The speakees seem quite poor documented in the topic discussed. Also, half of the time is occupied with product promotion.

Thanks for the coffee review fellas! 😁

Catholics ar eobviously christian and have been for 2000 years. Protestants rejected christian teachings in order to form their protests.

lol and now some new super apostles want to interpret scripture . Luther , Calvin , Swingley , John Smith , Ellen G White , and it’s a never ending cycle !!!!

There's only one Church...only one body of Christ

While i agree mostly, how do you stop sinning if you are divorced? If it is an abomination then how do you rectify that situation? Perhaps you look at it like a murder, you do it once, and once forgiven then there remains no more action of sinfulness (more murder)

Judging by the comment section the algorithm decided to put this one in the feeds of us Catholics lol

Minute 19.44 that was as long as I could watch. that’s nothing true there.

Jesus said when they talked about the confection that a sinner can’t forgive sins. Is like the teachers of the law saying only God can forgive sins. Matthew 9:3. At this, some of the teachers of the law said to themselves, "This fellow is blaspheming!"4. Knowing their thoughts, Jesus said, "Why do you entertain evil thoughts in your hearts?5. Which is easier: to say, 'Your sins are forgiven,' or to say, 'Get up and walk'? Why do Protestants entreating evil thought? Matthew 9:6. But I want you to know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins." So he said to the paralyzed man, "Get up, take your mat and go home." This verse is for us to understand that the authority was given to Jesus to forgive sins here on earth. Matthew 9:8. When the crowd saw this, they were filled with awe; and they praised God, who had given such authority to man. Let’s go and see the verse about the apostles receiving the authority. John 20:21. Again Jesus said, "Peace be with you! As the Father has sent me, I am sending you."this is to the apostles where they Protestant pastors? Now to the grand final. John 20:23. If you forgive anyone's sins, their sins are forgiven; if you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven." Stop living to people that are sinner can’t forgive sins. Let me give you one more verse to go with that. Hebrews 5:1. Every high priest is selected from among the people and is appointed to represent the people in matters related to God, to offer gifts and sacrifices for sins. Here we see that the priest is the one offering the gifts. Even in the old covenant it was like that. Now why will a sinner offer sins? Let’s see. Hebrews 5:3. This is why he has to offer sacrifices for his own sins, as well as for the sins of the people. Does it look like this say a priest is not a sinner? And I’m going to go a little bit further so you people start to study the proper way. Hebrews 5:4. And no one takes this honor on himself, but he receives it when called by God, just as Aaron was.5. In the same way, Christ did not take on himself the glory of becoming a high priest. But God said to him, "You are my Son; today I have become your Father." Yes Protestants talked about the part called by God but they leave out the part like Aaron was. Please reflect on that.

Jesus said when they talked about the confection that a sinner can’t forgive sins. Is like the teachers of the law saying only God can forgive sins. Matthew 9:3. At this, some of the teachers of the law said to themselves, "This fellow is blaspheming!"4. Knowing their thoughts, Jesus said, "Why do you entertain evil thoughts in your hearts?5. Which is easier: to say, 'Your sins are forgiven,' or to say, 'Get up and walk'? Why do Protestants entreating evil thought? Matthew 9:6. But I want you to know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins." So he said to the paralyzed man, "Get up, take your mat and go home." This verse is for us to understand that the authority was given to Jesus to forgive sins here on earth. Matthew 9:8. When the crowd saw this, they were filled with awe; and they praised God, who had given such authority to man. Let’s go and see the verse about the apostles receiving the authority. John 20:21. Again Jesus said, "Peace be with you! As the Father has sent me, I am sending you."this is to the apostles where they Protestant pastors? Now to the grand final. John 20:23. If you forgive anyone's sins, their sins are forgiven; if you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven." Stop living to people that are sinner can’t forgive sins. Let me give you one more verse to go with that. Hebrews 5:1. Every high priest is selected from among the people and is appointed to represent the people in matters related to God, to offer gifts and sacrifices for sins. Here we see that the priest is the one offering the gifts. Even in the old covenant it was like that. Now why will a sinner offer sins? Let’s see. Hebrews 5:3. This is why he has to offer sacrifices for his own sins, as well as for the sins of the people. Does it look like this say a priest is not a sinner? And I’m going to go a little bit further so you people start to study the proper way. Hebrews 5:4. And no one takes this honor on himself, but he receives it when called by God, just as Aaron was.5. In the same way, Christ did not take on himself the glory of becoming a high priest. But God said to him, "You are my Son; today I have become your Father." Yes Protestants talked about the part called by God but they leave out the part like Aaron was. Please reflect on that.

The first infalible statement of the first pope. The rock. Why people especially Protestants don’t get the part where Simon’s name was not Peter. Jesus had already change his name to rock= kephas. So Peter in Greek also means rock. So let’s change the name from Peter for what it means. And I tell you that you are rock and upon this rock I will build my church and the gates of hades will not overcome it. Does that leave a chance for misunderstandings?? People wake up. Protestants are doing what they are protest the church of Jesus Christ.

I wasted 17 minutes , with mostly coffey talk then a 1500 year interpretatión of Mathew 16 . 18 , The truth is that you can fornicate and kill 1000 times s day and God will forgive you for just belive in him , thanks Martín Luther your religión is marvelous .

@KeithNester would be another great person for you to talk with to get the Catholic teachings. He also provides the unique view as a former pastor/youth pastor in United Methodist, Assemblies of God, and Evangelical Free churches. @HowToBeChristian as well as @CatholicTruthOfficial would also be wonderful guys to talk to. Yes, the Church uses Matthew 16:18 as one of the means to point towards Christ founding the Church upon Peter. Since you brought up the Greek... names in Koine Greek (the dialect spoken at the time) are masculine or feminine therefore they must correspond to the person's sex. Petra (Koine Greek for rock) is in the feminine tense and is not suitable for being a male's name. Therefore, the Gospel writer Matthew must change it and he uses Petros. If the writer wanted to call Peter "little rock" as some have suggested, the Koine Greek word is lithos. In Aramaic, which was spoken by Christ and Peter, the writings show the word Kepha which means rock. So the verse goes "You are Kepha, and upon this kepha, I will build my Church." So Matthew 16:18-19 along with John 21:15-17 go hand in hand in establishing Peter (Petros/Kepha) as the foundation/leader of the Church. Compare these verses with Isaiah 22:21-24 and see how they align. However the issue ultimately, as all of them do, comes down to "interpretation." A Protestant view is basically "my fallible interpretation vs. your fallible interpretation" and since there is no authority to prove any one person correct... what happens? Also there are early Christian writers like Irenaeus in his 189AD work "Against Heresies" (3:3:2) wrote: "...the successions of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul, that church which has the tradition and the faith which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the apostles. With that church, because of its superior origin, all the churches must agree, that is, all the faithful in the whole world, and it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the apostolic tradition."

