Did Jesus Found the Roman Catholic Church?
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 12 ธ.ค. 2024
- My website: www.jordanbcoop...
Patreon: / justandsinner
Twitter: / justandsinner
In this video, I address the claim that the Roman Catholic Church was founded directly by Jesus.
Don’t mind me, just here for the comment section.
Welcome. The comments and give you more information on the matter. Don't take anyone's statements as Truth, however, until you've researched their assertions well.
There is a Catholic monk on TH-cam that traced back his priestly line and found that it only goes back to 1504…. And then he looked up other priests he knew that were ordained in different parts of the world, and they all go back to that same person. He concluded that even tho the church didn’t appear to have a record of apostolic succession, he would take it as a matter of faith… but it’s *almost* like the apostolic succession claim is just a propaganda lie to discredit anyone that disagrees with Rome - and it began in the priests leading up to the official Reformation.
Nice story, but it isn't true.
Not to mention three popes at one time anathematizing each other in the Medieval times 😂
@@truecatholic8692Where is your proof are you just full of words
Sounds about right they follow the father of lies satan so i'm not surprised
@@beadoll8025 Easy. www.vatican.va/content/vatican/en/holy-father.index.html
St. Augustine in one of his sermons denies the central claim of the Roman Catholic church. The RCc claims that when Jesus said “And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my Church” (Matthew 16:18) that Jesus was meaning that Peter was the rock on which the Church is built. Augustine on the other hand rejects this and affirms that it isn't Peter who Jesus meant but Himself whom Peter had just acknowledged is the Son of God (Matthew 16:16):
“For Peter in the order of Apostles first, and in the love of Christ most forward, answers oftentimes alone for all the rest. Again, when the Lord Jesus Christ asked, whom men said that He was, and when the disciples gave the various opinions of men, and the Lord asked again and said, “But whom say ye that I am?” Peter answered, “Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.” One for many gave the answer, Unity in many. Then said the Lord to Him, “Blessed art thou, Simon Barjonas: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but My Father which is in heaven.” Then He added, “and I say unto thee.” As if He had said, “Because thou hast said unto Me, ‘Thou art the Christ the Son of the living God;’ I also say unto thee, ‘Thou art Peter.’” For before he was called Simon. Now this name of Peter was given him by the Lord, and that in a figure, that he should signify the Church. For seeing that Christ is the rock (Petra), Peter is the Christian people. For the rock (Petra) is the original name. Therefore Peter is so called from the rock; not the rock from Peter; as Christ is not called Christ from the Christian, but the Christian from Christ. “Therefore,” he saith, “Thou art Peter; and upon this Rock” which thou hast confessed, upon this Rock which thou hast acknowledged, saying, “Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God, will I build My Church;” that is upon Myself, the Son of the living God, “will I build My Church.” I will build thee upon Myself, not Myself upon thee. For men who wished to be built upon men, said, “I am of Paul; and I of Apollos; and I of Cephas,” who is Peter. But others who did not wish to be built upon Peter, but upon the Rock, said, “But I am of Christ.” And when the Apostle Paul ascertained that he was chosen, and Christ despised, he said, “Is Christ divided? was Paul crucified for you? or were ye baptized in the name of Paul?” And, as not in the name of Paul, so neither in the name of Peter; but in the name of Christ: that Peter might be built upon the Rock, not the Rock upon Peter.”
(From Sermon XXVI. Again on Matt. xiv. 25: Of the Lord walking on the waves of the sea, and of Peter tottering.)
You are making something of nothing. Augustine's views are not different than the CC, he just explains it in a way that EMPHASIZES Christ as being the ultimate founder of the Church. Look at Ephesians 2:19-20;
"Therefore you are no longer strangers and foreigners, but fellow citizens of the saints and members of God’s household, built on the FOUNDATION of the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus Himself as the CORNERSTONE.
This passage explain it much better.
@@morelmaster If you think Augustine is reflecting Roman Catholic teaching in this quote above then you're not understanding what exactly Augustine is saying. One of the central teachings of the RCc is that Christ established the Papacy in Matthew 16:18 when He said: "And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my Church." Peter is interpreted by RC teaching as being the rock on which the Church is built, but to the contrary Augustine states this isn't true. He interprets correctly that the rock is Christ, and that Peter is built on the rock, not the reverse that Christ's Church is built on Peter. Augustine likens those who say Peter is the rock (i.e. or head of the Church) to those who said (1 Cor 1:12,13) that they were followers of a particular Apostle instead of realising they were followers of Christ. So it follows that Augustine wouldn't be a Roman Catholic were he alive today. The teaching that the Papacy is a divine institution established by Christ was rejected by Augustine in the above quote.
@@Edward-ng8oo
YOU: So it follows that Augustine wouldn't be a Roman Catholic were he alive today.
ME: What a ludicrous statement.
Quote from Augustine;
"I would not believe in the Gospel if the authority of the Catholic Church did not move me to do so."
Augustine, through the majority of his life as a Catholic Bishop, taught that Peter was the "rock" of Matt.16:18.
In Retractatio 1,21,1 , Augustine is clearly not sure of his interpretation of Matthew 16:19;
He concludes with 'let the reader decide', also in the same text, even if 'The Rock' is Jesus, Augustine still points out that Simon remains a "rock", although a "lesser rock" than Jesus, obviously. Do you ascribe no significance to the fact that Augustine doesn't seem to care which of those two interpretations his readers hold? Augustine, nor any ECF's writing or teaching has authority as Church doctrine, don't forget that.
The fact is, if you look at the CCC, it doesn't limit the interpretation of Matt. 16:18 to ONLY Peter being "THE ROCK" anyways.
And lastly, and most importantly, NONE of the ECF's were consistent with each other in some of their writings, Augustine included. Many changed their views back and forth on things as they reflected on Scripture throughout their lives.
@@morelmaster The popes of Rome at the time of Augustine didn’t wield the power and authority that they later came to possess in the Middle Ages so although Augustine claimed to be a Catholic then he would no longer claim the same were he alive today. Unfortunately I’m not acquainted with Augustine’s writings except for a few quotes I’ve read so can’t really comment except to say that in the quote I gave above he clearly discounts the view that Christ was referring to Peter when He said He would build His Church on “this rock”. Christ, as Augustine rightly says, was referring to Peter’s statement that He was the Son Of God as being the rock on which the Church is built. The true Church therefore is the community of all those throughout the world who follow Christ as their Lord and Saviour, not some gathering of deluded people who imagine that the popes of Rome are Christ’s spokesmen on earth.
@@Edward-ng8oo
YOU: so although Augustine claimed to be a Catholic then he would no longer claim the same were he alive today.
ME: You just don't know when to quit, do you? You just admitted you aren't familiar with Augustine's writings except for a few quotes ( those quotes which SEEM to support your erroneous views, I might add) and yet you are trying to put Augustine on your side of the fence based on pure assumptions of what he may or may not have done today. How ludicrous can you get? I would advise you to get deeper into Augustine than a few random quotes, then you will be speaking more from actual knowledge of the subject rather than ignorance of it.
So for now, I'm not wasting any more of my time with someone who draws conclusions about someone based on conjecture and lazy assumptions. God Bless You!
Can we go a bit further? Rome says that they claim to have the relics/bones of the famous historical figures so if a group is arguing that they are over 2,000 years old, how can they have the relics and bones of apostles ?
Didn't they go on crusades to take as much as they could especially truth & lock it all up away from the people. There was a lot of history manipulation by the RCC & Jesuits
This criticism makes zero sense. My wife has her father's ashes on the mantle. The Catholic Church claims they're over 2000 years old. As historical figures passed, they came into possession of bones and relics. How is this at all contradictory to anything? It's not like time is just two points with no connecting line. Do you think people can't collect things from any time outside of the beginning of their existence?
@@jaykwonzzzCatholic church is NOT 2000 yrs old!! Know your history & facts!! Constinople started the Roman Catholic Church, not Jesus!!
Jesus was a Jew!!
its not authentic,thats the explanation,even muslims in arab claims they have preserved abraham footprint
@@jaykwonzzzthey also had tons and tons of wood from the cross.
You talk about the Early Church a lot and I notice the books of the Early Church Fathers on your book shelves. Wish you would talk how the Early Church worshiped, what they believed.
As a Catholic I look at you as a brother and have nothing but love for you and my Lutheran brothers and sisters. We have way more in common than differences. We should focus more on that.
Love!
If it is by love you seek focus. Realize than, that it is through The lens of love we say. It is the very differences in our gospels that separates us. You teach the gospel that includes works as necessary for salvation. Similar to the Judaizers back in Paul’s day who wanted to add circumcision as a part of requirement for salvation. which is contrary to the gospel of Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ teaches a gospel that is not through works, but by faith alone. because of the grace of God that we are saved onto eternal life. Nothing else matters that we agree on or disagree on more than this. Because nothing else determines your eternity with Christ.🕊
Explore the Faults teachings Of Roman Catholicism.
th-cam.com/video/QVmnawGFaVs/w-d-xo.html
th-cam.com/video/04FZW81uSes/w-d-xo.html
th-cam.com/video/blvtzXuayX8/w-d-xo.html
th-cam.com/video/6DLgllRwNCk/w-d-xo.html
th-cam.com/play/PLSP1IO9h3J7sNPCx3RmNrFYjfYYRoE9fM.html
th-cam.com/play/PL8E4l3Ss7gZgyZ2TCRINRPz_ZtxqmzDdI.html
th-cam.com/video/d1xZTPY98Oc/w-d-xo.html
th-cam.com/video/TPG3vMeexks/w-d-xo.html
th-cam.com/video/9AsPuOxVZKw/w-d-xo.html
Mark Peterman James 2:24
@The Paraclete Roman Catholics prefer Popes to Jesus or myself (The Second Christ).
No way, your institution isn't Christian it is Globalist.
Well I know one thing for sure. I will never bow, kneel or whatever to the pope, never! Jesus is my Lord, and Peter was NOT the 1st pope.
Yeah, can you imagine Peter letting people bow before him?
( if you think you can, read Acts 10)
@@doubtingthomas9117 Indeed. Nice find in scripture, thanks. :)
@@our-days-are-short8254 you’re quite welcome 👍🏻
papacy debunked
I'm more blessed than mary
Proof = Luke 11:27-28
27 And it happened, as He spoke these things, that a certain woman from the crowd raised her voice and said to Him, “Blessed is the womb that bore You, and the breasts which nursed You!”
28 But He said, “More than that, blessed are those who hear the word of God and keep it!”
In Luke 11:27 that random woman LITERALLY said Jesus your mother is Blessed, but are Lord Jesus LITERALLY said Believers are more Blessed than mary. Amen and Amen
_
CHRIST alone
John 14:6 Jesus said to him, “I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me.
ACTS 4:12 Nor is there salvation in any other, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved.”
There is only One Mediator between God and men, LORD Jesus Christ= 1 Timothy 2:5
For there is one God and one Mediator between God and men, the Man Christ Jesus.
Hebrew 9:15 And for this reason He is the Mediator of the new covenant, by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions under the first covenant, that those who are called may receive the promise of the eternal inheritance.
Hebrew 12:24 to Jesus the Mediator of the new covenant, and to the blood of sprinkling that speaks better things than that of Abel.
Hebrew 8:6 But now He has obtained a more excellent ministry, inasmuch as He is also Mediator of a better covenant, which was established on better promises.
Ephesians 2:18 For through Him we both have access by One Spirit to the Father
John 15:5
5 “I am the vine, you are the branches. He who abides in Me, and I in him, bears much fruit; for without Me you can do nothing.
Colossians 1:19-20
19 For it pleased the Father that in Him all the fullness should dwell, 20 and by Him to reconcile all things to Himself, by Him, whether things on earth or things in heaven, having made peace through the blood of His cross.
_
1 Timothy 3:2 A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, temperate, sober-minded, of good behavior, hospitable, able to teach
Paul allows bishops to get marry, but catholic church goes against paul.
1 Corinthians7 to say that paul gave the advice to stay unmarried. But they will not tell you that the same chapter they quote says 1 Corinthians 7:28 "even if you do marry, you have not SINNED". The passage literally says "young women, young men" and a bishop is supposed to be a Church ELDER.
All Believer of JESUS CHRIST are Royal Priest 1 Peter 2:5,9. Revelation 1:6
Work of God =
John 6:28 Then they said to Him, “What shall we do, that we may work the works of God?”
29 Jesus answered and said to them, “This is the work of God, that you believe in Him whom He sent.”
_
Jesus said Matthew 23:9
9 Do not call anyone on earth your father; for One is your Father, He who is in heaven.
And also said Holy Father to Heavenly Father= John 17:11
11 Now I am no longer in the world, but these are in the world, and I come to You. Holy Father, keep through Your name those whom You have given Me, that they may be one as We are.
Jesus said call no one Father but still catholics call *pope holy father.
Sad.
A verse against the position of pope,
2 Thessalonians 2:4
4 who opposes and exalts himself above all that is called God or that is worshiped, so that he sits as God in the temple of God, showing himself that he is God.
_
When a catholic argue about mary being the mother of God
Use this to defeat the argument.
Luke 8:21 But He answered and said to them, “My mother and My brothers are these who hear the word of God and do it.”
Matthew 12:46-50
46 While He was still talking to the multitudes, behold, His mother and brothers stood outside, seeking to speak with Him. 47 Then one said to Him, “Look, Your mother and Your brothers are standing outside, seeking to speak with You.”
48 But He answered and said to the one who told Him, “Who is My mother and who are My brothers?” 49 And He stretched out His hand toward His disciples and said, “Here are My mother and My brothers! 50 For whoever does the will of My Father in heaven is My brother and sister and mother.”.
Mark 3:35 For whoever does the will of God is My brother and My sister and mother.”
John 19:26-27
26 When Jesus therefore saw His mother, and the disciple whom He loved standing by, He said to His mother, “Woman, behold your son!” 27 Then He said to the disciple, “Behold your mother!” And from that hour that disciple took her to his own home. ( Jesus basically said John is the son of mary, and mary is the mother of John from that time onwards).
By the way sarah is the mother of all Gal 4:21-26.
_
We should not pray to apostles
Romans 1:25
25 who exchanged the truth of God for the lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen.
Acts 10:25-26
25 As Peter was coming in, Cornelius met him and fell down at his feet and worshiped him. 26 But Peter lifted him up, saying, “Stand up; I myself am also a man.”
Acts 14:15
15 and saying, “Men, why are you doing these things? We also are men with the same nature as you, and preach to you that you should turn from these useless things to the living God, who made the heaven, the earth, the sea, and all things that are in them,
Revelation 19:10
10 And I fell at his feet to worship him. But he said to me, “See that you do not do that! I am your fellow servant, and of your brethren who have the testimony of Jesus. Worship God! For the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy.”
Revelation 22:8-9
8 Now I, John, saw and heard these things. And when I heard and saw, I fell down to worship before the feet of the angel who showed me these things.
9 Then he said to me, “See that you do not do that. For I am your fellow servant, and of your brethren the prophets, and of those who keep the words of this book. Worship God."
Colossians 2:18
18 Let no one cheat you of your reward, taking delight in false humility and worship of angels, intruding into those things which he has not seen, vainly puffed up by his fleshly mind,
You cannot go to Father through saints nor mary, you can only go to the Father through Lord Jesus Christ= John 14:6 Jesus said to him, “I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me.
Ephesians 2:18 For through Him we both have access by one Spirit to the Father.
Holy Spirit intercedes for us=Romans 8:26
26 Likewise the Spirit also helps in our weaknesses. For we do not know what we should pray for as we ought, but the Spirit Himself makes intercession for us with groanings which cannot be uttered.
And CHRIST as well=Romans 8:34
34 Who is he who condemns? It is Christ who died, and furthermore is also risen, who is even at the right hand of God, who also makes intercession for us.
Hebrews 7:25
25 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.
It's Christ and Holy Spirit who intercedes for us not apostles
Even old Old Testament says Christ intercedes for us Isaiah 53:12
12 Therefore I will divide Him a portion with the great,
And He shall divide the spoil with the strong,
Because He poured out His soul unto death,
And He was numbered with the transgressors,
And He bore the sin of many,
And made intercession for the transgressors.
_
Apostles are allowed to marry,
1 Corinthians 9:1-5
If Peter (peter is cephas read John 1:42) the so called "first pope" was married, why does the catholic church doesn't allow "pope" to marry?
Lord did gave the keys of death and hades to Apostles. But after their death, only Lord Jesus has the keys of death and hades Revelation 1:18
_
Lord Jesus Christ died Once for all, re-sacrifice Him is putting Him to shame. Hebrews 6:4-6; 10:10,12,14; 9:26,28; 9:12; 1 Peter 3:18; Romans 6:10
_
The so called vicar of christ/ pope/holy father Peter called himself a fellow elder in 1 Peter 5:1, and as per the qualifications of elder in Titus 1:5-9 the elder is allowed to get married; then why does the "pope" is required to be celibate and catholic? ( when Peter was neither celibate nor catholic).
1)Peter was not perfect human nor was he a perfect disciple
2)He sank down while walking on water
3)Our Lord said to peter get behind me satan
4)Peter reject our Lord 3 times
5)Our Lord rebuked Peter for calling fire from heaven
6)Our Lord rebuked Peter when he cut of the soilders ear
7)Paul rebuked Peter for being hypocrite because he was acting different in front of Jews and different in front of gentiles.
8) Moses messed up, and he was a important part of Bible ( that's why he never entered the promised land),
9)David messed up ( and he has the Holy Spirit)
10)King Soloman messed up
11) Saul messed up and God regretted the decision (1 Samuel 15:10-11).
Hatrick (Saul then David then Soloman back to back messed up)
12)The apostles run away a day before Lord Jesus got locked up.
13)The early church messed up Rev 2:18-20, 1 Corinthians, Galatians.
14) Apostle John when receiving Revelation worshiped an angel and the angel said "see you do not do that. Worship GOD" Revelation 22:8-9
15) Paul and Barnabas both had a sharp disagreement on John Mark( Acts 15:36-41). And remember that both were Apostles filled with Holy Spirit.
16) Church in Revelation 2:1-6 Lord Jesus Himself said to the church of Ephesus that "I know your works, your labor, your patience, and that you cannot bear those who are evil. And you have tested those who say they are apostles and are not, and have found them liars" but guess what that church still had problems and Lord also pointed that out "Nevertheless I have this against you, that you have left your first love......" So as you can see Churches can do Biblical and unbiblical things at the some time.
_
Breaking the 10 commandments by having statues, carved images, idols, changing the Lord's Sabbath to sunday.
You sound like a rebellious teenager that won’t listen an authoritarian figure. By the way you are wrong about St. peter, he was the first pope followed by Linus, Anacletus (Cletus) and Clement to name the first 4 popes out of a total of 266!!!
Mathew 16:18
18And I also say unto thee, that thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it. 19I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.
