If I weren't Catholic, I'd look for the Church that the world despises, for the world despised Jesus, and he would be there. - Fulton Sheen Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you; he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him. As the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so he who eats me will live because of me.". Things seemed to be going pretty well. That is until Jesus said “For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood,dwelleth in me, and I in him.” This was too much for many of his disciples and “From that time many of his disciples went back, and walked no more with him.” Jesus turns to the 12 and asks, “Will ye also go away? Vs 61, Jesus did not back down, for He said, "Does this offend you?" it offends protestants. They devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching and to fellowship, to the breaking of bread and to prayer.👏❤ Jn 20:21, "As the Father has sent Me, I also send you." Jn 17:18, "Even as thou hast sent Me into the world, so I have sent them into the world." Jn 17:22-23, "And the glory that thou hast given Me, I have given to Matt. 28, 18-20: And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth. Go ye, therefore. and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world. Amen. Jesus says to the crowd, "He who believes and is baptized will be saved." But in reference to the same people, Jesus immediately follows with "He who does not believe will be condemned." This demonstrates that one can be baptized and still not be a believer. This disproves the Protestant argument that one must be a believer to be baptized. There is nothing in the Bible about a "believer's baptism." "Accept Jesus as your personal Lord and Savior," or "Ask Jesus into your heart" isn't the biblical answer. It’s important to be saved from hell, damnation, and the stain of original sin, but what are we saved for? We are saved for union with Christ. Our salvation began when we were born again through baptism and God’s own Divine Life was restored in our souls, making us like Adam and Eve were in the Garden before the Original (first) Sin. As we go through life, we are united with Christ through the Sacraments he left as gifts for us, especially through Penance (forgiveness of our sins committed since Baptism) and the Eucharist (partaking of God’s own Life, His own Divine Nature, 2 Peter 1:4) - until that day when we are truly united with Him in heaven. Scripture teaches that one’s final salvation depends on the state of the soul at death. As Jesus himself tells us, "He who endures to the end will be saved" (Matt. 24:13; cf. 25:31-46). One who dies in the state of friendship with God (the state of grace) will go to heaven. The one who dies in a state of rebellion against God (the state of mortal sin) will go to hell. (For the teaching on venial (non-deadly) and mortal (deadly) sins, see 1 John 5:16-17) What I must do to be saved: *I must be baptized with water and the Spirit. Mark 16:16, John 3:3-5, Titus 3:5, I Peter 3:20-21. (Exceptions: [1] If I desire Baptism but die before I can be baptized with water and the Spirit, God accepts my desire to be baptized, and [2] If I am killed (martyred) because of my faith, but I have not had the opportunity to be baptized, God accepts my death as my baptism, called the Baptism of Blood). * I must do the will of God the Father. Matthew 7:21 * I must keep the Commandments of God. Matthew 5:19-20, Matthew 7:21, Matthew 19:17, 1 Timothy 6:14, and others. * I must accept the Cross (suffering). Matthew 10:38, Matthew 16:24-25, Mark 8:34, Luke 9:23, Luke 14:27. Phil 1:29, and others. * I must be a member of God's true church. Acts 2:46-47. * I must confess my sins. James 5:16, I John 1:9, John 20:19-23 * I must heed the words of St. Peter, the first Pope. Acts 11:13-14, Acts 15:7. * I must eat the flesh and drink the blood of Jesus Christ. John 6:51-58, I Corinthians 10:16-17, 11:23-30. * I must do unto others as I would have them do unto me and love my neighbor as myself. I must feed the hungry, give drink to the thirsty, clothe the naked, visit the sick and those in prison or give other aid to those in need. Luke 10:33 ff, Mt 25:31-46. "Do not neglect to do good and to share what you have, for such sacrifices are very pleasing to God" Hebrews 13:16. Good works don’t save us, but we will be judged by them. *I must strive to be holy. "Strive for peace with everyone and for that holiness without which no one will see the Lord." Hebrews 12:14 *I must endure (persevere) to the end. Matthew 10:22, Matthew 24:13, Mark 13:13. And ... ? What else must I do? Catechism #432 The name "Jesus" signifies that the very name of God is present in the person of his Son, made man for the universal and definitive redemption from sins. It is the divine name that alone brings salvation, and henceforth all can invoke his name, for Jesus united himself to all men through his Incarnation, so that "there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved."
