As is the case with all of the videos in my "in 2 minutes" series, there has to be a lot of simplification and imprecision. This is just a video to "whet ones appetite", so don't take if for more than it's worth - just an introduction that of course will have to leave many things out and gloss over others. If you've enjoyed my videos like this one, please consider helping Ready to Harvest advance by becoming a supporter. You can watch videos a week in advance with Gold membership (and the early access video right now is also about the Catholic Church) Check it out: readytoharvest.com
@NikoR96 Nah I'm good, I just entered into the Church two years ago and affirm all of its teachings. Raised Baptist and still have the NKJV I received when I got myself baptized. I still value that upbringing of course.
@@ClayOfTheMaster sure, First it's the Eucharist that gets put in the hand not the Mass. The Mass is the ceremony the Eucharist is the "bread and wine" that is eaten during mass. I put those in quotes because in Catholicism we believe that the bread and wine become the literal body and blood of Christ during the mass. So because we believe the Eucharist to be the actual body and blood of Christ we treat it with great reverence. To some the idea of a normal person's hands touching the Eucharist as a sacrilege. I've heard people fear the idea of the particles of the Eucharist that are lost in the less direct movement. I've even heard some go as far as to say that the decline of Church attendance is to blame on taking the Eucharist by hand. Now it's important to note that the official church teaching is that taking by hand or tongue are both acceptable ways of receiving the Eucharist, but that doesn't stop some very vocal traditionalists decrying the practice.
@Vincent Terraneo I'm catholic and I can't tell you any difference in taking it in the hand your still receiving Holy communion and Jesus's body either way .
Not upset at all,especially if is the people that took our bible, ignored everything Jesus established in His church, and think the bible is meant for them ,and they are the real Christians.
In 99%, Catholics get communion on their crossed hands, and that is the normal expectation. But if one requests it on the tongue, it will be given on the tongue, and if one requests it on the hands, it will be given on the hands.
@@PNL-DJ-1 Ngl I think more people would sprout up against hand Eucharist now vs say 20 years ago. The youngins like me (22) are definitely leaning traditional. I mean the ones that still attend or are practicing.
@@user-ld6td8xi9b - not true at all. I have been an extra ordinary minister of Holy Communion for about 20 years at a RC parish attached to a university and may be 1% +/- of the communicants (2 of 200 on avg) at Mass receive Communion in the older style on the tongue. That hasn’t changed as long as I’ve been part of the ministry.
Papacy is unbiblical idolatry. It is responsible for the slaughter of circa fifty million souls. It is mystery Babylon. It is responsible for untold millions of incidents of child abuse by its sodomite clergy. Now that didn't take long at all!
By only pointing at the heresies and blasphemy the Catholic institution teaches, it should be enough for you to run away of her and never care about anything that has to do with it...
@@goaltender330 Is your parish in the traditional Melkite territory or somewhere like the US? If the latter, so you ever get lay visitors from other rites like Latin? I've been wanting to take my family to visit other rites simply for the joy of it. I don't think there are any Melkite parishes nearby but there are Ukrainian and Greek-Byzantine close enough to visit.
@@tr1084 No, I am in diaspora, the US. We get latin visitors pretty commonly. My dad was actually a Latin to Byzantine through canonical transfer of churches. Some of our parishioners are members of Catholic YA groups in town and members of those groups will come for Great Vespers on Saturdays or Lenten services. We had a group of guys travel 3 hours to come to Divine Liturgy a few weeks back. I like to cite Jesus when it comes to explaining the Byzantine rite, you need to "Come and see" because I cant do it justice. Where abouts are you? Coal country (PA, NJ, NY, OH, WV) will mainly be Slavic churches (Ukrainian, Ruthenian)
@@goaltender330 I'm in the Lakeland, FL area. All the Byzantine rite parishes I've mentioned are found in the Tampa & St Pete area. The bay area has a historical Greek and eastern European diaspora. Since talking to you I found out there's a Melkite parish about 70 minutes away in Orlando. Maybe one day we'll drop in for Liturgy.
@@tr1084 You should, I know there is St Nicholas Ruthenian in Orlando. They have a beautiful Sunday liturgy. Dont bother with the Saturday night. They dont sing and its very meh. The Sunday is very good though.
