Introverts for Catholicism unite

@@someguyontheinternet2729 Catholicism do not need any certificate from anyone whatsoever to prove its credential as the church that Jesus established under the stewardship of Peter.

they have to be nice because since Napoleon Bonaparte they cannon imprison people who do not agree with them, they cannot burn heretics alive at the stake, and they cannot torture people to death in the public square to terrorise the populace

I'm a Catholic and an introvert and have attended Protestant worship services at least 10 times. And I'd say the same things Trent is saying

I couldn’t agree more. I like the solitude and reflection in the Catholic Church. I am a very outgoing secretly introverted person. I have tried to attend non Catholic services before and always feel overwhelmed. I want to just slip into a pew in the back and worship quietly lol

Scott Hahn went through that kind of experience with his wife, check out his video on how it went down with his wife

@@tony1685 proof please.

I read somewhere "if theism is true, that's a big deal...if atheism is true, it's not that big of a deal". To an atheist, what should it matter, what is the risk of believing if it's but a fairy-tale? If you are convicted, make that step to get closer, however big or small it may be. (I say this as someone beginning RCIA from a Baptist background whose family is all but against it...luckily my husband is accepting - hesitant, but accepting). Many couples have gone before you in this matter, I'm sure. Think about how it must've been in the early Church! I am still new to Catholicism as well, but I think you can balance both. Your wife is not required to go to mass with you or to hold the same beliefs. Her ultimatums, however, are not loving or fruitful. I get it if you have kids, that this would create conflict over their raising. But could you say you would like to take them to mass and that's it? That the decision would be theirs in how to walk when they reach the age of reason? That seems fair. We exist as individuals, especially when it comes to our eternal fate, though! You should be free to seek God with concern for your salvation - that's important. More important than any temporary strife, though I know it can't be easy. God will make a way for you, I have no doubt. Keep seeking! I will pray for your journey! God bless you and your family.

ROSARY: U might wanna try saying atleast one rosary for the conversion of ur wife ( if possible on ur knees while fasting)..Saying a complete rosary ( ie, all 4 mysteries) is basically meditating on the life of Jesus along with the only human who was with him from birth to death...) ...you might also wanna check out testimonies regarding the power of the rosary and rosary novena❤️

Oof. Honestly sounds like couples therapy is really needed sooner than later. If you really got into cooking, and she pushed you away for your interest... that sounds like an interpersonal support problem that needs to be worked on with a qualified family or couples counseler.

Dejavu me too. Had the same experience. Glad to say I am Catholic.

Also, good for you losing 30 pounds! Losing weight is so hard :(

Italian last name

Probably because of his last name, it sounds italian

I pray that he converts back to the true Church of his Italian ancestors 🙏, THE HOLY ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH.

@@tony1685 Your words are interesting. Sounds like you study the Bible, which I'm glad to hear. Look into exegesis, and you'll learn how interpretations from text can differ even with the most learned people. Then, look into the Church fathers to get a sense of their understanding of the Bible in a much closer reality to Jesus's instruction. I think you are on the right track.

Introverts when they talk about something they're interested in

@@TheThreatenedSwan You're telling me...

@@vaderetro264 Although he was Bertuzzi's guest

A few issues: 1) "all one needs to do is accept Jesus as one’s Lord and Savior, then it raises the question as to why God gave at least 66 divinely revealed books to convey that, as if nothing else in Scripture actually matters" is frankly a bizarre point. It is certainly true that salvation is by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone, but what does that actually mean? If you tell someone who knows nothing about Christianity that they need to accept Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior, they won't know what you're talking about. Scripture is sufficient divine revelation about God's relationship to mankind and His redemptive plan for His kingdom as it has unfolded through history from Adam to Christ and His apostles. To understand that Jesus is the Christ/Messiah, you obviously have to know what the Messiah is. To make sense of Jesus' statements about Israel in the Gospels, you have to have the revelation of why God has a claim in particular on the covenant nation descended from Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. I could go on and on. 2) "they demand a form of assent to their magisterial interpretation" This is very simply dishonesty or projection. The vast majority of protestant groups do not claim any sort of magisterial authority, nor any claim to being uniquely "The Church" as Rome does so they have no claimed power to "demand" assent or submission to anything except Jesus Christ. A particular Scriptural exegesis does not itself possess authority, the Scriptures are rightly treated with the authority of God who "breathed" them out. There is a sort of congregational or teaching authority possessed by the elders of a congregation (as laid out by Paul), but unlike Roman claims of authority this authority is not said to be on the level of an Apostle's authority or in any way infallible. Of course you can find individual "protestant" groups which contradict this. But it is less reasonable to hold all protestant groups accountable for something a few do than it is to hold all Catholics accountable for theologically radical wings of the Catholic church or various more modern Catholic offshoots like sedevacantists. A fallacy both Catholics and EO often commit is this holding up of "Protestantism" as some monolithic entity that can be singularly criticized (and then funnily they will criticize "it's" inconsistency, yeah no duh "it" is inconsistent "it" is many different theological systems and congregations).

@@Bane_questionmark the fact that protestanitsm has no unity and is not monolithic is alreasy a deathblow. Not the same as the catholic church having differing groups because ultimatley the magisterium has the ability to decide which view is acceptable/correct, even if it hasnt exercised their ability to yet and is choosing to leave the qn open for now

@@a.d1287 Again you are committing the fallacy of lumping all protestant groups together. Why do you expect different groups to believe the same things? This fallacy is sort of like lumping all Catholics (and Catholic offshoot groups) and protestant groups together as "Western Christians" and then saying the lack of unity of "Western Christianity" is a death blow". Or protestants lumping Catholics, EO, and Oriental Orthodox together as "Apostolic Christians" and saying the lack of unity among "Apostolic Christianity" is a death blow. Also you're begging the question of from where the Catholic magisterium derives this unique ability to infallibly perceive and declare truth, but that's an old debate I doubt we will get anywhere go into that unless you'd like to.

As if ,those quite smart people, were correct about everything and anything? For example, Newton believed in the mumbo jumbo that is known as alchemy. Does that mean we all should also believe in alchemy because Newton did? Newton did not at all agree with the Nicean creed because he did not view Jebuz as equal to god or being god. Point this out to trinitarian christians and see how fast an excuse is invented as to why this is of minor importance.

