So glad you are numbered among the original Christians now.

You don't think they tried that first? The Catholic Chrich was literally murdering anyone who had objections to the rife corruption and abuses going on.

Prayer, fasting and truth can purify the church.

@@Spiritof76Catholic ,...Anyone and everyone snared into the Godless abomination of catholicism has nothing whatsoever to do with the Christianity of the Bible. Repent!

@@LiliGoof-gh4ch ,...You (catholics) could not possibly be more blind, lost, and deceived. Catholics like the mormons are the accursed of God. You are all headed straight to the lake of fire. Repent!

Rome would have to abandon their false papacy claim for that to happen, as it was during the first centuries of Christianity. The papacy claim was one the main causes of the great schism and schism with the Lutheran reformers.

You are totally deceived. The cult of catholicsm is a Godless manmade abomination. It is the cult of the accursed of God. Repent!

@@Solideogloria00 ,...Catholicism is the cult of the Biblically illiterate, and the willingly ignorant. A manmade cult of the accursed of God.

Thank you sure!

@@Solideogloria00 “As it was during the first centuries of Christianity” St Irenaeus (circ. 180): “Since, however, it would be very tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon up the successions of all the Churches, we do put to confusion all those who, in whatever manner, whether by an evil self-pleasing, by vainglory, or by blindness and perverse opinion, assemble in unauthorized meetings; [we do this, I say,] by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its pre-eminent authority, that is, the faithful everywhere, inasmuch as the apostolical tradition has been preserved continuously by those [faithful men] who exist everywhere.” (Against Heresies 3.3.2)

The manmade godless abomination of catholicism has nothing whatsoever to do with Jesus, nor the Bibles Christianity. Repent!

You’re too kind! Thanks for watching!

How do you receive eternal life?

Thanks for watching!

The Protestant Reformation was necessary to get to the Restoration of the true Church which was kickoff by Columbus being led to Americas, followed by God kicking Britain out of the continent because America is the Lord’s base of operations. The true Church was restored in 1830 and continues today. When the original apostles were killed, the Church was taken off the earth.

How do you receive eternal life?

@@_ready__ God grants us eternal life.

@@caseycardenas1668 how do you receive it?

@@_ready__ God gives it to you

@@caseycardenas1668 so you just lay around and wait for it? Don’t have to do anything?

😂😂😂 Love it. Makes me look hip and cool 😎

Protestant here, just wanted to offer my perspective. I recently watched a Lutheran service online for reformation day (not Lutheran myself, just wanted to see what they had to say). You might be comforted to know that the pastor said they do not celebrate on reformation day - they are just as saddened by the divisions in the church as you are. Rather, reformation day, he said, is a day to remember that we need to constantly be asking the Spirit to renew our faith and bring us back to the basics - salvation through our Lord Jesus. We all get off track from time to time, and we need to be examining ourselves, repenting of sin, and receiving Christ’s gift of forgiveness often - both individually and corporately. I think any Protestant who is celebrating on this day does not understand the biblical teachings on unity in Christ’s body, and how we ALL (Catholics and Protestants alike) need to repent for our part in denominationalism’s cause and perpetuation.

@@Ellie-wf9sq repenting of sin is not part of the gospel of our salvation. What do you mean when you say repent of sin and how is that a part of our salvation?

The first thesis is "When our Lord and Master Jesus Christ said, ``Repent'' (Mt 4:17), he willed the entire life of believers to be one of repentance." And the 94th "Christians should be exhorted to be diligent in following Christ, their Head, through penalties, death and hell." I'm not sure you double checked that all the theses were refuted.

Thank you! I saw that right after I posted 😂😂 I wish I could edit it

@@Ellie-wf9sqI’m happy they didn’t celebrate it. I know in my tradition, we did - as well as Peyton (a Lutheran friend I’ve had on the channel). I’ll have to watch their church service to see what they said, but it seemed celebratory.

Thanks for watching!

You know divorces ends marriages permanently, not fix it, right?

@@jacobalexander4167 that’s exactly my point..

@@thejerichoconnection3473 so, going against Jesus command was necessary in your opinion?

@@jacobalexander4167 next time I’ll put a “sarcastic comment” disclaimer

@@thejerichoconnection3473 I'm sorry, I had a terrible sense of humour for that one and I was only focused on engaging you as to why you thought so. My bad

Glad it was helpful!

How do you receive eternal life Mr Church goer?

How do you receive eternal life?

@@EPH-re2xj Read your bible. Jesus already answered that question.