June 19th, 325 the Council of Nicaea adopted a creed. This was in response to the dangerous heresy of Arianism which had swept a vast majority of Christian churches. Arianism held that the Son of God did not always exist and was created by the Father and therefore not co-eternal with God the Father. In response the Nicene Creed (as it is known today) was adopted and has been recited by all Christians... until the 16th century. I believe in one God, the Father almighty, maker of heaven and earth, of all things visible and invisible. I believe in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Only Begotten Son of God, born of the Father before all ages. God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God, begotten, not made, consubstantial with the Father; through him all things were made. For us men and for our salvation he came down from heaven, and by the Holy Spirit was incarnate of the Virgin Mary, and became man. For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate, he suffered death and was buried, and rose again on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures. He ascended into heaven and is seated at the right hand of the Father. He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead and his kingdom will have no end. I believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life, who proceeds from the Father and the Son, who with the Father and the Son is adored and glorified, who has spoken through the prophets. I believe in one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church. I confess one Baptism for the forgiveness of sins and I look forward to the resurrection of the dead and the life of the world to come. Amen.

In regards to the structure of the Church, I invite you to read the Early Church Fathers (mostly Pre-Nicean) such as St Clement (1st Clement is his epistle), St Justin Martyr, etc, and you will see that there was already structure to the Church well before Rome allowed Christianity to exist. A great website to check out for this is NewAdvent as they have a ton of the ECF writings for free you can read. Highly recommend. Papal infallibility is something that rarely actually happens before there are multiple different criteria that need to be achieved for a Pope to proclaimed anything infallibly. First, it must be Ex Cathedra, which is latin for "from the chair", meaning the Pope is speaking from the Chair of Peter and speaking with the authority of Peter. Second, the Pope must be speaking on the topic of Faith of Morals for the Church AS A WHOLE. The Pope can't just speak willy nilly about anything, but he must be speaking specifically on the topic of faith and morals and it must be for the universal Church Body. Thirdly, the teachings MUST BE ACCEPTED by the Church as a whole. Once someone has been defined Ex Cathedra, it cannot be changed, so a later Pope cannot change it. In regards to Transubstantiation, while I understand the joke being made there, it applies a earthly knowledge to a divine reality. Christ is fully God, and because His is fully God, why couldn't he be fully there, and also turn the bread and wine into His Body and Blood? But, as proof that this belief isn't new, let's look at St Justin Martyr's First Apology chapter 66: "And this food is called among us Eucharistia [the Eucharist], of which no one is allowed to partake but the man who believes that the things which we teach are true, and who has been washed with the washing that is for the remission of sins, and unto regeneration, and who is so living as Christ has enjoined. For not as common bread and common drink do we receive these; but in like manner as Jesus Christ our Saviour, having been made flesh by the Word of God, had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so likewise have we been taught that the food which is blessed by the prayer of His word, and from which our blood and flesh by transmutation are nourished, is the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh." The Eucharist isn't a "new sacrifice", nor is Christ being sacrificed over and over again. The Sacrifice of the Mass is a RE-PRESENTATION of that Eternal Sacrifice made by Christ on the cross. It isn't a new sacrifice. Here's the official words from the CCC, Paragraphs 1366-1367 state "1366 The Eucharist is thus a sacrifice because it re-presents (makes present) the sacrifice of the cross, because it is its memorial and because it applies its fruit: [Christ], our Lord and God, was once and for all to offer himself to God the Father by his death on the altar of the cross, to accomplish there an everlasting redemption. But because his priesthood was not to end with his death, at the Last Supper "on the night when he was betrayed," [he wanted] to leave to his beloved spouse the Church a visible sacrifice (as the nature of man demands) by which the bloody sacrifice which he was to accomplish once for all on the cross would be re-presented, its memory perpetuated until the end of the world, and its salutary power be applied to the forgiveness of the sins we daily commit.187 1367 The sacrifice of Christ and the sacrifice of the Eucharist are one single sacrifice: "The victim is one and the same: the same now offers through the ministry of priests, who then offered himself on the cross; only the manner of offering is different." "In this divine sacrifice which is celebrated in the Mass, the same Christ who offered himself once in a bloody manner on the altar of the cross is contained and is offered in an unbloody manner.""

Hey, Catholics here. First time ever coming across your channel, and I wanted to try and give some...corrections to statements or misunderstandings you guys had during this discussion. I do appreciate that you guys recognize Catholics as Christians,, and I appreciate you guys wanting to "not put your own words into things" and try to pull directly from Catholics sources. That is already showing me your sincerity in this, so allow me to respond in kind. Forgive me if I am long-winded here as I tend to be very wordy in my responses. Let's start with the first point you guys address; which is the position of the Pope and if Matthew 16:18 really does indicate that Christ is establishing Peter as the head of His Church. You guys take the position that, the correct understanding of Matthew 16:18 is that Christ is establishing His Church on Peter's confession, not Peter himself. This is partially correct. As with many topics in Scripture, there are often multiple meanings and truths in various passages, and this happens to be the case here. Yes, Peter's confession is ultimately the faith that Christ wants His Church to have, but there is still more to unpack. Since the Old Testament is fulfilled in the New Testament, the next verse is rather big to understanding this. Verse 19 states "I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be[d] bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be[e] loosed in heaven.” This verse is reaching back to an old testament prophecy and reality of the ancient world; that is the King's Steward. Isaiah 22 Verses 22-23 state "I will place on his shoulder the key to the house of David; what he opens no one can shut, and what he shuts no one can open. 23 I will drive him like a peg into a firm place; he will become a seat[a] of honor for the house of his father." In the ancient world, city gates were controlled by a large set of keys, which was usually given to a Steward who was directly under the King. They controlled the gate, and therefore controlled the city and it's populace. Jesus, being the King of Heaven, is granting Peter this same position; Steward of the Kingdom of Heaven. The Church is that Kingdom here on earth, and while the King is away, the Steward was placed in charge. This is, effectively, the office of the Pope. The second piece you guys talk about is Confession and Penance, and you guys rightly point to John 20 verses 21-22 for this, but you guys seem to miss the point a bit. First off, the interpretation you give is a very modern day Protestant interpretation of that verse. Case in point, all Ancient Faiths hold to the traditional belief of this verse (that is the establishment of confession) as all 4 Apostolic Churches (RC, EO, OO, CotE) practice Confession. Secondly, the final line of verse 22 disproves this interpretation. Jesus tells His Apostles that "and whoever sins you retain, are retained in heaven". This is more than simply telling His Apostles to spread the message of the Gospel. If it was, this part would make no sense. Jesus is quite literally saying that His Apostles can say "you sins are not forgiven" and that would be made true in Heaven as well. Yes, God is the only one who actually can forgive sins, but there is authority here being transferred. Look at what Jesus did first, he "breathed" on them, which is harkening back to Genesis when God breathed on Adam. Christ is giving them His Spirit and His Authority here. In line with this, you guys mention Penance and seem to get it confused. Catholics do not believe that Penance is somehow satisfying God of the eternal sins of punishment (damnation); of which ONLY Christ can satisfy. Catholics believe that sins carries 2 "forms" of punishment; the eternal punishment of damnation, and the temporal punishment that Penance satisfies. To give you an understanding, God is our Father, and as our Father, He has given us rules and laws and tasks for us to grow like any father would give their children. When your child breaks a rule like "no running in the house", that child get's punished. It's not to satisfy any anger that the parent has, but to teach the child right from wrong and to satisfy that need within the child to be disciplined. When we sin, we are that child breaking our Father's rule, and when we go to confession and tell our Father of our wrongdoings, God forgives us like a father would, and then gives us a "temporal punishment" to help our growth and to discipline us. This is Penance. it doesn't replace Christ's saving sacrifice on the cross. Christ's death satisfies the eternal damnation of sin. So, you guys are sorta talking about the wrong understanding of "satisfaction" here.