@@michaelanderson4849 are you suggesting that because Newton believed in Alchemy that we should disregard everything he believed? Of course not. The point is that Atheists often caricature Theists as being dumb, gullible, uneducated etc. who need a magic sky daddy. The quote is simply showing that that is not necessarily the case. It isn't to say that because some smart people have believed in Christ that it must be true, but to prove that it is possible to believe in Christ and still be a thinking and intelligent human being.

@YAJUN YUAN my sweet behind it did.

@@Western-Supremacist one should not dismiss the fact that most of them were also indoctrinated from start about christianity and lived in a quite different society. Yet Newton, for example, did not buy the concept behind the Nicean creed and fought with teeth and nails not to have to be part of a religious order.

@@michaelanderson4849 how does that change anything about the fact that you misunderstood the context of the quote?

Protestantism can't be the default Christianity due to the Church preceding it and being necessary for all of their traditions both from God and from man where they took a negative position to merely be against the Catholic position. And for socially, the default is having authorities. Protestants have authorities to, their parents, their community, theologians, but they lie and use the Solas as a rhetorical trick

The point being that if one has already accepted that there is a God and that God has revealed himself in the person of Jesus Christ then mere Christian theism should be a persons starting point. Not Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy or protestantism. Ons must check the merits of each belief system and put them under the same fire and see which holds up best.

@@jon6car What do you mean by the same fire?

@@Robert_Prowse Demand the exact same evidence and proofs

@@TheThreatenedSwan Which of the solas say that other people aren't in authority over us? Scripture clearly teaches that people can be over each other in authority. For example, parents have authority over their children, a husband has authority over his wife, a bishop/elder has authority over his congregation, and of course Jesus Christ is in authority over His Church (the Body of Christ, the Kingdom of His people purchased with His blood shed on the cross). Maybe you are trying to strawman sola Scriptura, if so you should be more clear. But I'll tell you, sola Scriptura does not say that there is no authority except Scripture. Rather, it is saying that God's revealed Word is the *final* and greatest authority, and the Scriptures are an inerrant and sufficient corpus of that revealed Word. The debate is not whether other authority exists, but which authority is highest. Parents have authority over their children, but God's Word has greater authority. A church elder's authority is lower than the authority of the Word even over his own congregation. The authority of the Apostles themselves was secondary to God's Word (Paul said that even he would be anathema if he preached contrary to the truly revealed Word which had already been preached by him, because his authority is secondary to the Word's). A denial of sola Scriptura and embracing of sola Ecclesia has flipped your church on its head, putting God's Word under the authority of man.

choosing simplicity is easy. choosing truth- not so much. It can take a lifetime.

What do you mean, “work”?

@@andytheawesome7592 Whatever it means in the context of luke 19 but I would like to understand various definitions among the oldest churches

Nobis did such a bad job that it seems trent didnt need to really try after the opening arguments.

I'll be doing a "mega-debrief" to cover my debate with Nobis, Christie, and an upcoming dialogue with Gavin Ortlund

@@TheCounselofTrent awesome!

which one started a preaching business?

@@flyswatter6470 Lol

All of them. Except 1

@@mike-cc3dd where in the Bible?

@@byyykusto Peter, Paul , who wrote the Gospels? Apostles that is preaching in writing.

You asked 5 questions, and yet, I don't think you are interested in any of the answers

@@phoult37 I honestly am interested in scriptural answers. Any, truly.

@@1SigloUno Okay, then pick one question to start with and I will answer as best I can as a fairly well-informed Catholic layman (not a priest).

As Christ was the only good and as Christ states in testing false prophets and teachers. Matt 7:15-20 ie the many many many evils of the early church and popes and current scandals of the Holy See and reading then Matt 21-23 Gods laws, Exodus 20:3-4, Leviticus 26:1 Catholics and their veneration images etc etc , clear scriptures and Psalms 135:15-17 and praying to Mary and other saints instead of God and Christ, 1 John 5:21 John 14:6. Isaiah 44:9-12 Jonah 2:8 etc etc etc and then when we see the Catholic Churches doctrines on indulgences as it has taken of advantage of the poor and ignorant in creating these idols for financing of churches and selling of penances for different reasons. Where in scripture can you find the justification for these clear Catholic doctrines and beliefs?? Those scriptures listed are clear for those that have not had the opportunity to read the Bible cover to cover I highly recommend you do, I humbly implore and beg you regardless of your denomination. And please read and compare the main Christian bibles and compare them to Catholic Bibles take them all in and compare the Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic words. thanks for your time I’ll take your answers off the phone.. 😂

@@1SigloUno You didn't pick one question and instead went on an unorganized rant...looks like my initial response was correct: you aren't interested in answers, only quarreling. Asking questions simply to begin an argument is deceptive, and deception is from Satan. Jesus says to let your yes mean yes and your no mean no...you should heed our Lord.

Hah

How do you think he got his high verbal tilt 😜

Sometimes being charitable is telling the truth.

Ya know. KZfaq and the right has really benefited from uncharitable conversations though. Ben shapiro in 2018 is a perfect example. He dominated the memesphere online and just set the tone for conservativism online for years to come.

@@neil2831 Sometimes you forget that people really can't see the truth. You should assume that rather than assume that they don't care. A protestant guy I like said that anger is the devils cocaine. With certain issues I can't keep my head on straight it would seem.

Why does abortion trigger you?

@@AmericanRefugee212 Because of my conceptualization of the horrors at work.

the what

That it's a cult. Man-made. Full of lies.

Hard to take them seriously at all

They target people who feel stripped of there identity and dignity, then feed them hate. But just like every other denomination, not all Hebrew Israelites are in agreement and differ within each other. The thing that keeps them United is basically they’re hate towards the white man. And eventually the teaching leads to Islam being the true religion.

@@cdeep4548 How does it lead to Islam when that has a negative view of black people?

Building the Church in their own image...sounds Satanic

Ha so true. Protestants have theirs too.. I went to one and their tradition was to put communion on a table in back of church and say take it in your way out. Not a Lutheran church obviously they copy Catholicism.

I agree since to be deep in history is to cease to be protestant. You should try it.

that's exactly how most protestants are converted to Catholicism. How much history have you read, I mean, outside of the JW library?

@YAJUN YUAN for example?

@YAJUN YUAN you were shocked a council changed the tone of the early church fathers? Are you equally shocked that people quit preaching circumcision as well after the council convened on that matter?

