“There are not one hundred people in the United States who hate The Catholic Church, but there are millions who hate what they wrongly perceive the Catholic Church to be.” blessed Fulton J. Sheen
They build their nonsensical house of cards w/ misrepresentations of the holy faith, kinda like the false doctrine they impose that is mysteriously missing from scripture while at the same time asserting sola scriptura 🤔
Some Protestants: "Peter was such a terrible guy, there's no way he could've been pope! Also, he was guided by the Holy Spirit to write sacred scripture."
Paul persecuted Christians before converting to Christianity and writing scripture. Just because someone wrote scripture does not make them good. In fact, the fact that Paul, Peter, and the other apostles were not good people emphasizes God's purpose for dying on the cross.
@DeletedUser1892 I think you missed the point I was making. All I was saying is that just because someone wasn't good doesn't mean they couldn't write scripture. Otherwise, we wouldn't have scripture. Remember Romans 3:23-24: "For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus." That means that Peter is a sinner, and by extension, he is not a good person.
I find it truly ironic how the Pope and Bishops are mocked by Todd as not being humble because of their outfits, when Todd exudes what comes across as very prideful from his attitude and demeanour in both this and many of his videos. And I’m not Catholic and can clearly see the difference in his approach and Trent’s. God bless you Trent. You are a challenging example, to us non-Catholics, of what a good Christian should be like when arguing and defending their position, whatever it may be, everything must be done in love. You do very well to stick to the arguments. We’ll done sir.
Completely agree. As another example, take a look at John MacArthur's remarks and mockery he makes about speaking in tongues and pentecostal Christians. He and others approach topics like that with no humility, no open mindedness, and little regard for the views of their fellow brothers and sisters in Christ.
Jason . Peter was not a pope in the Church at Rome There were no popes till the second century and historians say third Century , Peter died in the first Century 67AD it wasn`t called catholic till the 300s the Roman Emperor took control of the Church at Rome in 313 and brought in pagan practices and it became universal . and it still has pagan practices in it . A saved believer and bible believing Evangelist and pastors do not take it lightly when some cult or religion fabricate unbiblical lies . and the Catholic have been deceiving millions with there unbiblical lies with there traditions for years . The word of God says , rebuke them and that is what fundamental bible believing Theologians , Evangelist , Pastors and we saved believers who are the Church are told to do . Catholic say the their Church is Christ Church , which is a lie from hell . Christ prophesied that he would build his Church on him self . which he did at his death . His Church is made up of saved believers who have been baptized by the spirit into his body . 1 Cor. 12 : 12 - 13 ; He is the head of his Church Eph. 1 : 22- 23 ; His Church is Holy , with out spot or blemish , it is the one he died for . it is His Bride , Eph. 5 : 25 - 27 ; It is the Church of the living God , the Pillar and Ground if the truth . It has no name or vicar , it is a spiritual body of believers who worship God in spirit and in Truth, in local fundamental , bible believing Gospel preaching denominations and assemblies here on earth . and the word of God was written to his Church for guidance and instructions. We as the Church , or saints , or saved believers they are all the same . Can not set back and watch the people be told lies that will send the lost to hell . That is what Christ gave his life for to save sinners and not to pat them on the back . and say you do it your way . I am not only talking about fabricated lies about Peter and Mary but about there Doctrines , and dogmas and the Catechism . of which 80% + not back by scriptures . Peter did not hold back he was not passive with the people in Acts 2 : 36 - 37 ; he told them they were wrong . 2 Tim. 3 : 15 - 16 - 17 ; God gives the instruction on how to teach others . the rights and the wrongs .
@Donald Cooley Fr Mike is doing a Chatechism in a year podcast, I invite you to take a listen and follow along for the year and learn about the faith and Church history
The challenge is for Trent to actually use scriptures and church history to refute a point. I'm interested in Trent's Greek exegesis of scripture to settle this. Trent's mocking doesn't trump a peasant armed with the Truth of scriptures.
They’ll result to mockery of a person in scripture to argue. They not only do it with Peter but also Mary. At least with Peter he was a fool like all of us.
Because they're inspired by their own self interest and disregard for anything religious or traditional, no matter how shaky their logic is. To be non conformist and revolutionary has always been trendy in America, has it not? They see the reformation as this cool shift and ignore everything sketchy (I'm being very charitable here) about the father of reformation. Beyond strange.
@SheepOfChrist818 That's certainly a Protestant interpretation, but clearly not a reliable interpretation as it portrays Jesus as publicly dishonoring His mother, and thus breaking a Commandment. As Catholics, we understand that verse as Jesus simply emphasizing that we cannot put anyone before God, even our closest friends and family.
@@lellachu1682 yes and in the book of her life the Mystical City of God it explains further. That it was Mary's request in her humility and love for the honor of her son that praise be turned away from her. For she knew people would be drawn to her as the mother of such a great prophet and Messiah. And Jesus so thus respected it but gave her a subtle and greater praise in that she is blessed for having heard the word of God and kept it. But in such a manner that the crowd could not understand its meaning in regard to her.
I am not a Catholic, but honestly Trent's arguments were far superior to anything Todd had to say. Todd seems to try way too hard to be funny rather than actually presenting good points.
One point of Trent's that I do lean on in order to justify not following the Pope personally is no. 9 about scripture's silence on the nature of papal succession. Jesus explicitly described scripture as unbreakable and authoritative, and the apostles to which he gave authority declared the New Testament as this kind of divinely breathed scripture in their writings. Thus, the authority of scripture does not depend on an argument from silence. Meanwhile, in order to establish the universal authority of the papacy over the Church, one has to add to this scripture the mandate to adhere to a arbitrary interpretation of the early tradition of succession as described in the Clement of Rome quote. I am thankful that Trent rebutted a lot of Todd's flippant arguments, though.
@@natorousab then you are focusing on sola scriptura too much. Catholics and Orthodox both agree that the ancient traditions by the apostles give legitimacy to the church and are just as important as the scripture. Aside from that, the word "Pope" is not in the bible, sure. It's a word that came much later from Italian. But it isn't relevant what names or titles Peter had been given, the fact that he had so much focus put on him by Jesus and the historical evidence shows his significance as the leader of the early church
@Nathan Rackers When Jesus spoke of scripture, the only scripture around at the time was the Jewish scriptures. What we now call the Old Testament. None of what we call the New Testament existed not a single word had been written then. As for the apostles believing their writings where inspired such as the scriptures well the only reference I know of like that is where Peter says this about Paul's writings. That sort of solidifies that Peter was the head of the apostles and was already using his authority to point out which letters were scripture and which were not. Many of the apostles were writing letters. But we only hear from Peter about Paul's letters, and it's Paul's letters that made it into the New Testament. Every other reference is Paul referring to his own writings. Sort of like me saying this reply is correct because I say it is. Which is ludicrous to consider that as proof of anything.
I’ve been a Protestant my whole life, now looking into Catholicism, and I’ve never heard such unconvincing arguments against the papacy as I have heard here 😂
Yeah I was raised an atheist and taught all kinds of stuff about the pope and Catholics that I later found out was all nonsense. Tbh even looking into it as someone with no faith the anti-papacy arguments looked silly and petty to me, and now that God has called me they seem infinitely more so.
Does this bother you? Peter never claimed to be the chief shepherd-vicar-pope of the entire church. Never claimed to be the rock on which the church is built on. The apostles never claimed he was the chief shepherd-vicar of the church. Nor the rock of the church.