Man, I would love to watch you guys have a dialogue with a knowledgeable Catholic. That would remove many of these objections and differences you have with us. Thanks for making this video ❤

21:30. Don’t let the irony of this statement slip past you. This same test applies to the Catholic Church. The largest, most charitable, and most ancient church of all.

Gevalia used to be good, then Kraft bought them.

Well given the bible is a Catholic book, then I would certainly hope the answer is YES! The New Testament was written by Catholics. Which writings were scripture, both Old (46 writings) and New (27 writings) were decided by 4th c Catholics The criteria (not found in scripture) for deciding which writings were scripture was decided by Catholics (it's not found in scripture anywhere) The bible was copied by Catholics through the centuries The bible was translated by Catholics through the centuries And the meaning of the text was guarded by the Catholic Church. Said the Council of Rome on the Canon of the Old Testament some 1600+ years ago: “The order of the Old Testament begins here: Genesis, one book; Exodus, one book; Leviticus, one book; Numbers, one book; Deuteronomy, one book; Joshua [Son of] Nave, one book; Judges, one book; Ruth, one book; Kings, four books [ie., 1 and 2 Samuel and 1 and 2 Kings]; Paralipomenon [Chronicles], two books; Psalms, one book; Solomon, three books: Proverbs, one book; Ecclesiastes, one book; Canticle of Canticles, one book; likewise Wisdom, one book; Ecclesiasticus [Sirach], one book. Likewise the order of the Prophets. Isaias one book, Jeremias one book,…lamentations, Ezechiel one book, Daniel one book, Osee … Nahum … Habacuc … Sophonias … Aggeus … Zacharias … Malachias … Likewise the order of the historical [books]: Job, one book; Tobit, one book; Esdras, two books [Ezra and Nehemiah]; Esther, one book; Judith, one book; Maccabees, two books.” Council of Rome, Decree of Pope Damasus (A.D. 382). Said the Synod of Hippo a few years later: *_“That nothing be read in church besides the Canonical Scripture. Item, that besides the Canonical Scriptures nothing be read in church under the name of divine Scripture. But the Canonical Scriptures are as follows:_*_ Genesis. Exodus. Leviticus. Numbers. Deuteronomy. Joshua the Son of Nun. The Judges. Ruth. The Kings, four books. The Chronicles, two books. Job. The Psalter. The Five books of Solomon. The Twelve Books of the Prophets. Isaiah. Jeremiah. Ezechiel. Daniel. Tobit. Judith. Esther. Ezra, two books. Macchabees, two books.”_ Council of Hippo, Canon 36 (A.D. 393). And a four years after Hippo, the Catholic Bishops meeting in Carthage said the same: *_“[It has been decided] that nothing except the canonical Scriptures should be read in the Church under the name of the divine Scriptures. But the canonical Scriptures are:_*_ Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, Ruth, four books of Kings, Paralipomenon, two books, Job, the Psalter of David, five books of Solomon [Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs, Wisdom, Sirach], twelve books of the Prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Daniel, Ezekiel, Tobit, Judith, Esther, two books of Esdras, two books of the Maccabees.”_ Council of Carthage III, Canon 397 (A.D. 397).

Yes, they are Christians, and Catholicism is the only place where you get the fullness of the faith. Not just whatever part of it some half baked Protestant minister wants to stress, based on his personal whims. Usually, I find Protestants know almost nothing of what the church really teaches. Almost all of them were brought up with tons of lies about the Catholic church. Now that the internet is here, and people can really research what the Catholic church teaches, I am afraid that Protestantism is entering its final phase. You can't keep a religion going by lying about Catholics, and that is mostly what Protestants do. When they finally find out what the Catholic church really teaches, a lot of them become Catholics. Now, begin your journey back into Christ's church, not Martin Luther's, or Calvin, or whatever MAN has fooled you. Start with a few books by Scott Hahn, a noted Protestant leader who finally had to admit that the Catholics were right all along. He hated to do it, but he finally had to admit the truth.

What does the 2000 year old Catholic Church say about it? What's amazing about this video: "don't want this to be based on a person's opinion"(13:38) Yet that's all this video accomplishes. Thumbs down.

How can you guys not see the structure of Matthew 16 when our Lord changes Simons name to Peter? The mental gymnastics you guys do to reject Peters primacy is unbelievably sad. It's a three part blessing, a blessing followed by two explanation. 1a Blessed are you, Simon bar-Jona 1b For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you 1c But my Father in heaven 2a I say to you that you are Peter 2b And on this rock i will build my church 2c And the gates of Hades will not prevail against it 3a I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven 3b Whatever you bind on earth is bound in heaven 3c And whatever you loosen on earth is loosed in heaven Section 1 is a blessing, section 3 is a blessings, but section 2 isnt its just Jesus somehow changing Simons name to Rock but hes actuallt talking about Himself or Peters confession 😂 The Keys are the Key of David from Isaiah 22, Jesus is clearly referencing this as his wording is taking play from Isaiah 22. You guys strike me as men who have never even bothered to truly understand the opposing view to yours. Drop your pride - do not be afriad.