Just some clarification on purgatory and mortal sin: Mortal sin is ordinarily forgiven through the sacrament of reconciliation, there are other extraordinary means however (i.e. Perfect Act of Contrition). Purgatory is primarily the cleansing of the marks of mortal sin on ones soul (the marks are semi-permanent until removed through special means), not just venial sins. Anyone who doesn't die in an absolutely perfect state of grace (ordinarily through a plenary indulgence and last rites) will still have to go through the process of purgatory. Other people mentioned this, but there are also some other things which differ between the latin/roman rites and the eastern rites. Overall it's a 9.8/10, amazing job!
@@cww4700 Finally, in 1520 Pope Leo X issued a bull - a statement of the Pope's authority - condemning Luther and banning his works. Defying the Pope, Luther publicly burned the bull. The break with the church was then complete. In January 1521 Pope Leo X excommunicated Luther.
@NikoR96 So the assertions made are, "Faith alone" and *only* faith through in the Bible saves. Yet none of these things are actually even implied throughout the NT. James 2:14 makes it explicitly clear that faith alone is not sufficient (Likely one of the reasons why he sought to remove it). And nowhere does it say that only the Bible saves. You are absolutely not justified forever either. John 15:6 makes that clear, as does Paul multiple times in Romans 11:22, Galatians 5:4, and Corinthians 9:27. You can absolutely disqualify and cut yourself from the reward Christ paid. For some reason, there's this misconception that Catholics believe that our work saves us. We do not believe that. That's a heresy called Pelagianism. We, like you, believe that it is through Grace that we are saved. But how do we know we have God's Grace? Through our faith yes, but how do we know how faith is justified? It is through our works do we demonstrate that we have faith. These are done through the Sacraments which Christ instituted. We do believe that the Holy Spirit does indeed change us, but it's not always an instantaneous thing.
@@Cklert Right, right. An allegory I usually use when discussing this issue with Protestants is that the Catholic view is that works are more or less the "receipt" of grace. If the Holy Ghost lives within you, He will change you. That change will inevitably manifest in works. Interestingly enough, I have found that one of my Reformed friends (online) agrees with this position.
As a Protestant cleric and Church historian, of over 50 years experience, I find your 2- minute thumbnail sketches, supplemented by your longer in depth commentary, a fine examination of the Western world's plethora of Christian denominations -- including some of which I'd never heard. Thanks for broadening my understanding of Christian denominations and sects whose traditions, beliefs, and practices are sometimes radically different from mine. While I am way out on the "liberal" end of the spectrum, and I suspect you lean towards a much more conservative position, I am impressed both with the factual quality of your commentaries, and with your personal sincerely and the integrity of your analysis. Keep up the good work!!
@@willp.8120 Since you asked, I will tell you. Not only do I support and minister to homosexuals, I am actually one myself; and throughout my half century plus of ministry and seminary teaching, I have solemnized gay unions whenever I believed the persons were genuinely in love -- same as hetero couples (whose record of divorce and disloyalty is nothing to brag about) -- and be loyal to each other. I have also declined to solemnize prospective unions I believed did not meet these criteria. As for the Bible, in which one can always find some out of context "proof" text to support their bigotry, Jesus our Lord never spoke on the matter at all (to say nothing of what one might read into his relationship with St. John! -- I don't, for your information) The only other evidence we have is an ambiguously translated remark of Saul (Paul) of Tarsus, who had his own set of problems with women --- and a "law" in the Pentateuch about which you folks and Paul are always proclaiming that Jesus' coming abrogated, a law probably formulated in the psychological dark ages, centuries before Jesus even came on the scene. Oh, and by the way, since you chose to sneer at several Christian denominations with which I am connected, I will answer that question too, to satisfy your self-rightiousness. Yes, I am 82 years old and still active, I am an ordained Methodist minister, have tought Church history in its flagship seminary , and have for the last quarter century also served as chief Sacristan in a large city Episcopal Church. We have gay couples as outstanding members of our congregation, choir, and vestry. In fact, I , myself, served as parish Clerk, and as Clerk of the Altar Guild for many years. I suppose that makes me/us anathema in your eyes; but never mind: it makes you pitiful in mine! There! I trust that answers your self-serving rhetorical questions, and satisfies your appetite for something to be smug about.
@@willp.8120 : And just who are you, from the platform of your self-righteous bigotry to tell me to "get right" with anyone, much less with your puny idea of God. Enjoy your self-rightiousness while you can. And open your eyes wide: it's just possible that God is a whole lot bigger than you think.
