The answer is Succession. From St. Peter to Pope Francis. Any Catholic that says Pope Francis isn’t the Pope is wrong. “And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not prevail against it.” Matthew 16:18 NRSV-CI
@@Marcus-lj8lc Jesus told Peter that it wasn't Peter's flesh that made him confess it but revelation from God. Why would that confession coming from Peter mean elevating Peter to that station? All the other apostles made the same confession, like Thomas saying "My Lord and My God" after encountering the risen Jesus. Also why don't any of the other apostles, including Paul, ever refer to Peter as the head of the entire church? The confession is the rock of the church. It's found in all the early church creeds and statements of faith.
@@joeyn985 God still chose to give peter this revelation and peter chose to proclaim it and this merited jesus changing his name to peter this is unique among the 12 nathaniel was told by philip that Jesus was messiah and thomas did not believe until jesus came and showed him very explictly also the whole petros petra distinction is false the word petra is the rock in greek and it is feminine Jesus can't very well call a man a feminine word now can He also he was speaking aramaic and in that language it would be you are cephas and on this cephas
@@kwing6017 I didn't bring up the Petros vs Petra thing. God chose various apostles to reveal different things to. He also chose Paul to reveal a bunch of things. Nothing I say is to take away from the importance of Peter in the early church and his role as a leader (among others). But why don't any of the other apostles ever mention deferring to Peter or instructing that we should submit to Peter? Before Paul died he wrote to Timothy saying to trust in scripture and the Word of God. Why wouldn't he say "also look to Peter's successors Linus or Clement, for they are the vicar of Christ on earth"?
@@veekee75 oh shoot sorry youtube didn't notify me until now. Anyway, as overused as it may be, it is still the strongest articulation of the office of pope; Matthew 16:18-19
Not at all. You inserted “scripture” and “opinion” disingenuously. Protestants understand that we do have opinions on certain things. But we ultimately know unless there’s a strong biblical case for something (reading things in context and having it supported by other verses that are the actual intention of the authors), it’s not right to infuse our opinion onto the text. We let scripture interpret scripture. If it’s a weak use of scripture, we call it out.
@@MomentumCanada365 Which is the weak use of scripture the Lutheran or the Baptist on Baptism and the real presence. Show me where they are formally called out.
I think it's important to point out the flaw in Protestant apologetics. All Protestant apologists presuppose the doctrine of sola scriptura to be true. Anytime they enter into a debate or bring up critiques/criticisms of Catholicism, they presuppose that "scripture is the sole infallible rule of faith." However, before one can even begin to engage with these critiques/criticisms, it must be determined whether or not the doctrine of sola scriptura is biblical and/or logical. Let's start with the biggest and most ironic red flag with sola scriptura. It can't even meet the very standard it tries to set. There is no place in scripture that states scripture is the sole infallible rule of faith. This is why for over 1,500 years of Christianity, this doctrine was unknown. That should be the end of the discussion because it can't even pass the biblical standard it tries to set. But for the sake of argument, let's set that aside. So, it can't pass the biblical test, let's see if it can pass the logical test. What happens when two non-Catholic Christians disagree on the interpretation of scripture? How do they reconcile who has the correct interpretation? What authority do they appeal to? One might argue that they can use secondary or tertiary scripture to reconcile their primary disagreement, but what if they disagree on the secondary and tertiary scripture, too? Well, they would likely have to appeal to an authority outside of scripture, like a church elder, pastor, or council. However, based on sola scriptura, scripture is the "sole" infallible rule of faith. This would mean that any reconciliation an elder, pastor, or council tries to manifest, would be fallible, and therefore, we'd be no closer to a resolution. The other possibility is that the elder, pastor, or council is being infallibly led by the Holy Spirit in order to infallibly reconcile the issue. However, this very appeal to an authoritative interpreter outside of scripture proves that scripture isn't the "sole" infallible rule of faith. This is why Catholicism is the only ecclesial community with the fullness of truth. It does not run into these biblical or logical issues. No matter how you slice it, sola scriptura is either unbiblical, illogical, or both. Come back home, brother. You said you were raised Catholic. I'm sorry you've been lied to about the Catholic Church and I'm even more sorry you've believed those lies..
So like he said in the video how would you argue with a Mormon ?? Mormons claim the same thing Catholics claim… that they are the true church of Jesus Christ…you run into the same issue as the two Christians interpreting the Bible differently. and that’s the issue with voice of reason he doesn’t use scripture to prove this Catholic Church a cult…
@@danib712 The Mormons have no Apostolic succession, the Catholics do. Protestants have no Apostolic succession, the Catholics do. Without the Catholic Church there would be no Bible. You must be Catholic to be able to properly interpret the Bible. You don't use the Scriptures to prove the Catholic Church is true. Rather, you use the Catholic Church to prove that the Scriptures are true. *If you don't believe this then please tell us how you know that the Scriptures are True* .
Alex gave the answer in the video. He said that the false palmarian pope was only invented in 1978. Anybody can claim to be the Pope, but unless you can connect him as a successor of Peter and the Apostles then that claim is false. *Here is what Saint Irenaeus said in the year 189 A.D., " “The true knowledge is the doctrine of the apostles, and the ancient organization of the Church throughout the whole world, and the manifestation of the body of Christ according to the succession of bishops, by which succession the bishops have handed down the Church which is found everywhere” (Against Heresies **4:33**:8 [189 A.D.] )* . So it appears that the pope of the palmarian church is just the leader of another branch of Protestantism, probably more along the lines of Mormonism.
Jesus gave Peter the keys. The keys represent Jesus's Authority while He is away. Jesus charged Peter to take care of and feed His sheep. This is similar to if me and my husband decided to go on a trip leaving someone our keys and told them to take care of our children. This person has the keys and is charge of our house and children till we return. No one is allowed to help themselves and take over. They have no business giving themselves that Authority. They may claim they have it, but they don't have it. Likewise, only Peter has the keys and Jesus's Authority until He returns. This Authority is passed on to His successors till Jesus returns. Jesus hasn't returned yet, so no, the antipope cannot be and is not the pope. It does not matter what individual Catholics think or say. No one should be publicly criticizing him. No one should be hostile towards him. These are disobedient children. If my husband and I came home from vacation and heard about my children being hostile to the one we put in charge, our children are in BIG trouble and they will be harshly punished. I believe Jesus will be the same way. The Pope will answer to Jesus when He returns. Faith is weak if they think the Holy Spirit is not working through Jesus's Church preserving Truth. Prots should listen to the bible more and especially this part, "lean not on your own understanding".
This is what apostolic succession is. The apostles created apostles. Matthias being the most obvious example. They were empowered with this by Jesus himself. Therefor, every pope, and every priest can trace their ordination all the way back. Jesus didnt have to ordain Francis. His apostles did, and they can do that because He made it so. I'm wondering who ordained Luther, Calvin and the boys.
@@MrMannemanuContext informs the writers intent. This is true for any historical writings. Suggesting we need one earthly authority to tell us what it means is borrowing Islam’s tactic. They do the same thing: “you have to speak Arabic to understand the Quran” and there’s not logic behind it. If it’s true that the Holy Spirit indwells a believer when they accept Christ, then why do they need anything else or anyone else to inform them on what God has spoken? “….do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit within you, whom you have from God?” (1 Corinth 6:19). Jews had priests in the temple who would read and speak God’s word for them. 1 Peter 2:9 “But you are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for his own possession, that you may proclaim the excellencies of him who called you out of darkness into his marvelous light.” The operations of the temple are now in function in a new believer : our bodies are the temple of God and we are also priests. Because of how special we are? No. Because we’re covered in the blood of Jesus.
