Это видео недоступно.
Сожалеем об этом.
He Learned from the Best Evangelicals - and Returned to Rome! (w/ Gerard Figurelli)
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 18 авг 2024
- In this episode of The Cordial Catholic, I'm joined by Gerard Figurelli from @midairfortress-revert a former pastor, radio host, apologist, and a student under some of the very best Evangelical minds in North America, to tell his incredible story of his return - his reconciliation - with Rome.
Raised Catholic, Gerard received all of the sacraments but never really felt connected to Christ until a radical encounter in a Baptist church. From there, Gerard spent decades working in pastoral ministry and studying under some of the greatest Evangelical teachers including the late Dr. Norman Geisler at Southern Evangelical Seminary and Dr. Francis Beckwith at Baylor University.
Both Dr. Geisler - and SES itself - and Dr. Beckwith figure prominently in Figurelli's journey - Figurelli was working as a Teaching Assistant under Beckwith when Beckwith had his own return to the Catholicism of his upbringing.
In this episode we dig into what prompted Figurelli and his wife to begin re-examining their Evangelical faith, how learning about Christianity drew them both deeper towards Catholicism in particular, and the role of Scripture and the Early Church Fathers. It's a fantastic conversation!
For more from Gerard visit his RUclips channel:
/ @midairfortress-revert
For more, visit The Cordial Catholic. Send your feedback to cordialcatholic@gmail.com.
Sign up for our newsletter for my reflections on episodes, behind-the-scenes content, and exclusive contests at newsletter.thec...
To watch this and other episodes please visit (and subscribe to!) our RUclips channel.
Please consider financially supporting this show!
For more information visit the Patreon page. All patrons receive access to exclusive content and if you can give $5/mo or more you'll also be entered into monthly draws for fantastic books hand-picked by me at / cordialcatholic
If you'd like to give a one-time donation to The Cordial Catholic, you can visit the PayPal page at paypal.me/cordi...
Thank you to those already supporting the show!
Cradle Catholic here who fell away and at age 39 experienced a born again conversion. I spent 10 years in the Protestant Church and was lead back to the Catholic Church this past summer! My cradle Protestant husband and I will enter the Catholic Church on Pentecost all glory to God! ❤
Wow!
That is wonderful!!!!
If you were a cradle Catholic you should have no reason to be waiting. Just go to Confession, that's all you need. Your already fully in the Church.
Blessings to you!
Thank you! 🙏
I also sometimes weep whenever I kneel before the Holy Eucharist, it is simply overwhelming at times.
Welcome home, Gerard! Your testimony gives me hope for the return of family and friends who have left the church established by Christ himself. You’re an inspiration!
This was so enjoyable to listen to and I'm Protestant. Thanks so much for sharing. This conversation has given me a lot to consider and wrestle with. ❤
Thank you so much for watching. I’m so glad you were able to engage with it!
It is shocking to realize that I had not given the CC an honest evaluation. I only “knew” what other Protestants and pastors had told me. After I started reading the Catechism, I tackled my list of “obstacles”.
I converted after a lot of reading and fell in love with the Catholic Church. Just keep reading, asking questions from reputable/knowledgeable Catholics, praying and seeking Christ. ❤
@@NuLeif I was married in the Catholic church. My church refused to marry us due to my husband being Catholic. My husband's family spoke poorly of the church themselves and that set off alarms for me. I did buy the catechism and read through it. But again, all I was seeing were things that did not make sense and when I tried to ask my Catholic inlaws it was not taken well. My husband said they just didn't know the answers. Now 30 years later here I am trying to get my questions answered. My husband left the church after marrying me and I believe that was a mistake. I am enjoying this process of learning about the Catholic faith, not sure where it will take me but I am open to God's leading. Thanks so much for the encouragement. I greatly appreciate it.
🙏💞🌏🙏
I was also born a Catholic studyed in Catholic Seminary, eventually left Catholicism, and also became a Baptist who completed a Masters degree in Baptist Seminary. I have an MTS in Christian Missions. I returned to Catholicism a year ago. God bless you for your witness.
Oh my God my wife is from the Philippines.
Welcome Home! ❤
Wow. Thank you for sharing your testimony! God bless you!
After what seems like a thorough Catholic education, why'd you leave, if you don't mind me asking? And what brought you back?
@timothygriffith177 I had many questions about my own faith in many of the teachings that I was proposing to believe interestingly enough. It was returning to studying many of these same teachings. I truly believe in transubstantiation, which I couldn't receive Communion until I returned to Catholicism.
Love hearing about these separated brothers coming home. Your Catholic brother Robert from Puerto Rico 🇵🇷
I have to admit that Gerard’s testimony is so true for countless Catholics who left the Catholic Church for reasons of either no spiritual up bringing from their parents or the little or no faith in the individual of the Catholic Church, but it’s so mysterious of how Jesus Christ calls and leads fallen away Catholics and even outsiders of his church to enter into it. I guess it’s obviously the work of what his powerful Love Graces Truth and virtues can do for those who respond to it amen 🙏
St Francis de Sales ,The Catholic Controversy, was the book that caused me to swim the Tiber from being an anti-Catholic Calvinist. I knew both Scott Hahn and Gerry Matatics before they were Catholic. They introduced me to anti-Catholicism. I was shaken badly at their conversion, but they were also instrumental in my conversion. Deo Gratias!
Sounds like you’ve got a pretty interesting story to tell Scott. E-mail me if you’d ever like to share your story!
Message for Gerard: It's called the Gift of Tears. You received this gift of the Holy Spirit in your Confirmation, but you've only recently moved your will to be open to the grace to accept the gift.
