I am a Catholic, following Austin since the day I discovered the channel. Impressed by a protestant openness in exploring. I love the Orthodox church tour. Thank you Austin. Hope you will share your faith journey too
I am 21 in RCIA right now, and am graduating from college soon, and I just have to say that seeing someone else my age doing similar investigations into the legitimacy of Catholic claims is so refreshing. Love your videos!
Brandt Petri's books are in indispensable, as are a few others. But read the early church fathers first hand, to be sure you keep their context, as well as content.
Well done Ryan and Jonathan, good luck. I was a cradle Catholic, then from my teenage years, spent years dabbling in other faiths. Eventually I participated in the RCIA course and came home to my own church. Now I am part of my local RCIA team. 🙏🙏🙏
I’m a convert to Catholicism. I used to be evangelical. It was a very difficult transition due to anti-Catholic relatives. I appreciate your search for truth. Trent Horn is very helpful!
@@33-vertebrae Yup. Considered it. Some aspects I like better than the Western Church (most can be had in Eastern Rite Churches). But there are also some serious problems. Lack of central authority has proved a pretty big problem. For instance, "How many times can a man divorce and remarry?" Never? ...NEVER? ONCE? etc.
I was an atheist, then eclectic agnostic, then occultist /mystery religion/ new age spirutality dude, then God opened my eyes to the truth of good and evil, and the pure goodness of life and death of Jesus. Then i gravitated to Protestans and then Calvinist because of John Macarthur and his great speeches, but after learning allot from Jimmy Akins site and books and listening to Catholic Answer i just can't deny Catohlicism is the way annymore. :) PS btw is was raised Catholic so it was a full circle back home lol
WOW! Another home run hit out of the park! Your interview skills are top notch, especially being able to keep pace with Trent Horn. I love being a Patreon subscriber and getting early viewings of great videos like this. This one, by far, is my favorite. Thank you for this! And thank you to Trent Horn for letting the Holy Spirit use you to guide so many of us, myself included, into the Catholic faith through your books, radio programs, podcasts and debates. You are both such a blessing!
Another great point made by Catholicism I found fascinating was the claim that Christ overcame the enemy of Israel Pagan Rome by establishing His Church there and turning a pagan nation into one who worships the God of Israel. That's a really solid and true argument. He was truly victorious in His death and resurrection.
That’s a mystery and I think you are correct. So when you leave profane Rome to enter sacred Vatican (the other side of the Tiber River), just after the Angelic bridge (Sant’Angelo) you will see the huge Egyptian obelisk in St Peter Square (put there by the wicked emperor Caligula even before Christ) with an inscription that was composed in the 12th century by St Anthony of Lisbon and Padua: _”Vicit Leo de Tribu Juda / Radix David / Alleluia”_ (The Lion of the tribe of Judah, the root of David, has conquered! Alleluia!) That gives you goosebumps even before you get to the beautiful St Peter’s Basilica. Tremendous. Jesus conquered the Pagan world, the “nations”, to be the definitive and eternal King of Israel. So profound and beautiful. I recommend everybody to go to Rome and the Vatican on a trip. Fantastic jaw-dropping city. Those struggling with the theological dimension of our faith, specially the papacy, have a huge chance to leave Rome/Vatican with the doubts responded, at least some of them. I was really touched there.
Overcame the enemies of Israel? Well, in the "Jewish Wars" of the late 60's and early 70's, God used the PAGAN Romans as a tool of retribution and destruction on the Christ rejecting Jews of Israel. It was later that the Church established itself in Rome. When Paul writes to the believers in Rome, he has not yet been there. Yet somehow, the gospel has reached there without any I fixation of an Apostle as a "founder" there. The area where the Vatican sits was amidst the tombs, and OUTSIDE the city proper. In fact, it remained outside the city, even when Rome somewhat expanded.
Literally was listening to Trent's newest podcast... looked up your youtube channel... and saw that you were currently live with Matt Fradd and caught the end of it. SO RAD. Hahaha! I'm a cradle Catholic with many many nondenominational friends and I'm so grateful for public conversations like these. Happy to follow along. Thank you for this! Praying for you!
@@GospelSimplicity Jesus knew Peter as weak as we see him denying Jesus three times including not understanding the work of the cross where Jesus says to him “ get away from me satan” hence the chapter where Trent creates analogy on Peter being the greatest in Luke does not make sense ref “ the first shall be last and then points to Peter re sifting. To encompass papacy with such illustration becomes Swiss cheese . Think about why John was the only disciple not afraid at the cross all the others fled , you can see John had something the other disciples did not illustrated at the discourse. It’s almost as if without the papacy the scriptures would of disappeared that Catholicism try’s to project We know for a fact the term pontiff comes from Romanism not Jesus. The issue is the papacy is Peter Chair apparently a divine position so to just write off bad popes or state just pray for them is laughable to say the least.
I can see God working in your soul Austin. It would be wonderful to have you in the fullness of faith. God is watching over you in your journey. God bless.
Wow, really looking forward to this! Trent Horn is such a brilliant and kind man. I've been thoroughly enjoying your content, thank you for your efforts!
Hey Austin, Protestant here very interested in discussing the papacy. I live in central IL - I've got a lot of friends at Moody! Awesome work, great to see a guy my age faithfully and respectably discussing this with someone as intellectually skilled as Horn. Really enjoyed this conversation man, you've got a new watcher!
Austin, I am a young man discerning the Latin Rite Catholic Priesthood(only will be offering the Tridentine Mass) I am here for your journey and love your channel and unbias, humble search of the truths of Christianity. One day I hope you come home to the Roman Apostolic see. God bless brother
I listened to this whole thing on my smart tv on TH-cam, for some reason it did not show the video but only the audio, I’m now seeing there was a video. I will probably watch it now and hear it a second time. Good stuff. I’m a recent convert to Catholicism. Trent is like a Catholic rockstar! I’m enjoying your channel too Austin. Thanks God Bless.
Try to get on Brant Pitre, pH.d, author of at least three books on the OT and Jewish precedents of the Papacy, The Eucharist, and the Blessed Virgin Mary.
Oh I loved this, this was amazing. I think i already knew about most of the things Trent brought up (as a relatively new Catholic), but I enjoyed the format and listening to a discussion or interview that is not being done in a hostile manner. Regardless, you do protestants a favour Austin, I sort of feel like maybe we can discuss things without one side having their heads chopped of, when listening to this and that there is hope after all. Thank you for that and for inviting Trent I really like that guy. Now, next up you should invite Jimmy Akin :D -- he is a nerd like me.
Austin, you are becoming my model in the way you gently throw questions on the subject you believe you disagreed, which is very amazing. I started to appreciate Jesus'wisdom to place his successor on earth for His Church.
Would you be willing to elaborate further on the term "successor"? If you mean to say that He left His position as Hight Priest to someone else, I would say that you are mistaken; or perhaps His involvement? Either way it doesn't seem likely that Christ would leave behind a successor when He has remained the Head of the Church as High Priest. (I am not trying to be confrontational, but I know that internet text can come off that way. I am genuinely curious about what you mean by "successor")
I would love to see a video about Eastern Catholicism, especially with you Austin. You ask great questions and are incredibly respectful. Looking forward to all your future videos. Keep up the great work!
Glory to God for the time and energy to invest in thoughtful conversations. Glory to God for the apostolic church! Their Holy Traditions give life and hope to the world! However, it gives life and hope through practice. In experience. In tradition and community. And what hurts my heart is that my Catholic family don't have the gifts of prayer, fasting, and almsgiving that my Orthodox conversion has provided. God bless your journey. I enjoy watching it. God will give you what your heart and mind yearns for: the perfect union of Truth and Love. If you're brave enough to embrace it. ☦️ God bless you and keep you!
Very valuable testimony since it is from an ex Catholic friend.. God bless you sister.. He guides the true seekers of truth in His Orthodox Church the only true ancient Church.. But it takes courage to follow the truth not everyone has it...
Austin! Thanks for this episode. Your humility to dialogue and be open stands out to me. God can do so much with simple humble souls! Peace be with you!
One of the things that stood out to me at a protestant before I became Catholic was Christ's prayer for unity in the church. I saw the relative unity of the Catholic Church compared to the myriad denominations and even churches within my own denomination and even members of my own congregation. Not that everyone in Catholicism agrees on everything but we do agree on what we may not disagree on
Some questions that are still left unanswered: 1) If Peter had a primacy of authority why did the Apostles cast lots in Acts after Judas died (ie why not just appeal to Peter)? 2) What Scriptural or historical evidence is there for Peter ever having been in Rome when there is evidence of him being in Antioch? 3) If Peter had a primacy of authority why was he not the first bishop of Jerusalem (James was)? 4) If Peter & his succesor had a primacy of authority over the Church, why do we see decisions of the early Church being made by ecumenical councils, and not simply by an appeal to the Pope of Rome? 5) At the end of his life, shortly before his death, St. Paul, in 2 Timothy 4:11, says that he is alone in Rome (other than Luke). He mentions a dozen people who should be with him. If Peter was the Pope of Rome, why would he not mention him? 6) In 1 Peter 5:13 why does Peter send greetings from Babylon? RC apologists will often say that "Babylon" is actually code for Rome, but that makes no sense when we see that Paul uses the term Rome openly. Also, Peter was not a Roman citizen as was St. Paul, why is it implausible that Peter, a speaker of Aramaic, would go to visit the thriving Jewish community of Babylon (Iraq)? 7) If the Popes had universal jurisdiction over the Church, why do we see no evidence of Roman Popes appointing bishops in other Papal Sees in the first thousand years of Chistianity? (Clue: because they never had the authority to do so).