So let's test your theory. The Catholic Church teaches that the Sacraments of the Catholic Church are necessary for the Salvation of Souls. That would include your soul and the soul of the guy presenting this youtube video. You Protestants claim that the Catholic Church is wrong and that a person is saved by "faith alone" and that the Sacraments have nothing to do with Salvation. Now don't let me lose you. Christ Ascended up to Heaven, NEVER to be seen again until the Second Coming. He did not leave a Bible nor did He leave instructions for anyone to write a Bible. However, He did leave the Catholic Church and the Sacraments of Salvation. A Sacrament is a Visible Sign, given by Jesus Christ, to give us Grace. Baptism is First of the Seven Sacraments. Jesus taught that one that Believes AND is Baptized will be saved. He also COMMANDED Baptism for Discipleship in His Great Commision in Mt. 28. So, the burden of proof is on you Protestants to find just one single example of a person being saved in the Biblical New Covenant Church by faith alone and without a Sacrament of the Catholic Church. I am challenging you to use the Bible alone to prove your doctrine of sola fide/sola scriptura. Finding just one example of Protestant Salvation in the Bible will prove you to be right and the Catholic Church to be wrong.
@@SaviorSonofMaryThe thief on the cross was saved by faith alone. He was never baptized, he never consumed the Eucharist, he never belonged to the Catholic Church. He simply had faith in Jesus. There. I found one example so does that mean Catholicism is false? And sola fide does not mean that Sacraments aren’t important. Maybe Sacraments are not important to your average non-denom church, but to mainline Protestant churches the Sacraments are extremely important. As John Calvin once said “It is therefore faith alone that justifies and yet the faith that justifies is not alone” meaning that participation in the Sacraments comes as a result of our faith to draw us closer to God. Protestants don’t need sola fide or sola scriptura to be explicit in the Bible, just like how the term “Trinity” is not explicitly used in the Bible. Sola scriptura comes as a result of recognizing what God’s Word is. If the NT is truly God’s Word, then it MUST be infallible or else we run the risk of calling God a liar. Therefore the OT and NT must be infallible. And Jesus said that His words will never pass away, implying that they were to be written down so that people have an infallible source to turn to. Now that we’ve established an infallible source of authority, the burden of proof is on you to proof that Sacred Tradition and the Magisterium are also infallible sources of authority.
@@SaviorSonofMary the thief on the cross was saved by faith alone. He was never baptized, he never attended a Catholic church , he never received the Eucharist, he simply put his faith in Christ. That’s a pretty big claim to make that finding someone who was saved by faith alone will automatically prove the Catholic Church wrong. Who’s to say that God can’t work outside the sacraments? Sola fide doesn’t necessarily mean that you have to just “believe and be saved.” As John Calvin once said “it is faith alone that justifies and yet the faith that justifies is never alone” meaning that taking the sacraments and doing good works are also very important. And I love when Catholic always try to have a “gotcha” moment by saying “where is sola scriptura in the Bible?” Protestants don’t necessarily believe that everything we believe must be found in the Bible, just like how the Trinity is not found in the Bible. The reasoning goes like this: The Bible is God’s Word God’s Word cannot be fallible or cannot err Therefore the Bible must be infallible. There is a basic form of the argument for sola scriptura. The burden of proof is actually on the Catholics to prove that there is more than one infallible authority.
According to Ascension Press Media, the Church, through the authority given to it by Christ, determined the Bible's canon, or list of inspired books, over a period of more than three centuries. The process began with the Council of Rome in 382 AD, presided over by Pope Damasus I, and was finalized at the Council of Hippo in 393 AD. The bishops of the Church continued the process at the Councils of Carthage in 397 and 419 AD. The Bible's books were collected and approved by various councils, synods, and popes of the Catholic Church over time, beginning with the Council of Rome in 382 AD. The first "canon" of the Bible was the Muratorian Canon, compiled in 170 AD. The Catholic Church believed that the Holy Spirit guided them in determining the canon, or list of books, of the Bible. Question: Are you in the right church? Or are you letting your emotions get the best of you?
@@thecatholicfam there is no right church, if you think the church determines if you’re saved then if I were you I would be petrified. You believe in false doctrine used to control masses. Salvation is a free gift that cannot be earned only received. Catholic teachings are twisted and straight from the underworld. All great lies have some truth. There is no Catholic or church authority. There’s the authority of God and he decides who enters heaven not Catholics. You follow doctrines of Satan and it’s clear as day to any true believer in Christ. Every single important aspect of salvation is twisted by Catholics. You cannot remission of your sins into heaven not work your way there. Not to mention your idol worship and ceremonies and praying to dead saints for spots in heaven. My lord how twisted the Catholic faith is please please see the truth and realize how brainwashing these teachings are, I know it’s hard to take and it seems a like I’m attacking you. I’m not attacking you personally it’s the Catholic faith that is so evil and deceptive. Many Catholics look the part but really have no relationship with God. I have many Catholics friends who with out a doubt are saved. But please hear me I’m not attacking you personally. The Catholic faith is a twisted faith complete opposite of the teachings of Christ.
2:53 As far as I can see, Alex misrepresents what Clemente Vincente said, when claiming to be "Gregorio XVII" ... I'm an ex-Palmarian, and it was Sts. Peter and Paul who supposedly had elected him. As to episcopal consecreation, he got that from Bishop Thuc, he didn't claim to be consecrated by Christ Himself, through a vision. After him there is now Odermatt claiming to be Peter III. All new Papal claimants of Palmar de Troya after this have been elected by a normal process of Palmarian "cardinals" except "Gregorio XVII" had no authority to name any. The reasons why I reject Palmar de Troya now is, a) I adher to Pope Michael I and his now successor Michael II, and b) I rejected "Gregorio XVII" when I got news that his catechism says "the Antichrist sees the world from the Fourth Dimension, the Most Pure Virgin from the Eighth" ... what's wrong with that? Well, the world has _three_ dimensions, to hint at the Blessed Trinity. "Eight Dimensions" is modernist nonsense. Whatever spoke that to "Gregorio XVII" cannot have been God or someone in Heaven.
@TrueChristian Fair questions but you would have to go deeper into the topic of sedevacantism to really understand. I watched your discussion with Alex and Lofton on reason and theology and enjoyed the back and forth. I hope to see you continue the engagement with Catholic theology. Thanks for being genuine.
Many protestants say Jesus comes and talks to them. That's why we have so many denominations now. Division and hate are the fruits of that way of thinking, and Jesus said upon these rock, I will build my church, and the gates of hell will never prevail against it. Unless Jesus likes conflict and confusion and was lying about his one singular universal church than many of them people are lying about the visions.
When you go to the original language you find that Peter is called petros and the foundation of the church will be built upon this Petra. Petros meaning small rock and Petra meaning great rock. Jesus uses play on words not only to distinguish the difference between Peter’s statement and Peter but as well as Jesus literally calling Peter’s claim a greater foundation than Peter himself. When in full context of Matthew it’s very easy to understand. I understood exactly what Jesus meant when he says the foundation of the church will be built upon the claim that Jesus Christ is God even when reading in English. But so many use this claim as a way to authorize the pope, when in reality you have to know what is really being said by reading it in the original language. I believe the Holy Spirit decerns the texts to us because I was able to understand this statement from Jesus before reading the original Greek, but so many are unable to know what God is really saying. Same thing with baptism, Catholics also get that wrong. Even in the kjv of the Bible neverless the original language it says the believing of Christ not the washing of flesh is what saves. The baptism of our spirit through Christ. Again I was able to understand what was being said in that verse but again so many Catholics get it wrong. Now I’m not saying all this to diss Catholics. I truly believe even in misinterpretations of the Bible, that many Catholics are saved. But there’s many who justify their works rather than God justifying them.