Maybe, it could be. I just wonder why the protest which has gone for 500 years now can't just really win at all. Maybe it's time for protestants to rethink their protest, as a lot of Lutheran pastors -- as the forefather of Protestantism is Martin Luther who started it all -- have already converted to Catholicism and have said that they think there is no reason to protest anymore. Moreover, you've got to see and notice now the phenomenon that there are plenty of Protestant theologians, historians and scholars from different Protestant denominations who have converted to Catholicism, and that you won't see any Catholic theologian, historian or scholar who converts to any Protestant denomination at all, let alone thousands of different pastors and ministers, as well as seminary professors -- the preachers and teachers of the Protestant faith -- from different Protestant denominations who have converted and are continuously converting (or even reverting) to Catholicism. Have you noticed this phenomenon already yet? God bless.

@@voxangeli9205 sort of an odd turn of phrase, “have you considered noticing”, implies you already noticed it’s there if you’re considering it… and I’m sure there are Catholic theologians who have converted to Jesuit, i mean protestant, groups all the time. But it is as Cardinal Newman said; to be deep in history is to cease to be protestant. Not only because protestantism is a recent phenomenon, but because the Church is recognizable at all stages of history as being what it is.

That makes it seem like Catholics and those further along than Protestants believe in all the previous beliefs on the track.

@@elf-lordsfriarofthemeadowl2039 not necessarily; i meant it as Trent described it, and as i wrote it: “belief in the Bible” could also be written as “certain writings are inspired” but doesn’t necessitate “only the Bible is” or “sola scriptura”. Those particular things would be the prejudices/biases you pick up by getting off the train at that point and going no further.

@@ArchetypeGotoh, hold on, Jesuits are Protestants?...

I must admit, Alan, this is a weird medium for a “debate”, but I appreciate the effort nonetheless. I hope for a charitable dialogue on this issue, one that can stick to the point without getting lost in rabbit trails; with that in mind, I will *not* answer any so-called points that are not relevant to the chosen topic. I will deal only with whether or not Peter was in Rome, and what his function was. I will, of course, be appealing to the consensus of Church history, not only on part of the Church’s tradition on the matter, but also the consensus of Protestant (and, indeed, atheist) scholarship on the matter. That all said, my opening statement here will consist of my own points and direct rebuttals to Alan’s opening. I highly doubt we will go on in any substantive way for three days unless schedules conflict with timely responses (I will also not respond to comments that aren’t from Alan, so apologies to anyone with an itchy finger, I feel the vibe for sure). Was Peter ever in Rome? Was he the “first Pope”? Alan frames this as a difficult question to answer, but I would, of course, argue the exact opposite. The *fact* of Peter having been in Rome is one with a rich tradition that goes into the early 2nd century, starting at the very least with Ignatius of Antioch in 110AD. This places his reference, to which he is writing to the Roman church, within the lifetimes of many people who would have interacted with the Apostles had they been there. Yet we see no rejection of this mention anywhere in Church history, and the idea Ignatius would just make this up defies all good sense: “Not as Peter and Paul did, do I command you. They were apostles, and I am a convict” (Letter to the Romans) Peter (and Paul, of course) could not have “commanded” anything of the Romans had he not been there, unless we want to try claiming Peter wrote a now non-extant letter to them. I’d remain incredulous barring evidence to the contrary. Next, the idea that this “gained popularity” after the time of Constantine. Emperor Constantine was a fourth century ruler who called the Council of Nicaea, a council which folks often erroneously claim was when the “Catholic Church” was started. Peter’s having been in and died in Rome had already been well established by the time of the Council, as can be shown in any cursory glance into Church history. There isn’t a single reputable scholar on the planet that would deny this, but that’s besides the point. We have writings of Ignatius of Antioch, Dionysus of Corinth, Irenaeus of Lyons, Tertullian of Carthage--bishops and theologians from the East and the West--all attesting to this fact. The claim it was just some thing the West made up to flex over the East lacks any merit whatsoever. To the point of Peter’s martyrdom, Alan incorrectly asserts that we know “nothing” of Peter’s death from any first century source, and this is simply not the case. Clement of Rome, who is held traditionally (by basically everyone that studies the history of the Church) to have been one along the lines of Peter’s eventual successors, references Peter and Paul’s martyrdom in his Epistle to the Corinthians, in which he writes: “But not to dwell upon ancient examples, let us come to the most recent spiritual heroes. Let us take the noble examples furnished in our own generation. Through envy and jealousy the greatest and most righteous pillars [of the church] have been persecuted and put to death. Let us set before our eyes the illustrious apostles. Peter, through unrighteous envy, endured not one or two, but numerous labours; and when he had at length suffered martyrdom, departed to the place of glory due to him. Owing to envy, Paul also obtained the reward of patient endurance, after being seven times thrown into captivity, compelled to flee, and stoned. After preaching both in the east and west, he gained the illustrious reputation due to his faith, having taught righteousness to the whole world, and come to the extreme limit of the west, and suffered martyrdom under the prefects. Thus was he removed from the world, and went into the holy place, having proved himself a striking example of patience.” Clement, writing around 90 AD, or about 30 years or so from the deaths of Peter and Paul, invokes this message as a fresh memory. That is to say that the martyrdom of both Apostles were within memory of contemporaries to both these figures. The task from there is to determine where, and to that we turn to the written record, as I have pointed to earlier. On the topic of Justin Martyr, it is interesting that his silence on Peter having been in Rome is taken as an argument against the position. This would, of course, be fallacious in that it is just that: an argument from silence. Justin Martyr did not grow up in Rome, arriving in the city around his 30s-40s, well outside the apparent window Alan seems to propose for Peter’s presence in Rome to be genuine (since it being a “second century tradition” is used as a counter in his point). Not only, then, would he not be a contemporary of the story of Simon Magus in Rome, but it is a story he either had to have made up or picked up elsewhere. I opt for the latter, of course, that this was an event the Roman Christians held on to--but not only the Romans, but Eastern Christians as well. In Asia Minor a story, recorded in the apocryphal Acts of Peter, does indeed reference Peter as having been in Rome and confronting Simon Magus and other heretics leading up to his martyrdom. It also gives us an early look at how Peter died, granted how he died is irrelevant on the topic of whether he was in Rome. Incidentally, this account is contemporary with Justin Martyr and could have even been where he picked up the story, given he originated from the East (in Palestine). At the end of the day, the argument from Martyr isn’t an argument at all. It fails to provide a substantive case against Peter’s presence in Rome or his teaching there. As an added point, I’d argue Jesus’s conversation with Peter in John 21 most definitely at least allude to his own crucifixion, as he says “when you are old, you will stretch out your hands, and another will gird you and carry you where you do not wish to go”. Not only would Peter’s hands be stretched out, but he would also be girded (that is, bound up) and carried where he doesn’t want to go. Catholics, Orthodox, and Protestants have historically interpreted this in light of crucifixion. Within the New Testament there are a couple of key instances we could look to in an attempt to verify Peter’s presence in Rome. To start, we turn to Peter’s Epistle. In the ending of Peter’s First Epistle he writes “She who is at Babylon, who is likewise chosen, sends you greetings”; this reference to Babylon, which had long since been destroyed, has historically been interpreted as a spiritual reference to Rome. We see this in Jewish literature of the time and throughout Christian history. Peter could not extend a greeting from Rome without having been there himself. And if he is teaching other Christians *from* Rome, it can logically be concluded that he is doing likewise with the Romans. Next, in Paul’s Epistle to the Romans, he makes this interesting remark in Romans 15: ”…thus making it my ambition to preach the gospel, not where Christ has already been named, lest I build on another man’s foundation…” and after quoting some scripture in verse 21, picks up with “This is the reason why I have so often been hindered from coming to you.” So Paul’s visit to Rome had been delayed because he was prioritizing parts of the world that had not yet heard of Jesus, lest he build on “another man’s foundation” (in fact, Rome was more or less just a stop on his way to Spain). So who could that man be? It is not beyond the realm of possibility that this man is Peter. Paul’s “silence” in referencing Peter is, again, an argument from silence. Additionally with Paul, however, is his noting Peter was not in Jerusalem when he visited, as recorded in his Epistle to the Galatians. We can only speculate where Peter might have been, but depending on which dating for the New Testament writings we take, it could be that Peter was in Rome per 1 Peter. The appeal to Luke in Acts remains, as with Paul and Justin Martyr’s, an argument from silence. Thus far, I have presented a case (I don’t want to write a comment too long, even if the message space is “unlimited”) based on a combination of historical evidence pointing to Peter’s presence, teaching, and eventual martyrdom--all within the context of Rome. In his next response, I hope Alan will make a charitable and thorough effort to *prove* that not only is this evidence not reliable in a way that is consistent with his own views, but that there is *no possible way* Peter could have been in Rome and had taught and established the church there. I posit that to do so will require the falsification of nearly 2000 years of Christian history. Thank you! [References can be provided, at request, following the conclusion of the dialogue]

