Right?! If all Christians would just really trust in Jesus and what He says, and what He wills, it would be so simple... and we'd all remain as one, like He prayed for.

@@tessa7413 I am sure Webster agrees.

So true.... It's sad 😢

For Kepa's Sake

Lololol

😂😂

Lol

I want to see Joseph Ratzinger dressed in his finest Hitler Youth regalia give the Sceptor of Rome over The Ark of The Covenant to Peter Turkson, dressed in his finest cultural Ghanaian garments, Gloria Olivae: man to man, and how a the miracle of Fatima's "Jesus Christ" can save a former Nazi Hitler Youth bowing to his Coronated Black man from the foundation of the earth, in the name of The Father, The Son, and The Holy Spirit: the Spirit of Peace. 🕊 The Ark of This Testament: The Witnesses of Revelation 11, ARE Francisco, Jacinta, and Lucia. Exodus 25:21-22 (KJV) And thou shalt put the mercy seat above upon the ark; and in the ark thou shalt put the testimony that I shall give thee. And there I will meet with thee, and I will commune with thee from above the mercy seat, from between the two cherubims which are upon the ark of the testimony, of all things which I will give thee in commandment unto the children of Israel. This is not a request. 👽💨🔥

Along with him, add Curtis Mitch, Scott Hahn, John Bergsma, etc. All from St. Paul Center.

Easy to understand too!

I love your profile picture

@@lonelyberg1316 thank you so much! The marvel comic book character nightcrawler was a German priest. He was my favorite!

@@monicabermea7652 he speaks eloquently yet simply, I agree. He’s smooth

He's following in the traditional catholic school of Dr Hahn, from whom I took several classes. God bless them both.

amen, hallelujah!,, IN JESUS MIGHTY NAME!,,, amen🙏❤️🙏

He does have something! 🙂 If you go to Brantpitre.com you'll find all his publications. He has a presentation titled Jesus and the Jewish Roots of the Papacy. It's just a couple of bucks and it's AMAZING!!

His Jewish root on the Eucharist changed my perception forever. Simply life changing. One of the greatest scholars on this earth by far

I am a convert to Roman Catholicism, but not due to this video. I converted about a year ago…✝️🙏

@@tony1685 Lol, in your modern, wrong-headed and deceptive way?

@@paulmiller3469 Dont waste your time with this guy he is only comments on catholic channels to get attention

@@tony1685 Your deceptive tendencies are clear. How long did you say you were a Catholic?

@@tony1685 By the way, are you full-on SDA this week, or SDA-like but not really a member because of their support of abortion?

@@tony1685 If you were ever Catholic (as you know, I highly doubt you were), in what year at which parish were you confirmed?

Ashkenazi or Sephardi?

​@@user-uy5lc1zb8g If I know my history properly, the Ashkenazi Hebrews were almost all either killed or assimilated. I think it is something like 98% of the Hebrews who are now living descend from the Sephardi Hebrews, and only about 2% are Ashkenazi.

One more Calvinist in the books...my way there is a famous Evangelical-Calvinist seminary that is the making the fatal error of teaching Aquinas, and are losing half their students!!!

Glenn Lanham Welcome home brothers!

@@RGTomoenage11 yeah

Try John Bergsma.

Stephen Ray also has a wonderful book on the papacy. Dr. Pitre's and Mr. Ray's books are my two go to references on this subject from a biblical theological perspective.

It's funny that apostle Peter didn't tell apostle Paul to not talk to the pope that way when Paul rebuked Peter for teaching error when dealing with jews and gentiles. I thought popes are infallible? Not according to Peter or Paul. Peter realized he was wrong, Paul knew he did correct error. And never forget, ALL APOSTLES had the same binding and loosening power, so stop saying Peter only because it is Easily refutable. Stop lying to yourself. Catholics cherry pick the Bible while ignoring other clear passages that rebuke catholics narrow minded claims.

