Convincing Protestants that Catholic Doctrine is True w/ Suan Sonna 

I unsubscribed from Capturing Christianity due to Cameron's interviews with Suan and his overall intellectual inconsistencies. I feel so fortunate to be Catholic and have apologists that defend the faith like Suan, Matt Frad, Trent horn etc

the temple was destroyed by the babylonians and the romans on the same day!? *MIND BLOWN*

I’m really beginning to like Suan.

WOW Thank You Suan

I was 13 years of age in 1985, I and many souls witnessed the apparitions of Jesus Christ in the grotto of Mount Mellary, let me warn those who have not seen as this vile and lowly being has seen, fear Jesus, no man nor beast nor devil can stand before him without being imortally afraid of the Holy lamb of God, I cannot express the impression left upon me that day, at the age of 13 I felt the weight and blemish of sin beneath His Holy Gaze, as I watched him above the people my mind tested my eyes, I thought to call his name in my mind, before my words began His name His head slowly turned to where I was brought by concerned adults because I was shaking and tears flowed unceasing from my eyes, not because I was weaping, I wasn't, my eyes just kept tearing, when he looked directly at me I was frozen in that moment andd have remained suspended in time in a way, I have struggled all my life with trying to understand and articulate into words what it was I felt, exsposed, and shame but mostly fear, there was anger in him, also felt by others present, at my young age I was a guilty sinner and when the Lord looked at me he saw me and all the vile and evil things I would come to do, I felt heavy and burdened by the weight of His look I could not stare anymore my head dropped, I looked once more and Jesus was still looking at me, I looked as much I I could but my sin was unable to any longer, sin is so serious and possessing thing that even after this mercy from God I would become the most lowly beast I know, unworthy of His attention but so great is his love that He disires no soul to perish, Fear Him people and please pray for me a filty sinner For anyone interested in this RU-vid has videos of the apparitions at Mount Mellary in 1985

RIP Sips with Aquinas

This guy is amazing. Wow!

Whew good stuff

Dialogue shouldn't be taken as "convincing " somebody .... is about sharing why we believe what we believe and vice versa .

'Suan song', and yet this guys just beginning!

I think suan would be a terrific priest

Whatever happened to Sips With Aquinas?

hey guys, just learned the True meaning of the Rainbow Coalition in our Catholic faith. what an enlightenment. I stumbled upon it during my spiritual readings. God Bless

Isn't Revelation 3 a better parallel with Isaiah 22 than Matthew 16?

All this proves is that Peter was primus inter pares among the apostles, which we (the Reformed) grant. It does not prove, however, that the bishop of Rome is his successor.

Fr suan sonna

Wait how old is this guy?

Cameron Bertuzzi has been posting very offensive memes about the Eucharist. I don’t think Catholics should support him in any way, shape or form. He owes us an apology.

Suan misrepresents Isa 22 saying this passage as well as Matt 16 refer to 'keys' plural, they don't. There is literally nothing in common between Isa 22 and Matt 16, nothing. Isa 22:22 22 "Then I will set the key of the house of David on his shoulder, When he opens no one will shut, When he shuts no one will open. NASB Matt 16:19 19 "I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatever you shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven." NASB Okay, now that we see both passages wheres the parallel? A. One has key, singular the other has keys, plural. Hows that a parallel? B. One says he opens no one will shut, he shuts no one will open. The other says, whatever you bind shall be bound, whatever you loose shall be loosed... I'm at a loss to see where the parallel is? So where is the parallel? Rev 3:7 7 "And to the angel of the church in Philadelphia write: He who is holy, who is true, who has the key of David, who opens and no one will shut, and who shuts and no one opens, says this: NASB A. Isa 22 says key of David. Rev 3 says key of David. B. Isa 22 says opens and no one will shut. Rev 3 says opens and no one will shut. C. Isa 22 says he shuts no one will open. Rev 3 says who shuts and no one opens. So youre premise that Peter is some prime minister has zero foundation. What the kingdom of David had doesn't not mean the kingdom of God has the same thing. And it doesn't. Eph 2 talks about the foundation of the church; Eph 2:20 20 having been built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus Himself being the corner stone, NASB ... foundation of the apostles (plural). Peter is not singled out here but one of many with Jesus being the cornerstone. And the key thing here is that Eph 2 is talking about the building of the church. The catholic claim is that Peter alone was given this. Yet here he is grouped with all apostles, not singled out. Secondly, mary has no typology for the ark of the covenant. Its not even hinted at. Jesus is the ark. He is our propitiation; Rom 3:25. The greek word hilistarion means mercy seat which is the lid of the ark, kept in the holy of holies where the high priest went in once a year to sprinkle blood on it for the sins of Israel on the day of atonement. This is Jesus not mary.

here in the UK we are celebrating Guy Fawkes' Day, bonfire night, when we let off fireworks around a bonfire to remember that the gunpowder plot of the Catholics led by Catesby and Fawkes failed to blow up the Houses of Parliament with many barrels of gunpowder in the basement. So all your intellectual pretensions add up to nothing to me. And let us not forget Giordano Bruno, or bishops Latimer, Ridley, and Cranmer who were also burnt alive at the stake for being Anglican.

Catholic doctrine is true for them if they ignore scripture. I just love how Catholics can make parallels with anything. It's hilarious.

Was Peter the first Pope with a record of consecutive Pope's till this day.. Of course Pope's are only human and so are sinners..

