I'm curious what the various Protestant groups would say if asked why they cannot add to their 66 book Canon. It can't be because there are no living apostles to write, since not all of the NT was written by an apostle. I'm curious to look into the grounding for their justification that their canon is closed (if it is closed). Presumably there are different answers amongst the various groups, this is just a thought that occurred to me as I was listening to this. Good video. Thanks guys.
I honestly agree with you on a lot of this video. My disconnect though is at the end when you say that it is only through the catholic church that the cannon of scripture is made known. Now if you simply mean the early church fathers then I agree. But if you mean the Catholic church as it stands today, or as people would say the Roman Catholic Church, then I suppose I don't quite understand how. If the cannon of scripture was determined well before the split from Catholic and Orthodox and then eventually Protestant, do we not all share in this fruit of the early church? Or is it simply that you are attacking the position that Protestants believe that scripture simply came to be without a collection of church thought? I love your videos and your book recommendations. Stay blessed and in the fold brothers. Grace be with you.
1. The early Church was Catholic (“Wherever the bishop appears, there let the people be; as wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church.” St. Ignatious of Antioch 107 A.D.) 2. Protestantism has changed the canon of books in the Bible which is contradictory to the Bible as an authoritative source. If Bible was wholely divinely inspired when it was defined by the early Church, changing the canon destroys the foundation of the Church.
@@Dumemes9 I would be interested in seeing where you find number 2. I do have some grievances with the extent of the Reformation but I have not studied that area so I do not know where I would find something like that.
Protestant reformers, notably Martin Luther, removed seven books from the Old Testament (Tobit, Judith, Wisdom, Sirach, Baruch, 1 and 2 Maccabees) and portions of Daniel and Esther. These books, called the “Deuterocanon,” are still included in Catholic and Orthodox Bibles but were excluded from Protestant Bibles. They changed the canon of the Bible. Their translations also often change words to promote their own doctrine such as the teachings vs tradition translations. Protestantism changed the book which they hold as supremely authoritative to further agree with the doctrine they set forth instead of the other way around.
The canon can only be known through the Church because only the church can give an infallible declaration of what the canon is, the Bible itself doesn’t do this, denying it’s sufficiency, and if one is to argue that the Holy Spirit could’ve inspired the church to compile the right text, it leaves us with a absurdity, if the Holy Spirit can lead the church to an infallible canon, why wouldn’t it lead the church to infallible dogmas and doctrines too? Another point to be made is the canon was debated all the way up to the reformation, one very pious Catholic, Cardinal Catejan, is famous for his denial of the inspiration of the dueterocanon, while he himself was against the reformation, he didn’t live to see the Council of Trent. This makes for another point, that the church was able to completely operate and derive its teachings without a set canon, showing that Scripture alone can’t be the only infallible rule of faith. If you have any other questions feel free to ask me, hope this help, God Bless!
Love your channel, though as a protestant I believe in sola scriptura, i have no problem saying God uses the body of Christ to exercise authority, for example the authority and discernment used to compile the biblical cannon, though i see no where in scripture which states that the church has more authority than the Holy Scriptures, thus it is foolishly to claim that the church has the same or more authority than the Word of God, for history is a witness to the fact that when you give the Church more authority then the truth of scripture, it leads to mortal humans contradicting the Bible and leading the body of Christ into heresies, For if you say that the Pope is the Supreme Authority of the Church, then explain where in the Bible it says “All religions are paths to God” - Pope Francis. The Bible says no such thing, God is sovereign and His Word is our authority, may all Glory be to the most High, Amen and Amen. My catholic brothers, I love you dearly, please remember the Bible clearly states Faith in our Lord Jesus Christ is only way. No works, traditions or the authority of the Pope.
No true Catholic claims that Tradition has authority above Scripture. They are of equal terms. Tradition is often simply the logical implication of Scripture anyway. The quote from Pope Francis is a logical if unclear statement based in the truth of the natural world. No Tradition contradicts the Bible where it applies and visa versa.
Amen. The Word of God can never error or be anything less than perfect. Laity and clergy alike must humble themselves and sincerely look to the Bible for direction. As soon as we start doing what seems right in our own eyes, we stray off the path.
@Dumemes9 "Beware lest anyone [e]cheat you through philosophy and empty deceit, according to the tradition of men, according to the basic principles of the world, and not according to Christ." Colossians 2:8
@@gapfenix I have seen this same Bible verse from Protestants many times. I'm not stupid or ignorant of scripture or truth. Quoting scripture is useless without clear application.
I look forward to the day when Catholics and Orthodox will truly seek to understand in the writings of the magisterial reformers what Sola Scriptura and Sola Fide mean and not what their Church says it means.
Great video. I've been following you and MT for a while and I gotta say that I do feel compelled by this argument. However, I'm interested in how would this line of thinking fit into a catholic sense of the sufficieny of scripture, which was mentioned in the beginning. My question is: if a part of revelation, that being the fact of inspiration of certain books, is only found outside the bible, in what sense would scripture be sufficient for faith and practice?
I'm not seeing how the dependency of sola scriptura on the sufficiency of scripture isn't reciprocal. If all truths revealed to the church are contained in scripture, then any additional infallible source must contain only redundant truths, and thus is unnecessary. Could I use this secondary source? Sure, but *must* I? No.
I sort of understand it. Public revelation may only be contained in scripture, but the holy spirit guides this secondary source, not by revealing new truths, but preventing a judgement or dogma that is false.
But if all truth can be deduce from scripture it does seem unnecessary to refer back to a source such as the early church for a answer that can be attained in the literal scriptures instead of a possible fallible source as a church father a good example of this is one church father actually claimed Jesus was in his 50’s now we know first hand from the scriptures this is false but all truths can be brought to light this way it seems pretty obvious kinda that we can apply the same standard to all Dogmas of the church including things pertaining to purgatory,Mary, and the such
@Danielbannie 1) provide a refutation of the argument, otherwise your claim has no value 2) I am immune to guilt-tripping and shaming, which constitute a change of subject, a diversion, which are indicators of the weakness of your intervention, on an apological standpoint.
Protestants biggest mistake is using the heavily redacted latin vulgate and masoretic text when theres a perfectly good septuagint Its literally the tanakh of the hasmonean dynasty + the original new testament, Minus enoch which was redacted because Europeans are the nephilim
As a Baptist i was taught that Catholics worship mary, and the Saints, may i ask what is the difference between worshiping god and asking for intercession from a dead Saint or Angels or veneration of mother Mary?
