Oh come on! There is plentiful diversity in the Catholic Church--of orders, of habits, of spiritual traditions, of theological styles, of saints, of liturgical expressions, etc., etc. Diversity is one thing; fundamental disagreement about essential doctrine is something else altogether.
Trying to say that catholic diversity Bishop Barron said above is equivalent to the protestant babel of fundamental differences is a false analogy, a fallacy.
BISHOP BARON I NEED UR HELP , AM DYING AS RESULTS OF MY INTAKE OF DROGS ....AM WEAK NUT STILL CANT DO WITHOUT DRUGS...AM DYING EACH DAY .....JELP ME MY LORD
@tony Feel free to cite where you got your information supporting the claim that Catholics aren't Christian... Otherwise, I think it's you that should re-explore the Bible.
@tony I'm not sure you fully understand the bible. None of us do. But God is not a God of confusion. He would not try to confuse his children, so, you should act in Jesus's example and not try to confuse people who are correct with you Protestant Jibberish. I pray for you too! I hope you find your way back to the True Church of Christ.
@tony Catholics are Christ's True Church. They were the first and they are the only Church with Authority. Through the Apostles to Bishops, Priests, and Deacons through the centuries. The Catholic Church is the Only Church with With Christs Authority.
@tony I'm down for your Challenge. I will be pressing through a KJV Bible for the rest of this week. But I have a NAB and a Douay Rheims Bible on the way to get a full understanding. Yes, I know of Matt 16, when he properly establishes his Church. So, you go first.
I am soon to marry, and as the spiritual leader of my home, I am deeply searching for our spiritual home. In my research, I have found great encouragement in the Catholic church. I believe I am now on a proper path and will soon begin the search to find a Catholic church for my family.
I know this is an older post but I hope you and your wife talked about it and agreed. I too am married and to a woman that reads her Bible everyday. I too am the spiritual leader of the home, unfortunately my wife has decided not to follow. It has created deep divisions in our relationship. It would have been helpful to know before hand.
I loved these Fr. Barron videos back in the day! I binged-watched them and they helped so much in my journey home to the Catholic Church. Fr. Barron was ordained a bishop just three months after I joined the Church, so it felt like I had a connection with him and we were accompanying each other as we entered a new stage of life. God bless💕
Pretty hard to dislike Father Barron - he takes on the hard questions and escapes without harming himself or the questions, and yet he engages and scores.
Interesting, well-balanced presentation, Fr. Barron. I have a friend who's a Lutheran pastor. He keeps wishing his church had a magisterium. It makes him cringe to see matters of doctrine voted upon by people who have no training in theology. I think many people don't understand that the development of doctrine is not an arbitrary thing, teachings imposed by people in authority simply because they have authority. Doctrine must be consistent with Scripture, and it must make logical sense.
Oh indeed! My biggest problem with these "spring up churches" of today. No particular theological basis or backing. To me this is such a maverick way, dangerous, and leaves ample avenues for any and all wrong information to fall in to place under the rooves of these start up (upstart?) church communities where the well meaning leaders and followers remain albeit clueless and somewhat innocent, uninformed. Yet, my humble opinion is that all involved ought to feel the responsibility to be seeking the real actual Truth, rather than making up the "feel good" so called "truth" as they stumble forward with a Bible in their hand. May the mighty Holy Spirit help these folks, guide them, breathe the breath of reality on us all as we stumble toward Heaven in the murky secularity of this life!
You're very misguided, sorry for whoever taught you that, terrible thing to say, you should ashamed of yourself, you must be very young because no true, responsible adults would have such evil things to say about any religion
I became Catholic not because I "liked" it better, but for the same reason Neumann said. Writings of the Eastern Orthodox helped me a lot in this regard by the way, for they, and the Oriental Orthodox, and the Assyrian, are stronger proof than anything that the ideas of apostolic succession as just a succession of believers or presbyters is just not sustainable; we were getting it wrong for well over 1000 years before Luther figured it out? Sorry, but that doesn't work. Most of the Protestant arguments simply fall apart on this point. I pray they look at it and realize it, apostolic succession wasn't an invention of Rome. It just wasn't.
John Collins LOL I likely know more real scientists than you know actual people. Cultists like you are destroying science, BTW. www.deanesmay.com/2016/05/05/the-scientific-reality-of-the-scientism-religion/
John Collins Stephen Hawking is an idiot when it comes to philosophy and theology, but he's not a cult leader. It'd be nice if he'd give Father Geroges LeMaitre a little more credit though, given that LeMaitre's the one responsible for most of his career. No, the cult leaders are people like Richard Dawkins.
This is part of why I think most people don't trust atheists--the clear dishonesty. Atheist cults have been around for thousands of years and are still highly active today.
Thank you Rodney. That actually makes sense. I've watched the entire 'Catholicism' series and was really impressed. Everything I had ever heard about Catholicism came from non-Catholics (I'm originally from south Alabama) so my view was very skewed. I've been watching nearly all of Fr. Barron's RU-vid videos. They all make sense to me. Thanks again for the response!
Yay Fr. Barron..you explained clearly that the church is a living church and that it needs an authority. Just like Jesus said to Peter:"Man has not reveiled this to you But my father". So has God reviled this to you Fr.....now Bishop Barron. We love you! We needed someone like you here in California. Mi Casa 🏡 Es Tu Casa🏡. We are praying for you..please pray for us.😊
My father is an Evangelical and my mother is a Catholics. Having to go back and fort between these denomination makes my head burst to find which is which is true to follow. But , somehow , my heart always never lose focus to Jesus be it wherever and whatever denominations I go to. Now , as I got older , it's pretty clear that to be able to questions much of everything about how Faiths work , I found the path of Evangelical have always been my calling to stand in the faith ( Even when I am dealing with my current sin ). Catholics still ring most to my heart still ( probably because I spend most of my childhood more with my mom than my dad ) and I only got into protestant when I finally moved out with my dad since dad's place kinda the only place that in majority , got protestant churches. One things for sure , it was a culture shock . In Catholics faith , you got a lot of statues and decorations that resembles the faith but Protestants are minimalist ( it's their way of saying that faith in Christ is the focus inside you and not the things that you have ). Protestants got instruments ranging in a complete rhythm sections and I first play the keyboard then shift my majors to electric guitar. Learn music once in classical trained literacy but now as protestant , it's pop jazz and Gospel feel ( although sometimes , we are inclined to go for the classical style ) In short , my transitions does change my culture of serving the Lord through church but It doesn't change the foundations of my own living church inside me...JESUS. My focus have always been to Him all the time. Right now , I am currently far away from home and constantly dealing with a lot of stuff ( so much that my catholic side tells me to repent and make a confessions ). But , I am grateful to God when He sent me different people fo the same faith but different denominations to carry me up when I am down by offering me to go with them at the church. I believe that God's work is always in motions and if it wasn't for Him , I would have already lost not of faith in churches of men but the church that build personally within my heart with Him. God Bless Everyone and do also say a prayers for this sinners that smokes and drink to go oftenly if best , eradicate it....
The Pillar and Foundation of Truth is the CHURCH, not the Bible. (1 Tim 3.15) The Church wrote, assembled and canonized the Bible. No effect can be greater than it's cause. Think about it...