Matthew Henry's Commentary Makes an interesting read on John chapter 6. This is just one paragraph I know it going to be difficult reading for you. But please try to see beyond what you think you know. You never know you may see more and understand more. But that will require you to read what else he said about this chapter. 1.) Let us see how this discourse of Christ was liable to mistake and misconstruction, that men might see, and not perceive. [1.] It was misconstrued by the carnal Jews, to whom it was first delivered (v. 52): They strove among themselves; they whispered in each other's ears their dissatisfaction: How can this man give us his flesh to eat? Christ spoke (v. 51) of giving his flesh for us, to suffer and die; but they, without due consideration, understood it of his giving it to us, to be eaten, which gave occasion to Christ to tell them that, however what he said was otherwise intended, yet even that also of eating of his flesh was no such absurd thing (if rightly understood) as prima facie-in the first instance, they took it to be. [2.] It has been wretchedly misconstrued by the church of Rome for the support of their monstrous doctrine of transubstantiation, which gives the lie to our senses, contradicts the nature of a sacrament, and overthrows all convincing evidence. They, like these Jews here, understand it of a corporal and carnal eating of Christ's body, like Nicodemus, ch. 3, 4. The Lord's supper was not yet instituted, and therefore it could have no reference to that; it is a spiritual eating and drinking that is here spoken of, not a sacramental. [3.] It is misunderstood by many ignorant carnal people, who hence infer that, if they take the sacrament when they die, they shall certainly go to heaven, which, as it makes many that are weak causelessly uneasy if they want it, so it makes many that are wicked causelessly easy if they have it. Therefore, (2.) Let us see how this discourse of Christ is to be understood. Once you think differently the rest of the scripture you use cant be used to support your understanding of the Catholics claims.
@@whathappening5323 very simply, Matthew Henry’s commentary is an innovation in Christianity. Read both the Epistles of Ignatius of Antioch and Justin Martyr’s First Apology. Those texts make it abundantly clear that the first Christians - those of the first two centuries of Christianity - clearly believed in the real presence of Christ’s blood and flesh in the Eucharist. While Thomas Aquinas popularized the use of the Aristotelian terminology of “transubstantiation,” the concept itself goes back to the very beginning of our faith. The real presence of Christ’s body in the Eucharist was not seriously questioned until Zwingli in the 16th century. What you are suggesting is that Christ, the head of the Church, who promised that the gates of hell would not prevail against it and to be with us to the end of the age, allowed his Church to teach crass and heretical error for 1500 years before making a correction. Frankly, that claim impugns Christ’s faithfulness to his Church.
