Orthodox Christians Reject Papal Infallibility
Vložit
- čas přidán 5. 09. 2023
- #bible #christ #christianity #jesus #shorts #orthodox #orthodoxchristianity #trinity #catholic #god #protestant #faith #salvation #ecumenical #council #saint #saints #heresy #heretical #icons #communion #eucharist #virginmary #theotokos
- Zábava
I can agree.
The Latin " Primus Inter Pares"
First Among Equals.
So the pope but we didn’t like the pope once so we made our own.
@@primeministersinister625 No the Pope was considered the first among equals but the west decided to give him supreme authority all over the church and the title of the infallible man. This would be humiliating for the Other Patriarchs (Alexandria,Constantinople, Antioch, Jerusalem) that was the main reason the church split. The Orthodox church is open tp the ide of the first among equals in respect and authority. This is the title the Patriarch of Constantinople (Instanbul/Fanar) has today.
Idea**
@@simoschristoforouFanar, Constantinople, Istanbul.
@@adrianwhyatt594 what's the point of this comment?
Jesus Christ is the only authority
The pope cannot just "declare anything as dogma;" you're begining to strawman. Declaring a teaching a dogma is to declare a well known truth whose rejection can amount to a rejection of the faith. That has always been the basis on which firmly held teaching were declared dogma.
Define “well known” that’s the trick
@@nerdtalk1789 Many Christian teachings were so commonly held that it was taken for granted that every Christian believed it. It was only at the point at which heretics began to question it that the Pope would declare it a dogma, emphasizing the indispensable nature of that particular doctrine.
@@el-sig2249 but are the origin of all of those commonly held beliefs completely biblical? Is it not possible that certain beliefs were misinterpretations of the scripture?
@@nerdtalk1789 God bless you for this sincere question. The "commonly held" beliefs referes to the common Christian doctrines of the 1st and 2nd Centuries. By the end of the 4th Century, the year 382 precisely in Rome, they made deliberate effort to eliminate false doctrines by limiting Christian teaching to the books which the bishops of the Church approved.
So you can see that consistency with Christian teaching was the criteria for the choice of books. So there is no way they could have chosen books which disagreed with their doctrines.
Remember that the truth was being taught for 4 centuries before the compilation of the bible. Even then, due to handmade copying, it was not commonly available until the invention of the printing press in the 15th century.
So as people of faith we have to believe that the Holy Spirit has been guiding and protecting the Church from error since Pentecost. Anything else would make our Lord to be a liar, 'cos He promised the Holy Spirit for this purpose.
@@el-sig2249question, over history, what doctrines have the popes established as 100% truth. I plan on maybe converting to Catholicism, so this will be useful to know.
I missed the part where Christ gave the keys to all the apostles and not just to Peter
St Jerome said it; " one needed to be set apart (Peter) in order to remove any possibility of division
He was visible head of Jesus Church (who is hers invisible head)
@@user-7lf7w amen!
Jesus was making a point of what he taught the Apostles. His teachings are the keys to Heaven to be used by Peter and the apostles.Jesus is the chief cornerstone and his word to build uphis church of disciples.
@@kellytraveler4748 how are His teachings exclusively the keys? Both modern day and especially biblical times, people understand the key to be a symbol of the king. Davidic kings and others wore a set of keys around their neck which was a symbol of their authority over the kingdom. Why do you believe the keys to be the word? Nobody at the time thought of it as such
Only Peter was given the Keys. Not the Apostles. Read your Bible ad you will be enlightened.
Amen 🙏☦️
“I also say to you that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build My church; and the gates of Hades will not overpower it.”
Check what Peter said just two verses earlier to see what the discussion was all about
What are you stronger argument Peter is a man so we can feel or the verse of our Lord Jesus Christ, that our brother just quoted saying that Peter is the rock that he would build a church and the gates of Hades will never overpower. Who isn’t Catholic or orthodox but believes they are the original churches I always start this argument was way more solid from a Catholic one of you when you have a Christ himself declaring it.
Jesus means himself with the rock
@@nael7497, but then why did He say it to Simon in the same moment He changed Simon's name to Peter (rock)?
