Italian fella sounds like the old story of “Catholics” who aren’t serious about their faith and then later convert to Protestantism and blame Catholicism for not teaching them anything despite their admittance that they themselves did not do their part.
Every single time. They convert out of the Church saying "I know for sure what and how they think and operate. Also, I never read the Bible before converting which means they don't care about Jesus Christ"
The catholic wrongness is they think Mary provided her fulness of grace. They do not understand that people can do nothing apart from God so they wrongly make Mary the sustainer of grace and make her sinless n then all the other heresies ping off the first heresy. Jesus was clear and did not stutter - ONLY GOD IS GOOD. (She’s a sinful woman). 👩
As a former Protestant now newly Catholic, I recall often debating the same recurring topics with Catholics, which eventually felt redundant. However, taking the time to thoroughly read the Church Fathers alongside Scripture ultimately led me to embrace the Catholic and Apostolic Church.
@@ChristisLord2023 Because I realized that many of the teachings I once debated against were deeply rooted in both Scripture and the writings of the early Church Fathers. Their consistency with the faith handed down from the Apostles helped me see that the Catholic Church is the true continuation of Christ’s Church.
@jaredmelendez7262 perhaps you should start right there with the "handed down" part. Sure a cursory look at history with a Roman Catholic guide only pointing out the parts that support their claims and it sounds true. A deeper look and you realize that it isn't. Have you ever watched the great debates from the 90s and early 2000s where professor of church history Dr James White debated Roman Catholics, including Trent, on all these topics. Now I made 2 other comments on the main comment thread where I pointed out two lies by Trent in the beginning of this. Can I get your opinion on those two lies he told?
@@ChristisLord2023 "Have you ever watched the great debates from the 90s and early 2000s where professor of church history Dr James White debated Roman Catholics, including Trent, on all these topics.:" As a Protestant philosopher I watched all of White's debates. He lost every single one of them and I can prove he lied several times. White is not a source anyone should trust. "two lies by Trent" Trent told no lies.
@@ChristisLord2023 I appreciate your thoughtful response, and I’m familiar with Dr. James White's debates. In fact, I used to rely on similar arguments myself. However, the more I studied the early Church Fathers and compared their teachings with Scripture, the more I realized their theology aligns with Catholicism far more than I initially understood. The concept of 'handed down' is crucial because it reflects the Apostolic Tradition that the early Church Fathers wrote about. They consistently emphasized the role of tradition alongside Scripture, which challenges the idea of sola scriptura. Regarding Trent and the lies you mentioned, I’d be happy to review them and offer my thoughts. Could you clarify what you’re referring to or point me to your comments so I can engage directly?
I’m here from Trent’s channel. Adam was such a gentleman and generous host. I really enjoyed listening to a charitable conversation between Christian brothers. Thank you for making it possible! I feel strengthened and edified by the discussion.
The evangelical speaker was wrong stating that Rome started with no apostolic association, for we know that there were apostles in Rome according to the epistle of Rome: "Greet Andronicus and Junias, my kinsmen and fellow captives, who are noble among the Apostles, and who were in Christ prior to me." Romans 16:7
@@dereklaing2929 Simple, because God has put the apostles first in the Church and then other ministries after, see for yourself 1Corinthians 12:28, and God gives apostles and Prophets to be foundational to the Church, also see Ephesians 2:20. And finally, St. Paul greets 2 apostles in Rome in his epistles as already stated above.
The “Well the Catholics I know just go to church on Sunday and think they’re good” thing is so tired and lazy. This CHRISTIAN problem gets pinned on Catholics like they’re the only congregation with lukewarm believers who only show up one hour a week. Besides, I thought we only need “Faith Alone” so what’s this expectation that Christians have to do anything or be the best Christian they can be? It makes no sense for evangelical Protestants to have this criticism of Catholics.
So true !I’m Catholic and I will agree there are a lot of Luke warm Catholics/Christians. But they act like there no Luke warm Protestants , pot calling the kettle black .
Good point! I see this contradictory rhetoric coming from Protestants all the time. At one time, they assert that Catholics live sinful lives and then they turn around and preach that nothing a believer does has any effect on his/her salvation. Well, which is it?
As a former "anti-Catholic' protestant who is now joining the Catholic church, many of Trent's responses are what helped me see that scripture and Church history actually strongly support the Catholic church!
Loads of self made words and rules in the catholic and orthodox organizations instead of understanding and doing exactly what the Bible says. The true believers in Christ are called The Body Of Christ which IS the only description in the Bible, with Lord Jesus as Head of His Kingdom - not 'church', as church is originally a replacement word for an ‘assembly of believers’ (which can be everywehere). But the word church had become a word for "original true (catholic) believers" and for an institute or organization called the catholic church, erected by….. keep on reading. I was raised a catholic, until…I actually seriously started to read the Bible. We can read in Scriptures that Lord Jesus commanded the Apostles to first preach the Gospel to the Jews, and after also to the Heathen or Gentiles (but never vise versa ! ). I found out in Scriptures who of the Apostles for the first time went to Rome .. and it wasn't Peter. In the Book of Acts it says in Chapter 28 the following: 16 "And when we came to Rome, the Centurion delivered the Prisoners to the Captain of the Guard: but Paul was allowed to live in a house, by himself, with a Roman Soldier that kept him. 17 And it came to pass, that after three days Paul called the Chief of the there living Jews together: and when they came together, Paul said to them: "Men and Brethren, though I have committed nothing against our people, our customs, or against our fathers, yet was I delivered prisoner from Jerusalem into the hands of the Romans 18 who, when they had examined me, would have let me go, because there was no cause of guild in me. 19 But when the Jews spoke against that verdict, I was constrained to appeal unto Caesar; not that I had made any accusations against my Nation. 20 For this Hope (the Gospel of Jesus Christ) therefore I have called for you, to see you, and to speak with you: because for the Hope of Israel I am bound with these chains. 21 The Chief of the Jews said to Paul: "We neither received letters out of Judaea concerning you, neither any of the Brethren that came from there shewed or spoke any harm of you. 22 But we desire to hear of you what you think: for concerning this sect, we know that it is spoken against everywhere". The Roman catholic church claims that it was Peter who went to Rome first to preach the Gospel there first and that it was Peter who founded the catholic church there. Question: who lies? God,... or the Roman catholic church ? And what about the Letter in the Bible from Paul to the Congregation of Galatians where it says this in Chapter 2? From verse 7 we read the following: 7 "But on the contrary, when they saw that the Gospel of the Uncircumcision (Gentiles) was committed unto me, as the Gospel of the Circumcision (Jews) was unto Peter; 8 for He that gave Peter power effectively to the Apostleship of the circumcision (again: the Jews), the Same was Mighty in me toward the Gentiles. 9 And when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the Grace that was given unto me, they gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship; that we (that are Paul and Barnabas) should go unto the Heathen, and they unto the Circumcision. Again dear catholics: who lies? God’s Word, or the Roman catholic church? Bible, the book of Acts, Chapter 5, verse 29 : Then Peter and the other Apostles answered and said: “We ought to obey GOD - rather than man” !! Since the Roman catholic 'church' claims to be well-read on scriptures, then please point me in the direction of where in the Bible it says to pray to a woman, or with a rosary praising Mary, or to dead “saints.” Lord Jesus calls every believer Saints which all are who received the Holy Spirit and confess with their mouth that Jesus is Lord - so Rome has no authority appointing only some people saint - that is ludicrous. Please show me the name ‘pope’ in the Bible? Please show me where it says to call any mortal sinful man (the pope) your father. Please show me where the Bible says anything about purgatory, or paying indulgences (buying yourself into heaven - is God corrupt ?). Please show me where Mary was sinless? Why is it that catholics worship Mary still as a virgin when Lord Jesus had half brothers and half sisters? Mark 6 : 3 "Is this not the Carpenter, the Son of Mary, AND BROTHER OF JAMES, JOSES, JUDAS, AND SIMON? And are not HIS SISTERS here with us?” Matthew 13 : 55-56 "Is this not the Carpenter’s son? Is not His mother called Mary? And HIS BROTHERS JAMES, JOSES, SIMON, AND JUDAS? AND HIS SISTERS, are they not all with us?" Please show me where it says to confess your sins to a fellow sinful man so that he may forgive them? Where does the Bible say the pope is the “vicar of Christ” on earth - how can a sinful man be te replacer of Christ on earth? That is blasphemy ! Show me where it says that a preacher must be unmarried? It was the pagan ROMAN Emperor Constantine (306 - 337 AD) who was in fact the first “pope” who hijacked the first Christian Communion in Rome founded by the apostle Paul, and he didn't allow for the common people to have Bible Scriptures...to keep believers ignorant to stay in power, as the Catholic Church still tries to do. Later pope’s started the ‘inquisition’ because the book printing machine was invented and people like Martin Luther and William Tyndale could spread the Bible in printed form to the common people: they were persecuted by Rome and many of them burned to dead for that by decree of Rome, and so were hundreds others who did the same as they denounced the FALSE doctrines of Rome. Rome called them heretics and witches while they murdered Christians who loved Jesus and true Scriptures. THESE ARE HISTORICAL FACTS. PLEASE GET OUT OF THIS FALSE CHURCH !!! The Roman catholic “church” is a continuation of the old Roman PAGAN Empire: it never went away as it disguised itself as a Christian Church. The pope, cardinals and bishops wear a Mitre - which odd head dress comes from the old pagan Rome priests representing a FISH BEAK god (I suggest you search for that). Read Revelation, Chapter 17: verse 7, 8 and 9…Read also Revelation 18 to see what God will do to this “church.”
He is our creator, we can't live without him, but we are born in a limited body which means we arent perfect while God is perfect, he created us, he is our *heavenly* father but we are limited since we are offsprings of humans, it is written "no one is just, only God [Jesus]
@David-o8u9k If God could create Adam and Eve without sin, He can certainly create Mary without sin. How, you ask? By miracle, as He incarnated Himself by miracle, without sin.
The catholic wrongness is they think Mary provided her fulness of grace. They do not understand that people can do nothing apart from God so they wrongly make Mary the sustainer of grace and make her sinless n then all the other heresies ping off the first heresy. Jesus was clear and did not stutter - ONLY GOD IS GOOD. (She’s a sinful woman). 👩
By the third part covering the Papacy, unfortunately the doctor went off the deep end and embarrassed himself. No scripture or intertextual evidence for his claims, unlike Trent who sprinkled everything he said with Biblical quotes.
@@ASR-n6d Actually engage with the comment instead of lobbing ad homs. Thank you. And please...don't bother using Scott Hahn apologetics. He's a Vatican 2 Catholic.
"Ecclesiastical precedent"? The Dr didn't cite any ecclesiastical figure as an exampld or any historian or Church Father as evidence for his claims while Trent had Scripture and Church Fathers as divine and historical evidence, respectively, for his view.
Hail Mary full of grace the Lord is with thee blessed art thou amongst women and blessed is the fruit of thy womb Jesus. Holy Mary Mother of God pray for us sinners now and at the hour of our death. Amen.
@@AlexisHernandez-f7s Exactly just ugh why would you give marry so much honor that she is never described to have the best description you have is she being blessed above all women because she bore the messiah Other than that in Jesus entire ministry she did not get special treatment
Trent Horn’s summary of apostolic succession and the papacy (48:00) was all class. Leonardo was out of his depth. His response to Trent at 51:20 was filled with vague platitudes and lacked any clear reference to Scripture or history.
I find it interesting that Dr De Chirico is a lapsed Catholic who is now a Protestant Pastor while Trent was a Protestant who is now a Catholic apologist. It follows the saying that bad/weak Catholics become Protestant, while well informed and well researched Protestants make excellent Catholics!
So true. Every single time. Every Protestant "convert" from Catholicism: "In my Church, they banned the Bible and told us Jesus mattered less than Mary and forced us to pray to and worship saints. I never heard the gospel until my charismatic nondenominational baptist church. They had an altar call and I prayed the sinner's prayer." The opposite: "I read the Church Fathers."
After a year of RCIA I remained a Protestant because it confirmed ALL of my major concerns about Roman Catholicism (RC) at the time. I find it so interesting to read an RC scholar demonstrate historical development of 90% of RC theology, and then read an RC apologist, like Trent, who says it was all there in the beginning. Which one is it? Maybe it's hidden in some unrevealed father's writing/tradition, or waiting for a council to proclaim it. Even a Pope wrote how the fathers are not guarantors of the RC faith because what once was to believed to be historical in nature isn't supported by an unbiased reading of the fathers.
A Protestant can only become Catholic if he has no relationship with Christ then he will hunger for some mystical rituals. But if Christ is in you, the hope of Glory, then you have fellowship continually with Him and you cannot be seeking for super experiences. Worshipping the father is not localised to a Church but anywhere you are able to worship Him in Spirit and truth!
"Where the Bishop appears there let the people be. Just as where JESUS CHRIST IS there is THE CATHOLIC APOSTOLIC CHURCH " St.Ignatius of Antioch 107 🔑⛪️🍞🍷📿📖🕊
As a Prot I appreciate Mr Horn at first pointing out it's not possible, fairly, to compare a church= Rome to an ecclesiastical movement= Protestantism. Thanks Mr. Horn.
This was a great conversation. Not sure how Dr. Chirico came out of this without questioning his protestant beliefs. Mr. Horn was charitable and yet entirely devastating. Thank you for sharing.
We fly to thy patronage, O Holy Mother of God; despise not our prayers in our necessities, but ever deliver us from all dangers, O glorious and Blessed Virgin. Amen
@markrutledge5855 Why can't I pray to Mary? Prayer is asking a request -Christians are commanded to pray for each other -the effectiveness of prayer depends on your piety -Mary is the most holy human to ever exist -the saints in heaven are shown in Scripture in the book of revelation to intercede for Christians on earth -intercession of saints is also a tradition from the apostles which scripture commands us to obey Given these facts, I would be a fool not to ask for Mary's intercession
I think in some cases this ongoing rift is caused by a difference between Catholics and Protestants in what the definition and concept of “praying” means. When you are raised in a Protestant church/family, if one is to pray, it has a narrow and specific meaning where a believer is speaking to or appealing to God about something. The word and God go hand in hand. The very act of prayer is in most cases a direct appeal for Gods power or influence over something. When you are raised Catholic, your understanding of what it means to pray is more broad, you are taught a wide number of recitations that are a tradition in the Church, these can range from direct appeals to Jesus himself all the way to asking St. Anthony about your misplaced car keys. The very definition of prayer is understood as an appeal to Heaven, to honor or speak to one figure who has achieved a high esteem in the eyes of God, and a lot of the time prayer doesn’t mean an appeal for the power or influence of God over your/someone’s life. It’s an appeal for a figure who God has worked through and shown His love to in hopes that God might be closer with them up in Heaven than you down on earth.
@@alisterrebelo9013 _"Why is cannibalism morally wrong?"_ Hmmm, I had to search around to consider it... I remember reading about that soccer team that crashed in the Andes on a flight and was written about in the novel, "Alive!". That instance was celebrated. Assuming you're referring to a corpse, it's just gross. Just like incest is. Perhaps that is a built-in instinct to not do it. There are health reasons to avoid it.
@@alisterrebelo9013 _"To be clear I'm NOT equating cannibalism with Christianity."_ Jesus: "Whoever gnaws my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink." (John 6:53) Conference of Catholic Bishops: "The Eucharist is the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ truly present on the altar under the appearances of bread and wine."
@@EvilXtianity None of that response provided a moral grounding against cannibalism. You expressed a subjective preference, which I acknowledge is your personal preference. Without a moral grounding, you cannot enforce your subjective preference upon me. To be clear, a moral grounding must be from an objective standard, and considerations such as smell taste etc are subjective preferences. I applaud that you cite Catholic sources! However you have made a category error. And that makes your claim of cannibalism of the Eucharist wrong on at least one front, and a major concession which I'd like you to confirm. The Eucharist and meat/flesh exist in two distinct categories. Meat/flesh have two attributes, its accidents (sensory features such as smells, taste, appearance etc.) and it's substance (what subsists in itself and is the subject of accidents). In meat/flesh, the substance is meat/flesh, and its accidents are those naturally to be expected of flesh/meat I.e. bloody, tough, etc. The Eucharist on the other hand has all the accidents of bread and wine, but the substance is transubstantiated to the substance of the body, blood, soul and divinity of Jesus. Cannibalism is defined as the eating of that which is BOTH by appearances AND by substance that of human flesh. Error 1 - The Eucharist doesn't fall under the definition of human flesh, therefore it is not cannibalism. Major concession - By accepting that the Eucharist transubstantiates, you are conceding Catholic theology to be true. Do you concede this? If you don't concede this, then in your worldview we are eating bread and drinking wine, so your claim of cannibalism is false.
The devil hates Mary because she is a creature who had a role in our salvation. She is our best intercessor. We can never honor Mary more than her Son Jesus Christ. It is God who gave us the commandment “honor your father and mother”.
You don’t need an intercessor you have Jesus. What do you need Mary for? To have a better life ? You only have 80 years here and Jesus and his salvation is good enough. What can Mary give you? The bigger question is what are you trying to get out of Mary? Y’all just use her for extra blessings. I’m blessed enough by having a savior that’s all I need.
The ancient Israelites over and over insisted on adding worship of Asherah side-by-side with the Lord God, because culturally humans feel like there "should" be a Queen of Heaven (the literal title of Asherah). It was paganism then, it's paganism now. Jesus honored Mary because of her obedience to God (Matthew 12:47-50), not because of any special role as mother. He makes it very clear. "And pointing to his disciples, he said, 'Here are my mother and my brothers! For whoever does the will of my Father in heaven is my brother and sister and mother.'" Mary is no more intercessor than John, Peter, Mark, Luke, Paul, or any other Christian brother or sister. As an obedient, righteous woman, Mary herself would not want people treating her as a replacement for God. And yes, Mary played a role in salvation, just like Ruth did, or David did, or John the Baptist. There are many individuals who showed faith, righteousness, and obedience, and paved the way for Jesus and our salvation. Mary *should* be honored and remembered, just like Stephen should (also called "full of grace", same original words used), but she should not be worshipped as even a lesser "god" (in practice even if not in name), through what is reserved for God alone: prayer. We *ask* people to pray *for* us, and maybe that can include those who have passed on to be with the Lord (even though in the hundreds of examples of righteous prayer in the Bible, there are zero of this...), but we cannot pray *to* anyone besides God alone. That is idolatry and sin. Catholicism has many strengths, unity probably chief among them. But it is not perfect, and is not the entire, sole church that Jesus founded. He did not tear down one physical temple to replace it with a new physical one, but rather came so we can worship in "Spirit and truth". The body of Christ encompasses all believers, Catholics included, Protestants included. But just being in the church together with each other as one big family doesn't mean we're all perfect. We should all stop trying to play defense with apologetics on areas of sin and just acknowledge that what is wrong is wrong and repent of it.
Former Italian Protestant philosopher here. I know and respect Dr. De Chirico, probably the most influential pastor-theologian in Italy, but honestly he was destroyed by Trent, in every respect (use of Scriptures, history, theology) and in every question (Mary, Sola Scriptura, Papacy, Ecclesiology). I would never have expected De Chirico to reject the authority of St. Ignatius
" I would never have expected De Chirico to reject the authority of St. Ignatius" Especially as St Ignatius was taught by St John. A great example of - he (St Ignatius) - who hears you (St John) - hears me (Jesus)
As a philosopher you respect him, or as a fellow human being? With respect, I was genuinely surprised by his amateurism. Peace be with your spirit, brother.
The catholic wrongness is they think Mary provided her fulness of grace. They do not understand that people can do nothing apart from God so they wrongly make Mary the sustainer of grace and make her sinless n then all the other heresies ping off the first heresy. Jesus was clear and did not stutter - ONLY GOD IS GOOD. (She’s a sinful woman). 👩
Massive Trent Horn W here, the prot was woefully underprepared and only offered up the typical talking points about mary. Trents understanding of Mariology, Christology and early Church history showed he was a class above here.
It's called "Scott Hahn apologetics". The former Catholic dude is alluding to passages from Ecclesiastical rulings that Vatican II Catholics don't even read anymore!
@@Notouchs Mmmm, it depends. Are you a papist? If not, then you can't really call yourself a Catholic--well...you could...but you'd have to call yourself a Vatican 2 Catholic :)
That Protestant guy was out of his depth, he couldn’t answer a single question once Horn started asking him questions and broke up his rambling speeches about why he thinks Catholics are wrong.
"I am not advocating for an ecclesiastical belonging to a particular church". That sums it up. However Jesus did advocate the belonging and unity with the church He built upon Peter to whom He gave the keys to heaven. 2000 years later the Pope and the Catholic Church are still obliging and advocating the same.