When you’re in need of prayer, you would ask a dear friend of yours to pray for you, right? Essentially, you’re asking them to intercede on your behalf. This is what the intercession of the saints is: we simply ask them to pray for us. Of course, since Mary Theotokos is the queen of all saints and the immaculate and sinless Mother of God, she’s a perfect human example of holiness, so we come to her first before any other saints or holy persons. The saints are not dead, but alive in heaven; when we speak to them, they can hear us. The saints are like mentors who guide us to holiness, prayer to saints is not an end in itself but a means for them to direct us to holiness, to Jesus Christ. We reach Him through consulting the witness of His greatest followers. Hope this was a satisfactory answer
First of all, you need to keep in mind that the saints are more alive than we are. Christ himself, when citing the Patriarchs (Abraham, Isaac and Jacob), says that God is the God of the living and not of the dead. The Saints are part of the Church triumphant, which together with the Church militant and the Church suffering form the Mystical Body of Christ. Both those on Earth and those in heaven or purgatory have a connection through Christ, who is the head of the body. As Saint Paul teaches, not even death can separate us from God's love. Therefore, the intercession of the saints is only possible because they, like us, are connected to the vine, to the body of Christ. They hear prayers not because they are omnipotent, but because of participation in the divine nature, as St. Peter teaches. It is Christ who enables the saints to hear the prayers of the church here on earth. From heaven, they ask God to grant the request to the faithful on Earth. This is clear in the Book of Revelation. This was just a summary of the little I learned in the few months I became Catholic. I was a Presbyterian. I recommend you go to a parish and talk to a priest. May God bless you!
@@wiard First of all you must understand this, that no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation, because no prophecy ever came by the impulse of man, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God. - 2 Peter 1:20-21 So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter. - 2 Thessalonians 2:15 “He who hears you hears me, and he who rejects you rejects me, and he who rejects me rejects him who sent me.” - Luke 10:16
@@wiard Huh? What you talking about man? How is reminding you of not interpreting Scripture on your own using Scripture considered sola scriptura? lol. I don't even interpret Scripture on my own. That's the job of the Magisterium, the Apostolic authority. lol
This is all interesting, but no mention of the Orthodox Church? Armenian church? Egyptian church? Ethiopian church? Imo the whole Roman Catholic/Protestant debate about sola scriptura vs. Church tradition is very European-centric and does not give us a wholesome understanding of our faith in Christ.
Well the Catholic Church isn't merely European. There are 24 Churches that make up the Catholic Church communion; only the Western church of the Roman/Latin Rite is actually the Roman church. All the other 23 Catholic Churches are Eastern Churches that are in Eastern Europe, the Middle East/West Asia, and Africa.
This is fallacious because the church was unfractured at the council of Rome and therefore the apostolic scan all make the claim however the other groups apart from the EO are heretics for example the assyrians are Nestorian and the Ethiopians don’t even have the same canon you couldn’t include them. The EO are in schism and are wrong but they have the greatest claim otherwise however as just mentioned they are not the true church so it doesn’t matter they are just the continuation of the photian schism.
Jesus opened up the understanding in revelation of John chapter 5. Who is the one worthy to open the sealed book no man in heaven or earth or under the earth are not able to open or look into it. The prophecies of the books of Isaiah and Jeremiah and the psalms were sealed from the people of Israel ,read Isaiah chapter 29 and book of Daniel his visions are also sealed from the learned and unlearned.
But they try to defend why they call the pope Holy Father which is more blasphemous than just calling someone the title of Father. That's why it's funny when these popes become heretics thereby invalidating their papal authority.
I was a Protestant for a little over four years, today I am Catholic. I studied Church history, Patristics, archaeology and the complete Scriptures, and prayed a lot throughout this process.The obvious happened, I saw that Protestantism is not a "return" to primitive Christianity, but a new religion created by the rebel Martin Luther. Studying the lives of the Saints was also essential for my conversion to the Church of Christ.
If the RCC is to be followed, why the "10 Commandments" of the RCC are so different from that of the Bible? They are the FOUNDATION for human salvation [Luke 18:20; Rev.14:12] Besides, who gave the authority to the RCC to change the 7th Day established at Creation time for ALL humankind? All Daniel prophecies are basically fulfilled and matching perfectly with Revelation, I hope you are tracking them... you'll be surprised of current interpretations
This argument is question begging against an internalist, evidentialist view of epistemic justification. The proposition that the Bible is the sole source of infallible teaching on matters of faith is something that can be reasoned to in a combination of deductive and abductive inferences. Take this argument: 1. Anything the apostles wrote under the guidance of the Holy Spirit is infallible Scripture. 2. The books of the New Testament were written by the apostles (Here we introduce some abductive historical arguments to support this premise). 3. The apostles wrote these books under the guidance of the Holy Spirit (Evidence for P3 can be taken from things such as the inner witness of the Holy Spirit in believers, the transforming power of the NT's teachings, the unlikely hood of God allowing believers to incorrectly ascribe infallibility to nonfallible books for the past two thousand years, etc.) 4. Therefore, the New Testament is inspired Scripture. This doesn't rule out other, non-biblical sources of apostolic teaching, but it does debunk the idea that Protestants can have no rational grounds for affirming the canonicity and infallibility of the New Testament. The easiest way to get to the stronger claim is just by individually debunking the other claimed sources of apostolic tradition.
P1: an authoritative teaching from an Apostle, as guided by the Holy Spirit, is not necessarily scripture. P3: this was addressed in the video dude… and you’re implicitly stating that the Apostles would’ve said that this or that text was inspired or not. The fact that God allowed the production and spread of the Quran or the Book of Mormon disproves your assertion, as these defective books are claimed to be infallible by many.
@no3339 I'm not sure how that's a refutation of P1. I said anything written by an apostle under the guidance/inspiration of the Holy Spirit is Scripture. P3, as I formulated it, was not addressed in the video. At most, they tried to argue that we cannot know with certitude that the apostles were under inspiration when they wrote the books of the New Testament, but that's totally irrelevant to my argument. I don't need certitude in any of my premises for the argument to go through. I just need for them to be known as probable. Thay would only disprove my argument if I claimed that God would necessarily force a pure canon to be upheld throughout the ages. That part of the argument is abductive; I'm saying that it's highly unlikely God would allow for a corrupted canon to exist for most of the church age.
