Catholic Church vs Protestant (The Topic Protestants fear Most)
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 12 сен 2024
- Catholic Church vs Protestant (The Topic Protestants fear most). In this video, we will be talking about the topic that Protestants fear the most when speaking to Catholics. They don't understand this topic and have a difficult time accepting it and the ramifications.
SUPPORT OUR WORK! (DEFEND THE FAITH!!)
Monthly: / catholictruth
Monthly, periodically, or one time: catholictruth....
APOLOGETICS TRAININGS:
Would you like 1-on-1 Apologetics training with Bryan? Or would you like a chance to ask questions, get advice, or find direction? Contact Catholic Truth: info@theCatholicTruth.org
FOLLOW CATHOLIC TRUTH:
- Catholic Truth FAMILY (Advice on Love, Dating, Engagement, Marriage and Kids) / @catholictruthfamily
- Podcast: www.buzzsprout...
- Twitter: / catholictruth7
- TikTok: / thecatholictruth
- Instagram: Catholic_Truth_Official
- Facebook Page: / catholictruth.org
- Facebook Group Page: / catholictruthct
- Pinterest: / catholictruth
- Rumble: rumble.com/use...
- Blog: thecatholictru...
MERCH: catholictruth....
QUESTIONS? Ask us here: www.subscribep...
BOOK: "Counterfeit Spirituality: Exposing the False Gods:"
- Our Sunday Visitor: bit.ly/3vtK63Z
- Amazon: amzn.to/3e1BqMk
BOOK: "WHY Do You Believe In GOD?" amzn.to/2S1Dadb
**Need an in-person or online retreat? catholictruth.org
Related Searches: catholic protestant, catholic and protestant history
Music Credit: http//www.bensound.comroyalty-free-music
Catholic Questions for Protestants. ruclips.net/video/fksK6b_5Iiw/видео.html
List of Catholic "inventions" debunked! ruclips.net/video/e0lZgBwFtuE/видео.html
John MacArthur debunked. ruclips.net/video/Ab62JUjJTJ8/видео.html
After being a Protestant for more than 50 years I came to the conclusion that Protestantism is the absence of the Church, it is Christianity without the Body of Christ. I became Catholic less than a year ago.
Jónatas, Praise God!! And very true. They separated themselves from the body but don't realize it. So glad God brought you back home. Welcome home!
Jaflen, We don't allow long pre written comments that have nothing to do with the video. This will be deleted. Feel free to watch the video and comment on it though.
Welcome back home brother in Christ
Converti-me em Católico recentemente também, pelas mesmas razões.
🎉❤ welcome home
I’m a Protestant and have no problem or fear talking to Catholics about this.
There are many people who might not fear it, they also certainly. Don't understand it. That's good though that you wouldn't shy away from it.
@@CatholicTruthOfficial I personally do understand history. What I don’t understand is why people fear or misunderstand it. God bless.
@@CatholicTruthOfficial I absolutely understand it...I am versed in Council of Trent and where the Bible came from.
@InscoesAdventures I think Protestants have focused so much on the Bible that they forgotten to study anything else. Mini don't know history at all, and if they do their religion only started 20 years ago, 100 years ago, 500 years ago. So they don't have a very long history to study.
If no catholic no bible. If no bible no protestants. But 1 Timothy 3:14-15 (NET) I hope to come to you soon, but I am writing these instructions to you
in case I am delayed, to let you know how people ought to conduct themselves in the household of God, because it is the church of the living God, the support and bulwark of the truth. And Matthew 16:18-19 (NET) And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overpower it.
I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth will have been bound in heaven, and whatever you release on earth will have been released in heaven.” who has the full authority to interprete? The catholic church. Not the protestant in modern time the writer or book maker has to make a permission if somebody used your bra maestra for business.
Bryan, my mother is 80 yrs old. Has been a devout Catholic since her 20's. My sisters have recently talked her out of being Catholic. She now believes the Devil is in the Catholic church. They are giving her things from Proclaiming the Gospel by Mike Gendron. Please pray for her. Her name is Carolyn.
You NEED to step up! I will be praying for you and your family but you must act. Idk how educated you are in the faith but please learn and learn quick. Your mother’s soul is at risk and so is your sister’s soul. This is a really scary situation and I’m going through something similar. God bless you and your family!✝️
@@peterzinya1 I don’t think leading people out of the church founded my Jesus is a good thing.
@@peterzinya1 Peter, Peter, your fruits are not the fruits of the Holy Spirit.
"But the fruits of the Spirit are love, joy, peace, forbearance, kindness, goodness, faithfulness,gentleness and self-control." - Gal 5:22-23
Your mother believes in Christ. That is all God asks us to do in John 3:16 so be at peace.
They are deceiving her. She doesn't deserve that! My prayers for her, for you and the conversion of your protestant sisters.
I recently debated this with a Oneness Pentecostal, he started to remark how we had “extra books”, I quickly corrected him that he has some missing books. 🤷🏻♂️
You debated a heretic?
Why was he worrying about the number of books when he can't read?
@@danvankouwenberg7234 oneness Pentecostalism are a wacky bunch.
I had a similar debate with a 7th day Adventist. They were charging us with adding to the Bible and changing the sabbath.... he asked for it.
Martin Luther was a catholic monk, and was involved in separating the Apocrypha....so actually it was the "church" that started that action. How ironic Regardless, Jesus didn't speak of them, and there is no doctrine associated with them.
I’m married to a Catholic, and am converting from agnostic/atheist. I don’t understand the feud, both groups are Christians. Pray for me and my conversion, so I can leave some of my bad ways behind and be saved.
Thank you for your questions. We will definitely pray for you.
The feud is because we believe Jesus (God) started the Catholic Church and that it's the only Church that is 2000 years old. Protestants broke away from the Catholic Church in 1517A.D. There were some corrupt people in the Catholic Church at the time and Luther left with others. They thought the the Church couldn't be fixed or reformed but they were wrong. Protestants brike away and immediately fouhgt with each other which is why there are thousands of them now.
Jesus said he would be with his church until the end of time and that he would guide his church despite any people whooght be corrupt. There will always be good and bad people in any institution. But God guides it. Hope that helps.
They believe some Christian things, but they also believe some protestant things, which are against the teachings of Christ. They're chasing the True Church of Christ, just as Paul chased the Christians.
Paul was a true believer of God, but he was wrong in chasing Jesus' Church. Just like Paul, protestants should drop the protestantism and become Christians
You should read a couple of Books.
1.) Patrick Madrid, "Surprised by the Truth"
2.) Steve Ray, "Upon this Rock, St. Peter and the Primacy of Rome in Scripture and the Early Church".
This will tell you what you need to know and more. It will allow you to defend your Faith and explain why other churches are in error. Steve Ray was an anticatholic and his book is the result of his research and helped him convert after he finally understood the Authority of the Catholic Church.
@@CatholicTruthOfficial Not to divide the body of Christ, but isn't that a bit of an unfair characterization? Luther very much wanted to reform the church - hence the name "Reformation". However, that wasn't possible; it was martyrdom or the path he chose.
@@Dave00147 Luther had to follow the teaching of Jesus. You can find those in the book compiled by the Catholic Church you would know as Bible.
If we go to Matthew 18:15-17 you can check what the steps on following Jesus.
First, if your brother sins, point the fault yourself. If he doesn't listen, take a couple more people with you. If he still doesn't hear you, take it to the Church.
Luther followed the steps of Christ, because he thought he was right. When he got to the Church, the Church corrected him (because he was wrong, his interpretation of the Bible was incorrect).
Then, between hearing Christ, who give authority to His Church; or hearing himself and his wrong interpretation; he chose the latter and was considered by the Church as a pagan or a tax collector.
He went on, and form his own church, on his own authority, and that church doesn't have the authority of Christ to say what's right or wrong.
If you think Protestants fear this topic, you need to upgrade your group of Protestants.
As you saw from the video, even protestants at the highest level either don't want to deal with this topic or do gymnastics surround it to try to deal with the ramifications.
@@CatholicTruthOfficial That's is not true..this is merely where you think you can play "Gatcha". Whenever Protestants bring up Mary, then Catholics say no no no we don't worship her but then proceed to bow and pray to her. Makes no sense.
@@edalbanese6310like u never made sense to ur father when u were born no hard feeling
@@chiomaogbonna7533 Man the vile, hate, the belittling I get from Catholics is insane. We can attack each other with arguments but defending the church with such passion and hate toward others makes me think you are part of a cult than anything else. God can defend Himself does not need your fallen you (or me)
Truth!
A protestant family member of mine, who couldn't believe I would ever want to become Catholic, dropped all dialog when I asked him "How do you know Matthew wrote Matthew?" That question from Madrid to White is a simple truth that just shuts down the argument, it only goes south from there for them, and he knew it. My relative has since (in the last week) actually reached out and asked about Catholic Eschatology... I reminded them that the EFCA, from which their church takes it statement of faith, removed pre-millennialism from their doctrine of faith. They didn't even know, and yet again, they got nervous and changed the subject. I believe God is calling them and I have to give thanks to God and you, as well as other apologist for such thoughtful content, it has been pivotal for myself and now, apparently my family.
God bless you sir, your family and your crew at Catholic Truth.
Great job. Keep up the good work!
I miss the good ol' days when I was in the Catholic Church, and before I became Protestant. Hey, Brian, got those Bible verses you use, to prove the truth of the Catholic Church?
Say a prayer, I'm doing the same
@@CatholicTruthOfficial The Bible is HOLY, INNERANT, and INFALLIBLE because an Infallible Church COMPILED all the Books in the Bible.
@@robertlight3012 Who compiled the Bible and defined what is inspired and what is not?
Did the church give us the bible or did the bible give us the church?
The Catholic church made the Bible
@@andreeattieh2963 how so?
@@mikehartley9352 the Bible didn't just fall out of the sky you know it was made by the early Christians who compiled the new testament to the old testament
These early Christians were Catholics because what they believed mirror what the Catholic church teaches today
@@mikehartley9352look for history, it will show you how.
Watch the video again and again listening very, very carefully about what Bryan is saying. Especially the part about the early Christians (who, by the way called themselves Catholic in 108AD).
I once debated a Protestant on this issue and he simply said the canon was evident to the Fathers and early Christians. But as you said, Brian, this was not the case. In fact, the OT, priests, and deacons were the primary authority in the early Church. The NT was not primary, not even the sole authority. Evangelical Protestants also fear talking about Confession. John 20.21-23 is a difficult one for them to wrap their heads around!
Gospel John chap.6 is a no go area.
@@tonyeloo7199 Yes, they are fundamentalists until John 6 comes into play.
Then you must have gone to some place where they are just new in their faith or didn't know anything about it. Scripture shows us time and time again we confess our sins to God. John 20:21-23 is talking about when someone sins against us like lies, steals, etc. Their sin still needs to be forgiven by God, the only one who can forgive sins fully. John wasn't talking about going to some priest sitting in a closet. he key to understanding the meaning of John 20:23 lies in the previous two verses: “Again Jesus said, ‘Peace be with you! As the Father has sent me, I am sending you.’ And with that he breathed on them and said, ‘Receive the Holy Spirit.’” He sent them, as He is sending us, to bring the good news of the way to salvation and heaven to the whole world. Jesus was leaving the earth physically but promised God would be with them in the person of the Holy Spirit living in them. As they proclaimed the gospel, they could honestly tell people who believed in that message that their sins were forgiven, and they could honestly tell people that did not believe in the message that their sins were not forgiven and that they stand condemned in God’s eyes. “Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life, but whoever rejects the Son will not see life, for God’s wrath remains on him” (John 3:36).
@@seanpermann5570 I was actually debating a non-denominational pastor. Your interpretation of John 20 is a clear example of Protestant isogesis. You are reading 16th century theology into the text. The text is plural. He does not say “God forgives” or “God retains”, but rather, “If YOU forgive” and “if YOU retain”. Jesus is granting His own authority to absolve sins to the apostles. After all, He is sending them in the same fashion that He Himself was sent. Did Jesus merely talk about forgiveness? No! He actually forgave. He exercised the power to forgive sins in the human capacity and gave such authority to men (Matt. 9.6-8). The nature of the ministry of reconciliation is to forgive and to retain. It’s like if I have two kids and big brother hits little brother and I say to little brother “Forgive your brother”. I’m not saying “tell your brother he has been forgiven”, nor am I telling him to appeal to His brother to repent and ask God for forgiveness. I’m instructing Him to perform an action. In the same way, Jesus’ priests don’t simply tell people if they’ve been forgiven (no one could know that anyways, unless by divine revelation); they themselves absolve sins in the same fashion Jesus did: with a word. Please consider what I’ve said. God Bless!
There was not a church in the Old Testament
I love how some protestants think we made up the deuterocanon yet the jewish holiday of hanukkah is found in macabees. Youd think theyd be trying to convince jews that we made that holiday up for them.
I make this point, too....
@Sheilamarie2 Funny how it all relates. Protestants typically don't think about it beyond a talking point of their pastor. Jesus didn't quote it, no critical doctrines found there, the jews didn't have it in their final Canon, it's all easily refuted and anti historical. None of them give us credit for the new testament either... it is frustrating.
There is a difference between history vs inspired. The writings of the apocrypha are history, but are not considered inspired by the Jews who wrote it, whom God entrusted His oracles (Romans 3:2).
They dont aware if they made up their denomination,and they using bible that canon by Catholic church and th3n they attack Catholic church .
@@floraricemamul9979 The canon was written by the Jewish people (Romans 3:2). They wrote the 7 books of the apocrypha which were books on history, but never approved them as inspired canon. The Protestant Old Testament books that are accepted, matches the books by the Jewish people that are accepted.
I'm debating and studying hard as a former Protestant, I can predict their rebuddle, I just led homeboy to admit He's a predestinationist.
I'm trying to show my pops all this.
He's in a prosperity cult.
Say a prayer for me because this is not my Forte, God bless
You're in the right place to learn! Other favorite channels of mine are How to be Christian and Keith Nester. Their channels, like Bryan's, pack a lot of info into short videos.