Loads of self made words and rules in the catholic and orthodox organizations instead of understanding and doing exactly what the Bible says. The true believers in Christ are called The Body Of Christ which IS the only description in the Bible, with Lord Jesus as Head of His Kingdom - not 'church', as church is originally a replacement word for an ‘assembly of believers’ (which can be everywehere). But the word church had become a word for "original true (catholic) believers" and for an institute or organization called the catholic church, erected by….. keep on reading. I was raised a catholic, until…I actually seriously started to read the Bible. We can read in Scriptures that Lord Jesus commanded the Apostles to first preach the Gospel to the Jews, and after also to the Heathen or Gentiles (but never vise versa ! ). I found out in Scriptures who of the Apostles for the first time went to Rome .. and it wasn't Peter. In the Book of Acts it says in Chapter 28 the following: 16 "And when we came to Rome, the Centurion delivered the Prisoners to the Captain of the Guard: but Paul was allowed to live in a house, by himself, with a Roman Soldier that kept him. 17 And it came to pass, that after three days Paul called the Chief of the there living Jews together: and when they came together, Paul said to them: "Men and Brethren, though I have committed nothing against our people, our customs, or against our fathers, yet was I delivered prisoner from Jerusalem into the hands of the Romans 18 who, when they had examined me, would have let me go, because there was no cause of guild in me. 19 But when the Jews spoke against that verdict, I was constrained to appeal unto Caesar; not that I had made any accusations against my Nation. 20 For this Hope (the Gospel of Jesus Christ) therefore I have called for you, to see you, and to speak with you: because for the Hope of Israel I am bound with these chains. 21 The Chief of the Jews said to Paul: "We neither received letters out of Judaea concerning you, neither any of the Brethren that came from there shewed or spoke any harm of you. 22 But we desire to hear of you what you think: for concerning this sect, we know that it is spoken against everywhere". The Roman catholic church claims that it was Peter who went to Rome first to preach the Gospel there first and that it was Peter who founded the catholic church there. Question: who lies? God,... or the Roman catholic church ? And what about the Letter in the Bible from Paul to the Congregation of Galatians where it says this in Chapter 2? From verse 7 we read the following: 7 "But on the contrary, when they saw that the Gospel of the Uncircumcision (Gentiles) was committed unto me, as the Gospel of the Circumcision (Jews) was unto Peter; 8 for He that gave Peter power effectively to the Apostleship of the circumcision (again: the Jews), the Same was Mighty in me toward the Gentiles. 9 And when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the Grace that was given unto me, they gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship; that we (that are Paul and Barnabas) should go unto the Heathen, and they unto the Circumcision. Again dear catholics: who lies? God’s Word, or the Roman catholic church? Bible, the book of Acts, Chapter 5, verse 29 : Then Peter and the other Apostles answered and said: “We ought to obey GOD - rather than man” !! Since the Roman catholic 'church' claims to be well-read on scriptures, then please point me in the direction of where in the Bible it says to pray to a woman, or with a rosary praising Mary, or to dead “saints.” Lord Jesus calls every believer Saints which all are who received the Holy Spirit and confess with their mouth that Jesus is Lord - so Rome has no authority appointing only some people saint - that is ludicrous. Please show me the name ‘pope’ in the Bible? Please show me where it says to call any mortal sinful man (the pope) your father. Please show me where the Bible says anything about purgatory, or paying indulgences (buying yourself into heaven - is God corrupt ?). Please show me where Mary was sinless? Why is it that catholics worship Mary still as a virgin when Lord Jesus had half brothers and half sisters? Mark 6 : 3 "Is this not the Carpenter, the Son of Mary, AND BROTHER OF JAMES, JOSES, JUDAS, AND SIMON? And are not HIS SISTERS here with us?” Matthew 13 : 55-56 "Is this not the Carpenter’s son? Is not His mother called Mary? And HIS BROTHERS JAMES, JOSES, SIMON, AND JUDAS? AND HIS SISTERS, are they not all with us?" Please show me where it says to confess your sins to a fellow sinful man so that he may forgive them? Where does the Bible say the pope is the “vicar of Christ” on earth - how can a sinful man be te replacer of Christ on earth? That is blasphemy ! Show me where it says that a preacher must be unmarried? It was the pagan ROMAN Emperor Constantine (306 - 337 AD) who was in fact the first “pope” who hijacked the first Christian Communion in Rome founded by the apostle Paul, and he didn't allow for the common people to have Bible Scriptures...to keep believers ignorant to stay in power, as the Catholic Church still tries to do. Later pope’s started the ‘inquisition’ because the book printing machine was invented and people like Martin Luther and William Tyndale could spread the Bible in printed form to the common people: they were persecuted by Rome and many of them burned to dead for that by decree of Rome, and so were hundreds others who did the same as they denounced the FALSE doctrines of Rome. Rome called them heretics and witches while they murdered Christians who loved Jesus and true Scriptures. THESE ARE HISTORICAL FACTS. PLEASE GET OUT OF THIS FALSE CHURCH !!! The Roman catholic “church” is a continuation of the old Roman PAGAN Empire: it never went away as it disguised itself as a Christian Church. The pope, cardinals and bishops wear a Mitre - which odd head dress comes from the old pagan Rome priests representing a FISH BEAK god (I suggest you search for that). Read Revelation, Chapter 17: verse 7, 8 and 9…Read also Revelation 18 to see what God will do to this “church.”
As a son from an Italian Catholic family and upbringing with little or no knowledge about my faith, after starting to learn from apologists like Trent Horn, Jimmy Akin, Scott Hahn, Brian Pitre and others (most ex-protestants) a couple of years ago, I was quite surprised to see how pastor Leonardo did not have complelling arguments against Catholicism on this debate. His stance was very subjective and generic. From a protestant perspective who bases all his beliefs in sola scriptura, he could not really cite solid biblical or even historical bases to validate protestantism. I am very glad I live in a place where there is a strong revival in the USA to learn apologetics and substantiate our beliefs in the Catholic faith as the only body founded by Jesus Christ. Mi dispiace pastore Leonardo, ma con tutto il rispetto, veramente non ho trovato un'altra volta in questo dibattito, che anche se rispettuoso e amichevole, argomenti validi per giustificare il protestantismo, come ancora non li ho trovato fine adesso da nessun altro protestante. In tutti casi, i mie rispetti. Che Dio vi benedica e illumini il vostro cammino verso la verità. To Trent Horn, great job. Go more aggressive next time though 😉
Complimenti per il post. Anch'io cattolico dalla nascita in Africa e vivendo in Italia mi sono accorto da 2/3 anni a questa parte seguendo questi giganti della apologetica cattolica della ricchezza della nostra fede cattolica. Deo Gratia!! E la coltivo ogni giorno per aiutare anche la mia comunità. Il sacerdote Luis Toro del Venezuela che ho anche conosciuto sui social dice spesso "cattolico non formato è futuro probabile protestante" alla fine il grosso problema del protestantesimo è quello dell'allergia all'autorità ed è un misto di eresie già smantellate in passato dalla chiesa che oggi ritornano sotto mentite spoglie.
De Chirico’s critique reveals the deeper inconsistencies within Protestantism: Dismissing Irenaeus as 'Simply Wrong': By claiming Irenaeus was "simply wrong" about Peter and Paul founding the Church in Rome, De Chirico exemplifies a key issue in Protestantism: historical authorities don’t count if their testimony doesn’t align with Protestant assumptions. Irenaeus, a Church Father one generation removed from the Apostles, carefully defended the Apostolic tradition in his writings. To dismiss him outright undermines the historical continuity Protestants claim to respect when citing the Bible, which these same Church Fathers helped preserve. Authority and Apostolic Approval: De Chirico avoided providing any biblical example of a church leader starting a community without Apostolic approval or ordination. The New Testament (e.g., 2 Tim 1:6, Acts 1:26, Titus 1:5) clearly shows that authority was conferred by Apostles or bishops-not self-assumed. If Apostolic approval was the biblical standard for leadership in the early Church, how can Protestants justify the thousands of independent denominations led by self-appointed leaders today? Sola Scriptura’s Contradictions: Sola scriptura collapses under its own weight when we consider that the Reformers removed seven books from the Old Testament canon, books accepted by Christians for over 1,000 years. If the Bible is the sole authority, by what authority were these books removed? This makes sola scriptura a subjective principle, contingent upon the whims of post-Reformation editors rather than Apostolic tradition. Disunity in Practice: Christ’s prayer in John 17:21 was for His followers to be unified, just as He is one with the Father. Protestantism, however, has splintered into over 30,000 - 40,000 denominations worldwide, each with conflicting doctrines. This chaos is the direct result of rejecting the Apostolic structure Christ established in His Church. Unity Through Apostolic Tradition: Unity requires an unbroken chain of leadership going back to the Apostles, a concept the early Church Fathers like Irenaeus and Ignatius consistently defended. Protestantism’s rejection of this structure ultimately undermines the unity Christ intended for His Church.
@@anuradhakadam7907It says: “For whosoever shall do the will of God, he is my brother, and my sister, and mother.” (Mar 3:35, DRC) “And Mary said: Behold the handmaid of the Lord: be it done to me according to thy word. And the angel departed from her.” (Luk 1:38, DRC) Checks out.
@@eplongmichael8880 Where in the bible is this line as a person would need to know the context in which it is used or better still send a text to Trent or someone like Sam Shamoun who would know even the translations.
It seems like Catholics and Protestants, including Evangelicals have a lot to think and learn from each other. Douglas M Beaumont writes the book With One Accord - Affirming Catholic Teaching Using Protestant Principles. It is eye-opening to see that the Protestant arguments are not completely full proof and airtight. While the book is obviously Catholic in its view, it’s still an enlightening read for Protestants to see that summary slogans about faith alone, and scripture alone, while essential, do not explain a lot of the religious reality Christians of different stripes may need to address. Happy reading.
That protester said it all when he admitted that he was a catholic along with his family but didn’t learn anything about what the Catholic Church teaches along with his parents this is the problem with numerous Catholic’s who go through the very same thing and end up leaving the Catholic Church because they had no spiritual upbringing through their parents because of their parents weren’t faithful and obedient to learn of the enormous teachings of the Catholic Church and that opens the door for protester’s to take advantage of unlearned Catholics and that’s a fact?😳
It's funny cause we say thr same thing in Protestant circles. For many people when they are exposed to something they never heard before it shakes their world. And they are more easily persuaded.
@@andrewsantillan6020 True. Most converts to Protestantism, from what I've heard, hadn't been properly catechised whereas many Protestant converts to Catholicism (including many well known pastors and preachers) are those who despite being well versed discover through study that they'd been misled.
@@Vigula I guess you've heard wrong then. As a Protestant pastor I have many former Roman Catholics in my congregation and they completely understand what they had been taught. They've just come to realization that some of what they had learned was wrong.
@@markrutledge5855 Understanding what is believed is not the same as why it is believed. If you really understand why, there's no way to remain or become Protestant.
I am always shocked to hear how poor of arguments Protestant apologists are able to make. While I have no doubt of the sincerity of this individual advocating against the Catholic Church, it is just painful to listen to the continual logical fallacies and how much history and context must be dispensed with in order to support the position. It is really no wonder why young men and many people in general are departing non-denominational and other Protestant denominations en masse. To the Protestant pastor reading this comment; I urge you to not be dismissive of this very real phenomena and to be charitable if you are approached by people curious about the Catholic faith.
🛑 44:16 Trent already believes in Marian doctrines (Perpetual Virginity) that contradict the scripture. “While Jesus was still talking to the crowd, his mother and brothers stood outside, wanting to speak to him. Someone told him, “Your mother and brothers are standing outside, wanting to speak to you.” He replied to him, “Who is my mother, and who are my brothers?” Pointing to his DISCIPLES, he said, “Here are my mother and my brothers. For whoever does the will of my Father in heaven is my brother and sister and mother.” Matthew 12:46-50 NIV
@@thucydideanza3605 your case is not well rested. @elina5 makes the point that mary is the same as His other followers, she is a sinner like us all, she is forgiven, she is a disciple, so are you and I. In the big scheme of things, she not that big of a deal.
@gloriapatriparcedomineIntercessions FOR people would still go through Jesus. So that passage in Timothy in no way supports the idea that we are to pray TO saints or Mary. In fact zero verses say that.
A mediator is a go between for two parties. Christ mediates to the Father . The saints intercede to Christ... Romans says "the Spirit intercedes for us as we know not what to pray" so either: -Jesus IS the holy spirit and the Trinity is false -or an intercessor and a mediator are two different categories. And the saints intercede to Christ rather than mediating between the two parties as Jesus ALONE does. You pick
@@lakerfan0243we acknowledge prayers of Saints go through Jesus. Amen The saints are said in revelation to be seated with Christ on His throne to "judge and rule". It seems *ludicrous* to deny that the Holy Spirit may grace us to send prayer requests to our glorified brother and sisters to pray WITH us to the LORD Considering they sit on authoritative seats beside our Lord. And considering we see prayer given to saints in heaven in Revelation
@@lakerfan0243 you really don't get it. You are missing the point clearly and really don't understand the bible in a Jewish perspective. It's funny how you say this or quote scripture but yet the early Christians and Church did pray or ask for prayers with Mary and Saints. Oh yes and Jesus as well. YOU FORGET THAT BEFORE THE BIBLE WAS CANONIZED BY THE CATHOLIC CHURCH. JESUS LEFT HIS CHURCH FIRST ALONG WITH THE CHURCH TRADITION. COMMMMMON. It's not rocket science. Just basic early Christians History 📖⛪️🍞🍷🔑📿🕊🙏🏻
@@RedRoosterRoman 1. Jesus is the only Mediator between God and humanity. 1 Tim. 2:5,6, Jn. 14:6, 17:1-3. 2. Yes, both Jesus, the Messiah, and the Holy Spirit intercede on behalf of true believers in Jesus. Heb. 7:25, Rom. 8:26. 3. The one, true God is clearly a Tri-Unity of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Matt.3:16,17, 28:18-20, Jn.14:16,17, 2 Cor. 13:14, Isaiah 48:16.
Listening to Dr. Leonardo De, I was just wondering: what was his doctorate degree about? The way he answered most of the questions felt like he wasn’t sure enough or didn’t care about the depth of the topic but was answering just because he had to.
I'm sure I missed some things, but here's notes I took from the debate. Just some personal reflection: it seems to me that Dr. De Chirico did a good job of articulating what the Protestant concerns about Catholicism are but he didn't make a whole lot of arguments for those concerns. As Horn pointed out, their disagreement was really over sola scriptura, and most of Dr. De Chirico's case rested on the assumption that sola scriptura was true. This was his main argument against Marian devotion, for instance: that it isn’t found in Scripture. Horn argued that sola scriptura itself is not a biblical principle and that, instead, the Catholic view of a Church that Jesus gave His authority to is. Without an agreement on whether the source of our doctrine is the Church and Scripture or Scripture alone, there wasn't a whole lot of progress possible on specific doctrinal issues. Thank you to both Dr. De Chirico and Trent Horn for the cordial debate! :) MARY Dr. De Chirico's arguments -Mary disappears from Scripture after Jesus’ ascension, which he feels points to her role being confined to Jesus' life -The Biblical portrait of Mary doesn’t include Catholic Mariology -The veneration of Mary takes away from Jesus -Marian doctrines developed over time to confirm to devotional practices rather than the other way around Horn's arguments -The most honorable of all creatures is the one who gave birth to Christ. Also Mary herself says “all generations will call me blessed” - Mary is the mother of God. If you deny this, you have to deny essential elements of Christology, and thishas been overwhelming affirmed by Christians. -The oldest Christian liturgical prayer is to Mary (3rd century) - Mary's role is to lead people to her Son -The oldest Christian liturgical prayer is to Mary INTERSESSION OF THE SAINTS Dr. De Chirico's arguments -God is capable of hearing and responding to prayers without intersession of saints -There is nothing in Scripture about praying to the dead Horn's arguments -We ask people alive on earth to pray for us, and the people in heaven are alive too. Why not ask them to pray for us? SOLA SCRIPTURA Dr. De Chirico's arguments -Multiple Scriptures that talk about the inspiration and importance of Scripture -Jesus appealed to "what is written" -The imoprtance of the Word of God, which he argues is confined to the written word Horn's arguments -Sola Scriptura fails its own test because it is not found in Scripture -Christian teaching was first primarily spread through oral teaching -Paul says, “Hold fast to the teachings given to you, either by letter or by Word of mouth -The early church didn’t have a Bible. St. Ignatious says to follow the bishop, and Augustine says “show us your list of bishops” PAPACY AND THE AUTHORITY AND STRUCTURE OF THE CHURCH Dr. De Chirico's arguments -The early church transitioned from the model of recognizing when God had appointed someone to authority to a more imperial model that looks suspiciously like a political empire -The church of Rome was founded by unknown people, not by Peter and Paul. In fact, Paul attests to the church in Rome’s existence before he had gone there Horn's arguments (there were a lot haha) -Apostolic authority in Ephesians 2:20 - the apostles are the foundation of the church, Luke 10:16 “He who hears you hears me," and John 20:23 - the apostles are given the ability to forgive sins -Peter’s preeminence in Matthew 16:18 - Jesus changes Peter’s name to “Rock," and gives him the “keys to the kingdom of heaven.” Also, the illusion to the “prime minister” of Israel in Isaiah -Every list of the 12 disciples in Scripture puts Peter first and Judas last -Paul says he was willing to stand up to Peter -Even Protestant scholars like J.N.D. Kelly say Peter was the leader of the early church -Clement, writing in the first century, says the apostles appointed successors -Hebrews says to obey our Christian leaders -In the 100s, Pope St. Victor excommunicated other churches and we have no record of anyone saying he didn’t have that authority -At the Council of Chalcedon, Pope Leo read his tome and the bishops responded, “Peter has spoken through Leo.” -Practical benefit of unity of a central figure and universality of the church -No one in New Testament has authority in the church without divine or apostolic appointment -Laying on of hands in the New Testament -St. Ignatius says, in 107 A.D. that if you don’t have bishops, priests, and deacons you’re not a valid church -The Old Testament model has priests and a high priest
What is the name of the logical fallacy where you depend on or count as evidence the very topic in question? That is what you are doing! You have appeal to authority thrown in. Darn near everything you commented is invalid, incorrect or a Catholic teaching.
@@winstonsmiths2449 I think that's the begging the question fallacy. Sorry that it sounded like I was doing that though - I was just trying to summarize Horn's position. Rereading it, I think I worded that intro badly though, so I rewrote it to try to make it clear that I wasn't stating Horn's positions as if they were facts
43:13 Wouldn't this mean that the most "radical" of Protestant denominations have a legitimate argument for their existence? If a pink haired lady tells me that The Spirit took her to Heaven where there was unlimited amusements parks in every theme imaginable... why not?
Growing up in a CMA church and with a largely Baptist family, I never fully understood Marian doctrine, intercession of saints or even the Eucharist. Now I am going through the process of grafting onto the Anglican tradition, and my journey the last year or so has taught me to honor Mary as the Theotokos, understand early church heresies, and just how spiritually nourishing the Eucharist is. Am I comfortable with the idea of asking Mary and the saints for intercession? No. Do I believe, as we catch a glimpse of it in Revelation, that those who are reposed and with Christ are praying for us? Absolutely, and that is a great comfort. Glory to God alone +
Did you know the Catholic Church has an Anglican Ordinate who belive the faith. May your journey be blessed, you are drawing closer and closer to home.
When I wan converting to Christianity as a history nerd, I became comfortable with praying to the saints because I was that all ancient churches did it. I thought it makes more sense that this is true rather than all Christians falling into total idolatry ; especially when you notice that all these churches are 90% the same, from Western Catholics to Assyrian Patriarchate of the East. And all these churches are separated from the 5th century (except the Roman-Greek separation in the 11th century). Funniest part is that after accepting praying the saints to pray for me, I still didn't understand why asking Mary to pray for me was more important than another saint. It is only after witnessing the net positive impact Mary had for me and the way she was converting me to Christ that I finally understood why her prayers are more righteous than other saints.
Leo did nothing but attack the Catholic Church and didn’t make any argument for protestantism. On the other hand, Trent made many reasoned defenses of The Church while also showing the truth of it.
Trent Horn was the only one in this debate actually proving his points with sound arguments. Dr. De Chirico was merely making assertions, but not backing them up with any arguments or proofs. Big difference.
Yeah no historians cited, no figures used as examples, no Scripture verses cited, just a vague notion of some "Biblical Christianity" that both gradually developed into the imperial system (while the empire was actively persecuting Christianity) but also looked like, and was labelled as Catholic within 100 years of Pentecost.
@@renjithjoseph7135 If by Imperial you mean: a hierarchichal structure in the Church who unite as one through practicing the mass and pariticpating in the Eucharist in the same way the earliest Christians did, then yes. This is a better option than the scatter-brained denomination approach the protestants claim to be the truth.
@garrettwilliams6396 yea but that's not "imperial", it's royal, as in like a KINGDOM. Idk why Prots have such a hard time with that. Maybe it's just American anti-monarchical sentiment
At the end, Chirico was just making stuff up. The early Church leaders had a "connection" to the the Apostles, according to him, but it was still just "people recognized them as sufficiently holy" or something? Despite the fact that Scripture explicitly depicts the laying on of hands as a means of communicating authority? So much for 'sola scriptura' I guess. 🤷♂ I tend to think he knew he was losing at this point, but was just riffing as best he could. He seems smart enough to recognize the weakness of his position, so I hope he comes back to the Church at some point. Oremus! 🙏📿
Love Unbelievable, but the topic introduced initially (differences between catholics and protestants) is way too broad for the allotted time. It would be helpful if we could focus on particular area of difference between catholics and protestants in a given show and introduce it as such initially.
Thank you Trent, Dr. Leo couldn’t answer any of Trent questions. For our Protestant friends, I will recommend to look for the truth and to educate themselves about the early church. If you don’t believe in Catholicism why would you trust the Bible, which the Church wrote.