@secessionblog3189 No. I wouldn't be opposed to a Mormon "trying" to use this type of argument, but they would be in the wrong! I'm an evidentialist, so they're going to need to actually argue evidentially for their premises, and if they do that, we have to argue about the merits of their supporting arguments/evidence.
It also contradicts Catholic theology. What are called the 'internal motives of credibility' are atlease considered sufficient in extraordinary cases by the manualist tradition, and considered paramount by those of the newer Catholic theology such as from the nouvelle theologie.
5 Thomas asked him, “Lord, we do not know where you are going; and how can we know the way?” 6 Jesus assured them, “I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life. No one comes to the Father except through me. John 14 "And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free" John 8:32 repent my brothers and sisters, only Jesus Christ saves.
@@dankxz_ "5 For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus; 6Who gave himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time." 1 Timothy 2
My issue here from looking at both sides, and not sure which to fully believe, is what basis should we decide what is truth or not. For example, in the book of Matthew, verse 18-25 it talks about the birth of Jesus and Mary and Joseph. It concludes in vs 25 saying "But he did not consummate their marriage until she gave birth to a son. And he gave him the name Jesus." How do we go from Joseph did not consummate the marriage until after the son was born to Mary stayed a virgin all her life? For this to work you have to either deny scripture, and embrace tradition instead. This kind of thing I struggle with. I also tend to gravitate to expository preaching, where your Church on Sunday is 60-70% preaching the bible, line by line to get a more deep understanding. While the Catholic masses I watch seem to be 60-70% tradition, Eucharist and the same things they did last week. There is just a lot more learning each week at many protestant gatherings, and less review, and the same prayers and chants. I often get a good 15 minute sermon from a Catholic Church, which is as good as 15 minutes of a protestant sermon, but a protestant sermon is 45 minutes or so.
Your issue with “until” can be resolved by “letting scripture interpret scripture”. Just do a word study on it and let the biblical context help you understand how the word is used. Use the Septuagint references, too. Blue Letter Bible is easily accessible to laymen. I’ve lately been looking for Catholic doctrines that can’t be deduced from scripture and I haven’t found much… but it’s all dependent on interpretation, so that ultimately is the biggest issue. How do you know you have the right interpretation? I’ve seen some seriously wild claims out there that are promoted with absolute certainty, fully convinced that only those espousing them have the TRUE understanding. But they have no claim to such authority. Is my experience of prayerful interpretation less valid than theirs? I need something more than some ambiguous claim to the Holy Spirit, lest I be led astray like the righteous man from judea in 1 Kings 13. Protestants can’t give that. I’ve done high church mainline and low church evangelical, and neither is able to resolve this problem.
@@vinciblegaming6817 But your answer is quite vague. If you believe Mary is an ever-present virgin and not the mother of James, you should have a reason why you believe as such. What is that context, what scripture interprets Matthew 1:25 better, or the ones that say James if the half brother of Jesus, which I think implies they have same mother but different fathers? I may still disagree with such an answer, but you really should have an answer. And I really would consider such and answer if it was presented. I am also unsure how the Septuagint would add too much understanding here as, unless I am mistaken, it was all written between the Old and New testaments. I would think any good evidence would come from the post-Apostolic writings of the early church. I just have not seen that evidence in my look into such writings, though I am still looking into them, but if I found or was presented with an early church writing I would give that a good looking into as well. I want to be clear here I am open to other answers, and ultimately would like to find the right answer, what ever that answer may be. But there needs to be some reasoning behind it. I have the reasoning that the Bible seems to say Mary consummated the marriage after Jesus was born, and James was his brother. It would take something of equal or greater weight to show me, that those verses are wrong, mistranslated, or what ever it is. But I am open to receiving that evidence, and would change my views if I found that evidence.
@@colmortimer1066 have you heard of a word study? It’s when you look up every instance of a word to learn how the underlying Hebrew or Greek word is used to form your understanding of it. “Until” is an English word translating a Hebrew or Greek word. I know that’s a “duh” statement, but sometimes we can lose sight of that when trying to understand a verse. “Until” is the best fit for the underlying word, but the English word has its own meaning in English and the greek word has its own meaning. What I suggest is not to take my word or any other Catholic’s word for it on how to understand this word, because the scripture is perfectly capable of teaching you what the underlying word entails, its limitations, and its uses for an intelligent Christian. You say “until” implies a cessation of state, but is that how the underlying word is used in Greek? In the Bible? If not, then you can’t limit it in the Matthew verse. I’m resistant to telling you what you should think based on someone else’s interpretation, because ultimately, you’ll be most convinced by what you discover. In many cases, like analyzing church fathers or grammatical differences and cases, it exceeds our abilities and we may need someone more knowledgeable. But for the word “until”, using context clues for its use throughout scripture is doable for the layman. But if you want a direct answer, “until” is used in several ways that don’t imply a cessation of state. In David’s story, it says Michal remained childless until her death. The use of until does not mean she suddenly became a mother after she died. By seeing that the word “until” can be used in other ways than how you think it should be used makes Mary’s virginal state after the birth of Jesus less certain (based solely on that verse). You must rely on other verses to determine her virginal state. I think the fact that the bride of Christ and Jesus Christ have a virginal union is a fitting reason to justify why Mary and Joseph would have a virginal union. But ultimately, I’m convinced by Mary being left in the care of John and not any other relative. And the OT system of levirate marriage and widow care is what informs that. But don’t just take my word for it. Test what I’ve said. If you’ve ever used a concordance before, it’s pretty straightforward.
It’s not deny scripture or embrace tradition, it’s both. and there is more scripture at a Catholic Mass than any Protestant service. 2nd it’s presupposing the sermon is the reason for the mass. The reason for the mass in a Catholic perspective is the Eucharist, it is to be united with Christ in that intimate way. 3rd the interpretation of Matthew stems from understanding that consummating the marriage in the jewish historical context of the time did not require sex. It was simply to move in with eachother, they had a twofold marriage system none of which required sex. That’s a modern outlook on things, not only that but the word Adelphos used to describe James as a brother is also used in 1 Corinthians 15:6 to say Jesus appeared to 500 brothers. It’s the same word used in Genesis when describing Abraham and Lot. So we understand that Koine Greek and even Hebrew at the time did not have the words for step brother, cousin, spiritual brother and so on of these kinds of relations.
