Papal Authority and the Early Church - Fr. Ray Ryland

[@aldousjove]

Great channel with wonderful speakers.

[@kenshiloh]

In all love and respect, Catholics claim 'apostolic authority.' Yet, in Paul's time, some of the churches he founded had gone astray - in only a few years! Why do Catholics claim that it cannot happen to their church - after thousands of years? In fact, I think it has! Please allow me to explain. First, I bring to mind the Apostle Paul's fierce and stern warning, that even if he, Paul, were to preach a different gospel, he should be accursed; how much more, then, should we be aware of institutions, such as the Catholic church? Moreover, when the Catholic church teaches that, in order for the possiblity (not certainty) of being saved, a person must partake of Catholic communion and be baptized Catholic, they are in contradiction to Paul's gospel. That is, Paul preached, "Whoever calls upon the Name of the Lord shall be saved (Romans 10.13)," while Catholics teach, "Whoever calls upon the Name of the Lord, is baptized Catholic, and partakes of Catholic communion might be saved." I have asked innumerable Catholics, is this not a different, therefore damnable, gospel than what Paul taught? The Catholic response, so far, has been disturbing. Most pass over these posts, unconcerned. Others will quote Scripture that, I suppose, 'contradicts' the words of Paul, as if saying, "Well, there is more to it than that." However, so far, no Catholic has had the integrity nor courage to answer a simple question, "Was Paul wrong? Is it false to say that whoever calls upon the Name of the Lord shall be saved?" You can insert the sound of crickets here! No real answer! For example, "Catholic Truth" says that I am cherry picking, yet will not reply as to what Romans 10.13 actually means. One Catholic admitted, 'Yeah, it seems like a different gospel. I will have to look into that.' Yet, he was never heard from again. Others will say that my 'interpretation' is invalid - yet, I am not interpreting anything. I am simply comparing what Paul wrote to what Catholics teach. Are they not different? If you were me, which teaching would you follow? Which teaching do you follow? To whoever reads this, if anyone reads this (as Catholics rarely answer these posts), I hope that you will consider the words of Paul and not place unrestricted confidence in what your church teaches. Remember, on that last day, Christ will judge us as whether we kept His words, not those of the Catholic church. That is what my Bible tells me. That is what I believe. Jesus Christ is the light of the world.

[@cominghomenetwork]

Thank you!

[@sterry1962]

A few quotes from some of the early Eastern churches and councils regarding the primacy of the Pope; Constantinople St. John Chrysostom, Patriarch of Constantinople (c. 387) And if one should say, 'How then did James receive the throne of Jerusalem?,' this I would answer that He appointed this man (Peter) teacher, not of that throne, but of the whole world. (Chrysostom, In Joan. Hom. 1xxxviii. n. 1, tom. viii) John Cassian, Monk (c. 430) That great man, the disciple of disciples, that master among masters, who wielding the government of the Roman Church possessed the principle authority in faith and in priesthood. Tell us, therefore, we beg of you, Peter, prince of Apostles, tell us how the Churches must believe in God (Cassian, Contra Nestorium, III, 12, CSEL, vol. 17, p. 276 The Council of Ephesus (431): "There is no doubt, and in fact it has been known in all ages, that the holy and most blessed Peter, prince and head of the Apostles, pillar of the faith and foundation of the Catholic Church, received the Keys of the Kingdom from our Lord Jesus Christ, the Savior and Redeemer of the human race, and to him was given the power of loosing and binding sins; who down even to this day and forever both lives and judges in his successors. The holy and most blessed Pope Celestine, according to due order, is his successor and holds his place." (Acts of the Council of Ephesus, session 3 Macedonius, Patriarch of Constantinople (466-516) Macedonius declared, when desired by the Emperor Anastasius to condemn the Council of Chalcedon, that 'such a step without an Ecumenical Synod presided over by the Pope of Rome is impossible.' (Macedonius, Patr. Graec. 108: 360a (Theophan. Chronogr. pp. 234-346 seq.) Emperor Justinian (520-533) Writing to the Pope: Yielding honor to the Apostolic See and to Your Holiness, and honoring your Holiness, as one ought to honor a father, we have hastened to subject all the priests of the whole Eastern district, and to unite them to the See of your Holiness, for we do not allow of any point, however manifest and indisputable it be, which relates to the state of the Churches, not being brought to the cognizance of your Holiness, since you are the Head of all the holy Churches. (Justinian Epist. ad. Pap. Joan. ii. Cod. Justin. lib. I. tit. 1). Let your Apostleship show that you have worthily succeeded to the Apostle Peter, since the Lord will work through you, as Surpreme Pastor, the salvation of all. (Coll. Avell. Ep. 196, July 9th, 520, Justinian to Pope Hormisdas St. Maximus the Confessor (c. 650)
How much more in the case of the clergy and Church of the Romans, which from old until now presides over all the churches which are under the sun John VI, Patriarch of Constantinople (715) The Pope of Rome, the head of the Christian priesthood, whom in Peter, the Lord commanded to confirm his brethren. (John VI, Epist. ad Constantin. Pap. ad. Combefis, Auctuar. Bibl. P.P. Graec.tom. ii. p. 211, seq.) St. Nicephorus, Patriarch of Constantinople (758-828) Without whom (the Romans presiding in the seventh Council) a doctrine brought forward in the Church could not, even though confirmed by canonical decrees and by ecclesiastical usuage, ever obtain full approval or currency. For it is they (the Popes of Rome) who have had assigned to them the rule in sacred things, and who have received into their hands the dignity of headship among the Apostles. (Nicephorus, Niceph. Cpl. pro. s. imag. c 25 [Mai N. Bibl. pp. ii. 30]). St. Theodore the Studite of Constantinople (759-826) Writing to Pope Leo III: Since to great Peter Christ our Lord gave the office of Chief Shepherd after entrusting him with the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven, to Peter or his successor must of necessity every novelty in the Catholic Church be referred. [Therefore], save us, oh most divine Head of Heads, Chief Shepherd of the Church of Heaven. (Theodore, Bk. I. Ep. 23 St. Macarius of Egypt (371) The Chief, Peter. (Macarius, De Patientia, n. 3, p. 180) Moses was succeeded by Peter, who had committed to his hands the new Church of Christ, and the true priesthood. (Macarius, Hom. xxvi. n. 23, p. 101 Antioch Theodoret, Bishop of Cyrus in Syria (450) I therefore beseech your holiness to persuade the most holy and blessed bishop (Pope Leo) to use his Apostolic power, and to order me to hasten to your Council. For that most holy throne (Rome) has the sovereignty over the churches throughout the universe on many grounds. (Theodoret, Tom. iv. Epist. cxvi. Renato, p. 1197)

[@joecastillo8798]

@S Terry Thanks for sharing your quotes. I'm a Catholic apologist. If you could, could you share the link of such important quotes on the Primacy of our Pope? Much thanks!

[@joecastillo8798]

@ROMAN CATHOLIC777 THANKS!

[@athonyhiggins3117]

They were fallible and don't cherry pick protestants included. The bible is the final authority not the Roman church

[@athonyhiggins3117]

@@joecastillo8798 historians state that Peter was never in Rome and that there was no first century pope

[@joecastillo8798]

@@athonyhiggins3117 Anthony, Here are some important information from renoun organizations regarding the Catholic Church. Encyclopedia Britannica: "The Roman Catholic Church traces its history to Jesus Christ and the Apostles. Over the course of centuries it developed a highly sophisticated theology and an elaborate organizational structure headed by the papacy, the oldest continuing absolute monarchy in the world". This is what the BBC says: "The Catholic Church is the oldest institution in the western world. It can trace its history back almost 2000 years. Today there are more than a billion Catholics in the world, spread across all five continents". From Lumen, "Boundless World": "The history of the Catholic Church begins with the teachings of Jesus Christ, who lived in the 1st century CE in the province of Judea of the Roman Empire". May God bless your discernment.