@@whathappening5323 Vs 54, "Whoever eats My flesh, and drinks My blood, has eternal life; and I will 😎😎 raise him up on the last day." Did He say to eat the symbol of His flesh? Vs 55, Jesus said, "For My flesh is meat indeed, and My blood is drink indeed." Vs 56, Jesus said, "He that eats My flesh and drinks My blood dwells in Me, and I in him." Did He say, 'He that eats a symbol of My flesh...'. How can a mere symbol fulfill this promise? Does only a symbol of Christ dwell in us? I thought GOD Himself dwelt within us, 1John 4:12-13. Vs 59, This verse shows that Jesus taught this discourse to all the people. Vs 60,They doubt a third time when many disciples said, "This is a hard saying, who can hear it"? The Jews were instilled by many Old Testament verses, admonishing them not to consume blood. See Deut 12:23, Lev 17:11and 14. They must have thought this was something akin to cannibalism. Is this what you think too? At any point did Jesus back down? Explain to me, if this chapter is symbolic, why did He not explain the symbolism to them? Vs 61, Jesus did not back down, for He said, "Does this offend you?" He knew their thoughts and He certainly knew the Old Testament verses about the consumption of blood. In the next verse, He separated spiritual things from earthly things. Vs 63*, Jesus said, "It is the spirit that quickens; the flesh profits nothing. The words I speak to you, they are spirit, and they are life." Did He say He was speaking figuratively or in parables? This is the second verse detractors use to try to "prove" that Jesus spoke figuratively for the whole chapter. Did Jesus say "My" flesh? No, He said "the" flesh. What Jesus had said was, that we cannot accept this mystery if we accept it in too human a way, by having an earthly view of things. Those who can only think of cannibalism, are they not having an earthly view? See John 3:6, "That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit." Verse 63 means that we should not have a carnal human understanding of His words, but a spiritual understanding. In John, chapter 6, Jesus had not only called the 12 Apostles, there was also much larger group of other disciples. Things seemed to be going pretty well. That is until Jesus said “For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood,dwelleth in me, and I in him.” This was too much for many of his disciples and “From that time many of his disciples went back, and walked no more with him.” Jesus turns to the 12 and asks, “Will ye also go away? Simon Peter gives the same answer that I find myself saying to those who tell me I should leave the Catholic Church for this reason or that one, “Lord, to whom shall we go?” No matter what a certain priest does, no matter what scandals hit the church, despite whatever corruption or abuse of power might exist, and despite whatever mistakes the Church has made throughout history, “to whom shall we go?” for here is the body and blood of Christ given for a sinner as miserable as I. Matt. 26:26-28; Mark. 14:22,24; Luke 22;19-20; 1 Cor. 11:24-25 - Jesus says, this IS my body and blood. Jesus does not say, this is a symbol of my body and blood. Matt. 26:26; Mark. 14:22; Luke 22:19-20 - the Greek phrase is "Toutoestin to soma mou." This phraseology means "this is actually" or "this is really" my body and blood. " See Hebrews 9:14, 27-28. 1376 ... "Because Christ our Redeemer said that it was truly his body [Mt 26:26, Mk 14:22, John 6:55] that he was offering under the species [appearance] of bread ... there takes place a change of the whole substance of the bread into the substance of the body of Christ our Lord and of the whole substance of the wine into the substance of his blood ...transubstantiation." 1 John 5:13 I write these things to you so that you may know that you have eternal life, you who believe in the name of the Son of God. Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you; he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him. As the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so he who eats me will live because of me For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood,dwelleth in me, and I in him.” This was too much for many of his disciples and “From that time many of his disciples went back, and walked no more with him.” Jesus turns to the 12 and asks, “Will ye also go away? Vs 61, Jesus did not back down, for He said, "Does this offend you?" it offends protestants. They devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching and to fellowship, to the breaking of bread and to prayer. There is no other passage in the New testament other than John 6: 35-56 where Jesus emphasizes his teaching repeatedly. In the Gospel of John, four times our Lord says that he is the bread and five times He says that its his flesh we have to eat. He instituted this sacrament by giving his flesh to eat in the upper room in Jerusalem on the eve of the Passover (Matthew 26:26-28) We understand that Eucharistic sacrament he instituted was again celebrated at Emmaus after his resurrection (Luke 24: 30-31).
You are giving advice and I appreciate it. But your advice is without scripture. You are saying research and go listen to podcasts & read the Catechism. How are you pointing to scripture for those of us who believe that the scripture is God breathed and used to teach and edify?
