Being Un-Catholic is Not a Solution

Beginning a Video by Shad M. Brooks (To Prove I'm Not a Mormon) · Being Un-Catholic is Not a Solution · Answering Testify Cafe on Catholicism

Thinking of Converting to CATHOLICISM? Don't Do Anything Before Watching This!
BiblicallyMotivated | 13 April 2026
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Ha1bckkwcQ

2:24 Yeah, exactly!

Caerularius could claim he was just following in the steps of Photius (who died in peace with Rome) and was continuing the immediate predecessors.

Luther could absolutely not claim that. He was a Roman Catholic clergyman of Wittenberg before being the Deformer there.

3:56 Novus Ordos aren't in communion with Pope Michael II.

5:53 What exactly did Christ promise to the 11 in Matthew 28:16 to 20?

Pretty clearly something that has the power to impose the analogy of faith.

You can pretend Roman Catholicism doesn't meet that claim. But you can't pretend the claim as such is anti-Biblical or even extra-Biblical. It's a solidly Biblical claim, for the Biblical or NT Church and its direct successor in this day.

Michael II or* Peter III or Leo XIV or Bp Pivarunas or Revd Pagliarani or Bartholomew of Constantinople or Kirill of Moscow or Nicholas of Eastern America and New York or someone actually has such a claim. It's not Dallin H. Oaks bc of the gap between Moroni and Joseph Smith, which contradicts the text.

8:40 Trinitarian Christians? Orthodox?

Bec wars are sometimes recommended by the Church, but not fought by them.

Waldensians were nearly as orthodox (adjective, not denomination) as Evangelicals, and usually I think Trinitarian, but they were also deniers of the Bodily Resurrection. They were also in the bad company of the very heretical Albigensians, who disagree with the first verse of the Bible, claiming that different entities created Heaven from who created Earth. Which is blasphemy.

BiblicallyMotivated

@BiblicallyMotivated

You must be thinking of the Cathars, whom the Waldensians resisted. Waldensian statements of faith, such as the Confession of 1120, declared that Christ "rose again for our justification" and that they looked forward to the "resurrection of their bodies at the day of judgment".

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@hglundahl

@BiblicallyMotivated I'm aware that the confession is dated to 1120 (after just looking it up), but can you get scholars to agree? Not specifically Protestant ones.

Because once upon a time, Cathars or Albigensians were also falsely credited with a creed or confession that agreed with Protestantism (actually Calvinism).

The Church from 1200 + sth (IV Lateran, I think) required of returning Waldensians to confess "I will rise in the same flesh that now I carry" (changed, but not exchanged for another).

Perhaps that was because it was also used for Albigensians, not sure.

However, the one you quote is from a work** by this man:

Pasteur des vallées piémontaises, témoin des massacres, Jean LEGER vit ses biens confisqués et sa maison rasée sur ordre du Duc de Savoie, il se réfugia à Leyde où il fut nommé pasteur de l'Eglise Wallone en 1663.

Exactly the kind of period in which a Protestant would claim Medieval Albigensians / Waldensians for their own, as Protestantism was already more fashionable than Catharism and as modern historic scholarship was not yet a huge thing.

@BiblicallyMotivated I did find a reference*** on it:

The beliefs of the Waldensians should be found best expressed in their confessions of faith, but those which we have leave much to be desired. The confession dated 1120 by Morland and Leger, is really much later. The second that he prints is undated; the only other dated before the Reformation is the one presented to King Ladislaus of Bohemia in 1508, but it is given in a later form, as “amplified,” in 1535.

9:05 Yeah. Jesus was, unlike the lie of Caiaphas, not a heretic to Second Temple Judaism.

Jesus spoke of sin in the sense of miscarriage of justice, not as overstepping the authority, which actually involved an authority to stone blasphemers.

9:19 "Pope" who?

I don't think Michael II recognises antipope Wojtyla as Pope. Nor did Michael I.

9:58 "Protestants don't claim authoritative infallibility."

Therefore relinquishing the claim to be the Church to which Matthew 28:16 to 20 was adressed.

Also, not strictly true of early Magisterial Protestantism, like Luther or Calvin.

