusalem and said Christians dont have to be circumcised anymore, and you EOC guys be like "Nope. Its tradition, and we don't like Peter because he denied Jesus 3 times. And the rest of the Apostles hid while Jesus was put to death." 💀🤦🏿♂️ You have NO tradition or scripture to break away from the rock. Your authority is your selfishness.
The Catholic Church is like the first car manufacturer. Then the Japanese imitated and improved the models, made it cheaper and dominated the market. :)
I'm Catholic but the reality is that the Church is on a massive decline. The only way for a turnaround is to re embrace her essential identity and reconsider the non essentials
Its not a popularity contest, yet despite not "rembracing her essential identify and reconsider[ing] the non essentials, the Catholic Church is still by far the biggest Church. In fact the Catholic Church has expanded more in the last 100 years than it ever did in the last 2000 years. So i'm just curious by what metric are using to determine its declining? And how does any of that change what Jesus said?
The problems plaguing the Catholic Church in no way mean that the teachings, doctrines, the catechism, the sacraments, and past miracles are any less relevant or any less correct. The state of the Catholic Church is a symptom of the quality of the leadership running it, not the church itself. Where we have good priests and bishops, we have strong churches.
...
This channel...
...is very... eclectic.
Yep, it's mine🤓
The Church (TM), as I call it, is an abjectly absurd concept and it grieves me that wise people submit themselves to it with all the resources we have available to us today to test its authority claims. You build an argument but have you ever tested it with outside challenges? Mathew 16:13-19 - haven't heard that one before (kidding). Now do Mathew 18:18-20 where he gives the exact same blessing word-for-word. Who is it directed at? It should be exclusively for Peter otherwise what meaning did Mathew 16's blessing have? The *Rock* is the claim that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, and all that entails. Read the dialogue in the verses again without the dogma. It's wild to claim one disciple as the rock just because he was martyred where the bishop of Rome later became a power-hungry titan. The cornerstone of the church has always been Jesus (though not an imaginary alternate Jesus that Mormons/Jehovah Witnesses/other cults conjure up).
The church has always existed since Pentecost. Even when the church was oppressed by Rome believers existed within that system, just as the faithful existed within the Temple system before Jesus, just as the faithful existed during the expulsion to Babylon. They were grieved but not spiritually crippled without the Temple/Tabernacle. Catholic apologists think it's a slam dunk that Jesus said the gates of hell would not prevail against his church as if the man-made institution is the power. As if God could not possibly be faithful without priests and robes bearing the standard of his church.
Martin Luther was one man but the Church (TM) rapidly disintegrated after, showing that it was a house of cards and it was only brutality and murder that was keeping the congregations together. Just as the Roman road networks reached Israel, Jesus came. Just as the printing press arrived to the scene the reformation occurred. Information was disseminated differently, so what? Scripture was always critical to Jews and Jesus referred to scripture repeatedly. They had the written word and it was important to them and practicing Jews today bear testimony to that.
The church was never meant to be a man-made institution. This is the fundamental error of Catholics. The Papacy and the Catholic Priesthood has no legitimate basis whatsoever. At all. In the slightest. Jesus is the high priest. The believers are the Saints. We have direct access to the Father through Jesus. Heresies like 'prayer' (whatever you want to call it) to the saints or Mary *is what the enemy meant for evil* but it should open your eyes that something is a wee bit wrong with the institution and lead you away from it. In 1Samuel 28 Saul tried to contact an undeniably-holy man and all the advice he got was that he was going to die for it. In the information age, with no excuses to be had, it's amazing and frightening that people do this.
The Catholic church is a few steps removed from the absurdity of the Mormons in its claims of authority. One or two of these issues should create doubts of the exclusivity claims. If they don't then you or your children will one day sniff out the lies and lose the faith altogether. I live in a community full of secular people who go to church twice a year and baptize their infants. Ireland should be a cautionary tale of the inevitable Catholic --> Secular conversion.
The principle you are assuming is Sola Scriptura. Scripture never ever calls itself the sole authority. Instead it states that the Church is the pillar and ground of truth. Your own Bible never says there will never be an institutional church. That is in your mind. The Catholic Church has existed since the beginning. Open your mind a bit.
