I am a recent revert from Protestantism and I’m praying daily for the reversion and conversion of my Protestant friends. So far two of my 10 good Protestant friends are attending RCIA and the other 7 including my in laws are very reluctant to consider Catholicism and the conversations have been tense at times. Please pray for me thank you 🙏
Pray for me friends. I'm on the precipice of turning my back on Protestant Pastoral ministry for the Catholic faith. I can't ignore the Patristic witness. And, for the life of me, I can't live without the Eucharist. My soul's deepest ambition is only ever to have the holiest, deepest, purest walk with the Lord Christ that I possibly can. I've never been able to put my finger on what was missing until I found the Eucharist and the Church Christ founded. This step is going to have deep and painful repercussions. I am going to lose many dear friends. My own wife is against me. St. Jude, pray for me. Holy Mother of God, pray for me. Friends, please pray for me.
I'll recite the Rosary for you and your intentions. Being Catholic and being Marian is by far, the best thing in my life, I pray for your journey and those around you.
@@tsiphinochasie3999 Please pray specifically for my sweet wife Sarah. That the Catholic Church would be transfigured before her eyes, as was Jesus before Peter, James, and John, and that all the years of indoctrinated misconception would melt away. That we could walk to the Altar Rail in joy and unity as one family, undivided. Please... I beg you.
As one who has been involved in several conversions to the Church over my lifetime, I can say this with utter sincerity: Never give up. I recently had an ex-student who I had "worked on" for years, and never was able to persuade to enter the Church, call me from his death bed. He asked for me to arrange for a priest to come to him. I made some calls, a priest came and received him into the Church, he received the Eucharist and died soon after. This after decades of my prayers and arguments. Never give up.
I am Eastern Orthodox since 2017. I am Swedish. I too will convert to the Church. I have been sitting here with a letter for months now, intermittentently writing in it, which I will give to my Orthodox priest explaining my decision. I have left Protestantism a long time ago but don't you think tensions aren't high still. I can hardly get any constructive feedback on some issues from my Orthodox brethren and in a way I feel let down. We have had an extremely rough couple of years in the family following the Covid. Its far too ethereal and esoteric sometimes, idealized, and nobody seems to understand (or want to explain) why the Eastern Orthodox church is regional, national and ethnic after 2000 years. They are very sectarian in some ways, there's even a ridiculous slamming of the entire Western church from certain clergy using elaborate philosophical musings from antiquity. I went to Lourdes 3 weeks ago and that place and all it is and shows is just like a total system code crash for the Eastern Orthodox. It is the equivalent of a man painting himself into a corner. Lourdes sort of silences them, they really can't squeeze Lourdes into the Orthodox theological system. Even if we are not obligated to believe in private revelations it still raises a lit of questions. I am very confident in the Catholic Church even without having converted yet, I took off my Orthodox neck cross which has been blessed on the relics of saints on Holy Mount Athos and replaced it with a blessed Miraculous Medal. My wife does not share Orthodox or Catholic beliefs since she is a Baptist. But still, she never bought into the erroneous assumption that Rome is the schismatic part. She thinks the Orthodox are overly, ridiculously so, conservative (stagnantly old-fashioned rather) and frankly a bit weird but she does attend the services with me. How can she understand the beautiful prayers and grasp the essence of what is prayed or sung if it's almost always in Church Slavonic or Greek? Duh! Eastern Orthodoxy is very ethnic here. Why is there even such a thing as an Orthodox diaspora in the first place? Orthodox phronema should not be more important than clear logic, God gave us a brain to use. We must be able to function in the world in which we live. In Eastern Orthodoxy there's an overemphazise on all things monastic. Sometimes the Orthodox are so anti-intellectual about certain simple things to a degree that it almost makes my mechanical watches stop. The insistence on using the Julian calender is one. They claim it is good they seemingly never changed the liturgy and their traditions, yet fail to mention that really is because they CAN'T change. Who will order a change? Of course they have changed, everybody changes. What I have noticed with the Eastern Orthodox is also the overindulging in standard textbook answers and that they very often seem to have almost a sort of inferiority complex. In a way I have had to walk through two different types of Protestantism. The apathy towards the See of Peter seems to similar between the two. This is why I think the Catholic church is the Church. Lord, to whom shall we go? My name is Peter by the way. Prayers for all of us who have walked quite a long winding ways to get here.
@ Thanks for stating the obvious, that Jesus is the answer. It's clarification time for you. Are you implying that Orthodox and Catholic somehow think otherwise? That we think Jesus is not the answer? By all means feel free to elaborate on what you think we believe. I know what I believe, and I have a pretty good idea what my brethren believe. Sometimes I zoom out when I am tired but I know why I travel 350 km to go to church. Ok, lets discuss the New Testament then, lets start by reading the Gospel of John if you will, John chapter 6:48-58. Tragically so-called Bible-believing non-denominationals disregard the clear meaning of this verse, Jesus' own words. // "Jesus said to them, “Very truly I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise them up at the last day. For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in them. Just as the living Father sent me and I live because of the Father, so the one who feeds on me will live because of me. This is the bread that came down from heaven. " I will not go back to just sitting reading the Bible (and the above is straight out of Jesus' own lips ) without doing what He clearly commands, participating in a valid Eucharist, eating His Body and drinking His Blood, i.e bread and wine. For that we need the Church, the Church which since 2000 years teaches and upholds what the Lord taught is ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY. The Bible will give spiritual guidance yes, but spiritual food, His Body and Blood is served physically in the Church. We know that Jesus is the answer, he is the Word according to the Bible, that's why we are Orthodox and Catholics in the first place who approach the altar, the Holy Mysteries, with the utmost reverence and does what he commands us to do. Don't sit and read the Bible without doing what it tells you to do. Your view of Christianity (if you are Protestant) is not the default mode. My previous discourse seems to flown past you because I wasn't talking about the fundamentals of Christianity but about essentially jurisdictional matters. You reject the teaching of Ch 6 at your own peril. If you are not Protestant, well, your statement sounded suspiciously Protestant hence my response. Basically, don't lecture Catholics or Orthodox on the meaning of spiritual food because this is at the very core of our teaching, regardless if others have misconceptions or not. God bless you my dear. I do read the Bible, I even have a 80 book 1611 KJV facsimile version in latin font including the books removed from later 1769 versions. And a NKJV too. What version are you reading?
This is a “run it back” episode. Loads of great nuggets I want to sift through again. Nice job KAL! Towards the end you mentioned, dress attire … one thing I’d like to see is Catholics “clean-up” is a return to more reverent dress attire at Mass. We tell something with our humanly bodies/clothes and when you know you are attending a marriage of heaven and earth you realize how disrespectful it is to wear sports jerseys, yoga pants, pajamas, etc. Men need to be leading this by example. We would never wear a sports jersey to a wedding!
The theology of the Catholic Church is the most complete truth and is the defacto gold standard that all, virtually all, other denominations measure themselves against. They can poke at it all they want, but have never and can never prove any dogmas as incorrect.
@@EddyRobichaud For the uninitiated, Catholicism is the most scriptural denomination there is. EO have errors, and protestants get the "what" in scripture, but never the "why" and "how." While I will not support these facts with citations (you can find them yourself through easy research), I will ignore the obvious ones like the Trinity and Resurrection, and tell you that these almost-purely Catholic items are 100% scriptural: - 7 Sacraments, including Transubstantiation, confession to a priest, and apostolic succession; - Purgatory - Perpetual virginity of Mary - The Immaculate Conception of Mary - The Assumption of Mary body and soul - The Communion of Saints - Praying for the dead - Indulgences (oh, for sure) - Infant baptism - Infallibility of the pope and magisterium, and councils - Tradition - Art, formal prayers in repetition, baptismal regeneration Now, you go get 'em. And, lastly, BTW, the Catholic Church teaches that you adhere to the above and you have the golden handcuffs that keep you Catholic well after you're dead. Go for it.