Saying Catholics added books to the bible to me amounts to admitting he has absolutely zero knowledge of basic bible history, church history and protestant history
Indeed the Luther Bible had all the aprochraphal books and Luther translated it into German for the benefit of the Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation. Also the King James Bible also contained the apocrypha. It wasn't formally removed from the KJV until 1885.
@@markfrideres284 Thanks for the additional information! I only take issue with the word apocryphal. Its not apocryphal. Its just Holy Scripture, as had been from the times of the Fathers until the modern age... The irony of ironies on the side of protestantism is accusing our Catholic faith of being so "unbiblical" while making a defaced and vandalized bible the deposit of faith...
@@markfrideres284 Im very thankful to you, I didnt know it was in the 19th century, I thought it was earlier, been looking it up, God bless you brother
@@YoshiaLubbeno buddy you dont understand tradition and scripture. We will read the bible through the lens of the universal church (meaning Catholic) and respect the Lord who gave us this church and you listen to your heart or pastor or your church at the end of the day if we are lead to Jesus (who is the head of the Catholic Church not the pope) that’s all that matters. We are all Christians we all acknowledge Jesus as Lord so enough with the division
Protestants be like: "Hey from now on I'm calling you wood, but actually you know what... I'm the wood and on this wood which is actually me... I'm building my church on it." They literally throw away the reason Abram name changes to Abraham which literally means Father They didn't know that naming someone makes the person who named it have the authority on the renamed person. Like Adam naming every animal because he has authority on it. Jesus named Simon as Peter because he is establishing his authority as building the church on it. Jesus is Rock but he calls Peter Rock too. Just as the Father calls Abram to Abraham which means Father.
@@colepriceguitar1153 if you use the sons of thunder for James the Greater and John neither received it individually, as every time they appear they are John and James not John and/or James Boanerges. Yet Simon now appears as "Simon surnamed Peter" or in Paul's letters "Cephas". Added every list of the Apostles in the gospels Peter is listed protas (head of a group/first) while Judas Iscariot is always listed last.
I saw a clip of him doing street evangelism to a Catholic woman and she says, "Mary was immaculately conceived" and Friel responds, "She didn't have a mom or dad?" I know that is a common mistake to make, but when you have been trying to convert Catholics for decades and you still don't know basic terms like that it implies you just don't care about or respect the beliefs enough to bother learning. His ministry is obviously geared primarily towards punchy entertainment so maybe that is good enough for him idk.
Cringe. I always find that when these evangelical fundamentalist Protestants (Ray Comfort, Tod Friel, Jeff Durbin etc.) are street preaching and upload an interaction with a nominal Catholic, they typically treat them as representative of the Catholic tradition as a whole. When I was a Protestant, I watched Ray Comfort all the time. He had this interaction with a "Catholic" Wiccan, and Comfort presented it as if this were the natural implications of Catholicism. It's so sad seeing people misrepresent the Church out of their own ignorance of what we teach officially.
Sorry but people like him are just dumb. They think they are being so funny and edgy but they are just stupid because they are playing with fire. They will all have to answer to God for attacking His Church, attacking His Sacraments, attacking His mother, etc. I have strong doubts that the whole "well they are just ignorant" excuse is going to work with God.
Many of their examples just show a total misunderstanding of Christian history, and of actual Catholic beliefs. Sadly, their congregations don't have understanding either. I used to be protestant and just believed what my pastors told me about Catholics. I'm glad I know better now.
True. When I was protestant it disturbed me just how much some would diminish characters in the Bible, to a serious degree, just because they're important to Catholics. I thought," I get that Mary isn't sinless or whatever but my elders are trying to paint her as worse than common women. Like, what is going on?" I knew a guy that took the passage of when Mary and Jesus family came to seek an audience with him, or so it seemed, and Jesus says," the apostles are my family," in a faith sense. This guy , and many others, just rode into the night using it to justify how terrible Mary was as a person . guy's, she did maybe one thing wrong. It's just shocking how far some will go! Luckily, they haven't discovered how important John the Baptist is so they haven't tried to bring him down.... Yet! 😂
@@mememe1468 I had the exact same feeling when I would hear prominent members of my Protestant church talk about Mary. I truly think many Protestants see her as no better than a surrogate, some random woman who was chosen by God to conceive Jesus. A bit awkward, theologically speaking, when the Bible says in reference to her that “the generations shall call me [Mary] blessed.” Like most Protestants I didn’t understand the Catholic view of Mary. But one thing I knew for sure was Protestants degraded her to a level that never made sense.
@@YoshiaLubbe We do read our Bibles. This is why we know you are wrong. The difference is that we understand the Bible in its ancient context and don't impose a modernist reading upon it.
Yeah, i remember hearing the Petros/Petra meaning difference argument while I was in high school, and even though I was more partial to Protestant arguments back then, just a little bit of research was able to reveal there wasn't much backing it as opposition to the papacy
Peter never claimed to be the chief shepherd-vicar-pope of the entire church. Never claimed to be the rock on which the church is built on. The apostles never claimed he was the chief shepherd-vicar of the church. Nor the rock of the church.
@@Justas399 they didn't have to, Jesus already declared it. But I'd contest that they did, watch the video instead of going straight for the comment sections
I knew Friel's arguments were going pear-shaped from the gitgo when he brought up the old "Petros/Petra" argument. Jesus wasn't maybe, possibly or even likely speaking Aramaic to Peter. HE WAS speaking Aramaic and Kephas IS literally "rock!"
When he said that Catholics "added books to the bible" I burst out laughing. Luther himself, when writing about these books, acknowledges that they have been in the Christian Canon for centuries.
In fact, Luther's first translation of the Bible kept the Apocryphal writings, but separated them from the old and new Testaments. The other Reformers removed them altogether.
Be careful you don’t accidentally absorb any of his theology. Calvinists are really obsessed with the idea that God “doesn’t share his glory” with anyone. But that’s exactly what he does through Christ in the new covenant. He allows us to become partakers in the divine nature, and we will ultimately be glorified in the new creation.
@@michaelbledsoe4355 Many would beg to differ. Matt Chandler, John Piper, D.A. Carson come to mind. And those people have had a huge influence in American evangelical Christianity in the past 20 years. Evangelicalism as an -ism takes many different forms, so some lean Arminian and others Calvinist. But I would assume any church that rejects infant baptism would want to be called evangelical. Now if you're talking about Presbyterian Calvinists? They would probably say they are Confessional before calling themselves Evangelical. Then there's CREC that actually has reformed and evangelical in its name.
@@DakkogiRauru23 I obviously disagree because grace is in no way related to sharing glory. How do you even think that is even close to the same thing? Grace is undeserved favor from God for the purpose of obtaining salvation. It is His goodness towards the underserving race of mankind. it is not sharing glory.
My favorite video Todd made was when he spent the entire time explaining how his beliefs aren't found in the early church history as though it proved him right. Edit: here's the link after a year because RU-vid commentes are terrible and don't notify me. ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-tsjkYMigMIE.htmlsi=S38UCgDc8jGYNYNc
@@YoshiaLubbe any point in particular that I am not understanding the truth of what Todd was saying? Would you be willing to discuss and provide reasoned, scriptural arguments? I am open to being proved wrong.