@@CornerstoneMinistry316 to an extent that is true. I know some self proclaimed catholics who believe they were saved by the grace of God and I would say without a doubt they’re saved. Now a hardcore catholic might call them not real Catholics but they identify as Catholics. So to a certain extent I agree with your statement. But I know Catholics as well have some Catholics friends and majority of them believe they’re saved by the grace of God. Now instead of saying what group or denomination is saved I think the better statement of who’s truly saved is whether they believe in Jesus Christ as Lord and savior and they will inherit salvation through him. That’s really what’s important. But I do agree that if you’re truly saved you would eventually probably leave the Catholic Church. Only reason I would say otherwise is because during my grandmothers funeral her Catholic friend arrived claimed Jesus as lord and savior as well as playfully talking about her and my grandmothers difference in denomination and how they would disagree but at the end of the day they believed what was truly important Jesus Christ saves. My grandmothers friend is living proof as to why your statement that the only way a Catholic could be saved is to leave that faith and follow the true Jesus is not entirely true. Jesus doesn’t care what denomination your from rather the type of relationship you have with him. With all that being said I don’t believe the catholic faith is at all true and majority of it and their practices are wrong.
@@David.C88petros is not little rock and petra is not big rock petra is the word for rock in greek and it's feminine peter is a man so cannot be called petra but Jesus was speaking aramaic which would be you are cephas and on this cephas i will build my Church from then on simon was always called peter or simon peter it seems silly to change someone's name for a play on words and the name change stays more likely peter is truely the rock and the name change signifies a new mission like abram was changed to abraham father of many nations. If the catholic church is wrong on baptism then the earliest christians were in error for centuries until some guy said no you are wrong so much for the Holy Spirit guiding the Church away from error yet those same christians in error on baptism were right about condemning heresies that were using the bible and correctly teaching the trinity and christology much more difficult things thsn baptism how convenient. Does baptism need water to work? Is baptism necessary for sallvation? The Holy Spirit told you your reading of the bible is correct, that's nice, what do you say about others who disagree with you who also say the Spirit told them they are right? Are they right and you are wrong? Are you right and they are wrong? Are you both right and the spirit contradicts Himself? God forbid! Are you both wrong and simply think you are right so that the division of Christ's body the church remains divided and even more as time goes on instead of healing division and uniting with His body fully?
@@kwing6017 you cannot just claim things and state them as correct. Go research for yourself. Petra is great rock and petros is small rock. Jesus called Peter petros and he said upon this Petra I will build my church. If the church was built upon Peter and the authority Catholics claim Peter had as now does the pope then we are in big trouble. Why would Jesus Christ build his church upon Peter? The whole point to Jesus teachings on earth are that Jesus is God and we will inherit salvation through him. Jesus most certainly did not built his church upon a man a man who verses prior Jesus called Satan. Again you cannot just start claiming things as facts. And to say because Jesus spoke Aramaic so we use Armaic to translate the Bible is incredibly stupid. We use the translations of the original text as the source not what Jesus spoke. There was a reason the original text was written the way it was. Matthew was intentionally written with the words Petra and petros as well as the previous verses Peter claiming Jesus is God. The whole gospel is Jesus Christ died for our sins and we who believe in him as lord and savior will inherit all things. That’s the foundation of the church, what’s a greater foundation, Peter or Jesus Christ is God? Also to say that because early “Christian’s” baptized doesn’t mean anything to the baptism argument. No one said not to baptize it’s a great way to “officially” state your faith. But water baptisms does not save as clearly stated many times in scripture even so to the point of it being clarified “ not the washing of flesh, but a good conscience towards God”. That is what we call being born again, the people couldn’t understand and asked how can we be born again? It’s a spiritual thing that happens not a physical washing. It is quite literally clarified yet Catholics still argue. Same as thinking you have to eat his flesh and drink his blood regularly. Catholics just don’t get it just like the people of Jesus day the didn’t understand that they don’t literally eat the flesh of Christ, it is spiritual . Catholics just don’t seem to grasp anything Jesus taught and there’s so many denominations because yes there are different viewpoints but whose to say those viewpoints all came from the Holy Spirit. There may be a truly saved person who tires to logically understand the Bible and they will misinterpret a verse. It happens all the time. And I even may be wrong about everything I’ve said but it overwhelmingly points to Catholics teach a false doctrine with a self proclaimed authority. Not to mention the Pope is probably one of the most twisted men alive currently, so much for the Catholic Church being incorruptible.
If the Scripture is your ultimate authority then it will be possible to see who and what is heresy. But when you have 3 authorities like the RCC, then there will be confusions and contradictions. A Church doctrines and dogmas can change, the traditions of men can be added, but we know God's Word NEVER change.
It’s very easy to draw a straight line from my personal interpretation and the scripture alone. And yet, my interpretation as an Anglican was different than my Baptist friends… it came to a point that while I was attending a Baptist church, I was asked to teach a women’s Sunday school and I went to tell the pastor I didn’t agree with the Baptist understanding of baptism and the Eucharist and after a discussion he said “as long as we are both following the scripture, we are chasing the same thing, but you can’t teach.” That is a tacit understanding that my interpretation is at odds with his church to the point of not being able to exercise my gifts in that church… I was out of communion with them. Scripture Alone is not enough to bring the entire church into communion with one another. Protestants have had 500 years to demonstrate otherwise. Scripture is STILL the primary authority, but it cannot be the only authority. And scripture does not teach that the scripture is the ONLY authority.
Saying the Word of God Never changes is so funny when keeping in mind you literally removed books from the Bible and changed scripture for your benefits like “faith alone” 😂
@@vinciblegaming6817 first of all if you even follow the video, there is no such thing as scripture alone. Sola Scriptura simply means God's Word is our final authority. If you disagree, then you should be able to tell me what or who can override God's Word.
@@NSugga Tell me what's wrong with Sola Fide? I can show you many verses from the Bible that teaches Sola Fide, can you show me one verse that says Sola Fide is wrong?
@@veekee75 that is never actually how sola scriptura is used in practice. The only denominations that have historically come even close to that are the mainline Protestants. I was a Protestant for 40 years. I’m not making caricatures. My observations are based in lived reality.
Hello and peace be with you. I intend to give a genuine and thoughtful response to your questions. I do not know anything about this Church’s practices or teachings or history in general, but I can comment on how their papacy is invalid. When Jesus chose His Pope, it was done publicly and openly. “When Jesus went into the region of Caesarea Philippi he asked his disciples, “Who do people say that the Son of Man is?” He said to them, “But who do you say that I am?” Simon Peter said in reply, “You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.” Jesus said to him in reply, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah. For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my heavenly Father. And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”” Matthew 16:13, 15-19 NABRE Peter is the Rock of the Church, nothing shall overcome this church, he alone was given the keys to the kingdom and what he binds or loosens on earth will be bound and loosened in heaven. I’ve seen people argue over the actual Greek word used for rock versus brick or something else. I cannot comment on that. I can only comment on what I’ve read and if he isn’t the foundation of the Church why do Bibles still keep translating his name this way? So as far as Catholics go this is how we have a Pope. Secondly the office of the Pope is the be replaced via lots. “For it is written in the Book of Psalms: ‘Let his encampment become desolate, and may no one dwell in it.’ And: ‘May another take his office.’ Then they prayed, “You, Lord, who know the hearts of all, show which one of these two you have chosen to take the place in this apostolic ministry from which Judas turned away to go to his own place.” Then they gave lots to them, and the lot fell upon Matthias, and he was counted with the eleven apostles.” Acts 1:20, 24-26 NABRE I am aware that this is in reference to replacing Judas in their number. But if it was important to replace the office of Judas, how much more important would it be to replace the office of Peter? Without this tradition in place we would not have reasons to stand up against anti-popes. According to Paul; the church is the pillar and foundation of truth 1 Tim 3:15 and it is important for the priests of that church to follow in the tradition laid out by Paul who got it from Jesus 1 Cor 11:2 and 2 Thes 2:15. I hope this helps answer your questions and God bless.
You both are correct, i did some surface digging, he is both a Anti Pope and of the Palmarion Church. The Palmarion Church has its own see in Spain Wikipedia says and that This person in the video Alex played is who the Palmarions believe is the Pope.
Alex, to me, accidentally proved sola scriptura. He said if the Catholic church made the decision to affirm homosexuality, the church was false. For this to be the case, for this conclusion to be reached, he must necessarily hold scripture to a higher standard than the church.
