0:22 timestamp. Right off the bat I clarify that I believe Catholic people go to heaven. So while I disagree on many theological views of catholicism, we do agree on the divinity of Christ and his death and resurrection. That's what's necessary for salvation. Jehovah's witnesses and Mormons disagree on the person and divinity of Jesus and his death and resurrection!
Not sure why your video popped up in my feed, or why I watched it (lol), but I'm a catholic - I would say most of the objections in the video are pretty standard for whatever protestant background you are coming from. I understand the confusion about the doctrines of Mary, Saints, Purgatory, "Works based salvation" (which is not the Catholic belief btw - Catholics believe we are saved by Grace, through faith, which necessitates good works accomplished by that God's grace, or Christ working through us)...I would say the primary issue with your objections is as you described multiple times is the interpretation of scripture. But this in fact is not the primary issue, and all of these objections stem from a more fundamental disagreement: Regarding your "5 Solas" I think they all stem from the Sola Scriptura tenet, given your deriving your teachings solely from scripture. the one thing I would ask is this: how do you know the collection of books in your bible is inspired? I understand the scripture alone objection, however that bible had to come from somewhere, and the people who determined what went into it had to be led by the Holy Spirit or their own opinions. Assuming we look at history, the Catholic Canon was decided well before any other Christian sect was around. The writings of the Early Church Fathers all attest to the classic Catholic doctrines. The various doctrines of Protestantism did not surface for 1500 years after Christ's death and in many cases oppose the teachings of the early church. So in reality, both Catholics and Protestants hold to scripture, and tradition, and a magisterium (authoritative and interpretive body/lens)...the real question is who has the fullness of scripture, the full inspired canon? are your traditions established by Christ or not? and who has the authority to make the hard calls on scripture every individual? Or is there a visible church that was established to determine the hard issues? I think the writings of the early Church Fathers are more than necessary to determine that the Catholic Church is historically feasible, and has the only coherent interpretation of the scriptures given by that very same Church. Without being combative, it seems to me that the scriptural tradition of Protestants is to trust in Martin Luther and not the teachings of the early church which were handed down by Christ's own Apostles. After you decide the canon, then you can use that same authority to determine what that scripture teaches. Hope this helps. The Catechism of the Catholic Church is really helpful to determine what the Catholic Church actually believes...it can be hard to make the call from various You tube videos, even if Fr. Chris is a pretty good source. I think this site would be helpful to draw from some of the teachings of the Early Church, it sites the dates and everything! God bless! www.churchfathers.org
I’m a Catholic. Great video. Really appreciate your candidness and general respect. I’ve heard all your objections over the years from various Protestants, some of which are now in the Church. I’ll just say that about 95% of popular professional/amateur Catholic apologists are converts. I live in the Bible Buckle and my small church (only about 1100 people) is over 30% Protestant converts and growing. Most of these converts believed as you do and love Jesus as you do and love and read the Bible as you do. Now they are on fire Catholics. They are leading the way. You’d make an awesome Catholic 👍. Don’t give up on His Church, it’s what he gave us, not a Bible. His Church did that. Could you do a video on Luther sometime, some basic history on him and the 95 theses? I would be really interested on your perspective. Oh, and that vampire/Judas guy…. Nuts! 🥜 🥜🥜.
Hey brother id LOVE to talk to you as a former protestant now catholic so please let know if thats possible ive been listening to your points intently ❤🕊✝️
To touch on a few things: When do you think the early Church broke away from what is really true? Because the early church taught about confession and had emphasis on the clergy members and hold many of the things you disagree with in this video. Thank you!