Trent Horn, Jimmy Akin, Tim Staples, everybody at Catholic Answers filled in the dots for me, which completed my journey to the Holy Catholic Church. Thank you guys! Oremus!
I can’t wait to watch two of you guys talking about catholicism so that I can learn more about my faith. Catholic church it has the fullness of truth, founded by God Himself
@@starcityoldy No actual Catholic who isn't a 'Christmas and Easter' Catholic accepts the apostasy of Pachamamas. It stands out precisely because it is antithetical to the Catholic faith, spirit, sense, etc.
Also just remembered this is my birthday... 😂😂😂 What better gift... GS talking with a famous Catholic apologist... But for real what more could I wish for???
45:30 Trent says no one gets ordained on their own. My question is in Galatians ch. 1 Paul says for 3 years after his conversion he never sought any authority to ordain him but rather just God's mission. He then meets with Peter and another apostle only and then left and didn't see any apostles again for 14 years. To me this is an example that hey, God can ordain without the authority of other apostles and its more logical in such a vast world of distances today accross millions of miles that some people would have no way to submit to a central point of authority such as a pope, or even know what that is, but God could ordain ministers and pastors that are attainable and reachable to them to lead them.
Interesting to hear your viewer mix. I think for many of us Catholics, Orthodox, and Eastern Catholics, it is fascinating to basically watch you go through the same conversation we went through. I think you will bring many with you to the historical true faith.
Brilliant as expected from Trent, and also yourself Austin. Great work! Thank you both. It's a shame though there wasn't enough time for Trent to answer the 300 questions! I could have listened all night. 🙂 Take care and God bless. 🙏
Firstly, thank you for having Trent on, and thank you Trent for being on. Now for my grievance and other things I would like to add. I wish Trent made more Patristic connections here, but of course, we can spend all day doing that. Take the thing about all the Apostles getting the Keys but Peter in a special manner, this is discussed by Pope Leo in Sermon 3 & 4 where he sets Peter up as a prototype for all people (clerics) but he is specifically Peter being the Shepherd of Shepherds. That Peter confirms the others. Take the issue of who is the Rock in Matthew 16. No one, not a single Father distinguished between the Rock in Peter. No Syriac Father does absolutely (see Cyril Benni's book on the Apostolic traditions and Robert Murray's book on the Symbols of the Kingdom) See John Chrysostom on this in Homily 54 of Matthew and Homily 3 on Acts. That Peter is the rock via his confession, it is always both. Augustine even says this and fine-tunes it in his retractations. I also wish he touched on the Epistemic substantial issue, especially compared to the Eastern Orthodox. That what you have Prima Facie in Scripture is a Governance with an Epistemic nature to rule. You have the College (Apostles) and then the Head of said College (Peter), so when it is asked "Does this reflect the modern Papacy" it's a yes and no. In anything that Develops it gets more smoothed out in its application and discussion. A deeper meditation on the Mystery and Teaching. I always like to think of it as a Ball of Dough. The dough is the same but you take it to its goal, so it's the same but not. We see that the same Substanial Government is set up, so then why does it change? This needs justifying, If there is a College with a Head in the Early Church witnessed by Scripture then it would logically and fittingly continue. With the Eastern Orthodox, it changes to just a College, and with most Protestants, it's just no College. Here we then face an Epistemic issue (Trent touched on briefly) That we have all these definitive things, but no definitive application. The last thing I wish was touched on more is "First among Equals" is such an oxymoronic statement it has to be said. 'First among Equals" is exactly what we teach! In Vatican I Pius IX said, "It is just not the Pope who is the Church but the Pope in accordance with the Bishops". The Pope is Equal as he is in the College, but First as it's Head. The Body must always listen to it's Head. In a grouping, you cannot have a First who is equal in all manners or it becomes not a FIrst, so by the very accusation of a First, we admit the premise that there is some who is Prime or "Supra-" someone else, or a group of others. Due to this admission then you have prerogatives of the First lacking in others. If all have the same prerogatives then there is no First. In history we can see this in the Patriarchs, how does the First differentiate itself from the others? Seems to be by a special jurisdiction the no other has. Of course, this takes justifying and I think it can be best done by historical proofing, but this is already too long. I believe what echoes this so well is how John Chrysostom describes the Apostles as coryphaeus and singles out Peter sort of as THE coryphaeus. Dom John Chapman goes over this beautifully in his book on the Papacy. In Short, one must have a distinction to be First and only the Catholic Church makes that Distinction, even though Greeks through history tried to give this to Constantinople. Thanks for reading! Hope this helps!
Dude you are awesome for this talk with Trent Horn. I appreciate you to the max for this. I really hope to see more videos like these. Great topic by the way. Thank you Austin 👍
@@GospelSimplicity Your channel has been a blessing this year. I thank God for your humility and open heart. Let's hope and pray your work can bring greater unity to the Church, in Jesus's name.
I really enjoyed this interview...thank you! I was one of those people that had your video's show up on my feed when you went to the Latin Mass! Since then I have been drawn in to your journey. I have to say...I have seen this story before...and the more you educate yourself...and the more arguments you hash out...you are going to come to the same conclusion as Dr. Scott Hahn, Kimberly Hahn, Jimmy Akin, Tim Staples, Steve Ray, Dr. Peter Kreeff, Dr. David Anders, etc...and soon we will be adding Austin's name to the list! May I welcome you home early...because you are well on your way! 🌷
Congratulations on another good episode with a great speaker. I like how you allow the person to speak and make their point without continual interruption. This shows you are a thoughtful person and seek the truth. As far as the primacy of Peter, this is not only in the Gospel of Matthew, but in John 21: 15-17 Jesus gives Peter the chance to affirm him three times after denying him three times. He also tells Peter to "Feed my lambs", "Tend my flock", and "Feed my sheep". No other apostle was told this. As far as Papal Infallibility, we don't think a person is automatically a saint because they were elected Pope. Also, unlike the Dalai Lama, we don't think the Pope is somehow the reincarnation of Christ. Or unlike the Pharaohs of ancient Egypt, or how the Japanese emperor used to be regarded, we don't believe him to be a living god. As Mr. Horn points out, over the centuries there have been Popes who were terrible human beings. There are probably some Popes burning in Hell and deservedly so. However, as bad a people as they were, they never corrupted the dogma of the church. They never said Jesus was just a man, that he never rose from the dead etc. Thus no matter how corrupt the person holding the office of Pope, the office itself was preserved from error.
but all Apostles were feeding their lambs and tending their flocks because they were the shepherds...this is not an argument for Peter primacy..Jesus just gave him ,who had denied Him thrice, the opportunity to come back to the Apostolic office. He was the only disciple who denied the Lord apart from Judas and also he was not the beloved disciple of Christ,neither was he under His Cross like st.John. If Peter was superior to the other Apostles when John and Jacob asked Jesus to sit on the left and on the right of His Throne, Jesus would have told them that Peter was he who would have this privilege,but He did not say it.On the contrary Jesus said them to be humble and also told to ALL APOSTLES,not only to Peter that when He comes again they will sit on twelve Thrones to judge the twelve tribes of Israel...aka full equality among the Apostles. Furthermore,if Peter was superior to the other Apostles,on Pentecost the Holy Spirit would have come to him first and then he would distribute the Holy Spirit to the other Apostles,but this never happened.the Holy Spirit came equally simultaneously to ALL Apostles.
Excellent explanation. I believe Austin is on his way home. Austin God bless you, Church is waiting for you likewise all our separate brothers and sisters
I really enjoyed this video, as all of Austin’s videos. I really love his authentic dialogue skills and inelectual honesty, because it’s something not easy to find even inside owns congregation. I’d like to add a comment from a practical and common sense and experience standpoint as a Catholic. Papacy really works in terms of creating unity and common ground for Catholics in any nation and thanks to it we’ve been able to “trascende” the “constellations” Trent mentioned and I’d add, avoid getting “paralyzed” by nationalism or political changes, even when under totalitarian regimes and dictatorships. Somehow, somewhere, theology kept evolving, religious orders or lay movements would flourish, renewed ideas would circle, on the other side somewhere the church was pursecuted, but they could always count on some sort of the help and guidance from the outside, even in cases of worst isolation or when being forced to go underground. It’s something that greatly helped Catholics under persecution not to get overwhelmed by their own problems and loose the bigger picture. The way I personally see it there’s a slight similitude between the American democracy and the Catholic Church governance: there’s great democracy on all levels (I don’t mean just bishops and the pope, I mean at the governance of religious orders, lay movements, parish councils, ecc.) but at hard times when a democracy becomes “limiting” we turn to presidentialism! We’re paradoxally a democracy and a monarchy at the same time, but it really works out great! If we didn’t have it, we’d be facing many of the problems that orthodox have today.
Although the argument for Peter's primacy has been argued well there have been some omissions. Why does Peter disappear about a third of the way through the book of Acts? There was no biblical evidence for papal succession from Peter to the present day.
@Zachary Trent Indeed! I mean, they should have just come out and directly said "by the way, Peter and all of his successors are infallible you should follow them even Honorius the monothelite heretic" and it would be almost as good as Peter being mentioned more than any other apostles. By the way, the Bishop of Antioch is the direct successor of St. Peter as well. I guess the Bishop of Antioch has infallibility and ordinary universal jurisdiction as well?
@@cjgumbert - You are right ! And Further Papal infallibility was invented in 1870 and only first hinted at in the 13th century as every historian knows and by the spiritual franciscans.
