Roman Catholic isn’t really a thing. Historically it was used to define a location of Catholics. There are other locations as well. Catholics are from everywhere. Armenian Catholics, Byzantine Catholics, etc.. It’s just Catholic. Big C. Semantics. Small c Catholic is a beautiful word for universal and in Christ we all can share in Christ’s kingdom. But the Catholic Church has the fullness of the faith. The early church fathers all attest to that. I choose to worship and follow everything Jesus told us to do the way Christ’s first followers were taught - by Christ.
You mean the Greek Orthodox Church which is headed out of Jerusalem? Where the Apostles preached? Where Pentecost is? Where they still have the same lineage of Bishops? where James was the head Bishop? or do you mean couple hundred years later when the western schism took place and cut ties with them and decided to call themselves the Holy Roman Empire and Catholicism started, so that the Emperor could gain as much power as possible? The Roman Empire didn't like the fact that the head Bishop wasn't from Rome, so they implemented their own and decided he was the main Bishop and called them Pope
@@MossEYE- "The Lord says to Peter: ‘I say to you,’ he says, ‘that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church.’ . . . On him [Peter] he builds the Church, and to him he gives the command to feed the sheep [John 21:17], and although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single chair [cathedra], and he established by his own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity. Indeed, the others were that also which Peter was [i.e., apostles], but a primacy is given to Peter, whereby it is made clear that there is but one Church and one chair. So too, all [the apostles] are shepherds, and the flock is shown to be one, fed by all the apostles in single-minded accord. If someone does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he should desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that he is in the Church?”- St. Cyprian of Carthage (The Unity of the Catholic Church 4; 1st edition [A.D. 251] “In the city of Rome the episcopal chair was given first to Peter; the chair in which Peter sat, the same who was head-that is why he is also called Cephas [‘Rock’]-of all the apostles, the one chair in which unity is maintained by all. Neither do the apostles proceed individually on their own, and anyone who would [presume to] set up another chair in opposition to that single chair would, by that very fact, be a schismatic and a sinner. . . . Recall, then, the origins of your chair, those of you who wish to claim for yourselves the title of holy Church”- St. Optatus of Milivus (The Schism of the Donatists2:2 [A.D. 367] “There are many other things which most properly can keep me in her [the Catholic Church’s] bosom. The unanimity of peoples and nations keeps me here. Her authority, inaugurated in miracles, nourished by hope, augmented by love, and confirmed by her age, keeps me here. The succession of priests, from the very see of the apostle Peter, to whom the Lord, after his resurrection, gave the charge of feeding his sheep [John 21:15-17], up to the present episcopate, keeps me here. And last, the very name Catholic, which, not without reason, belongs to this Church alone, in the face of so many heretics, so much so that, although all heretics want to be called ‘Catholic,’ when a stranger inquires where the Catholic Church meets, none of the heretics would dare to point out his own basilica or house”- St. Augustine of Hippo (*Against the Letter of Mani Called “The Foundation” *4:5 [A.D. 397]
The Roman in Roman Catholic refers to the seat of leadership by the Bishop of Rome. The Eastern Orthodox Church has Western Rite parishes, but they are still referred to as Eastern Orthodox. There are Anglicans all over the world, in fact most are in Africa. They all have their own distinct liturgical and theological practices, yet they are all still referred to as Anglican because of their English heritage, including those not in communion with the Archbishop of Canterbury.
@@richlopez5896 paragraph 1 - incorrect friend, Scripture was cherry picked out of context. let me know if you'd like it proven for you. paragraph 2 & 3 -- start with God's Word, not things which are contrary. thanks for reading, Sir.
St. Peter’s preeminent position among the apostles was symbolized at the very beginning of his relationship with Christ. At their first meeting, Christ told Simon that his name would thereafter be Peter, which translates as “Rock” (John 1:42). Christ was not given to meaningless gestures, and neither were the Jews when it came to names. Giving a new name meant that the status of the person was changed, as when Abram’s name was changed to Abraham (Gen.17:5), Jacob’s to Israel (Gen. 32:28), Eliakim’s to Joakim (2 Kgs. 23:34). “You are Peter, and on this rock I will build my Church” (Matt. 16:18). In English, like Aramaic, there is no problem with endings; so an English rendition could read: “You are Rock, and upon this rock I will build my church.” Albert Barnes Nineteenth-Century Presbyterian “The meaning of this phrase may be thus expressed: ‘Thou, in saying that I am the Son of God, hast called me by a name expressive of my true character. I, also, have given to thee a name expressive of your character. I have called you Peter, a rock. . . . I see that you are worthy of the name and will be a distinguished support of my religion” [Barnes’ Notes on the New Testament, 170]. John Broadus Nineteenth-Century Calvinistic Baptist “As Peter means rock, the natural interpretation is that ‘upon this rock’ means upon thee. . . . It is an even more far-fetched and harsh play upon words if we understand the rock to be Christ and a very feeble and almost unmeaning play upon words if the rock is Peter’s confession” [Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew, 356]. Craig L. Blomberg Contemporary Baptist “The expression ‘this rock’ almost certainly refers to Peter, following immediately after his name, just as the words following ‘the Christ’ in verse 16 applied to Jesus. The play on words in the Greek between Peter’s name (Petros) and the word ‘rock’ (petra) makes sense only if Peter is the Rock and if Jesus is about to explain the significance of this identification” [New American Commentary: Matthew, 22:252]. J. Knox Chamblin Contemporary Presbyterian “By the words ‘this rock’ Jesus means not himself, nor his teaching, nor God the Father, nor Peter’s confession, but Peter himself. The phrase is immediately preceded by a direct and emphatic reference to Peter. As Jesus identifies himself as the builder, the rock on which he builds is most naturally understood as someone (or something) other than Jesus himself” [“Matthew” in Evangelical Commentary on the Bible, 742]. R. T. France Contemporary Anglican “The word-play, and the whole structure of the passage, demands that this verse is every bit as much Jesus’ declaration about Peter as verse 16 was Peter’s declaration about Jesus. Of course it is on the basis of Peter’s confession that Jesus declares his role as the Church’s foundation, but it is to Peter, not his confession, that the rock metaphor is applied” (Gospel According to Matthew, 254). Herman Ridderbos Contemporary Dutch Reformed “It is well known that the Greek word petra translated ‘rock’ here is different from the proper name Peter. The slight difference between them has no special importance, however. The most likely explanation for the change from petros (‘Peter’) to petra is that petra was the normal word for ‘rock.’ . . . There is no good reason to think that Jesus switched from petros to petra to show that he was not speaking of the man Peter but of his confession as the foundation of the Church. The words ‘on this rock [petra]’ indeed refer to Peter” [Bible Student’s Commentary: Matthew, 303]. Donald Hagner Contemporary Evangelical “The frequent attempts that have been made, largely in the past, to deny [that Peter is the rock] in favor of the view that the confession itself is the rock . . . seem to be largely motivated by Protestant prejudice against a passage that is used by the Roman Catholics to justify the papacy” (Word Biblical Commentary 33b:470). @@tony1685
me too...if I couldn't find a Catholic church I'd go to a Lutheran before Anglican; Luther at least thought of himself as a Catholic all of his life, even if he did try to cut up the bible. He upheld the sacraments.
it's so sad how far Lutherans have fallen. most protestant denominations resemble _'Mother Babylon'_ these days, sadly. they even ignore the Lord's day and pretend the 1st day (sun worship day) is such. i blame Bible illiteracy - Amos 8:11 prophesied about.
