The Best Biblical Case for the Catholic Church (w/ Tom Nash)
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 29 เม.ย. 2024
- In this episode of The Cordial Catholic, I'm joined by veteran Catholic apologist Tom Nash to talk about the biblical basis for the Catholic Church. How can we use the Bible to explain the origins of the Catholic Church?
We dig into apostolic succession, the centrality of the Mass, Jesus' desire for Christian unity in John 17 (and how to accomplish this), and some of the Church-dividing problems with the doctrine of Sola Scriptura. Plus much, much more.
Tom is a veteran apologist with a lot to say and this episode is absolutely packed to the rafters.
For more from Tom check out his book To Whom Shall We Go? from Emmaus Road Publishing:
stpaulcenter.com/product/to-w...
Visit Catholic Answers to see his decades worth of content and contributions at www.catholic.com
And follow @catholiccom to see some of Tom's Open Forum Q&A videos.
For more, visit The Cordial Catholic. Send your feedback to cordialcatholic@gmail.com.
Sign up for our newsletter for my reflections on episodes, behind-the-scenes content, and exclusive contests at newsletter.thecordialcatholic.com
To watch this and other episodes please visit (and subscribe to!) our TH-cam channel.
Please consider financially supporting this show!
For more information visit the Patreon page. All patrons receive access to exclusive content and if you can give $5/mo or more you'll also be entered into monthly draws for fantastic books hand-picked by me at / cordialcatholic
If you'd like to give a one-time donation to The Cordial Catholic, you can visit the PayPal page at paypal.me/cordialcatholic
Thank you to those already supporting the show!
![[4K직캠] BABYMONSTER(베이비몬스터) - FOREVER](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/PS3UAFto1z8/mqdefault.jpg)
![[FULL EP.14] เซียนหรั่ง สอน มาร์ชจุ จับปูนา ฮากระจาย | เฮ็ดอย่างเซียนหรั่ง | One Playground](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/M8mPjd_T2lo/mqdefault.jpg)
Moreover, by the terms of Sola Scriptura, the circumcisers were right: The Torah does require all male converts to get circumcised. In Acts 15, the Apostles claim the authority to overrule the Torah; if they accept Acts as Scripture, they must reject Sola Scriptura.
Amazing point. Well done.
The elephant in the SS living room! The power of BINDING and LOOSING "Whatever" - which encompasses an awful lot, yet the Lord still granted that authority.
The Torah is part of the first Covenant. The Church of Christ is the New Covenant.
@@robertscrivner4791 When the perfect arrives, the IMperfect passes away.
I don't know how anyone can get such a bizarre interpretation. No one overruled or claimed to do so. Peter clearly said "God made choice among us". And then he further said..."now therefore why tempt ye God..." That is not "overruling" God or His word. It is hearing God and submitting to Him.
In the Apostolic age, the early Church acknowledged three sources of authority: 1) Sacred Scripture, comprising the Old Testament as well as those letters and gospels which were available; 2) the oral teachings, or Tradition, passed down by Paul and the other Apostles; and 3) the Divinely instituted teaching authority of the Church, or Magisterium, demonstrated notably in the Council of Jerusalem's decisions regarding Gentile converts. The paradigm established by God in the Apostolic Church was scripture, the oral tradition delivered by the Apostles, and the teaching authority of the leaders of the Church.
Nowhere in Scripture is there an indication that this paradigm of authority should be abandoned with the death of the last Apostle or at some point in the future. The first century Christians never envisioned that Tradition and the teaching authority of the Church would be jettisoned 1,500 years later.
No Apostle practiced or alluded to any other paradigm; no Apostolic Father or Early Church Father practiced or alluded to another paradigm.
Therefore, the Catholic Church continues to uphold these three pillars of authority: Sacred Scripture, Sacred Tradition, and the Magisterium. Scripture and Tradition together constitute God's word, while the Magisterium serves as the authoritative interpreter of that Word.
Thank you Tom Nash, for your service to the holy Catholic Church. Pax
I still think the examples of Timothy/Titus as Paul's authoritative successors ("correct with all authority" Titus 2:15) who received "the spiritual gift of God" through the laying on of hands (2 Tim 1:6-7, 1 Tim 4:14) is perhaps more persuasive than the Council of Jerusalem because it actually proves post-apostolic authority from Scripture. Protestants can always claim that the apostles had authority, which gave the Council authority, but that the authority of the apostles died with them and is preserved only in Scripture. Doesn't make practical sense, but one has to demonstrate post-apostolic Incarnational authority from Scripture.
Thank you for this interview. Tom Nash is a treasure.
Fantastic interview! I was not very familiar with Tom. I’ll be getting his book!
This was a great conversation, thank you.
I was debating a Protestant about acts 15…. They said it was not a defeater for the Protestant concept of sola scriptura. My argument was that the circumcision crowd was using scripture alone to bolster their position and was struck down. They said “no the apostles had authority to over ride scripture while they were alive and since they are no longer alive, bo one has that authority.