Contrary to Protestant myth and anti-Catholicism, the Catholic Church doesn't teach that one is saved by works apart from preceding and enabling grace, but that faith and works are inseparable, as in James 1 and 2. This heresy of which Catholicism is often charged, was in fact condemned by the Catholic Church at the Second Council of Orange in 529 A.D. It is known as Pelagianism, the view that man could save himself by his own natural efforts, without the necessary supernatural grace from God. A more moderate view, Semi-Pelagianism, was likewise condemned. To continue to accuse the Catholic Church of this heresy suggests a manifest ignorance of the history of theology, as well as the clear Catholic teaching of the Council of Trent (1545-63), available for all to see. Yet the myth is strangely prevalent.👏👏
So I have a Catholic background. I go to an anglican church where I meet with other types of protestants. Some more baptist, some more lutheran, and so on. I have noticed a pattern that arises from the folk that I am not sure I agree with. I have never spoken out loud about this, and many times I have purposefully kept quiet knowing full well that Christ will tell me my time. It's almost as if modern day Protestanism is just a compilation of vacant catholic positions of the past. orthodoxy left arry. Let's start with the difference between Catholicism and Orthodoxy then. Catholicism seeks a seperate function by which Orthodoxy does not: answering Sacred Mysteries. A sacred mystery is any form of theological question not yet directly answered by Canon (Scripture + Tradition). A recent example would be the view of Mary's Assumption into heaven, assumed as a constitutional dogma of the church in 1950 by Pope Pius XII. The Orthodox view is merely that we don't know, or that any interpretation is left unsaid ergo unadulturated. To keep with tradition. The Catholic view is to understand and to fully understand Theology as it is. This includes all divine understanding. I mention this because it seems as though the Protestants are left upset or almost offended by any interpretation that is not theirs. Some accept the Pope's dogmatic views, but refuses the infallibility of the Pope. Others downright believe the Pope is evil. But agree with 99% of what the Pope says. I have also followed traditionalist Catholics, which are skeptical and hardpressed that the council of Vatican II has inconsistencies, the most extreme of views holds the position that the current Pope is not Canonical, a fake, and that we will find the real one. This position is the most consistent with theological disagreement in the 21st century imo. I suggest you read through the ecumenical councils and maybe point out the specific arguments which you disagree. That way, at least you would stay consistent in the classical protestant view that the Canon was not just Scripture, but also *some* Traditional Dogma. Like for instance, that Trinitarianism is the true interpretation of the Bible (as a classical example). A really simple argument against modern day protestanism is that let's suppose lutheran is correct. Ok, so why does nobody view him as a Saint? otherwise he is 100% material and has no spiritual schism. A view that is inconsistent with the last schism (Catholics and EO). Also, it would be incorrect of you to say you are an actual saint. a Saint is not a pharisee. It requires veneration and canonization of your holy name and story. The argument of idolatry doesn't even hold for most protestants, otherwise all churches would just be called "Jesus" or "God" or "Christ" or "Holy Spirit" church.
You don't Mary or the saints? But you need your mother and father and brother? Why not always go to Jesus. What do you need your friends & family for (when it comes to prayer)? It doesn't make much sense. The more coherent practice would be to ALWAYS pray directly to Jesus. At least I did when I was a Protestant. But there is an answer to why you *should* ask for your family and friends intercession....that I will not share right away. I'll let you think on it.
He clearly stated he would go straight to Jesus as his high priest! If he WAS going to ask someone to pray for him, he would go to his family and friends. WHY? Because they are living! Mary is dead. Scripture does not tell us to pray to the dead. Only religion, created by man, teaches that!
@@sweetcheekstulsa4520 "If he WAS going to ask someone"... you say...but that was exactly my question. The same logic applies, no need to go through some intermediary. So please try to understand the question.
Thanks for making me aware of him! Saw the video, loved it! "Bearing false witness" is an interesting accusation, as he actually confirmed everything I said, helped define it further and solidified why I cannot be Catholic. I think Catholicism Wow and myself agree on what Catholicism says, we just disagree on whether or not we want to be Catholic
@@BryceNeubergerSermons accusing us of Pelagianism on several occasions is only one of your false accusations, and you're woefully inept in your understanding of grace, mercy, and justice. And that's just the beginning. I suggest you actually learn about the Church before you decide wholesale that you can't be Catholic. You're refuting a Church that doesn't exist, or straw manning, which is what most Protestants do.
@Paterquia thanks for promoting me to one of my "opponents." That said, I don't feel like Bryce misrepresented what we believe (except for the works based salvation thing, but I'm sure that was just genuine confusion). It was actually a breath of fresh air for me to not have to correct every single thing he claimed we believe. I thought he represented us pretty well, I just don't think his reasons for rejecting those beliefs were very good
But JESUS CHRIST BUILD ONLY ONE CHURCH through His Apostle Peter only not even to His 11 Apostles but ONLY ONE CHURCH and the popes are the successors right from His Apostle Peter. ONLY JESUS CHRIST CAN BUILD THE CHURCH. But now there are thousand of churches build by men the were reject and against HIS CHURCH.
If the 7 churches written to in Revelation were 1 church, then why aren't all the churches today 1 church? Neither did Peter teach Catholic doctrine. He didn't canonize saints, he didn't hold confession, he didn't teach us to pray to mary.
@@hippios you don't have the fullness of the Faith because you separated yourself from Rome. That's why you guys never get along and can't hold an Ecumenical Council, because Peter isn't there to preside.