I was always so embarrassed about weeping after receiving the Eucharist. I had no clue! Then I read a comment on a Facebook thread where one of the unknown ordinary people explained it to someone else who had the same embarrassment that I did. She explained that it's a gift of making reparation for sin, not only personal sin but the sins of others. In addition, it's a prayer begging for mercy on us all. You know where the Bible says (paraphrasing here) that when you can't think of the words to pray, and all that comes out is a moan, the Holy Spirit supplies the words. Your tears are the groaning spirit that's referred to.
I have to add that I had much personal repartition to make, because I was in and out of the Church, at best only culturally Catholic, at worst completely away from the Sacraments. And yet when I went to Communion, I wept every single time. The Holy Spirit was working with whatever small movement of my will was turning towards God. And I remember expecting something magnificent and courageous to come out of my timid spirit when I was Confirmed, but it fell flat as I felt nothing and didn't change. So I left the Church in disappointment. I was so foolish, may the Lord have mercy on my soul. I'm so grateful that He welcomed me back.
I was away from the Catholic chirch for over 25 years. Did Bible in the year with father Mike... im back in the Chirch fully. Catholocs need to learn Catechism.
Welcome home, brother in Christ.
yeah welcome home. Get on your knees befor those graven images.
Awesome show..Along with many I'm always praying for conversions of Evangelicals and all Protestants to the Original Church the Catholic Church..I've been Protestant myself so know the experience of conversion to Catholicism. I was baptised Anglican but my mother was Catholic leaning but missed the mark herself till later in life. My mother experienced Methodism, Catholicism, Anglicanism, Evangelicalism then finally properly praying as a Catholic in Old age and only going to Mass
There’s no other explanation for how I met your wife Gerardo other than it being a divine appointment!!! Since the day I started my research on how to witness to Catholics unbeknownst to me I was the one that ended up being heavily persuaded after listening to Bryan Mercier about a month ago when I came across his segment on refuting my Pastor of 30 years and ended up completely compelled to listen to Bryan more!!!! I was in the fast track that day forward and then God in His faithful provision had India’s and my paths cross and she’s been such a huge blessing and the very type of person with a background just like my own as well as yourself to hold my hand and guide me with incredible resources and emotional support. ♥️💕 I’m very excited and grateful that the Lord in his Mercy is calling me HOME!! Thank you for your Testimony 🙏
Welcome home. I reverted 24 years ago.
@@Spiritof76Catholic Praise God!! This was nothing short of a miracle, the first confirmation I received was a few weeks ago I placed this one book in my Amazon cart and started perusing Etsy for rosary’s. An old childhood neighbor friend who I hadn’t seen in over two years of which was at our home perish down the street at his mother’s memorial happened to stop by our house without any notice at like 7:30 pm and the first thing he handed me was that very same book on the Eucharist and a box with a rosary in it!!!! If that’s not a miraculous sign I don’t know what is!!!!
May God bless your journey back home. ❤
I converted more than 20 years ago, and received the sacraments of initiation at the 2001 Easter Vigil, so as someone who also isn't from around these parts but has lived here long enough to know them fairly well, welcome Home, Christina!
@@paulmiller3469 That must’ve been so amazing!!! And thank you Paul! I’m going through such complex emotional terrain right now, from excitement to complete humility and gratitude for having such grace and mercy on me to rescue me from the sincere but terrifying path I was on. It’s like going through an existential crisis of sorts but also this profound sense of relief and peace!!!
Love Gerards brutal honesty and down to earth personality. Great discussion.
Thanks for watching!
Bless him!!!! How wonderful.
Thank you Gerard for sharing your story on my 71k FB forum. Much appreciated.
Gerard, what a fascinating history. I'm glad you came back home to the Catholic Church.
Welcome home Gerard! If anyone had told us 10 years ago we'd be having this conversation....LOL!
Thank you brother!
The Holy Spirit is moving and using these converts/reverts and the media in an amazing way. These folks know so many people and this movement is affecting a lot of Protestants. Sit back and watch this grow, and pray every day for unity in Christ’s Church!!!
Gerard talked about doing what I, and I think all Protestants do when initially looking at Catholicism: Looking at Catholic teaching through a microscope rather than than looking at the Church itself through a telescope. What I mean is that it is very common for Protestants to object prima facie to individual Catholic doctrines rather than looking at the much greater issue of whether the Church actually has divine authority on earth.
After exhausting myself in trying to dig deeply into specific doctrines, and having my prejudices disproven time after time, I finally took on the issue of Magisterial authority. Once I realized that I had to submit to the Church’s authority, the individual doctrines I hadn’t resolved yet became non-issues.
You only have to submit to the Church if it actually has that sort of authority. That's something that has to be positively established.
@@taylorbarrett384 that is the point. The Church clearly had that authority in Acts 15. What evidence is there that the Church ever ceded that authority to individual believers through “Sola Scriptura” and the “right of private interpretation”?
