Horrible Arguments for the Roman Catholic Priesthood
Vložit
- čas přidán 14. 12. 2017
- Started off covering a Catholic Answers article trying to find “clues” to the Roman priesthood in the Bible.
All production and credit belongs to Alpha and Omega Ministries.
If this video interested you, please visit aomin.org/
"To be deep in the Bible, is to be absent of the Vatican" - J.D. Randall
Wow Calvinists are so cringe and ignorant of history lol 😂
To be deep in calvinsim is to be deep in anti christ
And also to be deep in history is to cease to be Roman Catholic.
To be deep in “Roman Catholic approved history” is to cease to be Protestant.
@KnightFel Hello there,
I've taken that quote with what I found in history... It hasn't convinced me to cease being a Protestant.
I found John Hus (15th century), John Wycliffe (14th century), Peter Waldo (12th century), Berengar of Tours (11th century), Claudius of Turin (9th century) and Leo Vigilantius (5th century).
Not to mention the Church Fathers' diverse views on many things.
Thank you for your patience and God bless you
@KnightFel Hello there,
I've taken that quote with what I found in history... It hasn't convinced me to cease being a Protestant.
I found John Hus (15th century), John Wycliffe (14th century), Peter Waldo (12th century), Berengar of Tours (11th century), Claudius of Turin (9th century), Leo Vigilantius (5th century).
Not to mention the Church Fathers' diverse views on many things.
Thank you for your patience and God bless you
The glaring issue that comes to my mind is the fact that the Catholics look to the priesthood of Levi to draw comparisons to their modern priesthood. Christ is literally called a priest of the order of Melchizedek. Unless I am mistaken (which is more than possibly), Melchizedek was the only priest of God in his time.
You are mistaken.
@@Esch-a-ton3 YOU ARE MISTAKEN!
Roman Priesthood is just a reinvention of the Levitical Priesthood. The Levitical Priesthood exclusively presented offering in the temple. Roman Priesthood exclusively presented the so-called bloodless sacrifice of Christ in the Eucharist, spuriously made-up with the sacred tradition of man.
Do you think it would be a good or bad idea for the RCC to do away with the requirement for priests to be celibate/unmarried and allow them to marry? That is, do you think that doing so would/could bring the RCC more in line with scripture with regard to church leadership?
@@tintinismybelgian Take a good look into the Roman Church's doctrines and dogma, and also their history. Roman Catholicism is not Christian. It spreads a veneer of Christian jargon over their paganism.
As such, changing the rule of celibacy wouldn't bring it anywhere near scripture. 😟😟
@@judylloyd7901 OK, then, I guess it was just a goof when J.R.R. Tolkien shared the gospel with C.S. Lewis and C.S. Lewis accepted Christ as a result.
@@tintinismybelgian no one answered responded to this? 😬
@@TheDroc1990 To what?
Do you think it would be a good or bad idea for the RCC to do away with the requirement for priests to be celibate/unmarried and allow them to marry? That is, do you think that doing so would/could bring the RCC more in line with scripture with regard to church leadership?
The Bible says if you burn with passion to get married. Theres nothing wrong with celibacy but to command it for your clergy opens up the door for sexual deviancy. It's not commanded of God for ministers to be celibate. They probably can indeed do much more for their ministry as single men but on the whole it's not in the Bible as a command.
@@firingallcylinders2949 True. In fact, the scriptures say that anyone who is chosen to be an overseer or bishop should be the husband of one wife, temperate, sober-minded, of good behavior, hospitable, able to teach, not addicted to wine, not violent, not greedy for money, but gentle, not quarrelsome, not covetous; one who rules his own house well... Also, people outside the church must speak well of him..." 1 Timothy 3:2-7
(There is also a list of qualifications in Titus 1:7-9)
So, far from requiring elders and overseers to be celibate, the Bible seems to teach the opposite!
I've never understood how the Roman Catholic church came up with the strict requirement of celibacy for church leaders when it isn't required by scripture.
The Apostle Peter was married. Paul was not. That doesn't make either state mandatory.
@@judylloyd7901 Well considering the fact that priests call themselves Alter Christus (another Christ) and Jesus never married that's part of their line of thinking. I think that's a terrible one, but alas that is what they will tell you. Yet another issue with Sola Ecclesia, instead of consulting Scripture they make up their own doctrine that is just based on tradition and sounds good. If God wanted elders and the clergy to be unmarried He would have inspired the writers of the NT to say so.