St Augustine put it, ‘I would not believe in the Gospels were it not for the authority of the Catholic Church’ (Against the Letter of Mani Called “The Foundation” 5:6). (Reference)
Thankyou catholic church, thankyou pope damasus. Scripture dosnt provide a inspired table of contents, but God did provide us with a Church and a steward,who provides us with a canon. "Likewise it has been said: Now indeed we must treat of the divine Scriptures, what the universal Catholic Church accepts and what she ought to shun. The order of the Old Testament begins here: Genesis one book, Exodus one book, Leviticus one book, Numbers one book, Deuteronomy one book, Josue Nave one book, Judges one book, Ruth one book, Kings four books, Paralipomenon two books, Psalms one book, Solomon three books, Proverbs one book, Ecclesiastes one book, Canticle of Canticles one book, likewise Wisdom one book, Ecclesiasticus one book. Likewise the order of the Prophets. Isaias one book, Jeremias one book,with Ginoth, that is, with his lamentations, Ezechiel one book,Daniel one book, Osee one book, Micheas one book, Joel one book, Abdias one book, Jonas one book, Nahum one book, Habacuc one book, Sophonias one book, Aggeus one book, Zacharias one book, Malachias one book. Likewise the order of the histories. Job one book, Tobias one book, Esdras two books, Esther one book, Judith one book, Machabees two books. Likewise the order of the writings of the New and eternal Testament, which only the holy and Catholic Church supports. Of the Gospels, according to Matthew one book, according to Mark one book, according to Luke one book, according to John one book. The Epistles of Paul [the apostle] in number fourteen. To the Romans one, to the Corinthians two, to the Ephesians one, to the Thessalonians two, to the Galatians one, to the Philippians one, to the Colossians one, to Timothy two, to Titus one, to Philemon one, to the Hebrews one. Likewise the Apocalypse of John, one book. And the Acts of the Apostles one book. Likewise the canonical epistles in number seven. Of Peter the Apostle two epistles, of James the Apostle one epistle, of John the Apostle one epistle, of another John, the presbyter, two epistles, of Jude the Zealut, the Apostle one epistle.” Pope Damasus (regn. A.D. 366-384), Decree of the Council of Rome, The Canon of Scripture (A.D. 382).
@@ContendingEarnestly That's what I said, the church of Rome has left the one Holy Catholic Church. But I must correct you, there is still one universal Church, that can never change. The fact that the rcc had influenced a great number of people after it had left the Catholic Church, and the fact that it gave birth to Protestantism, does not mean that the Church seized to exist.
Bro I am literally shook. Right when I was getting comfortable with Eastern orthodoxy, here comes Trent Horn making me question everything lol. I had no idea he was Eastern Rite Catholic, honestly I’ve kind of been ignoring that whole caveat because I know it would really get me twisted up. Guess it’s time to find an ERC mass to attend haha
Which of Trent's arguments did you find compelling? As a Roman Catholic convert to Orthodoxy, I thought his arguments were quite weak. I was really expecting better out of Trent. You can see my other comments on this video as a reference, but if you research a more complete view of history and the Ecumenical Councils, etc, you'll see that the belief and mindset was very, very far away from Vatican I (you should read the documents of Vatican I, by the way, very short, about ten pages, but it will demonstrate to you that most Roman Catholics do not even know what their Church teaches about infallibility).
@@cjgumbert well for some insight as to where I’m at - I would say that I have vacated Protestantism so to speak because I believe that authority lies within the visible Church which is led by Holy Scripture, but I haven’t landed anywhere yet and although I am deeply compelled by Eastern Orthodoxy, I think what Trent said about the unifying responsibility of the Bishop of Rome is what really has sparked more questions and desire to dig deeper into really discerning what is true as opposed to defaulting to what seems most comfortable.
Haha didn’t mean to write one massive run on sentence. I’ve been driving for 4 hours and this interview took up the last hour of my drive so my brain is kind of just wiped right now. I’m definitely not persuaded but feel that I need to give some of these assertions greater study. I’ve mostly been surrounding myself with Eastern Orthodox influence and don’t want to leave anything uncovered.
@@DarrylWoody I agree that on the surface, the idea of unity in a visible head seems compelling and intuitive. The only problem is that it doesn't correspond to history, and therefore has no basis in reality. Read the documents of Vatican I and don't accept what most Catholics will tell you about what the Roman Catholic Church teaches about the papacy. Most Roman Catholics don't actually know what Vatican I says, and they'll just give you a watered down version. Moreover, you can see clear contradictions between Vatican II and previous Roman Catholic ecumenical councils, and clear contradictions between the universial ordinary magisterium (defined as "infallible" by Vatican I) of pre Vatican II poes and post Vatican II popes. This is why "traditionalist" Roman Catholics and sedevecantists exist. If you learn more of Church history, read the Church Fathers as primary sources (not quote mining that has been manipulated for an agenda), read the First Seven Ecumenical Councils, etc, you'll see the remarkable consistency with Orthodoxy. The pope as a unifying head only pushes the epistemological problem back a step, because you can't be sure that you're interpreting the pope correctly, especially when there are so many contradictory statements. Moreover, apart of the doctrinal claims of Vatican I is that no one, not even an ecumenical council, can judge a pope. But the problem is that the 5th ecumenical council threatened Pope Vigilius with excommunication for approving of heretical Nestorian writings, and the pope backtracked as a result. The 6th Ecumenical Council condemned Pope Honorius as a monothelite heretic and anathematized him. How is any of this consistent with Vatican I? It's not. Read the Church Father commentaries on Matthew 16 and you'll notice that none of them mention the bishops of Rome as having any special charism. That's because such a belief is not apart of the apostolic faith or the belief of the early Church. To interpret Matthew 16 in such a way is a later Roman Catholic innovation.
@@DarrylWoody No need to apologize, of course. Yes, I think you should definitely cover all your bases and make sure you're making a wise and informed decision about where you convert to. On the Catholic apologist websites, always be sure to look up their quotes by alternative sources (perhaps from the other side) and beware of elipses (...) and brackets [ ] that might be distorting the clearer picture of the quote in question.
Tim Staples helped me come back to the faith. He held a Defending the Faith conference at St Dorothys church in Glendora, CA in 1996. He answered all questions and a few months later.....I came back to the Catholic church.
@@johnyang1420 -that now convinces me why you are so anti any christianity ; except for roman Catholicism ! Tim , must have confused you, I have always had my doubt by these so called Catholic apologists. I am a cradle catholic , and i know Catholicism from the inside out ; they know it from the outside in. They create their own brand of Catholicism by their Catholic answer , which is not always the CAtholic Answer.
@@peterj6740 I am a cradle Catholic and heavily involved in Apologetics. It does not hurt to go deeper into your faith. It gives you the tools to help cafeteria Catholics find their way closer to Jesus and His Church.
@@peterj6740 Peter, another cradle Catholic here. I’m gonna have to take a view contrary to yours of “convert” Catholics. For us born into the Church we’ve never had to stare into the face of truth and ask “what God have I known?” Whether the convert comes from atheism, pseudo Christianity or even Protestantism, it can be jarring to have your world view change so radically. This would be the same experience the earliest Christians must have had. Granted, they also have a joy amounting to that pearl of great price to compensate for loss of friends and even, at times, family, all to follow the Christ in his Church. As for their apologetics, well, I can hardly fault GK Chesterton, Saint Cardinal H Newman or Dr Peter Kreeft. The CA staff represents the faith quite well and they are 90% former protestants, making them familiar with all the views (and vocabulary peculiarities) Protestants have. Thank you to the young man who hosts this program; I think you may be on a journey of your own. Peace be with you.
It’s so bittersweet to see this young, kind hearted and spiritually curious gentleman ask all these questions and seems to be on a great path, yet is not catholic but still Protestant. That’s a bit mind boggling, but I know it takes time. I used to be Protestant for well over a decade, only heard horror caricatures about Catholicism and all the typical 2 Cents polemics against It that sound so devastating but are so embarrassingly bad constructed IF one actually examines them and listen to Catholics actually explain their faith. So it took me probably 2 months of intense study and being open minded before I concluded that I had no arguments left to NOT become catholic. So don’t rush, just stay curious and positive, I pray you find your way “home” to the Catholic Church and enjoy the fullness and beauty of all the historic Christian faith has to offer. It still consider me becoming catholic the best decision after my conversion itself. God bless you
"Fell silent" doesn't imply any sort of papal infallibility. You have to significantly read into the text to find that. Moreover, St. James presided over the Council of Jerusalem in Acts 15, not Peter. I wonder why that was? I thought Peter was the leader?
Moreover, if you read ANY Church Father commentary on Acts 15, NOT ONE of them will mention that this passage has anything to do with the Bishop of Rome or some special role of Peter. So instead of trying to discover what the early Church believed, what the Apostolic tradition truly is, you're putting in a much later innovative Roman Catholic interpretation to this Scripture verse, which is not convincing at all if you're going to claim to be the apostolic Church. It's very protestant, in fact, to be so innovative and non-traditional with your interpretations.
@@cjgumbert it clearly shows the authority of Peter. Peter's name appears in the bible more than all the names of the other Apostles combined. And the second one doesn't even come close. His name always appear first and Judas's name always appears last.
Just because he’s mentioned a lot doesn’t mean the church which claims it was legendarily founded by him has infallibility with its specific bishop. It’s such an obvious power grab.
As a Catholic I have to say this was a great interview. I recently started getting interested in the defence of the faith and doing a bit of work on that with non-Catholic friends and of course in the current situation the Pope and papacy is a hot topic. So this is really helpful in that regard. Thank you both🙂
For Eastern Catholics, since it seems you live in the Chicago area, you would do well to go to St. George's Byzantine Catholic in Aurora, its under the Romanian jurisdiction, but the parishioners are of all ethnicities, so it is less "foreign"
Hey Austin! Thx a lot for your videos! I love the concept of an open-minded protestant interviewing other christians. I like the videos on catholic faith, but the ones on orthodoxy too since I'm "on both sides" (here greek catholic from France ;) ) I'm praying for you and your channel!
