Just to clarify something, since I've already seen responses to this video criticizing me for acting as if all Protestants were equally guilty on these six points, check out the 2:45 mark where I say, “In terms of ‘Protestants,’ I’m going to explain as we go WHICH Protestants I see this applying to, but frankly, if you’re a Protestant listener, you’re in a better position than I am to judge whether you would agree with either side of these controversies.” So if some of this doesn't apply to you, that's great!
The Restoration of the Fulness of the Gospel of Jesus Christ A Bicentennial Proclamation to the World The First Presidency and Council of the Twelve Apostles of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints This proclamation was read by the Prophet, Seer, Revelator and Church President Russell M. Nelson as part of his message at the 190th Annual General Conference, April 5, 2020, in Salt Lake City, Utah. We solemnly proclaim that God loves His children in every nation of the world. God the Father has given us the divine birth, the incomparable life, and the infinite atoning sacrifice of His Beloved Son, Jesus Christ. By the power of the Father, Jesus rose again and gained the victory over death. He is our Savior, our Exemplar, and our Redeemer. Two hundred years ago, on a beautiful spring morning in 1820, young Joseph Smith, seeking to know which church to join, went into the woods to pray near his home in upstate New York, USA. He had questions regarding the salvation of his soul and trusted that God would direct him. In humility, we declare that in answer to his prayer, God the Father and His Son, Jesus Christ, appeared to Joseph and inaugurated the “restitution of all things” (Acts 3:21) as foretold in the Bible. In this vision, he learned that following the death of the original Apostles, Christ’s New Testament Church was lost from the earth. Joseph would be instrumental in its return. We affirm that under the direction of the Father and the Son, heavenly messengers came to instruct Joseph and re-establish the Church of Jesus Christ. The resurrected John the Baptist restored the authority to baptize by immersion for the remission of sins. Three of the original twelve Apostles-Peter, James, and John-restored the apostleship and keys of priesthood authority. Others came as well, including Elijah, who restored the authority to join families together forever in eternal relationships that transcend death. We further witness that Joseph Smith was given the gift and power of God to translate an ancient record: the Book of Mormon-Another Testament of Jesus Christ. Pages of this sacred text include an account of the personal ministry of Jesus Christ among people in the Western Hemisphere soon after His Resurrection. It teaches of life’s purpose and explains the doctrine of Christ, which is central to that purpose. As a companion scripture to the Bible, the Book of Mormon testifies that all human beings are sons and daughters of a loving Father in Heaven, that He has a divine plan for our lives, and that His Son, Jesus Christ, speaks today as well as in days of old. We declare that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, organized on April 6, 1830, is Christ’s New Testament Church restored. This Church is anchored in the perfect life of its chief cornerstone, Jesus Christ, and in His infinite Atonement and literal Resurrection. Jesus Christ has once again called Apostles and has given them priesthood authority. He invites all of us to come unto Him and His Church, to receive the Holy Ghost, the ordinances of salvation, and to gain enduring joy. Two hundred years have now elapsed since this Restoration was initiated by God the Father and His Beloved Son, Jesus Christ. Millions throughout the world have embraced a knowledge of these prophesied events. We gladly declare that the promised Restoration goes forward through continuing revelation. The earth will never again be the same, as God will “gather together in one all things in Christ” (Ephesians 1:10). With reverence and gratitude, we as His Apostles invite all to know-as we do-that the heavens are open. We affirm that God is making known His will for His beloved sons and daughters. We testify that those who prayerfully study the message of the Restoration and act in faith will be blessed to gain their own witness of its divinity and of its purpose to prepare the world for the promised Second Coming of our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ.
I'm so blessed I am practicing the faith that was started from the early traditions and early fathers and early Christians. I don't think after 1500 years they got it wrong. I am sorry Martin Luther if you wanted to reform something that's up to you but I can't believe people do not realize that he is not following the traditions of true Christianity. Great job Joe! Also I'm so tired of Protestants saying that the Catholics changed the Bible. The reformer Martin Luther took out 7 books that did not go with his philosophy or felt were inspired. Catholics did not.
My husband had so many John McArthur sermons on cd. He was a fan. He went to a church where the pastor was a student of John McArthur. They sold antiCatholic books in the gift shop. Many McArthur books lined the shelves. . I give credit to John McArthur for making me a stronger Catholic. I learned and shared what I learned to counter McArthurs' ideas on the Catholic church. My husband went through RCIA and entered the church last year❤
I think it's a shame that so many churches and preachers are anti-Catholic in their messages and publications. I think anyone identifying as "protestant" has a serious heart problem and needs to re-read Paul's letters to the Corinthians.
As my wife and I are going through RCIA, one of the biggest reasons is the Eucharist. I spent several years now reading church fathers on that subject and the evidence for it being the flesh and blood of our Lord is overwhelming. One of the most unsettling sights to me recently was how the elements were treated when we visited the Southern Baptist church where my wife's family attends, for their Christmas eve service. The communion elements were the pre-packaged ones, and were left in giant rubbermaid tubs by the doors of the church to take or leave as you please. It seemed at the time and does today, to be almost blasphemous, if there is any kind of a real presence. (I understand most southern baptists would deny the real presence). Is this how we are to treat our Lord?
YES! No respect or understanding for the depth and meaning of the Eucharist. Not to mention the fact that the Eucharist is prominent in the Didache from 70AD. If there is no Eucharist there is no worship; it’s that simple. The prots completely washed out all the mystical and supernatural components of Christianity , all of which are essential for worship. Preaching, teaching, prayer, and scripture reading are not worship
It’s wonderful to see you come to this understanding, thanks be to God. The vessels used for the Body and Blood of Our Lord are sacred. The manner and motions used by the priest before and after communion are prescribed. One issue in our Church is that some Catholics are divided on receiving on the tongue vs on the hand believing that receiving in the hand lacks reverence, but if the Bishop allows it, it is permitted. As you grow in the church, follow guidance and talk to your parish priest or other priests about any concerns. The sad fact is that many Catholics don’t know their faith and we have work to do on catechesis. God bless you!
When I became a Christian from being an atheist about 10 years ago; when I decided to pick a Christian group or sect or denomination to join I first just started going to a Protestant church because I did not know the difference between different groups. But when I examined the evidence of the early Church I converted to Catholicism. When I looked at the New Testament I saw that Jesus Christ made 3 predictions about his church. And these three predictions are the predictions that made me believe in the Bible in the first place. If Jesus was not a real person or if he was not really resurrected from the dead, then these predictions would have never come true. But these are the 3 predictions Christ makes: Prediction 1. Christ said that his church would be persecuted and its members would be killed. Now that was a ridiculous prediction in the Roman empire which was religiously tolerant. They did not target people and kill them for religious reasons. Why would they kill the followers of someone who promotes peace? Prediction 2. Jesus said that his church would be unified. He said there would be a church that could be considered as "one" that was unified in love and unified in doctrine. And Paul reiterates that in saying that the church has to agree on everything and that people should not be tossed to and fro with every wind of doctrine. The New Testament clearly references one Church not a multiple set of churches with contradicting doctrines. Prediction 3. Jesus also said that his church would go to all nations. If Jesus was just a normal human who died like all of the other people who started religious movements, then this again is a ridiculous claim. Any one of these could have come true by accident but it was impossible for me to believe that all of these happened by accident. In light of other evidence that I always viewed as intriguing but sketchy - - like the fact that the universe had a beginning, and the universe seems intricately designed, plus the fact that the basic living cell is also extremely intricate and could not have come about by accident in the time frame that the universe has existed - - All of these things made me wonder about my atheism. But the predictions made in the Old Testament that seem to come true in the New Testament made it even more intriguing. But even those predictions could have been contrived by the New Testament writers if they tried hard enough. But when you add all of that to the predictions that Jesus made about the future; I saw that Jesus predictions did come true. And that was the final nail in the coffin of my atheism. Everything that Jesus predicted about the Church happened! But when you look at the church and see which one it was that did all of these 3 things Christ predicted, which one was it? What church was it in which its leaders and bishops were targeted by the Romans and executed? Men like Clement of Rome; Ignatius of Antioch, and Polycarp of Smyrna? It was the Catholic Church that this happened to. And which church was it that somehow stayed unified through all of these heresies? Which church was it that held the Council of Nicaea in 325 AD, and Constantinople in 381 AD, then Ephesus in 431 AD and Chalcedon in 451 AD? In these Councils and others we see the church decipher core doctrines like the Trinity, the two natures of Christ existing in one person, and the development of the New Testament Canon? What church was it that did all of these things? It was obviously the Catholic Church. There was no group or church back then that believed in forensic justification + sola scriptura + a priesthood of all believers SEPARATE and in exclusion of a ministerial priesthood. Not only was there not a church taught those things; there was not one early church Father who taught forensic justification + sola scriptura + a priesthood of all believers to the exclusion of a ministerial priesthood. One can go through the Fathers' quotes and find lines that might seem to support one of these doctrines; but for each one that does you can find other comments that go directly against them. Plus, the more important part is no one taught all 3 of those. For someone like me who knew nothing about religion; when I looked at early Christianity the only church that remotely comes close to meeting the predictions that Jesus made was the Catholic Church. Then what church was it that grew to go to all nations over the next 800 years? It was obviously the Catholic Church. There was no other Church that can make that claim. It was the Catholic Church with a Bishop of Rome at the helm that went to all nations. And so, to me it was the Catholic Church that clearly met all of these predictions. And I wondered why so many Catholic apologists did not point this out more often. But then I found Joe's work, and his work completely details how the early Church was the Catholic Church. I went to Rome in 2019 with Catholic Answers and I told Chris Check he should hire Joe Heschmeyer because I had read all of Joe's blog posts on his blog (also called Shameless Popery). Now I am sure that is not the reason that he eventually went to work for Catholic Answers because Christ Check said that he knew about Joe and would love to hire him. And I am glad it finally happened. I so appreciate Joe's work because he puts the emphasis on the right evidence for the Catholic Church. The early Church that did all of the things that Jesus predicted is the Catholic Church. If the Catholic Church is not true, then I don't know how Christianity can be true. If Catholicism is not true then that means that Christ started a church and then right of the bat, or at least very, very early it started to fail when it developed its ecclesiology (Church structure with the Bishop of Rome guiding a college of Bishops and with a monoepiscopacy throughout the Roman empire), its doctrine of the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist, and its doctrine of regenerative baptism. These doctrines developed quickly if not immediately and it was this church that did all of the things that Christ predicted. And so if this early Catholic Church was not true then that means that Christ started a church that quickly started teaching false doctrines along with the core doctrines like the Trinity and Doctrine of the Incarnation. But then for some reason no one corrected them until the 1500's came along. How could that make any sense whatsoever? Why would Christ say he would build a church that the gates of hades would not prevail against and then let the primary church that everyone can see in history become a false Church, and then leave it that way for 1500 years? How can that make any sense whatsoever? And then when the 1500's come along and the supposed corrections came; none of those corrected versions could agree on what the real truth was. Luther thought it was his way; Zwingli thought it was his way; Calvin thought it was his way; Menno Simons thought it was his way. John Smith came along and thought that no one had the truth and so HE BAPTIZED HIMSELF and started the Baptist Church. And so, if the Catholic Church that had existed for the first 1500 years was wrong; then which of these new "churches" would one choose? They had totally contradicting doctrines. How could one possibly choose? That is why I am Catholic and that is why I appreciate Joe's work so much. He slowly and deliberately goes through and gives the evidence for Catholicism. I highly recommend Joe's books "Pope Peter" and "The Early Church Was Catholic." If there is evidence that goes against the evidence Joe presents in those books then I would like to see a Protestant scholar go through them point by point and refute them. But no one has. Keep up the good work Joe, I am a supporter.
Another one gone astray I am afraid. You have turned your back on Jesus and have demoted and deminished Him and His status and power as God to one of many = saints, Mary, piece of bread, cup of wine, penance, confession to a priest, a rosary ! You have added all these empty useless rituals and things to Jesus so have made Him null and void and useless. Maybe you were not really born again. Maybe the Protestant church you attended was a poor one, maybe you just feel more pious in a Catholic Church because of the ritual and robes and furnishings - you really have to figure all this out. But the CatholicChurch does not preach the truth
The more I study church history, the more I find the Catholic Church. What I want most is for our Church to remember who we are, rather than being lukewarm in the world these days.
There is only One True Church that Jesus founded Matt 16 18-19 that codified the bible in 382 from which pope Luther removed 7 books under whose authority Deut 4:2
@@geoffjsThe Apocrypha WAS NOT CANON IN THE FOURTH CENTURY. It was included in the bible but had its own separate section. It wasn't till the 16th century that the Pope decided it was canon after all and mixed it in with Canon scripture. Spare me.
@@geoffjsSo Geo, Paul speaks of Christ as the Rock and Cornerstone of the church and the Roman church tells us Peter is the rock/cornerstone. Who's right? Paul or the Papacy? They can't both be the Rock/cornerstone. A building only needs ONE cornerstone.
Excellent review and analysis. Thank you very much. I was a Jewish college student 50 years ago and was assigned to write a paper on the messianic promise. Extensive study for that paper brought me to Christianity. Extensive study of Christianity brought me to the Catholic Church 48 years ago, for many of the same reasons you have explained. I was amazed at how Protestant ministers could extol the virtues of Saint Augustine, thinking that he would support their views, while believing in a completely different faith than what St Augustine defended. The Reformation and Protestantism was in fact a completely new type of Christianity unknown prior to the Reformation. It would in fact be unrecognizable to the early church.
The reformation was not a mistake. Augustine imported many things into Christianity that are foreign to the Christianity of scripture. Calvinism/Reformed Theology is founded on the writings of Augustine, and show the same errors as Augustine. If Augustine had been Bishop 50 years earlier, he would have been deposed as a heretic.
@@Richard-e5m Sorry but you are wrong. Augustine was obedient to the church.“Rome has spoken the matter is ended.” Despite his prominence the church has not accepted everything that Augustine said.
@@frankrosenbloom That's risible. Augustine was a spiritual deviant who imported a lot of Gnostic nonsense into his theology. Calvin admitted his prime source was Augustine, and Augustine's Manicheism affected his theology. 50 years earlier, Augustine would have been put out of teh Church for his heresies. So, go right ahead and claim Augustine. You can get in line with Persian Gnostics Just as Calvin did.
As an Italian-American, the specific calling out of “the third basemen is saying he’s an Italian Roman Catholic.” Feels very much like saying the quiet part out loud for a lot of American Protestants
I found that comment kinda funny. My favorite team has Catholics who do the sign of the cross before and after they do most of their stuff, especially the pitcher after a strikeout and a runner across home. Obviously they’re offering their praise and thanks to God, which is a good thing to do. Seems like since Protestants don’t have a similar action they can do (in the sense of a quick, semi-public showing of their faith), they have to dunk on those who do.
Italian American here too. That guy is an idiot and that was the lamest excuse for not making the sign of the Cross I’ve ever heard. I’m proud every time I see a ball player do that. Catholic loud and proud!
@@maryloomis8075 Catholics kneel and make the sign of the Cross'' You know, it's funny about that. I know mafia bosses and their henchmen who do the sign of the cross as well. Most of the drug cartels are also very religious, they also do the sign of the cross, from the bosses on down. And all of them get absolution every Sunday Mass. Then they go out and kill, exploit, cheat, lie, steal, maim and oppress all over again the following week. Call me cynical, but I would imagine Christ being rather insulted by that. You are right about Protestants though, we don't have any fancy signs, just folded hands, closed eyes and kneeling when we pray. No need to make a show of it.
As a former Protestant, now faithful practicing Catholic, Protestant brothers and sisters please don’t watch this video with anger or to immediately refute it or with a hardened heart towards it. Just take it in, research it further for yourself and most importantly PRAY ON IT!! 🙏🏻 Glory to Jesus Christ!
@@Wgaither1 Anyone who claims to have never sinned is a liar, and anyone who guarantees won't sin again is full of hubris. A faithful, practicing Catholic would avoid doing these things, through the grace granted to us by God, through our faith in Jesus Christ. Does that make sense?
@@Wgaither1 really? You actually think Catholics don't know that we're sinners? What do you think we do at the sacrament of Confession? To whom do you confess your sins?
Even when I looked at Church history from a purely material point of view, I was struck by the illogic, if not dishonest, view Protestants tend have toward Church history. They'd condemn the early Christians for idolatry, having a false Gospel, etc... but turn around and rely on the Scriptures these same people handed down?
Agreed bc an issue such as idolatry is one of the dogmas that can be more clearly supported even w Scripture alone. (The proper religious use of statues vs. improper use, intercession, etc) And so many who troll just. refuse to acknowledge the clear and logical biblical supprort. .. I heard a vid the other day from Bishop Strickland about Protrstants who reject cs those who are sincerely discerning and not automatically rejecting specifically Catholic dogma- After all this time later if they grow up in a Bible belt and aren’t really exposed to Catholicism, that’s different than Catholics who leave or those closed off who have been told. And that leaves it to us the duty to defend the faith and promote truth.
Isn’t that what we all do with the Old Testament? Israel followed after other gods numerous times but we all still rely on the Scriptures they passed down.
The idolatry they were chastising distant churches for were worshipping pagan idols. Those gentiles in the outer periphery were surrounded by pagans … they were themselves pagans who had converted. And they found it hard to completely give up those pagan idols. So Paul and other epistles were to chastise the bishops they left behind for not giving up their old ways completely. Icons in the Catholic Church … statues and paintings of significant figures from the bible or scenes from the bible were done to help illiterate congregants to see and recognize a visual representation of writings they could not read. Those icons also aid those who reflect and pray to God to visualize what they are praying for. Some people need to see what crucifixion to understand just how the Lord suffered. It’s the same reason movies and shows have been made about bible stories. Nobody worships those shows but watching them allows people to understand scripture and the stories within better. And those movies and shows have converted many to Christianity. Shows like Passion of the Christ, Ten Commandments, The Chosen, and others all help bring life to scripture. Jesus himself was a visual teacher … he used imagery for his lessons. Matthew 16:13-18 (RSVCE): Now when Jesus came into the district of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, “Who do men say that the Son of man is?” 14 And they said, “Some say John the Baptist, others say Elijah, and others Jeremiah or one of the prophets.” 15 He said to them, “But who do you say that I am?” 16 Simon Peter replied, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” 17 And Jesus answered him, “Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jona! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven. 18 And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it. Caesarea Philippi was a pagan city and had a large mount upon which pagan idols were put into the mountainside. And a large hole where water that fed the river Jordan was part of it (back then holes with no apparent bottom were thought to be a gateway to hell and this one people threw sacrificed into). So when Jesus said Peter and on this rock I will build my church … it had dual meaning. The apostles could see that large rock of a mountain with pagan idols and people making sacrifices to their pagan gods as well as to Caesar. Christ was telling them he would conquer that rock with his church. And each of the idols that used to occupy that mountain are gone
@@joshuascott5814Actually no, in the old testament they were literally worshiping idols and God kept persuing them because He had made a covenant with them, so we trust God, who inspired their writings and called them to repentance many times. On the other hand, what some protestants do is dismiss the writings of the first christians only becaus they don't like what they wrote, despite the fact that they were giving their lives for their faith, very different
@@joshuascott5814 We don't trust the Scriptures as passed down by heretical groups. See: The Samaritan Torah. Judaism had religion right, even if the common folk all fell away. Those who kept the Scriptures close and kept copies of it knew that idolatry was gravely sinful. Whenever Israel fell away, a Prophet or a devout circle would keep the true religion alive. The contention with the New Testament is that they allege that True Christianity was literally EXTINCT since the late 1st century until the Protestant Reformers came along. Everyone in between had was worse than a Pagan. Very different situation.