St. Peter (32-67)
St. Linus (67-76)
St. Anacletus (Cletus) (76-88)
St. Clement I (88-97)
St. Evaristus (97-105)
St. Alexander I (105-115)
St. Sixtus I (115-125) Also called Xystus I
St. Telesphorus (125-136)
St. Hyginus (136-140)
St. Pius I (140-155)
St. Anicetus (155-166)
St. Soter (166-175)
St. Eleutherius (175-189)
St. Victor I (189-199)
St. Zephyrinus (199-217)
St. Callistus I (217-22) Callistus and the following three popes were opposed by St. Hippolytus, antipope (217-236)
St. Urban I (222-30)
St. Pontain (230-35)
St. Anterus (235-36)
St. Fabian (236-50)
St. Cornelius (251-53) Opposed by Novatian, antipope (251)
St. Lucius I (253-54)
St. Stephen I (254-257)
St. Sixtus II (257-258)
St. Dionysius (260-268)
St. Felix I (269-274)
St. Eutychian (275-283)
St. Caius (283-296) Also called Gaius
St. Marcellinus (296-304)
St. Marcellus I (308-309)
St. Eusebius (309 or 310)
St. Miltiades (311-14)
St. Sylvester I (314-35)
St. Marcus (336)
St. Julius I (337-52)
Liberius (352-66) Opposed by Felix II, antipope (355-365)
St. Damasus I (366-84) Opposed by Ursicinus, antipope (366-367)
St. Siricius (384-99)
St. Anastasius I (399-401)
St. Innocent I (401-17)
St. Zosimus (417-18)
St. Boniface I (418-22) Opposed by Eulalius, antipope (418-419)
St. Celestine I (422-32)
St. Sixtus III (432-40)
St. Leo I (the Great) (440-61)
St. Hilarius (461-68)
St. Simplicius (468-83)
St. Felix III (II) (483-92)
St. Gelasius I (492-96)
Anastasius II (496-98)
St. Symmachus (498-514) Opposed by Laurentius, antipope (498-501)
St. Hormisdas (514-23)
St. John I (523-26)
St. Felix IV (III) (526-30)
Boniface II (530-32) Opposed by Dioscorus, antipope (530)
John II (533-35)
St. Agapetus I (535-36) Also called Agapitus I
St. Silverius (536-37)
Vigilius (537-55)
Pelagius I (556-61)
John III (561-74)
Benedict I (575-79)
Pelagius II (579-90)
St. Gregory I (the Great) (590-604)
Sabinian (604-606)
Boniface III (607)
St. Boniface IV (608-15)
St. Deusdedit (Adeodatus I) (615-18)
Boniface V (619-25)
Honorius I (625-38)
Severinus (640)
John IV (640-42)
Theodore I (642-49)
St. Martin I (649-55)
St. Eugene I (655-57)
St. Vitalian (657-72)
Adeodatus (II) (672-76)
Donus (676-78)
St. Agatho (678-81)
St. Leo II (682-83)
St. Benedict II (684-85)
John V (685-86)
Conon (686-87)
St. Sergius I (687-701) Opposed by Theodore and Paschal, antipopes (687)
John VI (701-05)
John VII (705-07)
Sisinnius (708)
Constantine (708-15)
St. Gregory II (715-31)
St. Gregory III (731-41)
St. Zachary (741-52) Stephen II followed Zachary, but because he died before being consecrated, modern lists omit him
Stephen II (III) (752-57)
St. Paul I (757-67)
Stephen III (IV) (767-72) Opposed by Constantine II (767) and Philip (768), antipopes (767)
Adrian I (772-95)
St. Leo III (795-816)
Stephen IV (V) (816-17)
St. Paschal I (817-24)
Eugene II (824-27)
Valentine (827)
Gregory IV (827-44)
Sergius II (844-47) Opposed by John, antipope
St. Leo IV (847-55)
Benedict III (855-58) Opposed by Anastasius, antipope (855)
St. Nicholas I (the Great) (858-67)
Adrian II (867-72)
John VIII (872-82)
Marinus I (882-84)
St. Adrian III (884-85)
Stephen V (VI) (885-91)
Formosus (891-96)
Boniface VI (896)
Stephen VI (VII) (896-97)
Romanus (897)
Theodore II (897)
John IX (898-900)
Benedict IV (900-03)
Leo V (903) Opposed by Christopher, antipope (903-904)
Sergius III (904-11)
Anastasius III (911-13)
Lando (913-14)
John X (914-28)
Leo VI (928)
Stephen VIII (929-31)
John XI (931-35)
Leo VII (936-39)
Stephen IX (939-42)
Marinus II (942-46)
Agapetus II (946-55)
John XII (955-63)
Leo VIII (963-64)
Benedict V (964)
John XIII (965-72)
Benedict VI (973-74)
Benedict VII (974-83) Benedict and John XIV were opposed by Boniface VII, antipope (974; 984-985)
John XIV (983-84)
John XV (985-96)
Gregory V (996-99) Opposed by John XVI, antipope (997-998)
Sylvester II (999-1003)
John XVII (1003)
John XVIII (1003-09)
Sergius IV (1009-12)
Benedict VIII (1012-24) Opposed by Gregory, antipope (1012)
John XIX (1024-32)
Benedict IX (1032-45) He appears on this list three separate times, because he was twice deposed and restored
Sylvester III (1045) Considered by some to be an antipope
Benedict IX (1045)
Gregory VI (1045-46)
Clement II (1046-47)
Benedict IX (1047-48)
Damasus II (1048)
St. Leo IX (1049-54)
Victor II (1055-57)
Stephen X (1057-58)
Nicholas II (1058-61) Opposed by Benedict X, antipope (1058)
Alexander II (1061-73) Opposed by Honorius II, antipope (1061-1072)
St. Gregory VII (1073-85) Gregory and the following three popes were opposed by Guibert ("Clement III"), antipope (1080-1100)
Blessed Victor III (1086-87)
Blessed Urban II (1088-99)
Paschal II (1099-1118) Opposed by Theodoric (1100), Aleric (1102) and Maginulf ("Sylvester IV", 1105-1111), antipopes (1100)
Gelasius II (1118-19) Opposed by Burdin ("Gregory VIII"), antipope (1118)
Callistus II (1119-24)
Honorius II (1124-30) Opposed by Celestine II, antipope (1124)
Innocent II (1130-43) Opposed by Anacletus II (1130-1138) and Gregory Conti ("Victor IV") (1138), antipopes (1138)
Celestine II (1143-44)
Lucius II (1144-45)
Blessed Eugene III (1145-53)
Anastasius IV (1153-54)
Adrian IV (1154-59)
Alexander III (1159-81) Opposed by Octavius ("Victor IV") (1159-1164), Pascal III (1165-1168), Callistus III (1168-1177) and Innocent III (1178-1180), antipopes
Lucius III (1181-85)
Urban III (1185-87)
Gregory VIII (1187)
Clement III (1187-91)
Celestine III (1191-98)
Innocent III (1198-1216)
Honorius III (1216-27)
Gregory IX (1227-41)
Celestine IV (1241)
Innocent IV (1243-54)
Alexander IV (1254-61)
Urban IV (1261-64)
Clement IV (1265-68)
Blessed Gregory X (1271-76)
Blessed Innocent V (1276)
Adrian V (1276)
John XXI (1276-77)
Nicholas III (1277-80)
Martin IV (1281-85)
Honorius IV (1285-87)
Nicholas IV (1288-92)
St. Celestine V (1294)
Boniface VIII (1294-1303)
Blessed Benedict XI (1303-04)
Clement V (1305-14)
John XXII (1316-34) Opposed by Nicholas V, antipope (1328-1330)
Benedict XII (1334-42)
Clement VI (1342-52)
Innocent VI (1352-62)
Blessed Urban V (1362-70)
Gregory XI (1370-78)
Urban VI (1378-89) Opposed by Robert of Geneva ("Clement VII"), antipope (1378-1394)
Boniface IX (1389-1404) Opposed by Robert of Geneva ("Clement VII") (1378-1394), Pedro de Luna ("Benedict XIII") (1394-1417) and Baldassare Cossa ("John XXIII") (1400-1415), antipopes
Innocent VII (1404-06) Opposed by Pedro de Luna ("Benedict XIII") (1394-1417) and Baldassare Cossa ("John XXIII") (1400-1415), antipopes
Gregory XII (1406-15) Opposed by Pedro de Luna ("Benedict XIII") (1394-1417), Baldassare Cossa ("John XXIII") (1400-1415), and Pietro Philarghi ("Alexander V") (1409-1410), antipopes
Martin V (1417-31)
Eugene IV (1431-47) Opposed by Amadeus of Savoy ("Felix V"), antipope (1439-1449)
Nicholas V (1447-55)
Callistus III (1455-58)
Pius II (1458-64)
Paul II (1464-71)
Sixtus IV (1471-84)
Innocent VIII (1484-92)
Alexander VI (1492-1503)
Pius III (1503)
Julius II (1503-13)
Leo X (1513-21)
Adrian VI (1522-23)
Clement VII (1523-34)
Paul III (1534-49)
Julius III (1550-55)
Marcellus II (1555)
Paul IV (1555-59)
Pius IV (1559-65)
St. Pius V (1566-72)
Gregory XIII (1572-85)
Sixtus V (1585-90)
Urban VII (1590)
Gregory XIV (1590-91)
Innocent IX (1591)
Clement VIII (1592-1605)
Leo XI (1605)
Paul V (1605-21)
Gregory XV (1621-23)
Urban VIII (1623-44)
Innocent X (1644-55)
Alexander VII (1655-67)
Clement IX (1667-69)
Clement X (1670-76)
Blessed Innocent XI (1676-89)
Alexander VIII (1689-91)
Innocent XII (1691-1700)
Clement XI (1700-21)
Innocent XIII (1721-24)
Benedict XIII (1724-30)
Clement XII (1730-40)
Benedict XIV (1740-58)
Clement XIII (1758-69)
Clement XIV (1769-74)
Pius VI (1775-99)
Pius VII (1800-23)
Leo XII (1823-29)
Pius VIII (1829-30)
Gregory XVI (1831-46)
Blessed Pius IX (1846-78)
Leo XIII (1878-1903)
St. Pius X (1903-14)
Benedict XV (1914-22) Biographies of Benedict XV and his successors will be added at a later date
Pius XI (1922-39)
Pius XII (1939-58)
St. John XXIII (1958-63)
Paul VI (1963-78)
John Paul I (1978)
St. John Paul II (1978-2005)
Benedict XVI (2005-2013)
Francis (2013-)
Amen brother! Right on!
The gates of hell shall not prevail against it
When you overcompensate, you are lying. You gave yourself away.
Matthew chapter 16 says nothing about the catholic church. How presumptuous. How erroneous. I believe what the Bible says. Why do you hate and lie about what the Bible says?
You didn't watch the video...
What about the churches that Paul founded at Corinth etc? Are they null and void bcz he wasn't given the keys?
Some church fathers strayed from the earliest times. Its mentioned several times in the Bible and the church of Rome uses these people as proof of unbiblical doctrines
It's a simple fact that the Roman Catholic Church as we see it today didn't exist in 1000 AD. Certainly there were strains in the West that already diverged from what was being practiced in the rest of the Christian world, but the role the Pope has assumed today developed over time and arguably wasn't formalized until Vatican 1 all the way in the 1800s! Certainly in the days of Justinian no one would have said "we can't believe that because the Pope in Rome doesn't like it."
And if the Protestant world is split into countless denominations, how does that not apply to the RCC? There's several Eastern Catholic Churches and a few in the Middle East that are in communion with the Roman Catholic Church but do not use the Western Rite and have some of their own idiosyncrasies. By the popular definition bandied about that means the supposedly united true Church is perhaps a dozen denominations or more!
There's also the Vatican 2 split of Catholicism
@@jenex5608 Vativcan II didn't cause a schism. Unless you count some angst among Catholics.
It is certainly not a "simple fact that the Roman Catholic church didn't exist in 1000 AD". Even the East admits they and Rome split around 1054 AD.
Especially because Justinian would be most in contact with the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople rather than the Bishop of Rome at the time, even though he controlled both cities.
papacy debunked yt
I'm more blessed than mary
Proof= Luke 11:27-28
27 And it happened, as He spoke these things, that a certain woman from the crowd raised her voice and said to Him, “Blessed is the womb that bore You, and the breasts which nursed You!”
28 But He said, “More than that, blessed are those who hear the word of God and keep it!”
In Luke 11:27 that random woman LITERALLY said Jesus your mother is Blessed, but are Lord Jesus LITERALLY said Believers are more Blessed than mary. Amen and Amen
_
CHRIST alone
John 14:6 Jesus said to him, “I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me.
ACTS 4:12 Nor is there salvation in any other, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved.”
There is only One Mediator between God and men, LORD Jesus Christ= 1 Timothy 2:5
For there is one God and one Mediator between God and men, the Man Christ Jesus.
Hebrew 9:15 And for this reason He is the Mediator of the new covenant, by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions under the first covenant, that those who are called may receive the promise of the eternal inheritance.
Hebrew 12:24 to Jesus the Mediator of the new covenant, and to the blood of sprinkling that speaks better things than that of Abel.
Hebrew 8:6 But now He has obtained a more excellent ministry, inasmuch as He is also Mediator of a better covenant, which was established on better promises.
Ephesians 2:18 For through Him we both have access by One Spirit to the Father
John 15:5
5 “I am the vine, you are the branches. He who abides in Me, and I in him, bears much fruit; for without Me you can do nothing.
Colossians 1:19-20
19 For it pleased the Father that in Him all the fullness should dwell, 20 and by Him to reconcile all things to Himself, by Him, whether things on earth or things in heaven, having made peace through the blood of His cross.
_
1 Timothy 3:2 A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, temperate, sober-minded, of good behavior, hospitable, able to teach
Paul allows bishops to get marry, but catholic church goes against paul.
Someone will go 1 Corinthians7 to say that paul gave the advice to stay unmarried. But they will not tell you that the same chapter they quote says 1 Corinthians 7:28 "even if you do marry, you have not SINNED". The passage literally says "young women, young men" and a bishop is supposed to be a Church ELDER.
All Believer of JESUS CHRIST are Royal Priest 1 Peter 2:5,9. Revelation 1:6
Work of God =
John 6:28 Then they said to Him, “What shall we do, that we may work the works of God?”
29 Jesus answered and said to them, “This is the work of God, that you believe in Him whom He sent.”
_
Jesus said Matthew 23:9
9 Do not call anyone on earth your father; for One is your Father, He who is in heaven.
And also said Holy Father to Heavenly Father= John 17:11
11 Now I am no longer in the world, but these are in the world, and I come to You. Holy Father, keep through Your name those whom You have given Me, that they may be one as We are.
Jesus said call no one Father but still catholics call *pope holy father.
Sad.
A verse against the position of pope,
2 Thessalonians 2:4
4 who opposes and exalts himself above all that is called God or that is worshiped, so that he sits as God in the temple of God, showing himself that he is God.
_
When a catholic argue about mary being the mother of God
Use this to defeat the argument.
Luke 8:21 But He answered and said to them, “My mother and My brothers are these who hear the word of God and do it.”
Matthew 12:46-50
46 While He was still talking to the multitudes, behold, His mother and brothers stood outside, seeking to speak with Him. 47 Then one said to Him, “Look, Your mother and Your brothers are standing outside, seeking to speak with You.”
48 But He answered and said to the one who told Him, “Who is My mother and who are My brothers?” 49 And He stretched out His hand toward His disciples and said, “Here are My mother and My brothers! 50 For whoever does the will of My Father in heaven is My brother and sister and mother.”.
Mark 3:35 For whoever does the will of God is My brother and My sister and mother.”
John 19:26-27
26 When Jesus therefore saw His mother, and the disciple whom He loved standing by, He said to His mother, “Woman, behold your son!” 27 Then He said to the disciple, “Behold your mother!” And from that hour that disciple took her to his own home. ( Jesus basically said John is the son of mary, and mary is the mother of John from that time onwards).
By the way sarah is the mother of all Gal 4:21-26.
_
We should not pray to apostles
Romans 1:25
25 who exchanged the truth of God for the lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen.
Acts 10:25-26
25 As Peter was coming in, Cornelius met him and fell down at his feet and worshiped him. 26 But Peter lifted him up, saying, “Stand up; I myself am also a man.”
Acts 14:15
15 and saying, “Men, why are you doing these things? We also are men with the same nature as you, and preach to you that you should turn from these useless things to the living God, who made the heaven, the earth, the sea, and all things that are in them,
Revelation 19:10
10 And I fell at his feet to worship him. But he said to me, “See that you do not do that! I am your fellow servant, and of your brethren who have the testimony of Jesus. Worship God! For the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy.”
Revelation 22:8-9
8 Now I, John, saw and heard these things. And when I heard and saw, I fell down to worship before the feet of the angel who showed me these things.
9 Then he said to me, “See that you do not do that. For I am your fellow servant, and of your brethren the prophets, and of those who keep the words of this book. Worship God."
Colossians 2:18
18 Let no one cheat you of your reward, taking delight in false humility and worship of angels, intruding into those things which he has not seen, vainly puffed up by his fleshly mind,
You cannot go to Father through saints nor mary, you can only go to the Father through Lord Jesus Christ= John 14:6 Jesus said to him, “I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me.
Ephesians 2:18 For through Him we both have access by one Spirit to the Father.
Holy Spirit intercedes for us=Romans 8:26
26 Likewise the Spirit also helps in our weaknesses. For we do not know what we should pray for as we ought, but the Spirit Himself makes intercession for us with groanings which cannot be uttered.
And CHRIST as well=Romans 8:34
34 Who is he who condemns? It is Christ who died, and furthermore is also risen, who is even at the right hand of God, who also makes intercession for us.
Hebrews 7:25
25 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.
It's Christ and Holy Spirit who intercedes for us not apostles
Even old Old Testament says Christ intercedes for us Isaiah 53:12
12 Therefore I will divide Him a portion with the great,
And He shall divide the spoil with the strong,
Because He poured out His soul unto death,
And He was numbered with the transgressors,
And He bore the sin of many,
And made intercession for the transgressors.
_
Apostles are allowed to marry,
1 Corinthians 9:1-5
If Peter (peter is cephas read John 1:42) the so called "first pope" was married, why does the catholic church doesn't allow "pope" to marry?
Lord did gave the keys of death and hades to Apostles. But after their death, only Lord Jesus has the keys of death and hades Revelation 1:18
_
Lord Jesus Christ died Once for all, re-sacrifice Him is putting Him to shame. Hebrews 6:4-6; 10:10,12,14; 9:26,28; 9:12; 1 Peter 3:18; Romans 6:10
_
The so called vicar of christ/ pope/holy father Peter called himself a fellow elder in 1 Peter 5:1, and as per the qualifications of elder in Titus 1:5-9 the elder is allowed to get married; then why does the "pope" is required to be celibate and catholic? ( when Peter was neither celibate nor catholic).
1)Peter was not perfect human nor was he a perfect disciple
2)He sank down while walking on water
3)Our Lord said to peter get behind me satan
4)Peter reject our Lord 3 times
5)Our Lord rebuked Peter for calling fire from heaven
6)Our Lord rebuked Peter when he cut of the soilders ear
7)Paul rebuked Peter for being hypocrite because he was acting different in front of Jews and different in front of gentiles.
8) Moses messed up, and he was a important part of Bible ( that's why he never entered the promised land),
9)David messed up ( and he has the Holy Spirit)
10)King Soloman messed up
11) Saul messed up and God regretted the decision (1 Samuel 15:10-11).
Hatrick (Saul then David then Soloman back to back messed up)
12)The apostles run away a day before Lord Jesus got locked up.
13)The early church messed up Rev 2:18-20, 1 Corinthians, Galatians.
14) Apostle John when receiving Revelation worshiped an angel and the angel said "see you do not do that. Worship GOD" Revelation 22:8-9
15) Paul and Barnabas both had a sharp disagreement on John Mark( Acts 15:36-41). And remember that both were Apostles filled with Holy Spirit.
16) Church in Revelation 2:1-6 Lord Jesus Himself said to the church of Ephesus that "I know your works, your labor, your patience, and that you cannot bear those who are evil. And you have tested those who say they are apostles and are not, and have found them liars" but guess what that church still had problems and Lord also pointed that out "Nevertheless I have this against you, that you have left your first love......" So as you can see Churches can do Biblical and unbiblical things at the some time.
