It's funny, protestants reject papal infallibility (lead by the Holy Spirit) but are totally ok with their own assumed infallibility when interpreting scripture (lead by the Holy Spirit)
@ where else do you get your interpretation of scripture if you reject the teachings of the Catholic church? And if you follow that line of questioning to its logical end, the answer is always you get it from yourself. So, all of them.
No? Usually Protestants don't think their interpretation is the only correct one. Usually they accept multiple interpretations of it especially when in a group or a bible study. Furthermore the majority of protestants believe that the majority of people in other denominations are saved. Which is different from Catholic dogma which holds there is no salvation outside the Catholic church.
@MultipleGrievance Ask any Protestant "How do you know you're saved?" They almost always say, "Because of the Holy Spirit." And then you ask, "Isnt it possible you may aspostatize years from now?" And they say, "No, because the Holy Spirit wouldn't let me" almost all Calvinists claim infallible knowledge of their own future salvation
Becoming Catholic this spring after being raised SDA and almost a decade of atheism. Coming back to Christianity was so hard because of all the competing claims that used the exact same rubric for finding truth and yet disagreed on really important things. The Catholic Church is a piece of Gold among coal.
Hopefully, I give you an encouraging bible reference... and hopefully you like it: John 8 : 31-59 NRSVCE Most probably the reason to that calling to the body of Christ ( John 15 & John 6). You hear the truth calling to you.
God bless you on your journey. BTW, this is as good a time as any to announce that I've got an upcoming debate with an SDA apologist, Matt Morea, on the question of "soul sleep." Looks like it'll be January 16th @ 7pm CST on Answering Adventism's channel. Hope you have a chance to check it out!
@shamelesspopery star struck. Thanks for the reply! I’ll be tuning into the debate, the SDA or especially impervious to arguments from my experience. Hopefully it’s not the same for you!
@shamelesspopery Love what @Answering Adventism is doing, & praying for you and all your up coming debates and talks @Joe Heschmeyer and @Myles Christian of @Answering Adventism please do more together.
Joe I just want you to know that I'm a Shameless Potpourri junky. I follow a lot of Catholic creators, but you have nailed the formula for laying out information in a really easy way to ingest. Keep up the great work! Regarding sex, I like to say that the act that creates humans should demand the same respect that actual humans deserves.
Thanks, junkies! I'm thrilled to hear it. I'm definitely in the "let's try this and see if it works" stage on a lot of this, so I love hearing when it does.
I learned a few things today!!!! Specially in that section of the Catholic Church being Anti-science... yes, yes one sample with Galileo... I wondered in my science class if they said Mendel was Catholic... I think they just said monk???
@@michaelbeauchamp22 That's one misrepresentation of purgatory, but there's also sometimes the idea that purgatory can be a place where people stay forever. Or the idea that you can go from purgatory to hell.
I went to a funeral today and I was struck by the absolute absurdity of claiming Catholics are not Christians. I was listening to the guest speakers giving their send off to this woman who had dedicated her life to forming the faith of others and asked myself "how could anyone say these people are not Christians?" It's heartbreaking.
Slightly similar, someone stopped me on the street the other day and said that if you don't speak in tounges you're not a true Christian. I asked what about some saints, and he basically said that mother Teresa wasn't a Christian and wasted her life
Yes, we say you aren't Christians -- but with REASONS to back it up, with a million pages on-line as we speak to explain why. So be heartbroken all you want, but unless and until you examine the REASONS, your comment cannot be taken seriously.
@ThornyCrown-l5d oh I know the reasons. Don't think I've not engaged with Protestants. But hands down, those who think Catholics aren't Christians do not actually KNOW Catholics and their faith. They get their arguments from Ray Comfort and Mike Gendron and John MacArthur, never stopping to ask "is that REALLY what they believe?" I asked that question and decided to let Catholics speak for themselves, not relying on anti-catholic pastors to tell me what they wanted me to think Catholics believed. But I was never anti-catholic, so I had that going for me. I've been Catholic for 6 months now, after 33 years as an Episcopalian and 7 years attending a Baptist church.
Protestant here! Your videos have helped me to understand Catholicism for what it is and no longer hate it because of what I thought it was. I have realized that , although I disagree about a lot, I should give Catholicism the benefit of the doubt by virtue of the fact that it’s been around so long. Yet, the more I study..I come away with more questions than answers. No amount of information has convinced me of Catholicism but now I am skeptical of Protestantism too. Nothing feels certain anymore. I miss that security in my faith. Sometimes I regret ever learning church history. **read a book by Peter Kreeft a while back. In it he somewhat dares the reader to go to adoration and ask Christ if he is there. Well, I did that today to put an end to this stalemate and nothing. Idk what I expected but I am disappointed.
Wait for it. God heard your prayer. He will open your heart to His Presence in the Eucharist when it is *exactly* the right time -- sorry to be so presumptuous, but in my experience, no prayer has ever gone unanswered, even if it takes some days or months, or even years. What I expect to happen for you is that little things will shift in your understanding and in your life, until you will look back on this day and say, "Oh! That's when it all began to become clear!" You have heard the expression "Patience is a virtue"? Virtue comes from the word for strength. So it is "muscular", in a sense. Virtues need to be practiced, so that we can carry the heaviness of the Glory of Truth. Anyway, don't give up! Please! (And my prayers are with you!)
I think my original response was deleted? It isn't showing up anymore beneath your comment. I was curious about what your expectations were for going into adoration? Or what were the reasons you thought it could "give you an answer" so to speak?
God’s agenda is different to ours & He responds at His time. Just as you can’t expect one dose of medicine to remedy a complaint, so one visit to Adoration won’t be sufficient to enter into dialogue with Him. Have patience!
@ I only did it because of a book I read by Peter Kreeft. I think it was called 40 reasons I am a catholic. All I know is that he mentioned how reason can only get you so far, when trying to discern whether the Catholic Church is who she claims to be. In my case it hasn’t gotten me far at all. Anyway, he recommended going to adoration and praying for God to show you that he is there. He didn’t say to expect anything in particular. And I wasn’t expecting anything specific. I just needed assurance about which way to go because I am not convinced of any church at this point.
“I suppose it’ll only be raining spiritually, only we’re too sinful to see it”😂very funny. Give that man his bride😅also reminds me of the Emperors clothes.
That little clip made me laugh as well!!!! I've never watched that movie... I have to review the video to watch for the title of the movie.... sounds like a funny movie.
@@richardcastro1276 Brideshead Revisited. Evelyn Waugh is a funny writer, although this is (on the whole) one of his more serious works. It's a masterpiece, although one that people either love or completely don't understand the appeal of.
Joe, I have a friend at church who is a convert from the Baptist sect. When she married her husband in Arkansas in the 60s, her mother believed that the priests had to sleep with the bride on the night of the wedding before the husband could consummate the marriage. This is how Protestants in Arkansas believed that a priest could remain unmarried.
Protestants like to cite Athanasius ‘ letter 39 on the canon of scripture. They fail to realize his canon also includes the Deuterocanon, and he called the scripture in other writings.
Actually alot of protestants who study and learn church history reference origen of Alexandria in regards to the Canon and what was considered the word of God and what was bunk. Question, why add extra books to the old testament? Went don't the Jews recognize them? Why were they added AFTER luther as a response to Luther? Why did the early father's not recognize more than the 66?
@ dank8613 I doubt that when Origen didn't include James, 2nd Peter, and 2nd and 3rd John in his list. He also listed Maccabees and Baruch as canon, and he called Wisdom the Word of God in his writing Contra Celsum. The books weren't added to the canon. The canon was set at the Council of Rome (382) and Carthage (397). The Council of Trent reaffirmed what was settled at those councils.
@ dano8613 The Church Fathers had 3 lists: writings read during church, writings used for teaching, and Apocrypha. The first two were considered inspired. That is why Origen called Wisdom the Word of God. None of those writings were called Apocrypha. The Jews during Jesus' time did not have a set canon. The Essene Jews considered those books as canonical as evidenced in the Dead Sea Scrolls.
@ dano8613 Is that the only one you can reply to after addressing all of your questions?!?!? Yes, Origen did consider Maccabees canon. He also called the 2nd Maccabees scripture in de Principiis,” book II, chapter 1, paragraph 5.
Yes... we dont have that.. so dont search for them, because ... uh... they arent real! Theres is also no secret banana deliveries..., and if there is it is not for any monkeys
I actually don't understand this reference, so I don't understand you insult. It sounds horrible and you are making fun of the body of Christ which is the Catholic Church, so I know it is not good - matter of fact it is evil.
@@nisonatic I do wonder if Joe or anyone on the team has thought about a candle, incense, or something relating to scent. Just think it’s a missed opportunity for “Shameless Popery” not to get in on the potpourri humor 😂 I’m kinda leaning towards a sweet but light scent. Like a hint of incense but not as strong, ya know. Maybe also vanilla for sweetness and lavender to keep pests away 😂
Joe, loved the clips from Brideshead, a fantastic mini-series. My wife and I watch it at least once a year. Lawrence Olivier's deathbed seen always gets to me.
17:58 Just a note on statistical significance: a set of data is statistically significant if it's far enough outside the standard deviation of the mean on another set, meaning the gap might not be very big, but the chance of getting those numbers is much smaller if there was no difference between groups. You could have two groups where one is only 1% higher than the other, but the standard deviation is so tight that it's still significant.
@ Also true! But it wouldn't be less significant if religious people were only marginally happier, which is important to say regarding countries where those numbers are a little closer
the father of aviation and aeronautics is Fransico lana de terzi who in the 1600's figured out the basic principles of flight for both heavier than air and lighter than air flight. He also created an alphabet for the blind that was further developed by Braille
My wife and I look forward to your podcasts and other media. Your lawyer background serves you well in the formation of your presentations. We frequently pause to explore points or ask each other questions. It has become a favorite time for us to share our faith and grow closer in our union. Thank you and God bless.
1. The Pope is Always Right 0:54 2. The Church is Anti-Sex 11:44 3. The church is anti-science 19:53 4. Catholics added book tocrhe Bible 26:40 5. Catholics worship Mary 31:05 6. Catholics worship idols 34:31 7. You save yourself through good works 37:32
But Jesus DID say you need good works, as all Jews of his time believed. Paul contradicted what Jesus taught. You can see the original belief in the Epistle of James.
@@StringofPearls55 He absolutely does, salvation by faith alone versus salvation by faith and works. You can find thousands of articles about this controversy in a google search.
Wow. I cant wait for the rest of this series. Thank you Dr. Pitre theres so much here that i never knew! Gonna go read up on your recommendations now 😁
Joe you are wrong, there has to be sacred monkeys because I spoke to another Catholic who spoke to a Nun, that spoke to a Bishop, that spoke to a Cardinal that spoke the one of the extraordinary ministers that spoke to their son’s altar server friend that said there are sacred monkeys in the Vatican.
Are you anti-Catholic? Or are you being sarcastic? Or are you saying some type of anti-Catholic joke? Where do you stand? Sometimes sarcastic commentaries add nothing to a conversation and sometimes they hurt people. Being that these topics attract both Catholics and anti-Catholics. I need to know so that I can respond better or just ignore you so as to not add woods to the fire.
I think part of the problem is the church or whoever is behind not using their proper Church title when attributing honor to the scientific man and women of the church. No one knows these people have anything to do with the church. They should use their proper titles I don't know if it's that the church doesn't want to seem to prideful but I know this it would cause a lot of conversations in classrooms if they would just have their name complete with their titles listed when they have something to contribute to science or history. There was 30 some craters named after these men and women and nobody knows anything about them having any ties to the church. Wasted opportunity and no wonder people don't think the church and science goes together
I think it has more to do with secularists needing a separation. They would like for everyone to believe that only atheists are capable of scientific thought.
Hi Joe, you never ask your viewers to like, comment and subscribe. I do all those things but would also like to donate. What's the best way to support monetarily? Keep up the great work - very grateful for your work.!
That's very kind of you! There are two ways: (1) if you're in a position to give a recurring donation, my patreon (shamelessjoe.com) is a fun community, and I do weekly Q&A for patrons; (2) you can also do a one-time gift through the "super thanks" button that (sometimes but not always, for reasons that elude me) appears at the bottom of the youtube videos. Either way, thank you!
With regards to sexuality, has anyone been to Florence or Rome? Naked statues and paintings are everywhere including in the Vatican. And these were made hundreds of years ago when societies in those parts of the world were more prudish. When it comes to science or modern science, look at Bishop Grosseteste and Friar Roger Bacon. They are credited with the beginnings of the scientific method and the first science experiment over 800 years ago!
1. Luther didn't create any new region. 2. Luther didn't take out any books. It wasn't him. I don't have time to engage in a conversation about this, but pls, do your research.
@@Maranatha99Yes, Luther did create a religion, and he had not right to take away the seven books that had always existed since the Council of Hippo in the 3rd century. The Sola Scriptura dogma in Protesnism never existed in the early church history and its fathers.
If it wasn't for Luther moving those seven books, the British printing press would have removed them. They were removed because Luther didn't consider them scripture.
@iam_stephanos why don't you get your facts straight? Luther didn't like certain books, but he didn't remove them. It wasn't he who did it. Sola Scriptura is in Scripture via internal evidence. Luther didn't bring about any new doctrine. He just recovered the original teachings of Jesus & the apostles
Thank you for all your efforts to keep us from being chumps, believing "all sorts of things!" I have read some of the comments below, and I do hope that those of us that did not listen all the way through, or did not listen with attentiveness, will let go of some of our chumpiness in the glorious recognition that God is giving us Grace upon Grace -- all is Grace!
@@shamelesspopery I'm primarily interested in its history in the liturgy, and how the different modes and melodies reflect the time of year in the liturgical calendar.
@@shamelesspopery Well, starting with the fact that it exists, what it is and what is its meaning. You know, it's the official music of the Church. Sacred music for the sacred text in the sacred language of the sacred liturgy 😊 But then maybe just make a whole series on the liturgy...
@@damnedmadman Dr. Brant Pitre did an excellent series on the Liturgy. It's on Catholic Productions, and I think they've started posting it to RUclips.
So you must be careful to do everything they tell you. But do not do what they do, for they do not practice what they preach. Matthew 23:3 I think this is a powerful quote on papal infalliblility. Jesus says this regarding the chair of Moses, that the Pharisees were occupying. He didn't say don't listen to them. He said quite the opposite, while pointing out their flaws.
Mr. Heschmeyer, what does worship consist of? What is it in it? What requirements must an action meet to be worship? Years ago, I attended charismatic Protestant services where other people said, "We worship you." That suggested thay thought they worshipped by saying, "We worship you." If Protestants don't know how to define worship, the activity, the don't knw whether Catolics worship, say, statues, Mary, or wafers, or wine.
Joe, I am a longtime follower of you. May I beg of you one request? You have a habit of ending many of your sentences by lowering your voice, talking 'into your chest', and running those last few words together as a mumble. Sometimes these are very important words to your point, and are words that I cannot fill-in by context. It drives my crazy because I really learn so much from your presentaions and do not want to miss anything. In sum, please don't stop your valuable work; and please review your speaking style. Thanks!
On the bull with the Copts, Joe, it makes sense they affirm the same canon we do because the Copts are from the See of Alexandria, and only Rome and Alexandria accepted the Canon of Scripture formed by Pope Damasus and the members of the Synod of Rome of 382.
That statement ignores that the council of Rome in 382 was very small and not well attended synod as it conflicted with Constantinople. It also disregards the Councils of Carthage and Hippo that if the Pope were “Pope” and Damasus authoritatively created the canon in 382 wouldn’t even have occurred.
Dear Shameless, the Rex and priest scene is one of the funniest, most wonderful scenes that Waugh ever wrote. But we should remember that one of Waugh' underlying points is a repetition of Chesterton's (paraphrase), "if you believe in nothing, you will believe in anything." Further, Rex is a materialistic pragmatist - pragmatically applying William James notion of truth - "what is its cash value." Rex wants to marry a catholic - truth then is what is required to accomplish his goal - namely marring Julia. Rex is not just a thoughtless buffoon; he is something far worse. Thanks!
