The RCIA I direct deals with these issues because I think they are far more important than they were in the past. It is especially confusing for those without anyone to guide them because the internet just dumps claims on people and it can be - as you said - overwhelming. But if we start well with good principles I think a lot of the mess can be cleared away. :)

@@DouglasBeaumont Thank you for your reply. I am early in my RCIA journey but it appears that my Church is doing the same thing. Perhaps that is the outline for the Church worldwide, as it should be. I struggle with what appears to me to be contradictions. We accuse others of cherry picking verses yet we seem to do the same thing. For example, we say the story of Genesis cannot be taken literally but yet we say we are all direct descendants of Adam and Eve. We say the Bible is full of symbology and metaphors, but yet we must view the Eucharist as literal. How does one figure out which is which? Can people live to be 600 years old? Did the great flood really happen and was there a great reset of mankind, so we are all now direct descendants of Noah and his family? Did Jonah actually live in the belly of a great fish or is it a metaphor for his rejection and isolation from God? Well God can do anything so he could surely make it so, or is it just another story? As I try to shed my modern materialistic world view in favor of a spiritual world view, these questions become very challenging for me. I do believe in God, the details and nuances are a struggle. For now I am deferring to the Catechism of the Catholic Church and the likely Truth in a 2000 year old tradition. Thanks again! I enjoy your videos, your positions are well thought out and backed up with explanation and evidence. Regards!

This is a perfect illustration of why Protestantism doesn't work! :) The Bible does not color code its literal vs. figurative verses, and it rarely "interprets itself" as Protestants like to claim it does (ironically, in one of those rare instances it WAS explained figuratively LOL - see Galatians 4:22-30). So, trying to build one's faith from the Bible up simply creates chaos. The Church, instead, takes what it learned at the feet of the apostles and hands it on. That deposit of faith helps guide the Church in its interpretation of Scripture (not vice versa). Just as we can better understand a letter - regardless of the style in which it is written - when we know the person who wrote it, the Church teaches what it already knows and has taught for 2,000 years (and, occasionally, things extrapolated from those teachings).

@YAJUN YUAN , "assembly" instead of "church," huh? (Chuckles.) Hmmnn... Why is that so, dude? And also, can you pls explain why Peter is given the keys...

@@voxangeli9205 Direct typological reference by Christ to Isaiah 22:22 in giving Peter the keys. Hope that helps!

@@RumorHazi, HELPS WHAT?!? (Chuckles.)

@@voxangeli9205 He wanted to know why Peter was given the keys. The keys were the authority to bind and loose and to forward that authority to future generations.

@@RumorHazi, TO FORWARD THAT AUTHORITY TO FUTURE GENERATIONS?! WHY, YOU WANT TO REJECT THAT PASSING-ON OF THAT BINDING-AND-LOSING? IF PEOPLE LIKE YOU WOULD DO THAT, THEN ALL OF US WON'T HAVE A BIBLE TODAY, LET ALONE AN AUTHORITATIVE, INERRANT AND INFALLIBLE COMPILATION OF HOLY BOOKS DEEMED TO BE SELECTED TO BE INCLUDED TO THE FINAL CUT OF THAT BIBLE, DECIDED THROUGH THE GRACE OF GOD BY THAT VERY SAME PASSED-ON AUTHORITY -- THAT COMPILATION AS INITIATED BY THE AUTHORITY OF A POPE, AND HIS NAME IS POPE DAMASUS I... DON'T YOU KNOW THIS, GSRider?!

Yeah the zoom recording came out mono for some reason. :/

Yes, and there are a few examples of that in the NT!

100%

Thanks for sharing your thoughts!

The problem is there are so many catholics and little priests to administer. We need more deacons too. Americans and europeans often forget that the catholic church is made up of more tan a billion people.

Catholics are not taught properly to refute Protestant doctrines. Most Catholic priests don't even bother to teach lay Catholics how to defend Catholic faith against protestants' onslaught. They don't even teach how Protestants' doctrines are false.