God Himself wrote the Bible through men. 2 Peter 1:19-21; see also 2 Timothy 3:15-17, Proverbs 30:5-6, 1 Corinthians 4:6, 2 Peter 3:15-16, 1 Peter 4:17, 1 Peter 1:22-25, James 5:10, James 1:18, 21-25, Hebrews 13:7, 11:, 4:12, 1:1-4, and I'll post others as I find them.
I have no problem with people who are Protestant Christian. In fact my girlfriend is a Protestant Christian and her Protestant denomination is Baptist. And when I told her that my denomination is Catholic, she and I respected each other and there was mutual understanding.
Dude, you are not part of any denomination. Protestants are, because there are more than 60,000 of them. They have to set themselves apart from the other 59,999. The Catholic Church is the only one true church. It is not a denomination. It is not one among many. Just think about it.
Respectfully...the almost 2,000 year old Catholic Church is not a denomination...but the very Church our Lord Jesus Christ established in Matthew 16:18.
I became Anglican a few years ago and have found myself drawn more to the Anglo-Catholic end of the spectrum, and now feel drawn to Rome. I'm hoping someday to enter full communion with Rome, but at least for now I'm living practically as a Catholic. At a certain point I realized (as Newman did) that many of the Anglo-Catholic traditions are beautiful, but they're also kind of empty dead traditions without the living tradition of the Catholic Church. If we all follow one God, one Jesus, one faith, one Church, how can it be that we are all using wildly different interpretations of the same text? I think it's fine to debate scripture and doctrine, we should even encourage it because it promotes a greater familiarity with the Scripture and with theological concepts, but at the end of the day we need a unified voice of truth in the world to guard against heresy.
He is Right every man and woman seem to have different opinions about everything. But Ibelieve I have a small universal truth in this. It goes something like; God listens to people in great despair. And he shows them great miracle of comfort.
Does your Bible believing church teach that you must physically eat the flesh of Jesus and drink His blood to have life in you (John 6:53)? John 6:53 So Jesus said to them, "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
Tim Spangler Jesus Promises His Real Presence in the Eucharist John 6:4,11-14 - on the eve of the Passover, Jesus performs the miracle of multiplying the loaves. This was prophesied in the Old Testament (e.g., 2 Kings 4:43), and foreshadows the infinite heavenly bread which is Him. Matt. 14:19, 15:36; Mark 6:41, 8:6; Luke 9:16 -these passages are additional accounts of the multiplication miracles. This points to the Eucharist. Matt. 16:12 -in this verse, Jesus explains His metaphorical use of the term "bread." In John 6, He eliminates any metaphorical possibilities. John 6:4 - Jesus is in Capernaum on the eve of Passover, and the lambs are gathered to be slaughtered and eaten. Look what He says. John 6:35,41,48,51 - Jesus says four times "I AM the bread from heaven." It is He, Himself, the eternal bread from heaven. John 6:27,31,49 - there is a parallel between the manna in the desert which was physically consumed, and this "new" bread which must be consumed. John 6:51-52- then Jesus says that the bread He is referring to is His flesh. The Jews take Him literally and immediately question such a teaching. How can this man give us His flesh to eat? John 6:53 - 58 - Jesus does not correct their literal interpretation. Instead, Jesus eliminates any metaphorical interpretations by swearing an oath and being even more literal about eating His flesh. In fact, Jesus says four times we must eat His flesh and drink His blood. Catholics thus believe that Jesus makes present His body and blood in the sacrifice of the Mass. Protestants, if they are not going to become Catholic, can only argue that Jesus was somehow speaking symbolically. John 6:23-53 - however, a symbolic interpretation is not plausible. Throughout these verses, the Greek text uses the word "phago" nine times. "Phago" literally means "to eat" or "physically consume." Like the Protestants of our day, the disciples take issue with Jesus' literal usage of "eat." So Jesus does what? John 6:54, 56, 57, 58 - He uses an even more literal verb, translated as "trogo," which means to gnaw or chew or crunch. He increases the literalness and drives his message home. Jesus will literally give us His flesh and blood to eat. The word “trogo” is only used two other times in the New Testament (in Matt. 24:38 and John 13:18) and it always means to literally gnaw or chew meat. While “phago” might also have a spiritual application, "trogo" is never used metaphorically in Greek. So Protestants cannot find one verse in Scripture where "trogo" is used symbolically, and yet this must be their argument if they are going to deny the Catholic understanding of Jesus' words. Moreover, the Jews already knew Jesus was speaking literally even before Jesus used the word “trogo” when they said “How can this man give us His flesh to eat?” (John 6:52). John 6:55 - to clarify further, Jesus says "For My Flesh is food indeed, and My Blood is drink indeed." This phrase can only be understood as being responsive to those who do not believe that Jesus' flesh is food indeed, and His blood is drink indeed. Further, Jesus uses the word which is translated as "sarx." "Sarx" means flesh (not "soma" which means body). See, for example, John 1:13,14; 3:6; 8:15; 17:2; Matt. 16:17; 19:5; 24:22; 26:41; Mark 10:8; 13:20; 14:38; and Luke 3:6; 24:39 which provides other examples in Scripture where "sarx" means flesh. It is always literal. John 6:55 - further, the phrases "real" food and "real" drink use the word "alethes." "Alethes" means "really" or "truly," and would only be used if there were doubts concerning the reality of Jesus' flesh and blood as being food and drink. Thus, Jesus is emphasizing the miracle of His body and blood being actual food and drink. John 6:60 - as are many anti-Catholics today, Jesus' disciples are scandalized by these words. They even ask, "Who can 'listen' to it (much less understand it)?" To the unillumined mind, it seems grotesque. John 6:61-63 - Jesus acknowledges their disgust. Jesus' use of the phrase "the spirit gives life" means the disciples need supernatural faith, not logic, to understand His words. John 3:6 - Jesus often used the comparison of "spirit versus flesh" to teach about the necessity of possessing supernatural faith versus a natural understanding. In Mark 14:38 Jesus also uses the "spirit/flesh" comparison. The spirit is willing but the flesh is weak. We must go beyond the natural to understand the supernatural. In 1 Cor. 2:14,3:3; Rom 8:5; and Gal. 5:17, Paul also uses the "spirit/flesh" comparison to teach that unspiritual people are not receiving the gift of faith. They are still "in the flesh." John 6:63 - Protestants often argue that Jesus' use of the phrase "the spirit gives life" shows that Jesus was only speaking symbolically. However, Protestants must explain why there is not one place in Scripture where "spirit" means "symbolic." As we have seen, the use of "spirit" relates to supernatural faith. What words are spirit and life? The words that we must eat Jesus' flesh and drink His blood, or we have no life in us. John 6:66-67 - many disciples leave Jesus, rejecting this literal interpretation that we must eat His flesh and drink His blood. At this point, these disciples really thought Jesus had lost His mind. If they were wrong about the literal interpretation, why wouldn't Jesus, the Great Teacher, have corrected them? Why didn't Jesus say, "Hey, come back here, I was only speaking symbolically!"