Praise God. How should we witness to muslims?

@@glassworks4850 1. Study islam and refute it by showing Muslims it is not the final testament of God because it contradicts the Bible, and show them why and how. 2. From a historical perspective. Show them why the Bible can be trusted and proof that it hasn’t been “corrupted” as they will claim. 3. Pray.

@@lerikaharevic I'm a Reformed Baptist (Calvinistic). Our church is involved in evangelism, discipleship, and missions. The Lord opened doors for us to minister to Indian students in our place. But to muslims, not yet.

​@@lerikaharevicSuch simple but compelling advice. God bless you brother

That’s just the thing…there has been so many revivals,moves of the Spirit in Protestant churches that doesn’t seem to come to the table in this. For example the Brownsville revival in Pensacola Florida was a powerful move of God where thousands were transformed, saved from drugs and everything else. I got transformed there by the power of God and now serve as a missionary in Mexico. If the RCC is the one true church you would think that you would see more miracles, healings and moves of the Spirit, more spiritual gifts there

Be Catholic then ;)

But the argument is sound. There is nothing in the Bible *or* the earliest Apostolic Fathers which suggests a centralized church. Unified, yes. A single centralized institution, no.

And so, lastly, does the name itself of Catholic, which, not without reason, amid so many heresies, the Church has thus retained; so that, though all heretics wish to be called Catholics, yet when a stranger asks where the Catholic Church meets, no heretic will venture to point to his own chapel or house

​@@TaehunGrammarwe are, that's the irony.

Catholic as in Universal Church. That’s what it used to mean and I feel it got twisted. To me any church that follows and teaches scripture is catholic Church. As in part of Body of Christ. Has nothing to do with institutions

Gavin doesn't debate Orthodox Christians... Father Josiah Trenham, Father Peter Heers, Father Turbo Qualls, would all be an excellent place to start. In any case, Jay Dyer, David Patrick Harry, Deacon Ananais Sorem also would also be great candidates for refitting these claims.

@@snocookies He has debated Craig Truglia and Fr. Patrick Ramsey, both of whom are eastern orthodox.

@@snocookies there is too much controversy around some of those guys. These extreme orthobro fringe guys are not representative of typical orthodox. They often disagree and call their own hierarchs heretics as well. I honestly don’t think any of those listed are worth talking to. I’ve heard them all and it’s the same triumphal nonsense that’s popular with the online orthobros bereft of all charity and grace as well as abysmal scripture and historical exegesis. A debate is not going to push the ball forward with any of them IMO.

Most protestants in north America don't know what an Eastern Orthodox Christian is

@@Qwerty-jy9mj you’d be surprised at how many American Roman Catholics don’t either. Though due to the internet and the upsurge of many Protestants going to liturgical traditions many people are learning about Orthodox.

I’m drawn too, which is why I love Gavin’s videos so much. He’s my red stop light!

Keep praying and come fully into full communion with a Church. Remember, he did not address the authority of the church, giving us canon of scripture and how do you rest assured? The answer, is that there is one God given authority on earth on issues of binding morality, and dogma to the church And the more schismatic they get the more the hierarchy and truth gets water down Think about what Protestantism invites, invites the question of whether we actually had the correct canon, and who had the right hierarchy to do so, and Jesus giving us one church did not give us thousands of binding dogmas and different morality.

@@punstir1292 It was a 5 minute overview my friend......... not a 1 hour lecture

@@catkat740 Thank you!🤍

⁠@@holyhoff8521 Very interesting approach lol! I do appreciate his commitment to easing anxiety. I hope to see Protestant leadership make a serious attempt to become more unified in the future.

Yes! Haha I need my catholic rival 😂

😂😂

What if he hired the same animator. That would be interesting.

Don't worry he doesn't need to decorate his ideas to win, because the Truth makes his way through.

@@nonfecittaliter4361 Wait....you can use stain glass windows to teach but simple animation is "decorating ideas" Okie dokie. Lol

"Itching ears" want to hear stuff.

Peace be with you. Jesus is coming back, but Protestantism is not the true church but instead Orthodoxy is, it is because the Bible says to keep on to the traditions we(the church) teach 2nd Thessalonians 2:15, and that the gates of hell will not prevail against the church Matthew 16:18-19, therefore Protestantism doesn’t follow tradition and doesn’t follow the Bible either, the Bible is also a tradition. We are not saved by faith alone the Bible says read James 2:24. ☦️

Sad to find peace in protesting the Church founded by Christ himself. Do you find peace in heresy, really?