How did you get born again😁😁

Since you claim there is no "purgatory " Then please explain where Jesus' Spirit went for the 3 days his body was dead? Sacred Scripture says ",, that he went and preached to the spirits who lay in prison. " ( 1 Peter 3:19) Where was this prison? was it in Heaven? If so why would there be a prison in Paradise? Was the prison in the Hell of the Damned? If so why would the damned need to hear the Gospel? . as you say there is no "purgatory" then Jesus did not have to die on the cross. If Moses and Abraham and the rest of the OT Faithful were already in the presence of the Lord then Jesus did not have to die. His death on the cross opened the narrow gate and the OT faithful passed through that narrow gate from the wilderness into the Promised land. The OT Faithful that died waiting for the Messiah weren't in slavery in Egypt- the antetype of hell of the damned for they had been rescued but they weren't in the Promised land of heaven either. Jesus' death opened the narrow gate and fulfilled the Covenant. Please study the Hebrew thoughts of Sheol and the grave, and note that Sheol is NOT Gehenna. Gehenna is for the accursed and the Damned not Abraham or Moses. The waiting in the spiritual wilderness is the best explanation of "purgatory" I can think of right now. Thanks for listening and remember Revelation 21 :17 & 1 Cor 3:15 especially verses 10-15. ---- the word hell means Hades or Sheol, the collective abode of the dead, divided into Paradise or Abraham's Bosom--the state of God-fearing souls--and Gehenna, the state of ungodly souls. Thus the descent into hell suggests that the Son of God carried the sins of the world to hell; or the Son of God carried Good News of deliverance to the godly dead such as Lazarus the beggar and the repentant thief. Christ says in Matthew that, like Jonah, he would be in the belly of the earth for 3 days. Acts tells us Christ remained on earth for 40 days before He ascends. So there were 43 days BEFORE Christ went to Heaven. Did the good thief go ahead of the Lord to make sure the lights were on for His arrival? Or, more likely, Paradise that Christ mentions, is Abrahams Boosom. The place where the prisoners Christ preached to in 1st Peter were awaiting the Messiah🐱‍👤🐱‍👤

I didn’t claim that at all my friend. Try to relax a bit I’m just asking questions. It’s by gods grace that I’m born again not of myself lest any man should boast . I thank God daily for letting me into the light and for the gift of the Holy Spirit. I was a slave to sin no doubt for 30 years before I was sanctified. My church tells me that in the Old Testament the saint went to Abraham’s bosom which is separated by a Casam from the place of torment. Jesus came down and presented himself as the messiah then brought them to heaven emptying Abraham’s bosom. I’ve read the bible a few times and nothing seems to suggest what Jesus did wasn’t good enough to sanctify us so we have to purify ourselves after death. Anyways I’m thankful for the lord to give me the strength to keep my composure in this sinful world and to perpetually turn from sinful behaviour. I used to be a homeless drug addict then my girlfriend died when we got a place together and she relapsed. Now I’m free all thanks to Jesus’s works and I trust the bible when it says his blood paid for my sins. It’s really amazing to think about considering what a wretch I am.

From the Catechism: 817 In fact, "in this one and only Church of God from its very beginnings there arose certain rifts, which the Apostle strongly censures as damnable. But in subsequent centuries much more serious dissensions appeared and large communities became separated from full communion with the Catholic Church - for which, often enough, men of both sides were to blame." The ruptures that wound the unity of Christ's Body - here we must distinguish heresy, apostasy, and schism - do not occur without human sin: Where there are sins, there are also divisions, schisms, heresies, and disputes. Where there is virtue, however, there also are harmony and unity, from which arise the one heart and one soul of all believers. 818 "However, one cannot charge with the sin of the separation those who at present are born into these communities [that resulted from such separation] and in them are brought up in the faith of Christ, and the Catholic Church accepts them with respect and affection as brothers . . . . All who have been justified by faith in Baptism are incorporated into Christ; they therefore have a right to be called Christians, and with good reason are accepted as brothers in the Lord by the children of the Catholic Church." 819 "Furthermore, many elements of sanctification and of truth" are found outside the visible confines of the Catholic Church: "the written Word of God; the life of grace; faith, hope, and charity, with the other interior gifts of the Holy Spirit, as well as visible elements." Christ's Spirit uses these Churches and ecclesial communities as means of salvation, whose power derives from the fullness of grace and truth that Christ has entrusted to the Catholic Church. All these blessings come from Christ and lead to him, and are in themselves calls to "Catholic unity." "Outside the Church there is no salvation" 846 How are we to understand this affirmation, often repeated by the Church Fathers? Re-formulated positively, it means that all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body: Basing itself on Scripture and Tradition, the Council teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the Church. He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and Baptism, and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through Baptism as through a door. Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it. 847 This affirmation is not aimed at those who, through no fault of their own, do not know Christ and his Church: Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience - those too may achieve eternal salvation. 848 "Although in ways known to himself God can lead those who, through no fault of their own, are ignorant of the Gospel, to that faith without which it is impossible to please him, the Church still has the obligation and also the sacred right to evangelize all men."

