@@rambutan3788 yes there is the evidence for it is in maccabees but of course the heretic Martin Luther ripped out 6 books including maccabees so in your Protestant bible there’s no mention of it. But you’ll accept that extra biblical authority in the form of Martin Luther I’m sure
@@rambutan3788 and like I said GO to the catechism which is ONLINE and FREE and look for YOURSELF for the teaching on purgatory and you will see the backing for it
@@SnehDanial Thats dangerous! We cannot unite with the abomination of the catholic church. The bible warns us to get out from her the mother of harlots.. Do not fall for the ecumenical movement of rome.. The book of revelation prophesies during the end times there will be a one world religion were everyone will ask to bowdown to the false messiah. Its hard to say but catholics will be the first ones who will bowdown to the beast because they are blinded by the false religion. Jesus warns us a lot of times in the bible about Deception… Beware! Be more close to God , meditate the word of God the bible…
@@SnehDanial Thats a big dangerous thing to do. Do not ever fall for ecumenism. The bible has warned us about that. The bible tells us there will come a time the Catholic Church will succeed in having the one world religion. Read you bible and pray for decernment that you will not be easily decieved by many false message…
I'm Catholic and just love my Evangelical Protestant brothers and sisters. I learn a lot about the Bible from them. We have a Catholic Women's Bible study group that has Protestant converts and they bring so much to our discussions. I've also known many Catholics that have become Protestant, as well. My father was one of them. We, as Christians, share the New Testament as none of those books were ever changed. A solid faith in Jesus is what we share.
All scriptures are inspired by God. 2 Timothy 3:16. Not just the New Testament. Jesus quoted from the Hebrew Scriptures. Matthew 4:4. Prophecies from the Hebrew Scriptures are fulfilled through Jesus. There is only one true religion. They are united. 1. Corinthians.1:10. It’s very important to get accurate knowledge.John 17:3. 1 Timothy 2:4. Catholics and protestants go against the law of the Christ, which is love because they fight in the wars of the nations. John 13:35
@@glennryan646 yeah right , tell this to the Catholics in my country who write songs with lyrics like quote “oh Mary i fall at your divine feet “ unquote ...
@@glennryan646 prayer /prer/ Learn to pronounce noun noun: prayer; plural noun: prayers a solemn request for help or expression of thanks addressed to God *********or an object of worship*********
I will go peaceably and firmly to the Catholic Church: for if Faith is so important to our salvation, I will seek it where true Faith first began, seek it among those who received it from God Himself. Elizabeth Ann Seton
If we are a true seeker of the fullness of truth, we should always have an open mind & heart to what God has revealed to us in our own human experience. Sadly, the amount of attacks that Catholicism has been getting makes me question what kind of belief system they are worshiping. “f I were not a Catholic, and were looking for the true Church in the world today, I would look for the one Church which did not get along well with the world; in other words, I would look for the Church which the world hates.” Ven. Sheen
Very interesting point. Is there a Church whose followers worship Christ, and which is subject to all other Christian churches attacking and denouncing it as non-Christian, including Catholics doing the denouncing and attacking?
It’s like a bunch of comedians with lampshades on the heads wanting the Bible but rejecting the institution that is responsible for it. That’s like accepting the US constitution but rejecting the Supreme Court that’s there to interpret it. In Protestant land, everyone is their own Pope. And if they followed this concept as American citizens, they’d all be their own president. It’s silly.
@@guardtheham1233 And if someone did actually believe in Sola Scriptura, they'd have to throw out the Sola Fide, but they don't. Because they don't either believe in Sola Scriptura (know that it's bogus) or they like to pick and choose what they believe (cafeteria Christianity).
@@mattbanco4406 More like, "I will acknowledge the Bible as God's word, but ignore the body and the tradition that put it together because obviously the early Christians didn't understand the Bible properly as we do. Our understanding, not one based on tradition like the early Christians is the right one. All those Apostles and their disciples obviously didn't know the Bible. What did they know? They didn't even know they were supposed to take out a few books from the collection of books and letters the Catholic Church put together that we now call the Bible. Actually come to think of it, just me and my pals in my church who really got it right. You know, the ones in the church founded by that bob-the-preacher guy. The other 40,000+ denominations are all wrong too. That's why we can't agree. They don't even agree with ME on fundamental things like the incarnation, nature and divinity of Christ, the Holy Trinity, nature of grace, forgiveness, salvation, or resurrection. Faith based on the Bible AND Tradition directly from Christ and his Apostles? No thanks. I like my cafeteria approach to my faith picking and choosing things I like. It's easier and suits my taste better.
@@truthfulpatriot9129It’s not “wine.” If you don’t understand Catholic theology so that you can have an intelligent conversation about it, maybe go do some reading first. Btw Christ said “This IS my BODY and this IS BLOOD.”
I do not trash others religious beliefs. I am sick and tired of non-catholics trashing my religion. Telling me I have not been saved, let Gods judgment on all. Some of you might be shocked who gets into heaven.
I believe that if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved, just like Scripture says. I don’t know why some people think that’s too simple.
@@lodestar3984 because your religion is always bragging about being the best and the first. When we stand together on judgement day , jesus may ask you about all the wrong doctrines you are following.
@@murielpucoe9213 Could you explain what you mean by that? I’m not sure what you are talking about when you say “bragging”. I hope my previous statement didn’t come across as arrogant.
For 1500 years, most humans on earth were illiterate and/or didn’t have access to a complete Bible. Were they not allowed into Heaven? Were they forsaken by God ? Absolutely not. Holy Tradition & the Sacraments are what gives us connection with the Holy Spirit and Christ on earth.
Well Jesus peace be upon him, forbid the followings: 1.Alcohol 2. LGBTQ+ and unlawful intercourse outside marriage 3. Money being lend on interest 4. Pork meat He were staying away from what was forbidden and was following these commands: 1. Fall in face “in prostration” to the God 2. He consider the God to be superior over him and worshiped him 3. He would fast 4. He was good with neighbours 5. He cursed those who lend money on interest, “including those Jews at his time and other who followed their footprints of sucking blood of the poor and middle class by ripping them off their wealth with their infinite printing money and causing money to devalue, that is another form of interest our banks r proceeding, to introduce something called paper and electronic money and then be able to easily manipulate its value. Today we live in a world where every bank lends money on interest, and those who control mania r Zionists which is a group Jews and a group of Christains in alliance to rip manking off and rule over them using religion. They don’t follow the commandments of Bible, Nor Turah nor Quran. They follow wealth, and if u follow wealth, ur heart will be blind ( I am not saying don’t be rich, all I am saying don’t fall in love to wealth), legalizing everything u can just to make maximum profit, and still thin u r a good Christian and a Good Jew and a Good Muslims! If u fear God then be like Jesus, follow the commandments and stay away from unjust gain of wealth and hunger and greed to rule over mankind, thus the Lord God will take u over those who disbelieved him, and succeed u over them and inherit u the holly land and the just ruling which he has promised to only the righteous Israelite people and not the wicked ones “the Zionists!” Who legalized every single thing God has made illegal and committed an enormous sinful act of blasphemy.
True protestants don’t say that. Protestants say that the Bible is the only infallible revelation. Not the only revelation. To quote Calvin "Our agreement with antiquity is far greater than yours, but all that we have attempted has been to renew the ancient form of the church ... [that existed] in the age of Chrysostom, and Basil, among the Greeks, and of Cyprian, Ambrose, and Augustine, among the Latins." Protestant ism is simply a means to return to the patristic traditions of the church before the accretion practices developed in the medieval age The patristic church relied on the Torah first, and then the recorded events of the gospel and letters by the apostles. - Irenaeus (AD 180): We have learned from none others the plan of our salvation, than from those through whom the gospel has come down to us, which they did at one time proclaim in public, and, at a later period, by the will of God, handed down to us in the Scriptures, to be the ground and pillar of our faith. (Against Heresies, 3:1.1) In fact, in scripture, it is recorded by the apostles in Christ over 200 times the term “it is written” which was indirect reference to the Torah scriptures.
Mark 7:13 "Making the word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye.” King James Version (KJV)
I believe in the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church, traced back to Jesus and His Apostles. Unity is key. As Jesus said, a house divided can not stand. 🕊💓
If you really love our Lord Jesus, pray to God for wisdom and discernment when you read His Word. The Catholic Church has absolutely nothing in common with the early church of the Apostles. The early church had no man-made dogmas nor false doctrine, much less idolatry.
@@cecialvarez6447 you are really wrong!! Please do some research on it with the help of holy spirit, we are not stupid to convert as catholic christians, stop listening to half minded pastors and read bible with help of holy spirit, god bless you❤
@shine2678 My testimony is long, but I will share this....I was born and raised Catholic. My mom was devoted Catholic. Because I did exactly what you recommended, I started reading the Bible; the Holy Spirit guided me not just to read but to study. And what a real eye opener that was. I went to my priest with all the inquiries and doubts. And you know what his answer was? After all the Bible passages that I confronted him with...."What do you want me to say that the church (meaning the Catholic church) got it wrong? And I said, did she? I left broken-hearted. I wanted so much to be wrong, I didn't want to leave my church. But not even once he could give an answer that could persuade me not to leave. No, I am not wrong! I don't know everything, but I know enough not to be misguided again by a "priest" or "pastor." or any other institution, No more false doctrines and dogmas imposed by men. The Word of God is clear and worship only the living God and my Lord and Savior Jesus Christ the only mediator between God and man. My God is a "jealous" God that doesn't share His Glory with no one. No, I am not wrong! God bless you, and may His Holy Spirit reveal the truth to you and all my brothers and sisters in the Catholic Church.
How about the people in the poor and third countries who can hardly eat 3x a day? I don't think they have bibles to read . What happens to them. They cannot be saved? There's no way they will be saved? Any suggestions.
The Original Catholic Canon In about 367 AD, St. Athanasius came up with a list of 73 books for the Bible that he believed to be divinely inspired. This list was finally approved by Pope Damasus I in 382 AD, and was formally approved by the Church Council of Rome in that same year. Later Councils at Hippo (393 AD) and Carthage (397 AD) ratified this list of 73 books. In 405 AD, Pope Innocent I wrote a letter to the Bishop of Toulouse reaffirming this canon of 73 books. In 419 AD, the Council of Carthage reaffirmed this list, to which Pope Boniface agreed. The Council of Trent, in 1546, reaffirmed St. Athanasius’s original list of 73 books.
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, and 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. Revelation 22:18-19
@@rudycataldo3653 yeah, that's directed to the protestant church. Although I don't feel that way. If you went back in time to when the Gutenberg bible was out they would consider you slow. 73 books then. And 73 books in every catholic Bible we know of. Is something wrong with you?
If the 1st page of the new testament says mary lost her virginity after Jesus was born then why do you believe the Catholic church when it says she died a virgin? These statements are the exact opposite of each other.
Heavenly God has never proven himself to me. Is what I thought. I turned 16 and realised that I had to prove myself to him. Reading a bible made by us does not feel right. We speak with our actions, not with our words. I live for the things that feel good, knowing that God has got my back and will remind me to choose another way. Follow your gut, not the books.❤❤ Amen.
The books of the Apocrypha were not officially recognized by the Catholic Church until the Council of Trent at the time of the reformation! Protestants didn't remove books; Catholics added them! Furthermore, when Luther said 'Sola Scriptura,' he didn't mean tradition is bad. He meant that tradition must be examined and judged in light of scripture, and if a tradition is contrary, we must reject it.
Your comment is incorrect. The Council of Trent (1545-1564) infallibly reiterated what the Church had long taught regarding the canons of the Old and New Testaments. Pope Damasus promulgated the Catholic canons at the Synod of Rome in A.D. 382, and later, at the regional councils of Hippo (393) and Carthage (397, 419), the Church again defined the same list of books as inspired. The canons of the Old and New Testaments, as defined by Pope Damasus and the Councils of Hippo and Carthage, were later ratified (though the books were not enumerated individually) by the later Ecumenical councils of II Nicaea (787) and Florence (1438-1445). Although the Council of Trent, in response to the Protestant violation of the Bible by deleting the seven Deuterocanonical books plus portions of Daniel and Esther, was the first infallible conciliar listing of each individual book, it certainly did not add those books to the canon. If that were the case, how could Martin Luther and the other Reformers have objected to the presence of those books decades before the Council of Trent if they weren’t in the canon to begin with and were added by the Council of Trent?
This is absolutely not true. Learn your history before spreading lies. The catholic Bible has been the same since 382. Protestantism is a false theology.
@@dantheman909 said: "Jesus himself said the traditions of men nullify the word of God" Not quite sure where you want to go with that point. Apart from that, did he say it in an approving or disapproving setting...
@Joshua Stephen all the books that protestants removed are from the old testament, so yes it is certain that at least 1 or 2 are still read by some Jews. Catholics use the original 73 books of the bible, the same 73 that were picked out by the synod of 397AD. (Proof that the bible gained it's authority from men who gained authority from God). Both numbers 7 and 3 are used time and time again in the bible to refer to god and sacred things. The "orthodox" use 81 books even though said synod banned any adding of books. The western protestants use 66 books, which is a very strange number to use and I can't help but associate it with the 666 which is the number of the Antichrist.
Protestants and Catholics need to stop arguing and realize that we all worship the same God and stand against the real evil plaguing the world, the religion of wokism. Then if you want go back to fighting after that.
Here's the problem: We two different books. One is true and the other is false. In Catholicism we have the sacraments. We have the apostles. We have the history and the traditions. Protestants have none of that. Now how easy is it to be saved as a Protestant? I don't know. All I can say that without the sacraments it is difficult.
The word PROTESTANT should already tell you that we don't serve the same God. When you protest against the one true church of God (Mt 16:18-19), the question is which god do you serve now since you protested against the true God. 1 cor 3:11 assures us that Jesus the one true foundation has now commissioned Peter to use that foundation. Jesus said to Peter in Mt 16:18, you are the rock and on this foundation I will build my church. So if Catholic is the true church of God, what foundation does the Protestant church stand on which leads to the question, which god have you now found trust and solace in that you see fit to worship other than the God you protested against.
Michael Kruger’s book “The Canon Revisited” does a pretty good job explaining how the scriptures are self authenticating, as is the actual belief of the historic Protestant church. The Scripture’s quality attests to its authenticity as God breathed, not the “imagisterium.” As God’s very words, it is by definition the highest authority. It does not need another authority to validate it (say, the papacy…) otherwise it would not be the highest authority, but rather it would be subservient to what validated it.
@@surprisedchar2458 that is literally so false. Melito of Sardis, Jerome, and cardinal cageitan, the prellet that interviewed Luther as a catholic also denied those book
@@dustinnyblom7835how do you know the gospel of Thomas, Peter, or Judas aren’t inspired? What about the epistles of Ignatius, Justin matryr, or Irenaeus of Lyons aren’t inspired?
@@patrickpelletier9298Its because catholics are the ones who made those books up, not the actual apostles nor Jesus or his true followers. Plus it is quite clear which books are and aren't inspired.
Division . Protestants in Korea call bread of life a rice cake in korea. There was no such thing as rice cake back then. They call god as “one”. They agreed that it was wrong to address it like that but still decided to change all words just so that they differentiate themselves from catholic. Why would they differentiate those? However on hindsight, ive been to both churches and I felt love. I felt his presence. I experienced holy spirit in both. God exists in any place that love him, jesus and holy spirit. Although i have my opinions i support unity love and respect from one religion to another.
Some basic facts The Gutenberg Bible was printed in Mainz in 1455 by Johann Gutenberg and his associates, Johann Fust and Peter Schoeffer. Only 48 copies are known to have survived, of which 12 are printed on vellum and 36 on paper. How important is Luther's Bible? Luther's German translation of the New Testament appeared in 1522. He then translated the whole of the Bible into German with the first edition being published in Wittenberg in 1534. So in other words we know for a fact that the Bible had 73 books for over 75 years before the Protestant Bible had 66 books. So It was the Protestants that removed books from THEIR Bible. The council of Trent was after all these events.
Nope. Even Protestants had the Apocrypha in their Bibles for many years. The 1611 King James Version Bible has those books in it. It wasn't till the 1820s when the Apocrypha was taken out of many Protestant Bibles.
@@siervodedios5952 ok, so what? It was Luther that removed them from the Canon. He was too much of a coward to remove them from his new Bible officially. It's like a Bible that has a spider man comic. And it's very clear spider man is not part of the canon.
@@nosuchthing8 the books that he removed wasnt part of the Tanaj original canon, try to compare a catholic bible and a protestant bible vs Tanaj (that is Old testament) and u will see that Catholic Bible addeed 7 more books that tanaj dont have, while Protestant bible that have the same book as the jew one
@@nosuchthing8 seems to be u dont understand that Tanaj or Old Testament is important as the New Testament, cause Jesus one day read Tanaj’s books, so if Catholic Bibe added 7 more books means that is not from the original canon from the Old Testament or Tanaj
catholics, protestants and every christian on the face of the earth should come together and not let the western christiam civilization die at the hands of islam
Christianity is under attack by the Western globalists, Jews, Islam, and atheists. But we all know that in the end God will win and we will defeat these Satan worshipping supranational demons. Russia has started the fight against the West and all good Christians should be backing Russia to destroy the globalist empire.
Scripture along with sacred tradition have always been authority of the Christian faith. Without understanding how scripture was traditionally interpreted you're bound to end up believing all types of heresies.
We do not rely on 'Sacred Tradition" (a doctrine introduced after the Reformation btw). The canon was agreed uoon by simple means of recognition and well disttributed before the Council of Nicea.