BiblicallyMotivated

Why would that be?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@BiblicallyMotivated The task given to the twelve was teaching everything He had told them.

The help in that task was Jesus Himself, already identified as almighty even as Man and the time for that help was every day, no breaks.

Like God the Father turning the Sun, Moon and stars around us, God the Son helping His Church doesn't take Saturdays off.

The Apostles knew this and the real successors of them know it.

BiblicallyMotivated

@hglundahl But where does this establish the principle of apostolic succession? What about this tells us that their unique authority as "witnesses to his resurrection" (Acts 1:22) would be given to others beyond them?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@BiblicallyMotivated I was not citing Acts 1:22, I was citing Matthew 28:16 through 20.

The twelve are the first bishops.

In the NT era, there was probably no single term for bishop, the Apostles (12, 70, 500) were one of the categories of bishops.

That the succession is episcopal can be gathered elsewhere than Mt 28 and Acts 1:22 is only part of it.

Barnabas perhaps, Titus and Timothy certainly were not witnesses to the Resurrection. But they were part of a succession. In Antioch, Paul and Barnabas became bishops in Acts 13. Paul made Timothy and Titus bishops before the letters. If "bishops" in the pastorals means "priests" these establish that priests must be ordained by someone (reaching back to the Apostles) and that Tim and Tite were meant to carry on, also eventually consecrating bishops.

But I think I already said. No, wait, that was to Shadiversity, not to you. The verses I cited could have been compatible with many different ways of continuing the Church, but they state the Church has to continue and do so with infallibility, and I could have been fine with any way of continuing it that I actually find.

And obviously, if the disciples in Antioch who consecrated Paul and Barnabas didn't include any of the twelve, though some have identified "Niger" as Peter (Peter > Ater = Niger, as a code name), they got their episcopal consecrations from the twelve.

Beyond the task of witnesses to the resurrection, there is the task of simply continuing to teach what one has been taught, even Paul (who was partly taught by Christ personally) says "I have handed on that which also I have received" and the principle is not limited to the context of St. Paul.

11:20 Unlike the cherubs on the Ark of Covenant and unlike the face of Jesus on the Shroud and the Sudarium, the idols of the pagans were just the craftsmanship.

If the pagans were lucky. In Delphi, they were even worse off.

That's the point Isaias is making. Not about statues being involved in worship.

11:39 The God of Israel also had an Ark which was carried in a manner physically reminiscent of idols' being carried.

12:09 It so happens, the Golden Calf was a heretical image of God.

We do condemn heretical images. Some fights between Catholics and Orthodox are about which ones are and aren't heretical.

13:00 The presence of God is dwelling in human flesh, since c. 2000 years ago.

That suddenly made God Himself, as He actually is, and not heretically is thought of, depictable.

13:43 I'm actually NOT genuinely searching.

I get recommended more than one video like this. Gavin Ortlund had a similar title.

I already converted when I was c. 20 (19+). I'm 57.

And I respond to video after video like this, and some people still want to treat me as if I were "considering" to convert and hadn't already done so.

Here is my reply to your call to viewers' conscience. Imagine you stand on judgement day and say "yeah, I know the succession seemed to match, outwardly looked like matching, what You said in Matthew 28, but I didn't trust it" ... Luke 10:16 says something about those who don't trust Apostles (or, by extension, successors).

Kamaree Myricks

@kamareemyricks8314

Protestants dont reject the apostles, we actually agree with them so im not sure what you mean when you say we didnt trust them when we literally hang on their words. we're saying We are not going to stand before god and give an account of why we weren't apart of a specific denomination. Christ is the unifer and we can be united inspite of our differences. we're going to be judged by whether we accepted or rejected the son and then our actions after. Through Jesus we attain salvation not by joining a certain club.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@kamareemyricks8314 "the apostles"

I mentioned they had successors, right?

This is apparent from "all days" in Matthew 28:20.

"why we weren't apart of a specific denomination."

What about Jews who didn't join the Church at Pentecost?