I think the main thing I got from Alex’s video is that it introduces us to what this false church is and what it’s basic foundations are. To me personally it feels like it’s not fruitful to research too deeply into something no one really cares or knows about. I’m sure he’d easily be able to go into depth on this and back up why it is a false church using the Bible and the teachings of the Catholic Church, or it’s historicity and roots in the true church. I don’t see a massive value in this as I suspect it’ll likely be similar story to how JWs or Mormons or other cults were formed.
Of course you don’t see value in conversation among very knowledgeable people both Mike and Alex. You compare us to JW when the Catholic Church was formed from Jesus apostles. It’s history, it’s not a theory, you do understand the beginning of the Christian church right ? Do you know what it was called ?
@@boi__7898 I think you read my message wrong. I am in fact Catholic. I was referring to the Palmarian Church as the false church which I compared to JW, etc. Also I didn’t say I don’t see value in this conversation. I said I didn’t see great value in fully debunking a false church (Palmarian) no one knows or cares about in too much depth.
Why all these divisions, follow Jesus Christ, that serves all the purpose of Christianity. He is the only saviour and we do not need any pope who are only humans.
"Trust in the Lord with all your heart and lean not on your own understanding;" The bible condemns this practice. The Catholic church trusts in the Lord with all of her heart, that's why we trust that He did what He promised He would do, He sent the Spirit to guide us, and we also trust Him when He says that the gates of hell will not prevail. If you think the church He founded fell into corruption, than you believe that either He lied, or that the Spirit was unable to guide the church.
I answer your question. This is the wrong church since it is not in communion with Peter, and the church that Jesus founded. It is: Holy Scripture, Tradition, Holy Spirit, Succession.
Hi TrueChristian, truly I’m sorry for the lengthy reply but the answer to your legitimate dilemma regarding the true papal claimant can only be explained as follows: 1. The Palmarian Church is a deeply heretical sect claiming, among many things, that Jesus was created by God and that this was soon followed by the creation of the soul of Mary both before the creation of heaven and earth. They also place her on a divine level with Christ. Such heretical beliefs were already strongly condemned in the 4th century by the Church by a figure named Bishop St Epiphanius of Salamis in his work called ‘Panarion’. 2. The issue of the three popes (known as the Western Schism) - which remains unique in Church history - was not nearly as serious as the East-West Schism which began in the 11th century out of grave revolt against the supreme authority of the Church and lasted 9 centuries! Rather, the Western Schism was a temporary misunderstanding fueled by politics and heated emotions. It was not a formal schism, as in the East-West Schism, but a material schism. The issue with the Palmarian “church” is they are a heretical break away from the Church claiming to be the true continuation of the Church. In this way, they follow in the well trodden steps of previous heretics of the last 2000 years: Donatists, Arians, Luciferians, and Protestants who all claimed the same thing. Again nothing new here. An important point to be made regarding the Protestant Reformation is this: the leading figures of the Reformation (Luther, Calvin and Zwingli) all admitted that the Catholic Church AND papacy were indeed established by Christ Jesus. For proof you can visit ‘Step Bible dot org’ (type it out in search bar) and look up Martin Luther’s sermon on John ch.16 where in paragraphs 28, 29 & 32 he concedes Christ started the Catholic Church and a papacy. None of the Reformers dared to claim the Catholic Church and papacy were not instituted by Christ because they would’ve been laughed at and they would have discredited their own movement as soon as it began. It was, and still is, a pure myth to suggest the Catholic Church and papacy was not established by Christ. It is ahistorical (having no historical basis). It is no different to the novel 200 year old modern myth that Jesus never existed which is also ahistorical (no basis in history). The Reformers knew they never had a good excuse to reject the Church so they lied by saying it had become so corrupted and that only they (the Reformers) continued in the true Christian faith. You See, they had followed in the same errors made by the Donatists, Arians, Luciferians etc. already condemned by the Church. The Church has always maintained that it can never be reduced to the inner belief of “true believers”. The Church has always taught that the entire hierarchical structure, along with the faithful around the world, will forever remain visible. And, the Church he always taught that it cannot defect from truth (Matt. 16:18, gates of hell never prevail). The Palmarians are just repeating the same old condemned errors. Jesus promised us an indefectible (not able to fail) Church. Meaning it can never teach errors in faith and morals or else we would have no certainty over our faith. Jesus started the Church with His blood and suffering, so nothing can take the Church away from Him. Hence, He promised to ALWAYS guide the Church in all truth (John 14:26 & 16:13) until the end of time (Matt. 28:20)! When Christ makes a promise, He cannot fail, therefore the Church cannot fail. In 2000 years the Church has outlasted all empires, even Her own empire: the Holy Roman Empire (800-1800).
Interesting. For me alone its difficult to put any comments on how do we know the pope appointment is true because it is merely the church traditions. And on what ground they select their pope from the many bishops. How do the catholic select a pope? This question never pops up untill i saw this video. It is indeed within the catholic conflict, how do they simply reject the palmarian church not being catholic, not what ground? If both claims Jesus ordain them then how do we identify the right one? All the comments that came does not give an answer yet to this question.
Jesus ordained His apostles. They inturn ordain more apostles. The pope is chosen the same way Matthias was chosen to replace Judas. By the apostles, guided by the Holy Spirit.
@@danib712 Can you explain what you mean or give an example of what you are referring to? All of the Church Fathers are Catholic, so what do you mean when you say that Catholics pick and choose what they say?
We can know that the Palmarians are wrong because they are not unified with the rest of the Church and the Holy Spirit does not produce the fruit of disunity.
So the holy spirt is only for Catholics and the Catholic Church? That’s how we know who has the holy spirt and who is lying about having the holy spirt?
@@danib712 At the very least we can know that the Holy Spirit is not the cause of the Protestant reformation and its endless divisions or the Palmarian schism.
the pope is the occupant of the chair or throne of st. peter because of apostolic succession handed down by the hands of the bishops, for him to receive the authority vested in the office, through his election into the office of the bishop of rome. the catholic church inherits the legalistic framework primarily inherent of the jewish faith of the second temple period, and secondarily as well, the roman legal system or framework, alongside the principles of greek logic and philosophy. once a candidate is selected/elected, and more importantly, consecrated, and inaugurated into the previously vacant office of the bishop of rome, the chair of st. peter, he assumes all authority and dignity of the primary apostolic office. another claimant, no matter how holy, corrupt, evil, or powerful, is just that, a claimant, an anti pope. because another election by a group of people, or more conventionally, the college of cardinals, or imperial edict, can no longer give what they do not possess. the founder of the palmarian church, pretended to be a mystic who receives messages from mary and jesus. but st. paul and peter and jesus himself warned us already against anyone who will try to say "the messiah is here, or he is in the wilderness". do not be deceived. emperors and potentates have put up rivals, the antipopes, against the legitimate popes before. but in the analogy of st. paul, the pope is the victor of a race. there are no second and third place. logic and reason and your physical senses will equip any person with a sound intellect to easily identify who the pope is.
The answer is Succession. From St. Peter to Pope Francis. Any Catholic that says Pope Francis isn’t the Pope is wrong. “And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not prevail against it.”
Matthew 16:18 NRSV-CI
The rock of Jesus' church isn't Peter. It was Peter's confession.
@@joeyn985 no. Peters confession or profession of faith is what made Jesus decide to place Peter in charge of the church.
@@Marcus-lj8lc Jesus told Peter that it wasn't Peter's flesh that made him confess it but revelation from God. Why would that confession coming from Peter mean elevating Peter to that station? All the other apostles made the same confession, like Thomas saying "My Lord and My God" after encountering the risen Jesus. Also why don't any of the other apostles, including Paul, ever refer to Peter as the head of the entire church?
The confession is the rock of the church. It's found in all the early church creeds and statements of faith.
@@joeyn985 God still chose to give peter this revelation and peter chose to proclaim it and this merited jesus changing his name to peter this is unique among the 12 nathaniel was told by philip that Jesus was messiah and thomas did not believe until jesus came and showed him very explictly also the whole petros petra distinction is false the word petra is the rock in greek and it is feminine Jesus can't very well call a man a feminine word now can He also he was speaking aramaic and in that language it would be you are cephas and on this cephas
@@kwing6017 I didn't bring up the Petros vs Petra thing.
