Why Jacque is Catholic (and not Protestant)

[@jacqueandmegan]

Hey everyone! We had to re-upload due to some audio issues. Sorry about that!

[@silalm5445]

59:07-59:29 "ἐκκλησία καθ’ ὅλης" acts 9:31 "ekklēsia kath’ holēs" acts 9:31 literally "Catholic Church" Acts 9:31 "even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church." letter of St Ignatius of Antioch ( ± 110 AD)

[@DWS-lp3wc]

Part 1- READ THIS! The kingdom of Heaven is visiting you: Catholicism is worthless! Catholicism teaches mankind to directly disobey the 10 commandments and teachings of JESUS Christ. Idolatry, necromancy, vain repetitious prayer (Matthew 6:7), calling upon Mary the virgin of prophecy as though she was a mediator in Heaven (1 Timothy 2:5), calling upon priests with the title father (Matthew 23:9). These are all abominations to our Creator, and all things which JESUS Christ himself taught us not to do. Yet, Catholicism teaches mankind to practice all of these things. So, am I missing something, am I actually delusional because my perception of a legitimate follower of JESUS Christ is to 100% obey his teaching? Or, could it be that Catholicism is a counterfeit to legitimate faith in JESUS, propagated by anti-Christ spirits to distract mankind from truth? There are so many things wrong with Catholicism, it is clear that if anyone supports it and or practices it, they are not truly (born again/born of the Holy Spirit of our Creator). How is that true? It is becsuse the Holy Spirit is the Spirit of truth, and Christ tells us that his Spirit leads us into all truth. Therefore, if we are legitimately (born again/born of the Holy Spirit of our Creator), he does not leave us in our sin, rather he reveals the unGodly practices that we are taken captive with, convicting us of those things, so that we would choose to cease to practice those things. Christ tells us these exact things through: John 16:8-11 And when He has arrived, He will convict the world of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment: Of sin, because they do not believe in me; of righteousness, because I go to my Father and you see me no more; of judgment, because the ruler of this world is judged. John 16:12-13 “I still have many things to say to you, but you are unable to bear them now. However, when the Spirit of truth has arrived, He will guide you into all truth. For, He will not speak on His own, but whatever He hears He will speak; and He will tell you of future events. This is not complicated, do research and find out the truth about Catholicism, how they built a sanctuary at the Vatican which literally looks like the head of a serpent. So, when you are in the building its like you are in the head of a serpent. Why would you expect that such a building would be built? Is it not clear that Catholicism is being controlled by that (cursed cherub/Serpent/Dragon aka: Satan?). Catholicism is a belief system composed by anti-Christ spirits as a counterfeit to legitimate faith in JESUS Christ? Search for yourselves online. Go to google and type in: (vatican serpent head sanctuary) Then, choose to search for (images). You will see the evil that Catholicism is hiding in plain sight. Anti-Christ spirits "thumbing their noses" at the inhabitants of the Earth, especially those naive souls being taken captive NY the deception of Catholicism. Take notice as well, behind the stage inside of the building the gigantic, towering, monstrous, (idolatrous statue/metal figure). Maybe supposed to be a representation of Christ, but whether it is or not, such images are certainly not condoned by our Creator, and are surely a stumbling block for all of mankind, especially those naive souls who are being held captive by the cursed counterfeit of Catholicism. Understand: Catholicism, Mormonism, Watchtower Society aka: Jehovah Witness, Universalist Universalism, Christ the scientist, and various other sects of what is supposed to lead us to properly follow JESUS Christ, are all counterfeit and are actually teaching us to practice a lie! Behold the literal consequence for partaking in such things: Matthew 13:41-42 The Son of Man will send out His angels, and they will gather out of His kingdom all things that offend, and those who practice lawlessness, and (will cast them into the furnace of fire). 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God. Revelation 21:8 But the cowardly, unbelieving, abominable, murderers, sexually immoral, sorcerers, idolaters, and all liars shall have their part in the lake which burns with fire and brimstone, which is the second death.” Revelation 22:15 But outside are the lawless, sorcerers, sexually immoral, murderers, idolaters, and whoever loves and practices a lie. Oh yes, let us not forget: Mary was not a literal biological mother to JESUS Christ, if she was then we would be saying that he was formed from her egg, which we know is not true because #1 what we read written through: Matthew 1:20 But while he thought about these things and took rest, an angel appeared to him in a dream, saying, “Joseph, son of David, do not be afraid to take to you Mary your wife, because the child that shall be conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit. For those who say, how could this be? Though it is not exactly the same, all we need to do is reference Adam im the book of Genesis to understand that our Creator does not need to utilize semen nor egg of mankind to compose a living creature. #2 Christ could not have been composed of the egg of Mary, because if he was, he like her would have been tarnished with the curse of sin passed down through the biology of mankind, thereby causing his status as "the sinless lamb of God" to be nullified.

[@DWS-lp3wc]

Part 2- The kingdom of Heaven is visiting you: Furthermore, though we observe the men through whom the Gospell records were written referring to Mary as the "mother" of Christ, this does not define that she is his literal biological mother, as was already proven. The reference we observe written by those men, is merely the perception of a sinful, imperfect member of mankind, perceiving the birth of Christ the best they knew how, with the incomplete understanding that they had. They simply were unable to comprehend any other way for Christ to have been conceived. The best proof that we have to reveal to us that Christ never recognized Mary the virgin of prophecy as his literal biological mother, is found when observing these historical records: Matthew 12:48-50 But He answered and said to the one who told Him, “Who is My mother and who are My brothers?” And He stretched out His hand toward His disciples and said, “Here are My mother and My brothers! For, whoever does the will of My Father in heaven is My brother and sister and mother.” John 2:4 Jesus said to her, “Woman, what does your concern have to do with Me? My hour has not yet come.” Take notice: The child of a woman whatever his age, referring to his mother as "woman", in probably all nations of the history of mankind, would be recognized as offensive. That is, if the child of that woman is actually her literal biological child. We never see JESUS Christ refer to Mary as his mother, yet we see him refer to her as "woman", which is a clear intended sign from our Creator, that Christ never recognized her as his legitimate biological mother, because she plainly was not! Also, what about when JESUS Christ has literal 9 inch nails driven through his two hands and two feet, and he looks down from that cross and says these words: John 19:26-27 Then JESUS saw Mary the virgin of prophecy, standing next to me, and Christ said to Mary the virgin of prophecy; “Woman, behold your son!” Then He said to the disciple, “Behold your mother!” So, from that hour I felt obligated to take her to my own home. Take notice: Christ is not telling Mary to look upon him as her son, Christ is telling Mary to recognize that young John, the youngest of the disciples will be as a son to her, and likewise she will be as a mother to young John. Which I perceive reveals Christ's care for them personally, but also represents the way genuine Christian's are meant to care for one another. This once more, occuring only moments before his own physical death, Christ is plainly revealing that there is no biological relation between him and Mary the virgin of prophecy. Mary was merely a vessel who obediently chose to accept being part of the will of our Creator, and because of that, she experienced and participated in one of the greatest miracles to ever occur! So, there is no problem respecting and appreciating Mary's choice to obey our Creator. However, anti-Christ spirits have utilized Catholicism to be a medium through which giving the honor, glory, and reverence which our Creator alone is worthy of, to Mary and other genuine believers who have passed on. So much so, that they blasphemously teach that (Mary and other genuine Christians aka: saints), are able to facilitate our prayer being heard and answered by our Creator. As well as referring to Mary as the ("queen of the Apostles/queen of Heaven"🤮). Which would be like saying that she is herself an Apostle, which is unproven conjecture and contrary to what we see Christ establishing as order in his church, along with being contrary to what is taught through (Saul/Paul), as revealed through: Referring to Mary as the ("queen of the Apostles/queen of Heaven"🤮), is preposterous, and insinuates that she is greater in authority than the 12 disciples that Christ chose. Outside of the dubiously manufactured doctrines of Catholicism, there is no support among the Holy Bible whatsoever for this belief. Much worse than that, Catholicism is literally appointing Mary the virgin of prophecy, as having a position of authority that rivals our Creator Himself; hence the title "queen of Heaven" those practicioners of a lie have given her. Yet, once again there is absolutely no proof whatsoever of this, no support among the books of the Holy Bible to prove this, JESUS Christ does not teach this in anyway! Our Creator Himself is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent. He never has and never will appoint anything created to have a position of authority that rivals His own authority, such thinking is utterly preposterous, and is near to blasphemy, given the fact thst Christ himself did not trust mankind while dwelling among us physically, because he knows the evil that we are capable of. This is revealed through: John 2:24-25 But Jesus did not commit Himself to them, because (He knew all men), and had no need that anyone should testify of man, for (He knew what was in man). Lastly, do not allow yourself to be persuaded that hate is prompting this message. How could this be hate when Love has sent me (1 John 4:8). Do not take my saying this offensively: Here is to your soul being legitimately (born again/born of the Holy Spirit of our Creator), as revealed through the historical record of John 3, Luke 12:50, John 4:10-14, Acts 2:38 . ✝️ Amen?

[@noeliaguirre-olivas4269]

Great video!! I grew up learning about my faith in Spanish and now I’m relearning everything in English! Be strong Jacque! I am also a practicing Catholic 🫶

[@MichElle-zc9tu]

👍🏻🕯🕊💪🏻💪🏻💪🏻💪🏻💪🏻💪🏻🙏🏻

[@Vinsanity997]

Dios te bendiga

[@DWS-lp3wc]

READ THIS! The kingdom of Heaven is visiting you: Catholicism is worthless! Catholicism teaches mankind to directly disobey the 10 commandments and teachings of JESUS Christ. Idolatry, necromancy, vain repetitious prayer (Matthew 6:7), calling upon Mary the virgin of prophecy as though she was a mediator in Heaven (1 Timothy 2:5), calling upon priests with the title father (Matthew 23:9). These are all abominations to our Creator, and all things which JESUS Christ himself taught us not to do. Yet, Catholicism teaches mankind to practice all of these things. So, am I missing something, am I actually delusional because my perception of a legitimate follower of JESUS Christ is to 100% obey his teaching? Or, could it be that Catholicism is a counterfeit to legitimate faith in JESUS, propagated by anti-Christ spirits to distract mankind from truth? There are so mamy things wrong with Catholicism, it is clear that if anyone supports it and or practices it, they are not truly (born again/born of the Holy Spirit of our Creator). How is that true? Itvis becsuse the Holy Spirit is the Spirit of truth, and Christ tells us that his Spirit leads us into all truth. Therefore, if we are legitimately (born again/born of the Holy Spirit of our Creator), he does not leave us in our sin, rather he reveals the unGodly practices that we are taken captive with, convicting us of those things, so that we would choose to cease to practice those things. Christ tells us these exact things. This is not complicated, do research and find out the truth about Catholicism, how they built a sanctuary at the Vatican which literally looks like the head of a serpent. So, when you are in the building its like you are in the head of a serpent. Why would you expect that such a building would be built? Is it not clear that Catholicism is a belief system composed by anti-Christ spirits as a counterfeit to legitimate faith in JESUS Christ? Search for yourselves online. Go to google and type in: (vatican serpent head sanctuary) Then, choose to search for (images). You will be given many to look at. Take notice as well, behind the stage inside of the building the gigantic, towering, monstrous, idolatrous statue/metal figure. Maybe supposed to be a representation of Christ, but whether it is or not, such images are certainly not condoned by our Creator, and are surely a stumbling block for all of mankind, especially those naive souls who are being held captive by the cursed counterfeit of Catholicism. Understand: Catholicism, Mormonism, Watchtower Society aka: Jehovah Witness, Universalist Universalism, Christ the scientist, and various other sects of what is supposed to lead us to properly follow JESUS Christ, are all counterfeit and are actually teaching us to practice a lie! Behold the literal consequence for partaking in such things: Matthew 13:42 and will cast them into the furnace of fire. There will be wailing and gnashing of teeth. Then the righteous will shine forth as the sun in the kingdom of their Father. He who has ears to hear, let him hear! 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God. Revelation 21:8 But the cowardly, unbelieving, abominable, murderers, sexually immoral, sorcerers, idolaters, and all liars shall have their part in the lake which burns with fire and brimstone, which is the second death.” Matthew 13:41-42 The Son of Man will send out His angels, and they will gather out of His kingdom all things that offend, and those who practice lawlessness, and (will cast them into the furnace of fire). Revelation 22:15 But outside are the lawless, sorcerers, sexually immoral, murderers, idolaters, and whoever loves and practices a lie. Lastly, do not allow yourself to be persuaded that hate is prompting this message. How could this be hate when Love has sent me (1 John 4:8). Do not take my saying this offensively: Here is to your soul being legitimately (born again/born of the Holy Spirit of our Creator), as revealed through the historical record of John 3, Luke 12:50, John 4:10-14, Acts 2:38 . ✝️ Amen?