To where should Catholics go? There are thousands of contradictory sects. There are only three that have roots in the first century Church - Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy, and Antiochian Orthodoxy.

I hate to say this, but the Catholic Church makes a lot of sense.

Neither Romans, nor Protestants, are Christians. Join the Church of Christ. Become an Eastern Orthodox Christian. <3

"To be deep in history is to cease to be Protestant." -John Henry Newman, famous former Anglican priest that converted to the Catholic faith in the 19th century. For those out there who honestly are wondering if Catholics are Christians, if you want to know the truth about Catholicism just start reading the epistles of the early Church Fathers and educate yourself about what the early Church believed. Be warned, however, that if you do this with an honest and open mind, you will also cease to be Protestant.

I am Catholic, but I appreciate your sincerity and love for the souls of your brothers, as well as the concern for a biblically accurate expression of the faith and the gospel of Christ. I would recommend having a learned Catholic on to discuss the matter, such as Trent Horn or someone of similar qualification. Your explanations of Catholic doctrine did not quite hit the mark, but set up a few straw men. It is a worthy topic to continue discussion on....God bless.

You guys are funny. In a good way. It's obvious you're really passionate about the Bible. You guys are funny. In a bad way. Presenting arguable interpretations as if they're authoritative.

2000 years of church history + Scripture > Protestantism.

The answer is the Bible is Catholic and the Church Jesus established has been Catholic since 33AD.

The gentlemen both don't understand the Catholic understanding of satisfaction. There is satisfaction to be made for the eternal punishment due to sin, which can only be done by Christ. The temporal satisfaction is what the USCCB was talking about in the interview. The term transubstantiation was coined by Tertullian c. 200, by the way. Read John 6 and the Synoptic Gospel accounts of the Last Supper. Jesus promised that He would be with us all days, even unto the consummation of the world. To be honest, the "dive" the gentlemen took into Catholicism was into a splash pad, the wrong splash pad too, for that matter. By the way, the set of books called Sacred Scripture is not self authenticating. There is no internal list in any of those books declaring which set of books are the inspired scriptures. Sola Scriptura is a self-defeating argument.

I appreciate you guys being open to push back. There are a number believes we have that we’re either misrepresented or misunderstood. But one in particular, is that penance saves us. This is not what we believe. Penance is an act we do after receiving absolution from our sins because we repented and confessed them. Penance is what we do to help heal our souls of the “Temporal” punishment for sins. That is our attachment to sin, it is there to help us “ go and sin no more”. The priest being a sinner as well has nothing to do with forgiving sins. He forgives sins through God alone. A man cannot be atoned through another man. Rather, God wants us to receive his forgiveness through the authority of the Church he has given us. “What ever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven”. The priest says once the confessor has confessed “ through ministry of the church may God give you pardon and peace and I absolve of your sins in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. Go in peace” the confessor responds “ Thanks be to God”. Hope that helps some.

As a Protestant, I'm so tired of this old idea in the tradition I grew up in of Christian on one side and Catholic on another. This isn't a question that should even be asked. And you said that you didnt want to inject your opinions, but then... you kind of did. One example, you read a Catholic definition of penance and then seemed to completely ignore it when you explained what you think is the problem with it. The definition was entirely about the sincerity of the ome who has confessed and about working towards healing oneself and the damage one has done in the world by sinning. But you read the word "satisfaction" as if it meant making eternal satisfaction to God for one's sin.

When coming into the faith and reading the Bible I immidiately thought “well I cannot be Protestant bc it’s clear that’s not what this book is pointing to”

I am an ex-Lutheran now practicing Catholic. Scripture helped me convert. To say that Catholic teaching is not biblical is a massive overstatement. Catholics don’t believe in works based salvation. Catholics aren’t re sacrificing Christ. I believe that Christ did give authority for the forgiveness of sins through baptism and confession through the office of the keys. (Lutherans believe baptism the same as Catholics btw). Ultimately, it was scripture and early church fathers that helped me convert. The Holy Spirit was definitely apart of my decision. I pray that my Protestant brothers and sisters would eventually see the flaw in sola scriptura (which is a good idea but ultimately fails logically).

Gentlemen...In all charity, you do not understand the topic enough to speak truthfully about Catholic doctrine or the history of the church. Nothing you are trying to explain is correct. To get the truth of what you're attempting to understand, go to a catholic source: Jimmy Akin, Trent Horn or Joel Heschmeyer. Also, I would invite you to watch "Jesus and the Jewish Roots of the Eucharist" video by Dr Brandt Pitre. In it he explains the origin of the priesthood and why the Eucharist is the source and summit of the faith. Because its one thing to not share the belief, and entirely another thing to misunderstand it. You CANNOT use a catholic book, which the Bible is, to "disprove" the Catholic Church.

They (proddys) will continue to falsify history in order to keep control over those who follow them. They fail to relise that you can always prove a truth but you cannot prove a lie, and they have never been able to prove one yet. They use propaganda to spread their garbage, that is why Adolf Hitler called Martin Luther a great reformer in his book, Mein Kamph, because when it comes to propaganda it takes one to know one. Propaganda and sensasionalism are the ENEMY OF TRUTH, the ENEMY OF CHRIST, who is TRUTH! Some might ponder how individuals could have forced other humans into ovens, hung black men from trees, or dragged them behind pick-up trucks, or tortured men and wome to death. Yet reading the vile hatred that is expressed here, it is apparent that men and women are capable of such a base hatred that they easily lauch into vulgarity and rage, when others appear to be diiferent than themselves. The views here are so narrow and uninformed, one almost feels an immense pity for those expressing these views. I have to wonder how persons like even function in society. Now, don't be picking on those Fundamentalists. They can't help it they believe the earth is really flat. They are the only Christians in the world who believe they can committ 10 ax murders and still get a one way all expense paid trip to heaven; cuz that's what pastor Dodo tells them. "For those who spread lies about the Catholic Church: their ignorance is their lack of knowledge, their stupidity is their wisdom, and their truth is falsehood In attacking the Catholic Church, Protestants sever their own roots No protestant should quote Scripture at all, for he has no means of knowing which books are inspired; Unless of course, he wants to accept the authority of the Catholic Church for that