Amazing video! I converted from protestantism to Catholocism, and am seriously considering leaving Rome. My biggest problem with papal infallibility is that two popes (Honorius and Vigilius) were either anathematized or deposed by councils during the first seven ecumenical councils for their teaching. The common go-to defense for this is that the pope wasn't speaking ex cathedra, but nowhere in the fathers do we even see the seed of infallibility, so using this defense is both ad hoc and anachronistic. Though I respect Trent an immense amount, I feel like he commits the common fallacy of assuming that from Peter's leadership and authority you necessarily (or eventually) get Peter's ability to infallibly define doctrine. No amount of proof for the former claim amounts to proof of the latter.
Pope Vigilius anathematized people while he was being imprisoned by the emperor for 2 years. He was under duress so infallibility for him doesn’t apply, but I’d say the ordinary magisterium wouldn’t apply either if he was under duress. For Honorius, there was a misunderstanding between the eastern church’s wording of Christ’s two wills and the western church’s wording. Materially they both agreed that Christ had 2 wills, but Honorious wrote to Sergius, who supported Monothelitism, that Christ had one will in the context of saying the human and divine wills are united in Christ. He didn’t say that one was diminished or lacking. Hence, the pope didn’t teach heresy. However, this led to the Council of Constantinople anathematizing pope Honorius but the decree was never ratified by Pope Leo II hence the decision was not infallible. Pope Leo instead wrote that Pope Vigilius inadvertently spread Monothelitism because he used Sergius’ terminology in an orthodox sense, but his understanding of Christ’s two wills was orthodox.
From conception the Church was an OFFICIAL sect within Judaism. When you read Acts 1 and if you are familiar with Halakhah Law you will immediately notice that the Church is a legal entity WITHIN Judaism. There are 3 requirements which are met. Firstly, notice that there are 120 members in this synagogue. Why is this important? It is the exact number of persons in the Halakhah regulations to form a full fledged synagogue. Secondly next according to Halakhah regulations there must be a "beit din" (Hebrew court) formed. We see that there is a beit din and it draws lots and Matthias a disciple is chosen to take over Judas bishopric (episkopen). The first example of Apostolic Succession. So two of the three requirements are met. The third requirement is that there must be a NASI (prince/temporal) and an AB (father/spiritual) appointed. Curiously Peter is filling both these positions in this beit din. Why? In 190 BC the Kohan Gadol (high priest office) fell into apostasy and beit din gadol cast a vote of no confidence splitting the two offices of the kohan gadol into the "nasi" and the "ab" within the Beit Din Gadol. Fast forward to Matt16, in this new Beit Din Gadol (70 disciples) Christ has placed His confidence in Peter (the first AB/father/pope meaning papa) by presenting him the Keys to the temple and bringing the two offices back together the way it originally was. The pope has both temporal and spiritual powers. Peter is the NASI prince of the apostles and the AB/pope (Pope meaning papa - meaning father) as you see even today the pope as Peters documented unbroken apostolic successor is both ‘nasi’ and the ‘ab’ in Catholicism. Christ appointed Peter as His steward with the keys as per Isaiah 22 vs 19-24 and Matt16. Peter is First amongst equals. In the Davidic kingdoms there was always an al-bayith (steward), that is Peters role. Christ also renames Peter (the only Apostle renamed) as Abraham and Jacob were renamed by God in preparation for their specific role in salvation history. First book of Kings lists all the Kings and it always has the royal steward/vizier listed next to the King as well because in the absence of the King he was in charge of the Kingdom. The steward is given the sash/robes/keys to the temple because the role is also a priestly role. The steward would wear the keys around his neck so the citizens of the davidic kingdoms knew who he was. (Rashi/Jewish sage writes a commentary on the priestly role of the steward/vizier and the Keys are the keys of the temple and government). Jesus as the high priest-king instituted a new temple, reinstated the Melchizedek priesthood and chose Peter as His steward and the (rock/Cepha). Christ symbolically replaces the Eben Shetia. The Eben Shetia was the foundation rock of Solomons Temple which the ark lay upon. The Jews believed that this Eben Shetia rock was placed by God's hand during the Genesis creation at the very spot that the holy of holies of Solomons Temple was built and from this spot the rest of creation was spread. Jesus by His hand placed the rock/Peter/Cepha in the middle of the pagan Roman Empire and from there he/his successors, Martyrs and Saints destroyed paganism and installed christianity in its place by the power of Christ and it spread throughout the Roman Empire eventually becoming the State religion (a new creation). Jesus knows the Second Temple will be destroyed, as High Priest and King of the heavenly kingdom He presents the keys to the Temple/government/stewardship to Peter (his successors) to care for His visible church and flock until His return. So are we still a sect within Judaism? No because modern Judaism bears little resemblance to ancient Temple Judaism.
Any Protestant who has a frank and honest disagreement with Catholicism without being obnoxious and insulting has my respect. At last a Protestant who can disagree with Catholicism without saying Catholics are going to Hell!
I am a Catholic, following Austin since the day I discovered the channel. Impressed by a protestant openness in exploring. I love the Orthodox church tour. Thank you Austin. Hope you will share your faith journey too
Thanks! I’ll be sharing some of it in a live stream this Friday!
@@GospelSimplicity Great..looking forward! God bless you brother😘
I am 21 in RCIA right now, and am graduating from college soon, and I just have to say that seeing someone else my age doing similar investigations into the legitimacy of Catholic claims is so refreshing. Love your videos!
So glad to hear that!
Trent Horn is one of the sharpest minds in the Catholic drawer of apologetics. You may want to check out his videos / interviews.
Brandt Petri's books are in indispensable, as are a few others. But read the early church fathers first hand, to be sure you keep their context, as well as content.
Well done Ryan and Jonathan, good luck. I was a cradle Catholic, then from my teenage years, spent years dabbling in other faiths. Eventually I participated in the RCIA course and came home to my own church. Now I am part of my local RCIA team. 🙏🙏🙏
I’m a convert to Catholicism. I used to be evangelical. It was a very difficult transition due to anti-Catholic relatives. I appreciate your search for truth. Trent Horn is very helpful!
Thanks for sharing some of your story!
Why did you choose Catholicism versus say, Orthodoxy? Or had you ever even considered it?
Welcome home.
And are
Catholics anti evangelical?
@@33-vertebrae Yup. Considered it. Some aspects I like better than the Western Church (most can be had in Eastern Rite Churches). But there are also some serious problems.
Lack of central authority has proved a pretty big problem. For instance, "How many times can a man divorce and remarry?" Never? ...NEVER? ONCE? etc.
I was an atheist, then eclectic agnostic, then occultist /mystery religion/ new age spirutality dude, then God opened my eyes to the truth of good and evil, and the pure goodness of life and death of Jesus. Then i gravitated to Protestans and then Calvinist because of John Macarthur and his great speeches, but after learning allot from Jimmy Akins site and books and listening to Catholic Answer i just can't deny Catohlicism is the way annymore. :) PS btw is was raised Catholic so it was a full circle back home lol
What a journey!
Welcome back home!!!
Welcome home, there are many stories like yours just reminds me of the prodigal son
Home is where you truly belong. Welcome back!!❤️🙏❤️
Oo
WOW! Another home run hit out of the park! Your interview skills are top notch, especially being able to keep pace with Trent Horn. I love being a Patreon subscriber and getting early viewings of great videos like this. This one, by far, is my favorite. Thank you for this! And thank you to Trent Horn for letting the Holy Spirit use you to guide so many of us, myself included, into the Catholic faith through your books, radio programs, podcasts and debates. You are both such a blessing!
Thanks Amanda! I really appreciate your support
Austin, you have so much of my respect for how charitable you are.
Thank you so much!
If only more Catholics be like you, bringing the intellect down to your heart.
Wow, thanks
Hurry up and finish your studies! I need help in my ministry,
We’re trying, with the help of the Holy Spirit. ✝️🙏
Another great point made by Catholicism I found fascinating was the claim that Christ overcame the enemy of Israel Pagan Rome by establishing His Church there and turning a pagan nation into one who worships the God of Israel. That's a really solid and true argument. He was truly victorious in His death and resurrection.
That’s a mystery and I think you are correct. So when you leave profane Rome to enter sacred Vatican (the other side of the Tiber River), just after the Angelic bridge (Sant’Angelo) you will see the huge Egyptian obelisk in St Peter Square (put there by the wicked emperor Caligula even before Christ) with an inscription that was composed in the 12th century by St Anthony of Lisbon and Padua:
_”Vicit Leo de Tribu Juda / Radix David / Alleluia”_
(The Lion of the tribe of Judah, the root of David, has conquered! Alleluia!)
That gives you goosebumps even before you get to the beautiful St Peter’s Basilica. Tremendous. Jesus conquered the Pagan world, the “nations”, to be the definitive and eternal King of Israel. So profound and beautiful. I recommend everybody to go to Rome and the Vatican on a trip. Fantastic jaw-dropping city. Those struggling with the theological dimension of our faith, specially the papacy, have a huge chance to leave Rome/Vatican with the doubts responded, at least some of them. I was really touched there.
In Hoc Signo Vinces !!
@@masterchief8179 See from 7:30 mins what you are talkin about: th-cam.com/video/tZzegaJhlSY/w-d-xo.html
To the Romans 1:7, Love and Called by God.