@@Quekksilber It is not how you say it it is what you say , you can speak lovie , lovie with humility and still not tell the spiritual truth of the scriptures , and most biblical illiterate catholic does not know the truth of the scriptures , and will agree with him . Fact catholic church is with it unbiblical dogmas and doctrines , and the Catechism , is next to being a false religion . with80% of it dogmas and teachings are unbiblical . and you jump on some for telling the truth about the church which is based on a false Gospel , believe in and worship a dead woman Mary with only her spirit living in heaven , and a deceptive belief that salvation is only found in the apostate catholic church , which you ignorantly call Christ Church , and there is no salvation out side of the church , read your bibles and if you are saved you will be indwelled with the spirit and the spirit will teach you all thing spiritually ,John14 :26 1Cor. 2 :10-14 . The scriptures tell us to preach the word 2Tim. 4 : 1- 4 ; if it is the right time or not a good time . REPROVE REBUKE , EXHORT WITH LONG SUFFERING AND DOCTRINES .
I always find the first objection pretty ridiculous. If you have taken any higher education classes on Koine Greek, you can pretty easily find out that there is virtually no difference between the masculine and the feminine forms of the word "petra" in this time period. Just as once in time the two verbs for "I love" (phileo and agapao) had distinct meanings in previous classical periods and then during NT period were practically synonymous, so it is with the apparent distinction between petros and petra. The most authoritative Greek Lexicon of NT and early Christian literature (BDAG) notes that Petros being used as a name is entirely post-Christian - meaning that Christ's changing of Simon's name to Peter was a unique moment in history. Further, any time someone's name is changed in Scripture, it is interpreted and given meaning by the promises which God attaches to the individual. So, it would not make sense for Jesus to arbitrarily change Peter's name in order to belittle him in comparison to the confession. As if Jesus was saying "behold, you are an insignificant little stone."
@YAJUN YUAN petros isn't used twice because it's not a common word anymore like petra, in the NT the word petros is only used for Peter. Karlo Broussard talks about this and this directly responds to Nemes point in the debate he had with Akin. Broussard also lists several other reasons why petros isn't used twice.
@@KyleWhittington Hey man! I am totally down to connect and collaborate sometime. If you want to shoot me an email, I'm sure we could set something up. It should be in the about section on my channel. Thanks!
Pray for Todd's conversion to the beautiful Church that Christ established. Thank you Trent for communicating the truth in such a respectful manner. Chris from Australia
The RC church is not 'The Church' and Peter was not the first pope, in fact he never even went to Rome, Paul did. Paul was the apostle to the Gentiles and Peter was the apostle to the Jews. Peter is a foundation stone as are all of the apostles and prophets. It is the Lord Jesus Christ, the Chief Corner Stone who is the Rock upon which He is building His Church ("for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ." 1 Corinthians 10:4b). The Church is not a man-made organization, it is a spiritual temple made up of lively stones which is everyone who belongs to Christ..>>>>"Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellowcitizens with the saints, and of the household of God; And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ Himself being the Chief Corner Stone; In whom all the building fitly framed together groweth unto an holy temple in the Lord: In whom ye also are builded together for an habitation of God through the Spirit. Ephesians 2:19-22 Ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ. Wherefore also it is contained in the scripture, Behold, I lay in Sion a Chief Corner Stone, elect, precious: and he that believeth on Him shall not be confounded. Unto you therefore which believe He is precious: but unto them which be disobedient, the Stone which the builders disallowed, the same is made the Head of the Corner, And a Stone of stumbling, and a Rock of offence, even to them which stumble at the word, being disobedient: whereunto also they were appointed. But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of Him who hath called you out of darkness into His marvellous light. 1 Peter 2:5-9 But Jesus called them unto Him, and said, Ye know that the princes of the Gentiles exercise dominion over them, and they that are great exercise authority upon them. But it shall not be so among you. Matthew 20:25-26a And as Peter was coming in, Cornelius met him, and fell down at his feet, and worshipped him. But Peter took him up, saying, Stand up; I myself also am a man. Acts 10:25-26 Can you imagine Paul rebuking Peter if he was the pope and had authority over him? "But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed." Galatians 2:11 The keys of of the Kingdom were given to Peter in Matthew 16, but keep reading and you will see in chapter 18 that the keys were given to all of the Apostles, not just Peter.
chrismelcaroful , I guess you will be praying to Mary . What a joke . First the catholic church was not established by Christ , that`s not scriptural . Christ prophesied that on this rock I will build my Church Matt 16 : 18 ; and at his death the dispensation of Grace started and the Church age come at Pentecost , Christ Church is is body of saved believers , That when they got saved they were Baptized by the spirit into the body of Christ 1 Cor. 12 :13 ; He is the Head of the Church Eph1 : 22-23 ; It is the Church he died for . It is Holy , without spot or blemish . Eph.5 : 25 - 27 ; It is his Bride , It is the Church of the living God , the Pillar and Ground of the Truth . There is no biblical proof that Christ established a Church on earth . All members of Christ`s Church worship God in spirit and in truth in local earthly denomination or Churches . The Church at Rome was established by converts from Pentecost who established the Church on the teachings of Christ in the first century . There were no popes till the second or third century . That leaved out Peter who was killed in 67 AD and the Roman Emperor took control of the church at Rome in 313 AD and started pagan practices . and it become Catholic . Christ had nothing to do with establishing the Church at Rome , it is not biblical
819 It will be within the Roman Empire that the great abomination will rise up against Me Saturday, June 15th, 2013 @ 16:48 My dearly beloved daughter, just as I walked alone during the slow and painful walk to the top of Mount Calvary, so too will walk My Remnant Army. When I walked this torturous hill, I was surrounded by hundreds of Roman soldiers who blocked those along the path who wanted to give Me comfort. While it would not have been necessary for such large amounts of soldiers to guard just one man, their presence was to demonstrate a number of things. They wanted to show My followers and anyone who attempted to spread the Truth of My Teachings, who was in charge. This act of aggression was to threaten and bully those who dared to show allegiance to Me. The Jews denied Me and then betrayed Me. The Romans crucified Me and it was in Rome that My beloved apostle Peter was instructed to form My Church on Earth, for I wished that My Church be formed amongst those who persecuted Me. As My Second Coming is to take place soon and as My Final Mission to come back in order to bring humanity the final salvation I promised is unveiled, history will be repeated. The Jews will still deny Me, until The Warning takes place. The enemies of God will rise against Me, everywhere. Those who love Me and those who say that they represent Me will betray Me. It will be within the Roman Empire that the great abomination will rise up against Me. Babylon, home of the Roman Empire and where the nations which have abandoned God in favour of false gods are located, will be the seat from which all lies will spew forth. The beast with the ten horns is Europe and in Rome an army will rise up against Me. They will be responsible, yet again, for the crucifixion before the Great Day. They will bring about the final insult, when they crucify and destroy My Mystical Body on Earth. My Body is My Church. Those who separate from My Body, by choosing to follow a new doctrine, will betray Me and yet they will have the nerve to stand up and say that they come from Me. On that day when the new One World religion is made known, which will be endorsed by sections within the Catholic Church, as foretold, the skies will darken and a great thunder will descend upon the Earth. It will be as it was the second I drew My last breath on the Cross, when the Anger of My Father was cast down upon the Hill of Calvary. When that happens and the sign that My One True Church has been taken away and a false pagan abomination has replaced it, you must know this. This is when the chastisements will rain down upon the human race, everywhere. Every sign will be given from Heaven to warn those who side with the false prophet and his soon-to-be cohort, the antichrist, that their days will be numbered. They will be shown what it will be like to experience the Anger of My Father. Many bishops and priests will realise the Truth at that stage and will fight against this wickedness. They will not abandon Me and will continue to lead My True Church on Earth. Sadly, many will not have the courage to do this and they will be like lambs being led to the slaughter, but they will be comforted to know that I will never abandon them. I will send them much help and My Remnant Army will rise and spread the Gospels, when they will have been pushed to one side, everywhere. They will preach in every corner of the world and they will be fearless. Their love for Me will conquer the work of the antichrist. Their obedience to Me and their response to My Crusade Prayers will save billions of souls. And then, My Plan will be completed. Your Jesus
Objection 3 is merely a combination of the most prevalent, surface-level anti-Catholic myths that take a single sentence to debunk. It is sad, because I am willing to bet (as my own experience as a former Protestant) that most of Todd's viewers are misled by Todd's misrepresentation of Catholic theology. Why is that? Because the vast majority of Protestants do not learn about Catholicism from Catholic sources.