@@EPH-re2xj We are justified by faith that works, just as St. James and St. Paul, whom you Protestants consider the champion of faith, testify.

@@agm8554 faith and works?

@@EPH-re2xj No. Faith that works. Our faith must be evidenced by good works to be a true faith, or else it is a dead faith that is useless and not efficacious for salvation from damnation at the hour of death.

How do you get to heaven as a catholic indulgence believer?

Much appreciated!

That's not quite correct. Arianism was insanely popular when it came about. Same for iconoclasm, the proto-protestant groups, and more. Heretics and schismatics often become world shaping. If we lived in those times we might see them as similar to the popularity of protestants. Something further to consider is the majority of protestantism is unrecognizable from what the reformers created. The reformers did not imagine it possible their separate groups could unite, especially while still retaining their unique traditions. Calvin only thought calvinism was true. Luther thought Lutheranism was only true. All the largest protestant organizations are mixtures of these groups. Also, many are groups the reformers would've just condemned. As a former Baptist I remember once reading about my particular Church in Texas's history. The founders condemned instruments in worship. I could not imagine what they would say if they saw the hillsong style worship they do today.

Sola scripture wasn’t a novel idea . Study history again .

@@somemedic8482 what source of history are you claiming supports Sola scriptura, your response is vague.

@@somemedic8482 still waiting for you historical information so that I can share it with my Catholic friends.

@@patrickdillon9188 St Athanasius says Scripture is sufficient above all things

@@tomtemple69 yes, he may have said that, you are saying that he speaks for the Church?, rather weak sauce.

Agreed!

Unless it’s false ,,,, then it don’t matter!

How do you receive eternal life?

Really? And why do you think that?

Thank you!

Thanks!

But atleast they should not call reformation. Maybe deformation.

Let’s see if you understand what you are talking about How do you receive eternal life?

Thank you sir!

Romans 10:9-10

"The reformatory movement of the sixteenth century found the ground well prepared for its reception. The cry for a thorough reformation of the Church in head and members had been ringing through Europe for a full century; it was justified by the worldly lives of many of the clergy, high and low, by abuses in church administration, by money extortions, by the neglect of religious duties reaching far and wide through the body of the faithful. Had Protestantism offered a reform in the sense of amendment, *probably all the corrupt elements in the Church would have turned against it, as Jews and pagans turned against Christ and the Apostles."* (Catholic Encyclopedia, article Protestantism)

Much appreciated!

Context says Jesus was referring to teachers of the Mosaic law.

@@ninjason57 Correct - those in Moses Seat - His very words - that's who Our Lord had in place at that very moment, **until** Matthew 16:18 and the NEW covenant !!!

@@garyr.8116 Not trying to be contrarian here, just curious, but what if your bishop is Nestorius and he demands you to perform his liturgy?

@@littlefishbigmountain- I would appeal to the Pope! :)

@@garyr.8116 Fair enough, that makes sense. Today that would be super easy too, but if your message has to be carried across the empire by foot, horse, and boat, do you perform his liturgy in the meantime out of obedience to your bishop, or do you abstain until you hear back from the See?

Glad you enjoyed it!

Luther didn't reject the precense of Christ in the sacrament though. Zwingli and Calvin did.

@@mathiaswold2901 understood

Thr church was broken and the church acknowledged its shortcomings and failings and reformed. The mistake with the protestant reformation was it sought to do this from outside of the church instead of within.

That was one of the videos I had seen before recording this one actually! I greatly appreciate Dr. Ortlund’s kind and pastoral approach to issues like this. In this video, I agree with him that reformation was necessary. However, I disagree that the Protestant movement was where reformation occurred. Nonetheless, I appreciate his input. Thanks for the comment.

@@CatholicDefender-bp7my who’s clinging to whom?

You also like to keep Jesus on the cross? How do you receive eternal life?

@@_ready__ Yes, of course - "we proclaim Christ crucified, a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles"

@@chrisflanigan7908 how do you receive eternal life?

@@_ready__ Nothing need be done to receive eternal life, however receiving eternal life with the most Holy Trinity would require the Catholic Church for salvation.

Thank you very much! It was actually a gift from a friend a while back, but I’ll have to see if he remembers!