@@Kurt2222 Go back and reread St. Paul's account of this matter. Notice that St. Paul uses the VERY NAME Jesus Christ gave to St. Peter (Cephas) to denote the respect to the Petrine office. Infallibility does not mean impeccability, sir. Infallibility means the Pope cannot teach error with regards to doctrine; it doesn't mean he is incapable of personally acting in a way that contradicts the teaching - in other words it doesn't mean he cannot personally sin. I can proclaim that 2+2=4 (I am teaching correct doctrine), and then go and MISADD the two numbers in a mathematical problem. My mistaken adding doesn't negate the principle, sir. It was to St. Peter that the divine revelation was given (cf. Acts 10) that non-Jewish Gentiles would be admitted into the Church (which up to that time was primarily ethnically and religiously Jewish: all of the Apostles were Hebrews, and all of the first disciples were Hebrews). So Peter goes around convincing the other Church leadership Gentiles received the Holy Spirit as the Jewish converts had and they should be admitted into the Church (cf. Acts 11 & Acts 15). AND YET, at a particular time and place where St. Paul was present, Peter refused to eat with Gentiles in the presence of other Hebrew Christians and St. Paul called him out for his BEHAVIOR contradicting his teaching. It doesn't negate the teaching he was given at Acts 10 in a vision from God. It means he himself had acted contrary to the CORRECT TEACHING he had received and taught. He had sinned against his own teaching. It makes him a sinner, not a mistaken teacher.

@@QuisutDeusmpc deal with it Peter wasn't catholic. He never taught catholic doctrine, not a word of it. No other Bible writers lend any support of any body other than God and Christ ever forgiving sins. People teach by example, Bible proves this repeatedly, you just are not willing to accept it. not a word of men forgiving men, man made doctrine dude.

@@Kurt2222 Deal with what? Your mistaken interpretation? St. Peter is a Catholic. Do you even know where the English word "catholic" comes from? It comes from two 'koine Greek' words which are actually found in the NT: 'kata holos': 'kata' means 'according to', and 'holos' or 'holon' means 'the whole'. 'Catholic / 'kata holos' means 'according to the whole'. It comes from Ephesians 4 where St. Paul says Jesus Christ "breaks down the dividing wall" which separates Jew from Gentile. Meaning Christ's Church is to be "according to the WHOLE" of the human race, not merely a part (whether it be Jewish, or Gentile). Therefore the 'ekklesia' / Church is to be "according to the whole" of mankind, or universal. So, YES, St. Peter is a Catholic. At Matthew 16: 18-19 and John 21: 15-19, Jesus Christ establishes him as His hand chosen prime minister with universal jurisdiction (or deputized authority) over the entirety of the Church. You deny the truth and seek to replace it with your private interpretation. The Catholic Church has one pope: Protestantism has as many popes as it has Protestants. The very thing you deny to the Pope, you each individually arrogate to yourselves.

@@QuisutDeusmpc Peter never forgave or retained Simon's sin nor did Peter teach anyone to forgive sins like catholics teach. That teaching came long after. Irenaeus and Polycarp didn't write about it. Ignatius and Clement of Rome didn't even write about it either. That came long after Christianity began. Praying to Mary came hundreds of years later. The first pope was in the 7th century. Infallibility of pope is not even 400 years old, come on man, study history and look at the cold hard fact, catholicism is made up as time goes on. Its NOT from the apostles. True Christianity came from the apostles tradition. Catholicism came from Satan influencing men to ignore God's way and make their own way. No way for you to get past this fact.

Amen

St John Bosco Guide, Teacher and Model for Priests: kzfaq.info/get/bejne/h96ejNdqtpm9pH0.html

I agree, it's the best video on apologetics for the papacy *aimed at catholics*, I would not share this with a protestant.

yah, so true,,, amen to that❤️

Every Christian, Catholic and Protestant should watch this. It would clear up much misunderstanding....❤️✝️

Yes we need the right tools to defend our church with so much nonsense which is going on .