@@kellygipson8354 Sorry, that is wrong. The "deuterocanonicals" as they are properly called, were included in the canon of Scripture at the Council of Rome in 382. Pope Damasus I published the "Damasene List" that included the 73 books we have today. After the deuterocanonicals were removed by Luther, the Council of Trent in the 1530s re-affirmed the existing 73 books as canonical.
@@deaconbilcarter5210 you are correct about the ATTEMPT to declare these books as canonical. But seeing as how, in 382, there was no singular pope recognized as having such authority. This declaration was ignored by many.
As a Protestant (Methodist) my specific denomination believes in sacred tradition and all of that. I don’t understand how you could go off of JUST the Bible
Before Paul wrote to the Ephesians, he visited for 3 years. He spent night and day teaching them. Then he left, leaving them the tradition of what he taught. It was only when he learned they started to slip from what he taught, that he wrote his epistle to them. So there is more to what was taught than why was written.
@@patrickpelletier9298 I’m not sure what you are trying to say. You’ve replied to a comment that says if you don’t want to read and learn the Bible then you aren’t one of God’s children. The Bible is the “foundation” of revelation because it is the inerrant word of God. God gave us the gift of His word, sent His Son, the Word that became flesh, and is the decider and revealer of right & wrong. It’s precepts. You can’t have revelation without knowing the Word and what it is saying
@@patrickpelletier9298so we should assume that the Bible is not enough on the off chance that Paul taught something that is not in it. If that is what you think then you doubt the sufficiency of the Bible.
@@dclink418 no, Paul wrote his letters after teaching for months (if not years) in a place. His letters were there to correct where they got lost. He even said to hold fast to what was taught in both written word (the epistles) and what they were taught orally. The creed even predates the canonization of the Bible. Bible alone is erroneous, and dangerous, because with it we have bad teachers making up crap to justify stuff like homosexuality.
Protestants believe the Bible is the word of God but Catholics believe that JESUS IS THE WORD OF GOD. The Word that came from The Father, became flesh and dwelt among us. The difference is that between earth and heaven.
@@corywiedenbeck2702 Catholics believe in only The Word, Jesus. No written book can be compared to Him. Protestants believe in Sola Scriptura, Catholics believe in Sola Dei. Protestants actually believe there is nothing beyond or outside the Bible, effectively making it an idol and worshipping the language in it. Protestants call it the Bible which they have snipped according to their convenience but Catholics refer to them as The Scriptures. 😆btw in your post too you have mentioned the Bible first and Jesus second, one can see who it is you give more importance to.
@@SD-fk8bt well seeing as the Bible is essentially written by the guidance of The Holy Spirit I would say it matters immensely and seeing as Jesus talks to us through His word and we know Him from reading it and hearing it because Faith comes by hearing. You cannot have one without the other being involved. Jesus is the Word
I am a Baptist, so technically not a Protestant, but not Catholic. The reason why we reject the apocrypha is because it doesn’t agree with the rest of Scripture. John 14:6 “I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.” Don’t confess to a priest, go straight to Christ! He is our only mediator between us and God. 😊
That is your interpretation of the bible, but it is not what the bible actually says. There is always a certain difference between interpretation and actual content, even if your interpretation is correct, because we always read between the lines as well. Which is why we should look to what was taught by the earliest Christians, which, I say this in charity, totally disproves Baptists and 90% of Protestants who dont believe in Transsubstanciation. I heavily encourage you to look into it and read St. Ignatius of Antioch's Epistle to the Smyrneans from the year 106 AD. He was Student of Apostle John, Bishop and Martyr, willingly thrown to the beasts in Rome for refusing to Apostatize. He wrote that Christians should never associate with those who disbelieve that the Eucharist is the true Body and Blood of Christ and abstain from it. I hope this makes you consider looking into Church history for the True Ancient Traditions rather than the 15th century Traditions of Protestantism (which Baptists are pretty much a part of, Sola Fide and Sola Scriptura is a distinctly Protestant doctrine)
All Churches follow Tradition. Some take it seriously and part of their doctrine. Others don’t and let the Truth slide and morph and change over the centuries. Glad to be back to the original Christian Church.
@3cool2beans1 Yes, Jesus is our high priest and mediator. That is Catholic teaching. Mary never sinned because she was created without original sin. Holding God within her, she is the fulfillment of the Ark of the Covenant, containing the living Word of God, the Bread of Life, and the eternal high priest. I'm not sure where you got the idea that Catholics think Jesus dies every Wednesday. He died once and His sacrifice is eternal. We preach Christ crucified - 1 Corinthians 1:23-24. After all, Jesus commanded us to re-present His sacrifice at the Last Supper and He is the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world (Revelation 13:8) and appears as a slain Lamb in Revelation 5:6. The Crucifixion is the greatest love story that can ever exist, where God himself died for us. We will never forget. And, we have obeyed His command from the Last Supper for two thousand years (Luke 22:19) - for all that time, a pure offering (Jesus himself) has been offered up from the rising of the sun to the going down of the sun - Malachi 1:11. We ask our brethren in the Body of Christ to pray for us. We believe that Mary is part of that Body. To pray is not always to worship. To pray can be to make a humble request. Worshiping Mary is condemned. Only God is worthy of worship. Mary is not God. God forgives sins and God gave that authority to the Apostles/bishops - John 20:23. It is God to whom we confess and God forgives our sins through the priests who works under the authority of the bishop. The pope didn't say that Jesus failed. He said it looked like Jesus failed to the Apostles and others. And he is correct. Judas betrayed Him and died. Peter betrayed Him three times. The Apostles fled and went into hiding. The Jews thought the Messiah would be a leader fighting against the Romans and become King of Israel. The savior was to be a political leader. Even when Jesus was going to ascend, He was asked if He was going to restore the kingdom to Israel (Acts 1:6). It looked like Jesus failed, but on the third day He rose triumphantly. Humanly speaking, He failed. But from the perspective of God, He succeeded. And now that we understand His sacrifice, we too see Him as triumphant.
Quran proves itself false, plus look at how Muhammad really was as a human being. I don’t know why after reading his atrocities that committed why you would even be attracted to him unless your narcissistic side finally found a place.
True protestants don’t say that. Protestants say that the Bible is the only infallible revelation. Not the only revelation. To quote Calvin "Our agreement with antiquity is far greater than yours, but all that we have attempted has been to renew the ancient form of the church ... [that existed] in the age of Chrysostom, and Basil, among the Greeks, and of Cyprian, Ambrose, and Augustine, among the Latins." Protestant ism is simply a means to return to the patristic traditions of the church before the accretion practices developed in the medieval age The patristic church relied on the Torah first, and then the recorded events of the gospel and letters by the apostles. - Irenaeus (AD 180): We have learned from none others the plan of our salvation, than from those through whom the gospel has come down to us, which they did at one time proclaim in public, and, at a later period, by the will of God, handed down to us in the Scriptures, to be the ground and pillar of our faith. (Against Heresies, 3:1.1) In fact, in scripture, it is recorded by the apostles in Christ over 200 times the term “it is written” which was indirect reference to the Torah scriptures.
Because the bishops of the Catholic Church deemed which books belong in the Bible in the 300s. Protestantism which started in 1500s and Evangelicals which started in the 1800s, were not existent.
The argument is that if the Protestant objection is that Scripture Alone is the source of infallible revelation, then they have to conceded that they dont know reliably if they have all inspired writings or not; “a fallible collection of infallible books.” as R.C. Sproul referred to it. That seems to be a real problem that for the Protestant position on this that the canon of scripture can never really be closed.
The Catholic Bible didn't come with a table of contents. The Holy Spirit taught it through the Catholic Church. Refer objections to the Holy Spirit promised by Jesus. Blessings.
The Christian Canon was discerned at the Councils of Rome, Hippo & Carthage in 382, 393 & 397; and then officially Canonized in 405 by Pope Innocent l.
my main issue with catholicism isn't that they believe things that aren't in the bible. like he says, there can be revelations outside of the texts. my issue is that they have many beleifs that contradict with passages in the bible and they elect leadership that seems to just make up new rules on the fly that dont hold any water. there have been popes that decanonized the prior decrees of past popes, so how can you be sure any of it is actually of God?
Another point I make is that there is no escape from tradition. The question is are you going to follow the tradition of the church Jesus established or the tradition of a church established by man.
This is the dumbest stance Catholics have. Jesus not once mentioned the 'Catholic church'. The Church didn't come about until 300 years after he died.. before that you were just Christians hiding from persecution, because Rome outlawed Christianity. Most of your traditions are established by man, hypocrite. But go on... lets just believe the people making others pay to get into heaven know what they are talking about.
What is this guy talking about, always believed on? The 7 deuterocanonical books weren't officially added until the council of Trent. They were written in Greek and part of the apocrypha attached to the Septuagint, and the Jews don't even accept those books. Jesus and the New Testament authors never quote any of those books, and the Book of Isaiah has 66 chapters that match perfectly with the 66 chapters of the Bible.....almost as if a clue from God as to what the Canon really is. The added books were a rebuttal to the reformation, that's the only reason why they're in there.
You are so wrong on so many levels. The Canon of the Bible was discerned at the Councils of Rome, Hippo & Carthage in 382, 393 & 397 by the Catholic Church. Then the Christian Canon was officially Canonized in 405 by Pope Innocent l and subsequently by other Councils. Luther created his own canon. As far as the 7 Books. An OT Book being quoted in the NT is NOT a qualification for being Canonical. Not all OT Books are quoted in the NT. Also, the 7 Books are referenced in the NT. btw: The Jews who ACCEPTED Jesus, also ACCEPTED The 7 Books. The Jews who REJECTED Jesus, also REJECTED the 7 Books.
@@annapennrose1158 You and I have hashed this out last year before. I don't care to repeat the same arguments with you. Sorry, but you're brainwashed. The Jews who accepted Jesus accepted the 7 books? What are you talking about?.....
Dude. Those books were Canon for 1500 years. And they are in the Gutenberg Bible. So that alone proves you wrong. They HAVE ancient bibles. It's a settled question. Yeesh.
@@nosuchthing8 You're wrong. If the Gutenberg Bible didn't exist until 1454, and the Canon existed for 1500 years already, then that means the the Canon existed even before the New Testament was written? Yeesh.
@@rudycataldo3653 the Gutenberg Bible was simply a late version of the Canon that anyone can check. Dude, it PREDATES the Luther Bible. By over 70 years. And had the 73 books. Again, I guess math is your weak point by the historical FACT is that Luther dropped those books. Unless you are thinking time travel, Luther has 66 books an a time traveling Luther goes back 75 years to print a Bible with seven extra books?
The Catholic Church remains more united compared to Protestant churches for several key reasons related to authority, tradition, and organizational structure: 1. **Centralized Authority** - The Catholic Church has a clear, hierarchical structure with the **Pope** as the supreme leader. The Pope, as the Bishop of Rome, is considered the spiritual successor to St. Peter and holds the highest authority in matters of doctrine and church governance. - This centralized authority allows for more uniformity in teachings and practices, as final decisions on theological disputes or church governance come from the Vatican. 2. **Apostolic Tradition** - Catholicism emphasizes the importance of both **Scripture** and **Sacred Tradition**. The belief in Apostolic Succession, where bishops and priests are seen as successors to the apostles, contributes to continuity and consistency in teachings and practices throughout history. - This reliance on long-standing tradition has helped maintain unity, as doctrines and interpretations are not subject to personal interpretation or local decisions, unlike the Protestant principle of "sola scriptura." 3. **Doctrinal Authority: Magisterium** - The **Magisterium** is the teaching authority of the Catholic Church, made up of the Pope and bishops. They interpret and clarify doctrines, and their decisions are binding for all Catholics. This means that debates or differences in opinion can be resolved at the highest levels of the Church, keeping the community united. - In contrast, Protestants generally lack a central interpretive authority, which leads to varying interpretations of scripture and often results in the formation of new denominations. 4. **Sacramental Unity** - The Catholic Church teaches that salvation is closely tied to participation in the sacraments (e.g., Eucharist, Baptism, Confession) and that these sacraments can only be administered by ordained clergy. This sacramental framework helps bind Catholics together in shared worship and belief. - Protestant denominations often differ on how they view and practice sacraments, contributing to fragmentation. 5. **Historical Continuity** - The Catholic Church claims an unbroken continuity back to the early Christian Church, with a consistent line of leadership and tradition. This continuity provides a sense of stability and unity that Protestant churches, which often originated as reform movements, do not have. - Protestantism, by nature, arose out of a break with the Catholic Church, and its emphasis on reform and individual interpretation has led to a greater tendency toward division. ### 6. **Universal Catechism** - The Catholic Church has a **universal catechism**, which is a summary of its teachings. This ensures that Catholics around the world receive consistent instruction on matters of faith and morals. Protestant denominations often have different confessions or creeds, contributing to diversity in belief. ### 7. **Resistance to Change** - The Catholic Church has historically been slower to adapt to cultural or theological trends compared to Protestant groups. While this has sometimes been a source of criticism, it has also contributed to greater unity, as major changes in doctrine or practice are rare and carefully considered. ### 8. **Role of Ecumenical Councils** - Ecumenical councils, such as the Council of Trent or the Second Vatican Council, have played a key role in unifying Catholic teaching and practice in response to challenges or changes in the world. These councils provide a way to address issues while maintaining the unity of the Church. In contrast, Protestantism, with its emphasis on individual interpretation and the absence of a single governing authority, naturally lends itself to fragmentation as different groups form around differing theological perspectives. The Catholic Church's centralized authority and strong adherence to tradition have been key factors in maintaining its unity over the centuries.
This priest forgets that it was ultimately God that gave us the cannon we have. The men who received it and put it into place were God's tools in making sure that he does not leave Himself without witness.
The Book of Revelation was canonized many years later by a Catholic synod of Hippo in 393 A.D. strangely, it is in their protestant 66 books. Catholic Church decisions covered by Matthew 16:18-19 (especially verse 19) & 2nd Thessalonians 2:15 (Traditions of the early Catholic Church).
False. Protestants do not rely on tradition. when the decision was made as to what books were canonical, they used the Latin term recipemus, which means “we receive.” What the church said is that we receive these particular books as being canonical, as being apostolic in authority and in origin, and therefore we submit to their authority. It’s one thing to make something authoritative, and it’s another thing to recognize something that already is authoritative. Those human decisions did not make something that was not authoritative suddenly authoritative, but rather the church was bowing, acquiescing to that which they recognized to be sacred Scripture. The books in the Protestant bible are the books in Jesus’ bible (the Hebrew Scriptures / Old Testament). Catholics add the apocrypha which contain heresy and these were not in Jesus’s bible (the Hebrew Scriptures / Old Testament).
@@alhilford2345 It took a few decades to bring biblical thinking to bear and eliminate the false books. Protestants were preeminently rational and prayerful about the canon. After a brief time it became very clear that the apocrypha was not inspired. The Apocrypha was not in the Hebrew Scriptures and not in the Old Testament that Jesus read from. To this day, the jews do not recognize the apocrypha as the word of God. It is of greek origin and not Hebrew, contains false teaching incompatible with the rest if scripture and is not quoted by other biblical authors.
We have over 5 000 documents with dating to know what is scripture or not we also look at the fact that truth does not contradict itself. Forget your traditions and get saved
@@emmap1159don't forget that King also beheaded two wives. Once he got his Church and made himself head of it. Ultimately making himself God instead of Jesus Christ our Savior. Protestants need to learn some basic history.
@@ladyofnoxus6733the Catholic Church also had many crusades killing thousands. Burned people at the stake for trying to mass produce the Bible. Also, sold indulgences to propel to take advantage of them. Don’t act like you’re church is perfect lol
🤦♂️ The bible is a collection of independent books that have been canonized into a single book. The Catholics use the apocryphal and the protestants do not.
@@glennryan646 the church is literally us. We are the church. Read 1 peter 2. Also the word of God says that we are Gods building. It’s spiritual not physical. That’s what you get wrong. Read the word of God. The word of God is Jesus. Anything other than that is man made
I’m so tired of this “all you need is Jesus” because you aren’t saying that all you need is Jesus because you don’t have ALL of Jesus. Jesus clearly founded a church He clearly said He will build His church. Does this mean the church is the people or the church is the institution, the entity, the teaching body? The answer is that it’s BOTH. If you do not have an infallible authority guided by the Holy Spirit to be free from error on earth than you cannot have the mystical body of Christ because nobody will know what to believe and everyone will simply believe what they think is true and not the objective truth. Accepting Jesus follows with accepting the church He founded. If you reject the church Jesus founded you reject JESUS.
@@Leofric000 1 John 2:27 “But you have received the Holy Spirit, and he lives within you, so you don’t need anyone to teach you what is true. For the Spirit teaches you everything you need to know, and what he teaches is true-it is not a lie. So just as he has taught you, remain in fellowship with Christ.” Your going against scripture. If you have accepted Jesus and were baptized after being a disciple then you have the spirit that guides you. The Holy Spirit is our advocate. The only authority is Jesus. He remains in all of those who remain in him. You don’t need anyone besides him. Did the prophets need someone or did they rely on God who led them personally? Now Jesus has said I will give you the advocate and we say we still need to rely on man. Yes it is true we are to come together as a body in Christ but that is only for the sake of unity and to also rejoice in the Lord for the sake of the world. Nowhere does the word of God say we need a earthly teacher for our salvation. If you look at others for your salvation truly they will disappoint you
@@Leofric000 where did Jesus say the church was a physical thing? Do you not understand that those who follow Christ are the church? The Bible says we are Gods building. We are his temple. Jesus never founded a building for the sake of salvation. He said come to me all who are thirsty. He said I am the bread of life. He said I am the way the truth and the life. If you ask then how is it that we accept Jesus, that is found in Roman’s 10:9. Confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and that God raised him from the dead and you will be saved. I’ll say it again you WILL be saved. If the catholic baptized disciples as they were meant to many would have the spirit of God but instead they baptize babies who cannot decide anything for themselves. Where has Jesus said to baptize and then make them disciples? Can the Lord make you a disciple by force? How can we put Jesus in those who have not accepted him? I have not seen that in the living word of God that is the Bible. Jesus is the word of God so any authority you claim apart from the Bible is false.