My decision to convert was 100% because of the Eucharist. I came to accept and then greatly love and appreciate everything else, but if it weren’t for the Eucharist I highly doubt I would’ve ever been drawn to this faith that is now my whole world
John 6 and the Eucharist are responsible for many conversions to the Faith. There’s nothing wrong with coming into Christ’s Church out of a desire for the greatest intimacy with Him that is possible for human beings.
It is nice, but it was a pity Jesus said he wouldn't be sharing wine until after the kingdom of heaven came. It is a reminder, because the Eucharist would be without Jesus until the kingdom. Was Jesus using his spurs already?
The problem is not that they can’t answer or explain. They can almost always answer and explain, the problem is their answer or explanation does not stand against serious scrutiny logically or theologically.
Excellent! I left Calvinism after 46 years because I had to decide between the gospel presentation of John MacArthur or St Augustine… and it was no contest.
@@ravissary79 I believed that until I actually read Augustine. No reformed church I ever attended would have admitted Augustine to their pulpits… for his ecclesial views alone, much less his sacramental theology. Augustine wasn’t just Catholic, but *Roman* Catholic to the core.
@@henrytucker7189 agreed, but calvinism is exploitly ripped right of the page of late Augustinian soteriology. Luther was an Augustinian monk, and Augustinian justification was his specialty. Calvin referenced Augustine more than any other. Both lutherans and traditional reformed churches are highly liturgical and follow certain sacramental forms that share huge amounts of church DNA with Roman Catholic ideas. Popular neo-calvinists are sort of reformed Baptists so they're pretty different than traditional catholics.
@@ravissary79 I was Anglican before becoming Catholic so I’m well aware of liturgical reformed communities. I also read Calvin’s institutes when I was a teenager, subscribed to table talk and listened to thousands of hours of sermons from ligonier ministries et al. And I say again, not a single one of these churches - even the highly liturgical ones, would ever consider giving a pulpit to Augustine (unless he highly confined his remarks to the doctrines of grace) …nor would he dare mount it unless that church had apostolic credentials. He believed Peter had the keys. He believed in the papacy. He believed in Apostolic succession. Augustine was more Catholic than many Catholics I know! All heresies contain traces of DNA from orthodoxy… that’s what makes them so dangerous. Here is what Augustine wrote on Psalm 11: “Let us then look to the text itself of the Psalm, which to me appears to be sung against the heretics, who, by rehearsing and exaggerating the sins of many in the Church, as if either all or the majority among themselves were righteous, strive to turn and snatch us away from the breasts of the one True Mother Church: affirming that Christ is with them, and warning us as if with piety and earnestness, that by passing over to them we may go over to Christ, whom they falsely declare they have.”
@@ravissary79 Brother, Calvin quoting Augustine doesn't make Calvin an Augustinian. I quote Aristotle all the time and agree with much of his theology. St. Paul himself quoted Aristotle! But I don't agree with all of Aristotle's theology. Some of it, but not all. Similarly, many Protestants like to quote Thomas Aquinas and even John Paul II. Augustine of Hippo would've fit right in a Catholic Church today, but wouldn't be by any measure considered Calvinist. I hope that makes sense.
I love these videos because they help our separated brothers and sisters in faith to explore the profound layers of early Christianity, shedding light on its Catholic roots rather than adhering to Protestant interpretations. Keep up the great work, Joe❤
The church does not have Catholic roots. The Catholic church did not exist until 1054. Prior to that, the church in Rome was one of five apostolic patriarchates. While Catholic apologists almost universally say that the East left the church, that's simply not historically accurate. The patriarch of Rome excommunicated the patriarch of Constantinople and the remaining 3 patriarchates stayed in communion with Constantinople rather than Rome. Thus, it was Rome that split off, not the other churches. The other 4 remained in the same organization that had already existed for a thousand years and became known as the Orthodox church. The Catholic church has a long history for sure, but early Christianity has Orthodox roots not Catholic. It really doesn't matter how supreme and/or infallible you consider the Pope to be. It's simply factually inaccurate to say that early Christianity has Catholic roots. The patriarchates of Jerusalem and Antioch were the original churches, and both of them are Orthodox. Saying the early church has Catholic roots is like saying England has American roots. No. America today is the big superpower as Rome is in the Christian world today. But historically, America separated off from England, not the other way around. And historically Rome split off from the other patriarchates, not the other way around.
Thank you Joe. I started my Christian journey as a Southern Baptist heavily influenced by John McArthur. I've been Catholic now for 18 years. Praise be to God. Keep up the great work! And blessings to you and your family.
How would Sola Scriptura, as it’s practiced today, have worked for populations that were predominantly illiterate and when there was no printing press? There is no way it could have worked in early Christianity so it could not possibly be what Jesus and the apostles intended to leave us.
It didn’t work for the illiterate masses; they learned the Faith through the retelling of Bible stories, recited prayers, hymns and visuals such as statues, icons, Nativity scenes and stained glass window art…but that was all **gasp**”traditions of men”, which was eradicated by reformers, along with the Magisterium. That left just the Bible. But Sola Scriptura was a 14th century invention, and many Protestants today do not even subscribe to it.
Scripture Alone is not literally meant to be "Bible printed on paper" alone. scripture was passed down by oral tradition and so we are instruction by this oral tradition to test any new oral traditions based on what has been taught. It is EXACTLY what was working and what was taught in the days of the apostles as it is written in 2 Timothy 3:14-16 English Standard Version 14 But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have firmly believed, knowing from whom you learned it 15 and how from childhood you have been acquainted with the sacred writings (old testament), which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. 16 All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness
@@zacharyevans8152 So what’s being described in Timothy is Apostolic Succession and Sacred Tradition in conjunction with Holy Scripture: this is what Catholics practice. My understanding is that many Protestants believe in the perspicuity of scripture, meaning the Bible is so clear that people simply need to read the Bible and judge for themselves what it means. There is no way this could have been practiced in early Christianity when most people were illiterate and the Bible hadn’t yet been compiled and organized. Even when it was compiled, it was very expensive to translate and make copies, so it was not possible for everyone to read it for themselves. Also, the notion of perspicuity of scripture wasn’t even practiced by Jewish Rabbis who had different schools of thought and debated what parts of the scrolls meant. And in reality it’s not even practiced today because Protestants constantly fractionate and debate what the Bible means.
I bought your book "The Early Church was the Catholic Church", currently in the Eucharist and the Mass sections. It's very well done. Thank you. I'm using it to help me talk to my Protestant family members. I appreciate you writing it 😊.
The Early church NEVER heard of Catholic doctrine. You cannot find in scripture the Immaculate Conception, Mary as sinless, the Assumption of Mary, prayers to the dead, relics venerated, indulgences, the priesthood or the Pope as an office of the church, purgatory, Sunday sacredness etc. The Early church had nothing in common with the Roman one. You have been misled.
@danielcristancho3524 you do understand that the body of the church (The Way) came before the Bible right? That is what is referred to as Sacred Tradition. Oral teaching by Jesus to the Apostles and to their disciples called Bishops. And that the early church, through Sacred Tradition, identified what books were considered infallible and sacred and then compiled the Bible which they called Sacred Scripture. So the claims you are talking about come from both Sacred Tradition AND Sacred Scripture, interpreted and discerned by the Bishops whom were established by the Apostles and their direct Disciples which we now refer to as the Magisterium (the Holy Catholic Church).
As an Orthodox Christian, I find many of your videos (along with Trent Horn's) to be very informative, entertaining, and insightful. While there are plenty of areas we will disagree on, there are many more places where we find common ground. Please keep up the good work.
Simply brilliant analysis. Quickly becoming my favorite apologist. Joe and Trent are definitely two I can’t wait for their next TH-cam videos to come out.
Dude, I know I am late to the party here, but coming from an Anglican, this really was a genius explanation of things and an awesome presentation. Very much enjoyed.
I subscribed today when your followers are still at 14.1k. I felt that your channel will blow up in the future because this is very insightful but not discriminatory to other denominations. Its straight up facts with references/source. Thank you for all that you do. 💗
@@danielcristancho3524 This is something that's only relevant to a minority of protestants and your are saying it to a Catholic. If you didn't know that, you should educate yourself on the Catholic Church and Church history. The comment is provocative and not helpful.
@@nathanvangoor4979 ''The comment is provocative and not helpful.'' First of all, there were no abusive names or insults, I just stated FACTS. If Biblical facts aren't what Catholics are into, fine, but you don't have to get your panties in a bunch over it. Just ignore me then and pretend I'm talking to someone else because my only purpose is to offer an alternative point of view. It's still a free country, last time I checked.
@@danielcristancho3524 I could state the most profane description of how your parents conceived you and though that would be factual, it would be very inappropriate and insulting. I could be even more inappropriate and link it to theology and respond to any objections with the accusation that you just aren't into theological facts. Unless you think the given example is normal it's clear that 'just stating facts' can be an abuse of truth. Now your "FACT" implies a denial of the initial statement, which provokes and seems to be aimed at creating a conflict. Christians are supposed to be bringers of peace and so any provocation should not be without a very good purpose. You say the purpose was the offer an alternative point of view. This is not a good purpose as this purpose does not mention the good of the other in some form. NB It's not an alternative view, as it's literally in the video.
@@nathanvangoor4979 ''I could state the most profane description of how your parents conceived you and though that would be factual, it would be very inappropriate and insulting.'' Yes, but the point is you would be using profanity, which is inappropriate and insulting, which I did not do. ''I could be even more inappropriate and link it to theology and respond to any objections with the accusation that you just aren't into theological facts. '' How is that insulting OR INAPPROPRIATE?? We're having a disagreement, and you have the right to defend your point. I'm not going to get insulted because you want to defend what you believe. In fact, I'd prefer that to this whinny snowflake attitude.
@@DannyLoydHere you go: Baptism John 3:5 - “Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.” Matthew 28:19 - “Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptising them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit” Confirmation Luke 24:49 - “But stay you in the city of Jerusalem till you be endued with power from on high.” The Eucharist John 6:54 - “Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man, and drink His blood, you shall not have life in you.” Sacrament of Penance [Confession] Psalm 41:4 - “Heal, O Lord, my soul, for I have sinned against Thee.” John 20:22-23 - “And with that he breathed on them and said, ‘Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive anyone’s sins, their sins are forgiven; if you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven.’” Anointing of the Sick [Extrem Unction] James 5:14-15 - “Is any man sick among you? Let him bring in the priests of the church, and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord. And the prayer of faith shall save the sick man, and the Lord shall raise him up, and if he be in sins, they shall be forgiven him.” Matrimony Matthew 19:4-6 - “Haven’t you read,” he replied, “that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,’ and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’? So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore, what God has joined together, let no one separate.” Holy Orders Matthew 10:1 - Jesus called his twelve disciples to him and gave them authority to drive out impure spirits and to heal every disease and sickness. John 20:22-23 - “And with that he breathed on them and said, ‘Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive anyone’s sins, their sins are forgiven; if you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven.’”
I'm a recent convert myself but that's a pretty uncharitable thing to say... Many Protestants are Christian.... They are Brothers and sisters... Hopefully what you meant to say was thank you Joe for helping them come to and see the Fullness* of the faith...
The last minute of this show should be enough to wake up prodestants. They dont have the same faith as the early church. They have something radically different that the apostles would say wasn't Christian at all. Good job, Joe! Love your work ❤
They dont have the same faith as the early church. They have something radically different that the apostles would say wasn't Christian at all. '' I would believe that IF I COULD FIND CATHOLIC DOCTRINES SPELLED OUT IN THE NT. The Immaculate conception, the assumption of Mary or Mary dispensing graces in heaven, Sunday sacredness, the adoration of relics, prayers to the dead, purgatory, the office of Pope or priest, The Apostles giving absolution for sins, indulgences, etc. are NOWHERE IN THE NT. We're not the ones that need to wake up, mam.
@danielcristancho3524 The bible is not just the 4 gospels or the New Testament. It's the entire Bible and you must look at it as a whole to understand it. A Bible verse here and there to prove your point automatically disproves your point because as Peter said about Paul's writings and the bible. They are confusing and and easily twisted by the wicked and the uneducated. You must understand the teachings in the context of the Old Testament Jewish beliefs and the references that are pulled from the Old Testament. The bible isn't a how to make your own church manual. Jesus did not leave us a bible. He left us a church that produced a bible. He never talked about a book. He started a church with Peter and the aposltes and said the gates of hell will not prevail against it. You seem to believe that Jesus either lied or was wrong. If you think that men who literally had the Holy Spirit put into them can fail and that your pastor who lierally started their own church whenever, succeeded, your faith in God is sorely lacking. God cannot fail. He is in control. He knows exactly what's going to happen. Jesus didn't say the gates of hell won't prevail until the 1500s and then I'll have to send new propets to get it back online. If you don't believe you can trust what he says about the church, why do you believe anything he said. I mean, if he can wrong about that, whatelse do you think he was wrong about?
Excellent job Joe proving that the Biblical and historical Catholic Church of the living God is the pillar and bull work of truth. I have searched my 73 book Catholic Bible cover to cover and I have yet to find a sentence, a verse or a chapter where Jesus or the inspired authors said that in the 16th century I will raise up ordinary, prideful men to restore my Church because I planned to let the Church I established fail.
@@ravissary79 my question would always be, with all the scandals in the Roman Catholic Church why do they still exist after 2000 years. They would shrug their shoulders. What exactly what he said is what came into my mind, the church that Christ established the gates of hell would not prevail.
@@ravissary79 There is also the reality that Catholicism is more than 1.25B members, globally. One Church, one name - hence, the scale is huge. This translates to huge positive and negative impact. Due to separate hierarchical structures and leadership, when the same scandal happens in a Protestant Church, it is typically assigned to and contained at a local church leader level. This limits liability on a local level, isolating and protecting themselves. If something happens in my local Catholic Church building, society goes for the deep pockets and the Pope / entire Church are blamed and held liable. Naturally, this doesn't excuse any wrong.
@@billpletikapich5640 True. Also, in protestant different gatherings, when a scandal takes place, they close down, or change their name. But most don’t last. This is what troubled me as a protestant.
@@believer8793Something persuasive to me is how Israel dealt with scandal. When the kings were corrupt, and the people worshipped idols, the prophets never said to the righteous "go start a new Israel and elect a new king." But that's precisely how protestant churches deal with those kinds of scandal. Separate from what God established and start something new. I don't see that fitting with how Jesus told us to operate
Would love to see what Gavin Ortlund would have to say about these controversies. He always touts that his form of Protestantism is based in early Christianity.
As a recent protestant convert to the Catholic Church, referring to your last point, what helped me was correctly understanding Paul about faith v. works. Once you understand that Paul is referring to the works of the Mosaic law specifically and not good deeds or just any sort of action, then he is in perfect harmony with the rest of the new testament (thinking primarily of James here). Paul wasn't operating in a world where Christianity and Judaism were separate things. The question wasn't whether you were a Christian or a Jew. For Paul, there was only one people of God but participation was now open to all peoples, tribes, and nations through Christ. The question for Paul was how to be in Christ. For Paul, it is through faith in Christ apart from the old Jewish law. It is participation in the new covenant that saves, not the old covenant. He completely takes for granted that obeying Christ's commands, participating in the life of the Church, and good moral deeds are necessary parts of being in Christ.
@@razoredge6130 correct, because we’re not jews. So it has to be through faith in Jesus Christ that 1. There is a God 2. He has revealed Himself 3. He has spoken specifically to the Jewish people over the course of several millenia 4. His Son came in the flesh to fulfill (not abolish) all that one was written. So imagine you’re a pagan worshipping chickens and here comes Paul or one of the other apostles talking about sin and God etc you’re probably going to say, “what does that have to do with the price of tea in China?” So alllll that theology, all that understanding has to be received by Grace and since you couldn’t magically become a jew nor would it suffice to slaughter 1,000 lambs a day for a proper sacrifice to the Almighty, so that is accomplished through faith in His Son. We can’t look at scripture from our 2,000 foot view several millenia later. Nor can we discount 16 centuries of church teaching because Marty, Calvin and co thought they knew better. All you have to do is study the life of the reformers. For example, Martin Luther’s wife/ex nun would take turns… for lack of a better word, “servicing”, Luther’s students. This is historical fact. That is the founder of the 5 solas. you’ll quickly see they weren’t restoring OG Christianity, they were tearing at the fabric of unity.
@@daviddabrowski01 We don't follow the reformers, we follow the bible. We know and admit they're fallible men. Also god can and often chooses fallible men to work through. If grace can be merited then it's no longer grace.
@@razoredge6130 if you frequent a Protestant church, you follow the reformers. Unless you’re saying you’ve been living on an island, a Bible washed ashore, you read it, and came to your own conclusions, then you follow the reformers. Why? Because the pastor at your church went to seminary, that seminary taught Protestant theology and that theology gets layered onto scripture. If you’re assuming all the reformers did was restore the early church then that can’t be true either because the reformers didn’t agree with one another. Calvin taught one thing, Luther taught something else and neither of them could stand Zwingli. The only way that argument could remain logical is if all the reformers taught the same thing.
Thank you very much. I found this very informative. The more I learn about the Church and its history ,the more I love Our Lord Jesus Christ and His Blessed Mother.
LOL... I just posted a comment on the Veil video that it was my favorite. Now I rly don't know. Too many great videos to choose from. Keep up the good work. I love how detail-oriented they are. Thank you, and may God bless you and your ministry 😊
Confessional Lutheran here. Cannot tell you how great it is to finally come across a Catholic video that doesn't lump all Protestants together and instead looks at them based on thier merits/believe systems. I am so tired of being catagorized the same as some of these blasphemous, ungodly groups not so much because we are "Protestant" but simply because we are not Catholic. Keep up the good work.