@@Cathologia My opponent has laid out several points in his rebuttal of my opening statement. To remain true to the debate rules, I will address only one topic at a time, keeping it concise. JESSIE: The fact of Peter having been in Rome is one with a rich tradition that goes into the early 2nd century, ALAN: Notice how "tradition" is the evidence, not anything drawn from secular history with specific documentation. JESSIE: starting at the very least with Ignatius of Antioch in 110AD.........I’d remain incredulous barring evidence to the contrary. ALAN: I can debate to what extent Peter's ministry took place in Rome, but I am looking for a title of pope, or bishop, or anything that declares Peter as the first leader of the RCC. From Ignatius's writings, he talks of the ministry of the apostles only, specifically Peter & Paul (in light reference.) Please provide a valid historical credential that we can all read for ourselves, because being a pope was quite the big political deal throughout the centuries, and I'd imagine no less if Peter actually took up an office in Rome. JESSIE: Next, the idea that this “gained popularity” after the time of....the West made up to flex over the East lacks any merit whatsoever. ALAN: Why did Constantine convert to Christianity? The demographics of the Roman Empire in 300 A.D. had Christianity growing steadily since the 1st century. Out of a total population of 60 million, 3 million were Christians. (Jews still numbered 11 million). The emperors before Constantine, Diocletian, Maximian, Galerius, and Constantius issued numerous edicts that rescinded Christian legal rights and demanded that Christians comply with local religious pagan practices. It was known as the Diocletianic Prosecution, the most severe assault of Christians in the Roman Empire. Constantine, though, was smart enough to foresee the winds of change, but was still programmed with existing beliefs. In the legalization of Christianity, the following policies did not parallel the true gospel of Christ: The Edict of Milan legalized Christians but left all the native cults in place. The Arch of Constantine (erected in 315 CE near the Colosseum) lacks Christian symbols and contains sculptures of offerings to Apollo, Diana, and Hercules. Constantine issued coins with himself in the figure of Sol Invictus and Helios. Constantine inherited a vast empire, where he expected loyalty from all citizens. He could not abruptly eliminate the old Roman religion, the pagan traditions of the ancestors which were incorporated into daily life. Many historians consider Constantine’s conversion merely political and not religious, showing his reluctance towards baptism until his deathbed. In conclusion, the RCC was a melding of paganism and the early church. The TRUE Christian church still exists today and contrasts the RCC on 38 important topics. JESSIE: ...an argument from silence. Justin Martyr did not grow up in Rome...century tradition” is used as a counter in his point). ALAN: So Justin Martyr would not have historical knowledge of Peter being pope because Justin arrived 65 years after Peter was executed? And what about the execution? SURELY such an event would have been discussed by a Christian apologist and philosopher, would it not? If you plead the AFS argument, I'll rest my case, but it does not look like a solid demonstration for your position that Peter was ever in Rome as a pope. JESSIE: ...In Asia Minor a story, recorded in the... indeed reference Peter as having been in Rome and confronting Simon Magus... ALAN: The Apocrypha is not a legitimate source of historical or spiritual fact beyond a circular narrative within a biased institution. While it can be helpful, you must also use secular history to legitimize Peter as a pope. JESSIE: Incidentally, this account is contemporary with Justin Martyr.... up the story, given he originated from the East (in Palestine). ALAN: Or Justin could have actually studied the history of Rome while he was there and saw that Peter was not a major part of the Roman scene. It is a lot of theory on your side at this point. JESSIE: ALAN: That is not necessarily the case. Babylon was used many times in the bible to emphasize different things. For one, Babylon destroyed Jerusalem and the temple and became a symbol for the enemy of God and His people. Revelation uses this imagery, so Babylon in Revelation most likely does not refer to a revived Babylonian Empire but to a national entity that will persecute and destroy in “the spirit of the Babylonians.” The difference is that ancient Babylon destroyed Jerusalem as God’s judgment for her unfaithfulness. In the last days, “Babylon” persecutes believers who are being faithful, and it is Babylon who will be judged. JESSIE: So Paul’s visit to Rome had been... Paul’s “silence” in referencing Peter is, again, an argument from silence. ALAN: No, you are misappropriating that verse. The term "man" used by Paul represented ANY man that was spreading the truth of Christ in a region; it was not specifically referencing ONE person, such as Peter. JESSIE: ...based on a combination of historical evidence....of nearly 2000 years of Christian history. ALAN: Your history is based on Apocrypha accounts, not secular history recorded by scholars. Even then, the church fathers have referenced martyrdom and ministry in reference to Peter, NOT Peter as a pope in Rome. You are adding these accounts to make a grand statement. 1+2+3 does not equal 7. Therefore, you have failed in your rebuttal that Peter was a pope in Rome.