Robertstephendon...yes. I am. Amen to all your passages from Paul to Timothy. And from the same book he tells us the foundation of all truth (I Tim 3,:15). You sought truth outside of this command and rejected three tenets of the faith that are absolutely supported in scripture. (Saints in heaven, sinners hell, ect). Church teaching on faith and morals may be hard teaching, but never inconsistent with what our Lord (who is truth) teaches.

​@@keith8325 That's a comment loaded with presumptions. If you have no interest in understanding or intellectual honesty then you have no business in these conversations.

​@@keith8325The belief is founded by God through Christ, The church is founded by human beings. 😊❤👌😉😎

​@robertstephenson6806 Most people outside the Catholic Church probably have no idea the Catholic Church built Western civilization and saved it multiple times. She gave us Christian values, created the university system, the public school system, the public hospital system, the first orphanages, the first charities, revolutionized the justice system, was extremely scientific, and so on. The Holy Rosary saved all of Europe during the battle of Lepanto and the Battle of Vienna. The Catholics were outnumbered in both battles and the Muslims were close to marching on Rome. The Holy Rosary also saved Argentina from becoming communistic. The Catholic Church is the one true Church. God bless.

I am a Protestant who is seriously considering orthodoxy

​@@Guilherme-np9kn Most people outside the Catholic Church probably have no idea the Catholic Church built Western civilization and saved it multiple times. She gave us Christian values, created the university system, the public school system, the public hospital system, the first orphanages, the first charities, revolutionized the justice system, was extremely scientific, and so on. The Holy Rosary saved all of Europe during the battle of Lepanto and the Battle of Vienna. The Catholics were outnumbered in both battles and the Muslims were close to marching on Rome. The Holy Rosary also saved Argentina from becoming communistic. The Catholic Church is the one true Church. God bless.

@@Guilherme-np9kn Please check out the work of Erick Ybarra on the Papacy and the Filioque. You will see strong Papal claims being accepted in the first millennium (the Orthodox claim the first millennium was theirs, so why are they accepting papal claims?). And to the Filioque, the Eastern Orthodox church historically condemns anyone who holds to it, so in doing that, she condemns half of the Fathers (the Latins). There is no way to bridge the Orthodox view of the Filioque between the Latins and the Greeks, but there is a way to bridge it between the East and West in the Catholic Church. There is no East and West in Christ. May God bless you and lead you into truth. ~Dylan

@@Eternally_Catholic There are dozens of civilizations and thousands of events that made the West as we know it. Your argument doesn't mean anything.

Im a Baptist studying Anglicanism and feel very draw. New Kingdom Media is a great channel.

Did you make the animation?

@@mbts500 Yes!

Great animation! 👍

@@TheRoark Awesome!

@@TheRoark Great Job 👍

Progress is what Catholicism is built upon. You have no development of doctrine without progress and you have no Catholicism without the development of doctrine

Catholicism is proper dogma, principles esatblished from proper reasoning which lead to a further elevation of the truth. Prostentanism shapes its own truth by limited reasoning and ceases to enter deeper into the understanding of Christ.

Some things to reflect on. Sola Fide ... contradicts scripture; Ja 2 24 Sola Scriptura ... contradicts scripture; 2 Thes 2 15 Once Saved Always Saved ... contradicts scripture; Jn 15 (parable of the vine) Symbolic only baptism ... contradicts scripture; 1 Pet 3 Symbolic only Lords Supper (Eucharist) ... contradicts scripture; (Jn 6 52-55; Lk 22 19) As none of these doctrines came along until the 16th c, we can dismiss them as a distortion of the True Gospel as scripture warns would happen. The foundation stone of protestantism, sola scriptura, has fruit that was and continues to be, chaos and confusion. Who has the TRUTH in protestantism? Gavin? The Church error'ed for the first 1000+ years and didn't even know it? Gavin knows better? _3 For the time is coming when people will not endure sound teaching, but having itching ears they will accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own likings, 4 and will turn away from listening to the truth and wander into myths._ (2 Tim 4)

I assume you're reading a Bible that has 66 books. The Bible actually has 73 books and has always had 73 books since its very conception in the Council of Rome in 382 AD. It wasn't until the 1500s that protestants removed 7 books. I mean, 66 is also a number that hints incompleteness (Remember the number of the beast). Anyway, the basic fact is that God founded the Catholic Church and would never let her fall into doctrinal error. (Human error can easily be found because we are all sinners.) But if you don't believe Holy Mother Church is guided by the Holy Spirit, then I guess Luther was right in that the problem is everyone can become their own pope. To quote Luther: "There are as many sects and beliefs as there are heads. This fellow will have nothing to do with baptism; another denies the Sacrament; a third believes that there is another world between this and the Last Day. Some teach that Christ is not God; some say this, some say that."