_
Breaking the 10 commandments by having statues, carved images, idols, changing the Lord's Sabbath to sunday.
for us christians we have to be careful on this touchy subject. i am roman catholic,but i am allowed to go to any christian church and listen to the sermons. but we allsmsay jesus is saviour and died of our sins. i wish more people would read about catholicsm and understand what us roman catholics beleive in. but i can read on martian luther and at leaest i will understand what a lutheran beleives without pointing fingers and say i am right you are wrong. no body wins that aguement. God is the only one who can judge others not us. God is love and we all need to remember that.until jesus saya otherwise on the true church.
Catholics are not Christians
It's simple, read your Bible. Man will deceive you but God's Word is Truth in essence.
Your solution to the question of whether the Roman Catholic church is the Church which Christ established is admirable. I'm glad you affirm that the truth is found in the Bible and we don't need human philosophy. If only the Roman Catholics would agree and would stop listening to their their popes who incorporate man-made teachings into their theology. They then might see that the Roman Catholic church isn't the Church which Christ established as Christ never made Peter a pope and the popes don't have any divine authority to rule in the Church. The true Church which Christ established is a spiritual community of all those who believe the Gospel as taught in the Bible, not the false gospel preached by the popes.
@@Edward-ng8oo
By what authority do you look to for correct interpretation of Scripture?
@@morelmaster Holy Spirit
@@Edward-ng8oo also Bible affirms the first 3 popes ( Peter , Linus and Clement) check Chruch history and read the Bible. Our first 3 popes are already in the Bible plus the word Catholic was used by St Ignatius of Antioch to Smyrna in AD 110 plus Catholic church complied the Bible you read today. Martin Luther wanted to remove James, revelation and other chapters from the Bible, whos authority? Holy spirit? Nah God is not the God of confusion
Simple Logic. Early Church was Catholic all believed for 1500 years the real presence of Jesus in the Eucharist until reformation its now only a symbol. Since 33 Ad forces of darkness and spirit of the world has tried to eradicate Catholicism , from Catacombs to martyrs for Faith in each age . Catholic church rose against its enemies by thePower of the Holy spirit.
as Jesus said to Peter gates of hell will not prevail against his CHURCH
@@IconicIzzy1806
The early bishops of Rome weren't popes in the modern sense, that is universal bishops over the whole church. That was a development which didn't come about until the seventh century. Luther had this to say:
It is very easy to prove that the pope is neither the commander or head of Christendom, nor lord of the world above emperor, councils, and everything, as he lies, blasphemes, curses, and raves in his decretals, to which the hellish Satan drives him. He himself knows full well-and it is as clear as the dear sun from all the decrees of the ancient councils, from all the histories, from the writings of the holy fathers, Jerome, Augustine, and Cyprian, and from all of Christendom before the first pope, who was called Boniface III -that the bishop of Rome was nothing more than a bishop and should still be that. St. Jerome dared to say freely, “All bishops are equal, all together they have inherited the throne of the apostles,” and adds the example, “as the bishop of a small city-like Engubium and Rome, Regium and Constantinople, Thebes and Alexandria. (Luther's Works Vol 41.290)
In addition, St. Gregory, when it [the title “universal pope”] was offered to him by several great bishops, sharply refused it and writes that none of his predecessors had been so bold as to accept or wish to carry such a title, although the sixth council in Chalcedon had offered it to them; he closes by saying briefly and to the point that no one should call himself the highest bishop or head of the whole of Christendom, as many decrees also say, and furthermore, that the bishop of Rome too, though he is one of the greater ones, is nonetheless not to be called universalis, the head of “all” Christendom. (Luther's Works Vol 41.291)
But after Gregory’s death Sabinianus was a bishop for a year and a half; I count him among the popes, for he was a big monster, like a pope is, and wanted to burn the books of St. Gregory, his immediate predecessor-perhaps because in his writings St. Gregory did not want the papacy to be tolerated. Boniface III was elected after him. This is when God’s wrath began. This Boniface persuaded the regicide Phocas that he should be pope, or chief of all the bishops in the whole world. The bell was cast then, and the Roman horror accepted with joy, as the one who was now lord over all the bishops in the world. (Luther's Works Vol 41.291)
Luther by the way didn't reject the real presence of Christ's body and blood in the Eucharist, and those who follow after him don't reject it either.
With regards the term "catholic", Roman Catholics are catholic in name only. Their beliefs concerning the mass being a sacrifice, prayer to Mary and the saints, purgatory, justification through faith and works etc means they don't possess the true faith as handed down by Christ and the Apostles. Therefore they're not part of the true Church which Christ promised the gates of hell wouldn't overcome. Hell has already overcome the popes and their followers. Recently it's become accepted Roman Catholic teaching that one doesn't even need to be a conscious follower of Christ in order to be saved, and that followers of other religions and none are also able to be saved as long as they're sincere etc. This is full blown apostasy. The Scriptures teach that unless one has conscious faith in Christ as one's Saviour one will be damned.
Those like myself, who agree with Luther, see the Papacy as the Antichrist described in 2 Thessalonians 2, and because the Antichrist won't be destroyed till Christ's second coming, so the popes' followers will still be in existence until then as well. Roman Catholics are horribly deceived and mistaken in thinking that the reason why their church still exists and can't be eradicated is because they're the true Church which Christ promised wouldn't be destroyed. No they're not the true Church. They're a false church which will be destroyed when Christ returns.
“We were excommunicated by Roman, but that doesn’t mean that we weren’t consistent with the church before that” (Is this statement supposed to be a joke?).
“This is not the starting of a new church”. “Out of that came the Lutheran confessions and we got to define what we believe” (NEW CHURCH!!!).
“We dealt with doctrinal corruption“. (According to your unauthorized, unappointed selves!) (NEW CHURCH!)”. “We didn’t try to break off or start some new group” (But you did!).
How can you be consistent with the church before if you defined something new???
Jesus could not have made it any clearer, “This IS my body”, “This IS my blood”, The early church believed in the true presence of the body and blood in the Eucharist, protestants don’t. THAT’S HUGE, “If you do not eat my body and drink my blood, you do not have life within you!” AND THEY NO LONGER FOLLOWED HIM!!!!
“Upon this rock I shall build my church and the gates of Hell will not prevail against it.” Luther: The gates of Hell have prevailed against it, we should define a new church.
Do you hear yourself???
You are wrong or misunderstanding when you say, Catholics say that their "founder is Jesus Christ". Here's the thing, and all Catholics are aware of this. Jesus Christ died for the sins of "the world" in other words for all and "anyone" who "believes" in him. Jesus authorised the Apostle Simon (Peter) who HE set apart and signified as a leader with a higher “mission” over any of the other Apostles....to build "his" CHURHURCH. HE set aside Peter and not a man by the name of Martin Luther or anyone else to build his CHURCH.
Jesus then goes on to also say, “And I will give thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven and whatever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven”
So whilst Jesus is the" head "of the Catholic CHURCH - Peter was authorised to build and administer it. What more endorsement does one need in order to start a CHURCH that only the Son of God himself authorised?
Concerning Martin Luther as far as I can tell, he was a simply a religious man in the CHURCH who disagreed with some of the doctrines of the Catholic CHURCH so he complained to Rome. Obviously Rome did not give in (just like they didn't with King Henry VIII) and stood by the doctrines of the CHURCH willed by Jesus, not someone called Martin Luther or a King.
Luther decided to at this point to start a Reformation.
I call it the Protestant Revolution and not a Reformation. It was no authentic reformation.
🤦🏻
"[Luther] was a simply a religious man in the CHURCH who disagreed with some of the doctrines of the Catholic CHURCH so he complained to Rome," is not an accurate summary. He did not complain to Rome; he posted matters and invited public debate on them.
Have you even bothered reading the 95 Theses? If not, you should do; and then read the 97 Theses, and ask yourself what it was the former, rather than the latter, which provoked Rome.
Thanks for admitting Jesus didn't establish your apostate denomination, but that doesn't disprove the point Cooper is making in the video. Just substitute "Jesus founded our church" with "Jesus gave Peter permission to found his church" and everything still flows the same. Regardless of either position you take, the authority ultimately goes back to Jesus.
Jesus is a Jew. Jesus is not catholic.
John 8:55
Though you do not know him, I know him. If I said I did not, I would be a liar like you, but I do know him and obey his word.
Jesus and the word are father and son.
Remove the word and you at that liar the Devil.
Job 15:15
John 17
"Did Jesus Found the Roman Catholic Church?"
Answer: Yes. The Church Jesus built on the foundation of the Apostles came to be called the "catholic" Church early in the 2nd century.
Please see my reply to the question posted by someone going under the name of The Blue Stone Project: "I pose this question rather. What church did Jesus found if it wasn't that which went to Rome and after much martyrdom, flourished as Catholic?"
I decided to copy my reply and repost it here:
The Church which Christ established isn't an organisation with an earthly CEO who runs things from a central location in Rome but is a community of regenerated people who have true faith in their hearts and look to Christ alone as their leader. The popes have usurped the position of Christ by saying that they have been appointed by Him to lead the Church and that they're incapable of leading it into apostasy because they're divinely mandated to carry out this leadership role. They try to substantiate this by reference to various passages in the Bible, in particular Matthew 16 which they misinterpret to falsely teach that Christ built His Church on Peter, and argue that he in turn passed his authority on to them. This is just a devilish deception by which the popes have introduced false teaching in opposition to the true Gospel, so in no way can the Roman Catholic church be considered to be the true Catholic Church which Christ established.
Christ founded a spiritual community of true believers not a sect of false teachers and their deceived followers. The one true Church isn't a visible organisation or church body but is a community of everyone in the entire world who possess true faith. Therefore the true Church is invisible because no one knows for sure who actually possesses true faith in their hearts or where they live over the whole earth.
So with regards to those who were martyred in the early centuries in Rome, we can be reasonably sure, although not absolutely sure, that they were indeed true Christians and therefore members of Christ's Church which was termed "Catholic". As for the Papacy that didn't come into being until a few centuries later (the early bishops of Rome weren't popes in the modern sense) so the local church in Rome was still authentically Catholic at that time. I mean it was Catholic in a derivative sense from the One True invisible Church. One can call the local church in Rome "Catholic" at that time because it didn't subvert the truth with false teaching.
So no, Christ didn't found the Roman Catholic church if by that is meant the organisation which is run from the Vatican under the control of the popes. Christ founded a spiritual community of people with true faith not an organisation run by the Antichrist.
@@Edward-ng8oo "What church did Jesus found"?
He founded His Church, which, by the early 2nd century was known as the "catholic" Church. This Church is the normative means by which the Gospel message and grace is spread to all.
@@AmericanBerean Your assertion that Christ founded the catholic Church is hardly controversial. I have no difficulty in agreeing with that. However it reveals you’re failing to grasp the points I made in my previous reply to you. I’m a member of the catholic Church, as are all true Christians, because “catholic” just refers to the one true universal Church. But I completely deny that this Church is the Roman Catholic church. The true catholic Church is the invisible worldwide community of all those, and only those, who have true faith in Christ. This faith is a rebirth into a living trust in Christ which changes a person so that he’s no longer the same person but rather lives for God instead of himself. It’s not some stale dead acknowledgement of the facts about Christ.
I think I shall simply repeat another reply I made to someone else so that you can hopefully grasp some of the issues at stake when you say that Christ founded the Roman Catholic Church:
Some of what you say I agree with and some of what you say I don't agree with. I don't accept for instance that the early bishops of Rome were popes in the Roman Catholic understanding of the term. They didn't have any universal power and authority over all the churches. The most they were was first among equals in relation to other bishops, but then only in a consultative capacity. Also from what I've read there's no proof that Peter was ever in Rome as the bishop there, although I know Roman Catholic sources will try and insist that he was, but then I don't give much credence to what they might assert.
Our differences are to some degree over the definition of the Church. I fully accept that Jesus founded the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church and gave it the Holy Spirit and the authority to carry on the faith until the Second Coming of Christ. But what I don't accept of course is that this Church is the Roman Catholic church under the control of the popes.
What Protestants in general claim is that the Papacy is an intruder in the Church and that it gradually took over the reins of power as time went on. Gradually the true believers were outnumbered and outmaneuvered so that the papists took control and corrupted the message of the Gospel into a works-righteous scheme of earning salvation through doing things which they taught were good works like attending mass, becoming a monk, building churches, going on pilgrimages etc, and the papists also endorsed idolatrous practices like praying to Mary and the saints. So it was in this atmosphere that Martin Luther came to prominence through his rediscovery of the true Gospel of being righteous in God's sight through faith alone (as St. Paul in particular teaches in the Bible). Good works were then done not in order to be saved but as a consequence of being saved. Also the good works which were enjoined on the faithful were redefined as those works which were done in accordance with God's Commandments and not human ideas of what pleases God. So things like monasticism and pilgrimages fell by the wayside as being unnecessary and more importantly incompatible with the Gospel
Lastly, I don't agree with the Roman Catholic claim that the Church is supreme and the Bible came out of the Church. It's the other way round. The Bible is supreme because it's God's Word, and the Church came out of the Bible. It's the Bible as God's Word which gives birth to the Church because God's Word creates Christians through giving them the Holy Spirit. The Church didn't produce the Bible. What it did was recognise those Scriptures which were authentic and those which should be discarded. But it was the Holy Spirit who actually produced the Scriptures through inspiring the prophets and Apostles to write them.
@@Edward-ng8oo You're right, strictly speaking when you say the Roman Catholic Church is not the Catholic Church. But it is part of it, and the part in which resides the chief visible shepherd of the Catholic Church, the bishop of Rome (aka the pope). The Latin Rite of the Catholic Church (aka the "Roman" Catholic church) is one of a dozen or more Rites of the Catholic Church. All the Catholic churches (rites) are in full communion with the pope. Those not in full communion are not Catholic Church. They are Orthodox, or Protestant, or Coptic, etc.
The Church Jesus built on the foundation of the Apostles is not just a universal spiritual association. It is also a visible society with the Apostolic-successive bishops shepherding us. (did I describe the OT-NT basis of this, in previous post?)
This has been Truth from the beginning. Denial of it is new and novel, amounting to a doctrine of men. The early Christian writings show this. Does your position have any ancient writings illustrating that what I have told you is false?
These men called it the Catholic Church...
Ignatius in 103 A.D.
Martyr of Polycarp in 150 A.D.
Justin Martyr in 151 A.D.
The Muratori in 177 A.D
Irenaeus in 180 A.D.
Tertullian in 200 A.D.
Cyprian in 254 A.D.
Council of Nicea in 325 A.D.
Cyril of Jerusalem in 350 A.D.
Jerome in 375 A.D.
Ambrose in 379 A.D.
Constantinople I in 381 A.D.
Council of Rome in 382 A.D.
Council of Rome in 382 A.D.
Pope Damasus I cin 382 A.D.
Council of Hippo in 393 A.D.
Council of Carthage in 397 A.D.
Augustine in 397 A.D.
Council of Toledo in 400 A.D.
Pope Innocent I in 400 A.D.
it was catholic not Catholic....
@@angelbaby78 No, it was BOTH Catholic and catholic. Just as it still is today.
@@angelbaby78
LOL, its the same word, they didn't have capital letters when they wrote way back then in Latin and Greek.
Polycarp Bishop of Symerna and the Quartodecimans eastern orthodox church kept the Biblical 14th of Avib Nissan and Rome tried to excommunicate the eastern church's almost 700 years before the 1054 Schism, The Jerusalem Church has Primacy 1st See and Rome is the youngest See , both Church's have departed from orthodox Biblical The Way Acts 24:14 Ekklessia Kehilah Church
Not Roman
I don't understand. So you claim that thre is no church in the world which belief is correct, and we sholdn't worry about that?
He is incorrect. Jesus started the Catholic church in 33ad. All Protestants churches broke away from Catholic church and were started by men. Protestant churches often have conflicting doctrines. Only Catholic church has the 100% fullness of the Christian faith. Catholic church is the one true church of Jesus Christ.
@@johnyang1420 the caltholic church is a heretic group which left THE ONE AND HOLY CATHOLIC APOSTOLIC CHURCH the ORTHODOX CHURCH. The Orthodox church is the word of Christ created by him.
Such is indeed quite often the claim of separatists in our day, Liudvikas: the truth has disappeared and thus we do how we please without anyone being guilty. Not so.
@@Μυλοπόταμος-ψ4ψ The Orthodox church is closer to the truth than the Catholic Church. The Catholic Church wasn't started by Jesus. As the Lutheran pastor said the Church of Jesus is the Apostolic Church. The Catholic Church is the combination of the Apostolic Church and tradition of man. The Bible condemns the tradition of man. The Orthodox church took a bit of tradition and it's not the true church. Mary is not a redeemer, Jesus said call no man father, the baptism of babies is not testifyied in the Bible,etc. These traditions and others are not in the Bible. Worship of icons is forbidden by Exodus 20. God bless you brother in Christ.
@@dariusmot8440 , Catholics don't believe Mary to be our "redeemer". With all due respect, the words of Darius Mot are not the Word of God. You surely ingulge in wholy trivial , vague and often directly nonsensical notions about Catholic faith. You surely have many misunderstandings, misrepresentations and caricatures. Additionaly your points are simply your personal opinion. Not authoritative. Martin Luther ( first Protestant ) had a little knowledge of Catholicism: " It is quite possible that Martin Luther may have confused one theological opinion with the official teaching of the church and initiated his program of reform on the basis of this misunderstanding" Oxford professor Alister McGrath.
The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge. A little knowledge can be more dangerous than none at all, it creates the illusion of knowledge.
Dr cooper, what advice would you give for someone who is considering to leave the Catholic Church?
RUN!
Why are you leaving? Just curious, the Catholic church has begun to attract me.
@@nicford1486 th-cam.com/video/lTWFu6ByR2Q/w-d-xo.html
@@simuljustusetpeccator5547 th-cam.com/video/lTWFu6ByR2Q/w-d-xo.html. Please get help
@@nicford1486 research who made the 2nd testament of the bible happen you’ll see it was Catholic
if you remove all hatred and evil from your heart and help other people, you automatically get a PhD in theology
No power hungry oligarchs did that over many centuries with near constant conflict with one another shameful.
I really like your comment at 10:04, "I don't like these gotcha lines that we throw our to tell someone they're wrong." Yes those gotcha lines can make us feel warm and fuzzy inside believing that the denomination we belong to just so happens to be God's favorite. So good news - I feel warm and fuzzy about my religion. Bad news - religion CANNOT get us to Heaven - ONLY JESUS can get us to Heaven. So if someone's Catholic or Lutheran or whichever church has not brought them to Jesus either they have failed their church or their church has failed them.
Amen, well and wisely & truthfully said.
Lutheran was a name ascribed by Romans to belittle the concerns of evangelical catholics. Luther himself said he was nothing and that we are evangelical catholics. But, Rome excommunicated us even as they excommunicated the East 500 years earlier and are even now, excommunicating those who are seeking modern reform today in the face of Vatican 2 radicalism. Beyond this, Christianity was in Rome before Peter and Paul arrived, so there's that...
Jesus Christ founded the Roman Catholic Church.
Kepha is rock in Aramaic
Matthew 16:18-19, “And I tell you, you are Peter (Kepha) and upon this rock (Kepha) I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.”
Here Jesus is clearly giving establishing the Church upon Peter who is the rock (Kepha) and giving him specifically the keys of the kingdom of Heaven. Along with the keys he is giving authority to bind and loose on earth. Given that Peter is almost always mentioned first, mentioned more than any other Apostle combined and given the keys to the Kingdom of Heaven (no small ordeal) it is clear that Peter is the first Pope. Likewise if you go to any well respected encyclopedia like Britannica for example you will find the Popes on UNBROKEN succession from Saint Peter the Apostle and fisherman to modern day Pope Francis.
As Cardinal Newman a former Protestant said, “To be deep in history is to cease to be Protestant.”
Just one question. Where in your Bible does it say Peter was a Catholic?