@@judylloyd7901 track back many centuries ago in Rome, and you’ll see that in the priesthood there was a lot of nepotism. Being a priest required celibacy originated from the fact that people became priests simply because their fathers and other family members were.
It’s a step in the right direction but it doesn’t solve the entire problem of RCC as a whole
'Clues' just makes me think of the late John Shelby Spong, he was forever searching for 'clues' (that weren't there) to fit into his aberration of a warped theology lol
May you please expand on this...
@@justinernest6881 Certainly this was they type of thing he mentioned in the White-Spong debate, which I think is available in its entirety on CZcams. And in at least one interview I saw with with Spong with I think Canadian TV.
@@andrewwhyte4753 out of all the liberal theologians Bishop Spong has my highest respect...although I disagree with basically everything he says his ability to still converse with those who disagree with him is unlike anything anyone who is liberal will ever do, but also the way he can say so much without saying anything at all is really funny to witness😂. Like the dialog he had with the late dr walter martin on the John ankerberg show, and even the debate he had with james
Most Catholics never read the Bible. Sad.
Where in scripture does it describe how to create the NT canon. If it was so important the NT must have explicit statements right?
I read it just fine, like this verse.
James 2:24 “You see that a person is justified by works and *not by faith alone.”*
@@christsavesreadromans1096
James 2:21
21 Was not our father Abraham considered righteous for what he did when he offered his son Isaac on the altar? 22 You see that his faith and his actions were working together, and his faith was made complete by what he did. 23 And the scripture was fulfilled that says, “Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness,” and he was called God’s friend. 24 You see that a person is considered righteous by what they do and not by faith alone.
Justified: having, done for, or marked by a good or legitimate reason.
Our works justify to (others) that we are followers of Christ. Because people can only see and observe our actions, they are unable to see if we truly love and know God.
Proverbs 21:2
2 Every way of a man is right in his own eyes: but the Lord pondereth the hearts.
Matthew 15:19
For out of the heart come evil thoughts, murder, adultery, sexual immorality, theft, false witness, slander.
Luke 16:15
15 And he said unto them, Ye are they which justify yourselves before men; but God knoweth your hearts: for that which is highly esteemed among men is abomination in the sight of God.
Romans 4
4 What then shall we say that Abraham, our forefather according to the flesh, discovered in this matter? 2 If, in fact, Abraham was justified by works, he had something to boast about-but not before God. 3 What does Scripture say? “Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness.”
4 Now to the one who works, wages are not credited as a gift but as an obligation. 5 However, to the one who does not work but trusts God who justifies the ungodly, their faith is credited as righteousness. 6 David says the same thing when he speaks of the blessedness of the one to whom God credits righteousness apart from works:
7 “Blessed are those whose transgressions are forgiven, whose sins are covered.
8 Blessed is the one whose sin the Lord will never count against them.”
Romans 10:4
4 For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth.
5 For Moses describeth the righteousness which is of the law, That the man which doeth those things shall live by them.
6 But the righteousness which is of faith speaketh on this wise, Say not in thine heart, Who shall ascend into heaven? (that is, to bring Christ down from above:)
7 Or, Who shall descend into the deep? (that is, to bring up Christ again from the dead.)
8 But what saith it? The word is nigh thee, even in thy mouth, and in thy heart: that is, the word of faith, which we preach;
9 That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.
10 For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.
11 For the scripture saith, Whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed.
12 For there is no difference between the Jew and the Greek: for the same Lord over all is rich unto all that call upon him.
13 For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.
14 How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher?
15 And how shall they preach, except they be sent? as it is written, How beautiful are the feet of them that preach the gospel of peace, and bring glad tidings of good things!
16 But they have not all obeyed the gospel. For Esaias saith, Lord, who hath believed our report?
17 So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.
John 5:24
Truly, truly, I say to you, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life. He does not come into judgment, but has passed from death to life.
1 John 5:1
Everyone who believes that Jesus is the Christ has been born of God, and everyone who loves the Father loves whoever has been born of him.
Hebrews 11:6
And without faith it is impossible to please him, for whoever would draw near to God must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who seek him.
