You handled loaded terms and loaded history about as well as you possibly could. You did a very fine job indeed.

@ReadyToHarvest

2 жыл бұрын

Thanks David!

@luistamayo6553

2 жыл бұрын

There is nothing I wrote that would be considered "loaded terms" or "loaded history", I told you exactly where I got the information so that you could look it up for yourself, avoiding the truth will not save you, at the least, go read it for yourself then make your own decision. If you could be saved in any religion, then it would not have been necessary for Jesus to build his one and only true Church, Jesus also said "You must eat my flesh and drink my blood or you have no life", this is the Holy Eucharist, (Communion), and you can only receive the one and only true Eucharist in the Catholic Church. God Bless You.

@DavidOatney

2 жыл бұрын

Nothing that I said was addressed to you, it was addressed to Josh. I'm not quite sure where you're getting that from. The video is Josh's.

@luistamayo6553

2 жыл бұрын

@@DavidOatney Sorry, please forgive me for misunderstanding. God Bless You.

@draevonmay7704

Жыл бұрын

@@luistamayo6553 Do you not believe that Christ has the power to give his Blood and Flesh to anyone He so chooses, regardless of mediation by an earthly church?

The term "evangelical" is even more nuanced, it changes meaning by who's using it, and in what context.

@justchilling704

2 жыл бұрын

Interestingly enough the term is commonly used in a political way now.

@iamdigory

2 жыл бұрын

It's really becoming a useless term that we should stop using.

@justchilling704

2 жыл бұрын

@@iamdigory I definitely agree

@MarkLinJA

2 жыл бұрын

@@justchilling704 Not only that, but "Evangelical" is very much the preferred self-appelation for "Protestant" Churches outside of the Anglosphere, regardless of whether or not English-speaking people would consider them "Evangelical".

@justchilling704

2 жыл бұрын

@@MarkLinJA I didn’t know that, that’s interesting.

"Are you Catholic?" "No, I'm a Christian". Cracks me up every time.

@ranelgallardo7031

Жыл бұрын

“Are you an American?” “No, I’m a Texan” Same thing

@benry007

Жыл бұрын

I would argue that because words change meaning over time Catholic no longer means what it once did. The same way you wouldn't refer to yourself as gay just because you are happy.

@enshala6401

Жыл бұрын

@@benry007 I'm not sure I follow... what does "Catholic" mean today, and how is it different from what it meant in the past?

@benry007

Жыл бұрын

@@enshala6401 as in the word Catholic comrs from the greek word Katholikos meaning universal. Catholic Church used to mean the whole church. Its rarely used like that now though. Most people wouldn't use the word Catholic in any other sense then talking about the Roman Catholic church specifically. The same way I would no longer use the word gay to say someone is happy.

@enshala6401

Жыл бұрын

@@benry007 well, I admit there is a minority of Christians who don't embrace and practice John 17:20-23, but that doesn't change the nature of Catholicism as Christ prayed for. It's unfortunate there are people who are confused on this point, but Catholicism is still Catholicism - has been for 2000 years, and will persist until as long as the Holy Spirit wants it to.

Terminology varies with location. If I’m in southern Europe and someone asks about my faith I’ll answer “Christian” and it’s assumed I’m Catholic. In the US I’ll answer “Catholic” because here most Christians are Protestant.

@remilenoir1271

Жыл бұрын

Honestly, as a Catholic you should just answer "I'm christian", the two are undistinguishable after all. To be christian is to follow christ, and there is no other way to do that except in following His universal, Catholic, Church.

@paisleepunk

11 ай бұрын

​@@remilenoir1271i agree with your initial premise, though the way you back it up leaves much to be desired on a purely logical level

St Ignatius of Antioch came up with the term “just as where Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church" , he was a disciple of St John the Apostle and was martyred around 110 AD.

@berniefynn6623

2 жыл бұрын

catholic means universal.Roman catholic is the catholic church.

@matiasgamalieltolmosuarez790

2 жыл бұрын

Of course, and we all recognized our church as the catholic church. Not because you have roman "catholic" in your name you will be "the catholic church" 😅🤣 it's like saying that Church of God is the real church just because their name, or like saying that roman catholic is not orthodox because they don't have orthodox in their name (and the the original church is orthodox)

@tristankramer4636

2 жыл бұрын

Everyone (Catholics no offense) but mostly Catholics tend to use St Ignatius as if he was talking about the current Catholic Church. The word catholic means universal (or lit. According to the whole). St ignatius was not talking about a Roman Catholic church underneath a Pope, but about the universal Church of believers in Christ Jesus. Orthobros it can be the same for you

@jakamsoohia7492

2 жыл бұрын

that was beforee the great schism and the reformation. catholic meant universal or general. so basically everyone

@joshuacooley1417

2 жыл бұрын

rewrote my comment and moved it into the main thread.

When a cousin of mine traveled to Kansas she was asked several times whether she was "Christian or Catholic." Those asking the question were oblivious to the obviously disparaging implication, namely that Catholics were not also Christian. She had become Catholic through marriage. Since then I have heard other examples of that. The video does clarify what has been happening with regard to usage and that "Protestant" is now used less frequently.

@matthewhavemercyonmeimasin1500

2 жыл бұрын

All Catholics are Christians .. but not all Christians are Catholics .... (Catholics refers to a wide range of Rites -- the Largets being the Roman Catholic Rite (estimated to be at 1.3-1.4 Billion adherents) second is the Orthodox/ Greek Rite (300 M more or less adherents) and other rites ... The estimated overall Christian adherents worldwide from what I recall is 2.2-2.3 Billion. It is also true to Protestants/Lutherians and Anglicans .. all of them are Christians ... Though I exclude Mormons , Jehova s Witness as Christians and other heretic sects ... as they are rebuking the Christian faith which includes the divinity of Christ and The Trinity (-- saying Christ s was Archangel Michael or the Triune God was once a human being like us .. and if we follow their teachings we can become God (basically as powerful as he is) ... w/c is what Christianity is fundamentally about.

@MarkLinJA

2 жыл бұрын

Tbf it's a problem that exists in my native Chinese as well... It has less to do with Protestant influence than it does with how the term "Catholicism" was translated into Chinese by Matteo Ricci, since we still use that term ("Heavenly Lord Religion, when literally translated") to refer specifically to Catholicism hundreds of years after he passed on.

@specialteams28

2 жыл бұрын

I get that question sometimes too. I respond with “are you a Christian or a Protestant.”

@Doigt101

2 жыл бұрын

@@specialteams28 That is good. I'll tell my cousin that response.

@m.v.5425

2 жыл бұрын

I’m a secular confectionist. I’m agnostic about a god but celebrate all holidays by enjoying their treats.

As a Canadian Anglican, I was taught "catholic" = "universal" and "Catholic" = "the denomination that follows the pope". It all comes down to upper case and lower case.

@dnaak

Жыл бұрын

Yes, but that's a Protestant invention of argument to try and resolve the cognitive dissonance that would otherwise remain if it wasn't explained away. Before the Protestant Revolution, it was a catholic belief that Catholic in the Apostles Creed meant the Catholic Church. There was no distinction in the mind of believers between catholic and Catholic. It meant the same thing.

@letitiamae

Жыл бұрын

@@dnaak Protestants weren't the first split though, the first split was Orthodox.

@dougy6237

Жыл бұрын

No, with due respect my friend, the term "Catholic Church" was not used in the sense you assert. The name "Catholic Church" meant far more than universality. Your assertion is an age-old error, employed by Protestants who whilst hating the term Catholic and not wishing to use it for themselves, still try to rob Catholics of it's usage. Historically what happened in the early Church is that the Church was identified by all 4 Marks of One, Holy, Catholic (Universal) and Apostolic (in doctrine and succession). The short name for the Church was taken from the 3rd mark, "Catholic". To be the "Catholic Church" meant the true Church, that is the group with ALL 4 Marks, not one or two marks, but ALL 4 Marks. The name "Catholic Church" was first used to identify the True church from the break-away groups which, whilst possessing valid baptism, did not enjoy full communion with the true Church. So it is incorrect to say one can claim the title "Catholic Church", by just having the mark of universality. No Protestant group can claim to possess even one Mark, let alone all 4 Marks. Regarding the 3rd mark of catholicity, each Protestant group is restricted in geography on racial and/or political grounds, or by belief in the particular doctrine it holds. Following is evidence of the name "Catholic Church" from the first 250 years of the Church: Ignatius of Antioch “Let no one do anything of concern to the Church without the bishop. Let that be considered a valid Eucharist which is celebrated by the bishop or by one whom he ordains [i.e., a presbyter]. Wherever the bishop appears, let the people be there; just as wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church” (Letter to the Smyrneans 8:2 [A.D. 110]). The Martyrdom of Polycarp “And of the elect, he was one indeed, the wonderful martyr Polycarp, who in our days was an apostolic and prophetic teacher, bishop of the Catholic Church in Smyrna. For every word which came forth from his mouth was fulfilled and will be fulfilled” (Martyrdom of Polycarp 16:2 [A.D. 155]). The Muratorian Canon “Besides these [letters of Paul] there is one to Philemon, and one to Titus, and two to Timothy, in affection and love, but nevertheless regarded as holy in the Catholic Church, in the ordering of churchly discipline. There is also one [letter] to the Laodiceans and another to the Alexandrians, forged under the name of Paul, in regard to the heresy of Marcion, and there are several others which cannot be received by the Church, for it is not suitable that gall be mixed with honey. The epistle of Jude, indeed, and the two ascribed to John are received by the Catholic Church (Muratorian fragment [A.D. 177]). Tertullian “Where was [the heretic] Marcion, that shipmaster of Pontus, the zealous student of Stoicism? Where was Valentinus, the disciple of Platonism? For it is evident that those men lived not so long ago-in the reign of Antonius for the most part-and that they at first were believers in the doctrine of the Catholic Church, in the church of Rome under the episcopate of the blessed Eleutherius, until on account of their ever restless curiosity, with which they even infected the brethren, they were more than once expelled” (Demurrer Against the Heretics 30 [A.D. 200]). Cyprian of Carthage “You ought to know, then, that the bishop is in the Church and the Church in the bishops; and if someone is not with the bishop, he is not in the Church. They vainly flatter themselves who creep up, not having peace with the priest of God, believing that they are secretly in communion with certain individuals. For the Church, which is one and catholic, is not split or divided, but is indeed united and joined by the cement of priests who adhere to one another” (Letters 66[67]:8 [A.D. 253]).

@MrMonchis04

Жыл бұрын

Catholic is not a denomination

@dougy6237

Жыл бұрын

@@MrMonchis04 Correct, it is the Church!

Who is a Protestant? Catholics: "Any Christian who isn't part of our church." Orthodox: (cough)

@matiasgamalieltolmosuarez790

2 жыл бұрын

Coptic (cough) Old catholic (cough) Armenian (cough) 😅

@TheMostEccentric

2 жыл бұрын

ok but is that cough in protest thooo

@jeffanderson3962

2 жыл бұрын

They aren't Protestants in the same way, but they "protest" several points with the Roman Church particularly the supremacy of the Bishop of Rome and the Filioque (the procession of the Holy Ghost from the Father AND the Son) so the categorization isn't completely off base.

Informative and non-biased as always. -A “Roman” Catholic

@josephdemary4048

Жыл бұрын

So the reason Catholics don't like the term Roman Catholic is because we have different rites inside the so called "Roman" Catholic Church. One of them being the Roman Rite so only Catholics belonging to the Roman Rite are Roman Catholics. We have like forty rites so I'll just list the rites to western hemisphere of which there are five: 1. The Roman Rite (The Pope is always a member of the Roman Rite and all of the others rites are obedient to the Pope) 2. The Ambrosian Rite 3. The Mozarabic Rite 4. The Anglican Rite (I'm a member of this one so I'm an Anglican Catholic, not Roman Catholic) 5. The Carthusian Rite All of the other rites belongs to the eastern hemisphere.