God chose various apostles to reveal different things to. He also chose Paul to reveal a bunch of things. Nothing I say is to take away from the importance of Peter in the early church and his role as a leader (among others).
But why don't any of the other apostles ever mention deferring to Peter or instructing that we should submit to Peter? Before Paul died he wrote to Timothy saying to trust in scripture and the Word of God. Why wouldn't he say "also look to Peter's successors Linus or Clement, for they are the vicar of Christ on earth"?
Alex is correct.
Is he?
He is. But how is he correct? Against what standard?
Pope Francis is the real Pope .
What is a pope? Can you find that in the Scripture?
You bet we can.
@@mrman5066 show me
@@mrman5066 2 days have passed. Are you still searching through the Scripture?
@@veekee75 oh shoot sorry youtube didn't notify me until now. Anyway, as overused as it may be, it is still the strongest articulation of the office of pope; Matthew 16:18-19
Sola Scriptura is a preacher getting scripture wrong, yet still claims their opinion is God Spoken.
Sola scriptura is false, even jesus followed stuff outside of scripture.
@@vampyresgraveyard3307Dosnt Jesus know all things
Not at all. You inserted “scripture” and “opinion” disingenuously. Protestants understand that we do have opinions on certain things. But we ultimately know unless there’s a strong biblical case for something (reading things in context and having it supported by other verses that are the actual intention of the authors), it’s not right to infuse our opinion onto the text.
We let scripture interpret scripture. If it’s a weak use of scripture, we call it out.
@@MomentumCanada365 Which is the weak use of scripture the Lutheran or the Baptist on Baptism and the real presence. Show me where they are formally called out.
@@MomentumCanada365 Ephesians 2:8, Roman’s 4 weak scripture?
I think it's important to point out the flaw in Protestant apologetics. All Protestant apologists presuppose the doctrine of sola scriptura to be true. Anytime they enter into a debate or bring up critiques/criticisms of Catholicism, they presuppose that "scripture is the sole infallible rule of faith." However, before one can even begin to engage with these critiques/criticisms, it must be determined whether or not the doctrine of sola scriptura is biblical and/or logical.
Let's start with the biggest and most ironic red flag with sola scriptura. It can't even meet the very standard it tries to set. There is no place in scripture that states scripture is the sole infallible rule of faith. This is why for over 1,500 years of Christianity, this doctrine was unknown. That should be the end of the discussion because it can't even pass the biblical standard it tries to set. But for the sake of argument, let's set that aside.
So, it can't pass the biblical test, let's see if it can pass the logical test. What happens when two non-Catholic Christians disagree on the interpretation of scripture? How do they reconcile who has the correct interpretation? What authority do they appeal to? One might argue that they can use secondary or tertiary scripture to reconcile their primary disagreement, but what if they disagree on the secondary and tertiary scripture, too? Well, they would likely have to appeal to an authority outside of scripture, like a church elder, pastor, or council. However, based on sola scriptura, scripture is the "sole" infallible rule of faith. This would mean that any reconciliation an elder, pastor, or council tries to manifest, would be fallible, and therefore, we'd be no closer to a resolution. The other possibility is that the elder, pastor, or council is being infallibly led by the Holy Spirit in order to infallibly reconcile the issue. However, this very appeal to an authoritative interpreter outside of scripture proves that scripture isn't the "sole" infallible rule of faith.
This is why Catholicism is the only ecclesial community with the fullness of truth. It does not run into these biblical or logical issues.
No matter how you slice it, sola scriptura is either unbiblical, illogical, or both. Come back home, brother. You said you were raised Catholic. I'm sorry you've been lied to about the Catholic Church and I'm even more sorry you've believed those lies..
So like he said in the video how would you argue with a Mormon ?? Mormons claim the same thing Catholics claim… that they are the true church of Jesus Christ…you run into the same issue as the two Christians interpreting the Bible differently. and that’s the issue with voice of reason he doesn’t use scripture to prove this Catholic Church a cult…
@@danib712 The Mormons have no Apostolic succession, the Catholics do. Protestants have no Apostolic succession, the Catholics do. Without the Catholic Church there would be no Bible. You must be Catholic to be able to properly interpret the Bible. You don't use the Scriptures to prove the Catholic Church is true. Rather, you use the Catholic Church to prove that the Scriptures are true. *If you don't believe this then please tell us how you know that the Scriptures are True* .
Alex gave the answer in the video. He said that the false palmarian pope was only invented in 1978. Anybody can claim to be the Pope, but unless you can connect him as a successor of Peter and the Apostles then that claim is false. *Here is what Saint Irenaeus said in the year 189 A.D., " “The true knowledge is the doctrine of the apostles, and the ancient organization of the Church throughout the whole world, and the manifestation of the body of Christ according to the succession of bishops, by which succession the bishops have handed down the Church which is found everywhere” (Against Heresies **4:33**:8 [189 A.D.] )* .
So it appears that the pope of the palmarian church is just the leader of another branch of Protestantism, probably more along the lines of Mormonism.
Jesus gave Peter the keys. The keys represent Jesus's Authority while He is away. Jesus charged Peter to take care of and feed His sheep. This is similar to if me and my husband decided to go on a trip leaving someone our keys and told them to take care of our children. This person has the keys and is charge of our house and children till we return. No one is allowed to help themselves and take over. They have no business giving themselves that Authority. They may claim they have it, but they don't have it. Likewise, only Peter has the keys and Jesus's Authority until He returns. This Authority is passed on to His successors till Jesus returns. Jesus hasn't returned yet, so no, the antipope cannot be and is not the pope.
It does not matter what individual Catholics think or say. No one should be publicly criticizing him. No one should be hostile towards him. These are disobedient children. If my husband and I came home from vacation and heard about my children being hostile to the one we put in charge, our children are in BIG trouble and they will be harshly punished. I believe Jesus will be the same way. The Pope will answer to Jesus when He returns. Faith is weak if they think the Holy Spirit is not working through Jesus's Church preserving Truth. Prots should listen to the bible more and especially this part, "lean not on your own understanding".
The irony of him pointing out the lunacy of that anti-pope being "ordained " when the current Catholic pope wasn't ordained by Jesus either
But you are ordained to decide how the Bible is interpreted?
God bless
This is what apostolic succession is. The apostles created apostles. Matthias being the most obvious example. They were empowered with this by Jesus himself. Therefor, every pope, and every priest can trace their ordination all the way back. Jesus didnt have to ordain Francis. His apostles did, and they can do that because He made it so. I'm wondering who ordained Luther, Calvin and the boys.
@@MrMannemanuContext informs the writers intent. This is true for any historical writings. Suggesting we need one earthly authority to tell us what it means is borrowing Islam’s tactic. They do the same thing: “you have to speak Arabic to understand the Quran” and there’s not logic behind it.
If it’s true that the Holy Spirit indwells a believer when they accept Christ, then why do they need anything else or anyone else to inform them on what God has spoken?
“….do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit within you, whom you have from God?” (1 Corinth 6:19).
Jews had priests in the temple who would read and speak God’s word for them.
1 Peter 2:9 “But you are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for his own possession, that you may proclaim the excellencies of him who called you out of darkness into his marvelous light.”
The operations of the temple are now in function in a new believer : our bodies are the temple of God and we are also priests. Because of how special we are? No. Because we’re covered in the blood of Jesus.
Everything must be interpreted in light of Holy Scripture. Amen brother.