The 1560 Geneva Bible contains 80 books, plus the Apocrypha, for a total of 88 books. The 1599 version is the same. Robert Aitken's Bible, published in 1782, was the first English language Bible shrunk down to 66 books. The King James Version (KJV) was published in 1611 and included 80 books. Fourteen books were removed in 1885.
Joe, correct me if I am wrong. Pope Francis has never claimed to have spoken infallibly with any new doctrine, etc., during his entire papacy. If that’s true, I think that’s a compelling point to emphasize how rare and limited it is in Catholicism. Thank you
The Infallibility argument is frustrating because literally the point of the pope is to be the final say, the last interpreter. Sign or veto the bill. Infallibility of the pope is just an addendum of faith saying he can't and won't go back on it. God has a hand in every major decision the pope makes so we, and the pope, all have to take that on faith and move forward with how the world is changing.
"God has a hand in every major decision the pope makes so" Did you see the video? Because that is exactly the opposite of what he says. The section starts at 0:49, the meat of the response is 3:00. If you could response to some of his arguments, I'd be interested.
I don't think you listened to the video on this issue or even a portion of what Joe talked about. On top of that, do you know how rare it is for the Pope to use this infallability? The Cathecism of the Catholic Church is our main guide. When you read it, it feels right.
“It feels right” it’s rare for the Pope to use infallibility. Sounds very Protestant. Makes sense though as the Pope was the first Protestant who replaced the authority of the Holy Spirit with his own unique and individual authority, which is exactly what the reformers did except they merely replaced the Pope who had already usurped that authority three or four hundred years prior by unilaterally and after the fact rejecting the Eighth Ecumenical Council in the 11th century and cemented his heresy with the sacking of Constantinople in 1204 by the fourth crusade the spoils of which decorate the Vatican and Venice to this day.
@@SaltShack , I am sorry that you do not understand what was said in the video. Nor do you have a very good understanding of history. The sacking of Constantinople was done by already crusaders who had lost their original intention and deviated from their intended course in order to go into Constantinople. They were looking to be paid by a prince who was trying to take over the Empire. They were excommunicated and shamed. They kept whatever they took. The Catholic Church has not rejected any of the Ecumenical Councils. Including the ones in the first millennium that formed the basis for the later reiteration of the Apostolic Teaching that the See of Peter has primacy and is prevented from ever teaching falsehoods. But keep on studying. Clearly, you are being drawn to learn more!! I will be so happy when I meet you in Heaven!
@ Typical, misdirection, not dissimilar to the lies, obfuscation, forgeries and deception used to create the Papacy in the first place. Before you attack that statement understand that it is not disputed, not even by the Vatican. But the only reply your comments require is, Horses of St. Mark! Then read just a tiny bit about the eighth Oecumenical Council then the Roman Catholic Creed. The excommunication was for the attack on Zara in 1202 and was subsequently lifted. Classic papal nonsense, heads I win tales you lose. Seriously I hear people reiterating half truths and can’t help but wonder, was congress based on the Papacy? Rome surly acknowledges all,the Oecumenical Councils except the ones they unilaterally rejected 200 years after the fact, while at the same time suggesting inconsequential synods not well attended or ripe with corruption and controversy like the 382 Council of Rome and Florence respectively. Let me return your kind suggestion, keep studying.
I'd say "It's going to rain *somewhere*; maybe not where we or he thought, and certainly not *when* we might think.", thing is: prophesy is a very iffy concept at best; though when the old testament speaks of it: they mean something along the lines today of "you keep on treating your intimate partner as a means for satisfying yourself; and the *least* you're going to get is a really big fight." something along the lines of if you keep on acting up- do not expect peaceful interactions. Something like that, not anything at all about what the weather will be, nor anything really else besides the most basic logical cases.
Galileo's treatment by the Church wasn't even about the Church claiming to be right about science. The Church didn't claim to be the authority on science. They just didn't want Galileo stating his theories as fact without sufficient evidence. The fact that Galileo was proven right in retrospect does not negate the fact that the evidence of the day was not on his side. It was more about personal beef between Galileo and the Pope, who Galileo essentially called an idiot in one of his works.
Protestants think they have the Holy Spirit despite Christ clearly saying to his apostles that he would send it to them only because the world cannot receive it for they don't know it nor can see it. And he did send it to his apostles in Pentecost and gave them the authority to baptize in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. Even Simon the Mage wanted to pay the apostles to have the power to give the Holy Spirit! Isn't it abundantly clear that the Holy Spirit can only be received through Christ's apostles/priests in the Church? Despite, protestants reject the Church and its priests and still think that they have the Holy Spirit. 🤷♂
Protestants can provide no infallible definition of Protestantism, let alone Christianity. That is perfectly fine, but the problem arises when an individual Protestant demands that you conform to his personal interpretation. At that point that person is claiming to be infallible. This is the problem with Protestantism altogether. Each Protestant behaves as if he is the infallible Pope, yet each denies that he is behaving precisely as he is behaving.
@@stevedoetsch Good evening Steve, Thanks for your reply. Your post doesn't address my question. Can you (or Joe) provide a list of Papal infallible statements?
38:05 I agree, the opposite is also true And anyone can take that to Revelation 14 Here is the patience of the saints: here are they that keep the commandments of God, and the faith of Jesus
19:25 _"there is never an unhappiness gap"_ I note Sweden is absent from the stats. If Soviet Russia had been around and if North Korea had been polled, we might also have seen sth like that.
Hey Joe! I absolutely love your channel because you accurately, clearly, and concisely explain arguments and truths of the Faith. However, I've been having a bit of an issue... Occasionally, I want to cite a study that you cite in a video that came out months ago. I typically don't write out what I'd need to find it and it can take a while to find by searching the relevant videos. Since links in descriptions seem to be disincentived (from what I i know of RUclips), is there a central place that I could refer to to find these? Failing that, im currently looking for a study that showed that modern young people have lost the language of good/evil in favor of like/dislike for a paper that argues for a causal argument to believe in God; we want to believe evil is real, evil requires good, good requires God. Therefore, we should believe that God exists. I remember seeing such a study cited by you (though i could be wrong. I'd blame Trent Horn if thats the case. He's the number two in this Niche on RUclips in my opinion).
That is a short list of his recent writings. He writes a lot... so another way of going about it is doing a search on Catholic Answers, but then you get all the writers and have to peruse each and find the verse that way as well.
Catholic Answers actually provides transcripts of all of my episodes over at www.catholic.com/audio/sp. So if it's something that I *said,* it should hopefully be there. On the other hand, if it was something that just appeared on the screen, I'm not sure. Do you remember what it was that you were looking for?
@@shamelesspoperyThanks! I will definitely check those. It was not anything specific enough to know/find the source easily. It just showed that young people don't think in terms of good and evil and instead favor like and dislike. In essence, I want a citation to show that we are seeing the effects of relativism now. I could probably substitute pre-christian Rome for a similar result but that would make the argument appear to miss the mark for the modern world (in my opinion). Sorry for the late reply, I had pre-cana yesterday, so I knew I didn't have time to work on it and Google had told me of the two non-shamelesspopery replies but not yours, so I didn't think it was time sensitive.
Septuagint is the translation of the Old Testament that all New Testament authors quote from in the New Testament. And it has all these books JTWEB AND THE 2mcab’s Judith Tobit wisdom Ecclesiastes Baruch first and second Maccabees
Yes, you are right -- in faith and morals, not the weather! Which means, the pope has authority in matters of discipline as well as matters of doctrine. Disciplinary rules (as in "no meat on Fridays") are not "irreformable" -- disciplines can always be re-formed to be more nuanced (as in "do something to make every Friday a special remembrance of the Passion and Death of our Savior"). It does put the onus on US to listen to what the pope says, and apply our *intellects*. If something seems "off", WE have to dig a little deeper to find out what the pope actually said and what the context was, before we go opening our mouths in objections, thus displaying our ignorance. If people followed your brief advice, there would be a lot less foolishness on display!
Is it scandalous to switch from one Catholic parish to the other because the priest did something questionable? I'll give the real-world example that, at my in-laws' former church, the priest told people you should only go to Mass on Saturday night if you have a job that only allows you to go at that time. This is nowhere in the Catechism. In fact, in 1983, the Code of Canon law says this: "Can. 1248 §1. A person who assists at a Mass celebrated anywhere in a Catholic rite either on the feast day itself or in the evening of the preceding day satisfies the obligation of participating in the Mass." My in-laws stayed at the parish for a while, sometimes going to another parish for Saturday evening. But then after a few months, the priest at their old church said that Saturday evening attendance was so low, that he was cancelling it and adding a 7:30 am Sunday Mass. I'm going to assume that either it's the priest's discretion to add/subtract a Mass, or that the priest got permission from the Bishop. But of course the attendance was low because he borderline told people (wrongly) that it's sinful to go to Saturday evening Mass without a good excuse. So my in-laws withdrew their parish membership and moved. However, should they have stayed and done something to fight? Or were they justified in leaving?
1. Is it Scandalous to Switch Parishes? No, it is not scandalous to switch from one parish to another for valid reasons, especially when one feels spiritually unsettled or misinformed by the actions or teachings of a priest. Catholics have the right to seek a parish where they feel they are being nourished in faith, properly catechized, and guided according to Church teaching. Switching parishes is not inherently sinful or scandalous-it can even be a prudent decision in cases like the one described. The Code of Canon Law (Canon 515 §1) establishes that parishes are communities of the faithful under the care of a pastor, but it does not restrict Catholics to attending only their geographically assigned parish. As long as a Catholic is fulfilling their obligations to attend Mass, participate in the sacraments, and remain in communion with the Church, they are free to attend and register at a parish that best supports their spiritual growth. 2. The Priest’s Comment About Saturday Mass The claim that attending Saturday evening Mass is only permissible for those who “have a good excuse” is incorrect and inconsistent with Church teaching. The Code of Canon Law (1983), as cited in your question, is clear: "Can. 1248 §1. A person who assists at a Mass celebrated anywhere in a Catholic rite either on the feast day itself or in the evening of the preceding day satisfies the obligation of participating in the Mass." The Church established the Saturday vigil to offer the faithful greater flexibility in fulfilling their Sunday obligation, recognizing the practical challenges of modern life. There is no requirement that Saturday Mass is limited to those who cannot attend on Sunday. A priest should not impose restrictions or moral judgments on parishioners that go beyond what the Church herself teaches. While the priest may have misunderstood or intended to emphasize the sacredness of Sunday, his comment could easily cause confusion or unnecessary scruples among parishioners. This highlights the importance of careful and precise teaching from clergy. 3. Cancelling the Saturday Vigil It is within the pastor’s discretion, with the bishop’s approval, to adjust the Mass schedule to meet the needs of the parish. If attendance at the Saturday vigil was consistently low, canceling it could be a practical decision. However, if the priest’s earlier teaching caused the low attendance, this raises concerns about pastoral judgment. Parishioners, including your in-laws, are not wrong to feel that their needs were not properly considered. 4. Should One Leave a Parish Over This? Leaving a parish due to serious concerns about the priest’s pastoral decisions or teachings is not sinful, provided it is done thoughtfully and without undue animosity. Catholics are encouraged to address concerns directly with their pastor first (cf. Matthew 18:15-17). However, suppose a parishioner feels that the priest’s approach is consistently unhelpful, spiritually harmful, or doctrinally unsound. In that case, it is reasonable to seek another parish where they feel better supported in their faith. 5. Balancing Respect for Authority with Prudence It’s important to balance respect for the priest’s authority with a proper understanding of Church teaching. Priests have a pastoral role, but they are not above error in personal opinions or decisions. Parishioners have the right-and the duty-to know their faith well and to discern when they need to protect their spiritual well-being. 6. Avoiding Division or Gossip In situations like this, it’s crucial to avoid causing division or scandal through gossip or uncharitable behavior. If leaving a parish, it’s best to do so quietly, without spreading rumors or negativity about the priest or the parish. Instead, seek a community where your faith can grow and thrive. Ultimately Your in-laws acted within their rights as Catholics to move to a different parish, especially given their concerns about the priest’s teachings on Saturday vigil Mass. Their decision was not scandalous but reflected their desire to align with Church teaching and find spiritual nourishment. This situation also underscores the importance of priests providing accurate catechesis and avoiding personal opinions that might confuse or mislead the faithful. If similar situations arise, they can be addressed by speaking charitably with the priest, seeking clarification, and, if necessary, appealing to the bishop for further guidance. Ultimately, the goal is to remain faithful to Christ and His Church while fostering unity and charity.
@@MalleusEcclesiae I did not expect such a long response. Thanks for the clarification. They did bring up concerns to priest and stayed for a while to see if things would change. And they changed for the worse. I guess where this might become scandalous is if one were to become a church hopper, not having a home parish/tithe, but switching churches whenever the priest says something difficult.
20:50 Given the amount of Evangelicals who support ICR, AiG and CMI, one would hardly pretend they are overall ant-science either, for being YEC. You certainly have a point; for an external critic, the Galileo affair would be a very absurd reason to reject Catholicism. Chesterton pointed out Galileo is always the go-to, meaning there is very little other go-to. Just as for Protestants, Alexander VI is a very given go-to, meaning there are very few other go-tos. However, for a Catholic believing infallibility, it's different. We cannot afford to say "the infallible magisterium once was not just fallible, but actually wrong" ... What do I mean when I say that the judgement on Galileo is magisterium, it's not a bull like Cantate Domino? ... well, lets put it like this, if Galileo's errors which he abjured, we are not bound to reject them, neither are we bound to reject the erroneous reading Fr. Feeney made on Cantate Domino. Galileo and Feeney were sentenced in the same form. The difference is actually in favour of Feeneyism, though that doesn't mean Feeneyism is right. Galileo reconciled to the Church immediately, and he did so by abjuring exactly the two theses that had been condemned. Feeney, on the other hand, seems to, when he eventually two papacies (on your count) later reconciled to "Paul VI" (as you would call him), have pronounced simply a submission to the Pope (the wrong one, I'd say), and also the Quicumque vult ... I happen to know this from back when Charles A. Coulombe had a site. No, not the scientist of electromagnetics, the guy who wrote on Rum and on Papal Zuaves. So, you could possibly wiggle out of this by saying "the scope of infallibility is restricted to faith and morals, and this is science, so outside its scope" ... no, for two reasons: 1) the more general one is that faith and morals do have overlapping areas with science and applied science, you would not agree that Pius XI could not condemn Eugenics on the specious ground that "that is applied science, not faith and morals" when Pius XI specifically said to various secular régimes in 1930, Casti Connubii, that it _is_ morals, and also reminded Nazis of this and other issues in 1937 in a paragraph of Mit brennender Sorge, likewise, if the Church judges on Joshua 10 or on cosmology, we can at least presume it's about the faith; 2) and the 1633 judgement called the two theses, for one heretical in faith, as well as absurd in philosophy, and for the other at least erroneous in faith, as well as absurd in philosophy. So, the Church _did_ say it falls under faith. You could say "what about philosophy?" Well, St. Paul judges on philosophy. In Roman 1 he states Aristotle knows God from Geocentrism. See John of Damascus, see Thomas Aquinas. In Colossians 2:8 he is primarily speaking of Judaising tendencies, but as illustration condemns atomism, i e the ideas of Democritus, Epicure and Lucretius. The Church may not have the wherewithals to infallibly decide every philosophical question, but certainly to decide those where one side is not just philosophically false, but also opposed to faith and morals as well. A wherewithal that would clearly seem to have come to use in 1633.
Joe please Do a video about how and why you know that the Trinity know the future. I’m using Trinity in the plural sense but I think one could use it in a singular sense- Jean Herve Nicholas wrote a great explanation of from one to triune God.
The Trinity dates to Augustine in his seminal work "De Trinitate" written sometime around 400. It's not the first promotion of this pagan idea, but it's the one which had the most lasting effect. As Jews, Jesus, his disciples, and even Paul would have found the idea abhorrent and blasphemy.
