Why I Don't Accept The Papacy

We admire you too man but your faith can’t solve for disagreements and you don’t have anyone giving a truth ;/

My thought is: is it safe to rely on an unclear passage as a doctrinal basis or dogma?

Peter had primacy over the twelve.
Peter is the Royal steward this office is to be handed on until the Saviors return.

Fixed it: “Because some guys made some stuff up 1600 years after the church was founded.”

You dont accept Papacy, because you are afraid to recognize that you have been wrong for so many years. If you were just searching for truth, that would make all the difference. But in the end, you know you are trapped on the wrong side (as well as McArthur, White, and all the rest of them.). Try to learn. You are so confused.

There are two baptisms. One with water and the other with fire. Both are needed.

Peter was not being given superiority or rank to be better than the other apostles. Jesus Christ was blessing him that he's a part of his house, because he was the first to acknowledge Jesus Christ is the Son of God.

Simon Peter was called Peter in other books before Jesus Christ blessed him by calling him that. He was calling him a rock, a part of his house with Jesus Christ being the chief foundation rock as the Son of God. We are all rocks that are used to build his house. We are pillars too. Jesus Christ is the foundation the house sits upon. He was speaking in carpenter language.

Keep spreading the truth brother. 🙏

1. Cognitive dissonance
2. Pride

Whether you agree with the papacy or not it is up to you ,for the papacy is 2025yrs today and has been keeping the gospel spread to the enitre universe even the most hostile places you cant go . So relax ,Jesus started it all ,the only source of unity of the church. All those who rejected the papacy have broken away from the unity of truth and have denominations built on people like Gavin interpretstions of one or two verses. Jesus prayed " Father ,let them be one,let them be one ,let them be one" the only Christians who are one are catholics anchored together and in fellowship with the Pope ,that is the mystery that brought me from proteststism to Roman Catholic church,because the only unique thing they have is the Papcy that has kept the unity . As saint Ignatius said " gather with the bishop ,because where the bishop is ,there is a true eucharist ,follow the bishop as you follow Christ and there is the catholic church .

Modern revelation is very essential here. Joseph Smith received numerous clarifications on this point. Thus LDS support the Catholic position that Peter was the main guy in his day and there does need to be one main guy like Moses that has all the priesthood keys. If you don’t have the doctrine of the priesthood none of this makes sense

regarding the context of the rock...

let us start with Daniel:

Daniel 2:34-35
+-+-+-+-+-+-+
NASB95


 34
“You 1continued looking until a astone was cut out bwithout hands, and it struck the statue on its feet of iron and clay and ccrushed them.

 35
“Then the iron, the clay, the bronze, the silver and the gold were crushed 1all at the same time and became alike chaff from the summer threshing floors; and the wind carried them away so that bnot a trace of them was found. But the stone that struck the statue became a great cmountain and filled the whole earth.

-----------------------
This answers two of his question ... the issue of the rock ... and the issue with the universality of the Church and the Church's position in the world order...

first is the stone cut out without hands...this implies that the stone is earthly ... the one that is divine is the one cutting of it... if the phrase is there appear a stone MADE not by hands the whole stone itself should have been divine.

... the stone here can then represent the Church (in the context of a Kingdom or an earthly figure just as nebuchadnezar represents the gold head)... which arises after the Roman and Byzantine empire... there are no more emperors heading that divided empires... only bishops ... as for the mountain ... the vatican is not only a church but a nation ... with own flag... diplomats and coat of arms functioning as a legitimate nation listed as one of the countries of the world with members spread across the entire world...

... now if you are still arguing who is the rock ... Christ or peter ... the Church herself that rose from the ashes of iron and clay testifies that your psstor is not the one.
😂

there is no rule that ecumenical councils need to be convoked by the Highest authority of the Church... even the first council of Jerusalem was not convoked by Peter... it was a necessity due to issues with the Judaizers ...

He missed the point on the argument on matthew

that discourse started with the request of the mother of the zebedee brothers on making any of them sit on his right side ... (whether she refers to his reign in the Davidic kingdom on earth or in heaven) ... but Jesus replied ... He is not the one to decide but the Father

... then the Father decides ... by giving Simon the answer to Jesus' question (which of course only Jesus knows the correct response... otherwise why He said it is not Simon who gave the answer but the Father) ...and in turn Jesus changed Simon's name to peter (rock)...

however ... Jesus also highlighted the function of Peter ... to be the servant of Servants ... this is understood with the Church fathers ... they respected Peter's authority but did not highlight Peter's ranking hence SERVANT OF SERVANTS ..