Repent, my friend, and come back to Christ.
@@peterzinya1 arent u tired of your same old tired PROTEST-ant vomit?
@@peterzinya1
You know this for a fact and not just bearing false witness?
You will also learn heaps from Michael Lofton at Reason&Theology! Michael is an excellent philosopher and theologian. God bless.
I'm pretty sure Jesus made it clear about the importance of works. He spoke very clearly about us doing the Will of the Father,or not doing it, and the consequences of each. That's a very strong indication that what we do,or don't do, is important regarding whether or not we get to Heaven. We SHOW our faith in our behavior.
Agree. But Paul came along and turned over that apple cart.
@@nosuchthing8 Please be more specific.
I don't understand how anything Jesus said could be considered an applecart.
@@cynthiamatthews Jesus was asked what was required to get to paradise.
He told the rich man keep the commandments and sell his belongings and give it to the poor.
Works.
Paul's response was to claim that faith was all that was required.
Reconcile that with the words of Jesus. Please read the Gospel according to St. Matthew Chapter 25.
I’m one of those former hard-core Reformed Protestants - even went to RC Sproul’s annual “Ligonier” conference in 2017 - “the 500th Anniversary of the Reformation.” The inconsistencies and lack of depth in the foundations of sincere Protestant faith made it untenable for me. An objective look at the foundations of “Sola Scriptura” left me in a major crisis of faith. Graciously, the Lord replaced that false foundation with a more precious one - a clearer and more profound confidence in the grace and mercy of Christ without the intellectual baggage of the theological gymnastics required to fit Sola Scriptura and Sola Fide into historic Christianity.
Among many other problems, Sola Scriptura, and its accompanying principle of “individual interpretation,” presuppose universal literacy and routine access to the full canon, both of which were unimaginable to people who lived in the first century. Sola Scriptura also requires a point in time in which it became the standard, because it certainly wasn’t the standard in the time of the OT, and the NT texts weren’t even completed in their original forms until the very end of the first century. The first 70 years (modest estimate) of Christian evangelization occurred before anything resembling the complete NT canon could have been assembled, yet we believe that the Apostles and their successors accurately and authoritatively taught what Christ commanded them to teach. The logic leaps and historical gaps of Sola Scriptura - and the fact that you can’t get use the Bible Alone to justify Sola Scriptura - make it untenable.
I find Sola Scriptura a man-centered, ego-stroking doctrine that allows its proponents to put words in God’s mouth, leading to using Holy Scripture to justify every doctrinal error and abominable sin imaginable.
Sola Scriptura is a tradition of men.
@@gw7579 but very enticing. It appeals to individual independence. The heart naturally revolts against being submissive to an authority, bit that is where true freedom lies.
William, well said. Thank you so much for sharing. Praise God!
@@CatholicTruthOfficial How does the church universal (Catholic) reach out to protestants?… one soul at a time. To me, there seems to be something going on. Many protestants are questioning their faith like never before. I see this happening today more so than 10 years ago. Thank you for what you do in making these videos.
@@gw7579 - "To the law and the prophets, if they don't speak according to this word it is because there is no light in them" (Isaiah 8:20)
"All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for [ a]instruction in righteousness, etc."
2 Timothy 3:16-17
If scripture is inspired by God then sola scriptura is a given by God Himself.
While other literature can enhance our understanding of scripture anything that contradicts scripture should be rejected. Scripture is the final authority.
Did Martin Luther and company have the authority to determine which books should be (or should not be) in the Bible?
Nope!
He wanted to burn James, cursed, and read the Bible on the toilet
No man or group of men has the authority to prescribe or dictate which books are inspired, which books are breathed out by God.
This is what i always tell protestant, "Who gave Martin Luther the authority to pick and chose what's canonical and not?", they don't have any answer for this.
@@ungas024 he didnt
I’ve watched hundreds of hours of debates between Protestant pastors from different denominations go against a Catholic Priest on RUclips and I found that these so called Protestant Bible experts do not all fully read into the scriptures, flip words around, have their own interpretations, and are very good at talking going in circles in an attempt to not let the Priest argue back! I do want to note that there are 30 minute time limits and a ref.
It’s hard to argue against the truth lol
I'm not Catholic, but I agree. I think it was Jung (no friend of Christianity) who said that the eventual outcome of Protestants is that everyone would become his own church. Some Protestant theologians are very well studied while others got their divinity certificate by paying $20.
That’s a very long winded way of saying the priests can’t defend their own points
The Catholics sold salvation and sainthood...indulgences
Thats ironic as everything you believe is refuted in the Bible or outright heresy. From believing Mary was sinless and praying to her or to the dead, to purgatory, to needing to eat crackers to be saved, to needing to confess your sins every time you sin to an equally sinful man in a cubicle and that you are in an endless paranoid battle to earn your salvation like a game of hot potato, when the Bible says believe on the Lord Jesus Christ to be saved. You throw away Jesus and his teachings so you can replace it with your ritualistic heresy.
I like the diplomatic and high minded way you discuss these issue. Very inspiring.
Catholic Questions for Protestants. ruclips.net/video/fksK6b_5Iiw/видео.html
And you think Jesus is with Pope Francis right now? Pope Francis is a mockery of Jesus Christ, Apostles, and the Holy Church. Why don't you make a video trying to explain Trans baptism? Stop attacking protestants and look at your own religion
@@Olc...Why are you trolling Catholic videos slandering God?
@southernlady1109 Why don't you try to answer the question I asked in my post?
@@Olc... Maybe because we can all see that your question is not a sincere one, and that you're only here to start arguments.
@@anng.4542 of course, why answer
This is good! I debated an Evangelical, I brought up John 6:53 and the following verses on Jesus saying to eat his flesh and drink his blood. She told me it was symbolic (even tough Jesus was very clear), then I asked "if it were symbolic why did most of his followers leave him?" Of course no answer, she changed the subject to another straw-man argument.
👍👍
Great! So if you understand the Cup of the New Testament is His blood then you Know you can't add your works to it!
Excellent response. A protestant told me they are not carnivorous.....they are so ignorant.
@iTs Spiritual Jesus Christ teaches the bread, WHEN BLESSED "IS My Body ". Fallible Protestants add the words Symbol and represents to the words of Jesus Christ! Jesus Christ is the new passover Lamb to be consumed for our salvation! Peace always in Jesus Christ our Great and Kind God and Savior, He whose Flesh is true food and Blood true drink
@@itsspiritual8645 there was nothing symbolic about it!
Every other time when Jesus taught and it wasn’t understood He further explained what He meant YET in John 6 Our Lord does no such thing in fact He doubles down several times repeating that we are to eat His flesh and drink His blood.
In fact He didn’t even say eat - the correct translation of the Greek word is ‘gnaw’
Fortunately the Apostles were not Protestant. Because whitout any scriptures, they would have had nothing to preach and Christianity would not have been born.
You can’t have God as your Father
Without out the church as your mother
Yes you absolutely can. To say otherwise would be putting limitations on our Almighty GOD!
@@Ginger_H God made the church
No limits calling the church our mother
That doesn't really mean anything
@@maskedmarvel are u Protestant?
@@Ginger_HYou're missing the point of the comment and it's meaning.
Even Geisler & Turek admitted in their book “I Don’t Have Enough Faith…” that the canon was OFFICIALLY defined at the Councils of Rome & Carthage.
And that's saying something for them to admit it.
And Frank Turek also explicitly explains salvation, grace and justification, which he contrasts against Catholicism rather than with it. This was not a very wise comparison, my friend.
@@markmeyer4532 um. Pretty much was. That just shows that all Protestants trust the authority of the Catholic Church to bring them the Bible.
@@markmeyer4532 Nice try, my friend. But I fail to see how Turek’s views on justification refutes the facts about his statement on the canon of the Bible. Help me out here please.
@@markmeyer4532 yeah so he's in an idiotic ambivalent position
Protestants should use their energy to teach about Jesus to Muslims, Judaism, buddhism, atheism etc. Catholics are the true Christians, so they should not waste their time with us trying to "convince us to accept Jesus" or trying to destroy our church, 2023 years have passed an no one has been able to destroy it.
Sorry I think you added when you should have subtracted.
It is 1,990 years old.
Although a nice idea I wouldn't want Muslims.... to get the wrong information about Christianity.
It is only certain denominations that go after other Christians, it isn't only Catholics. When they don't have Catholics, they beat on Anglicans and Lutherans for _being too Catholic_ When they can't beat on them, they go after other Denominations until they are attacking their own denomination but a different church down the road for not believing as they do.
Protestants should do what they claim to do and read the Bible and not simply accept a guy's opinion on what the Bible says because he went to college for four years and opened a church.
Uhhh the devil are not interested in them the devil uses his protestants disciples to take souls out of the true church where outside of it there is not salvation
Actually, there are several Protestants that do missionary work with Jews and Muslims.
@@fernandoalarcon8534 I think the point is they could reach more by allocating those who are trying to convert Christians to Christianity to converting non-Christians.
I agree
It better we set aside our differences and embrace each other. The main thing is we are serving God faithfully.
I think it's OK if we talk about our differences, but in a loving and respectful way, while focusing on what we have in common as well.
@@CatholicTruthOfficial Totally agree, but let’s not forget the real battle in front us and that is the whole world system is trying to eliminate Christians, it doesn’t matter weather you’re catholic or Protestant.
100%. It's worse than ever for those who hate God and Christianity. We recently did a video on moral absolute relativism talking about just this.
@@CatholicTruthOfficialanother Christ 😢
Different Gospel actually
LOVE IT! Keep it up Mr Brian!
To quote Ferris from How To Be Christian, Protestantism is a Build a Bear religion
I call it Burger King theology: Have it YOUR Way.
Lol. Very true.
LOL!
Why did the Catholic Church put the Bible together . Who told them which books to put in it ?
@@ThatGuy-nr5sp google it… it’s a bit more complex than can be answered on comments… the answer is there.. If you go to google, type your question then add Catholic Answers to the end of the question..
The Canon was defined before the Roman catholic church was formed. Stop lying
Prove it. We will wait.
Such an amazing video channel! Thank you sir!!!!!
You are very welcome!
Your shirt should say "only one truth Jesus Christ!"
He is the truth! But he started the Catholic Church.
@@CatholicTruthOfficial I don't see that in the bible.
@@mathewm1418but there are a lot of things you can't read in the Bible to though?
@@CatholicTruthOfficial if you ask the people incarcerated in prison what their religion is, most of them are catholic, why? tell me
@@mathewm1418I don’t see the holy trinity in the Bible, but yet as Christian’s we firmly believe in it
The “protestants” claim they know the infallible word of God. However I have turned my Bible upside down and backwards, leafed through the pages and I read the “Word” of Christ Jesus that Jesus himself established one Church, Mat16:18-19, And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven." What I don’t read is that God gave Luther, Zwingli or Calvin and their successors the authority to be their own authority and walk away from Jesus like Judas did in the Bread of Life Discourse.
The King James Bible is Perfect! Jesus Christ loves you! Read John. Read Numbers 5.
@@MichaelAChristian1 The King James Bible is merely a translation. There is no translation that is perfect. John 6:53-55 Jesus said to them, Amen, amen, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood you have no life in you. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him on the last day. For MY Flesh is TRUE food and My Blood is TRUE drink.
@@MichaelAChristian1 ?
@@MichaelAChristian1 you're wrong, your people are not special to God, God did not give your language a special perfect translation, the King James is objectively bad, and most importantly it's not spanish, or arabic, or any other language that is not english!
@Mi at just curious, do you know who king James was? And why do you have a Bible with a Bi sexaul kings name on it?
I am a protestant. My faith is in Christ alone. No pope, no saint, no college of cardinals, no church father, no priest can speak for Jesus better than his word. The OT/NT might have been formed by the early church councils, but the teaching of the RCC cannot,be reconciled with the complete counsel of the Word.
But they can properly interpret Christ's Word. As opposed to the 10s of 1000s of denominations that all contradict each other. The Catholic Church is the only one that has kept God's words because it's Christ's church.
@@CatholicTruthOfficial To say that only one group out of all Christendom can interpret the word properly is downright cultic. Christ's church are all those who as sinners, have received him by faith alone for salvation. Belonging to a religious tradition or being born into it, per se, does nothing for your salvation.
@@vitawater4259Great way of putting it. Christ is King ✝️
@vitawater4259 the problem with most protestants today is that don't know where we came from. And Going back to the origins of protestantism is a he said she said between the Vaudois and the Catholics. Gene Kim has some interesting videos on the matter.
Martin Luther died a catholic
Again, like so many,after many decades as a "nominal" Protestant, I attended a Catholic Mass. The best of Christian Doctrine has been shown to me by Catholics.
🙏🙏
@@CatholicTruthOfficialI debated both Gary Michuta & Trent Horn on the canon of the Bible. If you believe this is the top thing Protestants fear most, how about put your money where your mouth is and have either an online discussion with me about it, or a formal debate? Your terms. This is one of the areas I am most comfortable discussing, but I have had trouble finding Catholics to discuss or debate me on the topic. So, let’s see which one of us is truly “terrified” to discuss it.
I suggest you read the Bible and try again. It was the Catholic Church who murdered millions that refused to bow to the papacy and has engaged in the murder of Jesus Christ again and again every time the Mass is said. The first "Pope" Peter said that Jesus died once for all. You should read your Bible more carefully and ask God to show you the truth in his Word. No priest can absolve your sin and Mary had children other than Jesus. The Catholic Church is in essence the biggest cult in the world because you deviate from the clearly declared Word of God as to how salvation is attained and how we are secured in Jesus Christ and He alone.
@@BornAgainRN Guess it was just clickbait.
@@BornAgainRNYour wrong
I also as a Protestant, I see in this video some misrepresentation of the Protestants' beliefs. I am however more than willing to debate you on the canon if as per your claim you can't find any protestant willing to take you up on this. I guess our foundations are fundamentally different, that is why we always speak past each other.