In my defense, i showed how the combined authority of paul and barnabas were not enough authority and asked only why all the apostles, peter, and elders were called? Does it take the heads of the whole church to make a decision like that? Sounds an awful lot like a magisterium. As the debate went on, i realized his misconception about how papal authority works in and out of a magisterial setting. I almost hope the next generation of Protestants try harder…. These arguments are just too simple.
What was his misunderstanding?
@@Marcus-sk2xf That apostles had no authority unless the pope declared it. In his mind…. If papal authority were true, there would be no need for all the other elders and apostles. The pope would just shoot down the scripture on his own authority and move on. I explained that’s not how it works typically. Sure the pope can do things without a council…. A pope once excommunicated 2 patriarchs without a council and the eastern church didnt blink an eye. However acts 15 is the blueprint for how and why ecumenical councils happen. The elders gathered, heard out the arguments. Im sure the scriptures were read and considered…. Peter makes the pronouncement and the local bishop closes the ceremony. All levels of authority are checked.
He never got back to me after that…. Weve switched up to debating purgatory. Its going well lol.
@@timboslice980”He never got back to me… we’ve switched it up to purgatory.” Unfortunately, that’s how most of these debates go- a claim is made, it’s refuted and explained, the person who made the original claim never admits they were wrong or even misunderstood, they just switch the subject. But at least the seed is planted.
I think the examples of Timothy/Titus as Paul's authoritative successors ("correct with all authority" Titus 2:15) who received "the spiritual gift of God" through the laying on of hands (2 Tim 1:6-7, 1 Tim 4:14) is perhaps more persuasive than the Council of Jerusalem because it actually proves post-apostolic authority from Scripture. Protestants can always claim that the apostles had authority, which gave the Council authority, but that the authority of the apostles died with them and is preserved only in Scripture. Doesn't make practical sense, but one has to demonstrate post-apostolic Incarnational authority from Scripture.
Great content. One of the best biblical presentations
Great show as always.
"ONCE when Absalom wished to form a faction and division against his good father David, he sat in the way near the gate, and said to each person that went by: There is no man appointed by the king to hear thee..O that they would make me judge over the land, that all that have business might come to me, that I might do them justice(2 [Samuel] xv). Thus did he seduce the loyalty of the Israelites. O how many Absaloms have there been in our age, who, to seduce and distort the people of Our Lord from obedience to the Church and her pastors, and to lead away Christian loyalty into rebellion and revolt, have cried up and down the ways of Germany and of France: there is no one appointed by God to hear doubts concerning the faith and to answer them ; the Church itself, the rulers of the Church, have no power to determine what we are to hold as to the faith and what we are not; we must seek other judges than the prelates, the Church can err in its decrees and rules. But what more hurtful and audacious proposition could they make to Christianity than that? If then the Church can err, O Calvin, O Luther, to whom shall I have recourse in my difficulties?"
-St Francis de Sales, _The Catholic Controversy_
❤
Thank you, superb quotation !
Ready to listen!
Great info and Truth! Thank you
Thanks for watching!
Thank you
I heard this ridiculous question brought up by Protestants lately and it’s getting old. The question is, “How can Mary hear so many people?” I, myself find nothing that would limit the Saints or Mary to hear and see everything going on in the hearts of man because I understand the power of God and the power he granted in the past to his Angels and Saints and Since he shares His Divine Kingship with his Saints in heaven, no mind can comprehend the abilities and gifts that will accompany such a gift.
So, in addition, here are three reasons for Mary hearing the secret thoughts of many: 1) The power of God, 2) She has been Glorified with a Glorified Body in Heaven not limited to the physical laws of this world (See the Teaching of St Thomas Aquinas on the gifts of the glorified body).
3) St Simeon’s prophecy to Mary: Luke 2:35 - and a sword will pierce your own soul so that the secret thoughts of many hearts will be revealed.
Additionally, The soul does not have the same limitations as the body does. It is far greater in every way than the physical body and the saints in heaven are no longer limited/restricted by it and never again will be. After the resurrection, the Glorified body will not have the weaknesses and limitations it had before. As an example, It will move at the command of the soul like angels move in the universe, unimpeded.
(Just for the record, Jesus and Mary both have their glorified bodies in Heaven already, Jesus’s body in the Eucharist is the glorified one.)
And lastly, Can Saints see and know what is going on with us on Earth. Luke 9:28-36. (The Transfiguration)
And behold two man was walking with Christ, Moses and Elias. And they spoke of His decease that He should accomplish in Jerusalem.
The Greek word for “decease”means: departure from life, death, meaning that they were speaking about His death i.e. what sort of death Christ would die, death upon the cross and its accomplishment.
Notice, not only could these saints know what was going on in the physical world but also what was about to happen with Christ in the near future.
An x Catholic and protestant preacher once made a snarling comment to me saying, “And the Saints can’t see us or hear us”. So I, with anger in my voice responded that that was a D…n lye and recited the Transfiguration event at which he shut up and never challenged me again.
The question is asked because it has not been answered. Yes God can do anything and glorified bodies will not be limited by the physical realm, but you have not demonstrated that a Saint in heaven has been granted the ability to what amounts to omnipresence and a form of omniscience. Stating that God can do anything, while true, is not evidence that He has designed our glorified bodies with this ability.