Overcame the enemies of Israel?
Well, in the "Jewish Wars" of the late 60's and early 70's, God used the PAGAN Romans as a tool of retribution and destruction on the Christ rejecting Jews of Israel.
It was later that the Church established itself in Rome. When Paul writes to the believers in Rome, he has not yet been there. Yet somehow, the gospel has reached there without any I fixation of an Apostle as a "founder" there. The area where the Vatican sits was amidst the tombs, and OUTSIDE the city proper. In fact, it remained outside the city, even when Rome somewhat expanded.
You dropped this 👑... king of an ecumenical attitude
Thanks!
As Catholic, I respect and admire your communication, your respect and genuine interest.
Thanks!
Literally was listening to Trent's newest podcast... looked up your youtube channel... and saw that you were currently live with Matt Fradd and caught the end of it. SO RAD. Hahaha! I'm a cradle Catholic with many many nondenominational friends and I'm so grateful for public conversations like these. Happy to follow along. Thank you for this! Praying for you!
Wow Austin, you defiantly got a heavy hitter with Trent Horn. I cant wait to see this episode
Hope you enjoy it!
I see the name TRENT anywhere I just tap it lol
I like it!
Awesome name you have.
@basil ezung, tap Twice if trent and austin 😅 good job
@@alenemely and there you go , they did excellent job as expected 😀
@@GospelSimplicity Jesus knew Peter as weak as we see him denying Jesus three times including not understanding the work of the cross where Jesus says to him “ get away from me satan” hence the chapter where Trent creates analogy on Peter being the greatest in Luke does not make sense ref “ the first shall be last and then points to Peter re sifting.
To encompass papacy with such illustration becomes Swiss cheese .
Think about why John was the only disciple not afraid at the cross all the others fled , you can see John had something the other disciples did not illustrated at the discourse.
It’s almost as if without the papacy the scriptures would of disappeared that Catholicism try’s to project
We know for a fact the term pontiff comes from Romanism not Jesus.
The issue is the papacy is Peter Chair apparently a divine position so to just write off bad popes or state just pray for them is laughable to say the least.
I can see God working in your soul Austin. It would be wonderful to have you in the fullness of faith. God is watching over you in your journey. God bless.
Wow, really looking forward to this! Trent Horn is such a brilliant and kind man. I've been thoroughly enjoying your content, thank you for your efforts!
Glad you enjoy it!
I'm a Catholic and a follower of this channel since I saw your video touring to a beautiful Catholic church in Chicago ❤️
I’m so happy you’ve reached a point where you can attract a Trent Horn. It was really insightful!
Hey Austin, Protestant here very interested in discussing the papacy. I live in central IL - I've got a lot of friends at Moody! Awesome work, great to see a guy my age faithfully and respectably discussing this with someone as intellectually skilled as Horn. Really enjoyed this conversation man, you've got a new watcher!
Glad you enjoyed it! Grateful to have you as a part of the community here
Austin, I am a young man discerning the Latin Rite Catholic Priesthood(only will be offering the Tridentine Mass) I am here for your journey and love your channel and unbias, humble search of the truths of Christianity. One day I hope you come home to the Roman Apostolic see. God bless brother
Fellow seminarian here brother! Praying for you
@@riceninja051 you as well brother! Viva Cristo Rey!
Who knows. do not be surprised if Austin joins you in the Seminary.:)
ICKSP, or FSSP?
Aaron, i will pray! I love my FSP parish
Shocks me that you only have 10k subscribers! Your content is awesome,keep it up!
Shocks me that I have as many as 10k!
I listened to this whole thing on my smart tv on TH-cam, for some reason it did not show the video but only the audio, I’m now seeing there was a video. I will probably watch it now and hear it a second time. Good stuff. I’m a recent convert to Catholicism. Trent is like a Catholic rockstar! I’m enjoying your channel too Austin. Thanks God Bless.
💗
Welcome home brother 🙏 🏡
I love how you are open to exploring Catholicism...and I hope you become a Catholic ♥️
Thanks!
FINALLY! I have waited so long for this videoo. God bless brother
Try to get on Brant Pitre, pH.d, author of at least three books on the OT and Jewish precedents of the Papacy, The Eucharist, and the Blessed Virgin Mary.
I’ve tried. He’s all booked up
@@GospelSimplicity don’t give up lol his books have been crucial in my faith formation.
His books are pivotal for me too. I was considering Orthodoxy and his books convinced me that wasn't necessary or beneficial for me.
Dr. Pitre has been a lot of help in our Apologetics ministryat our Parish. I love his intellectual approach that brings you entrenched in the Church!
Well hi Robert!
Next up: Scott Hahn
I’d love to! His website says he has a $500 booking fee though and that’s way out of my budget
@@GospelSimplicity -- I'd invest $5 in that...
@@michaelavahling5084 I'd pay to see that too. Set up a Go Fund Me!
I would, as well!
@@Paragon468 , good idea!
Oh I loved this, this was amazing. I think i already knew about most of the things Trent brought up (as a relatively new Catholic), but I enjoyed the format and listening to a discussion or interview that is not being done in a hostile manner. Regardless, you do protestants a favour Austin, I sort of feel like maybe we can discuss things without one side having their heads chopped of, when listening to this and that there is hope after all. Thank you for that and for inviting Trent I really like that guy. Now, next up you should invite Jimmy Akin :D -- he is a nerd like me.
Austin, you are becoming my model in the way you gently throw questions on the subject you believe you disagreed, which is very amazing. I started to appreciate Jesus'wisdom to place his successor on earth for His Church.
Wow, that’s so encouraging to hear!
Would you be willing to elaborate further on the term "successor"? If you mean to say that He left His position as Hight Priest to someone else, I would say that you are mistaken; or perhaps His involvement? Either way it doesn't seem likely that Christ would leave behind a successor when He has remained the Head of the Church as High Priest.
(I am not trying to be confrontational, but I know that internet text can come off that way. I am genuinely curious about what you mean by "successor")
You don’t disappoint with all this amazing content !
Thanks!
I would love to see a video about Eastern Catholicism, especially with you Austin. You ask great questions and are incredibly respectful. Looking forward to all your future videos. Keep up the great work!
Working on it!
Bravo, Austin! Thank you for having this interview. You rock!
Glory to God for the time and energy to invest in thoughtful conversations. Glory to God for the apostolic church! Their Holy Traditions give life and hope to the world! However, it gives life and hope through practice. In experience. In tradition and community. And what hurts my heart is that my Catholic family don't have the gifts of prayer, fasting, and almsgiving that my Orthodox conversion has provided. God bless your journey. I enjoy watching it. God will give you what your heart and mind yearns for: the perfect union of Truth and Love. If you're brave enough to embrace it. ☦️ God bless you and keep you!
Very valuable testimony since it is from an ex Catholic friend.. God bless you sister.. He guides the true seekers of truth in His Orthodox Church the only true ancient Church.. But it takes courage to follow the truth not everyone has it...
This is good man, I will pray for you my dear Brother!
Austin, I would love to see Steve Ray in your channel. May God and the Holy Spirit guide you to this journey to the Truth and the Catholic Church.
I’d be open to that
Austin! Thanks for this episode. Your humility to dialogue and be open stands out to me. God can do so much with simple humble souls! Peace be with you!
My pleasure!
This interview is knowledge pack and I learn many things... Thank you Austin
Glad you enjoyed it!
Regardless, you're channel is on fire 🔥 you are a non-stop
One of the things that stood out to me at a protestant before I became Catholic was Christ's prayer for unity in the church. I saw the relative unity of the Catholic Church compared to the myriad denominations and even churches within my own denomination and even members of my own congregation. Not that everyone in Catholicism agrees on everything but we do agree on what we may not disagree on
Thanks for sharing that!
*but we do agree on what we may not disagree on*
Forced compliance isn't unity.
@@ContendingEarnestly Under threat of eternal damnation, you WILL be united! that's God's way.
Amazing explanation of papacy ....thank you
This is a great interview! Thank you Austin!
Glad you enjoyed it!
Really enjoyed this. Watching from Philippines
Wow! This was fantastic! I would love to see Trent come on again... :D and Fr. Danial Dozer!
Oh heck yes I seriously can’t wait for this one!!
Hope you enjoy it!
Can't wait to listen, Trent horn is the best and it will be so cool to see the dialogue!!
Hope you enjoy it!
Some questions that are still left unanswered:
1) If Peter had a primacy of authority why did the Apostles cast lots in Acts after Judas died (ie why not just appeal to Peter)?
2) What Scriptural or historical evidence is there for Peter ever having been in Rome when there is evidence of him being in Antioch?
3) If Peter had a primacy of authority why was he not the first bishop of Jerusalem (James was)?
4) If Peter & his succesor had a primacy of authority over the Church, why do we see decisions of the early Church being made by ecumenical councils, and not simply by an appeal to the Pope of Rome?
5) At the end of his life, shortly before his death, St. Paul, in 2 Timothy 4:11, says that he is alone in Rome (other than Luke). He mentions a dozen people who should be with him. If Peter was the Pope of Rome, why would he not mention him?
6) In 1 Peter 5:13 why does Peter send greetings from Babylon? RC apologists will often say that "Babylon" is actually code for Rome, but that makes no sense when we see that Paul uses the term Rome openly. Also, Peter was not a Roman citizen as was St. Paul, why is it implausible that Peter, a speaker of Aramaic, would go to visit the thriving Jewish community of Babylon (Iraq)?
7) If the Popes had universal jurisdiction over the Church, why do we see no evidence of Roman Popes appointing bishops in other Papal Sees in the first thousand years of Chistianity? (Clue: because they never had the authority to do so).