@HypervoxelRBX

Жыл бұрын

Hopefully you get saved

@100megatonYT

Жыл бұрын

@@HypervoxelRBX I think he’s “saved” already

@duckymomo7935

Жыл бұрын

@@josephdemary4048 the Eastern hemisphere gets 0 recognition or being in communion with Rome, it's all labeled as orthodox

Jimmy Swaggart says his most popular denomination is the $20.

@timnewman1172

Жыл бұрын

Amen.

These videos demonstrate perfectly why everyone should study their field "religiously." Amazing work.

@davidcolin6519

Жыл бұрын

Or maybe they should just realise that the whole thing is as idiotic as "how many angels can dance on a pinhead?" As a thinking human being, it fronts me that so many people still believe in such twaddle as God(s) "So why come on here, a site about religion, if you don't believe?" might seem the obvious question. for which the obvious answer is "Because "Christians" insist on posting their BS in the comments sections of completely unrelated videos, and I'm pretty tired of these A***holes.

Roman Catholic here, and you are amazing. Your powers of summary (especially since I listen at 2x speed) are amazing. Well done.

Pretty good explanation! Loved the trolling comment when beginning the Catholic explanation

Well done describing the Catholic side of things. You don’t disappoint!

@ooi97

Жыл бұрын

There's one nuance he missed. Since Vatican 2, Roman Catholics agree with other Christians that there is only One Church surpassing even the RC and that all believers of Christ are part of it. It's the official doctrine of the Roman Catholic Church. But many Roman Catholics haven't caught up to it yet

@John_Fisher

Жыл бұрын

@@ooi97 I think he captured it in quoting Tim Staples of catholic.com. I don't think saying "there is only One Church surpassing even the RC" is how Catholics speaking in light of Vatican 2 would express the official doctrine you are referencing. It is true that they deliberately did not say "The One Church is the Catholic Church", but the language of the One Church "surpassing" the Catholic Church was not given either. Rather they expressed it as "the one Church of Christ which in the Creed is professed... This Church constituted and organized in the world as a society, subsists in the Catholic Church." ( Lumen Gentium 8) Using the word 'subsists' instead of 'is' does mean that the Church isn't limited to visible joining to it, so I get where you might see that as 'surpassing' it, but 'subsists' still means that the Church has it's source of being in the Catholic Church and that any believers not visibly united to it are still invisibly and imperfectly united as members of it and thus not a 'surpassing' of it.

@joycegreer9391

Жыл бұрын

@@John_Fisher Except that "the Church has its source of being in the Catholic Church" was NEVER true. The RCC was never a church Christ established or Paul established or lead.

@John_Fisher

Жыл бұрын

@@joycegreer9391 Hi Joyce. You're saying that you are taking exception to what I said, but your claim isn't really an exception to why I said because the purpose of my comment was to explain the Catholic Church teaches. In explaining what was meant by using the term 'subsists,' my comment wasn't claiming or attempting to demonstrate whether the matter was true or not, so needed no taking exception to. That being said, your claim is just that: a claim. It doesn't offer me any reason to believe it. One could just as well say "The United States was never a country George Washington established or lead," but that doesn't have have any significant evidentiary value unless I already know that the person saying it is in a position to know it's truth value contrary to what I already know about the matter.

@joycegreer9391

Жыл бұрын

​@@John_Fisher You're kidding, right? Historical facts are not claims. What you think you already know is only what you've been told and apparently just accepted as fact. Where is the historical evidence? Not from RCC sources either as that would be circular reasoning. Secular sources, impartial historians, scriptural proof (apart from one poorly interpreted verse in Matthew). Scripture records the Acts of the Apostles. Where is the proof of what RCC claims?

For background, I was raised non-denominational, protestant, charismatic. In my late 20's early 30's I became Anglican, and after about seven years as an Anglican, I became Roman Catholic. Something that needs to be pointed out in this conversation is that Protestants and Catholics generally have a different understanding of what the word "catholic" means. As a Protestant I was always told that the word catholic in the creed simply meant "universal" as in the Church includes all believers. There is only one Church and we are all part of it. I think that is a pretty common view for most Protestants. The word catholic, as it was originally used, and in the way that the Roman Catholic Church uses it, means more than simply universal. The word comes from two Greek words "kata + holos" which are "according to" and "whole". The original meaning of catholic was "according to the whole". Rather than just meaning "universal" it would be more accurate to say it means "universally accepted". One of the core doctrines of early ecclesiology was the idea that the beliefs and practices that were universally held by the whole Church, were authoritative and definitive. Membership in the Church was defined by the fact that you believed and practiced according to what the entire Church believed and practiced. If your local church, or you individually, believed something or followed some practice that contradicted the universally accepted beliefs and practices of the Church, then you had put yourself outside of the Church. The word used to describe this idea was "catholic". There is an example of this idea in the Bible. In 1st Corinthians 11 where Paul is instructing the Corinthians about women wearing head coverings in church, he begins by laying out his theological arguments, and makes an argument that appeals to nature, and then in verse 16 he says "if anyone is inclined to be contentious, we have no such practice, nor do the churches of God." He is essentially saying "if you don't accept my arguments, and you want to continue to argue the point, the final word is that we (the apostles) do not have this practice, and the Church as a whole does not have this practice." This idea includes the necessity of historic continuity or "tradition". For example. If the Church in 100 AD universally believed X doctrine, and your church now believes the opposite of X doctrine then your church is, by definition, not catholic in this sense. You may notice that this almost contradicts the more nebulous meaning of "universal" that many people use today, which could be argued to mean that people with widely variant beliefs and practices are all part of the universal church. It should also be noted that this did not mean that local churches and regional churches were not allowed to have any variation at all. There are, of course, many things which are not authoritatively defined. On those issues, people are free to have variant opinions etc. There are also lots of cases where a local or regional group has a unique practice, but it is not in conflict with the practice of the Church as a whole. It is also possible for the Church to develop beliefs and practices, and even to change some, depending on what they are. If the Church has declared some doctrine to be true, by universal acceptance. That cannot be changed in the sense of contradiction. But our understanding of it can be applied differently based on changing circumstances. For example, Joshua in this video mentioned the idea of "outside of the Church there is no salvation". During the middle ages Catholic teaching held that this principle meant that all people who were non-catholics were condemned to hell. However, that understanding of the principle was based on the medieval belief that the whole world had been explored and evangelized. They believed that everyone had essentially been evangelized, and as a result if they were not catholic Christians it was because they had definitively rejected the gospel. After the age of discovery we now know that there are even today people who have not heard the gospel. In addition, we know that there are millions of Christians in the world who did not themselves intentionally reject the Catholic Church. They were born into some other tradition and taught those other views etc, but they have believed to the best of their ability. The principle itself is true, but the circumstantial belief that informed the medieval understanding of the principle was incorrect. As a result the Roman Catholic understanding of "outside of the Church there is no salvation" has changed. The RCC now understands this principle to mean that all the gifts that God has given to mankind that enable men to be saved, are all contained within the Church and people can be saved by those gifts, without being members of the visible Church. Similarly the RCC teaches that every person who is saved, is saved by and through Jesus Christ, whether they have ever heard the name of Christ or not. Their salvation is only made possible by his suffering, death, resurrection, and glorification. Some practices can also be changed. For example, Paul explained why he believed head coverings should be used. The whole Church at that time agreed that head coverings should be worn. As a result all churches were required to follow that practice. However, later on the Church as whole decided that the historical reasons why this practice was in place no longer applied and thus the Church as a whole decided that it was no longer mandatory. As a final note, I would point out that what some denominations claim about the historical continuity of their doctrines and practices, has two dimensions. One is theological, the other is historical. On the one hand they are claiming that their doctrines are true. On the other they are claiming that there is a historical continuity of their doctrines going back to the beginning of the Church. The first claim here is perhaps more open to debate because it involves more interpretation. The second claim, however, is one that can be objectively verified or falsified by study. Surprisingly few people realize that we actually have historic Christian writings that describe what Christians believed and how they practiced the faith and how the worshipped etc, going all the way back to the beginning. If you want to know what the Church believed and taught from the beginning, you can go read about it. Those writings will not solve all disagreements or controversies, but they will pretty clearly and definitively disprove some claims of historical continuity.

@Ziiphyr

2 жыл бұрын

Amen 🙏✝️ Protestants are truly just Anti-Roman Catholic more so to other Eastern Catholic faiths despite sharing less doctrinal dogmas. Keep in mind it was the Church that established what was Holy Scripture and threw the line on what could universally be accepted. Sola Skriptura created all of these Protestant denominations because it’s obviously flawed.

@seanrea550

2 жыл бұрын

The real problem with protestant(the term) is that it is far to broad to cover the scope of arguments where getting in to each narrowing tradition, still i use it to describe the denominations that resulted from the western schism or reformation movement. Those who have split well beyond that like Mormons deserve their own catigory.

@edwardlucas3575

2 жыл бұрын

You have done an excellent job of articulating some overlooked or otherwise unknown information, and I would like to further build upon your foundation. The earliest historical evidence of the term "Catholic" is the Letter that Ignatius of Antioch wrote in about 108 to Christians in Smyrna. Exhorting Christians to remain closely united with their bishop, he wrote: "Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude [of the people] also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church." It's interesting to note that he uses the word "catholic" as if his readers will understand him because the term is already in everyday use. From the second half of the second century, the word "catholic" began to mean non-heretical (i.e., orthodox in teaching and practice). To be Catholic meant adherence to the entire deposit of faith versus embracing heretical views inconsistent with what the church believed and practiced since apostolic times. In 380, Emperor Theodosius I limited the term "Catholic Christian" exclusively to those who followed the same faith as Pope Damasus I of Rome and Pope Peter of Alexandria. Numerous other early writers, including Cyril of Jerusalem (c. 315-386) and Augustine of Hippo (354-430), further developed the use of the term "catholic" in relation to Christianity. When we closely examine the word "universal," we learn some interesting things. The term "universal" comes from ūnus ("one") + versus ("turned"), hence literally "turned into one" (not "turned into many"). Universal can also be understood as "one for all and all for one." If it's universal, it applies to all cases. Stated another way, it means: including or covering all or a whole without limit or exception. We see in the Gospel of Matthew that Jesus commissioned his apostles with these words: “Go, therefore, and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, until the end of the age” (Mt 28:19, 20). Notice the threefold “all” spoken by our Lord. But what does the “all” refer to? Our Lord says all nations, all things, and at all times (i.e., the Merriam-Webster definition of “always” means at all times; on all occasions). Jesus is launching a massive mission concerning the whole world. The apostles are to make disciples of all nations by baptizing (in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit) and by teaching them to observe everything he commanded. These two direct actions will turn the disciples into one body (the church) under the lordship of Jesus Christ. At the end of the day, the words "catholic" and "universal" are compatible and complementary terms. These ideas and concepts are not an exaggerated description of today's Catholic Church. Not by the wildest exaggeration could it be advanced as a description of any other.

@RobertEWaters

Жыл бұрын

A good point- although I would suggest that such a study would rather quickly shatter the idea that Roman Catholic doctrine, which developed over the course of centuries, has necessarily been believed "always, everywhere, and by all" either. The Catalog of Testimonies appended to the Augsburg Confession is primarily a list of quotations from the Fathers on which they sided with Luther rather than Rome, and the history of the Catholic church is a history of doctrinal refinement which involved rejection of views which it had regarded as acceptable for centuries. Transubstantiation is a comparatively late, philosophically-derived dogma arrived at by a church in which a variety of Eucharistic theologies- including consubstantiation- had existed side-by-side with it for centuries. St. Jerome, who translated the Vulgate, rejected the canonicity of the "deuterocanonical" books, Augustine noted that the notion of purgatory was not universally accepted by the Catholics of his day, when the term had at least a better case for representing a Christian consensus than it would later. John Chrysostom, Cyril of Alexandria, Origen, Hillary, Ambrosiaster, Bernard, Theophylact, Theodoret, Theodore of Mopsuestia. Marinus Victorinus, Aquinas, and Augustine all agreed with Luther that Romans 3:28 ("For we hold that one is justified by faith apart from works of the Law") meant that one is justified by faith ALONE on the basis of the text whether or not the word "alone" actually appears. I would urge skepticism about anybody's blanket claims about what has been believed "always, everywhere, and by all" on the basis of what somebody else has taught you. Anybody else.