His finished work on the cross you say boy are you in for a surprise 🤣🤣 IT IS FINISHED what was the it........... To begin to figure this out, we should start at the Last Supper. “While they were eating, he took bread, said the blessing, broke it, and gave it to them, and said, ‘Take it; this is my body.’ Then he took a cup, gave thanks, and gave it to them, and they all drank from it. He said to them, ‘This is my blood of the covenant, which will be shed for many. Amen, I say to you, I shall not drink again the fruit of the vine until the day when I drink it new in the kingdom of God.’ Then, after singing a hymn, they went out to the Mount of Olives.” (Mk. 14:22) Let’s follow up with a scripture when Jesus is in the garden of Gethsemane shortly after. “My Father, if it is possible, let this cup pass from me; yet, not as I will, but as you will.” (Mt. 26:39) What is this “fruit of the vine” and “this cup” that Jesus is talking about? Well, if you look at the history and how the Passover is performed, you’ll find that they did not finish the Passover feast. After they sung the hymns they should have had another cup of wine. To the ancient Jews this would be crazy to leave off the Passover at this point. Simply put, the Passover was unfinished. So let’s fast forward to when Jesus is carrying his cross and one of the soldiers offered him wine mixed with myrrh (which they did back then to help with the pain since myrrh is like a pain killer). Jesus refused to drink it, though. (Mk 15:23) I don’t know about Jesus, but if I was already in excruciating pain and heading to even more agonizing pain, I would take that myrrh. It may have been that He was giving His all to suffer for us, but I think it is a bit more than that. Let’s fast forward again to Jesus’ last words, “…in order that the scripture might be fulfilled, Jesus said, ‘I thirst.’ There was a vessel filled with common wine. So they put a sponge soaked in wine on a sprig of hyssop and put it up to his mouth. When Jesus had taken the wine, he said, ‘It is finished.’” (Jn 19:28-30) So is Jesus saying that just because He received some wine, everything He has worked for is finished? I hope not. Was Jesus just simply thirsty? No. This was to fulfill scripture and finish what he started at the Passover. He had to drink that last cup of wine or “fruit of the vine”. But wait! They did one last thing during the Passover. They had to eat a sacrificed lamb. When looking into this, you begin to see many similarities between the Passover, and Jesus’ crucifixion. Notice above that John 19:29 specifically mentioned that the wine was put on a hyssop branch. During the first Passover they used hyssop branches to sprinkle the blood of the lamb on the doors. Next, you should recall, that in John 19:33 that the soldiers were going around breaking the victim’s legs, but when they got to Jesus they instead pierced his side. “For this happened so that the scripture passage might be fulfilled: ‘Not a bone of it will be broken.’” (Jn 19:36) When they killed the lambs during Passover, the lamb could not have any broken bones. Jesus is the Lamb of God. “For our paschal lamb, Christ, has been sacrificed. Therefore let us celebrate the feast,…” (1 Cor 5:7) Jesus in Revelation is described as “a Lamb that seemed to have been slain.” (Rev 5:6) What happens to the lamb in order to finish the Passover? When I tell my family that “It is finished,” the “it” is referring to the food and requires an action. If I told them the food was done and no one came to eat any of it, all my time and energy I spent preparing the meal would have been to no avail. Jesus died for our sins, but not before leaving us something very important - the Eucharist. Let us make use of what He has given us and not let the “it” be for nothing.

1 Corinthians 11 :20-34 When ye come together therefore into one place, this is not to eat the Lord's supper. 🤦‍♂🤦‍♂ For in eating every one taketh before other his own supper: and one is hungry, and another is drunken. What? have ye not houses to eat and to drink in? or despise ye the church of God, and shame them that have not? what shall I say to you? shall I praise you in this? I praise you not. For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, that the Lord Jesus the same night in which he was betrayed took bread: After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, this cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me. For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord's death till he come. Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup. For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord's body. For this cause many are weak and sickly among you, and many sleep. For if we would judge ourselves, we should not be judged. But when we are judged, we are chastened of the Lord, that we should not be condemned with the world. Wherefore, my brethren, when ye come together to eat, tarry one for another. And if any man hunger, let him eat at home; that ye come not together unto condemnation. And the rest will I set in order when I come. The Sacrifice of God is past, present and future! It is eternal because it is outside of space and time. The sacrifice by Christ dying and suffering was done in space and time 2000 years ago, when Christ (God) chose to became man (incarnate), this is when He went inside space and time. The holy sacrifice of the Mass is a "sacrifice" being presented to us again on a daily basis, and this sacrifice is outside space and time in a mystical and spiritual way because God is not limited in space and time, EVERYTHING TO HIM is an eternal event, and this is the only sacrifice pleasing to God The Father. Why do you think St. Paul was instructing the Corinthians about The Eucharist if it is not an eternal sacrifice or just a mere "symbol". (1 Corinthians 11:27), Therefore whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner, shall be guilty of the body and the blood of the Lord... - And this was after Christ's Ascension.

(CCC) really says: 1362 The Eucharist is the memorial of Christ's Passover, the making present and the SACRAMENTAL offering of his unique sacrifice ... 1364 ... Christ offered once for all on the cross remains ever present. "As often as the sacrifice of the Cross by which 'Christ our Pasch [Passover Lamb] has been sacrificed' is celebrated on the altar, the work of our redemption is carried out." - 1 Cor 5:7. 1367 ... the same Christ who offered himself once in a bloody manner on the altar of the cross is ... [now] offered in an unbloody manner. . . St. Paul also speaks about the reality of Jesus' body and blood in the Eucharist, in 1 Corinthians 11:26-27: "Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord. Let a man examine himself, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup. For any one who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment upon himself." 1 Corinthians 10:16-21, Paul says the following: "The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ? Because there is one bread, we who are many are one body, for we all partake of the one bread. Consider the people of Israel; are not those who eat the sacrifices partners in the altar? What do I imply then? That food offered to idols is anything, or that an idol is anything? No, I imply that what pagans sacrifice they offer to demons and not to God. I do not want you to be partners with demons. You cannot drink the cup of the Lord and the cup of demons. You cannot partake of the table of the Lord and the table of demons."

Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you; he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him. As the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so he who eats me will live because of me For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood,dwelleth in me, and I in him.” This was too much for many of his disciples and “From that time many of his disciples went back, and walked no more with him.” Jesus turns to the 12 and asks, “Will ye also go away? Vs 61, Jesus did not back down, for He said, "Does this offend you?" it offends protestants. They devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching and to fellowship, to the breaking of bread and to prayer. There is no other passage in the New testament other than John 6: 35-56 where Jesus emphasizes his teaching repeatedly. In the Gospel of John, four times our Lord says that he is the bread and five times He says that its his flesh we have to eat. He instituted this sacrament by giving his flesh to eat in the upper room in Jerusalem on the eve of the Passover (Matthew 26:26-28) We understand that Eucharistic sacrament he instituted was again celebrated at Emmaus after his resurrection (Luke 24: 30-31).

He did Come again didnt he THE EMMAUS EXPERIENCE : LUKE 24:30-31 " While they were talking and discussing together, Jesus himself drew near and went with them. But their eyes were kept from recognizing him. And he said to them, "What is this conversation which you are holding with each other as you walk?" And they stood still, looking sad. Then one of them, named Cle'opas, answered him, "Are you the only visitor to Jerusalem who does not know the things that have happened there in these days?" And he said to them, "What things?" And they said to him, "Concerning Jesus of Nazareth, who was a prophet mighty in deed and word before God and all the people, and how our chief priests and rulers delivered him up to be condemned to death, and crucified him. But we had hoped that he was the one to redeem Israel. Yes, and besides all this, it is now the third day since this happened. Moreover, some women of our company amazed us. They were at the tomb early in the morning and did not find his body; and they came back saying that they had even seen a vision of angels, who said that he was alive. Some of those who were with us went to the tomb, and found it just as the women had said; but him they did not see." And he said to them, "O foolish men, and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken! Was it not necessary that the Christ should suffer these things and enter into his glory?" And beginning with Moses and all the prophets, he interpreted to them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself. So they drew near to the village to which they were going. He appeared to be going further, but they constrained him, saying, "Stay with us, for it is toward evening and the day is now far spent." So he went in to stay with them. When he was at table with them, he took the bread and blessed, and broke it, and gave it to them. And their eyes were opened and they recognized him; and he vanished out of their sight.( Luke 24:15-31) Boy, there is so much to learn from this great passage of Scripture. But let's concentrate on just a couple of them. The most obvious lesson is to note how the disciples came to notice him in the breaking of the bread, as is explicated for us in verse 35. Second, notice the first thing that Jesus does with his disciples on His appearance to them is have the Mass. What?, you may say! Look at the text! First Jesus explains the Scriptures to them, just as we do at mass in the Liturgy of the Word. Then He goes on to the Liturgy of the Eucharist by making Himself present to them in the "Breaking of the Bread" Yes, there can be no doubt about it. The real presence of our Lord in the Eucharist is one of the most clearest doctrines in all of Scripture. Only those who have closed their eyes to the beauty and wonder of Catholic teaching can overlook this plain teaching. Let us all pray that Almighty God will bless us all with a deeper and clearer understanding of this our greatest treasure, THE HOLY EUCHARIST, Amen\😊😊

Why do Catholics believe the Pope is infallible in his teachings when he is a human being, with a finite human intellect, like the rest of us? What is the scriptural basis for this belief? The doctrine of Papal Infallibility does not mean the Pope is always right in all his personal teachings. Catholics are quite aware that, despite his great learning, the Pope is very much a human being and therefore liable to commit human error. On some subjects, like sports and manufacturing, his judgment is liable to be very faulty. The doctrine simply means that the Pope is divinely protected from error when, acting in his official capacity as chief shepherd of the Catholic fold, he promulgates a decision which is binding on the conscience of all Catholics throughout the world. In other words, his infallibility is limited to his specialty--the Faith of Jesus Christ. In order for the Pope to be infallible on a particular statement, however, four conditions must apply: 1) he must be speaking ex cathedra . . . that is, ``from the Chair'' of Peter, or in other words, officially, as head of the entire Church; 2) the decision must be for the whole Church; 3) it must be on a matter of faith or morals; 4) the Pope must have the intention of making a final decision on a teaching of faith or morals, so that it is to be held by all the faithful. It must be interpretive, not originative; the Pope has no authority to originate new doctrine. He is not the author of revelation--only its guardian and expounder. He has no power to distort a single word of Scripture, or change one iota of divine tradition. His infallibility is limited strictly to the province of doctrinal interpretation, and it is used quite rarely. It is used in order to clarify, to ``define,'' some point of the ancient Christian tradition. It is the infallibility of which Christ spoke when He said to Peter, the first Pope: ``I will give (o thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven.'' (Matt. 16:19). Certainly Christ would not have admonished His followers to ``hear the church'' (Matt. 18:17) without somehow making certain that what they heard was the truth--without somehow making the teaching magisterium of His Church infallible. For a complete understanding of the Pope's infallibility, however, one more thing should be known: His ex cathedra decisions are not the result of his own private deliberations. They are the result of many years--sometimes hundreds of years--of consultation with the other bishops and theologians of the Church. He is, in effect, voicing the belief of the whole Church. His infallibility is not his own private endowment, but rather an endowment of the entire Mystical Body of Christ. Indeed, the Pope's hands are tied with regard to the changing of Christian doctrine. No Pope has ever used his infallibility to change, add, or subtract any Christian teaching; this is because Our Lord promised to be with His Church until the end of the world. (Matt. 28:20). Protestant denominations, on the other hand, feel free to change their doctrines. For example, all Protestant denominations once taught that contraception was gravely sinful; but since 1930, when the Church of England's Lambeth Conference decided contraception was no longer a sin, virtually all Protestant ministers in the world have accepted this human decision and changed their teaching. is not. Infallibility is not the absence of sin. Nor is it a charism that belongs only to the pope. Indeed, infallibility also belongs to the body of bishops as a whole, when, in doctrinal unity with the pope, they solemnly teach a doctrine as true. We have this from Jesus himself, who promised the apostles and their successors the bishops, the magisterium of the Church: "He who hears you hears me" (Luke 10:16), and "Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven" (Matt. 18:18). ... 🤣🤣🌹🌹He has used this gift of the Spirit on two occasions, in defining the Blessed Virgin Mary's Immaculate Conception and in defining the truth of her Assumption body and soul into Heaven.