@Kerimcan they basically are Catholics minus a few dogmatic details such as the British monarch is the head of Church and marriage is allowed, though there is a very nasty right wing and politicized sect of Anglicans more or less led by their poster boy named Calvin Roberson that preaches hatred more than the gospels etc, Roberson pretty much joined this sub group of Anglicanism because he was denied a deaconship by the COE for his views, indeed even if he was a Roman Catholic (as he sort of touts himself as ) he probably would be in the gray area next to excommunication,
Hello Father, Read your website. Nice job. What division of the American Lutheran church are you associated with? LCMS, etc etc. What bishop ordained you? Was he (or she - do you believe in woman's ordination?) validly consecrated? What is his Apostolic Succession? By whose authority were you rightfully ordained?
Hi Stephen, thanks for watching and commenting! Our Redeemer Lutheran Church, Ocala, FL is a congregation of The Lutheran Church--Missouri Synod (LCMS). Lcms.org is a great resource for where our church body stands on a whole range issues, including women's ordination. If you would like specific information about my ordination, send me an email through ourredeemerocala.org. I would love to continue the conversation! --Pastor Joseph Signore
Hi Robert, I would love to walk with you through your confusion. Would you like to email me through ourredeemerocala.org and continue the conversation? --Pastor Joseph Signore
If you are from a liberal branch of the Lutheran church, I understand your confusion. Lutherans are supposed to be Christians which means everything you believe is stated clearly in scripture. It includes Romans 14 which deals with not being so controlling but loving in issues that are not sin.
In the US, the ELCA and The Episcopal Church are in full communion. But the Anglican church is more conservative than the Episcopal Church. I would say that the conservative Lutheran denominations do not commune with any of these denominations. I am LCMS and we have no relationship any member of the Communion, the RC Church, the Orthodox Church, or other Protestant denominations.
@@margorice1LCMS here in the South. We do not have full communion with other groups but we do pray and communicate one with the other. The biggest division between us and other Evangelicals is that we are explicitly Sacramental. The biggest division between us and Rome/ the East is we view justification as forensic and we hold the Scriptures as superseding counsels. So it’s a happy in-between. We value tradition, but in its (in my opinion) proper place. The only thing (I know of) which our pastor discourages is communing with those who see the Sacrament as symbolic. Which I find reasonable.
@@patrickfitzgerald6601Read the book of Concord. Serious deviation from that is not Lutheran. Obviously the first part to read is Luther's Small Catechism. That is the basic explanation of the key parts of the Bible written for heads of households to teach their children. The large Catechism was written for teaching clergy and is more advanced. Then all three creeds. If you disagree significantly you are not Lutheran, find a church you agree with. I am not saying that only Lutherans are Christians or only Lutherans are saved but if you disagree with Lutheran doctrine you are something other than Lutheran. The Augsburg confession is the basic explanation and justification of Lutheran belief. Note that before any specific opinion comes " Anything contrary to Scripture must be disgarded ". When Holy Roman Emperor Charles V found himself faced with religious disagreement to the point of open warfare which threatened defense against the invading Turks, he called for both Lutherans and the RCC to explain their positions. The Catholics have never replied. The Augsburg Confession is the Lutheran response. The rest of the Book of Concord is clarification, explanation and expansion of the Augsburg Confession. The only point I am aware of that most Lutherans disagree with is Luther's almost incidental mention in the Formula of Concord ( or it might be the Smallkald Articles I remember what I read better than where) of Mary being a perpetual virgen. I was taught that the mention of Jesus's brothers and sisters is literal and accurate. That after Mary gave e birth to Christ as a virgin she and Joseph had more children in the usual way. Jesus had four named (half)brothers and at least two unnamed (half)sisters.
I was raised Lutheran but left a long time ago. I'm sure Martin Luther is rolling over in his grave today with how close the Lutherans have moved back to be like the Catholics.
@@uchennanwogu2142 I became a Baptist and am very happy with it. I don't believe in liturgical churches. Paul states in the Bible that Christians should avoid vain and repetitious prayer and IMO that means liturgy as well.
That’s an interesting comment given that Luther prayed the Catholic rosary every single day of his life and was buried with it. He believed in the existence of purgatory until late in his life. Remember, he had been an Augustinian monk and it was Augustine of Hippo who introduced the concept of purgatory. His bible, the Luther Bible, included the apocrypha. He said it was a good thing to read. I am a Lutheran, and the bible we’ve always use exclude it. In the LCMS, each church is different. We are a confessional denomination, and unlike Catholics we don’t believe there anything you can do to gain salvation. It is a gift. Faith alone. Grace alone. Scripture alone. The Catholic Church is similar stool with three legs: tradition, the Magisterium, and scripture. We have no Magisterium and scripture is the bottom line. Some Lutheran congregations, like mine, afford women many leadership roles. Others do not. There are similarities and there are differences among Lutherans. I don’t think my congregation’s services seem very Catholic at all. But I know of others whose practices are much more similar to those of Catholics. You find the same thing among congregations in the Anglican communion.
But... Man, Luther was indeed very close to the catholic creed until his death. He was just a free thinker, and some of his remarks were actually right at the core.
The "Church" is defined in the Catechism. Every baptized person is in the Catholic Church. The Holy Order is a sacrament that required the laying of hand (laying of hand is just one of the many other requirements for a sacrament to be valid). As Catholic, we don't see others Christain denominations as an opposing force (some of their own individual interpretation might be as heresy as day and night), we believe the Catholic Church has the fullness of faith while other denominations don't. We have 7 valid sacraments, most has two. Faith is passed down and not discovered by chance or by one's effort alone. Faith has been there since the time of Adam and Eve by some small group of people and in favor with God and keep his law, not the way of Cain or of Calvin or any Relativist.
There are two different meanings for catholic depending on it it's used as an adjective or a noun. Catholic used with a small "C" is an adjective as used in the creed. and simply means "universal". Catholic with a capital "C" is used as a noun and refers to the hierarchy of the Catholic church. What I find funny is translating the creed why did they not translate the word "catholic" It should read, " I believe in the Holy Ghost; The Holy universal Church, the Communion of Saints;"
Catholic = kata-holistic = throughout the whole (world). There simply isn’t a Lutheran church in my town here in England. On the other hand, if I try to recruit for that Roman sect, I can safely assume that there is a branch of it near the reader anywhere in the English-speaking world. It has six churches in my town, two within walking distance.