I don't know if our foundations are different,. But we do agree that we sometimes speak past each other. Feel free to email us about a debate/discussion on this.
All they can do is misrepresent us.
Martin may have had his opinions, but James and Revelation are in the Bible and it is good that they are. A bigger problem in the 1500’s and one sometimes glossed over was the problem over conduct and moral reliability. This began some soul searching and wondering and wandering. True, today in Protestant churches not all practice what they preach either but this had become a systemic problem in the established church of that day. Questions about the crusades, the inquisition and indulgences caused many to ask if the ship was on the right course. A note: the crusades may have been right and necessary and there is precedent for this in Joshua and Judges, but try to pass that off on pacifistic Christians like the Amish, Mennonites or Quakers. Martin Luther may have remained a Catholic monk were it not for John Tetsel and indulgences and tried to stay in the established church to reform it from within. Many are leaving the Church today due to inconsistency in believers and leaders. Some go to other denominations and others just go out into the world lost. If an apple becomes rotten, you have to cut off the bad part or throw out the apple. It may never automatically become pure again.
@@inthesprawl misrepresented which of the more than 40,000 sects in the protestant world, all of you within your more than 40,000 the only thing you do is lie all the time about the Catholic church, the only doctrine that you have in common is to spread lies and hates against the Catholic church
The foundations are fundamentally identical. I have a devout Catholic wife and I agree with her on all the fundamentals. I heard a Catholic say something brilliant. If you have a prodigal son who returns after 20 years, and he comes home in a broken-down car, are you going to care about the car? God wants us to come to Him, and he doesn't care how we arrive.
Clear as day! More power to Catholic Truth channel! God bless 🙏
God bless you too. Say a prayer for us. :)
Call no man your father bro only father is in heaven i mean spiritual father wnd progratory aint real
@@Cardo1z1 even my father?
I'm a protestant, I blasphemed, insult the catholic church, made fun of the Virgin Mary, i feel lost.... Why do catholics venerate her and venerate saints? How do you know for certains these saints are in heaven ? What if you pray and ask a Saint who isn't in heaven? I need answers pls
Because the old guy in Vatican city decides they are.
@@bruh-ni1fy I need answers from Catholics
@La Vérité En Français So sorry to hear that you feel lost. Thank you for your questions. We will do our best to answer.
In short, the word venerate means to respect or to honor someone. We honor and respect people on earth all the time for good things they've done (Mother Theresa, Martin Luther King Jr., etc.) We recognize that they have done something good worth honoring.
How much more the Saints because of their rejection of this world and their extraordinary lives of holiness and living so completely for Christ. They inspire us to also live for Christ wholeheartedly and they give us an example of how to do so. Like Paul, for example, who loved Christ so fervently whether he was rich or poor, popular or persecuted, in abundance or desparation, etc. Jesus is the ultimate example of all, but many people like Paul, fellow sinners like you and me, followed Christ so perfectly and heroically. So what is better to honor on this earth than that rather than what this lost world values. They call us on to do live all in for Christ too. Does that make sense?
@@CatholicTruthOfficial Yes it make sense. Thank you for your time answering me. Is there any books you would recommand me reading about the history of the church? Because we're not taught about our history, we know nothing
As a Protestant I fear nothing from the Catholic world. I suppose in the past, when you tortured and killed us for heresy, I'd still not been afraid.
As a Protestant I fear nothing. I read the scriptures with joy every day. God speaks to me through his Word. Stop trying to sow division. God bless you.
Who refuses unity with Catholicusm?
Accusation, judgement? 🙏
Of God speaks through his word. Where does his word is only found in the Bible? Also, if it's so simple, why are there tens of thousands of Protestant denominations who all go by "God's Word" can't agree and contradict each other constantly even on basic theology and doctrine.
If one wishes for unity over division, one should cease to be Protestant and unite with the one true Church. One shouldn’t only delight in reading the Word of God, but they should delight in listening to and obeying it by submitting to His presbyters in Christ’s Church. To remain outside of His Church is to be divided by default. To remain outside the Church while reading the Word, is to hear God speaking and to ignore Him.
I agree with Ponti!!!
Yep! Ive been screaming this for years. 👍🏻 Making Protestants answer the hard question they do not want to answer…
Why did the Catholic Church put the Bible together?
@@ThatGuy-nr5sp You might want to re-evaluate the choices that led you to this question.
@@batmaninc2793 why would I want to do that , it’s a legit question. Do you have an answer?
@@ThatGuy-nr5sp because there was no unity in the scriptures and what was being considered as “inspired” by the church fathers was GROWING. This disunity and growth can be seen through the 4th century up until the late century councils of Hippo, Rome and Carthage. This “disunity” and “growth” was causing confusing within the church. This was the reason.
@@batmaninc2793 Hello are you a catholic . I’m confused ..is that a question Catholics are afraid to answer.
If I was thinking of maybe become a catholic is this how they would act towards me for asking that question.
As a Protestant, it's hard to admit that we owe a lot to our Catholic brothers and sisters. Without Catholics, the Bible as we know it may not even have existed. Then a bunch of Protestants were hating on the Deuterocanon. I haven't read enough of the Deuterocanon to have any opinion on whether they were justified in rejecting it.
Remember not every Old Testament book is referred to either implicitly or explicitly in the New Testament.. check out Matthew 22 and Mark 12.. both referencing Tobit 7...
Pro-tip: they weren’t.
The original manuscript were written by Hebrew prophets and kings. Daniel 4 was written by Nebuchadnezzar. The New Testament was written by Luke, a Gentile. The credit goes to Yahweh whose Words are written down. Give credit where it is due to Yahweh. 2 Timothy 3:16.
@@hopenavajo1391 I agree: God deserves the ultimate credit for inspiring the Bible
@@PolymorphicPenguin 1. Why did the Catholic Church add seven books-1 and 2 Maccabees, Sirach, Wisdom, Baruch, Tobit, and Judith-to the Old Testament? John forbids this: “I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: if anyone adds to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book” (Rev. 22:18).
It’s always good to start a disagreement with agreement. So before you explain the Catholic canon of the Old Testament to Protestant, agree that no one has the right to add or subtract books from the Bible. That’s about as much common ground as you may have to build on.
Quoting Rev. 22:18 against Catholics is ineffective. For one thing, the next verse could be used by the Catholics against Protestants with the same opposite force: “[A]nd if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God will take away his share in the tree of life and in the holy city, which are described in this book” (Rev. 22:19).
But neither verse applies to this debate. John is speaking only about the book of Revelation, not the entire Bible. None of the apostles knew the Bible. The books that comprise Scripture were not canonized until centuries after Christ. Even when that list was established in A.D. 382, the writings were not collected into a single book until after the printing press came into existence. Even Gutenberg’s Bible was published in more than one volume.
Besides, the Greek word here for “book” is more accurately translated as “scroll.” The book of Revelation likely was written on a scroll, but it would have been impossible for the entire Bible to be.
2. Since the Jews were “entrusted with the oracles of God” (Rom. 3:2), shouldn’t we have the same Old Testament canon as they do?
Though this is not a sound objection, it at least requires a detailed answer.
God’s written word was entrusted to the Jews, but he never provided them with an inspired table of contents. For that reason, there has been ample disagreement over the canon-especially among Jews.
The Old Testament took over one thousand years to compile, and the list of inspired books grew continuously as God’s word was revealed. This gradual accretion indicated that the Jewish people felt no need for a static canon but remained open to further revelation. They divided their sacred writings into three parts: the law, the prophets, and the writings (which were canonized in that order). By the time of Christ, the law-and most likely the prophets-was set in number, but the writings were not yet closed.
In Jesus’ time, the Samaritans and Sadducees accepted the law but rejected the prophets and writings. The Pharisees accepted all three. Other Jews used a Greek version (the Septuagint) that included the seven disputed books, known as the deuterocanonicals. Still other Jews used a version of the canon that is reflected in the Septuagint and included versions of the seven books in question in their original Hebrew or Aramaic.
When the Christians claimed that they had written new scriptures, Jews from a rabbinical school in Javneh met around year 80 and, among other things, discussed the canon. They did not include the New Testament nor the seven Old Testament works and portions of Daniel and Esther. This still did not settle the Pharisee canon, since not all Jews agreed with or even knew about the decision at Javneh. Rabbis continued to debate it into the second and third centuries. Even today, the Ethiopian Jews use the same Old Testament as Catholics.
If anything is certain, it is that there was no common canon among the Jews at the time of Christ.
3. But the seven deuterocanonical books were added at the Council of Trent (1546) in order to justify Catholic doctrinal inventions.
This is a myth that always comes up but is simple to answer. At the Council of Rome in 382, the Church decided upon a canon of 46 Old Testament books and 27 in the New Testament. This decision was ratified by the councils at Hippo (393), Carthage (397, 419), II Nicea (787), Florence (1442), and Trent (1546).
Further, if Catholics added the deuterocanonical books in 1546, then Martin Luther beat us to the punch: He included them in his first German translation, published the Council of Trent. They can also be found in the first King James Version (1611) and in the first Bible ever printed, the Gutenberg Bible (a century before Trent). In fact, these books were included in almost every Bible until the Edinburgh Committee of the British Foreign Bible Society excised them in 1825. Until then, they had been included at least in an appendix of Protestant Bibles. It is historically demonstrable that Catholics did not add the books, Protestants took them out.
Luther had a tendency to grade the Bible according to his preferences. In his writings on the New Testament, he noted that the books of Hebrews, James, Jude, and Revelation were inferior to the rest, and they followed “the certain, main books of the New Testament.” In 1519, this same attitude fueled his debate against Johannes Eck on the topic of purgatory. Luther undermined Eck’s proof text of 2 Maccabees 12 by devaluing the deuterocanonical books as a whole. He argued that the New Testament authors had never quoted from the seven books, so they were in a different class than the rest of the Bible.
4. Well, if the New Testament never quotes from these seven books, doesn’t that indicate that they were not considered to be inspired?
Following this reasoning, we’d have to throw out the eight other Old Testament books-such as the Song of Songs-that are also not quoted in the New Testament. If we’re not willing to do that, we have to agree that the absence of a quote in the New Testament does not suggest that a book is not inspired.
Though there are no quotes, the New Testament does make numerous allusions to the deuterocanonical books. For one strong example, examine Hebrews 11:35: “Women received their dead by resurrection. Some were tortured, refusing to accept release that they might rise again to a better life.” Nowhere in the Protestant Old Testament can this story be found. One must look to a Catholic Bible to read the story in 2 Maccabees 7.
5. But the book of Judith says that Nebuchadnezzar was king of the Assyrians, when he was really king of the Babylonians. If a book has errors, it can’t be inspired.
In reading Scripture, it is imperative that we understand the genre of the work. Is it a historical passage? An apocalyptic one? A parable? A proverb? Knowing this influences how the book should be read. When Jesus says that the mustard seed is the smallest of seeds (Matt.13:32), he is not providing a treatise on botany. After all, there are seeds smaller than the mustard seed. When Jesus spoke in parables, the people understood that he was telling a story, and they did not expect it to conform to historical or scientific precision.
The same goes with the book of Judith. “Judith” means “lady Jew,” and she personifies the nation of Israel, as “Nebuchadnezzar, king of the Assyrians” personifies the enemies of the nation. The Jews of the time were aware that Nebuchadnezzar was not the king of the Assyrians but that the Babylonians and Assyrians were two of the nation’s worst foes joined into one by the author of Judith for the sake of parable.
6. Which translation did the first Christians use?
Early Christians read the Greek translation of the Old Testament, the Septuagint. It included the seven deuterocanonical books. For this reason, the Protestant historian J.N.D. Kelly writes, “It should be observed that the Old Testament thus admitted as authoritative in the Church was somewhat bulkier and more comprehensive [than the Protestant Bible]. . . . It always included, though with varying degrees of recognition, the so-called apocrypha or deuterocanonical books.” The authors of the New Testament quoted freely from the Septuagint-over 300 times.
7. Didn’t Jerome and Augustine disagree about the deuterocanonical books?
Yes, as did other early Christians. Numerous Church Fathers quoted the deuterocanonical books as Scripture, while some did not.
Jerome appears to have rejected most of the deuterocanonical parts of Scripture. But he did accept portions and included all seven books in his Latin translation of Scripture, known as the Vulgate. Ultimately, he recognized that the Church alone had the authority to determine the canon.
Since there was disagreement between some Church Fathers, it became obvious that no individual could provide an infallible list of inspired books. The bottom line: “We have no other assurance that the books of Moses, the four Gospels, and the other books are the true word of God,” wrote Augustine, “but by the canon of the Catholic Church.”
Since it is unreasonable to expect every person to read all of the books of antiquity and judge for himself if they are inspired, the question boils down to whose authority is to be trusted in this matter. One must either trust a rabbinical school that rejected the New Testament 60 years after Christ established a Church, or one must trust the Church he established.
Which deserves our trust? Martin Luther makes a pertinent observation in the sixteenth chapter of his Commentary on St. John “We are obliged to yield many things to the papists [Catholics]-that they possess the Word of God which we received from them, otherwise we should have known nothing at all about it.”
Just a suggestion from another man, don’t make those weird shocked face thumbnails. It’s pretty embarrassing. No hate just a strong suggestion
The protestants are not preaching the true Gospel of Christ but false because their interpretation of Scriptures is gravely wrong. How can they be right when their doctrines faith alone, osas, bible alone are unbiblical and man-made and started only in 16th century? They can't present proofs that their doctrines faith alone, osas, bible alone were the doctrines of christians prior 16th century bcos no christians had believed and adhered to osas, faith alone, bible alone until 16th century. They just interpret the Bible in a way that their faith alone, osas, bible alone would appear right. Their interpretation of Scripture will not lead people to salvation but to damnation.
Do not trust the protestants' interpretation of Scriptures because they are gravely wrong in it. They do not own the Bible. Only the Catholic Church can interpret the Bible without error because the Bible is a CC Book and it is the Church founded by God. God gave the CC authority to teach, explain, define and interpret His teachings in the Bible.