[@joe_act_math]

“...And as the patriarch has authority to do all he wishes in a fitting manner in such things as are beneath his authority, so the patriarch of Rome has authority over all patriarchs, like the blessed Peter over all the community, for he who is in Rome also keeps the office of Peter in all the Church. He who transgresses against these things the ecumenical synod places under anathema” (Memra 9; Risha 8) Mar Abdisho of Soba 14th century canonist (from the Assyrian Church)

[@bijogeojose7209]

That was a wonderful quote. Thank you for sharing it. I'm Eastern Catholic (Syro-Malabar Church) and such quotes help when talking with Orthodox and non-catholics.

[@joecastillo8798]

@Joseph Hechema Joseph, Thanks for the information. A latin brother from the U S. God bless.

[@kenshiloh]

In all love and respect, Catholics claim 'apostolic authority.' Yet, in Paul's time, some of the churches he founded had gone astray - in only a few years! Why do Catholics claim that it cannot happen to their church - after thousands of years? In fact, I think it has! Please allow me to explain. First, I bring to mind the Apostle Paul's fierce and stern warning, that even if he, Paul, were to preach a different gospel, he should be accursed; how much more, then, should we be aware of institutions, such as the Catholic church? Moreover, when the Catholic church teaches that, in order for the possiblity (not certainty) of being saved, a person must partake of Catholic communion and be baptized Catholic, they are in contradiction to Paul's gospel. That is, Paul preached, "Whoever calls upon the Name of the Lord shall be saved (Romans 10.13)," while Catholics teach, "Whoever calls upon the Name of the Lord, is baptized Catholic, and partakes of Catholic communion might be saved." I have asked innumerable Catholics, is this not a different, therefore damnable, gospel than what Paul taught? The Catholic response, so far, has been disturbing. Most pass over these posts, unconcerned. Others will quote Scripture that, I suppose, 'contradicts' the words of Paul, as if saying, "Well, there is more to it than that." However, so far, no Catholic has had the integrity nor courage to answer a simple question, "Was Paul wrong? Is it false to say that whoever calls upon the Name of the Lord shall be saved?" You can insert the sound of crickets here! No real answer! For example, "Catholic Truth" says that I am cherry picking, yet will not reply as to what Romans 10.13 actually means. One Catholic admitted, 'Yeah, it seems like a different gospel. I will have to look into that.' Yet, he was never heard from again. Others will say that my 'interpretation' is invalid - yet, I am not interpreting anything. I am simply comparing what Paul wrote to what Catholics teach. Are they not different? If you were me, which teaching would you follow? Which teaching do you follow? To whoever reads this, if anyone reads this (as Catholics rarely answer these posts), I hope that you will consider the words of Paul and not place unrestricted confidence in what your church teaches. Remember, on that last day, Christ will judge us as whether we kept His words, not those of the Catholic church. That is what my Bible tells me. That is what I believe. Jesus Christ is the light of the world.

[@SuperIliad]

Recommended: “One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic: The Early Church was the Catholic Church,” a book by Kenneth D. Whitehead.

[@athonyhiggins3117]

No support in the the bible that the early church was Catholic

[@kenshiloh]

In all love and respect, Catholics claim 'apostolic authority.' Yet, in Paul's time, some of the churches he founded had gone astray - in only a few years! Why do Catholics claim that it cannot happen to their church - after thousands of years? In fact, I think it has! Please allow me to explain. First, I bring to mind the Apostle Paul's fierce and stern warning, that even if he, Paul, were to preach a different gospel, he should be accursed; how much more, then, should we be aware of institutions, such as the Catholic church? Moreover, when the Catholic church teaches that, in order for the possiblity (not certainty) of being saved, a person must partake of Catholic communion and be baptized Catholic, they are in contradiction to Paul's gospel. That is, Paul preached, "Whoever calls upon the Name of the Lord shall be saved (Romans 10.13)," while Catholics teach, "Whoever calls upon the Name of the Lord, is baptized Catholic, and partakes of Catholic communion might be saved." I have asked innumerable Catholics, is this not a different, therefore damnable, gospel than what Paul taught? The Catholic response, so far, has been disturbing. Most pass over these posts, unconcerned. Others will quote Scripture that, I suppose, 'contradicts' the words of Paul, as if saying, "Well, there is more to it than that." However, so far, no Catholic has had the integrity nor courage to answer a simple question, "Was Paul wrong? Is it false to say that whoever calls upon the Name of the Lord shall be saved?" You can insert the sound of crickets here! No real answer! For example, "Catholic Truth" says that I am cherry picking, yet will not reply as to what Romans 10.13 actually means. One Catholic admitted, 'Yeah, it seems like a different gospel. I will have to look into that.' Yet, he was never heard from again. Others will say that my 'interpretation' is invalid - yet, I am not interpreting anything. I am simply comparing what Paul wrote to what Catholics teach. Are they not different? If you were me, which teaching would you follow? Which teaching do you follow? To whoever reads this, if anyone reads this (as Catholics rarely answer these posts), I hope that you will consider the words of Paul and not place unrestricted confidence in what your church teaches. Remember, on that last day, Christ will judge us as whether we kept His words, not those of the Catholic church. That is what my Bible tells me. That is what I believe. Jesus Christ is the light of the world.

[@athonyhiggins3117]

@@kenshiloh Hi Ken very true.god bless you .any thought Any thoughts on the property gospel. Clarification needed

[@kenshiloh]

@@athonyhiggins3117 Hi. What is the 'property gospel'?

[@athonyhiggins3117]

@@kenshiloh hi Ken will explain it to you later , anthony

[@lofiddoki6630]

Thank you,father!

[@lesliehanson6614]

Thank you for all this detailed history! I am thinking the detractors here did not watch this! These "Deep in History" presentations are so helpful as we continue to defend Jesus' beautiful and unified Church and walk with many who are coming "Home".

[@maryscapular]

For an even more detailed treatment of Papal infallibility and supremacy, I suggest Johann Joseph Ignaz von Döllinger’s The Pope and the Council.

[@CristhianS]

I love Fr. Ryland! Great Lecture!

[@kenshiloh]

In all love and respect, Catholics claim 'apostolic authority.' Yet, in Paul's time, some of the churches he founded had gone astray - in only a few years! Why do Catholics claim that it cannot happen to their church - after thousands of years? In fact, I think it has! Please allow me to explain. First, I bring to mind the Apostle Paul's fierce and stern warning, that even if he, Paul, were to preach a different gospel, he should be accursed; how much more, then, should we be aware of institutions, such as the Catholic church? Moreover, when the Catholic church teaches that, in order for the possiblity (not certainty) of being saved, a person must partake of Catholic communion and be baptized Catholic, they are in contradiction to Paul's gospel. That is, Paul preached, "Whoever calls upon the Name of the Lord shall be saved (Romans 10.13)," while Catholics teach, "Whoever calls upon the Name of the Lord, is baptized Catholic, and partakes of Catholic communion might be saved." I have asked innumerable Catholics, is this not a different, therefore damnable, gospel than what Paul taught? The Catholic response, so far, has been disturbing. Most pass over these posts, unconcerned. Others will quote Scripture that, I suppose, 'contradicts' the words of Paul, as if saying, "Well, there is more to it than that." However, so far, no Catholic has had the integrity nor courage to answer a simple question, "Was Paul wrong? Is it false to say that whoever calls upon the Name of the Lord shall be saved?" You can insert the sound of crickets here! No real answer! For example, "Catholic Truth" says that I am cherry picking, yet will not reply as to what Romans 10.13 actually means. One Catholic admitted, 'Yeah, it seems like a different gospel. I will have to look into that.' Yet, he was never heard from again. Others will say that my 'interpretation' is invalid - yet, I am not interpreting anything. I am simply comparing what Paul wrote to what Catholics teach. Are they not different? If you were me, which teaching would you follow? Which teaching do you follow? To whoever reads this, if anyone reads this (as Catholics rarely answer these posts), I hope that you will consider the words of Paul and not place unrestricted confidence in what your church teaches. Remember, on that last day, Christ will judge us as whether we kept His words, not those of the Catholic church. That is what my Bible tells me. That is what I believe. Jesus Christ is the light of the world.