Approached the 1054 schism in a neutral manner. Describes the sacraments succinctly Salvation on faith alone is a weird topic, that I do think you were justified to not touch it, since even Catholics don't understand it. A good description of sin and salvation. A good description of the liturgy A good description on the authority. Well done, Joshua, thank you for representing my faith as well as you could in two minutes. For those who want more indepth videos on Catholic Teaching, I recommend Catholic Answers.
This is great! Thanks for including the stuff about receiving on the tongue and the Traditional Latin Mass (also I liked the humor and accuracy of it all). Some of your best work.
Latin Mass "movement" continues to grow since I converted from the Episcopal Church in 1998. JPII authorized the founding of an order of priest called the Fraternity of Peter (FSSP) that is dedicated to the Traditional Latin Mass. FYI the Anglican Catholics have their own bishop as of last year. Many exciting things. Also FYI, Catholicism that's found in books and magazines doesn't reflect the dynamics of Catholicism of the last 30 years.
QUESTION: When was the last year a catholic institution taught that writing left-handed was sign of satanic influence ? Was it 1255 , 1455 , 1755 or 1955 ? Yep , you guessed it ! In same era as the atom being split and DNA modelled , the jet engine and TV, ABOUT PAR FOR THE CATHOLIC RETARDACY /
Do you think you'll ever do a full video on the Roman Catholic Church? I figured it'd be a bit harder to do considering it breadth and width unless you stuck more closely to the RCC catechism, Catholic Answers, and/or just the Catholic Ecumenical councils: but I think you'd be someone able to pull it off well enough.
Not gonna lie, I thought he would have some bias when I first discovered him because that’s the norm for me. Then he actually analyzed the differences between the different Christian sects respectfully!
Think you'll ever do a video on the traditional Latin rites within the Catholic church (SSPX, FSSP, ICKSP, etc.)? The history behind each is very interesting.
Yes, and it's quite representative, at least 1 milion people and growing, with lots of children and priests ordinations. I go to the traditional latin mass for almost 10 years.
Here in the Netherlands it's very uncommon to receive the Eucharist on the tongue, except for elderly church goers, and even then it's rare. My grandparents were born between 1924 and 1930 and they too received the Eucharist in the hand. Didn't even know that receiving it that way was considered upsetting to some.
@@bigscarysteve I was also thinking of mentioning the same thing. The church is aware that some people of I’ll will frequently take the Host in their hands but never eat It, but take it out of the church to desecrate it. It’s a lot more difficult to do when taking the Host on the tongue after which it begins to quickly dissolve
In the US reception in the hand is very common, as is standing . We, as Catholics of the Roman Rite have the right to recieve kneeling and on the toung...but some priests get mad when you do.
Some of the more, ah, "traditional" Catholics in the US take issue with receiving in the hand because it's something that wasn't introduced until the 1970s. And as we all know, the 1970s were the cause of every problem that's ever happened in the Catholic Church and the world.
As a Catholic I’d be remiss if I didn’t add that The Mass is a giant prayer, ending with The Eucharist and is said at the relative same time in a time zone. Powerful when you think of it.
I agree that mass is prayer, but what do you mean about relatively same times? I assume you mean Sunday mornings, but even then masses can start at 8am or 11:30am or other times.
You did a good job only having 2 minutes to explain the Catholic Church. But there are also two Churches which makes up the Catholic Church the Western Church and Eastern Church which does permit Priests to be married. The Western Church has 7 Rites which are different traditions in celebration of the Sacraments. The Western Bishops serve directly under the Pope who is the head of the Church. The Eastern Church has 23 Rites many were once Churches in schism with the Holy See of Rome but later reunited with the Holy See of Rome. These were former Eastern Orthodox Churches, Oriental Orthodox Churches, and the Church of the East. In the Eastern Church the Eastern Bishops serve under their respective Patriarch or Major Archbishop who recognize the Pope as the head of the Church. During the Great Schism only two Eastern Churches remained in full communion with the Holy See of Rome these Rites are the Maronite Catholic Church and the Italo-Albanian Greek Catholic Church which never schismed. The reason why people only know of the Roman Rite is because it has the largest community within the Catholic Church.
You did a solid job of explaining the Roman Rite of the Catholic Church, but not any of the other Rites, or 24 Particular Churches (e.g. Anglican Use Rite, Byzantine, etc.)