So let's test your theory. The Catholic Church teaches that the Sacraments of the Catholic Church are necessary for the Salvation of Souls. That would include your soul and the soul of the guy presenting this youtube video. You Protestants claim that the Catholic Church is wrong and that a person is saved by "faith alone" and that the Sacraments have nothing to do with Salvation. Now don't let me lose you. Christ Ascended up to Heaven, NEVER to be seen again until the Second Coming. He did not leave a Bible nor did He leave instructions for anyone to write a Bible. However, He did leave the Catholic Church and the Sacraments of Salvation. A Sacrament is a Visible Sign, given by Jesus Christ, to give us Grace. Baptism is First of the Seven Sacraments. Jesus taught that one that Believes AND is Baptized will be saved. He also COMMANDED Baptism for Discipleship in His Great Commision in Mt. 28. So, the burden of proof is on you Protestants to find just one single example of a person being saved in the Biblical New Covenant Church by faith alone and without a Sacrament of the Catholic Church. I am challenging you to use the Bible alone to prove your doctrine of sola fide/sola scriptura. Finding just one example of Protestant Salvation in the Bible will prove you to be right and the Catholic Church to be wrong.
@@SaviorSonofMaryThe thief on the cross was saved by faith alone. He was never baptized, he never consumed the Eucharist, he never belonged to the Catholic Church. He simply had faith in Jesus. There. I found one example so does that mean Catholicism is false?
And sola fide does not mean that Sacraments aren’t important. Maybe Sacraments are not important to your average non-denom church, but to mainline Protestant churches the Sacraments are extremely important. As John Calvin once said “It is therefore faith alone that justifies and yet the faith that justifies is not alone” meaning that participation in the Sacraments comes as a result of our faith to draw us closer to God.
Protestants don’t need sola fide or sola scriptura to be explicit in the Bible, just like how the term “Trinity” is not explicitly used in the Bible. Sola scriptura comes as a result of recognizing what God’s Word is.
If the NT is truly God’s Word, then it MUST be infallible or else we run the risk of calling God a liar. Therefore the OT and NT must be infallible. And Jesus said that His words will never pass away, implying that they were to be written down so that people have an infallible source to turn to. Now that we’ve established an infallible source of authority, the burden of proof is on you to proof that Sacred Tradition and the Magisterium are also infallible sources of authority.
@@SaviorSonofMary the thief on the cross was saved by faith alone. He was never baptized, he never attended a Catholic church , he never received the Eucharist, he simply put his faith in Christ. That’s a pretty big claim to make that finding someone who was saved by faith alone will automatically prove the Catholic Church wrong. Who’s to say that God can’t work outside the sacraments?
Sola fide doesn’t necessarily mean that you have to just “believe and be saved.” As John Calvin once said “it is faith alone that justifies and yet the faith that justifies is never alone” meaning that taking the sacraments and doing good works are also very important.
And I love when Catholic always try to have a “gotcha” moment by saying “where is sola scriptura in the Bible?” Protestants don’t necessarily believe that everything we believe must be found in the Bible, just like how the Trinity is not found in the Bible. The reasoning goes like this:
The Bible is God’s Word
God’s Word cannot be fallible or cannot err
Therefore the Bible must be infallible.
There is a basic form of the argument for sola scriptura. The burden of proof is actually on the Catholics to prove that there is more than one infallible authority.
That’s a good question. And yes, it’s cool to see you and Alex actually have a real relationship. It’s setting a good example.
What’s your belief on OSAS?
According to Ascension Press Media, the Church, through the authority given to it by Christ, determined the Bible's canon, or list of inspired books, over a period of more than three centuries. The process began with the Council of Rome in 382 AD, presided over by Pope Damasus I, and was finalized at the Council of Hippo in 393 AD. The bishops of the Church continued the process at the Councils of Carthage in 397 and 419 AD.
The Bible's books were collected and approved by various councils, synods, and popes of the Catholic Church over time, beginning with the Council of Rome in 382 AD. The first "canon" of the Bible was the Muratorian Canon, compiled in 170 AD. The Catholic Church believed that the Holy Spirit guided them in determining the canon, or list of books, of the Bible.
Question: Are you in the right church? Or are you letting your emotions get the best of you?
@@thecatholicfam there is no right church, if you think the church determines if you’re saved then if I were you I would be petrified. You believe in false doctrine used to control masses. Salvation is a free gift that cannot be earned only received. Catholic teachings are twisted and straight from the underworld. All great lies have some truth. There is no Catholic or church authority. There’s the authority of God and he decides who enters heaven not Catholics. You follow doctrines of Satan and it’s clear as day to any true believer in Christ. Every single important aspect of salvation is twisted by Catholics. You cannot remission of your sins into heaven not work your way there. Not to mention your idol worship and ceremonies and praying to dead saints for spots in heaven. My lord how twisted the Catholic faith is please please see the truth and realize how brainwashing these teachings are, I know it’s hard to take and it seems a like I’m attacking you. I’m not attacking you personally it’s the Catholic faith that is so evil and deceptive. Many Catholics look the part but really have no relationship with God. I have many Catholics friends who with out a doubt are saved. But please hear me I’m not attacking you personally. The Catholic faith is a twisted faith complete opposite of the teachings of Christ.
2:53 As far as I can see, Alex misrepresents what Clemente Vincente said, when claiming to be "Gregorio XVII" ...
I'm an ex-Palmarian, and it was Sts. Peter and Paul who supposedly had elected him.
As to episcopal consecreation, he got that from Bishop Thuc, he didn't claim to be consecrated by Christ Himself, through a vision.
After him there is now Odermatt claiming to be Peter III.
All new Papal claimants of Palmar de Troya after this have been elected by a normal process of Palmarian "cardinals" except "Gregorio XVII" had no authority to name any.
The reasons why I reject Palmar de Troya now is, a) I adher to Pope Michael I and his now successor Michael II, and b) I rejected "Gregorio XVII" when I got news that his catechism says "the Antichrist sees the world from the Fourth Dimension, the Most Pure Virgin from the Eighth" ... what's wrong with that? Well, the world has _three_ dimensions, to hint at the Blessed Trinity. "Eight Dimensions" is modernist nonsense. Whatever spoke that to "Gregorio XVII" cannot have been God or someone in Heaven.
@TrueChristian Fair questions but you would have to go deeper into the topic of sedevacantism to really understand. I watched your discussion with Alex and Lofton on reason and theology and enjoyed the back and forth. I hope to see you continue the engagement with Catholic theology. Thanks for being genuine.
Many protestants say Jesus comes and talks to them. That's why we have so many denominations now. Division and hate are the fruits of that way of thinking, and Jesus said upon these rock, I will build my church, and the gates of hell will never prevail against it. Unless Jesus likes conflict and confusion and was lying about his one singular universal church than many of them people are lying about the visions.
When you go to the original language you find that Peter is called petros and the foundation of the church will be built upon this Petra. Petros meaning small rock and Petra meaning great rock. Jesus uses play on words not only to distinguish the difference between Peter’s statement and Peter but as well as Jesus literally calling Peter’s claim a greater foundation than Peter himself. When in full context of Matthew it’s very easy to understand. I understood exactly what Jesus meant when he says the foundation of the church will be built upon the claim that Jesus Christ is God even when reading in English. But so many use this claim as a way to authorize the pope, when in reality you have to know what is really being said by reading it in the original language. I believe the Holy Spirit decerns the texts to us because I was able to understand this statement from Jesus before reading the original Greek, but so many are unable to know what God is really saying. Same thing with baptism, Catholics also get that wrong. Even in the kjv of the Bible neverless the original language it says the believing of Christ not the washing of flesh is what saves. The baptism of our spirit through Christ. Again I was able to understand what was being said in that verse but again so many Catholics get it wrong. Now I’m not saying all this to diss Catholics. I truly believe even in misinterpretations of the Bible, that many Catholics are saved. But there’s many who justify their works rather than God justifying them.