[@cominghomenetwork]

Thank you for the kind words, glad you appreciated the talk!

[@johnchung6777]

Thank you priest Raylan for your presentation is very informative and enlightening may the all Powerful Holy and Sacred Trinity bless you with an abundance of Truth Graces and Virtues and also protect you till the end of your day’s Amen Alleluia Deo Gratis Hosanna In Excelsis Deo Gloria In Excelsis Deo 🙏🐑🕊️🔥✨

[@holysmokes2374]

The St Maximus the Confessor quote and St. John Chrysostom quotes were dynamite.

[@kenshiloh]

In all love and respect, Catholics claim 'apostolic authority.' Yet, in Paul's time, some of the churches he founded had gone astray - in only a few years! Why do Catholics claim that it cannot happen to their church - after thousands of years? In fact, I think it has! Please allow me to explain. First, I bring to mind the Apostle Paul's fierce and stern warning, that even if he, Paul, were to preach a different gospel, he should be accursed; how much more, then, should we be aware of institutions, such as the Catholic church? Moreover, when the Catholic church teaches that, in order for the possiblity (not certainty) of being saved, a person must partake of Catholic communion and be baptized Catholic, they are in contradiction to Paul's gospel. That is, Paul preached, "Whoever calls upon the Name of the Lord shall be saved (Romans 10.13)," while Catholics teach, "Whoever calls upon the Name of the Lord, is baptized Catholic, and partakes of Catholic communion might be saved." I have asked innumerable Catholics, is this not a different, therefore damnable, gospel than what Paul taught? The Catholic response, so far, has been disturbing. Most pass over these posts, unconcerned. Others will quote Scripture that, I suppose, 'contradicts' the words of Paul, as if saying, "Well, there is more to it than that." However, so far, no Catholic has had the integrity nor courage to answer a simple question, "Was Paul wrong? Is it false to say that whoever calls upon the Name of the Lord shall be saved?" You can insert the sound of crickets here! No real answer! For example, "Catholic Truth" says that I am cherry picking, yet will not reply as to what Romans 10.13 actually means. One Catholic admitted, 'Yeah, it seems like a different gospel. I will have to look into that.' Yet, he was never heard from again. Others will say that my 'interpretation' is invalid - yet, I am not interpreting anything. I am simply comparing what Paul wrote to what Catholics teach. Are they not different? If you were me, which teaching would you follow? Which teaching do you follow? To whoever reads this, if anyone reads this (as Catholics rarely answer these posts), I hope that you will consider the words of Paul and not place unrestricted confidence in what your church teaches. Remember, on that last day, Christ will judge us as whether we kept His words, not those of the Catholic church. That is what my Bible tells me. That is what I believe. Jesus Christ is the light of the world.

[@tonyl3762]

@@kenshiloh Don't you think that those taught by the apostles and the successors of the apostles would know the correct interpretation of Scripture? Do you think we have the writings of any of such successive leaders?

[@kenshiloh]

@@tonyl3762 Hi. Thanks for writing. Can we agree on the words of Christ, that those who obey His teachings will 'build their house upon a rock'? Can we trust Christ? Amen? Jesus said that we should call no man 'teacher' as, "The Holy Spirit will lead you into all truth." Jesus said to do the opposite of what you are suggesting, trusting in people to lead you into all truth. In fact, every man that you are putting your trust in was wrong! That is, they missed the teachings of Christ on some level. Some of them might not even be in heaven today. It is written, "Trust in the Lord with all of your heart and do not lean on your own understanding." The Bible says that we are to be transformed by the renewing of our minds, replacing our sinful, selfish thoughts with the Word of God. Christ died on a Cross so that you can know Him. It is a personal relationship with Christ. I will obey the Lord, saying that the Holy Spirit is my Teacher. Conversely, will the blind lead the blind? Both will fall into a pit. Yet, you can know Christ - just by asking! Jesus Christ is the light of the world.

[@Johnathan909309]

Just so y'all know protestant Christianity has nothing to do with the historic church look up fr Bernstein love Jewish roots to Orthodox Christian worship. He was a co founder for Jews for Jesus before he became Orthodox it's a beautiful sermon

[@kenshiloh]

@@Johnathan909309 Hi. Knowing church history has some value. However, make sure that you are obeying the Word of God and not the traditions of men. For example, do you preach that you must be baptized to be saved? Yet, Paul said, "Whoever calls upon the Name of the Lord shall be saved (Romans 10.13)." Whoever preaches a different gospel should be accursed! Jesus died on a Cross so that, just by asking, we can know Him. We can have eternal life. Jesus Christ is the light of the world.

[@holysmokes2374]

This presentation is on point.

[@kenshiloh]

In all love and respect, Catholics claim 'apostolic authority.' Yet, in Paul's time, some of the churches he founded had gone astray - in only a few years! Why do Catholics claim that it cannot happen to their church - after thousands of years? In fact, I think it has! Please allow me to explain. First, I bring to mind the Apostle Paul's fierce and stern warning, that even if he, Paul, were to preach a different gospel, he should be accursed; how much more, then, should we be aware of institutions, such as the Catholic church? Moreover, when the Catholic church teaches that, in order for the possiblity (not certainty) of being saved, a person must partake of Catholic communion and be baptized Catholic, they are in contradiction to Paul's gospel. That is, Paul preached, "Whoever calls upon the Name of the Lord shall be saved (Romans 10.13)," while Catholics teach, "Whoever calls upon the Name of the Lord, is baptized Catholic, and partakes of Catholic communion might be saved." I have asked innumerable Catholics, is this not a different, therefore damnable, gospel than what Paul taught? The Catholic response, so far, has been disturbing. Most pass over these posts, unconcerned. Others will quote Scripture that, I suppose, 'contradicts' the words of Paul, as if saying, "Well, there is more to it than that." However, so far, no Catholic has had the integrity nor courage to answer a simple question, "Was Paul wrong? Is it false to say that whoever calls upon the Name of the Lord shall be saved?" You can insert the sound of crickets here! No real answer! For example, "Catholic Truth" says that I am cherry picking, yet will not reply as to what Romans 10.13 actually means. One Catholic admitted, 'Yeah, it seems like a different gospel. I will have to look into that.' Yet, he was never heard from again. Others will say that my 'interpretation' is invalid - yet, I am not interpreting anything. I am simply comparing what Paul wrote to what Catholics teach. Are they not different? If you were me, which teaching would you follow? Which teaching do you follow? To whoever reads this, if anyone reads this (as Catholics rarely answer these posts), I hope that you will consider the words of Paul and not place unrestricted confidence in what your church teaches. Remember, on that last day, Christ will judge us as whether we kept His words, not those of the Catholic church. That is what my Bible tells me. That is what I believe. Jesus Christ is the light of the world.

[@fotisvon9943]

The council upholding the pope reminds me of how Jesus states that we are to handle disagreements within the church. First to go to the person individually then in a group then finally the church will throw them out of they don’t listen even to them. Just makes sense that the pope and therefore the church in general does the same.