@@ji8044 what do you make of Isaiah 48:16 where Lord God, me , and spirit and their respective begetting and procession are all named? Draw near to me, hear this: from the beginning I have not spoken in secret, from the time it came to be I have been there.” And now the Lord God has sent me and his Spirit. In fact, as I read it, Isaiah 40-55 repeatedly speaks of a triune God? In my opinion, the notion of a triune God founds firmly in biblical verse. See pg. 15 of The Divine Armory of Holy Scripture by Kenelm Vaughn. However, the point of my post was to ask Joe to speak to the notion of a timeless God who knows the future. In his book The End of the Timeless God, Mullins suggests that we must abandon the models for God that are not time-bounded. I think of the Trinity as timeless for several reasons which I'm willing to share if anyone is interested.
@@michaelcollins9698 The author of Isaiah says directly over and over again that the servant is Israel. But Christians insist he says the opposite. “Listen to this, you descendants of Jacob, you who are called by the name of Israel and come from the line of Judah, you who take oaths in the name of the Lord and invoke the God of Israel- but not in truth or righteousness- Isaiah 48:1
How about clown masses, liturgical dances, novus ordo liturgical abuses, charismatic movement, etc? I am new to chatolicism, comeing from orthodoxy , and im very confused with what i'm seing...
Can you do a critique on Richard Rohr and his new book, The Tears of Things. He's being read by many protestants who don't have the theological tools to discern him properly. Is he off the reservation?
Yes, he is "out there." Not all that he says can be just taken in without a lot of grains of salt. You are right to say that "theological tools" are needed to "discern him properly." That said, I am not sure that Mr. Heschmeyer's podcast is the place for a critique on Richard Rohr? Perhaps Catholic Answers?
I love your channel, Joe, and how you explain things, even though I consider myself a secularist. If you read this message, could you explain why a large majority of scientists and even philosophers are atheists or agnostics? Wouldn’t this at least suggest that there is an aspect of Christianity or Catholicism that is anti-science, causing many to turn away from it given those stats? Or maybe I’m wrong, and the majority are actually Christian. If so, I would love to see some stats. Thanks.
I think it depends on the area of science, in determining just how "faith-filled" the broad group known as "scientists" is. What comes up when I googled the question was a 2009 Pew Research survey of members of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, said that 51% of all scientists believe in a higher power. Note that this is a group that would likely suffer from the perception that science and religion are mutually exclusive. The cause for the survey being taken was that President Obama had put forward a Bible-believer as head of the National Institutes of Health, and much was made of his belief in the possibility of miracles. (He was confirmed by the Senate.) In this survey, the greatest number of believers were in the youngest set and in the area of chemistry. The greatest number of non-respondents was in the cosmology area. (Rumor has it that admitting to religious belief can lead to lose of teaching positions on the university level.) Hope this is helpful. (I would also make a personal observation: every scientist who believes that there are scientific facts, that there is logic to the universe, that reason can be brought to bear on tested observations to develop rules for the understanding of the whole shebang, has to believe -- at least in some rudimentary way -- that the universe is logical. Steven Hawking, who believed himself to be an atheist, posited that before the universe was, there were rules underlying the creation of matter. He could not imagine the philosophical and theological concept of "Nothing." There had to be Reason first.)
Some have suggested that. But I personally think it is more likely to be a reference to the Eucharistic Body of the Resurrected Jesus -- which is displayed at every Mass and Divine Liturgy ("Mass" is referring to the Eucharistic Worship in the Latin rite, since the word comes into English from the Latin dismissal. "Divine Liturgy" is the proper term for Eastern Catholic and Orthodox celebrations of the Eucharist.) Remember that the first Christian "feast days" were Sundays, when the first Christians obeyed Jesus's command to "Do THIS in Remembrance of Me." A Remembrance ceremony in the Jewish tradition was a re-enactment that brought the people into the moment they were "remembering" -- for example, at the Passover Meal, the family would say "God brought US out of Egypt, that land of slavery", making their own the act of God's mercy. So, too, the early Christians (and the Church today) are "present" at the cross of Calvary and the Empty Tomb when they attend the Sacrifice of the Eucharist.
7:10 Not something one needs to hold as a Christian. Something one has to hold as a Roman. For example, Rome, for some reason, decided to wait 19 1/2 centuries before telling her people they must believe in the assumption of St. Mary as an article of faith, or they are outside the Roman tradition. It makes one wonder, if the Magisterium is the deposit of faith, as claimed by Rome, why did it take so long to tell believers that this was required for salvation? Or did Rome just change and add this requirement?
I was actually surprised to learn at my TLM marriage prep class that the man is obligated to make his wife orgasm by any means if he fails to do so in the act as she is entitled to one in every encounter as well. Myth 2 got BTFO'd
Could you do a piece on the view that some people have that Paul ‘invented’ Christianity? Like the story goes that Jesus existed and was a teacher and was executed but the resurrection and all the ‘God stuff’ is a later story made up and laid over top and all the formal church founding and moral components were invented and promulgated by Paul, a man who never met Jesus? I have a family member who holds this view. I know they have read a variety of books, but the only title I can recall is Reza Aslan’s book Zealot. I think the idea might be from there? Edit: Puctuation
Huh, that's a new one. I've run across a few people, albeit online, that insist Paul preaches a different gospel than the Gospels. I wonder if that concept is related to what you're speaking about?
Yes, Paul invented Christianity, but he didn't mean to. Paul expected an imminent end of the world, so he had no plans to start a new religion. However after the first generation of believers had died, there was a realization that apocalyptic timeline was wrong
@@ji8044 , well, that is an interesting thought. It flies in the face of all that we know of history and the first century, but it is clearly something that a few people have found intriguing. Are you one of them?
@@susand3668 What I wrote IS history. Perhaps all you know of that time is from Catholic theology? You can take either side in the debate and be correct. Jesus and Paul if they came back today would certainly be shocked at what has been created in their name.
@@ji8044 Hello there! Can I ask when you were first made aware of the position you now hold that Paul invented Christianity? If it was a book or video would you mind sharing the title/author?
Thank you! Awesome video... it will be a lightining rod for those separated brethen - they will come here... not watch the video and start with arguments not covered in the video. If the say a comment not in video... don't engage... otherwise they will come up with everything. 1) Added to this I think of John 8 : 31-59.... This is to help people discern who are the True Disciples of Jesus ( NRSVCE). It basically talks about heretics as well... and who is behind those thoughts. 2) Anti-sex - UK research and world research, very interesting! This is so heavily tainted by television and movies which you mentioned. Our hearts are getting fed on Sundays! 3) Anti-Science - Galileo! Thank you for all those examples of consecrated religious from the Catholic Church being scientific pioneers. The Contras We Here All the Time =========================== 4) Books added to the bible - wrong! Wayback in the 3rd century established which books were part of the bible = 73 books to the 15th century... placed in back of the book. In 1820's deleted to save on printing only by separated brethren. 5) Virgin Mary - prayer and worship are not the same thing - nice summary, brings it down to easy to understand. Which also bible interpretation is also not worship... which I believe some Protestants think they are doing. Same as asking for money over and over again because of false promises by a pastor is also not worshipping (which not judging, just pointing out). At Sunday mass priests just barely mention money collection. 6) Idols = not religious images. Thanks for references regarding this topic. I will go over verses and councils. This one we get absolutely hammered with day and night... even their newest congregants are taught to repeat this over and over again. Here is my typical defense on that one. Really, all I know is the Catholic Church has hundreds of saints that prayed in front os statues and they made it to heaven. And then I give them my evidence of two typical miracles that heaven sends us, physically as proof: A) some saints received stigmata, clear signs they received messages from God. B) some saints, blesseds are left here on earth with uncorruptible bodies and not decaying, but rather smelling like flowers. These are just two miracles. There is also one modern one of the group of Catholic priests that survived the atomic bomb dropped in Hiroshima during WW2; they also did not get radiation poisoning. Clearly these priests prayed in front of statues, prayed the rosary and received Holy Communion. What an incredible miracle!! Only God could do that! 7) You Save Yourself Through Good Works. No!!! Even I know that one .... in my daily consecration prayer to Divine Mercy says completely the opposite (prayer via St. Therese of Liseaux). My daily total consecration prayer to Jesus through Mary also says the opposite of that accusation. (from 33 Days to Morning Glory book) At death, I will arrive with nothing. I have done works, but they do not belong to me - they are consecrated to the Lord. Living in the Divine Will might be slightly different... don't understand that one yet... but still shared...??
There is only one Field of the MASTER. The wheat has none else to fly to on account of finding there are tares sown in amongst them. Stay Home and contend for the Faith. We are to humble ourselves under GOD's mighty hand, and HE will lift us up in due time. We must do what we have been given now, and be given more later, and not venture to sacrifice without the Samuel who is testing us, seeming to act late, nor reach out to steady the sacred ark of the Covenant for which only others are anointed to take matters in hand, even when we see the ark about to fall off the cart.
This video appears to be incorrect on Papal infallibility. Like the vast majority of comments I've seen about this issue, it focuses on what statements of the Pope are infallible without an understanding of what infallibility means. I always see people do what this video does, bring up ex cathedra with respect to infallibility with the implication that if the Pope isn't speaking infallibly that means you don't have to believe what he says. I saw this a LOT when Pope Francis said that all religions lead to God. That's not what infallibility means. From Vatican I under Chapter 3 of the First Dogmatic Constitution of the Church of Christ: Wherefore we teach and declare that, by divine ordinance, the Roman Church possesses a pre-eminence of ordinary power over every other Church, and that this jurisdictional power of the Roman Pontiff is both episcopal and immediate. Both clergy and faithful, of whatever rite and dignity, both singly and collectively, are bound to submit to this power by the duty of hierarchical subordination and true obedience, and this not only in matters concerning faith and morals, but also in those which regard the discipline and government of the Church throughout the world. Elsewhere in the document, it says that the Pope's ex cathedra teachings are irreformable. Here you can see that thiis is not actually the determining factor on which statements Catholics are bound to obey. On that matter, it says that you as a Catholic must submit to the Pope in matters of faith and morals REGARDLESS of whether he is speaking ex cathedra or not. This means that all you Catholics who were upset about the Pope saying Hinduism and Islam are equally as valid as the "one true church" are required to believe that whether you like it or not. All his not speaking infallibly means is that his statement isn't irreformable - it can be changed later. But unless and until it is changed, you are bound by it.
Excuse me, Patrick, but as you point out, there is a technical meaning for "infallibility", which is -- strictly speaking -- when the pope speaks authoritatively from the Chair of Peter. Strictly speaking, you are correct in your reading that infallible statements are "irreformable." At other times, the pope's words are "indefectible." Which means that they are without defect, but can be further explained and refined and interpreted. *But they are to be accepted with religious consent of the will even though they are not strictly speaking "infallible".* We do not get to pick and choose. Which means that we have to actually listen with our intelligence engaged. The pope is not going to say something that is against the Teachings of the Catholic Church. And if it seems like he is, then there is a misunderstanding, and it is up to the faithful to discover where they have gone wrong in their interpretation of what he said. Your example of the remarks that Pope Francis made when he was invited to address some youth in an anti-Christian country, who were going to dialogue with one another openly -- when he said that all religions were paths to the One True God -- was such a time. There is nothing wrong with encouraging people to learn more about one another's religions, especially where the Christian message is legally limited. Inter-religious dialogue in such a place and time is a way for the few Christians to get a hearing. It is a matter of evangelization. Just as St. Paul opened with an acceptance of the religious nature of the Athenians, Pope Francis opened the inter-religious dialogue with an acceptance of where the majority was. These other religions are truly paths that lead towards God. You and I know these paths are limited, and will not get the people all the way. But God Himself has spoken to ALL His people, as St Paul muses in the first chapters of Romans. The pope *never* said that "... Hinduism and Islam are equally as valid as the 'one true church'..." You have done a wonderful job of researching so far. Please, don'tlet anyone stop you from continuing to study!!
Honest question: how do you match evolution and the big bang theory to the creation story in Genesis? It clearly states that God spoke things into being individually over 7 days. Is it possible he used an explosion? I guess, but the wording of Genesis doesn't really point to that. It is "let there be light, and there was light." Nothing about creating light from what was around. And we also have specific dates and ages of everyone from Adam to Jesus. The idea that the earth is billions of years old seems to contradict Genesis and the geneology in Matthew. I honestly want to know your thoughts on this. How do you explain billions of years when we literally have the years and ages given to us starting from creation?
The Big Bang theory is actually from Catholic monks studying the stars. The beauty of Genesis lies not in its description of physical cosmology but in its revelation of God as the Creator of all things, who brings order and purpose to the world.
Short answer, the scientific worldview has a HUGE HUGE unproven assumption. The assumption is called Uniformitarianism. Its the idea that from the first moment of the Big Bang, that there was an uninterrupted period of time for the laws of physics to unfold. I am unaware of how a God believing Christian can accept this assumption knowing that our God exists, a God who can and does intervene in creation.
The thing about the dates listed in Genesis is that they can be read to not mean actual 24 hrs, or a full rotation of the Earth around its axis. The Sun and Moon were not created right away, and it is the Sun that we use to distinguish a day length. Otherwise the Earth is just spinning around and around with no discernible time marker. So “days” in the context of Genesis operate as a conceptual way to divide out the process of God’s creation process. The specific numbering also comes from deep religious significance. 3 is often associated with completeness, 7 for perfection, 12 for the Tribes of Israel, 14 for great perfection, etc. On a side note, I heard an apologist (maybe Jimmy Akin, as he likes to talk about space stuff) throw out a theory on why “7” is a number for perfection. A long time ago, when humans were first developing, they often relied on natural phenomena and forces for daily living. Part of this included watching the sky during the day and night, of course with only the naked eye, with the sky usually being likened to ‘the heavens.’ We know the Sun and the Moon are important sky objects, and another thing the ancient people noticed is “wandering stars” in the night sky, which were called planets. There are 5 planets that we can see with the naked eye (within reason, of course): Mercury, Venus, Mars, Jupiter, and Saturn. Combined altogether we get 7, and since the objects are located in the sky which is analogous to heaven, it’s theorized 7 became the number for perfection cause nothing can be greater than the heavens and if the heavens had 7 main objects showing in the sky, then that must be a pretty good number. Okay, so back to the point. There are phrases and ideas in the Bible which can be taken metaphorically or symbolically, and not literally. A common one is Jesus mentioning how the mustard seed is the smallest of all seeds, but botanists nowadays can list off way tinier seeds. But, during Jesus’s time, people’s understanding of the world was limited so in their daily life, the mustard seed was the tiniest seed. So how can we reconcile Jesus’s meaning about the tiniest seed when we now know it actually isn’t? For 1) we keep the context and the culture of the area in mind, 2) understand what spiritual point Jesus was making, and 3) realize Jesus was not giving a botany lesson nor was he expected to rattle off every scientific theory or understand that ever will be. Time and place and knowledge are something we can’t ignore when considering what the Bible is saying. Ages of people in the Bible can also be more symbolic in nature than an actual amount to calculate with. For one, people during that time didn’t keep track of specific days to mark their births, often using references to external factors to figure out their age. Even some places in the Middle East and Africa, I believe, don’t pin down exact dates but more of a general time period. Like in the Spring after X harvest or when so-and-so was the leader. There’s also a thing about calendars, where the Julian calendar was a common and popular time measuring tool during the Roman empire, but was phased out when Pope Gregory came out with the more accurate Gregorian calendar. So we shouldn’t think the people of the Bible had as many calendars or date significances as we do. They would of course care about dates as far as religious ceremonies and celebrations, harvests, animals, fishing, sailing, hunting, etc. but not for things line their birthdays or knowing exactly how old someone is.
@@johnr5808 The scientific worldview has a major unproven assumption which is incompatible with a God believing Christian. The scientific worldview holds that once the Big Bang occured, no supernatural intervention has occured which might affect for example, the speed of light, or the duration between the Big Bang the formation of the earth. A God believing Christian believes in a supernatural diety that can and has intervened in time and space. And therfore, he cannot assume without divine revelation that 13.8billion years have gone by without any intervention by God which might affect the age of the universe.
