Catholic Makes Denominations Tierlist

[@HeroDotus-db7ef]

"I don't think you'll find any rainbow churches in Catholic churches .. " German Bishops sitting in the corner like 😬😬😬

[@theredneckcatholic1417]

Ahem hem. Fair enough.

[@zempov]

Catholics when ranking Orthodox: A tier; Orthodox when ranking Catholics: D tier take it or leave it

[@theredneckcatholic1417]

I'm pretty sure Eastern Orthodox wouldn't even rank Oriental Orthodox above D tier.

[@timboslice980]

100%!!!!!

[@Hope_Boat]

@@theredneckcatholic1417 A true orthodox only ranks himself. And it's an Ω tier.

[@kindsteel5]

@@theredneckcatholic1417They’re the Most Elitist.

[@theredneckcatholic1417]

@@Hope_Boat Exactly what I'm talking about.

[@Sokka_ATLA]

You are filled with wisdom, my brother.

[@theredneckcatholic1417]

Thank you

[@RogerBesst]

Dear Redneck Brother: You have done your research and I agree with you completely. Accurate and excellent!

[@michaelalbertson4378]

Great vid! Buy a TASCAM DR-10L microphone. It’ll really improve your videos. Great video though!

[@hartenny]

how much dalla is it for

[@tau2647]

I thought this was gonna be a funny shitpost but I was pleasantly surprised. we disagree on a lot of stuff but you do seem very dedicated and certain about what you believe. keep up the good work and please buy a better microphone

[@theredneckcatholic1417]

I shall as soon as I get the chance.

[@jesuszuniga2397]

Anglican should be the only B tier. Lutherans and Presbyterian along with everyone else should go down a tier. The rainbow churches along with LDS and JW aren't even Christian.

[@atrifle8364]

Cool! I saw that other tier list in my feed but didn't want to click. I knew where the Catholics were gonna stand from the Protestant POV. 😂

[@CaptainPantys]

I really disagree with this list.

[@micoolkidfilms3270]

Personally I would put Catholics= S tier All the apostolic churches= B tier And everything else= F tier

[@theredneckcatholic1417]

I would've probably done something like that if there were only 3 tiers. But when you have 6 at your disposal, you've got a little more freedom.

[@Fred.jpeg_]

I was gunna comment this

[@pedroguimaraes6094]

Hmm... you call your churches Apostolic, but then you put churches that place the authority of the apostolic teachings above all else in an F category. It's Catholic/Orthodox logic

[@micoolkidfilms3270]

@@pedroguimaraes6094 well the ones in F tier don’t have any authority over doctrine and sacraments.

[@pedroguimaraes6094]

​@@micoolkidfilms3270 The Priesthood is Universal for all believers: 1 Peter 2:9 "But you are a chosen people, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, God’s special possession, that you may declare the praises of him who called you out of darkness into his wonderful light." Revelation 1:6: "and has made us to be a kingdom and priests to serve his God and Father-to him be glory and power for ever and ever! Amen." Revelation 5:10: "You have made them to be a kingdom and priests to serve our God, and they will reign on the earth." This is possible because Christ's mediation makes it possible for all believers to have direct access to God without the need for intermediary human intercessors (1 Timothy 2:5). You place yourselves in a very comfortable position with the apostolic succession argument, but this is very dangerous. At the end of the day, we are all individually responsible to God and your Church leads us into many errors, as Protestants have argued so much.

[@Astorath_the_Grim]

Peace be with you brother.

[@theredneckcatholic1417]

And with you as well. God bless.

[@Hope_Boat]

Orthodox is not a denominations. It's the trunk. We orthodox did not "cease to be in communion with the Catholic faith" since the Catholic faith didn't exist before 1054 : 1075 Dicatus papae (Only the Roman Pontiff can be called universal, all the princes are to kiss his feet) 1302 Unam Sanctam (it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff) 1870 Pastor aeternus, (Pontifical infallability) Catholics use mental gymnastics to pretend that although all those dogmas were added after the schism of 1054 they were magically already part of the dogma and we orthodox somehow removed them from our dogmas even if we didn't alter our dogmas... Which is what happens whenever you give the keys of the asylum to the fools.