Luke 17:5
The apostles said to the Lord, “Increase our faith!”
John 1:12
But to all who did receive him, who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God
Romans 5:1
Therefore, since we have been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ.
Romans 1
16 For I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes, to the Jew first and also to the Greek. 17 For in it the righteousness of God is revealed from faith for faith, as it is written, “The righteous shall live by faith.”
Galatians 2
15 We ourselves are Jews by birth and not Gentile sinners; 16 yet we know that a person is not justified by works of the law but through faith in Jesus Christ, so we also have believed in Christ Jesus, in order to be justified by faith in Christ and not by works of the law, because by works of the law no one will be justified.
17 But if, in our endeavor to be justified in Christ, we too were found to be sinners, is Christ then a servant of sin? Certainly not! 18 For if I rebuild what I tore down, I prove myself to be a transgressor. 19 For through the law I died to the law, so that I might live to God. 20 I have been crucified with Christ. It is no longer I who live, but Christ who lives in me. And the life I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me. 21 I do not nullify the grace of God, for if righteousness were through the law, then Christ died for no purpose.
@@tookie36 No one created it, they discovered it. BIG difference.
@@christsavesreadromans1096 and when you keep reading it says that those works come FROM Faith. They are evidence of Faith.
James , please help me understand the development of presbyter to priest and why we translate the word priest for the Old Testament “kohen” but not for the New Testament wherever it says “presbyter”. How come if the etymological root of the word is presbyter we apply the word priest to words in the Old Testament such as kohen which it has no etymological connection but not for the word presbyter and elder
Here in Germany young believers of the Eastern Orthodox Church try to influence sola Scriptura believers, and they are very successful, using arguments such as „the apostolic succession“, „the apostolic fathers are students of the apostles“, „the Bible canon came out hundreds of years later“, „no one was able to read“, „it was the church teaching everything“, „Bible says that the church is ground and pillar of truth“, „oral tradition is mentioned in the Bible“, „Bible talks about priests and bishops“, „you have edited the Bible - deuterocanonical books“, „look how many Protestant denominations you have“, „church canonized the Bible“ etc.
These are their arguments. And at least regarding the apostolic fathers being students to the apostles, I think in cases of Clemens of Rome, Polykarb, Irenaeus and others, they are right.
I would love to see a video refuting them on church history.
See Dr Gavin Ortlund and Joshua Schooping for the historical refutation.
1) The eucharist (thanksgiving) didn't need a temple priest originally.
2) People meet and fellowshipped without need of a temple priest.
3) The idea of a centered faith with figure heads did >>>NOT
Originally they had Jesus. Paul. Peter. James. Etc…
@@tookie36
Then they had church elders, not priests.
These functions were done in the home without the mysticism and the so-called clergy that was added much later.
@@onemarktwoyou that’s your opinion. The scripture isn’t explicit about the role of elders in the new churches. Which is why Protestants have all sorts of interpretations on the role of leaders in the church. Meanwhile priesthood is essential in Catholicism and orthodox and was essential in the early church as well
@@tookie36
Scripture is clear that roman catholic paganism is lying about the history of it.
The fact that you say scripture isn't clear about it proves that your cult doesn't care about scripture.
@@onemarktwoyou if scripture was clear there wouldn’t be the countless Protestant sects or the LDS or the JWs… every Protestant church leader just wants to be pope.
Catholic dogmas based on Bible clues 😂😂😂
R Q how R U I saw hariel he was asking how you doing ?
Sola God
Since the very beginning, God made it quite clear man is not to be alone and to be fruitful AND multiply. These single and celibate priests are quite clearly alone and robbed of companionship they are supposed to have. Not bad guys but their awful loss.
Why did Paul say it is best not to marry and not to have sex?
@bobbq8380--please read the bible.
@@tookie36he also said it was his opinion and that he believed God was in agreeance with him but then said no one commits sin if they do marry. Then you have the positions in the Bible as being described as husband of one wife.
@@Legionxciv yet Paul writes… and is preserved in the holiest text of all creation… so yes people marry. But there is something to celibacy that is deeply treasured and it’s being lost by fallen men
@@tookie36 while yes celibacy is something that is a gift as Christ himself said. As it allows you to focus entirely on God. However, it's never said Elders HAVE to be celibate. Forcing Elders and Bishops to be celibate when it clearly doesn't teach that in scripture, is making the scriptures void like the Pharisees did with the Corbin law in regards to the commandmant to honor your father and mother.