@levymanlapig8970

Жыл бұрын

@Robert E. Waters "Works of the law" in Romans (and in other letters of Paul), however, means Mosaic/Judaic Laws, or observance of such laws, or laws, or simply "works" - as he was then warning the Gentile Christians of "another gospel" being preached by some Judaeo-Christians. The "gospel" that *aside from their faith in CHRIST, they likewise had to observe certain Jewish law(s) "for their salvation"* (foremost of which was "circumcision"). "Faith alone" means to the exclusion of Mosaic/Judaic Laws, as they (the Gentiles) were "not under the law but grace" -- "by grace" because Gentiles were/are "adopted children" of GOD through CHRIST in the inclusive New Covenant, vis-a-vis, the Old Covenant (with its "laws") exclusive for the "chosen people". Even I would totally agree with M. Luther if he meant it that way. *GOD bless!* Ed. for misspelled words.

It brings pleasure to my soul to find YOUNG AND ENLIGHTENED MEN alive. This guy is great, since he is being VERY INFORMATIVE AND OBJECTIVE, WITHOUT TAKING SIDES.

You'll find that many Lutherans, though perhaps not all, would call themselves catholic, and we would hold that the reformation was about restoring the true Gospel of Christ Jesus to a church that had lost its way due to sin and error. It wasn't that we left the church so much as it was that the church left us. Lutherans tend to affirm all three creeds and we hold to what is written in 1 Peter 3:21 regarding baptism, which I many baptists I know still reject, and I was once one of them. Also, much like our papist friends, we tend to affirm an amillenial view of end time prophecy. In fact, our biggest contentions are indulgences and purgatory. It would be interesting to see you do a video on these doctrines and their origins. The closest I can find in scripture of these is in the apocryphal books of Maccabees, and I don't regard one time instances as being the standard for doctrine unless something states otherwise, much like I reject a "Roman Road" or "Road to Damascus" experience as being a necessity to salvation, as the baptist church I once attended taught, rather I affirm again 1 Peter 3:21. In fact, there is nothing in scripture saying we can "ask Christ Jesus into our heart" or "make a decision for Christ". Nor is there anything remotely close to the "Sinner's Prayer" in scripture, and this is something I am certain our papist friends would agree upon.

@tristankramer4636

2 жыл бұрын

Amen!

@DrownedinDesigner

2 жыл бұрын

Purgatory is simply the state in which you are made purely sinless prior to being in heaven. Unless you believe you can enter into heaven as a sinful person. It’s not a lesser hell nor anything like, but yeah if you accept solae escripture then you probably wouldn’t hold this view.

@DrownedinDesigner

2 жыл бұрын

Indulgences in the way you think of them were simply liturgical abuse and not official catholic doctrine.

@Oddn7751

2 жыл бұрын

@@DrownedinDesigner liturgical abuse carried out by the pope. Also indulgences appeared the same time as the concept of purgatory, about a millennium after Christ's death

@thunderousooner527

2 жыл бұрын

Lutherans are not Catholics. Lutherans are the first Protestants

In practical terms, I often wonder how Peter and Paul are viewing this discussion. Then I wonder if I were alive in 40 A.D. long before any New Testament writings were compiled or perhaps even written, who I would have listened to...Peter&Paul, the Pharisees, the Romans, or myself. 1. Can you imagine trying to baptize someone who lives in a 🏜 wasteland by immersion? 2. When anyone speaks of one church, they're implicitly speaking of one truth. Back to baptism, it either is salvific or merely a symbol--these two statements cannot both be true. 3. How would the Bible Only crowd manage in 40 A. D. without the Bible? Just things to ponder... I do value the information on this channel. Keep up the good work shedding mostly unbiased information on Christian systems.

@gregb6469

2 жыл бұрын

Believers in AD 40 DID have a Bible; we call it today the Old Testament.

@k-techpl7222

2 жыл бұрын

@@gregb6469 Yesn't. The Gospels of the Apostles were written when they were in Old age. Around in the 70s-80s A.D.

@thetraditionalist

2 жыл бұрын

@@gregb6469 yeah

@gregb6469

2 жыл бұрын

@@k-techpl7222 -- No, the Synoptics were written in the 50s and early 60s, and some scholars date John that early also.

@matthewhavemercyonmeimasin1500

2 жыл бұрын

The entirety of our modern Holy Bible either the 66 (Non-Catholic Christian) or 73 (RCC) or 80 plus (Orthodox Catholic Church) didnt exist until its compilation in the Council of Nicea -- if Im not mistaken it was conveyed by Emperor Constantine to address problems ..1st to destroy Arianism - a belief that Christ was not divine/God but created human being like buddha -- IMO they might have viewed him like and respect him like buddha but deny he is God... 2nd during the Council of Nicea they also compiled books that were available/basically books/scrolls etc also the Jewish Torah (Greek and might as well latin translated version of it) and any book that they can find that proves/conforms to the divinity of Christ .. while rejecting those that are not. ... and other important stuff to integrate Christianity to the basically mix pagan empire at that time. The Bulk of the Acts of the Apostle might not even exist today if not becuz of Luke persuading Paul 2 record his life and acts as an apostle of Christ. The early Christians (esp the gentile Christians ) were mostly thought in oral traditions by the apostle and those who have followed them ... though I dont doubt that many of them have a fraction of today s Bible that they used such as Synoptics , Psalms etc. It is true that the early Christians have the Torah (OT) but it was mostly available to Jewish Christians. Though Luther ... decided 2 remove Hebrew, James and Jude from the New Testament because they were not compatible with his teaching that salvation is by faith alone. He wanted 2 make the Bible conform 2 his theology

Once again, you have done a magnificent job of explaining the nuances and representing the various groups as they would strive to represent themselves.

Another great video, Joshua! So helpful to hear all of this being systemically sorted out! 👌

You are incredible!!! I absolutely love this channel and its content. You put so much work into this and have managed to give a clear non-biased look at Christian Denomination!! I learn so much from you. Thank you!

@ReadyToHarvest

2 жыл бұрын

Glad to hear it, thanks for being a viewer!

9:35 You KNOW your audience. That was HILARIOUS🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣

That little “And you’re not” is worthy of some of the best humor in educational KZread videos. Specifically I am thinking of History Matters and CGpGrey. Great video. Glad I found your channel.

I appreciate your explanation of these terms and find them to be accurate.

Great video I really appreciate the way you rationally discuss these subjects. You ask great questions ones that I continue to try to answer for myself. Thank you again

@ReadyToHarvest

2 жыл бұрын

Thanks Leonard! Glad to hear it.

Outstanding clarity, accuracy and fluidity in explaining and distinguishing thinking and beliefs. I am of a Presbyterian tradition.

@ReadyToHarvest

2 жыл бұрын

Thank you Jorge!

An extremely valuable video in the ongoing dialogue between churches and believers. My observation is that we as people often lose control of conversation remaining respectful and useful, when we fail to apprehend the thing actually signified by the label (signifier) used to ostensibly describe it. This goes a long way to helping that understanding and dialogue.

I’ve been waiting for this, amazing overview, thanks so much!

I'm a Member of the Religious Society of Friends (Quaker). Early Friends saw ourselves as a worshiping community which was part of the Universal Invisible Church. We, therefore, refrained from using the word Church in either a denominational or architectural descriptor. We might see ourselves as Catholic and Apostolic, but as we reject creeds, we would never say that we were. We might be Protestant, but historically we rejected the hierarchies and conventions of Protestant Denominations. We rejected water baptism as we saw ourselves as baptised in the Spirit and we don't consider one meal more holy than any other. We wouldn't class ourselves as Pentecostal but in worship, we wait for the spirit to move us to minister, which probably makes us more pentecostal than most Pentecostals. Early Friends did not see the Scriptures as a closed completed book. In the word of George Fox, who wasn't our founder: "You will say, Christ saith this, and the apostles say this; but what canst thou say? Art thou a child of Light and hast walked in the Light, and what thou speakest is it inwardly from God?’". It's all a tad complicated. I would also add that I speak from a British perspective. Many US Quakers started to conform to the norms of US evangelical Protestantism in the 19th Century

@gabrielgarza8283

Жыл бұрын

Unless you are born of water and sp I'll rit you cant inherit eternal life. Jn 3:15

@jonathanhammond_3v16

Жыл бұрын

John 3:3-7..... Is it true that most Quakers are NOT Born-again & even less are Baptised in, by, with The Holy Spirit of our1HOLY-God....? In my experience of Quakers at the meeting I attended less than 1% of people were Open to Christ's Spirit, The Holy Spirit, He who in us...for them.... It's like they've forgotten who George Fox WAS....and how The Holy Spirit led him to speak The Truth-in-Love.... What has been your experience....?

God bless you. I applaud your fair and unemotional videos. I have been a Roman Catholic convert for over forty years but was raised protestant. (We preferred the term, "Evangelical Christian" or just "Christian.") I firmly believe in apostolic succession and that Catholic and Orthodox churches are the only direct descendants of the church that Jesus started but I consider all Christians my brothers and sisters and daily pray that they discover the sacraments as I have. They are a wonderful gift, and I am pretty sure I would not be a Christian at this stage of my life (seventy-three years old) if I didn't embrace them.

@andrewternet8370

2 жыл бұрын

When you say Orthodox, do you include Oriental Orthodox churches? Just curious, now that we're on the topic of language.

@leonardlakey7779

2 жыл бұрын

@@andrewternet8370 Yes the Orthodox Holy Orders and indeed all their sacraments are considered valid by the Roman Catholic Church. I am not sure if the reciprocal is true but in my opinion the only differences are based on semantics and on ninth-century politics.

@vngelicath1580

2 жыл бұрын

I don't know if I'd classify born-again "Evangelicals" as Protestant. They are to some degree their own thing, Protestant is not a catch-all for any non-Roman/Eastern Christian -- it has a very particular historical and theological meaning: An ecclesial tradition with roots tied directly to the 16th Century Reformation and a discernible theology based on common themes: 1) Justification by Grace through Faith Alone, 2) Belief in the Sacramental life of Faith (and of the sacramental ministry in that function), 3) An emphasis on Predestination, 4) A rejection of the Papal Sacrificial system, 5) Recognition of the unique authority of Scripture above/beyond Tradition. As such, Lutherans, Continental-Reformed/Presbyterians and Anglicans, are the Protestants in a proper sense. The Anabaptists were a heretical sect with no consistently discernable theology and thus cannot be properly categorized as Protestant. The Methodists are an extension of the Church of England; as are the Puritans/Congregationalists and (Reformed) Baptists... Arminianism (Baptist or otherwise) is a branch off of Reformed theology, and various Moravian-Pietist groups grew up alongside Lutheranism and cross-pollinated. Protestantism isn't much more complicated than that (so no to the "30,000 denominations" thing or whatever). Evangelicalism doesn't have a theological connection to this historic movement, although many of its ideas are derivative and its leaders influenced by Reformation theology.

@johnbrowne3950

2 жыл бұрын

There is no such thing as an unbroken apostolic succession of Catholic popes.

@wbl5649

Жыл бұрын

@@vngelicath1580 Protestant as I have always understood means, " we are protesting against the doctrines of the Roman Catholic church"...i.e Luther's theses

Another great video man! Lutherans especially tend to bristle at the term Protestant, and I’ve seen many with the phrase “always Catholic, never Roman”.