Catholic Protestant… I love that! God bless

Its awesome to see Protestants starting to embrace the term Catholic. Next I hope to see you all blessing yourself with the sign of the cross.

@@MrPeach1 I vaguely remember John Stott in his book on the cross talking about the sign of the cross used among the earliest Christians. I’m on board for it.

@@HiHoSilvey I know Athanasius wrote about the sign of the cross in his biography of St Anthony of the Dessert. That would be around 300AD. I wonder what the earliest reference is.

@@MrPeach1 I just read that Cyprian taught its use. He died in 258.

Do you accept the doctrines of “Justification by Faith Alone” and “Eternal Security / Once Saved, Always Saved” ?

@@dylansheridan2892 One thing to point out is that "once saved, always saved" is just one of the two main doctrines of eternal security, the other being "perseverance of the saints." The first affirms that believers can fall away from the faith and still be saved, the second does not.

I grew up Baptist and for a long time wondered if I would end up becoming Roman Catholic. I found my way to Lutheranism instead.

@@unit2394 I’m feeling pretty strongly pulled toward Anglicanism; I just can’t shake off my credobaptist/baptism via immersion beliefs from my background

@@coopahtroopah1175-I have a similar story. I grew up Southern Baptist. I started questioning some of my long held Baptist beliefs in my late 20s/early 30s. This intensified when I started reading online RCC and EOC apologists and reading the church fathers. I seriously considered Eastern Orthodoxy for a while and was briefly a catechumen. However for a few reasons, I ultimately couldn’t swim the Bosphorus, and I took the Canterbury trail instead. I thus became a traditional Anglican about 15 years ago and haven’t looked back 👍🏻.

"depth of historical study brings men's minds about to Protestantism." If the early Church believed the below I would be protestant. Which of the countless flavors I do not know. As Cardinal Newman said, "to be deep in history is cease to be protestant." Sola Fide ... contradicts scripture; Ja 2 24 Sola Scriptura ... contradicts scripture; 2 Thes 2 15 Once Saved Always Saved ... contradicts scripture; Jn 15 (parable of the vine) Symbolic only baptism ... contradicts scripture; 1 Pet 3 Symbolic only Lords Supper (Eucharist) ... contradicts scripture; (Jn 6 52-55; Lk 22 19) As none of these doctrines came along until the 16th c, we can dismiss them as a distortion of the True Gospel as scripture warns would happen. The foundation stone of protestantism, sola scriptura, has fruit that was and continues to be, chaos and confusion. Who has the TRUTH in protestantism? Gavin? The Church error'ed for the first 1000+ years and didn't even know it? Gavin knows better? 3 For the time is coming when people will not endure sound teaching, but having itching ears they will accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own likings, 4 and will turn away from listening to the truth and wander into myths. (2 Tim 4)

Peace be with you. Jesus is coming back, but Protestantism is not the true church but instead Orthodoxy is, it is because the Bible says to keep on to the traditions we(the church) teach 2nd Thessalonians 2:15, and that the gates of hell will not prevail against the church Matthew 16:18-19, therefore Protestantism doesn’t follow tradition and doesn’t follow the Bible either, the Bible is also a tradition. We are not saved by faith alone the Bible says read James 2:24. ☦️

Hopefully you see Protestants as Christians as well.

"liturgy, church architecture, and icons" do not equal salvation. "accretions, changes in doctrine over the ages, icon veneration being idolatry, etc." matter because of being false doctrine.

@@joycegreer9391 Gavin's catholicity argument seems to be saying that Orthodox and Catholic are Christians and can be saved where they are without moving to Protestantism. If that's true, why would I leave the Orthodox Church which has brought me closer to God? If it's about salvation, then you're disagreeing with Gavin.

@@joycegreer9391 Every Christian believes things that are false doctrine. If you ask 10 Christians to define the trinity you will likely get 10 answers considered heresy. Correct doctrine doesn't save a person.

@@ryanshue6308 No, my comment had nothing to do with the possibility of individuals being saved even if they belong to a false church.