At the Mt of transfiguration, the conversation is being held with Christ. He is most likely the source of the knowledge and the sweeping statement you made is not supported by the text.
In addition, you misquoted Luke 2:35. The verse is not a promise to Mary that she will have some sort of special ability. It is stating that the thoughts of her heart will also revealed by Christ.
Love your show! Bravo 😊
AFTER circumcision had been "loosed" Paul had Gentile Timothy Circumcised so as not to offend the Jews? Is that not far more serious than eating with the wrong crowd? One involves changing seats. The other, the shedding of blood. Yet Saint Peter did not rebuke Paul (in writing) for that odd move.
I like your ecumenical minded t shirt 😊
I owe William Lane Craig so much thanks for this. In reading the Canaanite slaughter something really struck my. Without one nation under one authority, the Canaanite slaughter would have never occurred. The slaughter if you read the bible alone, goes against the Genesis 8 "never again will I strike down every living creature". The complete slaughter northern Canaan would have never been universally accepted based on bible alone. In fact, at the end of Judges, the last paragraph say's "in those days, there was no king, and every man did what was right in their own mind". Without one unified, undivided Church, business, household or whatever, it will never stand, and never conquer, but be conquered. I guess that Moses leaving control to Joshua in the form of apostolic succession, is also anti biblical or was an additive by the Catholic church. Shake my head.
St Anne Line • pray for us
St Tomas De Torquemada, pray for us.
@@peterzinya1
U wish
@@PInk77W1 Well then, maybe St Marciel Maciel will pray for me.
Let us sing the Legion of Christ theme song.....a one y and a two y and a
Where the boys are, someone waits for me
A smilin' face, a warm embrace, two arms to hold me tenderly
Where the boys are, my true love will be
He is walkin' down some street in town, and I know he's lookin' there for me
@@peterzinya1
My sisters friend is a legion priest
He use to work directly with the founder guy.
One day the founder guy told him to lie for him about having lunch together the day before.
The priest said no.
@@PInk77W1 A catholic priest with a conscience, bravo. Thats also against the rules not to obey your superior.
Trying to watch your video but you don't seem to get to the point.
What is your best biblical case for the RCC?
I’m part catholic!
Nope, no such thing
So is Joe Biden
Neither hot nor cold? Do tell!
@@HAL9000-su1mz right, half Catholic 🤦♂️
Not half! Praise Jesus! My Lord and Savior! Saved by the Grace of God by faith in Jesus! It has inspired me to many works of service to the Lord! My sins are forgiven! I love God and love all people!
If one comoares the timelines of tge Letter to the Galatians with the Acts of the Apostles, one will see that Clement of Alexandria is right that Paul corrects not Peter, but another Cephas of the Seventy-two.
If I remember right, that was Debunked. The Catholic Church says it was Peter, not another.🙏🏻
Seems unlikely considering the context: "...when they perceived the grace that was given to me, James and *Cephas* and John, who were reputed to be *pillars,* gave to me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship, that we should go to the Gentiles and they to the circumcised; 10 only they would have us remember the poor, which very thing I was eager to do. 11* But when *Cephas came to Antioch* I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned."
@@tonyl3762 actually, the Letter itself keeps the names Peter and Cephas separate . It's a fact. All tradition says the Twelve never left the Holy Land for the first twelve years. Luke shows Peter never was in Antioch till after the Council of Jerusalem. Peter, not Paul, is sent to receive the first gentile converts, even though Paul passed through that city. Normally Paul only ever yes the term Cephas for Peter, but here he uses Peter for him, because it can be translated for him, but was merely a given name for the other Cephas who was the first Bishop of Syrian Antioch.
@@Frst2nxt The Greek I see on New Advent's bible shows the same Greek word being used for both verses 9 and 11: Κηφᾶς. Are you really claiming that some other Cephas was being named with James and John in verse 9 as pillars?? How likely is that?
Dear@@Frst2nxt, John also uses the name Cephas, for Peter (written in the Greek and Aramaic as "Kephas" -- written as "Cephas" in English translations, for reasons I do not know. Yet.)
John 1:40 says "One of the two which heard John speak, and followed Him, was Andrew, Simon Peter's brother" (KJV)
John 1:42 "And he [Andrew] brought him [Andrew's brother] to Jesus. And when Jesus beheld him, He said, 'Thou art Simon, the son of Jona: thou shalt be called Cephas which is by interpretation, A stone." (KJV)
(Note, these are practically the same words as Matthew 16:17-18 -- "And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but My Father which is in heaven. And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it." (KJV)
The biblical case for not being Catholic
THE GOSPEL
God created a perfect world!!!
Mankind rejected God broke the relationship and became sinful !!!
God's Response
God came down in human form ( Jesus ) He died for our sins and rose again to give eternal life for those who choose to accept this free gift of grace Accept Jesus as lord and repent of our sins !!! We are saved by grace through faith ( for good works ) How ?