I discovered your channel just Today and I started watching your videos since 3 hours continuously the graphics are amazing and I want to suggest your next video to be on ‘Taizé Community’ from France, interesting Christian community accepts all churches with leading brothers as far as I know, thank you
I think you should have titled it the "*Latin* Catholic Church Explained in 2 Minutes." There are Catholics who do not have Latin as their liturgical language and you in fact have covered those Catholics in a video or two. On the communion: it's really "you come and get it" in practice but by rule, not everyone can receive it. Those who can get it, most of the time, should be a Catholic who has not committed any mortal sin since after they had their last confession. Christians under churches with valid sacraments (as judged by the Catholic Church), like the Eastern and Oriental Orthodox churches, can also receive it as long as they're "properly disposed" and have been "spontaneously ask[ing]" for it. As for the rest: splendid and great as always. Continue the good work!
ya but he forgot to mention the catholic church is just a bad ripoff copy of the orthodox christian church, originally started by military butchers who, after conquering their territories, appointed themselves as bishops to maintain control over their newly conquered territories. very godly and christian-like, don't you think?
If I weren't Catholic, I'd look for the Church that the world despises, for the world despised Jesus, and he would be there. - Fulton Sheen Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you; he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him. As the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so he who eats me will live because of me.". Things seemed to be going pretty well. That is until Jesus said “For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood,dwelleth in me, and I in him.” This was too much for many of his disciples and “From that time many of his disciples went back, and walked no more with him.” Jesus turns to the 12 and asks, “Will ye also go away? Vs 61, Jesus did not back down, for He said, "Does this offend you?" it offends protestants. They devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching and to fellowship, to the breaking of bread and to prayer. Jn 20:21, "As the Father has sent Me, I also send you." Jn 17:18, "Even as thou hast sent Me into the world, so I have sent them into the world." Jn 17:22-23, "And the glory that thou hast given Me, I have given to Matt. 28, 18-20: And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth. Go ye, therefore. and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world. Amen. Jesus says to the crowd, "He who believes and is baptized will be saved." But in reference to the same people, Jesus immediately follows with "He who does not believe will be condemned." This demonstrates that one can be baptized and still not be a believer. This disproves the Protestant argument that one must be a believer to be baptized. There is nothing in the Bible about a "believer's baptism." "Accept Jesus as your personal Lord and Savior," or "Ask Jesus into your heart" isn't the biblical answer. It’s important to be saved from hell, damnation, and the stain of original sin, but what are we saved for? We are saved for union with Christ. Our salvation began when we were born again through baptism and God’s own Divine Life was restored in our souls, making us like Adam and Eve were in the Garden before the Original (first) Sin. As we go through life, we are united with Christ through the Sacraments he left as gifts for us, especially through Penance (forgiveness of our sins committed since Baptism) and the Eucharist (partaking of God’s own Life, His own Divine Nature, 2 Peter 1:4) - until that day when we are truly united with Him in heaven. Scripture teaches that one’s final salvation depends on the state of the soul at death. As Jesus himself tells us, "He who endures to the end will be saved" (Matt. 24:13; cf. 25:31-46). One who dies in the state of friendship with God (the state of grace) will go to heaven. The one who dies in a state of rebellion against God (the state of mortal sin) will go to hell. (For the teaching on venial (non-deadly) and mortal (deadly) sins, see 1 John 5:16-17) What I must do to be saved: *I must be baptized with water and the Spirit. Mark 16:16, John 3:3-5, Titus 3:5, I Peter 3:20-21. (Exceptions: [1] If I desire Baptism but die before I can be baptized with water and the Spirit, God accepts my desire to be baptized, and [2] If I am killed (martyred) because of my faith, but I have not had the opportunity to be baptized, God accepts my death as my baptism, called the Baptism of Blood). * I must do the will of God the Father. Matthew 7:21 * I must keep the Commandments of God. Matthew 5:19-20, Matthew 7:21, Matthew 19:17, 1 Timothy 6:14, and others. * I must accept the Cross (suffering). Matthew 10:38, Matthew 16:24-25, Mark 8:34, Luke 9:23, Luke 14:27. Phil 1:29, and