Which proves our point. Who decided what your scared tradition is since you don't agree with Protestants/Jewish people? "In vain they do worship Me, teaching for doctrines the traditions of men." Matthew 15:9
Prots just don’t get it. Sola Scriptura is actually anti-biblical and is self refuting. It’s also a man-made tradition. It’s hilarious that so many of them attack Holy Mother Church yet accept her authority when they accept the NT canon.
Pointing fingers however will not lead to our unity and thus is not pleasing to our Lord. Let us pray for the bridges and the great many things we have in common. Let us not pick the pebble…
@@Beethovenviolin I was referring specifically to those prots who *attack* and are not of goodwill- those that have already pointed fingers. And, I have no idea what you mean by “let us pray for….the great many things we have in common”, but it sounds an awful lot like some kind of quasi indifferentism, and I’d caution you on that. Don’t forget protestantism fractured Christ’s One True Church and has led millions to damnation. Forgive me if I don’t want to get all warm and fuzzy with it.
@@TheBadTrad only in the spirit of one sharpening another here. We all have talents and challenges in our imperfections. One of my challenges I require Christ and the greater body’s is probably tact when typing dialogue. Conversely my talent, which has in fact brought that challenge to light, is in my tone and demeanor (lost in this form). And those talents were honed after my judgemental years that were far less fruitful. I’m involved in conversions almost weekly and not one has come from arguing faith talking points. Instead they come from the care of the soul through listening and through acts of love. Many times a Protestant will discover my Catholicism and will share a journey they had; sometimes beginning with our church. At times I’ll be bated with a faith works debate. I describe I’m disinterested in the debate because it “scatters” and “confuses.” It’s divisive and more about semantics and circular dialogue. It’s full of the temptations of pride and envy. I say I’m more interested to know our commonalities and where our unities lie. Do we heal a marriage by constantly staring at a problem or arguing a point we know our spouse disagrees with us on? Would Christ do that to heal the church through us? Sure. I could argue that Satan has faith and it has not done he or his followers any good. And, if pressed I’ve said that and laughed with my fellow Christian. Ultimately they feel my love for them by inviting dialogue and in where Christ is working in their lives. It is through the dialogue that the truth comes. Not through imperative statements. And yes we can very much learn from our fellow Christians and that strengthens our faith. Only fear of that dialogue will weaken it.
I don’t think sola scriptura is unbiblical. It means the Bible is the sole infallible authority for our faith. This does not mean there are no other authorities- as the video mentions, councils deciding the cannon and many other matters are deciding truth. As a Protestant myself, we still read and believe many creeds written by men. Maybe some Protestants don’t but you seemed to generalize when you said “Prots just don’t get it.” Sola scriptura does not mean we reject all teachings that are “man-made,” as long as those traditions are in line with the sole ultimate authority of the Bible. 2 Timothy 3:16 tells us all scripture is inspired by God. John 17:17 says God’s word is truth. Proverbs 30:5 says every word of God is true. So, there is no question that the Bible is inerrant. So, what about church doctrine? Can that be an authority on equal grounds as the Bible as Catholics believe? 2 Peter 1:20-21 tells us that no prophecy of scripture comes from interpretation, or by the will of men, but by men speaking from God through the Holy Spirit. What this means is that God, of course, speaks through people. Thus, it is completely possible for him to be inspiring the authors of the canon, as he did, and the authors of many other important doctrines like the doctrine of the Trinity, which is never mentioned by name in scripture but fairly obvious. However, just as the Pharisees kept adding their own rules and interpretations to established scripture during Jesus’ time that was clearly not scripture, as they were refuted by Jesus, people, who make up the church, can clearly get things wrong. In other words, they are not infallible. God’s Word is; therefore it is the ultimate standard and authority. That is what sola scriptura means: if any man-made teaching contradicts the scriptures, or adds to it in a way that drastically changes the intent of scripture, it is not from God. They are not inspired. Furthermore, most Protestants I know at least don’t believe the Bible is our only source of revelation (that is not what sola scriptura means). We believe in general revelation all humans receive, and possibilities for other revelation depending on if it contradicts scripture or not. If it does, why did God write the scripture in the first place only to change later? Why does the Bible call itself fully true? This also means that the Bible is all we need. 2 Timothy 3:17 tells us that the Bible is sufficient for thoroughly furnishing us to be perfect. We need nothing else! To conclude, it is not impossible that God inspires and talks to people outside of the Bible today, as he did when inspiring people to figure out what was in the canon. However, no authority is above God’s word, and nothing a human could say outside of God’s word is really necessary. Plus, how do we know it is of God? The “God spoke to me” problem has caused a lot of division in the church. It may be possible that this is because we are trying to add unnecessary and in many cases untrue words to scripture, which calls itself both perfect and sufficient.
@@jadongrifhorst6221 Nowhere in the Bible does it say it is the sole “infallible authority.” That’s completely made up. Since the ancient Israelites, the paradigm has been a three legged stool. They had Scripture, Tradition, and had an authoritative teaching authority-all of which held at the same level (but never above Scripture). It continued into the New Covenant whereby Scripture (the NT) was handed down orally (Tradition) for hundreds of years before it was written down and then the NT canon was decided by the Catholic Church, and the Apostles and their successors taught (authoritatively) what Scripture meant. That’s been the paradigm since the beginning. Nowhere does Holy Scripture tell us that paradigm has changed. Nowhere. And I would point out as well that the definition of Sola Scriptura changes depending upon what tradition a particular prot happens to belong to. Many prot denominations believe it is absolutely the sole rule of faith-not just as you describe it the sole “infallible” rule of faith. How many times do you have to hear a fellow prot ask “where is that in the Bible?” So, it depends upon which one of the 47,000 (and counting) prot denominations one belongs to as to what their definition of Sola Scriptura is, and that also helps in explaining why there are that many denominations (and counting) to begin with. For the first 1500 years of Christianity, Sola Scriptura-in whatever form-was never taught or believed. It wasn’t until 500 years ago that some mentally unstable monk decided to start his own “church” that Sola Scriptura even came about. Talk about a tradition of men! 2 Timothy doesn’t in any way tell us that Sola Scriptura is the sole rule of faith. John 17:17 does indeed tell us that God’s word is truth. The Catholic Church has never taught differently. Timothy 3:15-16 tells us that the *Church* is the “pillar and bulwark of truth…”. and Christ gave The Church (His One, True Church-the Catholic Church) and its leaders the power to “bind and loose” and to make doctrine that is binding on the faithful. Christ also taught us that the “Gates of hell will not prevail against” His Church (Matthew 16) which means the Church can never teach error, so yes, The Church can be on “equal grounds” as the Bible, because that’s what Christ taught. And as is typical, you throw in the Pharisees and try to use them as a cudgel to beat down the argument of the authority of the Catholic Church, but what you’re *again* missing is that Christ gave His Church and its leaders the power to make doctrine. When Christ gave St Peter (and later the apostles as a whole) the power to “bind and loose”, actually saying what St Peter declared is binding *in Heaven* that’s a pretty good indication that He gave some men the power to infallibly decide doctrine. Since it would be “bound in Heaven”, it cannot be fallible, can it? Nothing in Catholic doctrine contradicts Scripture. Nothing. You state that you believe in “other revelation depending on if it contradicts scripture or not…” Putting aside the fact that public revelation ended with the last apostle, my question to you then is who decides whether or not it does contradict Scripture? Who is your final authority, and what happens when you disagree with a fellow prot? I’ll tell you: You go off and start a new “church”. Again, that’s why there are 47,000 different prot denominations. That’s not what Christ wanted and prayed for. You keep stating what *you* believe constitutes Sola Scriptura, but there are countless other prots who absolutely do believe Scripture is the *sole rule of faith* which happens to be the actual translation of the term- Scripture Alone. You again mention 2 Timothy, and then despite all your arguments to the contrary, you say that it means the Bible is *all we need” and that “we need nothing else!” You are actually arguing there for Scripture Alone- and not just the sole “infallible” rule of faith. Which is it? You place extrapolation onto 2 Timothy which isn’t there. If you’d look at the overall context of this passage, you’d see that St Paul makes reference to *oral Tradition* three times (cf. 2 Tim. 1:13-14; 2:2; 3:14). Read Eph. 4:11-15. If 2 Timothy proves Sola Scriptura, then Ephesians 4 would likewise prove the sufficiency of pastors and teachers for the attainment of Christian perfection. In Ephesians 4, Christians are equipped, built up, brought into unity and mature manhood, and even preserved from doctrinal confusion by means of the teaching function of the Church. This goes way further and is a much stronger argument for the perfecting of the saints than 2 Timothy 3, yet it doesn’t even mention Scripture. In addition to delving further into Scripture-deeper than just 2 Timothy, I urge you to read the Early Church Fathers, some of whom learned at the feet of the Apostles. You’ll see none of them believed or taught Sola Scriptura. You’ll also learn how they believed and taught what the Catholic Church always has for 2,000 years.
The church didn’t decide; it confirmed what was already known. By the time the Canon was made it was already obvious which books were to be in the NT and which weren’t. There were certain guideline e.g. apostles recommendation (such as Peter saying Paul’s writings were of God), proof of authorship, quotations from early church fathers, etc. The OT books were the same ones during Jesus’s time found in the Hebrew text (Masoretic). I highly recommend the book ‘The Church of Rome at the Bar of History’ by William Webster for more in-depth discussion.
You guys have been killing Protestants for hundreds of years because you guys keep preaching your false Gospel of a work salvation, while people like John Calvin, Whitefield, and many others how did the Bible is clear teaching of by faith alone. Let me ask you something did the thief on the cross have time to do any sacred traditions or any works while he was on the cross?
@@jesusrosary9067 I'm assuming when you mean scriptures you mean the New testament specifically? And if you're not meaning the New testament specifically than how come you guys don't do animal sacrifices and burnt offerings?
Some things are just a part of life that the Bible doesn’t talk about. Like how you should interpret the Bible. But that’s why we have the church so we can build up our understanding of the Bible, which doesn’t mean that we should be relying upon Devine revelation elsewhere. There’s multiple ways to know what books are in the Bible. 1. It doesn’t go against canon scripture 2. Canon scripture is majority of scripture from the time of Jesus that doesn’t go directly against the Old Testament. (Since this is pretty complicated to get into, there’s a reason why we have theologians to do it for us)
The bible says Mary lost her virginity after Jesus was born. Its the first page of the new testament. The catholic church says she died a virgin and that her hymen never broke - an absolutely disgusting way to talk about her.
It doesn't give the solution to which texts should be interpreted symbolically and which literally. That's where tradition and the magisterium come to help.
The Scripture interprets Scripture. The Bible cannot contradict itself. If a tradition is contrary to what is written in the Scripture, the Word must stand. “Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.” 2 Thessalonians 2:15 KJV “making the word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye.” Mark 7:13 KJV
@@StillProtesting if the man in this video has historical records and facts to support the idea of sola scriptura being absurd, then those Protestants in-law would hide in embarrassment.
Book of Isaiah has 66 chapters. Each chapter in order is a book of the Bible. If you read Isaiah you would see the parallels. Isaiah is like the most important prophetic book of the Old Testament. The instructions for how many books are to be in the Bible were recorded in the Old Testament hundreds of years before the church was around.
@@patrickpelletier9298 because if you read Isaiah you can see that the first chapter is genesis. The 2nd chapter draws parallels to Exodus. The 3rd chapter is Leviticus and so on…. Once you get to the middle of Isaiah it prophesies of Jesus. Anyone with basic understanding can infer and see that God used the book of Isaiah as the template for how the Bible would be organized. Oh I know that’s hard to hear if you’re catholic. What does the Bible say about people who add to or take away from his word? Oh yea… name blotted out of the book of life. Lake of Fire for eternity. Better that they were never born.
@@DtotheK88 but it doesnt say it. Which means that you view of it is based on what you were taught, which came from a source outside of the bible. The bible was in large circulation by the time it was fully set down in the year 380, with 72 books. Those books stood for 1100 years, until the protestant uprising. They were removed by protestants. It might be hard to hear this, but the 2 points protestantism is founded on arent biblical, and frankly, tell God you know more than Him.
@@patrickpelletier9298 America and Britain were made great world powers on KJV bible, central and South America were founded on catholic bibles. Judge the fruits. If your church is torturing and burning people alive for something, it’s probably because it’s real, authentic, and harbors the truth which was a big threat to the RCC mother harlot especially in those days.
@@DtotheK88 sooooo youre saying kjv is good because it burned witches at the stake because of accusations? And America is broken, because so many follow what they want to be moral, instead of following the full bible. Wow, i don't think i want to follow your theology. I stick to the catechism. Bye now
I go to a protestant church building but im proud to be a Follower of JESUS!! We are together a body of Christ!! JESUS is Lord. God bless yall HalleluYah
The Catholic Church has always decided which books are in the bible. I'd be curious to know what is hidden in the Vatican Library that they are keeping from the public.
That makes no sense at all. If the Catholic Church had something that they felt should be in Scripture, they would have included it during the Council of Rome in 382. They wouldn't keep it secret. The contents of the Bible have not changed at all since then.
I hope you know that the Vatican Library isn't some secret cypt of hidden knowledge. It's open to anyone who can document their qualifications and research needs, in other words it's open to academics, doctors, and professors
The reason the “oooo super secret Vatican archives” is closed off to most people is because they gave napoleon a bunch of stuff from the archives and he ended up burning it for tinder. So they were like yeah we’re gonna keep this under lock and key for most people.
You can't believe in catholicism and scripture at the same time. It's impossible. I was Catholic for 30 years. Then I read the Bible. Now I'm just plain Christian.
@@dand2760 Wrong. catholicism and Orthodox are man-made RELIGIONS. Protestantism was a movement to rid the true church of Christ from man made religion. True Christians practice Christianity, which, is simply following Christ and worshipping Him in spirit and truth. Yes, there can be a physical building Christians come together in. Yes, there can be presiders and church leaders. But they are not the church. That's where man made religion always corrupts the true church. Men in long robes, stealing Christ's glory, for their own power, making up their own rules that everyone else has to follow.