Even if we did accept your (not particularly exhaustive, rather questionable) translation of καθολικός, 'throughout the whole (world)' still doesn't have to mean 'present in every regional English town, within walking distance'.
Former Lutheran here. Not only are you not Catholic, you're also missing the Apostolic part, one of the most essential parts and one of the 4 marks of the true church.
They stem from the Church of England which split off from the Church of Rome in the 16th Century when the Pope would not grant the King of England an annulment. At first they their theology was very much Roman Catholic, then an advisor who was trained by the same man as John Calvin trained under advised the Church of England and their theology became a blend of Roman Catholicism and of the Reformed Tradition. Today the Anglican church is a political mess, at least here in America. They have some that are solid Christians of sound doctrine, but as with most mainline churches there has been severe creep of theologically liberal ideals. The Episcopal Church is an offshoot of Anglicanism. I believe they are in fellowship and the idea was that Anglican was that part of the Church of England which is in England, while the Episcopal that in America. It is difficult to keep up with them and I have made no honest attempt beyond a few hours of research. To put it in a nutshell, as a LCMS Lutheran I would attend one Anglican church nearby because I know that the Minister is a sound teacher. There is an Episcopalian church nearby which I would never attend as I know the theological leftist leanings of the Minister.
"The Lord says to Peter: ‘I say to you,’ he says, ‘that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church.’ . . . On him [Peter] he builds the Church, and to him he gives the command to feed the sheep [John 21:17], and although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single chair [cathedra], and he established by his own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity. Indeed, the others were that also which Peter was [i.e., apostles], but a primacy is given to Peter, whereby it is made clear that there is but one Church and one chair. So too, all [the apostles] are shepherds, and the flock is shown to be one, fed by all the apostles in single-minded accord. If someone does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he should desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that he is in the Church?”- St. Cyprian of Carthage (The Unity of the Catholic Church 4; 1st edition [A.D. 251] “In the city of Rome the episcopal chair was given first to Peter; the chair in which Peter sat, the same who was head-that is why he is also called Cephas [‘Rock’]-of all the apostles, the one chair in which unity is maintained by all. Neither do the apostles proceed individually on their own, and anyone who would [presume to] set up another chair in opposition to that single chair would, by that very fact, be a schismatic and a sinner. . . . Recall, then, the origins of your chair, those of you who wish to claim for yourselves the title of holy Church”- St. Optatus of Milivus (The Schism of the Donatists2:2 [A.D. 367] “There are many other things which most properly can keep me in her [the Catholic Church’s] bosom. The unanimity of peoples and nations keeps me here. Her authority, inaugurated in miracles, nourished by hope, augmented by love, and confirmed by her age, keeps me here. The succession of priests, from the very see of the apostle Peter, to whom the Lord, after his resurrection, gave the charge of feeding his sheep [John 21:15-17], up to the present episcopate, keeps me here. And last, the very name Catholic, which, not without reason, belongs to this Church alone, in the face of so many heretics, so much so that, although all heretics want to be called ‘Catholic,’ when a stranger inquires where the Catholic Church meets, none of the heretics would dare to point out his own basilica or house”- St. Augustine of Hippo (*Against the Letter of Mani Called “The Foundation” *4:5 [A.D. 397]
The Bible is a Catholic book. "We are obliged to yield many things to the Papists--that with them is the Word of God, which we received from them; otherwise we should have known nothing at all about it."- Martin Luther The apostles who composed it were all members of the Catholic Church The term "New Testament" comes from Catholic priest Tertullien of Carthage The term "Trinity" comes from Catholic priest Origen of Alexandria The canon of scripture was set at the council of Rome under Pope Damasus I. The word "Bible" comes from Pope Siricius It was Catholic bishops Stephan Langston and Hugo De Caro that later divided the Bible into chapters and verses. The Bible is a Catholic book and your personal misinterpretation of it in 2024 means less than nothing. “There are many other things which most properly can keep me in her [the Catholic Church’s] bosom. The unanimity of peoples and nations keeps me here. Her authority, inaugurated in miracles, nourished by hope, augmented by love, and confirmed by her age, keeps me here. The succession of priests, from the very see of the apostle Peter, to whom the Lord, after his resurrection, gave the charge of feeding his sheep [John 21:15-17], up to the present episcopate, keeps me here. And last, the very name Catholic, which, not without reason, belongs to this Church alone, in the face of so many heretics, so much so that, although all heretics want to be called ‘Catholic,’ when a stranger inquires where the Catholic Church meets, none of the heretics would dare to point out his own basilica or house”- St. Augustine of Hippo (Against the Letter of Mani Called “The Foundation” 4:5 [A.D. 397] @@tony1685
@@richlopez5896 paragraph 1 - i am not lutheran, no use quoting him to me. quote the Bible if you desire to discuss Truth. paragraph 2 - please show me then where we see the apostles praying to other humans - as your 'church' does. show us where the 1st day was sanctified, blessed, made Holy - since Scripture shows only the 7th day Sabbath. thanks in advance!
One of Satan's better lies, that Christ built His church on a man. Reading of the New Testament will reveal that the Catholic Church does not have its origin in the teachings of Jesus or His apostles. In the New Testament, there is no mention of the papacy, worship/adoration of Mary (or the immaculate conception of Mary, the perpetual virginity of Mary, the assumption of Mary, or Mary as co-redemptrix and mediatrix), petitioning saints in heaven for their prayers, apostolic succession, the ordinances of the church functioning as sacraments, infant baptism, confession of sin to a priest, purgatory, indulgences, or the equal authority of church tradition and Scripture. We are not saved by sacraments; we are saved by faith. As one can see the origin of the Catholic Church is not in the teachings of Jesus and His apostles.