[@kenshiloh]

In all love and respect, Catholics claim 'apostolic authority.' Yet, in Paul's time, some of the churches he founded had gone astray - in only a few years! Why do Catholics claim that it cannot happen to their church - after thousands of years? In fact, I think it has! Please allow me to explain. First, I bring to mind the Apostle Paul's fierce and stern warning, that even if he, Paul, were to preach a different gospel, he should be accursed; how much more, then, should we be aware of institutions, such as the Catholic church? Moreover, when the Catholic church teaches that, in order for the possiblity (not certainty) of being saved, a person must partake of Catholic communion and be baptized Catholic, they are in contradiction to Paul's gospel. That is, Paul preached, "Whoever calls upon the Name of the Lord shall be saved (Romans 10.13)," while Catholics teach, "Whoever calls upon the Name of the Lord, is baptized Catholic, and partakes of Catholic communion might be saved." I have asked innumerable Catholics, is this not a different, therefore damnable, gospel than what Paul taught? The Catholic response, so far, has been disturbing. Most pass over these posts, unconcerned. Others will quote Scripture that, I suppose, 'contradicts' the words of Paul, as if saying, "Well, there is more to it than that." However, so far, no Catholic has had the integrity nor courage to answer a simple question, "Was Paul wrong? Is it false to say that whoever calls upon the Name of the Lord shall be saved?" You can insert the sound of crickets here! No real answer! For example, "Catholic Truth" says that I am cherry picking, yet will not reply as to what Romans 10.13 actually means. One Catholic admitted, 'Yeah, it seems like a different gospel. I will have to look into that.' Yet, he was never heard from again. Others will say that my 'interpretation' is invalid - yet, I am not interpreting anything. I am simply comparing what Paul wrote to what Catholics teach. Are they not different? If you were me, which teaching would you follow? Which teaching do you follow? To whoever reads this, if anyone reads this (as Catholics rarely answer these posts), I hope that you will consider the words of Paul and not place unrestricted confidence in what your church teaches. Remember, on that last day, Christ will judge us as whether we kept His words, not those of the Catholic church. That is what my Bible tells me. That is what I believe. Jesus Christ is the light of the world.

[@rjsledz]

I didn't know Fr Ryland passed away.... Oh my....

[@Howsthis4ya]

Robert J Sledz Memory Eternal.

[@thecrusaderofchrist]

I'm watching this speech in 2021 and I bearly found out about this... he's such a smart guy I wish he were still alive

[@kenshiloh]

In all love and respect, Catholics claim 'apostolic authority.' Yet, in Paul's time, some of the churches he founded had gone astray - in only a few years! Why do Catholics claim that it cannot happen to their church - after thousands of years? In fact, I think it has! Please allow me to explain. First, I bring to mind the Apostle Paul's fierce and stern warning, that even if he, Paul, were to preach a different gospel, he should be accursed; how much more, then, should we be aware of institutions, such as the Catholic church? Moreover, when the Catholic church teaches that, in order for the possiblity (not certainty) of being saved, a person must partake of Catholic communion and be baptized Catholic, they are in contradiction to Paul's gospel. That is, Paul preached, "Whoever calls upon the Name of the Lord shall be saved (Romans 10.13)," while Catholics teach, "Whoever calls upon the Name of the Lord, is baptized Catholic, and partakes of Catholic communion might be saved." I have asked innumerable Catholics, is this not a different, therefore damnable, gospel than what Paul taught? The Catholic response, so far, has been disturbing. Most pass over these posts, unconcerned. Others will quote Scripture that, I suppose, 'contradicts' the words of Paul, as if saying, "Well, there is more to it than that." However, so far, no Catholic has had the integrity nor courage to answer a simple question, "Was Paul wrong? Is it false to say that whoever calls upon the Name of the Lord shall be saved?" You can insert the sound of crickets here! No real answer! For example, "Catholic Truth" says that I am cherry picking, yet will not reply as to what Romans 10.13 actually means. One Catholic admitted, 'Yeah, it seems like a different gospel. I will have to look into that.' Yet, he was never heard from again. Others will say that my 'interpretation' is invalid - yet, I am not interpreting anything. I am simply comparing what Paul wrote to what Catholics teach. Are they not different? If you were me, which teaching would you follow? Which teaching do you follow? To whoever reads this, if anyone reads this (as Catholics rarely answer these posts), I hope that you will consider the words of Paul and not place unrestricted confidence in what your church teaches. Remember, on that last day, Christ will judge us as whether we kept His words, not those of the Catholic church. That is what my Bible tells me. That is what I believe. Jesus Christ is the light of the world.

[@davidaimer314]

95 : Clement / unity and moral to corinthians 190 : Victor / excommunication letters 257 : Sixte II vs Paul of Samosata 265 : Denys vs Denys 343 : Julius I cancelled local councils that condemned Athanasius versus arianism

[@tony1685]

wow - not one quote from the Word of Truth (John 17:17).

[@davidaimer314]

@@tony1685 You are correct, I suppose it's not the point here. In fact the first clear sign of Peter's authority is the Jerusalem council, isn't it? Acts 15 : Peter gives the faith everyone have to teach. All are talking, pros and cons. Then Peter takes the lead and everybody is silent. The ones that agrees with Peter shut up and the ones that doesn't agree... also Then we talk about other things. And at the end of the meeting, James, as the bishop where the council stands (See Eusebius) makes the summary and translate into pastoral and organisational terms what Peter said as doctrinal terms. Perfect example of the authority Jesus gave to him, correct?

[@tony1685]

@@davidaimer314 Peter is no authority, Sir - that's a severe misunderstanding and abuse of Scripture - let me know if you'd like to dig deep into it, it's what i do! as i was catholic and believed the cherry picking of Scriptures but now search and study to find Truth. also - council of Jerusalem was headed by James - see Acts 12:17, Acts 15:13, Acts 21:18 and Gal 2:9,12. see just what Jesus says about this supposed 'authority' in Matt 20:25-26 and get back to me if you have time and interest to discuss further, Sir.

[@davidaimer314]

@@tony1685 Dear Tony, you are right saying that James headed the council of Jerusalem. Indeed, he was the bishop of Jerusalem. That said, the prayer of Jesus about the infaillibility of the faith (and nothing more) of Peter stays the same. Please look carefully : - Everybodys talking (the evangelist doen't say who because we don't care) - Peter says the faith point - The ones that agrees with Peter shut up and the ones that disagree shut up also, including James, Paul, John, etc - We talk about other things - James says the pastoral point Everyone is in his role. Peter as the guy Jesus prayed for. James the guy who hosts the council. Mt 20.26 : Agree with you. That's why the pope (papa, father) is called the servant of the servants of God. Peter is no authority, Please have a look at Isaiah 22, you will see that Jesus, as a davidic king, chooses one person that have the keys of his kingdom. Can you please look at those videos ? Those adresses the authority questions. kzbin.info/www/bejne/rp2WoXdqoZV-a7c kzbin.info/www/bejne/nJKsc2CphKd3gc0 Peace

[@tony1685]

@@davidaimer314 look at them, heck i've spoken directly to steve ray and he isn't very sharp at all on Bible Truth! see, Sir - it starts with basics - if a system isn't following Truth, why waist time trying to justify it?

[@Hopeternal316]

Yes ive read those in the Office it is so obvious!

[@finallythere100]

What are the verses of the universal Church in Scripture? Thank you!