Peace be with you. Jesus is coming back, but Protestantism is not the true church but instead Orthodoxy is, it is because the Bible says to keep on to the traditions we(the church) teach 2nd Thessalonians 2:15, and that the gates of hell will not prevail against the church Matthew 16:18-19, therefore Protestantism doesn’t follow tradition and doesn’t follow the Bible either, the Bible is also a tradition. We are not saved by faith alone the Bible says read James 2:24. ☦️

Thank you so much! That means a lot :)

Wow, I also was looking at joining the Eastern Orthodox church... not in my mind that would make me not protestant, but just as an addition to my life.

I was a bit shocked as well especially because of Thomism, but Gavin and Norman Geisler's blog helped me a lot

That’s very unfortunate that Gavin is the main reason you’ve been kept from Christ.

@@MrWesforda friend of mine killed someone. He went to prison and became a Christian. Christ visited him. Does Christ know him?

he is the main reason I remained protestant, not "kept Christ". Even if I had become Orthodox, Christ would have kept me in His fold:)@@MrWesford

I assume you're reading a Bible that has 66 books. The Bible actually has 73 books and has always had 73 books since its very conception in the Council of Rome in 382 AD. It wasn't until the 1500s that Protestants removed 7 books. I mean, 66 is also a number that hints incompleteness (Remember the number of the beast). Anyway, the basic fact is that God founded the Catholic Church and would never let her fall into doctrinal error. (Human error can easily be found because we are all sinners.) But if you don't believe Holy Mother Church is guided by the Holy Spirit, then I guess Luther was right in that the problem is everyone can become their own pope. To quote Luther: "There are as many sects and beliefs as there are heads. This fellow will have nothing to do with baptism; another denies the Sacrament; a third believes that there is another world between this and the Last Day. Some teach that Christ is not God; some say this, some say that." God bless.

The best way to refute Catholics is to read the Vatican I and II canons and see how they contradict the early church.

It does not sound unreasonable.... but read the church fathers and you will find that it is.

Thanks for sharing, glad to be connected!

I love this! So gracious!

Not sure why you would not dive further into to her faith? Why would you listen to Protestant theology if you were not interested in learning it? Your Catholic faith is rich in tradition and is the TRUE teaching magisterium. 😊

I find some of the content here a little misleading. While I appreciate the humility in tone I feel it is used as a mechanism to disarm and spread falsehoods

which of 40,00 denominational perspectives?

This is not a view of protestantism this is just attacking catholics. Hence the name "protest"anism

There is much about which to attack Catholicism

@@m1cha3l0 Nonsense, and it is not attacking to expose error which believers are supposed to do. The only actual protestor was Luther. All the others were reformers, remember The Reformation.

​@@geordiewishart1683 Everyone outside the Catholic Church probably has no idea the Catholic Church built Western civilization and saved it multiple times. She gave us Christian values, created the university system, the public school system, the public hospital system, the first orphanages, the first charities, revolutionized the justice system, was extremely scientific, and so on. The Holy Rosary saved all of Europe during the battle of Lepanto and the Battle of Vienna. The Catholics were outnumbered in both battles and the Muslims were close to marching on Rome. The Holy Rosary also saved Argentina from becoming communistic. The Catholic Church is the one true Church. God bless.

Which Protestant? There's like 200 different sects.

2. Protestantism is more Catholic? No -- "catholic"? WHAAAT? Don't worry, it's just more history! Yes, of course, the Catholic Church would claim to be the scary quotes "One True Church". Because, well, that's the history. It is the Church that Jesus founded after all. In 34ish AD, rather than one of the Protestant churches that was founded in 1517 by some bloke who wasn't Jesus. To be fair, the Orthodox Churches share in this claim, and I'd say their claim is equally valid. To use your tree model, I would argue that the Orthodox Churches and the Catholic Church are "turned apart" from one another, like two parallel branches, with respect to their ancestral and rightful unity. But they are not sundered or cut off from one another because they all continue 98% of the historical tradition. They hand on the same faith that came from the Apostles. Even now, there is far more in common between Orthodoxy and Catholicism than there is, or ever can be, between Orthodoxy and Protestantism. They don't have the Five Solas and the Two Sacraments and the (Protestant version of) the Priesthood of All Believers. No. The Orthodox have the Three Solas, the Seven Sacraments, and the Christian Priesthood. Exactly the same as the Catholics. Did Catholics and Orthodox throw stones at each other? Sure! Whenever there is a separation, there is bound to rise the spectre of tribalism. Whatever. This just means that Catholic and Orthodox people can be stupid and spiteful towards one another. And it's not like the Catholics and Protestants got along any better. They called each other heretics and burned each other at the stake and fought all sorts of religious wars. And even the Protestants smacked each other down. The situation hasn't really gotten any better! Also, it should be noted that "throughout the medieval period" there really were no "non-Catholics". The medieval period is about 476 to 1453 (convenient ends of the Western and Eastern Empire respectively). What non-Catholics were there in 509? 787? 886? 923? 1049? Even in 1054, it's not like people in Russia and people in England suddenly woke up one morning and said "By Jove! The Pope and the Patriarch excommunicated one another!? Well, sod off those lousy Orthodox!" I've heard, and suspect that there is some truth to the claim, that it could very well have been a century or more before ordinary Catholics in the East came to be aware that they were now part of a separate "Orthodox Church". As for the "highest magisterial teachings" of the Catholic Church, here's what the Catechism actually says, far from condemning the Orthodox to damnation: "838 "The Church knows that she is joined in many ways to the baptized who are honored by the name of Christian, but do not profess the Catholic faith in its entirety or have not preserved unity or communion under the successor of Peter." Those "who believe in Christ and have been properly baptized are put in a certain, although imperfect, communion with the Catholic Church." With the Orthodox Churches, this communion is so profound "that it lacks little to attain the fullness that would permit a common celebration of the Lord's Eucharist."" They're not heretics. They aren't damned to hell. Heck, we're not even allowed to prosletyse or evanangelise them! Why? Because they are already part of the Church!