If you insist on knowing and understanding everything that Catholics believe before you convert, you're probably waiting too long. The Catholic Church expects you to be baptized in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit and to accept the core beliefs as expressed in the Nicene Creed, and to be open-minded towards the other beliefs the Catholic Church teaches. Most of us will never know, much less understand everything the Church teaches because the Catholic Church is SOOOOO deep. But the thing is, some teachings of the Church affect us more than others, and all beliefs aren't equal. And there are a lot of things that you can accept first and understand later. You can accept that the Pope is the head of the Church before you understand WHY he is the head of the Church. You can accept the bread and wine as the Body and Blood of Christ before you understand Transubstantiation. You can accept that, as the birth mother of Jesus, Mary is a very important person before you know and understand the Marian Dogmas of the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption of Mary. As a new Catholic you find yourself facing new ideas all the time, and once you face them THEN you can figure them out. And it's not hard, with RU-vid and the internet the answers are always out there. One thing I've learned through the years is this: whenever I disagree with the Catholic Church, it's my responsibility to find out why I'm wrong. Because invariably I find that the Church has reasons for its' beliefs.
Peter was not the pope as understood in the modern Catholic sense, we can consider some key passages to see why. Also, please note that even if Peter was a pope, the apostles would have had to report to him. The scriptures don’t show Peter’s authority over them at all. SCRIPTURES ****Equal Authority Among Apostles****: In Matthew 16:18-19, Jesus declares to Peter, "And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven." While this passage is often interpreted as foundational for the papacy, it's important to note that similar language regarding binding and loosing is also given to the other apostles (Matthew 18:18), suggesting shared authority. This also suggests that Jesus was talking to all of his disciples in (Matthew 16:18), not just Peter. ****The Leadership of James****: In Acts 15, during the Council of Jerusalem, it is James (not Peter) who presides over the gathering and delivers the final decision (Acts 15:13-21). This could be seen as a demonstration of James’ prominent role in the early church, suggesting a broader leadership structure beyond Peter. ****Paul's Independent Ministry****: Paul’s interactions and disputes with Peter (Galatians 2:11-14) indicate a collegial relationship among apostles rather than a hierarchical one where Peter exercises supreme authority. Paul confronts Peter regarding his actions in Antioch, suggesting an equal footing in apostolic authority. ****Peter self-identifies as an Elder****: In 1 Peter 5:1, Peter refers to himself as a fellow elder rather than as a supreme authority figure, which suggests a decentralized structure of leadership in the early church, contrary to the hierarchical structure associated with the papacy. In biblical terminology and context, elders shepherd, oversee, lead, and care for the local church”. “Elder” and “pastor” are not two different offices, they are simply two different words for the same office. “Elders lead the church [1 Tim 5:17; Titus 1:7; 1 Peter 5:1-2], teach and preach the Word [1 Timothy 3:2; 2 Timothy 4:2; Titus 1:9], protect the church from false teachers [Acts 20:17, 28-31], exhort and admonish the saints in sound doctrine [1 Timothy 4:13; 2 Timothy 3:13-17; Titus 1:9], visit the sick and pray [James 5:14; Acts 6:4], and judge doctrinal issues [Acts 15:6].
@@thetruth4079 The Greek term, presbýteros, meaning "older" is translated as "elder" in the New Testament. These biblical qualifications of an elder come from Titus 1:6-9 and 1 Timothy 3:1-7. In general, they describe a mature Christian with a good reputation, and gifts for teaching, oversight, and pastoral ministry. Elders were pastors not popes.
For all considering: Consider going to Adoration of Christ in the Blessed Sacrament. Call your local parish and find out when they offer it. Then, just go and sit in silence in Christ’s Presence. Take your bible. Read scripture, pray, contemplate. Tell the Lord of your search for truth, of your doubts, worries, even fears. Then, be as patient with Him as He has been with you. When you receive the grace to know that HE IS THERE, you will be forever changed. Miracles occur in Christ’s presence - of that I can personally attest.