[@joecastillo8798]

@finallythere100 Here's one of the reasons why the Church built on Peter by Jesus was started to be called Catholic by the end of the first century: ▪︎ACTS 9:31 31Certainly, the Church had peace throughout all of Judea and Galilee and Samaria, and it was being built up, while walking in the fear of the Lord, and it was being filled with the consolation of the Holy Spirit. ▪︎In greek: 31. Ἡ μὲν οὖν ἘΚΚΛΗΣΊΑ ΚΑΘ ’ ὍΛΗΣ ΤῆΣ Ἰουδαίας καὶ Γαλιλαίας καὶ Σαμαρείας εἶχεν εἰρήνην ▪︎GREEK TRANSLITERATION 31. Hē men oun ekklēsia kath’holēs Ioudaias kai Galilaias kai Samareias eichen eirēnēn Literal translation: 31. The church, then, THAT IS "ALL OVER" ("kath’holēs or "catholic") Judaea and Galilee and Samaria, had peace οἰκοδομουμένη, καὶ πορευομένη τῷ φόβῳ τοῦ κυρίου καὶ τῇ παρακλήσει τοῦ ἁγίου πνεύματος ἐπληθύνετο. ▪︎Translation: Built up, and walking in the fear of the Lord and the supplication of the Holy Spirit, i Here is a bit of history regarding the origin of the Greek word, "Catholic" used to designate the ever growing one and only Church founded by Christ. It started with Ignatius, the second Bishop of Antioch in Syria after St. Evodious, who died a Martyr. Ignatius was a disciple of the Apostle John and was consecrated Bishop around the year 65 by the Apostle Peter, our first Pope. In 107AD, during the reign of the brutal Emperor Trajan, Ignatius was sentenced to death because he refused to renounce his Christian faith. Ignatius was taken to Rome where he was sentenced to be devoured by wild beasts in a public spectacle. During the journey, prior to his demise, he wrote seven letters of encouragement, instruction and inspiration to the Christians in seven communities. We still have these letters today, as a great treasure of the Catholic Church. ▪︎Letter to the Smyrneans (107AD). Ch. 8 excerpt: "Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude [of the people] also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is The Catholic Church".

[@CScott-wh5yk]

The church obviously did question the Pope, that’s what the whole schism was, when the whole church kicked Rome out.

[@Hopeternal316]

And so we came to ROME

[@brady1407]

I think this could have been better, if it had addressed the Honorius question

[@kenshiloh]

In all love and respect, Catholics claim 'apostolic authority.' Yet, in Paul's time, some of the churches he founded had gone astray - in only a few years! Why do Catholics claim that it cannot happen to their church - after thousands of years? In fact, I think it has! Please allow me to explain. First, I bring to mind the Apostle Paul's fierce and stern warning, that even if he, Paul, were to preach a different gospel, he should be accursed; how much more, then, should we be aware of institutions, such as the Catholic church? Moreover, when the Catholic church teaches that, in order for the possiblity (not certainty) of being saved, a person must partake of Catholic communion and be baptized Catholic, they are in contradiction to Paul's gospel. That is, Paul preached, "Whoever calls upon the Name of the Lord shall be saved (Romans 10.13)," while Catholics teach, "Whoever calls upon the Name of the Lord, is baptized Catholic, and partakes of Catholic communion might be saved." I have asked innumerable Catholics, is this not a different, therefore damnable, gospel than what Paul taught? The Catholic response, so far, has been disturbing. Most pass over these posts, unconcerned. Others will quote Scripture that, I suppose, 'contradicts' the words of Paul, as if saying, "Well, there is more to it than that." However, so far, no Catholic has had the integrity nor courage to answer a simple question, "Was Paul wrong? Is it false to say that whoever calls upon the Name of the Lord shall be saved?" You can insert the sound of crickets here! No real answer! For example, "Catholic Truth" says that I am cherry picking, yet will not reply as to what Romans 10.13 actually means. One Catholic admitted, 'Yeah, it seems like a different gospel. I will have to look into that.' Yet, he was never heard from again. Others will say that my 'interpretation' is invalid - yet, I am not interpreting anything. I am simply comparing what Paul wrote to what Catholics teach. Are they not different? If you were me, which teaching would you follow? Which teaching do you follow? To whoever reads this, if anyone reads this (as Catholics rarely answer these posts), I hope that you will consider the words of Paul and not place unrestricted confidence in what your church teaches. Remember, on that last day, Christ will judge us as whether we kept His words, not those of the Catholic church. That is what my Bible tells me. That is what I believe. Jesus Christ is the light of the world.

[@seraphimdunn]

That Henry VIII joke totally got me 🤣

[@markv1974]

Died beheaded died, died beheaded, survived. Lol

[@kenshiloh]

In all love and respect, Catholics claim 'apostolic authority.' Yet, in Paul's time, some of the churches he founded had gone astray - in only a few years! Why do Catholics claim that it cannot happen to their church - after thousands of years? In fact, I think it has! Please allow me to explain. First, I bring to mind the Apostle Paul's fierce and stern warning, that even if he, Paul, were to preach a different gospel, he should be accursed; how much more, then, should we be aware of institutions, such as the Catholic church? Moreover, when the Catholic church teaches that, in order for the possiblity (not certainty) of being saved, a person must partake of Catholic communion and be baptized Catholic, they are in contradiction to Paul's gospel. That is, Paul preached, "Whoever calls upon the Name of the Lord shall be saved (Romans 10.13)," while Catholics teach, "Whoever calls upon the Name of the Lord, is baptized Catholic, and partakes of Catholic communion might be saved." I have asked innumerable Catholics, is this not a different, therefore damnable, gospel than what Paul taught? The Catholic response, so far, has been disturbing. Most pass over these posts, unconcerned. Others will quote Scripture that, I suppose, 'contradicts' the words of Paul, as if saying, "Well, there is more to it than that." However, so far, no Catholic has had the integrity nor courage to answer a simple question, "Was Paul wrong? Is it false to say that whoever calls upon the Name of the Lord shall be saved?" You can insert the sound of crickets here! No real answer! For example, "Catholic Truth" says that I am cherry picking, yet will not reply as to what Romans 10.13 actually means. One Catholic admitted, 'Yeah, it seems like a different gospel. I will have to look into that.' Yet, he was never heard from again. Others will say that my 'interpretation' is invalid - yet, I am not interpreting anything. I am simply comparing what Paul wrote to what Catholics teach. Are they not different? If you were me, which teaching would you follow? Which teaching do you follow? To whoever reads this, if anyone reads this (as Catholics rarely answer these posts), I hope that you will consider the words of Paul and not place unrestricted confidence in what your church teaches. Remember, on that last day, Christ will judge us as whether we kept His words, not those of the Catholic church. That is what my Bible tells me. That is what I believe. Jesus Christ is the light of the world.

[@TheLincolnrailsplitt]

Why wasn't Papal supremacy stated in the Nicene Creed?

[@nicholasolsen4634]

idk if you’re orthodox or protestant but plenty of essential features of the Church weren’t present in the Nicene Creed

[@tonyl3762]

The creed was formulated in response to a very specific heresy: Arianism. Thus it didn't feel the need to condemn heresies that had not yet appeared in history like Lutheranism and Calvinism. You might as well ask why the word and doctrine "Trinity" was not stated in the Bible.

[@ryananthony4840]

The Orthodox didn't protest the papacy until the pope declared himself infallible which I disagree with also

[@PresidentBazz]

Pope is infallible only "ex cathedra". (This right was use once in all history of Catholic church)

[@giacomofilosofia]

You do know that the Pope dogmatised papal infallibility in the 19th century, right?

[@ramonsiytangco9356]

well Dr. Hayes...the bible came from the Catholic Church so I think that trumps whatever opinion you have...you quote from Our book...so...enough said...it is you who have corrupted any opinion coming from the bible and Tradition

[@dr.alanhales544]

Ramon siytango, The Bible didn't come from the Catholic Church, STOP TELLING LIES, The naughty Catholics kept their bible in Latin so the people couldn't understand it, So the reformers gave us the TRUE BIBLE, A Bible that the people could understand, so the naughty Catholics had some of the reformers killed because the Bible was a threat to them and their doctrines.You need to get your facts right.

[@1234poppycat]

Alan you are being economical with the truth. You know the Catholics compiled the bible and wrote the NT. It was in Latin as a mark of respect but above all Latin was the international language among those who could read !!. A lot more Catholics were killed by protestants. You need to get your facts right ..

[@deusimperator]

@ the idiot who calls himself a doctor The Bible is a catholic book. Now tell me dumbass moronic clodhopper as to which one of YOUR bishops sat on the councils which decided the canon of the NT??? Hey dumbass are you no longer trying to teach us Greek???

[@dr.alanhales544]

deusimperator, You are a unregenerate sinner who doesn't know the truth about the history of the TRUE BIBLE, or it's teachings.