That is SO true!

me too I often got so dismayed that I can't even defend my faith to people who are bullying about my Catholic faith and I badly needed like Dr. Pitre's mind blowing explanations!,,, PRAISED GOD ALMIGHTY FATHER IN HEAVEN,, for giving Dr. Pitre to be our spiritual guide to love more, understand more my Catholic faith!,, IN JESUS MIGHTY NAME! AMEN 🙏❤️🙏

❤

amen, amen, amen, hallelujah,, IN JESUS MIGHTY NAME! AMEN 🙏❤️🙏

🤣🤣🤣

❤❤❤

@@tony1685 oh Tony, u N ur sda beliefs again trolling on a Catholic channel. Did ur church exist in Jesus time? I think not. not in less than 200yrs of your church existence. Hasn't ur False prophet egw already been exposed. Shame on you and her. Come back to the one True, Holy Apostolic Catholic Church.

Dr Pitre is awesome!! Loved this! You’re also referring to John 20:22! This verse pertains to sins 😊

@@tony1685 second off, your first off is completely wrong. Now, stop being deceptive, like you know I know you are.

@@tony1685 'prove it...' As I've said before, the great exclamation of atheists and demons. Your deceptive tendencies are obvious.

@@tony1685 Hey Tony some more hard facts for you: Answer these first for your false religion. Still running from my challenge too: www.bible.ca/7-sabbath-questions.htm facebook.com/Seventh-day-Adventism-SDA-Exposed-409314105814892/

@@tony1685 Why be Catholic with Tim kzfaq.info/get/bejne/e72CZcmft92WdaM.html 1st and 2 century Church History kzfaq.info/get/bejne/qNhka5p_s9PKoYU.html

So beautifully said

Lol! They probably didn't even watch it.

@@saraj4452 They why they never learn what we really believe

tony Where does this clear logic train that Dr. Pitre has laid out quite plainly fail Tony? I’d be interested in knowing how someone could deny this based on Scripture when it is Scripture which makes it clear.

tony Yes, it does. And, more importantly, there is the proof of the early church fathers and 2000 years of Church history that disputes you. Sorry Tony. Ellen White just didn’t have the answers.

@@RumorHazi History is not a point Even error can exist within the church for millennia when the the Bible isn't allowed to be read by congregants as the so called catholic church did for so long. Long enough for them to learn how to read in meanings to this passage.

God be with you on your journey. Bless you.

Originally Greek, but was then translated into Latin. In this case (I think Dr. Pitre was quoting Against Heresies) the work that survived in totality is the Latin translation, though I think that means we still have parts of the original Greek text.

HE TORE HIS GARMENT

Christianity is divided because many clerics and laity have rejected the primacy of the Petrine authority. It was the Bishop of Rome who ratified the decisions of the ecumenical councils in the First Millenium. His final word was accepted by the orthodox bishops and preserved Christian doctrines in the wake of heresies. The councils at Ephesus and Chalcedon are historical proofs.

Yes

@@po18guy The info is much appreciated. Merry Christmas!

They succeeded each other after the previous had died, there weren’t 12 successors all at the same time

@@sethgarries3219 oh hahaha. Sorry, I misunderstood that. Thank you!

Proud that you’re learning about Catholicism my friend!! Jesus is Lord, keep up the research!😊 Dr. Pitre is great, love his insight and gift!

Actually, none of the original Twelve became a successor. Linus and Clement were second and third popes. Both are named in the New Testament, and clearly identified as individuals other than and presumably younger than the Twelve (so not a multiple name/nickname kind of thing). One must go to the Church fathers to clearly see that Linus and Clement became successor bishops of Rome, though. As far as I know, there is little information available on how a successor was chosen - my guess is a smaller version of what happens today; a gathering of recognized bishops who hold an election. While there may not be any record of such an election, there also is no record of any controversy over the elevation of Linus and Clement to the office.