[@theredneckcatholic1417]

If I thought Eastern Orthodoxy was the trunk, I would've made it S-tier. But seeing as how papal infallibility was already believed during the ecumenical councils, that seems a little questionable to me.

[@Hope_Boat]

@@theredneckcatholic1417 That's exactly what I call mental gymnastics. Unless you have Doc's de Lorean the pontifical infallibility was not part of the dogma until 1870. It does not matter if such or such appeared to hold that believe, it was not part of the dogma. In fact you need to show that it was constantly hold true by every holy father of all times to have a point. And I need only one example to demonstrate that it was not a dogma. But since I am generous I will give you two. 1) The Third Council of Constantinople on 16 September 681, anathematized the monothelites "and with them Honorius, who was Prelate of Rome, as having followed them in all things" (Honorius was pope from 625 to his death in 638) 2) Saint pope John VIII send his delegates to the ecumenical council held in Constantinople in 879-880 and validated it as the 8th ecumenical council. During that council anyone daring to add or remove anything to or from the holy Creed was anathematized. This was accepted and fully endorsed by the papacy in Rome until the 11th century when the filioque was first added to the creed during a pontifical mass (1014). In order to retroactively repudiated the 8th ecumanical council, the name of saint pope John VIII was removed from the list of the popes for the bogus reason that he was a woman in drag, meaning all "her" acts were null and void. In the official biography of the popes, written by the prefect of the Vatican Library in 1479 one can reed : Pope John VIII: John, of English extraction, was born at Mentz (Mainz) and is said to have arrived at popedom by evil art; for disguising herself like a man, whereas she was a woman, she went when young with her paramour, a learned man, to Athens, and made such progress in learning under the professors there that, coming to Rome, she met with few that could equal, much less go beyond her, even in the knowledge of the scriptures; and by her learned and ingenious readings and disputations, she acquired so great respect and authority that upon the death of Pope Leo IV (as Martin says) by common consent she was chosen pope in his room. As she was going to the Lateran Church between the Colossean Theatre (so called from Nero's Colossus) and St. Clement's her travail came upon her, and she died upon the place, having sat two years, one month, and four days, and was buried there without any pomp. In 1601, Pope Clement VIII declared the legend of the female pope to be untrue. Saint pope John VIII was rehabilitated as a legitimate pope, but Rome does not recognize the 8th ecumenical council to that day. (Also he's canonized as a martyr only in the orthodox Church). So here we have it : Two popes not infallible according to Rome. Stop the mental gymnastics.

[@stefan5234]

nicely put

[@theredneckcatholic1417]

@@Hope_Boat There's no "mental gymnastics" going on here - your claim about Honorius is deeply flawed. Here's a Catholic Answers article explaining the situation: www.catholic.com/magazine/print-edition/the-truth-about-pope-honorius Also, the Orthodox have plenty of mental gymnastics to do themselves - like the fact that many times during the First Millennium, the Eastern Church actually supported Papal Infallibility, so I guess Eastern Orthodox can't actually claim that their view on this dates all the way back to Christ. Here's another Catholic Answers article detailing a time when all Eastern Orthodox bishops upheld papal infallibility following the Council of Chalcedon: www.catholic.com/magazine/online-edition/that-time-the-eastern-churches-accepted-papal-infallibility

[@Hope_Boat]

@@theredneckcatholic1417 you didn't get the point and that pathetic paper is also missing it : The third ecumenical council anathematized pope Honorius. And the papacy validated that council as ecumenical. That's enough to prove that the 3rd ecumenical councils and pope Leo II who accepted the council did not consider that popes were infallible. I am not debating about whether Honorius was or not heretic. I am proving that no one during the 3rd ecumenical council stood up to say "Wait! What are we doing? Don't we all know that the popes are infallible?" And of course you didn't address saint John VIII's case either because it's even worse. You rather use the diversion tactic the Muslim apologists love to use whenever they face a contradiction in their bogus teachings : return the accusation without answering it. It does not matter if Orthodox practice mental gymnastics or not. They don't pretend to change the dogma. It's a safe practice. You are the ones changing everything so you better let no doubt. So I wait : Was saint pope John VIII infallible when he validated ex cathedra the 8th ecumenical council in Constantinople?