@@wjtruax I'm not sure that Acts 15 indicates there is some sort of enduring ecclessial Infallibility, but yes, that is the sort of evidence you would need to marshall and use to argue for and establish such an authority. It cannot be established through negations of Sola Scriptura (there is nothing intrinsically illogical, unworkable, untenable, or unbelievable about it), it can only be established positively by those sorts of arguments (that Jesus gave the Church such an authority, promised it woukd be lasting, etc), as well as by reference to motives of credibility for the divine nature of the Church
@@taylorbarrett384 you seem to be operating on the presumption that, unless something is explicitly indicated in Scripture, it cannot be a binding rule for the Church. Such a principle itself is not Scriptural, which means it is tradition and is therefore self-refuting. Acts 15 indicates extraordinary ecclesiastical authority - authority to foment new doctrine and abrogate previous doctrine. Contrary to the Catholic Church having to prove that the authority was meant to be enduring, you should demonstrate that it was intended to be temporary. Also, please consider that the enduring authority of the Magisterium was accepted per se for the first 1500 years of Christianity. If your claim is that “they had it all wrong” for 1500 years, you’re claiming that Christ allowed his Church to teach heresy and error (magisterial authority, apostolic succession, intercession of the saints, sacred tradition on par with Scriptural authority, etc.) for all that time, until the Reformers came along and “got it right.” That claim very strongly impugns Christ’s faithfulness to his Church and his promise to be with us always, even unto the end of the age. If it took 1500 years to “get it right,” what proof do we have that the Reformers got it right? Very recently “progressive” Christians have started claiming that the traditional Christian sexual ethic is much too restrictive and not what Christ intended, basically trying to justify an almost “anything goes” sexual morality. If it took 1500 years to overturn magisterial authority or to recognize “sola fide” and “sola Scriptura” as true Christian teaching, what possible means do you have for defending your position while trying to hold the line against the sexual anarchy that the progressive wing is trying to impose using the same premises?
@@wjtruax I was simply telling you the kinds of things you need to use to establish infallible ecclessial authority. In that reply you mentioned a few things that can be validly used to argue for it. For example, Christ's promises to the Church. That is a legitimate way to try to establish the Catholic position. It's not in itself proof, since those promises can easily be interpreted in ways compatible with Protestantism, but it's a legitimate effort. As for your accusation that Protestants have no way to argue against false doctrines, that is incorrect. Protestants can appeal to Scripture against heresies the same way Catholics can appeal to Church teaching.
Many Catholics who weren’t catechized well, need to go to the protestantism route to understand the Bible until they find their way back to appreciate what they took for granted as Catholics.
That was me. Left in 1970, returned 48 years later. God is so gracious.
So you admit that the church of Rome does a crappy job of catechizing its members, eh? If a church cannot properly teach people the Gospel and is not spreading the Gospel among the lost, it is salt that has lost its saltiness and is no good; time to throw it away. Find a Protestant church that is fulfilling the Great Commission and is teaching Bible truth properly, and become a part of the *salt and light.*
But Protestantism isn't from God. If it isn't from God, then it's from Satan
I spent a lifetime in Protestantism only to read myself into the Catholic Church. There's no scripture that says if we're not educated by God's Church, then go to a heretical church. We stay with Jesus Christ.
Some believers don't take their faith seriously. I am constantly studying the Bible and reading about the saints all the time. I could never become Protestant again. My heart wouldn't let me
This was me! Cradle Catholic and will re-enter the church on Pentecost at age 50! Praise be to God!
@@JesusfoundedCatholicChurch Your thinking is off. "Protestantism" is a branch of Christianity which strives to shed the later accretions to the faith and to hold true to the teachings of Christ and the Apostles. Christianity is from God, and the teachings of Jesus & the Apostles (as recorded in the Bible) are from God; therefore the branch of Christianity referred to as "Protestantism" is from God.
But I'm not surprised to see twisted logic from a person who worships wafers of bread. Yes, bread! According to Pope Gelasius, Augustine, Chrysostom, and other early fathers, the substances of bread and wine *do not cease to be bread and wine* at the consecration. Catholics are so gullible, they let their CC lead them around by the nose and cause them to commit idolatry.
The Israelites created a calf of gold, declared it to be Almighty God, and worshiped it. As punishment, Moses had the idol (the calf) ground up and made the people ingest the gold.
The Roman Catholics create wafers of bread, declare them to be Almighty God, elevate them in monstrances and worship them. Then they ingest their idol bread.
Notice the similarity?
I love listening to the fire of converts/reverts! Gerard’s videos are great, he brings all his previous knowledge of the scriptures and pastoral experiences into his Catholic teachings. Welcome home brother, great to finally hear your journey home!!!
Welcome home!
GOD bless you sir
Are you willing to admit that you might be wrong about the Catholic Church? Fifteen years after Vatican II I was still under the impression that the Mass was in Latin and that Catholics weren't allowed to read the Bible (as well as some really hateful things about the Catholic Church). And I remember the very first time I attended Mass with my new wife, I was shocked that the Mass was in English and that nearly every word of the Bible was literally or symbolically from the Bible. That one Mass, just realizing how ignorant I was about the Church, wrecked all my prejudices against the Church. Mass is in English... oh, maybe she really ISN'T the Whore of Babylon.
Eye opening, isn’t it!
I'm sorry but you still don't know the catholic faith. Read the catechsim of the council of Trent (if you can, get one with all Scripture references and there are a lot) and see that the Church was really never against the people reading the Bible, she was against not approved translations and without the proper catholic interpretation.
@po18guySo true. It is my refuge. I just want to sit there ang speak to Our Lord in my head and in my heart. Believe me, He is a funny Lord and He replies, right on time.
The Catholic Church picks and chooses which parts of Tradition it will observe and which parts it won't. For example, a number of early churchmen (including Pope Gelasius, Augustine, and Chrysostom) wrote that the substances of bread and wine remain as such after the consecration. And if the host is still bread, a Catholic who adores the wafer commits idolatry much like the Israelites who worshiped the gold calf (which they declared to be God). But the church of Rome ignores these statements (even though it holds up many of the other statements of those same fathers) and teaches a false doctrine of Transubstantiation. The Catholic Church falsely endorses hyperdulia of Mary and the disrespect toward God that is inherent in prayers to saints rather than trusting that God is faithful to hear and respond to every prayer. Oh, maybe she really IS the Whore of Rev. 17.... after all, the only known "city on 7 hills" in John's day was Rome!
@@rexlion4510 Jesus Christ is believed to have been crucified in either 30 or 33 AD, which means we have nearly 2,000 years of source material from which to choose Tradition, and of course not all of that source material rises to the same level as other material. So of course we pick and choose what to observe.