There wasn't multiple successors at the same time, it was a single successor and it never stopped at the 12th successor - the stewardship office of Peter continues until Christ returns. It has NEVER been broken and all the successors are documented. Pope Francis is the 265th successor of Saint Peter. In Dr Pitre's clip, Saint Irenaeus was writing in the time of the 12th successor to Peter, that's why he only refers to the "12th after Peter". The first successor to Peter was Linus, he was ordained by Saint Paul in Rome, Linus is mentioned in the New Testament. After Linus passed away, he was succeeded by Anacletus. Anacletus was succeeded by Clement who was ordained by Peter as a young man. Clement is mentioned in the New Testament. Clement was succeeded by Evarisus and so on to Francis. If you see the clip below👇🏾 it shows you ALL the Successors of Saint Peter up till today with Pope Francis. kzfaq.info/get/bejne/aZZlgrKCrMmWqY0.html

Jesus gave the title "sons of Thunder" to John and James before he gave the name "Peter" to Simon, so maybe they thought that they were superior in some way. It should be noted that probably none of the Apostles was a rabbi, so even though Jesus used technical language deeply tied with not just the Bible but to rabbinical jargon too (bind and loose), it's unlikely that fishermen would have catched the full meaning. Jesus' sayings can be hard, even for the young Apostles.

It started in Rome when believers called Peter "pepe" meaning (affectionately) "father" in Latin.

newslink bridge I think a bit of both. There is definitely a power that is granted here when Jesus gives this authority to Peter. I personally have always equated Chapter 20 of the Gospel of John when speaking of the ability of a priest to hear confessions. “Whoever’s sins you forgive are forgiven. Whoever’s sins you retain are retained.”

Both. As the Jewish Encyclopedia said "The power of binding and loosing was always claimed by the Pharisees. Under Queen Alexandra, the Pharisees, says Josephus ("B J." i, 5, § 2), "became the administrators of all public affairs so as to be empowered to banish and readmit whom they pleased, as well as to loose and to bind." This does not mean that, as the learned men, they merely decided what, according to the Law, was forbidden or allowed, but that they possessed and exercised the power of tying or untying a thing by the spell of their divine authority, just as they could, by the power vested in them, pronounce and revoke an anathema upon a person." ... "In this sense Jesus, when appointing his disciples to be his successors, used the familiar formula (Matt. xvi. 19, xviii. 18). By these words he virtually invested them with the same authority as that which he found belonging to the scribes and Pharisees"... The encyclopedia goes on to say " In the same sense, in the second epistle of Clement to James II. ("Clementine Homilies," Introduction), Peter is represented as having appointed Clement as his successor, saying: "I communicate to him the power of binding and loosing so that, with respect to everything which he shall ordain in the earth, it shall be decreed in the heavens; for he shall bind what ought to be bound and loose what ought to be loosed as knowing the rule of the church." Quite different from this Judaic and ancient view of the apostolic power of binding and loosing is the one expressed in John xx. 23, where Jesus is represented as having said to his disciples after they had received the Holy Spirit: "Whosesoever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them; and whosesoever sins ye retain, they are retained."

@@lonelyberg1808 Excellent. See also how in Revelation, the 4 angels holding back the winds, are BOUND at the Euphrates. This authority given to Peter binds heaven and earth.

Can't hurt to make another video.

Well, as a newer Catholic, I definitely appreciate it. ❤️

It's the Gospel reading for this coming Sunday. That's the point of these videos; to give Catholics the context for the readings we will hear in Mass on Sunday.

@@paulmiller3469 oh. Well, I'll watch it again, my forgetful brain will need it.

It was today’s reading at Mass...

catholicproductions.com/blogs/blog/sunday-sabbath Dr Pitre has discussed this in other posts

@@soniak2865 Thank you Sonia thank you thank you 🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏

@@tony1685 We have already established strong indication you don't really care all that much about the seventh day stuff. It's most likely just your one-trick-pony-tony move for abusing Catholics. Well, two-trick-pony-tony, but you have to be pushed pretty hard to get into that other one, lol. No problem, as you know, I'm willing to push back against those who may be a bit on the demonic side.