We are literally told who Matthew 18 :18-20 applies to in the previous verse. The Church. And we see who the authorities of the Church are and how they function in Acts 15. The power to bind and loose is not given to individual apostles when acting alone, it is given to them when they are together as in Acts and only when in communion with Peter. Peter however, as we see in Matthew 16:18, does in fact have the ability by himself to bind and loose. This as well as the prayer in Luke 22 that Jesus made for only Peter, forms the doctrine of Papel infallibility. If you do not trust Catholic souces on Peter being the rock, how about 7 top protestant Biblical scholars from all sorts of denominations who consent that here Jesus is making Peter the rock:
Albert Barnes
Nineteenth-Century Presbyterian
“The meaning of this phrase may be thus expressed: ‘Thou, in saying that I am the Son of God, hast called me by a name expressive of my true character. I, also, have given to thee a name expressive of your character. I have called you Peter, a rock. . . . I see that you are worthy of the name and will be a distinguished support of my religion” [Barnes’ Notes on the New Testament, 170].
John Broadus
Nineteenth-Century Calvinistic Baptist
“As Peter means rock, the natural interpretation is that ‘upon this rock’ means upon thee. . . . It is an even more far-fetched and harsh play upon words if we understand the rock to be Christ and a very feeble and almost unmeaning play upon words if the rock is Peter’s confession” [Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew, 356].
Craig L. Blomberg
Contemporary Baptist
“The expression ‘this rock’ almost certainly refers to Peter, following immediately after his name, just as the words following ‘the Christ’ in verse 16 applied to Jesus. The play on words in the Greek between Peter’s name (Petros) and the word ‘rock’ (petra) makes sense only if Peter is the Rock and if Jesus is about to explain the significance of this identification” [New American Commentary: Matthew, 22:252].
J. Knox Chamblin
Contemporary Presbyterian
“By the words ‘this rock’ Jesus means not himself, nor his teaching, nor God the Father, nor Peter’s confession, but Peter himself. The phrase is immediately preceded by a direct and emphatic reference to Peter. As Jesus identifies himself as the builder, the rock on which he builds is most naturally understood as someone (or something) other than Jesus himself” [“Matthew” in Evangelical Commentary on the Bible, 742].
R. T. France
Contemporary Anglican
“The word-play, and the whole structure of the passage, demands that this verse is every bit as much Jesus’ declaration about Peter as verse 16 was Peter’s declaration about Jesus. Of course it is on the basis of Peter’s confession that Jesus declares his role as the Church’s foundation, but it is to Peter, not his confession, that the rock metaphor is applied” (Gospel According to Matthew, 254).
Herman Ridderbos
Contemporary Dutch Reformed
“It is well known that the Greek word petra translated ‘rock’ here is different from the proper name Peter. The slight difference between them has no special importance, however. The most likely explanation for the change from petros (‘Peter’) to petra is that petra was the normal word for ‘rock.’ . . . There is no good reason to think that Jesus switched from petros to petra to show that he was not speaking of the man Peter but of his confession as the foundation of the Church. The words ‘on this rock [petra]’ indeed refer to Peter” [Bible Student’s Commentary: Matthew, 303].
Donald Hagner
Contemporary Evangelical
“The frequent attempts that have been made, largely in the past, to deny [that Peter is the rock] in favor of the view that the confession itself is the rock . . . seem to be largely motivated by Protestant prejudice against a passage that is used by the Roman Catholics to justify the papacy” (Word Biblical Commentary 33b:470).
But the Catholic Church is not a man made institution. In fact, its the only institution on Earth that isn't man made. As Siri right now on your phone, who founded Lutheranism. Who founded Calvinism. Who founded Anglicanism. And then ask it who founded the Catholic Church. Its Jesus. And he very specifically laid out how his Church would look, function, the powers it had and that he would guide it to all truth and be with it always. And maybe most assuring, that the gates of hell shall not prevail against us. Which guess what! They haven't. For without lifting a finger we conquered the entire Roman Empire, perhaps the greatest empire ever, and out lasted it and every Empire for the next 2000 years. How can you fail to recognize this promise from Jesus? Does the Catholic Church being the oldest institution on earth not do it for you?
Nobody is saying scripture isn't important. It is! Its critical! We wrote it, preserved it, died for it, canonized it and still remain the only infallible interpreters of its meaning. Its part of the deposit of faith. Our priests hold it high every mass, because the Bible is the book we put together to be the exclusive source of our liturgy. Yes, Jesus did say the LXX is important, so why isn't it in protestant bibles? Especially those made after 1825. But what it is not is what protestants who believe in sola scriptura make it out to be. God alone > Scripture alone.