@timnewman1172

Жыл бұрын

As an LCMS Lutheran, I reject the term "protestant" as a descriptor of Lutheranism. Catholic/other is acceptable...

appreciate this insight

Thanks for your patience Joshua. This video is necessary to enable further (productive) discussion

It seems to me that the third definition of protestant (any church that originated from the protestant reformation or other protestant churches) would be objectively correct.

@MRTOWELRACK

2 жыл бұрын

"or other protestant churches" is especially necessary given that protestantism didn't exactly start with the Protestant Reformation. For example, the Moravian Church dates back older to the 1457, which is clearly protestant or at least proto-protestant in its early days. The Protestant Reformation definitely advanced and popularized the concept of protestantism though.

@glennmartin802

2 жыл бұрын

@@MRTOWELRACK Ya, I think the Hussites also predate the Lutherans.

Thanks for the video. One way I define who is protestant is by how much actual "protesting" they do. Either against the Catholics & Catholic Church, or those who protest at ballgames, college campuses, and concerts.

Beautiful, detailed, tempered. Well done. Hopefully, Christians learn how to view things from outside.

Thanks for the video.

Not once was canon addressed. If you’re Catholic, it’s 73 If you’re Orthodox, you’re 73+ If you’re Protestant, you’re 66 Also, Sola Scriptura. Orthodox rejects that with Catholic. So, if you’re self interpreting with 66 books, you’re a Protestant.

@jenex5608

Жыл бұрын

That would make church fathers like Cyril of Jerusalem Canon a Protestant who accepted 66 books of Canon.

@robertscofield7845

Жыл бұрын

Baptists follow 66 books, but are pre-Protestant. We say, why are they ‘Protestants?’ They don’t protest anything any more? But then again, most baptists don’t either. Can’t they see the cultic nature of maryolotry? And the priesthood ended at Jesus death. He finished (ended) the law. He is now our continual high priest ever living to intercede for us. Amen!

@robertscofield7845

Жыл бұрын

That’s the mistake Catholics make; continuing the man made priesthood…it’s the baptist (not Protestant) ‘self-interpreting’ way for me. Jesus said, “Search the scriptures…” Amen!

@harryallenpearce89

Жыл бұрын

@@robertscofield7845 Who decided the New Testament writings are Scripture? The Catholic Church

@harryallenpearce89

Жыл бұрын

@@robertscofield7845 Baptist is Protestant. You don’t have any Apostolic Succession. In fact, by what Authority did you declare 66 books to be Scripture? Who did that?

Really appreciate this video on such " complex" matter..

Thanx, Joshua🌹🌹🌹

Ol' Fashion Terminology Disputes. Fun Stuff!

Couple of side questions, about your video approach. (To my eyes, your production values are very much above the KZread norm -- admittedly a low bar, but your stuff is good!) 1. *Are you reading from a teleprompter?* Given the technical depth, and your lack of hesitations, I'm guessing you are. But if so, you're doing it very well because it _looks and sounds_ like you're just speaking off the cuff. 2. *How are you avoiding reflection in your glasses?* I can see a little, but it's not distracting. (And for sure it wasn't enough to let me tell if you were sitting in front of a teleprompter! 🤓) Thanks for your work; I've just discovered it.

@ReadyToHarvest

2 жыл бұрын

1. I use the "Little Prompter" which sits in front of my DSLR camera and can reflect a screen up toward the lens so I can look into the camera. I didn't want to use a cell phone, so I bought a small 5" screen that is attached to my computer that it reflects. 2. Below I will talk about my current setup, which is different from when I recorded this video: Reflection happens when the light bounces off the glasses into the camera, so a light behind the camera would have a very bad reflection, since the angle for reflection would send it right back into the lens. So I have most of my lighting above the camera quite a bit. That way it bounces off my glasses and into the floor, not into the camera. I do have to use other lights to make things look good, so the reflection you may still see in recent videos is a light that is shining on a wall to my left. (Right side of the video) Without it though I have too many shadows on my face. I'm not an expert at all, and the whole thing looks very jerry-rigged in person, but I do care to make my video look good. I'm always trying to improve.

@voxveritas333

2 жыл бұрын

@@ReadyToHarvest you do an excellent job of it.

@dougy6237

Жыл бұрын

@@ReadyToHarvest The term "Catholic Church" was not used in the sense you assert. The name "Catholic Church" meant far more than universality. Your assertion is an age-old error, employed by Protestants who whilst hating the term Catholic and not wishing to use it for themselves, still try to rob Catholics of it's usage. Historically what happened in the early Church is that the Church was identified by all 4 Marks of One, Holy, Catholic (Universal) and Apostolic (in doctrine and succession). The short name for the Church was taken from the 3rd mark, "Catholic". To be the "Catholic Church" meant the true Church, that is the group with ALL 4 Marks, not one or two marks, but ALL 4 Marks. The name "Catholic Church" was first used to identify the True church from the break-away groups which, whilst possessing valid baptism, did not enjoy full communion with the true Church. So it is incorrect to say one can claim the title "Catholic Church", by just having the mark of universality. No Protestant group can claim to possess even one Mark, let alone all 4 Marks. Regarding the 3rd mark of catholicity, each Protestant group is restricted in geography on racial and/or political grounds, or by belief in the particular doctrine it holds. Following is evidence of the name "Catholic Church" from the first 250 years of the Church: Ignatius of Antioch “Let no one do anything of concern to the Church without the bishop. Let that be considered a valid Eucharist which is celebrated by the bishop or by one whom he ordains [i.e., a presbyter]. Wherever the bishop appears, let the people be there; just as wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church” (Letter to the Smyrneans 8:2 [A.D. 110]). The Martyrdom of Polycarp “And of the elect, he was one indeed, the wonderful martyr Polycarp, who in our days was an apostolic and prophetic teacher, bishop of the Catholic Church in Smyrna. For every word which came forth from his mouth was fulfilled and will be fulfilled” (Martyrdom of Polycarp 16:2 [A.D. 155]). The Muratorian Canon “Besides these [letters of Paul] there is one to Philemon, and one to Titus, and two to Timothy, in affection and love, but nevertheless regarded as holy in the Catholic Church, in the ordering of churchly discipline. There is also one [letter] to the Laodiceans and another to the Alexandrians, forged under the name of Paul, in regard to the heresy of Marcion, and there are several others which cannot be received by the Church, for it is not suitable that gall be mixed with honey. The epistle of Jude, indeed, and the two ascribed to John are received by the Catholic Church (Muratorian fragment [A.D. 177]). Tertullian “Where was [the heretic] Marcion, that shipmaster of Pontus, the zealous student of Stoicism? Where was Valentinus, the disciple of Platonism? For it is evident that those men lived not so long ago-in the reign of Antonius for the most part-and that they at first were believers in the doctrine of the Catholic Church, in the church of Rome under the episcopate of the blessed Eleutherius, until on account of their ever restless curiosity, with which they even infected the brethren, they were more than once expelled” (Demurrer Against the Heretics 30 [A.D. 200]). Cyprian of Carthage “You ought to know, then, that the bishop is in the Church and the Church in the bishops; and if someone is not with the bishop, he is not in the Church. They vainly flatter themselves who creep up, not having peace with the priest of God, believing that they are secretly in communion with certain individuals. For the Church, which is one and catholic, is not split or divided, but is indeed united and joined by the cement of priests who adhere to one another” (Letters 66[67]:8 [A.D. 253]).

You are a True Catholic Scholar. Superb. ‼️‼️‼️♥️

Thanks for clearing things up for me

Great video! One thing I think is interesting here: How African-American churches view themselves as part of a distinct tradition, maybe partially inherited from white Protestants but not part of it. My girlfriend is fond of saying "I'm not protestant, I'm black."

@TheFranchiseCA

Жыл бұрын

The "Black Church" has distinct social and practical traditions from traditionally White mainline or evangelical Protestantism in the US, so I can understand wanting to make that distinction.

And the term, "protestant," was not commensurate with Luther's publication of the 95 Theses in 1517. Rather, the term stems from action in 1529, in which several princes filed a formal protest to the Imperial Diet of Speyer due to its ban on the promulgation of Luther's doctrines. In other words, those who had been opposed to the RCC up until 1529 were never referred to as Protestants and, for some time, only those nobility who had officially petitioned the Diet in 1529 were known as Protestants.

@zacharybader7874

2 жыл бұрын

I too was hoping he would touch on that and surprised that he didn't, especially considering the mention of etymology on certain terms. As you mentioned, Carol, "Protestant" has a more specific origin before its usage became more broadly umbrella-like. Though a missed opportunity, perhaps he'll amend this video with a follow-up containing the additional interesting details. Still a good video! :)

@carolberubee4431

2 жыл бұрын

@@zacharybader7874 yes, when he spent time on etymology, I thought for sure he would present this history as it gives us the context for this whole subject, but I agree it was a good video. I don't expect anything less from this channel. :)

@jonathanstensberg

2 жыл бұрын

And due to confessional states following the preferred religion of the reigning lord, those states attached to a Protestant lord became Protestant states, those peoples living a Protestant state became Protestant peoples, the churches of the Protestant peoples became Protestant churches.

@thomasmcewen5493

Жыл бұрын

The term protestant was attached to the acts of those who rejected the edict of worms to stop sacking the property of Catholics and stop murdering them. I have seen no acts of protestants since 1539AD not harming Catholics by them joining groups who kill Catholics like a form of odious vermin. I think of the Nazi here 1939-45 and the communists 1948-89 down to the chick comic people shouting on the bridge about the cow eyed -protestant Jesus, liars and slanders

Fantastic video. I really appreciate the thoughtfulness that is put into every aspect of this topic. I do have one small issue starting at about time stamp 10:50 when the Translators to the reader is brought up. It is used to describe all of the translator's viewpoint, but it seems that this preface is only the viewpoint of Miles Smith who actually pend this passage (and possibly a few others who edited and approved of this if that was preformed). It is possible that all of the translators accepted this viewpoint but (considering that there were those that held to a puritan viewpoint) it is quite possible that some did not align with this preface. I know this is not your main point but I felt it necessary to point out this perceived oversight. Thanks for another great video.

Excellent presentation, well done!!

As a Catholic, I've mostly heard "Protestant" used in the context of "any church other than Roman Catholicism", but this may be partly because where I live there aren't many Orthodox, Old/Independent Catholic (perhaps none at all here), or Mormon places for worship (apart from Old/Independent there may just be one per denomination) , nor Kingdom Halls, and the nearest Eastern Catholic church (still in communion with Rome) is on the other side of the state. Most of the time I hear the term "Protestantism" as a contrast to Catholicism, without much regard for Orthodox Christianity, which probably has something to do with national population statistics (wouldn't be surprised if Orthodox Christians number less than 1% within the US in recent statistics).

@faustinuskaryadi6610

Жыл бұрын

Actually definition of Protestant is very simple by Roman Catholic standard. Anyone who based their Faith on Sola Fide, Sola Gracia, and Sola Scriptura are Protestants whatever denonminations they are belong to.

@duckymomo7935

Жыл бұрын

@@faustinuskaryadi6610 that doesn't work given that there are "protestants" who don't hold to any of the solas

@faustinuskaryadi6610

Жыл бұрын

@@duckymomo7935 Very tiny minority. At the last Sola Scriptura is almost universal, even Methodist Prima Scriptura is just another word for Sola Scriptura with slightly different meaning but based on same Idea.

@fighterofthenightman1057

7 ай бұрын

Protestants must come from the Reformation or groups descended from the Reformation. Mormons, Jehovah’s Witnesses, Oneness Pentecostals, etc. are not Protestants, and any pre-Reformation group like the Orthodox groups are obviously not Protestant. Academically, charismatic, non-denominational and other contemporary groups are considered Protestant, but they probably shouldn’t be.

It has always seemed to me that people are the church. Let's pray that we hope everyone is saved whose faith beleives that Jesus is the son of God and rose from the dead, and this faith is evidenced by the love we show to others. Let's not judge anyone.

Dude you're awesome! Love your videos!