@James Eadmer Dela Cruz Okay, so where does the Bible say Jesus founded the Catholic Church?
Where does it say roman Catholic? you need context with the word (Catholic/catholic)! There is no historical documents nor evidence 🧾 to prove peter was the first pope or Jesus founded the Roman Catholic church!!!
@@calebsmith3107 Where, then, did Catholics get the impression that Jesus founded the Catholic Church and that Peter was the first pope?
@@cbooth151 perhaps he could have been labeled as a pope by others and he was a church leader (don't even argue that) the word "Catholic" means universal so Jesus founded the church not the Roman Catholic church, look at the church of athioch, Ephesus,etc. No popes! Just leaders, peter is the leader of the church the bible never calls him a pope, Jesus is the head of the church catholcism teaches the pope is 😬
Jesus DID found the "Catholic Church"; that point is undeniable.
That church was the very first Christian Church founded in Jerusalem by the Apostles, just after Pentecost. And this church was "Catholic", in that it was the universal church of all true authentic Christians, started by Jesus and his Apostles in Jerusalem the Mother Church.
It was James, the bother of Jesus, that became the first lead elder over the first Christian Church that Jesus built. (note: not Peter). It is all described in the books of Acts.
The institutional Roman Catholic Church was founded a few hundred years later when the Roman Church broke out of the Patriarchies (the Major five equals - The Patriarchy of Jerusalem, The Patriarchy of Alexandria, The Patriarchy of Antioch, The Patriarchy of Rome, & The Patriarchy of Constantinople) by declaring themselves as the only primary authority of the Christian Church; an idea that the other Christian churches opposed and denied.
The Roman Church essentially is making a power play to claim to be the supreme authority over all the other Christian Churches/
The Roman Catholic Church declared a new doctrine (that they created) that all other Christian Churches must submit to the authority of the Pope in Rome. They attempted to justify this declaration by interpreting (rather misinterpreting) Matt. 16:18 as teaching that the church the Jesus will build would be base on a man - Peter, which was to become the first "Pope"
In this declaration, the Roman Church stepped out of the main stream of Christendom, splitting away from the norm of the authentic "Catholic" Christian Church, that Jesus and his Apostles first built in Jerusalem. DZ
Jesus Christ our Great and Kind God and Savior, built His Church on Peter the rock, way before the new testament was even written, or that later determined which of the over 75 letters written, were to be included in the new testament and which were not. Jesus Christ renamed Simon as Cephas, which is Aramaic for rock. ( John 1:42). The same Church authority in Peter the rock and sole key holder, who stood up and put an end to all the debating at the council in Jerusalem, since Scripture alone could not. You are in my prayers Dr. Cooper as you journey toward Truth! Peace always in Jesus Christ our Great and Kind God and Savior, He whose Flesh is True food and Blood True drink
Jesus is the cornerstone that the builders rejected, it is upon Him that the church is built!
We have no way of ascertaining what exactly Jesus told Peter in the original Aramaic version of the Rock passage, so that argument is based on conjecture. We only have the Greek manuscripts that use two slightly different variations of the word “Petros” which means a rock or stone within the statement Jesus makes about Peter’s confession. Therefore I would suggest that you folks cease using this argument to justify Peter’s supremacy over the Church.
Absolutely false
@@SK-tr9ii That's not what the bible says.
Rome used to be an integral part of the Church, and is still so in some sense. The great tragedy is that Rome separated itself from the One church, and the cosequences of this idea of self-sufficiency can be seen in all the protestant churches
I think the key to understanding the Papacy is in understanding the Davidic Kingdom. Jesus, as the Son of David, establishes His Church in accordance with the Davidic Kingdom and as with every kingdom this has a hierarchy. The Davidic Kingdom also had a prime minister who had the absolute authority of the King. In 1 Kings 4:7, King Solomon had 12 officers to rule over Israel. Jesus had 12 Apostles which were picked by him to rule over His Church after He ascended into heaven.
In Isaiah 22:15-24 God is angry with his prime minister Shebna, and will replace him with Eliakim, who will be given the keys to the Kingdom, and will have the power to open and shut, who will be a father figure to his people, and who will be a sure peg on a throne of honor to his father. The whole weight of his father’s house shall rest on him. Jesus gave Peter the keys to the Kingdom of God (Mathew 16:18-19), a symbol of authority prefigured by Eliakim in the OT. Peter and his successors have the power to bind and loose (open and shut) in the name of Jesus, from Matthew 18:18. The entire weight of the Catholic Church rests on the Pope and his teachings, just like the entire weight of David's house rested on Eliakim.
There is only one Church that has this hierarchy and that is the Catholic Church. No other Church has a pedigree that dates back to the apostles themselves.
It's a creative argument, anyway.
Greg, your argument sounds good, but the papacy is not scriptural. Furthermore there is no such thing as apostolic succession. That is tradition that is exclusive to the RCC. If you read scripture you will see that there are requirements for apostles. These requirements destroy apostolic succession. The most important of these requirements is that the apostle had to have seen the risen Christ. Scripture also says that Paul was the last apostle to have seen the risen Christ. This particular requirement totally destroys apostolic succession. I guess just as important is that there is absolutely nothing in scripture that points to Mary, peter or any of the apostles being catholic. They were all Jewish. No scriptural account that Mary, peter ever doing anything "catholic". I wonder why Mary circumcised Jesus and didn't baptize him. I wonder why there is no account of peter presiding over a mass, praying to Mary or praying the rosary? So Jesus being Jewish did not found a catholic church. They weren't catholic just because the church claims they are. Two other compelling facts are that scripture Jesus said "upon this Rock I will build my church". It doesn't say "I will build my catholic church". The word catholic was non-existent until 90-110. That is after Jesus and the apostles had died. If you read the gospel of Luke you also see that it says that a "strife" arose amongst the apostles. A strife that included Peter. What was this strife about? They were contending as to who should be the greatest among them. Hold on. I thought peter was the pope? Didn't the other apostles know peter was the pope? Better yet, hadn't Jesus appointed peter as his pope? How did Jesus react to this? Did he stand up and defend his pope or the papacy? Did Jesus rebuke the other apostles and say anything about peter having any primacy or say that peter was the pope? Jesus did no such thing. If you read further you will see what Jesus did. Besides Jesus himself had already made a very telling declaration in Matthew ch. 11. Jesus said "Verily I say unto you, of them born of women, there has not risen a greater than John the Baptist". Was peter the one chosen to "prepare the way if the Lord"? Was the birth of peter a result of prophecy? Was Peter's birth of a miraculous nature? Yet your church makes a big deal because peter is mentioned first several times in scripture. You can't argue against what Jesus said John and no such thing about peter. Truth is that anyone who reads the bible would not establish that the bible addresses the papacy and much less catholicism. The only way peter became pope is that the church waited for peter to die, waived a magic wand, made him catholic and gave him the non-scriptural title of pope.
@@rbnmnt3341 I gave scriptural evidence for the Papal office using both the OT and NT. It's your right to either accept or reject what I presented. The apostles were Jewish by heritage but Christian by being selected by Christ and followed him and His teachings, and Catholic by being members of the universal Church.
“You must follow the lead of the bishop, as Jesus Christ followed that of the Father, follow the presbytery as you would the Apostles; reverence the deacons as you would God’s commandment. Let no one do anything touching the Church, apart from the bishop. Let that celebration of the Eucharist be considered valid which is held under the bishop or anyone who he has committed it. Where the bishop appears, there let the people be, just as where Jesus Christ is, there is the CATHOLIC Church (emphasis mine). It is not permitted without authorization of the bishop either to baptize….He who honors the bishop is honored by God. He who does anything without the knowledge of the bishop worships the devil.”
- Ignatius of Antioch, letter to the Smyrnaeans (107 AD, a disciple of the Apostle John)
Apostolic Succession was established in the book of Acts when Mathias was selected to occupy Judas' See. As well, we have Clement of Rome (a disciple of Peter and Paul and 3rd successor of Peter) addressing apostolic succession in his letter. Why would Peter and Paul teach this if it wasn't true?
“Our Apostles, too, were given to understand by our own Lord Jesus Christ the office of the bishop would give rise to intrigues. For this reason, they appointed the men mentioned before, and afterwards laid down a rule once for all to this effect: when these men die, other approved men shall succeed to their sacred ministry”.
- Clement of Rome (a disciple of Peter and Paul), “Epistle to the Corinthians”, 96 AD.
Clement is mentioned by Paul in the scriptures. Remember that succession doesn't make the person an apostle but passes on the apostolic authority. This authority is confirmed throughout the early Church.
@@GR65330 i gave you proof, scriptural proof that peter and Jesus never named peter was a pope. You can spin it any way you want but nothing in scripture mentions that they were catholic. The word Catholic doesn't even appear in scripture. I do love the way Catholics have their own dictionary and meaning of wirds to promote you false doctrines and teachings. Catholic is not in scripture so you change it to mean universal thinking that justifies catholicism. Mary, peter and the other apostles were never catholic. Just like your church changed the meaning of grace to mean sinless to promote the false teaching that Mary was sinless. That is just one more of the false claims of your church. Just like the false claims on Mary being sinless, Mary's assumption. The list is long, so I won't list them all. I will add that peter never refers to himself as the pope. Peter calls himself a servant, an apostle, a fellow elder and a ND just a man. The latter of which he declared to Cornelius. That when peter rejected the gestures of Cornelius. I guess Cornelius thought peter was the pope. Peter helped him up and said stand up, "I am just a MAN like you". Strange words from an apostle you guys claim was a pope. One last thing I will add is that your Popes are not the vicars of Christ. Scripture clearly says that THE vicar is the Holy Spirit. Jesus left NO MAN in charge of any church, much less a self declared catholic church
By the way apostolic authority is not passed on, at least divinely. I showed you what the requirements are for apostles. As a result, there are no more apostles much less apostolic succession. You guys just make your own rules and disregard scripture. I repeat, because scripture says to be an apostle, the apostle had to see the risen Christ.
@@rbnmnt3341 Your arguments are given from silence which is a logical fallacy. For example, the word 'Trinity' is not found in the bible but it is a core teaching in Christianity. Another example is the word 'bible' is not found in the bible, but yet we have it.
As I stated, the first example of apostolic succession is in the book of Acts where Mathias succeeds Judas' See. Of course there are no more apostles but their authority has been passed on by succession (refer to Acts 1).
Not every term that is used today is found in the bible, otherwise whatever congregation that you belong to doesn't exist and the reformation never happened because it is not mentioned in the bible.
Your arguments from silence is illogical.
Merry Christmas!!
Yea And the split with the oriental non chalcedonians remember them?
I pose this question rather. What church did Jesus found if it wasn't that which went to Rome and after much martyrdom, flourished as Catholic.
The Church which Christ established isn't an organisation with an earthly CEO who runs things from a central location in Rome but is a community of regenerated people who have true faith in their hearts and look to Christ alone as their leader. The popes have usurped the position of Christ by saying that they have been appointed by Him to lead the Church and that they're incapable of leading it into apostasy because they're divinely mandated to carry out this leadership role. They try to substantiate this by reference to various passages in the Bible, in particular Matthew 16 which they misinterpret to falsely teach that Christ built His Church on Peter, and argue that he in turn passed his authority on to them. This is just a devilish deception by which the popes have introduced false teaching in opposition to the true Gospel, so in no way can the Roman Catholic church be considered to be the true Catholic Church which Christ established.
Christ founded a spiritual community of true believers not a sect of false teachers and their deceived followers. The one true Church isn't a visible organisation or church body but is a community of everyone in the entire world who possess true faith. Therefore the true Church is invisible because no one knows for sure who actually possesses true faith in their hearts or where they live over the whole earth.
So with regards to those who were martyred in the early centuries in Rome, we can be reasonably sure, although not absolutely sure, that they were indeed true Christians and therefore members of Christ's Church which was termed "Catholic". As for the Papacy that didn't come into being until a few centuries later (the early bishops of Rome weren't popes in the modern sense) so the local church in Rome was still authentically Catholic at that time. I mean it was Catholic in a derivative sense from the One True invisible Church. One can call the local church in Rome "Catholic" at that time because it didn't subvert the truth with false teaching.
So no, Christ didn't found the Roman Catholic church if by that is meant the organisation which is run from the Vatican under the control of the popes. Christ founded a spiritual community of people with true faith not an organisation run by the Antichrist.
@@Edward-ng8oo in fact it is.. He's first among equals.
Please look up the name of the Catholic Church and you will see that it is called the "Catholic Church".
@@Kitiwake
In the early church the bishops of Rome were first among equals, but since the rise of the Papacy, when the bishops of Rome have claimed to be universal bishops over the whole church, that has ceased to be true.
So according to your logic because the Roman Catholic church is called the "Catholic Church" that's all one needs in the way of proof that Christ established the RCc? Where is the logic in that? Just because the RCc identifies itself as the "Catholic Church" and the RCc is commonly referred to as this, doesn't make it true. (in the sense that it's the one true universal Church.)
@@Kitiwake
Also in the eyes of many of those who aren't members of the RCc, when they refer to the RCc as the "Catholic Church" they're not meaning that the RCc is the church established by Christ, they're just using the term to refer to an organisation in the same way that one refers to say the Anglican Church. The term "Catholic Church" only confers the meaning of "the one true Church established by Christ" to those who are members of the RCc. To those of us who are heirs of the Protestant Reformation like myself, even if I use the term "Catholic Church" with a capital "C" for church, I mean the false papist church run from the Vatican.
@@Edward-ng8oo "the Church of Rome presides in love over all other churches". - St. Ignatius of Antioch.
Why do you object to the primacy of Peter? Christ has done this, he wills this.
I think this largely misunderstands the claim. The claim is that Jesus Christ founded a Church with a Head (Peter) that is inherited from the last, with an apostolic office (found in apostolic succession). Only the Catholic Church fulfills these assumptions about the Church that Jesus Christ founded
The Roman Rite (RCC) is the Western rite of the Catholic Church; the Byzantine rite is the Eastern rite of the Catholic Church. Together both rites comprise the Catholic Church which Jesus established.
False. Jesus, Stephen, the eunuch, and Mark founded the Oriental Orthodox Church. Thaddeus, Bartholomew and Thomas founded the Church of the East. Each one claims to be the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. These claims are as legit as Rome's and Istanbul's.
The term RCC doesn't just refer to the Roman rite, it also refers to the whole umbrella of churches under the headship of Rome, including the Eastern rite. Shorting the RCC to the "Catholic Church" is misleading because it implies that Rome is indeed the universal, or catholic, church of Christ, which the other traditions obviously disagree with. It's similar to shortening the EOC "The Orthodox Church." That's misleading because it implies the other churches are unorthodox, which is incorrect.
@@BenjaminAnderson21 there is the Roman Catholic Church and the Byzantine Catholic Church. They are both the same Catholic Church expressed through differing rites and customs all in unity with the See of Peter. I think I understand what you’re trying to say but not fully. Are you saying that both the Byzantine and the Roman Church are the RCC?
John 21:15-17 - Jesus selects Peter to be the chief shepherd of the apostles when He says to Peter, “feed my lambs,” “tend my sheep,” “feed my sheep.” Peter will shepherd the Church as Jesus’ representative.
Luke 22:31-32 - Jesus also prays that Peter’s faith may not fail and charges Peter to be the one to strengthen the other apostles - “Simon, satan demanded to have you (plural, referring to all the apostles) to sift you (plural) like wheat, but I prayed for you (singular) that your (singular) faith may not fail, and when you (singular) have turned again, strengthen your brethren.
Acts 1,2,3,4,5,8,15 - no one questions Peter’s authority to speak for the Church, declare anathemas, and resolve doctrinal debates. Peter is the rock on which the Church is built who feeds Jesus’ sheep and whose faith will not fail.
Catholics abusing the Bible for their dogma always produces hilarious results. Apparently, when Jesus tells someone they should encourage others in the faith, this means they have universal jurisdiction over all Christians.
Hi @DrJORDANBCOOPER at 8:59 you discuss the incorrect assumption that people are dividing up churches that are in 'fellowship' with one another. So tell me please, when a person has a conflict/disagreement from one of these churches with a person from a fellowship church. To whom do you take the disagreement???
No. We all know that Jesus founded the "First Baptist Church of [YOUR TOWN HERE]" when a Catholic priest broke his vows in the 1500 hundreds and decided to start teaching from his own inner Gnostic inspiration. We all remember the quote from the Bible where Jesus told Luther, "You are the Gnostic seer who shall architect my church according to your own man-made inspiration."
Wdym he was gnostic??
And Luther didnt “break off”, he was excommunicated.
Right off the bat, Lutherans have a different doctrine on divorce and remarriage than what the early church fathers had. When you read the writings of the early church fathers when they speak on divorce and remarriage, divorce was intended to separate yourself away from the sins of the sinner, however, no second Union was allowed no matter what the cause was. Most Protestant Churches state that divorce and remarriage is allowed for Adultery, with the faithful spouse able to remarry or if a non believing spouse leaves the marriage, and once again, the faithful spouse is able to remarry. That simply isn’t true.
That doctrine was originally an opinion piece by Desiderius Erasmus, who was a Roman Catholic Priest who defected from the Church. Erasmus reinterpreted the scriptures in Matthew in the 1500’s, and came up with this opinion piece that went nowhere to start with because Erasmus submitted to the Church. In the 1600’s, Luther and other reformers adopted this opinion piece, or false teaching, elaborated on it, and established it as doctrine.
When Christ came, he took marriage back to the beginning, to the way it was when his father created it, thus erasing the laws Moses had given the people. Christ did come to fulfill the law, but by abolishing divorce and remarriage, it would really be erasing what Moses was allowed to give the people.
The innocent party is free to remarry. That comes from the book of Deuteronomy, where if people were caught in adultery, they were stoned to death. Their logic was, if a person was stoned to death in the Old Testament, then they were really dead to God and dead to their spouse. That’s a bunch of garbage. You can’t bring verses from the Old Testament and mix them with verses from the New Testament, and then establish a doctrine on it. Especially when it’s a subject that Jesus brought back to the beginning.
The book of Matthew is the only place where these exception clauses are located. The parallel verses in Mark and Luke do not mention any exception at all. Paul never mentions any exception in his writings in the book of Romans or 1 Corinthians.
The exception was written into Matthew for a certain reason. The Jews were being addressed in chapters 5 and 19, so could it be that Matthew was talking about a situation that was specific to the Jewish people? For some reason, the Greco-Roman audience that is being addressed in the books of Mark and Luke didn’t need to hear this exception. The exception in Matthew was given to the Jewish people for a specific reason. If Jesus was really allowing divorce for adultery, then all verses in the New Testament concerning divorce and remarriage would give this exception.
The words fornication and Adultery are used in these verses. They mean two different things. In Paul’s writing in 1 Corinthians, it says neither fornicators or adulterers will inherit the Kingdom of God. Two different acts.
1Corinthians 7:10-11
To the married, however, I give this command, not I, but the Lord. A wife must not separate from her husband, and if she does separate, she must either remain single or be reconciled to her husband. And a husband must not divorce his wife.
No matter the cause of separation or divorce, these are your two options. Divorce cannot be obtained with the intent of trying to break the covenant. You must remain faithful to it. Do not use human reasoning to try and figure out what Jesus wants because what we think and what God thinks are different. God wants us holy over being happy. Happiness will come when we align ourselves with the word of the Lord.
Romans 7:1-3
Are you unaware brothers, for I am speaking to people who know the law, that the law has jurisdiction over one as long as one lives? Thus, a married woman is bound by the law to her living husband; but if her husband dies, she is released from the law in respect to her husband. Consequently, while her husband is alive, she will be called an adulteress if she consorts with another man. But if her husband dies, she is free from that law, and she is not an adulteress if she consorts with another man.