They therefore that received his word, were baptized; and there were added in that day about three thousand souls And they were persevering in the doctrine of the apostles, and in the communication of the breaking of bread, and in prayers And fear came upon every soul: many wonders also and signs were done by the apostles in Jerusalem, and there was great fear in all And all they that believed, were together, and had all things common Their possessions and goods they sold, and divided them to all, according as every one had need

And continuing daily with one accord in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house, they took their meat with gladness and simplicity of heart Praising God, and having favour with all the people. And the Lord increased daily together such as should be saved
[Acts Of Apostles 2:41-47]

So, those who were "such as should be saved" needed to be together.

In one visible organisation, not in mutually independent ones.

That correct organisation is first defined by baptism and the doctrine of the Apostles, but the people had and have access to the full doctrine of the Apostles through their successors.

Kamaree Myricks

Mark 9:38-41

“Teacher,” said John, “we saw someone driving out demons in your name and we told him to stop, because he was not one of us.”

39 “Do not stop him,” Jesus said. “For no one who does a miracle in my name can in the next moment say anything bad about me, 40 for whoever is not against us is for us. 41 Truly I tell you, anyone who gives you a cup of water in my name because you belong to the Messiah will certainly not lose their reward

Where does it say we have to be united in a visible institution? Sure we may have disagreements but we are united by our shared faith in the saviour Jesus christ. That is the shared visible person we share in Jesus.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@kamareemyricks8314 Did you note that this was during the Old Testament, before Calvary, and both Jesus' disciples and the other ones were part of Second Temple Judaism?

Kamaree Myricks

@hglundahl I don't see how it still wouldn't apply now. Apart of the hermenutical process is seeing the difference before christ and after christ in text where that applies.

My question for you. How would we today apply this scripture? As the bible also says all scripture is given for correction reproof and teaching in all righteousness so that the man of God may be complete. If that's true what in this passage is not for today when Jesus says if they are not against you they are for you and if they do something for you in his name then they will have their reward?

Also appreciate the conversation. You didn't have to but you did so thanks for talking.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@kamareemyricks8314 "How would we today apply this scripture?"

For instance, if a relic is from the clothing of St. Francis, it's not forbidden for Dominicans to use it to obtain miracles.

if they are not against you they are for you

Well, are you for Catholicism and its claims of exclusivity?

"You didn't have to but you did so thanks for talking."

With you it's less toxic than some I've debated. Much so.

Kamaree Myricks

@hglundahl im happy to hear that.



I've heard of relics and things. Do you know of any resources that i might look into to further understand it?

Is St. Francis a saint thats not commonly appealed to by dominicans?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@kamareemyricks8314 Not the least, that's part of my point.

Franciscans are disciples of St. Francis (of Assisi) and Dominicans are disciples of St Dominic (of Guzmán or of Osma).

Yet Franciscans, as Catholics, invoke the prayers of St. Dominic and Dominicans those of St. Francis.

Back in the OT the disciples of Jesus and other people invoking His name were both parts of Second Temple Judaism.

@kamareemyricks8314 Relics?

And some that were burying a man, saw the rovers, and cast the body into the sepulchre of Eliseus. And when it had touched the bones of Eliseus, the man came to life, and stood upon his feet.
[4 Kings (2 Kings) 13:21]

So that even there were brought from his body to the sick, handkerchiefs and aprons, and the diseases departed from them, and the wicked spirits went out of them.
[Acts of Apostles 19:12]

Kamaree Myricks

@hglundahl is this in reference to one body but many members in communion with each other?

Sorry im a little lost. 😅

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@kamareemyricks8314 Indeed, Franciscans and Dominicans are definitely one body in Christ.

Each discipleship isn't a body to itself, just as the followers of Jesus in the Old Testament, before Calvary, were not a different body than those other Jews who used His name to expel demons.

Kamaree Myricks

@hglundahl hmm interesting thanks for clarifying that.

---

* Note, I'm saying "or" not "and" — they exclude each other.

** Histoire générale des Eglises Evangeliques des Vallées du Piemont ou Vaudoises
https://www.info-bible.org/histoire/vaudois/histoire-generale-leger.htm

Original printing of the work: A Leyde: Chez Jean le Carpentier, 1669.

*** The Prophetic Faith of Our Fathers, vol. 1
https://m.egwwritings.org/en/book/956.5585#5591

It's actually a 7DA source making this admission.