@Spazzmonkey8 I would say the only way a Catholic can be saved is by repentance of Catholic faith and coming to the true Jesus
@@CornerstoneMinistry316 to an extent that is true. I know some self proclaimed catholics who believe they were saved by the grace of God and I would say without a doubt they’re saved. Now a hardcore catholic might call them not real Catholics but they identify as Catholics. So to a certain extent I agree with your statement. But I know Catholics as well have some Catholics friends and majority of them believe they’re saved by the grace of God. Now instead of saying what group or denomination is saved I think the better statement of who’s truly saved is whether they believe in Jesus Christ as Lord and savior and they will inherit salvation through him. That’s really what’s important. But I do agree that if you’re truly saved you would eventually probably leave the Catholic Church. Only reason I would say otherwise is because during my grandmothers funeral her Catholic friend arrived claimed Jesus as lord and savior as well as playfully talking about her and my grandmothers difference in denomination and how they would disagree but at the end of the day they believed what was truly important Jesus Christ saves. My grandmothers friend is living proof as to why your statement that the only way a Catholic could be saved is to leave that faith and follow the true Jesus is not entirely true. Jesus doesn’t care what denomination your from rather the type of relationship you have with him. With all that being said I don’t believe the catholic faith is at all true and majority of it and their practices are wrong.
@@David.C88petros is not little rock and petra is not big rock petra is the word for rock in greek and it's feminine peter is a man so cannot be called petra but Jesus was speaking aramaic which would be you are cephas and on this cephas i will build my Church from then on simon was always called peter or simon peter it seems silly to change someone's name for a play on words and the name change stays more likely peter is truely the rock and the name change signifies a new mission like abram was changed to abraham father of many nations. If the catholic church is wrong on baptism then the earliest christians were in error for centuries until some guy said no you are wrong so much for the Holy Spirit guiding the Church away from error yet those same christians in error on baptism were right about condemning heresies that were using the bible and correctly teaching the trinity and christology much more difficult things thsn baptism how convenient. Does baptism need water to work? Is baptism necessary for sallvation? The Holy Spirit told you your reading of the bible is correct, that's nice, what do you say about others who disagree with you who also say the Spirit told them they are right? Are they right and you are wrong? Are you right and they are wrong? Are you both right and the spirit contradicts Himself? God forbid! Are you both wrong and simply think you are right so that the division of Christ's body the church remains divided and even more as time goes on instead of healing division and uniting with His body fully?
@@kwing6017 you cannot just claim things and state them as correct. Go research for yourself. Petra is great rock and petros is small rock. Jesus called Peter petros and he said upon this Petra I will build my church. If the church was built upon Peter and the authority Catholics claim Peter had as now does the pope then we are in big trouble. Why would Jesus Christ build his church upon Peter? The whole point to Jesus teachings on earth are that Jesus is God and we will inherit salvation through him. Jesus most certainly did not built his church upon a man a man who verses prior Jesus called Satan. Again you cannot just start claiming things as facts. And to say because Jesus spoke Aramaic so we use Armaic to translate the Bible is incredibly stupid. We use the translations of the original text as the source not what Jesus spoke. There was a reason the original text was written the way it was. Matthew was intentionally written with the words Petra and petros as well as the previous verses Peter claiming Jesus is God. The whole gospel is Jesus Christ died for our sins and we who believe in him as lord and savior will inherit all things. That’s the foundation of the church, what’s a greater foundation, Peter or Jesus Christ is God? Also to say that because early “Christian’s” baptized doesn’t mean anything to the baptism argument. No one said not to baptize it’s a great way to “officially” state your faith. But water baptisms does not save as clearly stated many times in scripture even so to the point of it being clarified “ not the washing of flesh, but a good conscience towards God”. That is what we call being born again, the people couldn’t understand and asked how can we be born again? It’s a spiritual thing that happens not a physical washing. It is quite literally clarified yet Catholics still argue. Same as thinking you have to eat his flesh and drink his blood regularly. Catholics just don’t get it just like the people of Jesus day the didn’t understand that they don’t literally eat the flesh of Christ, it is spiritual . Catholics just don’t seem to grasp anything Jesus taught and there’s so many denominations because yes there are different viewpoints but whose to say those viewpoints all came from the Holy Spirit. There may be a truly saved person who tires to logically understand the Bible and they will misinterpret a verse. It happens all the time. And I even may be wrong about everything I’ve said but it overwhelmingly points to Catholics teach a false doctrine with a self proclaimed authority. Not to mention the Pope is probably one of the most twisted men alive currently, so much for the Catholic Church being incorruptible.
Question for Protestants. How do we know that the Bible is True?
If the Scripture is your ultimate authority then it will be possible to see who and what is heresy. But when you have 3 authorities like the RCC, then there will be confusions and contradictions. A Church doctrines and dogmas can change, the traditions of men can be added, but we know God's Word NEVER change.
It’s very easy to draw a straight line from my personal interpretation and the scripture alone. And yet, my interpretation as an Anglican was different than my Baptist friends… it came to a point that while I was attending a Baptist church, I was asked to teach a women’s Sunday school and I went to tell the pastor I didn’t agree with the Baptist understanding of baptism and the Eucharist and after a discussion he said “as long as we are both following the scripture, we are chasing the same thing, but you can’t teach.”
That is a tacit understanding that my interpretation is at odds with his church to the point of not being able to exercise my gifts in that church… I was out of communion with them.
Scripture Alone is not enough to bring the entire church into communion with one another. Protestants have had 500 years to demonstrate otherwise. Scripture is STILL the primary authority, but it cannot be the only authority. And scripture does not teach that the scripture is the ONLY authority.
Saying the Word of God Never changes is so funny when keeping in mind you literally removed books from the Bible and changed scripture for your benefits like “faith alone” 😂
@@vinciblegaming6817 first of all if you even follow the video, there is no such thing as scripture alone. Sola Scriptura simply means God's Word is our final authority. If you disagree, then you should be able to tell me what or who can override God's Word.
@@NSugga Tell me what's wrong with Sola Fide? I can show you many verses from the Bible that teaches Sola Fide, can you show me one verse that says Sola Fide is wrong?
@@veekee75 that is never actually how sola scriptura is used in practice. The only denominations that have historically come even close to that are the mainline Protestants.
I was a Protestant for 40 years. I’m not making caricatures. My observations are based in lived reality.
Hello and peace be with you. I intend to give a genuine and thoughtful response to your questions.
I do not know anything about this Church’s practices or teachings or history in general, but I can comment on how their papacy is invalid.
When Jesus chose His Pope, it was done publicly and openly.
“When Jesus went into the region of Caesarea Philippi he asked his disciples, “Who do people say that the Son of Man is?” He said to them, “But who do you say that I am?” Simon Peter said in reply, “You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.” Jesus said to him in reply, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah. For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my heavenly Father. And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.””
Matthew 16:13, 15-19 NABRE
Peter is the Rock of the Church, nothing shall overcome this church, he alone was given the keys to the kingdom and what he binds or loosens on earth will be bound and loosened in heaven.
I’ve seen people argue over the actual Greek word used for rock versus brick or something else. I cannot comment on that. I can only comment on what I’ve read and if he isn’t the foundation of the Church why do Bibles still keep translating his name this way?
So as far as Catholics go this is how we have a Pope.
Secondly the office of the Pope is the be replaced via lots.
“For it is written in the Book of Psalms: ‘Let his encampment become desolate, and may no one dwell in it.’ And: ‘May another take his office.’ Then they prayed, “You, Lord, who know the hearts of all, show which one of these two you have chosen to take the place in this apostolic ministry from which Judas turned away to go to his own place.” Then they gave lots to them, and the lot fell upon Matthias, and he was counted with the eleven apostles.”
Acts 1:20, 24-26 NABRE
I am aware that this is in reference to replacing Judas in their number. But if it was important to replace the office of Judas, how much more important would it be to replace the office of Peter?
Without this tradition in place we would not have reasons to stand up against anti-popes. According to Paul; the church is the pillar and foundation of truth 1 Tim 3:15 and it is important for the priests of that church to follow in the tradition laid out by Paul who got it from Jesus 1 Cor 11:2 and 2 Thes 2:15.
I hope this helps answer your questions and God bless.
You both are correct, i did some surface digging, he is both a Anti Pope and of the Palmarion Church. The Palmarion Church has its own see in Spain Wikipedia says and that This person in the video Alex played is who the Palmarions believe is the Pope.