I think every Protestant looking at Catholicism (like I was) initially tries to debunk individual doctrines (Marian doctrines & dogma, purgatory, intercession of the saints, the meaning and importance of the sacraments, etc.). That eventually gets too burdensome. At some point you have to stop looking at the Catholic Church through a microscope and start using a telescope. The Catholic Church stands or falls on authority. If it is Christ’s visible body on earth, and its leaders have true divine authority, then you must become Catholic or be disobedient to the Holy Spirit. If the Church does not have that authority, then it is a sham and truly the “Whore if Babylon” that we all feared. The Catholic Church’s claim is total. As Protestants, it’s pretty easy to go from one denomination to another or to an independent congregation without feeling like you’re really submitting yourself to a divinely-appointed hierarchy. It’s just “worshipping somewhere else.” The Catholic Church doesn’t offer that option. You’re either all the way in, or you’re on the outside. The Church claims extraordinary authority on earth. It’s either real and demands your obedience, or it’s diabolical deceit. There is no middle ground. Being a faithful, devout Catholic is hard. It’s not for “casual church-goers” who are just looking to be “spiritual.” Being a faithful Catholic demands self-discipline and self-sacrifice - for your family, for your Church, and for your community. Jesus was serious about that, “…deny yourself, take up your cross, and follow me,” thing. But he also said, “Take my yoke upon you, and learn from me, for I am gentle and lowly in heart, and you will find rest for your souls.”
Proving its diabolical deceit is easy. Getting the information in the main comment pages is the hard part. Let's take English history for now. When Queen Mary the1st came to reign. The RCC had been in the wilderness and had suffered persecution under Henry the V111. I think they were reaping what they had sow. Queen Mary 1st reinstated the RCC as the main religion. What did they do to regain control of the dissenters? I could post that information but it won't make it onto the main page and it can't be refuted, You are right in your confession of Jesus Christ . But involving the catholic church is where it all falls apart. The journey we make is to know who Jesus Christ was and is. When you leave this world you better be sure the Jesus you serve is the one the thief on the cross confess to. Not the religious Jesus that is put forward by religious organisations that don't speak for him.
1.] That it is unspeakably desirable: It is meat which endures to everlasting life; it is a happiness which will last as long as we must, which not only itself endures eternally, but will nourish us up to everlasting life. The blessings of the new covenant are our preparative for eternal life, our preservative to it, and the pledge and earnest of it. [2.] It is undoubtedly attainable. Shall all the treasures of the world be ransacked, and all the fruits of the earth gathered together, to furnish us with provisions that will last to eternity? No, The sea saith, It is not in me, among all the treasures hidden in the sand. It cannot be gotten for gold; but it is that which the Son of man shall give; heµn doµsei, either which meat, or which life, the Son of man shall give. Observe here, First, Who gives this meat: the Son of man, the great householder and master of the stores, who is entrusted with the administration of the kingdom of God among men, and the dispensation of the gifts, graces, and comforts of that kingdom, and has power to give eternal life, with all the means of it and preparatives for it. We are told to labour for it, as if it were to be got by our own industry, and sold upon that valuable consideration, as the heathen said, Dii laboribus omnia vendunt-The gods sell all advantages to the industrious. But when we have laboured ever so much for it, we have not merited it as our hire, but the Son of man gives it. And what more free than gift? It is an encouragement that he who has the giving of it is the Son of man, for then we may hope the sons of men that seek it, and labour for it, shall not fail to have it. Secondly, What authority he has to give it; for him has God the Father sealed, touton gar ho Pateµr esphragisen, ho Theos-for him the Father has sealed (proved and evidenced) to be God; so some read it; he has declared him to be the Son of God with power. He has sealed him, that is, has given him full authority to deal between God and man, as God's ambassador to man and man's intercessor with God, and has proved his commission by miracles. Having given him authority, he has given us assurance of it; having entrusted him with unlimited powers, he has satisfied us with undoubted proofs of them; so that as he might go on with confidence in his undertaking for us, so may we in our resignations to him. God the Father scaled him with the Spirit that rested on him, by the voice from heaven, by the testimony he bore to him in signs and wonders. Divine revelation is perfected in him, in him the vision and prophecy is sealed up (Dan. 9:24), to him all believers seal that he is true (ch. 3:33), and in him they are all sealed, 2 Co. 1:22. This is more from Matthew Henry's commentary on John chapter 6 MH wrote this commentary over the last ten years of his life.He die 1714. When you consider MH commentary in the light of your own research you may wonder how he found the time to put this commentary together in the seventeenth century. When the CC was in the ascendancy.
