A video on Protestantism, showing its errors and it’s dissensions from early Christianity. Is there any reason to be a prot instead of a catholic?
 CRIME Shirt $21.68 |
 |
CRIME Shirt $21.68 |
Protestantism
A video on Protestantism, showing its errors and it’s dissensions from early Christianity. Is there any reason to be a prot instead of a catholic?
CRIME Shirt $21.68 |
|
CRIME Shirt $21.68 |
>16 subscribers
>5 views
grim
It’s not about views but if it’s true. Kwmh
Considering the roman catholicism isn't christian, that's a pretty good reason by itself
Jesus alone started the Roman church under Peter. Petrine authority obliterated all prot claims
Oh really. where did he do that?
You are Peter and on this rock I will build my church.
Anything you bind or loose on earth will be bound and looses in heaven etc
That’s not that convincing. Jesus calls Peter (petras) man of rock because he has confessed the true rock of his salvation not Petra. He is named after the rock not the other way around.
Saint Augustine says in a sermon
> for before he was called Simon. Now this name of Peter was given to him by the Lord and in a figure that he should signify the church. For seeing that Christ is the rock Petra. Peter is the Christian people. For the rock Petra is the original name. Therefore Peter is so called from the rock not the rock from Peter as Christ is not called Christ from the Christian but the Christian from Christ. Therefore, he sayeth thou art Peter and upon this rock which thou hast confessed. Upon this rock which thou hast acknowledged. Saying thou art the Christ the son of the living God will I build my church.
That is upon myself the son of the the living God will I build my church. I will build thee upon myself. Not myself upon thee.
Apostolic succession is a joke though. And why is the “bishop” of Rome considered Peter’s successor, why not the “bishop” of Antioch? After all, Peter was both - and of Antioch first. The church during the time of Peter is something all denominations can get behind and I don’t think any Protestant seriously denies Peter’s authority - just that apostles don’t have successors and that what those “successors” have done to the church and the changes it underwent under them after Peter is illegitimate.
Where is the Church of Antioch now?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greek_Orthodox_Patriarchate_of_Antioch
>And why is the “bishop” of Rome considered Peter’s successor, why not the “bishop” of Antioch?
Peter died in Rome, not Antioch. As well as Paul.
Let's take your word for it and say Jesus literally meant "This guy Peter here is supreme ruler of the Church while I'm away, he's totally in charge and all of you should follow his orders."
Alright then. So I'm just supposed to accept without question this guy in Romes claim to be Peters successor? Peter wasn't Bishop of Rome (No one even claimed that he was for 100's of years). No where in that passage does Jesus say anything about Peter's authority coming from being a bishop, much less the Bishop of one particular Italian geographic location on the other side of the Mediterranean that they were not present at, nor ever mentioned during this conversation. Then there's the fact for being some institution supposedly implemented by Jesus himself at the foundation of the Church, it did not exist for centuries. No one followed the Bishop of Romes orders in the West at first (They deferred to Milan originally) No one followed the Popes orders in the East at any time since the foundation of the church, The Bishop of Rome himself bowed to the Emperor in Milan, then Ravenna, and then later in Constantinople as his superior for hundreds of years, and was in fact appointed to his position by them, not the other way around. So I'm just supposed to believe some Medieval degenerate who wanted to use Charlemagne as a cudgel against the Byzantines when he says "Actually I just remembered Romes local bishop was the supreme authority in Christianity this whole time."? It's transparently false.
Succession is seen when Judas need be replaced in acts and by the laying of hands on Phillip for instance.
Better question is, is it possible that Peter’s authority was there even though it is not explicitly stated? For instance could Jesus’s grooming of Peter be seen as a calling above and beyond other apostles, to feed His sheep?
I enjoyed the clip. Though it does sound like you're new, experience will smooth out many edges, and I do think your points are all good and presented effectively. Obviously, we speak the truth always out of love for the lost, but we should never attach emotion to it and might even benefit by always assuming a happy complete failure, because then we can simply focus on our service to God. God had Isaiah preach to the faithless while promising him that no one would listen lol. I love that, faith cuts both ways.
It's impossible to generalize since the possible reasons for rejection of the Church might be countless, but it seems to me that it all hinges on an inability to retain a mystery: that the Church is both a Divine and a human institution. Protestants catastrophize in the face of its human elements, and become blind in total to its divine ones. In difficult times, men shriek toward the simple, finding ambiguity intolerable to their stressed psyches. This is ultimately an emotional problem, and at such a level it may be best to address it.