@@tony1685 Occam's razor; the simpler explanation is probably right. What sounds simpler? That apostles faithfully passed down the Deposit of Faith as revealed by Jesus, or they didn't and the 'truth' (as in correct interpretation of Sacred Scripture) was only discovered more than 1800 years later in rural New England by a group with propensity for picking wrong dates for the Second Coming? Hmmm, that's a tough one, lol.

@@tony1685 A small group of New Englanders, by the way, who were 'defellowed' (or what the authentic Church established by Jesus might call 'excommunicated') by local Methodists for being too radical.

We can call Peter Cephas just as we can call Yeshua Jesus, it's just transliteration, nothing to get hung up on. They are the same person regardless of either name. The Church doesn't force people to call them a certain name although we usually use the title "Christ" (greek for Messiah/annointed One) when we refer to Yeshua. I have noticed a lot of Catholics now refer to Jesus with His original name Yeshua, I like that trend.

If you speak Aramaic, yes.

@@SaintCharbelMiracleworker True about transliteration, but one exception I've noticed is many folks seem put off when hearing St. Therese of Lisieux's name in anything other than the French pronunciation.

@@paulmiller3469 The French... lol French fries French toast French kisses Not much else I'm a fan of coming out of that place.

@@paulmiller3469 ? Here is France we say sainte Thérèse de Lisieux

You make an interesting point regarding the phrases in the Gospels "...son of God..." and "...son of Man...". I don't remember where I first heard this, but I once heard either a priest or a theologian teach that modern day Catholics and Christians tend to misread these two phrases thinking "son of God" refers to Jesus's divinity, and "son of Man" refers to His humanity. In reality, we have it exactly backwards. You can go back through the OT scriptures and find the phrase "son of God" referring to those people who held one of the three messianic offices in the People of God of ancient Israel, most often referring to the Davidic king (cf. e. g. II Samuel 7: 8-16, particularly vs. 14). It isn't only we modern day Catholics/Christians who tend to get this wrong though. The few times Jesus does refer to Himself as the "son of God", the Sanhedrin accuse Him of engaging in blasphemy, and equating Himself on the same level as God (cf. John 5: 17, 18 & John 19: 5-7). Dr. Pitre rightly points out that Jesus preferred to refer to Himself with the title "son of Man", and, in reality, it is this title which more directly refers to His claims to divinity, even though it seems counter-intuitive to us. Why did Jesus use this title, and why does it more directly allude to His divinity? Because of a passage from the Book of the Prophet Daniel - Daniel 7: 1-14, particularly vs. 14, which states "one like a son of man" approaches the "Ancient of Days" who sits on His throne in heaven, and from whom the "son of man" receives "dominion, splendor, and kingship". When Jesus quotes this passage to the High Priest during His trial, the high priest becomes enraged, states Jesus has committed the sin of blasphemy (equating Himself with God), and states there is no further need to receive witness testimony from anyone else against Him, because Jesus identified Himself as the "one like a son of man" in the Dan. 7:14 passage, and which is enough to convict Him of blasphemy, which carried with it the death penalty (cf. Matt 26: 63-66; Mk 14: 61-64; Lk 22: 66-71).

Dr Pitre rarely responds to his clips. Jesus gives the radical difference in His explanation: “For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, [Simon] but my Father in heaven.”. In Matthew 14, the Apostles came to a rational conclusion from what they saw: a miracle, Jesus walking on water but also Peter walked on water too for a short time.. The difference is between a rational conclusion, a work of “flesh and blood”, a work possible in the natural gifts of God to men, and on the other hand, a supernatural work of God acting directly in the human soul of Simon - an understanding given immediately in the light of God Himself. This crucial distinction is stressed in John’s Gospel: John 1:12 But to all who received him, who believed in his name, he gave power to become children of God; John 1:13 who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God. and again, to Nicodemus - who could see (at the time) only with his eyes of flesh: John 3:5 Jesus answered, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God. John 3:6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. This experience did not mean (obviously) that Simon would remain in this supernatural light! We see almost immediately after “hearing” this from God in his soul, “Peter” reverted to his old self: Matt 16:21 - 23