How far back can you trace the men you place your faith in? If you are a Christian, which is unclear, you may want to question any belief that cannot be traced all the way back to Jesus himself. I for one would have a hard time giving up my life, my beliefs, for anything that could not be traced all the way back, that far. Would seem silly. But since I can, it makes all the sense in the world. Protestantism does not.
My reply to Rex in that is that you *cannot* truly sign a labor contract validly if you have NO idea at all what will be asked of you; in fact, any boss at all, including and *especially* God who'd ask you to sign so that you can find out what's entailed is either fully incompetent, or utterly evil: either way: bolt kiddo; do not return, as it is automatically a raw deal... that's kind of the tactics of the devil itself. It doesn't work as a state's attorney in a law court, but it *does* work exactly like a mafia don- and like the mafia; it really does believe all the teachings of Christ, via Catholicism, but in a degree that no one-nature-human can imagine; thing is: it uses them to do harm! It is really a fatal mistake about your foe to figure it's arrogant, but what it absolutely *is* is sadistic! Do not just buy into things, yes, be engaged in critical thinking; Christ wrote us to have reason *for a reason*; not so we could suspend our minds and go along with whatever His agents may say- doing that removes us from the ability to serve, really at all, and certainly competently, and there's NO possibility of the Uncaused Cause being *that* inept at designing His colleagues!
Look I know you are trying to be funny about talking about Rex... at the end of video... But it just took on some loopy joke you are trying to say... anyways... I then find... oh wait he is trying really hard to say like a joke in here? So even listening to the whole video... still don't know how your joke is??? Sorry but tell me a shorter, simpler joke because I spent time thinking about you write up... it is gibberish right?
@@richardcastro1276 I was quite sincere and serious; if a man signs a labor contract without knowing the conditions of the deal, he's completely unfit to be able to consent.
Protestants believe in infallibility they just don't know it. Example...Jesus is God, this is an infallible truth and if you are Christian you must speak this as infallible truth.
32:18 .... I guess ill type the rest... JOHN 4:21-22 21 Jesus saith unto her, Woman, believe me, the hour cometh, when ye shall neither in this mountain, nor yet at Jerusalem, worship the Father. 22 Ye worship ye know not what: we know what we worship: for salvation is of the Jews.
@IG88AAA yes very much so seeing as how it is not a myth ... the actual words and context of what he is trying to justify is wrong so much so that it goes against what Jesus clearly taught and trades HIS words for "church authority"
@ That verse was quoted in the context of praying to the saints is worship of the saints. He clearly showed that worship and praying are not necessarily the same thing. Worship was done in Jerusalem, while praying could be done anywhere. What about the following two verses rebut this?
@@IG88AAA a catholic must obey the catechism correct? Key words here being "church" "worship" and "Christian" II. DEVOTION TO THE BLESSED VIRGIN 971 "All generations will call me blessed": "The Church's devotion to the Blessed Virgin is intrinsic to Christian worship."513 The Church rightly honors "the Blessed Virgin with special devotion. From the most ancient times the Blessed Virgin has been honored with the title of 'Mother of God,' to whose protection the faithful fly in all their dangers and needs.... This very special devotion ... differs essentially from the adoration which is given to the incarnate Word and equally to the Father and the Holy Spirit, and greatly fosters this adoration."514 The liturgical feasts dedicated to the Mother of God and Marian prayer, such as the rosary, an "epitome of the whole Gospel," express this devotion to the Virgin Mary.515
@@IG88AAAcan a catholic go against the catechism? Which is the highest form of worship a catholic can give GOD? Must this be done in a catholic church with administration of transformed Bread and Wine by priest? If yes, than how is this honoring what Jesus said about worshiping in Jerusalem (obviously in the temple) as to catholics having to be ina church (temple) to worship GOD? Is it simply because Petra was "given the keys" or just plain tradition that confirms this? It genuinely goes against what Jesus said.
27:00 It would have been nice if you mention that the councils of Council of Laodicea (367 AD) and the Fourth General Council Chalcedon (451 AD) both provided lists of recognized books, including what are the 39 Old Testament Books, but not including any Apocryphal Books. As we move into the Middle Ages, the Catholic Encyclopedia says: “In the Latin Church, all through the Middle Ages we find evidence of hesitation about the character of the deuterocanonicals.” And: “Few are found to unequivocally acknowledge their canonicity.” That is a Roman source mind you. But the Council of Florence you say! It is true that the Council of Florence did provide a book list including the Apocryphal Books in 1442. Shouldn’t this had already settled the the issues in Rome between the canonical books of the Old Testament and the ecclesiastical books of the Apocrypha? The fact that even at the start of the Reformation, Erasmus, Cardinal Jimenez, and Cardinal Cajetan held the same distinctions as Luther and the other Reformers between these books, proves Florence did not make its book list canon like you attempt to say. This is because the anathema attached to Florence’s book list has nothing to do with the list itself. Florence used the book list as evidence against the heresy of the Manichees, who held the Old Testament God was different from the New Testament God. It is they, and other anti-Trinitarian heretics who are anathematized for their beliefs, not their lack of use of this book list. This is how Erasmus, Cardinal Jimenez, and Cardinal Cajetan could hold the same distinction between the 39 canonical Old Testament Books and the Apocrypha as Luther and the Reformers did, and the Protestants still do to this day. When one looks at the Medieval church, we find a variety of biblical canon exists throughout the Roman tradition. While St. Jerome’s translation of the vulgate did bring a better consistency to Roman biblical canon, it did not settle the issue. For example, around the Twelfth Century, Bibles, sometimes referred to as “Atlantic Bibles”, were presented to monasteries throughout Italy with most not including the Apocrypha. Also, while St. Jerome did add Apocryphal Books to his Vulgate as he was told to do despite arguing they shouldn’t be included as canon, he did not include Baruch or the Letter of Jeremiah. These were added to the Vulgate starting sometime in the Ninth Century. The Paris Bibles in the Thirteen Century included 3rd and 4th Esdras. So we can see that though there are Biblical lists, there is not a universal consistency in Bibles. It was not until Trent, decades after the start of the Reformation, and over a decade after Luther’s German Bible, which did include the Apocrypha, that Rome finally settled her biblical canon. Your characterization that Protestants removed seven books from the Bible is just as terrible as the argument Rome added books. As seen above, Rome didn’t settle her biblical canon until after the Protestants settled theirs. At best you can say is the two groups arrived at different conclusions, derived from debates held since the Fourth Century. As far as Psalms 40:6, look at verse 7. Just because the Jews numbered it differently, doesn’t mean that the verse isn’t in the Hebrew texts.
I wanted to bring this up about your first paragraph: In Canon 60 of the Council of Laodicea (which was actually 363-364, not 367), it lists Baruch as one of the Scriptures, one of the books which you would consider apocryphal. It is also the most questionable canon of the council, as it’s not found in early manuscripts. On the Fourth General Council of Chalcedon, which canon deals with the Canon of Scripture? I searched through it but could not find it. The Catholic Canon of Scripture was listed, 73 books, at the Councils of Rome (382), Hippo (393), and Carthage (397).
@@stephenkneller9318 Actually, I believe it was the Council of Florence (1438-1445) that first gave the list in the same form that we have it now. The prior listings could be confusing because some books were included with others under the same indication (the "writings" were not exactly given "titles" as we use them today. Remember that on the Cross, Jesus did not say "Psalm 22:1" but said "My God, My God, why have You forsaken Me", which would have been the way to indicate that Psalm, recalling the whole of it to His hearers.)
@@stephenkneller9318 I just showed that it was already officially established as early as 382. It was reaffirmed and infallibly declared at the Council of Trent in response to the Protestants removing books from Sacred Scripture. Don’t forget that the Eastern Orthodox also include the Deuterocanon in their Bibles, as do the Ethiopian and Oriental Orthodox Churches. You also didn’t address any of my points.
@ I do not deny that Florence did give a list of books. My point is that list of books did not become Rome’s biblical canon until Trent, after the Reformation. Again, look at Council of Laodicea (367 AD) and the Fourth General Council Chalcedon (451 AD) both provided lists of recognized books, including what are the 39 Old Testament Books, but not including any Apocryphal Books. But more pointedly to the point, Florence can be clearly shown not have solved the issue of Biblical canon for Rome by Roman contemporaries of Luther. Erasmus, who was producing a new Greek version of the Bible for Rome agreed with St. Jerome that the Apocryphal books should not be included as canon. Then there is Cardinal Jimenez of Spanish Inquisition fame. He was compiling his polyglot Bible. He too believed that the Apocryphal books were not canonical. And even Cardinal Cajetan, the papal legate at Augsburg arguing against Luther and the Reformers, held that the Apocryphal books should not be part of Rome’s biblical canon. If Florence settled this issue, these highly educated and greatly praised servants of Rome could not agree with Luther on biblical canon. Again, the book list of Florence was used as evidence, and was not part of the anathemas, therefore did not establish Roman biblical canon. That did not occur until after the Reformation at Trent.
The Church's mission is to spread the gospel and guard the deposit of faith, not explore scientific rabbit holes or chase down dark matter that doesn't exist.
Aren't you aware that the first person to propose the Big Bang Theory was a Belgian priest and MIT graduate named Georges Lemaitre? I think that's something to be proud of.
@ji8044 Big Bang cosmology has been facing serious problems since its inception. They have been escalating in depth and severity, but it's akin to "scientific heresy" to talk about the problems. A scientific theory that faces falsifying evidence should be changed or abandoned if the contra evidence gets high enough. The theory is immune to falsifying evidence. Therefore , it is pseudo science and an "a priori" philosophy and not true operational science.
Time gets funky when you consider Heaven vs Earth. However, it is entirely possible for God to grant the ability for a finite being (Mary) to hear a finite number of prayers, even if it's a large amount.
@@dhanteaguirre8508Right. Like, I can hear two requests at once. Someone else might be able to receive several. With help from devices, we can receive thousands. Who's to say what God will grant us in glory?
Can people speak languages they don't know or see the future? So are they omniscent, or is it a gift of the Holy Spirit? You are conflating things, and don't give glory to God for the people he chose to acquire the gifts he gives to help the body of Christ.
Friend, you must understand that creatures can do whatever God permits. Notice here how a creature John, hears the voices of every single creature in existence. How is this possible unless God permitted it via God's own omniscience and omnipotence? Revelation 5:13 ESV - 13 And I heard every creature in heaven and on earth and under the earth and in the sea, and all that is in them, saying, “To him who sits on the throne and to the Lamb be blessing and honor and glory and might forever and ever!”
I really love this guy and always recommend him but I don’t like the name of the channel. I know he is only being tongue in cheek but Popery is just not a good sounding word. Here in the UK it doesn’t go down well anyway…
13:18 the wine of her fornication... in Revelation we are told the whole world is drunk with her wine.... yes you will be "happier" .... till you realize your salvation was stolen from you cuz HE will come as a thief in the night to you.
That's quite wrong. The first "catholic church" was formed by Constantine at Nicea in 325. The Roman Catholic Church broke away from that church in around the 5th-6th Century, depending on who is counting what.
@@ji8044Can you show evidence of your claims? Acts 9:31 in Greek contains the phrase; ἐκκλησία καθ’ ὅλης or “ecclesia kath holos” which is translated to Church throughout. “Kath holos” is where we get the word “Catholic” in reference to the Church throughout the world, or the universal Church. Saint Ignatius of Antioch, a student of John the Apostle, used the phrase “Catholic Church” in his letter to the Smyrnaeans around 107-110 AD: “Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude [of the people] also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church.”
@@Ruudes1483 No, not at all ekklesia is not any kind of religious organization or building in Koine Greek. It's as assembly of people, so it could be equally applied to a Quaker meeting, a Jewish synagogue, or any public assembly. There were many versions of Christianity, all local bishoprics in nature, claiming to be the one true church for 300 years. Constantine created the first universal church at Nicea as only a Roman Emperor had the power to do. Antioch was a very powerful center, as was Alexandria, and Constantinople would later become in a few decades. In the 5th Century these, along with Rome, were divided up into the four patriarchies from which any Pope derives his title Patriarch of the West. Jerusalem was made a fifth patriarchy a century later. The head of the Greek Orthodox Church also retains his title of Patriarch until today
@@ji8044 What is an assembly of Christians generally called? What is “ἐκκλησία” generally translated as and what does it refer to in the New Testament?
@@ji8044 You claim there were many versions of Christianity. Which one of those do you consider the “True Christianity” and where does it subsist in the modern day?
It's funny, protestants reject papal infallibility (lead by the Holy Spirit) but are totally ok with their own assumed infallibility when interpreting scripture (lead by the Holy Spirit)
Which protestant denomination do you think considers their interpretation of scripture infallible??
@ where else do you get your interpretation of scripture if you reject the teachings of the Catholic church?
And if you follow that line of questioning to its logical end, the answer is always you get it from yourself.
So, all of them.
No? Usually Protestants don't think their interpretation is the only correct one. Usually they accept multiple interpretations of it especially when in a group or a bible study. Furthermore the majority of protestants believe that the majority of people in other denominations are saved. Which is different from Catholic dogma which holds there is no salvation outside the Catholic church.
@MultipleGrievance Ask any Protestant "How do you know you're saved?" They almost always say, "Because of the Holy Spirit." And then you ask, "Isnt it possible you may aspostatize years from now?" And they say, "No, because the Holy Spirit wouldn't let me"
almost all Calvinists claim infallible knowledge of their own future salvation
Because the Spirit is speaking directly to us.
Who knows what spirit is speaking to the so called pope.
Becoming Catholic this spring after being raised SDA and almost a decade of atheism. Coming back to Christianity was so hard because of all the competing claims that used the exact same rubric for finding truth and yet disagreed on really important things. The Catholic Church is a piece of Gold among coal.
Wow! Sounds like you must've had quite the journey. Welcome home!
Hopefully, I give you an encouraging bible reference... and hopefully you like it:
John 8 : 31-59 NRSVCE
Most probably the reason to that calling to the body of Christ ( John 15 & John 6).
You hear the truth calling to you.
God bless you on your journey. BTW, this is as good a time as any to announce that I've got an upcoming debate with an SDA apologist, Matt Morea, on the question of "soul sleep." Looks like it'll be January 16th @ 7pm CST on Answering Adventism's channel. Hope you have a chance to check it out!
@shamelesspopery star struck. Thanks for the reply! I’ll be tuning into the debate, the SDA or especially impervious to arguments from my experience. Hopefully it’s not the same for you!
@shamelesspopery Love what @Answering Adventism is doing, & praying for you and all your up coming debates and talks @Joe Heschmeyer and @Myles Christian of @Answering Adventism please do more together.
I'm a recent convert to Catholicism...lifelong Protestant.
Thank you Joe for what you do.. you have helped me a whole lot..I'm still learning
Welcome Home!❤😀🙏🏻We never stop learning!❤️
@elizabethking5523 thank you very much
Joe I just want you to know that I'm a Shameless Potpourri junky. I follow a lot of Catholic creators, but you have nailed the formula for laying out information in a really easy way to ingest. Keep up the great work! Regarding sex, I like to say that the act that creates humans should demand the same respect that actual humans deserves.
Haha junkie here as well. On the days he doesn’t post, I go back and rewatch previous episodes 😅
Thanks, junkies! I'm thrilled to hear it. I'm definitely in the "let's try this and see if it works" stage on a lot of this, so I love hearing when it does.
I learned a few things today!!!!
Specially in that section of the Catholic Church being Anti-science... yes, yes one sample with Galileo... I wondered in my science class if they said Mendel was Catholic... I think they just said monk???
Thanks for another great episode, Seamus Potpourri
😂
The 8th would probably be the all the misrepresentations of purgatory.
"you mean EARNING YOUR SALVATION!?!?" 😂
@@michaelbeauchamp22 That's one misrepresentation of purgatory, but there's also sometimes the idea that purgatory can be a place where people stay forever. Or the idea that you can go from purgatory to hell.