Thanks Gavin. Now lets stop the wasting our time

Interesting video. As a Catholic, of course had to disagree with almost all though. I agree that not all early church fathers called Peter the "rock", but those that did still acknowledged he was the leader of the church. Such as St. Cyprian, St. Augustine, etc..

The fact that the bishop of Rome in early times never convenes a council proves nothing. At the time the pope didn't have enough political cloud not to mention money to call on a council. The point to prove is whether during a dispute who did the council turns to? Was it to Bishop of Rome or not? If it wasn't then your point that the bishop of Rome was nothing is proven

Well reasoned argument! Thanks for the history lesson.

I was raised in the Episcopal church and my parents were non-practicing Catholic (father) and non-practicing Lutheran (mother). After the age of 18, I became on-practicing Chrisrian also for 28 years. I briefly tried evangelical, non-denominational. Eventually became Anglican for 6 months before becoming Catholic. There are too many protestant cburches and too many kinds. When I go to Mass, I know that every Catholic around the globe is reading the same scripture I am. You must humble yourself to become Catbolic.

Ditto ! Also (3) competing Popes at the same time; pay to play for the office of Pope; Pope’s having sex and children, etc.

“Jesus saith unto him [Thomas], I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.” (John 14:6, KJV). I don't see any mention of a priest, a Pope, or Mary in this passage.

This guy won’t accept the Papacy BUT, I guarantee that his wife is the Alpha of the relationship.
This guy should just go ahead and paint his nails.
Get it over with already!

read Matthew 16: 18-20 in light of the Old Testament Isaiah 22:22 (a foreshadowing of Peter becoming the King’s steward when Christ leaves until his second coming). I don’t see how anyone can deny what Christ was saying to Peter- these men were well aware of what Christ was getting at with the language harkening back to Isaiah 22:22

You don't accept the Papacy because Protesters do not follow the scriptures ,,,,, you cherry pick the scriptures to advance your heresy and you strenuously ignore the most important scriptural command by Jesus to eat His flesh and drink His blood in the Holy Eucharist that he instituted as the foundation of His Church .....the Holy Catholic Church where an incredible miracle occurs at EVERY Mass wherein the Bread turns the Body, Blood , Soul and Divinity of Christ ...that Christ instituted at the Last Supper ..which can be found in SCRIPTURE but you have to read and follow all scripture not just the parts that fit your demonic heresy

It's actually pretty easy; "you will know them by their fruits". "them" being the RCC, not the individual believers.

Gavin you are spiraling. Are your followers demanding you explain why you’re not Catholic? Do you feel some inner push to defend yourself because you know it’s false or because you’re fighting the truth? To people in the fullness of truth it is quite obvious you’re struggling with the truth not defending it.😅

Could be pride. It would take grace and humility to convert to His Church, rather than imitating the protest. That is my problem with Protestantism. Relying on yourself to decide everything. Scripture and Tradition and history of the world refure that way.

Because you’re okay with being wrong

I had thought that the Rock the Church was built on was Peter's faith on Christ. I never took it to mean that Peter was the first pope. I can understand how some may believe that idea however I do not.

An important piece of scriptural evidence is found in the OT monarchy which God established. The monarchy is a "type" of the church, where a type is something from the OT which is a shadow of the NT fulfilment.

The OT monarchy had a king at the top, who had a series of ministers acting below him, including a prime minister with authority above the other ministers. This is shown in Isaiah 22:20-22, where the prime minister is given the keys to the house of David, such that "he shall open, and none shall shut; and he shall shut, and none shall open." This parallels Jesus giving Peter the keys to the kingdom of Heaven in Matthew 16:18-19, and that whatsoever Peter binds on Earth shall be bound in Heaven, and whatsoever he looses on Earth shall be loosed in Heaven. Additionally, Isaiah 22 shows that the prime ministerial position is passed on to successors along with the keys, implying Peter's role would also be passed on in somilar manner.

Simply put, the Church is the NT fulfilment of the OT monarchy, where Jesus is the King and Peter's position is the prime minister. The rest of the apostles would have been regular ministers subject to the prime minister, although still with their own authority (see Matthew 18:18, where the other apostles are given the power to bind and loose but not the keys).

In yours eyes was the orthodox or RC correct in the schism?

Yup....The greatness of 50 k denominations proves that unity is not necessary. No need for a central authority as instituted by Jesus! BTW Gavin, study Luthers personal letters and put in the word Pope for him....measure Protestantism by the same measure as you do the Pope and the Catholic Church.

Because you’re an authority unto yourself.