[@DWS-lp3wc]

READ THIS! The kingdom of Heaven is visiting you: Catholicism is worthless! Catholicism teaches mankind to directly disobey the 10 commandments and teachings of JESUS Christ. Idolatry, necromancy, vain repetitious prayer (Matthew 6:7), calling upon Mary the virgin of prophecy as though she was a mediator in Heaven (1 Timothy 2:5), calling upon priests with the title father (Matthew 23:9). These are all abominations to our Creator, and all things which JESUS Christ himself taught us not to do. Yet, Catholicism teaches mankind to practice all of these things. So, am I missing something, am I actually delusional because my perception of a legitimate follower of JESUS Christ is to 100% obey his teaching? Or, could it be that Catholicism is a counterfeit to legitimate faith in JESUS, propagated by anti-Christ spirits to distract mankind from truth? There are so mamy things wrong with Catholicism, it is clear that if anyone supports it and or practices it, they are not truly (born again/born of the Holy Spirit of our Creator). How is that true? Itvis becsuse the Holy Spirit is the Spirit of truth, and Christ tells us that his Spirit leads us into all truth. Therefore, if we are legitimately (born again/born of the Holy Spirit of our Creator), he does not leave us in our sin, rather he reveals the unGodly practices that we are taken captive with, convicting us of those things, so that we would choose to cease to practice those things. Christ tells us these exact things. This is not complicated, do research and find out the truth about Catholicism, how they built a sanctuary at the Vatican which literally looks like the head of a serpent. So, when you are in the building its like you are in the head of a serpent. Why would you expect that such a building would be built? Is it not clear that Catholicism is a belief system composed by anti-Christ spirits as a counterfeit to legitimate faith in JESUS Christ? Search for yourselves online. Go to google and type in: (vatican serpent head sanctuary) Then, choose to search for (images). You will be given many to look at. Take notice as well, behind the stage inside of the building the gigantic, towering, monstrous, idolatrous statue/metal figure. Maybe supposed to be a representation of Christ, but whether it is or not, such images are certainly not condoned by our Creator, and are surely a stumbling block for all of mankind, especially those naive souls who are being held captive by the cursed counterfeit of Catholicism. Understand: Catholicism, Mormonism, Watchtower Society aka: Jehovah Witness, Universalist Universalism, Christ the scientist, and various other sects of what is supposed to lead us to properly follow JESUS Christ, are all counterfeit and are actually teaching us to practice a lie! Behold the literal consequence for partaking in such things: Matthew 13:42 and will cast them into the furnace of fire. There will be wailing and gnashing of teeth. Then the righteous will shine forth as the sun in the kingdom of their Father. He who has ears to hear, let him hear! 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God. Revelation 21:8 But the cowardly, unbelieving, abominable, murderers, sexually immoral, sorcerers, idolaters, and all liars shall have their part in the lake which burns with fire and brimstone, which is the second death.” Matthew 13:41-42 The Son of Man will send out His angels, and they will gather out of His kingdom all things that offend, and those who practice lawlessness, and (will cast them into the furnace of fire). Revelation 22:15 But outside are the lawless, sorcerers, sexually immoral, murderers, idolaters, and whoever loves and practices a lie. Oh yes, do not let me forget this reality: Mary was not a literal biological mother to JESUS Christ, if she was then we would be saying that he was formed from her egg, which we know is not true because #1 what we read written through: Matthew 1:20 But while he thought about these things and took rest, an angel appeared to him in a dream, saying, “Joseph, son of David, do not be afraid to take to you Mary your wife, because the child that shall be conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit. For those who say, how could this be? Though it us not exactly the same, all we need to do is reference Adam to understand that our Creator does not need to utilize semen nor egg of mankind to compose a living creature. #2 Christ could not have been composed of the egg of Mary, because if he was, he like her would have been tarnished with the curse of sin passed down through the biology of mankind, thereby causing his status as "the sinless lamb of God" to be nullified. Furthermore, though we observe the men through whom the Gospell records were written referring to Mary as the "mother" of Christ, this does not define that she is his literal biological mother, as was already proven. The reference we observe written by those men, is merely the perception of a sinful, imperfect member of mankind, perceiving the birth of Christ the best they knew how, with the incomplete understanding that they had. They simply were unable to comprehend any other way for Christ to have been conceived. The best proof that we have to reveal to us that Christ never recognized Mary the virgin of prophecy as his literal biological mother, is found when observing these historical records: Matthew 12:48-50 But He answered and said to the one who told Him, “Who is My mother and who are My brothers?” And He stretched out His hand toward His disciples and said, “Here are My mother and My brothers! For, whoever does the will of My Father in heaven is My brother and sister and mother.” John 2:4 Jesus said to her, “Woman, what does your concern have to do with Me? My hour has not yet come.” Take notice: The child of a woman whatever his age, referring to his mother as "woman", in probably all nations of the history of mankind, would be recognized as offensive. That is, if the child of that woman is actually her literal biological child. We never see JESUS Christ refer to Mary as his mother, yet we see him refer to her as "woman", which is a clear intended sign from our Creator, that Christ never recognized her as his legitimate biological mother, because she plainly was not! Also, what about when JESUS Christ has literal 9 inch nails driven through his two hands and two feet, and he looks down from that cross and says these words: John 19:26-27 Then JESUS saw Mary the virgin of prophecy, standing next to me, and Christ said to Mary the virgin of prophecy; “Woman, behold your son!” Then He said to the disciple, “Behold your mother!” So, from that hour I felt obligated to take her to my own home. Take notice: Christ is not telling Mary to look upon him as her son, Christ is telling Mary to recognize that young John, the youngest of the disciples will be as a son to her, and likewise she will be as a mother to young John. This once more, moments before his own physical death, Christ is plainly revealing that there is no biological relation between him and Mary the virgin of prophecy. Mary was merely a vessel who obediently chose to accept being part of the will if our Creator, and because of that, she experienced and participated in one of the greatest miracles to ever occur! So, there is no problem respecting and appreciating Mary's choice to obey our Creator. However, anti-Christ spirits have utilized Catholicism to be a medium through which giving the honor, glory, and reverence which our Creator alone is worthy of, to Mary and other genuine believers who have passed on. So much so, that thry blasphemously teach that Mary is one who facilitates our prayer being heard and answered by our Creator, as well as referring to Mary as the "queen of the Apostles/queen of Heaven"🤮. Which would say that she is herself an Apostle and greater than the 12 disciples that Christ chose, which there is no support among the Holy Bible whatsoever for this belief. Much worse than that, she has Bern places in a position of authority that rivals our Creator Himself, if she is the "queen of Heaven". Yet, once again there is absolutely no proof whatsoever of this no support among the books of the Holy Bible to prove this, JESUS Christ does not teach this in anyway! Our Creator Himself is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent. He never has and never will appoint anything created to have a position of authority that rivals His own authority, such thinking is utterly preposterous, and is near to blasphemy, given the fact thst Christ himself did not trust mankind while dwelling among us physically, because he knows the evil that we are capable of. This is revealed through: John 2:24-25 But Jesus did not commit Himself to them, because (He knew all men), and had no need that anyone should testify of man, for (He knew what was in man). Lastly, do not allow yourself to be persuaded that hate is prompting this message. How could this be hate when Love has sent me (1 John 4:8). Do not take my saying this offensively: Here is to your soul being legitimately (born again/born of the Holy Spirit of our Creator), as revealed through the historical record of John 3, Luke 12:50, John 4:10-14, Acts 2:38 . ✝️ Amen?

[@noeliaguirre-olivas4269]

@@Vinsanity997 Gracias! Igualmente :)

[@jessman8597]

I'm 100% Protestant. There are some things in the Catholic Church I struggle to fully embrace because I can't find Scripture for it. But I love my Catholic friends. We aren't enemies. We can disagree and still be on the same team.

[@billheyn9363]

Good point, I think the reasons are always found by meditating on scripture. How much, and what unifies Catholics is a subject for study beyond my visibility. I've found that scripture surely interprets scripture, not that we don't have continued struggle. We all need to cling on a single thing.

[@nelli6086]

❤ came back to catholicism Easter 2023 I was a cradle catholic and left and became prodestant I had issues with the Marian doctrines but I asked the Holy Spirit to lead me and years later I kept painting Mother Mary she was just always on my mind and I was deciding on what church to go to on Easter and decided let me try the catholic church once the Holy water hit me at the end of mass I felt connected in someway. Ive been dealing with my doubts slowly but surely every question or doubt gets answered right away.

[@DWS-lp3wc]

READ THIS! The kingdom of Heaven is visiting you: Catholicism is worthless! Catholicism teaches mankind to directly disobey the 10 commandments and teachings of JESUS Christ. Idolatry, necromancy, vain repetitious prayer (Matthew 6:7), calling upon Mary the virgin of prophecy as though she was a mediator in Heaven (1 Timothy 2:5), calling upon priests with the title father (Matthew 23:9). These are all abominations to our Creator, and all things which JESUS Christ himself taught us not to do. Yet, Catholicism teaches mankind to practice all of these things. So, am I missing something, am I actually delusional because my perception of a legitimate follower of JESUS Christ is to 100% obey his teaching? Or, could it be that Catholicism is a counterfeit to legitimate faith in JESUS, propagated by anti-Christ spirits to distract mankind from truth? There are so mamy things wrong with Catholicism, it is clear that if anyone supports it and or practices it, they are not truly (born again/born of the Holy Spirit of our Creator). How is that true? Itvis becsuse the Holy Spirit is the Spirit of truth, and Christ tells us that his Spirit leads us into all truth. Therefore, if we are legitimately (born again/born of the Holy Spirit of our Creator), he does not leave us in our sin, rather he reveals the unGodly practices that we are taken captive with, convicting us of those things, so that we would choose to cease to practice those things. Christ tells us these exact things. This is not complicated, do research and find out the truth about Catholicism, how they built a sanctuary at the Vatican which literally looks like the head of a serpent. So, when you are in the building its like you are in the head of a serpent. Why would you expect that such a building would be built? Is it not clear that Catholicism is a belief system composed by anti-Christ spirits as a counterfeit to legitimate faith in JESUS Christ? Search for yourselves online. Go to google and type in: (vatican serpent head sanctuary) Then, choose to search for (images). You will be given many to look at. Take notice as well, behind the stage inside of the building the gigantic, towering, monstrous, idolatrous statue/metal figure. Maybe supposed to be a representation of Christ, but whether it is or not, such images are certainly not condoned by our Creator, and are surely a stumbling block for all of mankind, especially those naive souls who are being held captive by the cursed counterfeit of Catholicism. Understand: Catholicism, Mormonism, Watchtower Society aka: Jehovah Witness, Universalist Universalism, Christ the scientist, and various other sects of what is supposed to lead us to properly follow JESUS Christ, are all counterfeit and are actually teaching us to practice a lie! Behold the literal consequence for partaking in such things: Matthew 13:42 and will cast them into the furnace of fire. There will be wailing and gnashing of teeth. Then the righteous will shine forth as the sun in the kingdom of their Father. He who has ears to hear, let him hear! 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God. Revelation 21:8 But the cowardly, unbelieving, abominable, murderers, sexually immoral, sorcerers, idolaters, and all liars shall have their part in the lake which burns with fire and brimstone, which is the second death.” Matthew 13:41-42 The Son of Man will send out His angels, and they will gather out of His kingdom all things that offend, and those who practice lawlessness, and (will cast them into the furnace of fire). Revelation 22:15 But outside are the lawless, sorcerers, sexually immoral, murderers, idolaters, and whoever loves and practices a lie. Lastly, do not allow yourself to be persuaded that hate is prompting this message. How could this be hate when Love has sent me (1 John 4:8). Do not take my saying this offensively: Here is to your soul being legitimately (born again/born of the Holy Spirit of our Creator), as revealed through the historical record of John 3, Luke 12:50, John 4:10-14, Acts 2:38 . ✝️ Amen?