? Because they understood correctly. Jesus Institutes the Eucharist / More Proofs of the Real Presence 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 "Touto estin to soma mou." This phraseology means "this is actually" or "this is really" my body and blood. 1 Cor. 11:24 - the same translation is used by Paul - "touto mou estin to soma." The statement is "this is really" my body and blood. Nowhere in Scripture does God ever declare something without making it so. Matt. 26:26; Mark. 14:22; Luke 22:19 - to deny the 2,000 year-old Catholic understanding of the Eucharist, Protestants must argue that Jesus was really saying "this represents (not is) my body and blood." However, Aramaic, the language that Jesus spoke, had over 30 words for "represent," but Jesus did not use any of them. He used the Aramaic word for "estin" which means "is." Matt. 26:28; Mark. 14:24; Luke 22:20 - Jesus' use of "poured out" in reference to His blood also emphasizes the reality of its presence. Exodus 24:8 - Jesus emphasizes the reality of His actual blood being present by using Moses' statement "blood of the covenant." 1 Cor. 10:16 - Paul asks the question, "the cup of blessing and the bread of which we partake, is it not an actual participation in Christ's body and blood?" Is Paul really asking because He, the divinely inspired writer, does not understand? No, of course not. Paul's questions are obviously rhetorical. This IS the actual body and blood. Further, the Greek word "koinonia" describes an actual, not symbolic participation in the body and blood. 1 Cor. 10:18 - in this verse, Paul is saying we are what we eat. We are not partners with a symbol. We are partners of the one actual body. 1 Cor. 11:23 - Paul does not explain what he has actually received directly from Christ, except in the case when he teaches about the Eucharist. Here, Paul emphasizes the importance of the Eucharist by telling us he received directly from Jesus instructions on the Eucharist which is the source and summit of the Christian faith. 1 Cor. 11:27-29 - in these verses, Paul says that eating or drinking in an unworthy manner is the equivalent of profaning (literally, murdering) the body and blood of the Lord. If this is just a symbol, we cannot be guilty of actually profaning (murdering) it. We cannot murder a symbol. Either Paul, the divinely inspired apostle of God, is imposing an unjust penalty, or the Eucharist is the actual body and blood of Christ. 1 Cor. 11:30 - this verse alludes to the consequences of receiving the Eucharist unworthily. Receiving the actual body and blood of Jesus in mortal sin results in actual physical consequences to our bodies. 1 Cor. 11:27-30 - thus, if we partake of the Eucharist unworthily, we are guilty of literally murdering the body of Christ, and risking physical consequences to our bodies. This is overwhelming evidence for the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist. These are unjust penalties if the Eucharist is just a symbol. Acts 2:42 - from the Church's inception, apostolic tradition included celebrating the Eucharist (the "breaking of the bread") to fulfill Jesus' command "do this in remembrance of me." Acts 20:28 - Paul charges the Church elders to "feed" the Church of the Lord, that is, with the flesh and blood of Christ. Matt. 6:11; Luke 11:3 - in the Our Father, we ask God to give us this day our daily bread, that is the bread of life, Jesus Christ. Matt. 12:39 - Jesus says no “sign” will be given except the “sign of the prophet Jonah.” While Protestants focus only on the “sign” of the Eucharist, this verse demonstrates that a sign can be followed by the reality (here, Jesus’ resurrection, which is intimately connected to the Eucharist). Matt. 19:6 - Jesus says a husband and wife become one flesh which is consummated in the life giving union of the marital act. This union of marital love which reflects Christ's union with the Church is physical, not just spiritual. Thus, when Paul says we are a part of Christ's body (Eph. 1:22-23; 5:23,30-31; Col. 1:18,24), he means that our union with Christ is physical, not just spiritual. But our union with Christ can only be physical if He is actually giving us something physical, that is Himself, which is His body and blood to consume (otherwise it is a mere spiritual union). Luke 14:15 - blessed is he who eats this bread in the kingdom of God, on earth and in heaven. Luke 22:19, 1 Cor. 11:24-25 - Jesus commands the apostles to "do this," that is, offer the Eucharistic sacrifice, in remembrance of Him. Luke 24:26-35 - in the Emmaus road story, Jesus gives a homily on the Scriptures and then follows it with the celebration of the Eucharist. This is the Holy Mass, and the Church has followed this order of the Liturgy of the Word and the Liturgy of the Eucharist for 2,000 years. Luke 24:30-31,35 - Jesus is known only in the breaking of bread. Luke is emphasizing that we only receive the fullness of Jesus by celebrating the Eucharistic feast of His body and blood, which is only offered in its fullness by the Catholic Church. John 1:14 - literally, this verse teaches that the Word was made flesh and "pitched His tabernacle" among us. The Eucharist, which is the Incarnate Word of God under the appearance of bread, is stored in the tabernacles of Catholic churches around the world. John 21:15,17 - Jesus charges Peter to "feed" His sheep, that is, with the Word of God through preaching and the Eucharist. Acts 9:4-5; 22:8; 26:14-15 - Jesus asks Saul, “Why are you persecuting me?” when Saul was persecuting the Church. Jesus and the Church are one body (Bridegroom and Bride), and we are one with Jesus through His flesh and blood (the Eucharist). 1 Cor. 12:13 - we "drink" of one Spirit in the Eucharist by consuming the blood of Christ eternally offered to the Father. Heb. 10:25,29 - these verses allude to the reality that failing to meet together to celebrate the Eucharist is mortal sin. It is profaning the body and blood of the Lord. Heb. 12:22-23 - the Eucharistic liturgy brings about full union with angels in festal gathering, the just spirits, and God Himself, which takes place in the assembly or "ecclesia" (the Church). Heb. 12:24 - we couldn't come to Jesus' sprinkled blood if it were no longer offered by Jesus to the Father and made present for us. 2 Pet. 1:4 - we partake of His divine nature, most notably through the Eucharist - a sacred family bond where we become one. Rev. 2:7; 22:14 - we are invited to eat of the tree of life, which is the resurrected flesh of Jesus which, before, hung on the tree.
pepe bastardes I'm certainly no saint but I can't comprehend it either. When I see terms like "wafer God" and "death cookie" I feel sick. And worse that it comes from people who call themselves "Christian" and think they have some God-given authority to "save" Catholics.
I’ve heard a lot of people recommend Scott Hahn. The lamb’s supper is supposed to be a great book. I am currently reading Hahn’s signs of life. It explains the biblically 40 of the Church’s teachings.
and do youbelieve you are able to interpert Scripture for yourself better than the Church and the Magesterium . I beg to differ. And how do you explain that it is the Catholic Church that gave us the Books of the Bible.
John Dattoma all u need do after u have accepted Jesus as savior and asked Him to forgive ur sins and live inside ur spirit, is read & study the bible 4 ur self without the influence of any denomination or religion. The bible is truth, and every man is a liar.
no. I will never leave Him nor He me. every day I walk in the light and guidance of the Holy Spirit. I actually know Him and have a real experience of Him. once every week or two I gather with my fellow true believers to learn about and praise Him and his Spirit comes among us. We break bread and share wine in remembrance of Him as He commanded. this is holy communion as it should be celebrated. And we sense the results of it by His real presence among us.