Blessings from Brisbane Australia 🇦🇺 love these interviews being a Protestant believer searching for an Apostolic church I’m certainly on an interesting journey.. Catholic or orthodoxy
Upon intensive investigations of early Church history, the claim of a “supreme” Papacy is incorrect. For example, at the Second Council of Constantinople in 553, Pope Vigilius initially opposed the council and took sanctuary in a church from May to December. He eventually yielded and formally ratified the council's verdicts on February 23, 554, thus disproving of his “infallibility.” If there are one hundred Bishops but the tyrant Pope decides to approve or reject an ecclesial matter-the Pope wins every time according to Catholics. So, you’re telling me that 100 Holy Spirit-filled Bishops have no idea what they’re discussing, but the super Pope of Rome does?-as you just read, history proved the “perfection” of the Papacy is a scandal. And nowhere in the Holy Bible is Peter, who they claim to be the first super Pope, ever the central Apostle of the Church of Acts. Not only so, but none of the Church Fathers explicitly confirmed that the Pope of Rome has infallible capability (because he doesn’t). Join Orthodoxy, which is the highest caliber of Christianity, not muzzled by the onslaught of heresies. The Lord lead and bless you. Amen.
This is in response to the comment by ApostolicStorm. The Catholic Church says that the pope is infallible when he speaks “from the chair” because in Matthew 16:18-19, Our Lord promised that the “gates of hell” would not prevail against the church that He founded on Saint Peter, the Catholic Church. The pope guides and teaches the Church in the name of Our Lord. So, his ex cathedra teachings must be infallible. Popes have only spoken “ex cathedra” twice - when Puis IX defined the Immaculate Conception in 1854 and when Pius X defined the Assumption of Mary in 1950. Saint Peter led the church in the Acts of the Apostles. In Acts 1:15, he led the selection of the replacement for Judas. In Acts 1:14-41, he spoke on Pentecost and 3000 accepted and were baptized. In Acts 10, he visited Cornelius and decided that Gentiles could be baptized. In Acts 12, he was imprisoned but miraculously released. In Acts 15, he played a prominent role in the Council of Jerusalem.
@ApostolicStorm You are quite ignorant in history (which explains why you converted, alongside with hatred, to Eastern Orthodoxy). You can’t simply depict what happened in Constantinople with Virgilius; but if the whole world but the pope was with the Emperor Justinian, why would the Emperor force and arrest the pope, under the threat of imperial power, to come along and join the Ecumenical Council? That’s quite simple: Virgilius thought that Council dishonored the memory of Chalcedon and St Leo the Great and was utterly unnecessary, almost a compromise. At last he convinced himself, under duress, that it only clarified further down Chalcedon. But the simple evident question you guys like to skip: why would Justinian threaten Pope Virgilius to join him? Because he KNEW he could NEVER have an Ecumenical Council without the Successor of Peter on his side; he could never have the Catholic Church without subjecting the Eastern side of the Empire to Rome. How could one possibly know that? That’s evident: by reading his previous and subsequent letters to popes. Take this one as an example: _“Yielding honor to the Apostolic See and to Your Holiness, and honoring your Holiness, _*_as one ought to honor a father, we have hastened to subject all the priests of the whole EASTERN district, and to UNITE them to the See of Your Holiness, for WE DO NOT ALLOW of any point, however manifest and indisputable it be, which relates to the state of the Churches, not being brought to the cognizance of your Holiness, since YOU ARE THE HEAD of all the holy Churches_*_ ”_ . (Justinian Epist. ad. Pap. Joan. ii. Cod. Justin. lib. I. tit. 1).
@@The_2_WitnessesNothing but lies or ideological hatred can prevent people to see truth. But you will see truth, and truth will set you free (John 8, 32).
Iv been following videos like these for the last 6 months or so, and I have to say I’m finding what I’m hearing in the case for Catholicism and based of my own experience I’m feeling very pulled to the Catholic Church. I still feel like a babe in Christ after coming to believe in Jesus only about a year ago. My upbringing wasn’t really based around faith or religion, iv been delivered from drug addiction through a 12 step fellowship and after being baptised in April this year and hanging within a Protestant congregation I find myself longing for the sacraments, the reverence, beauty and truth that seems to be in the Catholic Church. I partly want to just take the leap and make the commitment but partly feel pulled to do some of my own reading of the early church fathers. But feel overwhelmed as to where one could start? Any one able to provide a starting point?
Jimmy Akin from Catholic Answers has a great compendium of Early Church writings called The Fathers Know Best. It’s great but, for me, I went right to the source. The Ante-Nicean Church Fathers are the very first Early Church Fathers, guys that learned at the feet of the apostles. There are a few different translations but I don’t think that matters too much. I purchased an ebook copy from Amazon for about $3. It was about 1,000 printed pages long! Please do e-mail me if you need any help tracking anything down; I can’t follow these comments very easy and may miss your follow-ups! God bless.
I will pray for you on your journey. I would suggest that you find the nearest Catholic Church and speak to a priest or someone in the office. Ask about their OCIA program. OCIA stands for "Order of Christian Initiation". Good luck!
Get the Catechism of the Catholic Church. No other church has anything with a similar purpose. It's wonderful and explains it all. And it's very affordable. You're on the path of truth. We're happy for you.
Protestants were cut off from the saints because Luther was a priest but he could not stop sin. Chastity was a problem for him. Our objective is to be saints or as close as possible of sanctity. And because Luther had a problem with that, he simply took it off. Tragedy! The life of the saints are an inpiration for us!
I pray that my "unreasonable" protestant (as Dr. Hahn writes in Rome Sweet Home) wife would convert but she told me she does not need anything but the bible (a mexican protestant- the most closed minded- know it all- sensitive- of all protestants)... and our marriage suffers because of it. She will not marry me in the Catholic Church so I can not receive the Eucharist. Thank you for your testimony.
Prodigal son here, coming back to the Church after 20 years in protestantism. I have noticed that the ones that have helped me to go back are actually ex-protestants that became Catholics, other prodigal sons like me, or Catholics that grew up around a lot of protestants. I think its because I understand the way they explain the teachings. When I listen to those that have always been catholics, specially from latinamerica where protestantism is seen like a cult, they use a different tone, different method of apologetics, there is way more disgust and anger in their arguments. They see protestants as the enemy of the faith, and that of course, prevented me from connecting to the message. They also, don´t use a lot of scriptures, whereas ex protestants explain it based on scriptures in a way that is easy for me to understand.. I´m not saying the forever Catholics are completely wrong in their approach, but I just want to emphasize the wonderful work people like you are doing, those of you who understand how protestants actually want to please God, those of you who actually want us to convert or come back. An extension of God´s mercy.
Centuries of predjudice against the Catholic church makes the process more dificult. In every testemony people try everything to not became Catholic....
The standard protestant rebuttal is that the church fathers are just propaganda invented by the church centuries after the fact, but frankly, to me, it was all about John 6:66, James 5:16, Mt 18:17, James 2:24, and John 17:21
Sam I don't know how you managed to be a covert Catholic for so long. Must have been torture. I could only manage a few months😂😂 Then I eventually had to come clean and tell my wife that I want to become Catholic. I was so miserable until I told her.
Guys we were born in a different century. I been part of difference denomination. Was born to a Catholic mom. However as an individual the community who move me is a Baticostal type of a community. Ones the novolty and understanding of why my mother practiced certain things and try to find the true church. I felt away from my relationship with Jesus and the Holy Spirit. God Bless you greatly my brothers in Christ Christ
Apostolicstorm cannot justify his position as truth. Just look at the rifts in EO, where one's baptism isnt even accepted among all the churches. If they cannot agree on true sacraments i fear for the more complex stuff. Really.
Well beloved, it seems many Catholics just want to be told what they want to hear. Even if the Papacy is more efficient for deliberating and officiating Church matters by man’s standards, that is beside the point. The Apostolic Church must be structured and function as God founded and commanded it to. The point being that although I respect the Petrine primacy of the Papacy within the Church, no Bishop ever exercised God-equal infallibility over the Church.
Not sure of it was foreshadowing because those relatives for sure were Catholic. The last names were given out between 1100 and 1300, way before that reformation nonsense. It would’ve been better if nobody apostasied down the line but good thing the sheep has returned to the rightful flock. Welcome home brother.
sola scriptura is the only options of heretics because they themselves do not have the authority through the laying on of hands traceable to the apostles ... or in luther's case abandoned his own laying on of hands.