The Bible, especially the words of Jesus Christ the Son of God, are infallible. When Jesus tells us that we must eat his flesh and drink his blood to have life within us, that is infallible. When he tells us that his flesh and blood are present within the bread and wine (this is my body/this is my blood), that is infallible. You might disagree, your reference to them may indicate that you very well disagree, but in the eyes of the Catholic Church the opinions on Pope Gelasius, Augustine, and Chrysostom on the bread and wine are not infallible. Presuming that you're a Protestant (and you may very well not be), I'm surprised that you are referencing them as an infallible, non-Biblical source. If Jesus is being honest with us (we think he is) and we must eat his flesh and drink his blood that are present in the bread and wine, then how is it idolatry to worship Jesus himself and his presence in the bread and wine? Are you calling Jesus an idol, calling Jesus a false God? As a Jew or a Moslem that would be a valid point of view, but for Christians Jesus isn't an idol, a false God.
Why is it that asking Mary or the Saints to pray fr use disrespectful to God, but asking family, friends, or members of your church to pray for you not disrespectful? When you ask others to pray for you, are you doing that because you don't think that God is faithful to hear and respond to your prayers, but he will hear and respond in your favor if family, friends, and fellow Christians pray for you? Their prayers are better perhaps? Or perhaps they... pray louder??? I don't get the distinction.
Calling Mary the Whore of Babylon sounds disrespectful to the Mother of Jesus. Or perhaps you meant that comment to be in reference to some other noun you failed to specify?
In Revelations the Whore of Babylon was of course Rome, which Christians referred to as Babylon. And yes, Rome was built on seven hills, Christians contemporary to John all knew that. Just like they all knew that 666 was the number of Emperor Nero, who had recently beheaded Paul and crucified Peter upside down. You're not saying anything new, we have always known that Revelations was referring to contemporary events in Jewish/Christian history that culminated in the destruction of the Jewish Temple in 70 AD. But we also know that a) John wasn't referring to the Catholic Church because we weren't called Catholics at the time he was writing, John was dead by the time that name was used, b) The Catholic Church isn't a city it's a religion so how could we, the Catholic Church that exists on every continent on earth, be accused of being on seven hills (Catholics are actually probably found on millions of hills - my own house is, so that's one), and c) Vatican City is on only ONE hill, Vatican Hill. Seriously, if you're going to start slinging around the title Whore, at least know what you're talking about.
Nobody ever looks for Catholicism, it just finds you
I agree 1000%. It found me and it was never a blip on my radar.
It found me too! Never would have believed I would ever be Catholic! ❤ Praise be to Jesus Christ! 😊🙏🏻
Very well said!
true
I’ts true
It saddens me that so many people leave the Church early in their lives, and it seems that something is missing in their early catechesis to leave them susceptible to abandoning their Faith. Good catechesis starts at home, I do know that. It is wonderful that so many like Gerard are hungry for the truth and can study and read their way back, but that is not the case for so many. I pray to the Holy Spirit to fill my children with the grace they need to return, because I know His help is the only way they will.
It made me so happy to watch this interview since I've known Gerard and his wife since our days at SES together. I have often wondered what he's been up to, and now I know! I also learned a few things I didn't know back in Charlotte that underscore how the Lord's been mercifully and tenaciously pursuing him all these years. I'm encouraged by his testimony to continue learning about and seeking the Lord.
Mike! Thanks for watching this!
Go Penguins!
Yo Mike!!! :)
Great interview!! God bless y'all
That was a great interview!
His name doesn't sound French. It's Italian! And he's from Staten Island like me! Great episode. I really enjoyed it. God bless.
Thank you for sharing your wonderful experience.❤
Shalom from malaysia
❤ i enjoy your videos so much 🥰
Thank you so much!!
41:20 - You're welcome buddy! Tough love LOL!
This is the best.
Love it.
WELCOME HOME to ROME.
What an inspiring story!
Glad you enjoyed it! Thanks for saying so!
Very intelligent man!
Great show
The gnosticism! that’s exactly what dawned on me a few weeks ago re the bread and wine.
And so much else, the belief that they possess "secret" knowledge because of their understanding of this or that verse of the Bible that no one else shares. Such as one guy I knew who belonged to a church that baptized in Jesus' Name because, unlike the rest of Christianity, they figured out in 1908 that the name of God is Jesus, and the name of Jesus is Jesus, and the name of the Holy Spirit is Jesus. They were convinced that the billions of Christians baptized in the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit were invalidly baptized and damned to hell.
I’ve noticed it, too… especially in rejection of infant baptism - that you must have knowledge to receive Christ.
But also, the rejection of the physical where only the spiritual matters.
To be fair, it’s a semi-Gnosticism. Protestants find themselves in the odd position of disagreeing with the gnostics on the Incarnation, while also disagreeing with the Church on the Eucharist.
They don't disbelieve the Real Presence because they reject the goodness of material, they reject it because they just don't see anything but the accidents of bread and wine
@@taylorbarrett384 it's more than that. Protestants rejecting the realist interpretation of John 6 routinely object to the idea that *physical* food can have any bearing on *spiritual* destiny. So they are in fact in at least that way rejecting the goodness of the material. Oddly, those same Protestants have no problem with believing that spiritual death entered the world through eating physical food. They just disbelieve Jesus when he says that spiritual life also comes through eating.
Wonderful story so similar to my own - keep up the good work.
Thank you! Will do!
Wow, I am in shock. ✝️
I've had a sub to this channel for a while. Love it! Also subscribed to Gerard's channel since launch day. Excellent content all around.