Yeah this was frustrating at points to listen to because Trent knows better and is taking full advantage of debating a weaker opponent who has no debate experience. Here are my thoughts: First Trent with the motte and bailey regarding praying to Mary: "It’s like asking a friend to pray for you" - the Motte. This is easy to defend and nobody disputes asking friends to pray for you. “Hey quasi-incarnate transubstantiated Eternal Queen of Heaven, Daughter of the Father, Mother of the Son, Wife of the Spirit, into your Hands I commit my spirit!!!" - The Bailey. This is the real issue with Romanism, where they inflate Mary to this demi-god status, where she is treated almost as if she were God. This is the bait and switch that Trent is pulling. 37:57 This is the typical Catholic Apologist rhetorical trick that aims at low hanging fruit. And Trent repeats this canard over and over throughout this discussion. But I'm pretty sure that at the end of the day, this guy doesn't actually think you can only believe that which is *explicitly* taught in the Bible. I'm pretty sure he also thinks you can hold to *implicit* things as well. Things like abortion being wrong, or child molestation being evil - things the Bible *doesn't* explicitly mention. Even the Westminster Catechism says, "The whole counsel of God concerning all things necessary for His own glory, man’s salvation, faith and life, is either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequences *may be deduced* from Scripture". If something can be deduced this means it's *not* explicit, its *implicit* . No Protestant worth their salt thinks otherwise. As to where does the Bible teach "you can only believe that which is explicitly taught in scripture" - *well it doesn't* . Thats because this is a *strawman* . What the Bible does teach however is that you are to always obey the word of God. This is taught *all throughout the Bible* and this includes what is taught explicitly and also implicitly. Because even for the latter, Christ *chastised* people for failing to grasp even implicit teachings, like how he chastised the Pharisees for failing to recognize that the apostles didn't violate the command of God just because they picked and ate wheat on the Sabbath. None of which is explicitly taught in scripture. It was implied and the Pharisees *should* have known this. 41:06 yet another canard. Trent is taking full advantage of the fact that this guy isn't able to articulate his position well. Trent already knows what *articulate* Protestants would say in reply and it's that 1 Thess 2:13 doesn't affect Sola Scriptura because Protestants acknowledge that revelation first came orally and then it was written down. Nobody disputes this. Sola Scriptura is a claim about *today* . It is the claim that *today* the only place we can find divine revelation is in the scriptures. Not only this but Trent also knows that Protestants would say that the "traditions" Paul is referring to there are the traditions that *he and the other apostles* passed on as part of *the deposit of faith* . This would *not* include *later* traditions like the Immaculate Conception or the Bodily Assumption.
25:56 This is false because everything we know about Christology can be traced to Paul and he never mentions anything about Mariology. This cannot be chucked up to an argument from silence since when he writes about Christology, he never states that good Mariology is a requirement for understanding good Christology.
Huh? Paul pushes that we pray for one another. Jesus is the vine and we are the branches; is the head and we are His body. Death does not separate the Christians.
Everything always comes down to one thing always. Whether or not the claim of infallibility of the Catholic Magisterium is true or not. You only need everything to be explicitly in the Bible if you make yourself your own pope.
Thank you so much for this amazing video! Could you help me with something unrelated: I have a SafePal wallet with USDT, and I have the seed phrase. (alarm fetch churn bridge exercise tape speak race clerk couch crater letter). Could you explain how to move them to Binance?
I am the LORD, that is My name; And My glory I will not give to another, Nor My praise to carved images. {Isaiah 42:8} AMEN. Have Mercy Gracious Heavenly Father , In The Name Of Our LORD AND ONLY SAVIOUR , MEDIATOR, ADVOCATE JESUS CHRIST
Really. God required the Jews to place two carved images of angels on the Ark of the Covenant. Obviously images are acceptable but worshipping them is not. Catholiics do not worship images any more than you worship pictures of your mother.
1:00:28 Not sure why Trent consistently misquotes 1Tim3:15 as, “Truth” and leaves out “The”, church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth. The Church (Body of Christ) is the Foundation of The Truth, which is our Blessed Lord Jesus Christ Eph 2:20 Built on Foundation of the Apostles(12) and Prophets
The problem with Tradition is what are the Traditions passed down by the Apostles and which Apostle or Apostles are credited for those Traditions? I don't know if this question can be answered. However, the written Word is just that for all to read. Its right there in black and white. Further, are there any words uttered by Christ that are found in any Tradition that cannot be found in the Bible?
How do you know which books of the Bible are legitimate revelation? How do we know that the Book of Mormon is not? Who do you put your faith in? I personally put it in the Church the Lord Himself established through St. Peter and the Apostles.
Traditions that you would accept that aren’t in the Bible: 1. Public revelation ends with the death of the last Apostle 2. The NT consists of 27 books 3. Matthew, Mark, Luke and John are the authors of the Gospels
If one does that they get Catholicism as Jesus established a physical institution called the Church which had a hierarchy and officials to administer and keep the faith He gave to us.
Because as you can see we all have different interpretations of what they have written. That's why there are so many different denominations. That's why Jesus left us an authority in his Church for the ages.
@AbhorEvilRomans12 yeah but the difference is we have all the same essential Dogmas and are united to the Seat of Peter. So we are still in one Church, one body, just different forms of worship.
1 ... just 1 super sad things I find amongst both catholics and my fellow protestants, Is how they all seem to try and seperate the GOD of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob from Jesus Christ. If you reader, also take HIM as your lord of Lords and king of Kings that took away your sins and WHOS kingdom is not of this world.... I call you both brother and preist.
Dr. Chirico said near the beginning of the interview that one of his concerns is that Catholicism conflates the Church with Christ. I wonder if he is concerned that Christ said to Paul "Why are you persecuting me?" when referring to the persecution of the Church.
I have a question. When you say that the virgen Mary is the mother of God. Does that mean she is the mother of the Holy Spirit and of the Father, because they’re one right? At the same time, it is said by the Catholic Church that the virgen Mary is the wife of the Holy Spirit. So she is the mother and the wife of the Trinity? Thank you.
Every person of the Trinity is fully God. So it is right to call all 3 persons God even if we don't refer to the whole Trinity. So we can say that God became a man even though the Father or the Holy Spirit never did that, and we can say Mary is the Mother of God beacasue she gave birth to Jesus even though she didn't give birth to the whole Trinity
"But why is this granted to me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me?" Luke 1:43 "...no one can say that Jesus is Lord except by the Holy Spirit." 1 Co 12:3 Clearly, Lord here is not just SIR (unless one is a Unitarian)
The catholic wrongness is they think Mary provided her fulness of grace. They do not understand that people can do nothing apart from God so they wrongly make Mary the sustainer of grace and make her sinless n then all the other heresies ping off the first heresy. Jesus was clear and did not stutter - ONLY GOD IS GOOD. (She’s a sinful woman). 👩
How do you know? Because you read one comment? If you love Mary, you have to love Jesus. If you love Jesus, you have to love Mary. The first miracle was done by asking her to talk to her Son.
In Acts 6, the apostles chose seven, prayed over them and laid hands on them to serve the church. Who lays hands on those pastors that chose to start their own churches?
Horn presented De Chirico with the fact that in the NT divine authority was passed on by the laying on of hands, and that bishops and priests did not just pop up on their own, but De Chirico fumbled and would not admit it. He was faced with the fact that he has no divine authority or divine gaurantee for his leadership position.
Trent Horn knows his stuff. He clearly shows the problem with Protestantism… no structure or boundaries. Anyone can start his own church and disagree with everyone else’s interpretation of scripture. It’s not a problem of minor disagreements… it’s disagreement on MAJOR differences. Protestants can’t agree on major issues. Are all invited to Christ… or just the pre-determined? Does baptism save? Once saved always saved? Faith Alone or faith and cooperation with God? Protesters have caused a mess where anything goes. We see the results…. And it’s not good.
yes anyone can start their own church but does it contradict scripture. When you find it does you have to deal with it or get out of their. but if you find that the catholic churches are teaching heresy you are brainwashed into thinking you must stay.
My understanding is that we, in/of Christ Jesus, pray directly to our Father. Jesus is The Intercessor. What is Jesus lacking? We don't need to speak to/with anyone else that's not alive. That would equal divination. Holding people of the past in reverence is one thing, but *praying* to them asking them to supplement what is lacking in the Father's hearing of our prayers, and what Jesus is already praying...? Jesus suffered, shed His blood and died for us. Now He sits next to The Father intercessing. Mary, or any other "saint," doesn't need to convince her son, nor His Father of anything. (Again, IMHO.)
Great questions. If you really want a Catholic answer to the "why do we need" I recommend YT: Shameless popery: a new argument for praying to the saints.. It is quite long but in the end addresses this specific question
I would also add my own answer; based on "Theosis". To sit beside on a throne in Judaism is to rule with. Christ rules with the Father. Revelation says the saints are seated on His throne to judge and to rule. We stand before not merely God alone at death... But the saints judge us also Jesus says to make friends with accusers on the way to court. And so we have a relationship through the Spirit with the court in Heaven as brothers and sisters and mothers in Christ's kingdom It is not "supplement" anything lacking in GOD. It is humility on our own weaknesses. And celebrating GOD'S work in His saints, as the bible says: "Blessed is God in His saints"
In agreement to your assertion, Hebrews 7:25 affirms that Christ “is able to save forever those who draw near to God through him, since he always lives to make intercession for them.”This claim is not made of any other saint in scripture.” Despite all this, I find the religious devotion of the Catholics I know extremely inspiring to my otherwise Protestant faith.
@bobpierce57 it is not told of any other saint this is true. But this is an "argument from silence". In the book of Revelation we *SEE* the saints interceding for us. The bible often shows us things rather than just staying them. And we may also unveil the word of God and draw out implicit teachings. I am glad some Catholics inspire you. Many protestants inspire me also. God bless!
You say "We don't need to speak to/with anyone else that's not alive". Why add "that's not alive"? Why not say "We don't need to speak to/with anyone else AT ALL" and then conclude that we should never ask anyone to pray for us.
Trent came to be convinced of the Christian faith by evangelical apologists 17:50 hahaha the irony. He just slipped when he started to do his own research much like his attacks of protestants who, as he would characterize it, "do Christianity on their own."
Yeah this was frustrating at points to listen to because Trent knows better and is taking full advantage of debating a weaker opponent who has no debate experience. Here are my thoughts: First Trent with the motte and bailey regarding praying to Mary: "It’s like asking a friend to pray for you" - the Motte. This is easy to defend and nobody disputes asking friends to pray for you. “Hey quasi-incarnate transubstantiated Eternal Queen of Heaven, Daughter of the Father, Mother of the Son, Wife of the Spirit, into your Hands I commit my spirit!!!" - The Bailey. This is the real issue with Romanism, where they inflate Mary to this demi-god status, where she is treated almost as if she were God. This is the bait and switch that Trent is pulling. 37:57 This is the typical Catholic Apologist rhetorical trick that aims at low hanging fruit. And Trent repeats this canard over and over throughout this discussion. But I'm pretty sure that at the end of the day, this guy doesn't actually think you can only believe that which is *explicitly* taught in the Bible. I'm pretty sure he also thinks you can hold to *implicit* things as well. Things like abortion being wrong, or child molestation being evil - things the Bible *doesn't* explicitly mention. Even the Westminster Catechism says, "The whole counsel of God concerning all things necessary for His own glory, man’s salvation, faith and life, is either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequences *may be deduced* from Scripture". If something can be deduced this means it's *not* explicit, its *implicit* . No Protestant worth their salt thinks otherwise. As to where does the Bible teach "you can only believe that which is explicitly taught in scripture" - *well it doesn't* . Thats because this is a *strawman* . What the Bible does teach however is that you are to always obey the word of God. This is taught *all throughout the Bible* and this includes what is taught explicitly and also implicitly. Because even for the latter, Christ *chastised* people for failing to grasp even implicit teachings, like how he chastised the Pharisees for failing to recognize that the apostles didn't violate the command of God just because they picked and ate wheat on the Sabbath. None of which is explicitly taught in scripture. It was implied and the Pharisees *should* have known this. 41:06 yet another canard. Trent is taking full advantage of the fact that this guy isn't able to articulate his position well. Trent already knows what *articulate* Protestants would say in reply and it's that 1 Thess 2:13 doesn't affect Sola Scriptura because Protestants acknowledge that revelation first came orally and then it was written down. Nobody disputes this. Sola Scriptura is a claim about *today* . It is the claim that *today* the only place we can find divine revelation is in the scriptures. Not only this but Trent also knows that Protestants would say that the "traditions" Paul is referring to there are the traditions that *he and the other apostles* passed on as part of *the deposit of faith* . This would *not* include *later* traditions like the Immaculate Conception or the Bodily Assumption.
"There are some things in them that are hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other Scriptures. You therefore, beloved, knowing this beforehand, take care that you are not carried away with the error of lawless people and lose your own stability" (2 Peter 3:16-17). This is the crux of the issue. You, an individual, deign yourself to be the arbiter of truth with Sola Scriptura. How are you sure that you are not among the ignorant? I can rest my assurance in the fact that I am in communion with the body of Christ, that is the Church, which traces its history all the way back to Him. This is why Trent articulated the importance of the laying on of hands as a visible, clear transmission of authority for positions of leadership to shepherd the flock (deacon, priest, bishop). This is why the Bible, in both the Old and New Testament, takes great care to "not be hasty in the laying on of hands" (1 Timothy 5:22) and as seen with Joshua and the 70 elders (Num 11:16-25; Num 27:15-23).
^adding to this guys point, how do you know you're not missing implicit teachings just as the Pharisees are? After all, i can say that the teaching that Mary is the new ark of the covenant and various other things are clearly implicit in scripture, but you would argue against that. Are not your standards for "implicit" arbitrary? Where do u draw the line between "implicit" and "not taught" and why? Where do u know where to draw the line, without making yourself the supreme arbiter of truth?
Hail Holy Queen Mother of Mercy, our lives our sweetness and our hope. To thee do we cry poor banished children of Eve. To thee do we send up our sighs mourning and weeping in this valley of tears.
Fruit of protestantism are more than 30,000 denominations (even more because everyone with the Bible can interpret it as he/she wishes), JW , Unitarians... Etc and all of them believe that Holly Spirit guide them
Do you know where the 30,000 denominations quote comes from? Do you know what it means? Are you aware of RC apologist who refuse to use it because of how poorly "denominations" is defined in the original source? Are you aware the same source identifies 240 RC denominations? If not, please stop listening to dishonest and misleading RC apologist who are abusing the information to try and make a point.
@@roadkill6705 you don't need to call them denominations, but you know better than me that you can't stay in any protestant church if you don't accept their teachings. Actually, English isn't my native language so sorry for grammar mistakes or choose wrong words but if there is 500 millions of protestants you have 500 millions of denomination because everyone with the Bible can interpret as wish it and everyone is his own authority. That is true and you can deny it but that's are facts, you don't follow even Kalvin or Luther.... Etc. The Bible alone, can you show me from the Bible which books are inspired or what's the Bible? Or you're accusing Jesus for lying that He will send a Holly Spirit to guide us and protect us and can you show when Holly Spirit slept away for 1600 years. You're ma brothers and sisters in Christ and we don't think that Trineterians aren't Christians but you fall away far away from Christianity in your theology, but anyway you're my brothers and sisters in Christ and i love you. We don't have a hate like many protestants have about Catholics and ancient churches. And hate and human judge in those areas are not from God for sure.
I appreciate the respectful debate. However, it seems to me that the majority of claims the Protestant pastor is making are mostly strawmen that dont deal with what Rome actually teaches. Seems like a great guy, but to me he never really manages to nail down the heart of these issues.
Even the subtitle of this show, 'Should Christians pray to Mary', is already couched in Protestant mentality. Protestantism, and especially Evangelical Christianity, thinks about everything, absolutely everything, in two moral categories. Something is either forbidden (wrong), or it is proper (right). They have no category for, 'amoral', something that is neither offensive to God or particularly impressive to God. For me the question should be not, 'Should Christians pray to Mary?' That's reducing the whole issue to it's either a person must do it or not do it. Instead, the question ought to be, 'Can a Christian pray to Mary.' That allows for the circumstance whereby it's elective and that it's something that doesn't make a person Christian or not Christian, just that it's allowable by Jesus, or God, because they don't forbid it as far as anyone can tell.
The place of the Hail Mary in Catholic practice suggests to me at least that, in many cases, Catholics think it is not only permissible but right to pray to Mary.
I appreciate what you're describing. However, we all keep hearing Catholics (including Trent) quote a former Catholic leader along the lines of: "to have a correct view of Jesus starts with having a correct view of Mary". That seems to put A LOT on the line for a Christian. That is, there's a strong drum beat by many Catholics that being a genuine Christian depends on their knowledge/beliefs of Mary? (believed by Catholics to be their extra-biblical views that continue to develop by a group of Bishops.) Bottom line, your view doesn't sound as dogmatic towards Mariology as most Catholics (at least those hoping to make money on youtube.)
@@robertthiesen2687 I disagree because there are heaps of alternative prayers in Catholicism that I know some Catholics preferred above the Hail Mary. At least, that was my experience.
@@mattnelms2522 You have a point and I will be upfront. I don't believe that the Vatican owns the Catholic Faith. That's why I called my name, 'Old Catholic.' Old Catholics, are Catholics, who remained Catholic, even though they rejected the First Vatican Council. Of course, that means Roman Catholics (Vatican Catholics) will then claim that Old Catholics aren't true Catholics, but there isn't any reason for you to believe that's true (because you are protestant - I assume). Therefore, what Vatican Catholics say about catholic practice; people like Trent Horn, or otherwise, is simply one opinion among many. To be clear, just because a person calls themselves catholic doesn't mean they have to be under the thumb of Papal endorsement. For one thing, the Eastern Orthodox do say they are true Catholics and in a way that Roman Catholics are not. I suggest to you that the Catholic Faith is open to you, for you to discern what it is, based on the best education you can find about historic Christian practice and faith.
Bingo. I know a few Catholics (fewer than a handful) that never pray to Mary. They don't think it's wrong or pointless or foolish, they just don't do it. Maybe it feels weird, maybe they don't want to, idk. They would still be firmly on Trent's side.
I'm frankly a little taken aback and saddened by how vicious some of the responses here are. Debates can be inherently polarising, pitting one against the other as they do. But we should strive to stay civil in considering both these sets of viewpoints, as much as they may diverge from our own. Especially as Christians, as which I expect many here would identify.
The important piont is whether praying to mary is part of the apostolic deposit or not If the bible does not teach the practice and if the early church fathers who either knew the apostles or knew those who knew the apostles did not teach it ...then it can be safe to say it is not part of the apostolic deposit of faith whether wriiten or oral
@@aajaifenn “Mother of God, [listen to] my petitions; do not disregard us in adversity, but rescue us from danger” (Rylands Papyrus 3 [A.D. 350]). Origen: “But not the high priest [Christ] alone prays for those who pray sincerely, but also the angels . . . as also the souls of the saints who have already fallen asleep” (Prayer 11 [A.D. 233]). For if Mary, as those declare who with sound mind extol her, had no other son but Jesus (Commentary on John 1:6) Cyprian of Carthage: . Let us on both sides [of death] always pray for one another. Let us relieve burdens and afflictions by mutual love, that if one of us, by the swiftness of divine condescension, shall go hence first, our love may continue in the presence of the Lord, and our prayers for our brethren and sisters not cease in the presence of the Father’s mercy” (Letters 56[60]:5 [A.D. 253]). Methodius: “Hail to you for ever, Virgin Mother of God, our unceasing joy, for to you do I turn again. . . . Hail, you treasure of the love of God. Hail, you fount of the Son’s love for man” (Oration on Simeon and Anna 14 [A.D. 305]). “Therefore, we pray [ask] you, the most excellent among women, who glories in the confidence of your maternal honors, that you would unceasingly keep us in remembrance. O holy Mother of God, remember us, I say, who make our boast in you, and who in august hymns celebrate the memory, which will ever live, and never fade away” (ibid.).
ca. 230 A.D., Origen Commentaries on John: yet Jesus says to His mother, “Woman, behold thy son” (John 19:26), and not “Behold you have this son also,” then He virtually said to her, “Lo, this is Jesus, whom thou didst bear.” Is it not the case that every one who is perfect lives himself no longer, but Christ lives in him; and if Christ lives in him, then it is said of him to Mary, “Behold thy son Christ.” Also the prayer trent mentions (Sub Tuum Praesidium)
@@yingsnnn808 the sub tuum praesidium author is unknown and it's handwriting analysis dates to the 3 rd or even the 4 th century The quote of Origen from the 3 rd century does not advocate prayer to Mary at all .Origin is pointing out that just as jesus can say to Mary behold thy son and as Jesus is in us all then it can be said to Mary that we are her Son also as Christ whom she bore lives in us . No prayer request to Mary is ever advocated by Origen No apostolic church father in the first 200 years taught the practice of praying to Mary If it is absent in this period it surely is not part of the apostolic deposit .
Of course there is no direct reference in the NT to its own primacy since it didn't exist until at least the end of the 2nd century. But the practice of Israel and then later the Church submitting to the authority of written texts is incontrovertible. And it should be of especial interest to this discussion that Jesus himself rejected the oral Jewish traditions that later became the Mishnah. Jesus always rooted his authority in his own divinity or in the writings of the Old Testament (Tanakh.) Why would his church be any different?
@@PuppetryInMotion Don't know what your point is. I would understand that Jesus is referring to the apostles testimony concerning him. If that is the case then I agree. But I would disagree that we have reliable access to apostolic testimony outside of the NT.