Good info, thanks. May our hearts be soft for those who are under blind guidance and our resolve to be willing and able to provide firm-footed guidance strong.
Bishops originally were priests. They delegated some of their Priestly authority to the Presbyters making them "priests" under them. Married priest were the norm in the East. Monks were not only unmarried, but "monastic" meaning isolated from society. In Orthodoxy a "Presbyter" is a tool of the Priest who is the Bishop.
But in Roman belief, every Priest is just a tool of the Pope. He is the only "Priest" and has direct jurisdiction over every church.
But think of it this way, if an Apostle had started a church, and then told a Presbyter, "I am going to leave for now, it's your job to do such and such while I am gone" what is wrong with that?
In the East, the word Priest, really only refers to Bishops, and we use the word Priest just to talk with Romans with terms they understand.
Notice how white downplays the rebellion, reads the verse that they sought the priesthood, and when caught in his own error rephrased in his own words that they rebelled against the way God ordered things. Ordered things like.. The priesthood? which you just addmited when you read the scripture? Sounds like white has some similarities with Korah.
This is laughable lol
@@timothyvenable3336 did you happen to watch the video?
@@Esch-a-ton3 yes, and you are right in what he’s saying, but you missed the point entirely. Jude 11 is about people rebelling and being intentionally ignorant. So Jude says they are rebelling and lists some rebellious people in the OT. To specifically draw out of this that the priesthood is established is absolutely absurdity
@@timothyvenable3336 it’s not saying the priesthood is established… the argument is that the priesthood is not for everyone. Which is why they were rebelling. However, white said they weren’t after the priesthood but then literally read the verse that said they sought the priesthood.
Jude is referring to the people who attempt to claim the priesthood for themselves like in the case of Korahs rebellion. That’s what the rebellion was about.. people who sought the priesthood without claim to it.
@@Esch-a-ton3 okay, i actually didn’t know that’s what the rebellion was about. Thanks for clarifying lol
But either way, that doesn’t take away from what Jude is trying to say. I do see now the argument being made, I just think it is such a big stretch and it’s unnecessary. Especially when you consider that since the priesthood is such a big deal, there would be more information about it in the New Testament
Universal guardian Dogs🐕🦺🧍✝️🕊
Bishop is a priest (at last supper apostles are essentially both bishop and priest) initially bishops are inherently priests (how is this know in the nt - they offer the mass)
That doesn’t really make sense to me… the book of Hebrews basically says the priesthood has ended with Jesus and there is no need for a priest anymore?
Bishops are priest!
Also, Bishops and Deacons existed before the New Testament was complete, and referring to them, proof positive that the N.T. springs from the Church, not the other way around.
'before the New Testament was complete' - I don't follow the argument - are you implying that nobody had or was reading any of the books of the New Testament and treating it as Scripture before the entire thing was 'complete' (whatever you define as its completion date)? That somehow, Apostles were writing doctrine in the New Testament to present-day churches and individuals of the time, but that somehow they knew no one was going to read it or take it authoritatively until an ambiguous later future date when it would be officially 'complete'? As if Paul was sitting writing his epistle to Timothy like, "I'm going to write to Timothy about the qualifications for an Elder, but we all know this won't take effect until once the New Testament is done...'. Please correct me if and where I have misunderstood your argument. I don't mean to misrepresent it, it just appears ludicrous to me the way I currently understand it, and I'm happy to be corrected.
@@Mic1904 I said Bishops and Deacons were present before the New Testament was complete. Bishops and Deacons are referred to in the New Testament.
In addition, we have accounts of Ignatious and Polycarp who describe the passing down of Apostolic succession using the term "ordination" within the first century.
The Church did not institute the orders of Deacons and Bishops after reading about them in the bible. The bible documented their existence. Also we have Didache which describes the orders of Bishops and Deacons and is derivative of materials that were used to describe the proper practice and of Christianity what were present in the first century. The scripture of the first century was read at the weekly services which themselves are referred to in the New Testament.