@@apan990 Sounds like you need to read the bible again, without your Catholic goggles on. Please help me understand the following differences between Catholic teaching and what the Bible says:, 1. Why do you continue to pray to Mary when Jesus himself rebuked those who tried to call her blessed? And why did Mary call Jesus her savior if she's sinless? What was Jesus saving her from? (Note: the doctrine of Mary was not even made until 1950. Did your church have it wrong before then?) Why does you religion teach that Mary is a mediator between God and man, when the Bible says in 1 Timothy 2:5: "For there is one God and one mediator between God and mankind, the man Christ Jesus" 2. What did Jesus mean when he commanded us to never call anyone else "father" in Mat 23:9? Why do you disobey this as a Catholic and call priests father, when Jesus said you have one father? 3. What does your church tolerate having over 50% of men in catholic seminaries homosexual when the Bible clearly teaches that it's an abomination? Why have tens of thousands of children been abused by the so-called holy leaders of your church? Why do previous popes and bishops constantly reassign known sex offenders so they can continue to abuse children? Why does your church continue to take so much money from parishioners and use it to pay off the families of abuse victims? These things happen in other churches but they happen in the Catholic church to a much much higher degree, because of forced celibacy and the perversions it creates. 4. Tell me, what does Paul mean below when he says that any doctrine that forces men not to marry is a doctrine from demons? 1 Timothy 4:1-3 "Now the Spirit explicitly says that in later times some will depart from the faith, paying attention to deceitful spirits and the teachings of demons, [3] They forbid marriage and demand abstinence" 5. Explain why in your church history, the Catholic hierarchy did everything they could to prevent the masses from Reading scripture. They killed people by burning them at the stake who tried to translate scripture so that the masses could read them. Why? 6. Why did the Catholic Church work so hard to gain political power, and burn people alive who question the absolute authority of the Pope? Isn't it obvious that the only reason the Catholic church is so big and so powerful today is because of its ruthlessness and hunger for money and power in the past. 7. How can you call Peter the first pope and single church leader, when there is nothing in scriptures that even remotely reveals him to be the leader of the church. In fact the few times decisions were made they were made as a group council of the apostles, and Jesus's brother James seem to have more authority. And for the first few hundred years all of the bishops work together to solidify doctrine. It wasn't until the bishop of Rome demanded absolute power and started punishing those other bishops who fought him. And many other bishops did fight the bishop of Rome when he tried to seize absolute power. 8. Why do you baptize infants when not a single infant was ever baptized in scripture by the apostles? Do you really believe that magic happens and the baby is saved even though they have no choice in the matter? That's how all the baptisms in the Bible took place, from an adult that made a decision to follow christ. 9. What did your own Saint Augustine mean when he said that scriptures cannot be wrong, but the church can be wrong, so scripture is far superior to doctrine taught by Church elders?: Augustine: "But who can fail to be aware that the sacred canon of Scripture, both of the Old and New Testament, stands so absolutely in a superior position to all later letters of the bishops, that about it we can hold no manner of doubt or disputation whether what is confessedly contained in it is right and true; but that all the letters of bishops which have been written, or are being written, since the closing of the canon, are liable to be refuted; and further, that even the church Councils are often corrected by those which follow them (On Baptism 2.3.4)" 10. Please tell me why Martin Luther was wrong for protesting that your Catholic Church was greedily taking money from the poor to buy indulgences for their relatives so that they would spend less time in purgatory. 11. How can your church continue to force celibacy on men, when the man you claim to be your own founder, Peter, was clearly married. When Jesus healed his mother-in-law in Luke 4:38, and when Paul said the following in 1Cor 9:5: "Don’t we have the right to be accompanied by a believing wife like the other apostles, the Lord’s brothers, and Peter? " 12. Why does your church teach that anyone who says that you are saved by grace alone and not by works is to be cursed. It is the exact opposite of what Paul says several times. Go look up your own church teachings and you'll see it actually teaches this. And of course since your church can never be wrong, nothing that was ever taught in the past can be corrected. 13. Why does your church teaching in canon III below teach that the mass is actually a resacrifice of Christ and that the mass itself causes salvation, and that anyone who says the mass is not a real sacrifice is cursed?: "Canon iii. If any one shall say, that the sacrifice of the mass is only a sacrifice of praise and of thanksgiving; or, that it is a bare commemoration of the sacrifice offered on the cross, but not a propitiatory sacrifice;[16]... let him be anathema.". This is exactly opposite to what Paul teaches, that Jesus died once and for all and was the final sacrifice. 14. Why do Catholics say that protestants theology was invented in 1600 and before that everything was Catholic. This is false. Here are the Names of pre reformation protestant groups: the Waldensians, Bohemian reformation/Jan huss, Arnold of Brescia, the Tondrakians, Peter of Bruys, Henry of Lausanne, the Dulcinians, Giralamo savanorola, the spiritual Franciscans.. There would have been a lot more vocal protestants speaking and writing thru early history if Rome hadn't keep burning them alive. For example, in 1100AD, the pre-reformation Waldensians wrote they're articles of confession: We believe and firmly maintain all that is contained in the twelve articles of the symbol, commonly called the apostles’ creed, and we regard as heretical whatever is inconsistent with the said twelve articles. 7. That Christ is our life, and truth, and peace, and righteousness - our shepherd and advocate, our sacrifice and priest, who died for the salvation of all who should believe, and rose again for their justification. 8. And we also firmly believe, that there is no other mediator, or advocate with God the Father, but Jesus Christ. And as to the Virgin Mary, she was holy, humble, and full of grace; and this we also believe concerning all other saints 9. We also believe, that, after this life, there are but two places - one for those that are saved, the other for the damned, which [two] we call paradise and hell, wholly denying that imaginary purgatory of Antichrist, invented in opposition to the truth. 10. Moreover, we have ever regarded all the inventions of men [in the affairs of religion] as an unspeakable abomination before God; such as the festival days and vigils of saints, and what is called holy-water, the abstaining from flesh on certain days, and such like things, but above all, the masses 12 We consider the Sacraments as signs of holy things, or as the visible emblems of invisible blessings 13. We acknowledge no sacraments [as of divine appointment] but baptism and the Lord’s supper
How? The criteria of canonicity The basic criterion for recognizing books as being part of the New Testament is whether they were considered "God-breathed" (2 Tim. 3:16, NIV). Books do not become inspired because they are recognized as being canonical; rather, they are recognized as being canonical because they are inspired by God. Thus, the church did not "produce" the canon. Three principal criteria seemed to emerge which the early church used in recognizing books that had been God-inspired and thus canonical:(6) apostolic origin, recognition by the church, and apostolic content
The canon is the result of inspiration. Because there are writings which are inspired there is a canon. The fact is the “Bible” was recognized by Christians for 1500 years by the time the council of Trent took place. It was the Catholic Church which “added” the apocryphal books, and because those books aren’t inspired they are not recognized as inspired..
Wow. That’s a twisting of facts if ever there were one. Catholics put the Bible together so technically they added all the NT. It was Protestants who removed some after Martin Luther broke off.
Poor you, ignorant of basic history. The jews removed those books in 90 AD BECAUSE THEY WERE "TOO CATHOLIC"!!! and feared the jews would become catholics....the Church uses the Bible Jesus read in the synagogue....the Church has nithibgvto do with jews!!! Ignorant woman!!! Apocryphal is a different meaning that you think, heretic protestant!!!
An issue of this magnitude can't really be described in a 30 second video. I am going to go look up James whites video right now I'm a big fan of his. I think it's fool hardy to try to address something that's important in such a short format
James White is a dishonest apologist. btw WHERE did Jesus command anyone to write 27 Books and to call it the New Testament? Protestants can't answer that question.
@@ThecrosseyedTexan yes we must use our mind and think throughly through these issues. It would be laid out in any of his “Sola Scriptura” debates or discussions.
@@annapennrose1158 please give examples to where James Watt is dishonest. Please don't confuse this with a difference of opinion or interpretation of fact but if you're going to make accusations such as this you need to be able to back them up
@@annapennrose1158 when you label someone as dishonest that stops you from hearing what they have to say. I don't agree with my Catholic brothers and sisters but I won't call them dishonest unless I catch them in a deliberate lie. And if I catch them in a lie I'm going to be able to point it out. I just watched the debate with him and a Catholic colleague and they were Christ-like loving and respectful to each other. If we can't do that with each other perhaps we need to ignore this topic for now and practice the basic tenets of the faith
The books thst are quoted from the new testament are in the protestant bible one's that are not was tooken out. But you still have access to these books when the kjv was translated they include the apocrypha. Buy because of how thick and huge the bible was back then. Cause the technology wasn't around to make a small thin bible the books was excluded. But there available for anyone to read. My question is if there where 12 apostles why are their only 4 gospels? Where are the other writings of christ????? I'm sure this will be ignored but just wondering Catholic church with utmost respect 🙏
That’s our problem right there, tradition! That’s where we are erring and leaving ourselves into sinfulness continually. Our traditions cannot save us, only Thus saith the Lord!
@@JohnDoe19991 not this tradition! Don’t use quote scriptures that has nothing to do with this! Sound doctrine is the tradition Paul speaks of not this! Foolishness is not sound doctrine.
@@TheHolyAvatior Sound doctrine is the made up interpretation that you made up just now . Just like how you made up Sola scriptura and Sola fide . A bunch of made up Protestant lies nothing more. Did loony Luther and crappy Calvin teach you this sound doctrine? Because clearly its all made up
We know which books are in the Bible, because they were there before catholicism was invented. This is not something anyone wonders about. The reason why we don't accept the extra books that catholicism added, is that those books were never part of the Bible. They contradict so badly that adding them wouldn't make any sense.
@@alhilford2345 of course! He read from the Book of Isaiah in the synagogue of Nazareth when he started his public ministry. His bible was the recognized Old Testament/ Hebrew canon which does not include the apocrypha. The apocrypha is of greek origin and written during the silent years - between 400 bc and Jesus’ birth. No inspired books were written during that silent period.
This is the same arguments that the archbishop of Reggio made during the council of Trent pertaining to the reformation. However, the Protestants used the Biblical texts that were received from eastern Greek scholars who fled Constantinople when it was captured by the Ottoman Turks. The Latin church uses older(not necessarily better) texts which included gnostic texts, and others that were found to be in error. I really think, since it has been 2000 years or more since the actual events, that we can only rely on the scriptures for understanding our religion, not the whims of some pope or traditions received from the pagan religions.
The old testaments is not the same as the new testaments because JESUS was alive in earth to recite the Pentateuch in which is apart of the old testaments. So now the new testaments was written well after JESUS ascension.
It’s a darn shame that Protestants don’t have those additional books in their Old Testament. They have some of the most beautiful passages in all of Sacred Scripture.
Protestants are not prohibited from reading them and studying them. We just don’t consider them inspired due to lack of manuscript evidence that dates back as far. The fact that the Essenes did not copy and store away these books along with the rest of DSC’s demonstrates that they were not regarded as important as the other 39 books of the Old Testament.
True protestants don’t say that. Protestants say that the Bible is the only infallible revelation. Not the only revelation. To quote Calvin "Our agreement with antiquity is far greater than yours, but all that we have attempted has been to renew the ancient form of the church ... [that existed] in the age of Chrysostom, and Basil, among the Greeks, and of Cyprian, Ambrose, and Augustine, among the Latins." Protestant ism is simply a means to return to the patristic traditions of the church before the accretion practices developed in the medieval age The patristic church relied on the Torah first, and then the recorded events of the gospel and letters by the apostles. - Irenaeus (AD 180): We have learned from none others the plan of our salvation, than from those through whom the gospel has come down to us, which they did at one time proclaim in public, and, at a later period, by the will of God, handed down to us in the Scriptures, to be the ground and pillar of our faith. (Against Heresies, 3:1.1) In fact, in scripture, it is recorded by the apostles in Christ over 200 times the term “it is written” which was indirect reference to the Torah scriptures.
True protestants don’t say that. Protestants say that the Bible is the only infallible revelation. Not the only revelation. To quote Calvin "Our agreement with antiquity is far greater than yours, but all that we have attempted has been to renew the ancient form of the church ... [that existed] in the age of Chrysostom, and Basil, among the Greeks, and of Cyprian, Ambrose, and Augustine, among the Latins." Protestant ism is simply a means to return to the patristic traditions of the church before the accretion practices developed in the medieval age The patristic church relied on the Torah first, and then the recorded events of the gospel and letters by the apostles. - Irenaeus (AD 180): We have learned from none others the plan of our salvation, than from those through whom the gospel has come down to us, which they did at one time proclaim in public, and, at a later period, by the will of God, handed down to us in the Scriptures, to be the ground and pillar of our faith. (Against Heresies, 3:1.1) In fact, in scripture, it is recorded by the apostles in Christ over 200 times the term “it is written” which was indirect reference to the Torah scriptures.
Revelation can come from the Bible, God, Holy Spirit, Jesus and even angels, as Mary received revelation from an angel. Let us all be led by the hand of God first and let all Christians seek revelation by their search for truth. There is one truth and humans will always be humans, fallible in their search. Thank God for mercy and grace, so all differences will never matter. Let us not get caught up in intellectual reasoning and differences but focus on loving each other!
We follow a long agreed upon Canon, that St. Jerome agreed upon. That was agreed upon by the rabbis dating before his time. "The protestant canon" which isn't all that protestant has more agreement than the catholic Canon. Don't believe me, go research, I'll even give the recourses
@Rami FollowerOfJesusChrist no they are staying true to their convictions. All I'm arguing is that the protestant Canon isn't new and predates the reformation. It was not formed by one guy deciding what was in the bible or not. Because something is old doesn't make it right either. I think through a canonical-intertexual approach, the "protestant" canon makes sense. The Catholics have every right to hold the Canon they do as well and can defend that form. For the Coptic church, their canon is still open. And they have valid reason for keeping it open
@@ronaldfelix1000 I disagree, we don't just decide on the Cannon, we don't have open cannons, The Scripture come from God, He gave us The Prophets in The Old Testament and Christ And The Apostles in The New Testament, if people want to add or take away from what The Creator Gives us, then that's a huge problem, it's not just a matter of logic or preferences
I think the biggest difference between Catholics and Protestants is forgiven without consequence vs forgiveness with consequence. Example: Dog poops on floor while im not home. This is not normal as the dog was taught to go outside to go to the bathroom. So when i get home i immediately forgive the dog out of love and understanding somethings wrong but i still discipline the dog as the training to go outside needs to be reinforced. While Protestants believe no consequence so they just keep pooping on the floor.
*I pray to Jesus Christ that protestants and catholics can unite with their love for jesus*
Amen. There should be no divisions among us as Paul said
Amen
I am a Baptist, were I a drinking man - I’d drink to that! 😂
@safetcucaj385 As soon as Protestants learn the meaning of the word IS, we're good.
Hmm...my prayer🥲
There is no problem with tradition, however, if the tradition contradicts with the teaching of the bible, then it should be discarded..
Sacred Tradition, however, does not contradict the Bible.
@@Leofric000 There is no purgatory in the Bible..
@@rambutan3788 yes there is the evidence for it is in maccabees but of course the heretic Martin Luther ripped out 6 books including maccabees so in your Protestant bible there’s no mention of it. But you’ll accept that extra biblical authority in the form of Martin Luther I’m sure
@@rambutan3788 and like I said GO to the catechism which is ONLINE and FREE and look for YOURSELF for the teaching on purgatory and you will see the backing for it
@@Leofric000 we don't venerate images, that's pagan sir
I am a Protestant & I strongly pray & believe that Catholics & Protestants will one day unite in their love for Christ
Amen. Come back to Christ and His church my friend!
@@SnehDanial Thats dangerous! We cannot unite with the abomination of the catholic church. The bible warns us to get out from her the mother of harlots.. Do not fall for the ecumenical movement of rome.. The book of revelation prophesies during the end times there will be a one world religion were everyone will ask to bowdown to the false messiah. Its hard to say but catholics will be the first ones who will bowdown to the beast because they are blinded by the false religion.
Jesus warns us a lot of times in the bible about Deception… Beware! Be more close to God , meditate the word of God the bible…
@@SnehDanial Thats a big dangerous thing to do. Do not ever fall for ecumenism. The bible has warned us about that. The bible tells us there will come a time the Catholic Church will succeed in having the one world religion.
Read you bible and pray for decernment that you will not be easily decieved by many false message…
I'm Catholic and just love my Evangelical Protestant brothers and sisters. I learn a lot about the Bible from them. We have a Catholic Women's Bible study group that has Protestant converts and they bring so much to our discussions. I've also known many Catholics that have become Protestant, as well. My father was one of them. We, as Christians, share the New Testament as none of those books were ever changed. A solid faith in Jesus is what we share.
❤
Amen from a Protestant. I love when we come together
All scriptures are inspired by God. 2 Timothy 3:16. Not just the New Testament. Jesus quoted from the Hebrew Scriptures. Matthew 4:4. Prophecies from the Hebrew Scriptures are fulfilled through Jesus. There is only one true religion. They are united. 1. Corinthians.1:10. It’s very important to get accurate knowledge.John 17:3. 1 Timothy 2:4. Catholics and protestants go against the law of the Christ, which is love because they fight in the wars of the nations. John 13:35
I love my Catholic Church, I am in love with my Lord Jesus Christ
Then stop praying to mary
@@camp5607 Pray means to ask. We give worship to Christ, of which is separate from prayer.
@@glennryan646 yeah right , tell this to the Catholics in my country who write songs with lyrics like quote “oh Mary i fall at your divine feet “ unquote ...
@@glennryan646
prayer
/prer/
Learn to pronounce
noun
noun: prayer; plural noun: prayers
a solemn request for help or expression of thanks addressed to God *********or an object of worship*********
@@glennryan646 You need to repent
I will go peaceably and firmly to the Catholic Church: for if Faith is so important to our salvation, I will seek it where true Faith first began, seek it among those who received it from God Himself.
Elizabeth Ann Seton
Well you should follow jewish christianity then no? That's where it began. It was in other places before the roman church was set up as well.
If we are a true seeker of the fullness of truth, we should always have an open mind & heart to what God has revealed to us in our own human experience. Sadly, the amount of attacks that Catholicism has been getting makes me question what kind of belief system they are worshiping.
“f I were not a Catholic, and were looking for the true Church in the world today, I would look for the one Church which did not get along well with the world; in other words, I would look for the Church which the world hates.”
Ven. Sheen
Very interesting point. Is there a Church whose followers worship Christ, and which is subject to all other Christian churches attacking and denouncing it as non-Christian, including Catholics doing the denouncing and attacking?
The world loves Catholics, they have 1. Some billion members. And Catholics persecuted Protestants for hundreds of years
Test all to see what is right
@@rickys369 I agree.
So south park got it right. It was the mormons
Didn't know Mike Pence was Catholic.
LOOOL
He originally was, but converted to be an evangelical to get votes, look it up.
He actually is a Catholic... Look it up
Big whoop
@@harambesstepbrother7579 he is an evangelical Christian. It's unfortunate
Sola scriptura is one of the greatest circular jokes.
It’s like a bunch of comedians with lampshades on the heads wanting the Bible but rejecting the institution that is responsible for it. That’s like accepting the US constitution but rejecting the Supreme Court that’s there to interpret it. In Protestant land, everyone is their own Pope. And if they followed this concept as American citizens, they’d all be their own president. It’s silly.
Solo scripture is the biggest contradiction because it's not biblical 😂
@@guardtheham1233 And if someone did actually believe in Sola Scriptura, they'd have to throw out the Sola Fide, but they don't. Because they don't either believe in Sola Scriptura (know that it's bogus) or they like to pick and choose what they believe (cafeteria Christianity).
@@tomcha75aka cherry pickers “I will acknowledge half of the Bible that supports my points but ignore the other half that doesn’t support my points”
@@mattbanco4406 More like, "I will acknowledge the Bible as God's word, but ignore the body and the tradition that put it together because obviously the early Christians didn't understand the Bible properly as we do. Our understanding, not one based on tradition like the early Christians is the right one. All those Apostles and their disciples obviously didn't know the Bible. What did they know? They didn't even know they were supposed to take out a few books from the collection of books and letters the Catholic Church put together that we now call the Bible. Actually come to think of it, just me and my pals in my church who really got it right. You know, the ones in the church founded by that bob-the-preacher guy. The other 40,000+ denominations are all wrong too. That's why we can't agree. They don't even agree with ME on fundamental things like the incarnation, nature and divinity of Christ, the Holy Trinity, nature of grace, forgiveness, salvation, or resurrection. Faith based on the Bible AND Tradition directly from Christ and his Apostles? No thanks. I like my cafeteria approach to my faith picking and choosing things I like. It's easier and suits my taste better.