@@nightshade99 apologies if you weren’t prepared for a response, it seemed like you got back to me quick and it’s been about an hour. Feel free to carry on as you meant to, if unprepared, and we can tackle that as we go. :) Re (1): I gave several instances of Peter having been in Rome, from various sources, many separated regionally. It being a tradition doesn’t make it false; the names of the authors of the Gospels is also a tradition, one we get from many of the same figures that give us Peter’s presence in Rome. There is no sound reason to reject their testimony or argue they simply “made it up”, especially operating under the assertion that the post-Nicene Roman church simply “made it up”. I must confess, it’s a baffling objection since you invoke there should be “consensus among the church fathers” (which embraces a very long period of time) but ad hoc reject their testimony. Re (2): Actually, we do have evidence within scripture that Peter was bishop of Rome, following from the interpretation of 1 Peter 5 I proposed. In the first verse of the chapter, Peter identifies himself as an elder, exhorting the elders in his audience to “feed the flock”, echoing Christ’s command to Peter in the Gospel narrative. In Acts 20 Luke details Paul’s directive to the bishops/priests in Ephesus, including this same directive. It is the role of the bishop/priests (they can and indeed are used synonymously, both within scripture and in the church today) to “feed the flock”. Therefore, we can conclude within a reasonable degree of certainty that (1) Peter taught in Rome, and (2) his role there was that of a bishop/presbyter (from which we derive the term “priest”). [Minor quip, but there’s no I in my name lol]

@@CathologiaJESSIE: apologies if you weren’t prepared for a response.....and we can tackle that as we go. :) ALAN: If I got back to you quick, how was I "unprepared?" JESSIE: I gave several instances of Peter having been in Rome, from various sources, many separated regionally. ALAN: I am sure Peter's ministry INCLUDED Rome, but the question was whether Peter was a pope in Rome. JESSIE: It being a tradition doesn’t make it false; ALAN: Tradition in the apostle's sense of the word emphasizes the oral discussion of scripture taught through the ages. Tradition in the RCC sense of the word means whatever the church thinks is important to their position (politically/religious.) Every tradition has to be verified and backed by scripture to be authentic or else it violates the biblical stance to "test all spirits." Men instituting their own laws/beliefs and calling it tradition is not biblical nor Christian. JESSIE: the names of the authors of the Gospels is also a tradition, ALAN: No, the authors of scripture (that are known) are recorded facts and are officially documented. JESSIE: one we get from many of the same figures that give us Peter’s presence in Rome. ALAN: From who? Please cite an example. JESSIE: There is no sound reason to reject their testimony or argue they....that the post-Nicene Roman church simply “made it up” ALAN: Why not? What is stopping them from doing that? JESSIE: I must confess, it’s a baffling objection since you invoke there ... ad hoc reject their testimony. ALAN: That is a misrepresentation. For every church father that you can name to support Peter's authority in Rome (IF you can mind you), I can both testify to a church father who was mute on such an important topic AND counter the church father that you actually present as evidence. JESSIE: Actually, we do have evidence within scripture that Peter was bishop of Rome,......Christ’s command to Peter in the Gospel narrative. ALAN: That is NOT what that verse states. 1 Peter 5 interprets as this: Peter closes out his letter to the scattered Christians in the churches of Asia Minor with some final instructions. He counsels the elders about how to lead, includes how and why to live in humility with each other, and gives a final warning to be clear-minded and alert. Peter counts himself as ONE OF THE ELDERS. And so, he passes on the same instructions Jesus gave to him: to feed and shepherd Christ's sheep. That is the role of an elder in the local church: to serve as a shepherd of the "flock of God." Peter insists that those who accept the job do so because they want to and not just for money or power. They should lead first and foremost by example, showing others in the church how to follow Christ by doing so themselves. When Christ returns, He will reward those shepherds with an unfading crown of glory. Nowhere is there an elevation of Peter by Jesus IN ROLE to that of a pope. Peter has never claimed he was a pope or bishop or priest either....to anyone.......ever. You have foisted your own belief system onto scripture.

@@nightshade99 Wasn’t sure if you were working on more, don’t worry, it wasn’t a sleight against you lol. Re (1): For “was Peter a bishop in Rome”, see (7) onward; Re (2): We’re not going to play a weird game trying to rigidly define what “tradition” is. Catholics believe our doctrine comes down from the Apostles, which is an entirely different debate. Therefore, I will refuse to reply on this point. Re (3): Again, irrelevant, no matter how incorrect you are. So refusing to touch this point. Re (4): I cited several individuals in early church history who attest to the authorship of the Gospels, which is not itself a topic of the debate, *but* these figures also attest to Peter being in Rome. Notably Ignatius of Antioch, who explicitly references their being taught by Peter and Paul--in Against Heresies he gives us one of, if not the, earliest attestation of the four gospels to their authors. Re (5): The onus would be on you to prove they did, and substantiate that claim. Asserting they “made it up” doesn’t mean they did, and is indeed ad hoc. Re (6): I can find plenty of Fathers who attest to Peter being in and establishing the church in Rome. I’d be interested in who you think in the early church attested to the contrary; again, arguments from silence are fallacious. Re (7): Your interpretation of 1 Peter 5, actually, makes my point. Peter is writing to Asia Minor, he himself is not in Asia Minor. He is writing to elders, a word used elsewhere in the New Testament synonymously with bishop/overseer in context with certain duties. Peter identifies himself also as an elder/priest/bishop, from which we can logically infer he is carrying this out from wherever he’s writing from, because he's *not* an elder in Asia Minor. We’ve already gone over this being Rome given his reference to the location as “Babylon”. Re (7.5 or 8?): Jesus Himself elevates Peter; he is the rock upon which Christ built the Church (topic for another debate), specifically commissioned to feed Christ’s flock and “confirm [his] brethren”, is very clearly singled out as the leader of the Twelve both in scripture and Christian history, *and* exercises binding and loosing (very Jewish terminology( as conferred by Christ within the book of Acts. Second, in case I missed this, “Pope” comes from the Latin phrase for “Father”, used historically to refer to spiritual leaders in the church. Many bishops were called “Pope” throughout history, but it retains a certain flavor in the Catholic use. So, was Peter a “pope”/father, in the spiritual sense? Yes! In 1 Peter 5 he calls Mark, who is *not* his kid, his “son”. This same language is used by Paul and John in their Epistles. Did Peter claim to be a bishop/priest? Yes! You cited the very same passage after I had. Peter identifies himself as an elder, the Greek term being the one we get “priest” form and that, in New Testament usage, is synonymous with “bishop”/overseer as shown in (7). In summation, no. We have not “foisted” our beliefs upon scripture. This tradition has a rich history going back to the earliest days of Christianity and has been repeatedly shown throughout that history from the scriptures. You have made a lot of assertions about the doctrine without, it seems, really understanding what the doctrine even is. I look forward to the next round!