Thanks for the reply I appreciate it. Hey do you have any idea what the thoughts on the trinity were in early Catholic faith ? Just found out my pastor I work with who’s church I started going to doesn’t believe in the trinity. He believes in oneness but I can’t get on board it makes no sense to me. I can see some problems with the trinity when I take a look at it such as why there were no objections by the Jews at the time recorded in the New Testament. I see some glimpses of the trinity in the Old Testament but seems most Jews believe there’s only one entity of god not 3 with one essence. Thanks good video nice to see some apologetics from the Catholic side.

Not trying to start a fight just wondering if it’s true that the Roman Catholicism we see today started around 1100 AD? If we do things a little differently but have the same core beliefs isn’t that a reason to get along? I still stick up for Catholics when people talk about how horrible the church is because all the news does is demonize Catholics. All I see is natives in Canada demanding more money from the pope to make up for torturing and killing their ancestors in residential schools or so they say. Also so much sexual abuse scandal aimed at priests as well. I realize we can’t trust the news anymore though so I take anything said with a grain of salt or what I tend to do these days is not even click on any news alerts that pop up anymore. Seems to me like

@@Richie_Alpha_Rabbit69 Your instincts are correct and are guided by the Holy Spirit who leads all who ask for it to truth. The Catholic Church is the only Church founded by Jesus Christ himself. He founded it upon St. Peter, giving him authority to lead it as head of the Apostles. The term Catholic simply means universal. It was first applied to the Church in a letter written by St. Ignatius of Antioch, the 3rd Bishop of Antioch, after St. Peter in the early 2nd century. He was on his way to Rome to be martyred and wrote 7 letters to various Churches, like St. Paul. In the letter to the Smyrneans he wrote in part, “Where the bishop is present, there let the congregation gather, just as where Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church. Without the bishop’s supervision, no baptisms or love feasts are permitted. On the other hand, whatever he approves pleases God as well. In that way everything you do will be on the safe side and valid.” The letters are short, easy to read and provide great insight into the early church. I recommend reading them all. People seeking to usurp or discredit the Catholic Church have been making claims that it was corrupted somehow or started at this point or that point in the last 2000 years. But the truth is, every Catholic Bishop, through the laying on of hands by an ordained Bishop can trace their authority back to one of the Apostles. It is called Apostolic succession. This practice was initiated St. Peter and the Apostles and described in the Acts of the Apostles when they replaced the office of Judas Iscariot, who betrayed Our Lord, with Matthias. You are right that much of secular society demonizes the Catholic Church, but this was foretold by Christ, as was his promise to protect it until the end of the age. For that reason, despite the persecution the Church continues to suffer we can believe that, despite the sin or failures of those in the Church, which all too often leads to scandal, the gates of Hell cannot and will not prevail against it. I recommend studying the history of the Church and the Apostolic Fathers. You will see that what the early Church taught and practiced, under the authority of Jesus himself can only be found today in the One, Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, which is the body of Christ on earth founded as a means of Grace, through the sacraments established by Jesus himself, for our salvation. The truth will set you free. God bless brother and Siempre Adelante!

What you're describing would be more accurately called "anti-Protestantism" which is the position of being against the system - the "ism". Being "anti-Protestant" refers to being against persons who are Protestant (at least the way we use the term here).

@@DouglasBeaumont Yes Sir Dr. Beaumont, I guess it would at that. I loved your interview on Blue Collar Catholic. Thanks for what you do for the faith.