Funny how Protestantism is very similar to Eastern and Oriental "orthodoxy": it's Christian-libertarianism.
Edit: True Orthodoxy is never turning your back on the One, True, Holy, Roman, Apostolic Catholic Church in which Christ built upon St. Peter (St. Mttw xvi:18-19).
The Roman Church fell away from the conciliar structure of the Early Church and introduced novel teachings regarding the Holy Trinity. If anything the Orthodox Church has much more leverage when it comes to comparing the RCC to Protestantism.
@@evren.nikolaos Unfortunately, the teaching that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son is not just biblical (St. John 14:26), but the historical record also disagrees, firmly, that the "orthodox" churchES have no more leverage now than they did under Stalin's regime; courtesy of the R.O. Gregory Rasputin.
And considering what Stalin did directly in the "orthodox" community: the gates of Hell did prevail against them.
Showing, further, that they can not be the true Church since they have been separated from the Bishop of Rome in A.D. 1054; unlike Saints such as Ignatius of Antioch.
"Wherever the Bishop be, let the people be also: for wherever there is Christ, there is the Catholic Church." (A.D. 110)
"The Church in the country of the Romans...which seats the presidency".
Eastern "orthodoxy" is mentioned as being libertarian for that reason.
"I'll go and do my own thing."
That's what Cerularius' legacy is.
@@batmaninc2793
I am Orthodox, but am discerning Catholicism. Please pray for me.
@@permanenceaesthetic6545 Hugs, too; no homo.
@@permanenceaesthetic6545 I have a RUclips channel I would like to recommend to you by the name of Reason & Theology.
His name is Michael Lofton.
He grew up protestant, converted to Eastern orthodoxy, and is now a Catholic apologist. He has quite a few videos relating to Eastern orthodoxy.
He and Trent Horn both have a video that came out recently you might find interest in, too.
May l add.. 1 of the things that Protestant feared the most is the Church History, they hated this, because by hearing this will prove way back to its early Church Fathers, and proving Protestant are nothing more than a Sprung up mushrooms of churches without any real connection to the Apostles whatsoever, the only messiah of these kind of churches have are their human founder who established their own church..
It's true. And it gets them off of their repetition of the 10 Bible verses. They know and just repeat over and over again. And takes them into territory that they are don't. Even know exists. Or are not familiar with.
@@CatholicTruthOfficial
👍👍🙌🙌
@@Mr.CUTE777 Pare, you're so galing! haha! Taglish or Tagalog-English.
@@marietav7342 hello, morning Sister.. 😅😅 Hindi naman poh.. musta na poh? 🙂🙂
@@Mr.CUTE777 Pineapple brother. I mean I'm fine! :)
I am evangelical christian and personally, I think that the Lord is searching the people who shows love towards others. Whatever you did to those people, you were doing to Jesus. Because of John chapter 13:35
And btw
In reality Martin Luther did not remove any books from the Bible. He reworked 7 books into a separate section between the Old and New Testaments. These books were placed between the books of the Old Testament in the translation of the Latin Bible that was used in his day. Today they are called the Apocrypha or Deuterocanonical books.
The reason is that since ancient times there have been two versions of the Old Testament. The Masoretic Text (MT), as it is called, was prepared by Jewish scholars and written in Hebrew. The Septuagint (LXX) was a Greek translation used by Greek-speaking Jews. The Septuagint contained these 7 books, but they were not in the Hebrew Bible.
And yet, the very first Christian Bible ever made had these 7 books along with all of the Bible's after it down through the ages.
I am a Southern Baptist. You Catholics label us “Protestants”. The root word of that label is “Protest” which means “one who protests”. PLEASE LOSE THE “PROTESTANT” LABEL. So why does this label need to go away? The focus of my faith is God and Jesus Christ - not protesting anything. Catholics make it all about them with that thoughtless, disrespectful label and does NOTHING to win us. I have NEVER been a part of your church therefore I have never broken away from it. I worship God the way I do because I LOVE him - not because I hate you and wish to rebel. We don’t call you “anti Baptists” or “Baptists rebels” but rather use your respectful title. It would really help your cause and improve dialogue to drop that pejorative because look at the way priests and Catholics say it. I don’t hate you. I certainly don’t want to disrespect you, and my way of worship is the only way I know and have chosen it for myself - it had NOTHING to do with you. I accepted Christ as my my Lord and Saviour at 14 and no one at any time in so doing said to me: “by doing this you are renouncing, protesting and breaking away from the Catholic Church”. Maybe this label applied hundreds of years ago when Christians left your ranks but it no longer applies. No other Christian group defines others in terms of itself - only you. This is the 21st century and really is a nonessential, hurtful, divisive tradition. Can you just allow me the respect of being a “Baptist” and have my own unique identity? Once again - I worship the way I do because I love Him - NOT because I hate you. Please let that sink in…
Folks just because someone speaks confidently,as Bryan does, does not mean he speaks truth. Former Roman Catholic here who thanks the Lord often for saving me and calling me out of the fatal and false gospel of Rome over 40 years ago. 🙌🙌🙌❤️❤️
The canon was determined by God and discovered by man. The church did not create the canon, it simply recognized the letters that were already accepted as Scripture by the first century church. Long before church councils were ever convened, church elders were constantly evaluating and deciding which of the many writings of their day carried apostolic authority. We have proof that letters were circulated and accepted before the canon was formally established. Paul wrote: "After this letter has been read to you, see that it is also read in the church of the Laodiceans" (Col. 4:16).
To collect various letters and books of Scripture into one volume was the task given to Christians already converted to Christ by the Word of God. These early Christians did not give us the Word of God. The Word of God gave us these early Christians. They were under conviction and illumination of the Holy Spirit from the writings of the Apostles and oral teachings of Jesus long before any Council pieced together the Bible. Hence, the Word of God established the Church. Early Christians were convinced and persuaded that it was the Word of God because the Holy Spirit convicted them.
The actual gathering together of the Scriptures into one volume took place in God's providence, under the supervision, persuasion, and conviction of the Holy Spirit. Christians labored together to separate the actual Word from false writings. The early Christians pooled their cognitive convictions and brought together a Canon of the text to end speculations and dismiss false writings.
Jerome completed his version of the Bible, the Latin Vulgate, in 405. In the Middle Ages the Vulgate became the de facto standard version of the Bible in the West. The manuscripts clearly identified certain books of the Vulgate Old Testament as apocryphal or non-canonical. Jerome described those books not translated from the Hebrew as apocrypha; he specifically mentions that Wisdom, the book of Jesus son of Sirach, Judith, Tobias, and the Shepherd "are not in the canon". In the prologue to Esdras he mentions 3 and4 Esdras as being apocrypha. In his prologue he said of the Books of the Maccabees, that the Church "has not received them among the canonical scriptures".
We know the Bible was complete and "once for all delivered to the Saints in the first century (Jude 3). The Old Testament Canon was closed about 425 B.C., 425 years before Christ. The last book was written by Malachi. There was no question which books were inspired by God. The writers were well known as a spokesmen for God and claimed to be speaking and writing the inspired Word of God. Secondly, were no errors of history, geography, or theology in the writings.
The New Testament had similar tests to determine a book's canonicity. First, was the book authored by an Apostle or someone closely associated with an Apostle? They knew who the Apostles were and they knew who their close associates were. The key question about the book's inspiration was tied to Apostolic authorship or one closely associated. For example, the Gospel of Mark was written by Mark, and Mark was not an Apostle but a close associate of Peter. The Gospel of Luke and the Book of Acts were written by Luke who was not an Apostle but a very close associate of Paul. The Apostles were known to the people, their associates were known to the people, and when Apostles wrote and claimed inspiration the people were secure in the veracity of their writings.
Who exactly made the Canon? What were their names? Name them here. You can't answer this question and if you do you will be admitting that Catholics did this, not Peotestants. You left the one church of Jesus Christ for a counterfeit.
There was no "list." There were many lists, and they all contradicted each other. So they couldn't just accept a list because there was no list. There were many. That was the problem, and that's why they decided to solve the problem authoritatively, to know which books could be read at Mass in the worship service.
In short, all the Protestants on ear are admitting that scripture can't solve the problem of scripture, which is exactly what we said. They have to appeal to the church and to Traditon (using the criteria you mentioned) and the authority of the Church. So in short, they are all admitting what we already said, that the cannn was put together by tradition not by scripture alone. An outside authority.
During my 37 years as a Christian I have led several lifelong Catholics to professing faith in Christ. They had never heard a clear presentation of the saving
gospel of the Lord Jesus. Because the RCC preaches a false gospel.
@@davidvanriper60
Praise God🙌🙌🙌🙌🙌
Our entire family and much of our extended family who came from generations of Roman Catholicism have all come to faith in Christ and left the fatal and false gospel of Roman Catholicism🙌❤️❤️❤️🙌🙌🙌
Not once in my life had I ever heard a negative thing about Roman Catholicism or anyone even hinting they taught a false gospel. I didn’t think I needed God because I believed I had God in my life… BUT GOD, 🙌🙌🙌🙌
But God, being rich in mercy, because of the great love with which he loved us, 5even when we were dead in our trespasses, made us alive together with Christ-by grace you have been saved- 6and raised us up with him and seated us with him in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus, 7so that in the coming ages he might show the immeasurable riches of his grace in kindness towards us in Christ Jesus. 8For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, 9not a result of works, so that no one may boast. 10For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them.
The rest is history 🙌🙌🙌🙌
And we have led countless protestants back to the true church of Christ and Former catholics as well. We give them the fullness of the truth of Jesus Christ and the fullness of the gospel. Most protestants have never heard of the full gospel. Mostly because the protestant religions have a false gospel and can't even agree with each other and what the gospel is.
@@davidvanriper60Those Catholics already professed faith in Christ.
I am at an ICOC right now, but I am intrigued by Eastern Catholic, RC, and EO doctrine.
Some truth I have come to acknowledge:
1) Intercession of saints seems very true.
2) Perpetual virginity of Mother Mary seems to be very true.
3) Literal Eucharist seems to be very true.
4) Sola Scriptura is self-refuting, and apostolic denominations are aware of this.
However, there are some things I struggle with in apostolic doctrine.
1) Trent VI canon 24,
Trent VI canon 32,
Persona Christi in Vatican II,
and CCC #2068
all APPEAR to be in blatant and direct conflict with scripture. I have not even read the entire Holy Bible, so my opinion is not very educated.
2) Baptism at birth doesn’t seem to lead to ontological spiritual rebirth. (Baptized babies aren’t automatically born-again believers.
3) The EO doctrine of bishops’ authority is difficult to reconcile with the genocide “bishop” Kirill is supporting in Ukraine right now.
If anyone has any resources to share with me, I am open to being wrong about all of this! God bless
I'll respond to your "born again" comment. That movement began in the early 1900's when a(nother) new group hijacked a term from the Bible, "born again", and gave it a new meaning. For the majority of Christian history, that referred to baptism. I'm not sure if you are in the USA, but we are a Protestant-based country, and we never had a leader proclaim himself as "Born Again" until Jimmy Carter in 1976. In 1980, all three major candidates described himself as such. Why? Because Chuck Colson wrote his book titled "Born Again" in 1975, from prison. The movement really took off after that.
In the Old Testament, circumcision was the way for new babies to be welcomed into the community of believers. Jesus himself had this done when his good Jewish parents presented him in the Temple. Baptism replaces this in the New Covenant which we are in now. Either way, the grace received by the individual doesn't take away their free will. Some reject it.
Thank you for your comment, your honesty, and your openness on your journey. If we can help come a little snow. We have a couple of videos that may help you answer the first couple of questions.
1. Pope Vicar if Christ (in the person of Christ?) ruclips.net/video/fmE5r9Wn7fE/видео.html
2. Baptism/born again -
ruclips.net/video/sjc9rCFt9co/видео.html
2. Infant baptism: ruclips.net/video/GDUZAHu6eDM/видео.html
@@CatholicTruthOfficial I appreciate this!
@@julieelizabeth4856 This reminds me a lot what CS Lewis says about the word “Christian”, I don’t know why I never correlated it to “born-again” as well. This is an interesting point.
From his preface of Mere Christianity:
“When a word ceases to be a term of description and becomes merely a term of praise, it no longer tells you facts about the object: it only tells you about the speaker's attitude to that object.”
I definitely have to define my terms. Thank you for taking the time to share this with me.
@@CatholicTruthOfficial I can see myself becoming a Catholic someday, especially because I see how drastically my opinion on the Catholic Church has changed even in these last 2 months alone.
I have a lot of questions, even about my own ICOC I go to. Any prayer appreciated🫶🏻
We reject the Roman Catholic church,
because it is loaded with errors and
man made revelations. Starting with
the Pope, who is referred to as The
Holy Father. God the Father is the only
holy Father, Jesus himself said that
about his Father. Your current Pope
is the most ungodly man, he is a
apostate Christian at best. Then there
is the Marian worship. Absolutely
despicable. The rosary prayer, with
Its " Holy Mother of God, pray for us
sinners etc. Mary herself exclaims that
is servant and that she rejoices in her
Saviour. What would she need a saviour
for, that like anyone else she needs
her sin forgiven. It was an immaculate
conception through the indwelling ol
The Holy Ghost. Jesus is the only
Mediator between God and man.
I suggest that you thoroughly review
your Roman Catholic doctrine and
the history of the popes thru the
ages. May God bless you my friend.
Sorry, we don't allow pre written troll comments.
@@CatholicTruthOfficial Church is not the answer god is the answer. The curtain was torn, because of this we can approach the throne with grace and confidence. We are to worship him alone, because only he is worthy of our praise and can answer ours prayers. We are saved by grace alone through faith, not by our works. That is why we reject the Catholic Churches teachings.
Jesus founded His One True Church Mt 16 18-19 that became known as Catholic or Universal in 110 which codified your bible in 382. His Church is the fullness of Truth 1 Tim 3:15 & has existed for 2000 yrs, in spite of sinful men, proof of its divine origin.