Alex, to me, accidentally proved sola scriptura. He said if the Catholic church made the decision to affirm homosexuality, the church was false. For this to be the case, for this conclusion to be reached, he must necessarily hold scripture to a higher standard than the church.
I think the main thing I got from Alex’s video is that it introduces us to what this false church is and what it’s basic foundations are.
To me personally it feels like it’s not fruitful to research too deeply into something no one really cares or knows about.
I’m sure he’d easily be able to go into depth on this and back up why it is a false church using the Bible and the teachings of the Catholic Church, or it’s historicity and roots in the true church.
I don’t see a massive value in this as I suspect it’ll likely be similar story to how JWs or Mormons or other cults were formed.
Of course you don’t see value in conversation among very knowledgeable people both Mike and Alex. You compare us to JW when the Catholic Church was formed from Jesus apostles. It’s history, it’s not a theory, you do understand the beginning of the Christian church right ? Do you know what it was called ?
@@boi__7898 I think you read my message wrong. I am in fact Catholic. I was referring to the Palmarian Church as the false church which I compared to JW, etc.
Also I didn’t say I don’t see value in this conversation. I said I didn’t see great value in fully debunking a false church (Palmarian) no one knows or cares about in too much depth.
Why all these divisions, follow Jesus Christ, that serves all the purpose of Christianity. He is the only saviour and we do not need any pope who are only humans.
But how do you know what He taught? 🤣🤣. I know how to know. I do what He commanded, and I obey His church.
Did you just read non scripture on how to read scripture to justify only reading scripture?
Jesus Christ is the only true God, no pope no humans, read scriptures thoroughly and you will understand.
"Trust in the Lord with all your heart
and lean not on your own understanding;" The bible condemns this practice. The Catholic church trusts in the Lord with all of her heart, that's why we trust that He did what He promised He would do, He sent the Spirit to guide us, and we also trust Him when He says that the gates of hell will not prevail. If you think the church He founded fell into corruption, than you believe that either He lied, or that the Spirit was unable to guide the church.
@@chukulanbut the Catholic Church is corrupted… I don’t understand why so many Catholics choose to ignore the wrongs the church has done
Based
I answer your question. This is the wrong church since it is not in communion with Peter, and the church that Jesus founded.
It is: Holy Scripture, Tradition, Holy Spirit, Succession.
Hi TrueChristian, truly I’m sorry for the lengthy reply but the answer to your legitimate dilemma regarding the true papal claimant can only be explained as follows:
1. The Palmarian Church is a deeply heretical sect claiming, among many things, that Jesus was created by God and that this was soon followed by the creation of the soul of Mary both before the creation of heaven and earth. They also place her on a divine level with Christ. Such heretical beliefs were already strongly condemned in the 4th century by the Church by a figure named Bishop St Epiphanius of Salamis in his work called ‘Panarion’.
2. The issue of the three popes (known as the Western Schism) - which remains unique in Church history - was not nearly as serious as the East-West Schism which began in the 11th century out of grave revolt against the supreme authority of the Church and lasted 9 centuries! Rather, the Western Schism was a temporary misunderstanding fueled by politics and heated emotions. It was not a formal schism, as in the East-West Schism, but a material schism.
The issue with the Palmarian “church” is they are a heretical break away from the Church claiming to be the true continuation of the Church. In this way, they follow in the well trodden steps of previous heretics of the last 2000 years: Donatists, Arians, Luciferians, and Protestants who all claimed the same thing. Again nothing new here.
An important point to be made regarding the Protestant Reformation is this: the leading figures of the Reformation (Luther, Calvin and Zwingli) all admitted that the Catholic Church AND papacy were indeed established by Christ Jesus. For proof you can visit ‘Step Bible dot org’ (type it out in search bar) and look up Martin Luther’s sermon on John ch.16 where in paragraphs 28, 29 & 32 he concedes Christ started the Catholic Church and a papacy. None of the Reformers dared to claim the Catholic Church and papacy were not instituted by Christ because they would’ve been laughed at and they would have discredited their own movement as soon as it began. It was, and still is, a pure myth to suggest the Catholic Church and papacy was not established by Christ. It is ahistorical (having no historical basis). It is no different to the novel 200 year old modern myth that Jesus never existed which is also ahistorical (no basis in history).
The Reformers knew they never had a good excuse to reject the Church so they lied by saying it had become so corrupted and that only they (the Reformers) continued in the true Christian faith. You See, they had followed in the same errors made by the Donatists, Arians, Luciferians etc. already condemned by the Church. The Church has always maintained that it can never be reduced to the inner belief of “true believers”. The Church has always taught that the entire hierarchical structure, along with the faithful around the world, will forever remain visible. And, the Church he always taught that it cannot defect from truth (Matt. 16:18, gates of hell never prevail).
The Palmarians are just repeating the same old condemned errors.
Jesus promised us an indefectible (not able to fail) Church. Meaning it can never teach errors in faith and morals or else we would have no certainty over our faith.
Jesus started the Church with His blood and suffering, so nothing can take the Church away from Him. Hence, He promised to ALWAYS guide the Church in all truth (John 14:26 & 16:13) until the end of time (Matt. 28:20)!
When Christ makes a promise, He cannot fail, therefore the Church cannot fail. In 2000 years the Church has outlasted all empires, even Her own empire: the Holy Roman Empire (800-1800).
So should we just turn a blind eye to the abuses of the Catholic Church and blindly believe that all forms of Protestantism are heretical?
Interesting. For me alone its difficult to put any comments on how do we know the pope appointment is true because it is merely the church traditions. And on what ground they select their pope from the many bishops.
How do the catholic select a pope? This question never pops up untill i saw this video.
It is indeed within the catholic conflict, how do they simply reject the palmarian church not being catholic, not what ground?
If both claims Jesus ordain them then how do we identify the right one? All the comments that came does not give an answer yet to this question.
Jesus ordained His apostles. They inturn ordain more apostles. The pope is chosen the same way Matthias was chosen to replace Judas. By the apostles, guided by the Holy Spirit.
Bruh why do sola scriptura apologists always pick and choose what church fathers they reference and agree with
Catholics do the same they pick and choose what the church fathers say
@@danib712 Can you explain what you mean or give an example of what you are referring to? All of the Church Fathers are Catholic, so what do you mean when you say that Catholics pick and choose what they say?
We can know that the Palmarians are wrong because they are not unified with the rest of the Church and the Holy Spirit does not produce the fruit of disunity.
So the holy spirt is only for Catholics and the Catholic Church? That’s how we know who has the holy spirt and who is lying about having the holy spirt?
@@danib712 At the very least we can know that the Holy Spirit is not the cause of the Protestant reformation and its endless divisions or the Palmarian schism.
the pope is the occupant of the chair or throne of st. peter because of apostolic succession handed down by the hands of the bishops, for him to receive the authority vested in the office, through his election into the office of the bishop of rome. the catholic church inherits the legalistic framework primarily inherent of the jewish faith of the second temple period, and secondarily as well, the roman legal system or framework, alongside the principles of greek logic and philosophy.
once a candidate is selected/elected, and more importantly, consecrated, and inaugurated into the previously vacant office of the bishop of rome, the chair of st. peter, he assumes all authority and dignity of the primary apostolic office. another claimant, no matter how holy, corrupt, evil, or powerful, is just that, a claimant, an anti pope. because another election by a group of people, or more conventionally, the college of cardinals, or imperial edict, can no longer give what they do not possess.
the founder of the palmarian church, pretended to be a mystic who receives messages from mary and jesus. but st. paul and peter and jesus himself warned us already against anyone who will try to say "the messiah is here, or he is in the wilderness". do not be deceived.
emperors and potentates have put up rivals, the antipopes, against the legitimate popes before. but in the analogy of st. paul, the pope is the victor of a race. there are no second and third place.
logic and reason and your physical senses will equip any person with a sound intellect to easily identify who the pope is.