Has anyone asked how did Protestanism come about? Surely anyone can see that it comes from the root word Protest! And Protest against what? Well history reveals Protestanism was to Protest against the roman 💒 departure from The Authority of Holy Bible WORD doctrines! Pure n simple!!!👏👏👏👏👏
The protest was initally against indulgences. Luther felt it was an attempt to sell salvation which... Is impossible. But i can see where were starting to fall apart as well. Our denominations have let things in that scripture clearly condemns but yet we reject things that seem to be supported by scripture which is a clear violation of Sola Scriptura... :-( im deeply puzzled... :-( sincerily a deeply concerned Presbyterian. :-(
Thank you, thank you, thank you, Bishop Barron! I just finished listening to Patrick Madrid and James White 1993 debate on sola scriptura, and, though Mr. Madrid did a great job in showing the falseness of sola scriptura's claims, it left me very discouraged. Your clarity and wisdom in this video lifted my spirits. I am so grateful for your ministry.
It's best to go to God in prayer for His opinion instead of listening to human debates. Ask God whether His word is the only source of true Christian teaching and if so, why, or does He approve of human arguments because His testament does not really testify to His teachings being inerrant, but is rather a book of guidelines to be accepted or rejected, modified and corrected by RC theologians. The Holy Spirit is the voice, clear voice and living voice leading those who want to obey God and do His will.
My interpretation of scriptures is of God. Yours is of what men taught you.I asked and prayed to God for understanding.God freely gives wisdom to all who ask.
Fr. Barron, having been raised Protestant, my major objection to Catholicism has always been the hierarchical structure of the Catholic Church, but your explanation here is wonderful and makes sense to me. I wonder one thing though. You mentioned that when the Pope and Bishops together speak in a magisterial way, they are preserved from error through the Holy Spirit. What are we to make of historical examples of the Church committing grave errors like the inquisition and other examples. Thk u
Does your Bible believing church teach that the Church itself (rather than the Bible) is the pillar and bulwark (foundation) of Truth (1 Timothy 3:15)? 1 Timothy 3:15 But if I should be delayed, you should know how to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of truth.
John Reynolds I would argue that this verse was written long before anything resembling the Catholic Church and it's hierarchy had developed. The Church in those days resembled much more the diversity of today than the uniformity of the pre-schism catholic church. In the days of Paul you already have jewish christians and greek christians.
hisredrighthand The First Letter from St. Paul to St. Timothy was written approximately in A.D. 55... Below is the very first written account that has survived the centuries with the formal name of “The Church”: "See that ye all follow the bishop,even as Christ Jesus does the Father, and the presbytery as ye would the apostles. Do ye also reverence the deacons, as those that carry out the appointment of God. Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is [administered] either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude also be; by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church." Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to the Smyrneans, 8:2(c. A.D. 110). We see from this short text that by the end of the first century the following has already been well established, there are Bishops, Priests, Deacons, and especially the term “Eucharist” and the formal name of the Church. Ignatius uses this formal name of the Church our Lord Jesus Christ established as if it is already widely known. Sure sounds like the Catholic Church of today….don’t you think?
hisredrighthand “The Church” is Hierarchical Matt. 16:18; 18:18 - Jesus uses the word "ecclesia" only twice in the New Testament Scriptures, which demonstrates that Jesus intended a visible, unified, hierarchical, and authoritative Church. Acts 20:17,28 - Paul refers to both the elders or priests ("presbyteroi") and the bishops ("episkopoi") of the Church. Both are ordained leaders within the hierarchical structure of the Church. 1 Cor. 12:28 - God Himself appoints the various positions of authority within the Church. As a loving Father, God gives His children the freedom and authority to act with charity and justice to bring about His work of salvation. Eph. 4:11 - the Church is hierarchical and includes apostles, prophets, pastors, and teachers, all charged to build up the Church. The Church is not an invisible entity with an invisible foundation. Phil. 1:1 - Paul addresses the bishops and deacons of the Church. They can all trace their unbroken lineage back to the apostles. 1 Tim. 3:1; Titus 1:7 - Christ's Church has bishops ("episkopoi") who are direct successors of the apostles. The bishops can trace the authority conferred upon them back to the apostles. 1 Tim. 5:17; Titus 1:5; James 5:14 - Christ's Church also has elders or priests ("presbyteroi") who serve the bishops. 1 Tim. 3:8 - Christ's Church also has deacons ("diakonoi"). Thus, Jesus Christ's Church has a hierarchy of authority - bishops, priests and deacons, who can all trace their lineage back to Peter and the apostles. Exodus 28:1 and 19:6 - shows the three offices of the Old Testament priesthood: (1). high priest - Aaron (Ex. 28:1) (2). Ministerial priests - Aaron’s sons (Ex. 19:6; 28:1) (3) Universal priests - Israel (Ex. 19:6). The New Testament priesthood also has three offices: (1) High Priest - Jesus Christ (Heb. 3:1) (2) Ministerial priests - the ordained bishops and priests (Rom. 15:16; 1 Tim. 3:1,8; 5:17; Titus 1:7) (3) Universal priests - all the baptized (1 Pet. 2:5,9; Rev. 1:6)
John Reynolds Where is the mandate to WORSHIP the Eucharist? Scripture? Nope. The Creeds? Nope. Your reference? Nope. It isn't a minor thing. You MUST know that if the Eucharist is NOT supposed to be worshiped, then this is idolatry of the worst kind, right?
I wish all the Churches could be one but it now seems impossible. So many interpretations of the bible when it is so simple to understand. The Catholic Church shot itself in the foot when it added doctrines which are not found in the bible such as infant baptism, Acts 8:35-38 praying to saints and Mary, 1 Tim. 2:5, selling indulgences, Rom. 6:1, bowing and worshipping statues, 1 John 5:21, forbidding to marry of certain groups such as nuns and priests which in turn led to sexual perversion among some of them, 1 Tim. 4:1-3, giving one man power to give his word the same weight as scripture. 2 Thess. 2:3-4 If they had just stayed true to the beliefs of the first century church, there would have been no break up. Jude 3
Tommy. Jude 3 pretty much tells us there was a complete doctrine which needed no additions or subtractions which is pretty much what happened over the centuries. I'm glad we have the bible or new testament to read for ourselves. The first century Christian Church recorded in the new testament wouldn't have recognized the Roman Catholic or Orthodox Catholic Church of today. Jude 3 "Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write unto you of the common salvation, it was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort you that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was ONCE delivered to the saints." There was no need for pagan practices which were later adopted by the apostate Church of Rome since they already had the complete doctrine of Christ which needed no additions or subtractions. Thanks Tommy.
horseman528 The bible says that whole families were baptized together. Infant baptism was practiced in the earliest days of the church, read the church fathers. Baptism brings you into the family of God, like the Jews circumcized their infants when they were 8 days old. When you can make an adult decision you are confirmed. Paul says it is better to remain single because if you marry you have to focus on your spouse. The clergy stays single because it gives them more time to focus on God. There is far more sexual perversion in the non-Catholic, non-celibate world. There are more protestant clergy accused of child abuse according to insurance statistics. If celibacy leads to perversion then why are all forms of sexual perversion more rampant outside of the Catholic church?