Not really, as JESUS CHRIST came to this earth, to establish THE CHURCH, which was established in the year 33 AD. If any church was OK , then OUR LORD would not have had to come to earth to be so brutally treated to prove HIS love for us. If all the Christian religions were pleasing to HIM, why aren't they all Catholic. Other Christian churches are "protestant" protesting the Catholic Faith. Do you see how incorrect of a statement that is? You either Love HIM, and are Traditional Catholic, or want to pick & chose your own religion, & interpret the way YOU want. No religion that is man made (& you think about it)could please OUR LORD like HIS own. With all the chgs in Catholic Church, due to the distruction of the Faith, because of V2, all religions seem the same. There Really is a BIG difference between The One Holy, Catholic, & Apostolic Church, and what the illegal changes the popes had allowed while they were in office. Pp666 invited 6 - yes 6 protestant Ministers into the V2 council to chg it. This was an illegal & very offensive move on his part, not to deny that he was a mason, who excommunicated himself from the church, as was other Pope's, who all didn't take the Oath Against Modernism. From John 23 thru current. So any of these changes are for the sole purpose to destroy the strength of OUR LORD's True Church. Bella Dodd, an American Communist, told Bishop Sheen, that she, herself put 1,000 Communists into our CATHOLIC Seminaries, to destroy it. This was before she found out what she did was wrong, then became a Catholic. She finally realized how she could save her soul. Back to JP2, he carried the "bent cross" which was banned many years B4, because it was the "mark of the beast". Found in book by Piers Compton. The devil is so clever & sly, where he had slipped things into our Catholic Religion, but when we follow blindly what we think we should do, then we are at risk of losing our True Catholic Faith. We must pray for discernment to have the HOLY GHOST enlighten us to only allowing the Truth enter our minds. May GOD BLESS you to seek & find the truth so as to not get misled away from our beautiful Religion, The One, Holy, Catholic, & Apostolic Church, established by JESUS CHRIST HIMSELF in the year 33AD.
The Nicene Creed was promulgated in 325 AD, before the split of East and West in 1054, and before the Protestant revolt in the 1500s. The word "catholic" from the creed in its original context recognized both the spread of the Church universally throughout the known world, but also the universality and conformity of the doctrines of the Church. The Council of Nicea also predates the establishment of the Canon of Scripture which occurred in 382 AD under Pope Damsus in Rome which, for the Old Testament Canon, is based on the Septuagint version which includes the Deuterocanon of Judith, Tobit, Wisdom, Sirach, Baruch, and I and II Maccabees (plus additional texts in Esther and Daniel). Luther chose to change the OT canon and use the Hebrew Canon which did not include those additional texts - primarily because he rejected the Catholic doctrine of purgatory, and wanted to establish his own principal doctrine of the justification by faith alone. Also, Lutheran's do not believe in or teach the doctrine of transubstantiation or the True Presence of Christ in the Eucharist. So there are a lot of differences between Lutheranism and Catholicism. Catholicism has endured unbroken since the time of Christ and the Apostles, Luther is a schismatic who broke away in the 1500s. The fruit of Protestantism is that we now have over 40,000 discrete denominations, and hundreds of thousands of independent unaffiliated Christian groups that all teach different doctrines, far from the unity that Christ prayed for in John 17, or that Paul called for in various of his letters to the churches.
Are you saying that the Eastern Orthodox are not Catholics because their teachings differ from that of the Rome? And what is Protestantism? Oh, what are you talking about the old Nicene creed that was not used anywhere after the council of Constantinople where the ecumenical Creed was formulated, the one your "only true Church" altered leading to the separation from the Church that held to the ecumenical Creed. Also, I'm a bit confused by your talking about establishing the Canon that includes secondary Canon. So, can you please decide if there is a Canon and a secondary Canon (Deuterocanon) OR a Canon that includes all the mentioned books and no secondary Canon? Because I can not possibly understand how can anyone remove books from the Canon (and put them secondary, include in the Bible as useful to read) if they are in the _sacondary_Canon_ to begin with. If them books had the same authority as the books of the Canon, I guess they would have been included in the Canon in the first place, and there had never been no secondary ("deutero") Canon.
You should get your facts straight before you post. Although there are numerous errors in your post, I will focus on only one, "True Presence of Christ in the Eucharist." This is absolutely FALSE (caps are for emphasis, not screaming :). As a confessional Lutheran pastor I can most certainly say that we DO believe that in the Lord's Supper there are four elements present, bread and wine as well as the true, real body and blood of Christ (1 Cor. 10:16). And the things which Luther rejected (i.e., transubstantiation, purgatory, rejection of the doctrine of election - Council of Trent) are those doctrines NOT taught in the Old, nor New Testaments. The apocrypha, although interested and sometimes even quite informative (i.e., Sirach), they do not hold the same weight of the Canon. No doctrine can be solely based upon them. You obviously know enough to be dangerous. When I make any statements about the teachings of Rome, I do so based upon the actual words of the Council of Trent, The Catechism of the Catholic Church, etc. You provide "talking points" from anti-Lutheran material. I do not hate you, but love you enough to tell you the truth. By the grace of God, I am catholic, not Roman Catholic. Though it is a Christian Church, it is heterodox. Kyrie Eleison!
@@rickpettey8822 And I would reply that the Lutheran view of the Eucharist is not what Christ taught in the 6th Chapter of John, in the Last Supper discourses of the gospels, or in Paul's recitation in I Corinthians. Jesus did not leave any wiggle room in His teaching. He didn't say, this bread is also my body, or this wine is also my blood. No, His statement is crystal clear. "This is my body which will be given up for you." "This is my blood of the covenant which is poured out for many." That Catholic Church would further contest that your communion can achieve the true presence since your priesthood does not have valid orders. The Church is in many places, but it is not heterodox, in terms of belief. John 17 reflects Christ's prayer for unity - not only unity among the apostles, but for all those who would come after them. That is decidedly NOT what is seen in the Protestant fold. The real issue is that of authority. Did Jesus found one Church, and give His authority to the apostles to carry out the ministry of the Church until He comes again in glory, or does He think it's OK to have thousands and thousands of denominations and independent groups all believing whatever suits them in whatever cultural milieu they inhabit? I vote for the first. In I Timothy 3:15-16 we see that it is the Church that is the pillar and bulwark of truth - and what Church was Paul talking about when he wrote that letter? The one that would eventually be known as the Catholic Church.
@@svalkonen the Eastern Orthodox are Catholics, they have valid sacraments. They are not in union with Rome, however. Protestantism is a schism from Catholicism originally, but from it's origins to now it has undergone countless schisms within itself as each new group seeks to establish its own doctrines and beliefs, which do not agree. Each group claims it's own authority for itself.
@@johnproffitt3272 is there no schism in between the EO and Romans? How is that possible within the infallible one Catholic Church? Btw, can you tell me just one of those "40 000" protestant denominations that specifically separated from the Lutheran denomination? Because the history books won't tell us about one that did. Did you see that you couldn't answer almost any of my questions to back up your false claims? Great.
Sorry Pastor you are Not Catholic as you are not in Communion with the Catholic Church. Unlike the Eastern Churches and Oriental Orthodox Churches Lutherans are not able to receive Holy Communion in the Roman Church.
Are all Romans as ignorant? He clearly said we are not Romans with a capital C (and never wanted to be, as that is the whore that we were liberated from).
@@buzzinggz556 Saint Ignatius of Antioch States in His Letter to the Smyrneans Chapter 8: "Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude of people also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church." And Yes with a Big C!