[@CamGaylor]

i found your channel because of teh Lutheran videos now Im just going back and catching up on stuff. Good channel!

[@thefrancotv]

W Jacque

[@caffeinated_chesterton]

33:20 On the issue of Florence they were dealing with formal heretics. So people who have been formally corrected by the Catholic Church, and refused to submit to the Catholic Church and remain in their heresy. Vatican II is talking about people who never knew the gospel or who may not know they are in heresy. I wouldn't say it's a 180 they are just talking about different situations. Then I would also state that protestants today are different from Protestants in the 1500s. Every person who was a protestant in the 1500s knew about the Catholic Church, grew up with its teachings, was formally corrected, and still chose to leave. That would fall under formal heresy and so Florence would have applied. Whereas today Protestants are usually just born into protestantism. Most of the time they would just be material heretics which most Catholics would fall under material heresy because material heresy is where you hold a belief about faith and morals that isn't true according to the Catholic Church, but you didn't know it wasn't true and haven't been corrected on it. That is way different from the situations that were happening during the reformation, so I think it would be prudent of the church to clarify its teachings considering we are dealing with people with different culpabilities. Also, Vatican II states that it *may* be possible for those people to enter into heaven, but given the stipulations they list in lumen gentium I believe it is unlikely.

[@freedomfields5569]

This. 💯

[@mikejames303]

You did an excellent job explaining why being a Catholic is so fulfilling. I was away for 16 years, it feels good to be home❤

[@nightshade99]

Then you obviously didn't do your due diligence.

[@mikejames303]

@@nightshade99 no, I did. Protestantism is just a demonstrably false religion. It didn't take me long to see that nearly every doctrine they hold to is opposed to the Christian faith.

[@DWS-lp3wc]

READ THIS! The kingdom of Heaven is visiting you: Catholicism is worthless! Catholicism teaches mankind to directly disobey the 10 commandments and teachings of JESUS Christ. Idolatry, necromancy, vain repetitious prayer (Matthew 6:7), calling upon Mary the virgin of prophecy as though she was a mediator in Heaven (1 Timothy 2:5), calling upon priests with the title father (Matthew 23:9). These are all abominations to our Creator, and all things which JESUS Christ himself taught us not to do. Yet, Catholicism teaches mankind to practice all of these things. So, am I missing something, am I actually delusional because my perception of a legitimate follower of JESUS Christ is to 100% obey his teaching? Or, could it be that Catholicism is a counterfeit to legitimate faith in JESUS, propagated by anti-Christ spirits to distract mankind from truth? There are so mamy things wrong with Catholicism, it is clear that if anyone supports it and or practices it, they are not truly (born again/born of the Holy Spirit of our Creator). How is that true? Itvis becsuse the Holy Spirit is the Spirit of truth, and Christ tells us that his Spirit leads us into all truth. Therefore, if we are legitimately (born again/born of the Holy Spirit of our Creator), he does not leave us in our sin, rather he reveals the unGodly practices that we are taken captive with, convicting us of those things, so that we would choose to cease to practice those things. Christ tells us these exact things. This is not complicated, do research and find out the truth about Catholicism, how they built a sanctuary at the Vatican which literally looks like the head of a serpent. So, when you are in the building its like you are in the head of a serpent. Why would you expect that such a building would be built? Is it not clear that Catholicism is a belief system composed by anti-Christ spirits as a counterfeit to legitimate faith in JESUS Christ? Search for yourselves online. Go to google and type in: (vatican serpent head sanctuary) Then, choose to search for (images). You will be given many to look at. Take notice as well, behind the stage inside of the building the gigantic, towering, monstrous, idolatrous statue/metal figure. Maybe supposed to be a representation of Christ, but whether it is or not, such images are certainly not condoned by our Creator, and are surely a stumbling block for all of mankind, especially those naive souls who are being held captive by the cursed counterfeit of Catholicism. Understand: Catholicism, Mormonism, Watchtower Society aka: Jehovah Witness, Universalist Universalism, Christ the scientist, and various other sects of what is supposed to lead us to properly follow JESUS Christ, are all counterfeit and are actually teaching us to practice a lie! Behold the literal consequence for partaking in such things: Matthew 13:42 and will cast them into the furnace of fire. There will be wailing and gnashing of teeth. Then the righteous will shine forth as the sun in the kingdom of their Father. He who has ears to hear, let him hear! 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God. Revelation 21:8 But the cowardly, unbelieving, abominable, murderers, sexually immoral, sorcerers, idolaters, and all liars shall have their part in the lake which burns with fire and brimstone, which is the second death.” Matthew 13:41-42 The Son of Man will send out His angels, and they will gather out of His kingdom all things that offend, and those who practice lawlessness, and (will cast them into the furnace of fire). Revelation 22:15 But outside are the lawless, sorcerers, sexually immoral, murderers, idolaters, and whoever loves and practices a lie. Lastly, do not allow yourself to be persuaded that hate is prompting this message. How could this be hate when Love has sent me (1 John 4:8). Do not take my saying this offensively: Here is to your soul being legitimately (born again/born of the Holy Spirit of our Creator), as revealed through the historical record of John 3, Luke 12:50, John 4:10-14, Acts 2:38 . ✝️ Amen?

[@brianh2477]

Interesting conversation... I'm Catholic (I left the Church for awhile to explore Protestantism) and then came back. My sole reason for coming back is that scripture pointed me to true meaning of the Eucharist in the 'Bread of Life' discourse. My conclusion was that we all have preconceived notions and it's much easier (from our human senses since what you see is only bread and wine) to accept the Protestant view of the Eucharist as only being a symbol (or speaking spiritually), but in reality if you read scripture (John 6:53-58) without any preconceived biases, then it's very clear that Jesus is speaking literally (it's just takes a little grace to get to that point for someone who has been taught a different view). All that being said, there's much more scripture to back it up and if you read the Early Church Fathers, they all confirm it's a literal interpretation. The reason why Catholics (and other faith traditions) have this as a sacrament is simple (it has to do with eternal life): Jn 6:53 - Jesus said to them, “Amen, amen, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you." I love my Protestant brothers and sisters and I don't mean in any way to critique their faith or to be demeaning when I say this: If you read the Early Church Fathers, which were the leaders of the Church within the 1st and 2nd century, you'll undoubtedly discover the Catholic Church. And I would add, if you’re looking for the correct interpretation of scripture, then see what the consensus is from the Early Church Fathers. In theory, you should agree with their beliefs.

[@SeanusAurelius]

On some topics, though, they sound Protestant, and above all on justification, which is the most important one.

[@brianh2477]

@@SeanusAurelius Church Fathers believed and taught that you are justified by faith alone? Just to be clear, Is that what you are saying? Could you elaborate because I don’t see evidence of that.

[@nightshade99]

You misunderstand scripture

[@brianh2477]

@@nightshade99By saying I misunderstand scripture would also be implying that the Early Church Fathers misunderstood it as well. Which would also imply that the Early Christian Church went into heresy directly after the apostles…. I invite you to read their writings and discover (just as I had) that the Church has always taught and believed what the Catholic Church teaches today. Scripture should be interpreted accordingly. Just an example, Cyprian of Carthage who was an early Christian theologian and bishop of Carthage who led the Christians of North Africa during a period of persecution from Rome wrote this about the papal supremacy: “The Lord says to Peter: ‘I say to you,’ he says, ‘that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not overcome it. And to you I will give the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatever things you bind on earth shall be bound also in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth, they shall be loosed also in heaven’ [Matt. 16:18-19]). . . . On him [Peter] he builds the Church, and to him he gives the command to feed the sheep [John 21:17], and although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single chair [cathedra], and he established by his own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity. Indeed, the others were also what Peter was [i.e., apostles], but a primacy is given to Peter, whereby it is made clear that there is but one Church and one chair. So too, all [the apostles] are shepherds, and the flock is shown to be one, fed by all the apostles in single-minded accord. If someone does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he [should] desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that he is in the Church?” (The Unity of the Catholic Church 4; 1st edition [A.D. 251]).

[@nightshade99]

@@brianh2477 YOU: By saying I misunderstand scripture would also be implying that the Early Church Fathers misunderstood it as well. ME: 1) They DID, but it would be more prudent to take each father on a case-by-case basis. 2) The church fathers do not define scripture, the Holy Spirit does. 3) You are not necessarily in alignment with any particular church father YOU: Which would also imply that the Early Christian Church went into heresy directly after the apostles…. ME: It all depends on what they taught; these church fathers did not teach RCC theology, which was adopted centuries later YOU: I invite you to read their... that the Church has always taught and believed what the Catholic Church teaches today. ME: I have, and that is why I am challenging your belief system. The RCC is a heretical church. YOU: Scripture should be interpreted accordingly. ME: Incorrect. Scripture is delivered via the Holy Spirit, not the whims of men. YOU: Just an example... from Rome wrote this about the papal supremacy: ME: You have misinterpreted Matthew 16: 18-19 Therefore, any belief you hold comes from man, not scripture. I can provide what scripture teaches on that verse if you wish. Cyprian's stance on the “mother church” is often cited by Catholic theologians in support of their views. At the same time, his stance on the universal equality of all bishops-without any singular leader-is frequently referenced by those who oppose Catholic theology.

[@sololoquy3783]

The crux of being a Catholic is access to the living magisterium. Instead of using our own sloppy reasoning, we defer to the Church's teachings. There's no infinite disagreement, because by definition we all affirm the magisterium.

[@dann285]

Not in the bible

[@Kate-nr3fx3fi9o]

@@dann285 You are correct

[@dann285]

@@Kate-nr3fx3fi9o And their first "Pope" agrees "Simon Peter answered him, “Lord, to whom shall we go? YOU have the words of eternal life,"

[@mikejames303]

​@@dann285and Jesus built the Church on Peter. Sola scriptura is a false doctrine, nowhere in scripture does it teach that scripture is the only infallible source of truth.

[@dann285]

@mes303 No mike Jesus did not build his church on Peter "For no other foundation can anyone lay than that which is laid, which is Jesus Christ." 1 Cor 3:11 . Delighted that you know the scriptures are infallible. As far as what is in the bible, no where does it claim that anything else is infallible besides The Father, The Son and the Holy Spirit. And that your deliema. "Beware lest anyone]cheat you through philosophy and empty deceit, according to the tradition of men, according to the basic principles of the world, and not according to Christ. " Colossians 2. And you dont understand what Sola scriptura means. IT only means that the scriptures are infallible as you stated so you are contodicing yourself Mike. And Mike I did find your playlist very interesting. Hundreds of videos and nothing on decrening the word of God. I would suggest that you spend some time in it so you are not deceived. Thats why the Lord provided it for us.

[@filiusvivam4315]

The Truth matters to me, History matters, and for that reason I am a Catholic and 100% affirm the Catholic Faith. Early Church was 100% Catholic, Protestantism is man-made tradition of 16th century.

[@johnyang1420]

True!!!

[@mpkropf5062]

Roman Catholic Church is also man-made! It’s not how the First Century Church was. That was called “ The Way!” Later the Catholic Church ( Not Roman)! The Catechism is man-made. Saying if you miss Mass it’s a mortal sin( no where in the Bible) and it’s man made also if a Catholic leaves the church they are going to hell. Jesus nor his disciples never taught such heresy!

[@mormonguru5984]

Much better episode!

[@writersofthechurch]

42:23 When it comes to apparent doctrinal 180s, those do not need to bother a Catholic. Megan was concerned that some doctrines seem to change, so she should be equally as concerned when the Apostles made 180 changes to the law. The Old Testament states that male Gentiles must be circumcised to be a part of the Israelite community. In The Council of Jerusalem, the Apostles saw fit to make a doctrinal 180, making it possible for Gentiles to enter the covenant community without physical circumcision. If apparent doctrinal 180s are so concerning for Megan, this is a massive apparent 180.