Tha Church is Not CofE, Catholic Baptist, Pentecostal Orthadox. It is ALL THOSE Who believe Repent baptised, received the Holy Spirit in Jesus Christ . JESUS IS NUMBER ONE
Well in scripture and/or the church fathers, the church is described as a physical institutiom which resolves problems and helps the faithful. How is a spiritual church going to resolve problems?
I am Protestant and I have touched upon this subject with fellow Catholics before. I also used to be Catholic albeit it was only due to a matter of circumstance i.e being brought up in a Catholic household albeit they don't practice their religion at all. Anyhow, I think the points raised in this video are good; from previous conversations, I think what we consider canonical in the bible is a pivotal point of contention. I think every Christian denomination uses the bible to justify their beliefs and I think Catholics having books such as the Wisdom of Solomon and Maccabbes etc. which Protestants don't have can bring some confusion as to what scripture does and does not allow. Even if we only use the gospels, we find ourselves finding different verses that can support either side of the denominations. I think there needs to be some mutual agreement with some scriptures because I don't disagree with most of your points at all! It's just a matter of interpreting them differently, I think anyway.
I find, on both sides people use some verses while ignoring others. I think both Protestants and Catholics need to read their bible fully and understand it. If they disagree with something, want to use something outside of it, but we need to at least know what we want to dispute and why. I also find the parts of the bible, Old and New Testament, that I struggle with the most, are the parts I reread, most and look into to gain a fuller understanding and try to sort out the truth. We should always consider all scripture in context and try not to take things out of context nor ignore parts. I find many, even the most "bible believing" protestants still ignore passages that do not fit their preconceived theology. Just last night I was watching a sermon where the pastor said his whole spiel about how the bible is the inerrant, infallible, inspired, and true word of the ever living God, and as he was talking about the New Heavens and New Earth in the start of Revelation 21, he then went to Isaiah's text on his New Heaven and Earth and read Isiah 65:17-19 then he jumped to verse 22 or 23. Verse 20 which he just skipped over for some reason, talks about people living for 100 years, and babies not dying, while Revelation it's talking about everlasting life, no death no, mourning, nor sin. There is a possible contradiction there that should have been a good teaching moment to show how verse 20 fits into Revelation's version, but he jumped that line apparently because he did not want to take a few seconds to address concerns, as it did not fit his narrative.
Rome says, “You need to submit to our authority if you want to go to heaven.” But scripture says, “... If a man love Me, he will keep My words: and My Father will love him, and We will come unto him, and make Our abode with him.” (John 14:23). The Father and Son want to abide in you. Your body is supposed to be the temple of the Holy Spirit and not a church building or a church altar (1 Corinthians 6:19). There is absolutely no room for any totalitarian religious organization of man to insert itself into this equation. They have no right to make this kind of spiritual power grab.
^Exhibit A for where Sola Scriptura leads: Bible verses completely out of context, false accusations against the Church and the like... Don't put words in the Church's mouth with a fake quote. I encourage you to come back with an actual quote from our Catechism, you might learn something in the process, and best not to bear false witness. If you watched the video, you'd know that the Church is inherently a part of the equation, even the one to which you subscribe. Unfortunately for you, there's no denying the Scriptural revelations given to us all were a function of the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.
The canon is known by the og texts compatibality with old testaments and their credibility as eyewitness accounts. Or how canon is it that you can buy your dead aunt out of hell. Lol
An Apostle’s homily can be compatible with the Old Testament, but it’s not necessarily scripture. The video exhaustively covers objections, so consider watching it again and taking notes. No one thinks you can “buy” anyone out of Hell, but I understand your emotional response given that your position was soundly refuted in under 14 minutes.
@@seesmann638 Are you referring to indulgences? The thing that cannot be a remission of eternal punishment? Once someone is in Hell, they’re there eternally. Either you’re misunderstanding indulgences or purgatory, which is it?
Protestants: "This, this and that is not in the bible, therefore, you're wrong." My brother in Christ, if not for the catholic monks of old, you wouldn't have this bible to begin with.
The greatest collab ever done
So true
The collab we all wanted and needed
I'm curious what the various Protestant groups would say if asked why they cannot add to their 66 book Canon. It can't be because there are no living apostles to write, since not all of the NT was written by an apostle. I'm curious to look into the grounding for their justification that their canon is closed (if it is closed). Presumably there are different answers amongst the various groups, this is just a thought that occurred to me as I was listening to this. Good video. Thanks guys.
The Collaboration of The Century
I saw the pope today in Brussels, a day to never forget! 🇻🇦 Greetings from flanders and God bless.
Very good
Best collab OAT
Hopefully this starts a good dialogue! (Charles Barkley is typing...)
I honestly agree with you on a lot of this video. My disconnect though is at the end when you say that it is only through the catholic church that the cannon of scripture is made known. Now if you simply mean the early church fathers then I agree. But if you mean the Catholic church as it stands today, or as people would say the Roman Catholic Church, then I suppose I don't quite understand how. If the cannon of scripture was determined well before the split from Catholic and Orthodox and then eventually Protestant, do we not all share in this fruit of the early church? Or is it simply that you are attacking the position that Protestants believe that scripture simply came to be without a collection of church thought? I love your videos and your book recommendations. Stay blessed and in the fold brothers. Grace be with you.
only by the Catholic Church. the ONE TRUE CHURCH.
1. The early Church was Catholic (“Wherever the bishop appears, there let the people be; as wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church.” St. Ignatious of Antioch 107 A.D.)
2. Protestantism has changed the canon of books in the Bible which is contradictory to the Bible as an authoritative source. If Bible was wholely divinely inspired when it was defined by the early Church, changing the canon destroys the foundation of the Church.
@@Dumemes9 I would be interested in seeing where you find number 2. I do have some grievances with the extent of the Reformation but I have not studied that area so I do not know where I would find something like that.
Protestant reformers, notably Martin Luther, removed seven books from the Old Testament (Tobit, Judith, Wisdom, Sirach, Baruch, 1 and 2 Maccabees) and portions of Daniel and Esther. These books, called the “Deuterocanon,” are still included in Catholic and Orthodox Bibles but were excluded from Protestant Bibles. They changed the canon of the Bible. Their translations also often change words to promote their own doctrine such as the teachings vs tradition translations. Protestantism changed the book which they hold as supremely authoritative to further agree with the doctrine they set forth instead of the other way around.