Man Joe is on fire! I absolutely love this podcast! Joe makes such good and strong points. I remember when I was a kid and I read scripture, I confessed to my Methodist aunt that I would do anything to be a part of that original Christian church. She said “everyone wishes that church was still around but it just isn’t” I thought it was such a defeatist idea. Like how bleak of a statement to tell a child. That’s just where bad theology gets you, you end up teaching children horrible things like that!
I'm glad you keep picking on John MacArthur. He's a good target for these critiques, since he's probably the most important public Christian who holds all the major positions (Calvinist, presbyterian, credobaptist, dispensationalist, cessationist, regulative principle) that separate American Protestants from historic, Catholic Christianity. And something about him and his following just rubs me the wrong way, where he gets praised as a great preacher and defender-of-the-faith for getting up in front of a camera, doing his mean little squint, and throwing around the word "heretic." Keep it up Joe, God bless.
He represents a tiny minority. Baptists may be dominant in America, and calvinism started to seize control of popular protestant church institutions, but never actually succeeded in speaking for popular protestantism and remains HIGHLY opposed by most protestants. And due to scandals of late he's slowly losing his popularity among non calvinists (lots of people just like him because of his expository preaching, but don't agree with his idiosyncratic theology, he isn't even always preaching his own distinctives, such that lots of people who like him don't even KNOW he's a calvinist).
@@ravissary79 I think ANY Protestant represent a "tiny minority," right? The factionalization within Protestantism is such that I can't imagine anyone living who would be a representative figure agreed upon by most Protestants. For what it's worth, Preaching.com lists John MacArthur as the fifth-most influential pastor of the 25 years, after Billy Graham, Charles Swindoll, Rick Warren, and Gardner C. Taylor. Other than Billy Graham, I'm not sure any of those other figures would be less controverisal or less niche. So hopefully, it's not unfair to highlight him as an important and influential false voice on these topics.
@@shamelesspopery by and large yes, which is why the best way to deal with apologetic concerns like this is through apologetic dialog, not treating a MacArthur as representing of anything other than his own sub-faction of one movement in 1 denomination.
@@ravissary79 Maybe I overestimate the extent of Calvinism. But I'm guessing a majority of the American low church holds at least a few of these positions (obviously charismatics don't believe cessation or the regulative principle). Some of the young nondenoms I've talked to don't even know that these are up for debate outside their bubble. The fact that MacArthur holds a royal flush of these opinions makes him a good subject for these videos.
@@andrewpearson1903 yes, as a kind of topical avatar he's interesting, but he's also a Cypher to much of his audience. For years I've heard MacArthur fans deny he was even a calvinist or at least that he was only a 3 or 4 pointer. Its only become more broadly common knowledge in the last 10 years or so that he is in fact a full-throated calvinist, and only very recently that he's ALWAYS been one, and that he PRETENDED to slowly adopt these views via exegesis over decades, but he recently said he thought this since seminary, before he ever did slow long form exegesis that he's now famous for. This is because he didn't think his chirch would accept his theology because they WEREN'T calvinist. This new fad of popular calvinism in Baptist circles isn't reflective of dominant American evangelicalism, but like modern liberalism, is a byproduct of the universities. Calvinists favored eachother almost like Feeemasons in the ivory tower, gaining footholds and then dominance through ideological nepotism. And from this dominance the restless reformed movement took hold, but part of this movement was stealth infiltration of non-calvinist churches by New pastors fresh out of the ivory tower where they were indoctrinated (not raised in this from their own community). In short is spread the same way WOKENESS did, artificially, not through faith communities who actually understood and agreed with it. True, amongst some it did get very popular, way more than it used ro be, WAY more, but it's estimated even post restless-reformed, most Baptist churches are still more free-will oriented soteriologically. And that's just Baptists. Presbyterians aren't remotely dominant, and most non-denoms and independent popular churches are vaguely calvary chapel like... essentially Arminians. If more Wesleyan, they're loosely compatible with Eastern Orthodox understanding of will and salvation, just in a less sacramental model of spitirual life and worship.
John McAuthur's last name points to Ulster-Scots ancestry. The Ulster-Scots, among those calling themselves the real Christians, cannot be beat in their disdain for Catholicism. So, he, to a certain degree, inherited his combativeness towards Catholicism. Also, the Ulster-Scots, more than any ethnicity, gave the United States its overall culture. The disdain for Catholicism, for the Church of England, for monarchy, which means disdain for hierachy, can all be heard in his sermonizing, like most any Protestant minister.
No. The early church was nothing like the Catholic church. Peter amd Paul NEVER taught a sinless, Immaculate Mary, adoration of relics for grace, thr Assumption of Mary, prayers to.the dead, purgatory, Sunday sacredness, bowing to images in the church, the eradication of the 2nd commandment, the priesthood as an office of the church. There's more but you get the picture. Roman Catholicism was not known in the early church.
@@danielcristancho3524 Would you agree that, besides the writings of the apostles, the writings of those taught by the apostles Peter, John, Paul, etc. are the best evidence of what the apostles/early Church actually taught and believed?
@@tonyl3762 ''apostles Peter, John, Paul, etc. are the best evidence of what the apostles/early Church actually taught and believed?'' Not if they're going to contradict or add to scripture, no. Ignatius is not Scripture. I prefer to get my doctrine from the actual writers of the bible. If the bible doesn't verify what Ignatius writes, then it's just his opinion. Doctrines are not made on opinions.
@@danielcristancho3524 If they got their own beliefs/doctrines directly from the apostles who taught and appointed them, why shouldn't that have just as much weight/authority as Scripture itself? It's ultimately the same source, namely the apostles. Why idolize the script/written? Would you not agree that whether something contradicts Scripture or not is a matter of interpretation? If those taught by the apostles see no contradiction, then why should we? Why should I believe your determination that a contradiction exists versus the determination of those who were actually taught, approved of, and appointed by the apostles themselves?
@@tonyl3762 ''If they got their own beliefs/doctrines directly from the apostles who taught and appointed them, '' If they got them from the Apostles, then those beliefs would be in the NT. Most of them are not. ''It's ultimately the same source, namely the apostles. '' No, it is not the same source. The Apostles' source was the Holy Spirit. WE don't know who the sources were for the Church Fathers since the Apostles were already dead and could not testify to the veracity of their claims. Therefore, if they contradict scripture or their opinions cannot be verified by scripture, then they are merely opinions and have no authority.
My favorite thing about Protestantism is it doesn't exist for the first 1,500 years of Christianity--makes up practices that never exist, and then claim to be the truer form of original Christianity. Makes sense.
@oldenglishD Protestants share the same 1500 years of history as the RCC, as we were part of the RCC. That is a weird claim that we don't. The last 500 years is different. Protestants fought abuses within the Church and they no longer considered the RCC as a reliable keeper of God's Church. I believe the RCC, Protestantism, and Orthodox all fall woefully short of being the One True Church. However, I believe all are part of the One True Church.
@@westdcProtestantism is heresy. There is only One True Church of Jesus Matt 16 18-19 which codified the Bible in 382 from which pope Francis removed 7 books under whose authority Deut 4:2
@@pemcortes9467 Plenty of judgement & pride on both Protestant and Catholic sides lets not kid ourselves. Protestant, Catholic, Orthodox doesn't change the fact that Jesus Christ is still King of Kings and our Lord & savior ONLY.
Thanks for this. I haven't converted it but the moment I knew i have to become Catholic was ultimately because of the Eucharist. I haven't converted because I currently live with anti Catholic parents
Wait until you perform the Sacrament of Penance 🙂. The Grace that flows and is designed to flow, just from that one Sacrament alone, is Supernatural. Plus, us Catholics, Orthodox have this times 7!! The Holy Spirit immediately brought my mind to this passage of Scripture when I read your last sentence as it broke my heart to read. Matthew 10: 34-40 "34 “Do not think that I have come to bring peace on earth; I have not come to bring peace, but a sword. 35 For I have come to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law; 36 and a man’s foes will be those of his own household. 37 He who loves father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; and he who loves son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me; 38 and he who does not take his cross and follow me is not worthy of me. 39 He who finds his life will lose it, and he who loses his life for my sake will find it. Rewards 40 “He who receives you receives me, and he who receives me receives him who sent me." THE EUCHARIST!!! Malachi 1:11 is an old Testament prophecy regarding the Eucharist that the Church has known from the beginning. In fact, the Apostle Paul famously said that we have an Altar others cannot approach (Judaism, old temple sacrifice). I have come to fulfill the law, not abolish it said our Lord. A New and Everlasting Covenant has been established by Christ and HIS One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church.
I decided to convert at 17 and my mom was anti Catholic. And she was upset because I wanted to convert we didn’t talk to each other for a week. Eventually we sat down and worked it out. I would just explain to my parents why I want to convert and show them the early Christians were Catholic. I would educate myself because people always question Catholic beliefs. I would start praying the rosary and ask for Mary intercession a great prayer book is the scared heart prayer book
Cradle Catholics don’t always appreciate how fortunate they are to be born into the Faith, nor do they always have an awareness of the opposition and personal loss that many would-be converts face. Put yourself under the protection of Our Lady, and She will surely see you through your journey home to Her Son’s Catholic Church. May God soften your parents’ hearts, and may He bless and strengthen you abundantly!
@@princessc660 rosary is my favorite prayer. I wrote a 600 page paper covering Catholic dogma and church history. The only problem is I poorly cited things. I didn't in text citation I cited in a footnote at the end of the chapter and at the end of the paper
Let me add my thanks to so many, for your extraordinary clarity, and for making such arcane subjects so interesting! I recently discovered your channel and am slowly working my way through your past work. So helpful!
Joe, I haven’t yet seen any modern Catholics seriously address the Nag Hammadi writings in detail. It’s a relatively new field, in spite of their coverage by the early church heresiologists. Some (not just whacky New Agers, but sincere scholars) say that the texts themselves of the relatively recently discovered codices do not totally gel with what is claimed about them by the 2nd-3rd century heresiologists. I wonder if a revisitation is necessary, whether critical or charitable (the Origen treatment😂). I’d love to see you cover this topic. Thanks for your content!
Hey brother, great analysis - thanks for the shout out to my book! I have often said that the Novatianists were the first Protestants - and I know that's a bit of both an anachronism and a hyperbole, but the analogy works, especially in the practice of re-baptism, which is, in its essence, an act of schism. - Jim Papandrea, The Original Church
@@shamelesspopery - ha, close enough! we actually have family members pronounce it different ways, so there are multiple "right" ways to say it - it just depends on how Italian you want to sound when you say it! Blessings!
I came into the church almost 13 years ago. It started with baptismal regeneration, then it was the fact of the Church’s perseverance through history compared with the volatility of all other churches. Sola fide went next, the authority of the Church convinced me, and I thought maybe Marian doctrines would bail me out, but I ended up agreeing with them too after giving them a fair hearing. Best thing I ever did.
My experience as a Catholic discussing/arguing with several different Protestants is that usually it's like talking to a woman who claims she's a man, or vice-versa. I can give them stats, Bible quotes, logic, history and often it is swept away with the magic incantations, "That's just your opinion," or "Ooh, that doesn't mean that! (Concerning an explanation of a Bible quote). They next give some illogic then declare victory. My objective explanations often met by their subjectivity. "I believe my church goes back to Jesus. Your fake Catholic church has paralleled my XYZ Church." Same as "I don't have certain male biology but I think I am a man, so I am."
Because moral relativism and anti-scientific methods have led to a lot of Protestant traction. To the point a lot of us growing up were discouraged from even being Christian because rationalize against Creationism. Even though the Catholic Church prefers divine intervention through Evolution, it allows compatibility with creationism without it being dogmatic. That's a consequence of your conversion process just being "I believe in faith" with no works. It makes you intellectually and emotionally lazy.
As a “Protestant” I enjoy learning things from all parts of Christianity that helps mold me into the Christian man I should be. There’s so many great things from all of the different parts. Thanks for some cool info. I think all sects have issues.
Just think how that Conversation would of happened Matthew 16: 24-26 24 Then Jesus told his disciples, “If anyone would come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross and follow me. 25 For whoever would save his life[a] will lose it, but whoever loses his life for my sake will find it. 26 For what will it profit a man if he gains the whole world and forfeits his soul? Or what shall a man give in return for his soul? Protestant: well you see Jesus, Pastor Bob has a Dr degree in theology, and he said all I needed was to have faith and we would be saved. Dont waste our time with baptism, communion, we don’t need it, just make sure you go to the cross die, that’s it is finished. And thank you for the rapture I am pretty sure a lot of Christian’s will die from now on, not knowing there was a get out of jail card without any pain and suffering to follow you. 😅
I loved this talk. And it's something I've been investigating a lot myself lately as a new convert. Tertullian has so many great things to say. I wish he never fell into Montanism. 😔 Montanism seems like modern day Pentecostalism. Is that an accurate assessment?
There are some similarities, but I don't think it applies fully. I had to look up Montanism myself but I was a former Pentacostal/Charismatic although those are two distinct groups. Pentacostals believe that being Spirit filled is the the baptism of the Spirit (they separate it from the water) and that is the baptism received for power with the first being Pentacost. Charismatics essentially believe in that same theology, but do not demand that it be accompanied with a sign of tongues or anything of the sort. Those things are the Holy Spirit confirming, at His pleasure, the power of God for the faithful. Both believe that because the gifts are still active and that the five offices of the Church (penta again) are still active are prone to believe that prophecy is still active. I still believe this after I became Catholic, but understand it's acted on differently, but more accurately.
As Jaroslav Pelikan said of Tertullian, he had far more impact on what he encountered that it had on him, including Montanism. And I salute T for his embrace of credo- not paedo-baptism. T said that if we understood Baptism correctly, we'd fear its reception more than it's delay because the baptizand is claiming a relationship to God by receiving Baptism and God does not like it when one makes such claims unless they are true.
The section on the diocletion period was very profound and shows how almost superstitiously phobic protestants have become in their aversion to making the sign of the cross.
@@po18guy Yeah I originally thought the problem of the imminent paraouisa couldn't be solved until I heard pope Benedict XVI say the eucharist was a type of paraouisa. I thought that didn't work as angels are meant to come with Christ, until I remember that manna was administered by angels. The eucharistic is a mystical paraouisa.
@@ravissary79 as I understand it, both sides of the controversy assumed the truth of sacramental efficacy. I looked up to Augustine too. So seeing Augustine's role in this debate and the ubiquity of the belief that sacraments were efficacious were some of the contributing factors that started moving me away from my baptist position.
@@jess96154Lutherans, Anglican, and most reform believe baptism saves and even have a higher view of baptism than Rome. Rome believes your baptism doesn’t cover any temporal debt and only by penance or purgatory you can cover it. Magisterial Protestant believe that baptism covers it all eternal and temporal
@@FosterDuncan1 sure, there are protestant groups that believe in sacramental efficacy. At that time my studies in church history moved me from the Baptist position to Lutheranism with a brief stop in classical reformed thought.
@@FosterDuncan1 by the way, I'm pretty sure catholicism does teach that baptism remits all sin temporal and eternal (see catechism of Catholic Church 1263. Aquinas also writes about this quite a bit in the third part of the summa question 69 esp article 2). If you have a source to the contrary, I would be interested to see it.
Just wanted to say that the sign of the cross is actually biblical. Ezekiel 9:4-6 illustrates this. 4 and Yahweh said to him, 'Go all through the city, all through Jerusalem, and mark a cross on the foreheads of all who grieve and lament over all the loathsome practices in it.' 5 I heard him say to the others, 'Follow him through the city and strike. Not one glance of pity; show no mercy; 6 old men, young men, girls, children, women, kill and exterminate them all. But do not touch anyone with a cross on his forehead. Begin at my sanctuary.' So they began with the old men who were in the Temple.
I believe this connects as well to Revelation, in which the followers of Jesus have the mark of the lamb put on their foreheads, and other places it says it will be God's name
@@michaelbeauchamp22 in the previous chapter it talks of the Israelites worshiping an idol and God was revealing to Ezekiel their evil and that it would incur God's anger. So with that in mind I'd say it's historical, but it can still be applied to revelations too as the cross is a symbol (mark) of salvation.
@@Sicarius089 Oh yes, I agree it was historical. What I meant is that the OT event in Ezekiel foreshadows this NT thing, which we practice, and which is discussed in Revelation
Protestants cant explain these things because unless you are a preacher you wont even know about them. For protestants God doesnt care about rituals.. its about your own personal spiritual relationship with God and Jesus. Literally thats it. Many of them havent read the entire bible.. and theres less books in it
I was very interested in the title of this video, which is very well done, btw, and I appreciate the interacting with historical and even good Protestant sources. Controversy #1, however, was the only one that was of much interest. The "problems" as given in this video seems to be: If you agree with Rome's (very selective) view of history and authority then Protestants have no answers. Yes, Protestants have very good answers, we just reject the dogmatic assumptions behind these supposed "problems." Historic Protestants do believe in church tradition, they just don't believe tradition, as defined by Rome, is inerrant and the final authority. To go through briefly each point: 1) Luther & Calvin did not deny the real presence of Christ in the Supper. They rejected the later invention of transubstantiation. Where did the early church teach transubstantiation? 2) The Puritan Reformed tradition rejects Easter and the liturgical calendar, how is this not an answer? Yes, they rejected things they thought early church got wrong. Of course, many Protestants do celebrate Easter, though it is certainly not required in Scripture. 3) Again, how is this a problem? Yes, Protestants have an answer to Tertullian. (i.e. "Where are altars in New Testament worship?) 4) Again, how is this a problem? Biblically, and from the record of the Ante-Nicene church, there is no supreme earthly ruler of the church, especially the bishop Rome. Also, where did the Lutheran, Reformed or Anglicans teach that the church is not necessary? 5) Again, how is this a problem? Protestants have a very clear answer about tradition (whether good or bad) and the authority of tradition (especially as interpreted exclusively by Rome). Doug Wilson gave a very good and godly answer. 6) Again, how is this a problem? Yes, we judge even Augustine, and all the church fathers, by the standards of Scripture. There is a difference between a theologian making a mistake and a whole denomination officially embracing error.