others. * I must be a member of God's true church. Acts 2:46-47. * I must confess my sins. James 5:16, I John 1:9, John 20:19-23 * I must heed the words of St. Peter, the first Pope. Acts 11:13-14, Acts 15:7. * I must eat the flesh and drink the blood of Jesus Christ. John 6:51-58, I Corinthians 10:16-17, 11:23-30 * I must do unto others as I would have them do unto me and love my neighbor as myself. I must feed the hungry, give drink to the thirsty, clothe the naked, visit the sick and those in prison or give other aid to those in need. Luke 10:33 ff, Mt 25:31-46. "Do not neglect to do good and to share what you have, for such sacrifices are very pleasing to God" Hebrews 13:16. Good works don’t save us, but we will be judged by them. *I must strive to be holy. "Strive for peace with everyone and for that holiness without which no one will see the Lord." Hebrews 12:14 *I must endure (persevere) to the end. Matthew 10:22, Matthew 24:13, Mark 13:13. And ... ? What else must I do? Catechism #432 The name "Jesus" signifies that the very name of God is present in the person of his Son, made man for the universal and definitive redemption from sins. It is the divine name that alone brings salvation, and henceforth all can invoke his name, for Jesus united himself to all men through his Incarnation, so that "there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved."✔✔
@@willp.8120 "Peter said to them;...'be Baptized everyone of you in the Name of Jesus Christ...and you shall receive the Gift of the Holy Ghost...For the promise is to you, AND TO YOUR CHILDREN and to all'..." The Acts 2:38-39 Jn 20:21, "As the Father has sent Me, I also send you." Jn 17:18, "Even as thou hast sent Me into the world, so I have sent them into the world." Jn 17:22-23, "And the glory that thou hast given Me, I have given to Matt. 28, 18-20: And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth. Go ye, therefore. and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world. Amen. Is necessary for salvation. John 3:5 - "No one can enter the kingdom of God without being born of water and Spirit" Mark 16:16 - "Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved" Acts 16:30, 33 - "what must I do to be saved? ... he and all his family were baptized" 1 Peter 3:21 - "baptism which saves you now." See also: - Matthew 28:19, Acts 2:38, Acts 16:15 Mark 16:16 - Jesus says to the crowd, "He who believes and is baptized will be saved." But in reference to the same people, Jesus immediately follows with "He who does not believe will be condemned." So Much for your nonsensical BS✔✔
@@willp.8120 1 Corinthians 11 :20-34 When ye come together therefore into one place, this is not to eat the Lord's supper. For in eating every one taketh before other his own supper: and one is hungry, and another is drunken. What? have ye not houses to eat and to drink in? or despise ye the church of God, and shame them that have not? what shall I say to you? shall I praise you in this? I praise you not. For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, that the Lord Jesus the same night in which he was betrayed took bread: After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, this cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me. For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord's death till he come. Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup. For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord's body. For this cause many are weak and sickly among you, and many sleep. For if we would judge ourselves, we should not be judged. But when we are judged, we are chastened of the Lord, that we should not be condemned with the world. Wherefore, my brethren, when ye come together to eat, tarry one for another. And if any man hunger, let him eat at home; that ye come not together unto condemnation. And the rest will I set in order when I come. The Sacrifice of God is past, present and future! It is eternal because it is outside of space and time. The sacrifice by Christ dying and suffering was done in space and time 2000 years ago, when Christ (God) chose to became man (incarnate), this is when He went inside space and time. The holy sacrifice of the Mass is a "sacrifice" being presented to us again on a daily basis, and this sacrifice is outside space and time in a mystical and spiritual way because God is not limited in space and time, EVERYTHING TO HIM is an eternal event, and this is the only sacrifice pleasing to God The Father. Why do you think St. Paul was instructing the Corinthians about The Eucharist if it is not an eternal sacrifice or just a mere "symbol". (1 Corinthians 11:27), Therefore whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner, shall be guilty of the body and the blood of the Lord. - And this was after Christ's Ascension.😆😆