@@Svetty00Or the idea that you purgatory is just part of hell. There are lots of misconceptions to be sure
@@Svetty00I think you missed the most common one: purgatory is a second chance for people on their way to hell
@@michaelbeauchamp22 More like praying to earn others their salvation. Oh wait, that is biblical Jam 5:16 and Lk 16:1-9.
I went to a funeral today and I was struck by the absolute absurdity of claiming Catholics are not Christians. I was listening to the guest speakers giving their send off to this woman who had dedicated her life to forming the faith of others and asked myself "how could anyone say these people are not Christians?" It's heartbreaking.
Thank you for your witness! It's a sad falsehood.
Slightly similar, someone stopped me on the street the other day and said that if you don't speak in tounges you're not a true Christian. I asked what about some saints, and he basically said that mother Teresa wasn't a Christian and wasted her life
@@jacobfagan646 I will pray for that person. The Holy Spirit knows where to direct the prayer!
Yes, we say you aren't Christians -- but with REASONS to back it up, with a million pages on-line as we speak to explain why.
So be heartbroken all you want, but unless and until you examine the REASONS, your comment cannot be taken seriously.
@ThornyCrown-l5d oh I know the reasons. Don't think I've not engaged with Protestants. But hands down, those who think Catholics aren't Christians do not actually KNOW Catholics and their faith. They get their arguments from Ray Comfort and Mike Gendron and John MacArthur, never stopping to ask "is that REALLY what they believe?"
I asked that question and decided to let Catholics speak for themselves, not relying on anti-catholic pastors to tell me what they wanted me to think Catholics believed. But I was never anti-catholic, so I had that going for me.
I've been Catholic for 6 months now, after 33 years as an Episcopalian and 7 years attending a Baptist church.
Protestant here! Your videos have helped me to understand Catholicism for what it is and no longer hate it because of what I thought it was. I have realized that , although I disagree about a lot, I should give Catholicism the benefit of the doubt by virtue of the fact that it’s been around so long. Yet, the more I study..I come away with more questions than answers. No amount of information has convinced me of Catholicism but now I am skeptical of Protestantism too. Nothing feels certain anymore. I miss that security in my faith. Sometimes I regret ever learning church history.
**read a book by Peter Kreeft a while back. In it he somewhat dares the reader to go to adoration and ask Christ if he is there. Well, I did that today to put an end to this stalemate and nothing. Idk what I expected but I am disappointed.
I'm curious, what were you expecting to happen/experience when you went to the adoration chapel?
Wait for it. God heard your prayer. He will open your heart to His Presence in the Eucharist when it is *exactly* the right time -- sorry to be so presumptuous, but in my experience, no prayer has ever gone unanswered, even if it takes some days or months, or even years.
What I expect to happen for you is that little things will shift in your understanding and in your life, until you will look back on this day and say, "Oh! That's when it all began to become clear!"
You have heard the expression "Patience is a virtue"? Virtue comes from the word for strength. So it is "muscular", in a sense. Virtues need to be practiced, so that we can carry the heaviness of the Glory of Truth.
Anyway, don't give up! Please! (And my prayers are with you!)
I think my original response was deleted? It isn't showing up anymore beneath your comment. I was curious about what your expectations were for going into adoration? Or what were the reasons you thought it could "give you an answer" so to speak?
God’s agenda is different to ours & He responds at His time. Just as you can’t expect one dose of medicine to remedy a complaint, so one visit to Adoration won’t be sufficient to enter into dialogue with Him. Have patience!
@ I only did it because of a book I read by Peter Kreeft. I think it was called 40 reasons I am a catholic.
All I know is that he mentioned how reason can only get you so far, when trying to discern whether the Catholic Church is who she claims to be. In my case it hasn’t gotten me far at all. Anyway, he recommended going to adoration and praying for God to show you that he is there.
He didn’t say to expect anything in particular. And I wasn’t expecting anything specific. I just needed assurance about which way to go because I am not convinced of any church at this point.
“I suppose it’ll only be raining spiritually, only we’re too sinful to see it”😂very funny. Give that man his bride😅also reminds me of the Emperors clothes.
That little clip made me laugh as well!!!! I've never watched that movie... I have to review the video to watch for the title of the movie.... sounds like a funny movie.
@@richardcastro1276 Brideshead Revisited. Evelyn Waugh is a funny writer, although this is (on the whole) one of his more serious works. It's a masterpiece, although one that people either love or completely don't understand the appeal of.
Commenting to help this channel grow. You do such great work, Joe!
Joe, I have a friend at church who is a convert from the Baptist sect. When she married her husband in Arkansas in the 60s, her mother believed that the priests had to sleep with the bride on the night of the wedding before the husband could consummate the marriage. This is how Protestants in Arkansas believed that a priest could remain unmarried.
that is messed up.
yikes. Pretty sure that's an Arkansas issue, not generally a Protestant misconception 😅
What the sigma
YIKES.
Pre internet Arkansas was wild
Protestants like to cite Athanasius ‘ letter 39 on the canon of scripture. They fail to realize his canon also includes the Deuterocanon, and he called the scripture in other writings.
Actually alot of protestants who study and learn church history reference origen of Alexandria in regards to the Canon and what was considered the word of God and what was bunk.
Question, why add extra books to the old testament? Went don't the Jews recognize them? Why were they added AFTER luther as a response to Luther?
Why did the early father's not recognize more than the 66?
@ dank8613
I doubt that when Origen didn't include James, 2nd Peter, and 2nd and 3rd John in his list. He also listed Maccabees and Baruch as canon, and he called Wisdom the Word of God in his writing Contra Celsum.
The books weren't added to the canon. The canon was set at the Council of Rome (382) and Carthage (397). The Council of Trent reaffirmed what was settled at those councils.
@ dano8613
The Church Fathers had 3 lists: writings read during church, writings used for teaching, and Apocrypha. The first two were considered inspired. That is why Origen called Wisdom the Word of God. None of those writings were called Apocrypha.
The Jews during Jesus' time did not have a set canon. The Essene Jews considered those books as canonical as evidenced in the Dead Sea Scrolls.
@vtaylor21 lmfao he didn't consider maccabees Canon
@ dano8613
Is that the only one you can reply to after addressing all of your questions?!?!?
Yes, Origen did consider Maccabees canon. He also called the 2nd Maccabees scripture in de Principiis,” book II, chapter 1, paragraph 5.
You know I was really considering becoming Catholic until I found out there weren't sacred monkeys in the Vatican
😂
:'( how sad! But you could still cling to the time-travel-tv!
🙊
Yes... we dont have that.. so dont search for them, because ... uh... they arent real! Theres is also no secret banana deliveries..., and if there is it is not for any monkeys
I actually don't understand this reference, so I don't understand you insult. It sounds horrible and you are making fun of the body of Christ which is the Catholic Church, so I know it is not good - matter of fact it is evil.
We're anti-sects, not anti-sex
Anyone else enjoy how often the captions autocorrect“popery” to “potpourri”?
It could be worse. It could be _Shameless Patchouli._
Joe's work is a pleasing aroma unto the Lord ❤
Catholic Answers ought to sell "Shameless Potpourri" in the merch store.
@@nisonatic yes!!!! @ShamelessPopery please note!
@@nisonatic I do wonder if Joe or anyone on the team has thought about a candle, incense, or something relating to scent. Just think it’s a missed opportunity for “Shameless Popery” not to get in on the potpourri humor 😂
I’m kinda leaning towards a sweet but light scent. Like a hint of incense but not as strong, ya know. Maybe also vanilla for sweetness and lavender to keep pests away 😂
Excited for this, going to be very helpful for discussing the faith with my family.
Joe, loved the clips from Brideshead, a fantastic mini-series. My wife and I watch it at least once a year. Lawrence Olivier's deathbed seen always gets to me.
17:58 Just a note on statistical significance: a set of data is statistically significant if it's far enough outside the standard deviation of the mean on another set, meaning the gap might not be very big, but the chance of getting those numbers is much smaller if there was no difference between groups.
You could have two groups where one is only 1% higher than the other, but the standard deviation is so tight that it's still significant.
True! Although in this case, it's statistically significant because the gaps are sizeable.
@ Also true! But it wouldn't be less significant if religious people were only marginally happier, which is important to say regarding countries where those numbers are a little closer
the father of aviation and aeronautics is Fransico lana de terzi who in the 1600's figured out the basic principles of flight for both heavier than air and lighter than air flight. He also created an alphabet for the blind that was further developed by Braille
I love these videos. Im new to the podcast. Its fantastic!
Catholic: “we actually don’t worship Mary.”
Protestant: “yes you do.”
Catholicism does give Mary aspects which have no Biblical basis however such as perpetual virginity, lack of original sin, and the assumption.
@@ji8044There actually is a biblical basis for those beliefs. The issue is that you don't know what the term "biblical basis" even means
@@ji8044 Which of those constitutes worshipping Mary?
Many such cases
@@ji8044not when you read between the lines
My wife and I look forward to your podcasts and other media. Your lawyer background serves you well in the formation of your presentations. We frequently pause to explore points or ask each other questions. It has become a favorite time for us to share our faith and grow closer in our union. Thank you and God bless.
1. The Pope is Always Right 0:54
2. The Church is Anti-Sex 11:44
3. The church is anti-science 19:53
4. Catholics added book tocrhe Bible 26:40
5. Catholics worship Mary 31:05
6. Catholics worship idols 34:31
7. You save yourself through good works 37:32
But Jesus DID say you need good works, as all Jews of his time believed. Paul contradicted what Jesus taught. You can see the original belief in the Epistle of James.
@ why are you arguing with me? I just put up the time stamps
@@Stronghold511 I didn't think I was arguing with you actually.
@@ji8044 Paul doesn't contradict James.
@@StringofPearls55 He absolutely does, salvation by faith alone versus salvation by faith and works. You can find thousands of articles about this controversy in a google search.
Wow. I cant wait for the rest of this series. Thank you Dr. Pitre theres so much here that i never knew! Gonna go read up on your recommendations now 😁
Joe you are wrong, there has to be sacred monkeys because I spoke to another Catholic who spoke to a Nun, that spoke to a Bishop, that spoke to a Cardinal that spoke the one of the extraordinary ministers that spoke to their son’s altar server friend that said there are sacred monkeys in the Vatican.
Did the altar server friend hang around an antonymous friend who told them all that? 😂
Are you anti-Catholic? Or are you being sarcastic? Or are you saying some type of anti-Catholic joke?
Where do you stand?
Sometimes sarcastic commentaries add nothing to a conversation and sometimes they hurt people. Being that these topics attract both Catholics and anti-Catholics. I need to know so that I can respond better or just ignore you so as to not add woods to the fire.
🤣😂🤣
@@richardcastro1276maybe watch the entire video before responding weirdly to commenters who actually watched the entire video.
I think part of the problem is the church or whoever is behind not using their proper Church title when attributing honor to the scientific man and women of the church. No one knows these people have anything to do with the church. They should use their proper titles I don't know if it's that the church doesn't want to seem to prideful but I know this it would cause a lot of conversations in classrooms if they would just have their name complete with their titles listed when they have something to contribute to science or history. There was 30 some craters named after these men and women and nobody knows anything about them having any ties to the church. Wasted opportunity and no wonder people don't think the church and science goes together
I think it has more to do with secularists needing a separation. They would like for everyone to believe that only atheists are capable of scientific thought.
Thank you for explanation. I’ve so much to study and learn.
You’ve summed up my comment section, I think I’ll just send everyone here now!
Hi Joe, you never ask your viewers to like, comment and subscribe. I do all those things but would also like to donate. What's the best way to support monetarily? Keep up the great work - very grateful for your work.!
He has a Patreon linked in the description.
That's very kind of you! There are two ways: (1) if you're in a position to give a recurring donation, my patreon (shamelessjoe.com) is a fun community, and I do weekly Q&A for patrons; (2) you can also do a one-time gift through the "super thanks" button that (sometimes but not always, for reasons that elude me) appears at the bottom of the youtube videos. Either way, thank you!
It would be great if you could put this episode in book form. Deep dive into each myth!!! That would be great!!
With regards to sexuality, has anyone been to Florence or Rome? Naked statues and paintings are everywhere including in the Vatican. And these were made hundreds of years ago when societies in those parts of the world were more prudish.
When it comes to science or modern science, look at Bishop Grosseteste and Friar Roger Bacon. They are credited with the beginnings of the scientific method and the first science experiment over 800 years ago!
When Luther created his new religion, he took out any books which would refute with his new belief system.
1. Luther didn't create any new region.
2. Luther didn't take out any books. It wasn't him.
I don't have time to engage in a conversation about this, but pls, do your research.
@@Maranatha99Yes, Luther did create a religion, and he had not right to take away the seven books that had always existed since the Council of Hippo in the 3rd century.
The Sola Scriptura dogma in Protesnism never existed in the early church history and its fathers.
If it wasn't for Luther moving those seven books, the British printing press would have removed them. They were removed because Luther didn't consider them scripture.
@iam_stephanos why don't you get your facts straight?
Luther didn't like certain books, but he didn't remove them. It wasn't he who did it.
Sola Scriptura is in Scripture via internal evidence.
Luther didn't bring about any new doctrine. He just recovered the original teachings of Jesus & the apostles
@iam_stephanos there was never such a thing as "the British printing press".
Thank you for all your efforts to keep us from being chumps, believing "all sorts of things!"
I have read some of the comments below, and I do hope that those of us that did not listen all the way through, or did not listen with attentiveness, will let go of some of our chumpiness in the glorious recognition that God is giving us Grace upon Grace -- all is Grace!
Could you please do a video about Gregorian Chant?
What about it?
@@shamelesspopery I'm primarily interested in its history in the liturgy, and how the different modes and melodies reflect the time of year in the liturgical calendar.
@@shamelesspopery Well, starting with the fact that it exists, what it is and what is its meaning. You know, it's the official music of the Church. Sacred music for the sacred text in the sacred language of the sacred liturgy 😊 But then maybe just make a whole series on the liturgy...
@@damnedmadman Dr. Brant Pitre did an excellent series on the Liturgy. It's on Catholic Productions, and I think they've started posting it to RUclips.
Thank you, Joe
I enjoyed Sword of Honor. I should read more Evelyn Waugh. Thank you, Joe.
I love Brideshead Revisited, mentioned at about 2:30. Read the book and watched the series from 1981 about 3 times. Rex is a scoundrel 😂
...but a gullible, stupid scoundrel.
And Cordelia is precious!😅
So you must be careful to do everything they tell you. But do not do what they do, for they do not practice what they preach.
Matthew 23:3
I think this is a powerful quote on papal infalliblility.
Jesus says this regarding the chair of Moses, that the Pharisees were occupying.
He didn't say don't listen to them. He said quite the opposite, while pointing out their flaws.
Good stuff
Thanks Joe 🙏 🙏 🙏
Mr. Heschmeyer, what does worship consist of? What is it in it? What requirements must an action meet to be worship? Years ago, I attended charismatic Protestant services where other people said, "We worship you." That suggested thay thought they worshipped by saying, "We worship you." If Protestants don't know how to define worship, the activity, the don't knw whether Catolics worship, say, statues, Mary, or wafers, or wine.
Joe, I am a longtime follower of you. May I beg of you one request? You have a habit of ending many of your sentences by lowering your voice, talking 'into your chest', and running those last few words together as a mumble. Sometimes these are very important words to your point, and are words that I cannot fill-in by context. It drives my crazy because I really learn so much from your presentaions and do not want to miss anything.
In sum, please don't stop your valuable work; and please review your speaking style. Thanks!
On the bull with the Copts, Joe, it makes sense they affirm the same canon we do because the Copts are from the See of Alexandria, and only Rome and Alexandria accepted the Canon of Scripture formed by Pope Damasus and the members of the Synod of Rome of 382.
That statement ignores that the council of Rome in 382 was very small and not well attended synod as it conflicted with Constantinople. It also disregards the Councils of Carthage and Hippo that if the Pope were “Pope” and Damasus authoritatively created the canon in 382 wouldn’t even have occurred.