The only charismatics I’ve ever known, have been completely unhinged with their constant obsession with signs and wonders. I’ve never been against the gifts, but I’m so very against the obverse liberal view that thinks they can do whatever they want with it, and follow none of the guide rails from scripture. Word of Faith I think is the best and prime example of this. They have an actual culture of being so naive and emotionally led. They fake, and fain, and lie about constant signs and wonders, and usually just simple things that are easily explained by someone with the smallest expertise in that category of work. I’m disgusted by their lying and throwing themselves all all over the floor, acting like idiots, and literally to gain personal attention on their church group, as being a super glow in dark Christian that God extra extra loves to bless, and anyone not lying and throwing themselves on the group… by consequence…is not chosen and blessed by God. A sort of have-not in the church. And so person after person lies and fains the current woo-hoo concept during that church service. People fake and force hysterical crying, hysterical laughing, stupid stories of chasing nonsensical omens that are really just normal every day things. The entire thing is so shallow, so naive, and so moronic. And it slanders Christ’s Bride by making Her look like a stupid fool. So…. Why would you speak so kindly of those fools, actively slandering the Bride, and tell them that their true charismatic faith lies in the Catholic Church?? Those fools need to repent of their lying, and chasing public attention at church, instead of leaving God to be gloried on Sunday!! Their attention seeking egos need to be absolutely destroyed, and they need to learn to sit down, shut up, and learn, first off. And while Cessationist have their own folly as well…. Can you blame them for their pendulum swing when they are watching the morons screaming and acting drunk on Sunday?? Can you blame them for saying “absolutely not! God deserves reverence!” Because that’s really all it is on that side too.
While I sincerely reverence my Catholic brothers, the failure to distinguish between primacy and supremacy for the Papacy is troubling. If Jesus having handed the keys to the Kingdom meant that Peter was anointed as the “super” Apostle above all of his fellow brothers, Jesus would have made this clear which would have been reflected in the Church’s structure-it didn’t. Not a trace of Papal “infallibility” being exercised by Peter from his throne, not even once. In fact, there was no mention of such a preposterous Papal claim until Vatican I, when the western separatist Bishops gave heed to a god-man over them, without Christ in mind. You see, the Isaiah 22 prophecy is explicitly clear that Eliakim was the high priest of the Twelve Tribes of Israel, meaning the Jews, not the Church. This prophecy is not about the Bishop of Rome (how foolish and arrogant), but Jesus Christ our Messianic High Priest. And what’s the difference between having a supposed infallible Pope at the top, when the Church functioned as it should from the beginning for the first 20 ecumenical councils with fallible Bishops who construed infallible doctrines of the Church. So if the Pope really Is supremely the “vicar” of God-what’s the point of Jesus’ return? Might as well declare the Kingdom right here on earth and declare the Pope of Rome as the inheriting Messiah. If he can operate infallibly, then why wait for Jesus? See the hypocrisy? And this problem of earning infallibility dates all the way back to the Garden of Eden, where it all began, when the serpent tempted Eve with the lie that she could become “like God.” Sounds familiar? No wonder the Pope is busy building the ideal (one-world) ecumenical environment for the coming Antichrist, whom he will reverence. How long will Catholics continue making excuses to cover their Pope’s errors, beginning with his pompously inferred supremacy? If he leads the world to bow to the Antichrist, what will be your excuse then? “Well, he’s only human?”…until it’s too late and you finally realize that your Pope is not above anyone nor ever has been. That “infallibility” was a lie all along as a means of consolidating political power away from the Byzantines to center it in Rome. You can keep making excuses, as many of you had as former Protestants about denying Catholicism, as you are now neglecting Orthodoxy…or join the one true Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church from the time of Jesus. Amen.
It’s one thing to be passionate and have great arguments but it’s entirely another kettle of fish to pretend the arguments from the other side don’t exist. It’s bad faith and only does damage to your argument when a well-meaning person would come across the evidence you’ve ignored and suddenly realize the wool has been pulled over their eyes. Peter is quite clearly the chief apostle and this is acknowledged even by most Protestant scholars. He’s given special authority by Jesus that the other apostles aren’t. And Rome is recognized as “pre-eminent” by the earliest of Church Fathers including Irenaeus who is crystal clear about this claim. To pretend evidence like this doesn’t exist is just goofy.
Matthew 16:17 Jesus replied, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by flesh and blood, but by my Father in heaven. 18 And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it. 19 I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.” HOW IS THAT NOT CLEAR??? I feel like Jesus could appear in front of you and tell you Himself and you still wouldn't believe Him. May the scales fall from your eyes and may God have mercy on you.
If one tries to start the dialogue from a genuine reflection and honest vantage point of trying to understand what the Church’ constitutive elements are, it’s obviously easier to understand Catholic ecclesiology in light of the ministry of universal unity and, by force of consequence, First Vatican’s concepts through its own lenses and functionality first. Just THEN the next step should be taken, since I’m confidently sure most people never actually read anything of the Session 4 of Vatican I when they discuss it online. Some of them: *1) immediate jurisdiction:* it means that the primacy of Peter in the Apostolic collegiate didn’t signify the Apostles were recognized as a group and then the group subsequently decided - i.e., collegially - to recognize Peter’s leadership due to mere practicalities, but that the primacy was God-given, that means conferred directly by Christ, without mediation. It means the Bishop of Rome was not recognized historically as such to function as the leader of the universal church by the churches’ self-headed decision, let alone by the Empire, but by Our Lord Jesus Christ Himself (“imediatum” in Latin means ‘without mediation’ or, in a more concrete sense, “direct by God”). That signifies that the Holy See, when issuing to exercise its leadership, has not received its due authority by the consensus of other churches through a plebiscite or a synod, nor is subject to this “ex post hoc” consensus in the strictest sense of the term, since its role is so by divine institution and not by a democratic principle. Therefore, and just to exemplify, when the Bishop of Rome happens to act on the universal level (under the specifc circumstances justifiable), his decision is not subject to a synodical “referendum” to be applicable; Petrine authority derives from Christ himself (although, because of the sacramental nature of the Church - that means the Church “as a sacrament” -, mediatory participation is in general preferable). *2) universal jurisdiction:* it doesn’t mean that Peter was recognized as a solipsistic leader in the apostolic collegiate; nor it meant - patently - the Successor of Peter is a bishop whose diocesan territory meant “the globe”. He is the Bishop of the diocese of Rome, where Peter’s succession was defined by death, but he is the ONLY one who could speak, as the unitive factor of the Church, on behalf of all the “oikumene”, just like Peter is the only of the Apostles who can speak by himself or - under specific circumstances - on behalf of all the Apostolic collegiate, as seen throughout both the biblical ecclesiological testimony and ecclesiastical history (despite denials of some). To Peter alone Christ Jesus gave the keys of the kingdom ‘stricto sensu’ - and one can only say that every apostle received the keys ‘lato sensu’ or by means of participation / communion with Peter - and we know that meant a king conferring power to a representative (“vicarium” in Latin), as in the Hebrew tradition one would understand how governance functions in any Davidic kingdom (Isaiah 22, 21-22), although the powers of binding and losing (the so called apostolic powers) were given further down to all of his brother Apostles collectively. Therefore, this singularity and the subsequent collegiality predicates that Peter himself was commissioned with a specific OFFICE, so that the unique role in pastoring the flock of Christ (John 21, 15-17) signifies a Petrine commission to the feeding of the (universal) church vis-a-vis the other apostles’ successors in the episcopate (not in relation to presbyters or deacons, but in a bishop-to-bishop relation), from particularity to universality and vice-versa. As St John Chrysostom says, _“And if any should say, “How then did James receive the chair at Jerusalem?” I would make this reply, that He appointed Peter teacher, not of this chair, but OF THE WORLD”_ (Homily 88 on the Gospel of John). There resides the reason of the blessing called “Urbe et Orbi” that the Popes give to us from Saint Peter Square in the Vatican City, the place of the martyrdom of Peter. This is a blessing to the city (= “urbe”) of Rome, as the Pope is “de iure” and in fact the Bishop of Rome; and also a blessing to the world or the universal Christianity (= “orbi”), as the Pope is “de iure” and in fact the single Sucessor of Peter - in this specific sense - and the true and one Pastor of the universal Church. *3) supremacy:* it means a specific kind of episcopal primacy that is defined through a categorial difference, not really a difference of quantity of power, residing on the very kind of primatial role exercised by the Successor of Peter that makes it different from the rankings of bishops at the mere organizational level of an archdiocese (archbishop), a metropolitanate (metropolitan) and a patriarchate (patriarch). Therefore, the primacies recognized by ecclesiastical matters (like archepiscopal, metropolitan or patriarchal) inside ecclesiastical canonical regulations are not applicable ‘mutatis mutandis’ to the primacy of the Successor of Peter, since the distinction is not on “quantity” of “episcopal primacy” but it is rather categorial, manifested in the power of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Som may conflate ecclesiology with ecclesiastical canon law, which should be a basic error from a Catholic point of view (entirely related to the inflation of power of the Byzantine Empire and the ecclesiastical capture of the power - quasi-episcopal, by the way - by the Emperor through the Imperial See of Constantinople). The word “supremacy” (‘supremum’) used by the Fathers of the Vatican Council in Latin does not predicate, as obvious, a tyrant universal leader; on the contrary, it’s referential to a leadership whose primatial role has no further point above, if checked among other kinds of ecclesiastical primacies. “Suprema” in Latin or “ανώτατος” (‘anótatos’) in Greek is a word seen during important occasions in the church of the first millennium to describe the position of Rome, even by the Byzantines (and it had zero relation to Byzantine flattery). So the word “suprema” means, strictly speaking, the superior point of nothing coming above, not autocracy, tyranny or whatever caricature can be made of it. In the USA there is the “Supreme Court” as the highest judicial authority and the guardian of the Constitution, but no one should think of the word “supreme” in any caricatural meaning to argue it should change the name to “Primate Court that is First Among Equals” (sorry about the quip). For example, the “gramatical susceptibilities” of the anti-Catholics who maybe get furious on the word “supreme” (rectius: on what they think it means) can be strangely selective: the Greek Orthodox Patriarch of Alexandria (not the Coptic Patriarch) does not resonate with the very argument: the burlesque title _”His Most Divine Beatitude the Pope and Patriarch of the Great City of Alexandria, Libya, Pentapolis, Ethiopia, all the land of Egypt, and all Africa, Father of Fathers, Shepherd of Shepherds, Prelate of Prelates, thirteenth of the Apostles and Judge of the Œcumene"_ is ridiculously more pompous and pretentious then any of the official titles of the Bishop of Rome. People were “taught” or indoctrin4t3d to believe the caricature of the “Rambo bishop” and never actually try to understand the concepts. Your description of infallibility simply proves it.