The marriage covenant is for life. No exceptions.
Do you know Catholicism is being bombarded by annulments right now, which REQUIRES A CIVIL DIVORCE DECREE. Unfortunately, MARRIAGES are being destroyed, by people everywhere of all denominations.
I have always looked at the catholic Church as the first apostate church.
Faith Alone and Bible Alone and saying that you can’t pray to the Saints is heretical! What early Church Fathers EVER taught these heretical things!?
Why pray to saints if we have all access to th father through Jesus. Christ is our intercessor aswell as the holy spirit. just because you pray to the saint doesn't mean it will get more out of God. God will do whatever he wants/wills, just read John 14:6 we have the access to the father.
Also we are saved by our faith did you not ever read ephisians 2:8-9 also read what Paul said about Abraham, and his faith.James 2:24 proves my point you can't refute that, true faith produces good works, so any man with true faith will have good works, world isn't the root but the fruit In better words to put it.
I believe 100% what the Bible says…I just don’t believe in your fallible interpretation…Ephesians 2:8-9 is talking about circumcision (works of the law) the law of the Jews was circumcision and Paul said that you do not have to be circumcised…Paul doesn’t mean “good works” in general…The Bible cannot contradict itself…check out Mathew 25: 34-46
@@justindutcher1300 Ephesians 2:1-10 clearly explains the relationship between our lack of obedience, the grace of God, and our salvation. Those who are saved by Christ do not deserve this salvation. It is only by mercy, and by grace, that God chooses to forgive. In this section, Paul will repeat the claim that human effort has no impact on salvation whatsoever. No Christian can brag about their ''goodness,'' since we are saved entirely by the grace of God, not by our own good deeds.He litterally points to our "GOOD DEEDS" in a general sense;Paul repeatedly emphasizes that salvation is accomplished on the basis of grace, through faith. Good works, human effort, and our best intentions will never be enough to earn salvation. Every person is marked with sin, both deliberate and accidental, and for this reason we deserve to be separated from God. Only through His mercy and grace can we be saved, leaving no room for bragging. This also means that all who are saved, Jew and Gentile alike, are part of the same spiritual family. There is no cause for hostility between believers; we are all unworthy, and all saved by the same kindness of God.Jew or gentile salvation is a free gift!!!
Again brother righteousness comes from the true faith of a believer and ATHIEST can be righteous hence: that's why we need faith to produce good works
Every development in Church doctrine must be seen thru the lens of the Spirit's guidance of the hierarchy.
By breaking away from the Spirit-guided hierarchy Luther separated himself from the Spirit.
“Be it known to you, my lord, that Simon [Peter], who, for the sake of the true faith, and the most sure foundation of his doctrine, was set apart to be the foundation of the Church, and for this end was by Jesus himself, with his truthful mouth, named Peter, the first fruits of our Lord, the first of the apostles; to whom first the Father revealed the Son; whom the Christ, with good reason, blessed; the called, and elect” (Letter of Clement to James 2 [A.D. 221]).
There was an early church founded by Peter as Christ instructed him to do, but it was not called Roman Catholic. Peter was not called Pope. But Peter did have successors to head the church that Jesus instructed him to found. Eventually those successors as heads of the Church were called "Papa" or father by their Italian/Roman name. So what? As a Roman or Italian what YOU have called them and then, you imply demonization in the term "papacy". Eventually that church in Rome was called Roman Catholic. These guys really try to sidestep what Christ said Christ and weakly re-interpret his literal words "Thou art Peter and upon this Rock I found my Church), Peter of course being the rock.
A discussion? Catholics are trying to have a discussion with whom? The reformation was anything but a discussion. It was a battle between power and truth.
Ok so on power - There is only one power, and that is GOD's Power (and he gave that power to Peter and he started the Roman Catholic Church)
If you want truth, then the truth is - (as documented throughout Church and secular history is, Luther, (by the way he was a Catholic before the reformation) wanted the "power" to go against the will of God, to start his own Church. In modern day language, he was stealing God's thunder but , he did not quite achieve what he wanted. because all he did was get hold of a Catholic Bible, got rid of some of the books and then said, there, this will be our Bible.
Very well said. This really lines up with 1 Corinthians 1:11-13.
Yesssss😂🎉
Your just trying to legitimise denominations. Jesus promised a church, not multiple, A church. What did St Ireanues mean when he wrote this -
Against Heresies (Book III, Chapter 3)
2. Since, however, it would be very tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon up the successions of all the Churches, we do put to confusion all those who, in whatever manner, whether by an evil self-pleasing, by vainglory, or by blindness and perverse opinion, assemble in unauthorized meetings; [we do this, I say,] by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its preeminent authority [potiorem principalitatem].
Anonymous D
Lutherans (and him) are not denying that - both your first statement and the quote from Saint Irenaeus.
The church is the church, denominations are not the church. Denominations are particular visible manifestations of the one, holy apostolic and Catholic transcendent and invisible fellowship. Think of it like Plato‘s theory of the forms: there is the form of “The Church” [Catholic] which is universal, intangible and perfect...
..and then all of the particular churches in the world are imperfect, corrupt reflections of the one form. These particular churches, either reflected in denominations or in smaller fellowships of greater and lesser size participate lesser and greater in the Catholic Church, but they all to some degree participate in it through a common faith - the credal faith.
Those with apostolic succession of both faith and order, that is apostolic teaching and the visible sign of succession [via presbyter-bishop ordination] *may* participate most fully in the universal form of Church, but even a solitary Christian who has faith in Christ who is God and man and in the holy trinity is a Christian and therefore part of the Catholic Church as much as any other.
@@aaroncarlson1162 agreed.
@@aaroncarlson1162 absolutely not if one doesn't partake in the instituted sacraments of the catholic church.
Anonymous D we do
@@aaroncarlson1162 any church or denomination outside of the catholic does not have the laying on of hands of ordanation and are not in communion with Rome.
A romantic catholic saying that their church was founded by Jesus is just as accurate when baptists say they were never protestants and that they're the original Christians.
But Jesis DID found the Catholic Church and He DID appoint Peter to be the first pope, and Linus WAS tge second pope, Cletus the third pope, Clement the fourth pope, on down to the present day. And Martin Luther, a sixteenth century fallen away monk who taught that believers could sin with impunity and that Jesus committed fornication, DID found the Lutheran denomination.
I hope all who read this will come to the Light.
False. Jesus and Paul founded the Eastern Orthodox Church. Stephen, the eunuch, and Mark founded the Oriental Orthodox Church. Thaddeus, Bartholomew and Thomas founded the Church of the East. These claims are as legit as yours.
Jesus founded the Catholic Church and the apostles spread the Church all throughout the Roman Empire and beyond.
@@GeorgePenton-np9rhJesus did not found an abomination
you realize Luther didn't say that Jesus committed fornication, right? that's a myth
@@GeorgePenton-np9rhrepeatedly saying it is so doesn't make it so.
We can make all the excuses we want but it still doesn't change the historical fact that Jesus did found the Catholic Church, did appoint Peter to be its first pope, did appoint the other apostles to be its first bishops and priests, gave it its worship service (the Mass), and promised to stay with it until the end of time.
Scripture says that the Church is the mystical bride of Christ (Revelation 21:2) and the mystical body of Christ (1 Corinthians 12:12), so to reject the Catholic Church is to reject Jesus Himself. This is why outside the Catholic Church there is no salvation.
Jesus founded the Catholic Church.
The former Catholic rebels of the 16th century founded Protestantism.
Your use of “Roman” Catholic is an error because it only refers to the diocese of Rome, rather than the Universal Catholic Church which the ancient creeds call the “One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church.”
Jesus established the catholic (i.e. universal) Church but that isn't the same as saying that He established the Roman Catholic church. The Roman Catholic church is a particular denomination under the popes of Rome, hence the descriptor "Roman" Catholic church. However the One, Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church properly refers to the invisible community of all those throughout the world who hold to the one true faith as taught by Christ and the Apostles.
The One True Church isn't a visible organisation under the control of the popes. To claim that is to read into Scripture the false notion that Christ made Peter the supreme leader on earth who then passed on his authority to the popes. This however was shown by Luther at the Reformation to be based on Scriptural misinterpretation and historical falsehoods. The popes of Rome occupy the office of the Papacy and the Papacy as Luther correctly stated is the Antichrist (2 Thessalonians 2:1-12). So those who claim that the Roman Catholic church (i.e. defined by adherence to the teachings of Roman Catholicism) is the One, Holy, Catholic Church are horribly deceived. The heretical teachings of Roman Catholicism on Justification show that the Roman Catholic church is an unholy sect which merely makes a pretence of being the One True Church.
Nothing you wrote is true or historically accurate but Protestants are fed with a terribly flawed version of church history that is full of distortions and lies.
@@lumenpraetorius4592 On the contrary what I've said is historically accurate. It's the Roman Catholic church which constructs a fake history of the beginnings of the Church. It lies when it says that Christ made Peter a pope and that the early bishops of Rome were popes with universal jurisdiction and control over the churches. The Papacy didn't come into existence until several centuries later. Also the teachings of the Roman Catholic church particularly on justification don't agree with what the Scriptures teach and therefore the Roman Catholic church can't be considered to be genuinely Catholic.
Because you have rejected the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church in favor of some Protestant denomination that teaches lies about Jesus Christ and his beloved Church, you cannot possibly know the truth.
You have willfully placed yourself outside of Christ and his Church, and in so doing you have risked your eternal salvation.
Come out of that Protestant error that is based on the traditions of men like Martin Luther, John Calvin, John Knox and many other heretics, and enter into the fullness of the truth of Christ in the Catholic Church.
@@lumenpraetorius4592 Rather than compose a fresh reply to you I'm just going to repeat something I posted in reply to someone else. He said "I pose this question rather. What church did Jesus found if it wasn't that which went to Rome and after much martyrdom, flourished as Catholic?":
The Church which Christ established isn't an organisation with an earthly CEO who runs things from a central location in Rome but is a community of regenerated people who have true faith in their hearts and look to Christ alone as their leader. The popes have usurped the position of Christ by saying that they have been appointed by Him to lead the Church and that they're incapable of leading it into apostasy because they're divinely mandated to carry out this leadership role. They try to substantiate this by reference to various passages in the Bible, in particular Matthew 16 which they misinterpret to falsely teach that Christ built His Church on Peter, and argue that he in turn passed his authority on to them. This is just a devilish deception by which the popes have introduced false teaching in opposition to the true Gospel, so in no way can the Roman Catholic church be considered to be the true Catholic Church which Christ established.
Christ founded a spiritual community of true believers not a sect of false teachers and their deceived followers. The one true Church isn't a visible organisation or church body but is a community of everyone in the entire world who possess true faith. Therefore the true Church is invisible because no one knows for sure who actually possesses true faith in their hearts or where they live over the whole earth.
So with regards to those who were martyred in the early centuries in Rome, we can be reasonably sure, although not absolutely sure, that they were indeed true Christians and therefore members of Christ's Church which was termed "Catholic". As for the Papacy that didn't come into being until a few centuries later (the early bishops of Rome weren't popes in the modern sense) so the local church in Rome was still authentically Catholic at that time. I mean it was Catholic in a derivative sense from the One True invisible Church. One can call the local church in Rome "Catholic" at that time because it didn't subvert the truth with false teaching.
So no, Christ didn't found the Roman Catholic church if by that is meant the organisation which is run from the Vatican under the control of the popes. Christ founded a spiritual community of people with true faith not an organisation run by the Antichrist.
Jesus founded a Church upon the Apostles. The apostles handed authority to others to succeed them. What happened to this Church? Did it fail in its mission even though it was given the Spirit to help it?
It is true that we all root in the early church. That is only because the holy, catholic and apostolic church preserved the deposit of faith handed down through the generations. Lutherans broke off from that church. It is a historical fact.
False. Jesus and Paul founded the Eastern Orthodox Church. Jesus, Stephen, the eunuch, and Mark founded the Oriental Orthodox Church. Thaddeus, Bartholomew and Thomas founded the Church of the East. Each one claims to be the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. These claims are as legit as yours.
Luther did not break away from the church. The papacy did.
*Exsurge Domine*
*Bull of Pope Leo X issued June 15, 1520*
In virtue of our pastoral office committed to us by the divine favor we can under no circumstances tolerate or overlook any longer the pernicious poison of the above errors without disgrace to the Christian religion and injury to orthodox faith. Some of these errors *we have decided to include in the present document; their substance is as follows:*
19. Indulgences are of no avail to those who truly gain them, for the *remission of the penalty due to actual sin in the sight of divine justice.*
bookofconcord.org/exsurge-domine.php
*An indulgence granted by authority of the Pope by Johann Tetzel in 1517.*
The text reads: _"By the authority of all the saints, and in mercy towards you, _*_I absolve you from all sins and misdeeds and remit all punishments for ten days."_*
academickids.com/encyclopedia/index.php/Indulgence
*Pope Benedict IX and simony:*
“He was a son of Alberic III, leader of the Tusculani, and he simoniacally succeeded his uncles, Benedict VIII and John XIX.” (New Catholic Encyclopedia, vol. II, page 274)
“Then on May 1 Benedict *sold his papal office* to his baptismal sponsor, the reforming archpriest John Gratian, Pope Gregory VI.” ( *New Catholic Encyclopedia,* vol. II, page 275)
Quoted from: answeringcatholicclaims.blogspot.com/2009/12/apostolic-succession.html?m=1
@@Mygoalwogel jesus and paul founded the eastern orthodox church??
@@Mygoalwogel , where does Scripture teach to break communion with Rome? "To all that be in Rome, beloved of God, called to be saints: Grace to you and peace from God our Father, and the Lord Jesus Christ." Rom. 1:7. Luther taught his faith alone, without charity, saves . Paul taught that faith alone without charity is nothing ( 1 Cor. 13:2). Luther ignored that faith without charity is not even a Christian faith.
Martin Luther ( first Protestant ) had a little knowledge of Catholicism: " It is quite possible that Martin Luther may have confused one theological opinion with the official teaching of the church and initiated his program of reform on the basis of this misunderstanding" Oxford professor Alister McGrath.
The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge. A little knowledge can be more dangerous than none at all, it creates the illusion of knowledge.
@@Alfredo8059 2 Tm 3:1-5
@@Mygoalwogel , "To the intent that now unto the principalities and powers in heavenly places might be known by the CHURCH the manifold wisdom of God" ePH 3:10
,to Scripture, Amen. To your views patience and dialogue. Text without context is pretext. Scripture without a historical church is pretext so based on individual understanding of scripture proud individuals compose their own "truth" and insist that it is His. Sola Fide usually means my belief alone. Sola Scriptura usually means SOLA (my opinion about) Scriptura.
" not to think of men above that which is written," 1 Cor. 4:6
"Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle." 2 Thes. 2:15.
" I consider myself convicted by the testimony of Holy Scripture..." Martin Luther
Martin Luther's translation of the Bible was made shortly after he spoke these words. One wonders if he had them in mind while adding the word alone to Romans 3:28. What is to be made of sola scriptura or Luther's "captivity to the Word of God" if he adds his own theology to the scriptures? Individulas can be simply captive to their own minds. So confident was Luther in his views that he once claimed :" I for my part am certain that the words I speak are not mine, but Christ's. Then my mouth also must be his whose words it speaks... I ask that men make no reference to my name, and call themselves not Lutherans, but Christians. What is Luther? My doctrine, I am sure, is not mine ( Jn 7:16)" Martin Luther. Works 3:176
"In these matter of faith, to be sure , each Christian is for himself pope and church" Martin Luther
"But he giveth more grace. Wherefore he saith, God resisteth the proud, but giveth grace unto the humble." James 4:6. Luther did not like the book of James. His faith alone, his views alone.
Blessings
Peeps, The Roman Catholic Church IS NOT "the catholic church". It's a terrible, wild, misrepresentation, bordering on open, deceitful lies by apologists and anybody from that religious organization to apply the term "catholic" to their organization when they should be fully aware it's not so.
Such a hornet's nest. Your answers are sound and sane. The RC church is way more factional than it pretends
I'm not Catholic so I'm new to this conversation in many ways. Explain how it is "factional", I don't quite understand what you mean but would love to know.
@@Iffmeister factions are divisions in this case differences in belief and practice. Artificial birth control is outlawed but Catholics still practice it. Even abortion. There are Catholics who believe the contemporary mass is invalid and only attend the old style mass. The list goes on. They are NOT unified just because of absolute authority
@@mysticmouse7261
What are you supposed to do, hold a gun to somebody to get them to conform to the teachings of the Church???
First of all, I hear that when you come together as a church, there are divisions among you, and in part I believe it. And indeed, there must be differences among you to show which of you are approved.(1 Cor. 11:19)
@@morelmaster the gun to the head is called mortal sin. But people who claim to be Catholic who don't care about its teachings present a faction within that church. There are a lot of those. A pontiff doesn't unify squat which is my point.
Ray Lanthier. If a person doesn’t believe what the church teaches they aren’t catholic just like a Protestant isn’t a
Christian.
I have come so close to converting to Catholicism because I am naturally drawn to the reverence and tradition that takes place during mass, I love the amount of emphasis placed on daily prayer and the devotion to Christ in everyday life as well as the values. However, it is hard for me not to notice the complete lack of Hebrew influence within the Roman Catholic Church if it so directly connects us to Jesus and the apostles why is it so so SO Roman? It feels more like the Romans (possibly) took Christian beliefs from the original believers and made it more complicated and more elite. They literally took the Bible and translated it into Latin, changing Christ’s name from the written Hebrew to their Latin as we now all call him Jesus. They have added in traditions and worship elements that are found no where in the Bible. As beautiful as I find the Catholic Church I am unable to convert for these reasons and many more but I pray everyday for clarity as my faith is very important to me. God bless!
One only has to observe the 'Labarum' (PX) embroidered on catholic priests vestments to realise the 'catholic' church was founded in the summer Palace of roman emperor Constantine ( who later murdered his wife & son) This symbol is a combination of the pagan sun god saturn & Jesus. The Labarum was etched on the shields & banners of his soldiers as they sallied forth killing their enemies ( Millvanian bridge 312AD, 317AD against Lininius 324AD). It is a pagan not christian religion.
What a mess of lies. Stop reading internet garbage and pick up a book.
Is that also known as the Chi Rho symbol? The long stem of the "P" with the "X" through it? Catholic churches are beautiful, but sadly are temples of pagan worship indeed. It actually boils down to sun worship when one researches far enough.
@@doriesse824 All very true! Its important to reaslise the way Constantine incorporated his worship of the sun God Saturn into his whole philosophy of needing the backing of the 'gods' for his military campaigns! . Even Phillips bible, and others have the Chi Rho on th front covers and many priests even anglicans have it on their ceremonial vestments! blatantly pagan! So what do you feel is true worship|?
@@kiwihans100
The letters PX have nothing to do with paganism. The two letters are greek letters that are the first two letters of Christ’s name in Greek. The P is pronounced as Roe and the Xis pronounced as Kye. The rest of what you wrote is wrong as well.
@@mikecrawford8394 Look, Its not the two letters of Christ's name thats the issue! Its the CONSTRUCTION of the banners! These were used as 'mobile idols' to be taken as 'LABARUM'. Constantine ( while still a pagan emporer!) actually INCORPERATED the PX with his own symbol as he was claimed to be a 'god' ( pagan concept!). These standards were used to to go to places in Roman battle areas to bring about a better victory! Can You imagine Jesus Christ having anything to do with this practice? ( Jesus taught "If you live by the sword you will die by the sword" he counselled Peter telling him to sheath his sword!