Dear Shameless, the Rex and priest scene is one of the funniest, most wonderful scenes that Waugh ever wrote. But we should remember that one of Waugh' underlying points is a repetition of Chesterton's (paraphrase), "if you believe in nothing, you will believe in anything." Further, Rex is a materialistic pragmatist - pragmatically applying William James notion of truth - "what is its cash value." Rex wants to marry a catholic - truth then is what is required to accomplish his goal - namely marring Julia. Rex is not just a thoughtless buffoon; he is something far worse. Thanks!
Wait! What? No sacred monkeys in the Vatican! Many thanks Joe!
“Don’t be a chump” J.H
😂
The 1560 Geneva Bible contains 80 books, plus the Apocrypha, for a total of 88 books. The 1599 version is the same.
Robert Aitken's Bible, published in 1782, was the first English language Bible shrunk down to 66 books.
The King James Version (KJV) was published in 1611 and included 80 books. Fourteen books were removed in 1885.
Joe, correct me if I am wrong. Pope Francis has never claimed to have spoken infallibly with any new doctrine, etc., during his entire papacy. If that’s true, I think that’s a compelling point to emphasize how rare and limited it is in Catholicism.
Thank you
The last time the pope spoke infallibility was 1950
Definitely will have to check out Brideshead Revisited.
An excellent book.
The Infallibility argument is frustrating because literally the point of the pope is to be the final say, the last interpreter. Sign or veto the bill. Infallibility of the pope is just an addendum of faith saying he can't and won't go back on it. God has a hand in every major decision the pope makes so we, and the pope, all have to take that on faith and move forward with how the world is changing.
"God has a hand in every major decision the pope makes so"
Did you see the video? Because that is exactly the opposite of what he says. The section starts at 0:49, the meat of the response is 3:00. If you could response to some of his arguments, I'd be interested.
I don't think you listened to the video on this issue or even a portion of what Joe talked about. On top of that, do you know how rare it is for the Pope to use this infallability? The Cathecism of the Catholic Church is our main guide. When you read it, it feels right.
“It feels right” it’s rare for the Pope to use infallibility. Sounds very Protestant. Makes sense though as the Pope was the first Protestant who replaced the authority of the Holy Spirit with his own unique and individual authority, which is exactly what the reformers did except they merely replaced the Pope who had already usurped that authority three or four hundred years prior by unilaterally and after the fact rejecting the Eighth Ecumenical Council in the 11th century and cemented his heresy with the sacking of Constantinople in 1204 by the fourth crusade the spoils of which decorate the Vatican and Venice to this day.
@@SaltShack , I am sorry that you do not understand what was said in the video.
Nor do you have a very good understanding of history. The sacking of Constantinople was done by already crusaders who had lost their original intention and deviated from their intended course in order to go into Constantinople. They were looking to be paid by a prince who was trying to take over the Empire. They were excommunicated and shamed. They kept whatever they took.
The Catholic Church has not rejected any of the Ecumenical Councils. Including the ones in the first millennium that formed the basis for the later reiteration of the Apostolic Teaching that the See of Peter has primacy and is prevented from ever teaching falsehoods.
But keep on studying. Clearly, you are being drawn to learn more!! I will be so happy when I meet you in Heaven!
@ Typical, misdirection, not dissimilar to the lies, obfuscation, forgeries and deception used to create the Papacy in the first place. Before you attack that statement understand that it is not disputed, not even by the Vatican. But the only reply your comments require is, Horses of St. Mark! Then read just a tiny bit about the eighth Oecumenical Council then the Roman Catholic Creed. The excommunication was for the attack on Zara in 1202 and was subsequently lifted. Classic papal nonsense, heads I win tales you lose. Seriously I hear people reiterating half truths and can’t help but wonder, was congress based on the Papacy? Rome surly acknowledges all,the Oecumenical Councils except the ones they unilaterally rejected 200 years after the fact, while at the same time suggesting inconsequential synods not well attended or ripe with corruption and controversy like the 382 Council of Rome and Florence respectively.
Let me return your kind suggestion, keep studying.
FINALLY!
I'd say "It's going to rain *somewhere*; maybe not where we or he thought, and certainly not *when* we might think.", thing is: prophesy is a very iffy concept at best; though when the old testament speaks of it: they mean something along the lines today of "you keep on treating your intimate partner as a means for satisfying yourself; and the *least* you're going to get is a really big fight." something along the lines of if you keep on acting up- do not expect peaceful interactions.
Something like that, not anything at all about what the weather will be, nor anything really else besides the most basic logical cases.
Galileo's treatment by the Church wasn't even about the Church claiming to be right about science. The Church didn't claim to be the authority on science. They just didn't want Galileo stating his theories as fact without sufficient evidence. The fact that Galileo was proven right in retrospect does not negate the fact that the evidence of the day was not on his side.
It was more about personal beef between Galileo and the Pope, who Galileo essentially called an idiot in one of his works.
Protestants think they have the Holy Spirit despite Christ clearly saying to his apostles that he would send it to them only because the world cannot receive it for they don't know it nor can see it. And he did send it to his apostles in Pentecost and gave them the authority to baptize in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. Even Simon the Mage wanted to pay the apostles to have the power to give the Holy Spirit! Isn't it abundantly clear that the Holy Spirit can only be received through Christ's apostles/priests in the Church? Despite, protestants reject the Church and its priests and still think that they have the Holy Spirit. 🤷♂
Hey Joe just wondering, would you ever debate an Eastern Orthodox Christian about the early Church?
I wonder if Joe can provide a list of papal defined infallible statements.
Protestants can provide no infallible definition of Protestantism, let alone Christianity. That is perfectly fine, but the problem arises when an individual Protestant demands that you conform to his personal interpretation. At that point that person is claiming to be infallible. This is the problem with Protestantism altogether. Each Protestant behaves as if he is the infallible Pope, yet each denies that he is behaving precisely as he is behaving.
@@stevedoetsch Good evening Steve,
Thanks for your reply. Your post doesn't address my question. Can you (or Joe) provide a list of Papal infallible statements?
38:05 I agree, the opposite is also true
And anyone can take that to
Revelation 14
Here is the patience of the saints: here are they that keep the commandments of God, and the faith of Jesus
19:25 _"there is never an unhappiness gap"_
I note Sweden is absent from the stats.
If Soviet Russia had been around and if North Korea had been polled, we might also have seen sth like that.
Hey Joe! I absolutely love your channel because you accurately, clearly, and concisely explain arguments and truths of the Faith.
However, I've been having a bit of an issue... Occasionally, I want to cite a study that you cite in a video that came out months ago. I typically don't write out what I'd need to find it and it can take a while to find by searching the relevant videos.
Since links in descriptions seem to be disincentived (from what I i know of RUclips), is there a central place that I could refer to to find these?
Failing that, im currently looking for a study that showed that modern young people have lost the language of good/evil in favor of like/dislike for a paper that argues for a causal argument to believe in God; we want to believe evil is real, evil requires good, good requires God. Therefore, we should believe that God exists. I remember seeing such a study cited by you (though i could be wrong. I'd blame Trent Horn if thats the case. He's the number two in this Niche on RUclips in my opinion).
That is a short list of his recent writings. He writes a lot... so another way of going about it is doing a search on Catholic Answers, but then you get all the writers and have to peruse each and find the verse that way as well.
Catholic Answers actually provides transcripts of all of my episodes over at www.catholic.com/audio/sp. So if it's something that I *said,* it should hopefully be there. On the other hand, if it was something that just appeared on the screen, I'm not sure. Do you remember what it was that you were looking for?
Sounds like a fascinating paper!
@@shamelesspoperyThanks! I will definitely check those.
It was not anything specific enough to know/find the source easily. It just showed that young people don't think in terms of good and evil and instead favor like and dislike. In essence, I want a citation to show that we are seeing the effects of relativism now. I could probably substitute pre-christian Rome for a similar result but that would make the argument appear to miss the mark for the modern world (in my opinion).
Sorry for the late reply, I had pre-cana yesterday, so I knew I didn't have time to work on it and Google had told me of the two non-shamelesspopery replies but not yours, so I didn't think it was time sensitive.
I found a different citation that works. Thanks!
It's Georges le May-tre. Think maitre-de.
Thank you! As any long-time listeners of this show know, I'm terrible with foreign talk.
Septuagint is the translation of the Old Testament that all New Testament authors quote from in the New Testament. And it has all these books JTWEB AND THE 2mcab’s
Judith Tobit wisdom Ecclesiastes Baruch first and second Maccabees
The pope is always right in his teaching authority, even when the teaching is non-definitive.
Yes, you are right -- in faith and morals, not the weather!
Which means, the pope has authority in matters of discipline as well as matters of doctrine. Disciplinary rules (as in "no meat on Fridays") are not "irreformable" -- disciplines can always be re-formed to be more nuanced (as in "do something to make every Friday a special remembrance of the Passion and Death of our Savior").
It does put the onus on US to listen to what the pope says, and apply our *intellects*. If something seems "off", WE have to dig a little deeper to find out what the pope actually said and what the context was, before we go opening our mouths in objections, thus displaying our ignorance.
If people followed your brief advice, there would be a lot less foolishness on display!
Is it scandalous to switch from one Catholic parish to the other because the priest did something questionable? I'll give the real-world example that, at my in-laws' former church, the priest told people you should only go to Mass on Saturday night if you have a job that only allows you to go at that time. This is nowhere in the Catechism. In fact, in 1983, the Code of Canon law says this:
"Can. 1248 §1. A person who assists at a Mass celebrated anywhere in a Catholic rite either on the feast day itself or in the evening of the preceding day satisfies the obligation of participating in the Mass."
My in-laws stayed at the parish for a while, sometimes going to another parish for Saturday evening. But then after a few months, the priest at their old church said that Saturday evening attendance was so low, that he was cancelling it and adding a 7:30 am Sunday Mass. I'm going to assume that either it's the priest's discretion to add/subtract a Mass, or that the priest got permission from the Bishop. But of course the attendance was low because he borderline told people (wrongly) that it's sinful to go to Saturday evening Mass without a good excuse. So my in-laws withdrew their parish membership and moved.
However, should they have stayed and done something to fight? Or were they justified in leaving?
1. Is it Scandalous to Switch Parishes?
No, it is not scandalous to switch from one parish to another for valid reasons, especially when one feels spiritually unsettled or misinformed by the actions or teachings of a priest. Catholics have the right to seek a parish where they feel they are being nourished in faith, properly catechized, and guided according to Church teaching. Switching parishes is not inherently sinful or scandalous-it can even be a prudent decision in cases like the one described.
The Code of Canon Law (Canon 515 §1) establishes that parishes are communities of the faithful under the care of a pastor, but it does not restrict Catholics to attending only their geographically assigned parish. As long as a Catholic is fulfilling their obligations to attend Mass, participate in the sacraments, and remain in communion with the Church, they are free to attend and register at a parish that best supports their spiritual growth.
2. The Priest’s Comment About Saturday Mass
The claim that attending Saturday evening Mass is only permissible for those who “have a good excuse” is incorrect and inconsistent with Church teaching. The Code of Canon Law (1983), as cited in your question, is clear:
"Can. 1248 §1. A person who assists at a Mass celebrated anywhere in a Catholic rite either on the feast day itself or in the evening of the preceding day satisfies the obligation of participating in the Mass."
The Church established the Saturday vigil to offer the faithful greater flexibility in fulfilling their Sunday obligation, recognizing the practical challenges of modern life. There is no requirement that Saturday Mass is limited to those who cannot attend on Sunday. A priest should not impose restrictions or moral judgments on parishioners that go beyond what the Church herself teaches.
While the priest may have misunderstood or intended to emphasize the sacredness of Sunday, his comment could easily cause confusion or unnecessary scruples among parishioners. This highlights the importance of careful and precise teaching from clergy.
3. Cancelling the Saturday Vigil
It is within the pastor’s discretion, with the bishop’s approval, to adjust the Mass schedule to meet the needs of the parish. If attendance at the Saturday vigil was consistently low, canceling it could be a practical decision. However, if the priest’s earlier teaching caused the low attendance, this raises concerns about pastoral judgment. Parishioners, including your in-laws, are not wrong to feel that their needs were not properly considered.
4. Should One Leave a Parish Over This?
Leaving a parish due to serious concerns about the priest’s pastoral decisions or teachings is not sinful, provided it is done thoughtfully and without undue animosity. Catholics are encouraged to address concerns directly with their pastor first (cf. Matthew 18:15-17). However, suppose a parishioner feels that the priest’s approach is consistently unhelpful, spiritually harmful, or doctrinally unsound. In that case, it is reasonable to seek another parish where they feel better supported in their faith.
5. Balancing Respect for Authority with Prudence
It’s important to balance respect for the priest’s authority with a proper understanding of Church teaching. Priests have a pastoral role, but they are not above error in personal opinions or decisions. Parishioners have the right-and the duty-to know their faith well and to discern when they need to protect their spiritual well-being.
6. Avoiding Division or Gossip
In situations like this, it’s crucial to avoid causing division or scandal through gossip or uncharitable behavior. If leaving a parish, it’s best to do so quietly, without spreading rumors or negativity about the priest or the parish. Instead, seek a community where your faith can grow and thrive.
Ultimately
Your in-laws acted within their rights as Catholics to move to a different parish, especially given their concerns about the priest’s teachings on Saturday vigil Mass. Their decision was not scandalous but reflected their desire to align with Church teaching and find spiritual nourishment. This situation also underscores the importance of priests providing accurate catechesis and avoiding personal opinions that might confuse or mislead the faithful.
If similar situations arise, they can be addressed by speaking charitably with the priest, seeking clarification, and, if necessary, appealing to the bishop for further guidance. Ultimately, the goal is to remain faithful to Christ and His Church while fostering unity and charity.
@@MalleusEcclesiae I did not expect such a long response. Thanks for the clarification. They did bring up concerns to priest and stayed for a while to see if things would change. And they changed for the worse. I guess where this might become scandalous is if one were to become a church hopper, not having a home parish/tithe, but switching churches whenever the priest says something difficult.
20:50 Given the amount of Evangelicals who support ICR, AiG and CMI, one would hardly pretend they are overall ant-science either, for being YEC.
You certainly have a point; for an external critic, the Galileo affair would be a very absurd reason to reject Catholicism.
Chesterton pointed out Galileo is always the go-to, meaning there is very little other go-to. Just as for Protestants, Alexander VI is a very given go-to, meaning there are very few other go-tos.
However, for a Catholic believing infallibility, it's different.
We cannot afford to say "the infallible magisterium once was not just fallible, but actually wrong" ...
What do I mean when I say that the judgement on Galileo is magisterium, it's not a bull like Cantate Domino? ... well, lets put it like this, if Galileo's errors which he abjured, we are not bound to reject them, neither are we bound to reject the erroneous reading Fr. Feeney made on Cantate Domino. Galileo and Feeney were sentenced in the same form. The difference is actually in favour of Feeneyism, though that doesn't mean Feeneyism is right.
Galileo reconciled to the Church immediately, and he did so by abjuring exactly the two theses that had been condemned.
Feeney, on the other hand, seems to, when he eventually two papacies (on your count) later reconciled to "Paul VI" (as you would call him), have pronounced simply a submission to the Pope (the wrong one, I'd say), and also the Quicumque vult ... I happen to know this from back when Charles A. Coulombe had a site. No, not the scientist of electromagnetics, the guy who wrote on Rum and on Papal Zuaves.
So, you could possibly wiggle out of this by saying "the scope of infallibility is restricted to faith and morals, and this is science, so outside its scope" ... no, for two reasons:
1) the more general one is that faith and morals do have overlapping areas with science and applied science, you would not agree that Pius XI could not condemn Eugenics on the specious ground that "that is applied science, not faith and morals" when Pius XI specifically said to various secular régimes in 1930, Casti Connubii, that it _is_ morals, and also reminded Nazis of this and other issues in 1937 in a paragraph of Mit brennender Sorge, likewise, if the Church judges on Joshua 10 or on cosmology, we can at least presume it's about the faith;
2) and the 1633 judgement called the two theses, for one heretical in faith, as well as absurd in philosophy, and for the other at least erroneous in faith, as well as absurd in philosophy. So, the Church _did_ say it falls under faith.