Very informative, thank you for the video

I do not believe Jesus had any church in mind. He knew that His Father would eventually offer salvation to non-Jews (Gentiles), because He was part of the God-Head that inspired the prophets to so prophesy. But His ministry was to fellow Jews to abandon (repent) of their garbage filled and legalistic lives, turn their hearts to the Adonai who loves them, formally and collectively worship Him on the Sabbath in their Synagogues, and daily live lives filled with love and forgiveness. I believe He expected Gentile believers to do the same, including worshiping on the Sabbath. (Please note, I currently worship on Sunday, like everyone else around me.) I absolutely believe a quote from a book by Rudi Louw: “Jesus did not come down to Earth to build a better Synagogue System.” Therefore, I believe that any church, whether meeting in a home living room to a monster denomination that says, “We are the ‘new’ church that Jesus had in mind,” is guilty of the sin of arrogance. In fact, not just simple personal arrogance, but epic, colossal, Cecil B. DeMille scale arrogance.

@rh10033

2 жыл бұрын

👏👏👏👏

The final is the key. We are not restaurationists (and that's why some reject the term)and because it was a term to talk against churches of the reformation, which they called themselves as catholic but also as EVANGELICAL (which in my perception is the most correct term for protestantism and is used in all other countries except USA) We are the universal (catholic) church who accepted the Reformation (which was for RETURNING into the origianl faith, and not for innovation) Anglicans, Lutherans, Methodists, Moravians, Waldensians, and most evangelicals are part of the Protestant church 🙏 Just different traditions but one faith and we recognize each other as part of the church, a very good example of that is the communion of protestant churches in Europe.

@k9builder

2 жыл бұрын

restaurationists? What? Is this something about food?

@matiasgamalieltolmosuarez790

2 жыл бұрын

@@k9builder restorationism sorry I'm not a native speaker and theses are not terms u usually use in the street 😑

@fernandopaz5201

2 жыл бұрын

Los evangélicos son uno de los grupos protestantes. En Usa hay cientos de denominaciónes protestantes. Algunos de estos han aceptado el ecumenismo volviendo a la iglesia Católica como algunos de los Anglicanos 🇻🇦🕊️⛪

@matiasgamalieltolmosuarez790

2 жыл бұрын

@@fernandopaz5201 La iglesia se llama evangélica (evangelische) en estados unidos se utiliza más el termino protestant o protestante pero en el resto del mundo (no angloparlante) se dice evangélicos, desde los anglicanos hasta los pentecostales. Ahora en estados unidos surgió un movimiento llamado evangelicalismo (lo que tu mencionas) que es un movimiento transversal, por eso hay iglesias luteranas evangélicas y no evangélicas (pero dentro de ese término de "born again" i nacido de nuevo) pero igualmente ambas son evangélicas en el sentido original (evangelische). Evangélico significa una iglesia que sigue el evangelio poniendo enfasus en las sagradas escrituras y en la salvación por medio de la fe. Existen varias tradiciones anglicanos (ingleses) presbiterianos (escoceses) luteranos (germanicos) husitas (checoslovakos) huguenotes (franceses y suizos), etc. Pero en america la cosa se pone más variadas debido a la gran inmigración, por eso tenemos iglesias anglicanas, luteranas, presbiterianas, etc. Todas en América. Y lo mismo pasa con la iglesia católica, en América (especialmente en USA) hay una iglesia latina, en la misma ciudad una maronita, o una melquita, etc. De hecho existen cuantas congregaciones y ordenes religiosas en la católica romana???? (franciscanos, augustinos, dominicos, etc.) y aún otras iglesias catolicas no en comunión con la católica romana, como los vetero catolicos, polaco nacional catolicos, palamarianos catolicos, filipinos independientes, etc. Si no conoces la diversidad de tu propia iglesia no critiques la diversidad de la nuestra😪🤦🏻‍♂️ Espero que después de esta breve aclaración aprendas a investigar primero antes de hablar de otras iglesias, puesto que somos todos parte de la iglesia (como ustedes mismos nos llaman "hermanos separados") *aclaración varias congregaciones han buscado un diálogo ecuménico pero ninguna ha estado en comunión con roma, ni si quiera la anglicana. La única opción de hacerlo sería que sigan cambiando y vuelvan a la doctrina apóstololica como comenzaron a hacer en vaticano II que aceptaron varias doctrinas que nosotros profesamos como la traducción de la biblia, una mayor participación de los laicos, etc. Incluso en una declaración conjunta ustedes ya declararon que creen en SOLA Gratia, asi que si siguen así claro que serán bienvenidos de regreso en la iglesia🙏💙😁

@fernandopaz5201

2 жыл бұрын

@@matiasgamalieltolmosuarez790 siento que te ofendiste con mi comentario. Lo lamento no era mi intención, pero es cierto que hay cientos de denominaciónes protestantes hasta en los "evangelicos" ves que hay diferencias en los términos, denominaciónes y corrientes . Y lo que mencionas que hay múltiples órdenes religiosas entre otros términos en la iglesia catolica, es verdad yo soy consciente de eso pero, a diferencia de los protestantes, todos comparten dogmas comunes como la tradición apostólica en Roma entre otros. Y respecto al ecumenismo se ha avanzando muchísimo, te invito a que leas e investigues sobre las diferentes reuniones que han habido. Es verdad que falta mucho pero el avance que se ha obtenido no se hubiera imaginado décadas atrás.

With all the scripts in which you put up the word "PROTESTANT" I was waiting to see it appear in a baptismal font

I dont mean to be disputatious but I've lived a while now, and I've never met any Protestant who would choose to be called Catholic. Aside from that one comment, let me say that I've been enjoying your videos immensely. Than you for doing them.

@CJ_536

10 ай бұрын

As a protestant, I would not ever call myself Catholic, but I have no problem with the creed when I say I am a member of the one catholic church. I think his treatment of the distinction fits my experience.

You have got to look at the Orthodox (Greek, Eastern, etc) in another video. It would be an eye opener!!!! :-)

I’m a Protestant but I’ve spent the last couple years digging into Catholicism specifically, and I don’t find your explanation of the term Catholic too charitable. You didn’t mention the etymological root of the term even though that’s how you started the video; it comes from the Greek word katholikos, which just means “universal”. Roman Catholicism does NOT catechetically teach that they’re the one true Church and it uplifts eastern rites like the Byzantine Catholics. All Catholics hold that the church was unified up to the Great Schism. Every Christian that *essentially* affirm what’s said in the Apostles Creed and were baptized in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are considered “separated brethren”.

@ReadyToHarvest

2 жыл бұрын

Zane, I think you misunderstand. My description is fully charitable, and I believe most Catholics who watch the video, including some who have commented, such as Catholic Deacon Oatney have stated that it is explained correctly here. The Catholic Church (Which *includes* all of the Eastern rites) does claim to be the true church, and yes, they do so catechistically. It doesn't matter that others are "separated brethren" or even if the Catholic Church accept them as having legitimate succession or valid sacraments. Those can be true even if they are in schism from the Catholic Church. Catechism of the Catholic Church Paragraph 3. The Church Is One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic 811 "This is the sole Church of Christ, which in the Creed we profess to be one, holy, catholic and apostolic." These four characteristics, inseparably linked with each other, indicate essential features of the Church and her mission. The Church does not possess them of herself; it is Christ who, through the Holy Spirit, makes his Church one, holy, catholic, and apostolic, and it is he who calls her to realize each of these qualities. 837 Fully incorporated into the society of the Church are those who, possessing the Spirit of Christ, accept all the means of salvation given to the Church together with her entire organization, and who - by the bonds constituted by the profession of faith, the sacraments, ecclesiastical government, and communion - are joined in the visible structure of the Church of Christ, who rules her through the Supreme Pontiff and the bishops.

@jonathanstensberg

2 жыл бұрын

​@@ReadyToHarvest No, your explanation is close but incorrect. At 10:05, you state that Roman Catholics believe that the Roman Catholic Church is the Catholic Church. This is false, as the Eastern Catholic Churches are fully Catholic Churches in communion with the Supreme Pontiff but not *Roman* Catholic Churches. Identifying the Roman Catholic Church as the one true church disparages Eastern Catholics as separated from of the one true church, and hence identifying this as the Roman Catholic belief disparages Roman Catholics. Rather, both Roman and Eastern Catholics believe that there is one Catholic Church headed by the Supreme Pontiff of which both the Roman Catholic Church and the Eastern Catholic Churches are each equally--yet distinctly--a part.

@ReadyToHarvest

2 жыл бұрын

@@jonathanstensberg The piece you are missing is that this video is explaining what Protestants believe about the term Catholic. So in the part you quote it is accurate. When a Protestant says "Roman Catholic Church", nearly he is referring to the whole Catholic Church *including* the Eastern churches. Roman Catholic is used as synonymous for the Catholic Church, not the Roman/Latin rite churches (Most Protestants aren't even familiar with the rites - they are just talking about the whole church, not any sui iurus church)

Great job as usual!

Do you know where we can find information about what percentage of the members of which denominations consider themselves protestant? Or, if that question is of interest to you, could you maybe create a video about that subject?

The problem of protestant's thinking "universal church is defined by true doctrine" is that within bodies of protestantism themselves the doctrine vary! Calvin opposed luther on so many level, so calvin with armenianism. So, i wonder BASED SOLELY ON THAT DEFINITION, which and whose doctrine is true? At the end of the day there must be ONE PARTICULAR AUTHORITY to decide so, and as catholic, i believe (im not asking u to follow me whatsoever), thats when apostolic succesion as authority weighs in.

@TheChancerian

2 жыл бұрын

As a Calvinist, Who is a member of a congregation in the united reformed churches of North America, most would say the true doctrine is defined in the apostles creed. All denominational bodies holding to that would be holding true doctrine.

@theosteven3362

2 жыл бұрын

@@TheChancerian i appreciate that, but the fact is, the creed itself (again) varies even within body of calvinism (as i have attended some branches and asked them whats their creed is). So which version of creed?

First denomination given in the Bible: Followers of the Way…… it vanished!

Thank you for giving an accurate representation of the Catholic Church (those in communion with the bishop of Rome).

I find one of the bigger challenges in understanding the differences among religious groups (a.k.a. denominations/creeds/churches/organizational-watchamacallthems) -- Catholic-Type-X, Protestant-Type-Y, Other-Type-Z and so on -- is that in practice there is often a difference between what we might consider the "official" position of each group, and the actual positions of any given member of that group. For example, at 12:29 Joshua says that Catholics believe that there is no salvation outside the church, however I'd bet money -- and more today than pre-Vatican II -- that if you asked your average Joe Catholic _"Do you believe there is no salvation outside the church"_ you'd have to ask a few before you found someone who even knew the official position let alone agreed with it. And you'd have to keep hunting quite a bit longer to find someone who could articulate the position -- especially the nuance introduced (or explained, depending on who you're asking) via Vatican II -- at least as well as Joshua has done. So, yeah. Who is a Catholic; who is a Protestant? Is it someone who knows, understands and assents to what the respective organizations teach? Or is it each giddy and glorious mass of believers trying to work out their salvation in fear and trembling under their particular umbrella group (the entire overlapping collection of which can often look like some kind of gorgeous Chinese ballet).

@ReadyToHarvest

2 жыл бұрын

Good observations, I discuss this issue of people not necessarily agreeing with the doctrine of their denominations in my video 'people don't believe the church'.

Didn't the 'Apostles Creed' have its origin as that of the church of Rome, and is accepted by those churches in communion with Rome? If so, the (*) explanation is not accurate. The word 'Catholic' as an adjective and noun has various applied meanings (semantics) in both formal and colloquial context. A catholic orthodox teaching means a 'universally accepted belief or practice or faith' for example. So whether one capitalises the 'C' or not, various groups have developed their own preferred understanding of the use, and effort should be made for them to know the historical usage in context and not just anachronistically apply their current accepted understanding of that word. Officially, the 'Catholic Church' of the Latin Rite has 'no name', but for legal purposes when it became institutionalised in the 5th Century and as legalism became needed as Europe emerged from the old empire, then these titular names were formed. In the English-speaking Commonwealth, the use of 'Roman Catholic' is a legacy of Anglican pejorative use after the emancipation. Many legislative documents in the colonies etc passed titular laws using that term in the titles and for deeds and such purposes, they remain in use. FYI.