Only one more observation: your mistake in relation to infallibility is insane. Under that picture, you wouldn’t even possibly and rationally define how come Ecumenical Councils are infallible, since, according to you, they are “human” institutions. But as predictable, you represent Catholic position presupposing the papacy means a “Rambo bishop”: an autocratic ecclesiastical tyrant, transvested into a sort of Christian oracle that positively affirms infallible doctrines out of the wind, depending on his humor, benevolence or audacity. As foreseeable, you misinterpret what the promise of Christ means in Catholic dogmatics, in trying to make it referential to the person, not to the office/Church as the subject of the promise. The difference between the gifts of the Holy Spirit and the charisms is crystal clear: the previous are permanent, given at Baptism, and they work for the person’s own sanctification; the latter are special - sometimes extraordinary -, given for the good of the community, for the service of others and for the assistance of the Church to lead its mission. In a brief sentence, the gifts of the Spirit are personal; the CHARISMS are ecclesial. Many non-Catholics try hard to make a case that a heretic pope would “destroy” Catholicism; if that made sense for Catholics, then the long yet famous theological divergences between Cardinal Cajetan (a Dominican) and St Robert Bellarmine (a Jesuit) in the 1500-1600s over the issue of a heretical pope would make no sense: they would be talking over an absurdity. Again, the Petrine commission is indeed a CHARISM (granted to the ecclesial entity), not a personal gift (granted to the person as person). This confusion between charisms and gifts is a crucial error of Pneumatology, let me say.
2 Tim. 3:13 KJV - Follow God. Not the popes or anyone else. “But evil men and seducers shall wax worse and worse, deceiving, and being deceived.” Matt. 7:15 KJV - “Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.”
Those wolves are people who try & destroy the Church & teachings that Jesus left the world. Barb, you are one of those people, & I say this as a Protestant who wants nothing more than for my denomination to be the one, true church, but we have to follow what God wants not what we want. You should check out: “The Bible in a Fay with Fr Mike Schmitz” & make notes of every teaching you have a problem with & also, check out “Tgw Catechism in a Year with Fr Mike Schmitz”, which contains all the teachings of the Catholic Church & why they teach it. If you are really committed to God’s truth, then again, make notes on any teaching that you have issues with. The internet is starting g to make it almost impossible for people to get away with made up accusations against the Catholic Church. The internet is turning out to be the mail in the coffin of religious issues, false prophets, & false religions.
Which Jesus does one follow though? Hippy Jesus, boyfriend Jesus, human only Jesus, archangel Michael Jesus? Each one of these different protestants will swear comes from their reading of the bible.
Of course it is OK to be a Catholic. The Bible is clear in Romans ch. 3 v 23 - For there is NO DIFFERENCE for all have sinned and come short of the glory of God. We are all sinners in the sight of a Holy God. Some of us are religious sinners, others corrupt and evil sinners, some of us just ordinary people, but still sinners. This is a faithful saying and worthy of all acceptance, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners. If you are a protestant, Catholic, Hindu, Jew, Muslim, Buddhist, etc., we are all sinners, and can all come to the knowledge of sins forgiven by faith in Christ's atoning sacrifice for us on the cross. God's wrath was fully satisfied. Christ loves you and died to save you. Believe and have eternal life, forgiveness and cleansing of sins, plus so much more. It is not where you attend, it is Christ who died for the ungodly and salvation is 'in Christ'. alone.
@smeatonlighthouse4384 Yes salvation is in Christ alone because Christ build only one Church with the authority of His heavenly Father, through His Apostle Simon Peter only, not even through His 11 Apostles BUT ONLY ONE CHURCH. And the popes are the successors right from Simon Peter which they continually preach the Kingdom of heaven and to heal. JESUS CHRIST IS THE WAY THE TRUTH AND THE LIFE. HE IS THE ONLY DOOR TO ENTER TO HEAVEN. HE IS A GOOD SHEPHERD WHO LAYS HIS LIFE FOR THE SHEEP. HE IS THE RESURRECTION. HE IS THE LIVING BREAD WHICH CAME DOWN FROM HEAVEN AND ANY ONE EATS OF THIS BREAD WILL LIVE FOREVER. CHRIST BUILD THE CHURCH WITH THE AUTHORITY OF HIS HEAVENLY FATHER, SO THE CHURCH IS THE BODY OF CHRIST THAT IS WHY WE ARE CALLED CHRISTIANS. CHRIST IS AN EMMANUEL which means GOD WITH US. CHRIST IS A LIVING BREAD WHICH CAME DOWN FROM HEAVEN IN THE HOLY BLESSED SACRAMENT IN THE FORM OF BREAD TO FEED OUR SOUL.
John 3:3 KJV - “Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.” 2 Cor. 11:3 KJV - “But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtilty, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ.” The RCC has always spread a false gospel. Not the Gospel.
John 3:5 says born of spirit and water to enter the kingdom, yet many protestants present a false gospel of that just meaning the spirit only. But that's the problem of protestants interpreting the Bible for themselves, that every man and his dog has a different interpretation and points fingers at the other's interpretation as a being a false gospel, when none of them have any proven authority to claim so in the first place.
Let me get this right, what you're saying is the Church that gathered the canon of scripture to reflect the faith they are teaching is spreading the false gospel. Gotcha!!
I am a recent revert from Protestantism and I’m praying daily for the reversion and conversion of my Protestant friends. So far two of my 10 good Protestant friends are attending RCIA and the other 7 including my in laws are very reluctant to consider Catholicism and the conversations have been tense at times. Please pray for me thank you 🙏
Wow! What a blessing. Please pray for all of us, too! 🙏
Yes of course I will be praying for all Catholics 🙏
Welcome home! I have said a prayer for you.
Pray for me friends. I'm on the precipice of turning my back on Protestant Pastoral ministry for the Catholic faith. I can't ignore the Patristic witness. And, for the life of me, I can't live without the Eucharist. My soul's deepest ambition is only ever to have the holiest, deepest, purest walk with the Lord Christ that I possibly can. I've never been able to put my finger on what was missing until I found the Eucharist and the Church Christ founded. This step is going to have deep and painful repercussions. I am going to lose many dear friends. My own wife is against me. St. Jude, pray for me. Holy Mother of God, pray for me. Friends, please pray for me.
I'll recite the Rosary for you and your intentions. Being Catholic and being Marian is by far, the best thing in my life, I pray for your journey and those around you.