The fruits of sola Scriptura & personal interpretation, confusion, division & scandal of 000’s of sects when Jesus willed unity Jn 17 11-21.
Try combining Sacred Tradition, which existed before the NT, from the time of Jesus with Sacred Scripture under the unifying authoritative interpretation of the magisterium, the balanced three legged stool, far more rational & objective
Petros means “small stone”, Jesus not Peter was the foundation of church. Nor is the Catholic Church even mentioned in the Bible. We are to build our church on a firm foundation and foundation starts with small stones. Peter himself uses this in 1 Peter 2 where he says Christ is the chief cornerstone, not himself. Ephesians 5:23 says Christ is the head of the church. Jesus’ words here are a play on words in that a boulder-like truth came from the mouth of one who was called a small stone.
Furthermore, scripture never tells Peter was in Rome and it also doesn’t say that Peter was supreme over the other apostles.
If Peter declares Christ to be the cornerstone, then how can Peter be rock that the church is built on?
@@coopertoprw8muIf Peter was never in Rome as you claim, why is he buried under St Peter’s in Rome?
What is astonishing to me is the extreme level of pride Luther showed in his writings and teachings. Unbelievable.
Praying for the Lord to lead me to the truth after many years as an evangelical. I can never go back to the Protestant view of anything. It is so challenging to be on this journey alone and I know there will be all kinds of objections from family members but the saddest thing is many don’t have the desire to read the history of the early church fathers. I pray the Lord would lead us to the right church. I feel so overwhelmed and weary
So glad to hear it, and we will see a prayer for you as well. If we can help in any way or if we can answer any questions, please let us know. Replies@catholictruth.org
Thank you so much. I appreciate it @@CatholicTruthOfficial
My experience is the complete opposite.
Religion will not save you. Read the Bible and pray for the Holy Spirit to bring the scriptures to life. Jesus is the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Jesus. Seek instead to have a relationship with Jesus.
Lead you to the “right church?” There is only ONE Church and that’s the One Jesus established in Acts. There’s no denomination assigned to that Church. Only a Savior.
You shouldn’t ‘go back to the ‘Protestant view NOR the Catholic view’ as you stated not desiring to go back to the Protestant view in your comments. You should be seeking God’s view. You find that in the inspired Word He left us. That’s the ONLY view you should be praying to find.
The Church is the Body of Christ, made up of all believers who have repented and put their faith in Jesus’ sacrifice, death and resurrection. We then become part of THE Church, Jesus’ Body.
Ephesians clearly explains Jesus ONLY Church. I pray you won’t be deceived into believing anyone’s view other than God’s view, written by men as they were “carried along by the Holy Spirit.”
”And He put all things under His feet and gave Him as head over all things to the Church, which is His Body, the fullness of Him who fills all in all.“
Ephesians 1:22-23
I am a Protestant and this topic doesn't bother me in the slightest. Why should it? The canon was defined (not created) by early ecumenical councils, not by an infallible Catholic Church. Its authority is based on apostolic authority and is intrinsic to itself. The church does not confer authority on the Bible, but submits to the authority of the Word of God. Or should do.
Which ecumenical councils are you referring to where the Catholic Church was not involved?
@@MajorasTime The first seven are recognised as ecumenical by both Catholic and Orthodox. But certainly the first five predated Roman Catholicism. At any rate, the Nicene "one holy, catholic and apostolic church" is certainly ecumenical as "catholic" embraces all churches, at least within the Roman Empire.
@@petergrover3227 Yeah but you said that the canon was defined by early ecumenical councils. No it wasn’t.
if you don't care about facts then nothing will bother you, fortunately most people try to know the truth.
So you're engaging in the lutheran rhethoric tactic of distinguishing "roman catholicism" from something else, even though there is no discontinuity from the time fo Christ up to today. The orthodox recognize the unbroken line of succession from Peter and Paul in Rome.
Now name the exact canon of the exact ecumenical council that defined the canon, and tell us how you know how that council is ecumenical.
@@MajorasTime The early councils defined the precise limits of the canon, but the canon in principle existed from the first century.
I love this channel so much.
Thank you!
DONT DIVDE US CHRISTIANS , WE ALL FOLLOW JESUS . DONT MAKE DIVISIONS THEY LEAD TO NOTHING BUT CHAOS !
Mormons follow Jesus too. It doesn't mean they do it the right way. It doesn't mean what they teach in their theology is true. This is morally relativistic. Believing in Jesus is necessary but also living the truth he taught and the doctrine he gave us.
@@CatholicTruthOfficialthey have another Jesus just like you all do 😂.
This was the major determining factors of my conversion, I have studied for myself like over six months which protestant denomination is right and all of them have points which makes sense but there is no final word, no direction of who is actually right, and all of them disagree with each other. Surely mama Mary pulled me in by via rosary and I'm her baby now, but this helps me stand firm when doubts inevitably come from protestant flashbacks, I'm in spiritual rehabilitation (RCIA), thank God I have come home, I continue to pray for all especially those stuck in that theological bible thumping nightmare
Praise God!! May God continue to bless and guide you. Thank you for sharing.
Bryan speaks outside(may be few)of the Bible, whereas Christian’s speak from within the Holy Bible.
Bryan speaks using the Bible too. But he speaks within the tradition that has come down from Christ and the earliest Christians. What good does it do if non-Catholics only quote the Bible, but they don't understand it, or worse, if they all contradict each other constantly using Scripture? How is that helpful?
Not everything is in the Bible.... Even the Bible itself tells you so.... Your IQ is low.
(1) the Jewish people who lived prior to Christ did not have an infallible Church declaration telling them what the Canon was. There was at that time a fallible list of infallible books. There is nothing intrinsically unworkable about this, nor is it preposterous to think God would create a situation like this. It was in fact the situation God created.
(2) All the Catholic Saints who lived before the Church infallibly defined the Canon, also had the same situation. A fallible list of infallible books. Nothing sub-Christian about it.
(3) The Council of Trent infallibly said that 73 books are Scripture, but didnt say which books arent Scripture. For example Jimmy Akin says the Canon could be expanded to include the 77 that some Orthodox have. Therefore Catholics to this day dont have an infallible declaration on the exact contents of the Canon.
(4) Even if the Church is infallible in its declarations, our personal certainty about the matter is only as good as our personal certainty that the Church is in fact infallible. How can I be personally absolutely certain that the Church is infallible? If I cannot be personally absolutely certain that the Church is infallible, then I don't know for sure that its declaration on the Canon is correct. If there is someway that I can become personally absolutely certain that the Church is infallible, then whatever epistemic route which exists for the individual to ascertain absolute personal certainty with regard to truths of the faith, exists for the Protestant to ascertain absolute personal certainty with regard to the inspiration and truth of the Bible. No need for external validation from the Church.
(5) In fact countless Catholic Saints testify to their own experiences with the Scriptures, where they had a personal encounter with God by reading it, such that it was revealed to them directly that the Bible is true, without any need on their part to have additional validation from the Church in order for them to have this certainty.
" the Jewish people who lived prior to Christ did not have an infallible Church declaration telling them what the Canon was."
Right. The Jewish religious sects at the time of Jesus did not agree to a canon, except for the books of Moses. The Church would determine what was Old Testament scripture, in light of Jesus Christ.
"A fallible list of infallible books"
Infallibility is a charism of the Church, to decide what is true and what is false. The bible is both inspired and inerrant, not infallible.
"The Council of Trent infallibly said that 73 books are Scripture, but didnt say which books arent Scripture."
Well the list of writings that "aren't scripture" has no practical limit. Given 1600+ years of Catholic agreement on the 73 book canon, it's difficult to imagine where any "additional" book would come from, especially as the historic basis for canonicity would not apply. Note, it's J. Akin's opinion that the canon is not infallibly closed to any additional writings.
"Catholics to this day dont have an infallible declaration on the exact contents of the Canon."
Can you cite where the Catholic Church itself teaches this?
"How can I be personally absolutely certain that the Church is infallible? "
Because ones trusts Jesus Christ and his repeated promises. If one trusts that he sent the Holy Spirit to lead his Church to ALL truth, including the New Testament canon, then one should trust Jesus himself that the same Church was infallible when saying the Old Testament was 46 writings. Otherwise, Jesus didn't mean what he said, and he was undependable. In fact, the implication is that he .. lied.
Christ is the head of his Church (Col 1: 18)
Christ''s Church is the pillar of truth (1 Tim 3: 15)
Christ's Church is the bulwark of truth. (1 Tim 3: 15)
Christ's Church is where the manifold wisdom of God is made known. (Eph 3: 10)
*Christ PROMISED to lead it to ALL Truth.* (Jn 16: 13)
Christ PROMISED that he would NEVER leave it. (Mt 28: 20)
Christ PROMISED that the gates of hell would not prevail (it will not teach doctrinal error) ; (Mt 16: 18)
"which exists for the individual to ascertain absolute personal certainty with regard to truths of the faith, exists for the Protestant to ascertain absolute personal certainty with regard to the inspiration and truth of the Bible."
Note, those very same Bishops whose New Testament canon you use and trust is right, all presided over the Mass, believing that through their words of consecration, the bread and wine transform into the resurrected Christ. This is another example of trusting the Written Word of God, our Lord and Savior, that he meant what he said and said what he meant:
_52 The Jews then disputed among themselves, saying, “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?” 53 So Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you; 54 he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. 55 For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. 56 He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him._ (Jn 6)
Note, all who listened to him in John 6 took him ... literally (it was a hard saying who could take it, the Jews then wanted to kill him). Jesus didn't speaking of symbolically only eating him, no one took him speaking that way, and the disciples who spread the Christian faith all taught exactly what Jesus said, "This IS My Body."
"No need for external validation from the Church""
When one decapitates the bible from the Church and faith from which it came, (re)interpreting it on their own, contradicting the faith passed down, the result is chaos and confusion.
"they had a personal encounter with God by reading it, such that it was revealed to them directly that the Bible is true"
Note, the Church indeed gives latitude to scripture interpretation and understanding. Doing so is encouraged. However there are guard rails. When one's fallible and personal opinion of the text contradicts the doctrine of the Church, the faith passed down through the ages, the issue is not with the Church - as Christ is its head AND he PROMISED to lead it to ALL truth - the issue is with the one erroneously creating a man-made understanding.
@@TruthHasSpoken I'm going to ignore most of what you said because it betrays a deficiency on your part with regard to reading what I actually wrote. But when it comes to your claim about how we can be certain the Church is infallible, you cite Scripture. You are guilty here of violating your own argument. You want to say that unless the Church first tells us something is Scripture that we therefore cannot be sure it is. If this is the case, you cannot even know what Jesus said about that Church to begin with. Citing Scripture as evidence of the Church undercuts your whole argument that we cannot know Scripture unless we first know the Church. That being said, go back and read my original comment once again. This time try to actually comprehend what I am saying instead of just replying with your ready made responses.
@@taylorbarrett384 "you cite Scripture ... uou are guilty here of violating your own argument."
I cite scripture as protestants overwhelming want evidence from scripture, and scripture itself gives evidence to Christ's repeated promises,. But there is no conflict with the Deposit of Faith passed down by the apostles outside of scripture and scripture itself.
"Citing Scripture as evidence of the Church undercuts your whole argument that we cannot know Scripture unless we first know the Church. "
Scripture comes from the Church. The same Church that wrote it, decided which of the writings were and were not scripture. The same Church copied the text, translated the text, and guarded its meaning.
"it betrays a deficiency on your part ... just replying with your ready made responses."
Ad hominem attacks are a sign of weakness of argument. I have no problem whatsoever not responding in the future. I bid you peace.
@@taylorbarrett384 "You want to claim that a person cannot know any given text is Scripture unless the Church tells them it is."
Right. The only way that you know that the Gospel of Matthew is scripture, is by tacitly submitting to the authority of the Catholic Church to have decided. There is no other source or authority that decided. No other source that listed 27 writings and said they were scripture. And, one doesn't defer to the authority of scripture for the list of what books belong in it (sola scriptura ... fails ... right at the table of contents)
Now, if you believe Matthew is scripture OUTSIDE of the authority of the Catholic Church, then you need to be clear on what the criteria is for canonicity
1.
2.
3.
4.
and from where you get the criteria.
Then be consistent and apply the very same criteria that you write above to each of the 300+ early Christian writings.
@@TruthHasSpoken if that's the case, then what's your evidence that the Church is not making an error when it says that Matthew is Scripture?
I am a Protestant and I have never had any fear of the Canon of the bible, neither do any Protestants I know. This is creating a false issue. It smacks of insecurity.
That's not true at all. Countless Protestants don't understand or fear the topic of the Canon. And the ones who don't usually don't understand it.
Yes but countless Protestants do understand the issues of the Canon and do not fear at all. I have met countless Protestants and the issue of the Canon has never arisen. No one is afraid. The issue for us all, Catholic and Protestant is 'Are you truly saved?' And yes we are, we know Jesus, are forgiven, have the Holy Spirit indwelling us, show forth the fruits and gifts of the Holy Spirit, are led and blessed by God, have deep assurance of our acceptance by God, have visions and many other manifestations of the Living God - all this without the RC church. What is your problem?@@CatholicTruthOfficial
Yes but countless Protestants do understand the issues of the Canon and do not fear at all. I have met countless Protestants and the issue of the Canon has never arisen. No one is afraid. The issue for us all, Catholic and Protestant is 'Are you truly saved?' And yes we are, we know Jesus, are forgiven, have the Holy Spirit indwelling us, show forth the fruits and gifts of the Holy Spirit, are led and blessed by God, have deep assurance of our acceptance by God, have visions and many other manifestations of the Living God - all this without the RC church. What is your problem? @CatholicTruthOfficial
I have asked several Protestant friends about the Canon of Scripture and not a single person had ever considered the possibility that the Catholic Church decided on the canon. They all assumed it was collectively understood by the early Christians. The conversations never went past this point. I always encouraged them to dig deep into history and find the answer for themselves and not take my word for it.
That's honestly the best thing you can do.