You could say "what about philosophy?" Well, St. Paul judges on philosophy. In Roman 1 he states Aristotle knows God from Geocentrism. See John of Damascus, see Thomas Aquinas. In Colossians 2:8 he is primarily speaking of Judaising tendencies, but as illustration condemns atomism, i e the ideas of Democritus, Epicure and Lucretius. The Church may not have the wherewithals to infallibly decide every philosophical question, but certainly to decide those where one side is not just philosophically false, but also opposed to faith and morals as well. A wherewithal that would clearly seem to have come to use in 1633.
Joe please
Do a video about how and why you know that the Trinity know the future. I’m using Trinity in the plural sense but
I think one could use it in a singular sense- Jean Herve Nicholas wrote a great explanation of from one to triune God.
The Trinity dates to Augustine in his seminal work "De Trinitate" written sometime around 400. It's not the first promotion of this pagan idea, but it's the one which had the most lasting effect. As Jews, Jesus, his disciples, and even Paul would have found the idea abhorrent and blasphemy.
@@ji8044 what do you make of Isaiah 48:16 where Lord God, me , and spirit and their respective begetting and procession are all named?
Draw near to me, hear this:
from the beginning I have not spoken in secret,
from the time it came to be I have been there.”
And now the Lord God has sent me and his Spirit.
In fact, as I read it, Isaiah 40-55 repeatedly speaks of a triune God? In my opinion, the notion of a triune God founds firmly in biblical verse. See pg. 15 of The Divine Armory of Holy Scripture by Kenelm Vaughn.
However, the point of my post was to ask Joe to speak to the notion of a timeless God who knows the future. In his book The End of the Timeless God, Mullins suggests that we must abandon the models for God that are not time-bounded. I think of the Trinity as timeless for several reasons which I'm willing to share if anyone is interested.
@@michaelcollins9698 The author of Isaiah says directly over and over again that the servant is Israel. But Christians insist he says the opposite.
“Listen to this, you descendants of Jacob,
you who are called by the name of Israel
and come from the line of Judah,
you who take oaths in the name of the Lord
and invoke the God of Israel-
but not in truth or righteousness- Isaiah 48:1
How about clown masses, liturgical dances, novus ordo liturgical abuses, charismatic movement, etc? I am new to chatolicism, comeing from orthodoxy , and im very confused with what i'm seing...
Can you do a critique on Richard Rohr and his new book, The Tears of Things. He's being read by many protestants who don't have the theological tools to discern him properly. Is he off the reservation?
Yes, he is "out there." Not all that he says can be just taken in without a lot of grains of salt. You are right to say that "theological tools" are needed to "discern him properly."
That said, I am not sure that Mr. Heschmeyer's podcast is the place for a critique on Richard Rohr? Perhaps Catholic Answers?
Trent horn called out Richard before more need to
I love your channel, Joe, and how you explain things, even though I consider myself a secularist. If you read this message, could you explain why a large majority of scientists and even philosophers are atheists or agnostics? Wouldn’t this at least suggest that there is an aspect of Christianity or Catholicism that is anti-science, causing many to turn away from it given those stats? Or maybe I’m wrong, and the majority are actually Christian. If so, I would love to see some stats. Thanks.
I think it depends on the area of science, in determining just how "faith-filled" the broad group known as "scientists" is.
What comes up when I googled the question was a 2009 Pew Research survey of members of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, said that 51% of all scientists believe in a higher power. Note that this is a group that would likely suffer from the perception that science and religion are mutually exclusive. The cause for the survey being taken was that President Obama had put forward a Bible-believer as head of the National Institutes of Health, and much was made of his belief in the possibility of miracles. (He was confirmed by the Senate.)
In this survey, the greatest number of believers were in the youngest set and in the area of chemistry. The greatest number of non-respondents was in the cosmology area. (Rumor has it that admitting to religious belief can lead to lose of teaching positions on the university level.)
Hope this is helpful. (I would also make a personal observation: every scientist who believes that there are scientific facts, that there is logic to the universe, that reason can be brought to bear on tested observations to develop rules for the understanding of the whole shebang, has to believe -- at least in some rudimentary way -- that the universe is logical. Steven Hawking, who believed himself to be an atheist, posited that before the universe was, there were rules underlying the creation of matter. He could not imagine the philosophical and theological concept of "Nothing." There had to be Reason first.)
Wow, could that passage to the galatians be refering to the burial shroud imprinted with the image of Christ?
Some have suggested that. But I personally think it is more likely to be a reference to the Eucharistic Body of the Resurrected Jesus -- which is displayed at every Mass and Divine Liturgy ("Mass" is referring to the Eucharistic Worship in the Latin rite, since the word comes into English from the Latin dismissal. "Divine Liturgy" is the proper term for Eastern Catholic and Orthodox celebrations of the Eucharist.)
Remember that the first Christian "feast days" were Sundays, when the first Christians obeyed Jesus's command to "Do THIS in Remembrance of Me." A Remembrance ceremony in the Jewish tradition was a re-enactment that brought the people into the moment they were "remembering" -- for example, at the Passover Meal, the family would say "God brought US out of Egypt, that land of slavery", making their own the act of God's mercy. So, too, the early Christians (and the Church today) are "present" at the cross of Calvary and the Empty Tomb when they attend the Sacrifice of the Eucharist.
"Faking it at Fatima"
(2015 piece)
Misconception?
7:10 Not something one needs to hold as a Christian. Something one has to hold as a Roman.
For example, Rome, for some reason, decided to wait 19 1/2 centuries before telling her people they must believe in the assumption of St. Mary as an article of faith, or they are outside the Roman tradition. It makes one wonder, if the Magisterium is the deposit of faith, as claimed by Rome, why did it take so long to tell believers that this was required for salvation? Or did Rome just change and add this requirement?
wait a second here.... was the number "7" chosen on purpose?
42:37 I don't, simply because I know HE gave us HIStory in advance so that we may believe.
I was actually surprised to learn at my TLM marriage prep class that the man is obligated to make his wife orgasm by any means if he fails to do so in the act as she is entitled to one in every encounter as well.
Myth 2 got BTFO'd
Couldn't Catholics also have a higher birth rate because of their position on contraception?
What was the movie the clips were from?
Brideshead Revisited.
@shamelesspopery awesome. Thank you
Don’t watch the movie from 2008 (I think). Watch the 1981 miniseries with Jeremy Irons. It’s so good. Joe’s clip was from that series
You can hear John Geilgud read the entire book on RUclips audiobook.
@@alhilford2345 thank you! I think I will!
Could you do a piece on the view that some people have that Paul ‘invented’ Christianity? Like the story goes that Jesus existed and was a teacher and was executed but the resurrection and all the ‘God stuff’ is a later story made up and laid over top and all the formal church founding and moral components were invented and promulgated by Paul, a man who never met Jesus? I have a family member who holds this view. I know they have read a variety of books, but the only title I can recall is Reza Aslan’s book Zealot. I think the idea might be from there?
Edit: Puctuation
Huh, that's a new one. I've run across a few people, albeit online, that insist Paul preaches a different gospel than the Gospels. I wonder if that concept is related to what you're speaking about?
Yes, Paul invented Christianity, but he didn't mean to. Paul expected an imminent end of the world, so he had no plans to start a new religion. However after the first generation of believers had died, there was a realization that apocalyptic timeline was wrong
@@ji8044 , well, that is an interesting thought. It flies in the face of all that we know of history and the first century, but it is clearly something that a few people have found intriguing.
Are you one of them?
@@susand3668 What I wrote IS history. Perhaps all you know of that time is from Catholic theology?
You can take either side in the debate and be correct. Jesus and Paul if they came back today would certainly be shocked at what has been created in their name.
@@ji8044 Hello there! Can I ask when you were first made aware of the position you now hold that Paul invented Christianity? If it was a book or video would you mind sharing the title/author?
Thank you! Awesome video... it will be a lightining rod for those separated brethen - they will come here... not watch the video and start with arguments not covered in the video. If the say a comment not in video... don't engage... otherwise they will come up with everything.
1) Added to this I think of John 8 : 31-59.... This is to help people discern who are the True Disciples of Jesus ( NRSVCE). It basically talks about heretics as well... and who is behind those thoughts.
2) Anti-sex - UK research and world research, very interesting!
This is so heavily tainted by television and movies which you mentioned. Our hearts are getting fed on Sundays!
3) Anti-Science - Galileo! Thank you for all those examples of consecrated religious from the Catholic Church being scientific pioneers.
The Contras We Here All the Time
===========================
4) Books added to the bible - wrong! Wayback in the 3rd century established which books were part of the bible = 73 books to the 15th century... placed in back of the book. In 1820's deleted to save on printing only by separated brethren.
5) Virgin Mary - prayer and worship are not the same thing - nice summary, brings it down to easy to understand. Which also bible interpretation is also not worship... which I believe some Protestants think they are doing. Same as asking for money over and over again because of false promises by a pastor is also not worshipping (which not judging, just pointing out). At Sunday mass priests just barely mention money collection.
6) Idols = not religious images. Thanks for references regarding this topic. I will go over verses and councils. This one we get absolutely hammered with day and night... even their newest congregants are taught to repeat this over and over again. Here is my typical defense on that one. Really, all I know is the Catholic Church has hundreds of saints that prayed in front os statues and they made it to heaven. And then I give them my evidence of two typical miracles that heaven sends us, physically as proof:
A) some saints received stigmata, clear signs they received messages from God.
B) some saints, blesseds are left here on earth with uncorruptible bodies and not decaying, but rather smelling like flowers.
These are just two miracles. There is also one modern one of the group of Catholic priests that survived the atomic bomb dropped in Hiroshima during WW2; they also did not get radiation poisoning. Clearly these priests prayed in front of statues, prayed the rosary and received Holy Communion. What an incredible miracle!! Only God could do that!
7) You Save Yourself Through Good Works. No!!! Even I know that one
.... in my daily consecration prayer to Divine Mercy says completely the opposite (prayer via St. Therese of Liseaux). My daily total consecration prayer to Jesus through Mary also says the opposite of that accusation. (from 33 Days to Morning Glory book) At death, I will arrive with nothing. I have done works, but they do not belong to me - they are consecrated to the Lord. Living in the Divine Will might be slightly different... don't understand that one yet... but still shared...??
There is only one Field of the MASTER. The wheat has none else to fly to on account of finding there are tares sown in amongst them. Stay Home and contend for the Faith. We are to humble ourselves under GOD's mighty hand, and HE will lift us up in due time. We must do what we have been given now, and be given more later, and not venture to sacrifice without the Samuel who is testing us, seeming to act late, nor reach out to steady the sacred ark of the Covenant for which only others are anointed to take matters in hand, even when we see the ark about to fall off the cart.
That idol, Jerry!!!
This video appears to be incorrect on Papal infallibility. Like the vast majority of comments I've seen about this issue, it focuses on what statements of the Pope are infallible without an understanding of what infallibility means. I always see people do what this video does, bring up ex cathedra with respect to infallibility with the implication that if the Pope isn't speaking infallibly that means you don't have to believe what he says. I saw this a LOT when Pope Francis said that all religions lead to God. That's not what infallibility means.
From Vatican I under Chapter 3 of the First Dogmatic Constitution of the Church of Christ:
Wherefore we teach and declare that, by divine ordinance, the Roman Church possesses a pre-eminence of ordinary power over every other Church, and that this jurisdictional power of the Roman Pontiff is both episcopal and immediate. Both clergy and faithful, of whatever rite and dignity, both singly and collectively, are bound to submit to this power by the duty of hierarchical subordination and true obedience, and this not only in matters concerning faith and morals, but also in those which regard the discipline and government of the Church throughout the world.
Elsewhere in the document, it says that the Pope's ex cathedra teachings are irreformable. Here you can see that thiis is not actually the determining factor on which statements Catholics are bound to obey. On that matter, it says that you as a Catholic must submit to the Pope in matters of faith and morals REGARDLESS of whether he is speaking ex cathedra or not.
This means that all you Catholics who were upset about the Pope saying Hinduism and Islam are equally as valid as the "one true church" are required to believe that whether you like it or not. All his not speaking infallibly means is that his statement isn't irreformable - it can be changed later. But unless and until it is changed, you are bound by it.
Excuse me, Patrick, but as you point out, there is a technical meaning for "infallibility", which is -- strictly speaking -- when the pope speaks authoritatively from the Chair of Peter. Strictly speaking, you are correct in your reading that infallible statements are "irreformable."
At other times, the pope's words are "indefectible." Which means that they are without defect, but can be further explained and refined and interpreted. *But they are to be accepted with religious consent of the will even though they are not strictly speaking "infallible".* We do not get to pick and choose.
Which means that we have to actually listen with our intelligence engaged. The pope is not going to say something that is against the Teachings of the Catholic Church. And if it seems like he is, then there is a misunderstanding, and it is up to the faithful to discover where they have gone wrong in their interpretation of what he said.
Your example of the remarks that Pope Francis made when he was invited to address some youth in an anti-Christian country, who were going to dialogue with one another openly -- when he said that all religions were paths to the One True God -- was such a time. There is nothing wrong with encouraging people to learn more about one another's religions, especially where the Christian message is legally limited. Inter-religious dialogue in such a place and time is a way for the few Christians to get a hearing. It is a matter of evangelization. Just as St. Paul opened with an acceptance of the religious nature of the Athenians, Pope Francis opened the inter-religious dialogue with an acceptance of where the majority was.
These other religions are truly paths that lead towards God. You and I know these paths are limited, and will not get the people all the way. But God Himself has spoken to ALL His people, as St Paul muses in the first chapters of Romans.
The pope *never* said that "... Hinduism and Islam are equally as valid as the 'one true church'..."
You have done a wonderful job of researching so far. Please, don'tlet anyone stop you from continuing to study!!
Honest question: how do you match evolution and the big bang theory to the creation story in Genesis? It clearly states that God spoke things into being individually over 7 days. Is it possible he used an explosion? I guess, but the wording of Genesis doesn't really point to that. It is "let there be light, and there was light." Nothing about creating light from what was around.
And we also have specific dates and ages of everyone from Adam to Jesus. The idea that the earth is billions of years old seems to contradict Genesis and the geneology in Matthew.
I honestly want to know your thoughts on this. How do you explain billions of years when we literally have the years and ages given to us starting from creation?
The Big Bang theory is actually from Catholic monks studying the stars. The beauty of Genesis lies not in its description of physical cosmology but in its revelation of God as the Creator of all things, who brings order and purpose to the world.
Short answer, the scientific worldview has a HUGE HUGE unproven assumption.
The assumption is called Uniformitarianism. Its the idea that from the first moment of the Big Bang, that there was an uninterrupted period of time for the laws of physics to unfold.
I am unaware of how a God believing Christian can accept this assumption knowing that our God exists, a God who can and does intervene in creation.
The thing about the dates listed in Genesis is that they can be read to not mean actual 24 hrs, or a full rotation of the Earth around its axis. The Sun and Moon were not created right away, and it is the Sun that we use to distinguish a day length. Otherwise the Earth is just spinning around and around with no discernible time marker.
So “days” in the context of Genesis operate as a conceptual way to divide out the process of God’s creation process. The specific numbering also comes from deep religious significance. 3 is often associated with completeness, 7 for perfection, 12 for the Tribes of Israel, 14 for great perfection, etc.
On a side note, I heard an apologist (maybe Jimmy Akin, as he likes to talk about space stuff) throw out a theory on why “7” is a number for perfection. A long time ago, when humans were first developing, they often relied on natural phenomena and forces for daily living. Part of this included watching the sky during the day and night, of course with only the naked eye, with the sky usually being likened to ‘the heavens.’ We know the Sun and the Moon are important sky objects, and another thing the ancient people noticed is “wandering stars” in the night sky, which were called planets. There are 5 planets that we can see with the naked eye (within reason, of course): Mercury, Venus, Mars, Jupiter, and Saturn. Combined altogether we get 7, and since the objects are located in the sky which is analogous to heaven, it’s theorized 7 became the number for perfection cause nothing can be greater than the heavens and if the heavens had 7 main objects showing in the sky, then that must be a pretty good number.