Prancer1231 Whole families were baptized in the cases of Lydia and the Philippian jailer according to Acts 16:15 and Acts 16:33, but it nowhere mentions infants. Salvation is a decision that one must make for themselves. I can't decide for anyone to be baptized; they must decide for themselves when they come to an age of reason and accountability. Without faith first being applied to baptism, it is nothing more than an empty ceremony of getting wet. There is no forgiveness of sins without faith. Only after one believes and confesses that Jesus Christ is the Son of God can that baptism wash away their sins according to Acts 8:35-38 and 22:16. Ephesians 2:8 "For by grace are ye saved through FAITH..." It is impossible for an infant to have faith since it has no knowledge of those things. As far as bishops being celibate, the Holy Spirit speaking through Paul in 1 Timothy 3:1 stated that a bishop MUST be blameless, THE HUSBAND OF ONE WIFE...This requirement of a bishop being the husband of one wife is repeated in Titus 1:6. Any person who has matured and is healthy has a sex drive. God gave us marriage to satisfy that sex drive. When there is no outlet for that sex drive, people will find other ways to satisfy it which will be sinful whether it be through pornography, fornication, or pedophila. The forbidding to marry was one characteristic of the apostate church according to 1 Timothy 4:1-3. Most Catholics appear to be good people and sincere, but people can be sincerely wrong.
horseman528 The early church fathers write about infant baptism. Yes, you need to make an informed decision when you are of an age to do that. That is why Catholics are confirmed at around the age of 14. Jewish infants don't make the decision to be circumcized. It brings them into the family of God, it sets them apart. Baptism is similar. We are born with original sin. How can an infant repent of original sin?
.....If someone [today] does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he [should] desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that he is in the Church?" (The Unity of the Catholic Church 4; first edition [A.D. 251]). Cyprian of Carthage (Part 3)
2 Timothy 3:16-17: No matter how traditionalists twist it, it still says that scripture alone is all-sufficient to equip us for EVERY good work. not most not partially but every EVERY got it? EVERY. Luke 10:26: "What is written in the Law? How does it read to you?" Jesus expected even his enemies to correctly interpret the Bible by simply reading and studying it.
"If I have the gift of prophecy and can fathom all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have a faith that can move mountains, but do not have love, I am nothing." -St. Paul Perhaps a good word for this discussion board.
Father Barron has some great insights, I. too. admire John Henry Newman. Thomas Moore was the individual that tried terribly to prevent Henry VIII from separating -- this was very much for political reasons. Since then, there has not been a sense of wholeness within Christianity -- as the 'One and True Church' would very like to have. Yes, the secular function of the Church might have been taking positions that we, today, find uncomfortable.(This is what a very self-pious Martin Luther railed against. I am confident that his motives were sincere.) The World was changing at the time; the Catholic Authority was strongly looking for an answer. The Protestant Movement fit that feeling. But, like so many similar things, it was based on the concept that, "Too Many Cooks Make the Best Stew." Today's "Church" challenges and changes that -- with wisdom. Thank you, Father Barron, for your comments
As an Anglican, I have a great respect for the office of the Pope, and his ability to address the issues of the day as a living voice to set the tone. However, definitive interpretation of the voice of the Holy Spirit belongs to the whole Catholic church (its bishops) in counsel, presided over by Peter's successor. The bishop of Rome is supposed to be first among brother bishops, but the development of universal jurisdiction in the early medieval period was not, imho, a natural development of doctrine but one that evolved due to socio-political exigencies of a collapsed Western Roman empire. Ultimately the authority of the Church is always going to be weakened as long as it remains divided. I don't say that the Anglican system is the perfect solution of course (it's kind of a mess to be honest since there's no referee), but that definitive discernment must be done according to the spirit of brotherhood and mutuality that existed amongst the twelve Apostles, rather than the Petrine See overriding its ancient-defined bounds of authority (not by as much as most Protestants claim, mind you, but still significantly). Even now Anglicanism has a pope-shaped gap in its ecclesiology, but Rome has, so it seems to me, glossed over its ecclesiological gap in its desire for more (and speedier) certainty and uniformity. I pray that both of our communions might learn this of one another and move closer together. The church divided is as natural as a body divided from its soul-- that is to say, not natural-- we need true unity that still preserves diversity in the local context in order to see the Lord's Prayer fulfilled as much as it can be in this Age. Best wishes Bp. Barron.
"Let the inspired Scripture, then, be our umpire, and the vote of truth will surely be given to those whose dogmas are found to agree with Divine words." -Gregory of Nyssa
Regarding 3 This is the key point Jason. No, they understood him totally + correctly + when he corroborates it John 6:63-64 they leave him. These unfaithful disciples really thought Jesus had lost His mind. If they were wrong about the literal interpretation, why wouldn't Jesus, the Great Teacher, have corrected them? Why didn't Jesus say, "Hey, come back here, I was only speaking symbolically!"? Because they understood correctly. We know he meant it as all the early church was Eucharistic?
Jesus said if you do not listen to the Church, you are a heathen, Jesus said to the Church "He who hears You, Hears Me" The Catholic Church has the authority because She is under the authority of Jesus Christ. Listen to Her.
Thank you Fr Barron. May I just add, that to refer to Protestantism as one monolithic movement may be one ‘thing’ and the articles of faith (or dissent) and that this was also unique and coherent as opposed to mainstream Christianity ie the (Catholic) Church, maybe a misnomer. The front-running voice may have been Martin Luther et al. But I think this misses a lot more. I think the discussion should focus on handling the nature of dissent and best way forward with dealing with dissent and discourse, and not so much the content of those discussions. Because as we have seen, this tendency to not conduct and/or contain dissent ‘properly’ (what is “proper” anyway), still leads to further fragmentation for even those who stepped aside to propose they have the solutions. In any case thank you, your videos and perspectives have been enriching and enlightening. God bless you and keep shedding light were so everyone (literally, within and without the fold) can untangle the myths and contentious that have so far been very divisive to all Christians and Christianity, which helps us internet worms through. Perhaps at a later date you can address the differences of the Reformists from later movements such as Revivalists, etc. Also the influence of political and nationalist identities on Christian identities and the identity of the Church.
you avoid Christians like the plague? do you drive a car? how many Christians are the road you drive on? how many Christians are in the stores you shop at? how many Christians labor at the electric company or water company you get your utilities from? do you avoid them like the plague?
Kasine, you make a good point, but keep in mind there are many teachings implicit in Scripture that do not give strict definitions and terms regarding what most Christians believe. The Incarnation, and the Trinity is a perfect example. In Catholic theology, Mary's Immaculate Conception falls in the same category.
that was not my question. if you commit a terrible sin but are a believer and die a minute later, having had no time to confess to a priest or hit the old rosary beads or even pray - according to RC belief - what will happen to you. a simple direct answer if you are capable please.
Christians are united! No matter what denomination they belong to, they all believe in salvation through grace alone, the Trinity, etc.. Unity is spiritual and is not determined by a temporal Magisterium. When we Protestants disagree on an isssue not central to the faith, we splinter. That's the way it goes. When Catholics disagree, they say they have to hold together, which can cause tension among the Catholics.
But isn't it really problematic if the "one voice" creates doctrine that isn't even in scripture, let alone doctrine which clearly is opposed by scripture?
"[T]he most revolutionary change the Church ever did, happened in the first century. The holy day, the Sabbath, was changed from Saturday to Sunday....People who think that the Scriptures should be the sole authority, should logically become 7th Day Adventists, and keep Saturday holy." Bishop Barron, you said that there needs to be a living voice. Well, there is! Hebrews 4:12 says: "Indeed, the word of God is living and effective.." Hebrews 4:7 “Today, if you will hear His voice..."