- I'm a Protestant, but trying so very hard to get my husband on board with converting to Catholicism. But yes, by asking simple questions and planting tiny seeds, eventually they will seek the Truth. ❤️
Brandi, he is that going with your husband?
@CatholicTruthOfficial Slowly, but surely. We go to church with his grandparents, so I have to be delicate as to not drive a wedge. But I believe it is only a matter of time. :) Lots of patience and lots of prayer.
When did the Catholic Church come into being? Second, what or who are you trusting in for your salvation? Catholicism or Christ and His Death, Burial, and Resurrection?
Yeah. You got a lot who think the Bible fell from heaven. Now the kjv only crowd (the ones who bring up the silver refined 7 times argument) their logic factually borders on crazy.
This is bizarre to me. When the canon was being put together there was only one Church. There were no Protestants and no official Eastern Orthodox. Modern iterations of all Christian groups hold the church fathers in very high regard and, to some degree, claim them as their own. However you view the authority of the church fathers, this is simply not a logical argument for the authority of the *modern* Catholic Church! If Protestants don't talk about this issue, it's probably because it really is a non-issue and has little to no relevance in the larger debate. No Protestant with the simplest understanding of Church history would fear this topic at all.
And yet they all do. Nobody likes to talk about this topic, and even top protestant scholars try to dance around the ramifications of it.
We don't view the authority of the church fathers. We view the authority of the church. The point is, which you didn't even address or deal with. How do you know which books should be in the Bible and which ones should not be based on the Bible alone? Where does the Bible tell you this? Luther rejected Hebrews, Revelation, Jude, and other books. He said they were not inspired scripture. So, how are you going to solve this problem with scripture alone?
@@CatholicTruthOfficial Thank you for your thoughtful and respectful response! I will admit openly that I had not watched your video through the point at which you bring sola scriptura into the argument. My apologies. Because of your respectful response, I have now remedied my disrespectful error and have watched all the way through.
Your general argument works much better, I think, as an argument against sola scriptura than it does as an argument for the modern Catholic church (which is primarily how your video was framed). Of course, this leads to a strong argument against Protestantism in general - an argument I will simply concede now since I certainly couldn't debate it any better than James White attempts to.
As an aside, I am not remotely swayed by arguments against Luther. Why bring up, for example, that Luther didn't like Revelation when the vast majority of modern Protestants disagree with him on this point? In my estimation, arguments against Luther are only effective on Protestants who have two characteristics: they know nothing about Luther or the history of the Church in that era and they think that Protestantism at large goes as Luther goes. Attacking Luther has become an easy opening for Catholic apologists. I find this unfortunate because I feel it detracts from the substantive issues of both sides of the debate.
Thank you for bringing your usual levels of clarity and understanding to this topic, from a 2 year old Catholic (really 59 😅)
Some Catholics can be saved, but unfortunately most believe that Mary was sinless which takes away the deity of Christ and is committing idolatry. Another thing I found that was interesting, was that the Catholic Church places tradition over the Bible which is also wrong. If you want to know the truth, read your Bible and accept Christ into your heart as the ONLY sinless being
Mary was sinless by the grace of God. We have a whole video on that if you're interested. The earliest Christians believed this, too. ruclips.net/video/_nCHVwMIWfc/видео.html
You follow tradition also, though you are unaware of it. You follow 18th and 19th century American revivalist tradition, which is chock full of heretical glosses on the bible. You may want to google it, and do some reading about your beliefs you are under an illusion you thought up by yourself. 💗🙏💗
@@CatholicTruthOfficialLIES
YOU
YOUR VIDEOS
THE CATHOLIC CHURCH
Thanks for the video! New subscriber!
Thank you, and welcome!
Jesus established one Church and Catholic Christians wrote the New Testament and infallibly said the Bible is a 73 book Bible which is the infallible “Word” of God. The Bible is a Catholic book. God bless you.
No friend.
God gave His word to the Jews, who have kept and preserved it from the beginning.
The first Christians were not "Catholic" they were Jews.
They were Jews who became "Christian," this happened in Antioch.
@@mattmurdock2868 Yes. The “Way” grew from the 120 in the upper room at Pentecost when another 3,000 were baptized into the Christs fledgling Church. Acts tells us their numbers grew daily “And they devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching and fellowship, to the breaking of bread ( a euphemism for the Lord’s Supper) and the prayers.” Acts2:42 and 20:7. The Lords Supper is the Eucharist which Jesus instituted at the Last Supper, Matthew 26:17-29; Mark 14:12-25; Luke 22:7-38; and I Corinthians 11:23-25. As Christs Church, the only Christian Church matured through the 1st century it became known as the Catholic Church because it was thought of as universal by at least but probably before 107AD. Read Ignatius, Letter to the Smyrnaeans and has existed now for 2,000+ years as the Catholic Church.
The early Christians didn’t just become Christians in Antioch they were already disciples of Christ aka Christian’s.
The first Christians were Jewish converts.
21 Jesus said to them again, “Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, even so I send you.”
23 If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained.”
19 Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,
20 teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, to the close of the age.”
@@Spiritof76Catholic
Yes, and to this day we are Christians and not Catholics. The Church is still the body of Christ and some of His followers can still be found in the Catholic "church."
He has followers from every religion. These are the body of Christ, from every tribe tongue and nation.
The Catholic church is a man made religion, man loves to follow man. Some of us choose to follow Christ.
@@mattmurdock2868 No. I covered that several posts ago.
There is only one Church, He's Christ. Christians have to stop infighting, unite, to arm ourselves against evil. Earth is getting "less Godley" everyday - He needs us now more than ever.
Christ is the head of the Church, not the church itself. Jesus started the Catholic Church. We agree that there should be unity in the church again to fight against evil.
@ Kevin Gross did you hear that? Catholic truth is basically saying you’re not a Christian. The more I listen to Catholics speak the more I’m glad I’m non denominational. They actually believe if you’re not catholic then you’re not Christian. They would rather the Word of God be snuffed out than to make peace with protestants. That’s worldly wisdom and behavior.
If you love Jesus then you want to be in the church that He established.
@@CatholicTruthOfficial this is the first church
Hebrews 12:22-23 (WEBM) But you have come to Mount Zion, and to the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to innumerable multitudes of angels,
to the general assembly and assembly of the firstborn who are enrolled in heaven, to God the Judge of all, to the spirits of just men made perfect,
@@waitandsee9345 That says nothing about the church. But The Bible is clear that Jesus started a teaching and preaching authoritative church built on the apostles who he gave his full authority to. They were teaching and preaching, correcting and reproving, and making doctrine. (Mt. 28:19; Mt. 18:15-18; 1 Cor. 12:28-30, Jn. 20:21-23, Lk. 10:16, Mt. 16:18-19, Eph. 4:11-12, Acts. 11:15, 1 Tim. 5:11 and many more).
Recent convert to Catholicism from a none denominational background.
Learning history on biblical canonisation and early church fathers teaching is irrefutable.
My question is, what’s the best way of strengthening my knowledge and being able to protect the faith?
Do you have any book recommendations?
There is no perfect church or infallible church. This is why Jesus is not returning for any particular earthly church. He is returning for a church without spot and wrinkle; the heavenly church; the five pure virgins who had oil (the Holy Spirit, not church association) in their lamps.
Many earthly churches are heading on a deceptive railway of destruction, on the tandem train of the ecumenical/interfaith movement.
If it’s impossible for the gates of hades to prevail against the Church then that makes the Church infallible.
@@MajorasTime
You need to do a study in Scripture as to which church Jesus was talking about, because it certainly was not any earthly, temporal church. His church is an everlasting church, because His kingdom is from everlasting to everlasting.
@@dannisivoccia2712 Does a church that is not earthly grow?
Of course, it was an earthly church. It was the Catholic Church built on the rock of Peter and the foundation of the apostles. It was this church that was teaching and preaching, correcting and reproving, making doctrine and authoritative decisions long before the New Testament was even. written. That's what's all over NT. This is also the unanimous consent of all the earliest christians who support our position and not yours. Yours as a novel one.
@@CatholicTruthOfficial
So, tell me, which church will Jesus return for?
Another test applied by the Early Church was the test of content. Did the writings square with what the Apostles taught? In those early years of the Church, heretics such as the Gnostics tried to slip in phony books, but none of them ever made it. If it didn't square with Apostolic doctrine - it didn't pass. And the doctrinal aberrations were very easy to spot. A third test was this; is the book regularly read and used in the churches? In other words, did the people of God readily accept it? Read it during worship and make its teachings a part of their daily living? A final test was determined that would sort of pull it all together and that was the book recognized and used by succeeding generations after the Early Church?
There was also a formidable group of spurious books that came in the New Testament period. They all failed to make the canon because they couldn't pass the test of authenticity. Christ has put His stamp of authority on the Scripture. The early Church clearly discovered the canon of God's Word under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. To add anything to Scripture or to reject the inspiration of Scripture, is to not only to ignore the warnings of Scripture and the teaching of Christ and the Apostles, but to bring yourself into the very dangerous place where you are susceptible to the curse of God. Paul cites Luke's Gospel as Scripture (1 Tim. 5:18). Peter referred to Paul's writings as Scripture (2 Pet. 3:15-16). Paul commanded the Thessalonians to have his letter read to all the brethren (1 Thes. 5:27). John promised a blessing to all those who read the Revelation (Rev. 1:3). To the Colossians Paul wrote "have this letter read in the church of the Laodiceans (Col. 4:16). As long as the apostles were alive everything could be verified. They were eye witnesses to all that Christ said and did.
The councils of Hippo 393 and Carthage 397 simply approved the list of 27 NT books which had already been recognized by the early church. They neither added to the number or took away form it.
There was no "list." There were many lists, and they all contradicted each other. So they couldn't just accept a list because there was no list. There were many. That was the problem, and that's why they decided to solve the problem authoritatively, to know which books could be read at Mass in the worship service.
In short, all the Protestants on ear are admitting that scripture can't solve the problem of scripture, which is exactly what we said. They have to appeal to the church and to Traditon (using the criteria you mentioned) and the authority of the Church. So in short, they are all admitting what we already said, that the cannn was put together by tradition not by scripture alone. An outside authority.
@@CatholicTruthOfficial
Unfortunately, much of what you’ve been taught as a Roman Catholic is not true and repeating it over and over does not add any more validity.
The canon was determined by God and discovered by man. The Roman Catholic Church claims it was given the authority to establish the canon at the Council of Hippo in A.D. 393. However the church did not create the canon, it simply recognized the letters that were already accepted as Scripture by the first century church.
Long before church councils were ever convened, church elders were constantly evaluating and deciding which of the many writings of their day carried apostolic authority. We have proof that letters were circulated and accepted before the canon was formally established. Paul wrote: "After this letter has been read to you, see that it is also read in the church of the Laodiceans" (Col. 4:16).
The Roman Catholic Bible contains not only the 39 books of the Old Testament and the 27 books of the New Testament, but also the apocryphal books, Tobit, Judith, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Baruch and Maccabees. These books were never part of the early church canon because they contain historical and geographical errors, proving they were not divinely inspired. The apocryphal books also teach doctrines which are at variance with the inspired Scriptures.
For example, 2 Maccabees 12:43-45 teaches the efficacy of prayers and offerings for the dead. Ecclesiaticus 3:30 teaches that almsgiving makes atonement for sin and justifies cruelty to slaves (33:26, 28). Christ and His apostles quoted frequently from Old Testament books but never from these apocryphal books.
Furthermore, they were never included in the Jewish canon, which is of utmost significance because God entrusted His Word to the Jews Paul wrote: "(The Jews) were entrusted with the oracles of God" (Rom. 3:1-2). The entire Old Testament was affirmed in the Jewish community by means of the Holy Spirit long before any Council sat in judgment.
@@CatholicTruthOfficial
It’s too bad your listeners cannot read my rebuttal to all your Roman Catholic claims since you keep deleting them.
You claim biblical Christians fear this subject you present yet you won’t allow Christian’s to post a biblical rebuttal because it exposes your false claims.
You might want to do an intense study on what God’s word warns concerning “Swift Destruction”
How’s your health?
Actually, what we say is backed up by history and Christianity. What you say is backed up by your opinion, I guess. Of course, that cannon was decided by God, and God worked through his church to choose exactly which books or scripture and which ones were not. It were different canons, and everyone disagreed, but it was the church who settled the matter definitively by the Holy Spirit and the authority Christ gave the church.
You are correct that even before the canon was established. People were discussing the canon and had different views on it. Some rejected the whole Old Testament, and some rejected some of it. Some thought Jude and revelation and Hebrews were not inspired where others did. Some thought Barnabas and the Shepherd of Hermas were inspired , and others did not. There was no agreement until the Catholic Church settled the matter. And all the early elders you're talking about were Catholic leaders. To say anything else would be ignorant or disingenuous.
You mean the Catholic Church has the full Bible with the 7 books that were part of Of the 1st and original Bible ever made. That's right; it's a fact that the original Bible ever written had the 7 books in. In fact, every Bible for 1100 years had books until the protestants removed them in the 1600s but the majority were removed from protestant bibles in the 1800s. All of the earliest protestant bibles had these even the king James.
Lucy, you will note that most comments on this channel are not deleted. if yours are it means you are breaking the community guidelines. So stop it or stop complaining.
Stop posting troll comments when it's clear. You haven't watched the video and stop posting comments that have been pre written and pasted into here. If you watch the video and comment accordingly your comments will not be deleted.
Catholic teaching is not the teaching handed down from Jesus. Stop lying
Just because you say it's not, doesn't mean that's true. You have to prove it with facts. We will wait. Also, you proved what we said in the video. Thanks. :)
@@CatholicTruthOfficial apply the same logic to what this guy is saying
We gave evidence and facts. You gave nothing but your opinion.
Proud to be a catholic
Why do Catholics hate everyone else?
Yes, let's talk about how the council pieced together the Bible and left out very key books because it didn't suit their narrative. Let's also talk about how the Catholics place more emphasis and reverence in Jesus' Mother than Jesus Himself. Let's also talk about how the Catholic church is ignoring Biblical Scripture about homosexuality in the Bible. Let's also talk about the problem the Catholic church has with covering up their plague ofpedophile priests.