Same here. I grew up Protestant and only learned about Catholicism through the Protestant perspective. I even was a substitute teacher and the kids were given a small packet of the Protestant reformation history and it was not from a Catholic perspective at all.
@@justenhug632 It is so annoying! I went to a private Christian school from 5th grade until 12th grade and I remember being taught that Catholicism was a cult and that they weren't saved because they believed they could earn their salvation.
I was kept from Catholic teachings by my Luthern school, but I never hated Catholics. I was just told they had things wrong. My brother's fall into athiesm and personal research have led him and me into Catholicsm, and we couldn't be happier. I've watched a lot of Todd Friel. I usually find him enjoyable and his college campus preaching actually helped maintain/strengthen my faith in a dark time (his story is also compelling, mother divorced 3 times and he didn't hear of Christianity til the 8th grade). But his Catholic misrepresentations obviously leave a bad taste in my mouth now. He has great faith but also great misgivings about our Christian heritage. Agh, what pains it gives to see our Christ's body so divided!!! Todd would make for an amazing Catholic with all the history and saints at his side. We should pray for him.
The fact he has the most common miss conceptions at #3, tells a lot too! It’s just sad to know there’s so many videos out there making claims of the Church that are no where close to what the Church actually teaches 🤦🏻♂️
Do it anyway. The more of us speak up the more he might consider a differ approach next time. Like maybe actually speaking with a Catholic Christian to find out what the Church actually teaches. God Bless
Point number 3 (and all of them really) just demonstrate he’s not serious about understanding Catholicism at all. I wish anti-Catholic rhetoric wasn’t always so boring. At least Truth Unites makes you think a little.
@@EmberBright2077 you're right. And Horn never engages in bad faith anti-protestant rhetoric. The Council of Trent literally happened to address the real complaints that Martin Luther presented that were appropriate. And Horn follows that. He says reformation was needed, but not a revolution.
@@mac3441 I wanted to apologise for my statement 9 months ago. In that time, I have come to believe in the Catholic faith, and am expecting to be confirmed next Easter Vigil.
Well I've personally never interpreted Jesus as calling St Peter satan, the way I've always understood this passage is satan put this thought in Peter's head to try and tempt Jesus into not being crucified and Jesus recognising the origin of the statement as not coming from Peter
Jesus only uses the phrase "Get behind me (or 'get away'), Satan" twice in the Gospels: once in response to Satan himself in the desert, and the other here, in response to Peter. Clearly, we are meant to understand that when he says it to Peter he is addressing Satan. But Peter is not Satan, so what gives? To my mind, this must mean that Peter is possessed by Satan at that moment, the supreme spirit of evil using him as a vehicle to tempt Jesus at this "opportune time" just as he had earlier in the desert. Remember that Peter was not yet redeemed and justified, so there was as yet no indwelling of the Holy Spirit to keep the demons away. That wasn't a problem with the lesser demons, who were terrified of Jesus and wouldn't go near him or his friends--those possessing the wild pigs had rushed to their destruction in the sea in order to get away from him--but Satan was more bold and had been awaiting this moment ever since the desert. This was a second Satanic temptation of Jesus, more ferocious and cunning than the first (three), and all the more so for coming through his most devoted friend.
This is so great. It's hard not to feel some anger at how sarcastic and disrespectful Todd Friel is. It's one thing to not agree with someone's doctrine, but there is no need for him to be so disrespectful. Thank you for your intelligent and respectful rebuttal.
Rarely do I find a Protestant of any denomination who doesn’t rebut Catholicism (or other Protestant denominations) without a smug or self-righteous attitude
@@TheVCRTimeMachinefunny, I’ve heard a lot of the same from Catholics and orthodox people calling us names and telling us we cannot be truly saved outside the church. Also calling names and insults. It’s almost like there’s rude people in every camp 🤷🏻♂️
@@lakerfan0243 The different is that protestant use scriptures to back their comments . Let the word prove they are fabricating deceptive unbiblical lies and dogmas and doctrines about the CC and about Peter , and Mary and salvation which all saved believers know it is By Faith . The CC has nothing to do with salvation of sinners .
@@lakerfan0243 You were first doing the name calling ,we answer your questions over and over again you all hate Catholics so much , you just don't care for any answer we give you ,Yes .
@@donaldcooley897 yea , they don't know what there reading , they need to read the whole scripture not one sentence and not add a words like faith alone .
#18 is an odd criticism given that he previously argued that Peter isn’t the pope because the pope is supposed to be humble. This is one of those paradoxes where if Peter claimed to be chief apostle he would be attacked for not being humble. But since Peter was humble and didn’t lord his title over others, well that also proves Peter was not Pope. He wants to have his cake and eat it too. Great Job Trent explaining why both criticisms don’t work.
Mainly because the title 'pope' is NO WHERE in the scriptures!! bAnd at the time Peter lived...there WAS NO Catholic Church! See how simple history is???
@@cliffordpearsonjr.9748 and the word Trinity is no where in Scripture and Unitarians will say it was invented hundreds of years later. So what? You are using fallacious logic which creates all sorts of problems. So no, it is not as easy as you think it is.
@@cliffordpearsonjr.9748 No it is very much the same thing. The word pope just means father. This is the title that has existed for Elders since the time of the apostles. Peter was the bishop of Rome just as he was also the bishop of Antioch at one point. Language changes over time.
Know you are wrong ,King James bible Also had 72 books , and the OT was never finish go to Dr. Brant Petri the 4 rabbi's in the first century 70 Ad , no council of Jamnia .The Church put what books they should put in .
@@Earthtime3978 quote---As if you would even have the Bible at all without the CC. unquote As if the CC wrote it all!!! THe OT was written OVER 1000 years before the first Catholic!!! The NT was wrtten over 300 years BEFORE Catholics collected the writings, translated it to latin, and bound it.
@@mitchellosmer1293What other church put the Bible together? And don’t tell me the Holy Spirit put it together without a church because Protestants can’t even agree on everything from salvation to baptism. God is not the author of confusion.
Oh my... Todd is not acting like someone who has the peace of the Lord... That is undermining all the points he might have had. I appreciate your calm response Trent!
Allow me, if you would have me, Todd can get quite animated, and here he was very frustrated with the baseless lies of the Catholic "Church", so, due to his personality, he behaved so passionately. I understand why he acts like that, as I myself am also quite drastic at times, but it must be controlled. As for Trent, I pray that the Lord save his soul, because he is lost, and falling for the lies of the Catholic "Church".
@@YoshiaLubbe😂😂 keep making excuses for the snake, sorry prot but ur slander changes nothing the catholic church remains the bride and body of christ. No matter how many facts u call lies
@@YoshiaLubbe So let me get this straight, and correct me if I'm wrong here… As soon as the apostles fell asleep in the Lord, the church took a nose dive into terrible apostasy and the church of Christ languished in hopeless apostasy for 1500 years until a random German miraculously resurrected the true Faith out of obscurity? So who is correct? Should I be a Calvinist, an Anglican, a Lutheran, a Baptist, a Pentecostal, a Seventh-day Adventist, a Methodist? So many churches of Christ to choose from. And even if you had a point about the Catholic church, that still wouldn't disqualify the Orthodox Church which has no pope or supreme bishop but a council of bishops and elders that decide matters of doctrine through the ecumenical council established in the book of Acts.