The idiom of each Eastern Orthodox church is usually ethnic, even if the church gains members of different ethnicity and churches can have not only liturgical but doctrinal differences too. In Catholicism, there are multiple rites but only one doctrine, the doctrine can't be affected by the ethnicity of the members of any church.

@@Qwerty-jy9mj There's only one doctrine in the Orthodox Church and it isn't affected by the ethnicity of its members. The Russian Church in Japan has the same doctrine as the Greek Church in Kenya. Further, the definition of the various jurisdictions are canonically defined, as they were at Nicea when Rome, Antioch, Alexandria, etc., had their canonical jurisdictions defined.

@Bb Dl No, that's a jurisdictional dispute. Very common in Church history. Meanwhile, in Catholicism, there's disagreement on what the evolution of dogma entails (German bishops, and liberals in general, think it means gay marriage is acceptable, women can be priests, etc.), whether the Pope can be judged by a council (a so-called "imperfect council"), whether the essence-energies distinction is a legit metaphysical system, whether priests can be married, etc.

@@cultofmodernism8477 Priests can be married, that's not under dispute, the tension is that priests in the latin rite take vows of celibacy. That's a matter of discipline, not doctrine. On the other hand, when the Marian dogmas, purgatory, divorce, contraception and so on are all up foe grabs, across multiple patriarchates and autocephalous churches, the fact is that uniformity of doctrine simply cannot be expected.

@@Qwerty-jy9mj Marian dogmas, contraception and divorce are not "up for dispute" across various jurisdictions. Again, that's meme apologetics. With regard to divorce, the Church has always adhered to St. Basil's canons, which allow for divorce, with penance, under certain circumstances. I suggest you look into the matter more deeply.

Because that's not true, they will not necessarily go to hell just because they're protestant.

Understanding what Catholicism teaches and leaving Catholicism isn’t equal to not understanding what Catholicism teaches and not joining. In the first case, the person is actively walking away from truth and in the second case they could be actively walking towards it, they just haven’t reached the Catholic plateau.

Give me an example please of holy spirit leading. Thanks.

@@AmericanRefugee212 All that Jesus said and did was led by the Holy Spirit. All the exploits of the believers, after the outpouring of the Holy Spirit during Pentecost, were led by the Holy Spirit.

Is the Holy Spirit not responsible for guiding one's intellect, rationality, and emotions, if those things lead one to God? Just like the Holy Spirit guided all those throughout history who wrote and compiled the Canon of Scripture, the Holy Spirit also guides those who read about God. And just like how God commissioned different Israelites with different talents in the construction of the Ark and Tabernacle, the Holy Spirit guides our passions and minds in different ways, in accordance with individual talents and interests, even if the Holy Spirit not explicitly mentioned by name. The Holy Spirit is literally wisdom and love themselves, so how could a faith guided by pursuits in "books, intellectualism, rationalizations, logic, rituals, and good-feeling conversations" NOT be in line with and guided by it?

In the context of one being born again, what you said applies. In this case, concerning this video, words give us away. Where as each of the fellows within this video were frequently supplanting the person of the Holy Spirit with other things. It is an indicator that other things in their life take the wheel other than the ministry, power, and leading of the Holy Spirit.

You do not know either of these guys to comment on their actual personal walks with God so brashly. Wow. Had to say that. As it turns out though, I do think the heart and personal experienxe get kind of overlooked in faith discussions and even apologetics.

Jn 3:36 though

1. No. They didn't change nor did they remove it. It's actually listed in the Catechism of the Church (Part III: Life in Christ, Section II, Chapter 1, Article 1). A Graven image is not considered to simply have statues or simple iconography. If this were the case, why did God command the Israelites to construct an image of a Bronze Serpent and Cherubim on the Ark of Covenant? Catholics do not worship icons nor do we believe they hold divine power. Catholics venerate what they represent. Ironically, in history Iconoclasm (That is the destruction of all icons in the Church) was a heresy that both Catholics and Eastern Orthodox oppose. 2. On what authority was it ever said that those who are ordained by God must/will no longer sin in life? If this is the presumption, wouldn't every male Christian want to become a priest? Jesus called upon sinners, not the righteous into his ministry. Have you not read the 2 books of Samuel or Kings? The Kings of Israel who were anointed by God still committed sins. Evil will always exist within the Church, but it will never prevail against it as Christ promised. 3. Yes. It seems to me that you are ignorant of what indulgences actually are. They are forms of penances. What the Church did at the Council of Trent was reform how they were distributed. The selling of indulgences was never a formal Church doctrine nor practice. Some Priests and bishops (including I believe a few Popes) on the other hand exploited how indulgences could be distributed through charity and essentially set fixed prices. Trent essentially made it impossible for any indulgences to be distributed via any monetary contributions. The Church still distributes indulgences. 4. You're going to have to elaborate on the supposed flaws in Catholic theology in communion. The repeated Mass on Sunday is a fulfillment of the Sabbath in old Law. Even St. John the Apostle references the Lord's day Rev 1:10.

@@Cklert Thank you for an awesome reply! I'll try to respond later today when I have the time.