3. Phillip Schaff. Organic Renewal Effort? Progress and movement? Catholic union with the past? "If you're opposed to shrinking the church down to one institution..." Again, history! With all due respect, this is not what Protestantism is. Protestantism ceased to be an "organic effort" in 1517 when Luther founded his own church. Organic renewal is nothing new in the life of the Church. We've been in a constant process of reform, literally since Paul rebuked Peter about eating with gentiles. Reform. This is literally what the Ecumenical Councils are all about! Someone comes up with a novel idea, like say, Arius. His ideas get tossed about, people start to question them, other people follow them. The situation comes to a point where the Church has to step in and actually define a dogma. Okay, no, Arius, you're incorrect: Christ is divine, and you deny this. (JWs, looking at you!) Or take St Catherine of Siena. She went down to Avignon and told the pope to get his butt back to Rome. It took a while, but he eventually did so. Or take St Francis of Assisi. He railed against the corruption of the clergy, and reformed the Church by founding orders whose focus was rightly on the poor and dispossessed. So what's the difference between a Protestant reformer and a Catholic reformer? Principally, it's one of obedience to the Church. Catholic reformers understand that you can't truly reform something from the outside. It's true of individuals --- how many women out there have ever actually succeeded in "changing" a man? Seriously! So it is with the Church. Luther may have begun as a reformer, but historically, we can see that he ended up a rebel. He taught his own theories and his own doctrines, he founded his own church in which to teach those doctrines and he edited the scriptures to fit his theories and doctrines. Historically speaking, Christians shouldn't be interested in "opposing shrinking the church down to one institution". Rather, they should be seeking to reduce the number of institutions. Why is this is? Well, again, history! I honestly have no idea how many Protestant churches there are in 2023, but I do know that in 1502 there were effectively zero. Yes, there have always been revolutionaries and people that sought to destroy the unity of the Church, but at that time, they had not done so. But if we look forward from the beginning, we see Jesus instituting the Church. How many Churches did Jesus found? Four? Twelve? Seven? Eight hundred and forty three? No. He founded one Church. In 34ish AD. Not 1517? No, 34ish. And there would be another completely different church until 1517. (Remember, Orthodoxy is not sundered from the Church.) So since Jesus founded exactly one institution, the Church, and since this one institution a) is historically, theologically, ecclesiologically, dogmatically / doctrinally, united through time with itself and b) is not the product of a different person forming a new institution and sundering it from the original institution, why should this make me want to consider Protestantism? Jesus founded one institution, the Church, and as a Catholic, we regularly pray for the unity of old and continually seek to reduce the number of institutions, ideally back to one!