[@mbfrommb3699]

It was interesting to me that I could listen to these 2 lovely ladies and within 5 min figure out which was Catholic and which one was Protestant because of their personalities, not based on their beliefs. Which got me thinking. Although I am Protestant and not Catholic I have found that people go to church I think where their personality dictates more than doctrine. I am glad these two can talk together. This is not meant as a criticism at all, but notice how Jacque finds security in the order and structure of Catholicism, to me that's about personality, not sound doctrine. Not saying Catholics don't have some good doctrines, but it seems that Catholicism feels like a security blanket for Jacque. Which is ok, if you love Jesus as your savior I don't care where you go to church. I think that's part of the beauty of Christianity. Sure I would like more agreement on some major doctrines but people are people and we tend to believe and go where we feel most comfortable and what makes the most sense in our finite worldview. I think that if we recognized that where we go to Church -Catholic or Protestant might be more about our personalities, about feeling more comfortable and sure we hope that includes sound doctrine rather than the other way around. I think that it's tough if you really like your church and it makes you feel good feelings to see the doctrinal errors. Being Catholic is a world I don't think I could ever live in personally, there are too many areas where people are put on pedestals for me. I am not a fan of humans who require respect but have not earned it to me. Notice this is a personal, emotional aspect for me. For me a Pasrtor is a slightly more educated person, trying to help lead a group of Christians as best as they can but they are flawed human beings like me. I always have Jesus to go to directly as His child. The idea of me going straight to Jesus for prayer, forgiveness, restoration, help, comfort, etc. Appeals to me greatly. And I like that I don't need the Pastor, I can go straight to Jesus as His Child and the Pastor is there to assist, help comfort me if I desire it or need it. Since this is a Catholic video, notice at the 43-minute mark about "people who have never heard can be saved" discussion. Protestants have this issue as well. But growing up as a Protestant questioning and struggling through Scripture was encouraged. I don't know if it is in Catholicism. And this is a doctrine which I push hard against. We have a number of what seems like dilemmas when it comes to salvation like what happened in the OT before Jesus died and opened up Heaven? What happened to the people who died in Asia during the time of Jesus who never heard Him preach? What happens to those today who have never heard? We see in Romans 11 that the LORD has blinded the Jewish people to the knowledge of Jesus from that day until today. So where have all the Jews gone when they died over the last 2000 years? We know they haven't because had everyone on earth heard the Gospel the end would have come. Matthew 24:14 And this gospel of the kingdom will be preached in all the world as a witness to all the nations, and then the end will come. So people die every day not hearing about Jesus so where do they go? To me, this is where what I would call a heresy of Calvinism comes from. Now this is a study on its own and there are answers but it's a topic where it's easy to believe in false doctrines. The last 7 minutes or so were very good, it's easy to divide ourselves by names and denominations and sets of doctrines rather than seeing the unity we have in Jesus. My conclusion, I don't think I'll ever be Catholic because I would be excommunicated quickly. LOL. Good video though.

[@jicf460]

Common Catholic W

[@nikostheater]

Hello! I have to comment on the confession issue ( although from the comments another orthodox person explained it also), we orthodox absolutely have sacramental confession, with the difference with the catholics being the booth ( we don;t have it at all) and the (I suppose) the direction by your priest to do that amount of prayers ant other things depending on the sin confessed. We view sin differently than the Catholics ( we view it as an illness that we need cure from and not a crime that we need to be penalized for ) , so the approach to confession is different. More of a conversation and guidance than enumerating sins etc.

[@nightshade99]

TO BRIAN2477 (PART 12) YOU: You keep wanting to argue... of simplicity, can we make this conversation about Real Presence vs. symbolic? ME: When you say, "real presence", are you wanting to refer to this phrase as the spirit of Jesus? Isn't the "real presence" the actual flesh and blood of Jesus Christ in Catholicism? Either way, this violates scripture saying that Jesus has come again to earth when 1) No man knows the hour 2) The second coming is the Rapture No where in scripture does a priest have the authority or power to jettison Jesus to the altar. The Roman Catholic Church teaches that once an ordained priest blesses the bread of the Lord’s Supper, it is transformed into the actual flesh of Christ (though it retains the appearance, odor, and taste of bread); and when he blesses the wine, it is transformed into the actual blood of Christ (though it retains the appearance, odor, and taste of wine). Is such a concept biblical? There are some Scriptures that, if interpreted strictly literally, would lead to the “real presence” of Christ in the bread and wine. Examples are John 6:32-58; Matthew 26:26; Luke 22:17-23; and 1 Corinthians 11:24-25. The passage pointed to most frequently is John 6:32-58 and especially verses 53-57, “Jesus said to them, ‘I tell you the truth, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in you. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life … For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in him … so the one who feeds on me will live because of me.’” Roman Catholics interpret this passage literally and apply its message to the Lord’s Supper, which they title the “Eucharist” or “Mass.” Those who reject the idea of transubstantiation interpret Jesus’ words in John 6:53-57 figuratively or symbolically. How can we know which interpretation is correct? Thankfully, Jesus made it exceedingly obvious what He meant. John 6:63 declares, “The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you are spirit and they are life.” Jesus specifically stated that His words are “spirit.” Jesus was using physical concepts, eating and drinking, to teach spiritual truth. Just as consuming physical food and drink sustains our physical bodies, so are our spiritual lives saved and built up by spiritually receiving Him, by grace through faith. Eating Jesus’ flesh and drinking His blood are symbols of fully and completely receiving Him in our lives. The Scriptures declare that the Lord’s Supper is a memorial to the body and blood of Christ (Luke 22:19; 1 Corinthians 11:24-25), not the actual consumption of His physical body and blood. When Jesus was speaking in John chapter 6, Jesus had not yet had the Last Supper with His disciples, in which He instituted the Lord’s Supper. To read the Lord’s Supper / Christian Communion back into John chapter 6 is unwarranted. The most serious reason transubstantiation should be rejected is that it is viewed by the Roman Catholic Church as a "re-sacrifice" of Jesus Christ for our sins, or as a “re-offering / re-presentation” of His sacrifice. This is directly in contradiction to what Scripture says, that Jesus died "once for all" and does not need to be sacrificed again (Hebrews 10:10; 1 Peter 3:18). Hebrews 7:27 declares, "Unlike the other high priests, He (Jesus) does not need to offer sacrifices day after day, first for his own sins, and then for the sins of the people. He sacrificed for their sins ONCE for all when He offered Himself."

[@OrthodoxChristianBeliever]

One thing that prevents me from becoming Catholic, and there are several reasons I'm not Catholic, we do not believe The Theotokis ever appeared to anybody. That's one of several reasons I'm not Catholic, and the idea she would scares me.

[@Sharker2400]

Why does it scare you? Also if you believe God has allowed other Saints to appear to people, why don't you think He would allow His Mother to?

[@OrthodoxChristianBeliever]

Because The Orthodox has never experienced this, there's no record of it in Orthodoxy, so we don't believe it to be The Theotokis. We believe it to be the devil himself.

[@jicf460]

@@OrthodoxChristianBelieverit’s because your church is not the one true church. Easy. FYI, Virgin Mary also appeared in Egypt in Coptic Orthodox Church on 2nd April of 1968, known as Our Lady of Zeitoun.

[@OrthodoxChristianBeliever]

Strange, because Coptic Orthodox Church left us, schismed away from us.

[@johnyang1420]

Take RCIA

[@jacobwoods6153]

Tell Megan to pick up Francis De Sales Catholic Controversy and read it lol

[@legacyandlegend]

Nice to hear your point of view, Jacque. I'd like to see you do a video on the infallibility of the magestarium. Yes Megan, do another funny thumbnail please. 😂 I believe all christians catholics, protestants, and orthodox will have salvation. The blood of Christ is how to get to heaven. We all agree on that. God bless you.

[@DavidSupina]

Bravo for Megan trolling us right out of the gate.

[@tenaciousb4731]

Jacque, what's your opinion on the traditional Latin Mass?

[@jacqueandmegan]

I don’t go to a Latin Mass often but I definitely appreciate it and see why so many prefer it!

[@tenaciousb4731]

@@jacqueandmegan Jaq, you totally need to drag Megan to one. Just for the experience. Explain to her it's like going back in time, to experience the exact same same liturgical celebration as our Church Fathers/Saints practiced. Thomas Moore, St Thomas aquinas, Joan of Arc etc. I believe it would have been very similar to even the mass Saint Nicholas would have celebrated around the time of the council of Nicea Oh yeah. On that note, tell Megan that the real Santa Claus was a hardcore Catholic. I mean, he kind of punched the very first Protestant (Bishop Arius) in the face. St Nick was actually pretty gangsta. So, ya know, Megan should totally convert.

[@Jerome616]

Thanks for Jesus said, “I pray that they would be one , as we are one” Does the Father and Son only agree on a five essential points? Or are they completely subjected in love to one another? That is why I cannot be Protestant. God never a espoused doctrine of confusion, but of unity

[@SeanusAurelius]

But that rebounds onto the RCC when you realise they excommunicated Luther over indulgences, then acknowledged he was right about them...but went on to anathematise Protestants at Trent.

[@johnlee6780]

Megan, Can you answer these two questions? 1. Can anyone be save outside of Jesus and his (singular) church (Jesus said he will start my church Matt 16:18 (not churches))? 2. Can God saved anyone he chooses to save? It matter which the question the church is answering at the time. There isn't a break departure in doctrine as Protestant try to make it out to be. Both are scriptural. For a better (long) breakdown of this, both in its historical, situational when this salvation issue was being addressed - see - kzbin.info/www/bejne/pJrYin57jqemZ5o

[@johnyang1420]

Take RCIA

[@7Archie4]

If Sola Fide is True, then Satan is supposedly Saved too because he also have faith and believes also in scripture.. the example where Jesus is tempted in the desert.

[@bigbuck9984]

Satan knows scripture Satan doesn't trust scripture. And he is not trusting Jesus for Salvation

[@SeanusAurelius]

That would be if a silly caricature of Sola Fide is true. Believing in Jesus means two different things: One, an intellectual belief that he lives (the devil does this), and two, that he forgiven your sin when you repented (the devil does NOT do this).

[@Steinstra-vj7wl]

I too was raised a Catholic, until…I actually seriously started to read the Bible. We can read in Scriptures that Lord Jesus commanded the Apostles to first preach the Gospel to the Jews, and after also to the Heathen or Gentiles (but never vise versa!). I found out in Scriptures who of the Apostles for the first time went to Rome .. and it wasn't Peter. In the Book of Acts it says in Chapter 28 the following: 16 "And when we came to Rome, the Centurion delivered the Prisoners to the Captain of the Guard: but Paul was allowed to live in a house, by himself, with a Roman Soldier that kept him. 17 And it came to pass, that after three days Paul called the Chief of the there living Jews together: and when they came together, Paul said to them: "Men and Brethren, though I have committed nothing against our people, our customs, or against our fathers, yet was I delivered prisoner from Jerusalem into the hands of the Romans 18 who, when they had examined me, would have let me go, because there was no cause of guild in me. 19 But when the Jews spoke against that verdict, I was constrained to appeal unto Caesar; not that I had made any accusations against my Nation. 20 For this Hope (the Gospel of Jesus Christ) therefore I have called for you, to see you, and to speak with you: because for the Hope of Israel I am bound with these chains. 21 The Chief of the Jews said to Paul: "We neither received letters out of Judaea concerning you, neither any of the Brethren that came from there shewed or spoke any harm of you. 22 But we desire to hear of you what you think: for concerning this sect, we know that it is spoken against everywhere". The Roman Catholic Church claims that it was Peter who went to Rome first to preach the Gospel there first and that it was Peter who founded the Church there. Question: who lies? God,... or the Roman Catholic Church ? And what about the Letter in the Bible from Paul to the Congregation of Galatians where it says this in Chapter 2? From verse 7 we read the following: 7 "But on the contrary, when they saw that the Gospel of the Uncircumcision (Gentiles) was committed unto me, as the Gospel of the Circumcision (Jews) was unto Peter; 8 for He that gave Peter power effectively to the Apostleship of the circumcision (again: the Jews), the Same was Mighty in me toward the Gentiles. 9 And when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the Grace that was given unto me, they gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship; that we (that are Paul and Barnabas) should go unto the Heathen, and they unto the Circumcision. Again dear Catholics: who lies? Gods Word, or the Roman Catholic Church? Bible, the book of Acts, Chapter 5, verse 29 : Then Peter and the other Apostles answered and said: “We ought to obey GOD - rather than man” ! Since the Catholic 'church' claims to be well-read on scriptures, then please point me in the direction of where in the Bible it says to pray to a woman, or to a rosary. Please show me where it says to call a mortal sinful man (the Pope) your father. Please show me where the Bible says anything about purgatory, or paying indulgences (buying yourself into heaven?). Please show me where Mary was sinless or immaculately conceived. Please show me where it says to confess your sins to a man or that he may forgive them. Show me where it says the Pope is the “vicar of Christ” on earth. Show me where it says that a preacher must be unmarried. It was the ROMAN Emperor Constantinople who was in fact the first “Pope” and he didn't allow for the common people to have Bible Scriptures...to keep citizen stupid !