@@sakogekchyan7366That's what I'm trying to discern. God has led me from Protestantism, thanks be unto Him for that. I just don't know whether to become Orthodox or Catholic, particularly Eastern Catholic. I'm worried as heck about choosing wrong and subsequently messing up my relationship with God and being damned.
@@vichoelcatolico it's a good thing, solidifies Trent's points by pulling sources that are on the Protestant side of the aisle. Takes a lot more mental gymnastics for Todd to disregard sources that agree with him on a lot of other things.
And you don‘t think it is possible that Simon is renamed to Cephas to symbolize WHY Jesus gave him this name? Maybe that had something to do with a truth that Peter could not know by himself (i.e. It had to be given by him through revelation) about the fact WHO Jesus was-the very cornerstone upon which EVERYTHING is build (Eph 2:20)? Reading something into a text is very easy but if you would be honest no Apostle himself confirms the Roman-Catholic Eisegesis. In fact Paul the Apostle and even Peter the Apostle himself refutes it. Just read how Peter considered himself in his writings!
@semper reformanda The modern evangelical (I dont think this is even a mainline protestant view) view of Peter the silly screw up really flies in the face of the focus of the NT on Peter. Peter is a *major character* in the story, from his calling, his following, his denial and restoration to his being declared the premier of the Kingdom that Jesus came to establish and his ongoing leadership of the apostles. No other Apostle gets a narrative arc anywhere close to that. Peter gets the narrative as a major character in *every gospel* so it seems like that was pretty important. Isn't it possible that Peter is an example of how God can turn even a humble, flawed, illiterate fisher into a mighty force to defend and strengthen the kingdom of God on earth, and that's why he was named Rock? That Peter is actually the rock that Jesus implicitly tells him to be when Jesus says he prayed for Peter to hold fast when Satan comes for the others and tests them? When Jesus commands Peter to be the servant and provider for all the faithful after his ascension? That seems more plausible to me than the "Peter as Jarjar Binks" interpretation some protestants have going. The problem protestants seem to have is that having respect for those Jesus entrusted with teaching authority seems icky to them and they mistake it for worship or idolatry - this is baked into the "protest' they have going on. The guy in this video does that over and over - but Jesus established a kingdom with offices handed down by the apostles and a primary office, which he gave to Peter. He did not establish a self-authorizing bible study class. Attempting to substitute ones own authority for the authority explicitly set up by Jesus is an error that protestants tend to and are predisposed to fall into.
@@misterkittyandfriends1441 Jesus and his words are the authority EVERYTHING has to submit…we are to submit to Christ, not to an institution that refuses to submit to Christ and his words. Christ‘s church is universal - that means there are some true Christians even in false churches as there are false Christians in true churches. Just read the New Testament and the book of revelation and you will clearly see that there is only Christ and local churches. There is no Roman-Catholic Church that has godlike authority. Explain to me the missing of EVERY roman-catholic dogma within the first 3 centuries! Explain to me why these dogmas were developed first in the 4th/5th century!
As an Eastern catholic who use east Syriac traditions and liturgy. We call Peter, Ceppa and Simon was his original name. Funny that Protestants like you cannot even comprehent what others saying.
@@semper_reformanda What perplexes me is what protestant New Testament scholars say about Matthew 16:18 on the one hand and protestant anti catholics apologists say . I prefer to follow A.T Robertson who wrote a whole book on greek grammar when he said that Peter is the rock in Mathew 16:18 instead of protestants who insist on the lie that petros means little rock. What is not taught in the Bible anywhere is this: that the authority in the Church is every christian with his private interpretation of the Bible, a Church formed by dozens of churches that contradict each other using the same Bible. There are different versions of Sola Fide and Sola Scriptura not to mention the Doctrine of Salvation among other.
Just to add to number 23. If calling Peter Satan and rebuking him proves he is not the pope, then it also proves he is not an apostle or that he shouldn’t ever be trusted. Clearly though, that is not the case. Peter was just thinking wrongly in this instance and was corrected. Just as this doesn’t disqualify his apostleship, neither does it disprove his papacy.
There are counterarguments made by Protestant Apologists to everything Trent just said here in his replies. I'm not sure how is Trent right and Todd wrong, a rebuttal video doesn't really prove anything, because the other person isn't given a say to defend their arguments. In fact, many things Trent said have very easy and common counters. For example, it's a fact that the early Church Fathers did not unanimously see the "rock" as Peter. Some would consider the rock to be Peter's confession. Others would see the rock as Jesus. Some would say Peter is the rock, but in a general sense, and that everybody is to called to be a rock, like Peter. Even those who would say that the rock is specifically Peter, would not give any specifics as to how does that contribute to the establishment of Papal office as it is seen much later on. Todd isn't wrong for pointing out that it's not what Jesus meant, in fact, his position is consistent with historical findings, and Trent's isn't. Appealing to authority and quoting a few people who theorize how petros and petra can be the same thing does not change that fact, it's a weak counter argument to Todd's very objectively difficult stumbling block for Catholics. The fact that the Pope is recognized in history so late and how you can't find any early Church Fathers who interpret those Peter passages like Catholics want to interpret them today is very persuasive. I've seen dozens of Papal debates and not once I've heard a Catholic building a good case against this argument.
@@mitromney Sad to say, many Catholics, including myself, are not great defenders of the faith. I'm attempting to improve, but the issue is that there are so many more facets to Catholicism as compared to other religions/denominations (e.g. seven sacraments as opposed to two) which we must know how to defend in depth. I feel that it's sometimes easy for a Protestant to find an "error" in Catholicism and attack that point as a basis for why the faith is false. In this case, it's the papacy. I would like to suggest two books to you: for a defense of the papacy, Pope Peter by Joe Heschmeyer is fabulous. It might change your mind or at least help you second guess some Protestant theories. For an understanding of the church fathers and the early Church, I would suggest The Early Church was the Catholic Church by Joe Heschmeyer as well as The Four Witnesses by Rod Bennett. Obviously, you don't have to read these, but I think it may be good to understand the different arguments.
@@mitromney i think what makes Trent’s argument compelling is that he can find Protestant who actually argue the catholic way for the verses in question. On your example, it’s a good argument initially, until you find that early Church Fathers leaned on Rome, had this high esteem of Rome, by the time you have ecumenical councils it was common knowledge, nobody was denying it. We’re talking within the first 7 councils. When it comes to Church Fathers you have Ireneus of Lyons, who is from the East. Not because it was the city of Rome but they clearly believed this because it was established by Divine Institution.
Thanks love this channel I really want to convert to Catholicism and channels like this make me understand Catholicism is true keep up the good work God bless you ☺️
Peter was an Apostle. One of Jesus’ inner circle. He was blessed, but the idea that the Catholic Church stemmed from him is just a way to excuse the pagan practices you Caths love to engage in.
Acts 10:25-26 25 And as Peter was coming in, Cornelius met him, and fell down at his feet, and worshipped him. 26 But Peter took him up, saying, Stand up; I myself also am a man.
I've always thought that Peter's many mistakes is what makes his role as the leader of the church so meaningful. God can use a flawed man to lead the church and he can end his earthly life as a great saint and martyr. It shows that we can serve God even though we will make mistakes and that our leaders won't always act how we expect. I've never understood the Peter bashing.