I'm not about to let you use 1 Samuel 28 out of context like that. Saul is literally using the Witch of Endor to conjure up Samuel. Which is absolutely not the same thing as an intercessory prayer. The Church has always banned witchcraft and belief in magic because of passages like these that tell us it leads to death. We don't go through a local Witch to ask Mary to pray for us. The act of speaking to someone in Heaven is not the act that got Saul killed, who is given 2 different death stories in the Bible. In Revelation 5:8 John see's the saints/priests in Heaven offer to Jesus our prayers. Read Psalm 141:2, Tobit 12:15, Philippians 4:6 to understand the context of Rev. 5:8 first. Plus the Catacombs, with inscriptions going back to the first century, during the life of the Apostles are littered with prayers of intercession from the dead because they believe Christ when he said those who do the will of God shall have eternal LIFE. " Matronata Matronata, who lived a year and 52 days. Pray for your parents." "Anatolius made this for his well-deserving son, who lived 7 years 7 months and 20 days. May your spirit rest well in God. Pray for your sister."
The Catholic Church did not read the Bible out of a hat from the source of one man, who couldn't even duplicate it when the original translation was "lost". History proves Catholicism. History disproves mormonism. Mormonism proves the reformation was Satan opening pandoras box. mormons don't believe in the Trinity, let alone the nature of Jesus. They're not Christians. We are the first Christians. mormons have more in common with Protestants then they do with the Church Jesus established.
Actually answer my questions in the video.
You're citing protestant scholars as if I'm beholden to a 19th century Calvinist the same way you are subservient to the Vatican's writings. A lot of people say a lot of things. God does not owe us a clear historiography void of bad teachers. No theologian from the early church fathers onward perfectly represents Jesus and no respectable one claims to. The apostles had a direct commission and authority from Jesus. We (the public) have some of their writings just as we have writings from the prophets. The scholarship and validity of this is not monopolized by The Church (TM).
Among non-Catholics we have basic theology that is true and some differences and different interpretations, some of which we're passionate about. Some cults have developed and led people utterly astray. We all (aside from the various denominations of Catholicism) agree that the Catholic Church's claims are completely baseless, a blatant historical power seizure with no originality to speak.
There are varying interpretations of whether Simon Peter is being renamed. So what if he is? There isn't the slightest evidence of the supremacy of the Bishop of Rome or Peter's supremacy except a *real stretch* of the text in Acts. You know it's weak when James seems to be in charge in Jerusalem in Acts and they still try to say it's at the permission of Peter when James clearly makes a decision. This is why they burned people to death for translating the word from God's chosen language of ... .... ... Latin. Like, maybe, just maybe guys like Paul should have told the church's about this Peter inherent supremacy? Just one letter or a mention of this doctrine in Acts? Not a shred of evidence *anywhere.* Not from the early church fathers either. Can't you see that it's a lie. This is not what the gospel is built on. Peter was not supreme in the slightest. He had the privilege of giving the first sermon through the Holy Spirit. That's a big deal. The church literally began then. Catholic apologists wear him like a skin suit.
The bishop of Rome had no special control until he seized it unlawfully. Jesus did not make a new priesthood (nor did he make 'pastors'). I'll spare you the comparisons but Jesus' words for the religious order of his day couldn't apply much more. The believers *are the priesthood.* 1 Peter 2:9 The priesthood that was developed by Rome weren't forbidden to marry until 1,000 years after Christ. Why? TBH this was probably a power play to try and prevent a 2nd class of nobility. Either way it's insane, illogical, and unbiblical. The veil on the temple was torn. Ya'll built a new temple system and hold sacrifices daily to atone for your new sins just as the Jews did. Think whatever you want about transubstantiation but claiming to re-sacrifice Jesus again and again minimizes the real Passover lamb and the testimony about his real life and death. OFC the priesthood wants you to come to them for this. It's power and control, not believers in fellowship through the Holy Spirit.
You say that you know who Matthew 18 :18-20 applies to but you use the same verbiage to justify Peter's supremacy. Your connection between Revelation and Psalm 141:2 is interesting (a stretch) but Tobit doesn't seem convincing even if I did subscribe to that book. Those 7 'missing' books add about as much to the Gospel as Ester does (which is about nothing save perhaps God being faithful, if that).