[@GarthDomokos]

It's precisely the lack of love in how you write that makes me love Catholicism.

[@Steinstra-vj7wl]

@@GarthDomokos Love is to warn those who are lost. Not to warn is therefore a crime.

[@MrJayb76]

For 1500yrs protestants claim God failed at teaching us the true nature of the Eucharist. That only THEY got the teaching right after 1500yrs. That is both an insult to God and common sense.

[@SeanusAurelius]

We say you went wrong in the 1200s when you came up with transubstantiation, and later when you mandated that the ordinary people could NEVER take the blood.

[@shaunigothictv1003]

This is certainly an interesting video that popped up on my suggestions when I searched for Black ex Catholics. I think both women in this interview make some good points. I thank God I am one of the very few Blacks on this planet is NOT a Catholic. This definitely makes me a unique specimen amongst most Blacks. But as this channel promotes Catholicism its certainly good to discuss various issues related to this particular topic. As for me, I always had three basic prayers. They are as follows: 1.God I pray that you will allow Black people see the huge difference between me and them 2. God I pray I never become like the other Blacks and become Catholic. 3. Thankyou God fir making me a unique specimen amongst most Blacks. My biggest fear was to be like other Blacks. As for the two women in the video, they are certainly happy so thats cool.

[@markvasquez9023]

I thought most American blacks were protestant. ?

[@mikejames303]

Most black people aren't Catholic, especially in America.

[@nightshade99]

TO BRIANH2477 (PART 5) YOU: You’re repeating yourself and not answering my questions. ME: I am repeating myself because it DOES answer your questions; you are just blinded by religion. YOU: You are also assuming that your interpretations are automatically correct and mine are man made traditions. ME: No, I am not. EVERYONE should be held under scrutiny. Me, you, any church leader, any church father. Can someone just invent doctrines and label it as tradition? We have that going on today! PROVE that it was taught as tradition and that it is in line with God's word. YOU: I could very easily say the same for your beliefs (ie: sola scriptura since you have not provided any bible verses to prove your point) ME: I HAVE proven it! You just don't like the answer. Scripture constantly denounces the traditions of men over scripture. Even Jesus did so. Trouble is, the RCC is important to your well-being, and you want to go OUTSIDE of God's word to confirm heresy. So test me then. Select a RCC heresy. Pick a random number # 1-39, and we can debate that unique topic and see if you can defend something that you were taught to do. YOU: I would like to see more quotes... The one you provided thus far does not support this claim. ME: Yes, it does, as I have already proven. You not liking it does not diminish its effectiveness. Clement Of Alexandria: “The blessed Peter, the chosen, the preeminent, the first among the disciples, for whom alone with himself the Savior paid the tribute [Matt. 17:27], quickly grasped and understood their meaning. And what does he say? ‘Behold, we have left all and have followed you’ [Matt. 19:27; Mark 10:28]” This is intended to support the general Christian position that Jesus gave the apostles authority to teach infallibly and to lead the church, and Peter was foremost among them, but provides NO support for the Roman Catholic additional belief “in the specific sense of having supreme authority over the whole church, including the other apostles.” Therefore, no papacy or succession, just leadership. So Irenaeus doesn't mention papal succession, just bishops. Clement affirms Peter's leadership, no papal succession. I have others...

[@annb9029]

Now both can say why your both not Orthodox lol I’m Catholic

[@BarbaPamino]

​@annb9029 sprinkling isn't baptism and heresy is heresy. The current set of Bishops that the west refers to as Eastern Orthodox are the Bishops that don't profess theological heresy and stand in Communion with eachother. The Vatican is not catholic, and hasn't been since centuries before Humbert committed blasphemy.

[@annb9029]

Agree to disagree Ty

[@BarbaPamino]

@@annb9029 read the history of the first 800 years of the Church then follow the direction the Rome went vs the direction of Constantinople. Then compare the two traditions today. PS St Peter's Liturgy was Greek, and it remained Greek until the 4th century. When the Franko Germanics sacked Rome and couldn't learn Greek. My family was under Rome's Jurisdiction for the first 700 years. And we still called ourselves Romans until the early 1900s. So there's that. These aren't opinions. They're stateof facts. But let's be clear. I'm not trying to sway you. Eventually a Bishop of Rome will rise and say a prayer of grand repentance that exalts all of you too. Prayers with you.

[@7Archie4]

if Sola Scriptura is True then it can conclude that Peter is not married because its no where in Bible its mentioned literally/verbatim (single/unmarried) but it's mentioned that St. Peter have a Mother in Law.

[@Jerome616]

Yup, mother in law does not = married. It could mean widowed.

[@bigbuck9984]

So if he has a mother-in-law then he is married.

[@Jerome616]

@@bigbuck9984If your wife dies, does that mean you no longer have a mother-in law?

[@ContendingEarnestly]

And thats a flawed view of sola scriptura. As usual.

[@nightshade99]

TO BRIANH2477 (PART 2): YOU: Cyprian has always... disagree, but that's besides the point. Cyprian repeatedly deferred to the supreme. ME: There was no papal authority in the early church; that is a RCC invention. YOU: And there's many more quote from other Early...be more than happy to share them with you. ME: For every father that you can get to side with heresy, I have a church father that is against your viewpoints YOU: I highly suggest looking into...on the Early Church Fathers and continually speaks and writes about it on a daily basis. ME: Church fathers mean absolutely nothing. It is SCRIPTURE that carries the authority of God's word, not men's uninspired writings. YOU: On another note, if you rely only on Scripture as the ONLY source of authority, then you are relying on a man made tradition. ME: Traditions of the church are those that are in alignment with scripture, not the inventions of men. Scripture is the ONLY source we have that is God-inspired. Do you deny this? YOU:I say this from experience since I used to believe (as you do) that everything had to be in scripture.. ME: Name me another source that I am supposed to follow that is God-inspired. I will gladly do so. YOU: But, no where in the Bible does it say anything about Sola Scriptura. ME: It absolutely does. Catholics argue that the Bible nowhere states that it is the only authoritative guide for faith and practice. However, this is only true in the shallowest sense. The principle is strongly indicated by verses such as Acts 17:11, which commends the Bereans for testing doctrine-taught by an apostle, no less-to the written Word. Sola scriptura is all-but-explicitly indicated in 1 Corinthians 4:6, where Paul warns not to “go beyond what is written.” Jesus Himself criticized those who allowed traditions to override the explicit commands of God in Mark 7:6-9. YOU: So, by default, that means it doesn't necessarily have to be explicitly written in the bible to be true. ME: That is false. Whether sola scriptura is overtly mentioned in the Bible or not, Catholicism fails to recognize a crucially important issue. We know that the Bible is the Word of God. The Bible declares itself to be God-breathed, inerrant, and authoritative. We also know that God does not change His mind or contradict Himself. So, while the Bible itself may not explicitly argue for sola scriptura, it most definitely does not allow for traditions that contradict its message. Sola scriptura is not as much of an argument against tradition as it is an argument against unbiblical, extra-biblical and/or anti-biblical doctrines. The only way to know for sure what God expects of us is to stay true to what we know He has revealed-the Bible. We can know, beyond the shadow of any doubt, that Scripture is true, authoritative, and reliable. The same cannot be said of tradition. YOU: Realistically, all you have to do is look... their own interpretations of the bible and realized Sola Scriptura doesn't work. ME: False. That has nothing to do with the Bible as the central source. Those "Christian denominations" can be heretical. Sola scriptura does not nullify the concept of church traditions. Rather, sola scriptura gives us a solid foundation on which to base church traditions. There are many practices, in both Catholic and Protestant churches, that are the result of traditions, not the explicit teaching of Scripture. It is good, and even necessary, for the church to have traditions. Traditions play an important role in clarifying and organizing Christian practice. At the same time, in order for these traditions to be valid, they must not be in disagreement with God’s Word. They must be based on the solid foundation of the teaching of Scripture. The problem with the Roman Catholic Church, and many other churches, is that they base traditions on traditions which are based on traditions which are based on traditions, often with the initial tradition not being in full harmony with the Scriptures. That is why Christians must always go back to sola scriptura, the authoritative Word of God, as the only solid basis for faith and practice. YOU: Even Martin Luther saw the...,t put forth as prophecies his ravings and dreams.” ME: Again, traditions are not the problem. Unbiblical traditions are the problem. The availability of the Scriptures throughout the centuries is not the determining factor. The Scriptures themselves are the determining factor. We now have the Scriptures readily available to us. Through the careful study of God’s Word, it is clear that many church traditions which have developed over the centuries are in fact contradictory to the Word of God. This is where sola scriptura applies. Traditions that are based on, and in agreement with, God’s Word can be maintained. Traditions that are not based on, and/or disagree with, God’s Word must be rejected. Sola scriptura points us back to what God has revealed to us in His Word. Sola scriptura ultimately points us back to the God who always speaks the truth, never contradicts Himself, and always proves Himself to be dependable

[@OrthodoxChristianBeliever]

We do The Eucharist too. I don't know if you Believe This, But we In The Orthodox Church Believe we Are Participating In The One Sacrifice Christ Made While It Changes To the Body And Blood.

[@nightshade99]