@@tsiphinochasie3999 Please pray specifically for my sweet wife Sarah. That the Catholic Church would be transfigured before her eyes, as was Jesus before Peter, James, and John, and that all the years of indoctrinated misconception would melt away. That we could walk to the Altar Rail in joy and unity as one family, undivided. Please... I beg you.
@@Kitchenwills509 it'll be my biggest privilege to pray the Rosary for her.
🙏
I'll add you and your wife to my prayers. May God bless you both!
As one who has been involved in several conversions to the Church over my lifetime, I can say this with utter sincerity: Never give up. I recently had an ex-student who I had "worked on" for years, and never was able to persuade to enter the Church, call me from his death bed. He asked for me to arrange for a priest to come to him. I made some calls, a priest came and received him into the Church, he received the Eucharist and died soon after. This after decades of my prayers and arguments. Never give up.
Prayers for the conversion of all Non-Christian
Sacred Heart of Jesus, have mercy on us
Amen.
Amen 🙏
I am Eastern Orthodox since 2017. I am Swedish. I too will convert to the Church. I have been sitting here with a letter for months now, intermittentently writing in it, which I will give to my Orthodox priest explaining my decision. I have left Protestantism a long time ago but don't you think tensions aren't high still. I can hardly get any constructive feedback on some issues from my Orthodox brethren and in a way I feel let down. We have had an extremely rough couple of years in the family following the Covid. Its far too ethereal and esoteric sometimes, idealized, and nobody seems to understand (or want to explain) why the Eastern Orthodox church is regional, national and ethnic after 2000 years. They are very sectarian in some ways, there's even a ridiculous slamming of the entire Western church from certain clergy using elaborate philosophical musings from antiquity. I went to Lourdes 3 weeks ago and that place and all it is and shows is just like a total system code crash for the Eastern Orthodox. It is the equivalent of a man painting himself into a corner. Lourdes sort of silences them, they really can't squeeze Lourdes into the Orthodox theological system. Even if we are not obligated to believe in private revelations it still raises a lit of questions. I am very confident in the Catholic Church even without having converted yet, I took off my Orthodox neck cross which has been blessed on the relics of saints on Holy Mount Athos and replaced it with a blessed Miraculous Medal. My wife does not share Orthodox or Catholic beliefs since she is a Baptist. But still, she never bought into the erroneous assumption that Rome is the schismatic part. She thinks the Orthodox are overly, ridiculously so, conservative (stagnantly old-fashioned rather) and frankly a bit weird but she does attend the services with me. How can she understand the beautiful prayers and grasp the essence of what is prayed or sung if it's almost always in Church Slavonic or Greek? Duh! Eastern Orthodoxy is very ethnic here. Why is there even such a thing as an Orthodox diaspora in the first place? Orthodox phronema should not be more important than clear logic, God gave us a brain to use. We must be able to function in the world in which we live. In Eastern Orthodoxy there's an overemphazise on all things monastic. Sometimes the Orthodox are so anti-intellectual about certain simple things to a degree that it almost makes my mechanical watches stop. The insistence on using the Julian calender is one. They claim it is good they seemingly never changed the liturgy and their traditions, yet fail to mention that really is because they CAN'T change. Who will order a change? Of course they have changed, everybody changes. What I have noticed with the Eastern Orthodox is also the overindulging in standard textbook answers and that they very often seem to have almost a sort of inferiority complex. In a way I have had to walk through two different types of Protestantism. The apathy towards the See of Peter seems to similar between the two. This is why I think the Catholic church is the Church. Lord, to whom shall we go? My name is Peter by the way. Prayers for all of us who have walked quite a long winding ways to get here.
Jesus is the answer. Come to him in simple faith and read your bible (King James) . The Bible /Word of God is your spiritual food not anything else.
@ Thanks for stating the obvious, that Jesus is the answer. It's clarification time for you. Are you implying that Orthodox and Catholic somehow think otherwise? That we think Jesus is not the answer? By all means feel free to elaborate on what you think we believe. I know what I believe, and I have a pretty good idea what my brethren believe. Sometimes I zoom out when I am tired but I know why I travel 350 km to go to church. Ok, lets discuss the New Testament then, lets start by reading the Gospel of John if you will, John chapter 6:48-58. Tragically so-called Bible-believing non-denominationals disregard the clear meaning of this verse, Jesus' own words. // "Jesus said to them, “Very truly I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise them up at the last day. For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in them. Just as the living Father sent me and I live because of the Father, so the one who feeds on me will live because of me. This is the bread that came down from heaven. "
I will not go back to just sitting reading the Bible (and the above is straight out of Jesus' own lips ) without doing what He clearly commands, participating in a valid Eucharist, eating His Body and drinking His Blood, i.e bread and wine. For that we need the Church, the Church which since 2000 years teaches and upholds what the Lord taught is ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY. The Bible will give spiritual guidance yes, but spiritual food, His Body and Blood is served physically in the Church. We know that Jesus is the answer, he is the Word according to the Bible, that's why we are Orthodox and Catholics in the first place who approach the altar, the Holy Mysteries, with the utmost reverence and does what he commands us to do. Don't sit and read the Bible without doing what it tells you to do. Your view of Christianity (if you are Protestant) is not the default mode. My previous discourse seems to flown past you because I wasn't talking about the fundamentals of Christianity but about essentially jurisdictional matters. You reject the teaching of Ch 6 at your own peril. If you are not Protestant, well, your statement sounded suspiciously Protestant hence my response. Basically, don't lecture Catholics or Orthodox on the meaning of spiritual food because this is at the very core of our teaching, regardless if others have misconceptions or not. God bless you my dear. I do read the Bible, I even have a 80 book 1611 KJV facsimile version in latin font including the books removed from later 1769 versions. And a NKJV too. What version are you reading?
Peter, you nailed it brother. May God bless you and your family ✝️🙏🏻🕊️
...praying for you bro ❤
😢 that's such a shame, heal the schism 🙏
This is a “run it back” episode. Loads of great nuggets I want to sift through again. Nice job KAL!
Towards the end you mentioned, dress attire … one thing I’d like to see is Catholics “clean-up” is a return to more reverent dress attire at Mass. We tell something with our humanly bodies/clothes and when you know you are attending a marriage of heaven and earth you realize how disrespectful it is to wear sports jerseys, yoga pants, pajamas, etc. Men need to be leading this by example. We would never wear a sports jersey to a wedding!
Loved listening to this conversion story❤
Thanks for listening!
The theology of the Catholic Church is the most complete truth and is the defacto gold standard that all, virtually all, other denominations measure themselves against. They can poke at it all they want, but have never and can never prove any dogmas as incorrect.
Amen 🙏
Give me a subject and I’ll show you through scripture that the catholic religion is not biblical
@@EddyRobichaud For the uninitiated, Catholicism is the most scriptural denomination there is. EO have errors, and protestants get the "what" in scripture, but never the "why" and "how." While I will not support these facts with citations (you can find them yourself through easy research), I will ignore the obvious ones like the Trinity and Resurrection, and tell you that these almost-purely Catholic items are 100% scriptural:
- 7 Sacraments, including Transubstantiation, confession to a priest, and apostolic succession;
- Purgatory
- Perpetual virginity of Mary
- The Immaculate Conception of Mary
- The Assumption of Mary body and soul
- The Communion of Saints
- Praying for the dead
- Indulgences (oh, for sure)
- Infant baptism
- Infallibility of the pope and magisterium, and councils
- Tradition
- Art, formal prayers in repetition, baptismal regeneration
Now, you go get 'em. And, lastly, BTW, the Catholic Church teaches that you adhere to the above and you have the golden handcuffs that keep you Catholic well after you're dead. Go for it.
@@EddyRobichaud here's one: how was the Biblical canon formed?
@ I’ll ask you a question too, who twisted the doctrine of the gospel and called it the catholic religion. Oups sorry i gave you the answer.
Blessings from Brisbane Australia 🇦🇺 love these interviews being a Protestant believer searching for an Apostolic church I’m certainly on an interesting journey.. Catholic or orthodoxy
Praying for you!