@hesedagape6122

2 жыл бұрын

Stop it. Roman Catholic was never an Anglican term. Roman Catholic is how your denomination is registered in many countries in Europe which do not speak English. Until recently my school was Roman Catholic and then that was changed to simply Catholic. Roman Catholic because it speaks of the jurisdiction of the Patriarch of Rome as the Supreme Patriarch of the Roman Empire. This is found in terms like Roman Catechism, Roman Missal, etc. These existed before Anglicanism. The Rule of Chrodegang of Metz has it. So please learn. Catholic (Open Knowledge) is the opposite of Gnostic (Secret Knowledge). The Gnostic Churches currently are few and far between, Most denominations are Catholic whether Orthodox Catholic, Protestant Catholic or Roman Catholic.

@TyroneBeiron

2 жыл бұрын

@@hesedagape6122 Why 'stop' what is true? You have confused the usage of Roman for the Roman Rite and its liturgy what is associated primarily with the Bishop of Rome and his diocese. He also carries the title of Pope among others but the Catholic Church is not a subset of the diocese of Rome. Rather it is the communion of bishops with the Episcopate of Rome that renders the Church its catholicity. Unfortunately your understanding of the term 'Roman' Catholic is limited only by your prejudiced past. In all documents (eg Vatican II) of the Catholic Church the only reference to 'Roman Catholics' are to describe the members of the Pope's diocese of Rome where he seats as bishop. Keep to your beliefs but don't impose your prejudice and bigotry on others.

@hesedagape6122

2 жыл бұрын

Latin Rite (Western Roman Empire) Greek Rite (Eastern Roman Empire) get it? They are both Roman. Catholic is a Greek and not a Latin word. And it is applied to the Church in the sense of her teaching as she is not a secret cult. It has nothing to do with denominational hierarchy. The Roman Catholic Church uses Catholic in that same sense. When we say a teaching is Catholic it means it is derived from sources available to all and as such can be accepted by all.

In the Time of Martin Luther the Word ...Protestant...came from the ..Protest...And it became popular to distinguish it Between Catholicism ...

@k9builder

2 жыл бұрын

Yet, it was also inaccurate, and even Erasmus knew it.

A very good even handed explanation of things. I would say one thought on the decline of the use of the word protestant especially in the ecumenical environment that has existed for the last 60 or so years is that I don't see very many non Catholic churches as consciously protesting the Catholic Church or the doctrines of the Catholic Church. I would say that the average parishioner probably does not see themselves is protesting anything

Here's a helpful way to quantify this: There is the Catholic (i.e. Universal Church) Underneath that Catholicity, there are 3 general Orthodoxies: Eastern Orthodoxy Roman Orthodoxy Protestant Orthodoxy Underneath those Orthodoxies, there are many, many rites (or rituals of practice), or "Orthopraxy".

I'm DYING at the Catholic comments he posted xD

@danhickey1227

11 ай бұрын

they spit facts though

Wow! Where to start? Church is a generic word for something like a purposed group (it's also congregation in the OT). However, starting with a power grab, political Rome stopped throwing believers to lion's and started to manipulate them so eventually, after centuries, church leaders competed for position more than seek souls. It was out of this quagmire that the 'one power church' idea was born and Paul's plain coinage of 'ye are members of the one new man' the 'Body of Christ' eventually fell as victim to a category of mysticism and 'bride of Christ-ism'. Sadly, the Reformers got a few things straightened, they grew, and then they stopped reforming and missed this one completely as they strove to re-write creeds and set them in stone, as it were. Even the earliest of 1800's theologian's reading the Bible in the light of chronological and progressive revelation (Dispensationalism) still clung onto this pervasive 'one churchism' idea (perhaps in a play for unity over truth). Many error's were made and even now, people remain as inflexible as ever. Take for example Jerome's 5th century insertion of a simple page between Malachi and Matthew, should it be there? or does it cause major confusion? We all know the verse that says "Christ came unto His own.." and how he wouldn't even talk to a Gentile woman but, do we fail to see the writer of Hebrews (in CH9) say a new testament cannot start until the death of the testator? I will throw a party the very day some new Bible printer decides to place that page between John and Acts. Some may know where I'm going here, so I'll just say it. The Mid-Acts scriptural viewpoint still remains as the only one that doesn't get hung-up on the name 'church' and yet still can preach on anything, anywhere in the Bible and make it all harmonize citing only additional Biblical text's to back positional reason. After 53 years of trusting Christ, I see it's such a relief to know we can just huddle around our Bible alone and laugh about all our past foibles and false trust in dusty 4 inch thick Systematic Theology books. As for Jesus starting only one church, I say that's patently false. He was pre-incarnate and present in the Church (congregation) in the wilderness with Moses 1700 years prior to tenderly referring to His Jewish hearers in Luke 12 v32 as a "little flock". One year later, a prominent Holy spirit-filled little flock member (Stephen) was stoned to death by those that stood in the seat of Moses, as Saul gave approval holding coats (BTW, in one of the most pregnant verses in scripture). In a major twist that only God can do, Saul was dramatically re-commissioned (personally by Christ) and told he must suffer many things among the Gentiles. Acts 15 and Galatians 2 gives a clear picture that the diminishing of the 'Kingdom offer to the Jews' had begun, and by the time Saul reaches Corinth, we see his name change permanently to Paul, as he had received the revelation of 'the mystery' of the Body of Christ. it is Paul alone who speaks of a unified group called 'the Body of Christ' and salvation by faith alone, and I think people fail to see that Christianity would not exist today were it not for events found in Acts 7 thru 15 and this same writer of Romans to Philemon that Peter finally acquiesces to in 2 peter 3. The Bible simply falls apart, if you tear-out Acts 7 to Philemon and we wouldn't even be posting here on this wonderful channel dedicated to sorting differences we've errantly brought among ourselves.. - Grace and Peace! Waiting for His appearing, our 'blessed hope' Titus 2 v13

Would love to see a video on Catholics vs Old Catholics

VERY MUCH LOOKING FORWARD TO YOUR VIDEO OF THE ORTHODOX CHURCH RELATIONSHIP WITH CATHOLIC AND PROTESTANT

Without making a long story short, there is one part in the Catholic Bible that explains why the Catholic Church is the one true Church of Jesus Christ and the only means of salvation, go to Matthew, Chapter 16, Lines 18 and 19, this is where Jesus changes Simon Bar-Jonas name to Peter. "And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give you the "KEYS" of the Kingdom of Heaven. The "KEYS" mean that this is the only way into Heaven through Jesus Christ to the Father. No other organization or religion can make this claim. What you do not understand is that all other religions or so called denominations are manmade and the people who started these groups had no permission or power from God to make a church so they are fake congregations, a tool of the devil to keep people out of the Catholic Church. There is no Salvation outside of the Catholic Church, only true practicing Catholics are Christians, and there are only Catholics in Heaven

@johnhouchins3156

2 жыл бұрын

If only you knew Greek...

@100megatonYT

Жыл бұрын

I disagree with the “only Catholics in heaven” part. As a Catholic, I believe that anyone can receive Gods grace. You do have to remember that most Protestants are not Protestants by fault of their own, but because they were raised that way. I believe that if a Protestant lives a devout life of faith and charity, and does genuinely beg God for forgiveness, then God will save them. The thing for us is, we are Catholics, so the bar is much higher for us.

@danhickey1227

11 ай бұрын

That last part goes against Church teachings...

Well there are like hundreds of Protestans denomination, is much more easy for Catholics to say Protestants to all. Even in this Protestant Channel is very hard to make a formal classification for all the denominations. Until now I have 3 mayor groups in Christianity : Ortodoxs, Catholics and Protestant. 🇻🇦🕊️☺️👍👌

@matiasgamalieltolmosuarez790

2 жыл бұрын

But it's the same in the other groups but we (protestants) don't confuse them🤔🤔 Old catholics, roman catholics, palmarians, independent polish, independent Philippine catholic, etc. Are all catholics and we don't confused them with orthodoxs or protestants🤔

@fernandopaz5201

Жыл бұрын

@@matiasgamalieltolmosuarez790 Well the difference is the numbers , the Protestant nominations and sects are like thousands.

as a french canadian, I've got no problem calling myself protestant since if I tell another francophone that I'm christian, they will automatically assume that I'm Roman Catholic. other than that, you've done a very good job at being accurate and fair with the terms.

Ready to Harvest - thanks for the explanation. As a Catholic (Roman) I have wondered why some churches don’t like the term Protestant being applied to them. When distributing Holy Communion, if someone doesn’t respond correctly I need to check if they can receive RC Holy Communion. If someone says they are Christian I take it that they are “Protestant”. However, Catholic Orthodox & Oriental Christian’s from the Middle East will refer to themselves as Christian (and so not Muslim), which to a UK RC is very confusing.

I find it almost humorous that the RCC claims to be the only church founded by Christ, yet Jesus never came within a thousand miles of Rome, and there were Christian assemblies in Rome before any of the Apostles ever went there (the story that Peter founded the church in Rome was invented many years later).

@thetraditionalist

2 жыл бұрын

yes

@Giant_Meteor

2 жыл бұрын

Where were Peter and Paul martyred?

@gregb6469

2 жыл бұрын

@@Giant_Meteor -- In or near Rome, but so what? That doesn't mean either of them started the church there. We know Paul didn't, and the stories that Peter did so are very late, and contain ahistorical elements which throw serious doubt on the whole account.

@Giant_Meteor

2 жыл бұрын

@@gregb6469 I don't know what you consider late, but Ignatius (~110a.d), Irenaeus, Clement, all refer to Peter and Paul having led the church in Rome and/or having been martyred in Rome. The Christian religion seems to have spread to the city of Rome slightly faster than the Apostles themselves made their journeys there, but once there, they do, (especially Peter) seem to have been recognized as having been those who "established" the church there. There is no competing narrative among early Christians, as far as I am aware. I haven't even found early heretical writings that dispute Peter having established the Roman church. What ahistorical elements do you detect in the early accounts that would throw any doubt on the traditional belief? I am not Roman Catholic, and I don't buy the papal supremacy claims at all, but I see no reason to do otherwise than take at face value the record of history that has been handed down. Peter established the churches at Antioch and Rome, Mark established the church in Alexandria, James was the first to oversee Jerusalem, etc. I don't even understand the point you're trying to make by saying that Jesus never went to Rome. That's a big point of what Christianity is about, from the beginning: "Go ye into all the world, and preach the good news..."

@gregb6469

2 жыл бұрын

@@Giant_Meteor -- I wrote a church history class paper about this some years ago (and I wish I still had a copy), and I recall reading one story about how Peter and Paul together entered Rome to start the church there, but we know from Acts that there were churches in Rome before Paul arrived there, and when he did get there Peter was not with him, yet this story was used for centuries (and may still be used in Catholic school and devotional material) as proof of Apostolic foundation of the Roman church. The point about Jesus having never been in Rome is relevant because Catholics claim that the RCC, and it alone, is the Church founded by Jesus, an historically absurd claim. If by that they mean that Jesus' Apostles started the church in Rome (for which claim there is no indication in either Acts or Paul's letter to Rome), His Apostles founded churches in many cities before any Apostle made it to Rome, so what makes Rome's claim credible? The Eastern Orthodox churches have never recognized it, and neither did many of the other churches in the ancient world during the first few centuries of the Christian era.

What about people who come to faith in Christ without a "church" , like those in countries such as Iran. Denominations are rediculous, The ecclesia is the body of Christ.

@rh10033

2 жыл бұрын

Yes!!! Exactly.

@andrewternet8370

2 жыл бұрын

"Where two or more are gathered in My name, there I am among them". Church is important.