κἀγὼ δέ σοι λέγω ὅτι σὺ εἶ Πέτρος, καὶ ἐπὶ ταύτῃ τῇ πέτρᾳ οἰκοδομήσω μου τὴν ἐκκλησίαν, καὶ πύλαι ᾅδου οὐ κατισχύσουσιν αὐτῆς·
@@aldude
From my perspective and what i learned:
Jesus is the rock, and it is a wordplay - petrus (means Stone) and petra (means rock). Jesus is the Building/the Living rock and Petrus is a Stone in it.
The Same Word (Petra) is also used in this Verse:
„and did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock(petra) that followed them: and that Rock(petra) was Christ.“
1 Corinthians 10:4 KJV
Petrus himself calls Jesus in his epistle the rock:
„To whom coming, as unto a living stone(petra), disallowed indeed of men, but chosen of God, and precious,“
1 Peter 2:4 KJV
Also in mt 16,16 you can see that it was already his name, Jesus renamed him not, just used his name for this wordplay.
For this reason, our beloved orthobros are as united as our cherished protfriends.
what a trashy argument. catholics are the sect.
ur church has a thousand denominations, orthodoxy doesnt.
@@glorgisuntil your “first among equals” decides to unilaterally declare an Autocephalous church that Russia doesn’t agree with causing massive schism lol
Eastern Catholics reject the Filioque. Syro Malabar Catholics venerate Nestorius as a Saint. A very united church!
@@antimony4127syro Malabar church never sees him as a saint. Is your logic flawed 😂. We follow the creed and laws of Vatican . We might have small problems but atlast we will resolve it instead of creating new denominations and calling it the true church 😂
@@AthanSMaliakkal Ok, please explain to me what the Hallowing of Nestorius is maybe I'm somehow confused.
It makes sense that a man is not infallible. We are all sinners every last one of us. Robes and a hat and a few prayers do not change that. That's why the real king is Christ.
Amen
The Three Chapters controversy is a bit more complex. The first thing to note is that the "Three Chapters" was not a document, but rather three individuals: Theodore of Mopsuestia, Theodoret of Cyrus, and Ibas of Edessa. These three individuals were all former Nestorians who were accepted as orthodox by the Council of Chalcedon, and so in the mind of the Western Churches, to condemn them (after they were dead no less) would be to condemn Chalcedon. Vigilius refused to condemn these three men at first for that reason, not, as the Fifth Council supposed, because he was a Nestorian.
If a Council you call the fifth Council was called and condemned these men after they had been accepted as orthodox by Chalcedon, and after they had amended their ways, then either Vigilius and Chalcedon Council contain error, or that fifth Council contains error.
IT would have never happened that Peter had to consult with others about matters of faith. Instead, he always had the last word, even over other apostles. Jesus declared “thou art Cephas and over this rock I will build my church. Whatever you tie on earth I will tie on heaven.” He did not say “Peter, you will be one of the people over whom l I’ll build my church. Your voice counts as one vote among others when it comes to deciding matters of faith.”
That's just not true, though, is it? At the first council of Jerusalem in Acts 15, Peter was a voice among many- James was equally prominent and seems to have had the final say if anything. Paul was in a position to correct Peter at another time in Antioch as per Galatians. There is no reference in scripture to him having the authority to overrule the other apostles, nor anything which could be construed as him being in charge in the manner the RCC claims
Maybe it was some virtue or display of commitment that Peter displayed. Not on a singular human. Humans are too imperfect to be in charge of anything for very long. Seriously want to hear feedback. Thanks
All I know is the Catholic Church considers the pope infallible, although right after Jesus “made him pope”, Peter cut off a guards ear, was rebuked by Christ saying “get behind me Satan”, and lied about knowing Him 3x.
Because The Holy Spirit hadn't yet been given to the apostles...
Are u truly questioning the authority that Jesus himself gave to Peter ? Shame on you. If Jesus did that he had reasons for it as he knew exactly what Peter was going to do (he literally told him prior) and still gave the keys of his church to Peter. It’s not up to you to give opinions,question or to decide that choice as it was made by Jesus himself.
@@CaioPSouza ….Peter being given authority and being declared infallible by the Catholic church are two different things.
Strong catholic here and becoming stronger. The more they say against catholicism the more I stay strong ❤
Did you know that the Orthodox church is Catholic as well? :)
@@filidanot really, moscow and Constantinople are in schism with each other and don’t commemorate each other in the divine liturgy
Then prepare yourself to accept homos marriage...How right is this dogmatically?
