Listen to his reasoning at minute 2:20 on. The church’s teaching authority is supposed to be authoritative “because” the church has the Holy Spirit. That makes no sense to me because the word of God says that every Christian has the Holy Spirit. And we know that Jimmy was not talking about every Christian. He was talking about Catholic Church leadership. Namely the Pope and former Pope’s. Of course the problem with that is that every Christian who is guided by the Holy Spirit knows that the current Pope and his head of doctrine, Cardinal Fernandez, are making statements which are in direct conflict with God and His Holy word. So here’s the question: Is the “church” the authority on the issue of Capital punishment and same sex couples or is the Bible? Again, if you are a Spirit filled Christian then you know the answer to this question and you have a duty to obey God rather than men.
@@bradleesargent We know what books of the Bible belong there by way of passive reception to the people of God over the course of time. Authorities from Moses to John wrote down the words of God and those words were received by the people of God. There’s much more to be said about this but my main point is that the Bible is not a declared revelation of God made authentic by later church authorities. It was a delivery from God organically received over time that ended in the Apostolic period.
I would point out that the Scriptures thenselves come out of tradition. The Church is already extant when the many New Testament books are written. Most written 20 to 40 years after Jesus' Ascension and some as late as 107. The same spirit that inspired the writings, inspires the Traditions and the Churches interpretation of the spirit inspired writings. It is the work of the Holy Spirit.
All of the canon was written by AD66. That was the year knowledge ceased, no more revelation. Then was the Roman-Jewish war, which lasted for 7 years. That last year, was the last year of their gathering, up to their last day, which was September 22, AD73 (Tishri 5, or half a time). All of the so called evidence for later date writing, holds little to no water.
I think it’s important to remember that while we can distinguish between “scripture” and “tradition”, like you said, they’re clearly not independent of one another, but interdependent. There’s a certain sense where the scriptures *are* a tradition. And we can only know what is and isn’t scrupture via tradition as a mode of transmission across time.
@@christopherponsford8385 I beg to disagree. Scripture is divine revelation from God. God chose the prophets of the Old Testament to share divine revelation with. As well as the apostles in the New Testament. When reading the texts, while pursuing the authors intent (which very few do), one sees God as the author behind it all.
@@soteriology400 Jesus didn’t talk about a Bible with any apostle. Only the church decided what is scripture and what is not. Apostolic succession was the authority of the church form the beginning of
@tle With a comment like that, I think I wasting my time with you. Matthew 22:29, they had many books, but not complied into one book like we have today. They looked to the scriptures to check against false teaching, Acts 17:10-12. The Jews decided what was canon in what we call the Old Testament. It had to be based on a known prophet (the 7 books the RCC accepted as canon, which we call the apocrypha, were not written by prophets, nor known people). In the New Testament, it was based on revelation from God (which apostles received), and whether what they wrote ties in with the scriptures the author gave, or a testament. There is absolutely no apostolic succession authority that you are talking about. That is something you want to believe in, that is simply not true. There was a rewrite of history by Eusebius, to make it appear there was apostolic succession, which was done to centralize power around Rome.
A common Protestant claim is that the Catholic Church consists of "traditions of men." So guidance like this is very helpful in trying to explain the difference between traditions that began with men apart from the Church, such as many newer denominations, and apostolic tradition, which calls to mind the authority in 2 Thess. 2:15.
@elly2162 Certainly not most. There was a study showing that while the Deutero-Pauline epistles have a lot of debate concerning authorship, scholars are pretty split on 2 Thessalonians; estimated about 50/50 by scholars like Reicke. Generally, those who don't believe it was written by Paul himself believe it was by one of his close associates like Luke or Timothy, or someone with authority to write in his name. But many are confident it was written by Paul.
'a lot of debate concerning authorship''scholars are split' 'those who don't believe believe it was written by a close associate like.....''or someone with authority' 'but many are confident........' I don't think even Pascal would wager his lunch money not to mention his eternal soul on the edicifice you have built out of suppositions.@@bigfootapologetics
But how do you know 'apostolic tradition' is actually from the Apostles? Your catechism says that Muslims are yet saved even though they don't have faith in Christ - is this something the Apostles thought of? Now watch......no one is going to respond to this. LOL
The ancient church of rome, mother of all churches, built by peter and paul, and the martyrs have persisted since pentecost in jerusalem. And it will survive and grow until the second coming of our Lord God Jesus Christ. It has outlived empires and tyrants, persecution and exile, and even the rule of evil popes and bishops, because the powers of Hell cannot overcome the power of our Lord Jesus Christ to His Church
I am taking a class regarding the Early Church Fathers, currently the Apostolic Fathers. I was taught that for inclusion into various teachings, three criteria need to be met: quod ubique: What is held everywhere universally, quod semper: What has always been believed, and quod ab omnibus: What is held by all people, bu the many against the few. Do those criteria come into play in regard to traditions as well?
Hollywood is making a movie about Medjugorje. Can you cover that topic or bring in the podcast crew working on that film? The film will be called Between the Mountains.
What do you think about historic sale of indulgences? Can I buy my way out of purgatory? The traditional sale of indulgences, as it occurred historically during the Renaissance period, particularly in the 15th and 16th centuries, is not practiced by the Catholic Church today. The selling of indulgences was a practice where individuals could essentially purchase certificates or pardons that claimed to offer remission of sins or time off purgatory for themselves or their deceased loved ones. This practice became a source of controversy and was one of the issues that fueled the Protestant Reformation led by figures such as Martin Luther.
This was an abuse by certain individuals in the Church and was never a doctrine or dogma. Just as Jesus promised, He protected His Catholic Church (gates of hades shall never prevail) and cleaned her up. Are you conveniently ignoring that from the beginning amongst Jesus's own handpicked chosen Apostles there was Judas Iscariot? We don't abandon and reject Jesus's Church because of Judas. We were warned by Jesus that there would be wolves in sheep's clothing infiltrating His Church to lead foolish sheep astray. You are a wandering sheep outside of Jesus's Sheepfold (the Catholic Church) preyed upon by wolves.
@@CatholicDefender-bp7my Maybe you don't watch/listen to a lot of CA Live? Jimmy takes as long as he feels necessary to answer a question. He is usually extremely thorough. It's a huge missed opportunity to not point out how apostolic Tradition was WRITTEN DOWN in the earliest centuries by the successors of the apostles and to even give an example or two (e.g. Clement of Rome on apostolic succession or Ignatius of Antioch on transubstantiation). Shouldn't we all know that Protestants are suspicious of unwritten, oral traditions and that the early Church fathers have converted so many Protestants?
By testing them by the Scripture which is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work.
No, because Scripture is not the COMPLETE word of God. Especially not the protestsnt Bible, because protestants threw away 6 books and parts of others. See John 16:12,13, Matthew 4:4
And testing against the other authorities, Fathers, liturgy, councils, while recognising Fathers and councils have erred where Scripture has not. Does your Scriptura even sola?
@@wms72 and Rome fails to recognise around fiveish books of the ancient canons of Greece, Syria, Ethiopia and also old slavonic. Also it seems like it's only Tridentine Catholics and non-Lutheran protestants have a closed canon.
@@wms72 Those 7 books were not written by prophets, and never were considered canon, until the 4th century, only considered canon for reading material. Then after the reformation, they became canon for doctrine. Not to say there isn't any value in those books. For example, 1st and 2nd Maccabees is history written by an unknown author. Was never considered inspired by anyone to the end of the 1st century. If you are going to call 1st and 2nd Maccabees as canon, then why not call Josephus Wars as canon too? We at least know who the author is, and it is a record of a flood of fulfilled prophecies surrounding the destruction of the temple in the first century. This book has more value than all of those 7 books combined.
@@CatholicDefender-bp7my stop questioning God. How do you know that men were truly under the direct inspiration of the Holy Spirit you sound like an atheist
The only tradition that was handed to the Gentiles from the Jews, was Acts 17:10-12. It is the only recorded tradition passed down when looking carefully at the scriptures.
@@CatholicDefender-bp7myCan you show verse(s) other than the passage I showed, where a tradition was passed onto the Gentiles? This video by Jimmy, only mentions the church decides what is tradition without actually going over how it is decided. If you are a believer, you are a part of the church. So Jimmy did not really answer the question.
I believe this has some merit. But would it not also hold true, then, that not all doctrines that the Catholic Church holds as true can be true when held to that standard? For instance, the selling of indulgences or unmarried clergy. Peter, the first pope, was married.
Indulgences were never sold and Paul preached celibacy for those who follow in Christ ministry. As well, unmarried priests isn't a necessity for all orders and rites. There are many married priests in the Church that are fully valid in certain rites. And the tradition and dogma of CHOSEN chastity for the priesthood and religious life existed in the Early Church, ie Paul.
The shortest answer is that neither of those is a faith doctrine or dogma. If indulgences were sold then it was a scandal/sin (which is part of Catholic history and any group’s history). The church never solemnly taught that indulgences should be sold. As far as celibacy, that is simply a policy that can change and has changed. We are not teaching that it is a preserved apostolic doctrine that priests must be celibate, the church is simply exercising its historical authority to “bind and loose” by establishing a policy. Paul did say it was a good idea though.
@thegoatofyoutube1787 If. Doctrine. Dogma. Solemnly. There are always qualifiers when a challenge is put forth...teaching that the Church cannot err, then always having an out when it does. As for binding and loosing, the RCC does not have that authority. The Greek tense is a periphrastic form of the future perfect passive. Meaning that the Church is only proclaiming that which has _already_ been determined to be bound or loosed in heaven. In other words, the Church is simply proclaiming what God has already decided.
@@kirbysmith4135 indulgences were not sold, it's a fact. There may have been a perception from the ignorant that their charity was a ticket to heaven, but that was never taught or was doctrine. The doctrine of indulgences has always been the same and can not be bought or sold. And yes, Peter was married, as are many priests today. But Peter had to abandon his family for his ministry to the Lord, hence why the practice of permanent celibacy among priests started in the early Church. As well, it's a chosen vow of vocation that not all are called to, just as marriage is vocation not all are called to.
Traditions, rituals and beliefs, by definition, cannot originate from anywhere but men. Not that this is a bad thing. We invent traditions, rites and beliefs as a way of making sense of the world and determining the best way to live our lives. It is only natural. Where we get ourselves into trouble, as humans, is by ascribing divine origins to these beliefs and traditions, thus claiming to have "the truth".
Of course we don't deny these things come through man. The belief of if they are from God (or not...) will always be the result of a decision... Made by a man. If you reject the bible as divine. It is because a man (yourself and/or others) have convinced you such. And vise versa That neither proves nor disproves the inspiration. Its simply a fact that we all have a fallible human brain that decides an opinion- one way or the other.
@@CatholicDefender-bp7my Im not asking for definite proof. Im asking whats the standard of judgment to judge what we are " more confident " in. So we can then use what we are " more confident " in to judge traditions that we have less confidence in, There must be some standard to apply.
Traditions of Men( Isaiah 29:13; Matthew 15:7-9; Mark 7:6-8; Colossians 2:8) . Apostolic Tradition ( Acts 2:42; 2 Thessalonians 2:15) . Eschew the former and embrace the latter. Full Stop. Point Blank and. 🇺🇲🇺🇲❤️🇻🇦🇻🇦✝️☦️🛐🙏👼😇📖⛪🕊️‼️
God did not say everyone has the Holy Spirit which leads to the fullness of truth. In John 14:15-18; 17:9-10, 17-19, Jesus prayed ONLY for His Apostles, and promised *only them* and their successors to be led to truth, guided by the Holy Spirit. 1 Timothy 3:15 _if I am delayed, you will know how people ought to conduct themselves in God’s household, which is _*_the church_*_ of the living God, _*_the pillar and foundation of the truth._* (See also 1 Tim 3:1-13 mentions bishops and deacons). Luke 10:16 He who listens to you (The Church) listens to Me, he who rejects you rejects Me, and he who rejects Me rejects Him who sent Me. We are told to obey our bishops. Never says to obey the bible. Hebrews 13:17, Acts 20:28
WHOSOEVER BELIEVETH ON HIM SHALL NOT PERISH BUT HAVE EVERLASTING LIFE! IF ANY of you lack wisdom let him ask of GOD that giveth liberally to all men but let him ask in faith nothing wavering. A double minded man is unstable in all his ways!
@@MichaelAChristian1 and believing in Jesus means "obeying" and following all His commandments. Baptism, Eucharist, Confession etc. Jesus said "if you love me you will obey my commandments which are not burdensome" Demons believe yet tremble in fear. (James 2:19) _"work out your own salvation in fear and trembling"_ (Phil 2:12)
@@c.IchthysScripture never says to obey the Bible because the Bible wasn't compiled into one book until A.D. 382 at the Council of Rome under Pope Damasus I.
@@c.Ichthys ”And this is his commandment, that we believe in the name of his Son Jesus Christ and love one another, just as he has commanded us.“ 1 John 3:23 That’s the commandment. That’s all it is.
"Graven images" are images that are worshiped as gods. We don't have any of those. And for us that is part of the first commandment, though it doesn't matter. We all have the same OT books that list them, and they're not numbered 1-10 anywhere in any Bible.
They don't confuse icons with God. Nor do all the other apostolic christians. It seems only protestants are unable to understand the distinction between an image and the thing the image represents.
Peace be with you. There is NO idolatry in the Catholic Church. For example, we do not worship Mary, we HONOR her as the mother of Lord our savior. The devotion to the Blessed Virgin is a sign of a proper understanding of the Incarnation and a full devotional life for Jesus Christ. It may not be those who honor Mary but those who neglect her who are distorting the catholic faith. Who dishonors the holy vessel [Mary] also dishonors his Master [Jesus]. Catholics use statues, paintings, and other artistic devices to recall the person or thing depicted. Just as it helps to remember one’s mother by looking at her photograph, so it helps to recall the example of the saints by looking at pictures of them. Catholics also use statues as teaching tools. In the early Church they were especially useful for the instruction of the illiterate. Many Protestants have pictures of Jesus and other Bible pictures in Sunday school for teaching children. Catholics also use statues to commemorate certain people and events, much as Protestant churches have three-dimensional nativity scenes at Christmas. If one measured Protestants by the same rule, then by using these “graven” images, they would be practicing the “idolatry” of which they accuse Catholics. But there’s no idolatry going on in these situations. God forbids the worship of images as gods, but he doesn’t ban the making of images. It is when people begin to adore a statue as a god that the Lord becomes angry. Thus, when people did start to worship the bronze serpent as a snake-god (whom they named “Nehushtan”), the righteous king Hezekiah had it destroyed (2 Kgs. 18:4). If having a picture or statute is considered idolatry, then our Protestant brothers may want to get rid of all photos of your family and friends in your home, car, phone, etc. You may also want to stop idolizing social media, material stuff, and tattoos (if any), etc. GOD BLESS YOU.