It is amazing how stupid we were, and I do mean ‘ALL’ of us, when we were kids turning our backs on all that was placed there by Christ for us… …and held in place by all the faithful who followed Him as well as a bunch of sinners could. Jesus is getting even with us now as it is time for us to help leave His Church there for those who are choosing to follow us instead of the studious and pious kids. 😮
I don’t think Jesus is “getting even with us” - He is all loving, gracious and long suffering. I do agree that we should remain faithful, study our faith and know how to give a reasonable answer to why we believe in Christ, the gospel and the teachings of the church.
Gerard Figurelli's channel MidAir Fortress needs to have his NAME included in his drop down data ... and he needs to introduce himself either at the beginning or end of his presentations. His uploads are organized like a well synthesized thesis in miniature. GREAT stuff ... OWN UP TO IT.
Figurelli is an Italian name. Gerard is the French version of Gerardo which is a very common Italian name.
Mais oui. Being from Canada, I studied French from Grade 1 until Grade 13 so when I read a name like Gerard it's very hard not to pronounce it en francais! :)
No doubt you would really enjoy the Didache document ... but likely have already read it. Check it out if not. elements of it are said to come from 60-80 AD, even though it was actually written around 1000 AD and not discovered in a library archive till much later [1800s?]
🙏🏻
*Of them the proverbs are true: “A dog returns to its vomit,” and, “A sow that is washed returns to her wallowing in the mud.”* 2 Peter 2:22
Respectfully, you seem to know a lot about vomit based on the comments you leave. 😂
@@TheCordialCatholic are you making fun of the Bible?
@@Alex_Romehe is making fun of your “vomit”.
@@yanayoriginals8498 but that is a verse in the Bible. I know you catholics think the Bible is a joke but it's not. It is the word of God.
The Bible was compiled by the Catholic Church. The Bible you read as a Protestant is the Bible that was created by Catholics. Luther removed books but he did not create the Cannon. God bless you and I suggest you learn about the early church, the church that Jesus left which is the Catholic Church.
Doug Beaumont? I have someone named that in my local Parish, i wonder if its the same person. You have a link to the interview?
Which interview are you talking about?
Keith Said Alonsy and I only thought of the 10th Doctor
Quite right, too!
What were those 5 books he mentioned?
Jimmy Akin - The Bible is a Catholic Book; Joe Heschmeyer - The Early Church Was the Catholic Church; Brant Pitre - Jesus and the Jewish Roots of the Eucharist; Francis de Sales - The Catholic Controversy; Catechism of the Catholic Church.
The Evangelicals interpret the Word of God based on their ideas and opinion
it's even worse than that - they are unable to see what contradicts their little ideas
👍🙏
I believe in one Holy Apostolic Catholic Church , all others so called churches they are Christians associations they teach basic Christianity, if they go any deeper they will stumble on the reality of : either the Apostolic succession, unity of the Church , which means one leadership one successor for Peter , or the position of our Mother Mary , and other thousands of issues like that
You have a big problem!!!
Don't you think that if a pastor/preacher tells his people that Catholic Christians worship Mary and make it convincing, believable for the very purpose of dissuade people to be discourage in going back to his/her roots and ended up being a follower or that the pastor/preacher wanted to give the impression, I am better than the Catholic Church forgetting and making God a contestant (my God is better than yours) on the other hand if I was those followers, I think I will my research not to continue being misled.
Matthew 15:14 KJV (yes I should) Let them alone: they be blind leaders of the blind. And if the blind lead the blind, both shall fall into the ditch.
But I pray those that follow you will open their eyes before they fall into that eternal ditch!
Investigate: miracle of the Eucharist (HOST Transubstantiation),
REAL BODY & BLOOD OF CHRIST
Augustine, Chrysostom, Pope Gelasius, and other early fathers contradicted Transubstantiation. Why are they ignored on this point but believed on other points of doctrine? The Catholic Church picks and chooses what it wishes, in its own self interest, to teach.
"I wish to add something that is plainly awe-inspiring, but do not be astonished or upset. This Sacrifice, no matter who offers it, be it Peter or Paul, is always the same as that which Christ gave His disciples and which priests now offer: The offering of today is in no way inferior to that which Christ offered, because it is not men who sanctify the offering of today; it is the same Christ who sanctified His own. For just as the words which God spoke are the very same as those which the priest now speaks, so too the oblation is the very same” (St. John Chrysostom, Homilies on the Second Epistle to Timothy, circa 397 AD)."
“You ought to know what you have received, what you are going to receive, and what you ought to receive daily. That Bread which you see on the altar, having been sanctified by the word of God, is the Body of Christ. The chalice, or rather, what is in that chalice, having been sanctified by the word of God, is the Blood of Christ” (St. Augustine of Hippo, Sermons, circa 400 AD).
@@rexlion4510u sure bud ?
@@gda86pl Notice the nuance: I say the early fathers contradicted Transubstantiation, but I did not say they contradicted the Real Presence. There is a huge difference. Christ can be Spiritually and/or Sacramentally Present in the Eucharist without being _physically, bodily, carnally_ present. Your quote from Augustine supports the Real Presence. Period. I am not disagreeing with that. But let's look at what else Augustine wrote on this specific matter.
“Our Lord doubted not to say, This is my Body, when he gave a token of his body.”
“Christ took Judas unto his table, whereat he gave unto his Disciples the figure of his body.”
“Unless Sacraments had a certain likeness of the things of which they be sacraments, then indeed they were no Sacraments. And of this likeness oftentimes they bear the names of the things themselves that are *represented by* the sacraments.”
“In sacraments we must consider, not what they be,” (in substance and nature,) “but what they signify.”
“It is a dangerous matter, and a servitude of the soul, to take the sign instead of the thing that is signified.”