Interesting. Thank you.

Good explanation

Can i reupload this video on Facebook? Many of my Christian friends have no direct access to youtube.

@easternmcg

2 жыл бұрын

Just send them a link to his Facebook page.

Just in case anyone was curious, “Cow”, “Pig”, and “Lamb”, “Chicken” and “Fish” are of Anglo-Saxon origin (“Cū”, “Picga”, “Lamb”, “Cycen”, and “Fisc” respectively). “Beef”, “Pork”, and the like are from the Norman French nobility (“Boef”, “Porc”, “Poulet” [which after the French left back to mainland Europe came to refer to only an adolescent hen], and “Poisson” [which sounds too close to the English word “poison” so it doesn’t get used anymore].) The Anglo-Saxon serfs were farmers who raised the animals and butchered them, whereas the Norman French nobility only ate the animals, they didn’t raise them.

@ Matias Gamaliel Tolmo Suarez Roman was not put in front of catholic until after the reformation by the Anglicans (Church of England) not by the catholic church. What about the eastern rite churches do you call them Roman also.

I distinguish between the Catholic (capital C) church and the catholic (lowercase c) church. The capital C Catholic church refers to a specific group of Christians who are in full communion with the Bishop of Rome (the Pope). The little c church refers to various groups of Christians who are not in full communion with the Bishop of Rome.

What proves a validated Authority from a common authority is that the Church that has it is unified, and the ones that don't are all divided and can never come to an agreement. Remember: Christ only spoke, taught and practiced one doctrine, not 40.000

@thetraditionalist

2 жыл бұрын

so united in sin proves you right? Ok

@catholiccrayons

2 жыл бұрын

@@thetraditionalist is your church without sin? Because that’s what you implied.

@rjltrevisan

2 жыл бұрын

@@thetraditionalist Explain your accusation, please.

@thetraditionalist

2 жыл бұрын

@@catholiccrayonsall churches have sinners in them but the catholic church teaches and promotes heresy and sin as doctrine unapolgetically, that's the difference

My father’s mother was a papist. She enrolled my dad and his two brothers in catechism classes in Pennsylvania. They were diligent students (or at least Dad was). In the 1920s, Dad decided he disagreed with SOME of what he had been taught, especially the doctrine that laity should depend on clergy to interpret the Bible for them. My parents didn’t meet until the early 1940s but....in the late 1930s, my Dad attended college for a year in Illinois and bought a collegiate dictionary. My mom also attended college - but in Nebraska - and also bought (or was given) a collegiate dictionary (from another publisher). My parents met at a college in Michigan where my dad’s older brother was a professor and mom was a student. Mom dropped out of college to marry Dad (in Iowa). I was born in 1944. About 1956 or ‘57, I was reading one of my parents’ dictionaries (I don’t remember which one) and found this definition of “protestant”: someone who subscribes to the doctrines of justification by grace alone through faith alone, the primacy of scripture and the priesthood of all believers. Dad sometimes recited a slogan he attripbuted to Martin Luther (the 16th century reformer), “By grace alone through faith alone on the Holy Scriptures alone”. So I always thought of my parents as protestants. It wasn’t until 2005 that I heard a baptist say she didn’t think of herself as protestant. Her reason seemed to be that a) she had adopted the definition of “protestant” as a denomination that broke away from the “Catholic Church” in the sixteenth century or a member of such a denomination and b) she preferred to think of baptist as people whose doctrines and traditions (including believers baptism) had been maintained in an uninterrupted line since apostolic times. It wasn’t until this year that I realized some methodists don’t consider themselves protestants but for an entirely different reason. Before the merger that created the United Methodist denomination, many methodists in the United States considered themselves “methodist episcopal”. In the twenty-first century, because many (most?) episcopalians consider themselves more catholic than protestant, some methodists have decided that they, too, are more catholic than protestant. I’ve never met a baptist or a methodist who denied the doctrines of justification by grace alone through faith alone, the primacy of scripture and the priesthood of all believers so I still think of baptists and methodists as protestant. Our parents taught my siblings and me to “abhor popery” but, because neither of our parents taught us to hate papists, I assumed our parents meant we should abhor hierarchy, creedalism and dogmatism. I think the word, “Catholic”, was adopted by the papists as a way of saying that all spiritual authority is vested in or received from the papal hierarchy. For which reason, I am becoming increasingly uncomfortable with referring to the papal system as “Catholic” or even “catholic”. I think of “the church” as consisting of everyone who is learning to trust the Lord - regardless of our denominational affiliation.

@m4641

2 жыл бұрын

I agree we all ought to trust Jesus. Trust that what He is saying as truth. To this end, how do reconcile baptism being a.) Salvific or b.) Merely symbolic? Both cannot be true. Likewise, how do reconcile John 6? Either the bread is His true flesh or merely a symbol. Both cannot be true. Not looking for a debate. Just curious as to how you reconcile these two topics with those that disagree with you?

@rogermetzger7335

2 жыл бұрын

@@m4641 When I was a child, my mother used a phrase,”the honest in heart” to describe who she expected to see in heaven. I understood her to mean that God can and will admit to his heaven the people who, in their inmost hearts, are true and honest and that, conversely, deceitful persons cannot inherit the kingdom of heaven - perhaps especially those who are dishonest with themselves. When I was in my teens, I heard another phrase, “safe to save”. I took it to be closely related to the phrase my mother used. God wants to save everyone but he can admit to heaven only the people who would not impinge on the peace of heaven. It is possible that more human blood has been shed and more pain inflicted by some people on other people in an effort to eradicate “heresy” than any one other motive. There is, however, another way of viewing people who disagree with me about doctrine. I think of most of the ostensibly Christian denominations as existing as the result of God calling a person or a group of people to emphasize one or more aspects of the truth about himself and how he deals with members of the human race. Can we use John Calvin as an example? He wanted to emphasize the sovereignty of God and I’m willing to assume God called him to that emphasis. I think, in his enthusiasm for that emphasis, Calvin went too far. I agree that God knew before each of us was born who would be saved and who would be lost. To me, however, that is an entirely different thing than to teach than God decided that before each of us was born. Should I declare Calvin and Calvinists heretics because I disagree with Calvin’s interpretation of “predestination”? I think not. In fact, I think Calvin provided thousands of people with hope they had never known before by encouraging them to trust the Lord to make those decisions instead of what many of them had been thinking before Calvin began to emphasize the sovereignty of God. Many people, up until that time, had thought of their salvation as depending on what the local priest decided. I can - and have - attended the worship services of congregations that were Calvinist in their theology. I can - and have - made financial contributions to some of those congregations. Why? Because I think, in the twenty-first century, Calvinists have encouraged thousands of people to move away from thinking their salvation depends on what they DO and toward depending on the grace of God for salvation. Do I expect to seek John Calvin in heaven? I hope to. I hope he eventually repented of his statement, in a letter to King Henry VIII, “It is better to burn a few (Anabaptists) at the stake, than for thousands to burn in hell.” I’ve met people who thought of themselves as followers of John Wesley but who, in my opinion, had perverted what Wesley taught. Some by encouraging people to think that people can be saved by their decisions - others by encouraging people to claim “entire sanctification” defined as no longer sinners and not subject to selfishness. I can’t consider someone to be a Christian who claims he is not a sinner but most methodists don’t claim moral perfection. It would be hard to overstate the amount of good that has been done in this world by methodists. I don’t think of myself as a methodist because I don’t agree with John Wesley that tradition should be considered authoritative but I can - and have - attended methodist services and made financial contributions to methodist congregations. Within the congregations of which my parents were members, their way of dealing with doctrinal differences between themselves and elected lay officers was to avoid arguing with those officers while encouraging other members to understand my parents’ doctrinal beliefs in the hope that the “wayward” officers could eventually be voted out of their positions. My parents often held leadership positions themselves but they NEVER made use of their high-profile leadership positions to publicly denounce other officers’ theology during worship services. People who can disagree without being disagreeable are (in my opinion) “save to save”. Attempts to coerce people with regard to religious beliefs, religious practices or religious prohibitions make it impossible for those who favor coercion to have a place in heaven. People who think of a religious organization as “the church” may find it difficult to follow my logic here but within a given congregation (or denomination) it is possible for baptism to be defined in a specific way. Let’s use the example of a congregation accustomed to thinking of baptism as meaning immersion and being symbolic. That may mean that the members of that congregation don’t use sprinkling or pouring and that they only baptize a person who requests baptism when they think he is making the request on his own volition but such a policy does not require thinking of people who have never been immersed as any less Christian. If a person who requests immersion thinks of the ceremony as conveying the grace of God (rather than merely symbolic) that is between the baptismal candidate and God. I have some definite beliefs about how the Lord’s supper should be observed. So definite that I sometimes decline to participate. On one such occasion, a lady noticed that I didn’t participate and asked me why. That gave me opportunity to show her a Bible text on the subject (I Cor. 11) and ask her whether she was acquainted with that instruction. She indicated that she had never noticed that instruction but I didn't urge her to encourage the congregation as a whole to change the way the Lord’s supper was observed. Such situations don’t EVER need to turn into arguments.

@dougy6237

Жыл бұрын

The term "Catholic Church" was not used in the sense you assert. The name "Catholic Church" meant far more than universality. Your assertion is an age-old error, employed by Protestants who whilst hating the term Catholic and not wishing to use it for themselves, still try to rob Catholics of it's usage. Historically what happened in the early Church is that the Church was identified by all 4 Marks of One, Holy, Catholic (Universal) and Apostolic (in doctrine and succession). The short name for the Church was taken from the 3rd mark, "Catholic". To be the "Catholic Church" meant the true Church, that is the group with ALL 4 Marks, not one or two marks, but ALL 4 Marks. The name "Catholic Church" was first used to identify the True church from the break-away groups which, whilst possessing valid baptism, did not enjoy full communion with the true Church. So it is incorrect to say one can claim the title "Catholic Church", by just having the mark of universality. No Protestant group can claim to possess even one Mark, let alone all 4 Marks. Regarding the 3rd mark of catholicity, each Protestant group is restricted in geography on racial and/or political grounds, or by belief in the particular doctrine it holds. Following is evidence of the name "Catholic Church" from the first 250 years of the Church: Ignatius of Antioch “Let no one do anything of concern to the Church without the bishop. Let that be considered a valid Eucharist which is celebrated by the bishop or by one whom he ordains [i.e., a presbyter]. Wherever the bishop appears, let the people be there; just as wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church” (Letter to the Smyrneans 8:2 [A.D. 110]). The Martyrdom of Polycarp “And of the elect, he was one indeed, the wonderful martyr Polycarp, who in our days was an apostolic and prophetic teacher, bishop of the Catholic Church in Smyrna. For every word which came forth from his mouth was fulfilled and will be fulfilled” (Martyrdom of Polycarp 16:2 [A.D. 155]). The Muratorian Canon “Besides these [letters of Paul] there is one to Philemon, and one to Titus, and two to Timothy, in affection and love, but nevertheless regarded as holy in the Catholic Church, in the ordering of churchly discipline. There is also one [letter] to the Laodiceans and another to the Alexandrians, forged under the name of Paul, in regard to the heresy of Marcion, and there are several others which cannot be received by the Church, for it is not suitable that gall be mixed with honey. The epistle of Jude, indeed, and the two ascribed to John are received by the Catholic Church (Muratorian fragment [A.D. 177]). Tertullian “Where was [the heretic] Marcion, that shipmaster of Pontus, the zealous student of Stoicism? Where was Valentinus, the disciple of Platonism? For it is evident that those men lived not so long ago-in the reign of Antonius for the most part-and that they at first were believers in the doctrine of the Catholic Church, in the church of Rome under the episcopate of the blessed Eleutherius, until on account of their ever restless curiosity, with which they even infected the brethren, they were more than once expelled” (Demurrer Against the Heretics 30 [A.D. 200]). Cyprian of Carthage “You ought to know, then, that the bishop is in the Church and the Church in the bishops; and if someone is not with the bishop, he is not in the Church. They vainly flatter themselves who creep up, not having peace with the priest of God, believing that they are secretly in communion with certain individuals. For the Church, which is one and catholic, is not split or divided, but is indeed united and joined by the cement of priests who adhere to one another” (Letters 66[67]:8 [A.D. 253]).