The canon can only be known through the Church because only the church can give an infallible declaration of what the canon is, the Bible itself doesn’t do this, denying it’s sufficiency, and if one is to argue that the Holy Spirit could’ve inspired the church to compile the right text, it leaves us with a absurdity, if the Holy Spirit can lead the church to an infallible canon, why wouldn’t it lead the church to infallible dogmas and doctrines too? Another point to be made is the canon was debated all the way up to the reformation, one very pious Catholic, Cardinal Catejan, is famous for his denial of the inspiration of the dueterocanon, while he himself was against the reformation, he didn’t live to see the Council of Trent. This makes for another point, that the church was able to completely operate and derive its teachings without a set canon, showing that Scripture alone can’t be the only infallible rule of faith. If you have any other questions feel free to ask me, hope this help, God Bless!
Mr. Wagner never fails to disappoint. Good job boys 🤝
Great video. 👍
Wonderful video.
Great job brother. Thank you for demonstrating that it is insufficient to believe in doctrine of sola scriptura
🟡
Man has Fortitude, Justice and Peace, woman has Temperance, Prudence and Wisdom.
United man and woman have Faith, Hope and Charity.
Great video
When man claims anything, the scripture is where we go to confirm. Acts 17:10-11
2Timothy 3:16-17
Based
The Scholastic Answers Guy? Okay.
Really appreciate this video..
St. Agnes of Assisi, pray for us
Love your channel, though as a protestant I believe in sola scriptura, i have no problem saying God uses the body of Christ to exercise authority, for example the authority and discernment used to compile the biblical cannon, though i see no where in scripture which states that the church has more authority than the Holy Scriptures, thus it is foolishly to claim that the church has the same or more authority than the Word of God, for history is a witness to the fact that when you give the Church more authority then the truth of scripture, it leads to mortal humans contradicting the Bible and leading the body of Christ into heresies, For if you say that the Pope is the Supreme Authority of the Church, then explain where in the Bible it says “All religions are paths to God” - Pope Francis.
The Bible says no such thing, God is sovereign and His Word is our authority, may all Glory be to the most High, Amen and Amen.
My catholic brothers, I love you dearly, please remember the Bible clearly states Faith in our Lord Jesus Christ is only way.
No works, traditions or the authority of the Pope.
No true Catholic claims that Tradition has authority above Scripture. They are of equal terms. Tradition is often simply the logical implication of Scripture anyway. The quote from Pope Francis is a logical if unclear statement based in the truth of the natural world. No Tradition contradicts the Bible where it applies and visa versa.
Amen. The Word of God can never error or be anything less than perfect. Laity and clergy alike must humble themselves and sincerely look to the Bible for direction. As soon as we start doing what seems right in our own eyes, we stray off the path.
@Dumemes9 "Beware lest anyone [e]cheat you through philosophy and empty deceit, according to the tradition of men, according to the basic principles of the world, and not according to Christ." Colossians 2:8
@@gapfenix I have seen this same Bible verse from Protestants many times. I'm not stupid or ignorant of scripture or truth. Quoting scripture is useless without clear application.
Well done guys! 🇻🇦✝️🔥
I look forward to the day when Catholics and Orthodox will truly seek to understand in the writings of the magisterial reformers what Sola Scriptura and Sola Fide mean and not what their Church says it means.
Your work is incredible, but I must say that watching a short video with Militant Tomist is something amazing 😂
Great video. I've been following you and MT for a while and I gotta say that I do feel compelled by this argument. However, I'm interested in how would this line of thinking fit into a catholic sense of the sufficieny of scripture, which was mentioned in the beginning. My question is: if a part of revelation, that being the fact of inspiration of certain books, is only found outside the bible, in what sense would scripture be sufficient for faith and practice?
I'm not seeing how the dependency of sola scriptura on the sufficiency of scripture isn't reciprocal. If all truths revealed to the church are contained in scripture, then any additional infallible source must contain only redundant truths, and thus is unnecessary. Could I use this secondary source? Sure, but *must* I? No.
I sort of understand it. Public revelation may only be contained in scripture, but the holy spirit guides this secondary source, not by revealing new truths, but preventing a judgement or dogma that is false.
But if all truth can be deduce from scripture it does seem unnecessary to refer back to a source such as the early church for a answer that can be attained in the literal scriptures instead of a possible fallible source as a church father a good example of this is one church father actually claimed Jesus was in his 50’s now we know first hand from the scriptures this is false but all truths can be brought to light this way it seems pretty obvious kinda that we can apply the same standard to all Dogmas of the church including things pertaining to purgatory,Mary, and the such
These were more noble than those in Thessolonika because they searched the scriptures... to see... if these things were so.
Do you knoe the game called "Chinease whispers"? That's exactly why I am SOLA SCRIPTURA... Sorry, you did not convince me.
That's a horrible argument to make as a Christian and it undermines the reliability of the bible, you should be ashamed of yourself.
@Danielbannie 1) provide a refutation of the argument, otherwise your claim has no value
2) I am immune to guilt-tripping and shaming, which constitute a change of subject, a diversion, which are indicators of the weakness of your intervention, on an apological standpoint.
Protestants biggest mistake is using the heavily redacted latin vulgate and masoretic text when theres a perfectly good septuagint
Its literally the tanakh of the hasmonean dynasty + the original new testament,
Minus enoch which was redacted because Europeans are the nephilim
Protestants biggest error? Which ones? There's like 2400 sects.
Can you elaborate on the inspiration of books revealed in Sacred Tradition? Where can people find that sacred tradition?
As a Baptist i was taught that Catholics worship mary, and the Saints, may i ask what is the difference between worshiping god and asking for intercession from a dead Saint or Angels or veneration of mother Mary?
When you’re in need of prayer, you would ask a dear friend of yours to pray for you, right? Essentially, you’re asking them to intercede on your behalf. This is what the intercession of the saints is: we simply ask them to pray for us. Of course, since Mary Theotokos is the queen of all saints and the immaculate and sinless Mother of God, she’s a perfect human example of holiness, so we come to her first before any other saints or holy persons. The saints are not dead, but alive in heaven; when we speak to them, they can hear us. The saints are like mentors who guide us to holiness, prayer to saints is not an end in itself but a means for them to direct us to holiness, to Jesus Christ. We reach Him through consulting the witness of His greatest followers. Hope this was a satisfactory answer
First of all, you need to keep in mind that the saints are more alive than we are. Christ himself, when citing the Patriarchs (Abraham, Isaac and Jacob), says that God is the God of the living and not of the dead.