4. The Seven Examples of Accretions. Here I know we're going to agree on several things Gavin! Corrupt indulgences. We agree on this. There was corruption. It needed to be reformed. It got reformed. Next! Seriously, indulgences and meriting for others (masses for the dead, praying for others, etc) --- these are nothing new in the life of the Church. The Church has the authority to make or allow indulgences (binding and loosing, forgiving and retaining). These concepts began in Old Testament times, as we can see in Maccabees. That was the incident where some dead Jewish soldiers were found possessing some idols. They prayed for the soldiers and sent money to Jerusalem for atoning sacrifices to be made on behalf of the dead men. But as far as the corrupt practices of the 16th century, we are in total agreement. Transubstantiation. Well, that wasn't dogmatic in Luther's day. But again, this is how the Church has worked historically. Remember Arius? Remember how he taught his own doctrines (that Jesus was not divine) and it took an Ecumenical Council to define the dogma that Christ is, in fact, both human and divine? People had already believed that universally, except for the Arians, and so the Church had to use its authority to define and impose this dogma on the faithful. So now Luther comes along teaching consubstantiation (admittedly, this is a very old debate in the Church, going back to the 800s or so!), but in stead of seeking to reform and ultimately submitting in obedience to the Church, he broke away from the Church. In order to bring order from his chaos, the question now had to be settled once and for all. Thanks Martin Luther! Clearly, *something* miraculous is going on upon all the altars of Catholic and Orthodox Churches. Something divine. Something transcendent. There is no magic, no science, no technology that can transform, transmute, or transmogrify ordinary bread and wine into something that appears to the lower senses to be bread and wine, yet is not bread and wine. I'm not a theologian or a mysteriologist. I'm not going to try to explain transubstantiation, because I don't understand it at all. All I know is that this is what the Church teaches, so I go with that. Whatever the underlying mechanism is, Jesus himself instituted the Eucharist, the Church has always gathered in liturgy to celebrate the Eucharist (even St Paul writes about it!), so I go with that too! Papal Infallibility. The old favourite of anti-Catholic bashing. This is probably the single most misunderstood dogma by everyone. Protestants, certainly, but some Catholics too. It's really not that difficult to grasp, I think, if we just look at Pope Francis. He goes to visit some country and there's a bunch of reporters on the plane. They ask him questions, and he answers. He likes to teach (and, he actually has the authority and office of teacher). He talks off the cuff to the reporters. And the next day, in the newpapers, all the headlines are like "POPE FRANCIS SAYS GAY MARRIAGE OKAY!!" or "POPE CHANGES CHURCH TEACHING ON WOMEN IN THE PRIESTHOOD!!" And all the officials in the Vatican are face palming, wondering what he said this time! No, that's not how papal infallibility works. Very simply, it's this: "891 "The Roman Pontiff, head of the college of bishops, enjoys this infallibility in virtue of his office, when, as supreme pastor and teacher of all the faithful - who confirms his brethren in the faith he proclaims by a definitive act a doctrine pertaining to faith or morals. . . . The infallibility promised to the Church is also present in the body of bishops when, together with Peter's successor, they exercise the supreme Magisterium," above all in an Ecumenical Council. When the Church through its supreme Magisterium proposes a doctrine "for belief as being divinely revealed," and as the teaching of Christ, the definitions "must be adhered to with the obedience of faith." This infallibility extends as far as the deposit of divine Revelation itself." The Pope can not infallibly declare the sky to be green or that Jesus has a divine sister. Clearly, this doctrine rests on Jesus's own instruction to Peter and the Apostles. To Peter he gives the special injunction to "feed the sheep" (that is teach) and to carry "the keys of the kingdom" (governing authority, as of a prime minister). He gives him the authority to bind and loose (when a Pope defines a dogma, that's it! It's bound on Earth and also in Heaven.) He gives him the authority to retain or forgive sins. All bishops share in this authority, but Peter is given a unique role among them. Seven Sacraments vs Two. All seven sacraments are referenced in scripture. Some are more prominent, some are less obvious. Generally, I think Protestants have retained Baptism and Matrimony as sacraments, so we don't really need to address those. Suffice to say that Baptism and Matrimony are found throughout the teachings of Jesus. But to take a look at the others: we have Confirmation or Chrismation, which are role modelled by Jesus and the Father once Jesus is baptised. In the East it is common tradition to chrismate a baby or child right along with baptism and Eucharist. In the West we tend to spread them out a bit. Essentially, this is a sacrament of affirmation. We also see it in Acts when Peter and John went to Samaria to "lay hands on" those who had only been baptised and then the received the Holy Spirit. Admittedly not a lot to go on, but that's the way of it! Reconcilliation is already dealt with. Holy Orders. This is a sacrament you can't actively receive --- you have to be called by the Church. We see this when Jesus chooses the Twelve (those who will go on to become the first bishops), and when Peter declares that a new Apostle must be chosen as a successor to Judas. (Interesting that it should be Peter who does this.) Jesus also role models the things a priest does --- he serves the lowest, he teaches the faith, he performs the sacrifice. Anointing of the Sick. Literally in the Book of James: Is one among you sick? Call for a priest of the Church and he will come and pray over you and anoint you with oil in the name of the Lord. And last but not least, the Eucharist itself. Honestly, this should go without saying. The Eucharist is literally the mighty pillar that runs from Old to New Testament and so central to the life of the Church that Jesus teaches on it in almost uncharacteristically explicit terms and role models it for the Church. It's prefigured in the OT with the sacrifice of the son by the father and fulfilled in the New (Isaac and Abraham / Jesus and Yahweh). "Cultic Practices" (veneration of icons, relics, saints, "worship of Mary") Quite simply, there is no doctrine (let alone a dogma) that instructs Catholics to positively venerate any object such as an icon. Christian art is certainly very old, and Christian art generally is a visual representation of scripture. Icons of the nativity of Christ, the crucifixion, etc. or events and people from the early Church. I think it's fair to say that most Christians, even Protestants, to some degree or other "venerate" or hold in respect their Bibles. It's the word of God after all, and you don't just toss it around or abuse it. In a time when there were no Bibles, no Christian scripture to speak of, the faith was handed on orally and visually. And this was the case well into and beyond the 17th century! A lot of Protestants, it seems to me, read far too much into the printed word of God. Catholics are often accused of intentionally trying to keep people from reading the Bible. Sometime you just have to shake your head in amazement and say, well, no one had Bibles really until the 1600s! A Bible took monks a couple years to copy, and they were always adorned to glorify God and thus costly and precious objects. Most people in the world were illiterate until relatively recently, so the teaching of the faith through images was simply how it was done. I'm sure the actual veneration of icons was not done extremely early, but I would hazard the guess that they were being venerated by the late first or second century. Withholding the Eucharist in Both Kinds. This one is simply untrue. Again, history. The practice of withholding the chalice seems to have gained and lost favour several times over the course of early Church history and was still an issue in the 1400s. I've read that the practice was officially promulgated right before the Council of Constance and also that the English were Not Amused by this abuse of tradition. I've read that one of the first acts of Parliament after the death of Henry VIII (the Church in England still being Catholic at this time, although schismatic) was to restore the chalice to the people. It took a little longer for the Church to concur --- Vatican II permits the reception of Eucharist in both kinds. Done. It should be noted that this is simply a restoration to the people of the West the ancient heritage of their forebears. In the early Church the Eucharist was distributed in both kinds. In the East, Catholics have always partaken of the Eucharist in both kinds because of their tradition of intinction.