TOBRIANH2477 (PART 6) YOU: How exactly are any of thes...you provided say nothing of the sort.. ME: Please pay attention, Brian, I JUST explained this. You cannot confirm a doctrine of papal supremacy if the doctrine is foreign to the church fathers. EX: They aren't contrary to aliens landing on the moon either, does that make aliens landing a truth doctrine because it was labeled a tradition? Same fallacy of the Argument From Silence that you are not understanding I will simplify if for you: You must go by what they DO say, not what the fathers don't say to get your doctrines. YOU: Where are you getting these quotes from that make you think it's against papal primacy ME: The same church books/sources that you can use to actually test the church father's truth claims. YOU: And this is the best you can do? ME: The best? I am intellectively destroying your position while you cling to a logical fallacy. I'd say I'm doing pretty damn good. YOU: ... (Hate to break it to you, but you are not proving your point). ME: That is because you are intellectually sloppy. YOU: You should adhere to your own words and hold yourself "under scrutiny" ME: I have already done so, that is why I am addressing you. You have not performed due diligence on yourself or the false religion that you have chosen. You have also not proven anything that I have said as false. You are failing, Brian YOU: After... against it.".... ME: This is the correct interpretation of Matthew 16:18 At this point, Jesus declares that God had revealed this truth to Peter. The word for “Peter,” Petros, means “a small stone” (John 1:42). Jesus used a play on words here with petra (“on this rock”) which means “a foundation boulder,” as in Matthew 7:24, 25 when He described the rock upon which the wise man builds his house. Peter himself uses the same imagery in his first epistle: the church is built of numerous small petros, “living stones,” (1 Peter 2:5) who, like Peter, confess that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the living God, and those confessions of faith are the bedrock of the church. In addition, the New Testament makes it abundantly clear that Christ is both the foundation (Acts 4:11, 12; 1 Corinthians 3:11) and the head (Ephesians 5:23) of the church. It is a mistake to think that here He is giving either of those roles to Peter. There is a sense in which the apostles played a foundational role in the building of the church (Ephesians 2:20), but the role of primacy is reserved for Christ alone, not assigned to Peter. So, Jesus’ words here are best interpreted as a simple play on words in that a boulder-like truth came from the mouth of one who was called a small stone. And Christ Himself is called the “chief cornerstone” (1 Peter 2:6, 7). The chief cornerstone of any building was that upon which the building was anchored. If Christ declared Himself to be the cornerstone, how could Peter be the rock upon which the church was built? It is more likely that the believers, of which Peter is one, are the stones which make up the church, anchored upon the Cornerstone, “and he who believes on Him will by no means be put to shame” (1 Peter 2:6). The Roman Catholic Church uses the argument that Peter is the rock to which Jesus referred as evidence that it is the one true church. As we have seen, Peter’s being the rock is not the only valid interpretation of this verse. Even if Peter is the rock in Matthew 16:18, this is meaningless in giving the Roman Catholic Church any authority. Scripture nowhere records Peter being in Rome. Scripture nowhere describes Peter as being supreme over the other apostles. The New Testament does not describe Peter as being the “all authoritative leader” of the early Christian church. Peter was not the first pope, and Peter did not start the Roman Catholic Church. The origin of the Catholic Church is not in the teachings of Peter or any other apostle. If Peter truly was the founder of the Roman Catholic Church, it would be in full agreement with what Peter taught (Acts chapter 2, 1 Peter, 2 Peter). YOU: And you think... you're hiding something? ME: The difference between you and I is that I HAVE. You have shown your incapability of defending demonic doctrines whereas I have shown you the truth of what scripture teaches. I am a Born-Again Christian as Jesus asks us to be. A church is just a fellowshipping of men to teach and spread the gospel truth. YOU: What verses says Sola Scriptura? No, You have not....of Scripture Alone being the only authority. ME: I will repeat this AGAIN, because you have difficulty learning. For centuries the Roman Catholic Church had made its traditions superior in authority to the Bible. This resulted in many practices that were in fact contradictory to the Bible. Some examples are prayer to saints and/or Mary, the immaculate conception, transubstantiation, indulgences, and papal authority. The primary Catholic argument against sola scriptura is that the Bible does not explicitly teach sola scriptura. Catholics argue that the Bible nowhere states that it is the only authoritative guide for faith and practice. However, this is only true in the shallowest sense. The principle is strongly indicated by verses such as Acts 17:11, which commends the Bereans for testing doctrine-taught by an apostle, no less-to the written Word. Sola scriptura is all-but-explicitly indicated in 1 Corinthians 4:6, where Paul warns not to “go beyond what is written.” Jesus Himself criticized those who allowed traditions to override the explicit commands of God in Mark 7:6-9. Whether sola scriptura is overtly mentioned in the Bible or not, Catholicism fails to recognize a crucially important issue. We know that the Bible is the Word of God. The Bible declares itself to be God-breathed, inerrant, and authoritative. We also know that God does not change His mind or contradict Himself. So, while the Bible itself may not explicitly argue for sola scriptura, it most definitely does not allow for traditions that contradict its message. Sola scriptura is not as much of an argument against tradition as it is an argument against unbiblical, extra-biblical and/or anti-biblical doctrines. The only way to know for sure what God expects of us is to stay true to what we know He has revealed-the Bible. We can know, beyond the shadow of any doubt, that Scripture is true, authoritative, and reliable. The same cannot be said of tradition. The Word of God is the ultimate and only infallible authority for the Christian faith. Traditions are valid only when they conform with Scripture. Traditions that contradict the Bible are not of God and are not a valid aspect of the Christian faith. Sola scriptura is the only way to avoid subjectivity and keep personal opinion from taking priority over the teachings of the Bible. The essence of sola scriptura is basing one’s spiritual life on the Bible alone and rejecting any tradition or teaching that is not in full agreement with the Bible. Second Timothy 2:15 declares, “Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved, a workman who does not need to be ashamed and who correctly handles the word of truth.” Sola scriptura does not nullify the concept of church traditions. Rather, sola scriptura gives us a solid foundation on which to base church traditions. There are many practices, in both Catholic and Protestant churches, that are the result of traditions, not the explicit teaching of Scripture. It is good, and even necessary, for the church to have traditions. Traditions play an important role in clarifying and organizing Christian practice. At the same time, in order for these traditions to be valid, they must not be in disagreement with God’s Word. They must be based on the solid foundation of the teaching of Scripture. The problem with the Roman Catholic Church, and many other churches, is that they base traditions on traditions which are based on traditions which are based on traditions, often with the initial tradition not being in full harmony with the Scriptures. That is why Christians must always go back to sola scriptura, the authoritative Word of God, as the only solid basis for faith and practice. Again, traditions are not the problem. Unbiblical traditions are the problem. The availability of the Scriptures throughout the centuries is not the determining factor. The Scriptures themselves are the determining factor. We now have the Scriptures readily available to us. Through the careful study of God’s Word, it is clear that many church traditions which have developed over the centuries are in fact contradictory to the Word of God. This is where sola scriptura applies. Traditions that are based on, and in agreement with, God’s Word can be maintained. Traditions that are not based on, and/or disagree with, God’s Word must be rejected. Sola scriptura points us back to what God has revealed to us in His Word. Sola scriptura ultimately points us back to the God who always speaks the truth, never contradicts Himself, and always proves Himself to be dependable.

[@chelseabradham3889]

Orthodox Here, the Orthodox do have universality, the faith and the liturgy are the same the world over. In the west Orthodox parishes were often originally founded by immigrants from Greece and Eastern Europe so they became a place and a way to preserve and pass down language and cultural traditions but those are little t traditions and don't impact the faith. We technically even have a single leader, our Ecumenical Patriarch, it's just that he doesn't speak for Christ apart from the other regional patriarchs or in a way that they don't. He's not infallible and he's not supreme. He's first among equals. As for the priest, yes the priest is the spiritual father of his congregation and yes we have sacramental confession. We don't do it in a booth where they can't see you and you can't see them. It's a 1 on 1 conversation between you and your spiritual father where you talk through your sins, why you committed them, the circumstances around them and they pray for you and give you advice. I think this actually strengthens that fatherly aspect and I really appreciate it.

[@jacqueandmegan]

Thanks for the comment! We also have the option to go face to face in the Catholic Church. But I think there should be an option to go behind a screen.

[@BarbaPamino]

One day a Bishop of Rome will see the long standing heresy of his see and repent for the rest. Until then my prayers are with the blind sheep that follow these wicked shepherds.

[@jicf460]

@@BarbaPaminoyou are ortho but taste like protie 😂😂😂

[@BarbaPamino]

@@jicf460 not quite.

[@mashah1085]

So if both Catholics and Protestants go to Heaven, it doesn't matter which one you are? Right?

[@pavld335]

Summary: I am a Catholic because it makes me feel special. Summary: I am not Catholic because it makes me feel special.

[@jacqueandmegan]

Nope.

[@pavld335]

@@jacqueandmeganYup. You start off the video by saying "what I love about protestantism..."

[@jacqueandmegan]

@@pavld335 we also emphasize that we are in our particular traditions because we are convicted that it is what is right and true and the best way to honor God. We both have sacrificed much to be Christians (as all genuine Christians do) and it is not simply about what “feels good.”

[@pavld335]

@@jacqueandmeganwhat have you sacrificed to be Christians?

[@soulosxpiotov7280]

Jesus is THE ROCK, the SOLID ROCK, the true church is built upon, NOT PETER. If it be Peter, then we are in really big trouble.

[@alexmccollum6573]

It's Peter

[@soulosxpiotov7280]

@@alexmccollum6573 Please look at the Greek in 1 Cor 10:3, where you'll see that Jesus is "that Rock THE Rock," and in Matthew 16:18, you'll see in the Greek that Jesus said "you are Peter, but upon this THE ROCK I will build My church..." Peter is "a" rock, but Jesus is THE Rock. Please take a look at the Greek when you have a chance.

[@johnyang1420]

It is Peter….

[@mpkropf5062]

@@alexmccollum6573Peter never claimed to be and the Church only made up that lie after Peter was dead! Jesus IS the Rock of All Christs Church!

[@OrthodoxChristianBeliever]

We have no pope in Orthodoxy. There is Confession. The priests in Orthodoxy can marry, but before being ordained. Instead of a pope, we have a plurality of bishops, patriarchs, priests. There isn't one man at the top.

[@TheGortexDoesntFit]

Jacque’s reasons why she’s catholic are definitely what makes it appealing, not to mention the beauty of the mass, buildings, and tradition.

[@nightshade99]

TO BRIANH2477 (PART 3) I will address the first you provided: Clement Of Alexandria Here are the problems: 1) Clement provided his viewpoint which isn't inspired by God. It is his opinion. 2) You are already assuming that Peter was a pope. Scripture does not confirm this The onus is on you to draw from SCRIPTURE, not men to support your religion.

[@nightshade99]

Can't you just be Born Again like Jesus asks us to be?

[@nightshade99]