We are saved by grace through faith Filled with the holy spirit Our minds are renewed so we want to please god We do good works out of love in response to god's love and grace I have never heard the gospel from a Catholic in 60 years God bless !!!
I am astonished at several popular biblical teachings that are not found in the Bible! Ezekiel 18 : 20 says clearly that the soul can die and Jesus taught the same thing in Matthew 10 : 28. And Genesis 1 : 27 and Genesis 2 : 7 Clearly teaches that both male and female are created in the image of God. Dust plus God's breath of life = a living soul. Noe well a living soul Not an immortal soul. That we received when Jesus returns. See 1 Corinthians 15 : 51 - 58. Infact please the whole chapter 🙏! God bless you! Jesus Loves you!
What denomination are you?
Jesus calls you to stop paying Him lip service and fully embrace Him in the Holy Eucharist.
I enjoyed the conversation but I have some questions. If the Virgin Mary is the woman of Revelation 12 when did she got wings of a great eagle that she might fly into the wilderness? ( Revelation 12 : 14 ). And Revelation 12 : 17 says that the Remnant of her seed keeps the commandments of God and have the testimony of Jesus Christ. So why doesn't the catholic church teaches and practice the 10 commandments of God as written in the Bible including the 7th day Sabbath taught in the Bible from Genesis to Revelation? And it was the habit/ custom of Jesus Christ the Son of God Himself. See Luke 4 : 16!
May God be with you as you / we continue to search the Holy Word 🙏 of God! In Jesus Most Precious and Most Wonderful name way way Way above All other names Amen 🙏 Amen 🙏 Amen 🙏 Amen amen!!!!!!!
Revelation is BOTH literal and figurative. We hold fast to the 10 commandments. There are TWO lists, And they are NOT numbered. The content is the same.
Saint John is identified by the image of the eagle, and it is in Saint John’s gospel that we hear Our Lord refer to His mother as “woman” (wedding feast and at the cross). The wilderness could be some of her time with Saint John while he was writing his gospel (possibly in hiding from persecution) , but also could be something else.
Protestants changed the Ten Commandments (particularly the second) Catholics observed the same commandments as the Jews with exception to the Jewish first which is not actually a commandment. You should be able to google them all three sided by side.
Best as I can tell the sabbath is simply the lords day and required to be observed every 7th day. Allthough this was typically observed on Saturday, I don’t believe there is anything (outside of Jewish tradition) that requires it on Saturday. The resurrection (Easter Sunday)changed the focus from creation to the salvation of creation.
Hope this was helpful, peace
Doesn’t the Catholic Church teach and believe that you cannot be a Christian outside the R C church. That only those baptised in the Catholic Church are Christians.
Nulla sallus extra ecclisiam.
Look it up for the full meaning
The Church has ruled that those validly baptized are in an "imperfect communion" with the Catholic Church. Many fundamentalist/evangelical sects now reject water baptism. The "reformation" greatly complicated Christianity.
No. It does not. As long as the non-Catholic Christian ecclesial community has the same belief in God [i. e. that God is both one (in essence) and three (in person)], and the same belief in Jesus [i. e. that Jesus Christ is both fully divine (the Divine Logos) and fully human (he has a fully human soul.and a fully human body)], AND baptizes with water (not fruit juice, not soda, not anything else) and with the formula, "I baptize you in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit", then the Catholic Church accepts your baptism as valid, and considers, as one of the other commenters has stated, you in "imperfect communion" with the Catholic Church. As an example, the Catholic Church accepts the baptisms of Baptists, Methodists, Anglicans, eastern Orthodox, Presbyterians and most other Protestant denominations as valid because they fulfill the above conditions. It rejects the baptisms of, for example, Jehovah's Witnesses and Mormons because their beliefs regarding the nature of God and the nature of Jesus Christ are not orthodox or traditional and are not, therefore Christian ecclesial. communities.
All who are legitimately baptized are baptized into one Body of Christ (one Church) the degree of participation is not the same for all, but we are all called to perfection which can only be found in the fullness of the Catholic Church.
Thanks for these responses 👍
Which Catholic Church there are 23 different kinds of Catholic Churches!
They are all One Holy Catholic Church, each with a different and legitimate Rites or "practices. All their sacraments are valid .
All of them are in Union with the Bishop of Rome ( the Pope and the Magisterium of the Church )
1 pope
Uhh……no. This is not the view of the Church in Acts nor is it the view of any of the early Christians. Even the Eastern Fathers and councils said there is no Church unless it is unity with Rome.
Are you trolling? We have a cure for that.
Jesus chose Judas and he betrayed Him. Peter He chose as the head of the Church and Peter denied Jesus 3 times. How can anyone believe that the Church is not the true Church because of any scandals within. We are humans tempted by the devil. Jesus told us the gates of hell would not prevail the Church.
We don't use Bible cases 🤓
There is no Biblical or exegetical evidence for infallible Papism. The Bishop of Rome is one amongst others, not one above all. Sure, there are head Patriarchs, but in Orthodoxy, none claim to be equal in deliberative authority with God. The historicity of the Apostolic Church affirms the Orthodox Church, not Roman Papal Catholicism.