I can see you're passionate about this but save yourself the time on me and I will do the same. I'd rather you be a Catholic than an atheist. I just don't believe you diehards will do anything but fall away once your Church (TM) turns progressive, which is inevitable. The path of least resistance is to conform to the world. It's coming. Your church might do it slow but it still does it. You try and shoehorn 'protestants' into being representing of these awful heresies we see and I don't think your faith will be able to stand your Rock falling into the same. The information age will accelerate the change. My Rock, my cornerstone, is Jesus Christ. The building I worship in is going to burn with the rest of them.
@MasterKeyMagic
@@MasterKeyMagicwho was the Rock in the Old Testament?
@@refugeeca The purpose to show the confessions of many professional protestant biblical scholars on Peter being the rock is to show you this isn't a protestant vs Catholic debate. Its a Catholic and Protestant vs Protestant debate. Its also to show that the idea that lacking unity is okay as Jesus prayed his Church would be united (John 17:20-23) and that God cannot be the protestant God as God is not the God of confusion but of peace ( 1 Corinthians 14:33)
"God does not owe us..." You're strawmanning as I never said God does not does the Catholic Church teach that. Jesus did say the holy spirit would lead his Church into all truth (John 16:13-15) so its not that he owes us the truth, he promised us it. Jesus never said nor has the church ever claimed his church would be perfect. In fact in Luke 22:30-38 Jesus tells us Satan is going to sift everyone except Peter when he is strengthening his brothers, after Peter denies Jesus 3 times. The Apostles themselves were not perfect. So why are you holding the Catholic Church to a standard it never claimed to be at because Jesus said we cannot be at? Jesus says it is "monopolized" by this church, "Whoever listens to you listens to me." ( Luke 10:16) Not, "400 years from now, my Church will assembled a collection of their books and it will be called the Bible, and then Christianity will be like Burger King as anyone can use it to form their own beliefs and you don't need the Church who made it to tell you what it means" How is that not what you are saying?
Who is this "we"?
What protestants and even secular textual academic fail to do is read the Bible from the shoes of the audience it was intended. In the case of Matthews Gospel, he's assuming you know everything a first century Jew would know, including Koine Greek and Aramaic, not english. What when Jesus is speaking there, that you immediately pick up that, "Jesus is installing Peter as a form of chief steward or prime minister under the King of Kings by giving him the keys to the kingdom. As can be seen in Isaiah 22:22, kings in the Old Testament appointed a chief steward to serve under them in a position of great authority to rule over the inhabitants of the kingdom. Jesus quotes almost verbatim from this passage in Isaiah, and so it is clear what he has in mind. He is raising Peter up as a father figure to the household of faith (Isa. 22:21), to lead them and guide the flock (John 21:15-17). This authority of the prime minister under the king was passed on from one man to another down through the ages by the giving of the keys, which were worn on the shoulder as a sign of authority. Likewise, the authority of Peter has been passed down for 2000 years by means of the papacy.”
Peter ends the debate in Acts 15. All James is doing is essentially saying what we know today to be , "Rome has spoken" And the fact that Peter's there at all lends to the necessity of Peter being present for the Church to function and wield its spiritual authority on matters of faith and morals. If Peter was not there, then you can say the Pope is not essential.
The Church never condemned vernacular translations of scripture. The Catholic Churches of the east have always used Bibles in their languages. Its the unauthorized translations the Church rightfully attempted to condemn that altered the meaning of the scriptures, like Luther adding the word alone after faith in Romans 3:28. And it was not the Church that killed anyone but the states.
The Pope was obvious to the 1st century Jewish converts who knew the context of their time, which so many protestants lack a understanding of. What you are saying is like what republicans do when talking about the civil war. Everybody back then knew it was about slavery. But conservative ideology would become the largest support for the continuation of segregation later, and the republican party would eventually be the party of conservatism. So 150 years later, these conservatives either out of ignorance or deliberate deception, attempt to make the civil war about "states rights". Which is true, but states rights... to do what? Determine slaves. What you don't see as obvious was obvious to those there. Including the Church fathers. You're just factually wrong about the Pope not being affirmed in the early Church. The Corinthians had a choice between writing to Clement the Pope or John the Apostle, who was still alive, and writing and much closer to them on the island of Patmos, and they chose to take their dispute to the successor of Peter over an actual living Apostles. Case closed. The cherry on top? After Jesus, guess who is mentioned second most, with a very big gap between him and the 3rd most mentioned in the New Testament? Peter.