You can’t trace your church back to the apostles and Catholics can. Therefore, you are not the original church
Good arguments Dr Jordan however I believe you’re missing the elephant in the room. The word church can be broadly defined - all churches can be rooted in Christianity (the Early Church) but splits, even in fellowship and having common ground with one another, means that the branches are in unity in some ways but divisions in others. These divisions involve who’s got the authority to interpret Scripture and decree doctrine. Splinter groups that broke away from Rome mean that they reject the authority that Jesus gave to His Church. This is a historical fact. Even one denomination is one too many because it’s not what Jesus intended or prophecized. Full communion with the Catholic Church based in Rome is coming home.
The church doesn’t necessarily apply to a certain denomination does it? The church to my understanding was meant to say an assembly of followers so aren’t we all Christians technically of one “church” regardless of denomination? With exceptions to Jehovah Witness and Mormons?
No Brian, this is a protestant misconception that the Church is merely a collection of "like minded believers". We have a visible, authoritative Church which mirrors the Davidic Kingdom. Jesus did leave someone in charge. The Pope is the chief steward of that old davidic kingdom. Protestants want to believe in this rudderless Church where all are just as good as another Church and all considered the Church, even though they share completely different beliefs on what Jesus taught. This confusion is not the Church Brian. The Church has Popes, Bishops, Priests and is visible. It's not this rudderless ship of believers.
No, because the church is to have no differing doctrines.
If one denomination is just as good as another since we are all part of the same Church, why aren't you a Catholic Brian? Since it doesn't matter you shouldn't have any problem with being a Catholic over say, being a methodist.
@@dman7668 in theory there would be no problem: reformers still believe Catholic Church still had the gospel
The problem is that it’s not equal sided.
As a Protestant, you can adopt Catholic practices and no one is going to hate on you
But if you’re Catholic and adopt Protestant doctrines, you’re kicked from the RCC. RCC does not make any of their doctrines optional.
@@duckymomo7935
The reason why it doesn't make it optional is because the Catholic Church is guided by the Holy Spirit, at least thats what we believe, since it is the Church of Saint Peter. It's doctrines are true so it isn't optional for example, to say you are Catholic but reject the teaching that Jesus is both God and man. Protestantism while we believe it to be Christianity teaches doctrines that the Catholic Church deems with its binding authority, the SAME authority that was used to determine the Bibles canon by the way, to be false teachings. The Bible warns about false doctrines and the Church safeguards against this with the magisterium.
So who founded the Catholic church? and how did it began
St. Ignatius of Antioch (110AD) who was the disciple of St. John the evangelist for nearly 20 years : “Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude of the people also be; even as wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church”.
Catholic just means universal. He’s not talking about the Roman Catholic Church you’re thinking of. Also nothing of Peter being a bishop or first pope, etc. Totally different time and context.
@@KnightFel Cyril of Jerusalem 350 A.D.
“And if you are sojourning in cities, inquire not simply where the Lord’s house is, nor merely where the church is, but where the Catholic Church is. For this is the peculiar name of this holy Church, the mother of us all, the spouse of our Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God.”
@@jamesrey3221literally an obvious distinction between a building and the body of people.
Ignatius - Letter to the Symrnaeans (8)
“εκεί η καθολική εκκλησία”
“There the catholic (universal) church”
You can see that the word ‘catholic / Katholike / καθολική’ is being used adjectively modifying the noun ‘church / ekklesia / εκκλησία.’ They are both nominative singular feminine.
We Lutherans are catholic, not just Roman Catholic
Thank you Father Jesus Christ for giving us your 2000 yr old Catholic Church. We will continue praying to bring home the brothers and sisters that Martin Luther lied to
The Catholic Church was built by Jesus Christ on the Apostle Peter for the salvation of souls, and because of its Divine origin, Divine because Jesus Christ is the Second Divine Person of the Holy Trinity, because of its Divine origin, it is superior to every other religious system in existence.
Which catholic church? Jesus and Paul founded the Eastern Orthodox Church. Jesus, Stephen, the eunuch, and Mark founded the Oriental Orthodox Church. Thaddeus, Bartholomew and Thomas founded the Church of the East. Each one claims to be the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.
@@Mygoalwogel THE Catholic Church.
You know.. The one founded by Christ on saint Peter in 33 ad.
Nobody is fooled by your feigned ignorance.
@@Kitiwake *An indulgence sold by authority of the Pope by Johann Tetzel in 1517.*
The text reads:_"𝑩𝒚 𝒕𝒉𝒆 𝒂𝒖𝒕𝒉𝒐𝒓𝒊𝒕𝒚 𝒐𝒇 𝒂𝒍𝒍 𝒕𝒉𝒆 𝒔𝒂𝒊𝒏𝒕𝒔, 𝒂𝒏𝒅 𝒊𝒏 𝒎𝒆𝒓𝒄𝒚 𝒕𝒐𝒘𝒂𝒓𝒅𝒔 𝒚𝒐𝒖, *𝑰 𝒂𝒃𝒔𝒐𝒍𝒗𝒆 𝒚𝒐𝒖 𝒇𝒓𝒐𝒎 𝒂𝒍𝒍 𝒔𝒊𝒏𝒔 𝒂𝒏𝒅 𝒎𝒊𝒔𝒅𝒆𝒆𝒅𝒔 𝒂𝒏𝒅 𝒓𝒆𝒎𝒊𝒕 𝒂𝒍𝒍 𝒑𝒖𝒏𝒊𝒔𝒉𝒎𝒆𝒏𝒕𝒔 𝒇𝒐𝒓 𝒕𝒆𝒏 𝒅𝒂𝒚𝒔."*_
𝕴𝖓 𝖁𝖔𝖑𝖑𝖒𝖆𝖈𝖍𝖙 𝖆𝖑𝖑𝖊𝖗 𝕳𝖊𝖎𝖑𝖎𝖌𝖊𝖓 𝖚𝖓𝖉 𝖎𝖓 𝕰𝖗𝖇𝖆𝖗𝖒𝖚𝖓𝖌 𝖌𝖊𝖌𝖊𝖓 𝖉𝖎𝖈𝖍, *𝖆𝖇𝖘𝖔𝖑𝖛𝖎𝖊𝖗𝖊* 𝖎𝖈𝖍 𝖉𝖎𝖈𝖍 𝖛𝖔𝖓 𝖆𝖑𝖑𝖊𝖓 𝕾ü𝖓𝖉𝖊𝖓 𝖚𝖓𝖉 𝕸𝖎𝖘𝖘𝖊𝖙𝖍𝖆𝖙𝖊𝖓 𝖚𝖓𝖉 𝖊𝖗𝖑𝖆𝖘𝖘𝖊 𝖉𝖎𝖗 𝖆𝖑𝖑𝖊 𝕾𝖙𝖗𝖆𝖋𝖊𝖓 𝖆𝖚𝖋 𝖟𝖊𝖍𝖓 𝕿𝖆𝖌𝖊.
academickids.com/encyclopedia/index.php/Indulgences
*Pope Benedict IX and simony:*
“He was a son of Alberic III, leader of the Tusculani, and he *simoniacally* succeeded his uncles, Benedict VIII and John XIX.” (New Catholic Encyclopedia, vol. II, page 274)
“Then on May 1 Benedict *sold his papal office* to his baptismal sponsor, the reforming archpriest John Gratian, Pope Gregory VI.” ( *New Catholic Encyclopedia,* vol. II, page 275)
Quoted from: answeringcatholicclaims.blogspot.com/2009/12/apostolic-succession.html?m=1
Jesus, Paul, and Andrew founded the Eastern Orthodox Church. They say Peter's throne is Antioch, where he was Bishop. Jesus, Stephen, the eunuch, and Mark founded the Oriental Orthodox Church. They say Peter's throne is Alexandria, where his successor, Mark, was Bishop. Thaddeus, Bartholomew and Thomas founded the Church of the East. Each one claims to be the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. These claims are as legitimate as yours.
To say that the Catholic religion is superior is to give legitimacy to other religions. Catholicism is not just the best brand of toothpaste or breakfast cereal. Catholicism is the only game in town. Outside the Catholic Church there is no salvation.
Jesus and Peter are both Jews. They are not catholics. They did not start the catholic church.
Jesus was a Jewish street preacher..he did not start another religion, however followers such as Paul (lock him up) did slowly push the followers away from their Jewish background and effectively started a new organization by admitting non jews which swelled the numbers greatly...amen
Are you yet another who doesn't know the difference between Jew and Israelite?
Pelagius, Origen, Hillary of Poitiers, Ambrosiaster and others taught Faith Alone.
Pelgaius, Origen are Heretics firstly lol. (Not making a good case here alresdy)
And Lol I'm sure if you pull it out of context you can.
@@kieran296 the Bible teaches Justification by faith alone and proof of Justification being works. Paul and James aren't contradicting each other, we simply have to say what they're actually saying. Justification, being declared righteous before God, happens through faith in Christ. But the evidence that one is truly regenerated and justified before God is faithfulness to Jesus Christ (works). Justification? By faith. Proof? By faithfulness
@Zyklon B Peterson I can refer you to a few sources if you are genuinely curious.
James isn't the "GOT EM" book. I mean, do people think we have James-free Bibles? Like, oh no, we added Sola Scriptura as one of the petals to the rose that represents our very core beliefs, but then... Oh noooo we forgot about James! Curses! Well, everything is already in stained glass and print, so it's too late to take it back now. We'll just hope no one notices as we translate the Bible into common tongue.
That's one of the reasons I even looked at becoming a Lutheran in the first place. They did not add to or take away from the scripture like other churches I attended. They handled it with great wisdom and understanding and let God's Word speak for itself. It was here I heard the true Gospel, after attending church all my life.
@Zyklon B Peterson Unfortunately you're labouring under a common misunderstanding that those who believe in "faith alone" are ignoring the fact that faith without works is dead.
I can assure you that this is completely mistaken. When Protestants or Lutherans in particular affirm faith alone they are specifically referring only to justification or to put it more plainly how a person can be regarded as righteous in God's sight. The Bible teaches that the only way we can be justified is through Christ who atoned for our sins and who offers us forgiveness through our faith alone in Him. Our works can't earn us forgiveness since we are sinners who can never perform a perfectly good work.
Now we come to the teaching that faith without works is dead. This is so obviously true and no one with any understanding would deny it. However good works are done in response to having already been justified in God's sight through our faith alone in Christ. Good works are therefore only necessary in the sense that they confirm that our faith (which alone renders us righteous) is genuine.
Hopefully you can now see that those who have a true understanding of justification through faith alone don't deny that faith without works is dead. We most definitely affirm that.
literally everyone is justified by faith as the NT teaches. (Luther added the word "alone" excluding the gifts of hope and charity that is greatest than faith)
Eternal life is knowing God (Jn. 17:3) and knowing God consists not only of having faith but also of abiding in love, through keeping the commandments of Christ ( 1 Jn 3: 10-24). For Saint John, abiding in eternal life is incompatible with abiding in death, but this does not entail that everyone who abides in eternal life is sinless; there is sin unto death ("mortal sin") and sin not unto death (1 Jn5:16-17). Only the former extinguishes spiritual life. Even when a baptized Christian commits sin unto death , the free gift of forgiveness, cleansing and reconciliation is available through confession ( 1 Jn 1:9).
Eternal life itself is not merely an infinite duration of conscious existence (even the damned have that) nor is it merely a promise about the future; rather, eternal life is a particular kind of life given and received as a gift here and now. It is a participation in the very life of God, who is love; hence to have eternal life is to abide in love, which both fulfills the law ( 1 Jn. 4:7-21; Rom. 13:8-10) and triunphs over death and darkness ( 1 Jn 1:1-7; 2:1-11; 4:4-21).
The gift of salvation is not based on a purely legal arrangament in which the "rightenouness of God" is an extrinsic and alien quality that is merely imputed to those who believe; rather, the gift of salvation is fundamentally a familial covenant relationship in which those who are by nature sinners and starnge to the covenant of promise are BY GRACE, THROUGH FAITH forgiven, cleansed and made sons of God who really participate in their Father's righteousness. Through faith in Christ, by the grace of God given in the sacraments, sinners truly become what God declares them to be. This great salvation flows directly from and is realized in union with Christ, the only begotten Son and Divine Word of God, who was born and lived among us, self-sacrifially died on the cross for our sins, was raised from the dead for our justification, ascended into heaven, and is seated at the right hand of the Father. Those who believe in Christ are delivered from the dominion of death and darkness into the realm of life and light ( Jn 3 :16-21); having the LOVE of God poured out into our hearts by the Holy Spirit, we are made partakers of the divine nature, living members of Christ Jesus and fellow citizens of the Kingdom of heaven (Rom. 5:5; 2 Peter 1:4; Eph 2:1.10, 11-22). God bless you richly.
See Proverbs 9:1. The Founder, the House, and the Seven (7) Pillars.
God Himself is the Founder, the Wisdom of God.
The only Christian are the ones from the Catholic Church thanks very much
The only Christians are those who follows Jesus Christ. Being catholic doesn't make you Christians. And to claim only catholics can be Christian then you are giving another Gospel as catholics did not exist when Jesus was alive. Jesus tells us the believers where more then one gathers is his church a building isn't a church just bricks and stones the people's who believes in our lord Jesus Christ is the church.
@@davihendrickson3678
Ignatius of Antioch
Call the church of Jesus “Catholic church” for first time year AD 107 , Thus Catholic Church wrote the New Testament and the Catholic pope saint Dámasus year AD 382 collect all the scroll 📜 inside of the Catholic Church and made it book and He decided it word of god and Protestants believe it
The Catholic Church with
Romans Vatican
Corinthians
Galatians
Ephesians
Philippians
Colossians
Thessalonians
Hebrews
Etc etc 🌍
@@davihendrickson3678
All you Protestants are excatholic , you come from us Catholics , the Bible call you wolf Antichrist fake prophet
Acts 20
28Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood. 29For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock. 30Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them.
Matthew 7
15Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.
1 John2:18-19
18Little children, it is the last hour: and as ye heard that antichrist cometh, even now have there arisen many antichrists; whereby we know that it is the last hour. 19They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us: but they went out, that they might be made manifest how that they all are not of us
@@memphis82eh I'm a lutheran not a protestant. We lutherans are evangelist Catholic. And fun fact it's you roman catholics that the bible calls the anti Christ ,wolves in sheep clothing ,false prophets, heretics,. You Roman catholic perverted scriptures, added and changed scriptures into y'all own liking which is a crime against God.
2 Corinthians 11:13-15 - For such [are] false apostles, deceitful workers, transforming themselves into the apostles of Christ.
Revelation 22:18 - For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:
Revelation 22:19 - And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and [from] the things which are written in this book.
Galatians 1:6-9 - I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel: (Read More...)
2 Timothy 4:3 - For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears;
1 Corinthians 14:33 - For God is not [the author] of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints.
Deuteronomy 18:20-22 - But the prophet, which shall presume to speak a word in my name, which I have not commanded him to speak, or that shall speak in the name of other gods, even that prophet shall die.
Leviticus 26:1 - Ye shall make you no idols nor graven image, neither rear you up a standing image, neither shall ye set up [any] image of stone in your land, to bow down unto it: for I [am] the LORD your God.
Thou shalt have no other gods before me.
Exodus 20:4-5
4 Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth.
5 Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the Lord thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me;
2 Thessalonians 2:4 - Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God.
1 Timothy 2:5 - For [there is] one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;
John 14:6 - Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.
Acts 4:12 -And there is salvation in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved.”
2 John 1:9 -Everyone who goes on ahead and does not abide in the teaching of Christ, does not have God. Whoever abides in the teaching has both the Father and the Son.
John 4:24 -God is spirit, and those who worship him must worship in spirit and truth.”
8 Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy.
@@memphis82eh the church u are talking about are know called orthodox catholic not Roman catholic and secondly the NT was written by the 12 disciples not the roman catholic the Orthodox catholic took the NT and combined them into one whole book. And thirdly I'm a lutheran not a Protestant we Lutherans are evangelist Catholic.
The test of which Church is the true one has always been, and will always be, apostolic succession.
Jesus appointed the apostles.
The apostles appointed bishops and presbyters to succeed them.
Those men appointed others to succeed them.
Thats why when you study the early Fathers you see how vehemently they argued that apostolic succession was the guarantee of the true Church.
There have always been hetetics and schismatics that break away.
The true Church keeps going.
You claim that all churches, including Roman Catholics, Orthodox, Lutheran, etc branched out of the early church. Come on, Lutheran branched out of the Roman Catholic church and henceforth, some 10000+ branched out of it.
Indeed, Norma. Those who have branched often like to make believe we all have branched from the beginning. Not so.
@YellowBlackbird12 Lutheranism is the truth , you write? What have you been smoking, my friend? The gospel of Luther is nowhere to be found prior to the life of Luther.
Absolutely unbelievable. People just believe whatever is told to them by whoever they choose. People select their own teacher and insist that he got it right... unbelievable.
@YellowBlackbird12 I ask you again, my friend: what have you been smoking? The gospel of Luther is so far from the Gospel that has been preached by the Church through the centuries. In so many aspects we see direct contradictions: in all possible objectivity are the two so far apart and often opposite. What you write is unbelievable.
@YellowBlackbird12 Unbelievable. Let me pose you this question, my friend: do you admit to the possibility that your understanding of Scripture is FALSE? Yes or no?
@YellowBlackbird12 My question to you: do you admit to the possibility that your understanding of Scripture is FALSE? Your response: No.
My friend, you declare yourself infallible. You just made yourself God. Nobody can help you still: not me and not God either. For you CANNOT be wrong.
This - I believe - is antichrist. There is nothing I can still do for you. You declare yourself infallible. Game over. Goodbye, my friend.
Absolutely no
All Christians should research John Henry Newman and his writings.
❤️
"To be deep in history is to cease to be Protestant."
--St. John Henry Newman
False. Jesus and Paul founded the Eastern Orthodox Church. Jesus, Stephen, the eunuch, and Mark founded the Oriental Orthodox Church. Thaddeus, Bartholomew and Thomas founded the Church of the East. Each one claims to be the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. These claims are as legit as yours.
@Asaph Vapor Really, Asaph? When I read John 6:48-61 I see that the Holy Eucharist really is Jesus's Body and Blood. When I read Luke 1:48 I see that generations should call Mary blessed. When I read 1 Corinthians 3:13-15, 2 Maccabees 12:43-46, Matthew 5:25-26, and Luke 12:58-59 I see that there really is a Purgatory. When I read Matthew 25:31-46 and James 2:24-26 I see that good works are necessary for salvation. When I read John 20:22-23 I see that Jesus gave the apostles, the first priests of the Catholic Church, the supernatural power to forgive sins. When I read Matthew 19:14 I see that babies should be baptized. When I read Matthew 13:3-23 I see that the state of grace can be lost.
@Asaph Vapor 95% of Catholic doctrine not in the Bible? Almost all of our doctrines are in the Bible except the ones about Mary, and that is part of Tradition----see 2 Thessalonians 2:15. Actually Protestants and Catholics agree on about 75% of things, I would say. We both believe Jesus is God Incarnate. We both believe that He was born of a virgin, suffered under Pontius Pilate, crucified for our sins, died, buried, and that He rose the third day. We both believe in the Trinity (most Protestants). We both believe that the Bible is the inspired word of God, although we interpret a few things differently. (Who has the authority to interpret scripture? According to 2 Peter 1:20 not private individuals, so therefore it must be the Church that is to do the interpeting.)
Mary underwent the traditional Jewish purification ritual not because she was a sinner but because it was expected of her and had she refused she would have been in violation of the Mosaic law.
The Catholic Church never said Peter was celibate. Priestly celibacy is a disciplinary rule, not a doctrine. The pope could change this rule at any time. Priests in eastern Europe and the Middle East ARE allowed to be married.
The "brothers and sisters of the Lord" were Jesus's cousins, not His literal brothers and sisters. The Aramaic word for "brother" and "cousin" are the same.