4 1/2. Ah! Never mind, "Mary Worship" got its own section. (I know you didn't say the words because of irenicism, but I also know there are loads of people out there who are probably pulling their hair because you didn't call a spade a spade! Everyone knows Catholics worship Mary! She's just the Mother Goddess in disguise!) Even worse than papal infallibility. I'm just going to say it. Catholics do not and have never worshipped Mary. But as for her "elaborate role" --- well, yeah! Her role in the life of the Church is complex and the dogmas surrounding her have taken a while to process. But really, there are only four Marian dogmas, and I do concede that these are often perceived by Protestants as stumbling blocks in their journey towards Rome. Fear not! There are ONLY FOUR Marian dogmas! First is the Motherhood of God, Ephesus 431 and explained further at Chalcedon 451. Keep in mind that this definition comes with the dogmatic statement that Christ has two natures, human and divine: "...begotten from the Father before the ages as regards his godhead, and in the last days, the same, because of us and because of our salvation begotten from the Virgin Mary, the Theotokos, as regards his manhood; one and the same Christ, Son, Lord, only-begotten..." Second is the Perpetual Virginity of Mary, Lateran 649. Here, we find this dogma in the context of the even earlier baptismal formulas and even the creed itself where we hold that Christ was begotten of the Father and was conceived by the Holy Spirit, in Mary's womb, where he became Man: "without any detriment to her virginity, which remained inviolate even after his birth". It is in this dogma that the mystery of Eve is resolved: from her (and Adam's) sin, the whole history of redemption began, first with the Old Covenant, symbolised by the Ten Commandments in the Ark of the Covenant; and now fulfilled in the New Covenant, which is Jesus himself, and his mother the Ark of the New Covenant. This also puts paid to the argument that Jesus had "brothers and sisters". Even in scripture, we can see that they're his cousins! Third is the Immaculate Conception, Ineffabilis Deus, 1854. Here we see how our understanding of Mary's role unfolds, but focusing on the dignity and holiness of the Mother of God, "that the most Blessed Virgin Mary, from the first moment of her conception, by a singular grace and privilege from Almighty God and in view of the merits of Jesus Christ, was kept free of every stain of original sin." The fourth is the Glorious Assumption into heaven, Munificentissimus Deus, 1950. "Mary, Immaculate Mother of God ever Virgin, after finishing the course of her life on earth, was taken up in body and soul to heavenly glory." This dogma fails the scriptural basis test. Naturally! We don't know when Mary fell asleep, but it must have been some time after the New Testament books had been written because no mention is made. And in any event, the Church has never held sola scriptura as a doctrine. The dormition and assumption are ancient beliefs, found in the East as well as in the West. It has long been a matter of theological consideration as well. Dare we consider the "Fifth Marian Dogma"? No, not this time!