To be anti-protest ANT is to fail to show love to protestant people. To be anti-Protestant ISM is to hate the heresies and to defend Catholic Truth! I am not anti-Protestant but I AM anti-Protestantism because of the damage it has done to the Body of Christ, now split into 42.000 different protestant denominations as of 2022. Tragic.

Thus entire argument is predicated On the assumption that The Bible has to explain everything and front load the entirety of Christian history in its pages. Because The Bible does not say that it has to do this, it is self defeating.

@@DouglasBeaumont uhhh no its not. If it's not in the Bible I don't trust it. (The Bible is the ONLY source of truth.) if Peter were Pope Paul would have written about it. Peter never claimed to be a pope. Not once. You are missing the point completely. If somebody is a pope they will make that claim. Peter never did. Sorry. By the way.. If the Bible is a Catholic book, why does it nowhere mention the Catholic Church? Why is there no mention of a pope, a cardinal, an archbishop, a parish priest, a nun, or a member of any other Catholic order? If the Bible is a Catholic book, why is auricular confession, indulgences, prayers to the saints, adoration of Mary, veneration of relics and images, and many other rites and ceremonies of the Catholic Church, left out of it? If the Bible is a Catholic book, how can Catholics account for the passage, "A bishop then, must be blameless, married but once, reserved, prudent, of good conduct, hospitable, a teacher...He should rule well his own household, keeping his children under control and perfectly respectful. For if a man cannot rule his own household, how is he to take care of the church of God?" (1 Tim. 3:2, 4-5). The Catholic Church does not allow a bishop to marry, while the Bible says "he must be married." Furthermore, if the Bible is a Catholic book, why did they write the Bible as it is, and feel the necessity of putting footnotes at the bottom of the page in effort to keep their subject from believing what is in the text? The following list give a summation of what we have been trying to emphasize. If the Bible is a Catholic book, 1. Why does it condemn clerical dress? (Matt. 23:5-6). 2. Why does it teach against the adoration of Mary? (Luke 11:27-28). 3. Why does it show that all Christians are priests? (1 Pet. 2:5,9). 4. Why does it condemn the observance of special days? (Gal. 4:9-11). 5. Why does it teach that all Christians are saints? (1 Cor. 1:2). 6. Why does it condemn the making and adoration of images? (Ex. 20:4-5). 7. Why does it teach that baptism is immersion instead of pouring? (Col. 2:12). 8. Why does it forbid us to address religious leaders as "father"? (Matt. 23:9). 9. Why does it teach that Christ is the only foundation and not the apostle Peter? (1 Cor. 3:11). 10. Why does it teach that there is one mediator instead of many? (1 Tim. 2:5). 11. Why does it teach that a bishop must be a married man? (1 Tim. 3:2, 4-5). 12. Why is it opposed to the primacy of Peter? (Luke 22:24-27). 13. Why does it oppose the idea of purgatory? (Luke 16:26). 14. Why is it completely silent about infant baptism, instrumental music in worship, indulgences, confession to priests, the rosary, the mass, and many other things in the Catholic Church?

@@DouglasBeaumont everything that's in the Bible is what God wanted us to know. Nothing needs to be added. The Cannons have been closed for quite some time. New Revelations are not happening today. What God Said in the Bible is what he wanted to say and that's that. If It's not in the Bible I don't believe it. That simple.

Ben, simple but wrong. Why are there over 100000 Protestant religions? The development of protestantism defeats its own arguments. Time to end the protest.

Then join the Church that didn't do the dividing.

That explains why so many knowledgeable Catholics become Protestant and only ignorant Protestants become Catholic. Oh wait....

Yeah, you need to read the book. ;)

Humans are not infallible. God's word is infallible. Huge difference

@@benmiddleton9984 You mean God can speak infallible Truth even through sinners such as Matthew, Mark, Luke and John? You are making wonderful progress! Indeed, the manifold wisdom of God is revealed through the CHURCH! Peace always in Jesus Christ our Great and Kind God and Savior, He whose Flesh is true food and Blood true drink

@@benmiddleton9984 God's word is not limited to the written word! Peace always in Jesus Christ our Great and Kind God and Savior, He whose Flesh is true food and Blood true drink

@@matthewbroderick6287 God's word to us is the written word. His perfect word. The Holy Spirit interprets the word for us. I don't need the Catholic Church to interpret scripture for me. The Holy Spirit does that just fine

@@matthewbroderick6287 God wrote his word through the hearts of man. Completely Guided by the Holy Spirit. These are not the words of man alone but the word of God

No they don't. To do so would be anachronistic. Why would he?