What Holy Scripture has said Christ's Church would be: How Christ's Church has conformed to Holy Scripture: .. It will be founded by GOD: Psalms 127:1, Matthew 16:18 It was founded by GOD. It will be highly visible: Isaiah 2:2, Matthew 5:14 It is highly visible. It will have the authority: Matthew 18:15-18, John 20:21-22 It has the authority given to it by Jesus Christ. It will have a Father Figure: Isaiah 22:20-25 It has a Father Figure, as GOD always had for His people. It will be a Theocracy and not a Democracy: Eph 5:23-24 It is a Theocracy. It is governed from the top down. The blueprint for it is described in the book of Acts. It is blueprinted in the book of Acts. It will have priests, deacons, Bishops: Acts 6:1-6,14:22,20:28 It always has had priests, deacons, and Bishops. It will have Apostolic Succession: Psalm 109:8, Acts 1:20-26 It has Apostolic Succession. It will offer sacrifice every day in every place: Malachi 1:11 It does offer sacrifice every day in every place. It will be guided by the Holy Spirit: John 14:16-17, 16:12-13 It is guided by the Holy Spirit: Acts 15:28, Rev 2:7 Truths of GOD to be revealed to it over time: John 16:12-13 Truths of GOD have been revealed to it over time: Eph 3:10 It will be the Pillar and Foundation of Truth: 1Timothy 3:15 It is the Pillar and Foundation of Truth. It will be the guardian of truth: 2Timothy 1:13-14 It has been the guardian of truth for almost 2000 years. It will uphold Apostolic Tradition: 2Thessalonians 2:15 It upholds Apostolic Tradition. It will have Church councils: Proverbs 11:14, Acts 15:1-29 It holds periodic Church councils: Acts 15:1-29 It will be attacked from the inside: John 6:70 It has been attacked from the inside. It will be attacked from the outside: Matthew 5:10-12, 10:22 It has been attacked from the outside. All who fight against it shall be confounded: Isaiah 41:11 37,000+ Protestant sects is proof that they are confounded. It will be found in every century: Ephesians 3:21 It is found in every century from the day Christ founded it. It will last forever: Isa 41:10-11, 54:17, 59:21, Matt 28:20 It is still with us today from the day in which He founded it. There is only one Church in the entire world which matches all of the Scriptural requirements as listed above. Can your sect match even one of those requirements? That's very simplistic. In my view, to believe in Jesus is to believe He existed, He's the Son of God and God in the flesh, never sinned, is our only savior and He did and say things in truth out of LOVE, NECESSITY AND with a PURPOSE. That said, we have to look closely to his deeds, particularly about establishing a Church. Why did He instituted such a thing? What was the necessity for that and the purpose? So that we don't ever loose sight of his true teachings. And what did His Church taught? Well, all we have to do is analyse all the primitive documents from the first centuries and come to the conclusion what Church today teaches the same things as the early church (and there's only one that corresponds: the Catholic Church). In conclusion: to believe in Christ is to believe and hold fast to His Church. To believe in Christ and reject His established Church is a dichotomy/contradiction. Even Christ identifies Himself with his Church (Acts 9:4; 22:7; Lk 10:16; 1Tim.3:15)

Holy Scripture specifically says to keep the traditions with which you have been taught, which are the Apostolic traditions, and to reject man made traditions. Interestingly, the false doctrine of 'Sola Scriptura', is a man made tradition with its origin at the beginning of the Protestant Reformation. Using the reformers very own rules, 'Sola Scriptura' should then be condemned by themselves. Keep away from any brother who is living in idleness and not in accord with the tradition that you received from us” (2 Thess. 3:6).😊

Sola fide ("by faith alone") Sola scriptura ("by Scripture alone") Sola gratia ("by grace alone") Solus Christus or Solo Christo ("Christ alone") Soli Deo gloria ("glory to God alone") Let's take a look at these and see if they are still viable today. The first thing that is striking is that if they are all "alone", then why do the other 4 even exist? In other words, if we are saved by scripture alone, then why do we even talk about grace or faith? Why do we need scripture when we are saved by grace alone? And are any of these "alones" in the Bible? A quick search shows that only one of the solas, the words "faith alone" does appear in the bible, as follows: James 2:24:You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone. Strange that the one sola that does appear in the bible contradicts the very sola itself. Works (good works, not useless Jewish works of the law) are part of being justified. The Catholic Church teaches that justification begins at Baptism, when the Holy Spirit comes to us, even while we are infants. And "being saved" is a lifelong journey that doesn't end until we die and are allowed into heaven. A lot of Protestants talk about "when they were saved", as if it's in the past tense. Catholics would agree that whenever you began taking your faith in Christ seriously was certainly a great time, but it was only a first step, not the entire journey. What really counts is your faith at the time of death, not your faith when you first started believing 20 years ago. The next one is "Scripture Alone", which does not appear anywhere in the bible. The text most often used by protestants to back this one up is: 2 Timothy 3:16: All scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, However great this passage is, the word "alone" does not appear in it anywhere. The word profitable does not mean only. If it did, then Titus 3:8 below would mean that good deeds are all we need to be saved: "The saying is sure. I desire you to insist on these things, so that those who have believed in God may be careful to apply themselves to good deeds; these are excellent and profitable to men." Applying the word "alone" to scripture also means that anyone can properly interpret it, without the Magesterium and Sacred Tradition. In other words, the Catholic Church only claims infallibility with the official documents of the Church, spoken "ex cathedra" ("from the chair") by the Pope. This sola claims that anyone and everyone who interprets scripture on their own is infallible! And how wrong is this today, with over 30,000 Protestant denominations, with some even claiming that homosexuality is no longer sinful! The next one, "Grace Alone", isn't found in the Bible either. Catholics would agree that we are indeed saved by grace, which is a free gift from God. Where we differ is the method of how we receive that grace. The Catholic Church regularly dispenses sanctifying grace through the sacraments. The protestants believe that God just gives them grace whenever He wills it, sacraments or not. The Catholic version of this one would be that we are saved by grace, which increases our faith, and leads us to do good works as a very necessary fruit of our faith. The fourth one, "Christ Alone", also sounds great. Who could argue with the fact that we are saved by Christ alone? The problem with this is that the 3rd person of the Blessed Trinity, the Holy Spirit, also plays a HUGE role in our salvation. According to the bible, we are temples to the Holy Spirit. Peter and the other apostles all followed Jesus and ate with him, talked with him, and tried to follow him. It wasn't until Pentecost when the Holy Spirit came upon them that they received power (Acts 1:8). Catholics receive the Holy Spirit at Confirmation, and can receive Him again and again through the laying on of hands by charismatics (to reinvigorate your faith). And what about the role that the Communion of Saints plays in our salvation? They lead us to Christ, as do our parents, our friends, and our fellow Catholics. The whole problem with this particular sola is that it isolates us into a "Me and Jesus" scenario, where I don't really need a Church or a family telling me what to do. And that is so wrong. Jesus set up His Church for a reason, to be His Kingdom on earth. And this sola allows for no glory to God our Father, who we pray to each and every time we say the "Our Father" prayer. The last one is Soli Deo Gloria, or "Glory to God Alone". This one also sounds like a winner. However, there is one problem with it. Jesus Himself said in John 17:22 that He gave His glory to his apostles (at the Last Supper, when He gave them the Eucharist). And while none of the apostles' lives or works will save us in and of themselves, they are indeed one with Christ (1 Corinthians 6:17) and they are partakers in the divine nature (2 Peter 1:4). It really is okay to venerate the saints, which is not the same glory and honor we need to give to Christ. A lot of protestants confuse veneration of the saints with glory to God. Mention the Communion of Saints to a Protestant who says the Apostles' Creed every Sunday, and you will usually get a blank stare back. In other words, most Protestants who recite the Apostles' Creed say they believe in the Communion of Saints, but they do not know what it means. What it means is that the saints in heaven are our brothers and sisters in Christ who have gone before us, and who help us in our journey in this life. After all, Jesus says that they are ALIVE (Luke 20:38). And since they are partakers in the divine nature, according to 2 Peter 1:4, that means that they can hear us and help us. Catholics could come up with a lot of these solas. Since the bible says that we must eat and drink the body and blood of Jesus to have life within us (John 6), then we could say that we are saved by "The Eucharist alone". And since Paul talks about the value of personal suffering for the Church in Colossians 1:24, we could say that we are saved by "Suffering alone". And since the Bible says that the Church is the pillar and bulwark of Truth (1 Timothy 3:15), then we could formulate the doctrine of being saved by "The Church alone".And since we have to be forgiven for our sins before we can enter heaven, we could come up with the doctrine of "Confession alone". And how many more of these could we invent if we had the time? Lots. But to no purpose whatsoever. The Bible was meant to be taken as a whole, and to not be broken down into parts for convenience' sake. To sum up, all of this shorthand abbreviation for our faith in the 5 solas leads us away from the rest of what is necessary for salvation, like the Church, the Sacraments, prayer, helping the poor, performing good works, etc. After all, why do all of that if it's just me and my bible, me and Jesus, me and whatever...