Well … I’m 15 minutes into a 1-hour video, and I don’t hear anything CLOSE to a clear, compelling case for Roman Catholicism … unless you interpret everything in an idiosyncratic way.
That’s circular reasoning. I’m out.
buh bye
Catholic Church may have started well... but so did the Church of Ephesus in Revelation.
So Catholics come back to your first Love.
there is no case for the rcc.
Bibllical case? The word catholic is nowhere to be found in scripture. I know, not everything has to be in scripture. That's why the Mormon, Jehovah's witnesses, Muslims are safe too. Joseph Smith and his golden tablets can't be disproved. Neither can their added revelation from God. Hey Catholic church, that's real good theology. Glad you made it safe for everyone's beliefs.
Neither can you find the word, Protestant in the bible. Same with Trinity, incarnation, bible, etc. and yet you accept these terms that were coined by the Catholic Church! 😄
@@mayannsteinbeisser5228 well first of all we are not foolish enough to says something is in the bible when we know it's not. Your church doesn't care. The church's favourite defense? "Not everything has to be in the bible." And of course it's claim that it has sole authority to interpret scripture. That is contrary to what scripture says. As a matter of fact, contrary to what Peter says.
@@rbnmnt3341 because aside from the bible, the CatholicChurch also has Sacred Tradition as well as the Magisterium as sources of our faith. If the bible had never been written, the Catholic Church would continue to exist because the other pillars of the faith would sustain it. I can’t say the same for Protestant churches…
Have you come across 1 Tim 3:15 that says the “pillar and foundation of truth” is the Church? So I wouldn’t be quick to dismiss or cast aspersions on the Church founded by Jesus if I were you.
@@mayannsteinbeisser5228 repetition of propaganda gets you nowhere. A lie is a lie, is a lie, is lie. If there had never been a bible? I bet Catholics would love that. Nothing to prove them wrong. You are foolish. The church would exist with or without the bible and with or without Catholicism.
The church that Christ built is not the Roman Catholic church. Scripture does not support that lie. THE CHURCH is comprised of the worldwide body of believers. When Christ returns he is not coming for the Catholic, Protestant or any other church. He is coming for believers, his believers. And there is no such thing as a magisterium. Jesus prayed to his Father who sent the Holy Spirit. It is the Holy Spirit who would teach us ALL things and bring all things to our remembrance. Jesus said nothing about a magisterium. Rome did.
As far as the church that Christ built. Jesus, being Jewish, of a JEWISH mother , with Jewish apostles DID NOT build a ROMAN catholic church. Would your pope build a Protestant, Mormon or any other church?
There is absolutely no biblical proof that Jesus, Peter, Mary or the apostles EVER believed, taught or practiced ANYTHING Roman Catholic. You should read Peter's epistles for proof. And Mary? Well to begin with she did not baptize Jesus as an infant. Then she offered a DIN sacrifice for herself. Do you know why? I can surely enlighten you with scripture. So stop listening to the lies. Read the bible and listen to God. In reading scripture you will find that because of scripture, Catholicism does not exist. At least not biblically.
There is no biblical case for Catholicism. Not anywhere in scripture. Not a hint from Jesus, Peter or any of the other apostles or Mary. Not one shred of evidence that they EVER believed, taught or practiced ANYTHING Roman Catholic doctrines, teachings, etc.
LOL.
When you say/write, "The Best Biblical Case for the Catholic Church" do you mean the best argument/case demonstrating that it is a legitimate, authentic church (among several), or the best argument/case demonstrating that it does not err in any of its doctrines/dogmas? Something else?
If I were to write "The Best Biblical Case for the moon," I could mean many different things. It is an ambiguous claim. Precisely what do you mean by the claim?
Go back to AD 33, then work your way forward. One Church. They split in the 11th century, but doctrines remain essentially the same and talks are on-going for unity. 500 years later, it went crazy.
Why not listen?
@lines203 wrote 'why not listen?'
I did listen. I didn't hear a 'case' nor could I tell what it was 'for' if it was present.
Why not answer the question?
@@HAL9000-su1mz writes: "Go back to AD 33, then work your way forward"
Yes, I am familiar with the history.
"One Church."
That is not a sentence.
"They split in the 11th century...."
It seems like perhaps it is you who needs to go back and then work forward. To pretend that there was some kind of unified church with no splits until the 11th century is just false on its face. Yes, there was a tremendous split often localized to that period, but there were several other serious ones prior to and after that. They continue to this day and, in many cases, are a result of Rome's aberrations.
"but doctrines remain essentially the same...."
That is completely false. We do not find many key doctrines that are presently required in Roman Catholicism in Scripture or in the early Church, including:
Papal Supremacy
Papal Infallibility
Mary's Assumption
Immaculate Conception
Purgatory
Rome being the One True Church
Etc.
These developed over many centuries. Apologists attempt to inject these back in to Scripture or the history, but an honest, objective study of either clearly denies this.