By confessing our sins to a priest we are confessing our sins to God, because the priest is the representative of God. See John 20:22-23 and James 5:16.
The prohibition against drinking blood found in Leviticus is part of the Levitical law. Jesus abrogated the entire Levitical law at Luke 16:16. The prohibition against drinking blood in Acts refers to the blood of strangled animals. Jesus was not a strangled animal.
The Bible does say we should not contact the dead. That refers to seances. It does not refer to praying to the saints. Jesus Himself, at His transfiguration, prayed to Elijah and Moses. The rich man, in the Lazarus/rich man parable, prayed to Abraham.
The Bible does not say anything about holy water one way or the other. So we don't violate the Bible if we use it and we don't violate the Bible if we don't.
Yes, Jesus did away with the Old Testament priesthood. Notice that Jews no longer have priests (a priest is someone who offers up a ritual sacrifice). But Jesus established the priesthood of the New Covenant. See 1 Peter 2:9. In the KJV New Testament the office of elder is often mentioned; these are priests. The much better translated Douay-Rheims version, which came out before the KJV, does not use the word "elder". It calls these people priests throughout. The English word "priest" comes from the Greek word "presbyteros", meaning elder or older wise man. The Presyterians get their name from this word. In official Catholic pronouncements priests are often called presbyters.
Doing penance is part of repentance. It is how we make up for the damage our sins have caused. According to Colossians 1:24 we must make up in our own bodies that which is lacking in the sufferings of Christ ("Jesus did it all on the cross" is false doctrine).
Christians, Jews, and Moslems do worship the One True God but our concepts of God are different. True, Moslems and Jews do not believe God is a Trinity but the Jews of the Old Testament did not know that God is a Trinity, and we can hardly say that they were not worshipping God. This does not mean that Jews and Moslems are saved------Jews, Moslems, Protestants and all others must convert to Catholicism to be saved (those who do not know better are excepted from this).
During my own Protestant days I found plenty of contradictions in the Bible but I have never found any contradictions in Catholic teaching.
@Asaph Vapor Thank God for Catholic Tradition. Otherwise we wouldn't have a clue as to what various Bible passages meant. We would be like Protestants, split up into thousands of denominations, each one teaching something different than the one down the street. In fact without Catholic Tradition we wouldn't have a Bible at all.
I AM PROTESTANT AND HAVE NOTHING GOOD TO SAY ABOUT MARTIN LUTHER
"Jesus founded our church" is not a super good argument considering the fact that Mormons and JW's will say the exact same.
Except Catholics have 2000 years of Christian history. St. Peter (the 1st Pope), is entombed in St. Peter’s Basílica in Rome. Whilst you’re at it, Google: Who founded the Roman Catholic Church, and do the same for any other Christian denomination.
@@misererenobis8900 that argument is so played. It's working on the assumption that the church you're in is the true church. I've seen people do the same with orthodoxy. In truth, there is one universal (Catholic) church, but it's nit "Roman". The Roman Catholic church is an institution and denomination, but you don't have to be Roman to be a Christian. The truth is that the traditions evolved over time. for instance, many of the core doctrines were being figured out over the centuries (how do we explain the Trinity? For example).
@@misererenobis8900 you can be Christian and be Protestant/Catholic/Orthodox. It's not about your institution, it's about whether you trust in Christ for salvation
It is a good argument, its when you say "Jesus founded the Catholic Church" that bothers non-Catholics, because they will always ask you where the word "catholic" is found in Scripture, which it isn't.
@@Iffmeister
True, we don't honestly know how well even the Apostles understood the concept of the Trinity, at least in the way we explain it today.
What CHURCH then Jesus referred to in the Bible and when He clearly appointed Peter to be the sheperd on? The Baptist? The Lutheran? The Methodist? The Southern Baptist? The Western Baptist? The Northeastern Baptist? The First Baptist Church? The Second Baptist? The Adventist? The Calvinist? The Episcopal? The Reformed? The Mormon? Jehovah Witness? The Calvary? The Good Samaritan? The Heretics?
1. He gave the binding and loosing to all the apostles Matthew 18:18
2. The Orthodox Church points out that St. Cyprian taught that all Bishops are equally Peter's successors.
3. The Lutheran Confessions point out that St. Jerome taught that presbyter and bishop were equivalent terms and the same office in the NT period. He points out that Timothy was ordained bishop by his fellow presbyters. He then ordained more presbyters.
4. The chain of laying on of hands from one Pope to the next was entirely broken in 1059. The Pope objectively not the direct successor of Peter.
@@Mygoalwogel in what context again the binding and loosing authority given even if you were right in saying Jesus gave the authority to the apostles? You deliberately skipped Mat 18:15-17 because you cannot give the answer to what CHURCH Jesus referred to.
Was it Lutheran? Was it Orthodox? Baptist? Episcopal? Mormon? LSD? Methodist? Adventist? Etc, etc?
@@jamesm5462 The True Church is visibly found wherever the Gospel is preached in truth and Sacraments offered in reality. The Lutheran claim is a modest one. We are the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church because our Presbyter-Bishops are in legitimate succession and the Lutheran Confessions are true exposition of Scripture. We believe it's entirely possible that the Pope's church is also the OHCAC because the liturgy still has the Gospel and the Sacraments still have the solemn promises of God. But we're not going to bet our own eternal salvation on your teachings.
@@Mygoalwogel You can claim whatever you want on succession. So many Jesuses claimed over here and there. There is Jesus who seems to say no baptism needed. There is Jesus who says once saved always saved. There is this Jesus who says sola scriptura. There is Jesus who says no babies should be bsptized. There is Jesus that says you can sin all you can because you cannot lose salvation once you believe. So many fake Jesuses preached.
===
Nope. I am not gonna bet on your belief either. I am going to keep on Mat 16:18, John 21:15-17, Mat 28:18-20, John 20:21-23, and most of all John 6:53-56.
Those came out of Jesus' own mouth. Not from the mouth of heretics like Luther, Calvin, and any other so acclaimed doctors.
@@jamesm5462 Nobody says there's more than one Jesus. Your Pope doesn't make such accusations. He believes in loving his enemies by addressing their own claims rather than lying about them. Here's what he's intimated to some of our bishops.
www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=weedon.blogspot.com/2007/01/most-interesting-statement.html%3Fm%3D1&ved=2ahUKEwiKkP2xgqnpAhWyHqYKHVh1BvoQFjABegQIBRAI&usg=AOvVaw3pH1Ljpl07UlYfTwfU_4HA
You might try being a real Papist rather than a contentious extremist.
Your boy Martin Luther believes in the authority of the priesthood. He kept begging the priest to grant him a divorce. The fact that Peter is the very first pope until year 67. Look it up in an encyclopedia under pope or letter P.
To grant him a divorce??? 🤔 Are u sure you're talking about Martin Luther?
And about Peter as pope some could believe it, like Eusebio (even when he have several mistakes in his historian research) and other could even totally ignore rome like Ignatius mentioning all important bishops but he never mentioned rome so of course Rome wasn't an "all powerful authority of the church" it's obvious, you should read history, rome was of course part of the church, the own book of romans talk to them, but they weren't over other churches, even if Peter was bishop in Rome, the early church didn't take the opinion of Rome as definitive, less as infallible (infabillity of the pope don't even have 300 years) so I don't know the interesting on saying peter was the first pope, that don't give any power over other bishops, the own bishop of Jerusalem have never tried to control or being more powerful than other bishops, and history and bible clearly talk about authority of jerusalem in the early church, even Antioch and Alexandria were more prominent than rome, but that doesn't mean they should be in a higher level than a bishop from America for example (newer diocesis than middle east).
ALL BISHOPS ARE THE SAME IN AUTHORITY, all fathers of the church talked about it🤦🏻♂️
@@matiasgamalieltolmosuarez790 You're reading your theology back into history. Just because Apostles are equal doesn't mean there wasn't a "first among equals"...which is basically Peter. Carefully read the book of Acts.
@@N1IA-4 Have I talked about primus inter pares??? The current bishop of Constantinople or the Archbishop of Canterbury could argue about primus inter pares title, but Rome cannot, primus inter pares is NOT the same as papacy, papacy nowadays is not papal primacy, but papal SUPREMACY, and you should know it, Catholics clearly teach that the Pope is OVER all bishops, not that he is equal with other bishops but the first in honour, that's not the reality of Rome, neither their teaching, so I don't understand why are you arguing about it.
Rome was the primus inter pares after the first councils, but was NOT over all churches and you should know it. The council of Nicea clearly declare that they ALLOWED Alexandria to be over some churches in Egypt and Lydia as it was the tradition of SOME churches like ANTIOCH, ROME AND OTHERS. So we clearly know in the first councils that Rome WASN'T over all churches as Antioch or Alexandria and other bishops WEREN'T over all churches, but over some churches because of tradition. And the COUNCIL is the one who is over all churches.
But of course roman Catholics don't read nor agree totally with ecumenical councils, they have remove the filioque from an official council, just because they THINK it's better in a different way, the same with the council of Constantinople and, of Chalcedon who CLEARLY state that Constantinople will be consider first among equals in the SAME way that Rome was BECAUSE IS THE NEW CAPITAL, the councils clearly state that Rome was first BECAUSE they status of being the capital of the empire, not because they have special magic authority over all other bishops.
Your clearly know that St Ireneaus of Lyon didn't agree with Pope who wanted to excommunicate Bishops in Asia Minor, and he with authority talk against his intentions.
The Fathers of the church were very VERY clear teaching that ALL bishops are equal, especially St Ignatius of Antioch and Cyprian of Carthage who thought that bishop of Rome have no special power over others, and the real church is in the union of the bishops, not the union of just the bishop of Rome.
John Chrysostom clearly argued that bishop of Rome should not have the power to interfere in the affairs of other churches.
Even Jerome criticize the way the Pope was exercising his authority.
And many church fathers were critical about bishop of Rome, St Augustine, St Ambrose, Gregory of Nissa.
But of course the church fathers lived in a time were the bishop of Rome had no power over other bishops, and inquisition didn't existed to kill people who disagree with Pope, so they were just criticizing a papacy who was initially not very good and proper, but which would became in a horrible thing in many times in History.
You know you will be arrested or killed because you read the bible in English or any other language, nowadays because the changes after Vatican II who contradict Council of Trent (thanks to the influence of Protestantism) you Catholics have way more liberty, and you have corrected a lot of things, but your worst mistake is to try to look like you are always the perfect church who have no erros, where we all know (and you as well) that Rome have a lot of mistakes, in administration, in doctrine, in practice.
I really get upset when Catholics come and try to say their church is close to the early church, when even in your own encyclopedia you have the many changes of doctrine and practice (even the Sacraments, like forbidding the chalice to laity)
@@N1IA-4 You didn't read what I wrote of course, why do you stay arguing if you don't read what I wrote?
I clearly explained what a primus inter pares was in early church, and until great schism.
Roman Catholic Pope is NOT primus inter pares, Román Catholics affirm papal SUPREMACY, not papal primacy, it's very different. So it's illogical you're defending the supremacy of the bishop of Rome by talking about primacy of Peter. It's like saying because Jesus was immaculate, Mary was immaculate, wait that is the "logic" of Catholics, a total unlogical set of invented doctrines without support in Scripture nor in Tradition
Hi, Brethren brother here, well nondenominational to be precise. You can preach in our church, brother, unlike Roman Catholics. False gospel will not be tolerated. We are built upon the Rock that is Jesus Christ, our Lord and Saviour.
None of the Church Fathers had 'lutheran ideas'.
U do know Lutheran Based his doctrine from Scripture and teachings of Augustine and other Church Fathers.
There's no such thing as Lutheran doctrine or Lutheran gospel.
What Luther preached was the real gospel found within the Bible
@@jenex5608 They based it on a faulty foundation of Sola Scriptura....not found anywhere before Luther. No Church Father believed SS, although many try to quote mine the Fathers and read SS back into them.
@@N1IA-4 where is the claim to the Magisterium in the Bible? Sola Scriptura gets criticised all the time though it is biblically defendable but the Roman Catholic paradigm of the Magisterium (a late dogma) is not in the Bible at all.
@@EmmaBerger-ov9niCatholics aren't Sola Scriptura so we don't believe it has to be explicit. The Magesterium is consistent with the OT & NT priesthood / leaders. There's nothing inconsistent going on here. Sola Scriptura is self-refuting simply because the belief isn't in the Bible (a requirement for Protestants).
Did this man ever pick up any book about the history of Christianity? I loved how he stressed that he wasn't trying to make any claims on behalf of the Lutheran or Catholic claims to authentic historical claims of the Catholic Church. He was right to stay away from that if he couldn't even get it straight that the Church had to have some point of origin, which can be found in Acts. Heck, I knew that and didn't require any detailed explanation.It's all there, both historical and spiritual claims. Protestants need to get off their pots of indecision. Even Anglicans will attest that Jesus founded Christianity, not Luther or Henry VIII.
of course Luther didn't found christianity, he was alive over 1000 years after Jesus' life on earth
Your presentation was not impressive and your defense was not persuasive, my good friend. Not on this video.
I do sense more dedication and honesty compared to most other Protestants, however. You are not so far off; both in mind and in heart.
Let me quote a few of your words: "It is what it is".
Now sit back and ask the Spirit and... aaaahhhh....!!
My friend; when you pose the question whether Jesus founded the Catholic Church.
I tell you: first ask yourself: what is it??
The early church believed in transubstantiation. Doesn’t get more Catholic than that
Wrong, transubstantiation doesn’t show up in Roman Catholic doctrine until 1215.
It is the Eucharist that holds the Catholic Church together. Why do you hold that it is the papacy?
Further, only Luther and other early reformers were excommunicated. All modern day Christians are considered as part of The Church.
I would be interested in talking with you on these points! God bless.
The Easter Orthodox have the same view on the Eucharist. What broke the East from the West was the claim that the bishop of Rome has supremacy over the other bishops. As a Roman Catholic you should know that.
Sad how when we are examining the RCC we are always firstly and lastly fixating on the Bishop of Rome (Pope), and not: The Eucharist, taught by John the Apostle and His disciple, and the Fathers; the liturgy of the Mass, going back to Apostolic Ages; and the importance of water baptism.....
St. Augustine emphasized alms and prayers for the dead (good works) as the duty of every Christian;
Lutherans, protestants, and other sects do not hold to these practice, of whom it is said, if any man should deny the real presence of our Lord (Body and Blood) in the Eucharistic sacrifice, not even to call such a man a Christian; this is what the early believers taught and practice. There also cannot be any bishops in any of these Churches, since they do not hold the teachings of the original bishops, more so importantly the practices of which these bishops taught and practiced as handed down by the Twelve.
As St. Ignatius of Antioch wrote in 106 A.D. "Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude of the people be, even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church."
If we define Roman Catholicism according to its teachings about the Papacy, the role of Mary, purgatory etc. and according to its rejection of justification through faith alone then the conclusion that I reach is that Roman Catholicism is a heretical departure from Biblical Christianity. However whilst I believe that Christ didn't teach such Roman Catholic doctrines, He, or the Apostles, clearly did teach other doctrines which are held by the Roman Catholic church. It's just that as Luther put it Catholics have kept the husks and thrown out the kernel - the kernel being that we're counted righteous in God's sight purely through our faith in Christ and not also by our works. Without this central teaching everything else which is taught about Christ from His birth to His ascension loses its significance and value.
So if one defines the Roman Catholic church according to its beliefs and its membership which hold these beliefs then Christ didn't establish the Roman Catholic church. On the other hand since the Bible and baptism are retained by the RC church it's still possible for some to be saved and therefore one can say that the true Church does exist within the RC church. It's just that the Church which Christ established isn't as Roman Catholics define it. Rather the true Church is as the Apostles (and Luther) defined it i.e. true believers in Christ.
Is there any Verse mentioned about the chruch ..
It was a Greek word that meant universal, as in every body of a particular belief, and nothing to do with Rome.
@@spicerc1244 yes. Weird how Roman Catholics think they have a copyright on the Greek word.
Just skimming thru some of your other videos, it's interesting, because you have mentioned the "Roman" Catholic Church in at least two other of your videos (generally in a negative light). I don't know what's going on inside of you, only God does and how the Holy Spirit works is beyond anyone, but I have just noticed that you keep talking about the Catholic Church, why? Unless you seek to be persuaded to its Truth?
If the Catholic Church is wrong in it's claim to be the Church Christ founded and it is the Lutheran version to be the most accurate of them all that claim it, then what does it matter?
From my perspective, being a convert to the Catholic Church from Evangelical Protestantism,
I think a lot of us try to convince ourselves away from the truth because it doesn't fit in with our own understanding, I'm guilty of that sometimes but the truth sets us free.
Read the Early Church Fathers, let their witness to historical Christianity convince you. Because as Cardinal John Henry Newman once said, "To be deep in history is to cease to be Protestant."
Btw, what's your thoughts on the Joint Declaration of Faith between the Catholic Church and the Lutheran which was signed in, I believe, 1997?
Pax Christi
I will have to do a little more research, but I believe the joint declaration was signed by one of the more liberal Lutheran factions and not the large international conservative fellowship
@@isaiahpoe,
So there's a Schism within Lutheranism then.
Because if one part of the body can make a significant declaration without the rest then isn't that action one of schism?
Where is the Authority?
Where's the council's in Lutheranism that's binding upon all believers?
@@ilovetheautumncolors4060 So just like how the Roman Catholics are in schism from the East? How you are anathemized from Orthodoxy?
@@isaiahpoe ,
I don't think that's the same thing because for us Catholic and Orthodox Christians we have the Ecumenical Councils before 1054 to fall back on and those are binding for the both of our communions; but I don't think that the Lutherans even have Councils to begin with.
I apologize but I didn't mean to offend you or anybody.
I love the Autumn Colors - Very good observation. The Holy Spirit always leads to the truth.
Job 8:8-10 TLB - “Read the history books and see
The Coptic Catholic Church is in full comunion with the Pope of Rome and pledged obedience to the Pope. So there you go.
The CCC is part of the CC, just as the RCC is. All xCC's together form the one CC.
If Jesus Christ was not the founder of Roman Catholic Church then name who, when, and where he founded the church?
A careful and thoughtful answer!Love your videos, true blessings!
@@jeffreyalilin7314 Dr. Cooper is a theologian.
If you take an honest look a church history, you're left with only two options, Roman Catholic Church or Eastern Orthodox, that's it nothing else.
And Miaphysites in Egypt, India and elsewhere.
And the Assyrian Church of the East.
And the Syrian Church of the East
And the Russian and Greek Orthodox are now separated.
And the sedevacantists
Both Rome and Lutherans have doctrinal development.
Lutheran's development started on XVI Century "sola Fide" theory. For 15 centuries no one believed in "SOLA" Fide. " The reformation understanding of the nature of justification -as opposed to its mode- must be regarded as a genuine theological novum" Alister McGrath, Reformed Protestant scholar.
Yes the difference is RCC is always guided by the Holy Spirit so all its doctrines are correct
@@IconicIzzy1806 Well except those with no precedence, historical evidence, or biblical support like the marian dogmas. Or the magisterium's changing doctrine on the death penalty.
@YellowBlackbird12, fathers and apostles taught faith alone (without love) is nothing (1 Cor. 13:2). Love is what makes faith alive. Love is greatest than faith ( 1 Cor. 13:13)
Clement of Rome:
“Let us therefore join with those to whom grace is given by God. Let us clothe ourselves in concord, being humble and self- controlled, keeping ourselves far from all backbiting and slander, being justified by works and not by words….Why was our Father Abraham blessed? Was it not because of his deeds of justice and truth, wrought in faith?…So we, having been called through his will in Christ Jesus, were not justified through ourselves or through our own wisdom or understanding or piety or works which we wrought in holiness of heart, but through faith, whereby the almighty God justified all men.” (Letter to the Corinthians 30:3, 31:2, 32:3-4).