"For by grace you have been saved through faith; and this is not your own doing, it is the gift of God--not because of works, lest any man should boast. For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them" (Ephesians 2:8-10) hum didnt mention good works did it .. The New Testament writers are emphatic that salvation is by grace alone (Rom. 3:24, 28; 4:5; 11:6; Gal. 2:16-21; Eph. 2:8-10; Titus 3:5-8). . For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them" (Ephesians 2:8-10) ... Now separate works of the law Mosaic Law Paul was speaking about circumcision's from Good Works charity which Paul calls charity love which is greater than faith "And if I should have prophecy and should know all mysteries, and all knowledge, and if I should have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, and have not charity, I am nothing." 1 Corinthians 13:2 (St Paul). What is charity other than helping the needy? Charity is clearly considered among good works. "And now there remain faith, hope, and charity, these three: but the greatest of these is charity." (1 Corinthians 13:13). This clearly puts charity BEFORE faith, so to say "faith alone" is all that is required of us is clearly contrary to Scripture. Rom2:6-7 Here’s what Paul says: For he will render to every man according to his works: to those who by patience in well-doing seek for glory and honor and immortality, he will give eternal life. Galations 5:6 in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision has any value. The only thing that counts is faith expressing itself through love. Then there's verse Titus 3:14, where Paul says, “Let our people learn to devote themselves to good works, so as to help cases of urgent need.” You see a need, and in love you try to meet it-that's a good work. Good works are the overflow of love for Christ that meets the needs of others. This is exactly what Paul says in Titus 3:8: “The saying is trustworthy, and I want you to insist on these things, so that those who have believed in God may be careful to devote themselves to good works.” By your stubbornness and impenitent heart, you are storing up wrath for yourself for the day of wrath and revelation of the just judgment of God, who will repay everyone according to his works: eternal life to those who seek glory, honor, and immortality through perseverance in good works, but wrath and fury to those who selfishly disobey the truth and obey wickedness." (Rom 2: 5-8) Wherefore, brethren, labor the more, that by good works you may make sure your calling and election." 2 Peter 1:10 So much for your Faith alone baloney and adding good works to that scripture..

Satisfaction Catechism it puts it on this side of the this side of the equation 1459 Many sins wrong our neighbor. One must do what is possible in order to repair the harm (e.g., return stolen goods, restore the reputation of someone slandered, pay compensation for injuries). Simple justice requires as much. But sin also injures and weakens the sinner himself, as well as his relationships with God and neighbor. Absolution takes away sin, but it does not remedy all the disorders sin has caused. 62 Raised up from sin, the sinner must still recover his full spiritual health by doing something more to make amends for the sin: he must "make satisfaction for" or "expiate" his sins. This satisfaction is also called "penance." 1460 The penance the confessor imposes must take into account the penitent's personal situation and must seek his spiritual good. It must correspond as far as possible with the gravity and nature of the sins committed. It can consist of prayer, an offering, works of mercy, service of neighbor, voluntary self-denial, sacrifices, and above all the patient acceptance of the cross we must bear. Such penances help configure us to Christ, who alone expiated our sins once for all. They allow us to become co-heirs with the risen Christ, "provided we suffer with him." 63 The satisfaction that we make for our sins, however, is not so much ours as though it were not done through Jesus Christ. We who can do nothing ourselves, as if just by ourselves, can do all things with the cooperation of "him who strengthens" us. Thus man has nothing of which to boast, but all our boasting is in Christ . . . in whom we make satisfaction by bringing forth "fruits that befit repentance." These fruits have their efficacy from him, by him they are offered to the Father, and through him they are accepted by the Father. 64

First The Catholic Church teaches you can confess your sins directly to God, and not thru a Priest. But they also Teach the gifts Jesus gave us such as Gifts as The Sacrament of reconciliation . Where By faith in his word we believe in the Promise of Jesus That are sins would be forgiven as the scriptures I list substantiate. Not by man but by God thru man In the form of Persona Christi. it’s a wonderful thing he gave us to hear the words I absolve you from your sins in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit and know you are forgiven