@@philoalethia How could anyone ask what does the title of this video means, after listening to the arguments presented in it? If you have doubts, it has to be, not because the video leaves anything to anyone's doubt, but because you were watching the video thinking how to find a way to refute it. And this is one of the reasons that made me return to the Cathlolic Church after I left, back in the 90's: That I saw how utterly incapable Protestants are of really listening and reasoning the arguments presented to them.
Guys, Jesus never prayed for UNITY! HE prayed for ONENESS. There is a difference
The Trinity is not a unity. It is ONE
Semantics. Can we not "divine" the intent?
Dear @jeromepopiel388, maybe you have something there. We know that from the Hebrew Schema "The Lord is One" and the New Testament revelation is that the Name of God is the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit (Matthew 28:19). So Trinity is One and three.
It is probable that Jesus spoke in Aramaic after the Last Supper, so his prayer for unity may be One in the same sense as the Hebrew word "Achad" means "One."
Is it the same meaning that Paul means when he writes that "though we are many" we are "one body" ("hen soma") because we partake of the "one loaf" ("henos artou") (1 Corinthians 10:17)? Perhaps yes, because that loaf is the Eucharistic, Risen Body of our Lord and Savior.
Does it work with Ephesians 4:3-6? "...being diligent to keep the oneness ("henoteta") of the Spirit in the bond of peace; One Body ("hen soma") and One Spirit ("hen Pneuma"); just as you were called into a single ("mia") hope at your calling; One Lord ("heis Kurios"), a single ("mis") faith, One Baptism ("hen Baptisma"); One God ("heis Theos") and Father, Who is over all, and through all, and in all."
And yes, John 17:21-23 clinches it. Jesus prays "...so that all may be one ("hen"), just as You, Father, in Me and I in You, so that they may be in Us, so that the world may believe You sent Me. And I have given them the Glory which You have given to Me, so that they may be One ("hen") just as We are One ("hen") -- I in them and You in Me -- so that they may be perfected into One ("hen"), so that the world may know that You sent Me, and You loved them, just as You loved Me."
(You may read the passages in the KJV. I was looking at the Greek on Bible Hub.com, so that I could see which Greek word was being translated into the English word "one".)
Dear@@HAL9000-su1mz, in this case, it's a rather clever semantics, because it explains how we can be so different from the other Catholic churches and still be One in the Catholic Church.
God's family is not universal, the devil's family is which is why you are entering the wide gate for you do not understand what God's children were predestined to become! Repent and obey the gospel before it's to late for you and your followers of Babylon!
Luke 9:23 KJV ¶And he said to them all, If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross daily, and follow me.
John 14:6 KJV Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.
Ephesians 5:25-27 KJV Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it; (her) 26. That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word, 27. That he might present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish.
Who says “We believe the Bible, but there are other things too”? Muslims, Mormons, SDAs, JWs, Buddhists, Orthodoxs….and Catholics 😬 it isn’t so hard that the Word of God needs no new revelation or dogmas to become true.
I’d just like to point out that the rest of the denominations out there, 1000s in fact, claim bible alone and have various views on a multitude of topics, so apparently it’s not that simple.
Sola Scriptura and Sola Fide and Once Saved Always Saved are new dogmas.
Every author and writer of the New Testament books was a card-carrying Catholic and it was this Church who even compiled the Bible. The Church was in operation long before we had a Bible. The Bible came from the Church and not the other way around.
@@frekigeri4317 doctrinal differences for sure, but do any have dogmas, or extra Biblical writing that require belief for salvation. Easily, no.
@@fantasia55 no Christian denominations require a belief in anything you are talking about to be saved. The are not dogmas. They are interesting expositions of scripture, bit not dogmatic beliefs required for salvation.
To be complaining about disunity among others while it is the dogmas and actions of your own church that caused and perpetuate that disunity is really quite amazing.
Um...NONSENSE. Dogma is revealed truth that is declared - set in stone - ONLY to shut heresy down. Like Chemotherapy nuking a malignant tumor. Your reply demonstrates the need for Dogma! And as to behavior, let's examine you with a microscope! SINNER? Yup.
No. The disunity comes from the pride of men. "My personal interpretations are right and yours are wrong."
Rather, the human EGO is the cause of disunity. Always and everywhere. Submission to the Holy Spirit leads to peace and unity - always and everywhere.
Catholic church is one
Jesus started Catholic church. Take RCIA
There is no rational biblical case for the CC. Your Barbaric history proves it.
So because there have been sinful people (wolves among sheep, tares among wheat, etc) in the church, that disproves the whole church? You do know there were also many violent actions taken by the reformers against Catholics as well, right? Neither was right to do so but we can't be so ignorant to think it was just one-sided.
LOL! You meant to say the barbaric history of the protestants. You forget how many thousands or hundreds of thousands of Catholics were killed in the religious and social upheavals caused by Luther. Look at the bloody history of the great Henry VIII or his daughter Catherine. How about the 1M impoverished Catholic Christians who died of starvation in the perfect storm of the potato famine brought on by the British protestant oppression of Catholicism in Ireland. Why do you think so many Irish were forced to emigrate to the USA or starve to death thanks to protestants. Get real!