The Saints are part of the Church triumphant, which together with the Church militant and the Church suffering form the Mystical Body of Christ. Both those on Earth and those in heaven or purgatory have a connection through Christ, who is the head of the body. As Saint Paul teaches, not even death can separate us from God's love.
Therefore, the intercession of the saints is only possible because they, like us, are connected to the vine, to the body of Christ. They hear prayers not because they are omnipotent, but because of participation in the divine nature, as St. Peter teaches. It is Christ who enables the saints to hear the prayers of the church here on earth. From heaven, they ask God to grant the request to the faithful on Earth. This is clear in the Book of Revelation.
This was just a summary of the little I learned in the few months I became Catholic. I was a Presbyterian. I recommend you go to a parish and talk to a priest. May God bless you!
Why don’t u post on ur tt anymore?
Best Colin ever mahshalla... JOHN OF ST THOMAS and CAJETEN BASED
Amen
So true
WE DEBUNKING SOLA SCRIPTORA WITH THIS ONE 🗣🗣🗣🔥🔥🔥💯💯💯
@@wiardsola scriptora is wrong bro....
@@wiard First of all you must understand this, that no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation, because no prophecy ever came by the impulse of man, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God. - 2 Peter 1:20-21
So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter. - 2 Thessalonians 2:15
“He who hears you hears me, and he who rejects you rejects me, and he who rejects me rejects him who sent me.” - Luke 10:16
@@wiard Huh? What you talking about man? How is reminding you of not interpreting Scripture on your own using Scripture considered sola scriptura? lol. I don't even interpret Scripture on my own. That's the job of the Magisterium, the Apostolic authority. lol
@@wiard how the catholic church has heard of jesus and spread his word
@@wiard yes i have he made the catholic chruch
This is all interesting, but no mention of the Orthodox Church? Armenian church? Egyptian church? Ethiopian church?
Imo the whole Roman Catholic/Protestant debate about sola scriptura vs. Church tradition is very European-centric and does not give us a wholesome understanding of our faith in Christ.
Well the Catholic Church isn't merely European. There are 24 Churches that make up the Catholic Church communion; only the Western church of the Roman/Latin Rite is actually the Roman church. All the other 23 Catholic Churches are Eastern Churches that are in Eastern Europe, the Middle East/West Asia, and Africa.
This is fallacious because the church was unfractured at the council of Rome and therefore the apostolic scan all make the claim however the other groups apart from the EO are heretics for example the assyrians are Nestorian and the Ethiopians don’t even have the same canon you couldn’t include them. The EO are in schism and are wrong but they have the greatest claim otherwise however as just mentioned they are not the true church so it doesn’t matter they are just the continuation of the photian schism.
Must watch… I’ll be back 😅
10:50 W James White reference
Saying that there’s nothing in the Bible that proclaims its own divine inspiration seems… blasphemous, no?
Not at all. The bible was created by man.
If you believe in Sola Scriptura
@ If you don’t believe in Sola Scriptura you don’t believe the Bible proclaims its own divinity?
@ That is an observation, show me then instead of yapping like how liberals do
@@deusvult8340 What exactly are you claiming here? You know that even the Papists in Rome cite the Bible in support of their theology, right?
Jesus opened up the understanding in revelation of John chapter 5. Who is the one worthy to open the sealed book no man in heaven or earth or under the earth are not able to open or look into it. The prophecies of the books of Isaiah and Jeremiah and the psalms were sealed from the people of Israel ,read Isaiah chapter 29 and book of Daniel his visions are also sealed from the learned and unlearned.
@@wiard that's why he said call no man on earth your father or teacher.
But they try to defend why they call the pope Holy Father which is more blasphemous than just calling someone the title of Father. That's why it's funny when these popes become heretics thereby invalidating their papal authority.
@@FA-ul4pr No Pope has ever been a heretic
classic, but nobody can tell me how you infallibly know the catholic church is right? okay got it!
I was a Protestant for a little over four years, today I am Catholic. I studied Church history, Patristics, archaeology and the complete Scriptures, and prayed a lot throughout this process.The obvious happened, I saw that Protestantism is not a "return" to primitive Christianity, but a new religion created by the rebel Martin Luther. Studying the lives of the Saints was also essential for my conversion to the Church of Christ.
If the RCC is to be followed, why the "10 Commandments" of the RCC are so different from that of the Bible? They are the FOUNDATION for human salvation [Luke 18:20; Rev.14:12] Besides, who gave the authority to the RCC to change the 7th Day established at Creation time for ALL humankind? All Daniel prophecies are basically fulfilled and matching perfectly with Revelation, I hope you are tracking them... you'll be surprised of current interpretations
Have you not read...? - Jesus (Matt 12:3, 19:4, 21:16)
This argument is question begging against an internalist, evidentialist view of epistemic justification. The proposition that the Bible is the sole source of infallible teaching on matters of faith is something that can be reasoned to in a combination of deductive and abductive inferences. Take this argument:
1. Anything the apostles wrote under the guidance of the Holy Spirit is infallible Scripture.
2. The books of the New Testament were written by the apostles (Here we introduce some abductive historical arguments to support this premise).
3. The apostles wrote these books under the guidance of the Holy Spirit (Evidence for P3 can be taken from things such as the inner witness of the Holy Spirit in believers, the transforming power of the NT's teachings, the unlikely hood of God allowing believers to incorrectly ascribe infallibility to nonfallible books for the past two thousand years, etc.)
4. Therefore, the New Testament is inspired Scripture.
This doesn't rule out other, non-biblical sources of apostolic teaching, but it does debunk the idea that Protestants can have no rational grounds for affirming the canonicity and infallibility of the New Testament. The easiest way to get to the stronger claim is just by individually debunking the other claimed sources of apostolic tradition.
P1: an authoritative teaching from an Apostle, as guided by the Holy Spirit, is not necessarily scripture. P3: this was addressed in the video dude… and you’re implicitly stating that the Apostles would’ve said that this or that text was inspired or not. The fact that God allowed the production and spread of the Quran or the Book of Mormon disproves your assertion, as these defective books are claimed to be infallible by many.