I'm a Protestant that often defends Catholic beliefs to people like John McArthur and Calvinist. Not because I hold the exact same beliefs in the same way as Catholics(then I'd just join the Roman Church), but because I can see where Catholics come from in forming their beliefs. In the end, I still believe we both are Christians and that we do hold the same basic beliefs, but I refuse to be Catholic because I feel some ideas are taken farther than they should. That being said, I don't hold a theology degree, but I will attempt to represent a Protestant's reactions to these six controversies. Overall, most protestants wouldn't bat an eye at any of these because they would insist that these weren't problems for the first century church(save the gnostics) that the Protestant churches are trying to represent. 1. Of course the Eucharist is meaningful and an important to our faith as one of the few rituals proscribed in the New Testament, and the gnostics are an obvious Greek heresy combining the sinfulness of the flesh with Platonism. 2. I don't know of any Protestant denomination that doesn't celebrate Easter on Sunday(except 7th day Adventist, for obvious reasons to them) because birth of Christ changed everything about how we judge time including the calendar. 3. It's fine to take communion during fasting, so we'd take Tertullian side. Protestants still call the bread in the communion "the Body of Christ" and commemorate "His Sacrifice". Just as the Jews don't literally believe the 10th Plague is passing over their homes during the Passover Meal, Protestants hold these things sacred and holy but not as a literal sacrifice of Jesus' body. Protestants aren't alone in seeing the language here as powerful and true but not as seriously as Catholics do; Eastern Orthodox do hold to the transformation of the bread and wine, but neither assert it as a part of their Dogma nor are as certain when it happens as Rome is. 4. I assure you that many Protestants Denominations believe all those outside "the one true church" are not saved. The difference being they not only believe themselves(possibly as small as 20 of them or as large as millions) are they only members of the "One True Church", and you get into that church by accepting Salvation by Christ Alone. Obviously this is small difference in language that causes large gaps between Christians, but Protestants would look at these writings and see the unrighteous being physically among the Church of Christ when they are being saved spiritually into the Church of Christ by following Christ commands. As above, stated, my personally beliefs are that we(protestants, catholics, orthodox) are in the same spiritual church and church body, but different earthly administrations. I understand why few share that view though. 5. Protestants believe in cross and that miracles can be done through this symbol. It's great that you do it in the same way as the Christians with Diocletian did even if you guys only do it on Ash Wednesday(from what I can see), and I disagree(as well as most Protestants) with Doug Wilson that we should avoid doing anything that looks Catholic. We should all look a like in action honestly. 6. Many Protestants view Catholics in the same way Augustine viewed the Donatist; caring more about whose ideas descended from whom rather than who follows right doctrine. I know enough about Catholicism to know that it's not true, but Joe is correct that we don't fully agree with Augustine here. We see why he felt the need to tie right doctrine to the church administration of his day(especially since the Arian Vandals were at his door), but we disagree that that administration will always know best(or even better). If you've read this far, thanks for giving your time. I very much appreciate that Joe goes through all this history and makes solid defense of Catholicism. Sincerely, keep up the good work.
@@Charity-vm4bt Yes you may. I grew up in a Baptist church that turned Charismatic Pentecostal oddly enough after local group of Catholic nuns prayed we'd receive the Holy Spirit. Because of that inspirational jumble, I've always felt kinship with any sincere Christian.
Calvin has it exactly backwards. The books of the Bible were assembled to serve as the lectionary of the church. The liturgy precedes the Bible, not the reverse.
ESL speaker here. In the context here presented, I don`t get the meaning of "taken for granted". My instinct would be to interpret that expression as meaning something that is taken as fundamental by everyone, so they don't even need to declared it. Please correct me.
I will admit that as a Protestant, I have refrained from making the sign of the cross because it “looked Catholic” and not because I see anything inherently wrong with it. Though I think it would be a good thing for Protestants to embrace.
Embrace the Fullness of Truth. Other communities do indeed have truths about Christ, but are not the fullness and are not catholic (universal). Join the Church of Jesus and the Apostles, the Catholic Church. All other groups are defined by how they are not Catholic... why is that?? Its something to consider. Only the Catholic Church has a positive theology. Other communities have a negative theology, i.e. "We believe this, bc we don't believe this"
Making the Sign of the Cross is a re-affirmation of our baptismal promises, if that helps. We do not attempt to sanitize Our Lord’s Sacrifice by downplaying His Crucifixion, but by bringing it to our remembrance often.
Thank you, amazing podcast. As a return Catholic, i now believe I have come back home to the true Christian faith with the fullness of truth. I also believe in more so in pre vatican ii teaching from traditional sources and traditional Catholicism. God bless you all and i hope and pray that you will practice your faith daily and get to mass as often as you can. And confess your sins is soo important before taking communion. All Glory be to God, Amen.
Joe, you have been more helpful than anyone as I go through RCIA. But I really wish you would address the Calvinist view of the Eucharist, specifically as he articulates it in chapters 17 and 18 of the fourth book in "Institutes" Constantly rebutting the Baptists is low-hanging fruit. Especially since the earliest reformers, except Zwingli, would have found the Baptist form of worship to be just as, if not more, blasphemous than the Catholic view. I get that most Protestants in America are memorialists, but memorialism is not part of the original reformation. So it feels like a strawman to constantly suggest that "Protestants" can't address these issues when you're specifically rebutting memorialists. A Calvinist could easily understand the Ignatius dispute in light of Jesus' sacramental presence in the Eucharist.
@@ghostapostle7225 Read my comment. I cited the exact chapters where Calvin talks about the transformation from ordinary bread to the sacramental presence of Christ's body
@@sivad1025 Chapters are not exact quotes, but not a problem, I did the homework for you: "I now come to the hyperbolical mixtures which superstition has introduced. Here Satan has employed all his wiles, withdrawing the minds of men from heaven, and imbuing them with the perverse error that Christ is annexed to the element of bread." - Chapter 18, paragraph 12. So, he doesn't believe the Eucharist to be the flesh of Christ. Consubstantiation is not the same as transubstantiation. For him the bread and wine are symbols of Christ presence, not his presence in itself. "Thus when bread is given as a symbol of the body of Christ, we must immediately think of this similitude. As bread nourishes, sustains, and protects our bodily life, so the body of Christ is the only food to invigorate and keep alive the soul. When we behold wine set forth as a symbol of blood, we must think that such use as wine serves to the body, the same is spiritually bestowed by the blood of Christ; and the use is to foster, refresh, strengthen, and exhilarate." - Chapter 18, paragraph 3 This is clearly not the same language as the early Christians used about the Eucharist BEING the Body and Blood of Christ, and not a symbol.
@@ghostapostle7225 This is why I didn't provide quotes. When you actually read the entirety of what Calvin says, he explains his language further. The biggest divide between the two sides is a difference of language which can't be seen in a couple sentences. Calvin does say that the elements are "symbols" but he is not talking in the way a Baptist is. A Baptist thinks the whole event is just a symbolic gesture. Calvin is talking about the physical nature being symbolic. The species is bread (which Aquinas affirms) and represents the species of Christ's body (which Aquinas also affirms). Aquinas and Calvin disagree on the substantial nature. Aquinas posits that despite the species of bread representing the species of flesh, the substance is truly the same substance as Jesus' flesh through the power of the spirit. When Calvin addresses the early church like Ignatius who says "the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ," he understands this in a sacramental way. The bread has indeed been transformed from ordinary bread to sacramental bread. And this sacramental bread truly confers the body of Christ to those eating through the power of the spirit. It's essentially the same understanding except for the fact that Calvin denies that the substance has been intrinsically changed. I think Catholics tend to have a rose colored view of church history when it comes to the Eucharist. It's not as black and white as you suggest. The earliest church fathers are very vague about the nature of this change. Is the change substantive or just spiritual and sacramental? This question isn't really discussed until the 9th century, and when it is discussed, faithful Catholics like Ratramnus and Robertus took opposing sides. Aquinas' articulation is designed to unify the two sides in the church. But it's patently absurd to suggest that Aquinas' view was "the same language as the earliest Christians." It would be more appropriate to say that his view is _consistent_ with the view of the earliest Christians. The problem I have is that Catholics don't spend time explaining why Calvin's view is _not_ consistent with the early church. They tend to rebut Calvin by superimposing Baptist theology into his writings as you did. And I don't mean that as an offense. I would have the same understanding if I read the quotes you provided. But that's why you should actually read the whole chapter to understand the way he uses the language of "symbol" and "spiritual."
@@sivad1025 Its an after thot for Calvin. The real presence does not fit into his larger systematic defined in his Institutes. Calvinist outright mock the Catholic view of the Eucharist and that would be in line with imputation and divine decrees, double predestination and penal substitution - all low grade notions of Calvin. Rose colored glasses off, the Catholic Church has definitive teachings that have withstood the test of time. Calvin's teachings go back to his self centered notion of "Calvin's brand.
Well-said brother. Thank you for your unrelenting researches and studies for the sake of the truth. The Truth is Jesus and his only one, holy, apostolic and catholic Church which has been empowered to do exactly what Jesus did. Protestanism is nothing but an obstacle lying dead on the path to Eternity, so, lets ignore it and continue to do the preaching of the Good News without fear.
I grew up Protestant but converted to Orthodoxy as an adult. Finding the Orthodox Church has been the best thing in my life and for my relationship with God.
I just finished watching "satans guide to the bible" The channel did a remarkable job on outlining the bible, and how their seminaries were built under Protestantism to understand the bible yet continually argue over scripture.
@@Malygosblues Not quite sure. It uses different sources in order to show the literal errors in scripture, but primarily shows how basically Protestantism is the root cause of this. Early in his video, the speaker quickly tells the audience this fact. Ironically, I watched another video where 3 protestants are saying that those who deconvert were really never Christian, which makes me roll my since they themselves believe in their own bible alone fallacy.
@@GarthDomokos I see what you're saying but within the first few minutes it seemed to be saying that the association of the figure of the devil and satan is a forced association. I think the maker's goals are broadly anti-Christian rather than antiProtestant. I could be wrong, but it just didn't seem worth it.
Apologists are needed to view and reply to this video (“S@tan’s Guide to the Bible”). Can anyone help out? Although there is only the briefest reference to Catholicism in this program, comments from lapsed and former Catholics are piling up, and no one is setting them straight. There are also respondents from people of all faiths that need correct information conveyed in a very concise manner. I watched the entire “S@tan’s Guide to the Bible”. Three guys developed it over ten years, and it is engaging from an audiovisual standpoint. OTOH, there is irreverent, vulgar and borderline blasphemous content that calls for careful discernment. I am very concerned about the impact of this video on poorly catechized people, and those of weak or absent faith of all religions. This presentation exposes the erroneous biblical teachings perpetrated by Protestant “biblical scholars”, and the hypocritical, self-serving nature of their ministries: of course, there is nothing objectionable about exposing error and fraud. There is a curious exclusion of the Catholic and Orthodox, which, while still unified in 397 A.D., produced the first Bible. The creators had an opportunity to offset the confusion of Protestant Bible teaching with authoritative Catholic Church interpretation, but they inexplicably did not. The video fails to offer viewers an alternative to the myriad skewed Protestant biblical interpretations, evidently leaving only the options of agnosticism and atheism.
Not all protestants deny that Jesus is present in the Eucharist. Confessional Lutherans believe that the Christ's body and blood is truly present in the bread and wine; some protestants say He is "Spiritually" present. And others just say that the bread and wine are symbolic. I was raised confessional Lutheran, and find myself closer to Catholicism theologically than to other protestant groups.
Never heard of any protestant who believes in transubstantiation (not only Christ is truly present but the bread IS his body and the wine IS his blood). Even if consubstantiation seems to be only a minor difference, it's fundamentally different enough to justify the increase distance from latter development of protestantism.
Our Lord may be present in some way at Protestant communion services. However, Christ’s Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity are made present in the Eucharist-by way of the process of transubstantiation-only when the words of Consecration are prayed by His Catholic and Orthodox priests in the context of Holy Mass/Divine Liturgy.
There have been many ways of explaining the way Lutherans believe that the bread and wine become the body and blood of Christ. I never heard the word "consubstantiation" until well into adulthood. I was taught it was a "mystery" that bread and wine becomes the body and blood of Christ while still tasting and looking like wafers and wine. It is different, however, not as different as "symbolic of."
@@diannalaubenberg7532 It's a looser descriptor, perhaps because this teaching is (prima fascie) such an uncomfortable one. But it's ultimately really, really close. Still, your description that "Lutherans believe that [...] become" is technically incorrect. In Lutheranism, the bread is still bread, but is now also Christ. The difference is in the prefix, con- vs trans- To put it very simply, after consecration a Catholic would say "that's no mere bread now, that's the body of Christ!" while a Lutheran would say "that's still bread, but is now *also* the body of Christ." There's no transformation or "becoming" I don't know any Lutherans personally but this Catholic teaching may cause certain practical differences. When I, a Catholic, see the Eucharist I immediately kneel. At the very least I don't stay sitting. That's my Lord right there. Is that something Lutherans do? I don't know. Most of my knowledge of your denomination is purely theoretical.
@alonsoACR You are correct that we do not practice Adoration in the same way. I listened to the Catechism read by Fr. Mike Schmitz. I was fascinated. I understand so much better now. Growing up, few of the churches I attended had kneelers. At 67, I wish more did. To kneel, I would have to go to the altar rail; otherwise, I might not be able to get up.
True dat. He's anathema regarding the many points he is wrong about, but that doesn't mean he is wrong about everything, so he's still better than, say, a Muslim. But given the availability of the fullness of truth in Christ's Catholic Church, there is no excuse for clinging to him and his heresy.
I was raised to avoid walking on the curb of a Catholic Church. All I know is that no one was able to explain to me why we had in our families and communities so much mental illnesses, religious hallucinations, disorderly households, you are getting me convinced that we were not (Christians) at all…
That’s nothing new. She recognizes baptisms done under the trinitarian formula with proper matter (water), as long as the intention is to do what the Church does. In that sense, wrong conceptions about the sacrament doesn’t affect its validity, although it refers to its licit/ illicit nature.
as a Catholic layman. . . . my understanding is YES ( valid ) - as long as the person is baptized with water on the scalp ( submersion would include water on the scalp ) and " I baptize you in the name of The Father,and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit ".. . . There is a lot more to it, regarding intent, but that is a start.
@@johnm.speight7983Yup. My priest told me the same thing. I got baptized as a protestant and my priest said it was fine so I wouldn’t have to get baptized again
YES! The Catholic Church recognizes baptisms done in trinitarian form with water according to Matthew 28:19-20 and Mark 16:16. Protestant baptisms done in this manner are considered sacramentally valid. We also happen to believe that many marriages in the various Protestant sects can be sacramentally valid as well.
![[Live] : ONE 169 วันนี้!! "อนาโตลี vs อูมาร์"](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/IK3YZVWuFJg/mqdefault.jpg)
Just to clarify something, since I've already seen responses to this video criticizing me for acting as if all Protestants were equally guilty on these six points, check out the 2:45 mark where I say, “In terms of ‘Protestants,’ I’m going to explain as we go WHICH Protestants I see this applying to, but frankly, if you’re a Protestant listener, you’re in a better position than I am to judge whether you would agree with either side of these controversies.” So if some of this doesn't apply to you, that's great!
Protestants can’t agree on central doctrine. Amazing how that in itself is not a red flag for them
The Restoration of the Fulness of the Gospel of Jesus Christ
A Bicentennial Proclamation to the World
The First Presidency and Council of the Twelve Apostles of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints
This proclamation was read by the Prophet, Seer, Revelator and Church President Russell M. Nelson as part of his message at the 190th Annual General Conference, April 5, 2020, in Salt Lake City, Utah.
We solemnly proclaim that God loves His children in every nation of the world. God the Father has given us the divine birth, the incomparable life, and the infinite atoning sacrifice of His Beloved Son, Jesus Christ. By the power of the Father, Jesus rose again and gained the victory over death. He is our Savior, our Exemplar, and our Redeemer. Two hundred years ago, on a beautiful spring morning in 1820, young Joseph Smith, seeking to know which church to join, went into the woods to pray near his home in upstate New York, USA. He had questions regarding the salvation of his soul and trusted that God would direct him. In humility, we declare that in answer to his prayer, God the Father and His Son, Jesus Christ, appeared to Joseph and inaugurated the “restitution of all things” (Acts 3:21) as foretold in the Bible. In this vision, he learned that following the death of the original Apostles, Christ’s New Testament Church was lost from the earth. Joseph would be instrumental in its return. We affirm that under the direction of the Father and the Son, heavenly messengers came to instruct Joseph and re-establish the Church of Jesus Christ. The resurrected John the Baptist restored the authority to baptize by immersion for the remission of sins. Three of the original twelve Apostles-Peter, James, and John-restored the apostleship and keys of priesthood authority. Others came as well, including Elijah, who restored the authority to join families together forever in eternal relationships that transcend death. We further witness that Joseph Smith was given the gift and power of God to translate an ancient record: the Book of Mormon-Another Testament of Jesus Christ. Pages of this sacred text include an account of the personal ministry of Jesus Christ among people in the Western Hemisphere soon after His Resurrection. It teaches of life’s purpose and explains the doctrine of Christ, which is central to that purpose. As a companion scripture to the Bible, the Book of Mormon testifies that all human beings are sons and daughters of a loving Father in Heaven, that He has a divine plan for our lives, and that His Son, Jesus Christ, speaks today as well as in days of old. We declare that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, organized on April 6, 1830, is Christ’s New Testament Church restored. This Church is anchored in the perfect life of its chief cornerstone, Jesus Christ, and in His infinite Atonement and literal Resurrection. Jesus Christ has once again called Apostles and has given them priesthood authority. He invites all of us to come unto Him and His Church, to receive the Holy Ghost, the ordinances of salvation, and to gain enduring joy. Two hundred years have now elapsed since this Restoration was initiated by God the Father and His Beloved Son, Jesus Christ. Millions throughout the world have embraced a knowledge of these prophesied events. We gladly declare that the promised Restoration goes forward through continuing revelation. The earth will never again be the same, as God will “gather together in one all things in Christ” (Ephesians 1:10). With reverence and gratitude, we as His Apostles invite all to know-as we do-that the heavens are open. We affirm that God is making known His will for His beloved sons and daughters. We testify that those who prayerfully study the message of the Restoration and act in faith will be blessed to gain their own witness of its divinity and of its purpose to prepare the world for the promised Second Coming of our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ.
Protestants gonna protest, Joel, ignore it. This was an excellent video.
I'm so blessed I am practicing the faith that was started from the early traditions and early fathers and early Christians. I don't think after 1500 years they got it wrong. I am sorry Martin Luther if you wanted to reform something that's up to you but I can't believe people do not realize that he is not following the traditions of true Christianity. Great job Joe! Also I'm so tired of Protestants saying that the Catholics changed the Bible. The reformer Martin Luther took out 7 books that did not go with his philosophy or felt were inspired. Catholics did not.