@@Cklert Thank you again for responding! 1. I am very familiar with this Catholic response. It is either dishonest or ignorant because even though the prohibition is "listed" in the catechism it is LISTED AS A SUBSECTION UNDER THE FIRST COMMANDMENT. So in the catechism it is grouped in with the commandment to _Have no other gods before me_ despite the fact that both listings of the Decalogue in Deut. 5 and Exodus 20 clearly list the prohibition against graven images separately as its OWN commandment. The Catechism skips this prohibition and unnaturally separates the 10th commandment against coveting into 2 commandments in order to still get the required 10 commandments. This formula does not fit the text and it is clear why this is done when you walk into any catholic church filled with *_"an image in the form of anything in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the waters below. You shall not bow down to them..."_* This is the direct text of the commandment and it is violated every day in just about every catholic church on earth....this is what scripture plainly says. How do you deny that? And the argument about the brass serpent and the cherubim over the Ark disappears the moment you actually READ the commandment. I think this is your and every other catholics problem, _you don't actually read the bible._ Because if you did you would find this: Exodus 20:4-6 “You shall not *_make for yourself_* an image in the form of anything in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the waters below. 5 You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the parents to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me, 6 but showing love to a thousand generations of those who love me and keep my commandments. Did you catch the highlighted part? You shall not MAKE FOR YOURSELF.....God commanded the making of the brass serpent and the cherubim....where did God command the making of images of the apostles or angels or saints and that you should bow down to them? Where is that in scripture? Because if God did not command you to do it, as he expressly did with the serpent and cherubim, then you are doing it YOURSELF. That is precisely forbidden for you to do. You shall not MAKE FOR YOURSELF....how could it be any clearer? 2. The difference is that when you establish this sinful man on the "chair of St. Peter" and give him titles like "Domnus Apostolicus" and claim that this sinful human being is the Vicar of Christ. Nowhere is this actually done in scripture. I know you want to stretch the vague and often misunderstood idea of Peter being the rock which Christ will build his church on into an "unbroken line of apostolic succession" but that simply isn't the case. For instance we know James the brother of Jesus was seen as equal to or even superior to Peter within the apostles. He even issues a judgement in the Council of Jerusalem in Acts 15 while Peter is there. Peter doesn't issue judgement and decide the meeting, James does. How can this be if Peter is the first pope? So you create an office that does not exist in the Bible or the early church, seat a sinful, corrupt human being in it, and tell him he can speak the infallible judgements of God? This is clearly closer to the Roman State religion then the Bible. You even call him the Pontifex after the Pontifex Maximus in ancient Rome. That should be a clue for you shouldn't it? 3. Can you show me an example of any indulgences from the Bible? Do you really believe that God, the creator of the universe, Jesus who entered this world to suffer and die on a cross for our sins......is going to care that you followed the Pope on Twitter? Do you really believe that? 4. You hit the nail on the head when you said "The repeated Mass on Sunday is a fulfillment of the Sabbath in old Law." That is the problem right there. Again, if catholics _actually read their Bible_ instead of man made church doctrine, you would know why this is a problem. Jesus created a NEW COVENANT. Jesus says this in Luke 22 and establishes the new covenant in space and time by his death and resurrection. We are not under the Old testament Sabbath law, we are under the New Covenant. So your argument only works if you don't understand basic christian theology. But the real problem with the Eucharist is the repeated offering of Jesus as a sacrifice. This is clearly not needed from several passages of the new testament. This may even be blasphemy because you are stating that Jesus's death was not sufficient for all time and the priest is needed to assist Jesus in making this sacrifice permanent by repeated offerings. Hebrews 7:27 "Unlike the other high priests, he does not need to offer sacrifices day after day, first for his own sins, and then for the sins of the people. *_He sacrificed for their sins once for all when he offered himself."_* Hebrews 10:10 "And by that will, we have been made holy through the sacrifice of the body of Jesus Christ *_once for all."_* Tell me again, why does a priest have to continually re-offer Jesus's sacrifice? \\Thank you again for responding. I am not trying to be rude if any of my response came across that way. I just don't understand how things can be so plainly written in the Bible yet catholics and catholic doctrine seem to deliberately get it wrong. I am open to learning more though.