@@markrutledge5855 Agree. I was offering the words of Christ commanding Sola Scriptura. Jesus stated only the Disciples/Apostles received and understood from Him who God is, and that our belief must come from their words, not from other men. John 17:8,14,17 NASB95 *_for the words which You gave Me I have given to them; and they received them and truly understood_* that I came forth from You, and they believed that You sent Me. [14] *_I have given them Your word;_* and the world has hated them, because they are not of the world, even as I am not of the world. [17] Sanctify them in the truth; *_Your word is truth._* John 17:20 NASB95 "I do not ask on behalf of these alone, but for those also *_who believe in Me through their word;_*
Scripture often affirms jewish traditional beliefs that are not found in the protestant OT: John 10 jesus celebrates hannukah or the Festival of Dedication Matthew 23: Jesus affirms the seat of Moses has the authority to intepret scripture, which comes from Rabbinic tradition 2 timothy 3:8 mentions "jannes and jambres" opposing Moses, names not found in the OT but ARE in jewish tradition Jude 9 mentions archangel michael disputing over the body of moses, a srory not found in OT, but is found in jewish tradition
@markrutledge5855 Scripture often affirms jewish traditional beliefs that are not found in the protestant OT: John 10 jesus celebrates hannukah or the Festival of Dedication Matthew 23: Jesus affirms the seat of Moses has the authority to intepret scripture, which comes from Rabbinic tradition 2 timothy 3:8 mentions "jannes and jambres" opposing Moses, names not found in the OT but ARE in jewish tradition Jude 9 mentions archangel michael disputing with the devil, a story not found in OT, but is found in jewish tradition
Josh. 1:8. New International Version "Keep this Book of the Law always on your lips; meditate on it day and night, so that you may be careful to do everything written in it. Then you will be prosperous and successful" This is why Sola Scriptura. You are NOT told that you can do anything else.
2 thessalonians 2:15 "Therefore, brethren, stand fast and hold to the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word or our epistle." Ur last sentence is straight up wrong bro, we're COMMANDED to hold to traditions passed by mouth aswell
@ If a verse is taken alone without its context it will be misunderstood. Here Paul was correcting the wrong notion that the Day of the Lord had come and that the Thessalonian believers were left out. In pointing out that it is wrong, he referred to his teachings and to the traditions they were taught by the apostles. He was not saying that traditions which will be adopted in future should be followed.
@ If a verses is taken out of context it will be misunderstood. Here Paul is correcting a wrong information being spread that the Day of the Lord has come and the Thessalonians were left out. He was referring to the teachings and traditions of the Apostles regarding the Day of the Lord. He was not suggesting that traditions of all churches or future traditions are to be followed.
Yes. Mary indeed had a role as the God Bearer. But the later inventions are not necessary for believers to accept. Praying to Mary or saints unfortunately detracts from the true source of comfort. As Paul prayed, "Grace and peace to you from God our Father and the Lord Jesus the Messiah."
james teach us The prayer of a righteous person is powerful and effective and paul teach us "I exhort therefore, that, first of all, supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks, be made for all men"
@@iwansaputra1890 Yes. Which is why we can approach the Father directly, through the gift of his Son. We who are alive should pray for all people. But to no one but God.
@@iwansaputra1890 He was talking about the living praying for all people. But praying to God alone. The direction of our prayers should always be to God, not to anyone else.
The Sola Scriptura part was the most important of this video I believe, because its the source of our diferences, and the protestant position had no answers to the question being asked...
I have been to many Catholic Churches and one thing I cant agree with is how mild and shut off the church members are from top to bottom. In addition Statues of Mary having 4 times as many candles as Jesus statue says all i need to know. Catholocism no thanks. Im happy with my personal relationship with Christ! Thats all you need.
Did you know that in every Catholic churches Jesus is real there and normaly at the center of the Church ? All the church is about Jesus. And all saints are there because they are pointing to the Grace of God. What God does when we say yes to Him. That's why we have saints, it's because of God.
I converted 2 years ago. My relationship with Jesus has never been better. The Bible tells you to submit to your elders that the church is the pillar and foundation of the truth. If he will not listen to the church, let him be as a gentle in tax collector no prophecy of scripture ever came from one own interpretation, lean not on your own understanding submit to your elders for they keep watching over your souls hold fast to the traditions, written or spoken.. You can’t hold to the Bible and ignore all these passages.
It's your choice to not be "Catholic ", but to make a blanket statement is not charitable. You don't know a thing about me brother. You must be better than me though. I'm a big sinner and I need everything the Church give us, including prayers with other denominations. I try not to look at the sticks in others eyes.
@@Obedience33 These are my opinions and real life experiences, not bait to initiate division. I mean no disrespect my Brother in Christ. Only God can Judge my sincerity.
@eaglecap8553 And only God can Judge other denominations. In all my judgmental and sinful brain i try not to look at the decorations in a church. I do not just attend "Catholic" churches, I attend churches that have people.
Trent Horn is really good. He demonstrate that the catholic faith is superior to the protestant faith. The catholic faith is more profound and reasonable.
Its more rationnnal because Catholic theology is based on the bible and philosophy. Jordan Peterson said that catholicism is the most rationnal thing. You should see for yourself. I am sure that you never read Catholic theology. Read saint Thomas of Aquinas for exemple.
they didn’t talk about a fundamental difference in that the RCC teaches a different gospel that is works and faith, which is contrary to what bible says; saved by grace alone by faith alone, in Christ alone.
The only time the words "faith alone" are mentioned is James 2:24. Luther is the only Christian in 1500 years that believed that an intellectual ascent to belief in Christ is enough, which it isn't.
"RCC teaches a different gospel that is works and faith" Faith is never separated from charity and love. Scripture: _Even the demons believe-and shudder. 20 Do you want to be shown, you foolish fellow, that faith apart from works is barren? 21 Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he offered his son Isaac upon the altar? 22 You see that faith was active along with his works, and _*_faith was completed by works,_* "saved by grace alone by faith alone" Indeed we are saved by grace, an unmerited gift no one can ever earn. THROUGH faith, a faith working in love (Gal 5) " by faith alone"" Indeed, protestants teach one must do something: one MUST repent ! Faith "alone" ? No way.
No. Not at all and here’s one of the reasons Christians all have Christ’s Spirit inside them. So who knows what you are going to pray about sooner than the Lord? He knows before you ask Him. Since He paid such a great price to be in this position within you why would you slap His efforts and pray to a human being? Why would you think to insult His sacrifice?
To Pray to Mary is would be the same to say that she is omnisciente. Is she ? If yes where you get this From? Mary is at rest From what we know. Even if she waa awake she Does not have the capacity to hear peaple. So pray to is wrong.
@@pendletondrew what does the devil have to do with topic? Are comparing Mary the devil? Is not hard to understand , biut the evil that there is in the Roman Church has make a fool of many people.
@@eduardobarrientos4133According to this logic, the prophets in the Old Testament having an ability to foresee the future in some capacity would make them all-knowing and therefore God-like. No, God is able to gift people with what is an usually suprahuman capacity in a limited way so that it might help the faithfull, and also to glorify Himself.
@@eduardobarrientos4133Revelation 12:17 Mary is the woman and she is our mother. Also, “the disciple whom Jesus loved” was given Mary as their mother. That means you and me as well.
And without Mary’s “yes”, how does the story go? Sure, God’s providence will prevail, no doubt. But what is the story in the gospel without Mary’s “yes”?
@ For the living know they will die; but the dead do not know anything, nor have they any longer a reward, for the memory of them is forgotten. Indeed their love, their hate, and their zeal have already perished, and they will never again have a portion in all that is done under the sun. - Ecclesiastes 9:5-6
One central idea that I think was missing from the discussion of authority and apostleship was the idea that Jesus Christ is the full revelation of God. I view this idea as the center of a New Testament doctrine of revelation. There is a place for scripture and a place for church authority, as well, but the authority of each makes more sense when they are grounded in Christ who is the revelation from God. This is where the apostles' authority comes from: namely that they are the appointed authoritative eyewitnesses to Christ, and especially of his resurrection. The New Testament has authority because it records the witness of the apostles. The church is also meant to preserve the witness of the apostles. This is why Trent is wrong that the authority of the apostles is simply passed on to the bishops, who are descended from the "elders" of the New Testament not the apostles. The apostles were unique as eyewitnesses of Jesus specifically commissioned by him and there were no more apostles after the first generation. Bishops and priests as elders have authority, as the New Testament says, but it is not unquestionable or even undemocratic. Christians are not to lord it over one another and 1 Corinthians 12-14 is an example of what this looks like in a church context. The centrality of Jesus to revelation is also why it is legitimate to test church teaching against the New Testament, which records the apostles' authoritative witness to what faith in Jesus looks like.
Then why did they pass Judas's position onto Matthias? They all appointed successors to take over their positions as Bishops, and this was a common test to see if you're in a legitimate church. Irenaeus talked about this in his Epistles, written in 101 AD. That's how early apostolic succession is. Why would Jesus not have a system for growing the Church? His plan was to have it all die out by the end of the 1st century?
@@MeanBeanComedy Like @robertthiesen2687 said, they were eyewitnesses of Christ, including Matthias. They could only select from the disciples that had been with them from the beginning. True apostolic teaching and authority is based on exegeting and expository preaching, not in a laying on of hands to pass on apostolic authority. How is the current pope doing even after having had hand's laid on him to pass along apostolic authority? Is he upholding all that the RCC has traditionally taught?
@@MeanBeanComedy Thanks for your reply. When Matthias was chosen to replace Judas as an apostle this is what Acts records Peter saying: "It is necessary to choose one of the men who have been with us the whole time the Lord Jesus was living among us, beginning from John’s baptism to the time when Jesus was taken up from us. For one of these must become a witness with us of his resurrection." This confirms what I have said about the unique nature of apostles as eyewitnesses of Jesus, especially his resurrection, from the first generation of Christian disciples. In my view, this doesn't mean that the church does not exercise authority in subsequent generations or that leaders could not have been appointed by the apostles. Rather, I see bishops, priests and pastors having the authority ascribed to "elders" in the New Testament letters, not the unique authority of apostles. By the way, look at how democratic and Spirit-led the appointment of Matthias was in Acts 1. I think this should remain a part of church authority to this day.
Hey man, just to help me understand where you're coming from, you believe that the apostles appointed successors, aka bishops, and you believe these bishops do have authority. Where then is the disagreement with the catholic position? Is it that you don't believe a bishop appointed by an apostle is a "successor" to said apostle's position as an apostle? (taking over the apostle's "apostolic office" so to speak)? Sorry if I had trouble understanding what you're trying to say, it's through no fault of your own, be assured
@@StoriesBytheBrick Hey, no worries. Thanks for the interest in my thoughts! I think that the direct connection of the original apostles to Jesus in the role of appointed eyewitnesses is essential to their authority. In the church everything is under Christ and the apostles are the Christian disciples who are most proximate to Christ. This close connection is why we look to them -- to the record of their witness to Christ in the New Testament -- for the definitive understanding of Christian faith. I don't see bishops or elders as having this authority to define the Christian faith. By contrast, I'm happy to accept the authority of bishops, priests, pastors, and elders in the terms that the New Testament describes the authority of "elders." To my mind, this includes their authority to guide a congregation in their lives of discipleship and correcting error according to the standard of the apostolic Christian faith. They are not a source of doctrine or teaching and they are certainly not infallible to my mind. Rather they are people of great, Christlike character, who have proven themselves reliable in guiding others toward Christ. That's the basic picture that makes sense to me.
@@TokenWhiteGuyAGR that does not answer the question. the saints dont have the abilities of God now do they? just as a believer 10-10,00 miles away without a phone, internet connection cannot help you with your prayer request.
@@AbhorEvilRomans12Even the earliest Christians, the ones being murdered by the Romans, wrote on the tombs of martyrs "pray for us." I highly recommend reading the Church Fathers, who were guided by the Holy Spirit, that are responsible for codifying the Holy Bible and Church doctrine.
Daniel is not omniscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent, how can he interperet other ppls dreams without them even telling him what the dream was? The answer to that question^ is the answer to yours
I keep it simple. 1.) Praying to Someone/Something always equals worshipping them/it. 2.) Praying to Someone/Something can never equal simply JUST "reverencing" them/it, like with saluting a flag. 3.) Worship is for God alone. Conclusion: Christians should pray to no one, Mary included, besides God.
Since the Bible is never explicit in saying that prayer to the Holy Spirit is appropriate, and in fact really only encourages prayer to the Father through the Lord's Prayer... How do you justify, using scripture alone, prayers to Jesus Himself, or to the Holy Spirit?
@shaulkramer7425 Jesus and the Holy Spirit are God... they are persons of the Trinity. Thus, Praying to them is the same as Praying to God. Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are One.
Prayer doesn’t always equal worship. Even in the old English, the word prayer was used as “to ask” or “request” such as “I pray thee…” In the Bible there are many words used for prayer that function in a similar manner that don’t always mean worship.
@@francescoaccomando7781 I'm already familiar. The issue is, "Dulia" should only ever be just common due "respect." If it were only that, I'd be cool with it. But it isn't. If I bow down in prayer to something, burn incense to it, ask it for forgiveness of my sins, ask it for favor and blessing in my life, and ask it to safeguard my soul... my "Dulia" becomes indistinguishable from how ancient pagans treated Baal. Above all else, if I already have sufficient "Latria" for Christ, then what use has "Dulia?" I need no one but Jesus.
Paul, Peter, James, John, Matthew, Mark and Luke....somehow they never mentioned this "key." The Catholic church gave us the Bible, correct? And yet the NT says nothing about this "key." The "key" of Mary is something that arose hundreds of years after Jesus. It's not in the Bible, and the Catholic arguments that it is in the Bible rely on tendentious arguments about 1 line from John.
Acts 2:42: "They devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching and to fellowship, to the breaking of bread and to prayer." Notice how it didnt say "They devoted themselves to reading the Bible by having one hour sermons given to them by a pastor". Notice how they devoted themselves to their teachings, whether written or oral. Notice that they devoted themselves to apostles' teaching not just writings. 1 Timothy 3:15: "If I am delayed, you will know how people ought to conduct themselves in God’s household, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth." Notice how it is said how the church is the pillar and foundation of the truth. Notice how it didnt say "If i am delayed, you ought to conduct yourself to what is written, and only to what is written, as the Bible is the pillar and foundation of the truth". Thirdly, us recognising what the "key" means is the result of Christ and His Spirit leading Christians to all truth, as it is written. If you think papacy is such an unbiblical teaching, why such teaching would be permitted in a church of God, that could lead so many people away from salvation? It is not just some bishops wanting power or abusing their status. It is a doctrine of faith held by the faithful. Why would the Spirit of God abandon them in such important matter? Fourthly, Jesus said that the Pharisees are seated on the seat of Moses. Jesus is the new Moses. Apostles and those who were appointed by them are seated on the seat of the apostles.
Christ is the only mediator between God and man. God also states that we must not pray to the dead. It might be difficult to convince some unbelievers only to honor God. Mary was a humble servant and she did her part like others that followed God. Honor should only be to God.
Christ as mediator has nothing to do with intercession. The Saints in Heaven are actually alive. Read your Bible and understand what mediation is in reference to the salvific covenant
The saints aren't dead, they're alive. That's why WE got no business trying to ruin their fun they're having in heaven and pay more attention to how we are following God on earth
@ True the saved that have died, are alive in heaven. The bible doesn’t instruct us to pray to them. The only way to God the Father is Jesus Christ. The bible doesn’t tell us to pray to saints, God is a jealous God and it doesn’t seem to be different from pagan prayer to the spirits of ancestors. How will the pagan be convinced to stop praying to spirits of ancestors.
@@ASR-n6d “Then who can sentence us to death? No one. Christ Jesus is at the right hand of God and is also praying for us. He died. More than that, he was raised to life.” Romans 8:34 “Therefore He is also able to save to the uttermost those who come to God through Him, since He always lives to make intercession for them.” Hebrews 7:25 “My little children, these things I write to you, so that you may not sin. And if anyone sins, we have an Advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous.” I John 2:1
Frankly, there is just no comparison here. As a fellow Paisano, I would love to back De Chirico. However, in all honesty, fairness, and due respect--he is WAY out of his league. His arguments are weak and riddled w/ holes. One is left begging too many questions to mention. If one is going to participate in a debate w/ the likes of Trent Horn, Jimmy Aiken, Sam Shamoun and many others, you certainly need to bring the very best to your show. This wasn’t the case, in this episode.
The scholars have talked everything else other than the real difference. Catholics bow down to Mary. They make statues of Mary and put them up in their churches. They have distorted the 2nd commandment.
Italian fella sounds like the old story of “Catholics” who aren’t serious about their faith and then later convert to Protestantism and blame Catholicism for not teaching them anything despite their admittance that they themselves did not do their part.
Di Chirico simply fell prey to Protestant heretics who went hunting in Italy, and now the bigotry lives deep within him.
Yea a few minutes and he was already giving in “im Christian, not Catholic” vibes 🤣
You're so spot on .. for leaving in Italy I see what you describe everyday...
Every single time. They convert out of the Church saying "I know for sure what and how they think and operate. Also, I never read the Bible before converting which means they don't care about Jesus Christ"
The catholic wrongness is they think Mary provided her fulness of grace. They do not understand that people can do nothing apart from God so they wrongly make Mary the sustainer of grace and make her sinless n then all the other heresies ping off the first heresy. Jesus was clear and did not stutter - ONLY GOD IS GOOD. (She’s a sinful woman). 👩
As a former Protestant now newly Catholic, I recall often debating the same recurring topics with Catholics, which eventually felt redundant. However, taking the time to thoroughly read the Church Fathers alongside Scripture ultimately led me to embrace the Catholic and Apostolic Church.
Why?
@@ChristisLord2023 Because I realized that many of the teachings I once debated against were deeply rooted in both Scripture and the writings of the early Church Fathers. Their consistency with the faith handed down from the Apostles helped me see that the Catholic Church is the true continuation of Christ’s Church.
@jaredmelendez7262 perhaps you should start right there with the "handed down" part. Sure a cursory look at history with a Roman Catholic guide only pointing out the parts that support their claims and it sounds true. A deeper look and you realize that it isn't.
Have you ever watched the great debates from the 90s and early 2000s where professor of church history Dr James White debated Roman Catholics, including Trent, on all these topics.
Now I made 2 other comments on the main comment thread where I pointed out two lies by Trent in the beginning of this. Can I get your opinion on those two lies he told?
@@ChristisLord2023
"Have you ever watched the great debates from the 90s and early 2000s where professor of church history Dr James White debated Roman Catholics, including Trent, on all these topics.:"
As a Protestant philosopher I watched all of White's debates. He lost every single one of them and I can prove he lied several times. White is not a source anyone should trust.
"two lies by Trent"
Trent told no lies.
@@ChristisLord2023 I appreciate your thoughtful response, and I’m familiar with Dr. James White's debates. In fact, I used to rely on similar arguments myself. However, the more I studied the early Church Fathers and compared their teachings with Scripture, the more I realized their theology aligns with Catholicism far more than I initially understood.
The concept of 'handed down' is crucial because it reflects the Apostolic Tradition that the early Church Fathers wrote about. They consistently emphasized the role of tradition alongside Scripture, which challenges the idea of sola scriptura.
Regarding Trent and the lies you mentioned, I’d be happy to review them and offer my thoughts. Could you clarify what you’re referring to or point me to your comments so I can engage directly?
I’m here from Trent’s channel. Adam was such a gentleman and generous host. I really enjoyed listening to a charitable conversation between Christian brothers. Thank you for making it possible! I feel strengthened and edified by the discussion.
The evangelical speaker was wrong stating that Rome started with no apostolic association, for we know that there were apostles in Rome according to the epistle of Rome:
"Greet Andronicus and Junias, my kinsmen and fellow captives, who are noble among the Apostles, and who were in Christ prior to me."
Romans 16:7
@@ericgatera7149 that does not mean the apostles were involved in it.. how did you miss that?
@@dereklaing2929 How did you miss that the verse has apostles being greeted in Rome?
@ericgatera7149 how in the world do you get from there to "the apostles were involved in the establishment of the Roman Catholic Church"?
@@dereklaing2929 Simple, because God has put the apostles first in the Church and then other ministries after, see for yourself 1Corinthians 12:28, and God gives apostles and Prophets to be foundational to the Church, also see Ephesians 2:20. And finally, St. Paul greets 2 apostles in Rome in his epistles as already stated above.
"Noble among" meaning they were thought of highly by the apostles. Not actual apostles themselves.
The “Well the Catholics I know just go to church on Sunday and think they’re good” thing is so tired and lazy. This CHRISTIAN problem gets pinned on Catholics like they’re the only congregation with lukewarm believers who only show up one hour a week. Besides, I thought we only need “Faith Alone” so what’s this expectation that Christians have to do anything or be the best Christian they can be? It makes no sense for evangelical Protestants to have this criticism of Catholics.
So true !I’m Catholic and I will agree there are a lot of Luke warm Catholics/Christians. But they act like there no Luke warm Protestants , pot calling the kettle black .
Try reading the Augustinian Confession
@@jaytv4evaand he debunks you. Because He is Not Faith alone
Good point! I see this contradictory rhetoric coming from Protestants all the time. At one time, they assert that Catholics live sinful lives and then they turn around and preach that nothing a believer does has any effect on his/her salvation. Well, which is it?
@@Akhgy
I'm sorry, I meant to say Augsburg Confession
Dr. Leo wasn't ready. Trent was like a heavyweight champion and Leo was like a high school freshman. Brutal.
I‘m not catholic but have to admit Trent demolished the guy.
Poor Chirico…
@@henriquealexandreh yes it was sad to see Mr Leo with nothing.