Romans 📙 14 vs 1....🧐🙄🤔🤨

Major problems with that. Jesus is the one identified throughout Isaiah including this particular parallel. He states that in Revelation 3:7. HE is the only one who can open and shut. Likewise, Jesus is the Rock on which He builds His Church (not a physical church). Jesus is also the only purity, and the only one who can defeat the powers of darkness. Jesus taught from the Hebrew scriptures, like Isaiah, and stated that it was about Him. There is no office of Peter. Authority Jesus gives to Peter is given to all the apostles, and all those who are in Christ have the keys of heaven. It is the confession of Christ that is the keys. Peter was just the first to know and acknowledge. Binding and loosing is only declaring what is in heaven, not man's decision. I don't think using Pharisees is a good example, remember what Jesus said about the Pharisees. As far as being excommunicated, a person can't very well be excommunicated as a Jew/Hebrew. You can't excommunicate someone from who they are. Also, they didn't do communion, so excommunicate? Other verses you used were about individual disputes of members of a church, if not resolved to take it to the church leadership. It is exercising authority and discipline within a church body. All ark typography is Jesus, not Mary. That is what is obvious throughout the NT, very little about Mary. The closest would be to say that her womb was a temporary ark while bearing the true Ark, and even that was only as a representative of Israel. True Gospel is Jesus; not Mary and Peter, that would be gospel of man.

If the parallel between Peter and Eliakim is present in the text, why doesn't Matthew himself make the connection? Throughout the gospel account, Matthew makes plenty of explicit connections of Jesus to Old Testament passages. However, in chapter 16 he makes no connection that this is a fulfillment of Isaiah 22. If the role of the papacy is so important to the church, why doesn't Matthew connect the dots?

Second person plural is used; “Truly I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall have been bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall have been loosed in heaven. “Again I say to you, that if two of you agree on earth about anything that they may ask, it shall be done for them by My Father who is in heaven.” ‭‭Matthew‬ ‭18‬:‭18‬-‭19‬ ‭NASB2020‬‬ Basic rules of grammar suggests this applied to the disciples, who were later referred to as apostles. “At that time the disciples came to Jesus and said, “Who then is greatest in the kingdom of heaven?”” ‭‭Matthew‬ ‭18‬:‭1‬ ‭NASB2020‬‬ Suan is not paying attention to the basic rules of grammar here. Also, the temple was not destroyed the exact same day, they were on fire the same day. Response below, since my comment keeps getting deleted. Peter was not the only who was able to confess Jesus is the Christ, it is anyone who is born of God (1 John 5:1). 1 John 5:1 Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: and every one that loveth him that begat loveth him also that is begotten of him. See the word "Whosoever", so it is not just Peter. The reason Jesus was talking to Peter alone in Matthew 16:18-19, is because Peter spoke for the disciples in Matthew 16:16. It was a more intimate moment when Peter answered for the Disciples. Also, Jesus already knew beforehand Judas was not going to be a part of this. Jesus also told the Disciples in Matthew 16:20, not to tell anyone He was the Christ, so it was not limited to just Peter. Matthew 16:19 connects to Matthew 18:18, which has to do with the binding and loosing. The keys of the kingdom, binding and loosing, again wasn't limited to just Peter. The rest of the apostles also had the same authority as they were also binding and loosing in Matthew 18:18. The phrase “binding and loosing” only applied to the house of Israel. They were to go through all the cities of Israel before Christs coming in judgment, Matthew 10:23. His coming in judgment was from AD66 to AD73. Peter preached the gospel one time to the Gentiles, then withdrew (Galatians 2:7-12, Acts 11:1-2). He was never an apostle to the Gentiles. Acts 10 was simply the transition of the gospel going from Jews to Gentiles. Paul, who was an apostle to the Gentiles, never used that phrase "binding and loosing", but used the phrase "grafted in". You can't bind and loosen what is not already there. The binding and loosing, and going through the cities of Israel, did not allow any of the apostles to have the time to be overseers/bishops. This was fabricated of Peter, including the idea of him being in Rome. Peter was not even a Roman citizen, and did not speak their languages. Paul, was a Roman citizen and spoke their languages (Greek and Latin).

Where do we see Peter interpreting Scripture? Do the other apostles interpret Scripture?

So I'm a Protestant and I have no problem with this. Clearly Peter was given authority when he was told he could bind and loose. How does show that apostolic succession was part of this authority and that there has been an unbroken chain of it down to Francis?

The Other Paul and I cover a bunch of Suan's arguments in this area in a relatively recent video about Suan's typology doesn't work. We don't go over the prime minister stuff, but we definitely cover Suan's use of typology and comments about binding & loosing. If anyone is interested.

Whatever authority "The Church" has..does not give it the right to wily nily impose a meaning on any text. Are you saying The Church has the right to use free association as a means of interacting with Scripture?

COWBOY LOGIC 101: He said to them, “But who do you say that I am?” Simon Peter answered, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” And Jesus said to him, “Blessed are you, Simon Barjona, because flesh and blood did not reveal this to you, but My Father who is in heaven. I also say to you that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build My church; and the gates of Hades will not overpower it. Matthew 16:15‭-‬18 Hate to state the obvious guys, but the "this rock" upon which Christ would build his Church was Peter's confession of faith. "Flesh and blood did not reveal 'this' to you, but my Father who is in heaven." The "this" and the "this rock" are one and the same thing - Peter's statement of faith. Jesus is not complicated nor is his Word. Jesus makes a BIG deal out of Peter's confession of faith. Of course! The church is EXACTLY that. Persons who would thereafter make that exact same statement in their hearts.

Apostolic succession proves nothing...plenty of bishops throughout history were heretical, as is the current bishop of Rome....and it doesn't give you the right to make up new doctrine whenever you feel like it...the Apostle were to pass on the faith, teach it, make more Christians, not innovate...