@@whathappening5323 unfortunately my initial reply disappeared in cyberspace. I’ll try again…. Matthew Henry’s opinion, in light of two millennia of Christianity, is an innovation. Please read The Epistles of Ignatius of Antioch (Disciple of the Apostle John, martyred ~107 AD) and Justin Martyr’s First Apology ~150 AD. The evidence from them and the other texts from the ancient Church is overwhelming that they believed and practiced Christ’s bodily presence in the Eucharist.
@@whathappening5323 I’m very sorry. My response apparently got lost in cyberspace. In the 2000 year history of Christianity, Matthew Henry’s opinion is an innovation. Please see the preserved texts from the first two centuries of Christianity. You will see that, uniformly, Christians believed and practiced Christ’s bodily presence in the Eucharist. I submit both The Epistles of Ignatius of Antioch (Ignatius was a disciple of John, so he probably had decent insight into what the Apostle actually meant in what we now refer to as “John 6) and Justin Martyr’s First Apology. Ignatius was martyred around 107 AD and Justin’s work dates to about 150 AD. An objective reading of the ancient texts will demonstrate that no one saw the Eucharist as merely symbolic. If you believe that the early Church was uniformly corrupted in its belief in Christ’s bodily presence, then you must deal with the apparent unfaithfulness of Christ to his Church in that he allowed his body on earth to believe and practice crass and heretical error in regard to the Lord’s Table for 1500 years until Zwingli popularized the doctrine of mere symbology. Christ is the final and great sacrificial Lamb of the final Passover. Please read Exodus 12 in detail. You’ll see that part of the requirement of the Passover was not only to kill the lamb, but to consume it. This is what Christ instituted in the Upper Room. His “once for all” sacrifice is continually present to the Father, making atonement for his people, and his people, in obedience to his established practice, consume the sacrifice in order to to complete the act of worship. Grace & peace
0:12 never trust ur own heart. But fallen human nature makes us change our beliefs and attitudes. Nothing to do with different denominations or different bibles!!! Its about our lack of our own selves. Who knows is better ur holy priests in confessions or ur pope's who believe they are the only spokesman of all of humanity.
I remember when I was a very young boy, my mother would gather us together in the living room to pray the rosary. I never understand the Rosary why you need to repeat the hail Mary's so many times, but I just trusted my mother. It was only in the latter days of my life with the advent of RU-vid that I discovered so many things about the Rosary, the unheard Marian apparitions that confirms the validity of the Rosary like the Las Lajas apparition on top of the famous Marian apparitions like Fatima, Lourdes and Guadalupe. If I acted up like a smart guy and question or challenged my mother about praying the rosary, I would have not had the privileged to love and pray the Rosary throughout my life. I started praying the Rosary without really understanding it fully well, but I just trusted it. Also, the Catholic church is just full of miracles that confirms the validity of its teaching. If you are exploring about the Catholic church pls. research about the Eucharistic miracles, the stigmata of different saints like Padre Pio, the thousands of Marian apparitions, St. Charbel, miracles, etc. He is right, there is just too much to learn about the Catholic church which is existent for 2,000 yrs.
I didn't know until recently what the mysteries were that we were supposed to be meditating on while we recite the prayers. No one explained that part to me. The mysteries in the rosary are what the missionaries used in the middle ages to teach the Good News/Gospel. The rosary was the Bible on beads and much easier to travel with than a stack of bibles, which foreigners couldn't read anyway. So it was a critical tool for evangelizing. I pray the rosary now everyday.
The rosary is a powerful weapon against Satan which heretical Protestants can’t get their head around because they seek understanding to gain faith, whereas, faith brings understanding!