[@top8305]

The Catholic Church is not a Denomination. It is the Church which Jesus Christ Establish. One. Holy. Catholic. Apostolic. The Four Marks of Christ's Church.

[@edwinm-m5008]

That mic sounds like you speak through a hole in your throat after smoking Reds since childhood. Great video besides that

[@theredneckcatholic1417]

Yes I have a lot of work to do in that department - apparently I have this problem called "vocal fry" that I didn't even know about until I started this channel. Thank you for your feedback.

[@nte0631]

It sounds more like you were recording from two microphones at the same time.

[@legacyandlegend]

Would you rank the charismaric episcopal church as A rank? It has valid apostolic succession, as it comes from an orthodox line.

[@theredneckcatholic1417]

Interesting - I'll have to look them up. If they've got valid apostolic succession and sacraments, I'd probably give them an A, unless they're a rainbow church or something.

[@Nirvanafanboy1991]

Phenomenal list, Back when he was Anglican Calvin Robinson was my favorite Anglican.

[@judejomeara2362]

Calvin is still in the Anglican communion, just ordained outside of the mainline CofE. He places a great emphasis on the Catholic nature of Anglicanism (in a similar vain to how Henry VIII intended the Church of England to be)

[@Nirvanafanboy1991]

Ah I see thank you so much for clearing that up@@judejomeara2362 👍

[@physicalgrafiti12345]

Your S tier refutes Catholicism. The other "Catholic" rites that "came back" do not share a number of beliefs and doctrines the Church claims is essential. But they're loyal to the (clearly heretical) Papacy which is all that really matters. Ironic too as you literally stated that they are 100% theologically correct. These people may seem angry because you're professing some wildly inaccurate information.

[@holyromanemperor420]

Give some examples please

[@theredneckcatholic1417]

While Eastern and Western Catholicism do approach some issues differently, they do agree on the substance of all doctrinal issues: east2west.org/faq/doctrine/ Even if they don't always use the same words, they do believe the same things.

[@icxcarnie]

I am sorry, but this is quite possibly one of the worst "arguments" against Catholicism.

[@physicalgrafiti12345]

@@holyromanemperor420 Eastern Catholics reject the filioque, practice infant communion, venerate post schism non Catholic saints, and reject Catholic dogmas.

[@physicalgrafiti12345]

@@theredneckcatholic1417 No they literally dont. They dont even follow all the rules required by Rome. And practice what Rome would normally consider to be herecy. But it's okay because like I said, one thing they do agree is Papal supremacy. And do not post an article in response to me unless you can actually explain yourself what you are saying. Articles are to reference and back your own points. Not to make broad or generalized statements. And then throw a whole bunch of non specific information at someone.

[@cris79667]

why's there an effect on your voice

[@theredneckcatholic1417]

I don't know - I think it has something to do with my microphone.

[@picklenick_]

How can you judge any other religion when you can’t even get scripture right? The verse you’re looking for is John 20:23. (From a seeking Orthodox).

[@theredneckcatholic1417]

I put that in the video as a caption (I don't know if you were maybe just listening to the audio.) - I misspoke and only noticed going back over it later, so I put that caption on there.

[@kurtcolibao9038]

4:00 is a heresy 💀

[@Arpitan_Carpenter]

Extremely common, everyday Catholic W.

[@wlewisiii]

Ah, nothing like a fundamentalist Roman to get the heresies flowing.

[@theredneckcatholic1417]

Let me guess - Eastern Orthodox?

[@professorpancake1521]

Please put the Assyrians lower

[@traviswilson36]

if pope Francis did this everything would be s tier

[@disreceded]

doesn't the orthodox church deny alot of things the bible states?

[@theredneckcatholic1417]

I suppose it depends on who you ask - In Christianity, we've got hundreds of different groups that can more or less be grouped into 10 or so big categories. All these groups believe in the Bible and accuse the other groups of going against it.