@@Spiritof76Catholic”those weren’t real Protestants err Christians either.” Protestants oddly make the same excuses communists do, “those weren’t real communists, if we had the power it would be different” and it never is, like ever.
Who could forget Queen Elizabeth 1
Such a cordial monarch.
Or the protestant supported south during the civil war. Oh good times... Not 650; 000
@@iggyantiochYou are such hypocrites. You can't justify that with that argument.
When Queen Mary the 1st reigned in the UK and declared the Catholic faith as the main religion. What did CC start doing to those who didn't agree with their Dogma? Could you show where the apostles thought that was a good method to keep the dissenter on the pews if you can? The CC reaped what it sowed, read the state legislation from 1401 for burning heretics. Brought in by a predominantly catholic parliament. King Henry V111 died a catholic even after all the persecution he put Catholics through.
Best biblical case? Any reader of scripture, one who has never been exposed to any sort of religion, could read the entire scripture, would not come to the conclusion that Catholicism exists according to scripture. Two other points. Where in this scripture, the bible does it say that Jesus, Mary or any of the apostles EVER believed, taught or practiced ANYTHING Roman Catholic? The last point is this. Jesus, being a Jew, of a Jewish mother, with Jewish apostles, DID NOT build a Roman Catholic church. That is like saying that the bible built a protestant church. Tell me , is that something the pope would do. Jesus and the apostles, Mary included, were not Catholic as you so falsely vlaim furthermore, is there is no account of any single or mass conversion of the aforementioned Jesus and his mother and followers. They weren't and didn't become Catholic just because the church claims or adopted them. Mary and Peter's actions alone is proof that they were never Catholic. You could not tell it by Peter's epistles. And Mary? One simple question. If she was Catholic, why didn't she baptize Jesus as an infant?
Any objective reader of the bible would and should conclude that it leans or supports protestant Christianity and it's beliefs, teaching, theology and not Catholicism. 😅
Then please explain why ALL Bible believing people receive their rule of faith, the Bible, from her, the Bride of Christ…
History shows us that Jesus didn't leave us a bible, the apostles didn't tell us which books belong in the bible, the church fathers never agreed on the 27 books of the NT through the 4th century, not only did they not agree but their individual lists of would-be NT canons were GROWING during this time, growing in numbers of hundreds of “inspired” NT writings. So, if it wasn't the Catholic/Orthodox church that compiled the 27 books of the NT in the 5th century with the guidance of the Holy Spirit, and preserved it by laboriously hand copying them over and over throughout the centuries before the invention of the printing press, the “rule of faith” for many, please tell us, show us, who did? And if this church no longer exists today, what good is the text which came forth from her if she couldn't sustain herself?
Converts to Catholic
Dr Gavin Ashenden the Queens Chaplin
Dr James Whites sister converted to Catholic
Dr. Scott Hahn Protestant to Catholic convert
Dr David Anders Protestant to Catholic convert
Dr. John Bergsma Protestant to Catholic convert
Dr Thomas Howard Protestant to Catholic
Dr Thomas Scheck Protestant to Catholic
Dr Ian Murphy Protestant to Catholic convert
Dr Doug Beaumont Protestant to Catholic
Dr Frank Hermann Baptist to Catholic
Candace Owens Evangelical to Catholic
Joe Heschmeyer JD Protestant to Catholic
Dr. Francis Beckwith Protestant to Catholic
Edith Stein Jewish to Catholic convert
Rabbi Israeli Zolli Jewish to Catholic convert
Dr Charles Spivak atheist to Catholic convert
Dr. Dawn Goldstein Jewish to Catholic convert
Dr Ray Guarendi revert from Evangelical
Dr Ronda Chervin Jewish Atheist to Catholic
Dr Robin Pierucci Jewish to Catholic
Dr Ross Porter Presbyterian to Catholic
Dr Richard Smith Anglican to Catholic
Dr Richard Sherlock Mormon to Catholic
Dr James Prothro Protestant to Catholic
Dr Justus Hunter Methodist to Catholic
Dr John Gresham Assembly of God • Catholic
Dr John Haas Episcopalian • Catholic
Dr. Jeff Schwehm JW to Catholic convert
Dr Peter Williamson Protestant Catholic convert
Dr Peter Kreeft Protestant to Catholic convert
Dr Petroc Willey Evangelical to Catholic
Dr Paul Young Protestant to Catholic
Dr Paul Thigpen Pentecostal to Catholic
Dr Paul Williams Buddhist to Catholic
Dr Pamela Hollins Baptist to Catholic
Dr. Ken Craycraft C of C to Catholic convert
Dr. Kenneth Howell Protestant to Catholic.