The body and blood of Christ is the very center of the Catholic Church . AMEN
nothing but Blood of Jesus will wash away your sins,not All the Wine you drink🎤
@@truthfulpatriot9129It’s not “wine.” If you don’t understand Catholic theology so that you can have an intelligent conversation about it, maybe go do some reading first. Btw Christ said “This IS my BODY and this IS BLOOD.”
@@frisco61 if you Know Jesus Christ “Truly” you Will not be a Drunk but you do you,ok…have Good Day🎤
@@truthfulpatriot9129 Jesus said if you do not drink His Blood and eat His Flesh you have no life in you,ok…..have a good day 🎤
@@Leofric000 you keep gettin Drunk then…..👋🏻👋🏻👋🏻👋🏻👋🏻👋🏻👋🏻
I do not trash others religious beliefs. I am sick and tired of non-catholics trashing my religion. Telling me I have not been saved, let Gods judgment on all. Some of you might be shocked who gets into heaven.
I believe that if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved, just like Scripture says. I don’t know why some people think that’s too simple.
@@lodestar3984 I'm grateful it's that simple.
@@lodestar3984 because your religion is always bragging about being the best and the first. When we stand together on judgement day , jesus may ask you about all the wrong doctrines you are following.
@@murielpucoe9213 Could you explain what you mean by that? I’m not sure what you are talking about when you say “bragging”. I hope my previous statement didn’t come across as arrogant.
@@murielpucoe9213which religion against which religion?
Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on us sinners!🙏☦️
Lord, have mercy on us.
For 1500 years, most humans on earth were illiterate and/or didn’t have access to a complete Bible.
Were they not allowed into Heaven? Were they forsaken by God ? Absolutely not. Holy Tradition & the Sacraments are what gives us connection with the Holy Spirit and Christ on earth.
Yep. This.
I'm a revert and glad to be home to the one true Church Jesus Christ founded, His Catholic church!
Welcome home.
Matthew 23:9
Well Jesus peace be upon him, forbid the followings:
1.Alcohol
2. LGBTQ+ and unlawful intercourse outside marriage
3. Money being lend on interest
4. Pork meat
He were staying away from what was forbidden and was following these commands:
1. Fall in face “in prostration” to the God
2. He consider the God to be superior over him and worshiped him
3. He would fast
4. He was good with neighbours
5. He cursed those who lend money on interest, “including those Jews at his time and other who followed their footprints of sucking blood of the poor and middle class by ripping them off their wealth with their infinite printing money and causing money to devalue, that is another form of interest our banks r proceeding, to introduce something called paper and electronic money and then be able to easily manipulate its value.
Today we live in a world where every bank lends money on interest, and those who control mania r Zionists which is a group Jews and a group of Christains in alliance to rip manking off and rule over them using religion.
They don’t follow the commandments of Bible, Nor Turah nor Quran. They follow wealth, and if u follow wealth, ur heart will be blind ( I am not saying don’t be rich, all I am saying don’t fall in love to wealth), legalizing everything u can just to make maximum profit, and still thin u r a good Christian and a Good Jew and a Good Muslims!
If u fear God then be like Jesus, follow the commandments and stay away from unjust gain of wealth and hunger and greed to rule over mankind, thus the Lord God will take u over those who disbelieved him, and succeed u over them and inherit u the holly land and the just ruling which he has promised to only the righteous Israelite people and not the wicked ones “the Zionists!”
Who legalized every single thing God has made illegal and committed an enormous sinful act of blasphemy.
Welcome home to pedophiles
Me too!
Catholicism ❤💕💯
I’m Catholic for life!!!
Than you may we be in death
What if I were to tell you that they are the antichrist?
Thanks for clarifying this issue Father.
Matt 23:9
Protestants and Catholics have come a long way… we’re not killing each other anymore! 🙏✝️
as prots would say, "preeeeach brotherr!"
True protestants don’t say that. Protestants say that the Bible is the only infallible revelation. Not the only revelation.
To quote Calvin
"Our agreement with antiquity is far greater than yours, but all that we have attempted has been to renew the ancient form of the church ... [that existed] in the age of Chrysostom, and Basil, among the Greeks, and of Cyprian, Ambrose, and Augustine, among the Latins."
Protestant ism is simply a means to return to the patristic traditions of the church before the accretion practices developed in the medieval age
The patristic church relied on the Torah first, and then the recorded events of the gospel and letters by the apostles.
- Irenaeus (AD 180): We have learned from none others the plan of our salvation, than from those through whom the gospel has come down to us, which they did at one time proclaim in public, and, at a later period, by the will of God, handed down to us in the Scriptures, to be the ground and pillar of our faith. (Against Heresies, 3:1.1)
In fact, in scripture, it is recorded by the apostles in Christ over 200 times the term “it is written” which was indirect reference to the Torah scriptures.
Mark 7:13
"Making the word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye.”
King James Version (KJV)
Protestants: We don't follow Tradition we follow The Bible!"
The Bible IS A TRADITION!
Where do You think the Scriptures came from?
I believe in the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church, traced back to Jesus and His Apostles. Unity is key. As Jesus said, a house divided can not stand. 🕊💓
🙏❤yes Amen!
Im pretty sure Lincoln said that but ok
If you really love our Lord Jesus, pray to God for wisdom and discernment when you read His Word. The Catholic Church has absolutely nothing in common with the early church of the Apostles. The early church had no man-made dogmas nor false doctrine, much less idolatry.
@@cecialvarez6447 you are really wrong!! Please do some research on it with the help of holy spirit, we are not stupid to convert as catholic christians, stop listening to half minded pastors and read bible with help of holy spirit, god bless you❤
@shine2678 My testimony is long, but I will share this....I was born and raised Catholic. My mom was devoted Catholic. Because I did exactly what you recommended, I started reading the Bible; the Holy Spirit guided me not just to read but to study. And what a real eye opener that was. I went to my priest with all the inquiries and doubts. And you know what his answer was? After all the Bible passages that I confronted him with...."What do you want me to say that the church (meaning the Catholic church) got it wrong? And I said, did she? I left broken-hearted. I wanted so much to be wrong, I didn't want to leave my church. But not even once he could give an answer that could persuade me not to leave. No, I am not wrong! I don't know everything, but I know enough not to be misguided again by a "priest" or "pastor." or any other institution, No more false doctrines and dogmas imposed by men. The Word of God is clear and worship only the living God and my Lord and Savior Jesus Christ the only mediator between God and man. My God is a "jealous" God that doesn't share His Glory with no one. No, I am not wrong! God bless you, and may His Holy Spirit reveal the truth to you and all my brothers and sisters in the Catholic Church.
Thanks for clearing that up!
I worry less about religion and more about relationship with Jesus. Religion is divisive and relationship is oneness. Love ya and God bless 🙌🙏❤️
A Catholics will disagree
@@Ben-xe5ng how will you know
READ THE B I B L E
We wrote the New Testament, you're welcome btw
How about the people in the poor and third countries who can hardly eat 3x a day? I don't think they have bibles to read . What happens to them. They cannot be saved? There's no way they will be saved? Any suggestions.
The Original Catholic Canon
In about 367 AD, St. Athanasius came up with a list of 73 books for the Bible that he believed to be divinely inspired. This list was finally approved by Pope Damasus I in 382 AD, and was formally approved by the Church Council of Rome in that same year. Later Councils at Hippo (393 AD) and Carthage (397 AD) ratified this list of 73 books. In 405 AD, Pope Innocent I wrote a letter to the Bishop of Toulouse reaffirming this canon of 73 books. In 419 AD, the Council of Carthage reaffirmed this list, to which Pope Boniface agreed. The Council of Trent, in 1546, reaffirmed St. Athanasius’s original list of 73 books.
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, and 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.
Revelation 22:18-19
@@rudycataldo3653 yeah, that's directed to the protestant church.
Although I don't feel that way.
If you went back in time to when the Gutenberg bible was out they would consider you slow.
73 books then. And 73 books in every catholic Bible we know of.
Is something wrong with you?
@@rudycataldo3653 remember that warning only applies to the book of revelation. There was no canonical Bible at that point.
@@nosuchthing8 So you're saying that warning in Revelation doesn't apply to the book of Mormon?
@@rudycataldo3653 only applies to the book of revelation.
There was no Bible as such at that time.
Im a baptist exploring orthodoxy and Ive always been uncomfortable that protestant bible didnt have all the books.
This is the reason I'm always stay Catholic
If the 1st page of the new testament says mary lost her virginity after Jesus was born then why do you believe the Catholic church when it says she died a virgin? These statements are the exact opposite of each other.
Amen
Thank You Jesus for Your One and Only Holy Catholic Church that created the Bible.
Heavenly God has never proven himself to me. Is what I thought. I turned 16 and realised that I had to prove myself to him. Reading a bible made by us does not feel right. We speak with our actions, not with our words. I live for the things that feel good, knowing that God has got my back and will remind me to choose another way. Follow your gut, not the books.❤❤ Amen.
The books of the Apocrypha were not officially recognized by the Catholic Church until the Council of Trent at the time of the reformation! Protestants didn't remove books; Catholics added them! Furthermore, when Luther said 'Sola Scriptura,' he didn't mean tradition is bad. He meant that tradition must be examined and judged in light of scripture, and if a tradition is contrary, we must reject it.
@@CaFe73100 hmm. And this from an adherent of a Church whose leader is cavorting with muslims?
Your comment is incorrect. The Council of Trent (1545-1564) infallibly reiterated what the Church had long taught regarding the canons of the Old and New Testaments. Pope Damasus promulgated the Catholic canons at the Synod of Rome in A.D. 382, and later, at the regional councils of Hippo (393) and Carthage (397, 419), the Church again defined the same list of books as inspired.
The canons of the Old and New Testaments, as defined by Pope Damasus and the Councils of Hippo and Carthage, were later ratified (though the books were not enumerated individually) by the later Ecumenical councils of II Nicaea (787) and Florence (1438-1445). Although the Council of Trent, in response to the Protestant violation of the Bible by deleting the seven Deuterocanonical books plus portions of Daniel and Esther, was the first infallible conciliar listing of each individual book, it certainly did not add those books to the canon.
If that were the case, how could Martin Luther and the other Reformers have objected to the presence of those books decades before the Council of Trent if they weren’t in the canon to begin with and were added by the Council of Trent?
This is absolutely not true. Learn your history before spreading lies. The catholic Bible has been the same since 382. Protestantism is a false theology.
Jesus himself said the traditions of men nullify the word of God
@@dantheman909 said: "Jesus himself said the traditions of men nullify the word of God"
Not quite sure where you want to go with that point.
Apart from that, did he say it in an approving or disapproving setting...
What other books?
Sirach, Wisdom, Tobit, 1 & 2 Maccabees, Judith
@Joshua Stephen They are still books. With prophets and kings that are man of God.
@Joshua Stephen all the books that protestants removed are from the old testament, so yes it is certain that at least 1 or 2 are still read by some Jews.
Catholics use the original 73 books of the bible, the same 73 that were picked out by the synod of 397AD. (Proof that the bible gained it's authority from men who gained authority from God). Both numbers 7 and 3 are used time and time again in the bible to refer to god and sacred things.
The "orthodox" use 81 books even though said synod banned any adding of books.
The western protestants use 66 books, which is a very strange number to use and I can't help but associate it with the 666 which is the number of the Antichrist.
So in the end, Catholics and Protestants will never agree.
Protestants and Catholics need to stop arguing and realize that we all worship the same God and stand against the real evil plaguing the world, the religion of wokism. Then if you want go back to fighting after that.
Your right the, the pope,
U know it funny because it the protestants that started arguing first in general they are just jealous of catholic
Except for trinitarians they reject the holy Trinity and that is the most basic understanding of the Christian God.
Here's the problem:
We two different books.
One is true and the other is false.
In Catholicism we have the sacraments. We have the apostles. We have the history and the traditions. Protestants have none of that. Now how easy is it to be saved as a Protestant? I don't know. All I can say that without the sacraments it is difficult.
The word PROTESTANT should already tell you that we don't serve the same God. When you protest against the one true church of God (Mt 16:18-19), the question is which god do you serve now since you protested against the true God. 1 cor 3:11 assures us that Jesus the one true foundation has now commissioned Peter to use that foundation. Jesus said to Peter in Mt 16:18, you are the rock and on this foundation I will build my church. So if Catholic is the true church of God, what foundation does the Protestant church stand on which leads to the question, which god have you now found trust and solace in that you see fit to worship other than the God you protested against.
Michael Kruger’s book “The Canon Revisited” does a pretty good job explaining how the scriptures are self authenticating, as is the actual belief of the historic Protestant church. The Scripture’s quality attests to its authenticity as God breathed, not the “imagisterium.” As God’s very words, it is by definition the highest authority. It does not need another authority to validate it (say, the papacy…) otherwise it would not be the highest authority, but rather it would be subservient to what validated it.
How do you know that the Gospel of Thomas is not God-breathed Scripture?
If it’s self authenticating why did Martin Luther remove seven books from the Bible? Those seven books were of no issue to anyone but him.
@@surprisedchar2458 that is literally so false. Melito of Sardis, Jerome, and cardinal cageitan, the prellet that interviewed Luther as a catholic also denied those book
@@dustinnyblom7835how do you know the gospel of Thomas, Peter, or Judas aren’t inspired? What about the epistles of Ignatius, Justin matryr, or Irenaeus of Lyons aren’t inspired?
@@patrickpelletier9298Its because catholics are the ones who made those books up, not the actual apostles nor Jesus or his true followers. Plus it is quite clear which books are and aren't inspired.
Division . Protestants in Korea call bread of life a rice cake in korea. There was no such thing as rice cake back then. They call god as “one”. They agreed that it was wrong to address it like that but still decided to change all words just so that they differentiate themselves from catholic. Why would they differentiate those?
However on hindsight, ive been to both churches and I felt love. I felt his presence. I experienced holy spirit in both. God exists in any place that love him, jesus and holy spirit. Although i have my opinions i support unity love and respect from one religion to another.
Some basic facts
The Gutenberg Bible was printed in Mainz in 1455 by Johann Gutenberg and his associates, Johann Fust and Peter Schoeffer. Only 48 copies are known to have survived, of which 12 are printed on vellum and 36 on paper.
How important is Luther's Bible? Luther's German translation of the New Testament appeared in 1522. He then translated the whole of the Bible into German with the first edition being published in Wittenberg in 1534.
So in other words we know for a fact that the Bible had 73 books for over 75 years before the Protestant Bible had 66 books.
So It was the Protestants that removed books from THEIR Bible.
The council of Trent was after all these events.
Nope. Even Protestants had the Apocrypha in their Bibles for many years. The 1611 King James Version Bible has those books in it. It wasn't till the 1820s when the Apocrypha was taken out of many Protestant Bibles.
@@siervodedios5952 ok, so what? It was Luther that removed them from the Canon. He was too much of a coward to remove them from his new Bible officially.
It's like a Bible that has a spider man comic. And it's very clear spider man is not part of the canon.
@@nosuchthing8 the books that he removed wasnt part of the Tanaj original canon, try to compare a catholic bible and a protestant bible vs Tanaj (that is Old testament) and u will see that Catholic Bible addeed 7 more books that tanaj dont have, while Protestant bible that have the same book as the jew one
@@elpeluconpelucad1879 those books were on the Bible for over 1000 years.
Stop the gaslighting
@@nosuchthing8 seems to be u dont understand that Tanaj or Old Testament is important as the New Testament, cause Jesus one day read Tanaj’s books, so if Catholic Bibe added 7 more books means that is not from the original canon from the Old Testament or Tanaj
catholics, protestants and every christian on the face of the earth should come together and not let the western christiam civilization die at the hands of islam
Judaism*
Christianity is under attack by the Western globalists, Jews, Islam, and atheists. But we all know that in the end God will win and we will defeat these Satan worshipping supranational demons. Russia has started the fight against the West and all good Christians should be backing Russia to destroy the globalist empire.
THIS
Catholics have no interest in „coming together“. Why should I come together with people who think I’m a „heretic“ and go to hell?
I agree with this and the J both are problems
THANK YOU FATHER ❤❤❤
This is what an argument from doubt sounds like
Jesus is King
And that my friend is the only thing that matters!❤
when the rubber meets the road, the catholic church always makes the most sense.
He might as well as say mickey mouse is God if we don't accept the Bible as the sole authority.
Scripture along with sacred tradition have always been authority of the Christian faith. Without understanding how scripture was traditionally interpreted you're bound to end up believing all types of heresies.
My sheep hear My voice. Who are my brothers and sisters? Those who keep the laws of our Father.
We do not rely on 'Sacred Tradition" (a doctrine introduced after the Reformation btw). The canon was agreed uoon by simple means of recognition and well disttributed before the Council of Nicea.
The early church canon contained books the Catholic Church accepted, while Protestant churches rejected.
@@tpjohnson7528 no sir! The apocrypha were not officially accepted until the Council of Trent in 1546, in an anti-reformation move.
@@tpjohnson7528 who defines what is and what is not scripture? Who defines what is and isn't Sacred Tradition?