Look at Deuteronomy 5. You will see God makes NO MENTION of a prohibition against "graven images." This proves Protestants misinterpret the Exodus list of Commandments. All the explanations before the REAL 2nd Commandment (Thou shalt not take the Name of the Lord Thy God in vain) are how to obey the 1st Commandment by avoiding idol worship.
If the RC religion would apply your line of thoughts to scripture and tradition just like you just exolained it, it would discover how many current practices the RC has that are unscriptured and untraditional.
Your claim would make sense, except for the fact that only bishops ordained in the line of apostolic succession have genuine teaching authority. This is the central claim of the Roman Catholic Church. No other denomination except debatably the Eastern Orthodox can claim that with historical support.
@@connorhurley9512 if roman catholics priests follow the apostolic tradtion as you claim it does, can you please answer the following questions with the bible? when Peter called himself Pope or the foundation of the church? When Peter or any of the apostles ever forgave sins, taught Marionology, celibacy, indulgenges, purgatory, to pray rosary or to countless virgins, angels or saints for intercessions? The truth is found in the new testament, and as much as I have read it, I can not find the modern practices of what you call "RC apostolic traditions" in the bible. In your words, the modern tradtion should be a 100% resemblance of the new testament practices and teachings. In reality, they are not.
@josephdavison6967 that is expressly NOT what Jimmy Akin said. The canon of NT Scripture was not codified formally until the late 4th century, and when it was codified it was done so by bishops in ecumenical council. Prior to that point, many Christian groups considered various different texts to be authentic Scripture. In other words, Tradition preceded and indeed gave us Scripture. Your demand is unreasonable because the Catholic faith, for 2000 continuous years, is not based solely on Scripture but on Sacred Tradition. Meanwhile, the aberrant doctrine of sola scriptura is unheard of until the 16th century. No one in the first millennium of the Church would have taken such an absurd notion as Sola scriptura seriously, nor shall I.
@josephdavison6967 To directly answer, I cannot cite any passage from Scripture alone to prove most of those specific doctrines and practices, but because something is not explicitly stated in Scripture does not mean it must be wicked. The formal doctrines of the Trinity or Christ's dual nature are not found in Scripture in any clear moment that does not require Tradition to fully explain it. And the ridiculous false doctrine of sola scriptura is found absolutely nowhere in Scripture; in fact, it would seem to go against several parts of Scripture (which is a dead give away that it is a man-made tradition)
@@connorhurley9512 the letters of the new testament were written within the first century. Therefore the sound doctrine teachings have been available much before the RC could claim that they invented the new testament. Second what this teacher is saying is that for tradition to be truth it must equal what Jesus and the Apostles taught in the new testament. However we do not see Peter calling himself Pope or the foundation of the church, nor we see Peter or any of the Apostles forgiving sins, teaching celibacy, indulgences, purgatory, Marionology, praying rosary and to countless virgins, angels, and "saints" for intercession. Even if they fell into this errors, heresies and blasphemies within the first 300 years of the church, they should have been corrected once the canon was completed. Instead they were worsen with time into apostasy which initially caused the split of the greek orthodox from RC at about the year 1000. Sola scritura also means that the bible has only one true interpretation and that there is no alternatives. For example Jesus is the only mediator between God and men. Neither Mary, Angels or "Saints" can be remotely consider as alternatives to Jesus. That is why you do not understand sola scriptura.
In John 15:26, Jesus says to his disciples that when he will leave they will be guided by the Spirit of truth: "But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father, he shall testify of me:"
@@c.Ichthys we can’t deny the plague of rotten apples that we’ve had within the church. I still maintain my faith in the church as a whole but struggle with who and why certain books were chose.
@@davidsalgado5108 hey, no one denied it. Even Jesus, our God Incarnate, hand picked "a rotten apple", to use your word. The Church is Holy because she has Jesus as her Bridegroom and protector. Within the Church there are saints and sinners. Bad apples, per se, come and go, yet The Church remains, as Jesus promised that the gates of hades shall never prevail. Jesus warned us there would be wolves in sheep's clothing to try to lead us astray. We don't abandon Jesus and His Church because of Judas (the "bad apples").
"15 So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught, whether by word of mouth or by letter FROM US." So, tell me, which traditions is Paul talking about that he and the Apostles taught? I don't see anything about making up others at a later date and passing them off as church traditions. Please, show me some traditions not mentioned in the bible from the 1st century church that the Apostles or their followers taught. Here's one "tradition" Catholics can't answer for, clergy being compulsed from being married. Yet, here we are today, forbidding their priests to marry only since the 11th century. Is that one of those traditions Paul and the 1st century church taught?
Priestly celibacy is a church discipline, not an apostolic tradition. The Church could theoretically change this in the future, precisely because it's not an apostolic tradition like the Mass, or the canon of scripture.
Jesus counseled poverty (Matthew 19 :21), chastity (Matthew 19:12), and obedience ("Follow Me"). Jesus said some would "make themselves eunuchs for the sake of the Kingdom of God," and Paul said he wished for others to be like himself (celibate). Other Divine Traditions not written in Scripture would be the Order of Holy Mass and the other sacraments.
@@christopherponsford8385 Then the church is in an apostate state not allowing priests to marry. And its discipline is failing miserably. Why is it that you Catholics fail at checking the scriptures for yourself whether what you are being taught and believe are in accordance to God's divine revelation, the Bible? It was you who claim this is not a tradition, but a "discipline." IT GOES DIRECTLY AGAINST SCRIPTURE! This is only one reason why I left the RCC. I studied for myself. I don't need some authoritative figure for me to understand these scriptures. No more than I need someone to explain the novel "Of Mice and Men". God gave me a brain, I choose to use it. 1 Timothy 4 Apostasy 1 But the Spirit explicitly says that in later times some will fall away from the faith, paying attention to deceitful spirits and doctrines of demons, 2 by means of the hypocrisy of liars seared in their own conscience as with a branding iron, 3 men who forbid marriage and advocate abstaining from foods which God has created to be gratefully shared in by those who believe and know the truth. 4 For everything created by God is good, and nothing is to be rejected if it is received with gratitude; 5 for it is sanctified by means of the word of God and prayer. 1 Corinthian 9 Paul’s Use of Liberty 1 Am I not free? Am I not an apostle? Have I not seen Jesus our Lord? Are you not my work in the Lord? 2 If to others I am not an apostle, at least I am to you; for you are the seal of my apostleship in the Lord. 3 My defense to those who examine me is this: 4 Do we not have a right to eat and drink? 5 Do we not have a right to take along a believing wife, even as the rest of the apostles and the brothers of the Lord and Cephas? 1 Timothy 3 Overseers and Deacons 1 It is a trustworthy statement: if any man aspires to the office of overseer, it is a fine work he desires to do. 2 An overseer, then, must be above reproach, the husband of one wife, temperate, prudent, respectable, hospitable, able to teach, 3 not addicted to wine or pugnacious, but gentle, peaceable, free from the love of money. 4 He must be one who manages his own household well, keeping his children under control with all dignity 5 (but if a man does not know how to manage his own household, how will he take care of the church of God?), 6 and not a new convert, so that he will not become conceited and fall into the condemnation incurred by the devil. 7 And he must have a good reputation with those outside the church, so that he will not fall into reproach and the snare of the devil.
@@wms72 So, are you telling me all the RCC priests made themselves eunuchs? Even according what you posted it says "some". And Paul says he "wished for others" to be like himself. Not a command. You're argument is moot in light of scripture. 1 Corinthians 9 Paul’s Use of Liberty 9 Am I not free? Am I not an apostle? Have I not seen Jesus our Lord? Are you not my work in the Lord? 2 If to others I am not an apostle, at least I am to you; for you are the seal of my apostleship in the Lord. 3 My defense to those who examine me is this: 4 Do we not have a right to eat and drink? 5 Do we not have a right to take along a believing wife, even as the rest of the apostles and the brothers of the Lord and Cephas?
@@DashRiprock-m3b sigh 😪 what exactly is your point, man? Why is the celibacy of the Catholic priesthood such an offense to you? If you're Protestant, like it sounds you are, then your pastors can and do marry and this Catholic practice is irrelevant to you.
Seriously? “I believe thing 1 based on essentially nothing, and thing 2 looks like thing 1, therefore I believe thing 2 as well.” This is a recipe for serious delusion.
There are a lot of assumptions made here. First, that the rcc is the church spoken of in the n.t.. Its not. Secondly, no one has ever provided a list of all the sacred traditions of the rcc. How do you test if its apostolic if you don't even know the contents? Scripture is God breathed. Name something else besides scripture that is God breathed.
@ContendingEarnestly Sacred Divine Tradition taught by Jesus, His Apostles and their successors is also God breathed. (See Matthew 4:4) St. Peter was bishop of the universal Church, which was called Catholic from its earliest existence, as proven by the epistles of St. Ignatius, bishop of Antioch (martyred ~A.D.106) who was one of the children Jesus blessed and who was taught by the Apostle St. John. Calling the Church "Catholic" is seen in Acts 9:31: "Ecclesia Kat' Holes" Peter took his office, his authority with him as long as he lived. Peter was the first bishop of Antioch until he went to Rome where he was martyred. The book of Acts ends with the Church in Rome. Read the book of the prophet Daniel. Christ identified Himself as the "Son of Man" to Whom Daniel referred. Jesus Christ, the Apostle Paul, and the book of Revelation assume that the identity of Daniel's Fourth Kingdom is the Roman Empire. Daniel 7:27 says that this 4th Kingdom and the dominion of all kingdoms would be given to the saints of the Highest One, and that His Kingdom would be for all people (i.e. "Catholic") and last forever. Did you get that? The Roman Empire would be given to the true Church of God. So, if your place of worship has no resemblance to anything Roman, does NOT look like the converted Roman Empire, it's NOT the Church of the Highest One prophesied by Daniel and fulfilled in Christ. Btw, God doesn't fill your head with the lies you believe. God bless you and guide you into all truth. In Nomine Patris et Filii et Spiritus Sancti. + Amen. ***** Are you a Christian? Do you worship God the way Jesus revealed He wants to be worshipped? The heart of worship is SACRIFICE, not hymns, nor preaching nor prayer. Was your Church present BEFORE and AT Pentecost to hear Jesus and His Apostles preach and to know and carry out His Sacrifice of the New Covenant? Remember how Aaron's son DIED because he offered worship that seemed good to him but was NOT what God commanded. (Leviticus 10:1) Hebrews 13:10 "We have an altar from which those who serve the Tabernacle have no right to eat." Does your church have an altar from which you eat the sacrifice? Study John 16:12,13 until you understand it. Ask the Holy Spirit to help you.
St. Peter was bishop of the universal Church, which was called Catholic from its earliest existence, as proven by the epistles of St. Ignatius, bishop of Antioch who was one of the children Jesus blessed and who was taught by the Apostle St. John. Calling the Church "Catholic" is seen in Acts 9:31: "Ecclesia Kat' Holes" Peter took his office, his authority with him as long as he lived. Peter was the first bishop of Antioch until he went to Rome where he was martyred. The book of Acts ends with the Church in Rome. Read the book of the prophet Daniel. Christ identified Himself as the "Son of Man" to Whom Daniel referred. Jesus Christ, the Apostle Paul, and the book of Revelation assume that the identity of Daniel's Fourth Kingdom is the Roman Empire. Daniel 7:27 says that this 4th Kingdom and the dominion of all kingdoms would be given to the saints of the Highest One, and that His Kingdom would be for all people (i.e. "Catholic") and last forever. Did you get that? The Roman Empire would be given to the true Church of God. So, if your place of worship has no resemblance to anything Roman, does NOT look like the converted Roman Empire, it's NOT the Church of the Highest One prophesied by Daniel and fulfilled in Christ. Btw, God doesn't fill your head with the lies you believe. God bless you and guide you into all truth. In Nomine Patris et Filii et Spiritus Sancti. + Amen. ***** Are you a Christian? Do you worship God the way Jesus revealed He wants to be worshipped? The heart of worship is SACRIFICE, not hymns, nor preaching nor prayer. Was your Church present BEFORE and AT Pentecost to hear Jesus and His Apostles preach and to know and carry out His Sacrifice of the New Covenant? Remember how Aaron's son DIED because he offered worship that seemed good to him but was NOT what God commanded. Leviticus 10:1 Hebrews 13:10 "We have an altar from which those who serve the Tabernacle have no right to eat." Does your church have an altar from which you eat the sacrifice? Study John 16:12,13 until you understand it. Ask the Holy Spirit to help you.
A list of Sacred Traditions of the holy Catholic and Apostolic Church: 1)the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, 2) the Order of the rituals and prayers of the sacraments, and qualifications for receiving them 3) the correct interpretation of Scripture 4) the canon of Scripture 5) the duties of bishops, priests, deacons, laity and the Pope 6) the "laws of the Church"
This is meaningless video. So which traditions OF THE CHURCH has the CHURCH deemed NOT traditions. It makes no sense. You are saying any traditions must be right!
There is a distinction to make between Sacred Tradition (e.g., how Baptism is performed, who can do it, when; the apostolic succession, church structure; etc.) which is the primary mode of God's divine revelation along with Sacred Scripture, and other traditions which are disciplinary or even simply pious local practices. Sacred Tradition is authoritative and binding, whereas pious traditions are not. Hence why there are Marian dogmas (e.g., the perpetual virginity, that she is Theotokos, the Assumption), and also special traditions that different groups practice. The Rosary, for example, is not from Sacred Tradition, and therefore not a necessary devotion (although it is recognized by all Catholics as being an incredibly good work for growing closer to Christ through the aid of our shared Mother).