Theophilus of Antioch
“Give studious attention to the prophetic writings, and they will lead you on a clearer path to escape the eternal punishments and to obtain the eternal good things of God. He who gave the mouth for speech and formed the ears for hearing and made eyes for seeing will examine everything and will judge justly, granting recompense to each according to merit. To those who seek immortality by the patient exercise of good works, he will give everlasting life, joy, peace, rest, and all good things, which neither has eye seen nor ear heard, nor has it entered into the heart of man. For the unbelievers and for the contemptuous, and for those who do not submit to the truth but assent to iniquity, when they have been involved in adulteries and fornications and homosexualities and avarice and in lawless idolatries, there will be wrath and indignation, tribulation and anguish, and in the end such men as these will be detained in everlasting fire” (To Autolycus 1:14 [ca. A.D. 181]).
Origen
“Whoever dies in his sins, even if he profess to believe in Christ, does not truly believe in him; and even if that which exists without works be called faith, such faith is dead in itself, as we read in the epistle bearing the name of James” (Commentaries on John 19:6 [A.D. 226-232]).
@YellowBlackbird12 , Faith alone means love has nothing to do with justification, but according to Paul and the fathers faith without love is NOTHING just like we are nothing without Jesus. For the early church fathers any justification that is not woven together with sanctification is not justification at all.
The Protestant claim that we are justified by faith alone means that on the part of humans, faith is the only thing necessary in order to be justified. As soon as we have faith, we are justified. With respect to what is needed within us for justification, faith is both the necessary and sufficient condition for justification.
The Catholic doctrine, by contrast, is that faith is NOT the only thing necessary, on our part, in order to be justified. We also need LOVE (agape) for God. If we believe the message about Christ, but do not receive love (agape) of God, then we are not justified because such faith is not a living faith. The Council of Trent declared:" For faith, unless hope and charity be added to it, neither unites man perfectly with Christ nor makes him a living member of HIs body. For which reason it is most truly said that faith without works is dead (James 2:17, 20) and of no profit, and in Christ Jesus neither circumcision availeth anything nor circumcision, but faith that worketh by charity ( Gal. 5:6; 6:15)" Session 6 Chapter 7.
Protestants incorrectly separate justification and sanctification into two distinct succesive phases.
Protestantism disagrees the words of Jesus: " Wherefore I say unto thee, Her sins, which are many, are forgiven; FOR SHE LOVED MUCH: but to whom little is forgiven, the same loveth little." Lc 7: 47.
For Jesus, the apostles and the fathers any justification that is not woven together with sactification is not justification at all. Jesus is right, Luther got it wrong.
Yes.
The Roman's would use the crucifix cross on anyone who oppose Roman laws and others were being killed next to Christ and Mary stayed and watched after visiting the archangel Gabriel and broke his Covenant
Tamia, do I understand you to say that Mary somehow broke a covenant by being present at the crucifixion?
?!?!?!
Did the apostle John break this same covenant? What covenant? Is there a commandment somewhere that I am not aware of that says thou shalt not attend a crucifixion?
No one can visit an angel. Angels' home is in Heaven. Mary was visited by the Angel Gabriel ONCE that we know of.
What covenant did Mary break by watching her son die? Jesus did not reprimand her for her being there, He arrainged for someone to care for her.
Can you possibly write that in English please? Maybe delete the apostrophe and then explain about which covenant and who broke it . . .
Didi Jesus found the Roman Catholic Church? BLEEP NO!! He founded a "universal" church (which the Greek word "catholicos" means) but its "Roman" character developed over centuries and included doctrines the apostles never alluded to in their writings. It's nothing but propaganda, and I spent most of my life worshipping as a Catholic.
Everyone should just become Eastern Orthodox😂😁
*anglican. I'm leaning that way now lol, infant baptism is simply the hardest thing for me to accept. I agree with everything else pretty much.
@@Iffmeister The Anabaptists started non-infant baptism historically, that was continued in the 19-20th century "Spiritual (Aka Masonic) awakenings".
The Church has always held Infant Baptism.
No, we do not need EO church and 1000 traditions that contradicts Scripture :D
Ify Nsoha
Infant Baptism is in the Bible and it is taught by the Earliest of Church fathers.
Acts 16:15
15 When she and the members of her household were baptized, she invited us to her home. “If you consider me a believer in the Lord,” she said, “come and stay at my house.” And she persuaded us.
Acts 16:33
33 At that hour of the night the jailer took them and washed their wounds; then immediately he and all his household were baptized.
Romans 5:12 connects with Acts 22:16
Romans: When Adam sinned, sin entered the world. Adam’s sin brought death, so death spread to everyone, for everyone sinned.
Acts: What are you waiting for? Get up and be baptized. Have your sins washed away by calling on the name of the Lord.
Huge verse!: Acts 2:38-39 reads...
“Repent, and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. For the promise is to you and to your children”
You see the ending there? “For the promise is to you AND to your children”
Since everyone has sinned because of Adams original sin, baptism washes the original sin of the baby away since they have not committed any sins themselves yet.
We also see:
1 Peter 3:21-22 teaching Baptism saves...
“and this water symbolizes baptism that now saves you also-not the removal of dirt from the body but the pledge of a clear conscience toward God.[a] It saves you by the resurrection of Jesus Christ, 22 who has gone into heaven and is at God’s right hand-with angels, authorities and powers in submission to him.”
So if the infant or young child dies before they accept baptism themselves but they still have the stain of original sin of Adam where do they go?
Jesus also taught in Luke 18:16:
“Let the children come to me, and do not hinder them; for to such belongs the kingdom of God”
The early church fathers agreed with infant baptism as well!!!
Irenaeus
“He [Jesus] came to save all through himself; all, I say, who through him are reborn in God: infants, and children, and youths, and old men. Therefore he passed through every age, becoming an infant for infants, sanctifying infants; a child for children, sanctifying those who are of that age . . . [so that] he might be the perfect teacher in all things, perfect not only in respect to the setting forth of truth, perfect also in respect to relative age” (Against Heresies 2:22:4 [A.D. 189]).
Hippolytus
“Baptize first the children, and if they can speak for themselves let them do so. Otherwise, let their parents or other relatives speak for them” (The Apostolic Tradition 21:16 [A.D. 215]).
Origen
“Every soul that is born into flesh is soiled by the filth of wickedness and sin. . . . In the Church, baptism is given for the remission of sins, and, according to the usage of the Church, baptism is given even to infants. If there were nothing in infants which required the remission of sins and nothing in them pertinent to forgiveness, the grace of baptism would seem superfluous” (Homilies on Leviticus 8:3 [A.D. 248]).
“The Church received from the apostles the tradition of giving baptism even to infants. The apostles, to whom were committed the secrets of the divine sacraments, knew there are in everyone innate strains of [original] sin, which must be washed away through water and the Spirit” (Commentaries on Romans 5:9 [A.D. 248]).
Cyprian of Carthage
“As to what pertains to the case of infants: You [Fidus] said that they ought not to be baptized within the second or third day after their birth, that the old law of circumcision must be taken into consideration, and that you did not think that one should be baptized and sanctified within the eighth day after his birth. In our council it seemed to us far otherwise. No one agreed to the course which you thought should be taken. Rather, we all judge that the mercy and grace of God ought to be denied to no man born” (Letters 64:2 [A.D. 253]).
“If, in the case of the worst sinners and those who formerly sinned much against God, when afterwards they believe, the remission of their sins is granted and no one is held back from baptism and grace, how much more, then, should an infant not be held back, who, having but recently been born, has done no sin, except that, born of the flesh according to Adam, he has contracted the contagion of that old death from his first being born. For this very reason does he [an infant] approach more easily to receive the remission of sins: because the sins forgiven him are not his own but those of another” (ibid., 64:5).
Gregory of Nazianz
“Do you have an infant child? Allow sin no opportunity; rather, let the infant be sanctified from childhood. From his most tender age let him be consecrated by the Spirit. Do you fear the seal [of baptism] because of the weakness of nature? Oh, what a pusillanimous mother and of how little faith!” (Oration on Holy Baptism 40:7 [A.D. 388]).
“‘Well enough,’ some will say, ‘for those who ask for baptism, but what do you have to say about those who are still children, and aware neither of loss nor of grace? Shall we baptize them too?’ Certainly [I respond], if there is any pressing danger. Better that they be sanctified unaware, than that they depart unsealed and uninitiated” (ibid., 40:28).
John Chrysostom
“You see how many are the benefits of baptism, and some think its heavenly grace consists only in the remission of sins, but we have enumerated ten honors [it bestows]! For this reason we baptize even infants, though they are not defiled by [personal] sins, so that there may be given to them holiness, righteousness, adoption, inheritance, brotherhood with Christ, and that they may be his [Christ’s] members” (Baptismal Catecheses in Augustine, Against Julian 1:6:21 [A.D. 388]).
Augustine
“What the universal Church holds, not as instituted [invented] by councils but as something always held, is most correctly believed to have been handed down by apostolic authority. Since others respond for children, so that the celebration of the sacrament may be complete for them, it is certainly availing to them for their consecration, because they themselves are not able to respond” (On Baptism, Against the Donatists 4:24:31 [A.D. 400]).
“The custom of Mother Church in baptizing infants is certainly not to be scorned, nor is it to be regarded in any way as superfluous, nor is it to be believed that its tradition is anything except apostolic” (The Literal Interpretation of Genesis 10:23:39 [A.D. 408]).
“Cyprian was not issuing a new decree but was keeping to the most solid belief of the Church in order to correct some who thought that infants ought not be baptized before the eighth day after their birth. . . . He agreed with certain of his fellow bishops that a child is able to be duly baptized as soon as he is born” (Letters 166:8:23 [A.D. 412]).
“By this grace baptized infants too are ingrafted into his [Christ’s] body, infants who certainly are not yet able to imitate anyone. Christ, in whom all are made alive . . . gives also the most hidden grace of his Spirit to believers, grace which he secretly infuses even into infants. . . . If anyone wonders why children born of the baptized should themselves be baptized, let him attend briefly to this. . . . The sacrament of baptism is most assuredly the sacrament of regeneration” (Forgiveness and the Just Deserts of Sin, and the Baptism of Infants 1:9:10; 1:24:34; 2:27:43 [A.D. 412]).
Council of Carthage V
“Item: It seemed good that whenever there were not found reliable witnesses who could testify that without any doubt they [abandoned children] were baptized and when the children themselves were not, on account of their tender age, able to answer concerning the giving of the sacraments to them, all such children should be baptized without scruple, lest a hesitation should deprive them of the cleansing of the sacraments. This was urged by the [North African] legates, our brethren, since they redeem many such [abandoned children] from the barbarians” (Canon 7 [A.D. 401]).
Council of Mileum II
“[W]hoever says that infants fresh from their mothers’ wombs ought not to be baptized, or say that they are indeed baptized unto the remission of sins, but that they draw nothing of the original sin of Adam, which is expiated in the bath of regeneration . . . let him be anathema [excommunicated]. Since what the apostle [Paul] says, ‘Through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so passed to all men, in whom all have sinned’ [Rom. 5:12], must not be understood otherwise than the Catholic Church spread everywhere has always understood it. For on account of this rule of faith even infants, who in themselves thus far have not been able to commit any sin, are therefore truly baptized unto the remission of sins, so that that which they have contracted from generation may be cleansed in them by regeneration” (Canon 3 [A.D. 416]).
Glendalough Orthodox Initiative
8 minute video I think you should watch on this topic...
th-cam.com/video/XbEzyAlvTaw/w-d-xo.html
God bless, ¡Viva Cristo Rey!
Matthew 16:23 KJV - 23 But he turned, and said unto Peter, Get thee behind me, Satan: thou art an offence unto me: for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but those that be of men.
This is a perfect example not to interpret the scriptures 2 Peter 1:20. Lest not forget that also, even after Peter denied Jesus, and when Jesus was raised up, Jesus solidified peter as the head of church and the apostles. John 21: 14-22. Don't lie and take it out of context. Rev 21:8.
@@die-eggocamaney6967 you follow the pope not Christ.
@@Ezrasghost So Jesus didn't give Peter authority and built his church on the rock , which was Peter. Matthew 16:17-19. Your denying this!
@@die-eggocamaney6967 I follow our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. I thank the early church fathers for preserving Gods word. Anyways I’d rather be orthodox than catholic. I was born catholic. I just can’t agree with papacy and you also have to adhere to the nonsense of Vatican 2 as well as agree with everything the pope says.
@@Ezrasghost Amen, although there is difference, we are more similar. God bless and continue on your journey to the truth.
If a person researched various Kindoms and their various administration, that person would find out that the king always appointed a steward. This person had the keys to the kingdom and had all authority of the king during the king’s absence. A king does not leave his kingdom ungoverned while he is away in battle or on a diplomatic mission. Jesus is a King and he does have a Kingdom. Jesus has two one in Heaven and one on the earth “The Church.” He would be a bad ruler if he didn’t appoint a steward to administer while he was gone. When Jesus gave Simon Peter “The Keys to the Kingdom, the other apostles knew what this meant from Jewish culture and tradition. The other apostles were at awe! They knew Jesus made Simon Peter the steward of his Kingdom The Church on earth. A king always leaves someone behind to administer during his absence. The Pope holds the keys to The Church and is the administer to the Kingdom while our LORD and KING is away. He will gladly relinquish that duty upon the Second Coming. A person interested in the History of The Church can read Clement of Rome’s two letters. Clement was ordained and consecrated by Peter and Paul. Clement died a horrible death just like his predecessors. A person can read what John’s disciples Polycarp, Papias, and Ignatius wrote. These men died martyrs. The 12 Disciples had their own disciples. If they didn’t, The Church would have ended with them. Rejecting these men would mean a person is rejecting the original 12, which means, that person is rejecting Christ himself. There is also Irenaeus “ Against Heresies “ and Eusebius “ The Church History” two books a person can read. Good Luck, and GOD Bless. I pray for all of you!
You are totally correct.I can’t believe so many people try to undermine the Church Christ founded.
Which would make sense if 'the church' did not stray so far from scripture, by sometimes flat out making stuff up from celibate priests to the supremacy of the papal office to insisting that theories are facts such as transubstantiation.
If it cannoy be justified by the Word of God then there is a severe problem, what, am I to accept heresy from the church because they clame a succession?
You cannot use an assumed authority to justify bad doctrine.
So well said. Amen !
The Church is called “Catholic”
“See that ye all follow the bishop, even as Christ Jesus does the Father, and the presbytery as ye would the apostles. Do ye also reverence the deacons, as those that carry out the appointment of God. Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is [administered] either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude also be; by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church.” Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to the Smyrneans, 8:2 (c. A.D. 110).
According to legend, Ignatius was the child whom the Savior took up in His arms, as described in Mark 9:35. It is also believed, and with great probability, that, with his friend Polycarp, he was among the auditors of the Apostle St. John. If we include St. Peter, Ignatius was the third Bishop of Antioch and the immediate successor of Evodius (Eusebius, Church History II.3.22). Theodoret ("Dial. Immutab.", I, iv, 33a, Paris, 1642) is the authority for the statement that St. Peter appointed Ignatius to the See of Antioch. St. John Chrysostom lays special emphasis on the honor conferred upon the martyr in receiving his episcopal consecration at the hands of the Apostles themselves ("Hom. in St. Ig.", IV. 587). Natalis Alexander quotes Theodoret to the same effect (III, xii, art. xvi, p. 53).
Loved the beard, how can a man with so much intelligence not agree with the truth of scripture and tradition, creeds, choice of scripture all founded Catholic , dude a tree has roots to use your analogy, nothing you said was convincing, love you brother
Lutherans confess the three ecumenical creeds. Lutherans teach that Tradition is good and edifying but does not trump or contradict Scripture. Lutherans accept Antilegomena Scriptures as good and edifying for believers but it does not trump or contradict Homologoumena Scripture.
The traditions, creeds, and canon are not things established by Christ. They can be good things, but the only things established by Jesus are recorded in the New Testament. The early church was congregational, as seen in the epistles and Revelation. That's the main reason Paul and Jesus address specific churches, because some are starting to engage in heresy.
The Roman Catholic church wasn't established until Constantine. That name was not used before that. The early church is a better name than catholic (universal) before that, because some congregations were very heretical before that, such as gnostics, and it's silly to group everyone before that. As Jordan pointed out here, the idea of being in or out of fellowship with another church really became a thing with the ecumenical councils, when people started drawing lines of distinction. That's all that happened in the Great Schism, the church of Rome established new edicts regarding the papacy that was not accepted by other churches.
I would say the biggest separation today is the view of an individual's baptism. Many older denominations acknowledge the baptism of a person regardless of the church, or how it was performed. Usually, only being baptized in the name of Jesus, or some other strange practice of baptism, is the type of thing that say Catholics or Lutherans will contend is not a proper baptism. Orthodox may require immersion, though they also don't like to go against "one Lord, one faith, one baptism," so it depends. Reformed churches will always demand infants be rebaptized, and some require adult rebaptism into their specific denomination or congregation. Only Mormons as far as I know engage in repeated baptism for the dead.
You can’t completely change dogma and claim you are a branch. Branches are still in union with the Church.
The Catholic church was the first church founded by jesus..Martin Luther broke away from the church
False. Jesus and Paul founded the Eastern Orthodox Church. Jesus, Stephen, the eunuch, and Mark founded the Oriental Orthodox Church. Thaddeus, Bartholomew and Thomas founded the Church of the East. Each one claims to be the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. These claims are as legit as yours.
And false. The papacy broke away from the true church:
*Exsurge Domine*
*Bull of Pope Leo X issued June 15, 1520*
In virtue of our pastoral office committed to us by the divine favor we can under no circumstances tolerate or overlook any longer the pernicious poison of the above errors without disgrace to the Christian religion and injury to orthodox faith. Some of these errors *we have decided to include in the present document; their substance is as follows:*
19. Indulgences are of no avail to those who truly gain them, for the *remission of the penalty due to actual sin in the sight of divine justice.*
bookofconcord.org/exsurge-domine.php
*An indulgence granted by authority of the Pope by Johann Tetzel in 1517.*
The text reads: _"By the authority of all the saints, and in mercy towards you, _*_I absolve you from all sins and misdeeds and remit all punishments for ten days."_*
academickids.com/encyclopedia/index.php/Indulgence
*Pope Benedict IX and simony:*
“He was a son of Alberic III, leader of the Tusculani, and he simoniacally succeeded his uncles, Benedict VIII and John XIX.” (New Catholic Encyclopedia, vol. II, page 274)
“Then on May 1 Benedict *sold his papal office* to his baptismal sponsor, the reforming archpriest John Gratian, Pope Gregory VI.” ( *New Catholic Encyclopedia,* vol. II, page 275)
Quoted from: answeringcatholicclaims.blogspot.com/2009/12/apostolic-succession.html?m=1
People try to tell me that the Roman church fabricated jesus all together.. this idea freaks me out. Did the catholic church fabricate the messiah? Because apparently YHWH in the bible never condoned human sacrifice and despised it.. someone please help me with this.
Their Marian Doctrines is unbiblical
Look up an unbiased source. Try looking up pope in the encyclopedia. It will clearly show you that Peter is the first pope.
Which encyclopaedia do you mean and who were the writers ?
Looking up to Wikipedia and Encyclopedia explicitly they mention something like "According to the Roman Catholic".
The term pope means Father which has been used not only for the bishop of Rome, but other bishops.
Jesus tried to form a universal church by appointing Peter Simon, hoping that it will not be divided in future. But here we are today with thosands of divisions, each badmouthing the other! The more stable tge church, the more Lucifer try to badmouth the church.