No. Peter and Paul suffered their martyrdoms in Rome. That's why it's called Roman Catholic. Like you'd say Anthony of Padua or Therese of Lisieux or Ireneus of Lyon, even if that's where they died and not were they were born
Nope, we say that only God knows a man's soul and is the sole judge, but Jesus told us that every man who believes in Him as Lord and Savior and has a relationship with Him will be saved. We do warn that ritual is often used as a replacement for a relationship with Jesus and that's very dangerous to your salvation. Relying on someone else to handle the spiritual stuff for you can easily preclude you from seeking a relationship with Him, which is a huge part of Catholic culture. Not as sure about Lutherans though.
Apostle Paul stated in Galatians that, Anyone who Preachers a Different Gospel than Him should be Eternally Condemmed, TWICE!!! ONLY 1 REAL BRIDE of "CHRIST!" THOSE In the "LAMB'S BOOK of LIFE!!!" NOT UP TO YOUR DENOMINATION!!!
and when did Christ or the apostles teach praying to Mary, an immaculate Mary, perpetual virgin, assumed, or a queen of heaven, that is a false gospel.
There are other Catholic rites which are in communion with Rome and the Pope than Roman Catholics. I believe there are 23 rites recognized by the faithful including Byzantine, Alexandrian, Antiochene, and Armenian rites. So, Catholics believe that they - somewhat together with Orthodox - are the only visible Church in the world. They consider protestant worship centers to be "religious communities." After all, how can all the denomination claim to be One if we are divided? Catholic, if we we recognize different authorities and influences? Apostolic, if there's no apostolic succession?
NOT any kind of Catholic since they are not in union with the Church Jesus established. "The Lord says to Peter: ‘I say to you,’ he says, ‘that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church.’ . . . On him [Peter] he builds the Church, and to him he gives the command to feed the sheep [John 21:17], and although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single chair [cathedra], and he established by his own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity. Indeed, the others were that also which Peter was [i.e., apostles], but a primacy is given to Peter, whereby it is made clear that there is but one Church and one chair. So too, all [the apostles] are shepherds, and the flock is shown to be one, fed by all the apostles in single-minded accord. If someone does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he should desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that he is in the Church?”- St. Cyprian of Carthage (The Unity of the Catholic Church 4; 1st edition [A.D. 251] “In the city of Rome the episcopal chair was given first to Peter; the chair in which Peter sat, the same who was head-that is why he is also called Cephas [‘Rock’]-of all the apostles, the one chair in which unity is maintained by all. Neither do the apostles proceed individually on their own, and anyone who would [presume to] set up another chair in opposition to that single chair would, by that very fact, be a schismatic and a sinner. . . . Recall, then, the origins of your chair, those of you who wish to claim for yourselves the title of holy Church”- St. Optatus of Milivus (The Schism of the Donatists2:2 [A.D. 367] “There are many other things which most properly can keep me in her [the Catholic Church’s] bosom. The unanimity of peoples and nations keeps me here. Her authority, inaugurated in miracles, nourished by hope, augmented by love, and confirmed by her age, keeps me here. The succession of priests, from the very see of the apostle Peter, to whom the Lord, after his resurrection, gave the charge of feeding his sheep [John 21:15-17], up to the present episcopate, keeps me here. And last, the very name Catholic, which, not without reason, belongs to this Church alone, in the face of so many heretics, so much so that, although all heretics want to be called ‘Catholic,’ when a stranger inquires where the Catholic Church meets, none of the heretics would dare to point out his own basilica or house”- St. Augustine of Hippo (*Against the Letter of Mani Called “The Foundation” *4:5 [A.D. 397]
@@Eye_of_a_Texan 100% correct. I'm a Byzantine Catholic. Protestants are sects. "The Lord says to Peter: ‘I say to you,’ he says, ‘that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church.’ . . . On him [Peter] he builds the Church, and to him he gives the command to feed the sheep [John 21:17], and although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single chair [cathedra], and he established by his own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity. Indeed, the others were that also which Peter was [i.e., apostles], but a primacy is given to Peter, whereby it is made clear that there is but one Church and one chair. So too, all [the apostles] are shepherds, and the flock is shown to be one, fed by all the apostles in single-minded accord. If someone does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he should desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that he is in the Church?”- St. Cyprian of Carthage (The Unity of the Catholic Church 4; 1st edition [A.D. 251] “In the city of Rome the episcopal chair was given first to Peter; the chair in which Peter sat, the same who was head-that is why he is also called Cephas [‘Rock’]-of all the apostles, the one chair in which unity is maintained by all. Neither do the apostles proceed individually on their own, and anyone who would [presume to] set up another chair in opposition to that single chair would, by that very fact, be a schismatic and a sinner. . . . Recall, then, the origins of your chair, those of you who wish to claim for yourselves the title of holy Church”- St. Optatus of Milivus (The Schism of the Donatists2:2 [A.D. 367] “There are many other things which most properly can keep me in her [the Catholic Church’s] bosom. The unanimity of peoples and nations keeps me here. Her authority, inaugurated in miracles, nourished by hope, augmented by love, and confirmed by her age, keeps me here. The succession of priests, from the very see of the apostle Peter, to whom the Lord, after his resurrection, gave the charge of feeding his sheep [John 21:15-17], up to the present episcopate, keeps me here. And last, the very name Catholic, which, not without reason, belongs to this Church alone, in the face of so many heretics, so much so that, although all heretics want to be called ‘Catholic,’ when a stranger inquires where the Catholic Church meets, none of the heretics would dare to point out his own basilica or house”- St. Augustine of Hippo (*Against the Letter of Mani Called “The Foundation” *4:5 [A.D. 397]
@@richlopez5896 >the gates of Hell shall not prevail if molesting thousands of children and then having bishops deliberately moving them around to protect them isn't the gates of Hell prevailing against "the One True Church", then idk what is. It isn't even just some priests who were bad apples, the bishops and cardinals knew exactly what they were doing. It isn't a bad apple if the Church itself was involved in this, it's a rotten tree. You literally have a Pope who has been proven to have known about it and personally was involved in moving priests, and yet is now canonized and revered as a "celebrity Pope".
@@richlopez5896before going off the rails and interpreting the catholic Church’s book like a Protestant read Isaiah 22 and Matt 16 together so you can begin to understand the office that Christ the King bestowed on Peter. “The one over the house” Al Habayit, carrier of the King’s keys.
I was raised in the Missouri Senate of the Luthern Church and from what I was taught back then, I would say that they are 1 step back from the Roman Catholic religion. I left the Luthern church when the "good shepards" came to my Grandmothers house and tried to brow beat her into pledging to give MONEY to the church. I still don't know what part of what my Grandmother told them that she would give when she could that they refused to understand. I was just glad that I was there and could boot those greedy bums out.