@@willp.8120 Vs 54, "Whoever eats My flesh, and drinks My blood, has eternal life; and I will raise him up on the last day." Did He say to eat the symbol of His flesh? Vs 55, Jesus said, "For My flesh is meat indeed, and My blood is drink indeed." Vs 56, Jesus said, "He that eats My flesh and drinks My blood dwells in Me, and I in him." Did He say, 'He that eats a symbol of My flesh...'. How can a mere symbol fulfill this promise? Does only a symbol of Christ dwell in us? I thought GOD Himself dwelt within us, 1John 4:12-13. Vs 59, This verse shows that Jesus taught this discourse to all the people. Vs 60,They doubt a third time when many disciples said, "This is a hard saying, who can hear it"? The Jews were instilled by many Old Testament verses, admonishing them not to consume blood. See Deut 12:23, Lev 17:11and 14. They must have thought this was something akin to cannibalism. Is this what you think too? At any point did Jesus back down? Explain to me, if this chapter is symbolic, why did He not explain the symbolism to them? Vs 61, Jesus did not back down, for He said, "Does this offend you?" He knew their thoughts and He certainly knew the Old Testament verses about the consumption of blood. In the next verse, He separated spiritual things from earthly things. Vs 63*, Jesus said, "It is the spirit that quickens; the flesh profits nothing. The words I speak to you, they are spirit, and they are life." Did He say He was speaking figuratively or in parables? This is the second verse detractors use to try to "prove" that Jesus spoke figuratively for the whole chapter. Did Jesus say "My" flesh? No, He said "the" flesh. What Jesus had said was, that we cannot accept this mystery if we accept it in too human a way, by having an earthly view of things. Those who can only think of cannibalism, are they not having an earthly view? See John 3:6, "That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit." Verse 63 means that we should not have a carnal human understanding of His words, but a spiritual understanding.😆😆
@@willp.8120 The New Testament writers are emphatic that salvation is by grace alone (Rom. 3:24, 28; 4:5; 11:6; Gal. 2:16-21; Eph. 2:8-10; Titus 3:5-8).🤣🤣
Regarding the canon of Scripture and its relation to Tradition, I say good enough. One can hardly get into fusing Scripture and Tradition back together in 2 minutes of quick overview. As Dei Verbum §10 says, and the rest of the "Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation" makes clear, "Sacred tradition and Sacred Scripture form one sacred deposit of the word of God, committed to the Church." It is also important to distinguish the teaching office of the church, or "magisterium" from the entire Church, which is composed of much more than just the clergy - in the same way no Baptist would say his pastor, or the total collection thereof, is the church.
Interesting to see one's own expression laid out so succinctly. Also, 1054 I suppose is a fair place to start talking about it.... I wonder, Joshua, if you would want to do a " 'catholic-orthodox' from Nicaea to 1054 " in 2 minutes as well.
"That makes some people upset" [In reference to vernacular Masses and taking Communion with one's hands] Around when I was in high school, my aunt's Catholic church up in the northeastern suburbs of Atlanta began to have a bit of a traditionalist shift. The sanctuary was refurbished, there were talks about turning around the altar so the priest faces the crucifix during Mass (I don't quite remember if it actually was), there was a greater amount of Latin chants and singing, and parishioners were told to take Communion on the tongue. Must have been some new priest wanting a liturgy that was more pre-Second Vatican (before 1962). I can remember one Mass in the church after the changes were made. As someone used to a more post-council form of Mass, a lot of things felt cold and unwelcoming, especially when the priest gave a homily that felt pretty politically charged. Even when the Scripture readings are the same and the Mass structured the same in nearly every Catholic church, one is going to find a different experience for each one, and such differences can be profound in various ways.
I'm surprised parishioners were told to take communion on the tongue. I've never been told either way, after I had my First Communion, and I would classify it as another thing time and energy is wasted on, instead of speaking about the meaning of the Eucharist for our life. . . . As far as I know, Catholics are free to choose how to take communion, and in 99% of cases I see people taking it on the (crossed) hands.
Catholic priest here. Just a minor quibble: only the Western Catholic Church chooses its priests from among celibate men. The Eastern Catholic Churches (whose liturgies are often indistinguishable from their Orthodox counterparts) choose priests from among both married and celibate men, just as the Orthodox do.
Louis. Why are you all sending people to hell.. you can't FORGIVE sins ADMIT IT. YOU CAN'T FORGIVE YOUR OWN. HOW Ignorant is that.......BURN IN HELL FOR LIES
Given that the Catholic Church is arguably the most important and consequential organization in human history I'm quite impressed with how much of it you got into 120 seconds!