@DannyGirl The Catholic Encyclopedia says different, it says the church made the change (under the title "commandments"). (My guess is the new CCC changed what was the historic position of the Catholic Church, which previously freely admitted to making the change in the law.) Isaiah 66:23 says we will keep the sabbath in Heaven. There's no such thing as a "jewish sabbath" - it is the sabbath of the Lord. He calls it "my holy day." Sunday is pagan, it comes from sun worship. Many things in the Catholic church have their origins in pagan worship; such as Christmas and Easter and Halloween.
@DannyGirl "But you may read the Bible from Genesis to Revelation, and you will not find a single line authorizing the sanctification of Sunday. The Scriptures enforce the religious observance of Saturday, a day which we never sanctify.” James Cardinal Gibbons (Archbishop of Baltimore), The Faith of our Fathers(1917 edition)pg.72-73 (16th edition)pg.111 (88th edition) pg. 89. Originally published 1876. "The Church, on the other hand, after changing the day of rest from the Jewish Sabbath, or seventh day of the week, to the first, made the Third Commandment refer to Sunday as the day to be kept holy as the Lord's Day." - The Catholic Encyclopedia "Commandments of God" What day is God's holy day? Isaiah 58:13a - If thou turn away thy foot from the sabbath, from doing thy pleasure on my holy day... What day is the Lord's day? Matthew 12:8 - For the Son of man is Lord even of the sabbath day. Does God ever change? Malachi 3:6a - For I am the Lord, I change not What day will be celebrated in Heaven as the Lord's day? Isaiah 66:23 - And it shall come to pass, that from one new moon to another, and from one sabbath to another, shall all flesh come to worship before me, saith the Lord.
@DannyGirl Why would we keep the sabbath in Heaven, if Jesus abolished it? I showed you the historical context, even the (former) Archbishop of Baltimore said the church made the change, and it's not in the Bible.
@DannyGirl No scripture says to keep Sunday holy. Look at all the first day of the week scriptures - none is the Lord's day or sabbath day. I don't feel like writing a rebuttal for each of them, but it's easy to refute. The Catholic Church has historically taught that it is the power who changed the sabbath - even from the archbishop and catholic encyclopedia which I quoted you. Was the Archbishop wrong?
@DannyGirl Moses didn't make the 10 commandments, GOD did. The fourth commandment says that the sabbath is given to man (same word as Adam) because God created the Heavens and Earth in 6 days and rested on the 7th.
I write this in respect and deep fondness for all Bible believing Christians living compassionate moral lives who truly love God, and thier families and neighbors. Many are pillars to their communities. The Name of Jesus Christ has Power, to follow God's Precepts for the right reasons. Jesus Christ, while He definately wasn't teaching complacency, did tell the Disciples who advised Him, not to stop those who heal in His Name who were not from them (the Disciples.) But as we know from the Last Discourse right before His Agonizing Passion, Resurrection and Ascending to Heaven --- He Prayed that we would all be one as The Father and The Son are One. "Within the compass of a square mile, you hear four, five, six different gospels." - DeWitt, a Lutheran & Scholar circa 1815 What was needed at the time of the reformation were Bible studies, not claiming anyone could interpret Scripture. Peter the Apostle wrote how Paul's letters and the other Scriptures are misinterpreted and misused by the unlearned to their own distruction. Paul would include in some of his Letters regarding only listen to instruction 'from us.' Grace has always been in primacy. This wasn't new. The heresies of 'faith alone,' and 'Bible alone,' were new. Luther actually changed a quote from Romans to say 'faith alone.' It is my contention that the so-called reformation did not introduce anything new. Yes, cooruption and practices that were extremely bad hurting the faithful had to change. But I'm sure that their were men and women like Francis of Assisi, and his friend Clare of Assisi, and scholars who would have brought this about in a Godly orderly way. Many 'reformation' protestant leaders did the very things that they accused the Catholic Church of doing. (i.e. Luther siding with the poor who rebelled, then changing sides with 100 of the poor being masacered. Calvin burned at least one 'heritic' who disagreed with him at the stake. (the quote within the text was written in the early 1800s. note that from the beginning, even though sincere men thought they would 'reform' the Church to be of one doctrine, they became increasingly chagrinned at the many diverse doctrines. I can't remember who, but one said that they destroyed on pope, only to create 100 popes in his place.) "Hear this wail of distress from no less a man than the Lutheran theologian, who, in the early part of the last century, compiled the reformer's works in five large volumes. De Wette says: 'The dissolution of the Protestant church is inevitable ; her framework is so thoroughly rotten that no further patching will avail. The whole structure of evangelical religion is shattered, and few look with sympathy on its tottering fall. Within the compass of a square mile, you hear four, five, six different gospels. The people, believe me, mark it well; they speak most contemptuously of their teachers, whom they regard either as blockheads or knaves, in teaching these opposite doctrines. . .growing immorality, a consequence of contempt for religion, concurs also as a cause to its deeper downfall. . . .O Protestantism, has it, then, at last come to this with thee, that thy disciples protest against all religion? Facts, which are before the eyes of the whole world, declare aloud that this signification of thy name is no idle play upon words.'" - source: _The_Facts_About_Luther_ by Rt. Rev. Mons. Patrick F. O'Hare Copyright 1916, page 359 ~ Note that the book the text comes from acknowledges that there are non-Catholics living moral productive lives. It speaks of the two Luthers. The romantic mythical one, and the real Luther. Many non-Catholics who look to him as some kind of hero would be shocked at the irrefutable evidence of the real Luther.
the Mass is an un bloody sacrifice, Calvary can never be repeated, it the one atoning sacrifice, the Mass is the continuing sacrifice, it is a memorial of Calvary applying the fruits of Calvary to our souls. Calvary is celebrated at every Mass, not repeated, it is the celebrations that are repeated. (ccc 1104)
I enjoyed your video and think that you made some great points. Here's my counter argument. Tertullian of Carthage once declared that the Living Voice for the Church, who he called the Vicar of Christ, is the Holy Spirit. If the Holy Spirit is our Teacher and Advocate and a Comforter who guides us into all truth, I would argue that while a human living voice that can shepherd the churches is of tremendous worth and value, various declarations made by ecclesiastical authority, must be judged adequate or inadequate critically through the assistance that is provided by the Holy Spirit that God has given to all who obey the Gospel. If the Church hierarchy has swerved from the Rule of Faith and the teaching of Christ and his Apostles, Christians must remain with Christ rather than a visible body who declares authoritatively and incorrectly. All Christians are guided by a Living Voice and this Voice is the Spirit of Truth. This must be our criteria.