All 1 Peter 2:9 says is unlike in the old covenant where only descendants of Aaron could become Priests, in the new covenant all Christians could become priests. The Church still teaches that the priesthood of all believers exists, its just tended to by the Melchizedek priesthood:
ruclips.net/video/Zih9pv74hpM/видео.htmlsi=9aTfclXiEUWhotBl
ruclips.net/video/aP1oxGv8nps/видео.htmlsi=lkv4b4BfsoBg5LG2
Which is real, which is why we see it, and not the priesthood of all believers being the authoritative body in Acts 15.
Priests are not forbidden to marry🤦🏿♂️ Peter himself had been married. There are married Catholic priests. The Church does not forbid it, the Priests volunteer to take a vow of celibacy so unlike protestant pastors, they do not offer us a conflict of interest. You making this claim proves you do not actually know what the Catholic Church teaches. Again, how do you say celibacy when Jesus himself was💀And Paul recommends it in 1 Corinthians 7.
Jesus told us to break bread for the forgiveness of our sins. If you don't, you're not obeying Jesus. 100% of Christians from the Apostles to the reformation do not share your belief of the Eucharist. Therefore, the debating isn't what you think it means, but how could every single Christian for 3/4 of Christian history get this wrong? Answer the question and stop strawmanning.
Jesus wants you to receive the Eucharist (John 6:25-58), which is why Priests want you to too. You're not understanding that everything the Church does is because Jesus told us to. And everything we don't do, is because Jesus told us not to.
... Peter and his successors can bind and loose. (Matthew 16:18) Separate the rest of the Apostles cannot bind and loose. But together they can when with Peter (Matthew 15-18👉🏽Acts 15) Idk how to make that any more simple for you. And I want to know how you answer my question on Matthew 15-17 in the description. It means nothing for protestants.
You cannot believe in Jesus and reject those he appointed to teach you about him and spread the good news. You don't believe in Jesus if you think the gates of hell shall prevail against the very real Church he established, the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. Progressivism is not the threat. Conservatives, capitalism, materialism, protestantism (which opened pandoras box), and authoritarianism are. Anything that calls people to be sheep(The Parable of the sheep and the goats in Matthew 25:31-46) (left-libertarianism) instead of goats (all other 3 corners of the political spectrum) is welcomed into the Kingdom of God.
Bad interpretation.... Scripture is to be interpreted in light of Scripture. Peter is not the rock the church is built upon.... it is Jesus. All throughout Scripture, it is the Messiah who is the rock and cornerstone the church will be built upon. The RCC has to interpret this verse improperly or their entire organization falls apart. The RCC has motive and opportunity to misinterpret the verse... and they do.
So then why did God lead all Christians immediately following the Apostles and for the next 1500+ years, uninterrupted, into the same wrong Gospel? 🙃
@@MasterKeyMagic False Gospels have been around from the beginning. Paul warned of false gospels and false teachers who were prevalent even while Jesus was walking in Jerusalem, so it is not surprising that if the synagogues were full of false teachers for thousands of years.... it also no surprise that there would be false teaching in the RCC for thousands of years. Jesus said , "woe to you lawyers.... scribes.... heretics". The church has always been full of heretics , so we have to interpret Scripture properly to expose the heresies and false teachings. God doesn't lead Christians into false Gospels, but God does allow us to choose to sin or to obey. Let's not blame God for our bad choices or for the idolatrous choices of early RCC "fathers". Anytime we elevate our opinion above God's... it's idolatry of self. I've done it plenty of times, so I've learned to spot it quickly.
@@MasterKeyMagic Who says God led *all* of them? Another false assumption. God led the few who would not be corrupted, but the majority who took control were following their own desires, and some of them were led around by the devil himself. Just look at some of the lousy church leaders you've had; you can't deny history.
Let me explain to you the consequences of what you are claiming. Absolutely no protestant Gospel can be found anywhere for the first 3/4 of Church history.
Other than the gnostic gospel we both agree is wrong, the ONLY Gospel to emerge out of the Apostolic Era is the Catholic Gospel.
So what you are saying is, every single Church the Apostles founded all over the known world not only failed to learn from the Apostles what you claim to be the Gospel, but also they each independently happened to all preached the same exact Gospel: The Catholic Gospel.
This means that you don't believe Jesus when he said the gates of hell shall not prevail against his Church (Matthew 16:18) since only the (what you claim to be false) Catholic Gospel was there to keep the gates of hell shut.