*R Catholicism has nothing to do with God and His Words. R Catholic Church contradicts Scriptures in every possible ways!* 1. Catholics say Mary was sinless. But BIBLE says Mary offered a sinner's offering. She was a sinner. Bible says Mary needed a Saviour. Lk 2:23-24, Lev 12:6-8, Rom 3:10. 2. Catholics say clergies must be celibate. Yet BIBLE says Peter (supposed R Church first leader) had mother in law. Bible says celibacy is not a qualification for clergies. Mat 8:14-15, Mar 1:30-31, Luk 4:38-39. 3. Catholics say Mary was forever virgin. Yet BIBLE says Jesus had brothers and sisters. Mary was not perpetually virgin. Mk 6:3, Mat 13:55, Mat 27:56, Mar 6:3, Mar 15:40, Mar 15:47. 4. Catholics say confess to R priests in a box. BIBLE says nothing about confessing to priests in a box. Bible says confess to GOD only. 1 John 1:9, Mat 6, Romans 10:9-10. 5. Catholics say drink of the physical blood of Jesus. Yet OT and NT both say do not drink blood. Acts 15, Lev 7:26. 6. Catholics say pray to passed on Mary and "saints". Yet BIBLE says do not contact the dead. NT Church did not record a single case of NT believers asking passed on saints to pray for them. Deut 18:11, Isaiah 8:19. 7. Catholics make and bow down to statues. BIBLE says do not bow down to graven images (statues). Deut 4, Exo 20:4-5. 8. Catholics sprinkles “holy water”. But NT Church of the Bible mentioned nothing about “holy water”. There was no record of any Apostles sprinkling “holy water” on believers. Catholics claimed “holy water” came from OT. Yet Num 5:17 says “holy water” was water used to test adulterous women in OT temple. Hardly the same. Those were for Old Covenant Jews. Not New Testament Christians. 9. Catholics say Peter was pope - bishop of all bishops. Yet BIBLE says Peter was just a leader of the Jerusalem Church. Bible says nothing of the office of bishop of bishops. Gal 2:9, Mat 16:18. 10. Catholics say there is a seat of Peter. Yet BIBLE says nothing about it. Jesus said “not to lord over others”. 11. Catholics has clergy priesthood. Bible says clergy priesthood was done away with in New Testament. There is no clergy priesthood in NT. Heb 7:27, 9:12, 10:10. 12. Catholics preaches Works Salvation (faith + good works + partake R sacraments + submit to R pontiff + be in R Church + devote to Mary = to be saved). Yet Bible says “believe in Jesus to be saved”. Bible says Works Salvation is cursed. Gal 1:8-9. Acts 16:30-31, John 3:16, Romans 10:9-10. 13. Catholics says they must do Penance to atone for their sins. Yet Bible says repent, confess and sins will be forgiven. Catholic Bible changes the word “repentance” in NT into “penance”. Original Greek NT does not use or mean the word penance. Penance = work to atone for sins. Repentance = change of heart. 1 John 1:9, Mat 6. 14. Catholics say Mary went straight to heaven without dying. Yet Bible says nothing about it. 15. Catholics say Islam and Christianity have the same GOD. Yet Islam doesn't believe in death and resurrection of Jesus and Trinity.
@AUSTRALOPITHECUS AFARENSIS *Thats why Bible hermeneutics is important. Hermeneutics requires the contexts and the whole Bible to be taken into account. R Catholics pluck verses all out of context; we call that proof texting*
@AUSTRALOPITHECUS AFARENSIS *Only Jesus saves. Their disagreement resulted from not applying proper hermeneutics. Two or more Scriptures saying the same teachings proves a doctrine. How can it be wrong?* *CHurch? Once again you are still pretending R Church = the Church. Where is your proof that it was so? I want to see proof. Not claims.* you said Bible hermeneutics won’t save you. In the first generation of the Reformation, Zwingli and Luther disagreed massively over the Eucharist, and both of them again disagreed massively with the Anabaptists to the point they were having them all killed for their misinterpretation of the Bible. And of course they disagreed with the Church who interpreted the Bible differently again.
I'm a recovering catholic - a very comfortable agnostic - and "this makes some people upset" is definitely a recurring theme in catholicism lol. Also my parents practiced natural family planning (the doctrine that underpins that is that a sexual act must always be open to the potential of creating life, so even condoms are considered a sin) - so *naturally* I am one of four kids lol.
Im sorry you left the church view it as an affliction. I was not raised catholic and view the church as gift. Im very happy im no longer an athiest or a pagan.
Catholicism is the perfect modern example of what Judaism devolved into before Jesus came on the scene. Traditions of men superseding the word of God. Ultra complicated and over burdened.
@AUSTRALOPITHECUS AFARENSIS *Sounds dull again. You are pretending R Church = the Church. Bible does not say so.* you said By your hypothesis Christ died in vain because the very Church He founded followed the same path into corruption as Pharisaism.