“If it be a speech that commandeth, either by forbidding an horrible wickedness, or requiring that which is profitable, it is not figurative: but if it seem to require horrible wickedness, and to forbid what is good and profitable, it is spoken figuratively. Except ye eat (saith Christ) the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you. He seemeth to require the doing of that which is horrible, or most wicked: *it is a figure, therefore,* commanding us to communicate with the passion of Christ, and comfortably and profitably to lay up in our remembrance, that his flesh was crucified and wounded for us.”
“It is a more horrible thing to eat man’s flesh, than to kill it: and to drink man’s blood, than it is to shed it.”
“Believe in Christ, and thou hast eaten Christ. For, believing in Christ is the eating of the bread of life.”
Moreover, Augustine made the point that Jesus has ascended into heaven and, according to Scripture, will not be seen again on earth until the Second Advent; at that time, "every eye shall see Him" coming in the clouds. Augustine wrote:
“According to the flesh that the word received : according to that he was born of the Virgin : according to that he was taken of the Jews : according to that he was nailed to the Cross : according to that he was taken down, and lapt in a shroud, and laid in the grave, and rose again, and showed himself. In this respect it is true that he said : Ye shall not evermore have me with you.”
“Until the world be ended, the Lord is above: yet notwithstanding even here is the truth of the Lord. For the body wherein he rose again must needs be in one place.”
Vigilius said likewise: “The flesh of Christ when it was in earth, was not in heaven : and now, because it is in heaven, doubtless it is not on earth.” (Against Eutychus)
Athanasius agreed with this: “Unto how many men could Christ’s body have sufficed, that he should be the food of all the world ? Therefore he made mention of his ascension into heaven, that he might *withdraw them from corporal and fleshly understanding.”*
But Roman Catholics continue to engage in "corporal and fleshly understanding" of the Eucharist!
Exo 20:4,5 "Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth: Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them..."
Lev 26:1 "Ye shall make you no idols nor graven image, neither rear you up a standing image, neither shall ye set up any image of stone in your land, to bow down unto it: for I am the LORD your God."
The Israelites created a calf of gold, declared it to be Almighty God, and worshiped it. As punishment, Moses had the calf ground up and made the people ingest the gold.
The Roman Catholics create wafers of bread, declare them to be Almighty God, raise them up in monstrances and worship them. Then they ingest the bread.
By RC Tradition, RCs violate God's commandment to not make a likeness of Him and to not worship man-made objects.
Jesus would never have told His followers to make or worship an object that was said to be Him. Nor would He have wanted them to literally drink blood, an act that is explicitly forbidden (see Gen. 9:4 and Acts 15, for example).
If you are a Catholic, then why not observe what one of your own popes taught (around 490 AD, long before the doctrine of Transubstantiation was introduced):
“The sacrament of the body and blood of Christ, which we receive, is a divine thing, because by it we are made partakers of the divine nature. *Yet the substance or nature of the bread and wine do not cease.* And assuredly *the image and similitude of the body and blood of Christ* are celebrated in the performance of the mysteries” (Adversus Eutychen et Nestorium, 14)
It is because the protestant churches are the daughter churches of the catholic church. They share many of the same pagan doctrines. They are a part of the catholic church while claiming that they have no part in their mother church. Those who profess to be protestants are actually lite catholics, so it makes complete sense that they would return to their mother church in Rome
😂 "pagan"
Genesis 3:1 KJV Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made.
Now you know who you are! But don't sorry, your not the only one and you can all party together at the lake!
Romans 6:23 KJV For the wages of sin is death...
Oh, that's right, your to hubris to have earned those wages!
Is Jesus also literally a door as he says in John 10:7? Or does he sometimes speak in metaphor?
49:24
Who disputes that Jesus sometimes speaks metaphorically? And what does John 10:7 have to do with John 6 unless your premise is “because Jesus speaks in metaphor in the former he must be speaking in metaphor in the latter.” Where do you get that rule?
The Cordial Catholic implied that by Jesus saying “this is my body,” the only possible interpretation was literal. Then he mentioned the Protestant church where the pastor changed the words to “this is like my body.” Cordial Catholic implied that the Protestant changed the words because Jesus saying “this is my body” would irrefutably confirm the Catholic view of Communion. I’m simply pointing out, I have always heard it quoted “This is my body” by Protestants, not “this is like my body.” We’re able to accept that Jesus actually said this, just not that it’s meant literally.
I don’t say it’s a rule, but I also don’t see any evidence that we should interpret him as being speaking metaphorically in the one instance and not speaking metaphorically in the other. I could just as easily ask you where you get your rule.
@@onceandfutureping6810the first place to look is to the Church Fathers, those who learned what these (and similar) words meant from the apostles themselves and their disciples. The Early Church held an unquestionably realist interpretation of the Eucharist. With rare exception, for 1500 years no one except heretics (eg docetists, gnostics) held to anything other than a realist view. Doesn’t that tell you something?
Is everything he says a metaphor?
@@midairfortress First, I really don’t think this is a debate to be had in a YT comments section. I respect that you have put a great deal of thought into your positions and greater minds than I have certainly believed and defended them.
That said, in brief, I think quoting antiquity on something like this is pointless. Even in the days of the Apostles confusion abounded and heresies arose. For example, many letters in the New Testament were written to counter false teachings that emerged during the early years of the church, while the Apostles were still alive and teaching. For instance, Paul addressed early beliefs within some churches, such as the idea that Jesus had already returned (2 Thessalonians 2) or that there would be no future resurrection (1 Corinthians 15). If people could be led astray on such fundamental matters within just a few decades of Jesus' death, with the Apostles still present, one can imagine how much more likely it was for errors to arise seventy or eighty years later, after the Apostles had passed away. That's why Sola Scriptura is vital for a more detailed matter. Tradition and consensus works at times for general things. Even then it's tricky. Also, what people like Ignatius may have meant is very different from what some are reading back into it.