Exactly. Moses was fearful with a weak tongue and yet God chose him to free the Israelites from slavery! I like Peter for this. He stumbles and waivers, but I love him anyway. It is the pattern of God that He uses the lowly to do the great. Jesus' birth in a stable, riding on a donkey, and also *being crucified* is huge proof of this.
God precisely chooses very ordinary non talented people to do His work so that people will know that it is God who actually does the work and not the humans to whom he funnels the work. And yes, humility is very important to God. He selects only the humble.
Does this guy think that God would have allowed His Church to be led by an illegitimate succession of popes for 1500 years before Martin Luther corrected the situation and started the Church that God intended? Jesus is God and would have known that such a misunderstanding would take place; and he would have said, "By the way, Peter, to be clear: you are not the leader of the Church when I die. I will still lead the Church and it shouldn't have any kind of hierarchy or further teaching outside of what's written about my life, as well as some writings by disciples you don't know yet." Further, why would God allow this to happen right at the beginning of the Church? I could understand if Protestants were claiming that someone several hundred years down the line suddenly claimed themselves to be pope and faked the papal succession somehow; then you could have a legitimate Church up to a certain point and then a schism. But that's not what's happening here.
"The brick that the builders rejected has become the corner-store of the building" It's semantics /word plays by Protestants to downplay the head of the church Rock, pebble used as foundation,reading literally in many different semantics. Bottom line : Why is St Peter the Apostle called the rock? Foundation stone Furthermore, according to the Ignatius Catholic Study Bible, “evidence suggests that Jesus' words to Peter were originally spoken in Aramaic. In this language, the word kepha is the equivalent of Peter and denotes a 'sizeable rock' - one suitable as a building foundation
Protestant Here. I like your podcast Trent. Some of these objections are just bad. Some are good. Some of your rebuttals are pretty good too. Thanks for posting.
The biggest problem with Todd and so many is that they don’t understand what the Pope and Magisterium actually do and how they serve us as Christians. It is truly beautiful, but hard to see when you just flippantly cast it aside.
quote---The biggest problem with Todd and so many is that they don’t understand what the Pope and Magisterium actually do and how they serve us as Christians. unquote Catholics?? Catholics??? LOL--ROFL OBVIOUSLY you have NO of what a Christian is!!! CHRISTIAN The Greek word Χριστιανός (Christianos), meaning "follower of Christ", comes from Χριστός (Christos), meaning "anointed one", FOLLOWER of the TEACHINGS of Christ!!! So, tell me, when did Jesus teach that Sunday is a Holy Day of worship??? Quote the verse that says Jesus taught anyone to pray to Mary. Quote the verse that says Jesus taught anyone to pray to/with beads? Quote the verse that says Jesus taught anyone that Mary wlil go/is in heaven. Quote the verse that says Jesus taught anyone that Mary is out intercessor. Quote the verse that says Jesus taught anyone that Peter was a pope. Quote the verse that says Jesus taught anyone that we are to pray to/make idols. Quote the verse that says Jesus taught anyone that a mere man will be the Head of His church. etc, etc
Protestants, Evangelicals, Reformed, Non-Catholics Christians, especially those in leadership are quite familiar with all things Catholic~ history, dogma, catechism, canon law, magisterium, sacraments, practices, etc. Out of the 52% of X-Catholics in USA many Pastors became their Shepherds so in some cases, education became necessary. Some Christians know more about Catholicism than some Catholics.
@@ShirleyAnnPetrillo-oj7sc Has not been my expert at all. Most don’t have any need to know about about the Church until they realize theirs doesn’t make sense.
I appreciate this Protestant man who has laid everything out for Trent to so effectively fully explain the truth but he does turn my stomach a bit with his exaggerated way of speaking negatively. Thank God 💖 for you Trent! I'm tryN2 learn to be a good apologist but I have been learning 2B a good Catholic all my life! It's a battlefield out there! We need2 help each other 💖
Peter displays authority and is shown to be honored: “THE GREATEST IN THE KINGDOM IS SUPPOSED TO BE HUMBLE.” Peter shows humility: “PETER IS OBVIOUSLY TELLING YOU THAT HE DOESNT HAVE ANY AUTHORITY.”
"Then Jesus called a little child to Him, set him in the midst of them, and said, “Assuredly, I say to you, unless you are converted and become as little children, you will by no means enter the kingdom of heaven. Therefore whoever humbles himself as this little child is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven." (Matthew 18:2-4) The ONLY way you'll enter the kingdom my friend. Childlike, simple faith. You can educate yourself ten ways to Sunday, but apart from Christ's grace, His shed blood on the cross alone for your forgiveness, it won't end well eternally (no matter what sophisticated arguments you come up with).
@Harley Mann This is what's coming Harley, and unless you've placed your faith in Christ alone, His shed blood alone, for your forgiveness, you will be left behind this day. And if you are, remember why and don't believe the lies you'll hear where we all went, as even then you'll still have a chance to be saved. When we read Luke 17:20-37 and 21, Matthew 24, 2 Peter 3, 1 Timothy 4:1-5, Romans 1:18-32, Jude, and Revelation 13, we can see very plainly that were told all these things would take place long ago. And what they are leading up to is Jesus coming for His born again Church. You don't want to be here for what happens after that. With each passing day, it's just a matter of time now until Jesus comes back, and with that, billions of people will suddenly be left in shock and horror. Billions upon billions of people will be suddenly "left behind". It won't be aliens or any other nonsense the government and media come up with, it'll be that Jesus came back (1 Thessalonians 4:16-17). Whether it's days, weeks, or months, it sure seems likely that this generation will be THE generation Jesus spoke of in Matthew 24:34. "For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord." (Romans 6:23) What can you do? Believe and put your faith in Jesus, in His shed blood on the cross for the forgiveness of your sins, and you'll go up to meet Him that fateful day. Grace through faith alone (Ephesians 2:8-9), in the one who left heaven, became man, died for your sins, was buried, and rose again (1 Corinthians 15:1-4). Receive Jesus' atonement, His "already made" payment for your sin debt, and let today be the day of your salvation (Romans 3:10/23, Romans 5:8, John 3:16/17, John 6:29/40, Romans 10:9-10, and Acts 2:21).