Having been Catholic previously , in my experience Catholics are very devout, pious. As a person who attended Methodist Sunday school I had little understanding . I just liked the choir I was in. I do believe though that we will be judged on what knowledge we have . If our hearts are right with God then we fare as well as any other Christian. I can’t argue theologically. Personally I’d rather go to a Baptist chirch but Baptists in my country have lost touch with tradition and have abandoned the old hymns. Catholics don’t care so much about theology until they’re confronted with other viewpoints. They rarely discuss it if they are laity. I believe all will come into the truth. There is only one body of Christ. Argument achieves little whereas love, joy and peace draw everyone to Christ. Christ is the rock. That is my understanding. Strange that we have different interpretations. Stranger still that the Bible is silent when it comes to dogma. Many draw their own conclusions. I came out from among them. Perhaps Jesus will make it clear why I was part of Catholicism in the first place.

I don't even know why people are losing sleep over this. Pope just means Pappa (or Father). Secondly and more importantly, Scripture teaches that the 3 strands of Rock and keys to the Kingdom (Matthew 16:18-19) Steward (Isaiah 22) and Shepherd (John 21) all apply to Peter. Christ handed his authority on earth to Peter (prime minister) until He comes again at His Second Coming with the help of his apostles (ministers) and all their Apostolic successors that exist right down to this day in the Catholic Church (not in the Baptist Church). The threefold structure, that there’s one Bishop accompanied by priests or presbyters and deacons is something that goes back to the time of the apostles. We know that Peter was first the Bishop of Antioch and then the Bishop of Rome, where he was martyred.

My thoughts on Saint Peter being the rock/head of the church is this. One, the acts and the epsitiles of the 12 dont seem to indicate Saint Peter as the leader in any shape. If that were the case, why did Saint Paul rebuke him? Typically these guys did'nt rebuke their leaders.

Secondly, if their was a leadership role why did it occur DURING the great split?

The earliest church seems to have divided leadership amoungst them.

Third is what was the fruits of the pope? Bloodshed of the saints.
Persecution of those that confess Christ as the only way to the Father.
Sexual corruption
More unbearable relgious practices.
Idol worship.
Big hats
Bigger gowns
The pope saying he is Christ on earth (a term for the anti-christ)
Calling him Holy Father, when there is but one Holy Father.

But when you bring uo these points, they'll argue with you like the "third" abrahamic "final revelation" people.

Scroling and see that this man just have videos about preaching that others are wrong while telling how rude is that others are telling that we are wrong 😂😂😂😂😂😂

The papacy and purgatory

Thank you, but one point needs correction. Peter was the Apostle to the circumcised, the Jews. Galatians 2:7-9. Why would Peter disobey the Lord who called him to the circumcision, go to Rome and head up a gentile body of believers?! Paul never mentioned him as being in Rome or anywhere near there. There simply is no more than very shaky fantasies that Peter was ever in Rome.There’s no biblical evidence at all. There’s a book written I believe in the 50s “Peters tomb found in Rome”, about two Catholic priests who unearthed his ossuary,”Simon bar Jonah”. This was hushed up with utmost furor. The only Peter in Rome was Simon Magus the sorcerer. Pius the Xii had works in Rome searching diligently for some tangible evidence that Peter was actually there, of course they never found any. It’s diabolical and very sad that two major doctrines of the Roman church are hoaxes and completely without biblical authority.

Don't the apostles themselves pass down Judas' office to Matthias?

This is very refreshing. I skipped over this video a few times because i thought it was going to be a "catholics are so stupid and us protestant are so smart". I have been seeing a lot of content from both sides that seem to attack each other. You are never going to convience someone by "totally destroying them". I would love to see a conversation (purposely avoiding the word 'debate') between you and somone like a bishop that has studied these topics. Much love and God bless! Keep up the good work!

Peter writing to the church "you also, as living stones, are being built up a spiritual house, a holy priesthood". If anyone was to be the pope it'd be our high priest, Jesus

I see similarities between the Catholic Church and Old Testament Judaism, specifically the placement of fallible humans between God and myself. The rending of the curtain that separated the Holy from the Holy of Hollies represents the elimination of such gatekeepers, I now can now “skip the line” and go straight to God through Christ and have no need for earthly priests.

Matt. 23:9 also speaks to this. If God intended an infallible head of the church who would be called father, why would he explicitly tell us to call no man father?

Matthew 16:18-20 when read in light of Isaiah 22:22 makes a much stronger case for the role of the papacy. Jesus is a Davidic King and the Church is modeled after the Kingdom of David.

This is how it is done. saying: “The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat. Therefore whatever they tell you to observe, that observe and do, but do not do according to their works; for they say, and do not do. Matthew 23:2-3 NKJV You may disagree with your lead pastor, priest, or leader but the proper way to deal with it is to avoid following their lead.