You make it sound that the only denominations in existence are the Protestants and the Catholics. Are you Irish or what?. 😩
My husband had so many John McArthur sermons on cd. He was a fan. He went to a church where the pastor was a student of John McArthur. They sold antiCatholic books in the gift shop. Many McArthur books lined the shelves. . I give credit to John McArthur for making me a stronger Catholic. I learned and shared what I learned to counter McArthurs' ideas on the Catholic church.
My husband went through RCIA and entered the church last year❤
Praise be to God!
Amazing! Congrats to you and your family.
Praise God, and welcome home to your husband!
@@shamelesspopery thank you 😊
I think it's a shame that so many churches and preachers are anti-Catholic in their messages and publications. I think anyone identifying as "protestant" has a serious heart problem and needs to re-read Paul's letters to the Corinthians.
As my wife and I are going through RCIA, one of the biggest reasons is the Eucharist. I spent several years now reading church fathers on that subject and the evidence for it being the flesh and blood of our Lord is overwhelming. One of the most unsettling sights to me recently was how the elements were treated when we visited the Southern Baptist church where my wife's family attends, for their Christmas eve service. The communion elements were the pre-packaged ones, and were left in giant rubbermaid tubs by the doors of the church to take or leave as you please. It seemed at the time and does today, to be almost blasphemous, if there is any kind of a real presence. (I understand most southern baptists would deny the real presence). Is this how we are to treat our Lord?
Former southern Baptist here... WELCOME HOME!!
One solace in this is that the baptists don't have valid sacraments so those wafers are just bread
YES! No respect or understanding for the depth and meaning of the Eucharist. Not to mention the fact that the Eucharist is prominent in the Didache from 70AD. If there is no Eucharist there is no worship; it’s that simple.
The prots completely washed out all the mystical and supernatural components of Christianity , all of which are essential for worship.
Preaching, teaching, prayer, and scripture reading are not worship
It’s wonderful to see you come to this understanding, thanks be to God. The vessels used for the Body and Blood of Our Lord are sacred. The manner and motions used by the priest before and after communion are prescribed. One issue in our Church is that some Catholics are divided on receiving on the tongue vs on the hand believing that receiving in the hand lacks reverence, but if the Bishop allows it, it is permitted. As you grow in the church, follow guidance and talk to your parish priest or other priests about any concerns. The sad fact is that many Catholics don’t know their faith and we have work to do on catechesis. God bless you!
I know many people that converted from Calvinism to Christianity.
When I became a Christian from being an atheist about 10 years ago; when I decided to pick a Christian group or sect or denomination to join I first just started going to a Protestant church because I did not know the difference between different groups. But when I examined the evidence of the early Church I converted to Catholicism. When I looked at the New Testament I saw that Jesus Christ made 3 predictions about his church. And these three predictions are the predictions that made me believe in the Bible in the first place. If Jesus was not a real person or if he was not really resurrected from the dead, then these predictions would have never come true. But these are the 3 predictions Christ makes:
Prediction 1. Christ said that his church would be persecuted and its members would be killed. Now that was a ridiculous prediction in the Roman empire which was religiously tolerant. They did not target people and kill them for religious reasons. Why would they kill the followers of someone who promotes peace?
Prediction 2. Jesus said that his church would be unified. He said there would be a church that could be considered as "one" that was unified in love and unified in doctrine. And Paul reiterates that in saying that the church has to agree on everything and that people should not be tossed to and fro with every wind of doctrine. The New Testament clearly references one Church not a multiple set of churches with contradicting doctrines.
Prediction 3. Jesus also said that his church would go to all nations. If Jesus was just a normal human who died like all of the other people who started religious movements, then this again is a ridiculous claim.
Any one of these could have come true by accident but it was impossible for me to believe that all of these happened by accident. In light of other evidence that I always viewed as intriguing but sketchy - - like the fact that the universe had a beginning, and the universe seems intricately designed, plus the fact that the basic living cell is also extremely intricate and could not have come about by accident in the time frame that the universe has existed - - All of these things made me wonder about my atheism. But the predictions made in the Old Testament that seem to come true in the New Testament made it even more intriguing. But even those predictions could have been contrived by the New Testament writers if they tried hard enough. But when you add all of that to the predictions that Jesus made about the future; I saw that Jesus predictions did come true. And that was the final nail in the coffin of my atheism. Everything that Jesus predicted about the Church happened! But when you look at the church and see which one it was that did all of these 3 things Christ predicted, which one was it?
What church was it in which its leaders and bishops were targeted by the Romans and executed? Men like Clement of Rome; Ignatius of Antioch, and Polycarp of Smyrna? It was the Catholic Church that this happened to.
And which church was it that somehow stayed unified through all of these heresies? Which church was it that held the Council of Nicaea in 325 AD, and Constantinople in 381 AD, then Ephesus in 431 AD and Chalcedon in 451 AD? In these Councils and others we see the church decipher core doctrines like the Trinity, the two natures of Christ existing in one person, and the development of the New Testament Canon? What church was it that did all of these things? It was obviously the Catholic Church. There was no group or church back then that believed in forensic justification + sola scriptura + a priesthood of all believers SEPARATE and in exclusion of a ministerial priesthood. Not only was there not a church taught those things; there was not one early church Father who taught forensic justification + sola scriptura + a priesthood of all believers to the exclusion of a ministerial priesthood. One can go through the Fathers' quotes and find lines that might seem to support one of these doctrines; but for each one that does you can find other comments that go directly against them. Plus, the more important part is no one taught all 3 of those.
For someone like me who knew nothing about religion; when I looked at early Christianity the only church that remotely comes close to meeting the predictions that Jesus made was the Catholic Church. Then what church was it that grew to go to all nations over the next 800 years? It was obviously the Catholic Church. There was no other Church that can make that claim. It was the Catholic Church with a Bishop of Rome at the helm that went to all nations.
And so, to me it was the Catholic Church that clearly met all of these predictions. And I wondered why so many Catholic apologists did not point this out more often. But then I found Joe's work, and his work completely details how the early Church was the Catholic Church. I went to Rome in 2019 with Catholic Answers and I told Chris Check he should hire Joe Heschmeyer because I had read all of Joe's blog posts on his blog (also called Shameless Popery). Now I am sure that is not the reason that he eventually went to work for Catholic Answers because Christ Check said that he knew about Joe and would love to hire him. And I am glad it finally happened. I so appreciate Joe's work because he puts the emphasis on the right evidence for the Catholic Church.
The early Church that did all of the things that Jesus predicted is the Catholic Church. If the Catholic Church is not true, then I don't know how Christianity can be true. If Catholicism is not true then that means that Christ started a church and then right of the bat, or at least very, very early it started to fail when it developed its ecclesiology (Church structure with the Bishop of Rome guiding a college of Bishops and with a monoepiscopacy throughout the Roman empire), its doctrine of the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist, and its doctrine of regenerative baptism. These doctrines developed quickly if not immediately and it was this church that did all of the things that Christ predicted.
And so if this early Catholic Church was not true then that means that Christ started a church that quickly started teaching false doctrines along with the core doctrines like the Trinity and Doctrine of the Incarnation. But then for some reason no one corrected them until the 1500's came along. How could that make any sense whatsoever? Why would Christ say he would build a church that the gates of hades would not prevail against and then let the primary church that everyone can see in history become a false Church, and then leave it that way for 1500 years? How can that make any sense whatsoever?
And then when the 1500's come along and the supposed corrections came; none of those corrected versions could agree on what the real truth was. Luther thought it was his way; Zwingli thought it was his way; Calvin thought it was his way; Menno Simons thought it was his way. John Smith came along and thought that no one had the truth and so HE BAPTIZED HIMSELF and started the Baptist Church. And so, if the Catholic Church that had existed for the first 1500 years was wrong; then which of these new "churches" would one choose? They had totally contradicting doctrines. How could one possibly choose?
That is why I am Catholic and that is why I appreciate Joe's work so much. He slowly and deliberately goes through and gives the evidence for Catholicism. I highly recommend Joe's books "Pope Peter" and "The Early Church Was Catholic." If there is evidence that goes against the evidence Joe presents in those books then I would like to see a Protestant scholar go through them point by point and refute them. But no one has. Keep up the good work Joe, I am a supporter.
Welcome home!
A truly excellent analysis
Exactly!
Have you thought about becoming a catechist?
Another one gone astray I am afraid. You have turned your back on Jesus and have demoted and deminished Him and His status and power as God to one of many = saints, Mary, piece of bread, cup of wine, penance, confession to a priest, a rosary ! You have added all these empty useless rituals and things to Jesus so have made Him null and void and useless. Maybe you were not really born again. Maybe the Protestant church you attended was a poor one, maybe you just feel more pious in a Catholic Church because of the ritual and robes and furnishings - you really have to figure all this out. But the CatholicChurch does not preach the truth
The more I study church history, the more I find the Catholic Church. What I want most is for our Church to remember who we are, rather than being lukewarm in the world these days.
There is only One True Church that Jesus founded Matt 16 18-19 that codified the bible in 382 from which pope Luther removed 7 books under whose authority Deut 4:2
Yes. Where Catholicism is most strong is in the worst countries where people need it the most. We have become to soft and as you stated - lukewarm.
That's interesting. The more I study the BIBLE, the less I see the Roman church. Maybe you're studying the wrong sources.
@@geoffjsThe Apocrypha WAS NOT CANON IN THE FOURTH CENTURY. It was included in the bible but had its own separate section. It wasn't till the 16th century that the Pope decided it was canon after all and mixed it in with Canon scripture. Spare me.
@@geoffjsSo Geo, Paul speaks of Christ as the Rock and Cornerstone of the church and the Roman church tells us Peter is the rock/cornerstone. Who's right? Paul or the Papacy? They can't both be the Rock/cornerstone. A building only needs ONE cornerstone.
Excellent review and analysis. Thank you very much. I was a Jewish college student 50 years ago and was assigned to write a paper on the messianic promise. Extensive study for that paper brought me to Christianity. Extensive study of Christianity brought me to the Catholic Church 48 years ago, for many of the same reasons you have explained. I was amazed at how Protestant ministers could extol the virtues of Saint Augustine, thinking that he would support their views, while believing in a completely different faith than what St Augustine defended. The Reformation and Protestantism was in fact a completely new type of Christianity unknown prior to the Reformation. It would in fact be unrecognizable to the early church.
The reformation was not a mistake. Augustine imported many things into Christianity that are foreign to the Christianity of scripture. Calvinism/Reformed Theology is founded on the writings of Augustine, and show the same errors as Augustine. If Augustine had been Bishop 50 years earlier, he would have been deposed as a heretic.
@@Richard-e5m Sorry but you are wrong. Augustine was obedient to the church.“Rome has spoken the matter is ended.” Despite his prominence the church has not accepted everything that Augustine said.
@@frankrosenbloom That's risible. Augustine was a spiritual deviant who imported a lot of Gnostic nonsense into his theology. Calvin admitted his prime source was Augustine, and Augustine's Manicheism affected his theology. 50 years earlier, Augustine would have been put out of teh Church for his heresies.
So, go right ahead and claim Augustine. You can get in line with Persian Gnostics Just as Calvin did.
Joe is always so kind and humble. What an amazing guy. Thanks, Joe!
Hah!
I agree. I love him and pray he stays humble and kind.
As an Italian-American, the specific calling out of “the third basemen is saying he’s an Italian Roman Catholic.” Feels very much like saying the quiet part out loud for a lot of American Protestants
I found that comment kinda funny. My favorite team has Catholics who do the sign of the cross before and after they do most of their stuff, especially the pitcher after a strikeout and a runner across home. Obviously they’re offering their praise and thanks to God, which is a good thing to do.
Seems like since Protestants don’t have a similar action they can do (in the sense of a quick, semi-public showing of their faith), they have to dunk on those who do.
Italian American here too. That guy is an idiot and that was the lamest excuse for not making the sign of the Cross I’ve ever heard. I’m proud every time I see a ball player do that. Catholic loud and proud!
@@jendoe9436 Catholics kneel and make the sign of the Cross, Protestants wave signs with John 3:16.
Yep, why couldn’t that baseball player have been black, Irish, Argentinian, or any other number of ethnicities? His prejudice is blatantly obvious.
@@maryloomis8075 Catholics kneel and make the sign of the Cross''
You know, it's funny about that. I know mafia bosses and their henchmen who do the sign of the cross as well. Most of the drug cartels are also very religious, they also do the sign of the cross, from the bosses on down. And all of them get absolution every Sunday Mass. Then they go out and kill, exploit, cheat, lie, steal, maim and oppress all over again the following week. Call me cynical, but I would imagine Christ being rather insulted by that. You are right about Protestants though, we don't have any fancy signs, just folded hands, closed eyes and kneeling when we pray. No need to make a show of it.
As a former Protestant, now faithful practicing Catholic, Protestant brothers and sisters please don’t watch this video with anger or to immediately refute it or with a hardened heart towards it. Just take it in, research it further for yourself and most importantly PRAY ON IT!! 🙏🏻 Glory to Jesus Christ!
So if you truly are a faithful practicing Catholic, you would never commit a mortal sin, which is evil in God’s sight right?
@@Wgaither1 I’ll pray for you, please pray for me 🙏🏻 God bless
@@Wgaither1 Anyone who claims to have never sinned is a liar, and anyone who guarantees won't sin again is full of hubris.
A faithful, practicing Catholic would avoid doing these things, through the grace granted to us by God, through our faith in Jesus Christ.
Does that make sense?
They can't, and they won't, because they are protesting.
@@Wgaither1 really? You actually think Catholics don't know that we're sinners? What do you think we do at the sacrament of Confession? To whom do you confess your sins?
Even when I looked at Church history from a purely material point of view, I was struck by the illogic, if not dishonest, view Protestants tend have toward Church history. They'd condemn the early Christians for idolatry, having a false Gospel, etc... but turn around and rely on the Scriptures these same people handed down?
Agreed bc an issue such as idolatry is one of the dogmas that can be more clearly supported even w Scripture alone. (The proper religious use of statues vs. improper use, intercession, etc) And so many who troll just. refuse to acknowledge the clear and logical biblical supprort. .. I heard a vid the other day from Bishop Strickland about Protrstants who reject cs those who are sincerely discerning and not automatically rejecting specifically Catholic dogma- After all this time later if they grow up in a Bible belt and aren’t really exposed to Catholicism, that’s different than Catholics who leave or those closed off who have been told. And that leaves it to us the duty to defend the faith and promote truth.
Isn’t that what we all do with the Old Testament? Israel followed after other gods numerous times but we all still rely on the Scriptures they passed down.
The idolatry they were chastising distant churches for were worshipping pagan idols. Those gentiles in the outer periphery were surrounded by pagans … they were themselves pagans who had converted. And they found it hard to completely give up those pagan idols. So Paul and other epistles were to chastise the bishops they left behind for not giving up their old ways completely.
Icons in the Catholic Church … statues and paintings of significant figures from the bible or scenes from the bible were done to help illiterate congregants to see and recognize a visual representation of writings they could not read. Those icons also aid those who reflect and pray to God to visualize what they are praying for.
Some people need to see what crucifixion to understand just how the Lord suffered. It’s the same reason movies and shows have been made about bible stories. Nobody worships those shows but watching them allows people to understand scripture and the stories within better.
And those movies and shows have converted many to Christianity. Shows like Passion of the Christ, Ten Commandments, The Chosen, and others all help bring life to scripture. Jesus himself was a visual teacher … he used imagery for his lessons.
Matthew 16:13-18 (RSVCE): Now when Jesus came into the district of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, “Who do men say that the Son of man is?” 14 And they said, “Some say John the Baptist, others say Elijah, and others Jeremiah or one of the prophets.” 15 He said to them, “But who do you say that I am?” 16 Simon Peter replied, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” 17 And Jesus answered him, “Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jona! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven. 18 And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it.
Caesarea Philippi was a pagan city and had a large mount upon which pagan idols were put into the mountainside. And a large hole where water that fed the river Jordan was part of it (back then holes with no apparent bottom were thought to be a gateway to hell and this one people threw sacrificed into). So when Jesus said Peter and on this rock I will build my church … it had dual meaning. The apostles could see that large rock of a mountain with pagan idols and people making sacrifices to their pagan gods as well as to Caesar. Christ was telling them he would conquer that rock with his church. And each of the idols that used to occupy that mountain are gone
@@joshuascott5814Actually no, in the old testament they were literally worshiping idols and God kept persuing them because He had made a covenant with them, so we trust God, who inspired their writings and called them to repentance many times. On the other hand, what some protestants do is dismiss the writings of the first christians only becaus they don't like what they wrote, despite the fact that they were giving their lives for their faith, very different
@@joshuascott5814 We don't trust the Scriptures as passed down by heretical groups. See: The Samaritan Torah.
Judaism had religion right, even if the common folk all fell away. Those who kept the Scriptures close and kept copies of it knew that idolatry was gravely sinful.
Whenever Israel fell away, a Prophet or a devout circle would keep the true religion alive.
The contention with the New Testament is that they allege that True Christianity was literally EXTINCT since the late 1st century until the Protestant Reformers came along. Everyone in between had was worse than a Pagan.
Very different situation.
My decision to convert was 100% because of the Eucharist. I came to accept and then greatly love and appreciate everything else, but if it weren’t for the Eucharist I highly doubt I would’ve ever been drawn to this faith that is now my whole world
I feel the same way. ❤️🔥🙏🏻🌹
John 6 and the Eucharist are responsible for many conversions to the Faith. There’s nothing wrong with coming into Christ’s Church out of a desire for the greatest intimacy with Him that is possible for human beings.
Union with Jesus in this life through the Eucharist is practice for Heaven!
Instead of Christ, it was a religious tradition?
It is nice, but it was a pity Jesus said he wouldn't be sharing wine until after the kingdom of heaven came.
It is a reminder, because the Eucharist would be without Jesus until the kingdom.
Was Jesus using his spurs already?
The problem is not that they can’t answer or explain. They can almost always answer and explain, the problem is their answer or explanation does not stand against serious scrutiny logically or theologically.
I think that is basically what he is saying
No papacy in the 1st century. No bishop claimed to be the chief shepherd of the church. That didn't happen until centuries later.
@@TheCoachsCoach933 Is that like a vicar of Christ Jesus
@@Justas399Said no educated person ever. But nice try satan.
@@markwilson1724yes like a Prime Minister politically speaking
Excellent! I left Calvinism after 46 years because I had to decide between the gospel presentation of John MacArthur or St Augustine… and it was no contest.