@@tombraider862 Works won't save a soul my friend, and in fact, could damn someone forever apart from His grace. The only work we are called to is to believe in the end (John 6:29). More on that: This was the first message I did on Resurrection Sunday after I was saved in late 2017. I tweaked it a bit, but left the lion's share unchanged: "Question: Where would we be "without" Jesus' resurrection? Would there "be" Christianity? Answer: Well, quite simply, there “wouldn’t” be! Without Jesus, His sacrifice and His rising from the tomb, there'd be no reason to believe in Him as our Lord and Savior, and thus, we wouldn't have "Christianity". But fortunately, God had a plan all along. The basis for Christianity can be summarized as the following: 1) God created man and woman to be with Him. 2) Man and woman rebelled against God and “sin” entered the world. 3) God created the Old Covenant which was basically a set of laws to deal with His people's sin (dos, don'ts and animal sacrifices). But, because it was impossible for men and women to follow these laws perfectly, they kept on failing. 4) God then established a New Covenant by sending His son, Jesus, to deal with sin once and for all, providing a pathway to salvation for ALL (Jew and gentile alike). The only way to accomplish this task was for Jesus to die for our sins (the crucifixion), and then to RISE again from the dead, conquering death (the resurrection). Through Jesus’ act of love, both you and I now have a path to salvation, and to have the life God “originally” intended for us all along (not only now, but eternally). For you see, “without” Jesus' atonement (His life for yours), we’d been destined to fail, no matter HOW HARD we tried. So let me ask you, what are you going to do with this opportunity Jesus has provided? Are you going to say "thank you Lord" and BELIEVE, or, are you going to deny Him, and “keep” living your life only for yourself? There is only one way to the Father and heaven, Matthew 7:13-14, “Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it.” What’s that small gate? John 3:16, “For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.”, John 14:6, “Jesus answered, ‘I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me’.” and Acts 4:12, “Salvation is found in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given to mankind by which we must be saved.” I think the above verses make it exceedingly clear, if we want to spend eternity with our Heavenly Father, we need to receive Jesus into our lives. Matthew 10: 32-33, “Whoever acknowledges me before others, I will also acknowledge before my Father in heaven. But whoever disowns me before others, I will disown before my Father in heaven.” I don’t know about you, but the thought of standing before God, and have Jesus say, “I don’t know this person” makes me weep for whomever may find themselves there one day. My friend, please don't let that be you if you're reading this. But it doesn't stop there, and here's the "good news"! God does NOT want you to perish! He is giving you an opportunity for you to repent and come to Him. 2 Peter 3:9, “The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness. Instead he is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance.” So, time to stop living a selfish life, or trying to achieve heaven on your own through doing good works and being a “good” person, as that just won’t be enough in the end. Ephesians 2:8-9, “For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith-and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God- not by works, so that no one can boast.” If you haven’t yet, let today be THE day you receive Jesus into your life (His perfect life for your sinful one). On this day when Jesus conquered the grave, acknowledge His sacrifice and let Him into your life. Romans 10: 9-10, “If you declare with your mouth, ‘Jesus is Lord,’ and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you profess your faith and are saved.” “Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, the new creation has come: The old has gone, the new is here!”, (2 Corinthians 5:17). Thank you Lord Jesus for your gift of salvation. A gift that was only made possible through your sacrifice, and a gift that is FREELY given if one only BELIEVES." My addition today: 👇✝️👇 Believe in and receive Jesus' atonement (His shed blood on the cross), His "already made" payment for your sin debt, and let today be the day of your salvation (Romans 3:10/23, Romans 5:8, John 3:16/17, 1 Corinthians 15:1-4, John 6:29/40, Romans 10:9-10, Acts 2:21, Ephesians 2:8/9 and 2 Corinthians 5:17).
Nothing like a good gish gallop You can always tell a respectable protestant apologist, like Gavin Ortlund, from a clown because their list of objections is usually reduced to 2-3 points, not some absurd number like 25 lol
@@takmaps Definitely, and He’s absolutely entertaining. When I was a Protestant I used to love his show and now that I’m Catholic I see how ridiculous his views are. He’d be an incredible salesman or administrator. Just not a theologian.
The Petros/Petra objection seems really weird to me if you think about what it means in the context of the gospels as a whole and the early Church. Jesus is effectively the cool kid that gave Peter an embarrassing nickname that sticks through his whole life. Seems uncharacteristically juvenile for Christ, and while on brand for the apostles pre-Pentecost, after they're filled with the Holy Spirit, it's very strange to me that they'd still go around calling Peter by the name Jesus called him that one time just to make a point. Even Paul who wasn't there for the inside joke and only met the other apostles after Jesus died and resurrected goes around calling him Cephas.
It is weird it makes Jesus into a bully. This passage from the gospel is so damaging to Protestant claims that they have to go so far to say Jesus was a bully of his friends even when they are correct.
In all honesty with how bad the arguments Wretched gave it was fairly easy to debunk them just in the comments alone. But I'm glad someone actually made a video doing it
Catholics keep thinking that Protestants are their enemies. Not true. The real ENEMY = The Deceiver, (Satan, Serpent, Dragon) who wants to be “god”. Lucifer wants to be equal to Holy Father GOD in heaven. You can read his five “I WILL” statements in book of Isaiah. If you ever wondered WHY the use of “holy father” and/or “vicar of christ” instead of bishop of Rome is so very disturbing to Christians, it’s because Lucifer. Cautionary Tale ! Anything Exclusive To GOD must stay exclusive to Holy God~ Tile, Position, Attribute * Title “Holy Father” is only for THE Holy Father GOD in heaven, not any human sinner on earth. “Vicar of Christ” means in the place of Christ. Every single human is much too INFERIOR to have that title or to think it’s an actual position. Lord & Savior is not repeatable or replaceable !! *Position -King of Vatican aka Religious Ruler with a throne, ring, riches, power. Holy Father GOD and The Risen Christ is The King of kings have legitimate Thrones. *Attributes- Holy and Infallible. No human is infallible at all, not ever. That word/concept was made RC dogma in 1870.
Excellent video. Great detail point on point. I like the passion of other channels, like Catholic Answers, but the back up here is head & shoulders above.
@Move_I_Got_This Your reply indicates you are most likely not Catholic. Since our Lord God can do anything, you should know that she was born spotless, immaculately conceived, and as so, was created to conceive our spotless Lord Jesus. See the Solemnity of the Immaculate Conception. From the moment of Mary's conception, through Saint Anne and Saint Joachim, she was, by a singular grace from God, born without original sin (compare and contrast personal sin). It is a dogma of the church. See Hail Mary, Conceived Without Sin, by Tim Staples, 2022, online for all the Biblical passages, as there are many. There are too many to refer to in this response.
While I have reasons to disbelieve Catholic accounts, I have to say I love your tone and DETEST his. Thank you for going at this thoughtfully and not matching theatrics with theatrics.
@@Wgaither1 perhaps should actually investigate his arguments then. Perhaps I should use straw man arguments for his Protestant faith. He knows nothing of the subject considering his 25 rebuttals were pure garbage from beginning to end
I've explained this to a 15 year old with no knowledge of Bible using trents arguments against the protestant view and he said clearly Jesus was leaving someone to tend his church he said its so abvious..
@@Wgaither1 Anyone making the petros=must mean small pebble argument can be instantly dismissed. The noun endings are changed to agree with the persons gender.
@@ronaldeglewski3073 Agree.He's a liar, Egocentric/Conceited and a false Pastor.He goes out into the street. victimized innocent and uninformed people and then, share his twisted biblcial version of Jesus gospel.
The fact that he called Jan Huss “one if the early martyrs” at 8:25 is really strange to me. He doesn’t clarify that he was an early martyr during the reformation. Does he not think that Stephen, Peter, and Paul who were killed well over 1,000 years earlier are martyrs of the Christian faith?
A lot of Protestants have a 1500 year gap in their knowledge of history. They think Christianity ended after Paul and resumed with Luther after 1500 years of nonexistence.
I'm a revert from protestantism. Left when I was a toddler ! One of the big questions that led to me rejecting protestantism was," why did Jesus change Peter's name?" A question with serious theological, even ecclesiastical potential, that kept me up for a few nights. Every protestant apologetic is just negative apologies. Like," Catholics are just wrong and heres why!" They've spent so long trying to refute Catholics they don't stop to build up their own theology in meaningful ways. I can't tell you how many evangelicals I ask the question," why did Jesus change Simons name?" And I just get," the papacy is false!" Answers.
When he claimed Our Lady was a "sinful" woman...I just want to ask where exactly in scripture the "Sola Scriptura" crowd thinks say she sinned. Now that's the tradition of men!