Upon intensive investigations of early Church history, the claim of a “supreme” Papacy is incorrect. For example, at the Second Council of Constantinople in 553, Pope Vigilius initially opposed the council and took sanctuary in a church from May to December. He eventually yielded and formally ratified the council's verdicts on February 23, 554, thus disproving of his “infallibility.” If there are one hundred Bishops but the tyrant Pope decides to approve or reject an ecclesial matter-the Pope wins every time according to Catholics. So, you’re telling me that 100 Holy Spirit-filled Bishops have no idea what they’re discussing, but the super Pope of Rome does?-as you just read, history proved the “perfection” of the Papacy is a scandal. And nowhere in the Holy Bible is Peter, who they claim to be the first super Pope, ever the central Apostle of the Church of Acts. Not only so, but none of the Church Fathers explicitly confirmed that the Pope of Rome has infallible capability (because he doesn’t). Join Orthodoxy, which is the highest caliber of Christianity, not muzzled by the onslaught of heresies. The Lord lead and bless you. Amen.
This is in response to the comment by ApostolicStorm. The Catholic Church says that the pope is infallible when he speaks “from the chair” because in Matthew 16:18-19, Our Lord promised that the “gates of hell” would not prevail against the church that He founded on Saint Peter, the Catholic Church. The pope guides and teaches the Church in the name of Our Lord. So, his ex cathedra teachings must be infallible. Popes have only spoken “ex cathedra” twice - when Puis IX defined the Immaculate Conception in 1854 and when Pius X defined the Assumption of Mary in 1950.
Saint Peter led the church in the Acts of the Apostles. In Acts 1:15, he led the selection of the replacement for Judas. In Acts 1:14-41, he spoke on Pentecost and 3000 accepted and were baptized. In Acts 10, he visited Cornelius and decided that Gentiles could be baptized. In Acts 12, he was imprisoned but miraculously released. In Acts 15, he played a prominent role in the Council of Jerusalem.
@ApostolicStorm You are quite ignorant in history (which explains why you converted, alongside with hatred, to Eastern Orthodoxy). You can’t simply depict what happened in Constantinople with Virgilius; but if the whole world but the pope was with the Emperor Justinian, why would the Emperor force and arrest the pope, under the threat of imperial power, to come along and join the Ecumenical Council? That’s quite simple: Virgilius thought that Council dishonored the memory of Chalcedon and St Leo the Great and was utterly unnecessary, almost a compromise. At last he convinced himself, under duress, that it only clarified further down Chalcedon. But the simple evident question you guys like to skip: why would Justinian threaten Pope Virgilius to join him? Because he KNEW he could NEVER have an Ecumenical Council without the Successor of Peter on his side; he could never have the Catholic Church without subjecting the Eastern side of the Empire to Rome. How could one possibly know that? That’s evident: by reading his previous and subsequent letters to popes. Take this one as an example:
_“Yielding honor to the Apostolic See and to Your Holiness, and honoring your Holiness, _*_as one ought to honor a father, we have hastened to subject all the priests of the whole EASTERN district, and to UNITE them to the See of Your Holiness, for WE DO NOT ALLOW of any point, however manifest and indisputable it be, which relates to the state of the Churches, not being brought to the cognizance of your Holiness, since YOU ARE THE HEAD of all the holy Churches_*_ ”_ . (Justinian Epist. ad. Pap. Joan. ii. Cod. Justin. lib. I. tit. 1).
@@The_2_WitnessesNothing but lies or ideological hatred can prevent people to see truth. But you will see truth, and truth will set you free (John 8, 32).
Iv been following videos like these for the last 6 months or so, and I have to say I’m finding what I’m hearing in the case for Catholicism and based of my own experience I’m feeling very pulled to the Catholic Church. I still feel like a babe in Christ after coming to believe in Jesus only about a year ago. My upbringing wasn’t really based around faith or religion, iv been delivered from drug addiction through a 12 step fellowship and after being baptised in April this year and hanging within a Protestant congregation I find myself longing for the sacraments, the reverence, beauty and truth that seems to be in the Catholic Church. I partly want to just take the leap and make the commitment but partly feel pulled to do some of my own reading of the early church fathers. But feel overwhelmed as to where one could start? Any one able to provide a starting point?
Jimmy Akin from Catholic Answers has a great compendium of Early Church writings called The Fathers Know Best. It’s great but, for me, I went right to the source. The Ante-Nicean Church Fathers are the very first Early Church Fathers, guys that learned at the feet of the apostles. There are a few different translations but I don’t think that matters too much. I purchased an ebook copy from Amazon for about $3. It was about 1,000 printed pages long! Please do e-mail me if you need any help tracking anything down; I can’t follow these comments very easy and may miss your follow-ups! God bless.
I will pray for you on your journey. I would suggest that you find the nearest Catholic Church and speak to a priest or someone in the office. Ask about their OCIA program. OCIA stands for "Order of Christian Initiation". Good luck!
Get the Catechism of the Catholic Church. No other church has anything with a similar purpose. It's wonderful and explains it all. And it's very affordable. You're on the path of truth. We're happy for you.
Praying for a peaceful conversion to the Catholic faith for you 🙏
@@TheCordialCatholicthank you! where would I be able to email you?
great interview. great help strengthening my faith ❤
At 38:55 “it’s happening, it’s happening!” 😂 Love that. I have that same reaction (kept to myself, of course).
Protestants were cut off from the saints because Luther was a priest but he could not stop sin. Chastity was a problem for him. Our objective is to be saints or as close as possible of sanctity. And because Luther had a problem with that, he simply took it off. Tragedy! The life of the saints are an inpiration for us!
Amen Amen Amen
Thank you for sharing ❤
Thanks for watching!
Welcome home Sam!
I pray that my "unreasonable" protestant (as Dr. Hahn writes in Rome Sweet Home) wife would convert but she told me she does not need anything but the bible (a mexican protestant- the most closed minded- know it all- sensitive- of all protestants)... and our marriage suffers because of it. She will not marry me in the Catholic Church so I can not receive the Eucharist. Thank you for your testimony.
Hail Mary Queen of Heaven
Prodigal son here, coming back to the Church after 20 years in protestantism. I have noticed that the ones that have helped me to go back are actually ex-protestants that became Catholics, other prodigal sons like me, or Catholics that grew up around a lot of protestants. I think its because I understand the way they explain the teachings.
When I listen to those that have always been catholics, specially from latinamerica where protestantism is seen like a cult, they use a different tone, different method of apologetics, there is way more disgust and anger in their arguments. They see protestants as the enemy of the faith, and that of course, prevented me from connecting to the message. They also, don´t use a lot of scriptures, whereas ex protestants explain it based on scriptures in a way that is easy for me to understand..
I´m not saying the forever Catholics are completely wrong in their approach, but I just want to emphasize the wonderful work people like you are doing, those of you who understand how protestants actually want to please God, those of you who actually want us to convert or come back. An extension of God´s mercy.
Thanks for sharing!
Centuries of predjudice against the Catholic church makes the process more dificult. In every testemony people try everything to not became Catholic....
The standard protestant rebuttal is that the church fathers are just propaganda invented by the church centuries after the fact, but frankly, to me, it was all about
John 6:66, James 5:16, Mt 18:17, James 2:24, and John 17:21
Sam I don't know how you managed to be a covert Catholic for so long. Must have been torture. I could only manage a few months😂😂 Then I eventually had to come clean and tell my wife that I want to become Catholic. I was so miserable until I told her.
Guys we were born in a different century. I been part of difference denomination. Was born to a Catholic mom. However as an individual the community who move me is a Baticostal type of a community. Ones the novolty and understanding of why my mother practiced certain things and try to find the true church. I felt away from my relationship with Jesus and the Holy Spirit. God Bless you greatly my brothers in Christ Christ
Apostolicstorm cannot justify his position as truth. Just look at the rifts in EO, where one's baptism isnt even accepted among all the churches. If they cannot agree on true sacraments i fear for the more complex stuff. Really.
Well beloved, it seems many Catholics just want to be told what they want to hear. Even if the Papacy is more efficient for deliberating and officiating Church matters by man’s standards, that is beside the point. The Apostolic Church must be structured and function as God founded and commanded it to. The point being that although I respect the Petrine primacy of the Papacy within the Church, no Bishop ever exercised God-equal infallibility over the Church.
Not sure of it was foreshadowing because those relatives for sure were Catholic.
The last names were given out between 1100 and 1300, way before that reformation nonsense.
It would’ve been better if nobody apostasied down the line but good thing the sheep has returned to the rightful flock. Welcome home brother.
sola scriptura is the only options of heretics because they themselves do not have the authority through the laying on of hands traceable to the apostles ... or in luther's case abandoned his own laying on of hands.