Agreed.. this was brutal.
@@Convert2024 Nothing. That is ridiculous statement.
@@markrutledge5855 point it out please see if he answer anything.
As a former "anti-Catholic' protestant who is now joining the Catholic church, many of Trent's responses are what helped me see that scripture and Church history actually strongly support the Catholic church!
Loads of self made words and rules in the catholic and orthodox organizations instead of understanding and doing exactly what the Bible says. The true believers in Christ are called The Body Of Christ which IS the only description in the Bible, with Lord Jesus as Head of His Kingdom - not 'church', as church is originally a replacement word for an ‘assembly of believers’ (which can be everywehere). But the word church had become a word for "original true (catholic) believers" and for an institute or organization called the catholic church, erected by….. keep on reading. I was raised a catholic, until…I actually seriously started to read the Bible. We can read in Scriptures that Lord Jesus commanded the Apostles to first preach the Gospel to the Jews, and after also to the Heathen or Gentiles (but never vise versa ! ). I found out in Scriptures who of the Apostles for the first time went to Rome .. and it wasn't Peter. In the Book of Acts it says in Chapter 28 the following: 16 "And when we came to Rome, the Centurion delivered the Prisoners to the Captain of the Guard: but Paul was allowed to live in a house, by himself, with a Roman Soldier that kept him. 17 And it came to pass, that after three days Paul called the Chief of the there living Jews together: and when they came together, Paul said to them: "Men and Brethren, though I have committed nothing against our people, our customs, or against our fathers, yet was I delivered prisoner from Jerusalem into the hands of the Romans 18 who, when they had examined me, would have let me go, because there was no cause of guild in me. 19 But when the Jews spoke against that verdict, I was constrained to appeal unto Caesar; not that I had made any accusations against my Nation. 20 For this Hope (the Gospel of Jesus Christ) therefore I have called for you, to see you, and to speak with you: because for the Hope of Israel I am bound with these chains. 21 The Chief of the Jews said to Paul: "We neither received letters out of Judaea concerning you, neither any of the Brethren that came from there shewed or spoke any harm of you. 22 But we desire to hear of you what you think: for concerning this sect, we know that it is spoken against everywhere". The Roman catholic church claims that it was Peter who went to Rome first to preach the Gospel there first and that it was Peter who founded the catholic church there. Question: who lies? God,... or the Roman catholic church ? And what about the Letter in the Bible from Paul to the Congregation of Galatians where it says this in Chapter 2? From verse 7 we read the following: 7 "But on the contrary, when they saw that the Gospel of the Uncircumcision (Gentiles) was committed unto me, as the Gospel of the Circumcision (Jews) was unto Peter; 8 for He that gave Peter power effectively to the Apostleship of the circumcision (again: the Jews), the Same was Mighty in me toward the Gentiles. 9 And when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the Grace that was given unto me, they gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship; that we (that are Paul and Barnabas) should go unto the Heathen, and they unto the Circumcision. Again dear catholics: who lies? God’s Word, or the Roman catholic church? Bible, the book of Acts, Chapter 5, verse 29 : Then Peter and the other Apostles answered and said: “We ought to obey GOD - rather than man” !! Since the Roman catholic 'church' claims to be well-read on scriptures, then please point me in the direction of where in the Bible it says to pray to a woman, or with a rosary praising Mary, or to dead “saints.” Lord Jesus calls every believer Saints which all are who received the Holy Spirit and confess with their mouth that Jesus is Lord - so Rome has no authority appointing only some people saint - that is ludicrous. Please show me the name ‘pope’ in the Bible? Please show me where it says to call any mortal sinful man (the pope) your father. Please show me where the Bible says anything about purgatory, or paying indulgences (buying yourself into heaven - is God corrupt ?). Please show me where Mary was sinless? Why is it that catholics worship Mary still as a virgin when Lord Jesus had half brothers and half sisters? Mark 6 : 3 "Is this not the Carpenter, the Son of Mary, AND BROTHER OF JAMES, JOSES, JUDAS, AND SIMON? And are not HIS SISTERS here with us?” Matthew 13 : 55-56 "Is this not the Carpenter’s son? Is not His mother called Mary? And HIS BROTHERS JAMES, JOSES, SIMON, AND JUDAS? AND HIS SISTERS, are they not all with us?" Please show me where it says to confess your sins to a fellow sinful man so that he may forgive them? Where does the Bible say the pope is the “vicar of Christ” on earth - how can a sinful man be te replacer of Christ on earth? That is blasphemy ! Show me where it says that a preacher must be unmarried? It was the pagan ROMAN Emperor Constantine (306 - 337 AD) who was in fact the first “pope” who hijacked the first Christian Communion in Rome founded by the apostle Paul, and he didn't allow for the common people to have Bible Scriptures...to keep believers ignorant to stay in power, as the Catholic Church still tries to do. Later pope’s started the ‘inquisition’ because the book printing machine was invented and people like Martin Luther and William Tyndale could spread the Bible in printed form to the common people: they were persecuted by Rome and many of them burned to dead for that by decree of Rome, and so were hundreds others who did the same as they denounced the FALSE doctrines of Rome. Rome called them heretics and witches while they murdered Christians who loved Jesus and true Scriptures. THESE ARE HISTORICAL FACTS. PLEASE GET OUT OF THIS FALSE CHURCH !!! The Roman catholic “church” is a continuation of the old Roman PAGAN Empire: it never went away as it disguised itself as a Christian Church. The pope, cardinals and bishops wear a Mitre - which odd head dress comes from the old pagan Rome priests representing a FISH BEAK god (I suggest you search for that). Read Revelation, Chapter 17: verse 7, 8 and 9…Read also Revelation 18 to see what God will do to this “church.”
"Here is your mother."
- Jesus
not literal mother.
@ Is God the Father our literal father?
He is our creator, we can't live without him, but we are born in a limited body which means we arent perfect while God is perfect, he created us, he is our *heavenly* father but we are limited since we are offsprings of humans, it is written "no one is just, only God [Jesus]
@David-o8u9k If God could create Adam and Eve without sin, He can certainly create Mary without sin. How, you ask? By miracle, as He incarnated Himself by miracle, without sin.
The catholic wrongness is they think Mary provided her fulness of grace. They do not understand that people can do nothing apart from God so they wrongly make Mary the sustainer of grace and make her sinless n then all the other heresies ping off the first heresy. Jesus was clear and did not stutter - ONLY GOD IS GOOD. (She’s a sinful woman). 👩
By the third part covering the Papacy, unfortunately the doctor went off the deep end and embarrassed himself. No scripture or intertextual evidence for his claims, unlike Trent who sprinkled everything he said with Biblical quotes.
So ecclesiastical precedent isn't as important as holy writ?
Sounds like something a Protestant would say
@@jaytv4eva are you just going through the comments making the dumbest replies possible?
@@ASR-n6d
Actually engage with the comment instead of lobbing ad homs. Thank you.
And please...don't bother using Scott Hahn apologetics. He's a Vatican 2 Catholic.
@@jaytv4eva what are “Scott Hahn apologetics”?
"Ecclesiastical precedent"? The Dr didn't cite any ecclesiastical figure as an exampld or any historian or Church Father as evidence for his claims while Trent had Scripture and Church Fathers as divine and historical evidence, respectively, for his view.
Hail Mary full of grace the Lord is with thee blessed art thou amongst women and blessed is the fruit of thy womb Jesus. Holy Mary Mother of God pray for us sinners now and at the hour of our death. Amen.
You sound like a Musliim lol
Amen!
Amen!
@@AlexisHernandez-f7s Why like why
@@AlexisHernandez-f7s Exactly just ugh why would you give marry so much honor that she is never described to have the best description you have is she being blessed above all women because she bore the messiah
Other than that in Jesus entire ministry she did not get special treatment
Trent Horn’s summary of apostolic succession and the papacy (48:00) was all class.
Leonardo was out of his depth. His response to Trent at 51:20 was filled with vague platitudes and lacked any clear reference to Scripture or history.
I find it interesting that Dr De Chirico is a lapsed Catholic who is now a Protestant Pastor while Trent was a Protestant who is now a Catholic apologist. It follows the saying that bad/weak Catholics become Protestant, while well informed and well researched Protestants make excellent Catholics!
So true. Every single time.
Every Protestant "convert" from Catholicism: "In my Church, they banned the Bible and told us Jesus mattered less than Mary and forced us to pray to and worship saints. I never heard the gospel until my charismatic nondenominational baptist church. They had an altar call and I prayed the sinner's prayer."
The opposite: "I read the Church Fathers."
After a year of RCIA I remained a Protestant because it confirmed ALL of my major concerns about Roman Catholicism (RC) at the time. I find it so interesting to read an RC scholar demonstrate historical development of 90% of RC theology, and then read an RC apologist, like Trent, who says it was all there in the beginning. Which one is it? Maybe it's hidden in some unrevealed father's writing/tradition, or waiting for a council to proclaim it. Even a Pope wrote how the fathers are not guarantors of the RC faith because what once was to believed to be historical in nature isn't supported by an unbiased reading of the fathers.
A Protestant can only become Catholic if he has no relationship with Christ then he will hunger for some mystical rituals. But if Christ is in you, the hope of Glory, then you have fellowship continually with Him and you cannot be seeking for super experiences. Worshipping the father is not localised to a Church but anywhere you are able to worship Him in Spirit and truth!
You can thank Vatican 2 for that
@@MeanBeanComedy well, that's your story.
"Where the Bishop appears there let the people be. Just as where JESUS CHRIST IS there is THE CATHOLIC APOSTOLIC CHURCH " St.Ignatius of Antioch 107 🔑⛪️🍞🍷📿📖🕊
As a Prot I appreciate Mr Horn at first pointing out it's not possible, fairly, to compare a church= Rome to an ecclesiastical movement= Protestantism. Thanks Mr. Horn.
“ecclesiastical”
This was a great conversation. Not sure how Dr. Chirico came out of this without questioning his protestant beliefs. Mr. Horn was charitable and yet entirely devastating. Thank you for sharing.
Horn charitable? since when?
We fly to thy patronage, O Holy Mother of God; despise not our prayers in our necessities, but ever deliver us from all dangers, O glorious and Blessed Virgin. Amen
So De Chirico was right after all. Why are you praying Mary?
@markrutledge5855
Why can't I pray to Mary?
Prayer is asking a request
-Christians are commanded to pray for each other
-the effectiveness of prayer depends on your piety
-Mary is the most holy human to ever exist
-the saints in heaven are shown in Scripture in the book of revelation to intercede for Christians on earth
-intercession of saints is also a tradition from the apostles which scripture commands us to obey
Given these facts, I would be a fool not to ask for Mary's intercession
God has no mother
@@mousakandah5188 Mary is dead, we are forbidden to communicate with the dead, their spirits are in heaven, not on the earth
@@mousakandah5188Mary the most holy human to exist???? Are you forgetting about her Son? Absolute heresy
I think in some cases this ongoing rift is caused by a difference between Catholics and Protestants in what the definition and concept of “praying” means.
When you are raised in a Protestant church/family, if one is to pray, it has a narrow and specific meaning where a believer is speaking to or appealing to God about something. The word and God go hand in hand. The very act of prayer is in most cases a direct appeal for Gods power or influence over something.
When you are raised Catholic, your understanding of what it means to pray is more broad, you are taught a wide number of recitations that are a tradition in the Church, these can range from direct appeals to Jesus himself all the way to asking St. Anthony about your misplaced car keys. The very definition of prayer is understood as an appeal to Heaven, to honor or speak to one figure who has achieved a high esteem in the eyes of God, and a lot of the time prayer doesn’t mean an appeal for the power or influence of God over your/someone’s life. It’s an appeal for a figure who God has worked through and shown His love to in hopes that God might be closer with them up in Heaven than you down on earth.
What about the cannibalism thing?
@@EvilXtianity To be clear I'm NOT equating cannibalism with Christianity.
Why is cannibalism morally wrong?
@@alisterrebelo9013
_"Why is cannibalism morally wrong?"_
Hmmm, I had to search around to consider it...
I remember reading about that soccer team that crashed in the Andes on a flight and was written about in the novel, "Alive!". That instance was celebrated.
Assuming you're referring to a corpse, it's just gross. Just like incest is.
Perhaps that is a built-in instinct to not do it.
There are health reasons to avoid it.
@@alisterrebelo9013
_"To be clear I'm NOT equating cannibalism with Christianity."_
Jesus: "Whoever gnaws my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink."
(John 6:53)
Conference of Catholic Bishops: "The Eucharist is the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ truly present on the altar under the appearances of bread and wine."
@@EvilXtianity None of that response provided a moral grounding against cannibalism. You expressed a subjective preference, which I acknowledge is your personal preference. Without a moral grounding, you cannot enforce your subjective preference upon me. To be clear, a moral grounding must be from an objective standard, and considerations such as smell taste etc are subjective preferences.
I applaud that you cite Catholic sources! However you have made a category error. And that makes your claim of cannibalism of the Eucharist wrong on at least one front, and a major concession which I'd like you to confirm.
The Eucharist and meat/flesh exist in two distinct categories.
Meat/flesh have two attributes, its accidents (sensory features such as smells, taste, appearance etc.) and it's substance (what subsists in itself and is the subject of accidents). In meat/flesh, the substance is meat/flesh, and its accidents are those naturally to be expected of flesh/meat I.e. bloody, tough, etc.
The Eucharist on the other hand has all the accidents of bread and wine, but the substance is transubstantiated to the substance of the body, blood, soul and divinity of Jesus.
Cannibalism is defined as the eating of that which is BOTH by appearances AND by substance that of human flesh.
Error 1 - The Eucharist doesn't fall under the definition of human flesh, therefore it is not cannibalism.
Major concession - By accepting that the Eucharist transubstantiates, you are conceding Catholic theology to be true. Do you concede this? If you don't concede this, then in your worldview we are eating bread and drinking wine, so your claim of cannibalism is false.
The devil hates Mary because she is a creature who had a role in our salvation.
She is our best intercessor.
We can never honor Mary more than her Son Jesus Christ.
It is God who gave us the commandment “honor your father and mother”.
The devil hates Mary because God put enmity between the serpent and the woman. Those who refuse the woman embrace the serpent.
You don’t need an intercessor you have Jesus. What do you need Mary for? To have a better life ? You only have 80 years here and Jesus and his salvation is good enough. What can Mary give you? The bigger question is what are you trying to get out of Mary? Y’all just use her for extra blessings. I’m blessed enough by having a savior that’s all I need.
The ancient Israelites over and over insisted on adding worship of Asherah side-by-side with the Lord God, because culturally humans feel like there "should" be a Queen of Heaven (the literal title of Asherah). It was paganism then, it's paganism now. Jesus honored Mary because of her obedience to God (Matthew 12:47-50), not because of any special role as mother. He makes it very clear. "And pointing to his disciples, he said, 'Here are my mother and my brothers! For whoever does the will of my Father in heaven is my brother and sister and mother.'" Mary is no more intercessor than John, Peter, Mark, Luke, Paul, or any other Christian brother or sister. As an obedient, righteous woman, Mary herself would not want people treating her as a replacement for God.
And yes, Mary played a role in salvation, just like Ruth did, or David did, or John the Baptist. There are many individuals who showed faith, righteousness, and obedience, and paved the way for Jesus and our salvation. Mary *should* be honored and remembered, just like Stephen should (also called "full of grace", same original words used), but she should not be worshipped as even a lesser "god" (in practice even if not in name), through what is reserved for God alone: prayer. We *ask* people to pray *for* us, and maybe that can include those who have passed on to be with the Lord (even though in the hundreds of examples of righteous prayer in the Bible, there are zero of this...), but we cannot pray *to* anyone besides God alone. That is idolatry and sin.
Catholicism has many strengths, unity probably chief among them. But it is not perfect, and is not the entire, sole church that Jesus founded. He did not tear down one physical temple to replace it with a new physical one, but rather came so we can worship in "Spirit and truth". The body of Christ encompasses all believers, Catholics included, Protestants included. But just being in the church together with each other as one big family doesn't mean we're all perfect. We should all stop trying to play defense with apologetics on areas of sin and just acknowledge that what is wrong is wrong and repent of it.
@@albaniancrusader01 I just don't know why I would use an extra intercessor when the provided one will suffice.
Just as the Devil actively works throughout the world to draw souls away from God, Mary actively works around the world drawing souls to her Son.
Former Italian Protestant philosopher here. I know and respect Dr. De Chirico, probably the most influential pastor-theologian in Italy, but honestly he was destroyed by Trent, in every respect (use of Scriptures, history, theology) and in every question (Mary, Sola Scriptura, Papacy, Ecclesiology). I would never have expected De Chirico to reject the authority of St. Ignatius
" I would never have expected De Chirico to reject the authority of St. Ignatius"
Especially as St Ignatius was taught by St John. A great example of
- he (St Ignatius)
- who hears you (St John)
- hears me (Jesus)
As a philosopher you respect him, or as a fellow human being? With respect, I was genuinely surprised by his amateurism. Peace be with your spirit, brother.
I think Trent won this debate easily.
i agree, but he is so wrong. a more skilled opponent would be nice.
@@AbhorEvilRomans12 He isn't wrong though. that's why he won the debate, Trent used scripture and church history to back up his claims.
@@AbhorEvilRomans12i thibk you should debage trent horn
The catholic wrongness is they think Mary provided her fulness of grace. They do not understand that people can do nothing apart from God so they wrongly make Mary the sustainer of grace and make her sinless n then all the other heresies ping off the first heresy. Jesus was clear and did not stutter - ONLY GOD IS GOOD. (She’s a sinful woman). 👩
@@AbhorEvilRomans12 how so?
Massive Trent Horn W here, the prot was woefully underprepared and only offered up the typical talking points about mary. Trents understanding of Mariology, Christology and early Church history showed he was a class above here.
It's called "Scott Hahn apologetics".
The former Catholic dude is alluding to passages from Ecclesiastical rulings that Vatican II Catholics don't even read anymore!
Total Catholic Victory!
@@jaytv4eva total Catholic Victory again brother.
@@Notouchs
Mmmm, it depends. Are you a papist? If not, then you can't really call yourself a Catholic--well...you could...but you'd have to call yourself a Vatican 2 Catholic :)
That Protestant guy was out of his depth, he couldn’t answer a single question once Horn started asking him questions and broke up his rambling speeches about why he thinks Catholics are wrong.
"I am not advocating for an ecclesiastical belonging to a particular church".
That sums it up.
However Jesus did advocate the belonging and unity with the church He built upon Peter to whom He gave the keys to heaven.
2000 years later the Pope and the Catholic Church are still obliging and advocating the same.
SO well spoken, thankyou
Di Chirico cannot hide his bigotry. He does not engage and simply regurgitates all the old Protestant myths.
He's no more than the prots born again endoctrined...
Loads of self made words and rules in the catholic and orthodox organizations instead of understanding and doing exactly what the Bible says. The true believers in Christ are called The Body Of Christ which IS the only description in the Bible, with Lord Jesus as Head of His Kingdom - not 'church', as church is originally a replacement word for an ‘assembly of believers’ (which can be everywehere). But the word church had become a word for "original true (catholic) believers" and for an institute or organization called the catholic church, erected by….. keep on reading. I was raised a catholic, until…I actually seriously started to read the Bible. We can read in Scriptures that Lord Jesus commanded the Apostles to first preach the Gospel to the Jews, and after also to the Heathen or Gentiles (but never vise versa ! ). I found out in Scriptures who of the Apostles for the first time went to Rome .. and it wasn't Peter. In the Book of Acts it says in Chapter 28 the following: 16 "And when we came to Rome, the Centurion delivered the Prisoners to the Captain of the Guard: but Paul was allowed to live in a house, by himself, with a Roman Soldier that kept him. 17 And it came to pass, that after three days Paul called the Chief of the there living Jews together: and when they came together, Paul said to them: "Men and Brethren, though I have committed nothing against our people, our customs, or against our fathers, yet was I delivered prisoner from Jerusalem into the hands of the Romans 18 who, when they had examined me, would have let me go, because there was no cause of guild in me. 19 But when the Jews spoke against that verdict, I was constrained to appeal unto Caesar; not that I had made any accusations against my Nation. 20 For this Hope (the Gospel of Jesus Christ) therefore I have called for you, to see you, and to speak with you: because for the Hope of Israel I am bound with these chains. 21 The Chief of the Jews said to Paul: "We neither received letters out of Judaea concerning you, neither any of the Brethren that came from there shewed or spoke any harm of you. 22 But we desire to hear of you what you think: for concerning this sect, we know that it is spoken against everywhere". The Roman catholic church claims that it was Peter who went to Rome first to preach the Gospel there first and that it was Peter who founded the catholic church there. Question: who lies? God,... or the Roman catholic church ? And what about the Letter in the Bible from Paul to the Congregation of Galatians where it says this in Chapter 2? From verse 7 we read the following: 7 "But on the contrary, when they saw that the Gospel of the Uncircumcision (Gentiles) was committed unto me, as the Gospel of the Circumcision (Jews) was unto Peter; 8 for He that gave Peter power effectively to the Apostleship of the circumcision (again: the Jews), the Same was Mighty in me toward the Gentiles. 9 And when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the Grace that was given unto me, they gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship; that we (that are Paul and Barnabas) should go unto the Heathen, and they unto the Circumcision. Again dear catholics: who lies? God’s Word, or the Roman catholic church? Bible, the book of Acts, Chapter 5, verse 29 : Then Peter and the other Apostles answered and said: “We ought to obey GOD - rather than man” !! Since the Roman catholic 'church' claims to be well-read on scriptures, then please point me in the direction of where in the Bible it says to pray to a woman, or with a rosary praising Mary, or to dead “saints.” Lord Jesus calls every believer Saints which all are who received the Holy Spirit and confess with their mouth that Jesus is Lord - so Rome has no authority appointing only some people saint - that is ludicrous. Please show me the name ‘pope’ in the Bible? Please show me where it says to call any mortal sinful man (the pope) your father. Please show me where the Bible says anything about purgatory, or paying indulgences (buying yourself into heaven - is God corrupt ?). Please show me where Mary was sinless? Why is it that catholics worship Mary still as a virgin when Lord Jesus had half brothers and half sisters? Mark 6 : 3 "Is this not the Carpenter, the Son of Mary, AND BROTHER OF JAMES, JOSES, JUDAS, AND SIMON? And are not HIS SISTERS here with us?” Matthew 13 : 55-56 "Is this not the Carpenter’s son? Is not His mother called Mary? And HIS BROTHERS JAMES, JOSES, SIMON, AND JUDAS? AND HIS SISTERS, are they not all with us?" Please show me where it says to confess your sins to a fellow sinful man so that he may forgive them? Where does the Bible say the pope is the “vicar of Christ” on earth - how can a sinful man be te replacer of Christ on earth? That is blasphemy ! Show me where it says that a preacher must be unmarried? It was the pagan ROMAN Emperor Constantine (306 - 337 AD) who was in fact the first “pope” who hijacked the first Christian Communion in Rome founded by the apostle Paul, and he didn't allow for the common people to have Bible Scriptures...to keep believers ignorant to stay in power, as the Catholic Church still tries to do. Later pope’s started the ‘inquisition’ because the book printing machine was invented and people like Martin Luther and William Tyndale could spread the Bible in printed form to the common people: they were persecuted by Rome and many of them burned to dead for that by decree of Rome, and so were hundreds others who did the same as they denounced the FALSE doctrines of Rome. Rome called them heretics and witches while they murdered Christians who loved Jesus and true Scriptures. THESE ARE HISTORICAL FACTS. PLEASE GET OUT OF THIS FALSE CHURCH !!! The Roman catholic “church” is a continuation of the old Roman PAGAN Empire: it never went away as it disguised itself as a Christian Church. The pope, cardinals and bishops wear a Mitre - which odd head dress comes from the old pagan Rome priests representing a FISH BEAK god (I suggest you search for that). Read Revelation, Chapter 17: verse 7, 8 and 9…Read also Revelation 18 to see what God will do to this “church.”