[@disreceded]

​@@theredneckcatholic1417I've gained new knowledge of denomination's theology

[@disreceded]

​@@theredneckcatholic1417when I made it this comment I was a theology noob

[@brianrich7828]

So does the Catholic Church, especially with Mariology and the separated celibate priesthood.

[@SHRUBBERT]

I’m pretty sure you can be gay and Christian. I don’t know, it’s not really blasphemy of the Holy Spirit.

[@theredneckcatholic1417]

It's one thing to allow people who commit a specific sin (like homosexual intercourse) into your denomination. We are all Christians, and thus we all sin. The problem with the "rainbow churches" is that they actually deny that homosexual activity is a sin. This goes against both scripture and the apostolic tradition. Because we're all sinners, we can be Christians and sinners at the same time. Thus, you can be a Christian and gay at the same time. But it's another thing entirely to claim that homosexuality isn't a sin, which is what rainbow churches do.

[@SHRUBBERT]

@@theredneckcatholic1417 it is a sin, yet you can still go to heaven if you your gay? Right?

[@theredneckcatholic1417]

@@SHRUBBERT This is tied in with the issue of sin itself. This is a Catholic channel. While there are some Protestant groups that believe that sins can not affect your ability to go to Heaven (this is known as "once saved, always saved"), that is not the Catholic position. The Catholic position is that mortal (grave) sins can in fact condemn a Christian to hell, if the person is unrepentant. Thus, for a person who commits homosexual actions, he or she will go to hell unless he or she goes to confession and repents of the sin. If he or she does it again, he or she must go to confession again, as with any other sin. It should be noted, though, that experiencing same-sex attraction is not a sin in Catholicism, so if you mean "gay" as in "attracted to people of the same sex," then yes, a gay person can definitely get to Heaven. The person's salvation is only in jeopardy if he or she commits a homosexual action of some kind - having attempted sexual intercourse with a person of the same sex, watching pornography, masturbating, etc.

[@top8305]

Roman Rite, not Western.

[@pedroguimaraes6094]

Just one point worth saying, but the Protestant churches that emerged from the Magisterial Reformation (Anglicans, Lutherans and Reformed) also have apostolic succession, as the ministers of these churches were Catholic ministers and simply broke with Rome along with their membership. This is especially true for Lutherans and Anglicans. As for the Reformed, although they don't claim it (simply because they don't care about it) I believe they still have, for example, Vermigli was a Catholic priest. Furthermore, your analysis of the Methodists was not very fair. They affirm the spiritual presence of Christ in the Lord's Supper and follow an episcopal structure, so the only reason you put them in the "C" is because they didn't come directly from the reformation.

[@theredneckcatholic1417]

I think what you said concerning the Methodists is probably fair enough. However, I don't think that all the B-tier groups I mentioned do have apostolic succession just because their founders were Catholic priests. Catholics do see a distinction between the office of bishop and presbyter - it is bishops who practice ordination. Thus for any church to have apostolic succession, it must have bishops, not just priests. Now, there is one other thing I should mention, and that is the fact that Catholics do not accept every single claim to apostolic succession, even among churches that have bishops. For instance, during the 1800s, the Catholic Church declared that Anglican orders had been invalid since the 1600s. If I was doing a more generic Christian-centered version of this tierlist, I might move some of these Protestant groups up some. But this is done from the Catholic perspective, and so if any group was going to be A-tier, I wanted it to have an unquestionable (from the Catholic perspective) claim to Apostolic Succession. As far as I know, the Catholic Church has not recognized the orders of any Protestant denomination, although I've heard rumors that we might one day acknowledge Anglican orders again due to the inclusion of Old Catholic bishops in Anglican ordinations.

[@ihiohoh2708]

@@theredneckcatholic1417 Usually Catholics don't recognize the Reformed tradition as agreeing with a real spiritual presence. I think this is perhaps due to the popularity of proclaimed Calvinists such as John MacArthur, who are really Baptists that only follow Calvin's teachings of predestination. So I appreciate you at least did your research here. I do see Catholics as brothers/sisters in Christ, even though I'm often called a heretic by them. 😂

[@josueinhan8436]

John Knox, founder of the Presbyterians, also was a former priest if I'm not wrong about it.