The only charismatics I’ve ever known, have been completely unhinged with their constant obsession with signs and wonders. I’ve never been against the gifts, but I’m so very against the obverse liberal view that thinks they can do whatever they want with it, and follow none of the guide rails from scripture. Word of Faith I think is the best and prime example of this. They have an actual culture of being so naive and emotionally led. They fake, and fain, and lie about constant signs and wonders, and usually just simple things that are easily explained by someone with the smallest expertise in that category of work. I’m disgusted by their lying and throwing themselves all all over the floor, acting like idiots, and literally to gain personal attention on their church group, as being a super glow in dark Christian that God extra extra loves to bless, and anyone not lying and throwing themselves on the group… by consequence…is not chosen and blessed by God. A sort of have-not in the church. And so person after person lies and fains the current woo-hoo concept during that church service. People fake and force hysterical crying, hysterical laughing, stupid stories of chasing nonsensical omens that are really just normal every day things. The entire thing is so shallow, so naive, and so moronic. And it slanders Christ’s Bride by making Her look like a stupid fool.
So…. Why would you speak so kindly of those fools, actively slandering the Bride, and tell them that their true charismatic faith lies in the Catholic Church?? Those fools need to repent of their lying, and chasing public attention at church, instead of leaving God to be gloried on Sunday!! Their attention seeking egos need to be absolutely destroyed, and they need to learn to sit down, shut up, and learn, first off.
And while Cessationist have their own folly as well…. Can you blame them for their pendulum swing when they are watching the morons screaming and acting drunk on Sunday?? Can you blame them for saying “absolutely not! God deserves reverence!” Because that’s really all it is on that side too.
While I sincerely reverence my Catholic brothers, the failure to distinguish between primacy and supremacy for the Papacy is troubling. If Jesus having handed the keys to the Kingdom meant that Peter was anointed as the “super” Apostle above all of his fellow brothers, Jesus would have made this clear which would have been reflected in the Church’s structure-it didn’t. Not a trace of Papal “infallibility” being exercised by Peter from his throne, not even once. In fact, there was no mention of such a preposterous Papal claim until Vatican I, when the western separatist Bishops gave heed to a god-man over them, without Christ in mind. You see, the Isaiah 22 prophecy is explicitly clear that Eliakim was the high priest of the Twelve Tribes of Israel, meaning the Jews, not the Church. This prophecy is not about the Bishop of Rome (how foolish and arrogant), but Jesus Christ our Messianic High Priest. And what’s the difference between having a supposed infallible Pope at the top, when the Church functioned as it should from the beginning for the first 20 ecumenical councils with fallible Bishops who construed infallible doctrines of the Church. So if the Pope really Is supremely the “vicar” of God-what’s the point of Jesus’ return? Might as well declare the Kingdom right here on earth and declare the Pope of Rome as the inheriting Messiah. If he can operate infallibly, then why wait for Jesus? See the hypocrisy? And this problem of earning infallibility dates all the way back to the Garden of Eden, where it all began, when the serpent tempted Eve with the lie that she could become “like God.” Sounds familiar? No wonder the Pope is busy building the ideal (one-world) ecumenical environment for the coming Antichrist, whom he will reverence. How long will Catholics continue making excuses to cover their Pope’s errors, beginning with his pompously inferred supremacy? If he leads the world to bow to the Antichrist, what will be your excuse then? “Well, he’s only human?”…until it’s too late and you finally realize that your Pope is not above anyone nor ever has been. That “infallibility” was a lie all along as a means of consolidating political power away from the Byzantines to center it in Rome. You can keep making excuses, as many of you had as former Protestants about denying Catholicism, as you are now neglecting Orthodoxy…or join the one true Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church from the time of Jesus. Amen.
It’s one thing to be passionate and have great arguments but it’s entirely another kettle of fish to pretend the arguments from the other side don’t exist. It’s bad faith and only does damage to your argument when a well-meaning person would come across the evidence you’ve ignored and suddenly realize the wool has been pulled over their eyes.
Peter is quite clearly the chief apostle and this is acknowledged even by most Protestant scholars. He’s given special authority by Jesus that the other apostles aren’t. And Rome is recognized as “pre-eminent” by the earliest of Church Fathers including Irenaeus who is crystal clear about this claim. To pretend evidence like this doesn’t exist is just goofy.
Matthew 16:17 Jesus replied, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by flesh and blood, but by my Father in heaven. 18 And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it. 19 I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.”
HOW IS THAT NOT CLEAR???
I feel like Jesus could appear in front of you and tell you Himself and you still wouldn't believe Him. May the scales fall from your eyes and may God have mercy on you.
If one tries to start the dialogue from a genuine reflection and honest vantage point of trying to understand what the Church’ constitutive elements are, it’s obviously easier to understand Catholic ecclesiology in light of the ministry of universal unity and, by force of consequence, First Vatican’s concepts through its own lenses and functionality first. Just THEN the next step should be taken, since I’m confidently sure most people never actually read anything of the Session 4 of Vatican I when they discuss it online. Some of them:
*1) immediate jurisdiction:* it means that the primacy of Peter in the Apostolic collegiate didn’t signify the Apostles were recognized as a group and then the group subsequently decided - i.e., collegially - to recognize Peter’s leadership due to mere practicalities, but that the primacy was God-given, that means conferred directly by Christ, without mediation. It means the Bishop of Rome was not recognized historically as such to function as the leader of the universal church by the churches’ self-headed decision, let alone by the Empire, but by Our Lord Jesus Christ Himself (“imediatum” in Latin means ‘without mediation’ or, in a more concrete sense, “direct by God”). That signifies that the Holy See, when issuing to exercise its leadership, has not received its due authority by the consensus of other churches through a plebiscite or a synod, nor is subject to this “ex post hoc” consensus in the strictest sense of the term, since its role is so by divine institution and not by a democratic principle. Therefore, and just to exemplify, when the Bishop of Rome happens to act on the universal level (under the specifc circumstances justifiable), his decision is not subject to a synodical “referendum” to be applicable; Petrine authority derives from Christ himself (although, because of the sacramental nature of the Church - that means the Church “as a sacrament” -, mediatory participation is in general preferable).
*2) universal jurisdiction:* it doesn’t mean that Peter was recognized as a solipsistic leader in the apostolic collegiate; nor it meant - patently - the Successor of Peter is a bishop whose diocesan territory meant “the globe”. He is the Bishop of the diocese of Rome, where Peter’s succession was defined by death, but he is the ONLY one who could speak, as the unitive factor of the Church, on behalf of all the “oikumene”, just like Peter is the only of the Apostles who can speak by himself or - under specific circumstances - on behalf of all the Apostolic collegiate, as seen throughout both the biblical ecclesiological testimony and ecclesiastical history (despite denials of some). To Peter alone Christ Jesus gave the keys of the kingdom ‘stricto sensu’ - and one can only say that every apostle received the keys ‘lato sensu’ or by means of participation / communion with Peter - and we know that meant a king conferring power to a representative (“vicarium” in Latin), as in the Hebrew tradition one would understand how governance functions in any Davidic kingdom (Isaiah 22, 21-22), although the powers of binding and losing (the so called apostolic powers) were given further down to all of his brother Apostles collectively. Therefore, this singularity and the subsequent collegiality predicates that Peter himself was commissioned with a specific OFFICE, so that the unique role in pastoring the flock of Christ (John 21, 15-17) signifies a Petrine commission to the feeding of the (universal) church vis-a-vis the other apostles’ successors in the episcopate (not in relation to presbyters or deacons, but in a bishop-to-bishop relation), from particularity to universality and vice-versa. As St John Chrysostom says, _“And if any should say, “How then did James receive the chair at Jerusalem?” I would make this reply, that He appointed Peter teacher, not of this chair, but OF THE WORLD”_ (Homily 88 on the Gospel of John). There resides the reason of the blessing called “Urbe et Orbi” that the Popes give to us from Saint Peter Square in the Vatican City, the place of the martyrdom of Peter. This is a blessing to the city (= “urbe”) of Rome, as the Pope is “de iure” and in fact the Bishop of Rome; and also a blessing to the world or the universal Christianity (= “orbi”), as the Pope is “de iure” and in fact the single Sucessor of Peter - in this specific sense - and the true and one Pastor of the universal Church.