For anyone who asserts that the canon is "a fallible collection of infallible books". Okay, for let's say that's true and we have books in there which should not be (we can have this discussion later). However, this would also mean that there are books which should be included but are not.
To these people, I would like to direct you to the Apocrypha and ask if you would like to start again.
Your pope is doing a fair job of it...😂
To say that the biblical canon is a fallible collection of infallible books is not to say that the canon is flawed. Only that the source of the canon is fallible. Jesus said that his sheep hear his voice, know him, and follow him. Christ’s sheep are fallen sinners and are obviously fallible. But they have the ability to discern the voice of Christ their shepherd. The canon of scripture developed organically as Christians collectively discerned God’s voice in the apostolic writings. We can be confident that the Holy Spirit led the church to an accurate understanding of which books are infallible scripture without claiming that the sheep are infallible or that they have the authority to make something infallible.
By saying the canon is fallible, means that is has the likelihood of being flawed. By saying "the sheep are fallible", means that they have the capability of creating something that is flawed. Therefore, we can conclude that there is a probability that the canon is flawed.
And given that the canon has been modified twice (first at the Council of Rome then by Martin Luther), the likelihood of it being flawed increases.
However, if we are to trust that the books within the canon are the infallible word of God written by fallible men, why should we not also trust that the infallible books of God are compiled into an infallible canon by fallible men? Why would the Holy Spirit lead the church to the infallible scriptures only to fail them in creating an infallible list?
For that matter, if "Holy Spirit led the church to an accurate understanding of which books are infallible scripture", then the Holy Spirit is the source of the canon. Meaning that if saying that the biblical canon is a "fallible collection of infallible books" means that "the source of the canon is fallible", then you are saying that the Holy Spirit (God) is fallible.
@@hettinga359 Whatever makes you remain a protestant. But just so you know, no one is saying that those who collected the books were infallible. We are saying the process was infallible since The Holy Spirit was guarding it through His Church. Let me put it this way, those who wrote the books of the Bible were sinners but what they wrote was from God. Those who collected the books were sinners but their collection was from God. I am pretty sure that you have heard this before The Church is made of sinners but the Church itself is Holy.
When you compare what is written in Tobit or 2 Maccabees with what the rest of scriptures says you come up with several inconsistencies. Jesus was wrong to cast the demons out as He could have got some fish entrails to burn and have demonized individuals walk through the smoke!!! Jesus was also wrong to die on the cross as you can just pay a lot of money to have forgiveness of sin!!! In 73 books of the bible no one prays to anyone but God . No one who is unrepentant before they die according to scripture will ever be in heaven . 2 Maccabee's where the doctrine of praying for the dead comes from and is only several verses out of context , ignores what the rest of the scriptures point out.
St. Jerome also removed 7 books from the canon and yes he was overruled by the roman Catholic church and the books reinstated.
I have to hand it to this catholic. He speaks logically, something I have not seen often in Catholic apologetics. However, he does not know the full argument. Also, this argument is somewhat of a mute point. In regards to the New Testament, are there any differences between the catholic bible and Protestant or Evangelical bibles? No. So no problem here. In regards to the Old Testament, same question… the answer is yes, 39 in the Protestant bibles, 45 in the catholic. Who is correct? I argue that it’s the Catholics that added to the original Old Testament canon which seems to be finalized by Hebrews in 100 AD. One can argue this but the fact remains that the Hebrew Scriptures has not changed for 2000 years! The books or parts of some were added by the Catholic Church and does not follow the same scrutiny that the original 39 had endured through. These criteria would be whether the books were historically accurate, or whether the books actually specify “this is the word of the Lord”. One author of these books actually claimed that his writings are NOT inspired!… but they were added in anyway. Why? I argue that these books are the only books that irrefutably support the Catholic doctrine on justification (no James does not support that)
Thank you for this logical discussion, as you can see, however, Evangelicals do not shy away from this topic at all but I argue that it’s the Catholic who shy away from scriptural authority, ignoring the preponderance of scripture that would negate much of what they believe. If you would like to hear more, I am happy to go on. But I’m assuming that most will ignore this comment anyway
Thank you for the comment. Catholics don't shy away from any scripture. We just had three debates using only scripture. ;) We appreciate your comments, but there were a few mistakes. We agree with you that protestants and catholics have the same New Testament and there is no disagreement.However, the question revolves around how did we get that New Testament? Where did it come from? It was through the Church and Tradition, not Scripture alone.
@@CatholicTruthOfficial
Thanks for your reply, I commend you on your biblical fervor, however, I’ve observed in my 40 years in the Catholic Church, you are an exception and not a rule within the RCC. But to expound on your main argument, you are incorrect in stating Protestants believe in the fallible collection of infallible books. The traditional evangelical viewpoint affirms Gods involvement in the formation of the Canon, not just the books themselves. The difference is that one can conclude that the NT Canon was closed the moment the last book was written. So in this viewpoint, it is God alone, using His instruments (NT writers) that generated the holy Scriptures. The church’s task (which I can argue was NOT the RCC) was not in the “creation” of the canon, but merely the recognition of those Scriptures God had previously chosen… we were just His tools.
The ramifications of this viewpoint regards FINAL authority that if true, then the churches role is primarily a passive one in determining the Canon and Scripture remains the single and FINAL position of authority. If this position is false, then Scripture is not only relegated to just one of the pillars, but is made secondary to the Church as the FINAL position of authority.
One can apply the logic of the latter to the OT and say we must regard all ancient rabbinical tradition as authoritative. We obviously don’t.
Thank you for your comment. Thanks for the discussion. We agree that in some sense from God's view he knew what the Canon was after the last book was written. But we did not. Which is why there was no agreement on it and God had to use his church to settle the matter definitively. Even if protestants believe God had a hand in it, they are admitting that it's fallible which means books could be added or taken away,. And also admitting that it was the church that had the authority to do this. As we stated in the video, Luther rejected several New Testament books as do other people. How is the protestant supposed to solve that problem based on The Bible alone?
Our biggest problem with the Bible alone being the final authority for the Christian is that it's not biblical. This is why we recently had 2 full debates on this topic, and the Protestants could not show how it was biblical. Or historical, since It was. Invented in the 1300s.
We believe that the Catholic Church had the final authority on the canon because Christ gave his authority to the church, and they acted without authority. That doesn't mean scripture isn't infallible, because it is, but scripture is not self interpreting and needs an outside authority to interpret it.
@@CatholicTruthOfficial you have a lot of statements to unpack so let’s deal with one at a time. First. Could you cite any examples that tell me that you are correct in your statement that Protestants in general believe that the Bible is a fallible collection of infallible books? I ask this because I have only heard of this in fringe movements. One assign a statement like that to the mainstream. Could we agree that that statement you said is not accurate?
Great how in the recent years there’s been a massive shift in momentum and many are waking up from the Protestant cereal box theology and returning to the true church
Amen!
Whatever do you mean by Protestant cereal box theology?
@@toddstevens9667 Theology Protetests have gleaned by taking bible verses out of context and hold as a matter of fact but even at the slightest bit of scrutiny fall to pieces.
I.e. “call no man father” being used against Priesthood, do Protestants call their dads by their first names?
@@Mickyboi1 Is the RCC priest your father?
@@Mickyboi1 But let’s get a little deeper … where does the NT say that there should be a celibate clergy? Where does it talk about papal succession or papal infallibility? This video suggests that the RCC is so proud of its NT canon, yet so little of what the RCC does can be found in it. Where does the NT tell us about a celibate priest that I’m supposed to call Father? Cereal box theology indeed!! But seriously, the RCC isn’t the only group that makes up doctrine from thin air. Some Protestants do that too. It’s best to stick with what the NT actually says, not what we want it to say.
Catholic truth is a bit of an oxymoron.
Not at all. ;)
So what! It doesn’t matter which books the Roman church included in the canon of scripture when they suppressed the canon by martyring those who would dare translate that very canon into the common language of the readers. By doing so they effectively removed the entire Biblical canon from the reader and losing any authority to claim they established the canon. It’s analogous to someone buying a patent only to suppress the product’s competitive introduction to the market.
Thank you for your comment Kevin. It does matter actually because it shows the authority of the church and that God gave the church that authority.
I think you have a lot of misconceptions of history. First, it was the Catholic Church that copied the scripture after canonizing it for over 1000 years so the world could have the scriptures. It was also the Catholic Church that protected them from being destroyed when barbarians burned empires to the ground. It was also the catholic church who taught this creature to the people when most of the world was illiterate. There's top people to memorize the scriptures in large chunks. So the fact that we hid the scriptures from the people is just nonsense.
It was also the Catholic Church who translated it into many different languages. But because it's the holiest word of God, we employed only the best and most qualified scholars to carry out this task so it could be as accurate as can be. Nobody wants The Holy Bible ending up like the Jehovah's witnesses. But that's what happened when people like William Tindale translated it, and we know had many errors per page, and many heretical views. Even protestants burned bibles that had many errors and weren't faithful to the translations. It's the Catholic Church never killed anyone just for translating scriptures, that's a shoddy protestant myth. No offense. So in short, the Catholic Church canonized The Bible, translated it, copied it for over a thousand years, and taught it to the people around the world. Even Luther and the reformers admit that.
@@CatholicTruthOfficial hey man are you deleting all my comments? I keep posting the same one and it keeps disappearing.
Maybe. Most comments don't get deleted here. The only ones that get deleted are ones:
1. Where someone has not watched the video but posts a long pre-written comment anyway. We asked people to watch the videos.
2. Ones that contain outside links.
3. Pre-written comments that are copied and pasted over and over again.
Hope that helps.
Two things are certain, Protestants don't know the Scriptures or history, and don't really care to.
I'll debate it any time! And NO the Catholic is wrong. It all comes down to Greek and That's what a Catholic will never touch
Sounds arrogant. You also sound confused. Just saying the Catholic church is wrong doesn't mean it is. And just ignoring all the facts in the video doesn't help your case either.
@@CatholicTruthOfficial NO, the arrogance is totally yours. Learn Greek before ever trying to start a discussion on verses
Do you have a video on why the Eastern Orthodox bible is slightly bigger than the Catholic bible? I'd be interested in that.
No, not yet. But we will do that in the future.
@@CatholicTruthOfficial cool i look forward to that!
The Eastern Orthodox Church followed the Septuagint, a Greek translation of the Hebrew Scriptures. The Septuagint included the additional books that are not present in the Hebrew Bible used by the Jews at that time. In the West, the focus on the Hebrew text led to a narrower biblical canon without the additional books found in the Septuagint. The Catholic Church, in the Council of Trent in the 16th century, officially affirmed the canonicity of the Deuterocanonical books, thus including them in its Bible. The Orthodox Church, on the other hand, maintained the Septuagint as its primary biblical text.
@@CatholicTruthOfficial I'm interested in getting an Orthodox Bible in English to read the extra books. I haven't heard any objection for Catholics to read them. Have you?
@@lyndavonkanel8603the Orthodox actually have two canons. They have the official Canon which is the exact same as the Catholic church, and then the other canon, unofficial which has some extra books. There's no harm in reading them as long as you don't treat them as scripture.
Great video! A very important explanation on this crucial topic. For the early Catholic Church Scripture was simply the Old Testament as reflected in the Septuagint. It is up to 2 Peter 3:16 ("as also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; wherein are some things hard to be understood, which the ignorant and unstedfast wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction."), where Saint Peter equates the epistles of Saint Paul with the other Scriptures (Old Testament). The Church was so early in the process of integrating what later became the New Testament. A challenge to this was the outpouring of non-apostolic and heretical writings (the true 'apocrypha') especially from the 2nd century A.D. onwards.
In the beginning was the word and the word was with god and the word was god….
Amen.
I am so thankful for this channel!
So glad to hear that! God bless you!🙏🏻🙏🏻
Luther never wanted to leave the Catholic Church but once he was excommunicated he announced l am my own pope and council and started adding align (alone) after faith in the New Testament and when asked why he did this he answered l was inspired by the Holy Spirit.
All Protestants believe they are their own pope and council, and like all Gnostics since the church began believe they are inspired by God and they have the knowledge and understanding and everyone else does not.
Oh definitely, my former Co worker said all she needed was her Bible.. that's it.. no Church a few televangelist that she watched and had communion at home..college educated woman she was definitely her own Pope
@@R.C.A.T
I find that the natural progression for all Protestants is atheism.
All atheists live by their own views and opinions and so do Protestants.
The only difference is one believes in God and the other doesn’t.
@@martinmartin1363 About all the atheists I've seen were raised Catholic. The problem Catholicism has is an overemphasis on the catechism and too little on the Bible. My wife is born and raised Catholic and hardly read the Bible, but knew all the rules of catechism until a few years ago. Now that is obviously not true of many Catholics, but if we're speaking in generalities...
@@R.C.A.T I just checked the Bible, and it seems one's route to salvation does not depend on going to church and having a pope. If we only worried more about our own sins and less about those of others, this world might be a bit better.
@@kurt1391
The problem with atheism is a lack of understanding and that’s why Catholics become atheists and Protestants because they don’t read the bible or the catechism or understand church doctrines and dogmas , credit were credit is due Protestants read the bible and they went out to convert Catholics who have no understanding of the Catholic faith, the Protestant faith has corrupted Christianity and has over 40 thousand denominations and each Protestant is his own pope and council and therefore can form his own church because only his views and opinions matter and the atheist believes the same thing he is his own pope and he is god and only his views and opinions matter, it’s no coincidence that the Protestant faith introduced the enlightenment age of atheism, because that’s where the Protestant faith leads mankind.
As well as omitting seven Old Testament Books, they also cut large parts out of two others [Daniel and Esther]. On the other hand the Orthodox Churches have three extras, the 3rd and 4th Books of Esdras and the short Prayer of Manasseh. [The 1st and 2nd Books of Esdras are our Books of Ezra and Nehemiah]
I'm glad someone brought this point of the Orthodox up! In the end, these differences in the Bibles are of little importance. Protestants study them in divinity school, and Catholics rarely look at them (in my experience). They're good for history, but they won't change how you live.