@@filidait’s not ONE
@@cardboardcapeii4286 It is ONE like the western and the eastern churches were one in the first 1000 years (the eastern part is still one now). Its unity is ensured by the exact same doctrine (one body), but above all, by its head, which is not a bishop, but Christ. If you remove the pope from the Catholic church with all his innovations, you will get the Orthodox church. Your ancestors were Orthodox.
i do not think that the infallibility of the pope is not as simple as is stated in this video. A more complete explanation is needed and then compared to the orthodox christian view
Catholic and Orthodox channels always have deep and thoughtful commenters: "Come back home to the true church," "Repent and leave that heretical monstrosity," "You may as well be a Protestant!"...
Submit to Rome!
Submit to the One Holy Apostolic (Orthodox) Church. Don't come and pressure us into converting to Catholicism when we are content with our religion.@@Selrachdr3
@@Selrachdr3Submit to God.☦️
@@Selrachdr3rome killed Christ
True Church in Holy Orthodox Christian Church Preserving 2000 years Traditional Sacred Liturgy and True Christian Doctrine.pagan and heretic Vatican should repant to Christianity.🕯️☦️🕯️💐💖🙏
The question then is, is collective decision infallible? Did Christ establish His church on the apostles or on Peter...who was asked to feed the lambs of Christ? Who did Christ say will be sifted by Satan and after that to strengthen his brethern ... it's always one person Peter...not a collective group.
Christ established His church on Himself.
.
He gave the Keys to His disciples (the Church).
.
Not to Peter alone. He was never talking to Peter alone when He said that.
.
The Rock is God.
.
You don't build your church on an infallible man.
@@johnmark6628 "And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it." Mat 16:18...Here Jesus is speaking directly to Peter. Unless Jesus pointed to Himself and the author did not mention it, it is clear Jesus says he ks building the church on Peter.
@@therighteousrighthandyet the majority of the Church fathers, many who spoke Greek, though that Christ and Peter’s confession was the rock upon which the Church was built.
I’m starting to think nobody fully understands the actual relationship Jesus had with Peter compared to the others or, more importantly, why.
Patriarch is the "older brother"
The "patr" part in the word is not related to the notion of father.
ty i am greek@@eeaotly
@@eeaotlypater means father in greek
Not every Roman Catholic agrees with the pope, or obeys. Dioceses have some level of independence. But we respect and believe the chair. Good and bad popes came and went but the gospel of God shows through always. It's about time the Catholics come together whole again. Fighting over details makes us weak and looking like a option religion. We saw the living God. I miss my eastern brothers. Please forgive us and let's celebrate what we have in common and work out the differences. The Romans Catholic church needs all the help it can get. We are constantly under attack.
The Catholic Church has since revised this saying he is only infallible in very special instances
Only when he is wearing his infallible Hat
@@-Ortho-I didn't know a hat is infallible
@@resetsetmefree478
Duh how else can you fit all that infallibility?
@@-Ortho-lmao you serious ?
@@livingfreelyinspired7400he's being silly
Odd he doesn't know that papal infallibility means that ONLY when the Pope speaks "ex cathedra" is preserved from the possibility of error on doctrine "initially given to the apostolic Church and handed down in Scripture and tradition". It does not mean always without error ..
It’s still a heretical Dogma that flies in the face of the 5th ecumenical council. Any good Christian from Roman Catholicism should see that and set their personal biases aside. The Roman Catholic Church is indeed going against the Ancient Church Patriarchs and the Apostles themselves. That includes going against Ancient popes from the 1st - 5th centuries.
@@GigiGhiba-bd4ox nope
The pope can declare ordinary magisterium which is considered infallible
@@therealkingbaldwin that is a statement derived from the pronouncements of the church councils .. The pope in union with bishops .. The pope is the spokesman .. The magisterium has to be universal ( the whole church ) for it to be considered infallible
Infallibility only applies to doctrines that are defined, or definitive proposed by the Church, either by a solemn decree, or by the force of the ordinary and universal Magisterium.
@@xadam2dudex Like when "they" all said homosexuality isn't wrong right? Or is that just the Pope. Or is that on all of them. 🤦
Since papal infallibility was declared by the First Vatican Council, only new doctrine was declared - the Immaculate Conception of Mary by Pope Pius XII. This formalized a belief long held in Tradition.
A non Apostolic belief that even Thomas Aquinas did not believe.
@@matheusmotta1750Thomas Aquinas is not infallible.