This was painful... As a 20 year non-denominational Christian now converting to the Catholic Church I'm embarrassed I used to think like a protestant.
As a son from an Italian Catholic family and upbringing with little or no knowledge about my faith, after starting to learn from apologists like Trent Horn, Jimmy Akin, Scott Hahn, Brian Pitre and others (most ex-protestants) a couple of years ago, I was quite surprised to see how pastor Leonardo did not have complelling arguments against Catholicism on this debate. His stance was very subjective and generic. From a protestant perspective who bases all his beliefs in sola scriptura, he could not really cite solid biblical or even historical bases to validate protestantism. I am very glad I live in a place where there is a strong revival in the USA to learn apologetics and substantiate our beliefs in the Catholic faith as the only body founded by Jesus Christ.
Mi dispiace pastore Leonardo, ma con tutto il rispetto, veramente non ho trovato un'altra volta in questo dibattito, che anche se rispettuoso e amichevole, argomenti validi per giustificare il protestantismo, come ancora non li ho trovato fine adesso da nessun altro protestante. In tutti casi, i mie rispetti. Che Dio vi benedica e illumini il vostro cammino verso la verità. To Trent Horn, great job. Go more aggressive next time though 😉
If you’re not already definitely listen to William Albrecht & Sam Shamoun. God bless you
@@Minaya2444 Ha! I bet you $20 OP is subscribed and loves both of em!
Yeah, maybe it's because Catholicism is true! 😉
Complimenti per il post. Anch'io cattolico dalla nascita in Africa e vivendo in Italia mi sono accorto da 2/3 anni a questa parte seguendo questi giganti della apologetica cattolica della ricchezza della nostra fede cattolica. Deo Gratia!! E la coltivo ogni giorno per aiutare anche la mia comunità.
Il sacerdote Luis Toro del Venezuela che ho anche conosciuto sui social dice spesso "cattolico non formato è futuro probabile protestante"
alla fine il grosso problema del protestantesimo è quello dell'allergia all'autorità ed è un misto di eresie già smantellate in passato dalla chiesa che oggi ritornano sotto mentite spoglie.
Look up father luis toro, known as the destroyer of protestanta
De Chirico’s critique reveals the deeper inconsistencies within Protestantism:
Dismissing Irenaeus as 'Simply Wrong':
By claiming Irenaeus was "simply wrong" about Peter and Paul founding the Church in Rome, De Chirico exemplifies a key issue in Protestantism: historical authorities don’t count if their testimony doesn’t align with Protestant assumptions. Irenaeus, a Church Father one generation removed from the Apostles, carefully defended the Apostolic tradition in his writings. To dismiss him outright undermines the historical continuity Protestants claim to respect when citing the Bible, which these same Church Fathers helped preserve.
Authority and Apostolic Approval:
De Chirico avoided providing any biblical example of a church leader starting a community without Apostolic approval or ordination. The New Testament (e.g., 2 Tim 1:6, Acts 1:26, Titus 1:5) clearly shows that authority was conferred by Apostles or bishops-not self-assumed. If Apostolic approval was the biblical standard for leadership in the early Church, how can Protestants justify the thousands of independent denominations led by self-appointed leaders today?
Sola Scriptura’s Contradictions:
Sola scriptura collapses under its own weight when we consider that the Reformers removed seven books from the Old Testament canon, books accepted by Christians for over 1,000 years. If the Bible is the sole authority, by what authority were these books removed? This makes sola scriptura a subjective principle, contingent upon the whims of post-Reformation editors rather than Apostolic tradition.
Disunity in Practice:
Christ’s prayer in John 17:21 was for His followers to be unified, just as He is one with the Father. Protestantism, however, has splintered into over 30,000 - 40,000 denominations worldwide, each with conflicting doctrines. This chaos is the direct result of rejecting the Apostolic structure Christ established in His Church.
Unity Through Apostolic Tradition:
Unity requires an unbroken chain of leadership going back to the Apostles, a concept the early Church Fathers like Irenaeus and Ignatius consistently defended. Protestantism’s rejection of this structure ultimately undermines the unity Christ intended for His Church.
Jesus said his followers were His mother, brothers and sisters ❤
He also said, "Why do you call me good? Only God is good..." Would you say that by that statement, Jesus is not good?
@eplongmichael8880
Take directly what is written.
Don't use any other analogue to prove your point
@@anuradhakadam7907It says:
“For whosoever shall do the will of God, he is my brother, and my sister, and mother.” (Mar 3:35, DRC)
“And Mary said: Behold the handmaid of the Lord: be it done to me according to thy word. And the angel departed from her.” (Luk 1:38, DRC)
Checks out.
@@eplongmichael8880 Where in the bible is this line as a person would need to know the context in which it is used or better still send a text to Trent or someone like Sam Shamoun who would know even the translations.
@@eplongmichael8880 you said..." Would you say...Jesus is not good?" No, I would say he was God.
It seems like Catholics and Protestants, including Evangelicals have a lot to think and learn from each other. Douglas M Beaumont writes the book With One Accord - Affirming Catholic Teaching Using Protestant Principles. It is eye-opening to see that the Protestant arguments are not completely full proof and airtight. While the book is obviously Catholic in its view, it’s still an enlightening read for Protestants to see that summary slogans about faith alone, and scripture alone, while essential, do not explain a lot of the religious reality Christians of different stripes may need to address. Happy reading.
Trent Horn, excellent job. Always a pleasure watching your work. Blessings to all participants.
That protester said it all when he admitted that he was a catholic along with his family but didn’t learn anything about what the Catholic Church teaches along with his parents this is the problem with numerous Catholic’s who go through the very same thing and end up leaving the Catholic Church because they had no spiritual upbringing through their parents because of their parents weren’t faithful and obedient to learn of the enormous teachings of the Catholic Church and that opens the door for protester’s to take advantage of unlearned Catholics and that’s a fact?😳
Poorly catechized Catholics are the breeding ground Protestants and other religion. We see an example.
It's funny cause we say thr same thing in Protestant circles. For many people when they are exposed to something they never heard before it shakes their world. And they are more easily persuaded.
@@andrewsantillan6020 True. Most converts to Protestantism, from what I've heard, hadn't been properly catechised whereas many Protestant converts to Catholicism (including many well known pastors and preachers) are those who despite being well versed discover through study that they'd been misled.
@@Vigula I guess you've heard wrong then. As a Protestant pastor I have many former Roman Catholics in my congregation and they completely understand what they had been taught. They've just come to realization that some of what they had learned was wrong.
@@markrutledge5855 Understanding what is believed is not the same as why it is believed. If you really understand why, there's no way to remain or become Protestant.
I am always shocked to hear how poor of arguments Protestant apologists are able to make. While I have no doubt of the sincerity of this individual advocating against the Catholic Church, it is just painful to listen to the continual logical fallacies and how much history and context must be dispensed with in order to support the position. It is really no wonder why young men and many people in general are departing non-denominational and other Protestant denominations en masse.
To the Protestant pastor reading this comment; I urge you to not be dismissive of this very real phenomena and to be charitable if you are approached by people curious about the Catholic faith.
🛑 44:16 Trent already believes in Marian doctrines (Perpetual Virginity) that contradict the scripture.
“While Jesus was still talking to the crowd, his mother and brothers stood outside, wanting to speak to him. Someone told him, “Your mother and brothers are standing outside, wanting to speak to you.” He replied to him, “Who is my mother, and who are my brothers?” Pointing to his DISCIPLES, he said, “Here are my mother and my brothers. For whoever does the will of my Father in heaven is my brother and sister and mother.”
Matthew 12:46-50 NIV
Very typical wrong interpretation again. Please can you fact check the difference between speaking plainly and figuratively/parable.i rest my case
well said......
@@thucydideanza3605 your case is not well rested. @elina5 makes the point that mary is the same as His other followers, she is a sinner like us all, she is forgiven, she is a disciple, so are you and I. In the big scheme of things, she not that big of a deal.
1 Tim. 2:5
For there is one God and one mediator between God and mankind, the man Christ Jesus,
@gloriapatriparcedomineIntercessions FOR people would still go through Jesus. So that passage in Timothy in no way supports the idea that we are to pray TO saints or Mary. In fact zero verses say that.
A mediator is a go between for two parties. Christ mediates to the Father . The saints intercede to Christ...
Romans says "the Spirit intercedes for us as we know not what to pray" so either:
-Jesus IS the holy spirit and the Trinity is false
-or an intercessor and a mediator are two different categories.
And the saints intercede to Christ rather than mediating between the two parties as Jesus ALONE does.
You pick
@@lakerfan0243we acknowledge prayers of Saints go through Jesus. Amen
The saints are said in revelation to be seated with Christ on His throne to "judge and rule".
It seems *ludicrous* to deny that the Holy Spirit may grace us to send prayer requests to our glorified brother and sisters to pray WITH us to the LORD
Considering they sit on authoritative seats beside our Lord.
And considering we see prayer given to saints in heaven in Revelation
@@lakerfan0243 you really don't get it. You are missing the point clearly and really don't understand the bible in a Jewish perspective. It's funny how you say this or quote scripture but yet the early Christians and Church did pray or ask for prayers with Mary and Saints. Oh yes and Jesus as well. YOU FORGET THAT BEFORE THE BIBLE WAS CANONIZED BY THE CATHOLIC CHURCH. JESUS LEFT HIS CHURCH FIRST ALONG WITH THE CHURCH TRADITION. COMMMMMON. It's not rocket science. Just basic early Christians History 📖⛪️🍞🍷🔑📿🕊🙏🏻
@@RedRoosterRoman 1. Jesus is the only Mediator between God and humanity. 1 Tim. 2:5,6, Jn. 14:6, 17:1-3. 2. Yes, both Jesus, the Messiah, and the Holy Spirit intercede on behalf of true believers in Jesus. Heb. 7:25, Rom. 8:26. 3. The one, true God is clearly a Tri-Unity of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Matt.3:16,17, 28:18-20, Jn.14:16,17, 2 Cor. 13:14, Isaiah 48:16.
Listening to Dr. Leonardo De, I was just wondering: what was his doctorate degree about? The way he answered most of the questions felt like he wasn’t sure enough or didn’t care about the depth of the topic but was answering just because he had to.
I'm sure I missed some things, but here's notes I took from the debate. Just some personal reflection: it seems to me that Dr. De Chirico did a good job of articulating what the Protestant concerns about Catholicism are but he didn't make a whole lot of arguments for those concerns. As Horn pointed out, their disagreement was really over sola scriptura, and most of Dr. De Chirico's case rested on the assumption that sola scriptura was true. This was his main argument against Marian devotion, for instance: that it isn’t found in Scripture. Horn argued that sola scriptura itself is not a biblical principle and that, instead, the Catholic view of a Church that Jesus gave His authority to is. Without an agreement on whether the source of our doctrine is the Church and Scripture or Scripture alone, there wasn't a whole lot of progress possible on specific doctrinal issues. Thank you to both Dr. De Chirico and Trent Horn for the cordial debate! :)
MARY
Dr. De Chirico's arguments
-Mary disappears from Scripture after Jesus’ ascension, which he feels points to her role being confined to Jesus' life
-The Biblical portrait of Mary doesn’t include Catholic Mariology
-The veneration of Mary takes away from Jesus
-Marian doctrines developed over time to confirm to devotional practices rather than the other way around
Horn's arguments
-The most honorable of all creatures is the one who gave birth to Christ. Also Mary herself says “all generations will call me blessed”
- Mary is the mother of God. If you deny this, you have to deny essential elements of Christology, and thishas been overwhelming affirmed by Christians.
-The oldest Christian liturgical prayer is to Mary (3rd century)
- Mary's role is to lead people to her Son
-The oldest Christian liturgical prayer is to Mary
INTERSESSION OF THE SAINTS
Dr. De Chirico's arguments
-God is capable of hearing and responding to prayers without intersession of saints
-There is nothing in Scripture about praying to the dead
Horn's arguments
-We ask people alive on earth to pray for us, and the people in heaven are alive too. Why not ask them to pray for us?
SOLA SCRIPTURA
Dr. De Chirico's arguments
-Multiple Scriptures that talk about the inspiration and importance of Scripture
-Jesus appealed to "what is written"
-The imoprtance of the Word of God, which he argues is confined to the written word
Horn's arguments
-Sola Scriptura fails its own test because it is not found in Scripture
-Christian teaching was first primarily spread through oral teaching
-Paul says, “Hold fast to the teachings given to you, either by letter or by Word of mouth
-The early church didn’t have a Bible. St. Ignatious says to follow the bishop, and Augustine says “show us your list of bishops”
PAPACY AND THE AUTHORITY AND STRUCTURE OF THE CHURCH
Dr. De Chirico's arguments
-The early church transitioned from the model of recognizing when God had appointed someone to authority to a more imperial model that looks suspiciously like a political empire
-The church of Rome was founded by unknown people, not by Peter and Paul. In fact, Paul attests to the church in Rome’s existence before he had gone there
Horn's arguments (there were a lot haha)
-Apostolic authority in Ephesians 2:20 - the apostles are the foundation of the church, Luke 10:16 “He who hears you hears me," and John 20:23 - the apostles are given the ability to forgive sins
-Peter’s preeminence in Matthew 16:18 - Jesus changes Peter’s name to “Rock," and gives him the “keys to the kingdom of heaven.” Also, the illusion to the “prime minister” of Israel in Isaiah
-Every list of the 12 disciples in Scripture puts Peter first and Judas last
-Paul says he was willing to stand up to Peter
-Even Protestant scholars like J.N.D. Kelly say Peter was the leader of the early church
-Clement, writing in the first century, says the apostles appointed successors
-Hebrews says to obey our Christian leaders
-In the 100s, Pope St. Victor excommunicated other churches and we have no record of anyone saying he didn’t have that authority
-At the Council of Chalcedon, Pope Leo read his tome and the bishops responded, “Peter has spoken through Leo.”
-Practical benefit of unity of a central figure and universality of the church
-No one in New Testament has authority in the church without divine or apostolic appointment
-Laying on of hands in the New Testament
-St. Ignatius says, in 107 A.D. that if you don’t have bishops, priests, and deacons you’re not a valid church
-The Old Testament model has priests and a high priest
What is the name of the logical fallacy where you depend on or count as evidence the very topic in question? That is what you are doing! You have appeal to authority thrown in. Darn near everything you commented is invalid, incorrect or a Catholic teaching.
Thank you for an excellent breakdown.
@@winstonsmiths2449 I think that's the begging the question fallacy. Sorry that it sounded like I was doing that though - I was just trying to summarize Horn's position. Rereading it, I think I worded that intro badly though, so I rewrote it to try to make it clear that I wasn't stating Horn's positions as if they were facts
Thanks bud
Thank you for the notes! Rly helps👍
43:13 Wouldn't this mean that the most "radical" of Protestant denominations have a legitimate argument for their existence? If a pink haired lady tells me that The Spirit took her to Heaven where there was unlimited amusements parks in every theme imaginable... why not?
Felt bad for the Italian chap. Trent got tired of his usual standard Protestant tropes.
Growing up in a CMA church and with a largely Baptist family, I never fully understood Marian doctrine, intercession of saints or even the Eucharist. Now I am going through the process of grafting onto the Anglican tradition, and my journey the last year or so has taught me to honor Mary as the Theotokos, understand early church heresies, and just how spiritually nourishing the Eucharist is. Am I comfortable with the idea of asking Mary and the saints for intercession? No. Do I believe, as we catch a glimpse of it in Revelation, that those who are reposed and with Christ are praying for us? Absolutely, and that is a great comfort. Glory to God alone +
Did you know the Catholic Church has an Anglican Ordinate who belive the faith. May your journey be blessed, you are drawing closer and closer to home.
@@MartinaStCYeah! I live in the Triad in NC (right in the middle), and there's one in the far east and the far west.
😐😐😑
Bummer. 🤦🏼♂️🙇🏼♂️
When I wan converting to Christianity as a history nerd, I became comfortable with praying to the saints because I was that all ancient churches did it.
I thought it makes more sense that this is true rather than all Christians falling into total idolatry ; especially when you notice that all these churches are 90% the same, from Western Catholics to Assyrian Patriarchate of the East. And all these churches are separated from the 5th century (except the Roman-Greek separation in the 11th century).
Funniest part is that after accepting praying the saints to pray for me, I still didn't understand why asking Mary to pray for me was more important than another saint. It is only after witnessing the net positive impact Mary had for me and the way she was converting me to Christ that I finally understood why her prayers are more righteous than other saints.
Leo did nothing but attack the Catholic Church and didn’t make any argument for protestantism. On the other hand, Trent made many reasoned defenses of The Church while also showing the truth of it.
Trent Horn was the only one in this debate actually proving his points with sound arguments. Dr. De Chirico was merely making assertions, but not backing them up with any arguments or proofs. Big difference.
Yeah no historians cited, no figures used as examples, no Scripture verses cited, just a vague notion of some "Biblical Christianity" that both gradually developed into the imperial system (while the empire was actively persecuting Christianity) but also looked like, and was labelled as Catholic within 100 years of Pentecost.
@@renjithjoseph7135 If by Imperial you mean: a hierarchichal structure in the Church who unite as one through practicing the mass and pariticpating in the Eucharist in the same way the earliest Christians did, then yes. This is a better option than the scatter-brained denomination approach the protestants claim to be the truth.
@garrettwilliams6396 yea but that's not "imperial", it's royal, as in like a KINGDOM. Idk why Prots have such a hard time with that. Maybe it's just American anti-monarchical sentiment
@@renjithjoseph7135 Its because Jesus is the head of the Kingdom not a sinful man.
My dude Trent 💪🏼
At the end, Chirico was just making stuff up. The early Church leaders had a "connection" to the the Apostles, according to him, but it was still just "people recognized them as sufficiently holy" or something? Despite the fact that Scripture explicitly depicts the laying on of hands as a means of communicating authority? So much for 'sola scriptura' I guess. 🤷♂ I tend to think he knew he was losing at this point, but was just riffing as best he could. He seems smart enough to recognize the weakness of his position, so I hope he comes back to the Church at some point. Oremus! 🙏📿
Love Unbelievable, but the topic introduced initially (differences between catholics and protestants) is way too broad for the allotted time. It would be helpful if we could focus on particular area of difference between catholics and protestants in a given show and introduce it as such initially.
The HOST is excellent at his work. Thumbs up!!!
Thank you Trent, Dr. Leo couldn’t answer any of Trent questions. For our Protestant friends, I will recommend to look for the truth and to educate themselves about the early church. If you don’t believe in Catholicism why would you trust the Bible, which the Church wrote.
Name "one" Roman Catholic that wrote any of the " New or Old Testament" books? The books were written by the Jews.
Yeah this was frustrating at points to listen to because Trent knows better and is taking full advantage of debating a weaker opponent who has no debate experience. Here are my thoughts:
First Trent with the motte and bailey regarding praying to Mary:
"It’s like asking a friend to pray for you" - the Motte. This is easy to defend and nobody disputes asking friends to pray for you.