The important thing about this is the distinction between natural virtues (faith, hope and love) and infused, supernatural virtues (supernatural faith and hope, and holy divine charity). One can have natural faith from logical conclusions, from observing things in nature, from a powerful charismatic speaker - all human, natural responses from which one can draw out conclusions about God. Such can be called faith, but it is a belief about God or Jesus. The faith that is required to enter the Kingdom, is not a conclusion about, it is a gift from, which calls forth faith in, God and/or Jesus Christ. Thus St. Paul writes, “By grace are you saved, through faith, not because of works, lest any man should boast.” Drawing reasonable conclusions from observations and concluding some understandings about God, or Jesus, is a human work. It can be toward what is better - true, saving faith - but it is not there. The grace to believe is a gift from God. We cannot “do” a gift, we can only receive, and respond with the obedience of faith.

@@SaintCharbelMiracleworker I believe you may be the same person who provided the same answer to me in another forum. Your explanation still hasn't clarified the point I'm getting at. If St. Peter had, through rational conclusion, come to know that the Lord is the Son of God, then how could the supernatural work of God "reveal" to St. Peter that which he already knew? Wouldn't the supernatural revelation be a sort of redundancy? Excuse the slightly irreverent example, but this may help get my point across. If God were to reveal to me that 2+2=4, it would seem redundant since I had already come to that conclusion using the rational mind He had given me in the first place. In light of this seeming redundancy, then, I find it odd that the Lord would praise St. Peter's insight and bestow upon him the Keys. Hence, why I know I must be missing something (perhaps in the way the whole thing transpired in the Aramaic or in the Greek that doesn't translate well into English... or some other reason I can't possibly imagine). I'm just really really torn right now and I'm trusting God that He knew what He was doing; but I being myself, I will continue to bombard Him with questions until the matter is settled.

​@@daenithriuszanathos9306 From a Catholic standpoint the matter is settled theologically. If you can't understand it I would recommend talking/corresponding via email with Catholic theologians or Dr Pitre or even the local priest/bishop. If you aren't Catholic then I'll pray for you to come to some understanding in your own way. You sound frustrated by this, please know that sometimes it's okay not to know/understand everything about the faith otherwise we risk falling into scrupulosity.

@@SaintCharbelMiracleworker Yes, and it's this theological settlement that I'd like to read. Directly from the Church Fathers, if possible. Yes, I am Catholic and being okay with not knowing/understanding everything doesn't mean I have to stop seeking the Truth. So while I won't let this seeming discrepancy rock my faith, I'm not going to sit idly and chuck it to "mystery" when I know people are fully capable of giving an answer. Yes, I've tried corresponding with priests and the only one who replied didn't give me a satisfactory answer (in fact, I didn't feel he answered the question at all). Hence, in my desperation, I'm seeking Dr. Pitre's help on his random video. If he sees it, great. If not, no big whoop. I trust that God will help me understand this if He wills it.

a pope can say lots of things, but he is not speaking infallibly so it is not binding on Catholics. No pope is or was perfect, many were far from it. Holy Spirit prevents false dogmas.

You can count on one hand how many times a pope claimed infallibility. Some of them were bad people, but not one pope has taught heresy in a binding way for the faithful.

The holy spirit takes care of it. As Christ said, he is praying for peter

No worries, God will take care of it. Jesus said, My sheep hear My voice; they will not follow a stranger. God allows confusion to draw His sheep closer to Him, then punishes the evil doers. Remember the earthquake that split the curtain at Jesus death, and the destruction of the temple and those that clung to it instead of Him.