But how do you know 'apostolic tradition' is actually from the Apostles? Your catechism says that Muslims are yet saved even though they don't have faith in Christ - is this something the Apostles thought of? Now watch......no one is going to respond to this. LOL
@@wms72 Here you go! 841 "The plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place amongst whom are the Muslims; these profess to hold the faith of Abraham, and together with us they adore the one, merciful God, mankind's judge on the last day."
Matthew 15:6.....So you have made the WORD OF GOD INVALID BECAUSE OF YOUR TRADITION. 7 You hypocrites, Isaiah aptly prophesied about you when he said: 8 ‘This people honor me with their lips, but their hearts are far removed from me. 9 It is in vain that they keep worshipping me, for they teach commands of men as doctrines.’” Though some traditions are not of a religious nature, those that are side step God's commandment. Jesus condemned these. Here is some good advice. 1 Corinthians 4:6....that through us you may learn the rule: “Do not go beyond the things that are written,”
What about Catholic relics , they don't seem to fit into new testament theology. "Pieces of the True Cross were one of the most highly sought-after of such relics; many churches claimed to possess a piece of it, so many that John Calvin famously remarked that there were enough pieces of the True Cross to build a ship from" Also they tend to lead people into worshiping them? Calvin says that the saints have two or three or more bodies with arms and legs, and even a few extra limbs and heads.
Calvin said a lot of things that are untrue... but to your point, those are pious traditions but not part of Sacred Tradition. One need not believe in the True Cross, and it is not necessary for salvation. But the sacraments, for example, are necessary.
@hurley9512 Surely the basics of salvation : Mark 1:15 . Repent and believe the good news! . Surely sacraments and good works are just a response to the complete work of Christ on the cross. How can a sacrament save me? Haggai 2:10-23 If someone carries holy meat in the fold of his garment and touches with his fold bread or stew or wine or oil or any kind of food, does it become holy?’” The priests answered and said, “No.” - touching something holy does not seem make you holy. Holiness is apparently not transferable according to Haggai?
@hurley9512 Pope Francis has explained the unexpected gifting of a relic of St Peter to the leader of the Eastern Orthodox Church in June, a gesture which generated controversy among some Catholics.? 13/09/2019 catholicherald🙄 Lets hope its real.
@@mangs9940 it most likely is, but my salvation is not founded on St Peter's bones, but on the Body of Christ. If relics aid in my faith and guide me closer to Christ, then that is God's grace.
@mangs9940 You fail to understand what the sacraments are then. They are not mere physical acts, but also signs of the spiritual reality. The sacraments WILL save you, because the sacraments are Christ present in the world. Christ baptizes, Christ absolves sins, Christ heals the broken, Christ ordains the priest, Christ gives His Very Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity, to us
@@johnclaiborne2749There are a few catholics that question the authority of the catholic church to fight against The Word of God. My comments are directed toward them. Most catholics seem to be reprobate. To be reprobate is to be absent any influence from God's Holy Spirit. I was baptized into the catholic church, but by His grace Jesus opened my eyes. One of my debts is to encourage those who may also be turned to The Truth.
@@francissweeney7318 I can relate to that. I was a devout Roman Catholic for over twenty years of my life, but I never heard the true biblical gospel because Catholicism has abandoned the true biblical gospel many centuries ago. So what's the true biblical gospel? That the only way for a lost sinner to have true peace with God is to abandon all efforts at trying to achieve a righteousness that's impossible for us to achieve, and to be justified by faith on the basis of Christ's perfect righteousness "imputed" or "reckoned" or "credited" to us (Philippians 3:9). EVERY false religion teaches that we can at least contribute to our salvation, and, sadly, Catholicism is no different. Catholics are told that they need to go through the church, through a sacerdotal priesthood, through the sacraments, through indulgences, etc., and hopefully that'll be enough to get them into an unbiblical place called Purgatory where they must undergo "satispassio" (i.e. the suffering of atonement). All of that is foreign to Scripture, and it falls under the category of "false gospel" as the Bible warns.
@@johnclaiborne2749 I agree with your conclusions. I would not leave unsaid the need for both baptism of water and of the Spirit in order to enter the kingdom of God. The change of the disciples when they were filled with the Holy Spirit was profound.
You are now a heretic, devoid of the fullness of God's Sacraments and truths. Shameful. You prefer King Henry and all those other over 45,000 man made separated denominations instead of Jesus's Bride, the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church. Instead of learning properly you abandoned and rejected Jesus. Or don't you know those scriptures ? Btw, the true biblical scriptures came from the RCC, and are proclaimed each day at Mass. @@johnclaiborne2749
How do you know if they're from God? Are the traditions from Paul and said to STAND Fast on and HOLD the ones he taught. He says that you "were taught". And stand firm and hold need not be explained do they? And they are from Paul also said "KEEP" the traditions "AS HE DELIVERED THEM UNTO YOU." So those that the church has ADDD are not from God. There have been some that the church has even deleted. So how can they be from God if the church has the audacity to remove them? The church's traditions therefore are TRADITIONS OF MEN spoken of in scripture by Paul inn his letter to the Colossians. Not difficult if you read scripture.
@@connorhurley9512 are you trying to be naive. You can't tell me that the church's current traditions are the same as Paul taught? Come on now. I'll give you one. Do you know your church had a suicide tradition amongst the priests? Yes, as absurd as it sounds. But then again everything Rome does is absurd. You see the church thought that it was a fast way for the priests to go be with the Lord. Sadly, those priests are in hell. Then some brilliant church head figured out that they were losing too many priests. That was genius. So your church did away with that tradition. Keeping in mind that it's traditions are not traditions of men but from God. Sure, I'm sure God approves of suicide and revealed to them to institute priestly suicide.
@rbnmnt3341 what are you talking about? No legitimate Church authority has ever taught something so baseless and absurd! When did the Church teach this supposed suicide doctrine?
@rbnmnt3341 also, yes, Paul did teach Catholic doctrine. In fact, perhaps no one is more foundational for Catholic theology than St Paul. He formulated the Church's language on salvation, justification, grace, as well as the sacraments. He firmly believed that his personal redemption hinged on his mission to the Gentiles (see 1 Corinthians 9). The Church has always loved Paul. The office of the papacy is as much tied to Paul as it is to Peter (hence the papal rota containing both names: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rota_(papal_signature)).
Jesus condemned " the traditions of men." He said " All men think evil thoughts continually." Catholics follow man made traditions. The thinking of evil thinking men. God is not the author of confusion, the trinity is confusing because it is not from God.
@@elf-lordsfriarofthemeadowl2039 Follow what men you choose. Jesus said : Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away. Your traditions of men shall pass away.
@@SNS-f6g I have the peace of The Comforter who brings those are filled with His Spirit " to all truth." This filling is required, as Jesus stated, to enter the wedding feast. The parable in Matthew 25. Your so called apostolic fathers departed from God's Word and devised their own doctrines. That is the harlotry Jesus spoke about in Revelation chapter 17. Only baptism in the name of Jesus Christ, as Peter told you in Acts 2:38 causes you to be filled with The Holy Spirit, The Comforter of which Jesus spoke.
So the argument is trust me bro, we got the authority? First of all, an argument from authority is not an argument and is actually a logical fallacy. Secondly, this mentality can so easily corrupt doctrine if you are not careful and, if you take a passing look at church history, you can easily see that the Catholic church has not been careful. Human institutions need to be grounded in something unchanging that can be referenced to in order to avoid this so that there can be checks and balances. This should be the Bible.
I LOVE MY PROTESTANT BROTHERS WHO DO SO MANY WORKS OF CHARITY AND HAVE SO MANY COMMON GOALS WITH THE CATHOLIC CHURCH LIKE BEING PRO-LIFE ETC. HOWEVER, I HAVE MANY QUESTIONS ON SOLA SCRIPTURA. FOR INSTANCE, DID JESUS PROMISE A BOOK OR A CHURCH? WHERE DOES THE BIBLE STATES THE WORDS "SOLA SCRIPTURA"? WHERE IN THE BIBLE IS GOD'S WORD RESTRICTED ONLY TO WHAT IS WRITTEN DOWN? WHY WAS THERE CONFUSION IN THE EARLY CHURCH OVER WHICH BOKS WERE INSPIRED? HOW DID THE EARLY CHURCH EVANGELIZE AND SURVIVED WHILE BEING BRUTALLY PERSECUTED BY THE ROMAN EMPIRE FOR ABOUT 350 YEARS WITHOUT KNOWING FOR SURE WHICH BOOKS BELONG IN THE CANON OF SCRIPTURE? IF CHRISTIANITY IS A "BOOK RELIGION" HOW DID IT FLOURISHED IN THE FIRST 1500 YEARS WHEN MOST PEOPLE WERE ILLITERATE? IF JESUS INTENDED FOR CHRISTIANITY TO BE EXCLUSIVELY A "RELIGION OF THE BOOK" WHY DID HE WAIT 1400 YEARS BEFORE SHOWING SOMEONE HOW TO BUILD A PRINTING PRESS? IF THE EARLY CHURCH BELIEVED IN SOLA SCRIPTURA, WHY DO THE CREEDS OF THE EARLY CHURCH ALWAYS SAY "WE BELIEVE IN THE HOLY CATHOLIC CHURCH", AND NOT "WE BELIEVE IN HOLY SCRIPTURE"? WHY DID THE DOCTRINE OF SOLA SCRIPTURA WAS NEVER RAISED BY THE CHURCH FATHERS, BUT IT WAS FIRST RAISED BY JOHN CALVIN MANY CENTURIES AFTER JESUS' ASCENSION? WHERE IN THE NEW TESTAMENT DO THE APOSTLES TELL FUTURE GENERATIONS THAT THE CHRISTIAN FAITH WILL BE BASED SOLELY ON A BOOK? HOW DO WE KNOW FROM THE BIBLE ALONE THAT THE LETTERS OF ST. PAUL, WHO WROTE TO 1ST CENTURY CONGREGATIONS AND INDIVIDUALS, WERE MEANT TO BE READ BY US 2000 YEARS LATER? ON WHAT BIBLICAL BASIS DO WE THINK THAT EVERYTHING THAT THE APOSTLES TAUGHT IS CAPTURED IN THE NEW TESTAMENT WRITINGS? WHERE DOES THE BIBLE CLAIM TO BE THE SOLE AUTHORITY FOR CHRISTIANS IN MATTERS OF FAITH AND MORALS? WHO MAY AUTHORITATIVELY ARBITRATE BETWEEN CHRISTIANS WHO CLAIM TO BE LEAD BY THE HOLY SPIRIT INTO MUTUALLY CONTRADICTORY INTERPRETATIONS OF THE BIBLE? WHO IN THE CHURCH HAD THE AUTHORITY TO DETERMINE WHICH BOOKS BELONGED IN THE NEW TESTAMENT CANON AND TO MAKE THIS DECISION BINDING ON ALL CHRISTIANS? IF NO ONE HAS THE AUTHORITY, CAN I THEN REMOVE OR ADD BOOKS IN THE CANON ON MY OWN AUTHORITY? IF WE NEED AN AUTHORITY TO INTERPRET THE US CONSTITUTION (US SUPREME COURT) WHY WOULN'T WE HAVE A SOLE AUTHORITY TO INTERPRET THE BIBLE WHICH IS MUCH MORE DIFFICULT TO INTERPRET? ISN'T KIND OF BEATIFUL THAT OUR PROTESTANTS BROTHERS AGREE WITH THE CATHOLIC AUTHORITY IN AS MUCH AS THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE CANON OF THE NEW TESTAMENT? GOD BLESS YOU ALL.
@@wms72 why would you assume that’s my answer? The Catholic church does not determine which books I read. I don’t read Maccabees or any of those apocryphal books. I read the Bible because they are authenticated works by God’s disciples or Old Testament writings that are accepted as canonical by the Jews before Jesus. The first church may have preserved the works and compiled them but they did not make it authoritative or authentic. That’s just silly. Also, the first church was not the Catholic church of today, it became Catholic.
@@bigideasthescholar Isn't it silly to say I don't read Catholic books, I read the Bible? In the early Church, there were about 350 writings claiming to be Scripture. The Bible wasn't compiled into one book until A.D 382 by Catholic bishops at the Council of Rome under Pope Damasus I. Of course, crazy apostate priest Luther threw away 6 books and parts of others from the Bible, in contradiction to Deuteronomy 4:2"You shall not add to the word of God... nor take away from it." St. Peter was bishop of the universal Church, which was called Catholic from its earliest existence, as proven by the epistles of St. Ignatius, bishop of Antioch who was one of the children Jesus blessed and who was taught by the Apostle St. John. Calling the Church "Catholic" is seen in Acts 9:31: "Ecclesia Kat' Holes" Peter took his office, his authority with him as long as he lived. Peter was the first bishop of Antioch until he went to Rome where he was martyred. The book of Acts ends with the Church in Rome. Read the book of the prophet Daniel. Christ identified Himself as the "Son of Man" to Whom Daniel referred. Jesus Christ, the Apostle Paul, and the book of Revelation assume that the identity of Daniel's Fourth Kingdom is the Roman Empire. Daniel 7:27 says that this 4th Kingdom and the dominion of all kingdoms would be given to the saints of the Highest One, and that His Kingdom would be for all people (i.e. "Catholic") and last forever. Did you get that? The Roman Empire would be given to the true Church of God. So, if your place of worship has no resemblance to anything Roman, does NOT look like the converted Roman Empire, it's NOT the Church of the Highest One prophesied by Daniel and fulfilled in Christ. Btw, God doesn't fill your head with the lies you believe. God bless you and guide you into all truth. In Nomine Patris et Filii et Spiritus Sancti. + Amen. ***** Are you a Christian? Do you worship God the way Jesus revealed He wants to be worshipped? The heart of worship is SACRIFICE, not hymns, nor preaching nor prayer. Was your Church present BEFORE and AT Pentecost to hear Jesus and His Apostles preach and to know and carry out His Sacrifice of the New Covenant? Remember how Aaron's son DIED because he offered worship that seemed good to him but was NOT what God commanded. Leviticus 10:1 Hebrews 13:10 "We have an altar from which those who serve the Tabernacle have no right to eat." Does your church have an altar from which you eat the sacrifice? Study John 16:12,13 until you understand it. Ask the Holy Spirit to help you.