[@deusimperator]

I have a degree in history dumbass moron (classical and medieval). As for your KJV you know where you can shove that...

[@PInk77W1]

St. Peter, janitor of heaven, pray for us

[@Cyberglad]

I have nothing against papacy, but East and West have such a different mentality that you can't unite them under one theology- Western Theology. West is based on juridical principles of Roman Empire ("Sin is an offense to God's Justice which needs to be compensated"), these principles lead to such concepts, as "Merits", "Supererogation", "indlugence" and so on, building a sense of self-indulgence, egocentrism and even arrogance in humans. When one starts looking for God's "reward" for each of his virtues, a guarantee for his place in heaven for 300 "our father" prayers a day and starts seeing himself as a saint just because of some merits that he (according to his own opinion or his self-provoked visions) gained -> all this leads to a spiritual death of a human. When one starts seeing himself an "achiever" in God's a eyes instead of a mere sinner and this sense of "achievement" is backed by some spiritual "legitimacy" -> we all know what will be the end of such story. Pharisees and Scribes are saying hello. Apart from all this, I personally have nothing against Roman Supremacy and papacy as a leader of the world christianity. I only see that losing its connection with the "Church Fathers" and eastern theology would destroy that necessary fundament that all christianity is based on (this is what happened to protestantism). I have lots of Catholics as friends and some of them are catholic priests and there is already lack of unity within the Catholic Church for such questions as "salvation", "spiritual life". Some of them still adhereing the classic juridical point of view from St Anselm, some of them look for a "modern" way of describing things (s. works of E. Schillebeeckx), some are latin traditionalists, some adhere to the eastern concept of seeing sin as "illness that Jesus cured". That's quite confusing for believers, since there's no anymore a defined way of seeing things nowadays.

[@marcmarc8524]

Who ever said that the unity should be based on the Western theology?? Nobody in the Catholic Church. Each part of Christendom must keep its charismas. Love should replace the hatred Orthodox have against the Catholics, the eastern bishops should regularly visit the pope in Rome, and the pope could be like an appeal court. Beside that, the Eastern Churches could keep their liturgy, their theology, their culture, their way of worshipping....

[@lynn559]

“Sin is an offense to God’s justice and must be compensated” Not so. That is Calvinism. John Calvin took from a DISCARDED work of Anselm of Canterbury. It is not Catholic.

[@an7440]

Anselms position is not the catholic position.. it is famous because Calvin used it in the way u mentioned...

[@jameswiliams]

The Greek Orthodox Apostolic Faith is the Church created by the Holy Spirit the day of Pentecost unchanged The Western Christians (Rome) by abandoning the right faith ~lost the Apostolic Succession~, and the consequence is that their Sacraments are not valid. The Orthodox Apostolic Faith consisting of the Churches of Jerusalem; Antioch, Rome, Alexandria, and Constantinople existed in the West as ONE CHURCH (Ephesians 4:5) till the 9th c. A.D. Since 809 the dogmatic reformations started by the Western Emperor Charlemagne, who changed one article of the Nicene Creed (about the Holy Spirit), and the Ecclesiastical change by Pope Nicolas I who, for the first time, established the «Juridical Primacy» of the Bishop of Rome,(as an absolute monarch) all on his own. So, the Western Christians by abandoning the right faith lost the Apostolic Succession, and the consequence is that their Sacraments are not valid. They are called Christians, but they lost the sanctifying power. They (Catholic Church) are not vine-branches (John 15). Without the right participation in the Holy Sacraments of the Orthodox Church, which sanctify man and through him the world, we cannot advance towards incorruptibility, which finally will lead to the incorruptible universe, the «New Heaven» and the «New Earth»,or the «New Jerusalem» (Rev.21), (2.Pet.3,12-13), (Rom.8,21-22), (Hebr.12,26-28). This following statement was made from those Christians who wanted to keep all the decisions of all Ecumenical Synods the same, the same Saints the same icons and especially the SAME Holy Tradition unchanged begotten by the Apostles the day of Pentecost the day of the creation of His Church. VIIth Ecumenical Council, 787 A.D. The Synodal of Orthodoxy. Theological Texts translated or written by Irene Economides. What the Prophets saw, what the Apostles preached, and the Church received and the Teachers (of the Church) indoctrinated, and the inhabited world (Ecumene) accepted in agreement, as the Grace shone, as the truth was proved, as falsehood was driven away, as the wisdom obtained outspokenness, as Christ hath confirmed all this by His reward: the same do we believe, equally do we speak, likewise do we preach Christ our true God, and we honour His Saints through words, scriptures, seasonings, and services, either in temples or in icons, worshipping the first as God and Master through our reverence, and venerating the second as His genuine Servants who have the same Master with us, honouring also them in a relative manner. This is the Faith of the Apostles. This is the faith of the Fathers (of the Church). This is the faith of the Orthodox. This is the faith that hath supported the human universe (Ecumene). This text was proclaimed in the ceremony of the Restoration of the icons, March 11th 843 A.D.,when Theodora was on the throne of the Byzantine Empire.(She finished her life as a nun and her incorrupted body is kept in the Orthodox Metropolitan church of the island of Corfu (occidental Greece)and works miracles to this day. Since that date this text is read in church on the «Sunday of Orthodoxy», the first Sunday of Great Lent,in order to commemorate this important event which expresses the victory of Orthodoxy over heresies. Understanding the Orthodox Christian Faith kzbin.info/www/bejne/oKnHk3htZZhmftE TO BE AN ORTHODOX CHRISTIAN Is to experience the Apostolic Faith … orthodoxwiki.org/What_is_Orthodoxy Greek Orthodox by country en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastern_Orthodoxy_by_country

[@shayneswenson]

Yawn. Ok bud 👍🏻

[@markv1974]

What western church. The catholic church breahtes with two lungs... east and west. In the catholic church there is universality

[@kenshiloh]

Hi. I am really new to knowing about the Orthodox church. Do you have similar theology as Catholics? For example, do you believe that baptism and communion are necessary for salvation? Thanks! Jesus Christ is the light of the world.

[@RomanStrmiska]

mans teachings to man..blind leads the blind..

[@tonycevallos7513]

What does one do with a Pomtiff with Marxist leanings and kisses the Sunni Imam on the lips and wants to unite Catholicism with Islam and a Pontiff trhat embraces an idol like Pachamana? I hope someone can give me an answer and not sweep this under the rug. I am a Protestant of 30 years now but yearn to come back to my Catholic roots and I loved Popes like Pius X,Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict but what is going on with this current Pope?? He gives me chills and puts the vrakes on me coming back to the Church.

[@ultimouomo11]

I recommend watching Joe Heschmeyer with Matt Fradd on Pints with Aquinas. and also his appearance on Catholic Answers (both interviews are available on KZbin).

[@kenshiloh]

Hi. I hope you won't strive to be a Catholic, but to know and follow the Word of God. That is, in all love and respect, Catholics claim 'apostolic authority.' Yet, in Paul's time, some of the churches he founded had gone astray - in only a few years! Why do Catholics claim that it cannot happen to their church - after thousands of years? In fact, I think it has! Please allow me to explain. First, I bring to mind the Apostle Paul's fierce and stern warning, that even if he, Paul, were to preach a different gospel, he should be accursed; how much more, then, should we be aware of institutions, such as the Catholic church? Moreover, when the Catholic church teaches that, in order for the possiblity (not certainty) of being saved, a person must partake of Catholic communion and be baptized Catholic, they are in contradiction to Paul's gospel. That is, Paul preached, "Whoever calls upon the Name of the Lord shall be saved (Romans 10.13)," while Catholics teach, "Whoever calls upon the Name of the Lord, is baptized Catholic, and partakes of Catholic communion might be saved." I have asked innumerable Catholics, is this not a different, therefore damnable, gospel than what Paul taught? The Catholic response, so far, has been disturbing. Most pass over these posts, unconcerned. Others will quote Scripture that, I suppose, 'contradicts' the words of Paul, as if saying, "Well, there is more to it than that." However, so far, no Catholic has had the integrity nor courage to answer a simple question, "Was Paul wrong? Is it false to say that whoever calls upon the Name of the Lord shall be saved?" You can insert the sound of crickets here! No real answer! For example, "Catholic Truth" says that I am cherry picking, yet will not reply as to what Romans 10.13 actually means. One Catholic admitted, 'Yeah, it seems like a different gospel. I will have to look into that.' Yet, he was never heard from again. Others will say that my 'interpretation' is invalid - yet, I am not interpreting anything. I am simply comparing what Paul wrote to what Catholics teach. Are they not different? If you were me, which teaching would you follow? Which teaching do you follow? To whoever reads this, if anyone reads this (as Catholics rarely answer these posts), I hope that you will consider the words of Paul and not place unrestricted confidence in what your church teaches. Remember, on that last day, Christ will judge us as whether we kept His words, not those of the Catholic church. That is what my Bible tells me. That is what I believe. Jesus Christ is the light of the world.

