Refuting 5 Anti-Catholic Historical Myths 

Cosmicskeptic already published a video on it where he refutes the myth.

@@caesarius2004 I love you’re surname you related to the original Caesar?

@@isobelle.London Thanks. Sadly, no. I just picked it as an artist name because I was called Caesar at school😅

I had a German course at uni in the UK where we had to read "Life of Galileo" by Bertolt Brecht which is full of those untrue claims. It also portrays every Catholic priest as an anti-scientific idiot. It was basically anti-Catholic propaganda.

Pray for Yajun Yuan on his conversion to Catholicism

Indeed. Plus Giordano Bruno, the Crusades and the Inquisition, those are also depicted with the Catholics as the comically evil guys.

@@boidoh big time, after what he did, I thought he was just a troll but this is someone in need.

@@user-et8vm9cc3t I have a Catholic Controversies playlist that addresses>> Reformation or Revolt, The Crusades, The Inquisitions, Middle Ages, Catholic Church ban Bible, Hitlers Pope

Come one, that's just silly. He's clearly a Time Lord!

That's more of a Legend.

I thought he was a cyborg from the future?

Akin is actually a plant from the shadowy Castrati secret society and controlled remotely from a bunker under a Whole Foods in Bushwick. He is also a hologram. 😶

What is this a response to? Did someone say catholic answers was an icon producer? I didn’t know they produced icons or crucifixes

Wasn’t the 4th Crusade the one that wasn’t sanctioned/authorized by the Pope? If I’m remembering correctly, someone led a group out for material gain but didn’t have the money upfront for some of the cost so the payment would then come from whatever the crusaders looted. However, once they received confirmation they WOULDN’T be rewarded upon returning, they went rouge and that’s when they started sacking the place. Personally, history and the Church has addressed this multiple times and even issued apologies and an openness to make things right. However, it seems bad actors DON’T want things mended and would rather use the sacking as their basis for rejecting Rome. Not saying it wasn’t bad, but there’s been a lot of time and events since sacking Constantinople that honestly, the hatchet is long rusted and needs to be buried.

@@jendoe9436 Yes. I was Orthodox for a time and they did use the 4th Crusade as an excuse for their schism.

Are there reputable sources about all that? I wanna try to learn more so I can understand as I'm an inquirer considering either Orthodoxy or Catholicism.

I think Suan is on that already

@@coachp12b he is, but if possible I’d like more than one response

I have at least 5 videos on the Crusades in my Catholic Controversies playlist ru-vid.com/group/PLbz3GMKW31OFcZ11hNgR1HdGBqiv-Nepn

😆

It is honestly a horrible case. The Church tolerated it although gave some regulations that they had to be over seven and consent to it although it was also technically justified as a necessity after an accident. It was a way for poor families to not be so.

ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-iP2vw6JIdNQ.html

@@johnnotrealname8168 I mean it's not like the Church could completely ban it from society. In 500 years everyone's going to be bashing the Catholic Church for not "doing something" about the evils of abortion.

@YAJUN YUAN a letter? Or a letter every day of the week? 😂

Not sure about until Vatican II but having a Bible was rare in the Catholic world.

@@johnnotrealname8168 it was but there also wasn’t really a printing press until right when the Vatican happened. Most people couldn’t read throughout church history and bibles were worth the same amount as houses.

@@jacobhilderman I meant it was rare after the protestant revolution. The Church did discorouge the use of it since the uproar was created by bad readings of the Bible. Catholic Spirituality was not Biblical, although the Church itself used it. It was a prudential measure, there is nothing inherently wrong with it.

No, the issue was more or less having accurate translations. Any literate person with wealth could, in theory, scribe their own translation of the Bible. Someone could easily sneak or modify a passage and then preach to the masses, and no one would know better. In fact, we actually did see this happen when Martin Luther added the word 'alone' in Romans 3:28. This issue even more problematic with the printing press, as not only could a person mistranslate the Bible, but also mass-reproduce that mistranslation. This does not mean that it was illegal to have a Bible in vernacular. If this was the case, the Church would have a very hard time preaching and converting people who did not speak Latin. Instead, the Church allowed the commissioning of vernacular texts to trusted scribes. For instance rulers such as King Alfred and Charlemagne, both contributed to translating and introducing the New Testament in their respective vernaculars.

@@Cklert yup! Honestly I would have no idea what to do it all of a sudden everyone could have access to a bible most people who had bibles were qualified to teach as well. I’m not sure I would allow everyone access to the bible as soon as it became available, I personally would be hesitant.

Hello Jen, I'm pretty sure Lucifer is a Latin term for what you describe. It is also a term used toward our Lord Jesus (Day Star, Morningstar, Light Bringer etc.) The name is more of a tradition when referring to the Devil, but there is no concrete evidence that Lucifer is the beings name. His names, as highlighted by the Bible and Tradition, are everything else we know already, primarily as Satan or Devil. I'm happy for someone to correct me in case I'm mistaken. Also, the passage that people point to (Isaiah 14:12)in context is actually about 'Israel's Remnant Taunts Babylon' more notably, the passage is directed to the King of Babylon. This passage is not about 'The Devil', although we can point to it to describe the similar conditions in which Satan was cast out of Heaven. Good bless you, and I hope you have a wonderful evening.

And so says the church. That is just a circular argument.

@@kevinkelly2162 nope. So says Jesus Christ. If you have a problem with the authority that the Catholic Church has, take it up with God. He’s the one who set it up this way.

@@alexjurado6029 Nah, the church says Jesus said....... Still a circular argument.