'The Chosen' wouldn't have pulled it off without a Catholic Jesus - Jonathan R. ... :)

If you get baptized on your deathbed, you don’t need any indulgences, according to Catholic teaching. Baptism is like getting a plenary indulgence. The Catholic Church got it all wrong, instead of baptizing infants, instead baptize someone near death. No purgatory, straight to heaven

@@Wgaither1 the faithful can use them for themselves or others. Ya Money and ya choice! What a deal. Rich man got it made!

THE CHURCH IS THE MINISTER OF REDEMPTION! NICE ….

Wow what a bombshell, notice how all the Catholics are silent, I wonder why that is...

How do you receive eternal life?

Through Jesus Christ. How do you though Luther, Zwingli or Calvin????

@@Spiritof76Catholic how -

@@EPH-re2xj Answer my first post.

@@EPH-re2xjaccept Jesus christ as lord and savior, and when you do, you will recieve the holy spirit which will dwell in you during the process of sanctification. When you recieve the apirit you are saved and now becomo the body of christ on earth which is the true church( a body of holy spirit filled believers), ane not religious or political systems.

What’d you think of the video?

@@thecatechumen It was ... wrong mostly; then again Rome is wrong about much and you are adhering to those errors. Perfectly fine so far as it goes ;). Responses to your arguments: Reform was attempted within the Church, but the corruption of the papacy and the Curia in tandem with the German bishoprics decided that money flowing from Germany was more important than reform when that reform threatened the cash flow. Thus, Rome was not interested in reform and booted the Reformers out. It was this intransigence on the part of the papacy that split the Church, not the Reformers. Further, only some of the issues were addressed in the Counter-Reformation, Trent affirmed the unbiblical (and unsupported by Church history) doctrines of indulgences and the penitential system that grew up in Rome in the late medieval period and resulted in large monetary flows into Rome and the bishoprics. Rome has moderated some over the last two centuries, but has not repudiated the errors it established at Trent with respect to the errors surrounding absolution and penance. The abuses were the result of Roman innovation (the penitential system including the saying of masses for the dead, etc), and the Reformers (at least the Lutheran Reformers) were attempting to restore the Church to doctrines that were in place previously that Rome had decided to deviate from. Rome innovated and introduced error. The Reformers attempted to a) maintain unity, b) eliminate introduced errors from Rome that obscured the person and work of Christ. Most of the criticisms against Rome still stand and are still being correctly pointed out in Rome's current doctrinal stances. In short, your arguments was occasionally historically accurate, but also repeated various historical errors regarding the stances of the Reformers. So, no, I was not convinced by your arguments and remain convinced that the Evangelical Catholic Church has the correct doctrine that is most consonant with the Apostles and the early Church Fathers.

Thanks for the comment! A few notes: Firstly, the Church excommunicated Luther (and other Protestant revolutionaries) because they taught heresy - not because they protested corruption (as I admitted in the video. Secondly, the Church WAS interested in reform. In fact, again as mentioned in the video, the abuses which were occurring in this time period were reformed by Trent. The Church has always been granting remission of some or all of the temporal consequences due to sin (penance) - which is what an indulgence is. The term “indulgence” is a word that comes later on to describe the already existing reality. Thirdly, following the ecumenical council of Trent, indulgences could no longer be obtained through a monetary donation in light of the recent scandals. Fourthly, for being so against late accretions, it’s a wonder you ever became Protestant. What are your thoughts on the ones I brought up in the video? :) Fifthly: As prayers have always been offered on behalf of the dead, so too the liturgical prayer of the church involving the most holy sacrifice of the mass may be offered for them as well. Sixthly: The reformers did not try to maintain unity. They cared more for their doctrinal innovations than they did for continuing in the Church. That is why they so obstinately continued maintaining beliefs which were deemed heretical.

Pope Leo X s the person solely responsible for the splitting of the Church. His commitment to money and power over the Word of God led him to destroy the unity of the Church and to dishonestly deal with anyone who found his methods questionable or ill advised. Leo's manifest errors were then compounded by the absolute doctrinal travesty and literally anti-Christ decisions of the Council of Trent which is where the Roman Church truly originated having deliberately sundered itself from the Church Catholic.

@@thecatechumen "The reformatory movement of the sixteenth century found the ground well prepared for its reception. The cry for a thorough reformation of the Church in head and members had been ringing through Europe for a full century; it was justified by the worldly lives of many of the clergy, high and low, by abuses in church administration, by money extortions, by the neglect of religious duties reaching far and wide through the body of the faithful. Had Protestantism offered a reform in the sense of amendment, probably all the corrupt elements in the Church would have turned against it, as Jews and pagans turned against Christ and the Apostles." (Catholic Encyclopedia, article Protestantism)

Something the RC Church made up

"Penance" refers to things done in amendment for past sins. This can involve "good works" generally (acts of charity/mercy). Good works are always done in penance, but penance is not always performed when doing good works. Hope this helps!