Thanks Austin🙏👍 Trent Horn, brilliant brilliant apologist👍👍👍
Trent Horn, Jimmy Akin, Tim Staples, everybody at Catholic Answers filled in the dots for me, which completed my journey to the Holy Catholic Church. Thank you guys! Oremus!
Welcome home!!!
The name change concept (e.g. Abram, Jacob, et al) -> had not even occurred to me. Wow 😀
Solidly mind blown by this concept. 🤯
I wonder if that's why popes take on new names.
This was so awesome! Thank you Austin and Trent!!! Sharing!
Me from the future: Welcome to the Church, Austin. Welcome home.
Ha, thanks
I can’t wait to watch two of you guys talking about catholicism so that I can learn more about my faith. Catholic church it has the fullness of truth, founded by God Himself
Hope you enjoy it!
Yeah the fullness of pachamama
@@starcityoldy No actual Catholic who isn't a 'Christmas and Easter' Catholic accepts the apostasy of Pachamamas. It stands out precisely because it is antithetical to the Catholic faith, spirit, sense, etc.
Also just remembered this is my birthday... 😂😂😂 What better gift... GS talking with a famous Catholic apologist... But for real what more could I wish for???
Haha, that’s awesome! How you have a great birthday!
Austin, you're on a roll! Keep going!
I love hearing how the TH-cam algorithm accidentally blew up your channel in Catholic and Orthodox spheres
It's been a wild ride
45:30 Trent says no one gets ordained on their own. My question is in Galatians ch. 1 Paul says for 3 years after his conversion he never sought any authority to ordain him but rather just God's mission. He then meets with Peter and another apostle only and then left and didn't see any apostles again for 14 years. To me this is an example that hey, God can ordain without the authority of other apostles and its more logical in such a vast world of distances today accross millions of miles that some people would have no way to submit to a central point of authority such as a pope, or even know what that is, but God could ordain ministers and pastors that are attainable and reachable to them to lead them.
Trent is the perfect apologist to just make his argument and "drop the mic"
@Harley Mann He'll politely put the mic back to the standing holder.
@@sillybearss 😂😂😂
Interesting to hear your viewer mix. I think for many of us Catholics, Orthodox, and Eastern Catholics, it is fascinating to basically watch you go through the same conversation we went through. I think you will bring many with you to the historical true faith.
Glad you're enjoying it!
Thank you both! ❤️
Brilliant as expected from Trent, and also yourself Austin. Great work! Thank you both.
It's a shame though there wasn't enough time for Trent to answer the 300 questions! I could have listened all night. 🙂
Take care and God bless. 🙏
I'm running so fast for this!
Great job austin , you have something special here
Firstly, thank you for having Trent on, and thank you Trent for being on.
Now for my grievance and other things I would like to add. I wish Trent made more Patristic connections here, but of course, we can spend all day doing that.
Take the thing about all the Apostles getting the Keys but Peter in a special manner, this is discussed by Pope Leo in Sermon 3 & 4 where he sets Peter up as a prototype for all people (clerics) but he is specifically Peter being the Shepherd of Shepherds. That Peter confirms the others.
Take the issue of who is the Rock in Matthew 16. No one, not a single Father distinguished between the Rock in Peter. No Syriac Father does absolutely (see Cyril Benni's book on the Apostolic traditions and Robert Murray's book on the Symbols of the Kingdom) See John Chrysostom on this in Homily 54 of Matthew and Homily 3 on Acts. That Peter is the rock via his confession, it is always both. Augustine even says this and fine-tunes it in his retractations.
I also wish he touched on the Epistemic substantial issue, especially compared to the Eastern Orthodox. That what you have Prima Facie in Scripture is a Governance with an Epistemic nature to rule. You have the College (Apostles) and then the Head of said College (Peter), so when it is asked "Does this reflect the modern Papacy" it's a yes and no. In anything that Develops it gets more smoothed out in its application and discussion. A deeper meditation on the Mystery and Teaching. I always like to think of it as a Ball of Dough. The dough is the same but you take it to its goal, so it's the same but not. We see that the same Substanial Government is set up, so then why does it change? This needs justifying, If there is a College with a Head in the Early Church witnessed by Scripture then it would logically and fittingly continue. With the Eastern Orthodox, it changes to just a College, and with most Protestants, it's just no College. Here we then face an Epistemic issue (Trent touched on briefly) That we have all these definitive things, but no definitive application.
The last thing I wish was touched on more is "First among Equals" is such an oxymoronic statement it has to be said. 'First among Equals" is exactly what we teach! In Vatican I Pius IX said, "It is just not the Pope who is the Church but the Pope in accordance with the Bishops". The Pope is Equal as he is in the College, but First as it's Head. The Body must always listen to it's Head. In a grouping, you cannot have a First who is equal in all manners or it becomes not a FIrst, so by the very accusation of a First, we admit the premise that there is some who is Prime or "Supra-" someone else, or a group of others. Due to this admission then you have prerogatives of the First lacking in others. If all have the same prerogatives then there is no First. In history we can see this in the Patriarchs, how does the First differentiate itself from the others? Seems to be by a special jurisdiction the no other has. Of course, this takes justifying and I think it can be best done by historical proofing, but this is already too long. I believe what echoes this so well is how John Chrysostom describes the Apostles as coryphaeus and singles out Peter sort of as THE coryphaeus. Dom John Chapman goes over this beautifully in his book on the Papacy. In Short, one must have a distinction to be First and only the Catholic Church makes that Distinction, even though Greeks through history tried to give this to Constantinople.
Thanks for reading! Hope this helps!
Thanks for the thorough response and engagement with the video!
I am a traditional catholic. I love your channel.. May God bless you all ways as you continue on your good journey of sharing information .🙏 ✝️ ♥️
Dude you are awesome for this talk with Trent Horn. I appreciate you to the max for this. I really hope to see more videos like these. Great topic by the way. Thank you Austin 👍
My pleasure!
Great discussion important questions intelligent answers this is really good thank you and God bless you both
This reminded me of the joy it is to be Catholic!
Glad you enjoyed it!
@@GospelSimplicity Your channel has been a blessing this year. I thank God for your humility and open heart. Let's hope and pray your work can bring greater unity to the Church, in Jesus's name.
I love how you reply to many comments! I really appreciate your work, keep doing what you are doing.
Trent Horn is Popular so I'm not surprise te see this Video with 19 commercial ads. 😁😁😁
I really enjoyed this interview...thank you!
I was one of those people that had your video's show up on my feed when you went to the Latin Mass! Since then I have been drawn in to your journey. I have to say...I have seen this story before...and the more you educate yourself...and the more arguments you hash out...you are going to come to the same conclusion as Dr. Scott Hahn, Kimberly Hahn, Jimmy Akin, Tim Staples, Steve Ray, Dr. Peter Kreeff, Dr. David Anders, etc...and soon we will be adding Austin's name to the list! May I welcome you home early...because you are well on your way! 🌷
Glad you enjoyed the interview!
Congratulations on another good episode with a great speaker. I like how you allow the person to speak and make their point without continual interruption. This shows you are a thoughtful person and seek the truth. As far as the primacy of Peter, this is not only in the Gospel of Matthew, but in John 21: 15-17 Jesus gives Peter the chance to affirm him three times after denying him three times. He also tells Peter to "Feed my lambs", "Tend my flock", and "Feed my sheep". No other apostle was told this.
As far as Papal Infallibility, we don't think a person is automatically a saint because they were elected Pope. Also, unlike the Dalai Lama, we don't think the Pope is somehow the reincarnation of Christ. Or unlike the Pharaohs of ancient Egypt, or how the Japanese emperor used to be regarded, we don't believe him to be a living god.
As Mr. Horn points out, over the centuries there have been Popes who were terrible human beings. There are probably some Popes burning in Hell and deservedly so. However, as bad a people as they were, they never corrupted the dogma of the church. They never said Jesus was just a man, that he never rose from the dead etc. Thus no matter how corrupt the person holding the office of Pope, the office itself was preserved from error.
but all Apostles were feeding their lambs and tending their flocks because they were the shepherds...this is not an argument for Peter primacy..Jesus just gave him ,who had denied Him thrice, the opportunity to come back to the Apostolic office. He was the only disciple who denied the Lord apart from Judas and also he was not the beloved disciple of Christ,neither was he under His Cross like st.John.
If Peter was superior to the other Apostles when John and Jacob asked Jesus to sit on the left and on the right of His Throne, Jesus would have told them that Peter was he who would have this privilege,but He did not say it.On the contrary Jesus said them to be humble and also told to ALL APOSTLES,not only to Peter that when He comes again they will sit on twelve Thrones to judge the twelve tribes of Israel...aka full equality among the Apostles.
Furthermore,if Peter was superior to the other Apostles,on Pentecost the Holy Spirit would have come to him first and then he would distribute the Holy Spirit to the other Apostles,but this never happened.the Holy Spirit came equally simultaneously to ALL Apostles.
Excellent explanation. I believe Austin is on his way home.
Austin God bless you, Church is waiting for you likewise all our separate brothers and sisters
I have been looking forward to this since I heard about it
Amazing interview. I'm so proud to be a Catholic. May God bless you and your work.