And, in response to your assertion about church traditions and teachings, I think you are very much mistaken in thinking the Church has had a consistent position there on any issue, much less this one. The problem of course, is that I am sure neither of us has time to run through every major canonical figure in church history and examine how they viewed the Lord’s Supper. I don’t think that, for example, Ignatius of Antioch actually believed in transubstantiation. However, we would have to have a terribly long discussion here breaking down everything he actually said on the matter in order to understand each other’s views accurately. Furthermore, I am doubtful either one of us would leave that discussion convinced of anything other than our own rightness. So, regretfully, I don’t think I have time to give this discussion its due.
I hope you don’t take this to be me capitulating to your views on this matter, but it is of course your right to view my departure any way you choose.
2:18 These narratives from Catholics having *'life changing encounters'* into false religions have got to stop. God does *NOT* lead his sheep astray. God is the one who actually searches for his lost sheep:
"Like the shepherd..looking for his lost sheep.. *God, seeks out the lost* because he thinks: “I will not lose this son, he is mine!" -Pope Francis Nov 7,2013
-(Many who leave the Church claim some dramatic personal experience and dedicate their lives to destroying the Catholic church internationally. There are *countless* testimonies on RUclips alone. Remember that we believe in false spirits, lying wonders, and false christs).
One church
One truth
One universe
One pope
One God
“I just know Jesus and the Church are one”
St Joan of Arc
1430
@@PInk77W1 And *ONE BAPTISM* hence no such thing as a 'Baptist Church' who REJECTS Catholic Baptism.
Of all these testimonies, in the end God brings them home to the Catholic Church. Many of these converts/reverts background in other faith traditions ends up making them great witnesses for others who can relate to their experiences, and who might not otherwise be curious or open to about actually learning about the Catholic faith & Catholic Church. God sees the big picture.
I don't understand how a catholic that has a meaningful experience with God thinks that it isn't because he's catholic but instead seeks God elsewhere. My son has done this. It's frustrating
You could have stayed Catholic if you went out your Navy Base in the Philippines and attend Carholic Masses and town Fiestas.
Perhaps true, but lamentably I wasn't much interested in anything Christian while I was there.
40:20. The arm-cross thng. Yeah, we have to get rid of this practice- it sends a wrong message. Wait 10
More minutes and the Priest blesses everyone at dismissal.
There’s something to coming to Christ even if you can’t receive yet. So much of Catholicism is making the physical mirror the spiritual reality… so I think that there is something there to your physical feet doing what your spiritual feet are doing. When I stopped thinking it mattered, I stopped going to daily mass. Because why if I can’t receive? Well, because the physical matters.
There is a public witness of an inward desire when you come forth to receive an individual blessing (versus a corporate blessing).
That coming forward physically to receive a blessing with arms crossed both tells priest I want to receive but cannot which tells God the same.
And, suffer not these little to come unto me, says the Lord. If’s a good thing.
Good point to consider
I just left the Catholic Church because of #1 the way the doctrine of Purgatory and its accompanying doctrines ( indulgences and other things) deny the promises of the Gospel; 2. The hyperdulia of Mary, who many within the Catholic Church now call Co-Redemtrix, making her a goddess. Other things, like the devotions to relics also had a part in my departure. The Papacy for one.
I think that all of these things are accretions that keep Catholics from what is important: Jesus Christ and His Gift to us, which is complete forgiveness of our sins, as if they never existed, if we believe in Him as our Redeemer.
May i ask you in what way does the doctrine of purgatory “deny the promise of the Gospel”?
That’s just your opinion though isn’t it
@srich7503 Hebrews 8:12 and 10:17; Micah 7:15; 2 Corinthians 5:19-21 are just a few examples of what God promises us through the Sacrifice of Christ. Jesus promises forgiveness of our sins as if they never existed.
@@mcgilldi Are you under the impression purgatory hinders the forgiveness of sins? If so then you are presenting a strawman fallacy…
Purgatory is misunderstood to be about “forgiveness” of sin. It has NOTHING to do with forgiveness but reparation of sin AFTER, and assuming, all sins have been forgiven by Christ.
If my wife is killed by a drunk driver and the drunk driver is sorrowful for his sin and asks for forgiveness, Jesus will forgive him for that sin and he will be forgiven. Me and my 3 kids will still grow up in pain without a wife and mother for a long time (effects of the sin) and that man, the drunk driver may live in pain himself over this pain for a long time. Yet “nothing unclean will enter heaven”… Purgatory is for this cleansing and reparation of that sin NOT forgiveness of the sin.
We teach our children this same concept when they do wrong. Johnny breaks the window with a baseball and is sorrowful. Parents forgive Johnny AND make him mend the window or pay for the repair, correct?
@srich7503 no I am not under that impression at all! I know that Purgatory is supposed to burn off the residual filth left by our sins, but the Blood of Jesus took care of that. He promises that if we believe in Him and repent of our sins, accept His gift, then our sins are forgiven and forgotten. Forgotten! This is the Gospel!
I am the opposite. Eusebius tried to define the relationship between church and state under Constantine. You all have been fooled. Too many people are gullible and not exercising discernment as well as using the prophets, Jesus and the apostles for your foundation, you are using extra sources as your foundation. This is a huge mistake. Ephesians 2:20.
Do you know when Constantine was emperor? Multiple Choice Quiz:
a. 342-355BC
b. 148-155AD
c. 306-337AD
d. 429-441AD
Remember, a number of the early Church writers who were quoted in this interview lived in the First Century. So you have to prove that Constantine was emperor at that time.