@@SNS-f6g First of all, it’s okay. You can stop yelling. We can all hear you just fine without all caps. It actually makes it harder to read. You asked a lot of questions, and I would love to answer them in earnest. No, Jesus did not promise a book but they did have a book, many books. Jewish ones. Genesis to Malchi which all spoke about the nature of our God as well as the Messiah that has come so they already had written scriptures that they preached from and then they preached from Paul’s letters when they received those (and there is evidence that many of his letters were passed around between the early churches) and then preached from the gospels when they received those. The Bible does not state Sola Scriptura but the Bible also does not state the Trinity however, we both believe in the Trinity. Sola Scriptura is a tradition that says that God’s word should be the ultimate authority and that is a tradition that ultimately came from Jews who rely wholly upon the written word of God as their authority. The God’s word is not restricted to what is written down because we see the term God’s word used in many ways, one being Scripture but others being Jesus himself and God speaking or speaking though people. Because God can and does act through people and through the church often. But the question is, where do we get our ultimate authority? Our ultimate authority comes from scripture as communicated to us through God. That is what the tradition of Sola Scriptura is all about. There was some confusion in the early church because people made forgeries. Luckily we were able to discern which ones were real. And by the way, identifying something as Scripture does not put you in a position over Scripture in authority. Just because someone identifies Scripture as Scripture doesn’t mean you have authority over that Scripture. The early church survived by the grace of God, the ministry of the Spirit, the preaching of the Scripture, the perseverance of the church, and the faith of the people. They knew the apostles came from Christ and they adhered to their teachings found in letters as well as the Scripture they had of the Old Testament. The church flourished despite illiteracy because it was preached. That unfortunately led to a lack of checks and balances that lead the church in a myriad of bad directions but the church still had the book. God wanted His word written down and proclaimed. We see that most explicitly in the 10 commandments. God always wanted what He said to be written down as His authority. I don’t see why that would be different after Christ came. And God knew we could write so I don’t think He thought the church needed the printing press. We still say that creed in the protestant church. I was raised in that creed, the catholic church is different from the Catholic church because catholic means universal. So when the phrase “holy catholic church” is used, protestants understand that as universal church which means the full body of believers that are considered part of the Christian church across all Christian denominations. That portion of the creed is talking about the whole body of believers, not the basis for our highest authority. Those are different matters entirely. The church fathers never raised the issue of sola scriptura because it was never an issue until Catholicism added traditions that opposed scripture. The New Testament apostles do not tell future generations that the Christian faith will be based on a book. They wouldn’t say that because the question isn’t “what is the soul basis for Christianity?”, the question is “what is the ultimate authority of Christianity?” But we know that the written word has been viewed as authoritative since the time of Moses. You know that the letters of Paul are applicable today because we continue to talk about them in reference to the Christian faith. I don’t understand why they wouldn’t be applicable when Paul is a minister of the gospel sent by Christ himself who is writing about matters of faith, the church, theology, and our God. There’s no way to think that everything that was taught was captured. That is also not the claim. That also can’t be the claim of the Catholic church. Not every sermon, conversation, or conversion was passed on. That means there were things that were taught that there is no way to capture. However, the apostles letters is the best source for what they taught. That can be cross referenced with the book of Acts to see where many of their focuses were during their time of spreading the gospel and then we can look at Jesus’ ministry and the Old Testament. With all of those sources joined, we see that the totality of what God intended to pass on to us through Jesus was delivered. Again, sola scriptura is a tradition and the Bible speaks often authoritatively on matters of faith and morality. It does not claim to be the sole authority, but I don’t understand why this wouldn’t be authoritative, and I don’t understand where the higher authority on morality and faith would come from other than from God, Jesus, and his apostles. The authoritative arbitrator between Christians would be scripture. That’s the point of solo scripta. On matters under the authority scripture, you turn scripture as the ultimate authority. We see this example in Acts 17. Paul and Silas arrive in Berea preaching the gospel and the Jews use scripture to examine what Paul says and they are called more noble for it. So, if we are to be noble like these Jews, we turned the scripture for our highest authority when these matters arise. No one has the authority to determine which books belong in the Bible. Instead, it takes discernment to authenticate the works by ensuring they are written by eyewitness accounts who are apostles of Christ. This is not a question of authority for compiling a selection of books. Instead, it is an authentication of writings from those who were sent out by Christ to spread the gospel. I find it kind of insane to think that because you compiled books, that means that you have authority over them. That doesn’t make any sense. Authority over a compilation is not conferred to the person who compiled the compilation. God has the authority, and these books are written by people sent by God. All you need to do to know if they’re authentic is figure out whether or not someone sent by God wrote them. So no, you cannot add or subtract from what has already been written. Who said we need an authority to interpret the constitution? Man did, not God. And man, the Supreme Court really screwed up many times in interpreting the constitution. I really don’t want that to happen with scripture. Why would I put somebody in that position of power over God‘s word? Seems like a bad idea. Actually, we don’t agree on all of Scripture, because the vast majority of Protestant churches do not see the apocrypha as authoritative scripture but nice try. Also, I find a laughable that you would equate the church that compiled the New Testament to the modern day Catholic church. But I do find it beautiful, because then we can point to scripture that you find authoritative to show you where your theology contradicts scripture. I await your reply. God bless you all.
KJ was a sat.anic sinful Fr€€Mason, and the 1611 and 1619 kjv have demonic sketches (Pan, Poseidon, naked female godess/nymph, bats,etc) which I saw. He with his other cronies changed the bible. Removed books and chapters from Daniel and Esther. Recall the fate that St. John the Apostle warned about?
They don't know. They assume and depend on baseless claims and "tradition". Every christian claims that their version is straight form this god, and not one can show this to be the case.
"baseless claims" I would be careful calling the testimony of the Martyrs to be "baseless claims". There is a clear chain from the Apostles to the Early Church Fathers, for example St Jonh the Apostle teached St Polycarp who teached St Irenaeus. St Ignatius suceeded St Evodius, who suceeded St Peter in Antioch. There is a clear chain between first century christianity of the Apostles and second century christianity of the Church Fathers, and from this link we can be sure both were the same entity, the same Church.
There are other early Christian writings from the church fathers that discuss the church traditions. This is part of how they validate what are apostolic traditions. These writings while not inspired do reflect the discussions between the church’s of the first few hundred years of how the church functioned while there was no canonized Christian bible (that didn’t happen until the end of the 4th century). So any who are Christian’s relied heavily on the teachings of the church fathers, which as Jimmy said were from the apostles.
@@enderwiggen3638 There are many many early chrsitain writings and they don't all agree. Like the bible, anything that didn't fit was removed. Unsurprisingly, the apostles can't be shown to have existed, the same for jesus. So attempts to claim some relationship with imaginary beings doesn't help your validity. We can see how claims like that made it even into the bible since there are parts that claim to be written by certain people and it has been determined they were not.
Incorrect. “Apostolic Tradition” exists entirely independent of the Bible, in many cases comes along with no ancient documents, no direct tie or proof that it is tied to Jesus or an Apostle, and involves doctrines which evolved over hundreds of years (such as the treasury of merit, prayer to saints, the canonization of the apocrypha) all which happened hundreds of years after Jesus and the apostles. Do not be deceived.
You are very deceived. The Oral traditions always came before the written. The first thousand upon thousands of converts to Christianity were taught by oral transmission, not written. The written came later, and then not everything is written in the bible. Even the bible tells us this!
The New Catholic Encyclopedia admits that “one does not find in the New Testament any words of Christ indicating how the apostolic mandate was to be handed on.” It also confesses that “papal primacy was not clearly understood or explicitly professed in the Western [Latin] Church until the fifth century C.E.”
@@sunnyjohnson992 The papacy is from Christ. The Church has always had the supreme "Bishop of Rome", the *leader* of all the other ordained Bishops, priests and deacons, St. Peter being the first. The first written record we have that describes The Church as Catholic, and "the bishop" (aka "pope) was in 110 AD by St. Ignatius in his Letter to the Smyrnaeans: "Wherever *the bishop* appears, there let the people be; as wherever Jesus Christ is, there *is the Catholic Church.”* Letters of St. Ignatius, Bishop of Antioch (died c. 110 AD, and wrote letters while on the way to his martyrdom). *St. Ignatius was taught by St. John* the beloved Apostle and consecrated Bishop around the year 69 by the Apostle Peter, the first Pope. He became good friends of St. Polycarp, the Bishop of Smyrna (taught and ordained as Bishop of Smyrna by St. John the beloved Apostle c. 80 AD and is the "angel" in Rev 2). He was martyred 155 AD. St. Polycarp knew St. Clement 1, 4th Pope, whom is mentioned in the Bible. Also met with the Bishop of Rome (3rd Pope) Anacletus.
But how do you know 'apostolic tradition' is actually from the Apostles? Your catechism says that Muslims are yet saved even though they don't have faith in Christ - is this something the Apostles thought of? Now watch......no one is going to respond to this. LOL
The plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place amongst whom are the Muslims.” To many this sounds like Muslims can be saved by adhering to Islam. That isn’t what it means, as shown by the original context. If you look at Lumen Gentium (LG), the Vatican II document from which the quote is drawn, it becomes clear that the phrase is not meant to say that Islam is a method of salvation parallel to Christianity. The quote comes from LG 16, but it is part of a larger context in the document. To appreciate how it fits into the picture, one needs to go back at least as far as LG 13, which starts by proclaiming, “All men are called to belong to the new people of God”-i.e., to the Church. Section 13 concludes by stating, “All men are called to be part of this catholic unity of the people of God. . . . And in different ways to it belong, or are related: the Catholic faithful, others who believe in Christ, and finally all mankind, for all men are called by the grace of God to salvation.” All mankind is called to the “Catholic unity of the people of God”-in other words, to become Catholics. Some have done so, and so LG states that some “belong to” the Catholic Church while others are related to it “in different ways.” Those who belong to it are “the Catholic faithful,” while those who are related in various ways include “others who believe in Christ” (who are related to the Church in one way) and “all mankind” (who are related to the Church in a different way). You can find the full article on Catholic Answers website. The islam faith was started hundreds of years after Jesus Christ established His Catholic Church. He did rebuke the Pharisees and Scribes for making their own versions of His One True Apostolic Catholic Church and Doctrine, like all other Christian Churches and other faiths have done. Mt23:1-39, Lk 11:37-54
@@bigideasthescholar 2 Thessalonians 2:14 And so, brothers, stand firm, and hold to the traditions that you have learned, whether by word or by our epistle. 2 Thessalonians 2:15 So may our Lord Jesus Christ himself, and God our Father, who has loved us and who has given us an everlasting consolation and good hope in grace,
@@soulosxpiotov7280 Where in the catechism does it say Muslims are saved? Give the page number and the edition. Or are you quoting some lying anti-Catholic?
![ATEEZ(에이티즈) - [GOLDEN HOUR : Part.2] Preview](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/X4PfgRPBUVo/mqdefault.jpg)
First comment?! Maybe?! Love Scripture and Tradition. Getting Confirmed here very soon into the Fullness if Faith, thanks in part to Catholic Answers!
Beautiful.
Welcome home to the one true holy apostolic catholic church founded by Jesus Christ
Listen to his reasoning at minute 2:20 on. The church’s teaching authority is supposed to be authoritative “because” the church has the Holy Spirit. That makes no sense to me because the word of God says that every Christian has the Holy Spirit. And we know that Jimmy was not talking about every Christian. He was talking about Catholic Church leadership. Namely the Pope and former Pope’s. Of course the problem with that is that every Christian who is guided by the Holy Spirit knows that the current Pope and his head of doctrine, Cardinal Fernandez, are making statements which are in direct conflict with God and His Holy word. So here’s the question: Is the “church” the authority on the issue of Capital punishment and same sex couples or is the Bible? Again, if you are a Spirit filled Christian then you know the answer to this question and you have a duty to obey God rather than men.
@@Declared-righteous how do you know which books belong in the Bible because the Bible does not tell you that
@@bradleesargent We know what books of the Bible belong there by way of passive reception to the people of God over the course of time. Authorities from Moses to John wrote down the words of God and those words were received by the people of God. There’s much more to be said about this but my main point is that the Bible is not a declared revelation of God made authentic by later church authorities. It was a delivery from God organically received over time that ended in the Apostolic period.
Great clear and concise explanation!
Good question, good answer! Love Jimmy Akin!
I would point out that the Scriptures thenselves come out of tradition. The Church is already extant when the many New Testament books are written. Most written 20 to 40 years after Jesus' Ascension and some as late as 107.
The same spirit that inspired the writings, inspires the Traditions and the Churches interpretation of the spirit inspired writings. It is the work of the Holy Spirit.
All of the canon was written by AD66. That was the year knowledge ceased, no more revelation. Then was the Roman-Jewish war, which lasted for 7 years. That last year, was the last year of their gathering, up to their last day, which was September 22, AD73 (Tishri 5, or half a time).
All of the so called evidence for later date writing, holds little to no water.
I think it’s important to remember that while we can distinguish between “scripture” and “tradition”, like you said, they’re clearly not independent of one another, but interdependent. There’s a certain sense where the scriptures *are* a tradition. And we can only know what is and isn’t scrupture via tradition as a mode of transmission across time.
@@christopherponsford8385 I beg to disagree. Scripture is divine revelation from God. God chose the prophets of the Old Testament to share divine revelation with. As well as the apostles in the New Testament. When reading the texts, while pursuing the authors intent (which very few do), one sees God as the author behind it all.
@@soteriology400 Jesus didn’t talk about a Bible with any apostle. Only the church decided what is scripture and what is not. Apostolic succession was the authority of the church form the beginning of
@tle With a comment like that, I think I wasting my time with you. Matthew 22:29, they had many books, but not complied into one book like we have today. They looked to the scriptures to check against false teaching, Acts 17:10-12.