I've learned that if you tell a Lutheran or an Anglican that they are Catholic Lite, they get mad. Yet, both are closer to Roman Catholicism than the Southern Baptist Convention or the Disciples of Christ. But, if you feel that a church gets too pushy, when it comes to getting members to pledge, the question I have is how much trouble does that church have meeting its budget. I've belonged to churches in which several wealthy families are able to help a church meet budget numbers every year. That is both good and bad. It's good, that a church doesn't need to pressure all members. It's bad that if a wealthy person dies or moves away, that leaves a budget gap. I've also belonged to churches in which there is some pressure. But, when you have 2 ordained pastors, a full-time youth pastor, a Christian Ed director, choirs from ages 3 to adult, programs for seniors, host homeless people one night a week, and so on, and you don't have a lot of wealthy people, it's either get people to donate or make some draconian cuts
@@williamavitt8264 sorry friend, Act 20:7 doesn't make void an entire Command from our Creator and Saviour. or did Jesus lie to us in Matt 5:19 and Luke 16:17?? i also find it interesting that you ignored the dozens of times the 7th day Sabbath was kept in Acts. according to both the OT and NT - the Sabbath is the Lord's day and there can be no other. would you like it written out for proof, Sir?
@@tony1685 that is not according to the NT. And quoting from the Gospels is kind of nonsense because we didn't enter the new covenant until the resurrection. That's why Jesus told His followers to continue following the Pharisees. The Pharisees still sat on the seat of Moses. Only after the resurrection was the authority passed from the Pharisees and the Rabbis to the Apostles. And the Apostles worshiped on Sunday. I'm sorry you don't understand Scripture or history, but that doesn't make them invalid. Here's a hint: if everyone but you is doing something the same way, it's probably not everyone else that's wrong
The big or small c doesn't count, 8n those days there weren't anything big or small letter as it was meant today The Word CATHOLIC as it was meant and why it was meant is the one as CATHOLIC today believes. I was protestant once, having read the Early Church Fathers and come to understanding without a shred of a doubt THE CATHOLIC CHURCH IS THE ONLY CHURCH ESTABLISHED BY JESUS CHRIST, MY LORD AND SAVIOR ❤❤❤❤❤
To be Catholic means to be part of the Catholic Church. That may be the Latin church or any other. Luther exactly separated from the Catholic Church, thus he and his followers are not Catholic, but rather sectarian. Sectarian simply means separated from the larger body of believers. There are many sects of the Catholic Church and the church of Luther is one of them.
@@Jerry-er6lq sure! Christianity prays to God Alone - catholicism prays to sinners who are dead. Christians obeys God - catholicism obeys 'popes'. Christianity follows the Christian Bible - catholicism a 'catechism' and more nonsense. there are just too many things to prove it with Jerry. i was catholic 35 yrs - not until i studied the Word of God, after asking for the Author's guidance, did i get it. thanks for asking! all questions welcomed and encouraged, Sir.
@@Jerry-er6lq 1 - if you don't believe i am a person of integrity, you don't have to reply, Sir. 2 - you haven't addressed anything which i've written above which would debunk what's clear and undeniable.
Lutherans are not catholic/orthodox christians. They are a wonderful flavor of Christian expression. But there are theological differences. But hey christianity is a big tent!
@@catmom1322 eah and don't forget the mass slaughter of indigenous Americans by our friendly Dominicans, I just loved the Spanish Inquisition too- all that FIRE, WOW!!! But a few hundred years of child rape is the icing on the cake!! I love being Catholic until I look in the mirror!!!
Yes, All Christians are Catholic, unbeknownst to many, because it's The Church instituted by Christ Himself, but Man has changed it to benefit or make it easy to make himself feel at ease if he is doing wrong, Church perfect, man not so, that's why we have so many denominations instead of One Holy Catholic and Apostolic
Christians don't pray and worship Mary, those are Catholics. Reading of the New Testament will reveal that the Catholic Church does not have its origin in the teachings of Jesus or His apostles. In the New Testament, there is no mention of the papacy, worship/adoration of Mary (or the immaculate conception of Mary, the perpetual virginity of Mary, the assumption of Mary, or Mary as co-redemptrix and mediatrix), petitioning saints in heaven for their prayers, apostolic succession, the ordinances of the church functioning as sacraments, infant baptism, confession of sin to a priest, purgatory, indulgences, or the equal authority of church tradition and Scripture. We are not saved by sacraments; we are saved by faith. As one can see the origin of the Catholic Church is not in the teachings of Jesus and His apostles.
No, there is Big c Catholic as in Roman Catholic, and small c catholic, which means universal and refers to the universal Christian church, the body of Christ.
No Shiit. Maybe the idea doesn’t matter too you then. There are many Christian churches besides the Catholic one who use the term ‘Catholic’, not just Lutherans but Angilicans, Eastern + oriental Orthodox churches, most historical churches describe themselves as the one Catholic true church. Instead of tossing them to the side because they’re not as popular you should learn their history, but not through quick google searches lol
yes, the "priesthood of all believers"-whoopy do! but since the Lutheran communion service has no sacrificial nature your minister is simply a minister, but not a priest. Priests offer sacrifice! That is the definition of a priest@@svalkonen
What? Anglicanism was a mostly Calvinist-leaning church until the 19th century. There may be Anglo-Catholics today, but they didn't exist until hundreds of years later and still aren't representative of all Anglicans. Anglicanism was not a Via Media between Protestantism and Catholicism, it was a Via Media between Calvinism and Lutheranism
People, please be aware the warnings of the fathers and saints of the early Church regarding the eternal consequences of separatism and heresy. Read Paul, John, Augustine, Gregory, etc. Nobody will find salvation by following a gospel he composed himself. We are not called to compose our own, but rather to accept His. One Lord and one Gospel and all the rest is of man or worse.
Reading of the New Testament will reveal that the Catholic Church does not have its origin in the teachings of Jesus or His apostles. In the New Testament, there is no mention of the papacy, worship/adoration of Mary (or the immaculate conception of Mary, the perpetual virginity of Mary, the assumption of Mary, or Mary as co-redemptrix and mediatrix), petitioning saints in heaven for their prayers, apostolic succession, the ordinances of the church functioning as sacraments, infant baptism, confession of sin to a priest, purgatory, indulgences, or the equal authority of church tradition and Scripture. We are not saved by sacraments; we are saved by faith. As one can see the origin of the Catholic Church is not in the teachings of Jesus and His apostles.
@@sammygomes7381 Sammy, do you not see what you are doing now? You are comparing the teachings of the Church to your personal reading of Scripture. You are not the pillar of truth, Sammy: the Church is, remember? You are not called to follow yourself: we are all called to follow Jesus instead. You as well, Sammy. You are to accept the Gospel: not to run around with your own ideas and opinions. You are to be a Christian: not a Sammian ;) There is only one way to heaven: one Lord and one Gospel and all the rest is manmade gospels that lead to nowhere eternal...