@@kurt1391make an absolutely change how you live because their scripture. You can make the same argument about 3rd John or Philemon that they won't change your life.
Also the Orthodox have two Canons. The official one that's the same as the Catholic church, and then I slightly bigger one which is an unofficial one.
To all protestants :
For 1500 years there was only one church …..the Catholic church founded by Jesus Himself when He anointed the apostle Peter as the first pope
" You are Peter and upon this rock I will build my church"
Then 1500 years after that along comes Luther ( after Satan had whispered in his ear) and split the church apart ….just as Satan had instructed .
Luther Calvin and others started the rot . ( Now remember this was 1500 years after Christ founded His church …..there was no protestant church ….it was the Catholic church
Catholic means universal .
From the Greek word KATOLIKOS.
Martin Luther, an EX CATHOLIC wanted to reform the Catholic church but took it too far. He began the great division in the church in the 16th century .He believed he was inspired by God and that no one could criticize his ideas. He was a narcissist...he said " In a 1000 years no bishop has been bestowed with such gifts as God has bestowed upon me". He said he is certain that he has received his dogmas from heaven …..he said " I am the prophet of the Germans ". But the fact is he followed the teachings of Henry of Ockham.
He started translating the bible from Greek without having any knowledge of Greek .He translated the " man is justified by faith " into " man is justified by faith alone " he added the word " alone " by himself .When someone criticized him for that he replied " Doctor Martin Luther translates it that way and that's how I want it."....over 1400 errors were found in his translation .He excluded certain books from the bible by his own authority …..he said the epistle of James is nothing more than straw because it does not present any evangelical character. Regarding the book of revelation he said that he does not find anything apostolic or prophetic in this book. He commissioned rude paintings of the pope of that time and got it published ( is that the conduct of a holy man ….a man inspired by God ?). When he blessed people he would say "
May the Lord fill you with his blessing and hatred for the pope.
( Is that a blessing ? Or a curse?)
On marriage he said that marriage is mandatory ….that woman was not created to be a wife but to beget children they only serve for marriage or prostitution. He said he hates divorce so much that he prefers bigamy. He allowed prince Phillip to have 2 wives and justified it based on the bible and when people found out he lied and said that one was his concubine and not his wife.
He loved the virgin Mary and said she was the tender mother of God ….in his dining room He had the crucifix and and image of Mary holding the infant Jesus .He accepted baptism and the real presence of Jesus in the Holy Eucharist. He later said that Lutheranism was no better than catholicism
Apologist Jimmy Akin shows how the Bible cannot exist apart from the Church. In its origins and its formulation, in the truths it contains, in its careful preservation over the centuries and in the prayerful study and elucidation of its mysteries, Scripture is inseparable from Catholicism.
The Bible is completely interpretive. Christ and Spirituality is what is important, not rituals. Bottom line is Christ is love. Christ wanted us to act in a loving way to everybody and all God created. It's not complicated.
It should be interpreted through the guiding of the Holy Spirit and not of man. Lord Jesus Christ loves us but He also wants us to confront false teachers and false statements. The catholic church and the popes are heretical.
I have been going through Catechises at a LCMS church and, the further I go, the more that I am drawn to Rome. I'm not sure what to make of this. I only want to strengthen my faith, no matter where it leads....
Amen! Great attitude! Openess to God.
Reformers did pay tribute to the church for determining the canonical books just as they paid tribute to Augustine and the Fathers.
There was talk about reforming the church since the 14th Century and there was dissatisfaction all over Europe with Rome's corruptions.
Calvin said the true church had always been there hidden beneath the corruptions. He believed Rome had set itself higher than holy Scripture.
Calvin was wrong of course. He set himself up as the highest authority and persecuted severely anyone who disagreed with him. Not to mention that Augustine and the fathers were Catholic as we know. :)
@@CatholicTruthOfficial Calvin was the theologian of the Holy Spirit and said Jesus Christ was the highest authority.
Calvin's Geneva placed the highest emphasis on communion; as a former altar boy in the days of the Latin Mass I can see why.
Read *John Calvin and Roman Catholicism* edited by Randall C Zachman. Calvin like Knox was an embattled figure.
As a law student in Paris he saw an old man being burned at the stake for preaching the Gospel. The iron entered Calvin's soul.
You say Calvin was a theologian of the Holy Spirit. Well the rest of Christianity would disagree with you. Many people think that calvinists don't rightly divide the word of God because they are not in touch with the Holy Spirit, which is why Calvin said ridiculously crazy things like Jesus himself went to hell and burned for our sins. Absolutely preposterous. No Christian in history before or after would believe that and even modern day calvinists distance themselves from some of the things Calvin taught.
Calvin burned people to the stake also. Worse than that, he would torture people who disagreed with his theology, and then kill them. And in one case, he burned down the man's house but not before throwing his wife out on the lawn to watch it burn. He ruled with an iron fist and no one could disagree with him without suffering the consequences. But we have a video on this coming out soon.
@@CatholicTruthOfficial
I know you are a truthful person but I can't recall Calvin saying in his Commentaries that Our Lord burned in Hell.
The Reformation and religious wars have been likened to the Cold War. Terrible things were done by both sides.
Burning Servetus in Geneva was terrible. Denying the Trinity was a capital offence in Catholic countries as well.
Calvin warned Servetus not to come. Then he asked the Genevan council to behead him. Calvin suffered guilt over the death.
As for ruling with an iron fist, Spanish Inquisition, Roman Inquisition, slaughter of Cathars, Waldensians etc etc.
My father was in the Men's Sacred Heart. I miss many things in trad. Catholicism. I follow Bishop Robert Barron and you too !
Great job, Bryan. Blessings for you and your family.
Thank you!
Thank you, Mr Troll. I'll send you our address for the kneeler. In return, we will pray for you. 😉
When a Protestant "definitively" tells me what some Bible verse means or "proves", my usual answer is: "According to your, Fallible, Unauthoritative, Nonbinding on anyone, opinion and misinterpretation of the Bible the Catholic Church created". I also mention about Catholic Bishops who painstakingly copied Bibles by hand, taking up to 3 years to do so, until the printing press came along in 1455. It was not Protestants who did so. Not only that, the vast majority of people were illiterate for centuries. The Catholic Church chained Bibles to the Church to keep them from being Stolen, as they were extremely valuable, Not to keep anyone from reading them.
It was digging deep in Scripture that made me start to question “sola scriptura” before I even knew what that meant.
So what did you do? It's ok...God gave us the Bible.
Protestantism is not a religion, it is only a collection of sects.
It is not a church, it is the individual, it is not an institution, it is a rebellion. It is not an instruction, it is a negation....
So glad I converted to the church Jesus started 24 years ago.
The protestants think they corner the market on salvation. I think deep down they know they're wrong and won't admit it. That's why they get so angry at us Catholics.
🙌🙌
I think it has a lot more to do with all the made up doctrine in the RCC that can’t be found anywhere in the Bible.
And there's your problem. You haven't done research like the man above has. He actually took time to research the doctrines and found that they were biblical. Where as you have done no research except from anti-Catholic sources and therefore a position of ignorance. No offense.
@@CatholicTruthOfficial No offense taken. But I’m wondering where one finds Mary worship in the Bible. And a celibate priesthood. And indulgences. And pilgrimages. And praying to dead humans. And purgatory. Since you’ve done all this great biblical research, I’m sure you’ll be able to show me specific examples of each of those things in the New Testament. Otherwise, bragging about a canon that your organization ignores seems a bit silly to me. But hey, I’m just pointing out a few issues with your video. No offense.
@@toddstevens9667 "Mary Worship" ? Now there's another problem. Protestants have the illusion that the Catholic Church WORSHIPS Mary. We honour her as the Blessed Mother of Our Lord Jesus Christ and we ask her to pray for us (just like we ask another other member of the church to pray for us because Mary is STILL a member of the Church right now as we speak, even though she is in heaven). We don't Worship her because we don't believe she is equal to God.
1517 was an abomination year. Christ most of felt betrayed by humanity.
God bless always to You Sir. 🙏🙏🙏❤❤❤.
You done a wonderful works brother, God bless
Thank you! GBU2
Many Protestants claim that the Bible is their only authority, not the pope.
My question is, when a Protestant reading the Bible and have trouble understanding what it means, what authority do they take it to for the infallible answer?
Their peg is to each his own. lol
That's why there's thousands of denominations..Protestantism grows by division.. no unity
They will tell you that "Scripture interprets Scripture." This is circular reasoning though. Also it's not biblical, doesn't solve the problem, and goes back to the same question you're asking.
You do know there’s study bibles and Bible scholars to help with that right
@@CatholicTruthOfficial you are exactly right, one vicious circle!
You cant use the old “catholics created the cannon” on protestants because they dont care. It doesnt show authority because God did it the Church wad just a tool for it to happen. The issue alot of people have with the Church is you are to prideful and offen seem to raise the Church over Jesus
no, you are the prideful ones. Protestant can't fathom that Jesus would have willed his church to be hierarchical, where you as a private layman are under the divine command to obey your God-appointed earthly leader as Hebrews 13:17 says. You are not Jesus, the Church is over YOU, not over Jesus, and Jesus is obviously over the Church. The Church serves Jesus better than YOU could ever wish to with your limited intellect and understanding, because the church is Christ's making.
Of course it shows authority. God worked through Moses, but it proved the authority that God gave him. God worked through all of his people and it showed the authority that he gave them. God working through his church shows the authority that he gave it.
Gavin Ortlund from “Truth Unites” channel made a defense of Protestantism in five minutes video…I mean, half the comments just compliment him on the animation, but he seems to be going against Catholics hard lately. He has debated Trent Horn, Jimmy Akin and has been on Pints with Aquinas. He is saying things I never heard before in that video on how the Protestants are more Catholic than Catholics and that they follow the early church fathers, etc. I made the mistake of going too deep in the comment section and am sad to say that there are people in there that were thinking about becoming Catholic and that five minute video has now prevented it from happening. I don’t know where he got his info from, but just because the animation is nice, it seems to be the focus of what his viewers are seeing and it’s driving me nuts…anyway, I look forward to seeing you in October Bryan for the confirmation retreat in Southington in October. You have no idea how much I am looking forward to it.
Adam
Gavin is completely an intellectually dishonest. To claim that protestants are more Catholic based on the early church Fathers is not only a laughable, it's nonsensical. People like him and James White love to cherry-pick certain verses all while ignoring the rest of the entire history and writings of the fathers.
We look forward to seeing you too Adam!
I saw that vid as well. Completely flawed logic. I wanted to write a comment. Even as a very lay person myself, I can see through the very serious flaws. Surprised a scholar even makes these types of argument.
@@PatrickInCayman yes, very disheartening. What hurts most is that that video apparently has “kept people Protestant”…I’m tired of Catholics saying they like to hear him because of his nice demeanor, but I can see right through it and I’m glad I’m not the only one. Happy Feast of Corpus Christi, Patrick. Thanks for replying as both you and Bryan just brought my blood pressure down.
Gavin has authority problems. He knows that the Catholic Church has the apostolic faith and he wants that, but he doesn't want to bend his neck to Christ in Christ's chosen vicar, the Bishop of Rome. So he's working overtime trying to appropriate everything Catholic (except the Pope) into easy-believist Protestantism, which is ridiculous. He now claims to believe in the Real Presence as a Baptist, apparently not understanding that only Catholic priests possess the power to confect the Sacrament.
I mentioned this one time and my protestant friend just smiled and changed the subject.
Probably because he didn't care. I'm not Catholic, but I fully accept the fact that the Church assembled the books of the Bible. I'm just not concerned if the Orthodox Church considers three books of Maccabees canonical (4 for the Georgians), the Catholic Church two, and the Protestants as apocrypha, but still historically relevant. I watch Catholics fighting over who the true Catholics are, Protestants hating on Catholics, and the Orthodox being ignored, and I think you all care too much about which direction the priest faces in mass and too little about how Jesus wants us to love one another.
wow you convinced me. Why do you bow to Mary? Discuss that...don't run away
@@edalbanese6310as if you'd ever listen, we answered thousands of times and you guys are indoctrinated into us being wrong. Just watch the last featuring of Michael Lofton on Catholic Answers and we'll see.
@@edalbanese6310 you literally just did what he said his friend did. This video and the OP are not about Mariology, they are about scripture.
@@edalbanese6310 why do priesthood forgiveness? The Bible says no one comes to the father but un through me...discuss that...don't run away
Great vid
🙏
@@peterzinya1
Why Peter, the same reason I can find you on your knees before your bed and even worshipping your Pastor.
If you don't think a bed counts, then can you tell me what other thing carved from wood looks more like a bed? Thats an image!
Just be kind to those around you when you look around. That great beam in your eye is sure to hit someone. 👀
@@peterzinya1 It's not an excuse at all. So, I guess it can't be weak either?
You claim I can't deny something? What is that? t
Can you tell me when I have ever bowed before a graven image? You claim I have, so tell me, when and where?
I would also like to know how you can have this ESP and not know what is going through my mind.
I have saluted the American flag does that count as bowing before a graven image. (In fact, I have even saluted the flag with my left hand for a week as my right was in a cast)
WHOOOAAAa. watch that beam in your eye. You almost hit me! At least cut it a bit shorter.
Following Jesus doesn't need a name. Just YOU. And Your faith.
That's literally not biblical since the followers of Jesus in the Bible had a name. You're preaching something that's not found in Scripture.
@@CatholicTruthOfficialbut the NAME was not catholic. You want to follow the Bible up until we question your practices and words you all use. Then it’s IT DOESNT HAVE TO BE IN THE BIBLE. you can’t have it both ways.
They claim sola scriptural but they don't even have the complete collection of the scriptures because they excluded several books.
Exactly right...why do you think Catholics are right?