5. Scriptural authority over Church authority. First, this Protestant dogma is not scriptural in and of itself. Yes, scripture is God breathed, oracles of God and carried along by the Holy Spirit. Yet nowhere did Jesus teach that his Church and his faith would be founded on scripture. What is scriptural is: "Go therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world." No mention of placing scripture above Church authority. As we saw above, the authority Jesus expressly gives is to be found in the teaching office of his ministers. Teaching ministers who had only the Old Testament for scriptures, yet had to teach the faith that completed and fulfilled those scriptures. Also, on Mark 7:8, the context here seems pretty clearly to be the Pharisees sticking to the "letter of the law" rather than the "spirit of the law". "He replied, "Isaiah was right when he prophesied about you hypocrites; as it is written: "`These people honor me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me. They worship me in vain; their teachings are but rules taught by men.' You have let go of the commands of God and are holding on to the traditions of men."" I'm not saying no Catholic ever let go the commands of God in favour of some tradition of men! (Santa Muerte anyone?) I would argue that this particular verse does not support the Protestant theory that scripture should be placed above the Church as an authority. History! We know that, early on (here we're talking 34ish AD to about 50ish) there were no Christian scriptures at all that we would recognise as such. Certainly no Gospels, no Revelation, no Letters. Not that it matters much to the faith, but I think that textual studies have revealed that the synoptics have some commonalities and differences indicative of there being earlier source materials, so there very well could have been some notes and lists and incidents noted down that would later be collected into proper books. But in this first decade, there really was no scripture to speak of. And certainly nothing to rest a whole dogma of scriptural authority on. That said, in short order, by about 95ish yes, we do have a full Bible's worth of scriptures, OT and NT. And some extra books as well (Hermas, Didache, etc). But the historical argument for scriptural supremacy doesn't bear out. It is obvious that the early Church was a scriptural institution in its faith, its teachings and its practices. But it is also very clearly a hierarchical and structured body. There are clear distinctions of roles, such as the clerical roles, and there are clear records that these clerics, in particular the bishops, played the part of the rulers. Not in a bad sense of jumped up potentates, but rather of regulators of the teaching, monitors (a bishop is literally an overseer), and those who pronounce what is orthodox and what is heterodox. It is these same bishops who periodically met to determine matters of doctrine and dogma. These matters early on were the matter of the Trinity, the divinity of Christ, the humanity of Christ, the content of the canon of scripture. Ultimately, history teaches us that if we submit to the Church's authority, we can be assured of orthodox faith being transmitted, orthodox practice being done (even if we have wait 500 years for it!); but if we reject the authority of the Church as constituted by Christ, we enter the realm of chaos. If the claim is made that "scripture is the highest authority", my question then is, well, who decides what scripture means? And if you tell me the Bible is the paramount authority and say that this verse means something; and another guy holds up his own Bible as the paramount authority and says that the same verse means something else; and a third guy holds his Bible up as paramount authority and says that both the first guys are totally wrong and will lead you to hell; and then a fourth guy gets up ... Well, you see the point I hope! History bears out that without a real authority, there is no authority. Who actually holds you "accountable to the apostolic deposit" when you can't even agree on what the apostolic deposit even is? When all of your churches are kind of equal and everyone kind of does their own thing and interprets scripture in their own way, how does that even make sense? It doesn't make sense to me at all. Catholics know that if they hold an opinion contrary to Church teaching (sadly it is true that a number of Catholics are unsure about the Real Presence of Jesus in the Eucharist for example) they don't have the authority to say "the Church teaches that Christ isn't really present in the Eucharist, simply because I don't believe it".

if you recently found christianity also look for other denominations opinions

Keep looking, this video doesn’t talk about the Unity in Faith or in Doctrine, which does not exist in protestantism, which goes against the principle of Catholicity and having the entirety of Truth.

If protesantism was true......there would not be so many denominations to choose from all believing different things.

Thank you! :) It was a blast to work on.

Agreed.