TO BRIANH2477 (PART 9) YOU: Look at the dates…These people either knew or were in close proximity to the Apostles themselves. ME: No, they weren't. Just because a date is close (and we are talking decades and centuries here which ISN'T close frankly,) does not mean that you knew or had close proximity to Jesus or the apostles. That claim is a blatant assumption and holds no merit. YOU: Look at what they are saying about the Eucharist ME: If a person declares a false doctrine, that doesn't make them legit because some people agree with them. Are the Muslims correct? Their leaders declare something unbiblical all the time and have more followers than Christianity YOU: Are they all heretics since they disagree with your interpretation of scripture? ME: No, they are heretics because they disagree with scripture period. I have nothing to do with it. You have not found in the three days that we have been debating, ANYTHING that I have said that was false. YOU: Whose interpretation is more likely to be right? ME: The interpretation that reflects what Jesus and the apostles actually taught YOU: Red flag! ME: Yes, red flag indeed! You are brainwashed, Brian. The fallible church fathers are more important to you than God's word. That is a horrible position to be in. For someone who is scared to debate me, you have an awful lot of talking to do. I will address the first person from your ridiculous wall of text: Ignatius of Antioch 1) If Ignatius taught transubstantiation, then so what? That would just mean that Ignatius was wrong on that subject! Yet, the Roman Catholic might well point out that, living so close to the time of the New Testament and having ancient Greek as his own native language, Ignatius is much more likely to properly understand the New Testament documents than a 21st-century American reading from an English translation. Thus, the Catholic would say, if Ignatius taught transubstantiation, it then strengthens their claims that the New Testament teaches it as well. Even here, they overstate their case. For one thing, early doing not automatically make one more likely to be right. Many of the letters in the New Testament were written as refutations of false doctrines that had already sprung up in the first decades of the church while the Apostles were still alive and teaching! For example, some of Paul’s earliest writings addressed people within the churches who taught that Jesus had already returned (2 Thessalonians 2) or that there was no future resurrection from the dead (1 Corinthians 15). If people could go so wrong on such seemingly obvious things within only twenty years or so of Jesus’ death and while the Apostles still present, how much more might someone go wrong seventy or eighty years later and after the Apostles were all dead and gone? Thus, if we find something even in an early source like Ignatius that does not accord with what the inspired authors taught in Scripture, we are indeed justified in disregarding it. We can even agree with Ignatius on many things and find his writings edifying while still rejecting anything he might say that does not accord with Scripture, just as we do with other Christian leaders even today. 2) All of this said, it can still be helpful to show Roman Catholics that Ignatius did not, in fact, teach transubstantiation. The bread of God, the flesh of Christ One passage in Ignatius to which Roman Catholics often appeal is in his letter to the church at Rome, where he writes: “…I want the bread of God, which is the flesh of Christ who is of the seed of David; and for the drink, I want his blood…” (Ignatius of Antioch, Letter to the Romans, Chapter 7). Even by itself without any context, this quote doesn’t come anywhere close to supporting transubstantiation. To simply call the bread the “flesh of Christ” or to call the cup “His blood” says no more than any Protestant would say. Some would use the words completely figuratively. Others, following John Calvin, would say that words point to a literal spiritual reality of Christ’s presence in the supper, but not a physical reality. Lutherans teach that Christ’s human body is itself truly present in the supper (though the bread is also still bread and the wine is still wine). The point is, anyone from any of these perspectives could say exactly what Ignatius says here. Note, for example, the words of one prominent Protestant confession of faith: “Worthy receivers, outwardly partaking of the visible elements in this ordinance, do then also inwardly by faith, really and indeed, yet not carnally and corporally, but spiritually receive, and feed upon Christ crucified, and all the benefits of his death; the body and blood of Christ being then not corporally or carnally, but spiritually present to the faith of believers in that ordinance, as the elements themselves, are to their outward senses.”2 Thus, to say that the bread is the flesh of Christ and the wine His blood says no more than Baptists or Presbyterians would say. Such language doesn’t imply transubstantiation at all. The Roman Catholic assumes transubstantiation and reads it into Ignatius’ words here without even realizing it. Yet, even when we read the whole chapter, we see no sign that Ignatius had in mind a miraculous yet invisible transformation of a substance changing the feast of bread and wine into a meal of literal human flesh. “The ruler of this age wants to take me captive and corrupt my godly intentions. Therefore, none of you who are present must help him. Instead, take my side, that is, God’s. Do not talk about Jesus Christ while you desire the world. Do not let envy dwell among you. And if upon my arrival I myself should appeal to you, do not be persuaded by me; believe instead these things that I am writing to you. For though I am still alive, I am passionately in love with death as I write to you. My passionate love has been crucified and there is no fire of material longing within me, but only water living and speaking in me, saying within me, ‘Come to the father.’ I take no pleasure in corruptible food or the pleasures of this life. I want the bread of God, which is the flesh of Christ who is of the seed of David; and for the drink, I want his blood, which is incorruptible love,” (Ignatius of Antioch, Letter to the Romans, Chapter 7). The passage is filled with a flowery metaphor. Expressions like “the fire of material longing” and “water living and speaking in me.” No Catholic would claim that he was talking about desires transforming into literal, physical flames or Ignatius’ insides changing into literal, physical water. These are metaphors. Likewise, when he raises the picture of the flesh and blood of Christ, he does not even say that the blood is wine but rather that the blood is “incorruptible love.” Ignatius often uses this kind of figurative language. For example, earlier in this letter, Ignatius wrote: “…I am God’s wheat, and I am being ground by the teeth of the wild beasts, so that I may prove to be pure bread,” (Ignatius of Antioch, Letter to the Romans, Chapter 4). And note what He said in another letter: “…You, therefore, must arm yourselves with gentleness and regain your strength in faith (which is the flesh of the Lord) and in love (which is the blood of Jesus Christ),” (Ignatius of Antioch, Letter to the Trillian's, Chapter 8). Here, faith is the flesh of Christ, and, again, love is His blood. It’s obviously poetic language not meant to be read in a wooden, literal sense. Indeed, when we look at what Ignatius was writing to the Romans about, he was not saying that he longed to partake of the Eucharist. He was saying that he wanted to die as a martyr! It was not the communion meal Ignatius yearned for, but final separation from the world in death so He could be with Christ and free from sin. One flesh and one cup Another place to which Roman Catholics often turn is in Ignatius’ letter to the church of Philadelphia, where he said: “Take care, therefore, to participate in one Eucharist (for there is one flesh of our Lord Jesus Christ, and one cup that leads to unity through his blood…” (Ignatius of Antioch, Letter to the Philadelphians, Chapter 4). Just as in our previous example, there just isn’t anything here. Protestants have always happily used this same kind of language, and doing so is perfectly consistent with Protestant views of the supper. That said, it is worth again briefly noting the context. The words just before this passage read: “…Do not be misled, my brothers and sisters: if any follow a schismatic, they will not inherit the kingdom of God. If any hold to alien views, they disassociate themselves from the passion,” (Ignatius of Antioch, Letter to the Philadelphians, Chapter 3). Ignatius’s concern here is over the unity of the church. He is warning against schism. In this context, he goes on to use the example of the “Eucharist” (literally “thanksgiving”) to point out that, just as there is but “one flesh of our Lord Jesus Christ,” so too should a local church be one. There is “one cup that leads to unity through his blood.” The focus, again, is unity. Indeed, Ignatius doesn’t say that the cup contains Jesus’ blood, rather he says that when the brothers share together in one cup it “leads to unity in His blood.” The cup points us to that which unites us: the blood of Christ. Thus, if anything, this passage fits better with Protestant interpretations of the supper than with the Catholic one. At any rate, it certainly gives no positive evidence for transubstantiation.

[@DWS-lp3wc]

Part 2- The kingdom of Heaven is visiting you: Furthermore, though we observe the men through whom the Gospell records were written referring to Mary as the "mother" of Christ, this does not define that she is his literal biological mother, as was already proven. The reference we observe written by those men, is merely the perception of a sinful, imperfect member of mankind, perceiving the birth of Christ the best they knew how, with the incomplete understanding that they had. They simply were unable to comprehend any other way for Christ to have been conceived. The best proof that we have to reveal to us that Christ never recognized Mary the virgin of prophecy as his literal biological mother, is found when observing these historical records: Matthew 12:48-50 But He answered and said to the one who told Him, “Who is My mother and who are My brothers?” And He stretched out His hand toward His disciples and said, “Here are My mother and My brothers! For, whoever does the will of My Father in heaven is My brother and sister and mother.” John 2:4 Jesus said to her, “Woman, what does your concern have to do with Me? My hour has not yet come.” Take notice: The child of a woman whatever his age, referring to his mother as "woman", in probably all nations of the history of mankind, would be recognized as offensive. That is, if the child of that woman is actually her literal biological child. We never see JESUS Christ refer to Mary as his mother, yet we see him refer to her as "woman", which is a clear intended sign from our Creator, that Christ never recognized her as his legitimate biological mother, because she plainly was not! Also, what about when JESUS Christ has literal 9 inch nails driven through his two hands and two feet, and he looks down from that cross and says these words: John 19:26-27 Then JESUS saw Mary the virgin of prophecy, standing next to me, and Christ said to Mary the virgin of prophecy; “Woman, behold your son!” Then He said to the disciple, “Behold your mother!” So, from that hour I felt obligated to take her to my own home. Take notice: Christ is not telling Mary to look upon him as her son, Christ is telling Mary to recognize that young John, the youngest of the disciples will be as a son to her, and likewise she will be as a mother to young John. Which I perceive reveals Christ's care for them personally, but also represents the way genuine Christian's are meant to care for one another. This once more, occuring only moments before his own physical death, Christ is plainly revealing that there is no biological relation between him and Mary the virgin of prophecy. Mary was merely a vessel who obediently chose to accept being part of the will of our Creator, and because of that, she experienced and participated in one of the greatest miracles to ever occur! So, there is no problem respecting and appreciating Mary's choice to obey our Creator. However, anti-Christ spirits have utilized Catholicism to be a medium through which giving the honor, glory, and reverence which our Creator alone is worthy of, to Mary and other genuine believers who have passed on. So much so, that they blasphemously teach that (Mary and other genuine Christians aka: saints), are able to facilitate our prayer being heard and answered by our Creator. As well as referring to Mary as the ("queen of the Apostles/queen of Heaven"🤮). Which would be like saying that she is herself an Apostle, which is unproven conjecture and contrary to what we see Christ establishing as order in his church, along with being contrary to what is taught through (Saul/Paul), as revealed through: Referring to Mary as the ("queen of the Apostles/queen of Heaven"🤮), is preposterous, and insinuates that she is greater in authority than the 12 disciples that Christ chose. Outside of the dubiously manufactured doctrines of Catholicism, there is no support among the Holy Bible whatsoever for this belief. Much worse than that, Catholicism is literally appointing Mary the virgin of prophecy, as having a position of authority that rivals our Creator Himself; hence the title "queen of Heaven" those practicioners of a lie have given her. Yet, once again there is absolutely no proof whatsoever of this, no support among the books of the Holy Bible to prove this, JESUS Christ does not teach this in anyway! Our Creator Himself is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent. He never has and never will appoint anything created to have a position of authority that rivals His own authority, such thinking is utterly preposterous, and is near to blasphemy, given the fact thst Christ himself did not trust mankind while dwelling among us physically, because he knows the evil that we are capable of. This is revealed through: John 2:24-25 But Jesus did not commit Himself to them, because (He knew all men), and had no need that anyone should testify of man, for (He knew what was in man). Lastly, do not allow yourself to be persuaded that hate is prompting this message. How could this be hate when Love has sent me (1 John 4:8). Do not take my saying this offensively: Here is to your soul being legitimately (born again/born of the Holy Spirit of our Creator), as revealed through the historical record of John 3, Luke 12:50, John 4:10-14, Acts 2:38 . ✝️ Amen?

[@nightshade99]

TO BRIANH2477 (PART 11) YOU: Strange...or were in close proximity to the Apostles themselves.... ME: Right off the bat, you are wrong in stating that I am incorrect about something I've said. I wasn't nor have you proved it. I acknowledged that comment explicitly to the point where your position was obliterated. Pay attention; go back and reread. YOU: Then in your last response..., and I am also sure some of them didn't."... Did someone say, Contradicting yourself? ME: Not at all. In fact, I think I was generous in allowing that possibility although there is no historical proof that any fathers had been associated with Jesus nor the apostles. You statement banked on probable causes, but nothing in their writings claimed such relationships. AND, even if there were proven relationships, there is no facts in the doctrines that show any fathers were correct in their viewpoints because you have taken their writing out of context. You lose either way. YOU: Strange how you didn't haven't anything to say about renowned Protestant historian J. N. D. Kelly, in which he confirms (as I do) that all Early Church Fathers were unquestioningly realist. You might want to take the time to re-read all he had to say... ME: So, what you are expecting me to do is sit down at my computer and invest over an hour per response in order to cover every detail of your posting? Brian, you are a hypocrite. YOU don't even do that. You stand there with accusations, but you never commented on ALL of my church fathers' writings that refute transubstantiation. Why is that I wonder? How convenient of you. Here is 1 Corinthians 10:16 in context: Paul is building to his final command about eating food that has been offered as a sacrifice to idols. His teaching will be clear and authoritative, but he also wants the Corinthians to understand it and to agree with him. He begins with the practice of Christian communion. In the following chapter, he will describe the purpose of receiving together both the cup as Jesus' blood and the bread as Jesus' body. He will quote Jesus' words: "Do this in remembrance of me" (1 Corinthians 11:24). Here, though, Paul simply references the practice to make his point, describing it as the "cup of blessing that we bless" and the "bread we break." The reason the cup is a blessing is that it represents the blood Jesus shed to pay the price of our sin. As Hebrews 9:22 says, "Without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sins." The bread is broken and distributed to each person to represent the breaking of Jesus' body. Paul's point is that by consuming the bread and wine together, we all participate, symbolically, in the body and blood of Christ. They become part of who we are. He will go on to link this idea with the eating of food that has been offered to idols. Here is 1 Corinthians 11:30 in context: Paul's sobering words in the previous verse raised a serious question for believers. He said that to participate in communion without "discerning the body" will bring judgment on the one who eats the bread and drinks the cup. That reference seems to refer to those who treat the bread and wine as just like any other meal or snack: to be careless or shallow about it. Or, it might refer to those who fail to recognize how commemorating the death of Christ expresses unity with other believers. Or, it might refer to some combination of both. But what judgment comes from not discerning the body? Paul's answer only adds to the seriousness of this passage. He writes that many among the Corinthians were weak and ill for this very reason. Some had even died as a result of failing to participate in the Lord's Supper in a worthy manner. To be even more clear, it is God who has brought weakness, illness, and death to them as discipline for their failure to observe communion with proper respect for Christ's sacrifice and for each other. Many people struggle with the idea that God would bring illness or death to a Christian for continuing to participate in sinful practices. Or that He would do the same for those who sinfully mishandle good practices. It fits perfectly, however, with Paul's earlier warning to the Corinthians about the Israelites who died in the wilderness after escaping from Egypt. Paul clearly implied that God would do similar things to them if they participated in idol worship and other sins (1 Corinthians 10:1-13). What about God's love and grace and forgiveness of sin? In verse 32, Paul will clarify that this judgment from God does not include the loss of salvation. Suffering and even death in this life are not eternal judgments. Both may be the discipline of a loving Father for the good of the children whose sin He has forgiven. YOU: , none of those quotes disagree with the Catholic Churches teaching... In fact, I would agree with everything they said. ME: They ALL disagree with Catholic teachings, just so you know Of course you would agree, you have a heretical religion to uphold.