+Steven Strnad Indeed friend you speak some truth, however you misunderstand what Catholics believe about the Pope. It is not the Pope in and of himself that we trust to be infallible; it is the Holy Spirit that we trust. We believe that the same Holy Spirit who miraculously guided the original authors of Scripture to write infallibly, and who speaks Truth to all of us, still today miraculously guides the Pope to always protect him from error whenever he speaks authoritatively on matters of faith and morals. God Bless
Why is it that so very few Catholics point out the stark similarity between Korah in Numbers 16 declaring that all God's people were just as holy as their leaders and Luther teaching the exact same thing? Protestants who accept the excommunicated troublemaker Luther but reject the beautifully distilled, collective wisdom of the Holy Spirit throughout Church history and the lawful successor of St. Peter are probably 'perishing in the rebellion of Korah (Jude 11).' Who can forget that re-written but terrifying scene in film "The Ten Commandments" when the fiery earth opened up and swallowed Korah (Dathan) and his silly band of followers?
And verse 14 tells us he received this gift as a result of his ordination in the church. 'Do not neglect the gift you received when, as a result of prophecy, the Presbyters (priests) laid their hands on you.' This lays out the priest of the church having authority and prophesy apart from scripture.
Can you please answer my question if you understand. Preventing people, who want to partake of the Eucharist? Does that have eternal consequences for the person who is prevented? Thanks.
I do not deny any scripture but I totally reject: a) your church's interpretation and subsequent traditions b) in some cases your church's translation of it - particularly now that we can find and translate the original Greek and Aramaic for ourselves. 1) jesus also called himself a gate and a lamb and a stone. 2) same answer again. he compares his breadness to manna.
As I said, infallible is not the same thing as impeccable. Being infallible in setting down official doctrine of faith and morals (in the Catechism and official Church teachings) does not make them infallible in how they themselves follow and teach those doctrines.
You need to look up Margherita Guarducci and the findings at the Vatican grave site. You are not approaching this in a logical manner. By the way, you also know that Paul's remains are at his grave site at San Paolo fuori degli muri. I seriously doubt you've ever been to Rome. Give it a rest. If you are going to have a serious argument you need to begin by being truthful.
Having a pope kinda seems like throwing your hands up in the air and just saying "okay I'll just trust him". Moreover the Pope's role and his authority has changed throughout history, so how can we make a case for infallibility when not every pope even agreed? where they infallible but didn't know it? And I know he's only infallible when he speaks ex cathedral, and that what he says needs to align with received tradition and consensus of the fathers, but then why do we need him at all? Can't we like the orthodox just be confident that our core beliefs rest on the historic church, why do we need an infallible rubber stamp?
I fully agree with your argument for church authority,but why do we need an infallible pope figure? I would love him to be a voice of the church, its most valued umpire even, but how is he infallible I'm catholic please help me with this,
As an outsider (I am from Turkey), it is really shocking to see that that debates between the Catholic and Protestant theologies in the USA are often referred to as "Catholic versus Christian" (not on this channel, obviously). I find it really unsettling.
Nor quite. it also teaches purgatory and penance and that confession is vital - I can go on and on. the fact is it teaches salvation by faith but then piles on all sorts of things that a person must do for their salvation. why else does one catholic look at another and in their heart say they are a better or worse catholic. or do you deny this and say that you are as good as say mother Theresa? I ask you: what happens to someone who dies with an unconfessed mortal sin? please answer...
Sorry, a slight error: The graffiti etching read "Prince of Apostles," not king. Look up Margarita Guarducci on Google. You can read up on the archeological team that dug up the grave site under the main altar at the St. Peter's Church in Rome.
Actually just off the top of my head, Jesus refers to the Chair of Moses in Matthew 23:1-2 but this expression or concept is not found in Old Testament. That would be Oral tradition. 2 Thess 2:15 Therefore, brothers, stand firm and hold fast to the traditions that you were taught, either by an oral statement or by a letter of ours
Question: "What are the differences between Catholics and Protestants?" Answer: There are several important differences between Catholics and Protestants. While there have been many attempts in recent years to find common ground between the two groups, the fact is that the differences remain, and they are just as important today as they were at the beginning of the Protestant Reformation. The following is brief summary of some of the more important differences: One of the first major differences between Catholicism and Protestantism is the issue of the sufficiency and authority of Scripture. Protestants believe that the Bible alone is the source of God’s special revelation to mankind and teaches us all that is necessary for our salvation from sin. Protestants view the Bible as the standard by which all Christian behavior must be measured. This belief is commonly referred to as “sola scriptura” and is one of the “five solas” (sola is Latin for “alone”) that came out of the Protestant Reformation as summaries of some of the differences between Catholics and Protestants. While there are many verses in the Bible that establish its authority and its sufficiency for all matters of faith and practice, one of the clearest is 2 Timothy 3:16, where we see that “all Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work.” Catholics reject the doctrine of sola scriptura and do not believe that the Bible alone is sufficient. They believe that both the Bible and sacred Roman Catholic tradition are equally binding upon the Christian. Many Roman Catholics doctrines, such as purgatory, praying to the saints, worship or veneration of Mary, etc., have little or no basis in Scripture but are based solely on Roman Catholic traditions. Essentially, the Roman Catholic Church’s denial of sola scriptura and its insistence that both the Bible and tradition are equal in authority undermine the sufficiency, authority, and completeness of the Bible. The view of Scripture is at the root of many, if not all, of the differences between Catholics and Protestants. Another disagreement between Catholicism and Protestantism is over the office and authority of the Pope. According to Catholicism the Pope is the “Vicar of Christ” (a vicar is a substitute) and represents Jesus as the head of the Church. As such, the Pope has the ability to speak ex cathedra (with authority on matters of faith and practice), making his teachings infallible and binding upon all Christians. On the other hand, Protestants believe that no human being is infallible and that Christ alone is the Head of the Church. Catholics rely on apostolic succession as a way of trying to establish the Pope’s authority. Protestants believe that the church’s authority comes not from apostolic succession but from the Word of God. Spiritual power and authority do not rest in the hands of a mere man but in the very Word of God. While Catholicism teaches that only the Catholic Church can properly interpret the Bible, Protestants believe that the Bible teaches God sent the Holy Spirit to indwell all born-again believers, enabling all believers to understand the message of the Bible. Protestants point to passages such as John 14:16-17: “I will ask the Father, and He will give you another Helper, that He may be with you forever; that is the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it does not see Him or know Him, but you know Him because He abides with you and will be in you.” (See also John 14:26 and 1 John 2:27.) A third major difference between Catholicism and Protestantism is how one is saved. Another of the five solas of the Reformation is sola fide (“faith alone”), which affirms the biblical doctrine of justification by grace alone through faith alone because of Christ alone (Ephesians 2:8-10). However, Catholics teach that the Christian must rely on faith plus “meritorious works” in order to be saved. Essential to the Roman Catholic doctrine of salvation are the Seven Sacraments, which are baptism, confirmation, the Eucharist, penance, anointing of the sick, holy orders, and matrimony. Protestants believe that, on the basis of faith in Christ alone, believers are justified by God, as all their sins are paid for by Christ on the cross and His righteousness is imputed to them. Catholics, on the other hand, believe that Christ’s righteousness is imparted to the believer by “grace through faith,” but in itself is not sufficient to justify the believer. The believer must supplement the righteousness of Christ imparted to him