All humans under the federal headship of Adam inherit the curse. Because man was created for God and Man has headship over humanity and creation, all under Adam came under a curse. The curse is passed through male lineage. So if you are born of a man that is under Adam by a woman you bear a tainted and cursed flesh, with an evil nature. Mary was born of a man by a woman, therefore yes she has sinned and yes she was not perfect, because as Paul says in Romans 3:12, “there’s is no one who does good, no, not even one”. In Luke Christ also says He is not Good, that there is only one good being, God. but Christ by the Father is given goodness, and through Christ does God’s goodness show. For Christ fully submitted to The Father, and lived solely for His Will, and by it. Jesus is not under the headship of man, but of God. So inherited the flesh being fully man, but did not inherit the evil nature of it, because He was not if man, but of God. So yes, Mary was not perfect. She most certainly sinned at some point. Everyone needs God. Everyone is sinful in nature, you are an evil being living in an evil flesh. As long as you are born of the flesh under Adam, you are not naturally fit to serve God, although you can, it’s like filthy rags. In the Old Testament, obedience to God’s commands was credited as righteousness, but they weren’t inherently righteous. You cannot please God without faith. Christ justifies, and our deeds by the Spirit count for something but not for salvation. The deeds follow us, they do not preceded us. They count for nothing, only in Christ are they then counted for something. The scripture tells you thing directly in various ways. Christ may not have said “I am God, worship me”, but He mostly certainly did say He is God, and that He is worthy of worship. I believe that unique profoundness of scripture is how it is to act as a stumbling block to fools. They seek to understand scripture without believing so they can discredit God. It’s a fool’s errand. You need the Spirit to understand scripture, to have the Spirit you must believe in Christ. All have fallen short, not all less one.
@@theonlytaco9511 The prophecy in Isaiah 66:7-8 tells of a woman who gives birth to a son without pain, indicating she is free from the curse of the Fall. "Before she goes into labor, she gives birth; before the pains come upon her she delivers a son. Who has ever heard of such things? Who has ever seen things like this?" Eve was created without original sin, so it makes sense that Mary, by the merits of our Savior, was also born without original sin in order to have perfect free will and serve as a pure and holy vessel for our Savior. All have fallen short, except the one, blessed among women, who was redeemed by her Son and Savior at her Immaculate Conception.
I shall summarise this video: Mr Friel: This Rock is Christ. Mr Horn: No, it is clearly Peter. Mr Friel: This Rock is God again. Mr Horn: No, that is Abraham. Mr Friel: This Rock is Christ again. Mr Horn: Sir, that is a Rock.
Friel is really leaning into the protestant double standard of it must be explicitly in the Bible for Catholics vs it must merely not contradict the Bible for protestants. It doesn't matter if priests and Peter are not referred to as vicars in the Bible. "Sola scriptura" and "trinity" are not found in the Bible. Curiously Todd has no problem with this
I’m sorry but Todd Friel always comes across to me like a good, old-fashioned snake oil salesman (i.e. con man). It baffles me that anyone would take him seriously.
As a Protestant, I believe that Peter was first among EQUALS. Peter ALWAYS taught through his letters that Jesus was the Rock. It is hard to ignore the place that Peter held among the disciples when reading the NT. BUT, there is a HUGE jump that has no historical evidence that because of that Peter is now the first Pope in the Roman Church. Peter did not start the church in Rome, but we know he most likely died there according to church tradition. We know that Peter was the head of the church in Jerusalem before James, the brother of Jesus took over (Acts). We also know that Peter was in Antioch and started (or lead) the church there. Antioch was the center of Christianity until Rome started to gain more power. Sooo, why not one of his successors there? We also have scripture that says Peter was the apostle to the Jews and that Paul was the apostle to the Gentiles. Again, Jerusalem and Antioch were the main centers for Jews, not Rome. Another fact, a Catholic Archbishop in the late 1800's went through the early church father's writings on what they thought about the verse in Matt. 16:18. The OVERWHELMING writings (80%) of them felt that "upon this rock" referred to Peter's confession or to Jesus himself. Strangely enough, the Catholic Church refused to publish this finding and cancelled him from speaking at Vatican I when they ruled that the Pope was infallible. The early church councils held that Rome was highest in honor because that was also the seat of the Roman Empire, but that all 5 of the seats of power were equal and were each in charge of their own geographical locations. There was no mention of Peter being the first Pope and therefore all churches were underneath them. Lastly, we know historically, that Peter died in the late 60's AD. He was NOT the last of the apostles alive. The Apostle John was still alive and leading a church. If you truly believed in "apostolic succession", than as the last apostle, John would have been head of the church and would have named the successor. In summary, Peter held a VERY special place among the disciples and in the early church. BUT, there is no historical proof to get us to the point that Peter was the first Pope and that Rome was the head of all Christianity. Apostolic succession used to only deal with the correct teachings being taught after that person had left. It wasn't about church power.
Good video, but that said, I think you should have taken a moment to elaborate on point 3 for people who may have less knowledge about the Catholic teachings on Mary, Indulgences, the Sacrifice of the Mass, etc... It may have proven to be a better point of evangelization to other Protestants who may have bumped into that video and found their way here as a result.
Todd: “The Pope isn’t infallible, now hear why and what’s true based on what “I” say” That’s why the Papacy was so easy for me to accept when converting. SOMEONE has to be the referee. It can’t be Todd… or Martin Luther, of Zwingli, Calvin, Wesley, etc… It makes the ONLY sense it would be someone amongst the 12. It makes sense while Christ corrects Peter… Christ is THERE AND ALIVE… Peter is the vicar and Prime Minister in Christs absence. Why would Peter have a place of Primacy with Christ still on Earth… pretty simple to understand.
The RC church is not 'The Church' and Peter was not the first pope, in fact he never even went to Rome, Paul did. Paul was the apostle to the Gentiles and Peter was the apostle to the Jews. Peter is a foundation stone as are all of the apostles and prophets. It is the Lord Jesus Christ, the Chief Corner Stone who is the Rock upon which He is building His Church ("for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ." 1 Corinthians 10:4b). The Church is not a man-made organization, it is a spiritual temple made up of lively stones which is everyone who belongs to Christ..>>>>"Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellowcitizens with the saints, and of the household of God; And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ Himself being the Chief Corner Stone; In whom all the building fitly framed together groweth unto an holy temple in the Lord: In whom ye also are builded together for an habitation of God through the Spirit. Ephesians 2:19-22 Ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ. Wherefore also it is contained in the scripture, Behold, I lay in Sion a Chief Corner Stone, elect, precious: and he that believeth on Him shall not be confounded. Unto you therefore which believe He is precious: but unto them which be disobedient, the Stone which the builders disallowed, the same is made the Head of the Corner, And a Stone of stumbling, and a Rock of offence, even to them which stumble at the word, being disobedient: whereunto also they were appointed. But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of Him who hath called you out of darkness into His marvellous light. 1 Peter 2:5-9 But Jesus called them unto Him, and said, Ye know that the princes of the Gentiles exercise dominion over them, and they that are great exercise authority upon them. But it shall not be so among you. Matthew 20:25-26a And as Peter was coming in, Cornelius met him, and fell down at his feet, and worshipped him. But Peter took him up, saying, Stand up; I myself also am a man. Acts 10:25-26 Can you imagine Paul rebuking Peter if he was the pope and had authority over him? "But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed." Galatians 2:11 The keys of of the Kingdom were given to Peter in Matthew 16, but keep reading and you will see in chapter 18 that the keys were given to all of the Apostles, not just Peter.
@@jeffrachelburkhalter3783 No one before the reformation disputed that Peter went to Rome, or that Peter's successor was the Bishop of Rome. So why should anyone believe you?
@@isoldam That is not true for a start and Peter never went to Rome. You don't have to believe me but you do need to repent and believe the Gospel, not the false Gospel of Rome.