“Hey quasi-incarnate transubstantiated Eternal Queen of Heaven, Daughter of the Father, Mother of the Son, Wife of the Spirit, into your Hands I commit my spirit!!!" - The Bailey. This is the real issue with Romanism, where they inflate Mary to this demi-god status, where she is treated almost as if she were God. This is the bait and switch that Trent is pulling.
37:57 This is the typical Catholic Apologist rhetorical trick that aims at low hanging fruit. And Trent repeats this canard over and over throughout this discussion. But I'm pretty sure that at the end of the day, this guy doesn't actually think you can only believe that which is *explicitly* taught in the Bible. I'm pretty sure he also thinks you can hold to *implicit* things as well. Things like abortion being wrong, or child molestation being evil - things the Bible *doesn't* explicitly mention. Even the Westminster Catechism says, "The whole counsel of God concerning all things necessary for His own glory, man’s salvation, faith and life, is either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequences *may be deduced* from Scripture". If something can be deduced this means it's *not* explicit, its *implicit* . No Protestant worth their salt thinks otherwise.
As to where does the Bible teach "you can only believe that which is explicitly taught in scripture" - *well it doesn't* . Thats because this is a *strawman* . What the Bible does teach however is that you are to always obey the word of God. This is taught *all throughout the Bible* and this includes what is taught explicitly and also implicitly. Because even for the latter, Christ *chastised* people for failing to grasp even implicit teachings, like how he chastised the Pharisees for failing to recognize that the apostles didn't violate the command of God just because they picked and ate wheat on the Sabbath. None of which is explicitly taught in scripture. It was implied and the Pharisees *should* have known this.
41:06 yet another canard. Trent is taking full advantage of the fact that this guy isn't able to articulate his position well. Trent already knows what *articulate* Protestants would say in reply and it's that 1 Thess 2:13 doesn't affect Sola Scriptura because Protestants acknowledge that revelation first came orally and then it was written down. Nobody disputes this. Sola Scriptura is a claim about *today* . It is the claim that *today* the only place we can find divine revelation is in the scriptures. Not only this but Trent also knows that Protestants would say that the "traditions" Paul is referring to there are the traditions that *he and the other apostles* passed on as part of *the deposit of faith* . This would *not* include *later* traditions like the Immaculate Conception or the Bodily Assumption.
"it has to be found in the bible" until it comes to how one has the authority to start a church 😂
25:56 This is false because everything we know about Christology can be traced to Paul and he never mentions anything about Mariology.
This cannot be chucked up to an argument from silence since when he writes about Christology, he never states that good Mariology is a requirement for understanding good Christology.
Huh? Paul pushes that we pray for one another. Jesus is the vine and we are the branches; is the head and we are His body. Death does not separate the Christians.
@johnchrysostom330 That is irrelevant to my point (and I'm not sure Paul teaches praying to departed saints)
@@adedaporh
Paul never mentions anything about a Bible either.
Do you know why?
Because the Bible would not appear until 382AD in the city of Rome.
@@adedaporh hello blessings, where did the departed saints go?? Please name the place.
@@joecastillo8798 Who said anything about a Bible?
Everything always comes down to one thing always. Whether or not the claim of infallibility of the Catholic Magisterium is true or not.
You only need everything to be explicitly in the Bible if you make yourself your own pope.
Thank you so much for this amazing video! Could you help me with something unrelated: I have a SafePal wallet with USDT, and I have the seed phrase. (alarm fetch churn bridge exercise tape speak race clerk couch crater letter). Could you explain how to move them to Binance?
Great Discussion. Thank you God bless🙏
I am the LORD, that is My name; And My glory I will not give to another, Nor My praise to carved images. {Isaiah 42:8} AMEN.
Have Mercy Gracious Heavenly Father , In The Name Of Our LORD AND ONLY SAVIOUR , MEDIATOR, ADVOCATE JESUS CHRIST
Really. God required the Jews to place two carved images of angels on the Ark of the Covenant. Obviously images are acceptable but worshipping them is not. Catholiics do not worship images any more than you worship pictures of your mother.
1:00:28 Not sure why Trent consistently misquotes 1Tim3:15 as, “Truth” and leaves out “The”, church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.
The Church (Body of Christ) is the Foundation of The Truth, which is our Blessed Lord Jesus Christ
Eph 2:20 Built on Foundation of the Apostles(12) and Prophets
And what was that Church? Was it one of the 45000 churches with different theologies?
When Paul wrote to Timothy there was only one Body of Christ which was long before the Protestor's Reformation in the 16th century.
As a great Initial start to some of this - please read brant Pitre’s book Jesus and the Jewish Roots of Mary.
And then follow it up with brant Pitre’s book Jesus and the Jewish roots of the Eucharist. :)
Great job moderating!
The problem with Tradition is what are the Traditions passed down by the Apostles and which Apostle or Apostles are credited for those Traditions? I don't know if this question can be answered. However, the written Word is just that for all to read. Its right there in black and white.
Further, are there any words uttered by Christ that are found in any Tradition that cannot be found in the Bible?
How do you know which books of the Bible are legitimate revelation? How do we know that the Book of Mormon is not?
Who do you put your faith in?
I personally put it in the Church the Lord Himself established through St. Peter and the Apostles.
I put my faith in Christ alone. BTW, you didn't answer the questions.
@@timmcvicker5775 My faith is in Christ. And he said He would establish a Church that will never fail.
I do not believe He was/is wrong.
Traditions that you would accept that aren’t in the Bible:
1. Public revelation ends with the death of the last Apostle
2. The NT consists of 27 books
3. Matthew, Mark, Luke and John are the authors of the Gospels
I don't think those are Apostolic Traditions.
Why not simply copy Peter, Paul, John and Jesus in the Bible which was written in the first century?
If one does that they get Catholicism as Jesus established a physical institution called the Church which had a hierarchy and officials to administer and keep the faith He gave to us.
Because as you can see we all have different interpretations of what they have written. That's why there are so many different denominations. That's why Jesus left us an authority in his Church for the ages.
@@iu9142 oh yes pretend there are not different denominations of the catholic church.
@AbhorEvilRomans12 yeah but the difference is we have all the same essential Dogmas and are united to the Seat of Peter. So we are still in one Church, one body, just different forms of worship.
1 ... just 1 super sad things I find amongst both catholics and my fellow protestants,
Is how they all seem to try and seperate the GOD of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob from Jesus Christ.
If you reader, also take HIM as your lord of Lords and king of Kings that took away your sins and WHOS kingdom is not of this world.... I call you both brother and preist.
Dr. Chirico said near the beginning of the interview that one of his concerns is that Catholicism conflates the Church with Christ. I wonder if he is concerned that Christ said to Paul "Why are you persecuting me?" when referring to the persecution of the Church.
Excellent, I've never noticed that detail before. Thank you.
Well done Trent ❤❤❤
“Ouch” moment for Protestants
I have a question. When you say that the virgen Mary is the mother of God. Does that mean she is the mother of the Holy Spirit and of the Father, because they’re one right? At the same time, it is said by the Catholic Church that the virgen Mary is the wife of the Holy Spirit. So she is the mother and the wife of the Trinity? Thank you.
Every person of the Trinity is fully God. So it is right to call all 3 persons God even if we don't refer to the whole Trinity. So we can say that God became a man even though the Father or the Holy Spirit never did that, and we can say Mary is the Mother of God beacasue she gave birth to Jesus even though she didn't give birth to the whole Trinity
"But why is this granted to me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me?" Luke 1:43
"...no one can say that Jesus is Lord except by the Holy Spirit." 1 Co 12:3
Clearly, Lord here is not just SIR (unless one is a Unitarian)
The catholic wrongness is they think Mary provided her fulness of grace. They do not understand that people can do nothing apart from God so they wrongly make Mary the sustainer of grace and make her sinless n then all the other heresies ping off the first heresy. Jesus was clear and did not stutter - ONLY GOD IS GOOD. (She’s a sinful woman). 👩
Reading how comments of people loving Mary, but they somehow do not show the same to Jesus.
Why yo trying to separate Mary from Jesus? Catholic is “and and both” but Protestant is “either or or”. Protestant loves cherry picking
Maybe because this was a debate about mariology? We love Jesus with all our hearts.
Huh? We Catholics does not only receive Christ in our hearts and mind. We receive Him physically. There could be no more "personal" than this.
How do you know? Because you read one comment? If you love Mary, you have to love Jesus. If you love Jesus, you have to love Mary.
The first miracle was done by asking her to talk to her Son.
@@johnchrysostom330They don't understand the Eucharist. They think it's just a symbol we do for kicks and giggles.
In Acts 6, the apostles chose seven, prayed over them and laid hands on them to serve the church. Who lays hands on those pastors that chose to start their own churches?
Horn presented De Chirico with the fact that in the NT divine authority was passed on by the laying on of hands, and that bishops and priests did not just pop up on their own, but De Chirico fumbled and would not admit it. He was faced with the fact that he has no divine authority or divine gaurantee for his leadership position.
Trent Horn knows his stuff. He clearly shows the problem with Protestantism… no structure or boundaries. Anyone can start his own church and disagree with everyone else’s interpretation of scripture. It’s not a problem of minor disagreements… it’s disagreement on MAJOR differences.
Protestants can’t agree on major issues. Are all invited to Christ… or just the pre-determined? Does baptism save? Once saved always saved? Faith Alone or faith and cooperation with God?
Protesters have caused a mess where anything goes. We see the results…. And it’s not good.
yes anyone can start their own church but does it contradict scripture. When you find it does you have to deal with it or get out of their. but if you find that the catholic churches are teaching heresy you are brainwashed into thinking you must stay.
My understanding is that we, in/of Christ Jesus, pray directly to our Father. Jesus is The Intercessor. What is Jesus lacking? We don't need to speak to/with anyone else that's not alive. That would equal divination. Holding people of the past in reverence is one thing, but *praying* to them asking them to supplement what is lacking in the Father's hearing of our prayers, and what Jesus is already praying...? Jesus suffered, shed His blood and died for us. Now He sits next to The Father intercessing. Mary, or any other "saint," doesn't need to convince her son, nor His Father of anything. (Again, IMHO.)
Great questions. If you really want a Catholic answer to the "why do we need" I recommend YT: Shameless popery: a new argument for praying to the saints..
It is quite long but in the end addresses this specific question
I would also add my own answer; based on "Theosis". To sit beside on a throne in Judaism is to rule with. Christ rules with the Father.
Revelation says the saints are seated on His throne to judge and to rule.
We stand before not merely God alone at death... But the saints judge us also
Jesus says to make friends with accusers on the way to court.
And so we have a relationship through the Spirit with the court in Heaven as brothers and sisters and mothers in Christ's kingdom
It is not "supplement" anything lacking in GOD. It is humility on our own weaknesses. And celebrating GOD'S work in His saints, as the bible says:
"Blessed is God in His saints"
In agreement to your assertion, Hebrews 7:25 affirms that Christ “is able to save forever those who draw near to God through him, since he always lives to make intercession for them.”This claim is not made of any other saint in scripture.” Despite all this, I find the religious devotion of the Catholics I know extremely inspiring to my otherwise Protestant faith.
@bobpierce57 it is not told of any other saint this is true.
But this is an "argument from silence". In the book of Revelation we *SEE* the saints interceding for us. The bible often shows us things rather than just staying them.
And we may also unveil the word of God and draw out implicit teachings.
I am glad some Catholics inspire you. Many protestants inspire me also. God bless!
You say "We don't need to speak to/with anyone else that's not alive". Why add "that's not alive"? Why not say "We don't need to speak to/with anyone else AT ALL" and then conclude that we should never ask anyone to pray for us.
Trent came to be convinced of the Christian faith by evangelical apologists 17:50 hahaha the irony. He just slipped when he started to do his own research much like his attacks of protestants who, as he would characterize it, "do Christianity on their own."
I remained Reformed because of RC scholars contradicting RC apologists.
Did you stop watching at that point?
25:30
Yeah this was frustrating at points to listen to because Trent knows better and is taking full advantage of debating a weaker opponent who has no debate experience. Here are my thoughts:
First Trent with the motte and bailey regarding praying to Mary:
"It’s like asking a friend to pray for you" - the Motte. This is easy to defend and nobody disputes asking friends to pray for you.
“Hey quasi-incarnate transubstantiated Eternal Queen of Heaven, Daughter of the Father, Mother of the Son, Wife of the Spirit, into your Hands I commit my spirit!!!" - The Bailey. This is the real issue with Romanism, where they inflate Mary to this demi-god status, where she is treated almost as if she were God. This is the bait and switch that Trent is pulling.
37:57 This is the typical Catholic Apologist rhetorical trick that aims at low hanging fruit. And Trent repeats this canard over and over throughout this discussion. But I'm pretty sure that at the end of the day, this guy doesn't actually think you can only believe that which is *explicitly* taught in the Bible. I'm pretty sure he also thinks you can hold to *implicit* things as well. Things like abortion being wrong, or child molestation being evil - things the Bible *doesn't* explicitly mention. Even the Westminster Catechism says, "The whole counsel of God concerning all things necessary for His own glory, man’s salvation, faith and life, is either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequences *may be deduced* from Scripture". If something can be deduced this means it's *not* explicit, its *implicit* . No Protestant worth their salt thinks otherwise.
As to where does the Bible teach "you can only believe that which is explicitly taught in scripture" - *well it doesn't* . Thats because this is a *strawman* . What the Bible does teach however is that you are to always obey the word of God. This is taught *all throughout the Bible* and this includes what is taught explicitly and also implicitly. Because even for the latter, Christ *chastised* people for failing to grasp even implicit teachings, like how he chastised the Pharisees for failing to recognize that the apostles didn't violate the command of God just because they picked and ate wheat on the Sabbath. None of which is explicitly taught in scripture. It was implied and the Pharisees *should* have known this.
41:06 yet another canard. Trent is taking full advantage of the fact that this guy isn't able to articulate his position well. Trent already knows what *articulate* Protestants would say in reply and it's that 1 Thess 2:13 doesn't affect Sola Scriptura because Protestants acknowledge that revelation first came orally and then it was written down. Nobody disputes this. Sola Scriptura is a claim about *today* . It is the claim that *today* the only place we can find divine revelation is in the scriptures. Not only this but Trent also knows that Protestants would say that the "traditions" Paul is referring to there are the traditions that *he and the other apostles* passed on as part of *the deposit of faith* . This would *not* include *later* traditions like the Immaculate Conception or the Bodily Assumption.
"There are some things in them that are hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other Scriptures. You therefore, beloved, knowing this beforehand, take care that you are not carried away with the error of lawless people and lose your own stability" (2 Peter 3:16-17). This is the crux of the issue. You, an individual, deign yourself to be the arbiter of truth with Sola Scriptura. How are you sure that you are not among the ignorant? I can rest my assurance in the fact that I am in communion with the body of Christ, that is the Church, which traces its history all the way back to Him. This is why Trent articulated the importance of the laying on of hands as a visible, clear transmission of authority for positions of leadership to shepherd the flock (deacon, priest, bishop). This is why the Bible, in both the Old and New Testament, takes great care to "not be hasty in the laying on of hands" (1 Timothy 5:22) and as seen with Joshua and the 70 elders (Num 11:16-25; Num 27:15-23).
^adding to this guys point, how do you know you're not missing implicit teachings just as the Pharisees are? After all, i can say that the teaching that Mary is the new ark of the covenant and various other things are clearly implicit in scripture, but you would argue against that. Are not your standards for "implicit" arbitrary? Where do u draw the line between "implicit" and "not taught" and why? Where do u know where to draw the line, without making yourself the supreme arbiter of truth?
Hail Holy Queen Mother of Mercy, our lives our sweetness and our hope. To thee do we cry poor banished children of Eve. To thee do we send up our sighs mourning and weeping in this valley of tears.
Fruit of protestantism are more than 30,000 denominations (even more because everyone with the Bible can interpret it as he/she wishes), JW , Unitarians... Etc and all of them believe that Holly Spirit guide them
Don't forget Mormons!
Do you know where the 30,000 denominations quote comes from? Do you know what it means? Are you aware of RC apologist who refuse to use it because of how poorly "denominations" is defined in the original source? Are you aware the same source identifies 240 RC denominations? If not, please stop listening to dishonest and misleading RC apologist who are abusing the information to try and make a point.
@@roadkill6705 you don't need to call them denominations, but you know better than me that you can't stay in any protestant church if you don't accept their teachings.
Actually, English isn't my native language so sorry for grammar mistakes or choose wrong words but if there is 500 millions of protestants you have 500 millions of denomination because everyone with the Bible can interpret as wish it and everyone is his own authority.
That is true and you can deny it but that's are facts, you don't follow even Kalvin or Luther.... Etc.
The Bible alone, can you show me from the Bible which books are inspired or what's the Bible?
Or you're accusing Jesus for lying that He will send a Holly Spirit to guide us and protect us and can you show when Holly Spirit slept away for 1600 years.
You're ma brothers and sisters in Christ and we don't think that Trineterians aren't Christians but you fall away far away from Christianity in your theology, but anyway you're my brothers and sisters in Christ and i love you. We don't have a hate like many protestants have about Catholics and ancient churches.
And hate and human judge in those areas are not from God for sure.
I appreciate the respectful debate. However, it seems to me that the majority of claims the Protestant pastor is making are mostly strawmen that dont deal with what Rome actually teaches. Seems like a great guy, but to me he never really manages to nail down the heart of these issues.
Even the subtitle of this show, 'Should Christians pray to Mary', is already couched in Protestant mentality. Protestantism, and especially Evangelical Christianity, thinks about everything, absolutely everything, in two moral categories. Something is either forbidden (wrong), or it is proper (right). They have no category for, 'amoral', something that is neither offensive to God or particularly impressive to God. For me the question should be not, 'Should Christians pray to Mary?' That's reducing the whole issue to it's either a person must do it or not do it. Instead, the question ought to be, 'Can a Christian pray to Mary.' That allows for the circumstance whereby it's elective and that it's something that doesn't make a person Christian or not Christian, just that it's allowable by Jesus, or God, because they don't forbid it as far as anyone can tell.
The place of the Hail Mary in Catholic practice suggests to me at least that, in many cases, Catholics think it is not only permissible but right to pray to Mary.
I appreciate what you're describing. However, we all keep hearing Catholics (including Trent) quote a former Catholic leader along the lines of: "to have a correct view of Jesus starts with having a correct view of Mary". That seems to put A LOT on the line for a Christian. That is, there's a strong drum beat by many Catholics that being a genuine Christian depends on their knowledge/beliefs of Mary? (believed by Catholics to be their extra-biblical views that continue to develop by a group of Bishops.) Bottom line, your view doesn't sound as dogmatic towards Mariology as most Catholics (at least those hoping to make money on youtube.)
@@robertthiesen2687 I disagree because there are heaps of alternative prayers in Catholicism that I know some Catholics preferred above the Hail Mary. At least, that was my experience.
@@mattnelms2522 You have a point and I will be upfront. I don't believe that the Vatican owns the Catholic Faith. That's why I called my name, 'Old Catholic.' Old Catholics, are Catholics, who remained Catholic, even though they rejected the First Vatican Council. Of course, that means Roman Catholics (Vatican Catholics) will then claim that Old Catholics aren't true Catholics, but there isn't any reason for you to believe that's true (because you are protestant - I assume). Therefore, what Vatican Catholics say about catholic practice; people like Trent Horn, or otherwise, is simply one opinion among many. To be clear, just because a person calls themselves catholic doesn't mean they have to be under the thumb of Papal endorsement. For one thing, the Eastern Orthodox do say they are true Catholics and in a way that Roman Catholics are not. I suggest to you that the Catholic Faith is open to you, for you to discern what it is, based on the best education you can find about historic Christian practice and faith.
Bingo. I know a few Catholics (fewer than a handful) that never pray to Mary. They don't think it's wrong or pointless or foolish, they just don't do it. Maybe it feels weird, maybe they don't want to, idk. They would still be firmly on Trent's side.
I'm frankly a little taken aback and saddened by how vicious some of the responses here are. Debates can be inherently polarising, pitting one against the other as they do. But we should strive to stay civil in considering both these sets of viewpoints, as much as they may diverge from our own. Especially as Christians, as which I expect many here would identify.
The important piont is whether praying to mary is part of the apostolic deposit or not
If the bible does not teach the practice and if the early church fathers who either knew the apostles or knew those who knew the apostles did not teach it ...then it can be safe to say it is not part of the apostolic deposit of faith whether wriiten or oral
But they did teach it.
@DanielMaloneJr could you quote them from the corpus of their writings?
@@aajaifenn “Mother of God, [listen to] my petitions; do not disregard us in adversity, but rescue us from danger” (Rylands Papyrus 3 [A.D. 350]).
Origen: “But not the high priest [Christ] alone prays for those who pray sincerely, but also the angels . . . as also the souls of the saints who have already fallen asleep” (Prayer 11 [A.D. 233]).
For if Mary, as those declare who with sound mind extol her, had no other son but Jesus (Commentary on John 1:6)
Cyprian of Carthage: . Let us on both sides [of death] always pray for one another. Let us relieve burdens and afflictions by mutual love, that if one of us, by the swiftness of divine condescension, shall go hence first, our love may continue in the presence of the Lord, and our prayers for our brethren and sisters not cease in the presence of the Father’s mercy” (Letters 56[60]:5 [A.D. 253]).
Methodius: “Hail to you for ever, Virgin Mother of God, our unceasing joy, for to you do I turn again. . . . Hail, you treasure of the love of God. Hail, you fount of the Son’s love for man” (Oration on Simeon and Anna 14 [A.D. 305]).