Dr Kevin Vost atheist to Catholic convert
Dr Taylor Marshall Protestant to Catholic
Dr Mathew Cabeen Evangelical to Catholic
Dr Matthew Thomas Protestant to Catholic
Dr Mary Burchard Protestant to Catholic convert
Dr. Bev. Whelton seven day Adventist • Catholic
Dr David Hall Protestant to Catholic convert
Dr Ryan Messmore Protestant to Catholic
Dr Ryan Topping Protestant to Catholic
Dr Jim Shelton Episcopalian to Catholic
Dr Annie Bullock Baptist to Catholic convert
Dr Allen Hunt Methodist to Catholic
Dr Ben Lewis Protestant to Catholic convert
Dr. Brant Pitre Protestant to Catholic
Dr. Tim Gregson Protestant • Catholic
Dr Dolores Grier Baptist to Catholic convert
Dr David Mosley Protestant to Catholic convert
Dr Diego Ospina Protestant to Catholic convert
Dr Deal Hudson Baptist to Catholic
Dr. Jason Reed Protestant to Catholic convert
Dr Bill Saunders Protestant to Catholic convert
Steve Ray Protestant to Catholic convert
Tim Staples Protestant to Catholic convert
Ken Hensley Protestant to Catholic convert
St John Henry Newman Catholic convert
Leah Libresco atheist to Catholic
Abby Johnson Planned Parenthood to RCC
Bishop Jonathan Goodall
Bishop Nazir Ali
Bishop Edwin Barnes
Bishop David Silk
Bishop John Broadhurst
Bishop Kieth Newton
Bishop Andrew Burnham
GK Chesterton
Graham Greene
St. Paul
St. Augustine
Ulf Ekman ( the billy Graham of Sweden )
Malcom Muggeridge
All converted to Roman Catholic
Yes, the issue that most don’t realize is that the original new testament was written in greek. In Acts 9:31 it was written as Ekklesia Katholes which is where Catholic Church is derived. Ekklesia = Church, Katholes = universal, throughout the whole, Catholic. All of the writers of the New Testament were Catholic Christians.
Catholic Church” in the Bible
Many people argue that the Catholic Church is not the Church founded by Jesus Christ beginning with Peter and the Apostles. One argument often made is that the phrase “Catholic Church” does not appear within the pages of Scripture.
Aside from the fact that this argument is weak since the words “trinity” and “Bible” are not contained in Holy Writ either, is it really true that the Catholic Church is not named in the Bible? Well, take a look at the following verse from the Acts of the Apostles, and decide for yourself:
Acts 9:31 (Greek)
ἡ μεν ουν εκκλησια καθ᾽ὁλης της ιουδαιας και γαλιλαιας και σαμαρειας ειχεν ειρηνην οικοδομουμενη και πορευομενη τω φοβω του κυριου, και τη παρακλησει του ἁγιου πνευματος επληθυνοντο.
Act 9:31 (Transliteration)
aye men oon ekklaysiaye kath olays tays ioodayeas kaye galilayeas kaye samarayas aycon ayraynayn oikodomoomenaye kaye poryoomenaye tow fobow too kurioo kaye tay paraklaysay too agioo pnyoomatos eplaythunonto
Acts 9:31
So the Church throughout all Judea and Galilee and Samaria had peace and was built up; and walking in the fear of the Lord and in the comfort of the Holy Spirit it was multiplied.
From this text, we can see the Greek word “kath olays” which is rendered “Catholic” in modern English and the word “ekklaysiaye” which becomes “ecclesia” in English and is commonly translated as “church”.
εκκλησια καθ᾽ὁλης = ekklaysiaye kath olays = “the church throughout all” = Catholic Church😂
That's right Christ didnt start the ROMAN Catholic Church He started the Catholic Church
Roman Catholic Church,” The term originates as an insult created by Anglicans who wished to refer to themselves as Catholic. They thus coined the term “Roman Catholic” to distinguish those in union with Rome from themselves and to create a sense in which they could refer to themselves as Catholics (by attempting to deprive actual Catholics to the right to the term).
Different variants of the “Roman” insult appeared at different times. The earliest form was the noun “Romanist” (one belonging to the Catholic Church), which appeared in England about 1515-1525. The next to develop was the adjective “Romish” (similar to something done or believed in the Catholic Church), which appeared around 1525-1535. Next came the noun “Roman Catholic” (one belonging to the Catholic Church), which was coined around 1595-1605. Shortly thereafter came the verb “to Romanize” (to make someone a Catholic or to become a Catholic), which appeared around 1600-10. Between 1665 and 1675 we got the noun “Romanism” (the system of Catholic beliefs and practices), and finally we got a latecomer term about 1815-1825, the noun “Roman Catholicism,” a synonym for the earlier “Romanism.”
A similar complex of insults arose around “pope.” About 1515-25 the Anglicans coined the term “papist” and later its derivative “papism.” A quick follow-up, in 1520-1530, was the adjective “popish.” Next came “popery” (1525-1535), then “papistry” (1540-1550), with its later derivatives, “papistical” and “papistic.” (Source: Random House Webster’s College Dictionary, 1995 ed.)
This complex of insults is revealing as it shows the depths of animosity English Protestants had toward the Church. No other religious body (perhaps no other group at all, even national or racial) has such a complex of insults against it woven into the English language as does the Catholic Church. Even today many Protestants who have no idea what the origin of the term is cannot bring themselves to say “Catholic” without qualifying it or replacing it with an insult.😆