Hasn’t the pope always been a greater authority? Since the early church the bishop of rome was a first among equals and as i have understood it, the bishopship of rome never changed its view on itself, always having an authority greater than the rest, while the east changed its view on rome over time. For me it always seemed that the east respected the Popes authority until they didnt.
Tho as a catholic i think i will never get around the fact that Saint Peter was set aside by Jesus, and told that he would be the one that Jesus builds his church on. How can you interprate that differently?
To be clear i am just sparking conversation, only love okay 👌🏼 ❤
"First among equals" means primacy of honour not of authority.Both Constantinople and Rome had primacy of honour.There was no papal infallibility and juristction before roman catholics left the eastern Orthodox church in 1054.
@@SimonSlPl From what i know only the bishopship of rome was seen as ”first among equals” until the schism were the bishopship of constantinople inherited the title?
I do want a comment on this point about the bishopship of Rome never changing its view of itself, always believing itself to be the ultimate authority, while the orthodox church over time began to see the bishopship of Rome with lesser and lesser authority.
@@SimonSlPlthe pope guided Christianity from the starting until now. It's not our problem that the orthodox got away from the real church
@@andreassvensson895Dude first among equals means that at the end of the day we are still equals. The east accepted this and I think that they would accept it again if that was what the pope wanted. The problem is that at some point the pope wanted to be the boss and everyone else had to just obey as if he was someone greater than all the other bishops and not an equal with special honors. Stop saying that the East changed their minds cause they just didn't. It was Rome that wanted total power over the church not the other way around
Please stop calling the Catholic Church "Roman ". This is not the official name. It also disrespects the 22 rites which aren't part of the Latin rite.
@@supersaint3 correct. "Roman " was applied to the Church during the reign of Henry VIII
Right.
The Church is One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic, but NOT 'Roman' !
22 Particular Churches to be specific, many of whom share the Byzantine Rite, the Western and Eastern Syriac rite, the Armenian rites, and the Alexandrian rite, among others. The Latin Church also has more rites than just the Roman, eg. Dominican, Carmelite, Carthusian etc.
@@sethn1094I wasn’t aware of rites of religious orders, thanks for the heads up! I find the Ambrosian Rite beautiful, which led me to discover Ambrosian Chant after listening to Gregorian for so long!
It’s Roman.
Note that nothing can truly be conciliar in Catholicism because if the pope doesnt like a councils teachings, he can either throw the council out at anytime or put the council on hold, depose the Bishops who teach against what he likes, and put new yes man Bishops in place. This is actually exactly what happened between Archbishop Lefebvre and pope Paul during Vatican II
Song is (City of the Fallen -light from darkness)
For everyone asking, I hope you can be ready to support thr Christ in his return!
You've never heard of the college of Cardinals, have you?
Peter is first but I'm in agreement with the last to an extent. The pope has no authority outside that of a bishop or settlement of a council
Peter = rock/earth
@@david-468 So is a Pope to tell other apostolic churches to follow Latin structure and forsake their own? That's one of the reasons why the church isn't in communion with each other.
@@josephjacob3274 no you misunderstand me, but I’m Orthodox, maybe now you understand my position better , Jesus was talking to all of the apostles which that did include first among equals aka the pope, but “FIRST among EQUALS” is important in that which the Catholics do not recognize
@hroniskostopoulos4433 sure I agree with that, I only disagree with the Catholics view where that gave Peter leadership/supremacy over the other apostles
Matthew 16:18
"Whatever you bind in earth, shall be bound on Heaven: and whatever you lose on earth shall be lose on Heaven"
it is very clear of the authority.
“However, Jesus called them together and said, “you know that the rulers of the nations lord it over them, and great ones make their authority felt. But it shall not be so among you! Instead, whoever decides to become great among you shall be your servant. Whoever desires to be first among you shall be your slave…””
Brother what is the name of the track in the background?
As a Catholic, I say I'm still special.
Typical attitude of all catholic even though most are nominal at best
I'd say anyone that accepts communion from a child abuser is special
@@hmldjr that’s called donatism or donatists
The Catholic Church in all it’s contradictory glory had decide you are wrong so you have to accept it
Typical Catholic BS.