The Jews decided what was canon in what we call the Old Testament. It had to be based on a known prophet (the 7 books the RCC accepted as canon, which we call the apocrypha, were not written by prophets, nor known people). In the New Testament, it was based on revelation from God (which apostles received), and whether what they wrote ties in with the scriptures the author gave, or a testament.
There is absolutely no apostolic succession authority that you are talking about. That is something you want to believe in, that is simply not true. There was a rewrite of history by Eusebius, to make it appear there was apostolic succession, which was done to centralize power around Rome.
A common Protestant claim is that the Catholic Church consists of "traditions of men." So guidance like this is very helpful in trying to explain the difference between traditions that began with men apart from the Church, such as many newer denominations, and apostolic tradition, which calls to mind the authority in 2 Thess. 2:15.
Funny you should mention 2 Thessalonians as an authority since most cholars agree it was not written by Paul.
@elly2162 Certainly not most. There was a study showing that while the Deutero-Pauline epistles have a lot of debate concerning authorship, scholars are pretty split on 2 Thessalonians; estimated about 50/50 by scholars like Reicke. Generally, those who don't believe it was written by Paul himself believe it was by one of his close associates like Luke or Timothy, or someone with authority to write in his name. But many are confident it was written by Paul.
'a lot of debate concerning authorship''scholars are split' 'those who don't believe believe it was written by a close associate like.....''or someone with authority' 'but many are confident........' I don't think even Pascal would wager his lunch money not to mention his eternal soul on the edicifice you have built out of suppositions.@@bigfootapologetics
But how do you know 'apostolic tradition' is actually from the Apostles? Your catechism says that Muslims are yet saved even though they don't have faith in Christ - is this something the Apostles thought of? Now watch......no one is going to respond to this. LOL
@soulosxpiotiv I’ll take you on.
Tell me: do you even know what the Church means by plan of salvation for Muslims?
Great question and answer, I was thinking about this also. Thank you.
Great explanation!
Thank You ✅
The mass, the sign of the cross, the apostles creed, the canon of the bible, the sacraments
The ancient church of rome, mother of all churches, built by peter and paul, and the martyrs have persisted since pentecost in jerusalem. And it will survive and grow until the second coming of our Lord God Jesus Christ. It has outlived empires and tyrants, persecution and exile, and even the rule of evil popes and bishops, because the powers of Hell cannot overcome the power of our Lord Jesus Christ to His Church
I am taking a class regarding the Early Church Fathers, currently the Apostolic Fathers. I was taught that for inclusion into various teachings, three criteria need to be met: quod ubique: What is held everywhere universally, quod semper: What has always been believed, and quod ab omnibus: What is held by all people, bu the many against the few. Do those criteria come into play in regard to traditions as well?
Yes. Even Paul mentioned oral and written traditions.
Hollywood is making a movie about Medjugorje. Can you cover that topic or bring in the podcast crew working on that film? The film will be called Between the Mountains.
What do you think about historic sale of indulgences? Can I buy my way out of purgatory?
The traditional sale of indulgences, as it occurred historically during the Renaissance period, particularly in the 15th and 16th centuries, is not practiced by the Catholic Church today. The selling of indulgences was a practice where individuals could essentially purchase certificates or pardons that claimed to offer remission of sins or time off purgatory for themselves or their deceased loved ones. This practice became a source of controversy and was one of the issues that fueled the Protestant Reformation led by figures such as Martin Luther.
This was an abuse by certain individuals in the Church and was never a doctrine or dogma. Just as Jesus promised, He protected His Catholic Church (gates of hades shall never prevail) and cleaned her up. Are you conveniently ignoring that from the beginning amongst Jesus's own handpicked chosen Apostles there was Judas Iscariot? We don't abandon and reject Jesus's Church because of Judas. We were warned by Jesus that there would be wolves in sheep's clothing infiltrating His Church to lead foolish sheep astray. You are a wandering sheep outside of Jesus's Sheepfold (the Catholic Church) preyed upon by wolves.
Didn't have "thumbnail of a Catholic Answers video will have you dying laughing" on my bingo card this morning, but here we are.
Yes, but no mention at all of the writings the Apostolic Fathers?? Seems like an incomplete answer at least.
@@CatholicDefender-bp7my Maybe you don't watch/listen to a lot of CA Live? Jimmy takes as long as he feels necessary to answer a question. He is usually extremely thorough. It's a huge missed opportunity to not point out how apostolic Tradition was WRITTEN DOWN in the earliest centuries by the successors of the apostles and to even give an example or two (e.g. Clement of Rome on apostolic succession or Ignatius of Antioch on transubstantiation). Shouldn't we all know that Protestants are suspicious of unwritten, oral traditions and that the early Church fathers have converted so many Protestants?
The latter is measured by the former. I think you could make a case for sola scriptura from that
Nothing in scripture or christian history supports Sola Scriptura. Nice try.
I agree with you on apostolic authority. But you shouldn’t assume post apostolic authority from apostolic authority.
Ever heard the saying "History is written by the victor?"
By testing them by the Scripture which is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work.
No, because Scripture is not the COMPLETE word of God. Especially not the protestsnt Bible, because protestants threw away 6 books and parts of others. See John 16:12,13, Matthew 4:4
And testing against the other authorities, Fathers, liturgy, councils, while recognising Fathers and councils have erred where Scripture has not.
Does your Scriptura even sola?
@@wms72 and Rome fails to recognise around fiveish books of the ancient canons of Greece, Syria, Ethiopia and also old slavonic. Also it seems like it's only Tridentine Catholics and non-Lutheran protestants have a closed canon.
@@wms72 Those 7 books were not written by prophets, and never were considered canon, until the 4th century, only considered canon for reading material. Then after the reformation, they became canon for doctrine. Not to say there isn't any value in those books. For example, 1st and 2nd Maccabees is history written by an unknown author. Was never considered inspired by anyone to the end of the 1st century.
If you are going to call 1st and 2nd Maccabees as canon, then why not call Josephus Wars as canon too? We at least know who the author is, and it is a record of a flood of fulfilled prophecies surrounding the destruction of the temple in the first century. This book has more value than all of those 7 books combined.
Has anyone read IOTA UNUM?
It's not our place to "measure" tradtions. We receive them as Apostolic, such as the prayers of the holy Sacrifice of the Mass and the sacraments.
Thumbnail is Cool 😂 ❤ 📞
The same way we know Sacred Scripture is from God.
Nope. We can prove the Bible. Catholics can’t prove their man made tradition
@@CatholicDefender-bp7my stop questioning God. How do you know that men were truly under the direct inspiration of the Holy Spirit you sound like an atheist
The only tradition that was handed to the Gentiles from the Jews, was Acts 17:10-12. It is the only recorded tradition passed down when looking carefully at the scriptures.
@@CatholicDefender-bp7myCan you show verse(s) other than the passage I showed, where a tradition was passed onto the Gentiles?
This video by Jimmy, only mentions the church decides what is tradition without actually going over how it is decided. If you are a believer, you are a part of the church. So Jimmy did not really answer the question.
Takes a leap of faith &/or good circumstantial evidence
We know that Sacred Traditions are from God because He taught them. 2 Thess 2:14-15.
How do you know those traditions are exactly 1 to 1? And where is your scriptural evidence?
I believe this has some merit. But would it not also hold true, then, that not all doctrines that the Catholic Church holds as true can be true when held to that standard? For instance, the selling of indulgences or unmarried clergy. Peter, the first pope, was married.
Indulgences were never sold and Paul preached celibacy for those who follow in Christ ministry. As well, unmarried priests isn't a necessity for all orders and rites. There are many married priests in the Church that are fully valid in certain rites. And the tradition and dogma of CHOSEN chastity for the priesthood and religious life existed in the Early Church, ie Paul.
@LydiaBee13 Yes they were, and your first pope (your go-to pope) was married.
The shortest answer is that neither of those is a faith doctrine or dogma. If indulgences were sold then it was a scandal/sin (which is part of Catholic history and any group’s history). The church never solemnly taught that indulgences should be sold. As far as celibacy, that is simply a policy that can change and has changed. We are not teaching that it is a preserved apostolic doctrine that priests must be celibate, the church is simply exercising its historical authority to “bind and loose” by establishing a policy. Paul did say it was a good idea though.
@thegoatofyoutube1787 If. Doctrine. Dogma. Solemnly. There are always qualifiers when a challenge is put forth...teaching that the Church cannot err, then always having an out when it does.
As for binding and loosing, the RCC does not have that authority. The Greek tense is a periphrastic form of the future perfect passive. Meaning that the Church is only proclaiming that which has _already_ been determined to be bound or loosed in heaven. In other words, the Church is simply proclaiming what God has already decided.
@@kirbysmith4135 indulgences were not sold, it's a fact. There may have been a perception from the ignorant that their charity was a ticket to heaven, but that was never taught or was doctrine. The doctrine of indulgences has always been the same and can not be bought or sold. And yes, Peter was married, as are many priests today. But Peter had to abandon his family for his ministry to the Lord, hence why the practice of permanent celibacy among priests started in the early Church. As well, it's a chosen vow of vocation that not all are called to, just as marriage is vocation not all are called to.
The apostles did not leave you traditions that violate what they wrote, in the word of God
Traditions, rituals and beliefs, by definition, cannot originate from anywhere but men. Not that this is a bad thing. We invent traditions, rites and beliefs as a way of making sense of the world and determining the best way to live our lives. It is only natural. Where we get ourselves into trouble, as humans, is by ascribing divine origins to these beliefs and traditions, thus claiming to have "the truth".
Of course we don't deny these things come through man.
The belief of if they are from God (or not...) will always be the result of a decision... Made by a man.
If you reject the bible as divine.
It is because a man (yourself and/or others) have convinced you such.
And vise versa
That neither proves nor disproves the inspiration.
Its simply a fact that we all have a fallible human brain that decides an opinion- one way or the other.
Premillinism is the true doctrine.
How do we know that what we are confident in is also the word of God. Seems like circular reasoning.
@@CatholicDefender-bp7my Im not asking for definite proof. Im asking whats the standard of judgment to judge what we are " more confident " in. So we can then use what we are " more confident " in to judge traditions that we have less confidence in, There must be some standard to apply.
Completely a word soup.
Should probably change the thumbnail
Because the historical inaccuracies? (everyone knows the pope and Jesus communicate by carrier pigeon)
There you go, first phrase,,, what the fathers say is equal to scripture..the traditions would be based on what the fathers say
Traditions of Men( Isaiah 29:13; Matthew 15:7-9; Mark 7:6-8; Colossians 2:8) . Apostolic Tradition ( Acts 2:42; 2 Thessalonians 2:15) . Eschew the former and embrace the latter. Full Stop. Point Blank and. 🇺🇲🇺🇲❤️🇻🇦🇻🇦✝️☦️🛐🙏👼😇📖⛪🕊️‼️
God did not say everyone has the Holy Spirit which leads to the fullness of truth. In John 14:15-18; 17:9-10, 17-19, Jesus prayed ONLY for His Apostles, and promised *only them* and their successors to be led to truth, guided by the Holy Spirit.
1 Timothy 3:15
_if I am delayed, you will know how people ought to conduct themselves in God’s household, which is _*_the church_*_ of the living God, _*_the pillar and foundation of the truth._* (See also 1 Tim 3:1-13 mentions bishops and deacons).
Luke 10:16
He who listens to you (The Church) listens to Me, he who rejects you rejects Me, and he who rejects Me rejects Him who sent Me.
We are told to obey our bishops. Never says to obey the bible. Hebrews 13:17, Acts 20:28
WHOSOEVER BELIEVETH ON HIM SHALL NOT PERISH BUT HAVE EVERLASTING LIFE! IF ANY of you lack wisdom let him ask of GOD that giveth liberally to all men but let him ask in faith nothing wavering. A double minded man is unstable in all his ways!
@@MichaelAChristian1 and believing in Jesus means "obeying" and following all His commandments. Baptism, Eucharist, Confession etc.
Jesus said "if you love me you will obey my commandments which are not burdensome"
Demons believe yet tremble in fear. (James 2:19)
_"work out your own salvation in fear and trembling"_ (Phil 2:12)
@@c.IchthysScripture never says to obey the Bible because the Bible wasn't compiled into one book until A.D. 382 at the Council of Rome under Pope Damasus I.
@@c.Ichthys ”And this is his commandment, that we believe in the name of his Son Jesus Christ and love one another, just as he has commanded us.“ 1 John 3:23
That’s the commandment. That’s all it is.
So there’s two versions of the Holy Spirit?
Genuine question: how do Catholics reconcile the contradiction with the 2nd commandment?
What contradiction?
"Graven images" are images that are worshiped as gods. We don't have any of those. And for us that is part of the first commandment, though it doesn't matter. We all have the same OT books that list them, and they're not numbered 1-10 anywhere in any Bible.
They don't confuse icons with God. Nor do all the other apostolic christians. It seems only protestants are unable to understand the distinction between an image and the thing the image represents.
Peace be with you.
There is NO idolatry in the Catholic Church. For example, we do not worship Mary, we HONOR her as the mother of Lord our savior. The devotion to the Blessed Virgin is a sign of a proper understanding of the Incarnation and a full devotional life for Jesus Christ. It may not be those who honor Mary but those who neglect her who are distorting the catholic faith. Who dishonors the holy vessel [Mary] also dishonors his Master [Jesus]. Catholics use statues, paintings, and other artistic devices to recall the person or thing depicted. Just as it helps to remember one’s mother by looking at her photograph, so it helps to recall the example of the saints by looking at pictures of them. Catholics also use statues as teaching tools. In the early Church they were especially useful for the instruction of the illiterate. Many Protestants have pictures of Jesus and other Bible pictures in Sunday school for teaching children. Catholics also use statues to commemorate certain people and events, much as Protestant churches have three-dimensional nativity scenes at Christmas. If one measured Protestants by the same rule, then by using these “graven” images, they would be practicing the “idolatry” of which they accuse Catholics. But there’s no idolatry going on in these situations. God forbids the worship of images as gods, but he doesn’t ban the making of images. It is when people begin to adore a statue as a god that the Lord becomes angry. Thus, when people did start to worship the bronze serpent as a snake-god (whom they named “Nehushtan”), the righteous king Hezekiah had it destroyed (2 Kgs. 18:4).