“Therefore, we pray [ask] you, the most excellent among women, who glories in the confidence of your maternal honors, that you would unceasingly keep us in remembrance. O holy Mother of God, remember us, I say, who make our boast in you, and who in august hymns celebrate the memory, which will ever live, and never fade away” (ibid.).
ca. 230 A.D., Origen Commentaries on John:
yet Jesus says to His mother, “Woman, behold thy son” (John 19:26), and not “Behold you have this son also,” then He virtually said to her, “Lo, this is Jesus, whom thou didst bear.” Is it not the case that every one who is perfect lives himself no longer, but Christ lives in him; and if Christ lives in him, then it is said of him to Mary, “Behold thy son Christ.”
Also the prayer trent mentions (Sub Tuum Praesidium)
@@yingsnnn808 the sub tuum praesidium author is unknown and it's handwriting analysis dates to the 3 rd or even the 4 th century
The quote of Origen from the 3 rd century does not advocate prayer to Mary at all .Origin is pointing out that just as jesus can say to Mary behold thy son and as Jesus is in us all then it can be said to Mary that we are her Son also as Christ whom she bore lives in us . No prayer request to Mary is ever advocated by Origen
No apostolic church father in the first 200 years taught the practice of praying to Mary
If it is absent in this period it surely is not part of the apostolic deposit .
Of course there is no direct reference in the NT to its own primacy since it didn't exist until at least the end of the 2nd century. But the practice of Israel and then later the Church submitting to the authority of written texts is incontrovertible. And it should be of especial interest to this discussion that Jesus himself rejected the oral Jewish traditions that later became the Mishnah. Jesus always rooted his authority in his own divinity or in the writings of the Old Testament (Tanakh.) Why would his church be any different?
John 17:20 NASB95
"I do not ask on behalf of these alone, but for those also *_who believe in Me through their word;_*
@@PuppetryInMotion Don't know what your point is. I would understand that Jesus is referring to the apostles testimony concerning him. If that is the case then I agree. But I would disagree that we have reliable access to apostolic testimony outside of the NT.
@@markrutledge5855 Agree. I was offering the words of Christ commanding Sola Scriptura. Jesus stated only the Disciples/Apostles received and understood from Him who God is, and that our belief must come from their words, not from other men.
John 17:8,14,17 NASB95
*_for the words which You gave Me I have given to them; and they received them and truly understood_* that I came forth from You, and they believed that You sent Me.
[14] *_I have given them Your word;_* and the world has hated them, because they are not of the world, even as I am not of the world.
[17] Sanctify them in the truth; *_Your word is truth._*
John 17:20 NASB95
"I do not ask on behalf of these alone, but for those also *_who believe in Me through their word;_*
Scripture often affirms jewish traditional beliefs that are not found in the protestant OT:
John 10 jesus celebrates hannukah or the Festival of Dedication
Matthew 23: Jesus affirms the seat of Moses has the authority to intepret scripture, which comes from Rabbinic tradition
2 timothy 3:8 mentions "jannes and jambres" opposing Moses, names not found in the OT but ARE in jewish tradition
Jude 9 mentions archangel michael disputing over the body of moses, a srory not found in OT, but is found in jewish tradition
@markrutledge5855 Scripture often affirms jewish traditional beliefs that are not found in the protestant OT:
John 10 jesus celebrates hannukah or the Festival of Dedication
Matthew 23: Jesus affirms the seat of Moses has the authority to intepret scripture, which comes from Rabbinic tradition
2 timothy 3:8 mentions "jannes and jambres" opposing Moses, names not found in the OT but ARE in jewish tradition
Jude 9 mentions archangel michael disputing with the devil, a story not found in OT, but is found in jewish tradition
Josh. 1:8. New International Version
"Keep this Book of the Law always on your lips; meditate on it day and night, so that you may be careful to do everything written in it. Then you will be prosperous and successful" This is why Sola Scriptura. You are NOT told that you can do anything else.
Where’s the “sola” part though? No Catholic would reject that verse.
That doesn’t prove sola scriptura though. That only shows that scripture is important. Which Catholics already believe.
2 thessalonians 2:15 "Therefore, brethren, stand fast and hold to the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word or our epistle."
Ur last sentence is straight up wrong bro, we're COMMANDED to hold to traditions passed by mouth aswell
@ If a verse is taken alone without its context it will be misunderstood. Here Paul was correcting the wrong notion that the Day of the Lord had come and that the Thessalonian believers were left out. In pointing out that it is wrong, he referred to his teachings and to the traditions they were taught by the apostles. He was not saying that traditions which will be adopted in future should be followed.
@ If a verses is taken out of context it will be misunderstood. Here Paul is correcting a wrong information being spread that the Day of the Lord has come and the Thessalonians were left out.
He was referring to the teachings and traditions of the Apostles regarding the Day of the Lord. He was not suggesting that traditions of all churches or future traditions are to be followed.
Yes. Mary indeed had a role as the God Bearer.
But the later inventions are not necessary for believers to accept.
Praying to Mary or saints unfortunately detracts from the true source of comfort. As Paul prayed, "Grace and peace to you from God our Father and the Lord Jesus the Messiah."
james teach us The prayer of a righteous person is powerful and effective
and paul teach us "I exhort therefore, that, first of all, supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks, be made for all men"
@@iwansaputra1890 Yes. Which is why we can approach the Father directly, through the gift of his Son. We who are alive should pray for all people. But to no one but God.
Mary is taking the dirt nap, waiting for the trumpet and resurrection. You might as well pray to a fence post as her. She can't hear you.
@@stephenbailey9969 so was paut teach us wrong?
@@iwansaputra1890 He was talking about the living praying for all people.
But praying to God alone.
The direction of our prayers should always be to God, not to anyone else.
The Sola Scriptura part was the most important of this video I believe, because its the source of our diferences, and the protestant position had no answers to the question being asked...
Dude is out of his depth, as soon as Horn started asking questions the other guy was all over the place and unable to answer basic pointed questions.
I have been to many Catholic Churches and one thing I cant agree with is how mild and shut off the church members are from top to bottom. In addition Statues of Mary having 4 times as many candles as Jesus statue says all i need to know. Catholocism no thanks. Im happy with my personal relationship with Christ! Thats all you need.
Did you know that in every Catholic churches Jesus is real there and normaly at the center of the Church ? All the church is about Jesus. And all saints are there because they are pointing to the Grace of God. What God does when we say yes to Him. That's why we have saints, it's because of God.
I converted 2 years ago. My relationship with Jesus has never been better. The Bible tells you to submit to your elders that the church is the pillar and foundation of the truth. If he will not listen to the church, let him be as a gentle in tax collector no prophecy of scripture ever came from one own interpretation, lean not on your own understanding submit to your elders for they keep watching over your souls hold fast to the traditions, written or spoken.. You can’t hold to the Bible and ignore all these passages.
It's your choice to not be "Catholic ", but to make a blanket statement is not charitable. You don't know a thing about me brother. You must be better than me though. I'm a big sinner and I need everything the Church give us, including prayers with other denominations. I try not to look at the sticks in others eyes.
@@Obedience33 These are my opinions and real life experiences, not bait to initiate division.
I mean no disrespect my Brother in Christ.
Only God can Judge my sincerity.
@eaglecap8553 And only God can Judge other denominations. In all my judgmental and sinful brain i try not to look at the decorations in a church. I do not just attend "Catholic" churches, I attend churches that have people.
Trent Horn is really good. He demonstrate that the catholic faith is superior to the protestant faith. The catholic faith is more profound and reasonable.
Jesus is a fictional character.
_"He demonstrate that the catholic faith is superior to the protestant faith."_
Because of the cannibalism thing?
Its more rationnnal because Catholic theology is based on the bible and philosophy. Jordan Peterson said that catholicism is the most rationnal thing. You should see for yourself. I am sure that you never read Catholic theology. Read saint Thomas of Aquinas for exemple.
they didn’t talk about a fundamental difference in that the RCC teaches a different gospel that is works and faith, which is contrary to what bible says; saved by grace alone by faith alone, in Christ alone.
The only time the words "faith alone" are mentioned is James 2:24. Luther is the only Christian in 1500 years that believed that an intellectual ascent to belief in Christ is enough, which it isn't.
"RCC teaches a different gospel that is works and faith"
Faith is never separated from charity and love.
Scripture: _Even the demons believe-and shudder. 20 Do you want to be shown, you foolish fellow, that faith apart from works is barren? 21 Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he offered his son Isaac upon the altar? 22 You see that faith was active along with his works, and _*_faith was completed by works,_*
"saved by grace alone by faith alone"
Indeed we are saved by grace, an unmerited gift no one can ever earn. THROUGH faith, a faith working in love (Gal 5)
" by faith alone""
Indeed, protestants teach one must do something: one MUST repent ! Faith "alone" ? No way.
I don’t think Dr. Leornardo was prepared for this conversation.
No. Not at all and here’s one of the reasons Christians all have Christ’s Spirit inside them. So who knows what you are going to pray about sooner than the Lord? He knows before you ask Him. Since He paid such a great price to be in this position within you why would you slap His efforts and pray to a human being? Why would you think to insult His sacrifice?
To Pray to Mary is would be the same to say that she is omnisciente. Is she ? If yes where you get this From? Mary is at rest From what we know. Even if she waa awake she Does not have the capacity to hear peaple. So pray to is wrong.
Is the Devil omniscient? Does he not know how to tempt you personally? How does this not make him omniscient, by your logic?
@@pendletondrew what does the devil have to do with topic? Are comparing Mary the devil?
Is not hard to understand , biut the evil that there is in the Roman Church has make a fool of many people.
@@eduardobarrientos4133According to this logic, the prophets in the Old Testament having an ability to foresee the future in some capacity would make them all-knowing and therefore God-like. No, God is able to gift people with what is an usually suprahuman capacity in a limited way so that it might help the faithfull, and also to glorify Himself.
I love Mary ❤️❤️ she's my mother! Jesus gave her to me! John 19:26,27. 💕 💕
No, He grave her to John , you were not there to tale of her .
@@eduardobarrientos4133Revelation 12:17 Mary is the woman and she is our mother. Also, “the disciple whom Jesus loved” was given Mary as their mother. That means you and me as well.
@@eduardobarrientos4133 Correct.
That is beautiful.
She is my spiritual mother too. She is the one who told me to never let go of her son Jesus Christ.
Psalm 135:16-18
"They have mouths, but they speak not; eyes have they, but they see not; they have ears, but they hear not
Yeah like the ark of the covenant isn't it ? And no one of the early Christians never see it before you right? .. 😅
26:15 "mary is the key to know who christ is"??? His words, his actions in the old and new testament tell us this.
And without Mary’s “yes”, how does the story go? Sure, God’s providence will prevail, no doubt. But what is the story in the gospel without Mary’s “yes”?
If a relationship with Mary brings you closer to God and makes you wiser, kinder, more loving and a bringer of peace in the world, then it's great!❤
No one has a relationship with Mary or any of the dead.
@@Justas399 Who says she's dead? She's alive in Christ.. God is the god of the Living and not of the dead.
@ For the living know they will die; but the dead do not know anything, nor have they any longer a reward, for the memory of them is forgotten. Indeed their love, their hate, and their zeal have already perished, and they will never again have a portion in all that is done under the sun.
- Ecclesiastes 9:5-6
@@Justas399 what do you mean by dead?
@@Justas399 how about revelation 5 and 6?
One central idea that I think was missing from the discussion of authority and apostleship was the idea that Jesus Christ is the full revelation of God. I view this idea as the center of a New Testament doctrine of revelation. There is a place for scripture and a place for church authority, as well, but the authority of each makes more sense when they are grounded in Christ who is the revelation from God. This is where the apostles' authority comes from: namely that they are the appointed authoritative eyewitnesses to Christ, and especially of his resurrection. The New Testament has authority because it records the witness of the apostles. The church is also meant to preserve the witness of the apostles.
This is why Trent is wrong that the authority of the apostles is simply passed on to the bishops, who are descended from the "elders" of the New Testament not the apostles. The apostles were unique as eyewitnesses of Jesus specifically commissioned by him and there were no more apostles after the first generation. Bishops and priests as elders have authority, as the New Testament says, but it is not unquestionable or even undemocratic. Christians are not to lord it over one another and 1 Corinthians 12-14 is an example of what this looks like in a church context. The centrality of Jesus to revelation is also why it is legitimate to test church teaching against the New Testament, which records the apostles' authoritative witness to what faith in Jesus looks like.
Then why did they pass Judas's position onto Matthias? They all appointed successors to take over their positions as Bishops, and this was a common test to see if you're in a legitimate church. Irenaeus talked about this in his Epistles, written in 101 AD. That's how early apostolic succession is.
Why would Jesus not have a system for growing the Church? His plan was to have it all die out by the end of the 1st century?
@@MeanBeanComedy Like @robertthiesen2687 said, they were eyewitnesses of Christ, including Matthias. They could only select from the disciples that had been with them from the beginning. True apostolic teaching and authority is based on exegeting and expository preaching, not in a laying on of hands to pass on apostolic authority. How is the current pope doing even after having had hand's laid on him to pass along apostolic authority? Is he upholding all that the RCC has traditionally taught?
@@MeanBeanComedy Thanks for your reply. When Matthias was chosen to replace Judas as an apostle this is what Acts records Peter saying:
"It is necessary to choose one of the men who have been with us the whole time the Lord Jesus was living among us, beginning from John’s baptism to the time when Jesus was taken up from us. For one of these must become a witness with us of his resurrection."
This confirms what I have said about the unique nature of apostles as eyewitnesses of Jesus, especially his resurrection, from the first generation of Christian disciples. In my view, this doesn't mean that the church does not exercise authority in subsequent generations or that leaders could not have been appointed by the apostles. Rather, I see bishops, priests and pastors having the authority ascribed to "elders" in the New Testament letters, not the unique authority of apostles. By the way, look at how democratic and Spirit-led the appointment of Matthias was in Acts 1. I think this should remain a part of church authority to this day.
Hey man, just to help me understand where you're coming from, you believe that the apostles appointed successors, aka bishops, and you believe these bishops do have authority. Where then is the disagreement with the catholic position? Is it that you don't believe a bishop appointed by an apostle is a "successor" to said apostle's position as an apostle? (taking over the apostle's "apostolic office" so to speak)? Sorry if I had trouble understanding what you're trying to say, it's through no fault of your own, be assured
@@StoriesBytheBrick Hey, no worries. Thanks for the interest in my thoughts! I think that the direct connection of the original apostles to Jesus in the role of appointed eyewitnesses is essential to their authority. In the church everything is under Christ and the apostles are the Christian disciples who are most proximate to Christ. This close connection is why we look to them -- to the record of their witness to Christ in the New Testament -- for the definitive understanding of Christian faith. I don't see bishops or elders as having this authority to define the Christian faith.
By contrast, I'm happy to accept the authority of bishops, priests, pastors, and elders in the terms that the New Testament describes the authority of "elders." To my mind, this includes their authority to guide a congregation in their lives of discipleship and correcting error according to the standard of the apostolic Christian faith. They are not a source of doctrine or teaching and they are certainly not infallible to my mind. Rather they are people of great, Christlike character, who have proven themselves reliable in guiding others toward Christ.
That's the basic picture that makes sense to me.
Mary is not omniscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent. How can she hear prayers to her?
Because the Saints in Heaven are alive. It's like asking a friend or relative for intercession.
@@TokenWhiteGuyAGR that does not answer the question. the saints dont have the abilities of God now do they? just as a believer 10-10,00 miles away without a phone, internet connection cannot help you with your prayer request.
@@AbhorEvilRomans12Even the earliest Christians, the ones being murdered by the Romans, wrote on the tombs of martyrs "pray for us."
I highly recommend reading the Church Fathers, who were guided by the Holy Spirit, that are responsible for codifying the Holy Bible and Church doctrine.
The holy spirit carries our prayers to the saints in heaven.
Daniel is not omniscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent, how can he interperet other ppls dreams without them even telling him what the dream was?
The answer to that question^ is the answer to yours
Trent by TKO. But De Chirico is a clearly a good man and I enjoyed this.
It seemed to me that the Dr. was feeling against the ropes towards the end of the debate 😅 saved by the referee at the end
I keep it simple.
1.) Praying to Someone/Something always equals worshipping them/it.
2.) Praying to Someone/Something can never equal simply JUST "reverencing" them/it, like with saluting a flag.
3.) Worship is for God alone.
Conclusion: Christians should pray to no one, Mary included, besides God.
Since the Bible is never explicit in saying that prayer to the Holy Spirit is appropriate, and in fact really only encourages prayer to the Father through the Lord's Prayer... How do you justify, using scripture alone, prayers to Jesus Himself, or to the Holy Spirit?
@shaulkramer7425 Jesus and the Holy Spirit are God... they are persons of the Trinity.
Thus, Praying to them is the same as Praying to God. Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are One.
Prayer doesn’t always equal worship. Even in the old English, the word prayer was used as “to ask” or “request” such as “I pray thee…” In the Bible there are many words used for prayer that function in a similar manner that don’t always mean worship.
Inform yourself on latria and dulia.
@@francescoaccomando7781 I'm already familiar. The issue is, "Dulia" should only ever be just common due "respect." If it were only that, I'd be cool with it.
But it isn't. If I bow down in prayer to something, burn incense to it, ask it for forgiveness of my sins, ask it for favor and blessing in my life, and ask it to safeguard my soul... my "Dulia" becomes indistinguishable from how ancient pagans treated Baal.
Above all else, if I already have sufficient "Latria" for Christ, then what use has "Dulia?" I need no one but Jesus.
Paul, Peter, James, John, Matthew, Mark and Luke....somehow they never mentioned this "key." The Catholic church gave us the Bible, correct? And yet the NT says nothing about this "key." The "key" of Mary is something that arose hundreds of years after Jesus. It's not in the Bible, and the Catholic arguments that it is in the Bible rely on tendentious arguments about 1 line from John.
Acts 2:42: "They devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching and to fellowship, to the breaking of bread and to prayer." Notice how it didnt say "They devoted themselves to reading the Bible by having one hour sermons given to them by a pastor". Notice how they devoted themselves to their teachings, whether written or oral. Notice that they devoted themselves to apostles' teaching not just writings.
1 Timothy 3:15: "If I am delayed, you will know how people ought to conduct themselves in God’s household, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth." Notice how it is said how the church is the pillar and foundation of the truth. Notice how it didnt say "If i am delayed, you ought to conduct yourself to what is written, and only to what is written, as the Bible is the pillar and foundation of the truth".
Thirdly, us recognising what the "key" means is the result of Christ and His Spirit leading Christians to all truth, as it is written. If you think papacy is such an unbiblical teaching, why such teaching would be permitted in a church of God, that could lead so many people away from salvation? It is not just some bishops wanting power or abusing their status. It is a doctrine of faith held by the faithful. Why would the Spirit of God abandon them in such important matter?
Fourthly, Jesus said that the Pharisees are seated on the seat of Moses. Jesus is the new Moses. Apostles and those who were appointed by them are seated on the seat of the apostles.
Christ is the only mediator between God and man.
God also states that we must not pray to the dead. It might be difficult to convince some unbelievers only to honor God.
Mary was a humble servant and she did her part like others that followed God. Honor should only be to God.
Christ as mediator has nothing to do with intercession. The Saints in Heaven are actually alive. Read your Bible and understand what mediation is in reference to the salvific covenant
The saints aren't dead, they're alive. That's why WE got no business trying to ruin their fun they're having in heaven and pay more attention to how we are following God on earth
@
True the saved that have died, are alive in heaven. The bible doesn’t instruct us to pray to them. The only way to God the Father is Jesus Christ.
The bible doesn’t tell us to pray to saints, God is a jealous God and it doesn’t seem to be different from pagan prayer to the spirits of ancestors. How will the pagan be convinced to stop praying to spirits of ancestors.
@@ASR-n6d “Then who can sentence us to death? No one. Christ Jesus is at the right hand of God and is also praying for us. He died. More than that, he was raised to life.”
Romans 8:34
“Therefore He is also able to save to the uttermost those who come to God through Him, since He always lives to make intercession for them.”
Hebrews 7:25
“My little children, these things I write to you, so that you may not sin. And if anyone sins, we have an Advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous.”
I John 2:1
@@Pass-dj9xt you’ll never guess who the saints pray to. (Hint: their prayers don’t go straight to the Father)
Trent destroyed the dr💪
Frankly, there is just no comparison here. As a fellow Paisano, I would love to back De Chirico. However, in all honesty, fairness, and due respect--he is WAY out of his league. His arguments are weak and riddled w/ holes. One is left begging too many questions to mention. If one is going to participate in a debate w/ the likes of Trent Horn, Jimmy Aiken, Sam Shamoun and many others, you certainly need to bring the very best to your show. This wasn’t the case, in this episode.
The scholars have talked everything else other than the real difference. Catholics bow down to Mary. They make statues of Mary and put them up in their churches. They have distorted the 2nd commandment.
You don't know what worship means. Also, praying to Mary started before the New Testament even existed as a collection of documents.
@MeanBeanComedy Ex. 20:5 and 1 Tim. 2:5
@MeanBeanComedy Jn. 4:24
"God is spirit, and his worshipers must worship in the Spirit and in truth.”
Worship is NOT comedy😂
@@MeanBeanComedyYeah, started by Gnostics. Not a good foundation to base your teachings.
Good job defending the Faith, Dr. De Chirico!