*What’s the difference between doing penances and doing good works, according to the Roman Catholic Church?* Penance is you atoning for your own sins in this life. CCC 1459 he must "make satisfaction for" or "expiate" his sins. This satisfaction is also called "penance." Expiation is atonement. Catholicism also makes the mistake of saying you can atone for sins in purgatory; ccc 1475. All of it is a lie.

@@CatholicDefender-bp7my exactly your problem, focused on the exaltation of the Church; on the contrary, when Paul wrote to the Corinthians(see chapter 2 :1-5), he aimed to know nothing except Christ and Him crucified! This was a not a one off statement, in (Philippians 3:7-9) , he considers everything dung compared to Christ! So do I, I don't care about the credentials of whatever saint you bring to me, I will only appreciate those who honour Christ and decrease themselves like John the Baptist ( John 3:29-31).

@@CatholicDefender-bp7my Please show where Christ commanded all Christians to submit to Roman Bishops

@@CatholicDefender-bp7my the church, the body of Christ was first revealed to Paul as a mystery …. You will not find the body of Christ referenced outside of Paul’s epistles. Bible fact …. Religion’s man made traditions!

Tell us about the brown scapular....what is it? what is it for?

Which one? The first one? "When our Lord and Master Jesus Christ said, ``Repent'' (Mt 4:17), he willed the entire life of believers to be one of repentance." You disagree with this? Maybe the 14th? "Imperfect piety or love on the part of the dying person necessarily brings with it great fear; and the smaller the love, the greater the fear." Do you think this one is fecal matter? I could list others. 0r have you never actually read the 95 theses, and have no idea what you're disrespecting? Reject them or not. But disrespecting historical works of God in the world, even if it was a test for the church, is the work of ignorance. (Jude 1:10 - "But these people blaspheme all that they do not understand, and they are destroyed by all that they, like unreasoning animals, understand instinctively.")

@@CatholicDefender-bp7my he was wrong about indulgences? How much have you paid?

Reform was necessary, but not a whole new church with completely different teachings.

Would that be 10 regular responses or would 10 Catholic responses that were not the original responses be acceptable?😆

@@srich7503 10 needed

Errybody wants to talk religion but never eternal life and salvation?

@@_ready__ can you talk one without the other? Do tell…

@@srich7503 Jesus’ harshest rebuke was to the religious! How do you receive eternal life? I can add your version to the list! May you tell?

You are not supposed to understand that portion of the Bible …. Stay in the gospels before the cross and where they preached the gospel of the kingdom to Israel …. The Catholic Church claims to be the New Israel!