@@pierreschiffer3180 Pretty sure I am comparing the teaching of Christ with the false doctrines of non-Christian churches such as the Catholic teaching. You are correct "there is here is only one way to heaven: one Lord and one Gospel and all the rest is manmade gospels that lead to nowhere eternal", yet people continue to think they can worship Mary, receive Christ by eating them and following the false doctrines of the Catholic church and others.
@@sammygomes7381 Sammy, you are not being honest to me and to yourself. All you have is your personal understanding of Scripture, and to compare this to anything is devoid of any meaning. Do you understand this? Do you admit to the possibility that your understanding of Scripture is false, Sammy?
Well father (i don't know wheter father is right, having had myself a catholic upbreeding😂) 1) you're very gifted for youtube 2) a point of view from a secular Catholic to a Lutheran: Of course you lutherans are catholics - WE as catholics are told the contrary, so the division in the ekklesia is just perceived (mostly because of its temporal consequences at the time). My point is even more radical: im most of its critics Luther WAS right. Unfortunately the Pope didn't agree, and it was a disaster since it sparked the birth of a thousand non denominated self proclaimed "christian churches" since Calvin and on. Now, i write from an estetical point of view, being myself more of a christian son of Spinoza than a son of belief - but, if the Pope attuned with a true faith he would have probably embraced Luther's thesis. He was an absolut genius, and a revolutionary, AND a priest. The only thing I can't agree with is Sola Scriptura, and i repeat it is the point of view of a NON ecclesiastic lover of Christ: if one believes in the gift given to the apostoles and in the church to be the direct incarnation of the spirit on earth, it is clear that Scriptura MUST be mediated, or there would be no need for a church, or even for the gift of Pentecoste.
Thank you for commenting! Thank you for your encouraging words! (I am usually addressed as Pastor, but Father is fine!) You bring up great points. We might be more similar on the topic of Sola Scriptura than you think. In our ordination vows Lutheran pastors confess, "I believe and confess the canonical Scriptures to the inspired Word of God and only infallible rule of faith and practice." That is what Lutherans mean by Sola Scriptura, which is not necessarily the same thing as others who use that term. Scripture alone is infallible, but Scripture is never meant to be "alone." We read, understand, and interpret Scripture within the context, history, and communal life of the "one, holy, catholic, and apostolic church" (Nicene Creed). (And as a confessional Lutheran, one of my ordination promises is to "perform the duties of [my] office in accordance with [the Lutheran Confessions], and that all [my] preaching and teaching and administration of the Sacraments will be in conformity with Holy Scripture and with these Confessions.") We have a high regard for all church traditions that contribute to good order, aid the proclamation of the Gospel, and do not contradict Scripture. Your statement of whether Scripture must be mediated through the Church is fascinating and is really making me think! Well, I'll say this. In many points of theology, Lutherans love paradoxes; we love answering "Both!" to all sorts of questions where others pick one side or the other. (E.g. Is the Bible God's Word or man's word? Is Jesus fully God or fully man? In Holy Communion do we receive bread and wine or Christ's body and blood? Does God predestine those who will be saved or do people choose to reject God?) We try hard to affirm what Scripture teaches--and no more!--to avoid the "extremes" of what necessarily happens when people try to make the faith make more sense to human reason. So regarding Scripture alone or mediation through the church, the best I can say is that Lutherans want to have it both ways! It need not be a simple yes or no. Perhaps the best way to approach this issue is how we teach the "means of grace." Does baptism save or does faith apart from baptism save? Does God forgive us directly when we pray or does he forgive us through the mediation of the church's sacraments--Baptism, Confession, Holy Communion? Both! Yes! (By the way, check out my midweek sermon series on Confession--on 2/21, 2/28, 3/6, 3/13, and 3/20. Well, I hope this helps. Thanks again for watching and commenting! --Pastor Joseph Signore
Well father, yours was articulate too. You see, I was talking about sola Scriptura but indeed i should have said nuda Scriptura, THAT is i feel kind of unreconciliabke with catholics, and of course more Calvinist than Lutheran. If you ask me, as a radical i'd even say that Calvinist promped a scism that created NON christian churches. Here is my point, even less secular than doctrinal. Lutherans ARE catholics, because they ARE born again beyond the baptism. The remaining obstacles are sola fide amd sola gratia, appereantly, but they're merely doctrinal obstacules. A true man god understands the soveraignity of faith on doctrine, but we have to define faith. I make a clear separation between catholics, ortodoxes and lutherans as christians as Calvinists and forth as non christians because of how the first and the latter interpretate Paul's definition, which is quite close to Jesus' one. We have three things as a remainder to christianity: faith, hope, and love. Now love, as stated, is the most important. Why so: because without it faith is nothing but credulity, and works are nothing but rituals, so inherently self serving children of pride fear and guilt, not of the Spirit . That is why love is at the very core of the christian message, and why works are only possible and true in love: because we are gifted with different talents to SERVE, not to believe. This is how i define a christian: as somebody who's born again in that truth that prompts love. I don't care anout salvation, i can't call christian a Calvinist, say, for that creed is a belief, in my opinion, not a faith. The after life does not concern me because when you're honest enough to open your darkest boxes to the spirit and ask for aid, you don't fear death. I'm not a christian in the common sense of the word, and my reason does not allow me to "believe" in the resurrection, or in miracles, but the point is: i don't need to believe to have faith . I FEEL Christ was God, whether he resurrected or not, for his example IS divine.. That's why i possibly understand Paul. They would have burnt me at the stake i guess😂. Have a nice evening father, thanks for answering!
they may as well be - since neither they nor the catholics honor and keep Exodus 20:8-11, the Lord's day Command. both pretend the pagan sun worship day is the Lord's day - which isn't Truth at all.
We read in the book of Colossians that the Sabbath was a shadow of the rest to come which is found in Christ. We read in Galatians that Christians are not bound to keep ceremonial law. We read in the counsel of Acts that the Gentiles were not instructed to observe a Sabbath. We recognize in Genesis that Enoch, Noah, Abraham, and Lot were accounted as righteous prior to being commanded to observe a Sabbath day. We read in the Gospels that the Sabbath was made for man and not man for Sabbath, and that Jesus is the Lord over the Sabbath day. We learn from the Gospels that the Lord did not come to abolish the law but to fulfill. Christ is the fulfillment of the Sabbath rest law.
@@patrickfitzgerald6601 so did Paul override the Father's Words in Ex 20:8-11 ? did Paul override our Saviours Words in Luke 16:17? did Paul contradict himself in 1 Cor 7:19 as well? so according to Scripture, Paul was supportive of sin. is that correct?
@@tony1685 The Law was given as a school master. It was not given for righteousness but so that our need for a savior would be made known to us. Galatians 3:24-25 KJV Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith. But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster.