@@kimfleury How difficult do you think it was to modify or rewrite history during this time (from many of the writings we call "church fathers" until the 4th century)? Keep in mind, they did not have printing presses, nor the internet in the 4th century. If someone tried to rewrite history today, it would be impossible. How difficult do you think this would be in the early 4th century?
Wait, you're the wise one, but all these people are gullible? Pride goes before the fall. It does in your case anyway. Pride is not of God but the evil one.
Very Happy being Evangelical: have 0 desire to go back to Pharasee Priest lead religion that Jesus freed us from ; into the Holy of Holies .
Okay do what you like , what you rep?
Says one who follows the Pharisaical canon of the Bible… Ps: Pharisaical Judaism has nothing to do with “priest lead religion” or ancient Judaism, since they are the religion of the synagogue, where liturgy was conflated with the reading of the books with mere preaching, without any sacrificial liturgy and with the abolishment of the consecrated priesthood. Pretty close to Protestantism, by the way.
But you hold to the pharesee Old Testament Canon of Scripture. You are a lier like the devil.
You follow your demonic hallucinations and we catholics eat in the meantime the true living bread of live.
No problem. Stay happy.
A priest doing a cooking show 😅😅😅 omg . Is that how protestant think about catholic?
Apparently they were Not the best evangelicals.
Isn’t the goal to be the best “Christian” possible?
@@wjtruax. In the circles I run in, “Christian” and “Evangelical” are interchangeable synonyms. When you speak of “becoming a Christian,” it means you have become a born-again believer: an Evangelical.
@@hanssvineklev648 from your perspective, then, does that mean that being “Catholic” automatically means that one is neither “evangelical” nor “Christian”?
@@wjtruax. No, not automatically. One is neither drawn inside the Kingdom based on one’s brilliant grasp on theology…nor thrown outside based on flawed theology. One is in or out based on one’s relationship to the risen Christ. Are you united to Christ (through faith) or not?
I cannot put myself in the place of Christ to judge anyone within the confines of Rome. I think it has a rather flawed Gospel, but one not that distant from the true. (Yes, it can be both of these things-fatally flawed, yet close at hand-at one and the same time.)
I think you need to be a bad Catholic to be saved…but not that bad. And I have no idea what the acceptable parameters might be.
I really like Catholics. I have close friends and relatives who are Catholic. (Heck, I’m in a Bible study with a bunch of Catholics!)
I hope and pray that God is merciful.
But no, I don’t believe that Catholicism is an acceptable form of Christianity. If you wish to be the best Christian possible, your first move should be to get out of Catholicism.
@@hanssvineklev648 thank you for your reply. I wholly disagree with your perception, however. I was a very devout "evangelical" for more than 40 years - 5-solas, etc. I was confronted with evidence that the Christianity I was practicing was out of step with true ancient Christianity. I thought that was a ridiculous claim, and thought it would be very easy to disprove. I'm not a novice at apologetics. Not only have I visited Calvin's church in Geneva (St. Peter's) and the "Museum of the Reformation," but also Zwingli's church in Zurich - all as a hardcore Protestant. I'm a linguist. I've read Calvin, Luther, and Zwingli in the original German, French, and Latin.
So, I plunged in, thinking that disproving the initial thesis would be unintellectually challenging. Two weeks or so into the process I was in crisis. My paradigm was being destroyed. A few short months into the process, "Sola Scriptura" and "Sola Fida" lay shattered on the floor before me, and I was undone. I hasten to add that there was no one external to myself who was feeding me data or trying to persuade me to their perspective. In fact, without exception, the Orthodox and Catholic clergy that I consulted along the way told me, "Slow down and take your time. This is a very monumental process you're going through. You need to be absolutely sure."
Wrapping up a long story...over a process of two years I became convinced that I had to become Catholic. It took another year before I could actually enter the Church. During that time I kept looking for reasons not to take the step - and absolutely none of the arguments for Protestant doctrine and practice have been even remotely compelling compared to what I have found in standard (accurate) Catholic faith and practice.
I will end with a simple question: On what authority do you base your belief that Catholicism is not an acceptable form of Christianity? I'll challenge you to provide an answer that doesn't end up coming back around to that belief being essentially a personal opinion or an expression of a consensus opinion that, nevertheless, is not based on any identifiable authority.
Grace & peace.
Best Evanglicals , a joke or what ?
Acts 1:21-22 makes apostolic succession impossible after the 1st century. No office of priest in the NT church nor a papacy.
That refers to the reconstitution of the Twelve. But there were more apostles than just those.
Paul and Barnabas were also known as apostles beyond the twelve. But you miss the point . It's as the church grows bishops are established. How? By being taught and the laying on of hands. Who laid on hands? the previous bishops or apostles
@Justas399
Your assertion makes no sense. The passage you refer to, Acts 21-22, doesn't make Apostolic succession impossible. The Holy Spirit chose a replacement for Judas. The Apostles were bishops ("overseers") having authority over presbyters (priests). The office of the Apostles was called "Episkopen," meaning "Bishopric." The title of Pope comes from Greek "pappas," originally meaning father, and later, bishop, or patriarch. The Pope is the Bishop of Rome. Peter was considered first among the Apostles, the head of the Bishops.
Which alleged believer? Do what?
@@MarilynBoussaid-yd1vk A "bishop" is a residential pastor who presides in a stable manner over the church in a city and its environs. The apostles were missionaries and founders of churches; there is no evidence, nor is it likely at all, that any one of them ever took up permanent residence in a particular church as its bishop (Roman Catholic scholar-Sullivan F.A. From Apostles to Bishops: the development of the episcopacy in the early church. Newman Press, Mahwah (NJ), 2001, p. 14).