[@frederickanderson1860]

0:35 who has the keys to hades and death. Jesus or Peter.

[@aric-g4s]

Two different types of keys: 1) keys to hades and death (Jesus) 2) keys to the kingdom of heaven (Peter)

[@frederickanderson1860]

@@aric-g4s jesus is the way and truth and Life. He is the high priest the shepherd, the door of the sheepfold. He is the resurrection and life. Everything points to him; no other apostle or saint's or popes can give the same.

[@aric-g4s]

@@frederickanderson1860 Would be great if you addressed my comment that there are two types of keys. So yes, Jesus has the keys to hades and death, but Peter was given the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Two different sets of keys.

[@frederickanderson1860]

@@aric-g4s Sure which is greater the keys of jesus he conquered death and the gates of hell . That's more amazing sure spiritual death or the second death.

[@aric-g4s]

​@@frederickanderson1860 Both keys belong to Jesus. And yet He passed the keys to the kingdom of heaven to Peter and by extension, to successors of Peter.

[@kenshiloh]

In all love and respect, Catholics claim 'apostolic authority.' Yet, in Paul's time, some of the churches he founded had gone astray - in only a few years! Why do Catholics claim that it cannot happen to their church - after thousands of years? In fact, I think it has! Please allow me to explain. First, I bring to mind the Apostle Paul's fierce and stern warning, that even if he, Paul, were to preach a different gospel, he should be accursed; how much more, then, should we be aware of institutions, such as the Catholic church? Moreover, when the Catholic church teaches that, in order for the possiblity (not certainty) of being saved, a person must partake of Catholic communion and be baptized Catholic, they are in contradiction to Paul's gospel. That is, Paul preached, "Whoever calls upon the Name of the Lord shall be saved (Romans 10.13)," while Catholics teach, "Whoever calls upon the Name of the Lord, is baptized Catholic, and partakes of Catholic communion might be saved." I have asked innumerable Catholics, is this not a different, therefore damnable, gospel than what Paul taught? The Catholic response, so far, has been disturbing. Most pass over these posts, unconcerned. Others will quote Scripture that, I suppose, 'contradicts' the words of Paul, as if saying, "Well, there is more to it than that." However, so far, no Catholic has had the integrity nor courage to answer a simple question, "Was Paul wrong? Is it false to say that whoever calls upon the Name of the Lord shall be saved?" You can insert the sound of crickets here! No real answer! For example, "Catholic Truth" says that I am cherry picking, yet will not reply as to what Romans 10.13 actually means. One Catholic admitted, 'Yeah, it seems like a different gospel. I will have to look into that.' Yet, he was never heard from again. Others will say that my 'interpretation' is invalid - yet, I am not interpreting anything. I am simply comparing what Paul wrote to what Catholics teach. Are they not different? If you were me, which teaching would you follow? Which teaching do you follow? To whoever reads this, if anyone reads this (as Catholics rarely answer these posts), I hope that you will consider the words of Paul and not place unrestricted confidence in what your church teaches. Remember, on that last day, Christ will judge us as whether we kept His words, not those of the Catholic church. That is what my Bible tells me. That is what I believe. Jesus Christ is the light of the world.

[@frankzambory8831]

Here is what Jesus said: “Very truly, I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you." Jesus, not Peter. Available seven days a week at the altar of every Catholic Church in the world.

[@kenshiloh]

@@frankzambory8831 Hi. Thanks for writing. When Jesus said that we must eat His flesh, was that literal or a parable? What does the Bible say? It is written, "He (Jesus) did not say anything to them without using a parable. But when he was alone with his own disciples, he explained everything (Mrk 4.34)." Since Christ was not speaking alone with His disciples, He must be using a parable. Moreover, what do you do with Romans 10.13, "Whoever calls upon the Name of the Lord shall be saved"? Will you contradict Paul, saying, "Paul is wrong! There is more to it than calling upon the Name of the Lord. He should have written, "Whoever calls upon the Name of the Lord and partakes of Catholic communion shall be saved."" Is that your position? Will quote other Bible verses that, what, contradict Paul? I have explained John 6; now, will you explain Romans 10.13? Is it true that "Whoever calls upon the Name of the Lord shall be saved" or is there 'more to it than that'? I hope that you will have a saving encounter with Christ - just by asking! Jesus Christ is the light of the world.

[@frankzambory8831]

@@kenshiloh by the way, I am being saved, it is a process. Jesus said: work out your own salvation through fear and trembling..

[@kenshiloh]

@@frankzambory8831 Hi Frank. I think God would like us to get past the 'fear and trembling' part to 'perfect love casts out fear.' Put another way, "twas grace the taught my heart to fear; and grace my fear relieved." It is written, "The Holy Spirit bears witness with our spirit that we are the children of God." Yet, do not forget the qualifier, "If indeed the Holy Spirit dwells within you." That is my question: does the Holy Spirit dwell within you? Do you have a 'river of life, bubbling up inside you unto eternal life'? Is Christ as real to you as your friends and family or is He more like a distant relative? Do you share a close relationship with Christ or do you ask Mary to speak with Him on your behalf? Jesus said, "This is eternal life, that you know God and Jesus Christ Whom He has sent." Do you know Christ or will He say to you, on that great and terrible day, "Depart from Me; I never knew you." Are you insecure about your eternal destiny? Yet, if you know and love God, how could you be insecure in that relationship? I pray that you will have absolute assurance of your salvation by the infilling of the Holy Spirit. Jesus Christ is the light of the world.

[@athonyhiggins3117]

@@frankzambory8831 with respect keep this scripture in context.it must be read in harmony with the rest of scripture

[@napatkst1203]

Protestans all way say that all chritians are the rock not only St.Peter

[@Prancer1231]

+napat Kst They are wrong.

[@NaYawkr]

+napat Kst All protestants simply deny what Jesus said in Matthew 16, their argument is not with Catholics, they must argue with the words of the Majestic Christ.

[@ramonsiytangco9356]

that is because he is grasping for anything he can contradict just to be able to and say anything against the Holy, Apostolic and Catholic Church Christ instituted....

[@adamsantesson9146]

That's silly because Jesus said Peter not everyone.

[@paulmiller3469]

Well, first off, there is no, single Protestant objection. They don't recognize authority, so even their objections are now inconsistent. Second, the objection I hear more often is St. Peter can't be the rock because Christ is. What you are saying contradicts that. But no one has been able to satisfactorily answer what seems a simple question: Why did Jesus rename Simon?

[@szymongrala3810]

This is fallacy. It isn't true that Pope had decisive role in doctrinal matters. I'm ex-roman catholic. I converted to Holy Orthodoxy. I think that this is One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church. I'm so happy because now I belong to the True Church. 😊

[@richardradice3391]

How is this Fallacy he is presenting literal Historical documents? You do not belong to the true Church.The Easterns submitted way before the Schism.