@@kellygipson8354 Sorry, that is wrong. The "deuterocanonicals" as they are properly called, were included in the canon of Scripture at the Council of Rome in 382. Pope Damasus I published the "Damasene List" that included the 73 books we have today. After the deuterocanonicals were removed by Luther, the Council of Trent in the 1530s re-affirmed the existing 73 books as canonical.
@@deaconbilcarter5210 you are correct about the ATTEMPT to declare these books as canonical. But seeing as how, in 382, there was no singular pope recognized as having such authority. This declaration was ignored by many.
As a Protestant (Methodist) my specific denomination believes in sacred tradition and all of that. I don’t understand how you could go off of JUST the Bible
because it’s the inerrant word of God.
As a Protestant I do not agree that scripture is the only authority because of basic logic. I still reject praying to saints and venerating icons.
Do Lutherans pray to saints?
@@HillbillyBlack No Lutherans do not pray to saints.
“The Bible is God’s love letter to his children, and if you don’t green from it, or understand it, you reading someone else’s mail.”
Adrian Rodgers
Before Paul wrote to the Ephesians, he visited for 3 years. He spent night and day teaching them. Then he left, leaving them the tradition of what he taught. It was only when he learned they started to slip from what he taught, that he wrote his epistle to them. So there is more to what was taught than why was written.
@@patrickpelletier9298 I’m not sure what you are trying to say.
You’ve replied to a comment that says if you don’t want to read and learn the Bible then you aren’t one of God’s children.
The Bible is the “foundation” of revelation because it is the inerrant word of God.
God gave us the gift of His word, sent His Son, the Word that became flesh, and is the decider and revealer of right & wrong. It’s precepts. You can’t have revelation without knowing the Word and what it is saying
@@dclink418 I’m stating the fact that there was way more taught by the Apostles than what is in the Bible, and using the Bible to show this as fact
@@patrickpelletier9298so we should assume that the Bible is not enough on the off chance that Paul taught something that is not in it.
If that is what you think then you doubt the sufficiency of the Bible.
@@dclink418 no, Paul wrote his letters after teaching for months (if not years) in a place. His letters were there to correct where they got lost.
He even said to hold fast to what was taught in both written word (the epistles) and what they were taught orally.
The creed even predates the canonization of the Bible.
Bible alone is erroneous, and dangerous, because with it we have bad teachers making up crap to justify stuff like homosexuality.
Protestants believe the Bible is the word of God but Catholics believe that JESUS IS THE WORD OF GOD.
The Word that came from The Father, became flesh and dwelt among us. The difference is that between earth and heaven.
Protestants believe the Bible is the written word and Jesus is the living WORD
@@corywiedenbeck2702 Catholics believe in only The Word, Jesus. No written book can be compared to Him. Protestants believe in Sola Scriptura, Catholics believe in Sola Dei. Protestants actually believe there is nothing beyond or outside the Bible, effectively making it an idol and worshipping the language in it. Protestants call it the Bible which they have snipped according to their convenience but Catholics refer to them as The Scriptures. 😆btw in your post too you have mentioned the Bible first and Jesus second, one can see who it is you give more importance to.
equivocation
@@SD-fk8bt well seeing as the Bible is essentially written by the guidance of The Holy Spirit I would say it matters immensely and seeing as Jesus talks to us through His word and we know Him from reading it and hearing it because Faith comes by hearing. You cannot have one without the other being involved. Jesus is the Word
@@corywiedenbeck2702 haa haa! You are equating Jesus with the Bible, how foolish of you.
I am a Baptist, so technically not a Protestant, but not Catholic. The reason why we reject the apocrypha is because it doesn’t agree with the rest of Scripture.
John 14:6 “I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.”
Don’t confess to a priest, go straight to Christ! He is our only mediator between us and God. 😊
That is your interpretation of the bible, but it is not what the bible actually says. There is always a certain difference between interpretation and actual content, even if your interpretation is correct, because we always read between the lines as well.
Which is why we should look to what was taught by the earliest Christians, which, I say this in charity, totally disproves Baptists and 90% of Protestants who dont believe in Transsubstanciation.
I heavily encourage you to look into it and read St. Ignatius of Antioch's Epistle to the Smyrneans from the year 106 AD.
He was Student of Apostle John, Bishop and Martyr, willingly thrown to the beasts in Rome for refusing to Apostatize.
He wrote that Christians should never associate with those who disbelieve that the Eucharist is the true Body and Blood of Christ and abstain from it.
I hope this makes you consider looking into Church history for the True Ancient Traditions rather than the 15th century Traditions of Protestantism (which Baptists are pretty much a part of, Sola Fide and Sola Scriptura is a distinctly Protestant doctrine)
John 20:21:23…
Jesus gave authority to forgive sins. To who? His apostles ..
Peter was the first pope. Done and closed . Jesus does not lie .
All Churches follow Tradition. Some take it seriously and part of their doctrine. Others don’t and let the Truth slide and morph and change over the centuries.
Glad to be back to the original Christian Church.
@@3cool2beans15 How so?
@@3cool2beans15 Wow. A ton of misrepresentations of the Catholic Church.
@3cool2beans1 Who told you that? I read the Bible everyday. And anyone who reads anything interprets it.
@@3cool2beans15 How do we misrepresent Jesus and His finished work on the cross?
@3cool2beans1 Yes, Jesus is our high priest and mediator. That is Catholic teaching. Mary never sinned because she was created without original sin. Holding God within her, she is the fulfillment of the Ark of the Covenant, containing the living Word of God, the Bread of Life, and the eternal high priest.
I'm not sure where you got the idea that Catholics think Jesus dies every Wednesday. He died once and His sacrifice is eternal. We preach Christ crucified - 1 Corinthians 1:23-24. After all, Jesus commanded us to re-present His sacrifice at the Last Supper and He is the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world (Revelation 13:8) and appears as a slain Lamb in Revelation 5:6. The Crucifixion is the greatest love story that can ever exist, where God himself died for us. We will never forget. And, we have obeyed His command from the Last Supper for two thousand years (Luke 22:19) - for all that time, a pure offering (Jesus himself) has been offered up from the rising of the sun to the going down of the sun - Malachi 1:11.
We ask our brethren in the Body of Christ to pray for us. We believe that Mary is part of that Body. To pray is not always to worship. To pray can be to make a humble request. Worshiping Mary is condemned. Only God is worthy of worship. Mary is not God.
God forgives sins and God gave that authority to the Apostles/bishops - John 20:23. It is God to whom we confess and God forgives our sins through the priests who works under the authority of the bishop.
The pope didn't say that Jesus failed. He said it looked like Jesus failed to the Apostles and others. And he is correct. Judas betrayed Him and died. Peter betrayed Him three times. The Apostles fled and went into hiding. The Jews thought the Messiah would be a leader fighting against the Romans and become King of Israel. The savior was to be a political leader. Even when Jesus was going to ascend, He was asked if He was going to restore the kingdom to Israel (Acts 1:6). It looked like Jesus failed, but on the third day He rose triumphantly. Humanly speaking, He failed. But from the perspective of God, He succeeded. And now that we understand His sacrifice, we too see Him as triumphant.
The Bible is a Catholic book. Truth can't have a disagreement with error.
Come unto Islam ☪️
The Bible is for all not a catholic book. The book Catholics added to explain the whole thing with praying to others and Mary is a catholic book
Quran proves itself false, plus look at how Muhammad really was as a human being. I don’t know why after reading his atrocities that committed why you would even be attracted to him unless your narcissistic side finally found a place.
@@curious6154 🤦🏻♂️🤦🏻♂️🤦🏻♂️
@@curious6154 Catholics didn't add books. Protestants removed books.
that’s a great distinction! Thank you Fr that is very helpful
True protestants don’t say that. Protestants say that the Bible is the only infallible revelation. Not the only revelation.
To quote Calvin
"Our agreement with antiquity is far greater than yours, but all that we have attempted has been to renew the ancient form of the church ... [that existed] in the age of Chrysostom, and Basil, among the Greeks, and of Cyprian, Ambrose, and Augustine, among the Latins."
Protestant ism is simply a means to return to the patristic traditions of the church before the accretion practices developed in the medieval age
The patristic church relied on the Torah first, and then the recorded events of the gospel and letters by the apostles.
- Irenaeus (AD 180): We have learned from none others the plan of our salvation, than from those through whom the gospel has come down to us, which they did at one time proclaim in public, and, at a later period, by the will of God, handed down to us in the Scriptures, to be the ground and pillar of our faith. (Against Heresies, 3:1.1)
In fact, in scripture, it is recorded by the apostles in Christ over 200 times the term “it is written” which was indirect reference to the Torah scriptures.
We are proud to be Catholics!!!🙏🙏🙏❤❤❤🌷🌷🌷
How do Catholics know which books are in the Bible? Does the Catholic bible come with a table of contents?
Because catholics created the Bible..Jesus started the catholic church who created the Bible..
Because the bishops of the Catholic Church deemed which books belong in the Bible in the 300s. Protestantism which started in 1500s and Evangelicals which started in the 1800s, were not existent.
The argument is that if the Protestant objection is that Scripture Alone is the source of infallible revelation, then they have to conceded that they dont know reliably if they have all inspired writings or not; “a fallible collection of infallible books.” as R.C. Sproul referred to it.
That seems to be a real problem that for the Protestant position on this that the canon of scripture can never really be closed.
The Catholic Bible didn't come with a table of contents. The Holy Spirit taught it through the Catholic Church. Refer objections to the Holy Spirit promised by Jesus. Blessings.
The Christian Canon was discerned at the Councils of Rome, Hippo & Carthage in 382, 393 & 397; and then officially Canonized in 405 by Pope Innocent l.
my main issue with catholicism isn't that they believe things that aren't in the bible. like he says, there can be revelations outside of the texts. my issue is that they have many beleifs that contradict with passages in the bible and they elect leadership that seems to just make up new rules on the fly that dont hold any water. there have been popes that decanonized the prior decrees of past popes, so how can you be sure any of it is actually of God?
Another point I make is that there is no escape from tradition. The question is are you going to follow the tradition of the church Jesus established or the tradition of a church established by man.
This is the dumbest stance Catholics have. Jesus not once mentioned the 'Catholic church'. The Church didn't come about until 300 years after he died.. before that you were just Christians hiding from persecution, because Rome outlawed Christianity. Most of your traditions are established by man, hypocrite. But go on... lets just believe the people making others pay to get into heaven know what they are talking about.
What is this guy talking about, always believed on? The 7 deuterocanonical books weren't officially added until the council of Trent. They were written in Greek and part of the apocrypha attached to the Septuagint, and the Jews don't even accept those books. Jesus and the New Testament authors never quote any of those books, and the Book of Isaiah has 66 chapters that match perfectly with the 66 chapters of the Bible.....almost as if a clue from God as to what the Canon really is. The added books were a rebuttal to the reformation, that's the only reason why they're in there.
You are so wrong on so many levels.
The Canon of the Bible was discerned at the Councils of Rome, Hippo & Carthage in 382, 393 & 397 by the Catholic Church.
Then the Christian Canon was officially Canonized in 405 by Pope Innocent l and subsequently by other Councils.
Luther created his own canon.
As far as the 7 Books.
An OT Book being quoted in the NT is NOT a qualification for being Canonical.
Not all OT Books are quoted in the NT.
Also, the 7 Books are referenced in the NT.
btw:
The Jews who ACCEPTED Jesus, also ACCEPTED The 7 Books.
The Jews who REJECTED Jesus, also REJECTED the 7 Books.
@@annapennrose1158 You and I have hashed this out last year before. I don't care to repeat the same arguments with you. Sorry, but you're brainwashed.
The Jews who accepted Jesus accepted the 7 books? What are you talking about?.....
Dude. Those books were Canon for 1500 years. And they are in the Gutenberg Bible. So that alone proves you wrong.
They HAVE ancient bibles. It's a settled question. Yeesh.
@@nosuchthing8 You're wrong. If the Gutenberg Bible didn't exist until 1454, and the Canon existed for 1500 years already, then that means the the Canon existed even before the New Testament was written? Yeesh.
@@rudycataldo3653 the Gutenberg Bible was simply a late version of the Canon that anyone can check.
Dude, it PREDATES the Luther Bible. By over 70 years. And had the 73 books.
Again, I guess math is your weak point by the historical FACT is that Luther dropped those books.
Unless you are thinking time travel, Luther has 66 books an a time traveling Luther goes back 75 years to print a Bible with seven extra books?
The Catholic Church remains more united compared to Protestant churches for several key reasons related to authority, tradition, and organizational structure:
1. **Centralized Authority**
- The Catholic Church has a clear, hierarchical structure with the **Pope** as the supreme leader. The Pope, as the Bishop of Rome, is considered the spiritual successor to St. Peter and holds the highest authority in matters of doctrine and church governance.
- This centralized authority allows for more uniformity in teachings and practices, as final decisions on theological disputes or church governance come from the Vatican.
2. **Apostolic Tradition**
- Catholicism emphasizes the importance of both **Scripture** and **Sacred Tradition**. The belief in Apostolic Succession, where bishops and priests are seen as successors to the apostles, contributes to continuity and consistency in teachings and practices throughout history.
- This reliance on long-standing tradition has helped maintain unity, as doctrines and interpretations are not subject to personal interpretation or local decisions, unlike the Protestant principle of "sola scriptura."
3. **Doctrinal Authority: Magisterium**
- The **Magisterium** is the teaching authority of the Catholic Church, made up of the Pope and bishops. They interpret and clarify doctrines, and their decisions are binding for all Catholics. This means that debates or differences in opinion can be resolved at the highest levels of the Church, keeping the community united.
- In contrast, Protestants generally lack a central interpretive authority, which leads to varying interpretations of scripture and often results in the formation of new denominations.
4. **Sacramental Unity**
- The Catholic Church teaches that salvation is closely tied to participation in the sacraments (e.g., Eucharist, Baptism, Confession) and that these sacraments can only be administered by ordained clergy. This sacramental framework helps bind Catholics together in shared worship and belief.
- Protestant denominations often differ on how they view and practice sacraments, contributing to fragmentation.
5. **Historical Continuity**
- The Catholic Church claims an unbroken continuity back to the early Christian Church, with a consistent line of leadership and tradition. This continuity provides a sense of stability and unity that Protestant churches, which often originated as reform movements, do not have.
- Protestantism, by nature, arose out of a break with the Catholic Church, and its emphasis on reform and individual interpretation has led to a greater tendency toward division.
### 6. **Universal Catechism**
- The Catholic Church has a **universal catechism**, which is a summary of its teachings. This ensures that Catholics around the world receive consistent instruction on matters of faith and morals. Protestant denominations often have different confessions or creeds, contributing to diversity in belief.
### 7. **Resistance to Change**
- The Catholic Church has historically been slower to adapt to cultural or theological trends compared to Protestant groups. While this has sometimes been a source of criticism, it has also contributed to greater unity, as major changes in doctrine or practice are rare and carefully considered.
### 8. **Role of Ecumenical Councils**
- Ecumenical councils, such as the Council of Trent or the Second Vatican Council, have played a key role in unifying Catholic teaching and practice in response to challenges or changes in the world. These councils provide a way to address issues while maintaining the unity of the Church.
In contrast, Protestantism, with its emphasis on individual interpretation and the absence of a single governing authority, naturally lends itself to fragmentation as different groups form around differing theological perspectives. The Catholic Church's centralized authority and strong adherence to tradition have been key factors in maintaining its unity over the centuries.
The bible is tradition writtem down 😉
No other church on Earth is like the Catholic Church. God bless the Bride of Christ 🙏
This priest forgets that it was ultimately God that gave us the cannon we have. The men who received it and put it into place were God's tools in making sure that he does not leave Himself without witness.
What do you mean the Bible doesn’t come with a table of contents? It most certainly does
Some man made that table of contents. That's his point, the table of contents was not written by the apostles.
The Bible itself not the pages before the Word of God does not have a table of contents. There is no scripture that says “include all these books”
@@Leofric000 Torah, books of prophets, gospels, writings of apostles. Anything after that has no true link to Christ.
@@Leofric000 everything in the bible today has a link to Christ when he was Alive:
Not the ancient ones.
I’m so encouraged by all the Catholic content in Shorts now bringing the Truth to everyone.
The Book of Revelation was canonized many years later by a Catholic synod of Hippo in 393 A.D. strangely, it is in their protestant 66 books. Catholic Church decisions covered by Matthew 16:18-19 (especially verse 19) & 2nd Thessalonians 2:15 (Traditions of the early Catholic Church).
False. Protestants do not rely on tradition. when the decision was made as to what books were canonical, they used the Latin term recipemus, which means “we receive.” What the church said is that we receive these particular books as being canonical, as being apostolic in authority and in origin, and therefore we submit to their authority. It’s one thing to make something authoritative, and it’s another thing to recognize something that already is authoritative. Those human decisions did not make something that was not authoritative suddenly authoritative, but rather the church was bowing, acquiescing to that which they recognized to be sacred Scripture. The books in the Protestant bible are the books in Jesus’ bible (the Hebrew Scriptures / Old Testament). Catholics add the apocrypha which contain heresy and these were not in Jesus’s bible (the Hebrew Scriptures / Old Testament).
The first Protestant Bibles contained 73 books.
Please explain why.
@@alhilford2345 It took a few decades to bring biblical thinking to bear and eliminate the false books. Protestants were preeminently rational and prayerful about the canon. After a brief time it became very clear that the apocrypha was not inspired. The Apocrypha was not in the Hebrew Scriptures and not in the Old Testament that Jesus read from. To this day, the jews do not recognize the apocrypha as the word of God. It is of greek origin and not Hebrew, contains false teaching incompatible with the rest if scripture and is not quoted by other biblical authors.