@rogermetzger7335

Жыл бұрын

@@dougy6237 I really appreciate you taking the time to document the basis of your understanding of the word, “Catholic”. The problem is that I never considered my parent’s pastors to have any more spiritual authority than my parents had. They admired the protestant reformers and encouraged my siblings and me to admire them but our parents didn’t consider the reformers to have any special spiritual authority either. The nearest thing to authority I consider them to have had was the ability to show people the biblical basis of their religious beliefs and practices. I admire the puritans of colonial New England for their strict adherence to biblical principles as they understood them but I don’t understand those principles exactly as the puritans did - and I’m very much opposed to their predilection toward imposing civil penalties on people who violated their religious prohibitions or disagreed with their theology. People who disagree with each other about religion are often inclined to call each other “heretics”. I’m inclined to save them the trouble - by referring to myself as “the resident heretic”.

@dougy6237

Жыл бұрын

@@rogermetzger7335 I was simply presenting the history, Roger. You will find it is the accepted opinion of anyone taking the time to read the evidence, Catholics and Protestants alike. Regarding your parents, authority and the Bible, if a Protestant disagrees with the interpretations of their denomination they are said to be "un-Biblical" and if they tried to preach those "unBiblical" doctrines in the pulpit there would be thrown out. Most significantly, if they contradict the Protestant founders of the founders of their denomination, they are likewise treated. So it would be disingenuous to underplay the issue. The fact is every Protestant group is separated from the other because they all arrive at different versions of "truth"- a tragic indication that the practice of Bible Alone just does not work. 500 years of continual division shows the practice of Bible Alone is clearly not of Christ.

There are twenty different "rites" within the Catholic Church. The Roman rite is only one of them. It is more proper to say "I am a Catholic within the roman rite." Your video is 97% correct overall.

As usual, Thanks so much.

@ReadyToHarvest

Жыл бұрын

You're quite welcome! Thanks for watching.

Prefer to use the Biblical definitions and leave the differences at the foot of the cross. We can debate, and even associate with those who have similar doctrines. Debate & associate but never divide. They'll know we are Christians by our love, not by our denomination.

Born to a Catholic Mother and Lutheran Father. Was Baptized Catholic besause I was my mothers first born and it was important to that side of the family. Grew up going back amd fourth between Churches depending on which Grandparents I was visiting on any given Sunday. Lost touch with the Faith for years. Finding Christ again on His terms. Considering re-baptizing. My choice.

@mj6493

2 жыл бұрын

You don't need to be "re-baptized". God was faithful to your baptism and drew you back into his church. That's all you need to know.

I got a new definition for Protestant: a properly baptized Christian who is not a practicing Catholic. This happens to be the same definition as a Cafeteria Catholc.

Would love a video on the difference between flavors of Independent Fundamental Baptists.

It may be controversial - in fact it certainly is - but I use the phrase "Church of Rome" to avoid calling them Catholic.

@GenesiusOfWalsingham

2 жыл бұрын

It's not completely wrong but your name is a bit lacking. There are more than one Church in communion with Rome; the most well-known *is* the Roman Catholic Church, but there are also other Churches like the Byzantine Catholic Church, Maronite Catholic Church, etc. So you should still call any Church that is in communion with Rome "Catholic", but there isn't just one Church that calls themselves such validly.

@thetraditionalist

2 жыл бұрын

good idea

@acekoala457

2 жыл бұрын

@@GenesiusOfWalsingham any "church" with open communion is in communion with the Pope. Most Protestants are Roman Catholics according to V2

@GenesiusOfWalsingham

2 жыл бұрын

@@acekoala457 you misunderstood Vactican II. Anyone who is validly baptized (i.e. in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit) is imperfectly connected to/in communion with the Catholic Church. Salvation can only come through the Church by Christ, so those who are validly baptized can still hope to be in heaven one day as long as they have faith in him and follow a well-formed conscience. Tldr The Church does not have an open communion, but does admit that as long someone is baptized, they are imperfectly united to the Church and have a chance at entering heaven.

@matthewhavemercyonmeimasin1500

2 жыл бұрын

@@GenesiusOfWalsingham From what I know .... as long as you belong to any Catholic Rite (Latin or Roman or RCC/ Orthodox/ Maronite etc ... you can receive sacraments (esp the Eucharist) to any Catholic Rite Church.

Catholic: "We don't worship Mary. We *venerate* her!!!!" Venerate, latin root venerārī, meaning "to worship," "to pay homage to," and "to hold in awe." That root is related to Venus, which, is the name of the Roman goddess of love and beauty. Strangely, it looks like another Roman Goddess crammed into worshiping Mary, "Queen of Heaven." 🤔

@100megatonYT

Жыл бұрын

I do hope you realize that simply tracing the definition of a word used sparingly doesn’t refute doctrine. Ask basically any Catholic and they will tell you they do not worship Mary. Simple as that. Prayer does not equal worship, but it does establish a firm connection with those alive in the presence of God in heaven. If you would consider our infatuation with Mary as worship, I disagree, it’s simply giving the holy virgin that bore Christ the credit that god himself acknowledged.

@ri3m4nn

Жыл бұрын

@@100megatonYT I'm a Catholic Religion Specialist for the military. Your point is typical cope. Statues, prayer rituals, co-salvational claims, it's worship. Use whatever euphemism you want to feel better about it, but it's worship regardless.

@100megatonYT

Жыл бұрын

@@ri3m4nn then let me ask you one question. Where are their hearts, where are their minds

@100megatonYT

Жыл бұрын

@@ri3m4nn plus, I’d rather go by such a practice that has existed since the very earliest churches. Not some doctrine that was decided upon 500 years ago

@ri3m4nn

Жыл бұрын

@@100megatonYT sure, the first church was Messianic Judaism then Acts 15 Gentiles were let in.... you gonna join the Messiah Judaism Church? But it's good to know you think the congruence of God is dependent on man.

The belief in those who aren't Catholic being saved from the Catholic perspective also ties into a belief in Purgatory. The implication is that if you die in sin, or false doctrine you can still be saved by Gods judgement on true faith and your individual circumstance, which God acknowledges regardless of doctrine. In the same way everyone is sinful regardless of religion or sect of Christianity, everyone also has a chance of being saved or eternally damned. In fact, we as Catholics place strong emphasis on the fact that even if we believe our theology is the most accurate there is still a real consequence to actions irrespective of the label. Many Christians of other denominations believe this as well. I also don't hold an prejudice to any of my fellow Christians. I have many friends of other denominations and I personally believe that they to are apart of the Catholic Church in a similar way to how Protestants view an "Invisible Church". This is actually supported by Vatican 2, as well as several other councils, and agreements with Lutherans that "Protestants" are also open to salvation and not internally dammed. We do believe we are the true Church while accepting other followers of Christ to be open to Gods glory even if they aren't in communion with Rome. There are radical people among "Roman Catholics" who view "Protestants" as "heretics" just as there are Protestants who don't view "Catholics" as "true Christians". I think all of the in fighting is discouraged by the book of Job, which discusses followers of God who don't follow gods law and those who don't follow Gods law following Gods law. So if there is hope even for non Christians or Jews there is hope for all of us Christians. Also, as a sign of good will in the 90's the Catholics and Lutherans agreed on the definition of faith and good works. Also, during Vatican 2 Christian leaders of Orthodox and Protestants were invited. Vatican 2 didn't change theology of Catholics but it did make our practice more like the reformers. A lot of Roman Catholics didn't like that and prefer Pre Vatican 2 doctrine. A video on different Catholics would be cool. Sorry for interchanging terms so much, hopefully people understand. Great video, I am not a mean Catholic like some.

I think in a perfect modern classification system, “Protestant” would refer to the more historic churches (e.g., Lutheran, Episcopalian, Presbyterian, etc.) and we started using a newer term for the low churches with more modern influences (e.g., Pentecostal, Non-Denominational, Adventist, Churches of Christ, etc.). Not sure where to put Baptists, I guess it would depend on the specific subgroup.

@jainac11

Ай бұрын

Baptists hide under the banner of nondenominational now

“To study church history is to cease to be a Protestant.”

@carsonianthegreat4672

2 жыл бұрын

St. John Henry Newman, pray for us!

@kurtisokc

2 жыл бұрын

“To study the history of the Papacy is to cease being a Roman Catholic.”

@essafats5728

2 жыл бұрын

@@kurtisokc oh how original PROTEST-ant

@thetraditionalist

2 жыл бұрын

wow imagine thinking a quote by a catholic is good evidence of catholic teaching

@thetraditionalist

2 жыл бұрын

@@kurtisokc lol

If your church wasn't founded within the first two centuries after the crucifixion, and the Bible to which you refer wasn't canonized at around the same time, you are a Protestant. The schism between the RC church and the Greek Orthodox church occurred rather early on. The Greek Orthodox church is nearly identical in theology and liturgy to the Roman Church. "Protestantism" actually began in England later on, with King Henry the eighth splitting the Church of England from the Vatican because they would not grant him one divorce after another. Most of the other "Protestant" sects have similarly illustrious roots. The Southern Baptist Church split from the old German Baptist Church because they did not support slavery.

@thyikmnnnn

2 жыл бұрын

The Roman and Eastern churches have major theological differences. Also, Henry wanted an annulment from the Pope not a divorce.

@efandmk3382

2 жыл бұрын

@@thyikmnnnn The only real differences between the Roman and Greek churches are the liturgical calendar., and the church hierarchy. Those aren't "theological" differences, per se. I did misspeak, but annulment and divorce, in this case, is a distinction without a difference.

@larrymcclain8874

2 жыл бұрын

The Roman Catholic Church began in 1054 AD, when it split from the Eastern Orthodox Church. That is history.

Do you use the terms Anglican and Episcopalian interchangeably ?

@ReadyToHarvest

2 жыл бұрын

I use Episcopalian to refer to the Episcopal Church (USA denomination) and Anglican to refer to the entire denominational stream, which contains both the Episcopal Church and Church of England among others.

Dear Prof Joshua, Hmm... I waited a while before responding proper to this video. I hope this comes across with a sense of charity in spite of the digital medium. Here are my thoughts: 1. I think Christian communal life is much more than one of shared beliefs. Sure, it's heartening to see that we Catholics and Orthodox have many shared beliefs with the Protestants, but how could that possibly replace being in communion with each other? How could Protestants take solace in having these (VERY top-level) shared beliefs with each other, yet not being in communion with each other? From a psychological perspective, isn't the denomination phenomenon one of tribalism borne out of pride? Sola Scriptura wasn't even practiced before Luther, and he was not exactly a model of Christian Grace. Then the English joined the Protestant movement... then Calvin (French, IIRC)... and yes, the splintering was and still is very real. How do you reconcile this with John 17: 20-23? That was my main concern. Smaller ones are below. 2. As many have commented in other videos, the Roman Catholic Church does not require clerical celibacy. Deacons and Eastern Rite priests can be married. 3. Leaving out the basic beliefs about salvation (OSAS, Universal salvation, etc), Sacraments, and their connection seems to be an omission. You provided detail about not believing in the Real Presence in the Lord's Supper, so making a statement about what you believe about Baptism (where it functionally does something or if it is a symbolic ritual) seems to be in order. So... when it comes to your lessons on the different denominations, as a research scientist myself, I think it is a fascinating phenomenon. Perhaps learning about the denominations is my way of coping with the deep sadness I feel for the lack of Christian unity that Jesus prayed for in John 17. Whatever the situation, we can only hope that the Holy Spirit is bringing Christ's peace and wisdom to all in your fledgling KZread community. Yours in Christ, Dr. E.