If having a picture or statute is considered idolatry, then our Protestant brothers may want to get rid of all photos of your family and friends in your home, car, phone, etc. You may also want to stop idolizing social media, material stuff, and tattoos (if any), etc. GOD BLESS YOU.
Look at Deuteronomy 5. You will see God makes NO MENTION of a prohibition against "graven images." This proves Protestants misinterpret the Exodus list of Commandments. All the explanations before the REAL 2nd Commandment (Thou shalt not take the Name of the Lord Thy God in vain) are how to obey the 1st Commandment by avoiding idol worship.
If the RC religion would apply your line of thoughts to scripture and tradition just like you just exolained it, it would discover how many current practices the RC has that are unscriptured and untraditional.
Your claim would make sense, except for the fact that only bishops ordained in the line of apostolic succession have genuine teaching authority. This is the central claim of the Roman Catholic Church. No other denomination except debatably the Eastern Orthodox can claim that with historical support.
@@connorhurley9512 if roman catholics priests follow the apostolic tradtion as you claim it does, can you please answer the following questions with the bible? when Peter called himself Pope or the foundation of the church? When Peter or any of the apostles ever forgave sins, taught Marionology, celibacy, indulgenges, purgatory, to pray rosary or to countless virgins, angels or saints for intercessions? The truth is found in the new testament, and as much as I have read it, I can not find the modern practices of what you call "RC apostolic traditions" in the bible. In your words, the modern tradtion should be a 100% resemblance of the new testament practices and teachings. In reality, they are not.
@josephdavison6967 that is expressly NOT what Jimmy Akin said. The canon of NT Scripture was not codified formally until the late 4th century, and when it was codified it was done so by bishops in ecumenical council. Prior to that point, many Christian groups considered various different texts to be authentic Scripture. In other words, Tradition preceded and indeed gave us Scripture. Your demand is unreasonable because the Catholic faith, for 2000 continuous years, is not based solely on Scripture but on Sacred Tradition. Meanwhile, the aberrant doctrine of sola scriptura is unheard of until the 16th century. No one in the first millennium of the Church would have taken such an absurd notion as Sola scriptura seriously, nor shall I.
@josephdavison6967 To directly answer, I cannot cite any passage from Scripture alone to prove most of those specific doctrines and practices, but because something is not explicitly stated in Scripture does not mean it must be wicked. The formal doctrines of the Trinity or Christ's dual nature are not found in Scripture in any clear moment that does not require Tradition to fully explain it. And the ridiculous false doctrine of sola scriptura is found absolutely nowhere in Scripture; in fact, it would seem to go against several parts of Scripture (which is a dead give away that it is a man-made tradition)
@@connorhurley9512 the letters of the new testament were written within the first century. Therefore the sound doctrine teachings have been available much before the RC could claim that they invented the new testament. Second what this teacher is saying is that for tradition to be truth it must equal what Jesus and the Apostles taught in the new testament. However we do not see Peter calling himself Pope or the foundation of the church, nor we see Peter or any of the Apostles forgiving sins, teaching celibacy, indulgences, purgatory, Marionology, praying rosary and to countless virgins, angels, and "saints" for intercession. Even if they fell into this errors, heresies and blasphemies within the first 300 years of the church, they should have been corrected once the canon was completed. Instead they were worsen with time into apostasy which initially caused the split of the greek orthodox from RC at about the year 1000. Sola scritura also means that the bible has only one true interpretation and that there is no alternatives. For example Jesus is the only mediator between God and men. Neither Mary, Angels or "Saints" can be remotely consider as alternatives to Jesus. That is why you do not understand sola scriptura.
If it’s not in the Bible, I don’t trust that it’s from God
Search what Irenaeus wrote about apostolic succession. He was taught by Polycarp who was directly taught by the Apostle John
Careful. You're using the "T" word.
The only conundrum I have with this , is that you have to assume that they were indeed guided by the Holy Spirit and not something else.
They were and are. Otherwise there would be no NT, no canon of the bible and no converts to Christianity.
In John 15:26, Jesus says to his disciples that when he will leave they will be guided by the Spirit of truth: "But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father, he shall testify of me:"
Yeah, it's called faith.
@@c.Ichthys we can’t deny the plague of rotten apples that we’ve had within the church. I still maintain my faith in the church as a whole but struggle with who and why certain books were chose.
@@davidsalgado5108 hey, no one denied it. Even Jesus, our God Incarnate, hand picked "a rotten apple", to use your word. The Church is Holy because she has Jesus as her Bridegroom and protector. Within the Church there are saints and sinners. Bad apples, per se, come and go, yet The Church remains, as Jesus promised that the gates of hades shall never prevail. Jesus warned us there would be wolves in sheep's clothing to try to lead us astray.
We don't abandon Jesus and His Church because of Judas (the "bad apples").
"15 So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught, whether by word of mouth or by letter FROM US."
So, tell me, which traditions is Paul talking about that he and the Apostles taught? I don't see anything about making up others at a later date and passing them off as church traditions. Please, show me some traditions not mentioned in the bible from the 1st century church that the Apostles or their followers taught. Here's one "tradition" Catholics can't answer for, clergy being compulsed from being married. Yet, here we are today, forbidding their priests to marry only since the 11th century. Is that one of those traditions Paul and the 1st century church taught?
Priestly celibacy is a church discipline, not an apostolic tradition. The Church could theoretically change this in the future, precisely because it's not an apostolic tradition like the Mass, or the canon of scripture.
Jesus counseled poverty (Matthew 19 :21), chastity (Matthew 19:12), and obedience ("Follow Me"). Jesus said some would "make themselves eunuchs for the sake of the Kingdom of God," and Paul said he wished for others to be like himself (celibate).
Other Divine Traditions not written in Scripture would be the Order of Holy Mass and the other sacraments.
@@christopherponsford8385 Then the church is in an apostate state not allowing priests to marry. And its discipline is failing miserably. Why is it that you Catholics fail at checking the scriptures for yourself whether what you are being taught and believe are in accordance to God's divine revelation, the Bible? It was you who claim this is not a tradition, but a "discipline." IT GOES DIRECTLY AGAINST SCRIPTURE! This is only one reason why I left the RCC. I studied for myself. I don't need some authoritative figure for me to understand these scriptures. No more than I need someone to explain the novel "Of Mice and Men". God gave me a brain, I choose to use it.
1 Timothy 4
Apostasy
1 But the Spirit explicitly says that in later times some will fall away from the faith, paying attention to deceitful spirits and doctrines of demons, 2 by means of the hypocrisy of liars seared in their own conscience as with a branding iron, 3 men who forbid marriage and advocate abstaining from foods which God has created to be gratefully shared in by those who believe and know the truth. 4 For everything created by God is good, and nothing is to be rejected if it is received with gratitude; 5 for it is sanctified by means of the word of God and prayer.
1 Corinthian 9
Paul’s Use of Liberty
1 Am I not free? Am I not an apostle? Have I not seen Jesus our Lord? Are you not my work in the Lord? 2 If to others I am not an apostle, at least I am to you; for you are the seal of my apostleship in the Lord.
3 My defense to those who examine me is this: 4 Do we not have a right to eat and drink? 5 Do we not have a right to take along a believing wife, even as the rest of the apostles and the brothers of the Lord and Cephas?
1 Timothy 3
Overseers and Deacons
1 It is a trustworthy statement: if any man aspires to the office of overseer, it is a fine work he desires to do. 2 An overseer, then, must be above reproach, the husband of one wife, temperate, prudent, respectable, hospitable, able to teach, 3 not addicted to wine or pugnacious, but gentle, peaceable, free from the love of money. 4 He must be one who manages his own household well, keeping his children under control with all dignity 5 (but if a man does not know how to manage his own household, how will he take care of the church of God?), 6 and not a new convert, so that he will not become conceited and fall into the condemnation incurred by the devil. 7 And he must have a good reputation with those outside the church, so that he will not fall into reproach and the snare of the devil.
@@wms72 So, are you telling me all the RCC priests made themselves eunuchs?
Even according what you posted it says "some". And Paul says he "wished for others" to be like himself. Not a command. You're argument is moot in light of scripture.
1 Corinthians 9
Paul’s Use of Liberty
9 Am I not free? Am I not an apostle? Have I not seen Jesus our Lord? Are you not my work in the Lord? 2 If to others I am not an apostle, at least I am to you; for you are the seal of my apostleship in the Lord.
3 My defense to those who examine me is this: 4 Do we not have a right to eat and drink? 5 Do we not have a right to take along a believing wife, even as the rest of the apostles and the brothers of the Lord and Cephas?
@@DashRiprock-m3b sigh 😪 what exactly is your point, man? Why is the celibacy of the Catholic priesthood such an offense to you? If you're Protestant, like it sounds you are, then your pastors can and do marry and this Catholic practice is irrelevant to you.
Seriously? “I believe thing 1 based on essentially nothing, and thing 2 looks like thing 1, therefore I believe thing 2 as well.” This is a recipe for serious delusion.
@@CatholicDefender-bp7myI’ve known many Catholics, if thats what you mean
Soooo the traditions of the church are from God because the church says so? Talk about dancing around a question. 😂
Jesus gave His Apostles authority to teach in His Name. He told them, "Whoever hears you, hears Me." So, yeah, they say so.
I know haha, I thought the same thing.
Jesus started a church. This church can be traced to the apostles
There are a lot of assumptions made here. First, that the rcc is the church spoken of in the n.t.. Its not. Secondly, no one has ever provided a list of all the sacred traditions of the rcc. How do you test if its apostolic if you don't even know the contents? Scripture is God breathed. Name something else besides scripture that is God breathed.
The canon of scripture.
@ContendingEarnestly
Sacred Divine Tradition taught by Jesus, His Apostles and their successors is also God breathed. (See Matthew 4:4)
St. Peter was bishop of the universal Church, which was called Catholic from its earliest existence, as proven by the epistles of St. Ignatius, bishop of Antioch (martyred ~A.D.106) who was one of the children Jesus blessed and who was taught by the Apostle St. John.
Calling the Church "Catholic" is seen in Acts 9:31: "Ecclesia Kat' Holes"
Peter took his office, his authority with him as long as he lived. Peter was the first bishop of Antioch until he went to Rome where he was martyred. The book of Acts ends with the Church in Rome.
Read the book of the prophet Daniel. Christ identified Himself as the "Son of Man" to Whom Daniel referred. Jesus Christ, the Apostle Paul, and the book of Revelation assume that the identity of Daniel's Fourth Kingdom is the Roman Empire. Daniel 7:27 says that this 4th Kingdom and the dominion of all kingdoms would be given to the saints of the Highest One, and that His Kingdom would be for all people (i.e. "Catholic") and last forever.
Did you get that? The Roman Empire would be given to the true Church of God. So, if your place of worship has no resemblance to anything Roman, does NOT look like the converted Roman Empire, it's NOT the Church of the Highest One prophesied by Daniel and fulfilled in Christ.
Btw, God doesn't fill your head with the lies you believe. God bless you and guide you into all truth. In Nomine Patris et Filii et Spiritus Sancti. + Amen.
*****
Are you a Christian? Do you worship God the way Jesus revealed He wants to be worshipped?
The heart of worship is SACRIFICE, not hymns, nor preaching nor prayer. Was your Church present BEFORE and AT Pentecost to hear Jesus and His Apostles preach and to know and carry out His Sacrifice of the New Covenant?
Remember how Aaron's son DIED because he offered worship that seemed good to him but was NOT what God commanded. (Leviticus 10:1)
Hebrews 13:10 "We have an altar from which those who serve the Tabernacle have no right to eat."
Does your church have an altar from which you eat the sacrifice?
Study John 16:12,13 until you understand it. Ask the Holy Spirit to help you.
St. Peter was bishop of the universal Church, which was called Catholic from its earliest existence, as proven by the epistles of St. Ignatius, bishop of Antioch who was one of the children Jesus blessed and who was taught by the Apostle St. John. Calling the Church "Catholic" is seen in Acts 9:31: "Ecclesia Kat' Holes"
Peter took his office, his authority with him as long as he lived. Peter was the first bishop of Antioch until he went to Rome where he was martyred. The book of Acts ends with the Church in Rome.
Read the book of the prophet Daniel. Christ identified Himself as the "Son of Man" to Whom Daniel referred. Jesus Christ, the Apostle Paul, and the book of Revelation assume that the identity of Daniel's Fourth Kingdom is the Roman Empire. Daniel 7:27 says that this 4th Kingdom and the dominion of all kingdoms would be given to the saints of the Highest One, and that His Kingdom would be for all people (i.e. "Catholic") and last forever.
Did you get that? The Roman Empire would be given to the true Church of God. So, if your place of worship has no resemblance to anything Roman, does NOT look like the converted Roman Empire, it's NOT the Church of the Highest One prophesied by Daniel and fulfilled in Christ.
Btw, God doesn't fill your head with the lies you believe. God bless you and guide you into all truth. In Nomine Patris et Filii et Spiritus Sancti. + Amen.
*****
Are you a Christian? Do you worship God the way Jesus revealed He wants to be worshipped?
The heart of worship is SACRIFICE, not hymns, nor preaching nor prayer. Was your Church present BEFORE and AT Pentecost to hear Jesus and His Apostles preach and to know and carry out His Sacrifice of the New Covenant?
Remember how Aaron's son DIED because he offered worship that seemed good to him but was NOT what God commanded. Leviticus 10:1
Hebrews 13:10 "We have an altar from which those who serve the Tabernacle have no right to eat."
Does your church have an altar from which you eat the sacrifice?
Study John 16:12,13 until you understand it. Ask the Holy Spirit to help you.
A list of Sacred Traditions of the holy Catholic and Apostolic Church:
1)the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass,
2) the Order of the rituals and prayers of the sacraments, and qualifications for receiving them
3) the correct interpretation of Scripture
4) the canon of Scripture
5) the duties of bishops, priests, deacons, laity and the Pope
6) the "laws of the Church"
Which church did Jesus start? Did He make a mistake?