@@DouglasBeaumont Peter identifies himself as an apostle but never as the chief shepherd of the church which is is a greater title. If he thought he was the rock on which the church is built on he would have mentioned that also. The apostles never in their writings mention him as the chief shepherd of the church or the rock on which the church is built on in their writings. Also, the office of a chief shepherd or bishop of bishops is never mentioned as an office for the church in the New Testament. Mary’s supposed sinlessness is contradicted by Romans 3:9-11, 23. Her supposed perpetual virginity is contradicted by Matthew 13:55-56, Mark 3:31-32; Mark 6:3; John 2:12; 7:5.

@@Justas399 You don't know what Peter would or would not do, and as I said, it's anachronistic to use titles that came along later and expect them to be used in a 1st century epistle. further, "Pope" is not an additional level of office. The Pope is simply the Bishop of Rome. That office comes with additional responsibilities (like Arch Bishop) and graces, but it is not another level in the way that would cause a problem biblically (even if we were limited to the original, first century biblical offices - which the Bible does not say we are.) Jesus also was without sin, so "all" cannot mean "every, without exception." Spend 2 seconds googling why the Church doesn't think Mary had additional children, it's fairly uncontroversial unless you're trying to find a good "gotcha" verse against Catholics. (Spoiler Alert: You'll never find one worse than James 2:24!).

@@DouglasBeaumont Just pointing out that Peter nor the apostles ever claimed Peter was the chief shepherd or rock on which the church is built. We know Jesus was without sin because the Scriptures tell us He was. No exception is ever made for Mary. NONE. She is in the same class as the all of Romans 3:9-11, 23. Your church is wrong about Mary being a perpetual virgin. Here is why: When brothers and sisters are used in connection with father or mother then it does not mean cousins but actual blood brothers and sisters. See Matthew 13:55-56, Mark 3:31-32; Mark 6:3; John 2:12; "After this He went down to Capernaum, He and His mother and His brothers and His disciples; and they stayed there a few days." John 2:12 Notice that there is a distinction with the biological brothers of Jesus and His disciples. The same word for brothers in Matthew 13:55 is the same word used for brothers of Peter and Andrew in Matthew 4:18 and John 1:40. Since Peter and Andrew were biological brothers so too the biological brothers of Jesus mentioned in Matthew 13:55 There are Greek words for cousin-anepsios as in Colossians 4:10 or kinsman = sungenis which is used in Luke 1:36. Never used for the brothers of Jesus. I already answered your assertion about James 2:24 and the problems with it.

his name that Jesus give hem say it all , Peter, prostants will never understand they keep barking, mmm like muslims dont understand Trinty, you explain it 1 min they will ask same question

No, unlike many protestnats, Catholics do not pit James against Paul. That is where protestants have failed since Luther.

@@DouglasBeaumont failed since Luther? Wrong. More like Catholicism has completely missed the point of justification. Long before Jan hus and Martin Luther, Jesus was teaching Sola scriptura. Jesus alone is sufficient for salvation. Not Jesus plus Works. Doesn't work that way. All I need to be saved is Jesus Christ. I don't need the pope or the Catholic church for anything. The Pope doesn't need to tell me what's in the Bible. The Holy Spirit does that for me. So you are wrong. Our works is the result of our Salvation, not a condition for salvation. For some reason Catholics cannot wrap their minds around that concept. You cannot earn a gift that God wants to freely give you. Stop trying to earn your salvation. Trust me Doug, you are not going to get into heaven based on what you've done inside of the Catholic Church. You're only going to get into heaven because of what Jesus has done for you. Those are the facts

@@DouglasBeaumont in my personal experience Catholics have pitted James against Paul almost always. They shun Paul and embrace James. I embrace BOTH! Why? Because the Bible is inerrant