I really enjoyed this video, as all of Austin’s videos. I really love his authentic dialogue skills and inelectual honesty, because it’s something not easy to find even inside owns congregation. I’d like to add a comment from a practical and common sense and experience standpoint as a Catholic. Papacy really works in terms of creating unity and common ground for Catholics in any nation and thanks to it we’ve been able to “trascende” the “constellations” Trent mentioned and I’d add, avoid getting “paralyzed” by nationalism or political changes, even when under totalitarian regimes and dictatorships. Somehow, somewhere, theology kept evolving, religious orders or lay movements would flourish, renewed ideas would circle, on the other side somewhere the church was pursecuted, but they could always count on some sort of the help and guidance from the outside, even in cases of worst isolation or when being forced to go underground. It’s something that greatly helped Catholics under persecution not to get overwhelmed by their own problems and loose the bigger picture. The way I personally see it there’s a slight similitude between the American democracy and the Catholic Church governance: there’s great democracy on all levels (I don’t mean just bishops and the pope, I mean at the governance of religious orders, lay movements, parish councils, ecc.) but at hard times when a democracy becomes “limiting” we turn to presidentialism! We’re paradoxally a democracy and a monarchy at the same time, but it really works out great! If we didn’t have it, we’d be facing many of the problems that orthodox have today.
Will have to watch this one again!
Excellent video! Thanks so much!
Although the argument for Peter's primacy has been argued well there have been some omissions. Why does Peter disappear about a third of the way through the book of Acts? There was no biblical evidence for papal succession from Peter to the present day.
The argument of peter being mentioned more than the other apostles is the best. You really convinced me of papacy with that one.
@Zachary Trent Indeed! I mean, they should have just come out and directly said "by the way, Peter and all of his successors are infallible you should follow them even Honorius the monothelite heretic" and it would be almost as good as Peter being mentioned more than any other apostles. By the way, the Bishop of Antioch is the direct successor of St. Peter as well. I guess the Bishop of Antioch has infallibility and ordinary universal jurisdiction as well?
@@cjgumbert - You are right ! And Further Papal infallibility was invented in 1870 and only first hinted at in the 13th century as every historian knows and
by the spiritual franciscans.
Such a good interview, thank you 👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻
Glad you enjoyed it!
Your audience is awesome sir!
Thanks!
Love this episode and God bless your honesty and bravery Austin.
Glad you enjoyed it!
St Augustine put it,
‘I would not believe in the Gospels were it not for the authority of the Catholic Church’ (Against the Letter of Mani Called “The Foundation” 5:6). (Reference)
Thankyou catholic church, thankyou pope damasus. Scripture dosnt provide a inspired table of contents, but God did provide us with a Church and a steward,who provides us with a canon.
"Likewise it has been said: Now indeed we must treat of the divine Scriptures, what the universal Catholic Church accepts and what she ought to shun. The order of the Old Testament begins here: Genesis one book, Exodus one book, Leviticus one book, Numbers one book, Deuteronomy one book, Josue Nave one book, Judges one book, Ruth one book, Kings four books, Paralipomenon two books, Psalms one book, Solomon three books, Proverbs one book, Ecclesiastes one book, Canticle of Canticles one book, likewise Wisdom one book, Ecclesiasticus one book. Likewise the order of the Prophets. Isaias one book, Jeremias one book,with Ginoth, that is, with his lamentations, Ezechiel one book,Daniel one book, Osee one book, Micheas one book, Joel one book, Abdias one book, Jonas one book, Nahum one book, Habacuc one book, Sophonias one book, Aggeus one book, Zacharias one book, Malachias one book. Likewise the order of the histories. Job one book, Tobias one book, Esdras two books, Esther one book, Judith one book, Machabees two books. Likewise the order of the writings of the New and eternal Testament, which only the holy and Catholic Church supports. Of the Gospels, according to Matthew one book, according to Mark one book, according to Luke one book, according to John one book. The Epistles of Paul [the apostle] in number fourteen. To the Romans one, to the Corinthians two, to the Ephesians one, to the Thessalonians two, to the Galatians one, to the Philippians one, to the Colossians one, to Timothy two, to Titus one, to Philemon one, to the Hebrews one. Likewise the Apocalypse of John, one book. And the Acts of the Apostles one book. Likewise the canonical epistles in number seven. Of Peter the Apostle two epistles, of James the Apostle one epistle, of John the Apostle one epistle, of another John, the presbyter, two epistles, of Jude the Zealut, the Apostle one epistle.” Pope Damasus (regn. A.D. 366-384), Decree of the Council of Rome, The Canon of Scripture (A.D. 382).
@@catholiccrusaderdeusvult6205 Rome 382 as well as Hippo and Carthage were all local councils, not binding on the church. Jerome said this not too much later;
Books of Samuel and Kings
This preface to the Scriptures may serve as a "helmeted" introduction to all the books which we turn from Hebrew into Latin, so that we may be assured that *what is not found in our list must be placed amongst the Apocryphal writings. Wisdom, therefore, which generally bears the name of Solomon, and the book of Jesus, the Son of Sirach, and Judith, and Tobias, and the Shepherd are not in the canon.*
(from Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Series 2, Volume 6, PC Study Bible formatted electronic database Copyright © 2003, 2006 by Biblesoft, Inc. All rights reserved.)
And Jeromes 'list' as he just got done enumerating, is our 39 book canon.
But back then there was only one Catholic Church, and it was the Church that Rome has left.
@@goranvuksa1220 There was one universal church. The rcc is not that church. There is nothing in the n.t. about the rcc. It came much later.
@@ContendingEarnestly That's what I said, the church of Rome has left the one Holy Catholic Church. But I must correct you, there is still one universal Church, that can never change. The fact that the rcc had influenced a great number of people after it had left the Catholic Church, and the fact that it gave birth to Protestantism, does not mean that the Church seized to exist.
Yayyyy Blessings all around. I was psyched when I saw you were interview Trent, he is so awesome God bless y'all
Dr. Brant pitre is on the way
I wish! I tried to book him but he’s all booked out for months
@@GospelSimplicity Worth waiting a few months....100% worth it.
Wow. Good to see Trent .
Thank you brother.
My pleasure
Bro I am literally shook. Right when I was getting comfortable with Eastern orthodoxy, here comes Trent Horn making me question everything lol. I had no idea he was Eastern Rite Catholic, honestly I’ve kind of been ignoring that whole caveat because I know it would really get me twisted up. Guess it’s time to find an ERC mass to attend haha
Which of Trent's arguments did you find compelling? As a Roman Catholic convert to Orthodoxy, I thought his arguments were quite weak. I was really expecting better out of Trent. You can see my other comments on this video as a reference, but if you research a more complete view of history and the Ecumenical Councils, etc, you'll see that the belief and mindset was very, very far away from Vatican I (you should read the documents of Vatican I, by the way, very short, about ten pages, but it will demonstrate to you that most Roman Catholics do not even know what their Church teaches about infallibility).
@@cjgumbert well for some insight as to where I’m at - I would say that I have vacated Protestantism so to speak because I believe that authority lies within the visible Church which is led by Holy Scripture, but I haven’t landed anywhere yet and although I am deeply compelled by Eastern Orthodoxy, I think what Trent said about the unifying responsibility of the Bishop of Rome is what really has sparked more questions and desire to dig deeper into really discerning what is true as opposed to defaulting to what seems most comfortable.
Haha didn’t mean to write one massive run on sentence. I’ve been driving for 4 hours and this interview took up the last hour of my drive so my brain is kind of just wiped right now. I’m definitely not persuaded but feel that I need to give some of these assertions greater study. I’ve mostly been surrounding myself with Eastern Orthodox influence and don’t want to leave anything uncovered.
@@DarrylWoody I agree that on the surface, the idea of unity in a visible head seems compelling and intuitive. The only problem is that it doesn't correspond to history, and therefore has no basis in reality. Read the documents of Vatican I and don't accept what most Catholics will tell you about what the Roman Catholic Church teaches about the papacy. Most Roman Catholics don't actually know what Vatican I says, and they'll just give you a watered down version. Moreover, you can see clear contradictions between Vatican II and previous Roman Catholic ecumenical councils, and clear contradictions between the universial ordinary magisterium (defined as "infallible" by Vatican I) of pre Vatican II poes and post Vatican II popes. This is why "traditionalist" Roman Catholics and sedevecantists exist. If you learn more of Church history, read the Church Fathers as primary sources (not quote mining that has been manipulated for an agenda), read the First Seven Ecumenical Councils, etc, you'll see the remarkable consistency with Orthodoxy. The pope as a unifying head only pushes the epistemological problem back a step, because you can't be sure that you're interpreting the pope correctly, especially when there are so many contradictory statements. Moreover, apart of the doctrinal claims of Vatican I is that no one, not even an ecumenical council, can judge a pope. But the problem is that the 5th ecumenical council threatened Pope Vigilius with excommunication for approving of heretical Nestorian writings, and the pope backtracked as a result. The 6th Ecumenical Council condemned Pope Honorius as a monothelite heretic and anathematized him. How is any of this consistent with Vatican I? It's not. Read the Church Father commentaries on Matthew 16 and you'll notice that none of them mention the bishops of Rome as having any special charism. That's because such a belief is not apart of the apostolic faith or the belief of the early Church. To interpret Matthew 16 in such a way is a later Roman Catholic innovation.
@@DarrylWoody No need to apologize, of course. Yes, I think you should definitely cover all your bases and make sure you're making a wise and informed decision about where you convert to. On the Catholic apologist websites, always be sure to look up their quotes by alternative sources (perhaps from the other side) and beware of elipses (...) and brackets [ ] that might be distorting the clearer picture of the quote in question.
This is a GREAT interview!
You should interview Steve Ray, Tim Staples & Scott Hann next.
Jimmy Akin would also be fantastic!
Tim Staples helped me come back to the faith. He held a Defending the Faith conference at St Dorothys church in Glendora, CA in 1996. He answered all questions and a few months later.....I came back to the Catholic church.