This is meaningless video. So which traditions OF THE CHURCH has the CHURCH deemed NOT traditions. It makes no sense. You are saying any traditions must be right!
Anything the Catholic Church does NOT "hold fast to " is not an Apostolic Tradition.
🙄
@@wms72 So there are NO false traditions then? Who is making the newer traditions?
There is a distinction to make between Sacred Tradition (e.g., how Baptism is performed, who can do it, when; the apostolic succession, church structure; etc.) which is the primary mode of God's divine revelation along with Sacred Scripture, and other traditions which are disciplinary or even simply pious local practices. Sacred Tradition is authoritative and binding, whereas pious traditions are not. Hence why there are Marian dogmas (e.g., the perpetual virginity, that she is Theotokos, the Assumption), and also special traditions that different groups practice. The Rosary, for example, is not from Sacred Tradition, and therefore not a necessary devotion (although it is recognized by all Catholics as being an incredibly good work for growing closer to Christ through the aid of our shared Mother).
@@connorhurley9512 So there are non sacred traditions? Who does false traditions then?
Shame
But how do you know 'apostolic tradition' is actually from the Apostles? Your catechism says that Muslims are yet saved even though they don't have faith in Christ - is this something the Apostles thought of? Now watch......no one is going to respond to this. LOL
Where does the Catechism say such a thing? Give a page number, or are you just quoting what some anti-Catholic says the Catechism says?
@@wms72 Here you go! 841 "The plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place amongst whom are the Muslims; these profess to hold the faith of Abraham, and together with us they adore the one, merciful God, mankind's judge on the last day."
Search what Irenaeus wrote about apostolic succession. He was taught by Polycarp who was directly taught by the Apostle John
Matthew 15:6.....So you have made the WORD OF GOD INVALID BECAUSE OF YOUR TRADITION. 7 You hypocrites, Isaiah aptly prophesied about you when he said: 8 ‘This people honor me with their lips, but their hearts are far removed from me. 9 It is in vain that they keep worshipping me, for they teach commands of men as doctrines.’”
Though some traditions are not of a religious nature, those that are side step God's commandment. Jesus condemned these.
Here is some good advice.
1 Corinthians 4:6....that through us you may learn the rule: “Do not go beyond the things that are written,”
What about Catholic relics , they don't seem to fit into new testament theology. "Pieces of the True Cross were one of the most highly sought-after of such relics; many churches claimed to possess a piece of it, so many that John Calvin famously remarked that there were enough pieces of the True Cross to build a ship from" Also they tend to lead people into worshiping them? Calvin says that the saints have two or three or more bodies with arms and legs, and even a few extra limbs and heads.
Calvin said a lot of things that are untrue... but to your point, those are pious traditions but not part of Sacred Tradition. One need not believe in the True Cross, and it is not necessary for salvation. But the sacraments, for example, are necessary.
@hurley9512 Surely the basics of salvation : Mark 1:15 . Repent and believe the good news! . Surely sacraments and good works are just a response to the complete work of Christ on the cross. How can a sacrament save me?
Haggai 2:10-23
If someone carries holy meat in the fold of his garment and touches with his fold bread or stew or wine or oil or any kind of food, does it become holy?’” The priests answered and said, “No.” - touching something holy does not seem make you holy. Holiness is apparently not transferable according to Haggai?
@hurley9512 Pope Francis has explained the unexpected gifting of a relic of St Peter to the leader of the Eastern Orthodox Church in June, a gesture which generated controversy among some Catholics.? 13/09/2019 catholicherald🙄 Lets hope its real.
@@mangs9940 it most likely is, but my salvation is not founded on St Peter's bones, but on the Body of Christ. If relics aid in my faith and guide me closer to Christ, then that is God's grace.
@mangs9940 You fail to understand what the sacraments are then. They are not mere physical acts, but also signs of the spiritual reality. The sacraments WILL save you, because the sacraments are Christ present in the world. Christ baptizes, Christ absolves sins, Christ heals the broken, Christ ordains the priest, Christ gives His Very Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity, to us
Eastern Tradition is from God, Western tradition is from Rome
How are we supposed to trust answers from a clergy that seeks to protect its heirarchy. In all its bad hidden sins of past . Cause they tell us ..
Search what Irenaeus wrote about apostolic succession. He was taught by Polycarp who was directly taught by the Apostle John
Akin betrays the Word of God.
Welcome to the mindset of Catholicism (i.e. Sola Ecclesia rather than Sola Scriptura).
@@johnclaiborne2749There are a few catholics that question the authority of the catholic church to fight against The Word of God. My comments are directed toward them. Most catholics seem to be reprobate. To be reprobate is to be absent any influence from God's Holy Spirit. I was baptized into the catholic church, but by His grace Jesus opened my eyes. One of my debts is to encourage those who may also be turned to The Truth.
@@francissweeney7318 I can relate to that. I was a devout Roman Catholic for over twenty years of my life, but I never heard the true biblical gospel because Catholicism has abandoned the true biblical gospel many centuries ago. So what's the true biblical gospel? That the only way for a lost sinner to have true peace with God is to abandon all efforts at trying to achieve a righteousness that's impossible for us to achieve, and to be justified by faith on the basis of Christ's perfect righteousness "imputed" or "reckoned" or "credited" to us (Philippians 3:9).
EVERY false religion teaches that we can at least contribute to our salvation, and, sadly, Catholicism is no different. Catholics are told that they need to go through the church, through a sacerdotal priesthood, through the sacraments, through indulgences, etc., and hopefully that'll be enough to get them into an unbiblical place called Purgatory where they must undergo "satispassio" (i.e. the suffering of atonement). All of that is foreign to Scripture, and it falls under the category of "false gospel" as the Bible warns.
@@johnclaiborne2749 I agree with your conclusions. I would not leave unsaid the need for both baptism of water and of the Spirit in order to enter the kingdom of God. The change of the disciples when they were filled with the Holy Spirit was profound.
You are now a heretic, devoid of the fullness of God's Sacraments and truths. Shameful. You prefer King Henry and all those other over 45,000 man made separated denominations instead of Jesus's Bride, the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church. Instead of learning properly you abandoned and rejected Jesus. Or don't you know those scriptures ? Btw, the true biblical scriptures came from the RCC, and are proclaimed each day at Mass.
@@johnclaiborne2749
How do you know if they're from God? Are the traditions from Paul and said to STAND Fast on and HOLD the ones he taught. He says that you "were taught". And stand firm and hold need not be explained do they? And they are from Paul also said "KEEP" the traditions "AS HE DELIVERED THEM UNTO YOU." So those that the church has ADDD are not from God. There have been some that the church has even deleted. So how can they be from God if the church has the audacity to remove them? The church's traditions therefore are TRADITIONS OF MEN spoken of in scripture by Paul inn his letter to the Colossians. Not difficult if you read scripture.
To which practices of the Roman Catholic Church are you laying the accusation of adding or deleting?
@@connorhurley9512 are you trying to be naive. You can't tell me that the church's current traditions are the same as Paul taught? Come on now. I'll give you one. Do you know your church had a suicide tradition amongst the priests? Yes, as absurd as it sounds. But then again everything Rome does is absurd. You see the church thought that it was a fast way for the priests to go be with the Lord. Sadly, those priests are in hell. Then some brilliant church head figured out that they were losing too many priests. That was genius. So your church did away with that tradition. Keeping in mind that it's traditions are not traditions of men but from God. Sure, I'm sure God approves of suicide and revealed to them to institute priestly suicide.
@rbnmnt3341 what are you talking about? No legitimate Church authority has ever taught something so baseless and absurd! When did the Church teach this supposed suicide doctrine?
@rbnmnt3341 also, yes, Paul did teach Catholic doctrine. In fact, perhaps no one is more foundational for Catholic theology than St Paul. He formulated the Church's language on salvation, justification, grace, as well as the sacraments. He firmly believed that his personal redemption hinged on his mission to the Gentiles (see 1 Corinthians 9). The Church has always loved Paul. The office of the papacy is as much tied to Paul as it is to Peter (hence the papal rota containing both names: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rota_(papal_signature)).
@@rbnmnt3341You believe anti-Catholic LIES. There was NEVER a time when the Catholic Church was not 100% ,pro-life
Simple. Find out what Francis thinks and it's the opposite.
Jesus condemned " the traditions of men." He said " All men think evil thoughts continually." Catholics follow man made traditions. The thinking of evil thinking men. God is not the author of confusion, the trinity is confusing because it is not from God.
I'd rather follow the traditions of the Apostles than the traditions of the current age
@@elf-lordsfriarofthemeadowl2039 Follow what men you choose. Jesus said : Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away. Your traditions of men shall pass away.
Peace be with you. Catholics follow, apostolic traditions, not traditions of men.
@@francissweeney7318 Catholics follow the Divine oral Tradition Jesus taught His Apostles. Matthew 4:4. "Every word" means written and spoken.
@@SNS-f6g I have the peace of The Comforter who brings those are filled with His Spirit " to all truth." This filling is required, as Jesus stated, to enter the wedding feast. The parable in Matthew 25. Your so called apostolic fathers departed from God's Word and devised their own doctrines. That is the harlotry Jesus spoke about in Revelation chapter 17. Only baptism in the name of Jesus Christ, as Peter told you in Acts 2:38 causes you to be filled with The Holy Spirit, The Comforter of which Jesus spoke.
So the argument is trust me bro, we got the authority? First of all, an argument from authority is not an argument and is actually a logical fallacy. Secondly, this mentality can so easily corrupt doctrine if you are not careful and, if you take a passing look at church history, you can easily see that the Catholic church has not been careful. Human institutions need to be grounded in something unchanging that can be referenced to in order to avoid this so that there can be checks and balances. This should be the Bible.
I LOVE MY PROTESTANT BROTHERS WHO DO SO MANY WORKS OF CHARITY AND HAVE SO MANY COMMON GOALS WITH THE CATHOLIC CHURCH LIKE BEING PRO-LIFE ETC. HOWEVER, I HAVE MANY QUESTIONS ON SOLA SCRIPTURA. FOR INSTANCE, DID JESUS PROMISE A BOOK OR A CHURCH? WHERE DOES THE BIBLE STATES THE WORDS "SOLA SCRIPTURA"? WHERE IN THE BIBLE IS GOD'S WORD RESTRICTED ONLY TO WHAT IS WRITTEN DOWN? WHY WAS THERE CONFUSION IN THE EARLY CHURCH OVER WHICH BOKS WERE INSPIRED? HOW DID THE EARLY CHURCH EVANGELIZE AND SURVIVED WHILE BEING BRUTALLY PERSECUTED BY THE ROMAN EMPIRE FOR ABOUT 350 YEARS WITHOUT KNOWING FOR SURE WHICH BOOKS BELONG IN THE CANON OF SCRIPTURE? IF CHRISTIANITY IS A "BOOK RELIGION" HOW DID IT FLOURISHED IN THE FIRST 1500 YEARS WHEN MOST PEOPLE WERE ILLITERATE? IF JESUS INTENDED FOR CHRISTIANITY TO BE EXCLUSIVELY A "RELIGION OF THE BOOK" WHY DID HE WAIT 1400 YEARS BEFORE SHOWING SOMEONE HOW TO BUILD A PRINTING PRESS? IF THE EARLY CHURCH BELIEVED IN SOLA SCRIPTURA, WHY DO THE CREEDS OF THE EARLY CHURCH ALWAYS SAY "WE BELIEVE IN THE HOLY CATHOLIC CHURCH", AND NOT "WE BELIEVE IN HOLY SCRIPTURE"? WHY DID THE DOCTRINE OF SOLA SCRIPTURA WAS NEVER RAISED BY THE CHURCH FATHERS, BUT IT WAS FIRST RAISED BY JOHN CALVIN MANY CENTURIES AFTER JESUS' ASCENSION? WHERE IN THE NEW TESTAMENT DO THE APOSTLES TELL FUTURE GENERATIONS THAT THE CHRISTIAN FAITH WILL BE BASED SOLELY ON A BOOK? HOW DO WE KNOW FROM THE BIBLE ALONE THAT THE LETTERS OF ST. PAUL, WHO WROTE TO 1ST CENTURY CONGREGATIONS AND INDIVIDUALS, WERE MEANT TO BE READ BY US 2000 YEARS LATER? ON WHAT BIBLICAL BASIS DO WE THINK THAT EVERYTHING THAT THE APOSTLES TAUGHT IS CAPTURED IN THE NEW TESTAMENT WRITINGS? WHERE DOES THE BIBLE CLAIM TO BE THE SOLE AUTHORITY FOR CHRISTIANS IN MATTERS OF FAITH AND MORALS? WHO MAY AUTHORITATIVELY ARBITRATE BETWEEN CHRISTIANS WHO CLAIM TO BE LEAD BY THE HOLY SPIRIT INTO MUTUALLY CONTRADICTORY INTERPRETATIONS OF THE BIBLE? WHO IN THE CHURCH HAD THE AUTHORITY TO DETERMINE WHICH BOOKS BELONGED IN THE NEW TESTAMENT CANON AND TO MAKE THIS DECISION BINDING ON ALL CHRISTIANS? IF NO ONE HAS THE AUTHORITY, CAN I THEN REMOVE OR ADD BOOKS IN THE CANON ON MY OWN AUTHORITY? IF WE NEED AN AUTHORITY TO INTERPRET THE US CONSTITUTION (US SUPREME COURT) WHY WOULN'T WE HAVE A SOLE AUTHORITY TO INTERPRET THE BIBLE WHICH IS MUCH MORE DIFFICULT TO INTERPRET? ISN'T KIND OF BEATIFUL THAT OUR PROTESTANTS BROTHERS AGREE WITH THE CATHOLIC AUTHORITY IN AS MUCH AS THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE CANON OF THE NEW TESTAMENT? GOD BLESS YOU ALL.
How funny! How do you know the what books make up the Bible? Because Catholic Bishops guided by the Holy Spirit said so.