And you believe Jesus was lying when in John 16:22-23 Jesus promised: "
"I have much more to say to you, more than you can now bear. But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all truth." because you believe this didn't happen for 1500+ years💀
And worst! Since only the Catholic Gospel existed before the Bible, if what you claim is true, then what you are saying is the "false" Gospel believing Catholic Church that infallibly identified what is and what is not scripture in the late 4th century, assembled the entire Bible despite being heretics💀So what that means is, the Bible is a heretical book made by and canonized by heretics💀 Or maybe you're wrong and the first Christians, who were Catholic, were taught the correct Gospel by the Apostles. 🙃
... You're making a claim from silence since there exists absolutely 0 evidence anyone before Martin Luther believed in your Gospel. All the evidence proves the Catholic Gospel was the one the Apostles passed on and was the one who knew how to identify what is and what is not scripture in the late 4th century. And like in my above comment, it denies what Jesus said, therefore, its not an assumption. Its the only conclusion that can be drawn given the evidence.
catholic church blessed same sex couples, unleavened bread, the filioque, created grace, papal surpremacy, unmarried priests, unleavened bread, no wine in communion, adoration and more. True Orthodoxy, (I know for a fact the ROCOR) hasn't changed the rules and still follows the true Jesus Christ.
🤦🏿♂️ No, we did not. You believe corporate media over the vicar of Christ. Im convinced there is no such thing as "true orthodoxy" because you'll hate each other. Your churches don't agree on anything and are more concerned with your individual national identity than actually evangelizing and continuing Christs ministry. How protestants looks at the Catholic Church i look at you'll, completely missing the point of being the instrument of Gods love in exchange for over empathize of
First of all, you shouldn't throw stones from a glass house. Many of the popes in the Roman Church have been of Italian descent and many churches are either Polish/Italian immigrants. Not to mention that the Eastern rite in your church is structured the same way: Ukrainian, Rusyn, and Romanian eparchies. I can personally attest to ethnophyletism being present in the Eastern rite as I used to be an Eastern Catholic. Finally, the Eastern rite concedes to us on many key doctrinal issues. For instance, the filioque is omitted from the creed, St Gregory Palamas and St Seraphim of Sarov who died outside of the papist communion are venerated as saints, and the Ukrainian Catholic patriarch rejects Fidiucia Supplicans. That all being said, while many parishes are ethnic it simply isn't true that one cannot be Orthodox if they aren't a certain race this is considered a heresy in our Church. @@MasterKeyMagic
@@Sebastian-ct5ek The Catholic Church has the most evidence to support it being the Church Jesus established. Its not the house of glass, its the pillar of truth.
The Eastern rite is in communion with Peter and thats what makes them Catholic. Sure there is ethnophypetism in the eastern rites, but they're the minority and are such in spite of what Rome requests. In Orthodoxy im not aware of any "branch" that is immune from ethnophypetism, its like, foundational. And don't tell me anyone can be Orthodox, tell that to the Orthodox who kick people out because of their nationality/race/culture/language, because they do it all the time. Look it up!
@@MasterKeyMagicThe term phyletism was used for the first time by a synod convened by the Ecumenical Patriarchate in Constantinople, then the capital of the Ottoman Empire, in 1872 to define and condemn an alleged heretical teaching espoused by the Bulgarian Exarchate in response to the latter′s establishment as a de facto autocephaly on May 23 [O.S. May 11] 1872, in the Bulgarian church in Constantinople in pursuance of the March 12 [O.S. February 28] 1870 firman of Sultan Abdülaziz of the Ottoman Empire. The unilateral promulgation of the Bulgarian exarchate followed the protracted struggle of the Bulgarians against the domination of the Greek hierarchy
Furthermore, The term phyletism from phili (Hellenic: φυλή): race or tribe was coined at the Holy and Great pan-Orthodox Synod that met in Constantinople in 1872. The meeting was prompted by the creation of a separate bishopric by the Bulgarian community of Constantinople for parishes only open to Bulgarians. It was the first time in Church history that a separate diocese was established based on ethnic identity rather than principles of Orthodoxy and territory. Phyletism, however, should not be confused with patriotism (which was known at that time as φιλοπατρία) as the latter simply means devotion and loyalty to one's nation and/or culture and is not at odds with Orthodoxy.
Here is the Synod’s official condemnation of ecclesiastical racism, or “ethno-phyletism”:
We renounce, censure and condemn phyletism, that is racial discrimination, ethnic feuds, hatreds and dissensions within the Church of Christ, as contrary to the teaching of the Gospel and the holy canons of our blessed fathers which “support the holy Church and the entire Christian world, embellish it and lead it to divine godliness.”