[@bijogeojose7209]

You gave no reason for rejecting the Role of the Pope, while the orthodox patriarchs such as St.John Chrysostom and St. Nicephorus acknowledge the Pope's authority. St. John Chrysostom, Patriarch of Constantinople (c. 387) And if one should say, 'How then did James receive the throne of Jerusalem?,' this I would answer that He appointed this man (Peter) teacher, not of that throne, but of the whole world. (Chrysostom, In Joan. Hom. 1xxxviii. n. 1, tom. viii) Macedonius, Patriarch of Constantinople (466-516) Macedonius declared, 'when desired by the Emperor Anastasius to condemn the Council of Chalcedon, that 'such a step without an Ecumenical Synod presided over by the Pope of Rome is impossible.' (Macedonius, Patr. Graec. 108: 360a (Theophan. Chronogr. pp. 234-346 seq.) John VI, Patriarch of Constantinople (715) The Pope of Rome, the head of the Christian priesthood, whom in Peter, the Lord commanded to confirm his brethren. (John VI, Epist. ad Constantin. Pap. ad. Combefis, Auctuar. Bibl. P.P. Graec.tom. ii. p. 211, seq.) St. Maximus the Confessor (c. 650) 'How much more in the case of the clergy and Church of the Romans, which from old until now presides over all the churches which are under the sun .' St. Macarius of Egypt (371) 'The Chief, Peter.' (Macarius, De Patientia, n. 3, p. 180) 'Moses was succeeded by Peter, who had committed to his hands the new Church of Christ, and the true priesthood.' (Macarius, Hom. xxvi. n. 23, p. 101) St. Nicephorus, Patriarch of Constantinople (758-828) Without whom (the Romans presiding in the seventh Council) a doctrine brought forward in the Church could not even though confirmed by canonical decrees and by ecclesiastical usage, ever obtain full approval or currency. For it is they (the Popes of Rome) who have had assigned to them the rule in sacred things, and who have received into their hands the dignity of headship among the Apostles. (Nicephorus, Niceph. Cpl. pro. s. imag. c 25 [Mai N. Bibl. pp. ii. 30]).

[@tony1685]

polish - and yet if you're still pretending the 1st day - as opposed to the LORDs day , the 7th day Sabbath - is somehow now Holy, you're still following papal bull.

[@kenshiloh]

Hi. I am new to Orthodox church. Does the Orthodoxy believe that, in order to be saved, a person must be baptized and receive communion? Thanks! Jesus Christ is the light of the world.

[@andyman0231]

We believe in the Pope as the first among equals That's what my Eastern Orthodox says The rest of the argument was political and geographical

[@christall-in-all3235]

+andyman0231 I would challenge you to, with an open mind, read the Church Fathers, Eastern and Western on the role of the Bishop of Rome and see if that's what they think.

[@QuisutDeusmpc]

Fathers of the east and west believed the bishop of Rome "presided in charity".

[@shayneswenson]

That's how I converted to Orthodox Christianity from Roman Catholicism! lol.

[@Howsthis4ya]

Shayne Swenson I'll be praying for your conversion to come home to the One True Church which is the Fullness of Truth the Catholic Church.

[@shayneswenson]

I was a committed Roman Catholic for years and years. It was through prayer, intensive study and several years of inquiry that I ended up leaving Rome. There's no need to pray for me to find something I've possessed for quite a while.

To be a true and legitimate pope however, you have to posses the Catholic and Divine Faith like St. Peter. That's a condition to hold the Papal Office as many Doctors say. This condition is in no way met by the Pos-Vatican II Popes.

[@tony1685]

nonsense - papacy is of Satan.

[@kenshiloh]

In all love and respect, Catholics claim 'apostolic authority.' Yet, in Paul's time, some of the churches he founded had gone astray - in only a few years! Why do Catholics claim that it cannot happen to their church - after thousands of years? In fact, I think it has! Please allow me to explain. First, I bring to mind the Apostle Paul's fierce and stern warning, that even if he, Paul, were to preach a different gospel, he should be accursed; how much more, then, should we be aware of institutions, such as the Catholic church? Moreover, when the Catholic church teaches that, in order for the possiblity (not certainty) of being saved, a person must partake of Catholic communion and be baptized Catholic, they are in contradiction to Paul's gospel. That is, Paul preached, "Whoever calls upon the Name of the Lord shall be saved (Romans 10.13)," while Catholics teach, "Whoever calls upon the Name of the Lord, is baptized Catholic, and partakes of Catholic communion might be saved." I have asked innumerable Catholics, is this not a different, therefore damnable, gospel than what Paul taught? The Catholic response, so far, has been disturbing. Most pass over these posts, unconcerned. Others will quote Scripture that, I suppose, 'contradicts' the words of Paul, as if saying, "Well, there is more to it than that." However, so far, no Catholic has had the integrity nor courage to answer a simple question, "Was Paul wrong? Is it false to say that whoever calls upon the Name of the Lord shall be saved?" You can insert the sound of crickets here! No real answer! For example, "Catholic Truth" says that I am cherry picking, yet will not reply as to what Romans 10.13 actually means. One Catholic admitted, 'Yeah, it seems like a different gospel. I will have to look into that.' Yet, he was never heard from again. Others will say that my 'interpretation' is invalid - yet, I am not interpreting anything. I am simply comparing what Paul wrote to what Catholics teach. Are they not different? If you were me, which teaching would you follow? Which teaching do you follow? To whoever reads this, if anyone reads this (as Catholics rarely answer these posts), I hope that you will consider the words of Paul and not place unrestricted confidence in what your church teaches. Remember, on that last day, Christ will judge us as whether we kept His words, not those of the Catholic church. That is what my Bible tells me. That is what I believe. Jesus Christ is the light of the world.

[@tonyl3762]

You and Ken make quite the Protestant couple now, haha.

[@athonyhiggins3117]

The bible is the only authority. you need to be saved.please listen to ex Catholic priest Richard he is able to expose Catholicism

[@antonyabishek6596]

U r ready to reject the witness of the entire church and just listen to one conspiracy guy... that's ur choice..

[@athonyhiggins3117]

@@antonyabishek6596 Luther was flawed.and so are thousands of Catholic priests cases coming out all the time jesus was scripture alone, he always referred to them ,many times in the gospel he said it is written. Luther only confirmed it

[@antonyabishek6596]

@@athonyhiggins3117 that is why u dont listen to one priest but you listen to the teaching authority of the entire church as a whole

[@athonyhiggins3117]

@@antonyabishek6596 I have many relatives who are Catholic. I am not one of the anti Catholic brigades protestants,many are guilty of spiritual abuse.regardless of any denomination.the lord knows those that truely belong to him.for me I have the as surance of salvation, praise the lord.god bless you ,anrhony

[@aric-g4s]

@@athonyhiggins3117 It's always easier to be a Protestant than to be a Catholic. Just saying.

[@dr.alanhales544]

Ray Ryland, So you are saying that the RCC has no God given revelations, YOU ARE RIGHT, because there is no one in the RCC with any God given authority to decide anything about God, His word or His revelations.

[@phil4v8]

Alan Hales

[@jamesalexis3041]

The catholic church is Catholic. Wishes from India

[@mabon7773]

PERFECT

[@glennlanham6309]

Unlike Luther, who decided ON HIS OWN what should be in the Bible and what NOT...BY WHAT AUTHORITY did he mess with the Word of God????

[@deusimperator]

Just so that everyone know there were a few of us who researched the fake doctors background. He is not a doctor. He received his "doctorate" from a deploma mill which owned several mailboxes at a USPS outlet from a woman who claimed to be an apostle prophet and bishop and the mother of the church...

[@newdawnrising8110]

What a bs argument...

[@iliya3110]

It's history. Can't really refute it without turning a blind eye, uncomfortable as that may be for one to admit.

[@stpaulphillip]

How can historical truths be a bs argument?? Talk about being willingly blind.