Okay, so back to the point. There are phrases and ideas in the Bible which can be taken metaphorically or symbolically, and not literally. A common one is Jesus mentioning how the mustard seed is the smallest of all seeds, but botanists nowadays can list off way tinier seeds. But, during Jesus’s time, people’s understanding of the world was limited so in their daily life, the mustard seed was the tiniest seed. So how can we reconcile Jesus’s meaning about the tiniest seed when we now know it actually isn’t? For 1) we keep the context and the culture of the area in mind, 2) understand what spiritual point Jesus was making, and 3) realize Jesus was not giving a botany lesson nor was he expected to rattle off every scientific theory or understand that ever will be. Time and place and knowledge are something we can’t ignore when considering what the Bible is saying.
Ages of people in the Bible can also be more symbolic in nature than an actual amount to calculate with. For one, people during that time didn’t keep track of specific days to mark their births, often using references to external factors to figure out their age. Even some places in the Middle East and Africa, I believe, don’t pin down exact dates but more of a general time period. Like in the Spring after X harvest or when so-and-so was the leader. There’s also a thing about calendars, where the Julian calendar was a common and popular time measuring tool during the Roman empire, but was phased out when Pope Gregory came out with the more accurate Gregorian calendar.
So we shouldn’t think the people of the Bible had as many calendars or date significances as we do. They would of course care about dates as far as religious ceremonies and celebrations, harvests, animals, fishing, sailing, hunting, etc. but not for things line their birthdays or knowing exactly how old someone is.
@@johnr5808 The scientific worldview has a major unproven assumption which is incompatible with a God believing Christian.
The scientific worldview holds that once the Big Bang occured, no supernatural intervention has occured which might affect for example, the speed of light, or the duration between the Big Bang the formation of the earth.
A God believing Christian believes in a supernatural diety that can and has intervened in time and space. And therfore, he cannot assume without divine revelation that 13.8billion years have gone by without any intervention by God which might affect the age of the universe.
@@johnr5808 The scientific worldview has a major unproven assumption which is incompatible with a God believing Christian.
How far back can you trace the men you place your faith in?
If you are a Christian, which is unclear, you may want to question any belief that cannot be traced all the way back to Jesus himself. I for one would have a hard time giving up my life, my beliefs, for anything that could not be traced
all the way back, that far. Would seem silly. But since I can, it makes all the sense in the world. Protestantism does not.
My reply to Rex in that is that you *cannot* truly sign a labor contract validly if you have NO idea at all what will be asked of you; in fact, any boss at all, including and *especially* God who'd ask you to sign so that you can find out what's entailed is either fully incompetent, or utterly evil: either way: bolt kiddo; do not return, as it is automatically a raw deal... that's kind of the tactics of the devil itself.
It doesn't work as a state's attorney in a law court, but it *does* work exactly like a mafia don- and like the mafia; it really does believe all the teachings of Christ, via Catholicism, but in a degree that no one-nature-human can imagine; thing is: it uses them to do harm! It is really a fatal mistake about your foe to figure it's arrogant, but what it absolutely *is* is sadistic!
Do not just buy into things, yes, be engaged in critical thinking; Christ wrote us to have reason *for a reason*; not so we could suspend our minds and go along with whatever His agents may say- doing that removes us from the ability to serve, really at all, and certainly competently, and there's NO possibility of the Uncaused Cause being *that* inept at designing His colleagues!
Look I know you are trying to be funny about talking about Rex... at the end of video...
But it just took on some loopy joke you are trying to say... anyways... I then find... oh wait he is trying really hard to say like a joke in here?
So even listening to the whole video... still don't know how your joke is???
Sorry but tell me a shorter, simpler joke because I spent time thinking about you write up... it is gibberish right?
@@richardcastro1276 I was quite sincere and serious; if a man signs a labor contract without knowing the conditions of the deal, he's completely unfit to be able to consent.
Protestants believe in infallibility they just don't know it. Example...Jesus is God, this is an infallible truth and if you are Christian you must speak this as infallible truth.
32:18 .... I guess ill type the rest...
JOHN 4:21-22
21 Jesus saith unto her, Woman, believe me, the hour cometh, when ye shall neither in this mountain, nor yet at Jerusalem, worship the Father.
22 Ye worship ye know not what: we know what we worship: for salvation is of the Jews.
Did Joe leave out spending pertinent to the myth he was covering?
@IG88AAA yes very much so seeing as how it is not a myth ... the actual words and context of what he is trying to justify is wrong so much so that it goes against what Jesus clearly taught and trades HIS words for "church authority"
@ That verse was quoted in the context of praying to the saints is worship of the saints. He clearly showed that worship and praying are not necessarily the same thing. Worship was done in Jerusalem, while praying could be done anywhere.
What about the following two verses rebut this?
@@IG88AAA a catholic must obey the catechism correct? Key words here being "church" "worship" and "Christian"
II. DEVOTION TO THE BLESSED VIRGIN
971 "All generations will call me blessed": "The Church's devotion to the Blessed Virgin is intrinsic to Christian worship."513 The Church rightly honors "the Blessed Virgin with special devotion. From the most ancient times the Blessed Virgin has been honored with the title of 'Mother of God,' to whose protection the faithful fly in all their dangers and needs.... This very special devotion ... differs essentially from the adoration which is given to the incarnate Word and equally to the Father and the Holy Spirit, and greatly fosters this adoration."514 The liturgical feasts dedicated to the Mother of God and Marian prayer, such as the rosary, an "epitome of the whole Gospel," express this devotion to the Virgin Mary.515
@@IG88AAAcan a catholic go against the catechism?
Which is the highest form of worship a catholic can give GOD?
Must this be done in a catholic church with administration of transformed Bread and Wine by priest?
If yes, than how is this honoring what Jesus said about worshiping in Jerusalem (obviously in the temple) as to catholics having to be ina church (temple) to worship GOD?
Is it simply because Petra was "given the keys" or just plain tradition that confirms this?
It genuinely goes against what Jesus said.
Fun.
27:00 It would have been nice if you mention that the councils of Council of Laodicea (367 AD) and the Fourth General Council Chalcedon (451 AD) both provided lists of recognized books, including what are the 39 Old Testament Books, but not including any Apocryphal Books.
As we move into the Middle Ages, the Catholic Encyclopedia says:
“In the Latin Church, all through the Middle Ages we find evidence of hesitation about the character of the deuterocanonicals.”
And:
“Few are found to unequivocally acknowledge their canonicity.”
That is a Roman source mind you.
But the Council of Florence you say! It is true that the Council of Florence did provide a book list including the Apocryphal Books in 1442. Shouldn’t this had already settled the the issues in Rome between the canonical books of the Old Testament and the ecclesiastical books of the Apocrypha?
The fact that even at the start of the Reformation, Erasmus, Cardinal Jimenez, and Cardinal Cajetan held the same distinctions as Luther and the other Reformers between these books, proves Florence did not make its book list canon like you attempt to say.
This is because the anathema attached to Florence’s book list has nothing to do with the list itself. Florence used the book list as evidence against the heresy of the Manichees, who held the Old Testament God was different from the New Testament God. It is they, and other anti-Trinitarian heretics who are anathematized for their beliefs, not their lack of use of this book list. This is how Erasmus, Cardinal Jimenez, and Cardinal Cajetan could hold the same distinction between the 39 canonical Old Testament Books and the Apocrypha as Luther and the Reformers did, and the Protestants still do to this day.
When one looks at the Medieval church, we find a variety of biblical canon exists throughout the Roman tradition. While St. Jerome’s translation of the vulgate did bring a better consistency to Roman biblical canon, it did not settle the issue. For example, around the Twelfth Century, Bibles, sometimes referred to as “Atlantic Bibles”, were presented to monasteries throughout Italy with most not including the Apocrypha. Also, while St. Jerome did add Apocryphal Books to his Vulgate as he was told to do despite arguing they shouldn’t be included as canon, he did not include Baruch or the Letter of Jeremiah. These were added to the Vulgate starting sometime in the Ninth Century. The Paris Bibles in the Thirteen Century included 3rd and 4th Esdras. So we can see that though there are Biblical lists, there is not a universal consistency in Bibles.
It was not until Trent, decades after the start of the Reformation, and over a decade after Luther’s German Bible, which did include the Apocrypha, that Rome finally settled her biblical canon.
Your characterization that Protestants removed seven books from the Bible is just as terrible as the argument Rome added books. As seen above, Rome didn’t settle her biblical canon until after the Protestants settled theirs. At best you can say is the two groups arrived at different conclusions, derived from debates held since the Fourth Century.
As far as Psalms 40:6, look at verse 7. Just because the Jews numbered it differently, doesn’t mean that the verse isn’t in the Hebrew texts.
I wanted to bring this up about your first paragraph:
In Canon 60 of the Council of Laodicea (which was actually 363-364, not 367), it lists Baruch as one of the Scriptures, one of the books which you would consider apocryphal. It is also the most questionable canon of the council, as it’s not found in early manuscripts.
On the Fourth General Council of Chalcedon, which canon deals with the Canon of Scripture? I searched through it but could not find it.
The Catholic Canon of Scripture was listed, 73 books, at the Councils of Rome (382), Hippo (393), and Carthage (397).
@ Yet Roman biblical canon was not officially established until the Council of Trent, after the Reformation.
@@stephenkneller9318 Actually, I believe it was the Council of Florence (1438-1445) that first gave the list in the same form that we have it now. The prior listings could be confusing because some books were included with others under the same indication (the "writings" were not exactly given "titles" as we use them today. Remember that on the Cross, Jesus did not say "Psalm 22:1" but said "My God, My God, why have You forsaken Me", which would have been the way to indicate that Psalm, recalling the whole of it to His hearers.)
@@stephenkneller9318 I just showed that it was already officially established as early as 382. It was reaffirmed and infallibly declared at the Council of Trent in response to the Protestants removing books from Sacred Scripture.
Don’t forget that the Eastern Orthodox also include the Deuterocanon in their Bibles, as do the Ethiopian and Oriental Orthodox Churches.
You also didn’t address any of my points.
@ I do not deny that Florence did give a list of books. My point is that list of books did not become Rome’s biblical canon until Trent, after the Reformation. Again, look at Council of Laodicea (367 AD) and the Fourth General Council Chalcedon (451 AD) both provided lists of recognized books, including what are the 39 Old Testament Books, but not including any Apocryphal Books.
But more pointedly to the point, Florence can be clearly shown not have solved the issue of Biblical canon for Rome by Roman contemporaries of Luther. Erasmus, who was producing a new Greek version of the Bible for Rome agreed with St. Jerome that the Apocryphal books should not be included as canon. Then there is Cardinal Jimenez of Spanish Inquisition fame. He was compiling his polyglot Bible. He too believed that the Apocryphal books were not canonical. And even Cardinal Cajetan, the papal legate at Augsburg arguing against Luther and the Reformers, held that the Apocryphal books should not be part of Rome’s biblical canon. If Florence settled this issue, these highly educated and greatly praised servants of Rome could not agree with Luther on biblical canon. Again, the book list of Florence was used as evidence, and was not part of the anathemas, therefore did not establish Roman biblical canon. That did not occur until after the Reformation at Trent.
Seven myths about the Novus Ordo.
1) The Pope is always right.
The truth: the Pope is right when the shoe fits.
The Church's mission is to spread the gospel and guard the deposit of faith, not explore scientific rabbit holes or chase down dark matter that doesn't exist.
Aren't you aware that the first person to propose the Big Bang Theory was a Belgian priest and MIT graduate named Georges Lemaitre? I think that's something to be proud of.
@ji8044 Big Bang cosmology has been facing serious problems since its inception. They have been escalating in depth and severity, but it's akin to "scientific heresy" to talk about the problems. A scientific theory that faces falsifying evidence should be changed or abandoned if the contra evidence gets high enough. The theory is immune to falsifying evidence. Therefore , it is pseudo science and an "a priori" philosophy and not true operational science.
@@michaeloakland4665
You know what really IS pseudo-science? "Creation science".
@ji8044 In your opinion, who are the strongest Catholic voices for creation science (the strongest arguments), and why do their arguments fail?
@@michaeloakland4665 There are no strong arguments for creation science. That's why few if any actual scientists are involved.
33:43 that was 1 person and 1 angel having a conversation.
Can Mary hear prayers from all over the world, at once? Like God can? Curious about that
Time gets funky when you consider Heaven vs Earth. However, it is entirely possible for God to grant the ability for a finite being (Mary) to hear a finite number of prayers, even if it's a large amount.
@@dhanteaguirre8508Right. Like, I can hear two requests at once. Someone else might be able to receive several. With help from devices, we can receive thousands. Who's to say what God will grant us in glory?
Can people speak languages they don't know or see the future? So are they omniscent, or is it a gift of the Holy Spirit?
You are conflating things, and don't give glory to God for the people he chose to acquire the gifts he gives to help the body of Christ.
Friend, you must understand that creatures can do whatever God permits.
Notice here how a creature John, hears the voices of every single creature in existence. How is this possible unless God permitted it via God's own omniscience and omnipotence?
Revelation 5:13 ESV - 13 And I heard every creature in heaven and on earth and under the earth and in the sea, and all that is in them, saying,
“To him who sits on the throne and to the Lamb
be blessing and honor and glory and might forever and ever!”
@@alisterrebelo9013 Well said!!
Anyone who has a hint of intelligence should know the difference between infallibility and impeccability.!😅😅
You also forgot who owns Hollywood and why they make those types of movies
Paris is not the first university. Bologna U was started before 1100! Still Catholic😊
🎉
All in favor of Joe getting a tonsure hairdo…
👇
I really love this guy and always recommend him but I don’t like the name of the channel. I know he is only being tongue in cheek but Popery is just not a good sounding word. Here in the UK it doesn’t go down well anyway…
13:18 the wine of her fornication... in Revelation we are told the whole world is drunk with her wine.... yes you will be "happier" .... till you realize your salvation was stolen from you cuz HE will come as a thief in the night to you.
2:11 maybe not, but that is pope-splaining
Joe is talking about the Catholic church.
Mis informed protestants focus on the "Roman" Catholic church (which doesn't exist😂)
That's quite wrong. The first "catholic church" was formed by Constantine at Nicea in 325. The Roman Catholic Church broke away from that church in around the 5th-6th Century, depending on who is counting what.
@@ji8044Can you show evidence of your claims?
Acts 9:31 in Greek contains the phrase; ἐκκλησία καθ’ ὅλης or “ecclesia kath holos” which is translated to Church throughout. “Kath holos” is where we get the word “Catholic” in reference to the Church throughout the world, or the universal Church.
Saint Ignatius of Antioch, a student of John the Apostle, used the phrase “Catholic Church” in his letter to the Smyrnaeans around 107-110 AD:
“Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude [of the people] also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church.”
@@Ruudes1483 No, not at all ekklesia is not any kind of religious organization or building in Koine Greek. It's as assembly of people, so it could be equally applied to a Quaker meeting, a Jewish synagogue, or any public assembly.
There were many versions of Christianity, all local bishoprics in nature, claiming to be the one true church for 300 years. Constantine created the first universal church at Nicea as only a Roman Emperor had the power to do. Antioch was a very powerful center, as was Alexandria, and Constantinople would later become in a few decades. In the 5th Century these, along with Rome, were divided up into the four patriarchies from which any Pope derives his title Patriarch of the West. Jerusalem was made a fifth patriarchy a century later.
The head of the Greek Orthodox Church also retains his title of Patriarch until today
@@ji8044 What is an assembly of Christians generally called? What is “ἐκκλησία” generally translated as and what does it refer to in the New Testament?
@@ji8044 You claim there were many versions of Christianity. Which one of those do you consider the “True Christianity” and where does it subsist in the modern day?