[@nightshade99]

TO BRIAN2477 (PART 10) YOU: Have you ever tried doing some research about who these men are? YOU: Yes. Arguably more than you, and for CERTAIN I know what their writings actually meant than you YOU: He is one of the earliest extra-biblical saints, ME: No one is a special saint. Those who follow Jesus Christ are called saint in scripture YOU: That means Ignatius was a contemporary of the apostles.. ME: You listed several fathers. I am sure some of them had met the apostles, and I am also sure some of them didn't. Again, you are using the lens of a false religion to make historic facts when there is nothing definitive to support it. YOU: If Ignatius heard the words directly from Apostles John mouth, then I'm fairly certain he would have the right interpretation. ME: That is a false assumption. 1) People get things wrong ALL THE TIME. That is why Paul wrote the epistles as a warning 2) The apostles nor Jesus taught transubstantiation. They taught the Lord's Supper. Huge difference! 3) I just gave you a case study that Ignatuis did not say ANYTHING about transubstantiation Therefore, your theory fails. YOU: Obviously, I take no offense to what you say because I know better. ME: Your reaction makes no difference to me. You are the one going to be standing in front of the Lord explaining why you chose fallible church fathers as a religion over inspired scripture. YOU: The rest of your ... the reformed church you attend) interprets the meaning of Ignatius and ultimately scripture... ME: No, the commentary is clear about what Ignatius meant in his letters. Those who are unable to refute these facts stumble into the defense of "Well, it's just your interpretation." That's just sloppy, Brian. Just sloppy. Perhaps I gave you too much credit a couple days back. YOU: Really what you mean,... MY INTERPRETATION, then they are automatically false (Sound a little closed minded?). Me: Don't put your putrid words into my mouth. The interpretation I gave is the true interpretation of his letters. If you were a true Christian, you would refute my argument with actual facts instead of being a lazy Catholic. YOU: Do you understand that... for 1500 years there was a consistent teaching on the Eucharist? ME: Prove it. So far, you have provided nothing but a laughable defense mechanism. YOU: You try to claim that...spiritually or symbolic present alone... That's a far, far reach... ME: You are a liar. Nothing I said claims he sided with anybody. I can see why you cling to the church fathers. You create strawmen, cannot think for yourself and appoint historical characters as the trustees of your soul. Try reading WHAT I WROTE. YOU: Why would we being doing harm to our body if the Eucharist is merely spiritual? And yet, Scripture says exactly that! ME: Show me the verse you are trying to interpret, and I'll do it for you IN CONTEXT. YOU: [Luther rant} ME: I can talk about another church father you love, but I will show you the error of these men. Catholics routinely say that the all the Church Fathers agreed with the Roman Catholic view of the Eucharist and transubstantiation. That’s not true. ** “But if it be unlawful even to speak of this, and if for men to partake of the flesh of men is a thing most hateful and abominable, and more detestable than any other unlawful and unnatural food or act,” (Athenagoras 133-190 AD, On the Resurrection of the Dead, 8). ** “For if sacraments had not some points of real resemblance to the things of which they are the sacraments, they would not be sacraments at all. In most cases, moreover, they do in virtue of this likeness bear the names of the realities which they resemble.” (Augustine, 354-430 AD, Letter 98:9). ** “‘Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man,’ says Christ, ‘and drink His blood, ye have no life in you.’ This seems to enjoin a crime or a vice; it is therefore a figure, enjoining that we should have a share in the sufferings of our Lord,” (Augustine, 354-430 AD, On Christian Doctrine, 3:16:24). ** “And He blessed the wine, saying, ‘Take, drink: this is my blood’ - the blood of the vine. He figuratively calls the Word ‘shed for many, for the remission of sins’ - the holy stream of gladness.’” (Clement of Alexandria, 150-215 AD, The Instructor, 2:2). ** “Elsewhere the Lord, in the Gospel according to John, brought this out by symbols, when He said: ‘Eat ye my flesh, and drink my blood,’ describing distinctly by metaphor the drinkable properties of faith and the promise, (Clement of Alexandria, 150-215 AD, The Instructor, 1:6). ** For just as he, who was priest of the Gentiles, is not represented as offering outward sacrifices, but as blessing Abraham only with wine and bread, in exactly the same way our Lord and Saviour Himself first, and then all His priests among all nations, perform the spiritual sacrifice according to the customs of the Church, and with wine and bread darkly express the mysteries of His Body and saving Blood.” (Eusebius, 263-339 AD, Demonstratio Evangelica, 5:3). ** “For again, He gave Himself the symbols of His divine dispensation to His disciples, when He bade them make the likeness of His own Body… to give them bread to use as the symbol of His Body,” (Eusebius, 263-339 AD, Demonstratio Evangelica, 8:1). ** “…nor the bread by which he represents his own proper body, thus requiring in his very sacraments the ‘beggarly elements’ of the Creator,” (Tertullian, 155-220 AD, Against Marcion, 1:14). As you can see, there were plenty of Early Church Fathers who did not hold to the idea of transubstantiation. Many of them taught that the Bread and Wine were symbolic. Of course, there were Church Fathers who held to a similar view of the Roman Catholic transubstantiation - though not articulated in the same way. So, when a Roman Catholic says that the Early Church Fathers unanimously held to the Catholic position, it is simply not true.

[@nightshade99]

TO BRIANH2477 (PART 7) YOU: And yet, more quotes from the Early Church Fathers on Papal primacy: ME: Dude, ha, ha, you are quoting ACTUAL popes! Why wouldn't these guys agree with themselves!? That is a self-fulling prophecy! Try using real church fathers who have no skin in the game and biases. YOU: It's very obvious and clear that Peter...of when you read these and the other aforementioned quotes... ME: No, it is obvious and clear that JESUS is the rock and foundation of the church, not Peter You have learned nothing of the Greek translations. If you did, you would understand what Jesus meant in His declaration of Peter's confession. This verse is often misunderstood because it is often misused. As with other verses, this is partly due to translation. The words written in Greek show a relationship not so obvious in English. Here, Jesus is responding to Peter's declaration that He is the Christ, the Son of the Living God. He declared Peter blessed for understanding this and insisted this understanding was given to Peter by God the Father (Matthew 16:13-17). Roman Catholics point to what Jesus says here as evidence that Jesus established Peter as the first holder of a special office in the church on earth. They believe Peter to have been the first Pope, that Jesus gave him a spiritual authority over the other disciples and all believers in this moment. According to that claim, the "rock" Jesus will build on is Peter, himself. However, there is an element of wordplay involved here. As written in Greek, Peter's name is Petros, meaning "a rock" or "a stone," and the word Jesus uses for the foundation is petra, which means "rock" in the sense of a substance or material. Jesus does not say "you are Petros, and on this Petros I will build…" nor does He say, "you are petra, and on this petra I will build." Rather, He says "you are Petros [a stone], and on this petra [rock] I will build my church." The rock on which God will establish His church is in the confession Peter has just made: that Jesus is "the Christ, the Son of the living God" (Matthew 16:16). Peter certainly becomes the leader of the disciples and first spokesman for Christ in the earliest days of the church. Under the power of the Holy Spirit, Peter preaches the initial sermon as the church is born and 3,000 people come to faith in Christ in a single day (Acts 2). Peter, though, is far from infallible and his faith falters on several occasions, both before Christ's death and resurrection (Matthew 16:23) and during the time of the apostles (Galatians 2:11-14). However, the church-the collection of all people who come to faith in Christ as Savior--exists only because of the central truth that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of the living God. That is the power that keeps the gates of hell from overcoming those who are in Christ, His people, the church. Peter plays a vital role for a time, but eventually disappears even from the story of the church's beginnings after Acts 16. Just as was promised, the foundation of God's new covenant is not centered around any fallible person or place, but in the hearts and minds of each individual person (Hebrews 8:6-13). Jesus, who knew the heart of Peter, was not saying that Peter, the movable and unstable stone, would be the immovable rock upon which the Church would be built. Rather, it would be built upon Jesus; and it was this truth that Peter had affirmed what he said to Jesus, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God,” (Matt. 16:16). This is consistent with scripture elsewhere where the term rock is sometimes used in reference to God but never of a man. Deut. 32:4, “The Rock! His work is perfect, for all His ways are just; a God of faithfulness and without injustice.” 2 Sam. 22:2-3, “The Lord is my rock and my fortress and my deliverer; 3 My God, my rock, in whom I take refuge.” Psalm 18:31, “And who is a rock, except our God.” Isaiah 44:8, “Is there any God besides Me, or is there any other Rock? I know of none.” Rom. 9:33, “Behold, I lay in Zion a stone of stumbling and a rock of offense, and he who believes in Him will not be disappointed.” The truth is that the only foundation is Jesus. The only rock of truth is Jesus Christ; and that we, as his redeemed, need to keep our eyes on him. We are to look to no one else as the foundation, the source, or the hope on which the church is built. The Church is built upon Jesus - not Peter. “For no man can lay a foundation other than the one which is laid, which is Jesus Christ,” (1 Cor. 3:11).

[@nightshade99]

TO BRIANH2477n (PART 4) YOU: The onus is not on me to... I don't adhere to Sola Scriptura (as I have stated why in my previous comment). ME: Yes, the onus is on you. If you draw from ANY other source than what is God-inspired, then you are at risk of adopting demonic doctrines, which I have proven here. YOU: If anything, the onus would be on you to show...has to be stated in Scripture to be true. Please cite Book, Chapter and verse. ME: False. YOU have made a claim of papal supremacy which is not in scripture, the official Word Of God. If I am to believe you, I need the reason why I should MOVE AWAY from God's word and believe in men, fallible men. To argue why a demonic doctrine is not forbidden in scripture, is for you to commit an Argument from Silence fallacy. EX: Should I paint puppies blue on Tuesday? I shouldn't? But it doesn't say not to in scripture, but an authority in the church says it's okay. Therefore, it is okay to paint puppies blue on Tuesday.

[@sanjeevgig8918]

This conversation PROVES Yahweh/Jesus was such a POOR COMMUNICATOR. 2024 YEARS and you Xtians are not even agreeing on simple facts. . LOLZ

[@gideondavid30]

If your going to extrapolate a ministerial priestwood from something do it from the Bible. Your preference for the priesthood should be because it is true not from the catechism. We are all called to be servants but to EXPECT priests to make extra sacrifices is unfair. If a person choses to live a life of poverty or chastity fine but to create a priestwood is unnecessary for this. What is beautiful is developing a personal relationship with Jesus Christ.

[@jacqueandmegan]

This wasn’t the purpose of this episode, but we can certainly do a more in depth episode on the Catholic view of the Priesthood and why we believe it is scriptural and true.

[@DashRiprock-m3b]

"Why Jacque is Catholic" Ooooo! Ooooo! Call me! Call me! I know! I know! 13 For it was Adam who was first created, and then Eve. 14 And it was not Adam who was deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression.

[@alexmccollum6573]

Not at all

[@DashRiprock-m3b]

@@alexmccollum6573 Who let you out of your cave?

[@jesusvdelgado5401]

That's catholic propaganda...

[@PaxChristi7]

What specifically is? Or could I call Megan’s episode Protestant propaganda? Lol

[@mikejames303]

Lol the truth is always propaganda to those who hate the truth.

[@soulosxpiotov7280]

It is faith + NOTHING to be justified, having a right standing, before God.

[@robertcopeland757]

Tax the church

[@arios1977]

I’m an atheist that used to be a Catholic. Then I started requiring evidence. No one can demonstrate their god exists, not even these 2. So if your god can give you 2 different messages, how can you know who’s right? Why can’t this god just come down and say who actually got it right?

[@alexmccollum6573]

He has, just ask yourself why only one church has lasted 2,000 years

[@johnyang1420]

Im a former atheist and now devout Catholic

[@johnyang1420]

Take RCIA and read book Why We Are Catholic by Trent Horn

[@mpkropf5062]

@@alexmccollum6573It’s not the Roman Catholic Church! They split and started their own false doctrine of Peter!Peter had no part in them.