@no3339
I'm not sure how that's a refutation of P1. I said anything written by an apostle under the guidance/inspiration of the Holy Spirit is Scripture. P3, as I formulated it, was not addressed in the video. At most, they tried to argue that we cannot know with certitude that the apostles were under inspiration when they wrote the books of the New Testament, but that's totally irrelevant to my argument. I don't need certitude in any of my premises for the argument to go through. I just need for them to be known as probable.
Thay would only disprove my argument if I claimed that God would necessarily force a pure canon to be upheld throughout the ages. That part of the argument is abductive; I'm saying that it's highly unlikely God would allow for a corrupted canon to exist for most of the church age.
Replace 'apostles' with ' joseph smith' and 'new testament' with 'book of mormon' to appreciate why this argument is a non-starter
@secessionblog3189 No. I wouldn't be opposed to a Mormon "trying" to use this type of argument, but they would be in the wrong! I'm an evidentialist, so they're going to need to actually argue evidentially for their premises, and if they do that, we have to argue about the merits of their supporting arguments/evidence.
It also contradicts Catholic theology. What are called the 'internal motives of credibility' are atlease considered sufficient in extraordinary cases by the manualist tradition, and considered paramount by those of the newer Catholic theology such as from the nouvelle theologie.
5 Thomas asked him, “Lord, we do not know where you are going; and how can we know the way?” 6 Jesus assured them, “I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life. No one comes to the Father except through me. John 14
"And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free" John 8:32
repent my brothers and sisters, only Jesus Christ saves.
i know jesus saves. thats why im catholic.
@@dankxz_ and do not forget that Mary and the saints do not intercede for anyone, there is only one mediator, JESUS CHRIST.
@@dancf incorrect. rev 5:8, hebrews 12:1. debunked. next.
@@dankxz_ "5 For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus; 6Who gave himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time." 1 Timothy 2
@@dancf nope. mediator and intercessor are not synonyms. 2 different definitions. try again.
My issue here from looking at both sides, and not sure which to fully believe, is what basis should we decide what is truth or not. For example, in the book of Matthew, verse 18-25 it talks about the birth of Jesus and Mary and Joseph. It concludes in vs 25 saying "But he did not consummate their marriage until she gave birth to a son. And he gave him the name Jesus." How do we go from Joseph did not consummate the marriage until after the son was born to Mary stayed a virgin all her life? For this to work you have to either deny scripture, and embrace tradition instead. This kind of thing I struggle with.
I also tend to gravitate to expository preaching, where your Church on Sunday is 60-70% preaching the bible, line by line to get a more deep understanding. While the Catholic masses I watch seem to be 60-70% tradition, Eucharist and the same things they did last week. There is just a lot more learning each week at many protestant gatherings, and less review, and the same prayers and chants. I often get a good 15 minute sermon from a Catholic Church, which is as good as 15 minutes of a protestant sermon, but a protestant sermon is 45 minutes or so.
Your issue with “until” can be resolved by “letting scripture interpret scripture”. Just do a word study on it and let the biblical context help you understand how the word is used. Use the Septuagint references, too. Blue Letter Bible is easily accessible to laymen.
I’ve lately been looking for Catholic doctrines that can’t be deduced from scripture and I haven’t found much… but it’s all dependent on interpretation, so that ultimately is the biggest issue. How do you know you have the right interpretation? I’ve seen some seriously wild claims out there that are promoted with absolute certainty, fully convinced that only those espousing them have the TRUE understanding. But they have no claim to such authority. Is my experience of prayerful interpretation less valid than theirs?
I need something more than some ambiguous claim to the Holy Spirit, lest I be led astray like the righteous man from judea in 1 Kings 13. Protestants can’t give that. I’ve done high church mainline and low church evangelical, and neither is able to resolve this problem.
@@vinciblegaming6817 But your answer is quite vague. If you believe Mary is an ever-present virgin and not the mother of James, you should have a reason why you believe as such. What is that context, what scripture interprets Matthew 1:25 better, or the ones that say James if the half brother of Jesus, which I think implies they have same mother but different fathers? I may still disagree with such an answer, but you really should have an answer. And I really would consider such and answer if it was presented.
I am also unsure how the Septuagint would add too much understanding here as, unless I am mistaken, it was all written between the Old and New testaments. I would think any good evidence would come from the post-Apostolic writings of the early church. I just have not seen that evidence in my look into such writings, though I am still looking into them, but if I found or was presented with an early church writing I would give that a good looking into as well.
I want to be clear here I am open to other answers, and ultimately would like to find the right answer, what ever that answer may be. But there needs to be some reasoning behind it. I have the reasoning that the Bible seems to say Mary consummated the marriage after Jesus was born, and James was his brother. It would take something of equal or greater weight to show me, that those verses are wrong, mistranslated, or what ever it is. But I am open to receiving that evidence, and would change my views if I found that evidence.
@@colmortimer1066 have you heard of a word study? It’s when you look up every instance of a word to learn how the underlying Hebrew or Greek word is used to form your understanding of it.
“Until” is an English word translating a Hebrew or Greek word. I know that’s a “duh” statement, but sometimes we can lose sight of that when trying to understand a verse. “Until” is the best fit for the underlying word, but the English word has its own meaning in English and the greek word has its own meaning. What I suggest is not to take my word or any other Catholic’s word for it on how to understand this word, because the scripture is perfectly capable of teaching you what the underlying word entails, its limitations, and its uses for an intelligent Christian.
You say “until” implies a cessation of state, but is that how the underlying word is used in Greek? In the Bible? If not, then you can’t limit it in the Matthew verse.
I’m resistant to telling you what you should think based on someone else’s interpretation, because ultimately, you’ll be most convinced by what you discover. In many cases, like analyzing church fathers or grammatical differences and cases, it exceeds our abilities and we may need someone more knowledgeable. But for the word “until”, using context clues for its use throughout scripture is doable for the layman.
But if you want a direct answer, “until” is used in several ways that don’t imply a cessation of state. In David’s story, it says Michal remained childless until her death. The use of until does not mean she suddenly became a mother after she died. By seeing that the word “until” can be used in other ways than how you think it should be used makes Mary’s virginal state after the birth of Jesus less certain (based solely on that verse). You must rely on other verses to determine her virginal state.