@@johnyang1420 -that now convinces me why you are so anti any christianity ; except for roman Catholicism !
Tim , must have confused you, I have always had my doubt by these so called Catholic apologists.
I am a cradle catholic , and i know Catholicism from the inside out ; they know it from the outside in.
They create their own brand of Catholicism by their Catholic answer , which is not always the CAtholic Answer.
@@peterj6740 I am a cradle Catholic and heavily involved in Apologetics. It does not hurt to go deeper into your faith. It gives you the tools to help cafeteria Catholics find their way closer to Jesus and His Church.
@@peterj6740 Peter, another cradle Catholic here. I’m gonna have to take a view contrary to yours of “convert” Catholics. For us born into the Church we’ve never had to stare into the face of truth and ask “what God have I known?” Whether the convert comes from atheism, pseudo Christianity or even Protestantism, it can be jarring to have your world view change so radically. This would be the same experience the earliest Christians must have had. Granted, they also have a joy amounting to that pearl of great price to compensate for loss of friends and even, at times, family, all to follow the Christ in his Church.
As for their apologetics, well, I can hardly fault GK Chesterton, Saint Cardinal H Newman or Dr Peter Kreeft. The CA staff represents the faith quite well and they are 90% former protestants, making them familiar with all the views (and vocabulary peculiarities) Protestants have.
Thank you to the young man who hosts this program; I think you may be on a journey of your own. Peace be with you.
I will keep you in my prayers
It’s so bittersweet to see this young, kind hearted and spiritually curious gentleman ask all these questions and seems to be on a great path, yet is not catholic but still Protestant. That’s a bit mind boggling, but I know it takes time. I used to be Protestant for well over a decade, only heard horror caricatures about Catholicism and all the typical 2 Cents polemics against It that sound so devastating but are so embarrassingly bad constructed IF one actually examines them and listen to Catholics actually explain their faith. So it took me probably 2 months of intense study and being open minded before I concluded that I had no arguments left to NOT become catholic. So don’t rush, just stay curious and positive, I pray you find your way “home” to the Catholic Church and enjoy the fullness and beauty of all the historic Christian faith has to offer. It still consider me becoming catholic the best decision after my conversion itself.
God bless you
Thanks for sharing some of your story!
In Acts 15:12, the Apostles argued whether a baptized Christian should be circumcized. St Peter spoke and "the whole assembly fell silent".
"Fell silent" doesn't imply any sort of papal infallibility. You have to significantly read into the text to find that. Moreover, St. James presided over the Council of Jerusalem in Acts 15, not Peter. I wonder why that was? I thought Peter was the leader?
Moreover, if you read ANY Church Father commentary on Acts 15, NOT ONE of them will mention that this passage has anything to do with the Bishop of Rome or some special role of Peter. So instead of trying to discover what the early Church believed, what the Apostolic tradition truly is, you're putting in a much later innovative Roman Catholic interpretation to this Scripture verse, which is not convincing at all if you're going to claim to be the apostolic Church. It's very protestant, in fact, to be so innovative and non-traditional with your interpretations.
@@cjgumbert it clearly shows the authority of Peter. Peter's name appears in the bible more than all the names of the other Apostles combined. And the second one doesn't even come close. His name always appear first and Judas's name always appears last.
Just because he’s mentioned a lot doesn’t mean the church which claims it was legendarily founded by him has infallibility with its specific bishop. It’s such an obvious power grab.
@@LordJagd the authority of Peter is clear in the bible. Why didn't you watch the video?
As a Catholic I have to say this was a great interview. I recently started getting interested in the defence of the faith and doing a bit of work on that with non-Catholic friends and of course in the current situation the Pope and papacy is a hot topic. So this is really helpful in that regard. Thank you both🙂
Glad you enjoyed it!
For Eastern Catholics, since it seems you live in the Chicago area, you would do well to go to St. George's Byzantine Catholic in Aurora, its under the Romanian jurisdiction, but the parishioners are of all ethnicities, so it is less "foreign"
Thanks!
Hey Austin! Thx a lot for your videos! I love the concept of an open-minded protestant interviewing other christians. I like the videos on catholic faith, but the ones on orthodoxy too since I'm "on both sides" (here greek catholic from France ;) ) I'm praying for you and your channel!
Glad you're enjoying them! Thanks for your prayers. God bless!
So bummed I missed this live. 🥺
Thank you for this Austin!
My pleasure!
Amazing video! I converted from protestantism to Catholocism, and am seriously considering leaving Rome. My biggest problem with papal infallibility is that two popes (Honorius and Vigilius) were either anathematized or deposed by councils during the first seven ecumenical councils for their teaching. The common go-to defense for this is that the pope wasn't speaking ex cathedra, but nowhere in the fathers do we even see the seed of infallibility, so using this defense is both ad hoc and anachronistic.
Though I respect Trent an immense amount, I feel like he commits the common fallacy of assuming that from Peter's leadership and authority you necessarily (or eventually) get Peter's ability to infallibly define doctrine. No amount of proof for the former claim amounts to proof of the latter.
Thanks! I think those are very fair critiques
Have you checked out Orthodoxy?
Pope Vigilius anathematized people while he was being imprisoned by the emperor for 2 years. He was under duress so infallibility for him doesn’t apply, but I’d say the ordinary magisterium wouldn’t apply either if he was under duress.
For Honorius, there was a misunderstanding between the eastern church’s wording of Christ’s two wills and the western church’s wording. Materially they both agreed that Christ had 2 wills, but Honorious wrote to Sergius, who supported Monothelitism, that Christ had one will in the context of saying the human and divine wills are united in Christ. He didn’t say that one was diminished or lacking. Hence, the pope didn’t teach heresy.
However, this led to the Council of Constantinople anathematizing pope Honorius but the decree was never ratified by Pope Leo II hence the decision was not infallible. Pope Leo instead wrote that Pope Vigilius inadvertently spread Monothelitism because he used Sergius’ terminology in an orthodox sense, but his understanding of Christ’s two wills was orthodox.
Yeah. This is a wonderful interview and very well articulated but is exactly the reason I am moving toward Orthodoxy and not Catholicism.
From conception the Church was an OFFICIAL sect within Judaism. When you read Acts 1 and if you are familiar with Halakhah Law you will immediately notice that the Church is a legal entity WITHIN Judaism. There are 3 requirements which are met.
Firstly, notice that there are 120 members in this synagogue. Why is this important? It is the exact number of persons in the Halakhah regulations to form a full fledged synagogue.
Secondly next according to Halakhah regulations there must be a "beit din" (Hebrew court) formed. We see that there is a beit din and it draws lots and Matthias a disciple is chosen to take over Judas bishopric (episkopen). The first example of Apostolic Succession. So two of the three requirements are met.
The third requirement is that there must be a NASI (prince/temporal) and an AB (father/spiritual) appointed. Curiously Peter is filling both these positions in this beit din. Why?
In 190 BC the Kohan Gadol (high priest office) fell into apostasy and beit din gadol cast a vote of no confidence splitting the two offices of the kohan gadol into the "nasi" and the "ab" within the Beit Din Gadol.
Fast forward to Matt16, in this new Beit Din Gadol (70 disciples) Christ has placed His confidence in Peter (the first AB/father/pope meaning papa) by presenting him the Keys to the temple and bringing the two offices back together the way it originally was.
The pope has both temporal and spiritual powers. Peter is the NASI prince of the apostles and the AB/pope (Pope meaning papa - meaning father) as you see even today the pope as Peters documented unbroken apostolic successor is both ‘nasi’ and the ‘ab’ in Catholicism.
Christ appointed Peter as His steward with the keys as per Isaiah 22 vs 19-24 and Matt16. Peter is First amongst equals. In the Davidic kingdoms there was always an al-bayith (steward), that is Peters role. Christ also renames Peter (the only Apostle renamed) as Abraham and Jacob were renamed by God in preparation for their specific role in salvation history.
First book of Kings lists all the Kings and it always has the royal steward/vizier listed next to the King as well because in the absence of the King he was in charge of the Kingdom. The steward is given the sash/robes/keys to the temple because the role is also a priestly role. The steward would wear the keys around his neck so the citizens of the davidic kingdoms knew who he was. (Rashi/Jewish sage writes a commentary on the priestly role of the steward/vizier and the Keys are the keys of the temple and government).
Jesus as the high priest-king instituted a new temple, reinstated the Melchizedek priesthood and chose Peter as His steward and the (rock/Cepha). Christ symbolically replaces the Eben Shetia. The Eben Shetia was the foundation rock of Solomons Temple which the ark lay upon.
The Jews believed that this Eben Shetia rock was placed by God's hand during the Genesis creation at the very spot that the holy of holies of Solomons Temple was built and from this spot the rest of creation was spread. Jesus by His hand placed the rock/Peter/Cepha in the middle of the pagan Roman Empire and from there he/his successors, Martyrs and Saints destroyed paganism and installed christianity in its place by the power of Christ and it spread throughout the Roman Empire eventually becoming the State religion (a new creation).
Jesus knows the Second Temple will be destroyed, as High Priest and King of the heavenly kingdom He presents the keys to the Temple/government/stewardship to Peter (his successors) to care for His visible church and flock until His return.
So are we still a sect within Judaism? No because modern Judaism bears little resemblance to ancient Temple Judaism.
These people should have millions of subscribers.
Wow, thanks!
Awesome dialogue!
Glad you enjoyed it!
Absolutely awesome!!!!! Great Job!!!
He’s on his way!
Any Protestant who has a frank and honest disagreement with Catholicism without being obnoxious and insulting has my respect.
At last a Protestant who can disagree with Catholicism without saying Catholics are going to Hell!