Are you referring to the New testament as Jesus's Bible because Jesus only read out of the Torah.
@@emmap1159 no of course not. The Hebrew Scriptures
What heresy?
We have over 5 000 documents with dating to know what is scripture or not we also look at the fact that truth does not contradict itself. Forget your traditions and get saved
Whose we and who decided? Luther a fallen monk who defiled a nun or a King whose lineage boasted public divorce?
@@emmap1159don't forget that King also beheaded two wives.
Once he got his Church and made himself head of it. Ultimately making himself God instead of Jesus Christ our Savior.
Protestants need to learn some basic history.
@@ladyofnoxus6733the Catholic Church also had many crusades killing thousands. Burned people at the stake for trying to mass produce the Bible. Also, sold indulgences to propel to take advantage of them. Don’t act like you’re church is perfect lol
idk how God would feel to see the body of christ so divided and conflicted. Keep the unity of the Spirit with peace (Ephesians 4:3).
🤦♂️ The bible is a collection of independent books that have been canonized into a single book. The Catholics use the apocryphal and the protestants do not.
Lol early christians used Enoch and Jasher
Catholic do not call it "Apocryphal " but "Deutero-canonical "
@@paididoy ok... not like it matters... either term gets used everyone pretty much knows what's being discussed 🤷
@@raincore80 Enoch is still to this day in the Ethiopian Bible
@@ericdoss7990 Yup ! Which is exactly why his statement that the early church unanimously agreed on the canon is stupid LOOOL.
The church doesn’t save you it’s Jesus. Obviously.
The Church is his mystical body.
@@glennryan646 the church is literally us. We are the church. Read 1 peter 2. Also the word of God says that we are Gods building. It’s spiritual not physical. That’s what you get wrong. Read the word of God. The word of God is Jesus. Anything other than that is man made
I’m so tired of this “all you need is Jesus” because you aren’t saying that all you need is Jesus because you don’t have ALL of Jesus. Jesus clearly founded a church He clearly said He will build His church. Does this mean the church is the people or the church is the institution, the entity, the teaching body? The answer is that it’s BOTH. If you do not have an infallible authority guided by the Holy Spirit to be free from error on earth than you cannot have the mystical body of Christ because nobody will know what to believe and everyone will simply believe what they think is true and not the objective truth. Accepting Jesus follows with accepting the church He founded. If you reject the church Jesus founded you reject JESUS.
@@Leofric000 1 John 2:27 “But you have received the Holy Spirit, and he lives within you, so you don’t need anyone to teach you what is true. For the Spirit teaches you everything you need to know, and what he teaches is true-it is not a lie. So just as he has taught you, remain in fellowship with Christ.”
Your going against scripture. If you have accepted Jesus and were baptized after being a disciple then you have the spirit that guides you. The Holy Spirit is our advocate. The only authority is Jesus. He remains in all of those who remain in him. You don’t need anyone besides him. Did the prophets need someone or did they rely on God who led them personally? Now Jesus has said I will give you the advocate and we say we still need to rely on man. Yes it is true we are to come together as a body in Christ but that is only for the sake of unity and to also rejoice in the Lord for the sake of the world. Nowhere does the word of God say we need a earthly teacher for our salvation. If you look at others for your salvation truly they will disappoint you
@@Leofric000 where did Jesus say the church was a physical thing? Do you not understand that those who follow Christ are the church? The Bible says we are Gods building. We are his temple. Jesus never founded a building for the sake of salvation. He said come to me all who are thirsty. He said I am the bread of life. He said I am the way the truth and the life. If you ask then how is it that we accept Jesus, that is found in Roman’s 10:9. Confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and that God raised him from the dead and you will be saved. I’ll say it again you WILL be saved. If the catholic baptized disciples as they were meant to many would have the spirit of God but instead they baptize babies who cannot decide anything for themselves. Where has Jesus said to baptize and then make them disciples? Can the Lord make you a disciple by force? How can we put Jesus in those who have not accepted him? I have not seen that in the living word of God that is the Bible. Jesus is the word of God so any authority you claim apart from the Bible is false.
Which proves our point. Who decided what your scared tradition is since you don't agree with Protestants/Jewish people?
"In vain they do worship Me, teaching for doctrines the traditions of men." Matthew 15:9
Prots just don’t get it. Sola Scriptura is actually anti-biblical and is self refuting. It’s also a man-made tradition.
It’s hilarious that so many of them attack Holy Mother Church yet accept her authority when they accept the NT canon.
Pointing fingers however will not lead to our unity and thus is not pleasing to our Lord. Let us pray for the bridges and the great many things we have in common. Let us not pick the pebble…
@@Beethovenviolin I was referring specifically to those prots who *attack* and are not of goodwill- those that have already pointed fingers.
And, I have no idea what you mean by “let us pray for….the great many things we have in common”, but it sounds an awful lot like some kind of quasi indifferentism, and I’d caution you on that.
Don’t forget protestantism fractured Christ’s One True Church and has led millions to damnation. Forgive me if I don’t want to get all warm and fuzzy with it.
@@TheBadTrad only in the spirit of one sharpening another here. We all have talents and challenges in our imperfections. One of my challenges I require Christ and the greater body’s is probably tact when typing dialogue. Conversely my talent, which has in fact brought that challenge to light, is in my tone and demeanor (lost in this form). And those talents were honed after my judgemental years that were far less fruitful. I’m involved in conversions almost weekly and not one has come from arguing faith talking points. Instead they come from the care of the soul through listening and through acts of love. Many times a Protestant will discover my Catholicism and will share a journey they had; sometimes beginning with our church. At times I’ll be bated with a faith works debate. I describe I’m disinterested in the debate because it “scatters” and “confuses.” It’s divisive and more about semantics and circular dialogue. It’s full of the temptations of pride and envy. I say I’m more interested to know our commonalities and where our unities lie. Do we heal a marriage by constantly staring at a problem or arguing a point we know our spouse disagrees with us on? Would Christ do that to heal the church through us? Sure. I could argue that Satan has faith and it has not done he or his followers any good. And, if pressed I’ve said that and laughed with my fellow Christian. Ultimately they feel my love for them by inviting dialogue and in where Christ is working in their lives. It is through the dialogue that the truth comes. Not through imperative statements. And yes we can very much learn from our fellow Christians and that strengthens our faith. Only fear of that dialogue will weaken it.
I don’t think sola scriptura is unbiblical. It means the Bible is the sole infallible authority for our faith. This does not mean there are no other authorities- as the video mentions, councils deciding the cannon and many other matters are deciding truth. As a Protestant myself, we still read and believe many creeds written by men. Maybe some Protestants don’t but you seemed to generalize when you said “Prots just don’t get it.” Sola scriptura does not mean we reject all teachings that are “man-made,” as long as those traditions are in line with the sole ultimate authority of the Bible.
2 Timothy 3:16 tells us all scripture is inspired by God.
John 17:17 says God’s word is truth.
Proverbs 30:5 says every word of God is true.
So, there is no question that the Bible is inerrant. So, what about church doctrine? Can that be an authority on equal grounds as the Bible as Catholics believe?
2 Peter 1:20-21 tells us that no prophecy of scripture comes from interpretation, or by the will of men, but by men speaking from God through the Holy Spirit.
What this means is that God, of course, speaks through people. Thus, it is completely possible for him to be inspiring the authors of the canon, as he did, and the authors of many other important doctrines like the doctrine of the Trinity, which is never mentioned by name in scripture but fairly obvious. However, just as the Pharisees kept adding their own rules and interpretations to established scripture during Jesus’ time that was clearly not scripture, as they were refuted by Jesus, people, who make up the church, can clearly get things wrong. In other words, they are not infallible. God’s Word is; therefore it is the ultimate standard and authority. That is what sola scriptura means: if any man-made teaching contradicts the scriptures, or adds to it in a way that drastically changes the intent of scripture, it is not from God. They are not inspired.
Furthermore, most Protestants I know at least don’t believe the Bible is our only source of revelation (that is not what sola scriptura means). We believe in general revelation all humans receive, and possibilities for other revelation depending on if it contradicts scripture or not. If it does, why did God write the scripture in the first place only to change later? Why does the Bible call itself fully true? This also means that the Bible is all we need.
2 Timothy 3:17 tells us that the Bible is sufficient for thoroughly furnishing us to be perfect. We need nothing else!
To conclude, it is not impossible that God inspires and talks to people outside of the Bible today, as he did when inspiring people to figure out what was in the canon. However, no authority is above God’s word, and nothing a human could say outside of God’s word is really necessary. Plus, how do we know it is of God? The “God spoke to me” problem has caused a lot of division in the church. It may be possible that this is because we are trying to add unnecessary and in many cases untrue words to scripture, which calls itself both perfect and sufficient.
@@jadongrifhorst6221 Nowhere in the Bible does it say it is the sole “infallible authority.” That’s completely made up.
Since the ancient Israelites, the paradigm has been a three legged stool. They had Scripture, Tradition, and had an authoritative teaching authority-all of which held at the same level (but never above Scripture).
It continued into the New Covenant whereby Scripture (the NT) was handed down orally (Tradition) for hundreds of years before it was written down and then the NT canon was decided by the Catholic Church, and the Apostles and their successors taught (authoritatively) what Scripture meant. That’s been the paradigm since the beginning. Nowhere does Holy Scripture tell us that paradigm has changed. Nowhere.
And I would point out as well that the definition of Sola Scriptura changes depending upon what tradition a particular prot happens to belong to. Many prot denominations believe it is absolutely the sole rule of faith-not just as you describe it the sole “infallible” rule of faith. How many times do you have to hear a fellow prot ask “where is that in the Bible?”
So, it depends upon which one of the 47,000 (and counting) prot denominations one belongs to as to what their definition of Sola Scriptura is, and that also helps in explaining why there are that many denominations (and counting) to begin with.
For the first 1500 years of Christianity, Sola Scriptura-in whatever form-was never taught or believed. It wasn’t until 500 years ago that some mentally unstable monk decided to start his own “church” that Sola Scriptura even came about. Talk about a tradition of men!
2 Timothy doesn’t in any way tell us that Sola Scriptura is the sole rule of faith.
John 17:17 does indeed tell us that God’s word is truth. The Catholic Church has never taught differently.
Timothy 3:15-16 tells us that the *Church* is the “pillar and bulwark of truth…”. and Christ gave The Church (His One, True Church-the Catholic Church) and its leaders the power to “bind and loose” and to make doctrine that is binding on the faithful. Christ also taught us that the “Gates of hell will not prevail against” His Church (Matthew 16) which means the Church can never teach error, so yes, The Church can be on “equal grounds” as the Bible, because that’s what Christ taught.
And as is typical, you throw in the Pharisees and try to use them as a cudgel to beat down the argument of the authority of the Catholic Church, but what you’re *again* missing is that Christ gave His Church and its leaders the power to make doctrine.
When Christ gave St Peter (and later the apostles as a whole) the power to “bind and loose”, actually saying what St Peter declared is binding *in Heaven* that’s a pretty good indication that He gave some men the power to infallibly decide doctrine. Since it would be “bound in Heaven”, it cannot be fallible, can it?
Nothing in Catholic doctrine contradicts Scripture. Nothing.
You state that you believe in “other revelation depending on if it contradicts scripture or not…”
Putting aside the fact that public revelation ended with the last apostle, my question to you then is who decides whether or not it does contradict Scripture? Who is your final authority, and what happens when you disagree with a fellow prot? I’ll tell you: You go off and start a new “church”. Again, that’s why there are 47,000 different prot denominations. That’s not what Christ wanted and prayed for.
You keep stating what *you* believe constitutes Sola Scriptura, but there are countless other prots who absolutely do believe Scripture is the *sole rule of faith* which happens to be the actual translation of the term- Scripture Alone.
You again mention 2 Timothy, and then despite all your arguments to the contrary, you say that it means the Bible is *all we need” and that “we need nothing else!” You are actually arguing there for Scripture Alone- and not just the sole “infallible” rule of faith. Which is it?
You place extrapolation onto 2 Timothy which isn’t there. If you’d look at the overall context of this passage, you’d see that St Paul makes reference to *oral Tradition* three times (cf. 2 Tim. 1:13-14; 2:2; 3:14).
Read Eph. 4:11-15. If 2 Timothy proves Sola Scriptura, then Ephesians 4 would likewise prove the sufficiency of pastors and teachers for the attainment of Christian perfection. In Ephesians 4, Christians are equipped, built up, brought into unity and mature manhood, and even preserved from doctrinal confusion by means of the teaching function of the Church. This goes way further and is a much stronger argument for the perfecting of the saints than 2 Timothy 3, yet it doesn’t even mention Scripture.
In addition to delving further into Scripture-deeper than just 2 Timothy, I urge you to read the Early Church Fathers, some of whom learned at the feet of the Apostles. You’ll see none of them believed or taught Sola Scriptura. You’ll also learn how they believed and taught what the Catholic Church always has for 2,000 years.
Well described, Fr. Sabastian.
The church didn’t decide; it confirmed what was already known. By the time the Canon was made it was already obvious which books were to be in the NT and which weren’t. There were certain guideline e.g. apostles recommendation (such as Peter saying Paul’s writings were of God), proof of authorship, quotations from early church fathers, etc. The OT books were the same ones during Jesus’s time found in the Hebrew text (Masoretic). I highly recommend the book ‘The Church of Rome at the Bar of History’ by William Webster for more in-depth discussion.
If that was true there wouldn't have been a need for the council of Rome in 382.
This is what happens when you parrot things and have no knowledge of history
I've debated great Protestant on scripture
all had to admit sacred tradition was needed
You guys care more about your sacred traditions then you do scripture
You guys have been killing Protestants for hundreds of years because you guys keep preaching your false Gospel of a work salvation, while people like John Calvin, Whitefield, and many others how did the Bible is clear teaching of by faith alone. Let me ask you something did the thief on the cross have time to do any sacred traditions or any works while he was on the cross?
@@michaeldorsey4580 we had sacred tradition hundreds of years before we had the holy scriptures
@@jesusrosary9067 I'm assuming when you mean scriptures you mean the New testament specifically?
And if you're not meaning the New testament specifically than how come you guys don't do animal sacrifices and burnt offerings?
@@michaeldorsey4580 yes the new testament documents
The new testament is the holy mass lord's supper
Some things are just a part of life that the Bible doesn’t talk about. Like how you should interpret the Bible. But that’s why we have the church so we can build up our understanding of the Bible, which doesn’t mean that we should be relying upon Devine revelation elsewhere. There’s multiple ways to know what books are in the Bible.
1. It doesn’t go against canon scripture
2. Canon scripture is majority of scripture from the time of Jesus that doesn’t go directly against the Old Testament. (Since this is pretty complicated to get into, there’s a reason why we have theologians to do it for us)
The bible says Mary lost her virginity after Jesus was born. Its the first page of the new testament.
The catholic church says she died a virgin and that her hymen never broke - an absolutely disgusting way to talk about her.
Catholicism is the best.
Greek manuscript comparison and analysis
It doesn't give the solution to which texts should be interpreted symbolically and which literally. That's where tradition and the magisterium come to help.
The Scripture interprets Scripture. The Bible cannot contradict itself. If a tradition is contrary to what is written in the Scripture, the Word must stand.
“Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.”
2 Thessalonians 2:15 KJV
“making the word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye.”
Mark 7:13 KJV
I need this man to debate my Protestant in laws.
If your in-laws are good Bible students they would destroy him.
@@StillProtesting if the man in this video has historical records and facts to support the idea of sola scriptura being absurd, then those Protestants in-law would hide in embarrassment.
Book of Isaiah has 66 chapters. Each chapter in order is a book of the Bible. If you read Isaiah you would see the parallels. Isaiah is like the most important prophetic book of the Old Testament. The instructions for how many books are to be in the Bible were recorded in the Old Testament hundreds of years before the church was around.
Where in the bible does it say that isaiah determines which books are in the bible?
@@patrickpelletier9298 because if you read Isaiah you can see that the first chapter is genesis. The 2nd chapter draws parallels to Exodus. The 3rd chapter is Leviticus and so on…. Once you get to the middle of Isaiah it prophesies of Jesus. Anyone with basic understanding can infer and see that God used the book of Isaiah as the template for how the Bible would be organized. Oh I know that’s hard to hear if you’re catholic.
What does the Bible say about people who add to or take away from his word? Oh yea… name blotted out of the book of life. Lake of Fire for eternity. Better that they were never born.
@@DtotheK88 but it doesnt say it. Which means that you view of it is based on what you were taught, which came from a source outside of the bible.
The bible was in large circulation by the time it was fully set down in the year 380, with 72 books. Those books stood for 1100 years, until the protestant uprising. They were removed by protestants. It might be hard to hear this, but the 2 points protestantism is founded on arent biblical, and frankly, tell God you know more than Him.
@@patrickpelletier9298 America and Britain were made great world powers on KJV bible, central and South America were founded on catholic bibles.
Judge the fruits.
If your church is torturing and burning people alive for something, it’s probably because it’s real, authentic, and harbors the truth which was a big threat to the RCC mother harlot especially in those days.
@@DtotheK88 sooooo youre saying kjv is good because it burned witches at the stake because of accusations?
And America is broken, because so many follow what they want to be moral, instead of following the full bible.
Wow, i don't think i want to follow your theology. I stick to the catechism. Bye now
I go to a protestant church building but im proud to be a Follower of JESUS!!