I think the fact that the bride of Christ and Jesus Christ have a virginal union is a fitting reason to justify why Mary and Joseph would have a virginal union. But ultimately, I’m convinced by Mary being left in the care of John and not any other relative. And the OT system of levirate marriage and widow care is what informs that.
But don’t just take my word for it. Test what I’ve said. If you’ve ever used a concordance before, it’s pretty straightforward.
It’s not deny scripture or embrace tradition, it’s both. and there is more scripture at a Catholic Mass than any Protestant service. 2nd it’s presupposing the sermon is the reason for the mass. The reason for the mass in a Catholic perspective is the Eucharist, it is to be united with Christ in that intimate way. 3rd the interpretation of Matthew stems from understanding that consummating the marriage in the jewish historical context of the time did not require sex. It was simply to move in with eachother, they had a twofold marriage system none of which required sex. That’s a modern outlook on things, not only that but the word Adelphos used to describe James as a brother is also used in 1 Corinthians 15:6 to say Jesus appeared to 500 brothers. It’s the same word used in Genesis when describing Abraham and Lot. So we understand that Koine Greek and even Hebrew at the time did not have the words for step brother, cousin, spiritual brother and so on of these kinds of relations.
God bless my friend! Hope this helps!
Tha Church is Not CofE, Catholic Baptist, Pentecostal Orthadox. It is ALL THOSE Who believe Repent baptised, received the Holy Spirit in Jesus Christ . JESUS IS NUMBER ONE
Well in scripture and/or the church fathers, the church is described as a physical institutiom which resolves problems and helps the faithful. How is a spiritual church going to resolve problems?
I am Protestant and I have touched upon this subject with fellow Catholics before. I also used to be Catholic albeit it was only due to a matter of circumstance i.e being brought up in a Catholic household albeit they don't practice their religion at all. Anyhow, I think the points raised in this video are good; from previous conversations, I think what we consider canonical in the bible is a pivotal point of contention. I think every Christian denomination uses the bible to justify their beliefs and I think Catholics having books such as the Wisdom of Solomon and Maccabbes etc. which Protestants don't have can bring some confusion as to what scripture does and does not allow. Even if we only use the gospels, we find ourselves finding different verses that can support either side of the denominations. I think there needs to be some mutual agreement with some scriptures because I don't disagree with most of your points at all! It's just a matter of interpreting them differently, I think anyway.
I find, on both sides people use some verses while ignoring others. I think both Protestants and Catholics need to read their bible fully and understand it. If they disagree with something, want to use something outside of it, but we need to at least know what we want to dispute and why. I also find the parts of the bible, Old and New Testament, that I struggle with the most, are the parts I reread, most and look into to gain a fuller understanding and try to sort out the truth. We should always consider all scripture in context and try not to take things out of context nor ignore parts.
I find many, even the most "bible believing" protestants still ignore passages that do not fit their preconceived theology. Just last night I was watching a sermon where the pastor said his whole spiel about how the bible is the inerrant, infallible, inspired, and true word of the ever living God, and as he was talking about the New Heavens and New Earth in the start of Revelation 21, he then went to Isaiah's text on his New Heaven and Earth and read Isiah 65:17-19 then he jumped to verse 22 or 23. Verse 20 which he just skipped over for some reason, talks about people living for 100 years, and babies not dying, while Revelation it's talking about everlasting life, no death no, mourning, nor sin. There is a possible contradiction there that should have been a good teaching moment to show how verse 20 fits into Revelation's version, but he jumped that line apparently because he did not want to take a few seconds to address concerns, as it did not fit his narrative.
@@colmortimer1066 I totally agree :)
Come back brother@@CAB-yu8uj
Faulty epistemological conclusions throughout.
And even though I like pipe organs…they can be a little grating at times.
Can someone explain to me how Martin Luther pointing out full blown blasphemy by the Catholic Church was in any way heresy?
Amen!
Your gonna need to provide emphesis for that one chief.
What heresy in any Catholic (or Orthodox) Church? If anything it's Protestant churches that are the ones in heresy, unfortunately.
Rome says, “You need to submit to our authority if you want to go to heaven.”
But scripture says, “... If a man love Me, he will keep My words: and My Father will love him, and We will come unto him, and make Our abode with him.” (John 14:23). The Father and Son want to abide in you. Your body is supposed to be the temple of the Holy Spirit and not a church building or a church altar (1 Corinthians 6:19). There is absolutely no room for any totalitarian religious organization of man to insert itself into this equation. They have no right to make this kind of spiritual power grab.
Off-topic emotional response
^Exhibit A for where Sola Scriptura leads: Bible verses completely out of context, false accusations against the Church and the like... Don't put words in the Church's mouth with a fake quote. I encourage you to come back with an actual quote from our Catechism, you might learn something in the process, and best not to bear false witness. If you watched the video, you'd know that the Church is inherently a part of the equation, even the one to which you subscribe. Unfortunately for you, there's no denying the Scriptural revelations given to us all were a function of the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.
There is room for such if Jesus Himself established it. If that is the case, to protest makes one a liberal, a revolutionary, and a sower of division.
Absolutely no one:
Protestants: *incoherent rambling*
@@wiard ???
The canon is known by the og texts compatibality with old testaments and their credibility as eyewitness accounts. Or how canon is it that you can buy your dead aunt out of hell. Lol
An Apostle’s homily can be compatible with the Old Testament, but it’s not necessarily scripture. The video exhaustively covers objections, so consider watching it again and taking notes. No one thinks you can “buy” anyone out of Hell, but I understand your emotional response given that your position was soundly refuted in under 14 minutes.
@@no3339 the catholic church believed that. Read the works of Martin Luther.
@@seesmann638 “The Catholic Church believed that! Read Luther!” Bro…
@@no3339 Oh you could ask Leos X. as well, bro...
@@seesmann638 Are you referring to indulgences? The thing that cannot be a remission of eternal punishment?
Once someone is in Hell, they’re there eternally. Either you’re misunderstanding indulgences or purgatory, which is it?
Protestants: "This, this and that is not in the bible, therefore, you're wrong."
My brother in Christ, if not for the catholic monks of old, you wouldn't have this bible to begin with.
Those same monks would be protestants today because of Rome's heresies.
Protestantism is the continuation of the catholic church, and hopefully Rome converts back to the catholic faith.
Paul never knew Jesus
@dzemkiii muhammed never knew the true God