That would be the Word of God preserved by the Catholic Church as the bible, right? We have the audacity to preach the truth - that the mirror is not the final authority😘
@@bibleman8010 The Catholic Church has not preserved the word of God. That church is full of heresies. Heresies disqualify us from the kingdom of God. *Galatians 5:20* - Luther and the Leipzig Debate • Both Hus and Luther arrived at the same conclusion: neither councils nor the pope had final authority in the church. Headship in the church belongs solely to Christ. Hebrews 4:12. Were already have a high priest. Peter was not the first high priest.
@@bibleman8010 Peter was not the pope as understood in the modern Catholic sense, we can consider some key passages to see why. Also, please note that even if Peter was a pope, the apostles would have had to report to him. The scriptures don’t show Peter’s authority over them at all. ****Equal Authority Among Apostles****: In Matthew 16:18-19, Jesus declares to Peter, "And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven." While this passage is often interpreted as foundational for the papacy, it's important to note that similar language regarding binding and loosing is also given to the other apostles (Matthew 18:18), suggesting shared authority. This also suggests that Jesus was talking to all of his disciples in (Matthew 16:18), not just Peter. ****The Leadership of James****: In Acts 15, during the Council of Jerusalem, it is James (not Peter) who presides over the gathering and delivers the final decision (Acts 15:13-21). This could be seen as a demonstration of James’ prominent role in the early church, suggesting a broader leadership structure beyond Peter. ****Paul's Independent Ministry****: Paul’s interactions and disputes with Peter (Galatians 2:11-14) indicate a collegial relationship among apostles rather than a hierarchical one where Peter exercises supreme authority. Paul confronts Peter regarding his actions in Antioch, suggesting an equal footing in apostolic authority. ****Peter self-identifies as an Elder****: In 1 Peter 5:1, Peter refers to himself as a fellow elder rather than as a supreme authority figure, which suggests a decentralized structure of leadership in the early church, contrary to the hierarchical structure associated with the papacy. In biblical terminology and context, elders shepherd, oversee, lead, and care for the local church”. “Elder” and “pastor” are not two different offices, they are simply two different words for the same office. “Elders lead the church [1 Tim 5:17; Titus 1:7; 1 Peter 5:1-2], teach and preach the Word [1 Timothy 3:2; 2 Timothy 4:2; Titus 1:9], protect the church from false teachers [Acts 20:17, 28-31], exhort and admonish the saints in sound doctrine [1 Timothy 4:13; 2 Timothy 3:13-17; Titus 1:9], visit the sick and pray [James 5:14; Acts 6:4], and judge doctrinal issues [Acts 15:6].
@@gatogati2281 Where in the world do you people get your information!? I've studied lots of different Bible translations but have never found the word "Catholic" in any of them.
@@coolheadfred4082 the Bible comes from the Catholic Church, not from Luther and the other rebels who have actually just butchered it and altered it. Authority about the Truth was given to Saint Peter and what he would establish, not to Scripture of the Old Testament and even less to a book that did not exist yet (the New Testament). The Word of God is recorded in Scripture but also the Word of God is transmited orallly (through the Tradition of the Apostles). The Word of God is not only the written one as Protestants pretend (while getting rid of some of the books).