Calvinism is Augustinian. So those aren't even remotely the opposite ends of he spectrum.
@@ravissary79 I believed that until I actually read Augustine. No reformed church I ever attended would have admitted Augustine to their pulpits… for his ecclesial views alone, much less his sacramental theology. Augustine wasn’t just Catholic, but *Roman* Catholic to the core.
@@henrytucker7189 agreed, but calvinism is exploitly ripped right of the page of late Augustinian soteriology. Luther was an Augustinian monk, and Augustinian justification was his specialty. Calvin referenced Augustine more than any other.
Both lutherans and traditional reformed churches are highly liturgical and follow certain sacramental forms that share huge amounts of church DNA with
Roman Catholic ideas.
Popular neo-calvinists are sort of reformed Baptists so they're pretty different than traditional catholics.
@@ravissary79 I was Anglican before becoming Catholic so I’m well aware of liturgical reformed communities. I also read Calvin’s institutes when I was a teenager, subscribed to table talk and listened to thousands of hours of sermons from ligonier ministries et al. And I say again, not a single one of these churches - even the highly liturgical ones, would ever consider giving a pulpit to Augustine (unless he highly confined his remarks to the doctrines of grace) …nor would he dare mount it unless that church had apostolic credentials. He believed Peter had the keys. He believed in the papacy. He believed in Apostolic succession. Augustine was more Catholic than many Catholics I know! All heresies contain traces of DNA from orthodoxy… that’s what makes them so dangerous. Here is what Augustine wrote on Psalm 11:
“Let us then look to the text itself of the Psalm, which to me appears to be sung against the heretics, who, by rehearsing and exaggerating the sins of many in the Church, as if either all or the majority among themselves were righteous, strive to turn and snatch us away from the breasts of the one True Mother Church: affirming that Christ is with them, and warning us as if with piety and earnestness, that by passing over to them we may go over to Christ, whom they falsely declare they have.”
@@ravissary79 Brother, Calvin quoting Augustine doesn't make Calvin an Augustinian.
I quote Aristotle all the time and agree with much of his theology. St. Paul himself quoted Aristotle!
But I don't agree with all of Aristotle's theology. Some of it, but not all.
Similarly, many Protestants like to quote Thomas Aquinas and even John Paul II.
Augustine of Hippo would've fit right in a Catholic Church today, but wouldn't be by any measure considered Calvinist.
I hope that makes sense.
I love these videos because they help our separated brothers and sisters in faith to explore the profound layers of early Christianity, shedding light on its Catholic roots rather than adhering to Protestant interpretations. Keep up the great work, Joe❤
The church does not have Catholic roots. The Catholic church did not exist until 1054. Prior to that, the church in Rome was one of five apostolic patriarchates. While Catholic apologists almost universally say that the East left the church, that's simply not historically accurate. The patriarch of Rome excommunicated the patriarch of Constantinople and the remaining 3 patriarchates stayed in communion with Constantinople rather than Rome. Thus, it was Rome that split off, not the other churches. The other 4 remained in the same organization that had already existed for a thousand years and became known as the Orthodox church. The Catholic church has a long history for sure, but early Christianity has Orthodox roots not Catholic. It really doesn't matter how supreme and/or infallible you consider the Pope to be. It's simply factually inaccurate to say that early Christianity has Catholic roots. The patriarchates of Jerusalem and Antioch were the original churches, and both of them are Orthodox. Saying the early church has Catholic roots is like saying England has American roots. No. America today is the big superpower as Rome is in the Christian world today. But historically, America separated off from England, not the other way around. And historically Rome split off from the other patriarchates, not the other way around.
Thank you Joe. I started my Christian journey as a Southern Baptist heavily influenced by John McArthur. I've been Catholic now for 18 years. Praise be to God.
Keep up the great work! And blessings to you and your family.
As a non catholic, this was quite an interesting talk by joe
Look into it all, study it and most importantly pray about it with an open heart and willing to see where the Lord takes you 🙏🏻
He’s deceived. No Christian was or IS CATHOLIC
Well done, Joe. Encountering Protestants is frustrating. Your unpacking and analysis help immensely.
How would Sola Scriptura, as it’s practiced today, have worked for populations that were predominantly illiterate and when there was no printing press? There is no way it could have worked in early Christianity so it could not possibly be what Jesus and the apostles intended to leave us.
Very good point.
It didn’t work for the illiterate masses; they learned the Faith through the retelling of Bible stories, recited prayers, hymns and visuals such as statues, icons, Nativity scenes and stained glass window art…but that was all **gasp**”traditions of men”, which was eradicated by reformers, along with the Magisterium. That left just the Bible. But Sola Scriptura was a 14th century invention, and many Protestants today do not even subscribe to it.
Excellent point!
Scripture Alone is not literally meant to be "Bible printed on paper" alone. scripture was passed down by oral tradition and so we are instruction by this oral tradition to test any new oral traditions based on what has been taught. It is EXACTLY what was working and what was taught in the days of the apostles as it is written in 2 Timothy 3:14-16 English Standard Version
14 But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have firmly believed, knowing from whom you learned it
15 and how from childhood you have been acquainted with the sacred writings (old testament), which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus.
16 All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness
@@zacharyevans8152 So what’s being described in Timothy is Apostolic Succession and Sacred Tradition in conjunction with Holy Scripture: this is what Catholics practice. My understanding is that many Protestants believe in the perspicuity of scripture, meaning the Bible is so clear that people simply need to read the Bible and judge for themselves what it means. There is no way this could have been practiced in early Christianity when most people were illiterate and the Bible hadn’t yet been compiled and organized. Even when it was compiled, it was very expensive to translate and make copies, so it was not possible for everyone to read it for themselves. Also, the notion of perspicuity of scripture wasn’t even practiced by Jewish Rabbis who had different schools of thought and debated what parts of the scrolls meant. And in reality it’s not even practiced today because Protestants constantly fractionate and debate what the Bible means.
I bought your book "The Early Church was the Catholic Church", currently in the Eucharist and the Mass sections.
It's very well done. Thank you. I'm using it to help me talk to my Protestant family members. I appreciate you writing it 😊.
That's so kind of you to say. Thanks!
The Early church NEVER heard of Catholic doctrine. You cannot find in scripture the Immaculate Conception, Mary as sinless, the Assumption of Mary, prayers to the dead, relics venerated, indulgences, the priesthood or the Pope as an office of the church, purgatory, Sunday sacredness etc. The Early church had nothing in common with the Roman one. You have been misled.
@danielcristancho3524 you do understand that the body of the church (The Way) came before the Bible right? That is what is referred to as Sacred Tradition. Oral teaching by Jesus to the Apostles and to their disciples called Bishops.
And that the early church, through Sacred Tradition, identified what books were considered infallible and sacred and then compiled the Bible which they called Sacred Scripture.
So the claims you are talking about come from both Sacred Tradition AND Sacred Scripture, interpreted and discerned by the Bishops whom were established by the Apostles and their direct Disciples which we now refer to as the Magisterium (the Holy Catholic Church).
Joe. This is excellent. The actual examples rather than hours of theological explanations...this is what i was looking for
As an Orthodox Christian, I find many of your videos (along with Trent Horn's) to be very informative, entertaining, and insightful. While there are plenty of areas we will disagree on, there are many more places where we find common ground. Please keep up the good work.
Thank you, that's very kind! I appreciate the encouragement.
Yes, when you repent and become Orthodox Christians.@@CatholicDefender-bp7my
Simply brilliant analysis. Quickly becoming my favorite apologist. Joe and Trent are definitely two I can’t wait for their next TH-cam videos to come out.
Dude, I know I am late to the party here, but coming from an Anglican, this really was a genius explanation of things and an awesome presentation. Very much enjoyed.
I subscribed today when your followers are still at 14.1k. I felt that your channel will blow up in the future because this is very insightful but not discriminatory to other denominations. Its straight up facts with references/source. Thank you for all that you do. 💗
Man I completely forgot the power of marking yourself with the sign of the Cross. I pray I keep it's power in mind and no longer take it for granted.
No Apostle or Christian is EVER recorded as doing the 'sign of the cross ' in scripture. Neither Paul nor Peter ever heard of it.
@@danielcristancho3524 This is something that's only relevant to a minority of protestants and your are saying it to a Catholic.
If you didn't know that, you should educate yourself on the Catholic Church and Church history.
The comment is provocative and not helpful.
@@nathanvangoor4979 ''The comment is provocative and not helpful.''
First of all, there were no abusive names or insults, I just stated FACTS. If Biblical facts aren't what Catholics are into, fine, but you don't have to get your panties in a bunch over it. Just ignore me then and pretend I'm talking to someone else because my only purpose is to offer an alternative point of view. It's still a free country, last time I checked.
@@danielcristancho3524 I could state the most profane description of how your parents conceived you and though that would be factual, it would be very inappropriate and insulting. I could be even more inappropriate and link it to theology and respond to any objections with the accusation that you just aren't into theological facts.
Unless you think the given example is normal it's clear that 'just stating facts' can be an abuse of truth.
Now your "FACT" implies a denial of the initial statement, which provokes and seems to be aimed at creating a conflict. Christians are supposed to be bringers of peace and so any provocation should not be without a very good purpose.
You say the purpose was the offer an alternative point of view. This is not a good purpose as this purpose does not mention the good of the other in some form.
NB It's not an alternative view, as it's literally in the video.
@@nathanvangoor4979 ''I could state the most profane description of how your parents conceived you and though that would be factual, it would be very inappropriate and insulting.''
Yes, but the point is you would be using profanity, which is inappropriate and insulting, which I did not do.
''I could be even more inappropriate and link it to theology and respond to any objections with the accusation that you just aren't into theological facts. ''
How is that insulting OR INAPPROPRIATE?? We're having a disagreement, and you have the right to defend your point. I'm not going to get insulted because you want to defend what you believe. In fact, I'd prefer that to this whinny snowflake attitude.
Maybe it’s because I’m already Catholic but this seems to me to be a very persuasive argument, one of the best I’ve heard. Bravo, Shameless Joe.
Thank you for helping so many Protestants become Christian and embrace the life saving sacraments. ✝️🙏✝️🙏✝️🙏
Become Christian?? I’ve never seen a Pachamama Idol in an Evangelical Church.
and where are your sacraments found in scripture? or are they man made?
@@DannyLoydHere you go:
Baptism
John 3:5 - “Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.”
Matthew 28:19 - “Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptising them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit”
Confirmation
Luke 24:49 - “But stay you in the city of Jerusalem till you be endued with power from on high.”
The Eucharist
John 6:54 - “Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man, and drink His blood, you shall not have life in you.”
Sacrament of Penance [Confession]
Psalm 41:4 - “Heal, O Lord, my soul, for I have sinned against Thee.”
John 20:22-23 - “And with that he breathed on them and said, ‘Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive anyone’s sins, their sins are forgiven; if you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven.’”
Anointing of the Sick [Extrem Unction]
James 5:14-15 - “Is any man sick among you? Let him bring in the priests of the church, and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord. And the prayer of faith shall save the sick man, and the Lord shall raise him up, and if he be in sins, they shall be forgiven him.”
Matrimony
Matthew 19:4-6 - “Haven’t you read,” he replied, “that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,’ and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’? So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore, what God has joined together, let no one separate.”
Holy Orders
Matthew 10:1 - Jesus called his twelve disciples to him and gave them authority to drive out impure spirits and to heal every disease and sickness.
John 20:22-23 - “And with that he breathed on them and said, ‘Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive anyone’s sins, their sins are forgiven; if you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven.’”
I'm a recent convert myself but that's a pretty uncharitable thing to say... Many Protestants are Christian.... They are Brothers and sisters... Hopefully what you meant to say was thank you Joe for helping them come to and see the Fullness* of the faith...
Protestants are Christians; as the Church teaches!
The last minute of this show should be enough to wake up prodestants. They dont have the same faith as the early church. They have something radically different that the apostles would say wasn't Christian at all. Good job, Joe! Love your work ❤
Amen!
They're not Christians, it's that simply.
They dont have the same faith as the early church. They have something radically different that the apostles would say wasn't Christian at all. ''
I would believe that IF I COULD FIND CATHOLIC DOCTRINES SPELLED OUT IN THE NT. The Immaculate conception, the assumption of Mary or Mary dispensing graces in heaven, Sunday sacredness, the adoration of relics, prayers to the dead, purgatory, the office of Pope or priest, The Apostles giving absolution for sins, indulgences, etc. are NOWHERE IN THE NT. We're not the ones that need to wake up, mam.
@danielcristancho3524 The bible is not just the 4 gospels or the New Testament. It's the entire Bible and you must look at it as a whole to understand it. A Bible verse here and there to prove your point automatically disproves your point because as Peter said about Paul's writings and the bible. They are confusing and and easily twisted by the wicked and the uneducated. You must understand the teachings in the context of the Old Testament Jewish beliefs and the references that are pulled from the Old Testament. The bible isn't a how to make your own church manual.
Jesus did not leave us a bible. He left us a church that produced a bible. He never talked about a book. He started a church with Peter and the aposltes and said the gates of hell will not prevail against it. You seem to believe that Jesus either lied or was wrong. If you think that men who literally had the Holy Spirit put into them can fail and that your pastor who lierally started their own church whenever, succeeded, your faith in God is sorely lacking. God cannot fail. He is in control. He knows exactly what's going to happen. Jesus didn't say the gates of hell won't prevail until the 1500s and then I'll have to send new propets to get it back online. If you don't believe you can trust what he says about the church, why do you believe anything he said. I mean, if he can wrong about that, whatelse do you think he was wrong about?
Excellent job Joe proving that the Biblical and historical Catholic Church of the living God is the pillar and bull work of truth. I have searched my 73 book Catholic Bible cover to cover and I have yet to find a sentence, a verse or a chapter where Jesus or the inspired authors said that in the 16th century I will raise up ordinary, prideful men to restore my Church because I planned to let the Church I established fail.
Love the episode..it bottles my mind how protestants can't see. But I pray for their salvation
500 years of error is a lot to overcome. With God, all things are possible.
Most of them don't even know any of this, and those that do have to overcome their pride
Yes, I absolutely can't wrap my head around it, either. Apparently, neither could my great-grandfather and grandfather, both Catholic converts.
th-cam.com/video/Lm2fClDyO3o/w-d-xo.htmlsi=cN5ITH15cjKPYvUV
Because of pride they want to be their own authority. They refuse to submit to the Chuch Jesus gave authority to.
As a Protestant this is the question I would ask Pastors who never had an answer
What question? As a protestant what's your perspective?
@@ravissary79 my question would always be, with all the scandals in the Roman Catholic Church why do they still exist after 2000 years. They would shrug their shoulders. What exactly what he said is what came into my mind, the church that Christ established the gates of hell would not prevail.
@@ravissary79 There is also the reality that Catholicism is more than 1.25B members, globally. One Church, one name - hence, the scale is huge. This translates to huge positive and negative impact. Due to separate hierarchical structures and leadership, when the same scandal happens in a Protestant Church, it is typically assigned to and contained at a local church leader level. This limits liability on a local level, isolating and protecting themselves. If something happens in my local Catholic Church building, society goes for the deep pockets and the Pope / entire Church are blamed and held liable. Naturally, this doesn't excuse any wrong.
@@billpletikapich5640 True. Also, in protestant different gatherings, when a scandal takes place, they close down, or change their name. But most don’t last. This is what troubled me as a protestant.
@@believer8793Something persuasive to me is how Israel dealt with scandal. When the kings were corrupt, and the people worshipped idols, the prophets never said to the righteous "go start a new Israel and elect a new king." But that's precisely how protestant churches deal with those kinds of scandal. Separate from what God established and start something new. I don't see that fitting with how Jesus told us to operate
Would love to see what Gavin Ortlund would have to say about these controversies. He always touts that his form of Protestantism is based in early Christianity.
no offense to him he often cherry-picks
He's a joke.
lets gooooo thursday morning delivery!! ty Joe!
First time listener. Excellent podcast!
Perfect timing to listen and ponder while I get ready for the day!
As a recent protestant convert to the Catholic Church, referring to your last point, what helped me was correctly understanding Paul about faith v. works. Once you understand that Paul is referring to the works of the Mosaic law specifically and not good deeds or just any sort of action, then he is in perfect harmony with the rest of the new testament (thinking primarily of James here). Paul wasn't operating in a world where Christianity and Judaism were separate things. The question wasn't whether you were a Christian or a Jew. For Paul, there was only one people of God but participation was now open to all peoples, tribes, and nations through Christ. The question for Paul was how to be in Christ. For Paul, it is through faith in Christ apart from the old Jewish law. It is participation in the new covenant that saves, not the old covenant. He completely takes for granted that obeying Christ's commands, participating in the life of the Church, and good moral deeds are necessary parts of being in Christ.
👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻
Is this the same Paul that says "you are saved by grace through faith,"?
@@razoredge6130 correct, because we’re not jews. So it has to be through faith in Jesus Christ that 1. There is a God 2. He has revealed Himself 3. He has spoken specifically to the Jewish people over the course of several millenia 4. His Son came in the flesh to fulfill (not abolish) all that one was written.
So imagine you’re a pagan worshipping chickens and here comes Paul or one of the other apostles talking about sin and God etc you’re probably going to say, “what does that have to do with the price of tea in China?”
So alllll that theology, all that understanding has to be received by Grace and since you couldn’t magically become a jew nor would it suffice to slaughter 1,000 lambs a day for a proper sacrifice to the Almighty, so that is accomplished through faith in His Son.
We can’t look at scripture from our 2,000 foot view several millenia later. Nor can we discount 16 centuries of church teaching because Marty, Calvin and co thought they knew better. All you have to do is study the life of the reformers. For example, Martin Luther’s wife/ex nun would take turns… for lack of a better word, “servicing”, Luther’s students. This is historical fact. That is the founder of the 5 solas. you’ll quickly see they weren’t restoring OG Christianity, they were tearing at the fabric of unity.
@@daviddabrowski01 We don't follow the reformers, we follow the bible. We know and admit they're fallible men. Also god can and often chooses fallible men to work through.
If grace can be merited then it's no longer grace.
@@razoredge6130 if you frequent a Protestant church, you follow the reformers. Unless you’re saying you’ve been living on an island, a Bible washed ashore, you read it, and came to your own conclusions, then you follow the reformers. Why? Because the pastor at your church went to seminary, that seminary taught Protestant theology and that theology gets layered onto scripture. If you’re assuming all the reformers did was restore the early church then that can’t be true either because the reformers didn’t agree with one another. Calvin taught one thing, Luther taught something else and neither of them could stand Zwingli. The only way that argument could remain logical is if all the reformers taught the same thing.