@@hambone4728 Thank you for the well in depth response. I will try to return the favor!. 1. I don't think I need to make known that the 10 commandments aren't explicitly numbered or ordered in Scriptures. All observers of the commandments have to merge a few verses in order to get the full 10. Protestants love to split hairs when it comes to the commandments, but don't realize there are actually several separate traditions that they're ordered: The Catholic ordering is actually based of the order of the commandments by St. Augustine of Hippo in the 4th century. In that he merges "I am the Lord thy God(1), Thou shall have no other gods before me(2), and graven images...(3) into the first commandment which is to syntax that God is the only one who we should worship. The Jewish (Talmudic) tradition also merges (2) and (3) but instead forming the second commandment. The Lutheran Version also similarly merges (2) and (3) into the first commandment. The Orthodox Version is probably the closest to what most Protestants are use to, which separates (2) and (3), however even then they are ordered and numbered differently. Also, Orthodox similar to Catholics, have iconography. The version most Protestants use is one that mostly highlights the separation between (2) and (3) as separate commandments. Likely as propaganda against the Church to impose that they worship idols. So tell me, who changed what again? How pretentious that comment is. I see you want to argue semantics, fine. It seems like you are focusing on that one part of the verse and ignoring the rest of that verse "in the form of anything in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the waters below." Or in other words making a god for ourselves. Which is what this was concerning. The Hebrew לְךָ֥֣ (lə-ḵā) translated "for yourself" is a preposition used in regard for worshiping other gods. Which is what this was concerning. Animism (The worship of objects) was a very real thing back then. AKA don't make images of gods or figures from other religions. You want evidence of images being made in the Bible that God didn't command? Look no further than King Solomon through out the book of Kings. He commissions statues of angels and oxen (1 Kings 7). His own throne is has gold lion adorned into it (1 Kings 10). All for the First Temple. Ironically, Solomon does eventually become an idolater. But only AFTER he commissions all this. What he made into the Temple was fine. He never worships any of that. He doesn't get punished for that either. His pagan wives are the ones who influence him, not the images (1 Kings 11). This is where he began to create images of other gods to worship. Now who doesn't read the Bible again? 2. I see you avoided to answer my question where is the assumption that those ordain had to be free of sin. With regards to the Vicar of Christ and Matthew (16:18). There a very few times that "keys" are mentioned in the Old Testament. Isaiah 22:22 is a mirror, if not a foreshadowing of the authority Jesus placed on Peter. Jesus, the successor of David and true ruler of the Kingdom of God, made Peter, his steward and regent on earth until he comes again. This does not eliminate him from sinning. Yes, if we ignore the entire circumstances and context, it would seem like James takes a more leadership approach at the Council than Peter. However let's highlight the context: There is dissent between Paul and Barnabas concerning circumcision of gentiles. So they go to Jerusalem to hold council with the Apostles and elders After discussion among the Apostles and elders, it is Peter who addresses them. The entire assembly goes quiet after his address, and allows Paul and Barnabas to finish their discussion. Afterwards, James the Just, Bishop of Jerusalem, then he ties into Peter's declaration for his statement. Finally, because James was the bishop of Jerusalem. He presided over a majority of the Church's Jewish converts. Who was pestering the Gentiles? Not Paul are Barnabas. Not Peter, whose disciples were primarily gentiles. But the Jews who presided under James. They came down from Judea. This was not a matter concerning a whole Church. Only James' wing. This would not be a Ecumenical Council by the Church's standards. This would be an example of Magisterial authority. Even with the assumption that Peter was merely a visitor at Jerusalem, you can still feel his authority. He doesn't take a position in the discussion, but rather mediates it. His Petrine office is quite evident here. Not exist in the early Church? Read St. Ignatius, disciple of John the Apostle. St. Origen of Alexandria. Pope Saint Clement's letter to James. St. Tertullian. St. Irenaeus. St. Dionysius of Corinth. There are many, many more that I could list. All of these are 2nd and 3rd century Christians who proclaim Rome's importance and primacy. Please, actually read some history. Not some conspiracy theory. 3. Nice Strawman. Of course our Lord cares. He cares about everything we do in our life to ensure that we are saved by him. Do not presume the limits of his charity and love. For they are endless. However, indulgences are completely optional to have and are not mandatory. Praying for the intentions of the Pope in leading the Church does give you a plenary indulgence. Despite my current opinion on the Pope, I don't think the Pope was asking for anything difficult or outrageous. 4. Put your money where your mouth his my friend. While you're correct that Paul does say that the Sabbath is a shadow (1 Col 17). He's talking about it being a shadow in celebration of Christ's resurrection. Which is why it's abundantly clear that Christians gatherings, having collections (1 Cor 16:2) and breaking of bread (Acts 20:7). You talk about basic Christian theology. So we'll tie this all together. You claim that the Sabbath is part of Old Law, that is partially correct. However that's more concerned with ceremonial and ritualistic law. However the Sabbath is also part of the 10 commandments, which are all moral laws that do not change and Christ even told us to hold on to the commandments (Matt: 19:17). Why is it that there is still 10 commandments in that case? You seem very adamant about the 10 Commandments in the first point. But now with the Sabbath you're very indifferent? How convenient and ironic. I guess the commandments only really matter if its against Catholics, right? You're wrong by the way. We do not view it as a repeated sacrifice. We view it as a perpetual sacrifice. Which is why Masses are held every day. If it weren't, then we would be damned the moment we sinned again. The true essence of Mass is to celebrate the Resurrection, which is why Sunday is important. I pray for your charity my friend. Sola Scriptura is a heresy for a reason. I always find it funny that Protestants always say Catholics don't read the Bible while holding it in high regard, yet it was the Catholic Church that gave authority to the Bible to begin with. I surely pray that you soften your heart and seek truth.

John ch. 6...the Eucharist is pretty incredible. Maybe the actual question should be, why do protestants deny the reality that both Catholics and Orthodox professed for 1,000+ years before the reformation?

The Church was saying the mass and offering the Eucharist for longer than the United States has been a country for over 3 centuries fighting off heresies and preserving inspired writings before they decided to put together a common cannon of scripture so that the exact same readings could be read from during the literguy of the word, in every mass, throughout the entire world. The Apostles knew Mary.

I often wondered this myself when I was in RCIA. There are possible answers to this, but none of the ones I'll share are meant to be knockdown arguments if one has an a priori reason for opposing Marian devotion. A full-on defense of the practice takes more than a measly youtube comment! It could be that the ancient Church did regularly implore her intercession, but we just don't have records of it from earlier than the 3rd century. Seeing how conservative the early Church was about many things, it would be odd for them to suddenly do something which may come off as idolatrous without any antecedent practice. Or, perhaps the Holy Spirit did not inspire them to ask for her intercession too much early on because it could have deemphasized Christ's divinity at a time when it would become most threatened.

@@Ebradley2351 Great comment thanks. I still wonder because the writers mention the names of other lesser women in their letters. Thank that women or the woman and her family. If any one of them in their closing of the letter said..and unto Mary most blessed whom we owe everything to..... something along those lines from John or peter or James...I would continue being a Catholic. I left because I read the Bible continuously as one story many times until I saw many things that were written were not done. But the church kept saying traditionally it was done, that is not true because the apostles did not do them.

Argument from silence fallacy? Yep

@@mike-cc3dd not exactly.. lesser women were mentioned by the writers of the NT. ..if a non Catholic comes to church ..he would get the impression that next to God's throne Mary is sitting there. From how Catholics go on and on about Mary... And they add that the early church believed the same... I am here to point out it's not true...if the disciples venerated or needed Mary ...the least they could do was acknowledge a thanks to her ..but they didn't. And a beautiful thing God did in Revelation is to show us thrones and ppl in power in heaven and guess what there is no Mary there sitting on any throne as a queen. But Mary is blessed forever but not in the way Catholics attribute things to her.

You haven’t truly done “much study” if you reject those things. Celibacy is not a doctrine.

@@revelation1215 protestants are protestors and always need to agitate to remain relevant to

What sort of "study" was this? What di you read?

@@revelation1215 speaking of celibacy. Here's my sincere take on that. The universal requirement to celibacy was imposed upon the Roman Catholic clergy with force in 1123. This was and is a man made requirement and the Lord God Almighty who made heaven and earth had nothing to do with it. Said requirement has wreaked havoc in the Roman Catholic Church. Just open God's Word(the Bible) and check it out. In fact, in the New Testament, Ministers, Bishops, Pastors & etc, are required to be married. Celibacy in and of itself is not the problem. The problem is to require celibacy for the Roman Catholic priesthood. The fact of the matter is that it tends to attract a certain type of man. The Roman Catholic clergy has become a haven for effeminate and or homosexual men. Don't take my word for it. Just visit any Roman Catholic seminary. Not only that but the number of young Catholic males that have been abused at the hands of Roman Catholic bishops and priests over the past many centuries is staggering and is only now coming to light. It's not right. Needs to be fixed (eliminated).

@@rolandovelasquez135 Celibacy for priests is not a doctrine, it's a discipline. The fruit of it can be debated. It's irrelevant to a belief in one indivisible church or not.