Thanks Anon. I’m new but the plan is to work on it over five years. Then to put forth ideas as the economy collapses. So I have a long term view of it.
Well I hope God blesses you and your project!
You say "out of love", but what does that even mean to you? You're still trying to convince people to join a pedo cult that has historically tried to destroy christianity in Europe.
#
Love simply in the sense of willing the good of another. The Church is a divine institution created by God, constituted by human sinners. The Church proper is the magisterium, the Mass, the sacraments, etc., all of which derive their power from God, which no man can obstruct. A man who joins the Church will find Christianity and become the friend of goodness itself. Your additional comments are mere slurs that don't deserve a response.
That's a well crafted sales pitch. Do they make you practice this delivery at the jesuit schools?
Now that I’m not busy. Yes video making on YouTube isn’t about success or failure but rather summarily organizing information for myself in relation to God and if it helps a person along the way or even leads to something more then great.
As for other anon, the Roman Catholic Church built Europe into what it is today. Though the pedophilia scandal was horrific and the jesuits have done terrible things it doesn’t change the past. The jesuits also built the infrastructure for the world even down to small mundanities like global cartography and language preservation. I assume by saying the RCC tried to ruin Christianity you meant the suppression of heretics post 1517. These heretics didn’t just pose a threat to religion but also to the stability of various states hence the 30 years war
> I assume by saying the RCC tried to ruin Christianity you meant the suppression of heretics post 1517.
I mean the 1000 years before that. And jesuits are a subversive group. If you went through their program recently you should educate yourself on their history and distance yourself from them. They are occultists.
I know someone who just left the Jesuit seminary and I know a number of jesuits. I also know their history quite well. Why are they occultists? Perhaps in modern times….
Feel free to give feedback Anon
>Is there any reason to be a prot instead of a catholic?
Because the alternative is a communist/nationalist. Religion should be a personal reference and not used as a social cudgel or a weapon by the government.
>clicked on link
>watched a few seconds of the video
>clicked on dislike button
>closed page
I did it to encourage the creator of the video to do better, no need to thank me.
The arguments in this video are very question-begging. It says that after Jesus died, all you have is the Catholic Church until scripture is written down. It's true in the sense of catholic meaning universal but the video is equating the Christians of that era with the later Roman Catholic church, you need to demonstrate that because that's the very thing in dispute. The Protestant answer is that it was the era of the apostles and the New Testament is the writings of the apostles, why wouldn't the inspired writings of people who knew Jesus or his disciples be more authoritative than Christians introducing extra things hundreds of years later? We also have good evidence that the "oral tradition" talked about actually contradicts later Catholic teachings, so clearly the Roman church is not some consistent guardian of tradition. It failed at the very thing this guy uses as evidence for its authority.
Intercession of the saints existed in Second Temple Judaism. Read 2 Maccabees.
Also Origen is a condemned heretic and not considered a church father, and even so he wrote a prayer which specifically included the intercession of angels and saints (see Prayer 11).
I'm not even Roman Catholic but this image is so poorly made that I can tell it was ripped from some evangelical echochamber.
The early church had the sacraments, had the Eucharist as the real presence and that remains so to this day. See Ignatious of Antioch, direct disciple of the apostle John so we know what John taught him in person:
“those who hold heretical opinions about the grace of Jesus Christ … refuse to acknowledge that the Eucharist is the flesh of our savior Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins and which the Father by his goodness raised up”
As to the pic:
Irenaeus is talking about men who are competitors of Jesus, as would be budda. He isnt forbidding mutual intercession or he would be rejecting Tim 2:1.
Lactantius is talking about people who worship the dead like african religions which invoke random dead spirits not for them to intercede to God, but as an end, opposed to God.
Athanasius is refuting the Arians that say Jesus isnt God, but just an angel or whatever, so He is saying we pray to God the Father and the Son, not to Father and the angel. He isnt denying the intercession of angels, which we can see in the book of revelation where the angels are offering the prayers of the Christians to God. (and book of Tobit)
Origen has plenty of heresies, yet we'd need the context to see what he means. Else he is contradicting the book of Revelation where the elders and angels offer up the prayers of the Christians to God.
https://www.churchfathers.org/intercession-of-the-saints
Some people don’t have the fortune of being born Irish, Polish or Italian
this is an imageboard, not a post-a-provocative-video-for-the-illiterate-then-sit-back-and-watch-the-flamewar board.