Thank you very much. I found this very informative. The more I learn about the Church and its history ,the more I love Our Lord Jesus Christ and His Blessed Mother.
LOL... I just posted a comment on the Veil video that it was my favorite. Now I rly don't know. Too many great videos to choose from. Keep up the good work. I love how detail-oriented they are. Thank you, and may God bless you and your ministry 😊
Confessional Lutheran here. Cannot tell you how great it is to finally come across a Catholic video that doesn't lump all Protestants together and instead looks at them based on thier merits/believe systems. I am so tired of being catagorized the same as some of these blasphemous, ungodly groups not so much because we are "Protestant" but simply because we are not Catholic.
Keep up the good work.
Seen a couple of your videos but this one made me ready to subscribe. Great content. I really enjoyed it
Orthodox Christian here loved the video
Good job. May God bless you, your work and family. Magnificent narration.
Man Joe is on fire! I absolutely love this podcast! Joe makes such good and strong points. I remember when I was a kid and I read scripture, I confessed to my Methodist aunt that I would do anything to be a part of that original Christian church. She said “everyone wishes that church was still around but it just isn’t” I thought it was such a defeatist idea. Like how bleak of a statement to tell a child. That’s just where bad theology gets you, you end up teaching children horrible things like that!
I'm glad you keep picking on John MacArthur. He's a good target for these critiques, since he's probably the most important public Christian who holds all the major positions (Calvinist, presbyterian, credobaptist, dispensationalist, cessationist, regulative principle) that separate American Protestants from historic, Catholic Christianity. And something about him and his following just rubs me the wrong way, where he gets praised as a great preacher and defender-of-the-faith for getting up in front of a camera, doing his mean little squint, and throwing around the word "heretic." Keep it up Joe, God bless.
He represents a tiny minority. Baptists may be dominant in America, and calvinism started to seize control of popular protestant church institutions, but never actually succeeded in speaking for popular protestantism and remains HIGHLY opposed by most protestants.
And due to scandals of late he's slowly losing his popularity among non calvinists (lots of people just like him because of his expository preaching, but don't agree with his idiosyncratic theology, he isn't even always preaching his own distinctives, such that lots of people who like him don't even KNOW he's a calvinist).
@@ravissary79 I think ANY Protestant represent a "tiny minority," right? The factionalization within Protestantism is such that I can't imagine anyone living who would be a representative figure agreed upon by most Protestants. For what it's worth, Preaching.com lists John MacArthur as the fifth-most influential pastor of the 25 years, after Billy Graham, Charles Swindoll, Rick Warren, and Gardner C. Taylor. Other than Billy Graham, I'm not sure any of those other figures would be less controverisal or less niche. So hopefully, it's not unfair to highlight him as an important and influential false voice on these topics.
@@shamelesspopery by and large yes, which is why the best way to deal with apologetic concerns like this is through apologetic dialog, not treating a MacArthur as representing of anything other than his own sub-faction of one movement in 1 denomination.
@@ravissary79 Maybe I overestimate the extent of Calvinism. But I'm guessing a majority of the American low church holds at least a few of these positions (obviously charismatics don't believe cessation or the regulative principle). Some of the young nondenoms I've talked to don't even know that these are up for debate outside their bubble. The fact that MacArthur holds a royal flush of these opinions makes him a good subject for these videos.
@@andrewpearson1903 yes, as a kind of topical avatar he's interesting, but he's also a Cypher to much of his audience. For years I've heard MacArthur fans deny he was even a calvinist or at least that he was only a 3 or 4 pointer. Its only become more broadly common knowledge in the last 10 years or so that he is in fact a full-throated calvinist, and only very recently that he's ALWAYS been one, and that he PRETENDED to slowly adopt these views via exegesis over decades, but he recently said he thought this since seminary, before he ever did slow long form exegesis that he's now famous for.
This is because he didn't think his chirch would accept his theology because they WEREN'T calvinist. This new fad of popular calvinism in Baptist circles isn't reflective of dominant American evangelicalism, but like modern liberalism, is a byproduct of the universities. Calvinists favored eachother almost like Feeemasons in the ivory tower, gaining footholds and then dominance through ideological nepotism. And from this dominance the restless reformed movement took hold, but part of this movement was stealth infiltration of non-calvinist churches by New pastors fresh out of the ivory tower where they were indoctrinated (not raised in this from their own community). In short is spread the same way WOKENESS did, artificially, not through faith communities who actually understood and agreed with it.
True, amongst some it did get very popular, way more than it used ro be, WAY more, but it's estimated even post restless-reformed, most Baptist churches are still more free-will oriented soteriologically. And that's just Baptists. Presbyterians aren't remotely dominant, and most non-denoms and independent popular churches are vaguely calvary chapel like... essentially Arminians. If more Wesleyan, they're loosely compatible with Eastern Orthodox understanding of will and salvation, just in a less sacramental model of spitirual life and worship.
A shrewd argument, this pointing out of the silence in recorded history on the majority of protestant positions on so many key questions.
John McAuthur's last name points to Ulster-Scots ancestry. The Ulster-Scots, among those calling themselves the real Christians, cannot be beat in their disdain for Catholicism. So, he, to a certain degree, inherited his combativeness towards Catholicism. Also, the Ulster-Scots, more than any ethnicity, gave the United States its overall culture. The disdain for Catholicism, for the Church of England, for monarchy, which means disdain for hierachy, can all be heard in his sermonizing, like most any Protestant minister.
MW John Mac has Scottish rite FM as does the SBC. The group that brought abortion to the U.S.
Joe kept up the good work we need more people like you thanks
Just the tip of the iceberg of just how Catholic the early Church was.
No. The early church was nothing like the Catholic church. Peter amd Paul NEVER taught a sinless, Immaculate Mary, adoration of relics for grace, thr Assumption of Mary, prayers to.the dead, purgatory, Sunday sacredness, bowing to images in the church, the eradication of the 2nd commandment, the priesthood as an office of the church. There's more but you get the picture. Roman Catholicism was not known in the early church.
@@danielcristancho3524 Would you agree that, besides the writings of the apostles, the writings of those taught by the apostles Peter, John, Paul, etc. are the best evidence of what the apostles/early Church actually taught and believed?
@@tonyl3762 ''apostles Peter, John, Paul, etc. are the best evidence of what the apostles/early Church actually taught and believed?''
Not if they're going to contradict or add to scripture, no. Ignatius is not Scripture. I prefer to get my doctrine from the actual writers of the bible. If the bible doesn't verify what Ignatius writes, then it's just his opinion. Doctrines are not made on opinions.
@@danielcristancho3524 If they got their own beliefs/doctrines directly from the apostles who taught and appointed them, why shouldn't that have just as much weight/authority as Scripture itself? It's ultimately the same source, namely the apostles. Why idolize the script/written?
Would you not agree that whether something contradicts Scripture or not is a matter of interpretation? If those taught by the apostles see no contradiction, then why should we? Why should I believe your determination that a contradiction exists versus the determination of those who were actually taught, approved of, and appointed by the apostles themselves?
@@tonyl3762 ''If they got their own beliefs/doctrines directly from the apostles who taught and appointed them, ''
If they got them from the Apostles, then those beliefs would be in the NT. Most of them are not.
''It's ultimately the same source, namely the apostles. ''
No, it is not the same source. The Apostles' source was the Holy Spirit. WE don't know who the sources were for the Church Fathers since the Apostles were already dead and could not testify to the veracity of their claims. Therefore, if they contradict scripture or their opinions cannot be verified by scripture, then they are merely opinions and have no authority.
My favorite thing about Protestantism is it doesn't exist for the first 1,500 years of Christianity--makes up practices that never exist, and then claim to be the truer form of original Christianity. Makes sense.
@oldenglishD Protestants share the same 1500 years of history as the RCC, as we were part of the RCC. That is a weird claim that we don't. The last 500 years is different. Protestants fought abuses within the Church and they no longer considered the RCC as a reliable keeper of God's Church. I believe the RCC, Protestantism, and Orthodox all fall woefully short of being the One True Church. However, I believe all are part of the One True Church.
@@westdcProtestantism is heresy. There is only One True Church of Jesus Matt 16 18-19 which codified the Bible in 382 from which pope Francis removed 7 books under whose authority Deut 4:2
Thats my favorite part of protestantism too plus the absolute judgmental attitude that comes with it.
@@pemcortes9467 Plenty of judgement & pride on both Protestant and Catholic sides lets not kid ourselves. Protestant, Catholic, Orthodox doesn't change the fact that Jesus Christ is still King of Kings and our Lord & savior ONLY.
@@jaysonb.6669 you just displayed it yourself.
Thanks for this. I haven't converted it but the moment I knew i have to become Catholic was ultimately because of the Eucharist.
I haven't converted because I currently live with anti Catholic parents
praying for you Josh!
Wait until you perform the Sacrament of Penance 🙂. The Grace that flows and is designed to flow, just from that one Sacrament alone, is Supernatural. Plus, us Catholics, Orthodox have this times 7!! The Holy Spirit immediately brought my mind to this passage of Scripture when I read your last sentence as it broke my heart to read.
Matthew 10: 34-40 "34 “Do not think that I have come to bring peace on earth; I have not come to bring peace, but a sword. 35 For I have come to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law; 36 and a man’s foes will be those of his own household. 37 He who loves father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; and he who loves son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me; 38 and he who does not take his cross and follow me is not worthy of me. 39 He who finds his life will lose it, and he who loses his life for my sake will find it.
Rewards
40 “He who receives you receives me, and he who receives me receives him who sent me."
THE EUCHARIST!!! Malachi 1:11 is an old Testament prophecy regarding the Eucharist that the Church has known from the beginning. In fact, the Apostle Paul famously said that we have an Altar others cannot approach (Judaism, old temple sacrifice). I have come to fulfill the law, not abolish it said our Lord. A New and Everlasting Covenant has been established by Christ and HIS One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church.
I decided to convert at 17 and my mom was anti Catholic. And she was upset because I wanted to convert we didn’t talk to each other for a week. Eventually we sat down and worked it out. I would just explain to my parents why I want to convert and show them the early Christians were Catholic. I would educate myself because people always question Catholic beliefs. I would start praying the rosary and ask for Mary intercession a great prayer book is the scared heart prayer book
Cradle Catholics don’t always appreciate how fortunate they are to be born into the Faith, nor do they always have an awareness of the opposition and personal loss that many would-be converts face. Put yourself under the protection of Our Lady, and She will surely see you through your journey home to Her Son’s Catholic Church. May God soften your parents’ hearts, and may He bless and strengthen you abundantly!
@@princessc660 rosary is my favorite prayer. I wrote a 600 page paper covering Catholic dogma and church history. The only problem is I poorly cited things. I didn't in text citation I cited in a footnote at the end of the chapter and at the end of the paper
Item 1 Luke 22:19. 1 Corinthians 11:24-25. I can’t imagine where we Protestants come up with it being a remembrance.
Its what you do and don't do in remembrance. Share with us what you think that remembrance means.
Excellent video, Joe! Keep up the good work!
Let me add my thanks to so many, for your extraordinary clarity, and for making such arcane subjects so interesting! I recently discovered your channel and am slowly working my way through your past work. So helpful!
Joe, I haven’t yet seen any modern Catholics seriously address the Nag Hammadi writings in detail. It’s a relatively new field, in spite of their coverage by the early church heresiologists. Some (not just whacky New Agers, but sincere scholars) say that the texts themselves of the relatively recently discovered codices do not totally gel with what is claimed about them by the 2nd-3rd century heresiologists. I wonder if a revisitation is necessary, whether critical or charitable (the Origen treatment😂). I’d love to see you cover this topic. Thanks for your content!
Your content is way higher quality than most both in depth and scope.
Hey brother, great analysis - thanks for the shout out to my book! I have often said that the Novatianists were the first Protestants - and I know that's a bit of both an anachronism and a hyperbole, but the analogy works, especially in the practice of re-baptism, which is, in its essence, an act of schism. - Jim Papandrea, The Original Church
Thank you! And thanks for writing the book. Did I pronounce your last name correctly?
@@shamelesspopery - ha, close enough! we actually have family members pronounce it different ways, so there are multiple "right" ways to say it - it just depends on how Italian you want to sound when you say it! Blessings!
I learned several things from this video. Thanks SO much!
Any body ever read the Scriptures in context.
Amazing stuff! This form of learning about the history of my faith really suits me. God bless. Glory to the Triune God for such great teachers!
I came into the church almost 13 years ago. It started with baptismal regeneration, then it was the fact of the Church’s perseverance through history compared with the volatility of all other churches. Sola fide went next, the authority of the Church convinced me, and I thought maybe Marian doctrines would bail me out, but I ended up agreeing with them too after giving them a fair hearing. Best thing I ever did.
Very informative even for a Catholic, I just understood the history of the sign of the cross, very good. God bless your works
Even for a Catholic 😂 your works.
You're kidding?
@@iggyantioch really ? never heard of that kind of pelagian teaching my friend, please study. God bless
Give me your study guide.
A theological work of merit and I will check it out
Which part of the vid is pelagic?
@@iggyantioch sorry maybe you misunderstood my comment, I am a Catholic and just learned the about the sign of the cross ( on forehead )
My experience as a Catholic discussing/arguing with several different Protestants is that usually it's like talking to a woman who claims she's a man, or vice-versa. I can give them stats, Bible quotes, logic, history and often it is swept away with the magic incantations, "That's just your opinion," or "Ooh, that doesn't mean that! (Concerning an explanation of a Bible quote). They next give some illogic then declare victory. My objective explanations often met by their subjectivity. "I believe my church goes back to Jesus. Your fake Catholic church has paralleled my XYZ Church." Same as "I don't have certain male biology but I think I am a man, so I am."
Because moral relativism and anti-scientific methods have led to a lot of Protestant traction. To the point a lot of us growing up were discouraged from even being Christian because rationalize against Creationism. Even though the Catholic Church prefers divine intervention through Evolution, it allows compatibility with creationism without it being dogmatic. That's a consequence of your conversion process just being "I believe in faith" with no works. It makes you intellectually and emotionally lazy.
M W More great comments.
This was an excellent presentation!
That was really interesting! Thank you for this video!
As a “Protestant” I enjoy learning things from all parts of Christianity that helps mold me into the Christian man I should be. There’s so many great things from all of the different parts. Thanks for some cool info. I think all sects have issues.
Just think how that
Conversation would of happened
Matthew 16: 24-26 24 Then Jesus told his disciples, “If anyone would come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross and follow me. 25 For whoever would save his life[a] will lose it, but whoever loses his life for my sake will find it. 26 For what will it profit a man if he gains the whole world and forfeits his soul? Or what shall a man give in return for his soul?
Protestant: well you see Jesus,
Pastor Bob has a Dr degree in theology, and he said all I needed was to have faith and we would be saved. Dont waste our time with baptism, communion, we don’t need it, just make sure you go to the cross die, that’s it is finished.
And thank you for the rapture I am pretty sure a lot of Christian’s will die from now on, not knowing there was a get out of jail card without any pain and suffering to follow you. 😅
You have a misunderstanding of what Protestants believe. We take up our cross and follow him out of love, not because we seek some benefit.
I loved this talk. And it's something I've been investigating a lot myself lately as a new convert.
Tertullian has so many great things to say. I wish he never fell into Montanism. 😔 Montanism seems like modern day Pentecostalism. Is that an accurate assessment?
There are some similarities, but I don't think it applies fully. I had to look up Montanism myself but I was a former Pentacostal/Charismatic although those are two distinct groups.
Pentacostals believe that being Spirit filled is the the baptism of the Spirit (they separate it from the water) and that is the baptism received for power with the first being Pentacost.
Charismatics essentially believe in that same theology, but do not demand that it be accompanied with a sign of tongues or anything of the sort. Those things are the Holy Spirit confirming, at His pleasure, the power of God for the faithful.
Both believe that because the gifts are still active and that the five offices of the Church (penta again) are still active are prone to believe that prophecy is still active. I still believe this after I became Catholic, but understand it's acted on differently, but more accurately.
As Jaroslav Pelikan said of Tertullian, he had far more impact on what he encountered that it had on him, including Montanism. And I salute T for his embrace of credo- not paedo-baptism. T said that if we understood Baptism correctly, we'd fear its reception more than it's delay because the baptizand is claiming a relationship to God by receiving Baptism and God does not like it when one makes such claims unless they are true.
Thanks for the explanation of the sign of the cross. I will perform this act openly without shame.
As a lapsed cradle Catholic who has flirted with converting to Protestantism, this changed my mind about that.
Excellent information - you broke down very complex issues in such a way that was easy to understand!
Great work once again, Joe. I’m wondering if you could do a video on how Luther and Calvin (mis?)appropriated the church fathers?
Thank you for this its so interesting and im finding out a lot I didnt know
The section on the diocletion period was very profound and shows how almost superstitiously phobic protestants have become in their aversion to making the sign of the cross.
@@po18guy
Yeah I originally thought the problem of the imminent paraouisa couldn't be solved until I heard pope Benedict XVI say the eucharist was a type of paraouisa. I thought that didn't work as angels are meant to come with Christ, until I remember that manna was administered by angels. The eucharistic is a mystical paraouisa.
Thank you for this video Joe! I thoroughly enjoy your explanations and am also deep into reading your books!
More on this Joe! ❤
Great video! The donatist controversy was a big struggle for me when i was a protestant.
Why? I know if no protestant school of thought that struggles with this.
@@ravissary79 as I understand it, both sides of the controversy assumed the truth of sacramental efficacy. I looked up to Augustine too. So seeing Augustine's role in this debate and the ubiquity of the belief that sacraments were efficacious were some of the contributing factors that started moving me away from my baptist position.
@@jess96154Lutherans, Anglican, and most reform believe baptism saves and even have a higher view of baptism than Rome.
Rome believes your baptism doesn’t cover any temporal debt and only by penance or purgatory you can cover it. Magisterial Protestant believe that baptism covers it all eternal and temporal
@@FosterDuncan1 sure, there are protestant groups that believe in sacramental efficacy. At that time my studies in church history moved me from the Baptist position to Lutheranism with a brief stop in classical reformed thought.
@@FosterDuncan1 by the way, I'm pretty sure catholicism does teach that baptism remits all sin temporal and eternal (see catechism of Catholic Church 1263. Aquinas also writes about this quite a bit in the third part of the summa question 69 esp article 2). If you have a source to the contrary, I would be interested to see it.
Just wanted to say that the sign of the cross is actually biblical. Ezekiel 9:4-6 illustrates this.