[@ihiohoh2708]

@@josueinhan8436 "Knox was ordained a Catholic priest in Edinburgh on Easter Eve of 1536 by William Chisholm, Bishop of Dunblane."

[@ihiohoh2708]

@@josueinhan8436 Presbyterians also do acknowledge real presence in the Eucharist.

[@maukachauka8793]

Ridiculous take; there are only two tiers, the first with catholics, the second with all denominations, safely putting them all in hell. You can't start a video saying the catholic church is S tier because it has it all, and then put any other denominations at the same level. You're not catholic mate.

[@theredneckcatholic1417]

You seem to be making three different statements (correct me if I'm wrong): First, that there should be no other denominations in S tier other than Catholic. I actually agree with you on this. The other three "denominations" seen there are just different branches of Eastern Catholicism -all fully Catholic. Second, that all other denominations are on the same level. But this is contrary to Catholic teaching. Catholicism recognizes the orders of some denominations (like the Eastern Orthodox) but not others (like the Lutherans). Surely that must account for something? Third, that all non-Catholics will go to hell. This is borderline heresy, as the Church teaches explicitly otherwise (With the condition that the non-Catholics genuinely believe in their denomination - if they know the truth but remain outside the Church, they will go to Hell.). "Basing itself on Scripture and Tradition, the Council teaches that the Church... is necessary for salvation: the one Christ... affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through Baptism as through a door. Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it.336 847 This affirmation is not aimed at those who, through no fault of their own, do not know Christ and his Church: Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience - those too may achieve eternal salvation." I don't know if you're a sedevacantist, but even if you are, this was already Church teaching well before Vatican II, for instance, it was in the Baltimore Catechism published sometime in the late 1800s.

[@maukachauka8793]

@@theredneckcatholic1417 Sorry guy, maybe I jumped the gun on that take. I apologise. For the rest of your comment though, you are wrong. Extra Ecclesiam Non Salus, that's a dogma and thus no I'm not a borderline heretic, in fact you are. The Catechism of Baltimore isn't under the infallibility of the papacy, nor is any catchism for that matter. The OEcumenical council of Trent, which is infallible anethamtises protestantism and all those who aren't baptised, as according to the words of our Lord and Saviour in John 3:5, many prots aren't baptised, thus they will all burn in hell. Numerous Pope such as St. Pius V anethamised the Eastern Orthodox. Question: Why defend and try to unite to these Schismatics who blapsheme the Holy Trinity ? I mean this provides no help to the Catholic cause. "If your eye causes you to sin, it's better to gauge it out". The Church got rid of them, because it's good for the body. Anyway, I like videos on the faith and wish you luck in doing so, but you gotta stand for the truth mate, no matter what. You are obviously of good will, as you took the time in your day to respond to me, for which I'm thankful. But on this matter of faith you are wrong and don't represent the Church. Prayers for your conversion 🙏📿

[@Juan-gd1wd]

​@@maukachauka8793 I don't mean to discuss or confront but, out of curiosity, are you a Sedevacantist? and, do you affirm that Water Baptism is the only kind of baptism that can efficiently save?

[@maukachauka8793]

@@Juan-gd1wd why would you assume any of that ?

[@Juan-gd1wd]

@@maukachauka8793 the way you engaged with the person who posted the video and how you refered to non-Roman Catholics gave me that impression. So, no to both questions, right?

[@smidlee7747]

Jesus gave his disciples a special position who were all JEWS and nowhere can I find in scripture did Jesus pass the authority he gave to his JEWISH apostles to gentiles. He send the JEWS out to the whole world to spread the gospel. I reject the Pope for the exact same reason I reject Muhammad and Joseph Smith who are all gentiles claiming they are the top dog to represent God.

[@sharkinator7819]

You need to read Acts

[@smidlee7747]

@@sharkinator7819 and?

[@sharkinator7819]

@@smidlee7747 the Gospel applies to everyone, not just Jews

[@smidlee7747]

@@sharkinator7819 The gospel didn't come from everyone but from the Jews.

[@brianrich7828]

@@smidlee7747Luke, the author of the Gospel of Luke was literally a gentile. But I agree with the rest that you said. Gentiles were instrumental in spreading the Gospel.