*3) supremacy:* it means a specific kind of episcopal primacy that is defined through a categorial difference, not really a difference of quantity of power, residing on the very kind of primatial role exercised by the Successor of Peter that makes it different from the rankings of bishops at the mere organizational level of an archdiocese (archbishop), a metropolitanate (metropolitan) and a patriarchate (patriarch). Therefore, the primacies recognized by ecclesiastical matters (like archepiscopal, metropolitan or patriarchal) inside ecclesiastical canonical regulations are not applicable ‘mutatis mutandis’ to the primacy of the Successor of Peter, since the distinction is not on “quantity” of “episcopal primacy” but it is rather categorial, manifested in the power of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Som may conflate ecclesiology with ecclesiastical canon law, which should be a basic error from a Catholic point of view (entirely related to the inflation of power of the Byzantine Empire and the ecclesiastical capture of the power - quasi-episcopal, by the way - by the Emperor through the Imperial See of Constantinople). The word “supremacy” (‘supremum’) used by the Fathers of the Vatican Council in Latin does not predicate, as obvious, a tyrant universal leader; on the contrary, it’s referential to a leadership whose primatial role has no further point above, if checked among other kinds of ecclesiastical primacies. “Suprema” in Latin or “ανώτατος” (‘anótatos’) in Greek is a word seen during important occasions in the church of the first millennium to describe the position of Rome, even by the Byzantines (and it had zero relation to Byzantine flattery). So the word “suprema” means, strictly speaking, the superior point of nothing coming above, not autocracy, tyranny or whatever caricature can be made of it. In the USA there is the “Supreme Court” as the highest judicial authority and the guardian of the Constitution, but no one should think of the word “supreme” in any caricatural meaning to argue it should change the name to “Primate Court that is First Among Equals” (sorry about the quip). For example, the “gramatical susceptibilities” of the anti-Catholics who maybe get furious on the word “supreme” (rectius: on what they think it means) can be strangely selective: the Greek Orthodox Patriarch of Alexandria (not the Coptic Patriarch) does not resonate with the very argument: the burlesque title _”His Most Divine Beatitude the Pope and Patriarch of the Great City of Alexandria, Libya, Pentapolis, Ethiopia, all the land of Egypt, and all Africa, Father of Fathers, Shepherd of Shepherds, Prelate of Prelates, thirteenth of the Apostles and Judge of the Œcumene"_ is ridiculously more pompous and pretentious then any of the official titles of the Bishop of Rome.
People were “taught” or indoctrin4t3d to believe the caricature of the “Rambo bishop” and never actually try to understand the concepts. Your description of infallibility simply proves it.
Only one more observation: your mistake in relation to infallibility is insane. Under that picture, you wouldn’t even possibly and rationally define how come Ecumenical Councils are infallible, since, according to you, they are “human” institutions. But as predictable, you represent Catholic position presupposing the papacy means a “Rambo bishop”: an autocratic ecclesiastical tyrant, transvested into a sort of Christian oracle that positively affirms infallible doctrines out of the wind, depending on his humor, benevolence or audacity. As foreseeable, you misinterpret what the promise of Christ means in Catholic dogmatics, in trying to make it referential to the person, not to the office/Church as the subject of the promise. The difference between the gifts of the Holy Spirit and the charisms is crystal clear: the previous are permanent, given at Baptism, and they work for the person’s own sanctification; the latter are special - sometimes extraordinary -, given for the good of the community, for the service of others and for the assistance of the Church to lead its mission. In a brief sentence, the gifts of the Spirit are personal; the CHARISMS are ecclesial. Many non-Catholics try hard to make a case that a heretic pope would “destroy” Catholicism; if that made sense for Catholics, then the long yet famous theological divergences between Cardinal Cajetan (a Dominican) and St Robert Bellarmine (a Jesuit) in the 1500-1600s over the issue of a heretical pope would make no sense: they would be talking over an absurdity. Again, the Petrine commission is indeed a CHARISM (granted to the ecclesial entity), not a personal gift (granted to the person as person). This confusion between charisms and gifts is a crucial error of Pneumatology, let me say.
@@masterchief8179:
Thank you.
An excellent explanation!
2 Tim. 3:13 KJV - Follow God. Not the popes or anyone else.
“But evil men and seducers shall wax worse and worse, deceiving, and being deceived.”
Matt. 7:15 KJV - “Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.”
Praying for your peaceful conversion to the Catholic Church 💕
Those wolves are people who try & destroy the Church & teachings that Jesus left the world. Barb, you are one of those people, & I say this as a Protestant who wants nothing more than for my denomination to be the one, true church, but we have to follow what God wants not what we want. You should check out: “The Bible in a Fay with Fr Mike Schmitz” & make notes of every teaching you have a problem with & also, check out “Tgw Catechism in a Year with Fr Mike Schmitz”, which contains all the teachings of the Catholic Church & why they teach it. If you are really committed to God’s truth, then again, make notes on any teaching that you have issues with. The internet is starting g to make it almost impossible for people to get away with made up accusations against the Catholic Church. The internet is turning out to be the mail in the coffin of religious issues, false prophets, & false religions.
Which Jesus does one follow though? Hippy Jesus, boyfriend Jesus, human only Jesus, archangel Michael Jesus?
Each one of these different protestants will swear comes from their reading of the bible.
@@ThruTheUnknown you don’t know what your talking about
Why KJV?
Of course it is OK to be a Catholic. The Bible is clear in Romans ch. 3 v 23 - For there is NO DIFFERENCE for all have sinned and come short of the glory of God. We are all sinners in the sight of a Holy God. Some of us are religious sinners, others corrupt and evil sinners, some of us just ordinary people, but still sinners. This is a faithful saying and worthy of all acceptance, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners. If you are a protestant, Catholic, Hindu, Jew, Muslim, Buddhist, etc., we are all sinners, and can all come to the knowledge of sins forgiven by faith in Christ's atoning sacrifice for us on the cross. God's wrath was fully satisfied. Christ loves you and died to save you. Believe and have eternal life, forgiveness and cleansing of sins, plus so much more. It is not where you attend, it is Christ who died for the ungodly and salvation is 'in Christ'. alone.
@smeatonlighthouse4384
Yes salvation is in Christ alone because Christ build only one Church with the authority of His heavenly Father, through His Apostle Simon Peter only, not even through His 11 Apostles BUT ONLY ONE CHURCH. And the popes are the successors right from Simon Peter which they continually preach the Kingdom of heaven and to heal.
JESUS CHRIST IS THE WAY THE TRUTH AND THE LIFE. HE IS THE ONLY DOOR TO ENTER TO HEAVEN. HE IS A GOOD SHEPHERD WHO LAYS HIS LIFE FOR THE SHEEP. HE IS THE RESURRECTION. HE IS THE LIVING BREAD WHICH CAME DOWN FROM HEAVEN AND ANY ONE EATS OF THIS BREAD WILL LIVE FOREVER. CHRIST BUILD THE CHURCH WITH THE AUTHORITY OF HIS HEAVENLY FATHER, SO THE CHURCH IS THE BODY OF CHRIST THAT IS WHY WE ARE CALLED CHRISTIANS. CHRIST IS AN EMMANUEL which means GOD WITH US. CHRIST IS A LIVING BREAD WHICH CAME DOWN FROM HEAVEN IN THE HOLY BLESSED SACRAMENT IN THE FORM OF BREAD TO FEED OUR SOUL.
so it's ok to be stupid?
No one is faulting you! 😂
I am stupid. I am still okay. People even like me.
John 3:3 KJV - “Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.”
2 Cor. 11:3 KJV - “But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtilty, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ.”
The RCC has always spread a false gospel. Not the Gospel.
Says the guy who made up his own gospel 2000 years later. We are baptized in water and spirit. It's called baptism. Maybe you've never heard of it.
Praying for your peaceful conversion to the Catholic Church 🙏
John 3:5 says born of spirit and water to enter the kingdom, yet many protestants present a false gospel of that just meaning the spirit only.
But that's the problem of protestants interpreting the Bible for themselves, that every man and his dog has a different interpretation and points fingers at the other's interpretation as a being a false gospel, when none of them have any proven authority to claim so in the first place.
Let me get this right, what you're saying is the Church that gathered the canon of scripture to reflect the faith they are teaching is spreading the false gospel. Gotcha!!
Catholics are born again - according to the Bible ruclips.net/video/8ZOt7dbrpOY/видео.htmlsi=yVrosjUU3Czxw5Zx
No it isn’t.
Yes it is. (See, my argument is equally convincing.)