with meritorious works. Catholics and Protestants also disagree on what it means to be justified before God. To the Catholic, justification involves being made righteous and holy. He believes that faith in Christ is only the beginning of salvation and that the individual must build upon that with good works because God’s grace of eternal salvation must be merited. This view of justification contradicts the clear teaching of Scripture in passages such as Romans 4:1-12, Titus 3:3-7, and many others. Protestants distinguish between the one-time act of justification (when we are declared righteous by God based on our faith in Christ’s atonement on the cross) and the process of sanctification (the development of righteousness that continues throughout our lives on earth). While Protestants recognize that works are important, they believe they are the result or fruit of salvation but never the means to it. Catholics blend justification and sanctification together into one ongoing process, which leads to confusion about how one is saved. A fourth major difference between Catholics and Protestants has to do with what happens after death. Both believe that unbelievers will spend eternity in hell, but there are significant differences about what happens to believers. From their church traditions and their reliance on non-canonical books, the Catholics have developed the doctrine of purgatory. Purgatory, according to the Catholic Encyclopedia, is a “place or condition of temporal punishment for those who, departing this life in God’s grace, are not entirely free from venial faults, or have not fully paid the satisfaction due to their transgressions.” On the other hand, Protestants believe that because we are justified by faith in Christ alone and that Christ’s righteousness is imputed to us-when we die, we will go straight to heaven to be in the presence of the Lord (2 Corinthians 5:6-10 and Philippians 1:23). One disturbing aspect about the Catholic doctrine of purgatory is the belief that man can and must pay for his own sins. This results in a low view of the sufficiency and efficiency of Christ’s atonement on the cross. Simply put, the Roman Catholic view of salvation implies that Christ’s atonement on the cross was insufficient payment for the sins of those who believe in Him and that even a believer must pay for his own sins, either through acts of penance or time in purgatory. Yet the Bible teaches that it is Christ’s death alone that can satisfy or propitiate God’s wrath against sinners (Romans 3:25; Hebrews 2:17; 1 John 2:2; 1 John 4:10). Our works of righteousness cannot add to what Christ has already accomplished. The differences between Catholicism and evangelical Protestants are important and significant. Paul wrote Galatians to combat the Judaizers (Jews who said that Gentile Christians had to obey the Old Testament Law to be saved). Like the Judaizers, Catholics make human works necessary for one to be justified by God, and they end up with a completely different gospel. It is our prayer that God will open the eyes of those who are putting their faith in the teachings of the Catholic Church. It is our hope that everyone will understand that his “works of righteousness” cannot justify him or sanctify him (Isaiah 64:6). We pray that all will instead put their faith solely in the fact that we are “justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus. God presented Christ as a sacrifice of atonement, through the shedding of his blood-to be received by faith” (Romans 3:24-25). God saves us, “not because of righteous things we had done, but because of his mercy. He saved us through the washing of rebirth and renewal by the Holy Spirit, whom he poured out on us generously through Jesus Christ our Savior, so that, having been justified by his grace, we might become heirs having the hope of eternal life” (Titus 3:5-7).
🎯 Key Takeaways for quick navigation: 00:50 🤔 Dr. Alister McGrath's book "Christianity's Dangerous Idea" explores the issue of authority within the Protestant movement and the challenges of interpreting the Word of God. 01:20 💡 Luther's idea of the priesthood of all believers led to diverse interpretations and disagreements within Protestantism, challenging the notion of the plain sense of the Bible. 02:15 📚 McGrath suggests a gradual consensus model of authority in Protestantism, analogous to a democratic approach, which raises concerns about its effectiveness. 03:25 🛡️ While McGrath's democratic authority concept is reasonable, Bishop Barron draws inspiration from John Henry Newman's view on the necessity of a living voice to determine truth amidst divisions. 06:38 💬 The Protestant individualistic Holy Spirit interpretation does not resolve the problem of widespread disagreement, unlike the Catholic belief in the Holy Spirit's guidance in magisterial teaching. 07:20 🛡️ Newman's analogy envisions the Church's authority as a referee in the game of theological discourse, intervening when necessary, avoiding excessive interference. Made with HARPA AI
St. Irenaeus "The blessed apostles [Peter and Paul], having founded and built up the church [of Rome] . . . handed over the office of the episcopate to Linus" (Against Heresies 3:3:3 [A.D. 189]). "Victor . . . was the thirteenth bishop of Rome from Peter" (The Little Labyrinth [A.D. 211], in Eusebius, Church History 5:28:3). (Part 1)
Three thoughts: 1) The older I get the more I am struck by the overlapping breadth of denominations; such that denomination is only a confusing indicator of a person's status before God. 2) The temple curtain was torn in the New Testament, so let us be wary of trying to stitch it back up. Each of us should be approaching scripture and doing so with humility and patience. 3) You either end up with separate strands within the brand - the Catholic model. Or a collection of strands each with it's own sub brand - the Protestant model.
You obviously did not comprehend my previous reply. Again, I stated that the possibility of salvation is the decision of God; ie, God's decision was to provide Christ as that possibility. The acceptance of that possibility of salvation is an individual decision; ie, it is up to each individual to choose to accept Christ or not. Again, if that choice is not an individual decision, then it has no meaning. To think that that is to play God, as you stated, is your error. I trust you comprehend now.
The ethiopian Eunuch studied the scriptures, heard the gospel, accepted Jesus and the teachings as true first. You are right, that is the logical and natural model. The difference is, he immediately went and was baptized, where many protestants say "there is not much need for the baptism part...get to it if you can or if you want"
that does not support the original assertion: 4) did he link this teaching to the beginning of the infidelity of Judas? the lord's supper has nothing to do with judas
As a non-catholic Christian, wishing for a renewed Catholic (universal) Christian church, I would not say that the disagreement is “dramatic“ between denominations. That is in my not sufficient knowledge of Christianity, at least. Also, the conclusions of the denominations (in my actual estimation) aren't also that wild from reading Scripture. There is no “dramatic“ interpretations in the most prominent denomination if you read Scripture. But if you see some practices of the Catholic church, you can see some additions that one can call “dramatic“ in the sense that they are way beyond what the Scripture says. I understand that you can defend those arguing about the weight and importance of tradition, but you have to grant to denominations the fear of the Word, which I think make them nobler, like the Christians from Berea, who studied Scripture to check if what was being taught to them was true.
How can the English word be irrelevant when we are using English? The salient point is that our word 'priest' is derived 'presbyter'. Bishop is the modern English word for overseer. The earliest church pattern though not identical to the modern was certainly corresponding. The epistles in the Bible directing/instructing the local churches is because overseers had authority over local "elders".
Baptism cannot cleanse us from sin? Then what does "Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins" (Acts 2:38) mean?
If there are teachings that the scripture is clear and unambiguous about - the teaching that Peter should feed and take care of the sheep and lambs is one.
In response to TheMenghi1's query: Is it because the Eastern churches are still apostolic and follow the athority of the Patriarchs instead of the Pope?
Ever hear,Live by Faith? Baptism cannot cleans us from sin,so what does?Only God can ,Why? The sin is against God.Our faith cannot clean us of sin,Only God can.How do I get God to hear me? By repenting.I need a savior do I not?Through Christ I am saved thus making God my Adopted Father through Christ.I still sin,But now I have an advocate on my side,Jesus.You understand this?
it is precisely because of the first several topics he mentioned in McGrath's book (the bible in a common language, justicification through faith, ect.) that I have to reject the authority of the Catholic church. the authority is rejected because it exploited, manipulated and failed it's people. and to degrees continues to do so to this day.