Paul writes in these verses, “But when Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood self-condemned; for until certain people came from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles. But after they came, he drew back and kept himself separate for fear of the circumcision faction.” The objection is that Paul’s direct confrontation of Peter shows that Paul denied any notion of the papacy. There are two fundamental problems here. The first is that Paul’s rebuke is compatible with everything that Catholics believe about the papacy. The second is that it is dwarfed by the rest of the scriptural evidence for Petrine primacy and the papacy. It therefore cannot succeed as a “silver bullet” against Catholicism. Let’s begin with papal infallibility. Does Paul’s rebuke show that Peter had no gift of infallibility? Surely not! Protestants accept that Peter was infallible when he wrote 1 and 2 Peter, as God divinely protected him to write an inerrant text. Peter’s infallibility, however, extended only over his official teachings and not to his personal moral conduct. After all, it is not contradictory to say that Peter was infallible when he wrote his epistles but personally erred when he “chickened out” before the circumcision faction. The Catholic belief of papal infallibility is remarkably similar. The pope is infallible only in his definitive, irreformable teachings. He may morally err, but that does not make him any less infallible in the properly understood sense. Similarly, Galatians 2 gives no indication that Paul denies papal supremacy. After all, even Catholics who accept papal supremacy and infallibility rebuke the pope-sometimes in strong terms much like Paul’s. For example, Cardinal Burke characterized Pope Francis’s Motu Proprio (which placed restrictions on the Latin Mass) as a “severe and revolutionary action” and held that this and other related documents caused “distress and even [a] sense of confusion and abandonment.” Nonetheless, Cardinal Burke emphasized in the beginning of his statements that he, Cardinal Burke, “is a bishop of the Church and as a cardinal, in communion with the Roman pontiff and with a particular responsibility to assist him in his pastoral care and governance of the universal Church, I offer the following observations.” In other words, Cardinal Burke’s criticism is in the spirit of a fellow laborer in God’s Church-just like Paul’s, I would argue. His words are nuanced with a recognition of the papacy’s importance. Paul likewise stresses in the preceding verses Peter’s formative influence on him (Gal. 1:18), notes Peter’s divinely instituted ministry to the Jews (2:7-8), and continually refers to Peter as Cephas-the Aramaic name that Christ gave to Peter (Matt. 16:18). Paul also provides a great deal of context for his rebuke, meaning that context is key here. He mentions, for instance, how influential Peter’s actions were on the surrounding Christians, including Barnabas: “And the other Jews joined him in this hypocrisy, so that even Barnabas was led astray by their hypocrisy. But when I saw that they were not acting consistently with the truth of the gospel, I said to Cephas before them all, ‘If you, though a Jew, live like a Gentile and not like a Jew, how can you compel the Gentiles to live like Jews?’” (Gal. 2:13-14). Barnabas was Paul’s right-hand man in evangelizing the Gentiles (Gal. 2:9) and even spoke alongside him at the Jerusalem Council (Acts 15:12). He is also an apostle (Acts 14:14)! Many scholars hold that the events of Galatians 2:11-14 occurred after the Acts 15 Jerusalem Council (see Gal. 2:1-10). Thus, Peter’s mere actions swayed not only the other Jewish Christians, but even Barnabas over a Church Council. Paul therefore had to rebuke Peter, and, in doing so, he rebuked everyone else who followed his actions (see Matt. 23:2-3). Paul identifies Peter’s cowardice as the leading cause of the scandal. Rather than directly opposing his partner Barnabas, Paul pinpoints the leader: Peter. Regardless, New Testament scholar Craig S. Keener notes that “Paul is silent about any enduring schism and continues to recognize that God uses Peter’s ministry (1 Cor 3:22; 9:5; 15:5; Gal 2:7-8).” The issue is eventually resolved. Paul does not further the scandal by calling into question Peter’s authority. It should be obvious now that accepting advice from a rebuke does not violate papal supremacy. That would be crazy! The pope’s superior authority over the bishops and his jurisdiction over the entire Church do not mean he cannot be assisted by a brother bishop or that his non-definitive teachings (much less his personal actions) are flawless. Thus, Paul’s rebuke in Galatians 2 is compatible with everything that Catholics believe about the papacy. We are at a point now in the argument where Paul neither explicitly denies nor affirms the papacy. It seems to be asking too much of Galatians 2:11 to refute the entire doctrine. How then do we adjudicate what Paul believed? Well, if Paul held to the faith handed down from Jesus, and that faith contains the papacy, then Paul held to the papacy. We don’t need Paul to explicitly claim that he held the papacy, just as Paul never explicitly claims that 1 and 2 Peter are Scripture, but we accept them as such. What we need is strong evidence that the faith handed down from Jesus contains the papacy, meaning that any alleged “Pauline silence” on the matter must be sifted along with all of the evidence. This is where I think the case for Catholicism shines-the primacy of Peter, Peter’s status as the rock of the Church, his status as prime minister, etc. Even if someone disputes these other points, I think it is clear that Galatians 2:11 on its own is not enough to derail the claims of the Catholic Church. Paul’s rebuke can be made sense of with Catholic teaching.😜😜

Luther pulled the cover off the issue. No one cared.

See ccc#1471 for the rules and regulations from the play book.

If someone sins in your church do you leave and start your own?

@@wordforever117 just got in the booth with the man and tell him your issues …. He will take care of you. Where’s the money?

@@wordforever117 remember - the ONE TRUE CHURCH is the minister of redemption so says the Catholic rules and regulations

Which Orthodox Church?

@@thecatechumen That is like asking which of the 23 Catholic Churches? The differences are on the same level as the Orthodox...

How do you receive eternal life?

@@_ready__ Jesus said he was the way to eternal life and nobody can come to the father without him

@@GoofyGoober316 right. How do you do that? Lay around and wait for it? Do nothing? It just happens?

@@CatholicDefender-bp7my im not relative about Jesus Christ being my lord and savior

@@GoofyGoober316 you just say it and it’s so? What do you tell someone on the street or outside of your church on Sunday when they asked about their salvation? Do you have a clear message?