💙💜Catholicism is not Christianity.✝️ ✝️ -------------------- - Antithetical books taught as doctrine that are contradictory to the Bible is apostasy. ****1 Timothy 4:1**** Now the Holy Spirit tells us clearly that in the last times some will turn away from the true faith; they will follow deceptive spirits and teachings that come from demons. -------------------- - Forbidding clergy to marry is apostasy. ****1 Timothy 4:3**** who forbid marriage and require abstinence from foods that God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and know the truth. -------------------- • Adding church doctrines, especially doctrines that uniquely serve the context of a church’s teachings and political purposes of a church is apostasy and it’s forbidden. A church can’t interpret a scripture and ignore the fact that their interpretation contradicts other scriptures. ****Deuteronomy 4:2,**** ****Galatians 1:6-7**** ****Mark 7:7**** Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men. -------------------- • We have a new ministry in the new covenant. Christ did not send out any officiating new covenant high priests, or parish priests. ****Ephesians 4:11**** ****Ephesians 4:11**** So Christ himself gave the apostles, the prophets, the evangelists, the pastors and teachers • God does not show favoritism -- there is no evidence in the scriptures that the church was built on a human. We do not have a human pope to guide us. We are led by the indwelling of the Spirit. ****Acts 1:5**** ****Romans 2:11**** no favoritism -------------------- • The scriptures show no differences in the apostles. ****Equality amongst the apostles**** “Ye are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone. ****Ephesians 2:20**** “And the wall of the city had twelve foundations, and in them the names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb.” ****Revelation 21:14**** • Peter was no different than the others. We can see here in ****Revelations 21:14**** that Peter was still an apostle, not a pope. John saw a vision of the New Jerusalem, so if Peter was a pope, John would have said I saw the foundation of the city walls in layers of 11 apostles and the one pope. -------------------- - The Rock of the church is spiritual, not physical. There is only one Rock. ****1 Corinthians 10:4**** and all drank the same spiritual drink; for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them, and that Rock was Christ. ****1 Corinthians 3:11**** For no one can lay any foundation other than the one we already have-Jesus Christ. -------------------- • Mary nor the saints can hear prayers. There’s only one mediator in heaven between God & Man. No scriptures show that the 24 elders hear prayers. Mary nor the saints are not omnipresent and able to hear millions. ****1 Timothy 2:5**** For there is one God and one mediator between God and mankind, the man Christ Jesus, -------------------- • All Christians are saints. ****Philippians 1:1**** Paul and Timotheus, the servants of Jesus Christ, to all the saints in Christ Jesus which are at Philippi, with the bishops and deacons: -------------------- • All Christians are priests. We are living stones being built in a spiritual house on a spiritual Rock. You can approach God for forgiveness yourself. ****1 Peter 2:5**** 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. -------------------- • The doctrine of original sin is not biblical or found in the scriptures at all. Water baptism cannot remove sins. By the shedding of blood is there remission of sins. Adam sinned but adding the terminology of “original sin” is not biblical. ****Hebrews 9:22**** In fact, the law requires that nearly everything be cleansed with blood, and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness. -------------------- • Every Christian is supposed to study and read the Bible for themselves. ****Acts 17:11**** ****Ephesians 3:4**** As you read what I have written, you will understand my insight into this plan regarding Christ. ****Psalm 119:15**** I will study your commandments and reflect on your ways. -------------------- • In order to receive salvation, we must all repent and accept Jesus Christ as our Lord and savior. We need no new antithetical AD prophet church bibles, no man-made doctrines, no priests, no infallible magisterium, no Vatican, no communion of saints, no catechisms, no Marian dogmas, no transubstantiation, no other God(s), no idolatry, no prosperity gospel, no blessed prayer cloths, no added rituals, no antithetical traditions, no Eucharist, no veneration of Mary, no long list of good works, no water baptism regeneration, no sacrament of reconciliation, no rosary, no pope, no papacy, no apostolic succession, and no church dogmas, but *only* by grace through faith are we saved. Christ is enough! ****Ephesians 2:8**** "For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: not of works, lest any man should boast". -------------------- - I’m not against any church. I’m against people who are being misled and deceived. A church that has stood for several centuries must still teach sound doctrine. Even in the days of the apostles, the church was under the constant threat of apostasy. Any church that is built on false doctrine leads people astray. That church is no longer fertile grounds for the development of the body of Christ. - I know this information can be heavy so I pray for your healing. I also pray that you will see the truth in God’s word. Study. In Jesus’s name, Amen. 💜💜💜
"Christian is my name, and Catholic my surname. The one designates me, while the other makes me specific. Thus am I attested and set apart... When we are called Catholics it is by this appellation that our people are kept apart from any heretical name." Saint Pacian of Barcelona, Letter to Sympronian, 375 A.D..😉
@@redbird9000 We do all the time. The question comes down to, when will you actually do your own research instead of parroting off of other false prophets and come to the fullness of truth found in Christ’s Church?