Also, there were dozens of books that were considered to be scripture by one or another community until the 4th century when a determination was made of which books and versions were appropriate. The body that made that determination had Liturgy, Eucharistic practice, and Bishops and Deacons as well as a monastic rule that is described in the Apostolic Constitution. In addition, Ethiopian, Indian and Chinese Christian Churches had similar practices even though they were not under Byzantine control.
Actually both spring from God.
Mr. Mitch Pacwa might be a nice guy, but he is a very evil man.
He is also very disingenuous!!!! He plays what I call the "typical roman catholic pagan lying games". He does not play it as bad as Staples, Horn, Marshall, Madrid, Stravinskas, Sungenis ect... , but he does play it. Those other guys couldn't tell the truth if their salvation depended on it, and it does!!! Why do these pagans lie for their sadistic cult and try to send themselves to hell? I will never understand why they need a cult they know they must lie for and attack scripture, true tradition, and even their own faith's founding beliefs for what romanism has mutated into.
So Saint John's disciple, Ignatius of Antioch, just created a position? Seriously dude, there were Bishop's in the Church in 100 AD.
Yes there was! However there wasn’t any priest like that of the Roman Catholic Church during that time. There is no proof of transubiation in the New Testament no matter how hard you try to find it. It’s not there.:)
Deacons and bishops are interchangeable, but Rome has completely altered what it means to be a bishop, which is why it has become an exclusivity in the Catholic Church.
And the mandatory celibacy is another issue. Jesus’s uncle, Zachariah was a priest yet he had a son and a wife. The Bible condemns mandatory celibacy in 1 Timothy 4
Werd Nnam
Bishops *
The word in 1 Timothy 3:1 translated "bishop" isn't speaking of an "office" but rather is a job description. It's someone who oversees, or superintends in the church.
So, of course there were overseers in the New Testament church. It's not an "office" created by the Roman church. It's a job for overseeing the people, and the life and growth in the church. 😁😁
@@pennsyltuckyreb9800 nice rant, but the historical church in 100AD looked more like Baptist churches than anything Catholic or Orthodox, as they worshipped for 8 hours a day, breaking bread and being joyous, not in a cathedral or basilica...But in catacombs or houses....
You cannot admit that your ornate, romanist views of church history is just as much historical revision than what James is doing. You are coping, bro.
Sola scriptura is a slogan invented by protestants. It is not in the bible.
Neither is celibate priests. Get real.
Neither is the word trinity pal, but that doesn’t make it un-biblical. We get it, you love the man-made traditions that Rome has invented over the centuries. How else would they bind ridiculous nonsense on the conscious of men without their invented claims
@@erickanter celibate priests is biblical!
@@catholicbiblemansaint9385you said “celibate priesthood is biblical”
Can you show us or demonstrate it in any way?
The Eucharist is not a reliving of the Death and Resurrection, it is a connection to its singular occurance.
It’s a literal bloodless representation.
🤣🤣🤣 It's incredible how you guys play word games. Think about it. You basically take EVERY evil mentioned in the Bible and brand it as Christian. Idol worship, magic, praying to dead people, repeating the same prayer over and over, putting a woman above Christ like some Gnostic Sophia, etc. One or two issues that might have cropped up through the years I can understand. But your whole setup is on face value Pagan in all but name. Yeah, yeah, I get your arguments on the veneration of Saints, Mary, transubstantiation etc. But come on!!
Lol I see this was 3 years ago... the coughing and sniffling comes across as a big deal today (2021) 😂
Yeah. Signs of a cold.
Where's Sola scriptora in the New Testament?
2 Timothy 3:16-17
1 Corinthians 4:6
Acts 17:11
Mark 7:13
Matthew 4:4, 7, 10
Scripture > Tradition
@@s_hrndz0119 2 Timothy 3:16-17
New King James Version
16 All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, 17 that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.
Where does this say by scripture alone shall u interpret the divine reality?
@@isaacdominguez474 Because Scripture is the only method used to examine doctrines. Read the other passages and you’ll see that.
@@s_hrndz0119 that's a conflicting statement how do you interpret doctrine without having the observer preconceived notions not affect the interpretation of the text?
@@isaacdominguez474 by looking at the original language and its meanings
😂 imagine White holding this standard to sola scriptura. Where in the NT does it explicitly state how to create the NT canon??? How can people listen to this
What do you mean? Can you clarify?