@@wms72 why would you assume that’s my answer? The Catholic church does not determine which books I read. I don’t read Maccabees or any of those apocryphal books. I read the Bible because they are authenticated works by God’s disciples or Old Testament writings that are accepted as canonical by the Jews before Jesus. The first church may have preserved the works and compiled them but they did not make it authoritative or authentic. That’s just silly. Also, the first church was not the Catholic church of today, it became Catholic.
@@bigideasthescholar Isn't it silly to say I don't read Catholic books, I read the Bible? In the early Church, there were about 350 writings claiming to be Scripture. The Bible wasn't compiled into one book until A.D 382 by Catholic bishops at the Council of Rome under Pope Damasus I. Of course, crazy apostate priest Luther threw away 6 books and parts of others from the Bible, in contradiction to Deuteronomy 4:2"You shall not add to the word of God... nor take away from it."
St. Peter was bishop of the universal Church, which was called Catholic from its earliest existence, as proven by the epistles of St. Ignatius, bishop of Antioch who was one of the children Jesus blessed and who was taught by the Apostle St. John. Calling the Church "Catholic" is seen in Acts 9:31: "Ecclesia Kat' Holes"
Peter took his office, his authority with him as long as he lived. Peter was the first bishop of Antioch until he went to Rome where he was martyred. The book of Acts ends with the Church in Rome.
Read the book of the prophet Daniel. Christ identified Himself as the "Son of Man" to Whom Daniel referred. Jesus Christ, the Apostle Paul, and the book of Revelation assume that the identity of Daniel's Fourth Kingdom is the Roman Empire. Daniel 7:27 says that this 4th Kingdom and the dominion of all kingdoms would be given to the saints of the Highest One, and that His Kingdom would be for all people (i.e. "Catholic") and last forever.
Did you get that? The Roman Empire would be given to the true Church of God. So, if your place of worship has no resemblance to anything Roman, does NOT look like the converted Roman Empire, it's NOT the Church of the Highest One prophesied by Daniel and fulfilled in Christ.
Btw, God doesn't fill your head with the lies you believe. God bless you and guide you into all truth. In Nomine Patris et Filii et Spiritus Sancti. + Amen.
*****
Are you a Christian? Do you worship God the way Jesus revealed He wants to be worshipped?
The heart of worship is SACRIFICE, not hymns, nor preaching nor prayer. Was your Church present BEFORE and AT Pentecost to hear Jesus and His Apostles preach and to know and carry out His Sacrifice of the New Covenant?
Remember how Aaron's son DIED because he offered worship that seemed good to him but was NOT what God commanded. Leviticus 10:1
Hebrews 13:10 "We have an altar from which those who serve the Tabernacle have no right to eat."
Does your church have an altar from which you eat the sacrifice?
Study John 16:12,13 until you understand it. Ask the Holy Spirit to help you.
@@SNS-f6g First of all, it’s okay. You can stop yelling. We can all hear you just fine without all caps. It actually makes it harder to read. You asked a lot of questions, and I would love to answer them in earnest.
No, Jesus did not promise a book but they did have a book, many books. Jewish ones. Genesis to Malchi which all spoke about the nature of our God as well as the Messiah that has come so they already had written scriptures that they preached from and then they preached from Paul’s letters when they received those (and there is evidence that many of his letters were passed around between the early churches) and then preached from the gospels when they received those.
The Bible does not state Sola Scriptura but the Bible also does not state the Trinity however, we both believe in the Trinity. Sola Scriptura is a tradition that says that God’s word should be the ultimate authority and that is a tradition that ultimately came from Jews who rely wholly upon the written word of God as their authority.
The God’s word is not restricted to what is written down because we see the term God’s word used in many ways, one being Scripture but others being Jesus himself and God speaking or speaking though people. Because God can and does act through people and through the church often. But the question is, where do we get our ultimate authority? Our ultimate authority comes from scripture as communicated to us through God. That is what the tradition of Sola Scriptura is all about.
There was some confusion in the early church because people made forgeries. Luckily we were able to discern which ones were real. And by the way, identifying something as Scripture does not put you in a position over Scripture in authority. Just because someone identifies Scripture as Scripture doesn’t mean you have authority over that Scripture.
The early church survived by the grace of God, the ministry of the Spirit, the preaching of the Scripture, the perseverance of the church, and the faith of the people. They knew the apostles came from Christ and they adhered to their teachings found in letters as well as the Scripture they had of the Old Testament.
The church flourished despite illiteracy because it was preached. That unfortunately led to a lack of checks and balances that lead the church in a myriad of bad directions but the church still had the book.
God wanted His word written down and proclaimed. We see that most explicitly in the 10 commandments. God always wanted what He said to be written down as His authority. I don’t see why that would be different after Christ came. And God knew we could write so I don’t think He thought the church needed the printing press.
We still say that creed in the protestant church. I was raised in that creed, the catholic church is different from the Catholic church because catholic means universal. So when the phrase “holy catholic church” is used, protestants understand that as universal church which means the full body of believers that are considered part of the Christian church across all Christian denominations. That portion of the creed is talking about the whole body of believers, not the basis for our highest authority. Those are different matters entirely.
The church fathers never raised the issue of sola scriptura because it was never an issue until Catholicism added traditions that opposed scripture.
The New Testament apostles do not tell future generations that the Christian faith will be based on a book. They wouldn’t say that because the question isn’t “what is the soul basis for Christianity?”, the question is “what is the ultimate authority of Christianity?” But we know that the written word has been viewed as authoritative since the time of Moses.
You know that the letters of Paul are applicable today because we continue to talk about them in reference to the Christian faith. I don’t understand why they wouldn’t be applicable when Paul is a minister of the gospel sent by Christ himself who is writing about matters of faith, the church, theology, and our God.
There’s no way to think that everything that was taught was captured. That is also not the claim. That also can’t be the claim of the Catholic church. Not every sermon, conversation, or conversion was passed on. That means there were things that were taught that there is no way to capture. However, the apostles letters is the best source for what they taught. That can be cross referenced with the book of Acts to see where many of their focuses were during their time of spreading the gospel and then we can look at Jesus’ ministry and the Old Testament. With all of those sources joined, we see that the totality of what God intended to pass on to us through Jesus was delivered.
Again, sola scriptura is a tradition and the Bible speaks often authoritatively on matters of faith and morality. It does not claim to be the sole authority, but I don’t understand why this wouldn’t be authoritative, and I don’t understand where the higher authority on morality and faith would come from other than from God, Jesus, and his apostles.
The authoritative arbitrator between Christians would be scripture. That’s the point of solo scripta. On matters under the authority scripture, you turn scripture as the ultimate authority. We see this example in Acts 17. Paul and Silas arrive in Berea preaching the gospel and the Jews use scripture to examine what Paul says and they are called more noble for it. So, if we are to be noble like these Jews, we turned the scripture for our highest authority when these matters arise.
No one has the authority to determine which books belong in the Bible. Instead, it takes discernment to authenticate the works by ensuring they are written by eyewitness accounts who are apostles of Christ. This is not a question of authority for compiling a selection of books. Instead, it is an authentication of writings from those who were sent out by Christ to spread the gospel. I find it kind of insane to think that because you compiled books, that means that you have authority over them. That doesn’t make any sense. Authority over a compilation is not conferred to the person who compiled the compilation.
God has the authority, and these books are written by people sent by God. All you need to do to know if they’re authentic is figure out whether or not someone sent by God wrote them. So no, you cannot add or subtract from what has already been written.
Who said we need an authority to interpret the constitution? Man did, not God. And man, the Supreme Court really screwed up many times in interpreting the constitution. I really don’t want that to happen with scripture. Why would I put somebody in that position of power over God‘s word? Seems like a bad idea.
Actually, we don’t agree on all of Scripture, because the vast majority of Protestant churches do not see the apocrypha as authoritative scripture but nice try. Also, I find a laughable that you would equate the church that compiled the New Testament to the modern day Catholic church. But I do find it beautiful, because then we can point to scripture that you find authoritative to show you where your theology contradicts scripture.
I await your reply. God bless you all.
The way to know is to read the KING JAMES VERSION OF THE HOLY BIBLE. AND PRAY FOR WISDOM FROM JESUS CHRIST THE SAVIOUR.
KJ was a sat.anic sinful Fr€€Mason, and the 1611 and 1619 kjv have demonic sketches (Pan, Poseidon, naked female godess/nymph, bats,etc) which I saw. He with his other cronies changed the bible. Removed books and chapters from Daniel and Esther. Recall the fate that St. John the Apostle warned about?
They don't know. They assume and depend on baseless claims and "tradition". Every christian claims that their version is straight form this god, and not one can show this to be the case.
"baseless claims" I would be careful calling the testimony of the Martyrs to be "baseless claims". There is a clear chain from the Apostles to the Early Church Fathers, for example St Jonh the Apostle teached St Polycarp who teached St Irenaeus. St Ignatius suceeded St Evodius, who suceeded St Peter in Antioch.
There is a clear chain between first century christianity of the Apostles and second century christianity of the Church Fathers, and from this link we can be sure both were the same entity, the same Church.
They do know. You're the one making a baseless claim.
There are other early Christian writings from the church fathers that discuss the church traditions. This is part of how they validate what are apostolic traditions. These writings while not inspired do reflect the discussions between the church’s of the first few hundred years of how the church functioned while there was no canonized Christian bible (that didn’t happen until the end of the 4th century).
So any who are Christian’s relied heavily on the teachings of the church fathers, which as Jimmy said were from the apostles.
@@enderwiggen3638 There are many many early chrsitain writings and they don't all agree. Like the bible, anything that didn't fit was removed.
Unsurprisingly, the apostles can't be shown to have existed, the same for jesus. So attempts to claim some relationship with imaginary beings doesn't help your validity. We can see how claims like that made it even into the bible since there are parts that claim to be written by certain people and it has been determined they were not.
@@stcyprian642 Then show evidence for your claim that they do know only their version is right.
Incorrect.
“Apostolic Tradition” exists entirely independent of the Bible, in many cases comes along with no ancient documents, no direct tie or proof that it is tied to Jesus or an Apostle, and involves doctrines which evolved over hundreds of years (such as the treasury of merit, prayer to saints, the canonization of the apocrypha) all which happened hundreds of years after Jesus and the apostles.
Do not be deceived.
You are very deceived. The Oral traditions always came before the written. The first thousand upon thousands of converts to Christianity were taught by oral transmission, not written. The written came later, and then not everything is written in the bible. Even the bible tells us this!
The New Catholic Encyclopedia admits that “one does not find in the New Testament any words of Christ indicating how the apostolic mandate was to be handed on.” It also confesses that “papal primacy was not clearly understood or explicitly professed in the Western [Latin] Church until the fifth century C.E.”
@@sunnyjohnson992 taken out of context! Lol
@@sunnyjohnson992 The papacy is from Christ. The Church has always had the supreme "Bishop of Rome", the *leader* of all the other ordained Bishops, priests and deacons, St. Peter being the first.
The first written record we have that describes The Church as Catholic, and "the bishop" (aka "pope) was in 110 AD by St. Ignatius in his Letter to the Smyrnaeans:
"Wherever *the bishop* appears, there let the people be; as wherever Jesus Christ is, there *is the Catholic Church.”*
Letters of St. Ignatius, Bishop of Antioch (died c. 110 AD, and wrote letters while on the way to his martyrdom). *St. Ignatius was taught by St. John* the beloved Apostle and consecrated Bishop around the year 69 by the Apostle Peter, the first Pope. He became good friends of St. Polycarp, the Bishop of Smyrna (taught and ordained as Bishop of Smyrna by St. John the beloved Apostle c. 80 AD and is the "angel" in Rev 2). He was martyred 155 AD.
St. Polycarp knew St. Clement 1, 4th Pope, whom is mentioned in the Bible. Also met with the Bishop of Rome (3rd Pope) Anacletus.
So Peter, the 'first pope' was the head of a church that did not yet exist?@@c.Ichthys
Thank you ❤
We know that Sacred Traditions are from God because He taught them. 2 Thess 2:14-15.
But how do you know 'apostolic tradition' is actually from the Apostles? Your catechism says that Muslims are yet saved even though they don't have faith in Christ - is this something the Apostles thought of? Now watch......no one is going to respond to this. LOL
What do you think Paul means by this? And where is your scriptural evidence?
The plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place amongst whom are the Muslims.” To many this sounds like Muslims can be saved by adhering to Islam. That isn’t what it means, as shown by the original context.
If you look at Lumen Gentium (LG), the Vatican II document from which the quote is drawn, it becomes clear that the phrase is not meant to say that Islam is a method of salvation parallel to Christianity. The quote comes from LG 16, but it is part of a larger context in the document. To appreciate how it fits into the picture, one needs to go back at least as far as LG 13, which starts by proclaiming, “All men are called to belong to the new people of God”-i.e., to the Church. Section 13 concludes by stating, “All men are called to be part of this catholic unity of the people of God. . . . And in different ways to it belong, or are related: the Catholic faithful, others who believe in Christ, and finally all mankind, for all men are called by the grace of God to salvation.” All mankind is called to the “Catholic unity of the people of God”-in other words, to become Catholics. Some have done so, and so LG states that some “belong to” the Catholic Church while others are related to it “in different ways.” Those who belong to it are “the Catholic faithful,” while those who are related in various ways include “others who believe in Christ” (who are related to the Church in one way) and “all mankind” (who are related to the Church in a different way). You can find the full article on Catholic Answers website.
The islam faith was started hundreds of years after Jesus Christ established His Catholic Church. He did rebuke the Pharisees and Scribes for making their own versions of His One True Apostolic Catholic Church and Doctrine, like all other Christian Churches and other faiths have done. Mt23:1-39, Lk 11:37-54
@@bigideasthescholar
2 Thessalonians 2:14 And so, brothers, stand firm, and hold to the traditions that you have learned, whether by word or by our epistle.
2 Thessalonians 2:15 So may our Lord Jesus Christ himself, and God our Father, who has loved us and who has given us an everlasting consolation and good hope in grace,
@@soulosxpiotov7280 Where in the catechism does it say Muslims are saved? Give the page number and the edition. Or are you quoting some lying anti-Catholic?