We are together a body of Christ!! JESUS is Lord. God bless yall
HalleluYah
The Catholic Church has always decided which books are in the bible. I'd be curious to know what is hidden in the Vatican Library that they are keeping from the public.
That makes no sense at all. If the Catholic Church had something that they felt should be in Scripture, they would have included it during the Council of Rome in 382. They wouldn't keep it secret.
The contents of the Bible have not changed at all since then.
I hope you know that the Vatican Library isn't some secret cypt of hidden knowledge. It's open to anyone who can document their qualifications and research needs, in other words it's open to academics, doctors, and professors
Editors cut of davinci code lol
The reason the “oooo super secret Vatican archives” is closed off to most people is because they gave napoleon a bunch of stuff from the archives and he ended up burning it for tinder. So they were like yeah we’re gonna keep this under lock and key for most people.
Furthermore they're not closed off. Scholars use the libraries and archives all the time. It's just not open to the public and joe schmoes
You can't believe in catholicism and scripture at the same time. It's impossible. I was Catholic for 30 years. Then I read the Bible. Now I'm just plain Christian.
The are three traditional practices of Christianity. Catholicism, Orthodox and Protestantism
@@dand2760 Wrong. catholicism and Orthodox are man-made RELIGIONS. Protestantism was a movement to rid the true church of Christ from man made religion. True Christians practice Christianity, which, is simply following Christ and worshipping Him in spirit and truth. Yes, there can be a physical building Christians come together in. Yes, there can be presiders and church leaders. But they are not the church. That's where man made religion always corrupts the true church. Men in long robes, stealing Christ's glory, for their own power, making up their own rules that everyone else has to follow.
im a catholic and have read the bible multiple times, and im still a catholic.
sounds like a you problem, not a catholic problem.
@@apan990 Sounds like you need to read the bible again, without your Catholic goggles on.
Please help me understand the following differences between Catholic teaching and what the Bible says:,
1. Why do you continue to pray to Mary when Jesus himself rebuked those who tried to call her blessed? And why did Mary call Jesus her savior if she's sinless? What was Jesus saving her from?
(Note: the doctrine of Mary was not even made until 1950. Did your church have it wrong before then?)
Why does you religion teach that Mary is a mediator between God and man, when the Bible says in 1 Timothy 2:5:
"For there is one God and one mediator between God and mankind, the man Christ Jesus"
2. What did Jesus mean when he commanded us to never call anyone else "father" in Mat 23:9? Why do you disobey this as a Catholic and call priests father, when Jesus said you have one father?
3. What does your church tolerate having over 50% of men in catholic seminaries homosexual when the Bible clearly teaches that it's an abomination?
Why have tens of thousands of children been abused by the so-called holy leaders of your church?
Why do previous popes and bishops constantly reassign known sex offenders so they can continue to abuse children?
Why does your church continue to take so much money from parishioners and use it to pay off the families of abuse victims? These things happen in other churches but they happen in the Catholic church to a much much higher degree, because of forced celibacy and the perversions it creates.
4. Tell me, what does Paul mean below when he says that any doctrine that forces men not to marry is a doctrine from demons?
1 Timothy 4:1-3
"Now the Spirit explicitly says that in later times some will depart from the faith, paying attention to deceitful spirits and the teachings of demons, [3] They forbid marriage and demand abstinence"
5. Explain why in your church history, the Catholic hierarchy did everything they could to prevent the masses from Reading scripture. They killed people by burning them at the stake who tried to translate scripture so that the masses could read them. Why?
6. Why did the Catholic Church work so hard to gain political power, and burn people alive who question the absolute authority of the Pope? Isn't it obvious that the only reason the Catholic church is so big and so powerful today is because of its ruthlessness and hunger for money and power in the past.
7. How can you call Peter the first pope and single church leader, when there is nothing in scriptures that even remotely reveals him to be the leader of the church. In fact the few times decisions were made they were made as a group council of the apostles, and Jesus's brother James seem to have more authority. And for the first few hundred years all of the bishops work together to solidify doctrine. It wasn't until the bishop of Rome demanded absolute power and started punishing those other bishops who fought him. And many other bishops did fight the bishop of Rome when he tried to seize absolute power.
8. Why do you baptize infants when not a single infant was ever baptized in scripture by the apostles? Do you really believe that magic happens and the baby is saved even though they have no choice in the matter? That's how all the baptisms in the Bible took place, from an adult that made a decision to follow christ.
9. What did your own Saint Augustine mean when he said that scriptures cannot be wrong, but the church can be wrong, so scripture is far superior to doctrine taught by Church elders?:
Augustine:
"But who can fail to be aware that the sacred canon of Scripture, both of the Old and New Testament, stands so absolutely in a superior position to all later letters of the bishops, that about it we can hold no manner of doubt or disputation whether what is confessedly contained in it is right and true; but that all the letters of bishops which have been written, or are being written, since the closing of the canon, are liable to be refuted; and further, that even the church Councils are often corrected by those which follow them (On Baptism 2.3.4)"
10. Please tell me why Martin Luther was wrong for protesting that your Catholic Church was greedily taking money from the poor to buy indulgences for their relatives so that they would spend less time in purgatory.
11. How can your church continue to force celibacy on men, when the man you claim to be your own founder, Peter, was clearly married. When Jesus healed his mother-in-law in Luke 4:38, and when Paul said the following in 1Cor 9:5:
"Don’t we have the right to be accompanied by a believing wife like the other apostles, the Lord’s brothers, and Peter? "
12. Why does your church teach that anyone who says that you are saved by grace alone and not by works is to be cursed. It is the exact opposite of what Paul says several times. Go look up your own church teachings and you'll see it actually teaches this. And of course since your church can never be wrong, nothing that was ever taught in the past can be corrected.
13. Why does your church teaching in canon III below teach that the mass is actually a resacrifice of Christ and that the mass itself causes salvation, and that anyone who says the mass is not a real sacrifice is cursed?:
"Canon iii. If any one shall say, that the sacrifice of the mass is only a sacrifice of praise and of thanksgiving; or, that it is a bare commemoration of the sacrifice offered on the cross, but not a propitiatory sacrifice;[16]... let him be anathema.".
This is exactly opposite to what Paul teaches, that Jesus died once and for all and was the final sacrifice.
14. Why do Catholics say that protestants theology was invented in 1600 and before that everything was Catholic. This is false. Here are the Names of pre reformation protestant groups: the Waldensians, Bohemian reformation/Jan huss, Arnold of Brescia, the Tondrakians, Peter of Bruys, Henry of Lausanne, the Dulcinians, Giralamo savanorola, the spiritual Franciscans..
There would have been a lot more vocal protestants speaking and writing thru early history if Rome hadn't keep burning them alive.
For example, in 1100AD, the pre-reformation Waldensians wrote they're articles of confession:
We believe and firmly maintain all that is contained in the twelve articles of the symbol, commonly called the apostles’ creed, and we regard as heretical whatever is inconsistent with the said twelve articles.
7. That Christ is our life, and truth, and peace, and righteousness - our shepherd and advocate, our sacrifice and priest, who died for the salvation of all who should believe, and rose again for their justification.
8. And we also firmly believe, that there is no other mediator, or advocate with God the Father, but Jesus Christ. And as to the Virgin Mary, she was holy, humble, and full of grace; and this we also believe concerning all other saints
9. We also believe, that, after this life, there are but two places - one for those that are saved, the other for the damned, which [two] we call paradise and hell, wholly denying that imaginary purgatory of Antichrist, invented in opposition to the truth.
10. Moreover, we have ever regarded all the inventions of men [in the affairs of religion] as an unspeakable abomination before God; such as the festival days and vigils of saints, and what is called holy-water, the abstaining from flesh on certain days, and such like things, but above all, the masses
12 We consider the Sacraments as signs of holy things, or as the visible emblems of invisible blessings
13. We acknowledge no sacraments [as of divine appointment] but baptism and the Lord’s supper
You were catholic if you lived as a catholic. You're not catholic just by name. If you had known your faith you wouldn't have left.
Based on strong logical sense of scrutiny.
A test. GOD SAID TO TEST
I love my Catholic faith. ❤❤❤
How? The criteria of canonicity
The basic criterion for recognizing books as being part of the New Testament is whether they were considered "God-breathed" (2 Tim. 3:16, NIV). Books do not become inspired because they are recognized as being canonical; rather, they are recognized as being canonical because they are inspired by God. Thus, the church did not "produce" the canon.
Three principal criteria seemed to emerge which the early church used in recognizing books that had been God-inspired and thus canonical:(6) apostolic origin, recognition by the church, and apostolic content
The canon is the result of inspiration.
Because there are writings which are inspired there is a canon.
The fact is the “Bible” was recognized by Christians for 1500 years by the time the council of Trent took place. It was the Catholic Church which “added” the apocryphal books, and because those books aren’t inspired they are not recognized as inspired..
Wow. That’s a twisting of facts if ever there were one. Catholics put the Bible together so technically they added all the NT. It was Protestants who removed some after Martin Luther broke off.
Poor you, ignorant of basic history.
The jews removed those books in 90 AD BECAUSE THEY WERE "TOO CATHOLIC"!!! and feared the jews would become catholics....the Church uses the Bible Jesus read in the synagogue....the Church has nithibgvto do with jews!!! Ignorant woman!!! Apocryphal is a different meaning that you think, heretic protestant!!!
Bro stop making stuff up
@@dvdortiz9031
At least speak like you aren’t crazy
Mmm look up James White’s response to this argument
An issue of this magnitude can't really be described in a 30 second video. I am going to go look up James whites video right now I'm a big fan of his. I think it's fool hardy to try to address something that's important in such a short format
James White is a dishonest apologist.
btw WHERE did Jesus command anyone to write 27 Books and to call it the New Testament?
Protestants can't answer that question.
@@ThecrosseyedTexan yes we must use our mind and think throughly through these issues. It would be laid out in any of his “Sola Scriptura” debates or discussions.
@@annapennrose1158 please give examples to where James Watt is dishonest. Please don't confuse this with a difference of opinion or interpretation of fact but if you're going to make accusations such as this you need to be able to back them up
@@annapennrose1158 when you label someone as dishonest that stops you from hearing what they have to say. I don't agree with my Catholic brothers and sisters but I won't call them dishonest unless I catch them in a deliberate lie. And if I catch them in a lie I'm going to be able to point it out. I just watched the debate with him and a Catholic colleague and they were Christ-like loving and respectful to each other. If we can't do that with each other perhaps we need to ignore this topic for now and practice the basic tenets of the faith
The books thst are quoted from the new testament are in the protestant bible one's that are not was tooken out. But you still have access to these books when the kjv was translated they include the apocrypha. Buy because of how thick and huge the bible was back then. Cause the technology wasn't around to make a small thin bible the books was excluded. But there available for anyone to read. My question is if there where 12 apostles why are their only 4 gospels? Where are the other writings of christ????? I'm sure this will be ignored but just wondering Catholic church with utmost respect 🙏
That’s our problem right there, tradition! That’s where we are erring and leaving ourselves into sinfulness continually. Our traditions cannot save us, only Thus saith the Lord!
Before you agree with what scripture says, you have to agree with what it is.. 🙄
@@corneliusmakin-bird7540 with what what is? The truth always touch a nerve.
@@TheHolyAvatior 2 Thes 2:15 Therefore, brethren, stand fast and hold the traditions which you were taught, whether by word or our epistle
@@JohnDoe19991 not this tradition! Don’t use quote scriptures that has nothing to do with this! Sound doctrine is the tradition Paul speaks of not this! Foolishness is not sound doctrine.
@@TheHolyAvatior Sound doctrine is the made up interpretation that you made up just now . Just like how you made up Sola scriptura and Sola fide . A bunch of made up Protestant lies nothing more. Did loony Luther and crappy Calvin teach you this sound doctrine? Because clearly its all made up
This goes back to that old saying,
"Religiites who argue with each other are too distracted to keep a scientist from his work."
We know which books are in the Bible, because they were there before catholicism was invented.
This is not something anyone wonders about.
The reason why we don't accept the extra books that catholicism added, is that those books were never part of the Bible. They contradict so badly that adding them wouldn't make any sense.
They were in the Bible before the Protestant reformation. Even the orthodox have essentially the exact same books.
They weren’t in Jesus’ Bible
@@lawnmowerman716 :
Jesus had a Bible ? ??
@@alhilford2345 of course! He read from the Book of Isaiah in the synagogue of Nazareth when he started his public ministry. His bible was the recognized Old Testament/ Hebrew canon which does not include the apocrypha. The apocrypha is of greek origin and written during the silent years - between 400 bc and Jesus’ birth. No inspired books were written during that silent period.
@@lawnmowerman716 No. Jesus used the Septuagint. The books are there.
This is the same arguments that the archbishop of Reggio made during the council of Trent pertaining to the reformation. However, the Protestants used the Biblical texts that were received from eastern Greek scholars who fled Constantinople when it was captured by the Ottoman Turks. The Latin church uses older(not necessarily better) texts which included gnostic texts, and others that were found to be in error. I really think, since it has been 2000 years or more since the actual events, that we can only rely on the scriptures for understanding our religion, not the whims of some pope or traditions received from the pagan religions.
The bible references itself, that's how.
The Bible references lots of books and works that aren’t Scripture, and fails to cross-reference some books that are Scripture.
The old testaments is not the same as the new testaments because JESUS was alive in earth to recite the Pentateuch in which is apart of the old testaments. So now the new testaments was written well after JESUS ascension.
It’s a darn shame that Protestants don’t have those additional books in their Old Testament. They have some of the most beautiful passages in all of Sacred Scripture.
Protestants are not prohibited from reading them and studying them. We just don’t consider them inspired due to lack of manuscript evidence that dates back as far. The fact that the Essenes did not copy and store away these books along with the rest of DSC’s demonstrates that they were not regarded as important as the other 39 books of the Old Testament.
@@J.F.331The Apostles quoted from the Septuagint, which includes the Deuterocanonicals.
True protestants don’t say that. Protestants say that the Bible is the only infallible revelation. Not the only revelation.
To quote Calvin
"Our agreement with antiquity is far greater than yours, but all that we have attempted has been to renew the ancient form of the church ... [that existed] in the age of Chrysostom, and Basil, among the Greeks, and of Cyprian, Ambrose, and Augustine, among the Latins."
Protestant ism is simply a means to return to the patristic traditions of the church before the accretion practices developed in the medieval age
The patristic church relied on the Torah first, and then the recorded events of the gospel and letters by the apostles.
- Irenaeus (AD 180): We have learned from none others the plan of our salvation, than from those through whom the gospel has come down to us, which they did at one time proclaim in public, and, at a later period, by the will of God, handed down to us in the Scriptures, to be the ground and pillar of our faith. (Against Heresies, 3:1.1)
In fact, in scripture, it is recorded by the apostles in Christ over 200 times the term “it is written” which was indirect reference to the Torah scriptures.
True protestants don’t say that. Protestants say that the Bible is the only infallible revelation. Not the only revelation.
To quote Calvin
"Our agreement with antiquity is far greater than yours, but all that we have attempted has been to renew the ancient form of the church ... [that existed] in the age of Chrysostom, and Basil, among the Greeks, and of Cyprian, Ambrose, and Augustine, among the Latins."
Protestant ism is simply a means to return to the patristic traditions of the church before the accretion practices developed in the medieval age
The patristic church relied on the Torah first, and then the recorded events of the gospel and letters by the apostles.
- Irenaeus (AD 180): We have learned from none others the plan of our salvation, than from those through whom the gospel has come down to us, which they did at one time proclaim in public, and, at a later period, by the will of God, handed down to us in the Scriptures, to be the ground and pillar of our faith. (Against Heresies, 3:1.1)
In fact, in scripture, it is recorded by the apostles in Christ over 200 times the term “it is written” which was indirect reference to the Torah scriptures.
Revelation can come from the Bible, God, Holy Spirit, Jesus and even angels, as Mary received revelation from an angel. Let us all be led by the hand of God first and let all Christians seek revelation by their search for truth. There is one truth and humans will always be humans, fallible in their search. Thank God for mercy and grace, so all differences will never matter. Let us not get caught up in intellectual reasoning and differences but focus on loving each other!
We follow a long agreed upon Canon, that St. Jerome agreed upon. That was agreed upon by the rabbis dating before his time. "The protestant canon" which isn't all that protestant has more agreement than the catholic Canon. Don't believe me, go research, I'll even give the recourses
they are sooo dishonest its sad and wild
@Rami FollowerOfJesusChrist no they are staying true to their convictions. All I'm arguing is that the protestant Canon isn't new and predates the reformation. It was not formed by one guy deciding what was in the bible or not. Because something is old doesn't make it right either. I think through a canonical-intertexual approach, the "protestant" canon makes sense. The Catholics have every right to hold the Canon they do as well and can defend that form. For the Coptic church, their canon is still open. And they have valid reason for keeping it open
@@ronaldfelix1000 I disagree, we don't just decide on the Cannon, we don't have open cannons, The Scripture come from God, He gave us The Prophets in The Old Testament and Christ And The Apostles in The New Testament, if people want to add or take away from what The Creator Gives us, then that's a huge problem, it's not just a matter of logic or preferences
I think the biggest difference between Catholics and Protestants is forgiven without consequence vs forgiveness with consequence.
Example: Dog poops on floor while im not home. This is not normal as the dog was taught to go outside to go to the bathroom. So when i get home i immediately forgive the dog out of love and understanding somethings wrong but i still discipline the dog as the training to go outside needs to be reinforced.
While Protestants believe no consequence so they just keep pooping on the floor.