4 and Yahweh said to him, 'Go all through the city, all through Jerusalem, and mark a cross on the foreheads of all who grieve and lament over all the loathsome practices in it.'
5 I heard him say to the others, 'Follow him through the city and strike. Not one glance of pity; show no mercy;
6 old men, young men, girls, children, women, kill and exterminate them all. But do not touch anyone with a cross on his forehead. Begin at my sanctuary.' So they began with the old men who were in the Temple.
I believe this connects as well to Revelation, in which the followers of Jesus have the mark of the lamb put on their foreheads, and other places it says it will be God's name
@@michaelbeauchamp22 in the previous chapter it talks of the Israelites worshiping an idol and God was revealing to Ezekiel their evil and that it would incur God's anger. So with that in mind I'd say it's historical, but it can still be applied to revelations too as the cross is a symbol (mark) of salvation.
@@Sicarius089 Oh yes, I agree it was historical. What I meant is that the OT event in Ezekiel foreshadows this NT thing, which we practice, and which is discussed in Revelation
Protestants cant explain these things because unless you are a preacher you wont even know about them. For protestants God doesnt care about rituals.. its about your own personal spiritual relationship with God and Jesus. Literally thats it. Many of them havent read the entire bible.. and theres less books in it
thanks Joe, for this very enlightening video. Clear and concise, and perhaps entertaining too.
I was very interested in the title of this video, which is very well done, btw, and I appreciate the interacting with historical and even good Protestant sources. Controversy #1, however, was the only one that was of much interest. The "problems" as given in this video seems to be: If you agree with Rome's (very selective) view of history and authority then Protestants have no answers. Yes, Protestants have very good answers, we just reject the dogmatic assumptions behind these supposed "problems." Historic Protestants do believe in church tradition, they just don't believe tradition, as defined by Rome, is inerrant and the final authority. To go through briefly each point:
1) Luther & Calvin did not deny the real presence of Christ in the Supper. They rejected the later invention of transubstantiation. Where did the early church teach transubstantiation?
2) The Puritan Reformed tradition rejects Easter and the liturgical calendar, how is this not an answer? Yes, they rejected things they thought early church got wrong. Of course, many Protestants do celebrate Easter, though it is certainly not required in Scripture.
3) Again, how is this a problem? Yes, Protestants have an answer to Tertullian. (i.e. "Where are altars in New Testament worship?)
4) Again, how is this a problem? Biblically, and from the record of the Ante-Nicene church, there is no supreme earthly ruler of the church, especially the bishop Rome. Also, where did the Lutheran, Reformed or Anglicans teach that the church is not necessary?
5) Again, how is this a problem? Protestants have a very clear answer about tradition (whether good or bad) and the authority of tradition (especially as interpreted exclusively by Rome). Doug Wilson gave a very good and godly answer.
6) Again, how is this a problem? Yes, we judge even Augustine, and all the church fathers, by the standards of Scripture. There is a difference between a theologian making a mistake and a whole denomination officially embracing error.
Any time to prove Johnny Mac wrong, I'm lovin' it!
I'm a Protestant that often defends Catholic beliefs to people like John McArthur and Calvinist. Not because I hold the exact same beliefs in the same way as Catholics(then I'd just join the Roman Church), but because I can see where Catholics come from in forming their beliefs. In the end, I still believe we both are Christians and that we do hold the same basic beliefs, but I refuse to be Catholic because I feel some ideas are taken farther than they should.
That being said, I don't hold a theology degree, but I will attempt to represent a Protestant's reactions to these six controversies. Overall, most protestants wouldn't bat an eye at any of these because they would insist that these weren't problems for the first century church(save the gnostics) that the Protestant churches are trying to represent.
1. Of course the Eucharist is meaningful and an important to our faith as one of the few rituals proscribed in the New Testament, and the gnostics are an obvious Greek heresy combining the sinfulness of the flesh with Platonism.
2. I don't know of any Protestant denomination that doesn't celebrate Easter on Sunday(except 7th day Adventist, for obvious reasons to them) because birth of Christ changed everything about how we judge time including the calendar.
3. It's fine to take communion during fasting, so we'd take Tertullian side. Protestants still call the bread in the communion "the Body of Christ" and commemorate "His Sacrifice". Just as the Jews don't literally believe the 10th Plague is passing over their homes during the Passover Meal, Protestants hold these things sacred and holy but not as a literal sacrifice of Jesus' body. Protestants aren't alone in seeing the language here as powerful and true but not as seriously as Catholics do; Eastern Orthodox do hold to the transformation of the bread and wine, but neither assert it as a part of their Dogma nor are as certain when it happens as Rome is.
4. I assure you that many Protestants Denominations believe all those outside "the one true church" are not saved. The difference being they not only believe themselves(possibly as small as 20 of them or as large as millions) are they only members of the "One True Church", and you get into that church by accepting Salvation by Christ Alone. Obviously this is small difference in language that causes large gaps between Christians, but Protestants would look at these writings and see the unrighteous being physically among the Church of Christ when they are being saved spiritually into the Church of Christ by following Christ commands. As above, stated, my personally beliefs are that we(protestants, catholics, orthodox) are in the same spiritual church and church body, but different earthly administrations. I understand why few share that view though.
5. Protestants believe in cross and that miracles can be done through this symbol. It's great that you do it in the same way as the Christians with Diocletian did even if you guys only do it on Ash Wednesday(from what I can see), and I disagree(as well as most Protestants) with Doug Wilson that we should avoid doing anything that looks Catholic. We should all look a like in action honestly.
6. Many Protestants view Catholics in the same way Augustine viewed the Donatist; caring more about whose ideas descended from whom rather than who follows right doctrine. I know enough about Catholicism to know that it's not true, but Joe is correct that we don't fully agree with Augustine here. We see why he felt the need to tie right doctrine to the church administration of his day(especially since the Arian Vandals were at his door), but we disagree that that administration will always know best(or even better).
If you've read this far, thanks for giving your time. I very much appreciate that Joe goes through all this history and makes solid defense of Catholicism. Sincerely, keep up the good work.
CheyeWillingham, may I ask which denomination you belong to
@@Charity-vm4bt Yes you may. I grew up in a Baptist church that turned Charismatic Pentecostal oddly enough after local group of Catholic nuns prayed we'd receive the Holy Spirit. Because of that inspirational jumble, I've always felt kinship with any sincere Christian.
@@cheynewillingham2107Great testimony!!
Calvin has it exactly backwards. The books of the Bible were assembled to serve as the lectionary of the church. The liturgy precedes the Bible, not the reverse.
What one would expect from a heretic
Interesting information. Thanks
This is a learned and articulate presentation. Thank you.
Question: Doesn’t the sign of the cross come from the Old Testament In Ezequiel? The sign of the taw
ESL speaker here. In the context here presented, I don`t get the meaning of "taken for granted". My instinct would be to interpret that expression as meaning something that is taken as fundamental by everyone, so they don't even need to declared it. Please correct me.
That's right. You can call a fact "granted" or "a given" when it's already accepted by everyone.
Your understanding is correct.
I will admit that as a Protestant, I have refrained from making the sign of the cross because it “looked Catholic” and not because I see anything inherently wrong with it. Though I think it would be a good thing for Protestants to embrace.
Embrace the Fullness of Truth. Other communities do indeed have truths about Christ, but are not the fullness and are not catholic (universal). Join the Church of Jesus and the Apostles, the Catholic Church. All other groups are defined by how they are not Catholic... why is that?? Its something to consider. Only the Catholic Church has a positive theology. Other communities have a negative theology, i.e. "We believe this, bc we don't believe this"
Making the Sign of the Cross is a re-affirmation of our baptismal promises, if that helps. We do not attempt to sanitize Our Lord’s Sacrifice by downplaying His Crucifixion, but by bringing it to our remembrance often.
Amen!
I love these videos!
Thank you, amazing podcast. As a return Catholic, i now believe I have come back home to the true Christian faith with the fullness of truth. I also believe in more so in pre vatican ii teaching from traditional sources and traditional Catholicism. God bless you all and i hope and pray that you will practice your faith daily and get to mass as often as you can. And confess your sins is soo important before taking communion. All Glory be to God, Amen.
Attn: Gavin Ortlund
Joe, you have been more helpful than anyone as I go through RCIA. But I really wish you would address the Calvinist view of the Eucharist, specifically as he articulates it in chapters 17 and 18 of the fourth book in "Institutes"
Constantly rebutting the Baptists is low-hanging fruit. Especially since the earliest reformers, except Zwingli, would have found the Baptist form of worship to be just as, if not more, blasphemous than the Catholic view. I get that most Protestants in America are memorialists, but memorialism is not part of the original reformation. So it feels like a strawman to constantly suggest that "Protestants" can't address these issues when you're specifically rebutting memorialists. A Calvinist could easily understand the Ignatius dispute in light of Jesus' sacramental presence in the Eucharist.
Where in any of Calvin's writings he claims the Eucharisst TO BE the flesh of Christ?
@@ghostapostle7225 Read my comment. I cited the exact chapters where Calvin talks about the transformation from ordinary bread to the sacramental presence of Christ's body
@@sivad1025 Chapters are not exact quotes, but not a problem, I did the homework for you:
"I now come to the hyperbolical mixtures which superstition has introduced. Here Satan has employed all his wiles, withdrawing the minds of men from heaven, and imbuing them with the perverse error that Christ is annexed to the element of bread." - Chapter 18, paragraph 12.
So, he doesn't believe the Eucharist to be the flesh of Christ. Consubstantiation is not the same as transubstantiation. For him the bread and wine are symbols of Christ presence, not his presence in itself.
"Thus when bread is given as a symbol of the body of Christ, we must immediately think of this similitude. As bread nourishes, sustains, and protects our bodily life, so the body of Christ is the only food to invigorate and keep alive the soul. When we behold wine set forth as a symbol of blood, we must think that such use as wine serves to the body, the same is spiritually bestowed by the blood of Christ; and the use is to foster, refresh, strengthen, and exhilarate." - Chapter 18, paragraph 3
This is clearly not the same language as the early Christians used about the Eucharist BEING the Body and Blood of Christ, and not a symbol.
@@ghostapostle7225 This is why I didn't provide quotes. When you actually read the entirety of what Calvin says, he explains his language further. The biggest divide between the two sides is a difference of language which can't be seen in a couple sentences.
Calvin does say that the elements are "symbols" but he is not talking in the way a Baptist is. A Baptist thinks the whole event is just a symbolic gesture. Calvin is talking about the physical nature being symbolic. The species is bread (which Aquinas affirms) and represents the species of Christ's body (which Aquinas also affirms). Aquinas and Calvin disagree on the substantial nature. Aquinas posits that despite the species of bread representing the species of flesh, the substance is truly the same substance as Jesus' flesh through the power of the spirit.
When Calvin addresses the early church like Ignatius who says "the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ," he understands this in a sacramental way. The bread has indeed been transformed from ordinary bread to sacramental bread. And this sacramental bread truly confers the body of Christ to those eating through the power of the spirit. It's essentially the same understanding except for the fact that Calvin denies that the substance has been intrinsically changed.
I think Catholics tend to have a rose colored view of church history when it comes to the Eucharist. It's not as black and white as you suggest. The earliest church fathers are very vague about the nature of this change. Is the change substantive or just spiritual and sacramental? This question isn't really discussed until the 9th century, and when it is discussed, faithful Catholics like Ratramnus and Robertus took opposing sides. Aquinas' articulation is designed to unify the two sides in the church. But it's patently absurd to suggest that Aquinas' view was "the same language as the earliest Christians." It would be more appropriate to say that his view is _consistent_ with the view of the earliest Christians.
The problem I have is that Catholics don't spend time explaining why Calvin's view is _not_ consistent with the early church. They tend to rebut Calvin by superimposing Baptist theology into his writings as you did. And I don't mean that as an offense. I would have the same understanding if I read the quotes you provided. But that's why you should actually read the whole chapter to understand the way he uses the language of "symbol" and "spiritual."
@@sivad1025 Its an after thot for Calvin. The real presence does not fit into his larger systematic defined in his Institutes. Calvinist outright mock the Catholic view of the Eucharist and that would be in line with imputation and divine decrees, double predestination and penal substitution - all low grade notions of Calvin. Rose colored glasses off, the Catholic Church has definitive teachings that have withstood the test of time. Calvin's teachings go back to his self centered notion of "Calvin's brand.
Wonderful content
Well-said brother. Thank you for your unrelenting researches and studies for the sake of the truth. The Truth is Jesus and his only one, holy, apostolic and catholic Church which has been empowered to do exactly what Jesus did. Protestanism is nothing but an obstacle lying dead on the path to Eternity, so, lets ignore it and continue to do the preaching of the Good News without fear.
I grew up Protestant but converted to Orthodoxy as an adult. Finding the Orthodox Church has been the best thing in my life and for my relationship with God.
I just finished watching "satans guide to the bible" The channel did a remarkable job on outlining the bible, and how their seminaries were built under Protestantism to understand the bible yet continually argue over scripture.
I keep seeing that in my feed. What's the shot of it? Is it an atheist anti-evangelical video?
@@Malygosblues Not quite sure. It uses different sources in order to show the literal errors in scripture, but primarily shows how basically Protestantism is the root cause of this. Early in his video, the speaker quickly tells the audience this fact. Ironically, I watched another video where 3 protestants are saying that those who deconvert were really never Christian, which makes me roll my since they themselves believe in their own bible alone fallacy.
@@GarthDomokos I see what you're saying but within the first few minutes it seemed to be saying that the association of the figure of the devil and satan is a forced association.
I think the maker's goals are broadly anti-Christian rather than antiProtestant. I could be wrong, but it just didn't seem worth it.
Apologists are needed to view and reply to this video (“S@tan’s Guide to the Bible”). Can anyone help out? Although there is only the briefest reference to Catholicism in this program, comments from lapsed and former Catholics are piling up, and no one is setting them straight. There are also respondents from people of all faiths that need correct information conveyed in a very concise manner.
I watched the entire “S@tan’s Guide to the Bible”. Three guys developed it over ten years, and it is engaging from an audiovisual standpoint. OTOH, there is irreverent, vulgar and borderline blasphemous content that calls for careful discernment. I am very concerned about the impact of this video on poorly catechized people, and those of weak or absent faith of all religions.
This presentation exposes the erroneous biblical teachings perpetrated by Protestant “biblical scholars”, and the hypocritical, self-serving nature of their ministries: of course, there is nothing objectionable about exposing error and fraud.
There is a curious exclusion of the Catholic and Orthodox, which, while still unified in 397 A.D., produced the first Bible. The creators had an opportunity to offset the confusion of Protestant Bible teaching with authoritative Catholic Church interpretation, but they inexplicably did not. The video fails to offer viewers an alternative to the myriad skewed Protestant biblical interpretations, evidently leaving only the options of agnosticism and atheism.
Not all protestants deny that Jesus is present in the Eucharist. Confessional Lutherans believe that the Christ's body and blood is truly present in the bread and wine; some protestants say He is "Spiritually" present. And others just say that the bread and wine are symbolic. I was raised confessional Lutheran, and find myself closer to Catholicism theologically than to other protestant groups.
Never heard of any protestant who believes in transubstantiation (not only Christ is truly present but the bread IS his body and the wine IS his blood). Even if consubstantiation seems to be only a minor difference, it's fundamentally different enough to justify the increase distance from latter development of protestantism.
Our Lord may be present in some way at Protestant communion services. However, Christ’s Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity are made present in the Eucharist-by way of the process of transubstantiation-only when the words of Consecration are prayed by His Catholic and Orthodox priests in the context of Holy Mass/Divine Liturgy.
There have been many ways of explaining the way Lutherans believe that the bread and wine become the body and blood of Christ. I never heard the word "consubstantiation" until well into adulthood. I was taught it was a "mystery" that bread and wine becomes the body and blood of Christ while still tasting and looking like wafers and wine. It is different, however, not as different as "symbolic of."
@@diannalaubenberg7532 It's a looser descriptor, perhaps because this teaching is (prima fascie) such an uncomfortable one.
But it's ultimately really, really close.
Still, your description that "Lutherans believe that [...] become" is technically incorrect. In Lutheranism, the bread is still bread, but is now also Christ.
The difference is in the prefix, con- vs trans-
To put it very simply, after consecration a Catholic would say "that's no mere bread now, that's the body of Christ!" while a Lutheran would say "that's still bread, but is now *also* the body of Christ."
There's no transformation or "becoming"
I don't know any Lutherans personally but this Catholic teaching may cause certain practical differences. When I, a Catholic, see the Eucharist I immediately kneel. At the very least I don't stay sitting. That's my Lord right there.
Is that something Lutherans do? I don't know. Most of my knowledge of your denomination is purely theoretical.
@alonsoACR You are correct that we do not practice Adoration in the same way. I listened to the Catechism read by Fr. Mike Schmitz. I was fascinated. I understand so much better now. Growing up, few of the churches I attended had kneelers. At 67, I wish more did. To kneel, I would have to go to the altar rail; otherwise, I might not be able to get up.
I guess MacArthur is anathema personified, he's preaching a different gospel.
True dat. He's anathema regarding the many points he is wrong about, but that doesn't mean he is wrong about everything, so he's still better than, say, a Muslim. But given the availability of the fullness of truth in Christ's Catholic Church, there is no excuse for clinging to him and his heresy.
I am praying and fasting for John MacArthur’s conversion. Please join me.
Great video, good work!
I was raised to avoid walking on the curb of a Catholic Church. All I know is that no one was able to explain to me why we had in our families and communities so much mental illnesses, religious hallucinations, disorderly households, you are getting me convinced that we were not (Christians) at all…
So does the Catholic church recognize protestant baptisms as legitimate?
That’s nothing new. She recognizes baptisms done under the trinitarian formula with proper matter (water), as long as the intention is to do what the Church does. In that sense, wrong conceptions about the sacrament doesn’t affect its validity, although it refers to its licit/ illicit nature.
as a Catholic layman. . . . my understanding is YES ( valid ) - as long as the person is baptized with water on the scalp ( submersion would include water on the scalp ) and " I baptize you in the name of The Father,and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit ".. . . There is a lot more to it, regarding intent, but that is a start.
@@johnm.speight7983Yup. My priest told me the same thing. I got baptized as a protestant and my priest said it was fine so I wouldn’t have to get baptized again
YES!
The Catholic Church recognizes baptisms done in trinitarian form with water according to Matthew 28:19-20 and Mark 16:16. Protestant baptisms done in this manner are considered sacramentally valid.
We also happen to believe that many marriages in the various Protestant sects can be sacramentally valid as well.
@@johnflorio3576 OK great thanks for the kind response.