@@kevinkelly2162 I’m starting to think that you don’t know what a circular argument is, friend. Or at least how to identify one. The Church doesn’t appeal to itself, it appeals to Christ and what He said, which can be objectively verified in the New Testament.

@@alexjurado6029 No, the church appeals to what it says Jesus said. The NT was written by the church.

Funny story. During the peak of it's popularity people were going to the building of Opus Dei to see the "torture chamber." In response some members said, "sure, follow me!" So they would take these visitors down to woodshop room and say something like, "yeah, it's a torture refinishing these pews."

I had heard that the Church had castrated boys for the choir. Glad that she did not.

@@carolynkimberly4021 do you ever listen to Vienna boys choir. Trust me they are not castrated. Yet they reach high notes

@@lois2997 It was supposedly in the Middle Ages. Yes, I've heard them.

What about them? They're probably in hell right next to Judas Iscariot. That doesn't change the validity of the Catholic Church.

@@user-zi7gd9pn3l not in your mind, no.... But then nothing would.

Peter first pope, the keys follows the apostolic succession

@@romasliv where did you learn that?

Around 67AD with dating from St Jerome. St Linus succeeded Peter as bishop of Rome

@@Theunspokentruth77 irinaeus talk about that

@@HodgePodgeVids1but apostle Peter didn't give the keys of heaven to anyone, did he?

With the exception of Christians supposedly believing the Earth to be flat, I've never heard of any of these, instead of “insane” historical claims he should focus on things that actually are commonly believed and are commonly repeated even in Catholic sources, like Galileo

For anyone interested, please compare the words of EC Vatican I and the very Letter of Agatho to the 6th Ecumenical Council (3rd Council of Constantinople, 681-682). The parallelism is astonishing. __________ First Vatican Council, Pastor Aeternus, Chapter 4 (1870): _”(…) Indeed, _*_their apostolic teaching was embraced by all the venerable Fathers_*_ and _*_reverenced and followed by all the Holy Orthodox Doctors,_*_ for they knew very well that this See of St. Peter always _*_REMAINS UNBLEMISHED by any error, in accordance with the divine promise_*_ of our Lord and Savior to the prince of his disciples: ‘I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail; and when you have turned again, strengthen your brethren‘ [Lk 22, 32]”_ __________ The Letter of Pope Saint Agatho to the Emperor (actas of the 6th EC, received with acclamation) (680-681): _“(…) because the true confession thereof for which _*_PETER_*_ was pronounced blessed by the Lord of all things, was revealed by the Father of heaven, for he received from the Redeemer of all himself, by three commendations, the duty of feeding the spiritual sheep of the Church; under whose protecting shield, _*_THIS Apostolic Church of his has NEVER TURNED AWAY from the path of truth in any direction of error,_*_ whose authority, as that of the _*_Prince of all the Apostles,_*_ the whole Catholic Church, and the Ecumenical Synods have faithfully embraced, and followed in all things; _*_and all the venerable Fathers have embraced its Apostolic doctrine,_*_ through which they as the most approved luminaries of the Church of Christ have shone; _*_and the Holy Orthodox Doctors have venerated and followed it,_*_ while the heretics have pursued it with false criminations and with derogatory hatred. This is the living tradition of the Apostles of Christ, which his Church holds everywhere…. the firm rock of this Church of blessed Peter, the Prince of the Apostles, _*_which by his grace and guardianship REMAINS FREE FROM all error”_* . A good read in the apologetics of it but with massive academic research may be given in the excellent book _”The Papacy: Revisiting the Debate Between Catholics and Orthodox”_ by Erick Ybarra. To be published by Emmaus Road is an attestation of the seriousness and quality of the book. God bless you and good reading!

I don't get why the EO would rely on such a late council to justify their grievances in the first place. It leaves them in the same position as protestants when they reject the immaculate conception

@@Qwerty-jy9mj From what read, the EO or at least some parts of it in the 19th and early 20th centuries, tried to disassociate itself as much as possible from the Latin Church. Why? Unsure. I speculate it was because they didn't want to give Rome any credibility.

Simply put , the Catholic Church is old school and what we see as fancy now was normal way back when The Pope is as important if not more like a court judge , ( the Pope is the Vicar of Christ ) the last time I checked the Judge wears robes , can wear rings and sits in a fancy chair like a king Don’t sweat over this God Bless

The Egyptian had circumcision and priest before the Israelites did, and other nations had Kings before them also, so by there logic, God copy pagan practice for them to live by and operate as a nation

@@pdub69triniboy absolutely not Paganism by definition is the corruption of God’s teachings God came to change their belief not culture All you mentioned is part of man developed cultures Besides Judaism existed at that time period so what makes you so sure Jews didn’t develop that on their own?? If God copied pagan beliefs why didn’t he copy their acceptance of human sacrifice , slavery, etc ??

@kiryu-chan577 Like a prince. He is representing a Kingdom, why would anyone have a problem with this? He wears RINGS! Oh, my this is the most terrible thing I can imagine. And ROBES! Don't say robes! Oh, wait a minute... so what if he wears a ring or two, one is of his office. and what is the problem with how he dresses? Why do most Pastors wear a business suit? AND with a pagan ring. (a wedding ring is a pagan practice). A business suit is a result of a military uniform. The tall neck is folded down forming the wide lapels. Why do Pastors wear a military uniform? Pagan rings and hold their arms out with an open Bible in one hand, that they never refer to. Why do they speak funny when they are sermonizing? Do they go to an acting class to affect that voice?