@@tony1685 yes. Christ is the fulfillment of the law to all who believe. Therefore the Christian keeps the 10 commandments. Christ is the culmination of the law so that there may be righteousness for everyone who believes. Romans 10:4 NIV For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth. Same in KJV
@@johnmarquardt1991 Baloney. If you had any idea what the early church taught you would know that was a lie. Further, Luther started a novel religion so there is no way it could be considered "orthodox". He walked out the door. God or bad, he left the Catholic Church which he claimed had failed. He was in complete opposition to Jesus who said that his church would never fail.
@@johnmarquardt1991 I hate no one but I hate falsehoods. You asked: Do you believe that you are totally saved by the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ? Me: If I am saved that is how it will occur. But I believe in the Bible and thus I know that I will stand in judgment by God and will learn whether or not I am saved. And I know from Scripture that some people who assumed that they were saved found out that they weren't.
@SweatySamurai99 No he didn't separate himself lmao, wtf are u on about? You guys kicked him out by excommunicating him and attempting to burn him at the stake. The Pope promised Luther would be safe at his trial at the Diet of Worms, but actually he was supposed to be burn at the stake afterwards if he did not recant his beliefs were it not for Frederick III kidnapping and hiding him to keep him safe. You guys burnt Tyndale and Jan Hus at the stake for also calling out the widespread simony the Church had going on, but their followers weren't successful so they continued unchallenged. The vernacular was heresy, but jk in the 1960s they changed their mind, whoops sorry for burning u and thousands of others alive! The Counter Reformation only happened because the Reformation was becoming so widespread and because the Church's corruption was exposed, they needed to do PR to stop Catholics from leaving. If Luther was not successful and had been burnt alive, who knows how long the RCC would continue not caring about its corruption until a reformation that had lots of followers threatened them and their money to build St Peters Basilica
Good work! I like to say that Lutherans are Catholic but not Roman, Orthodox but not eastern, denominational Evangelicals, we are Sacramental Baptist, we are Pentecostal about half the year, and we are 8th Day Adventist. ;-)
@@Jerry-er6lq , your interpretation of Isaiah 22 is quite far out, to be nice. Can you refer to any scholarly references for that interpretation? My statement above is fairly simple. CATHOLIC means universal. As in, the Universal Church of Christ. Which the Roman Church is a part of but so are many others. Thus one may be catholic without being Roman (that is without being under the authority of the bishop of Rome). Scripture does not support the primacy of the bishop of Rome. Only the Supremacy of Christ matters and is clearly scriptural.
@@Jerry-er6lq , none of your references had anything to do with Isaiah 22 or any other text inspired by the Holy Spirit. The Eastern Orthodox Christians do not believe in the supremacy of the bishop of Rome and they’ve been around for 2000 years. So stop. You are defending the indefensible. Rome is not the only Catholic Church. Rome is closer to Babylon than the actual Kingdom of Christ. (I don’t mean every individual Roman Catholic but only certain leaders in the last 2000 years)
_'8th Day Adventist'_ - still a day too late! sadly, like catholicism - they follow the pagan sun worship day, rather than the Lord's day, the 7th day Sabbath of Christianity.
@@Jerry-er6lq , it is precisely your type of blind allegiance to traditions of men that Jesus warned about. It leads people to hell. People like you looked the other way when church leaders were molesting children by the thousands. You wouldn’t know a heretic even if he jumped out of the mirror and slapped you.
@@tony1685 , I’m not sure you understand the reference. Look up 8th Day Theology. It’s a Christian idea about being a new creation in Christ, and much more. 8th Day Adventist is a play on words. A little joke at the expense of 7th Adventists. Kinda tongue in cheek is all.
@Franjipane-lh8ni 1st Thessalonians 2:15 Last word in verse 14 (JEWS) 15 Who killed our LORD Saviour who persecuted they own prophets and us and are contrary to all men. Seams Bible backs Martian Luther up
Luther and this sect lead you NOWHERE. Your soul can ONLY be saved through the Catholic faith and Church. Don't be fooled. The Devil fooled Luther, don;t let him fool you too.
@@johnmarquardt1991 Not sure what gave you that idea, but everyone can be saved if they follow Christ. The question was how is one saved in the Catholic church.
My mother believed that Catholic and Christian were synonyms. Some Catholics are Roman. Some are German (Lutheran). Some are Canterbury (Anglican). Some are Scottish (Presbyterian). Some are Salt Lake City (Mormon).
Kent, MORMONS don't believe in Jesus as the 2nd person of the Trinity who became human, died for our sins and rose from the dead. They have statues of Maroni on top of their Temples. I lived in La Jolla and there is a beautiful White Mormon Temple there right near Trader Joes where I liked to shop. Mormons are nice people but they are not Christians.
@kenfrederick8929: "Some are Sal Lake City (Mormons)." The LDS religion is not Christian. The Mormon religion does not believe in the true God: Father, Son and Holy Spirit, three distinct persons and yet only ONE God. They are polytheists, they believe in many gods. This is not a personal view, simply stating the facts. They do not hold to the confession of the Athanasian Creed (yes, I know it was written by men. However, it faithfully confesses what the Bible teaches). {Whoever will be saved shall, above all else, hold the catholic Faith. WHICH FAITH, EXCEPT EVERYONE KEEPS WHOLE AND UNDEFILED, WITHOUT DOUBT HE WILL PERISH ETERNALLY. And the catholic Faith is this, that we worship one God in three Persons and three Persons in one God, neither confusing the Persons nor dividing the substance.}
No if you watch this non bias PBS documentary ull understand what all went on at the time. Luther was not trying to break away from the church he want to debate his 95 thesis of indulgences.
The Nicene creed, the other creeds, smells like an open sewer. What about scripture? Something the catholics departed from without authority, but their own with their creeds, edicts, and traditions. So glad, scripture doesn't allow heresy.
@@eltonron1558 You should expound upon the falsehoods in the Nicene Creed. The Nicene Creed I believe in one God, the Father almighty, maker of heaven and earth, of all things visible and invisible. I believe in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Only Begotten Son of God, born of the Father before all ages. God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God, begotten, not made, consubstantial with the Father; through him all things were made. For us men and for our salvation he came down from heaven, and by the Holy Spirit was incarnate of the Virgin Mary, and became man. For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate, he suffered death and was buried, and rose again on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures. He ascended into heaven and is seated at the right hand of the Father. He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead and his kingdom will have no end. I believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life, who proceeds from the Father and the Son, who with the Father and the Son is adored and glorified, who has spoken through the prophets. I believe in one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church. I confess one Baptism for the forgiveness of sins and I look forward to the resurrection of the dead and the life of the world to come. Amen.
@The Ten Cent Story OK, here's the thing. The creed itself is harmless, but for elevating the holy spirit to that of God. It's the meeting in Nicea that brought the heresy in 325ad. Between Constantine, and the church. The very reason to keep church and state separate.