@@timothyvenable3336like 5:01. Why isn’t there an explicit statement in scripture describing how to decide what books should be in the OT and NT?
@@tookie36 okay I gotcha… the Bible is not an authoritative list of books, but more like a list of authoritative books. Meaning the Bible doesn’t make the books authoritative, but the writings are authoritative and so they are in the Bible. We just discover which ones are authoritative
@@timothyvenable3336 I understand that but where in these books does it say that?
Like White is suggesting for the priesthood. Where is it explicitly stated and not just clues. This is where he changes the goal post for his beliefs vs other peoples beliefs
@@tookie36 that’s a category error. What the Bible teaches and what books are in the Bible can’t be equivocated like that, so no he’s not changing the goal post. The priesthood is a teaching, and so he looks for scripture support. What books in the Bible is not a teaching, so he does not look for scripture support
Um Hello Paul referred to Jesus as The High Priest.
James is a living heresy, maybe he should ask his catholic sister what she thinks honestly
Do you have an argument against what he’s saying?
@timothyvenable3336 yes! J.w. arguments against the priesthood are shallow and weak, 'think' if jesus is high priest shouldn't there be a priesthood? When jesus established the eucharist on the last supper the 12 were there, only! and Jesus made a new covenant mark 14:24...Matt 26:26-28...j.w. try's hard to discredit the priest simply by saying Na! And leed you on through a rampant none scriptural circle outside the Bible theory! Very simple where does Jesus say the priesthood is no more in the Bible? J.w. doesn't give any references to any! On the contrary scripture says there was a need for a new priesthood *Hebrews 9:15-19....(it's quite clear there is a priesthood) jesus did not come to abolish the 'Law, but to fulfill it - Matthew 5:17...
I would say he has no arguments for there not being any priesthood in the church...
@@Catholic101A. thank you for the response!
“Jesus is high priest shouldn’t there be a priesthood” there is! 1 Peter 2:9. The church/body of believers are the priesthood.
“Where does the Bible say the priesthood is no more?” Well it says we have a new high priest in Jesus, not under the old Levitical system but under the order of Melchizedek. So surely you agree that at least the old levitical priesthood was abolished. We just argue that the new priesthood system is not has Jesus as high priest and the believers as the royal priesthood, and there is nothing more to it.
@timothyvenable3336 we are all priest for being baptize with christ, that's the common priesthood! Now' [exodus 19:6-1 peter 2:4-10...the difference is what Jesus instituted he's priest in the last supper a priesthood in the manner of melchizedek genesis 14:18... a high priest that offers bread and wine which Jesus did with' his apostles, the ministral priesthood, this priesthood do the sacraments like in the old covenant, there! Is a difference which non catholic don't accept.
@@Catholic101A. I’m just confused how the last supper is connected to any sort of priesthood
For James White, everything is under question. For him, there's only one truth, that is James White.. stupid rants 😂🤣😜 you don't know anything because you are just establish by Calvin 500 years ago, your man made doctrine and religion. You're not at all part of the church established by JC. That's the beginning of your church history...
Not only is this not an accurate position on Protestantism or Calvinism, it's not even the *Catholic* position on these things 😂
@@Mic1904 yes it's the Catholic position my friend
@@anthonycalipjo8669 Lol, no. The Catholic position does not involve anyone inventing any new man-made religion 500 years ago, nor does it place Calvinists outside the church, at least as far as being believers as a part of the Body of Christ. Probably because the Catholic Church actually knows better than you do what it actually believes about things...
@@Mic1904 you're talking out of the loop. I'm a Catholic so I know what I'm talking about. You don't...👍🤣😋
@@anthonycalipjo8669 Clearly not. You're aware that the official Catholic position on something isn't just 'what you think'?🤦♂️
I love the Godly Roman Catholic Priesthood Forever
Anthony Garcia come on dude. Can’t judge her heart.
@@Leaf93 you can judge their false gospel though
cringe
Leaf93 the heart is evil and desperately wicked. We can’t do anything for her. She rejects the true gospel, and embraces the Roman Catholic Church as her God.
@@RealFredbaby How is the gospel that went out to the Church, Matthew 28, Mark 16, false?