@AUSTRALOPITHECUS AFARENSIS *This paragraph shows you are clueless about what is Church / Churches in the Bible.* *Bible mentions both Church and churches. Let's look at all the usages of the words Church and Churches to know what they really meant.* 1. *Bible mentions Church in general referring to all churches as a whole.* 1Co 11:22 What! Do you not have houses to eat and drink in? Or do you despise the church of God and shame those who have nothing? What shall I say to you? Shall I praise you in this? I do not praise you. 1Co 12:28 And God has appointed these in the church: first apostles, second prophets, third teachers, after that miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, administrations, varieties of tongues. 1Co 14:4 He who speaks in a tongue edifies himself, but he who prophesies edifies the church. 2. *Bible mentions churches as local churches* Act 9:31 Then the churches throughout all Judea, Galilee, and Samaria had peace and were edified. And walking in the fear of the Lord and in the comfort of the Holy Spirit, they were multiplied. Act 15:41 And he went through Syria and Cilicia, strengthening the churches. Act 16:5 So the churches were strengthened in the faith, and increased in number daily. Rom 16:4 who risked their own necks for my life, to whom not only I give thanks, but also all the churches of the Gentiles. Rom 16:16 Greet one another with a holy kiss. The churches of Christ greet you. 1Co 7:17 But as God has distributed to each one, as the Lord has called each one, so let him walk. And so I ordain in all the churches. 1Co 11:16 But if anyone seems to be contentious, we have no such custom, nor do the churches of God. 3. *Bible mentions "church = believers".* Rom 16:5 Likewise greet the church that is in their house. Greet my beloved Epaenetus, who is the firstfruits of Achaia to Christ. 1Co 16:19 The churches of Asia greet you. Aquila and Priscilla greet you heartily in the Lord, with the church that is in their house. Col 4:15 Greet the brethren who are in Laodicea, and Nymphas and the church that is in his house. 4. *R Catholics have the wrong definition of Church. To R Catholics, Church meant R Catholic Church which Bible says its Not!* you said By your hypothesis Christ died in vain because the very Church He founded followed the same path into corruption as Pharisaism. Whereas Christ said “The Gates of Hell shall not prevail”, you just contradicted Him and said they did.
I am one of among the many hundreds of thousands who leave the RCC each year. I left after being a Catholic for over 50 years. I can say that it's the best decision of my life.
@@australopithecusafarensis Sorry, not for a million dollars would I return to the RCC. I now have a very deep and personal faith and relationship with my Lord and Savior Jesus. I am now a born again believer in the Lord Jesus and attend a non-denominational fellowship along with many former Catholic families. I just wish I would have done it sooner. I wish you the best in your spiritual journey. God bless
@@australopithecusafarensis In my case I didn't find Jesus in the parrish I was in. It was a spiritually dead church. Another parrish I went to was also dead. What we did have was child sexual abuse and rampant sexual debauchery by the priesthood. When we went to our local bishop all he did was cover it up and told us to be silent about it. THAT was the last straw for me and others!! The church I had grown up trusting had betrayed us. Several families left the RCC at the same time knowing that they could never feel they could safely send their children to such a church. Sadly, the RCC has become an international pedophilia cesspool that is covered up, if not tacitly promoted by the hierarchy at the highest level. Cardinal Pell, one of the highest ranked Cardinals in the Vatican was sentenced to years in prison for child sexual abuse. That, my friend is a summary of why I and many others are leaving the RCC in droves. I encourage you to open your eyes and see the facts. The truth will set you free as it did for me. God bless.
@@JohnFromAccounting Oh contraire my friend. The fruits of true Christianity I found after leaving the RCC have far exceeded my wildest expectations. That's why I said that leaving the RCC was the best decision of my life. WIthout exception, all the former Catholic families in my fellowship feel exactly the same way. Open your eyes and mind.... the truth will set you free.
I mean, its easier than it was 20 years ago, at least to find one in communion with Rome. That said, I still think a vernacular Tridentine Mass with reforms to lay participation wouldve been a better solution. The TLM has its problems though
@@goaltender330 yup...still, I go to the only parish which offers TLM in Mexico City, one hour away from home. It is something out of this world. Still, I agree with you that a vernacular TLM would be nice. Nevertheless, Latin is truly a catholic (univeral) language, that's why I think it still is relevant to have a latin mass.m
@@goaltender330 and BTW, we also have those in the Catholic church. There's a catholic parish nearby that's from a byzantine rite. Catholicism is really catholic.
It is my understanding is that the Roman Catholic Church holds a historicist amillennial view, but I have not been able to find much information on the subject online (not that I have invested much time into that research, though).
@@jameswhitley4101 As a dispy I find such a position to be a wrong take. But I admit it that it makes so much sense that Rome is stuck in their own custom pseudo-Augustinian "belief".