Hahahaha
Here is an Ecumenical Council affirming papal authority:
“For this is the rule of the true faith, which this spiritual mother of your most tranquil empire, the apostolic Church of Christ, has both in prosperity and in adversity always held and defended with energy; which, it will be proved, by the grace of almighty God, has never erred from the path of the apostolic tradition, nor has she been depraved by yielding to heretical innovations, but from the beginning she has received the Christian faith from her founders, the princes of the apostles of Christ, and remains undefiled unto the end, according to the divine promise of the Lord and Savior himself, which he uttered in the holy Gospels to the prince of his disciples: saying, Peter, Peter, behold, Satan has desired to have you, that he might sift you as wheat; but I have prayed for you, that (your) faith fail not. And when you are converted, strengthen your brethren.” The Letter of Pope St. Agatho, Constantinople III of 681.
@@danvinsontrailor2339 Yes. And then died in Rome.
@@danvinsontrailor2339 The early Church thought it proved a lot. Since Peter died as the Bishop of Rome, then his successor as Bishop of Rome is the successor of Peter.
“You cannot deny that you are aware that in the city of Rome the episcopal chair was given first to Peter; the chair in which Peter sat, the same who was head-that is why he is also called Cephas [‘Rock’]-of all the apostles; the one chair in which unity is maintained by all” St. Optatus AD 367, The Schism of the Donatists 2:2.
@@danvinsontrailor2339Peter AND Paul were present in Rome, just looking at the order of importance in the pentarchy says it all: Rome > Constantinople > Alexandria > Antioch > Jerusalem.
Peter was MARTYRED in Rome. Literally even orthodox admit that Rome is more important, hence why they agree with the primacy of then bishop of rome
@@danvinsontrailor2339 so if you’re orthodox you’re going against your own belief, the orthodox accept the PRIMACY of the bishop or rome
The Orthordox Patriach has publicly acknowledged the primacy of the bishop of Rome. What does " though art Peter , upon this rock I shall build my church and the gates of hell cannot prevail against it mean?. Christ never shared authority among the apostles, he appointed a leader among them.
Didn't know they had PayPal back then
Even the early bishops from Rome denounced not only Rome's insistence of the Pope having leadership authority over the other bishops but denounced the Filioque as well
When has any pope denounced the orthodoxy of the Filioque? Sure, some have found pastoral judgment of adding the phrase to the creed as wrong (granted it would upset the East) but I find no evidence of a rejection of the teaching. Many of the Fathers accepted the orthodoxy of the Filioque, even eastern fathers.
@@atlproductions216Yes, if the catholics that lived in the east counted as “east”
@@serafimbarbu7711did you miss the part where the comment was about “early bishops from Rome” and not eastern Catholics?
@@in_defense_of_the_church “(granted it would upset the East)”
Did you miss the part where you can read the tagged person? I didn’t respond to the main comment but to the first reply
@@serafimbarbu7711 I may have misread that part but what do you mean if the Catholics that lived in the east counted as “east?”
How do you guys call an ecumenical council again?
When all five patriarchs are present (doctrine of Pentarchy). The only councils that fit criteria are Nicea, Constantinople, Ephesus, Chalcedon, Constantinople II, Constantinople III, Nicea II and Flore- Oh wait 💀
Song?
Then why is Constantinople fighting with Moscow? Where was conciliarity there.
Sure, What about the Protestant reformation in the West?
Thats why in the early church they always sought rome to intercede… Eric and Michael Lofton talk more about it plenty examples of that happening in the Early church
Papal Infallibility isn't arbitrary or just a made-up decision by the Pope. It still has to fulfill all of the criteria of any other Church decision, as well as being claimed Ex Cathedra, which can only be done extremely rarely and with iron-clad Scriptural support and tradition. The last time this was done was in the 1950s with the Assumption (Dormition) of Mary.
But at the end of the day, at least we can call a Council 😂
Imagine believing that Mary's body was taken up into heaven because "she was too pure" to be "corrupted" by earthly factors like decomposition, which God created and is part of His beautiful comprehensive and extensive masterpiece that is our world. But no, bacteria and fungi are works of the devil, or not valid parts of God's creation. No scriptural backing for this... The reasoning is Jesus is pure and perfect so Mary must be... Even though nothing in the Bible supports this line of thinking.
Not to mention Jesus's body was heavily "corrupted" at the crucifixion by this logic. But decomposition is more scary I guess. There is definitely an arbitrary line being drawn as to what corrupts the body to the point where it is no longer considered holy, when the Bible has always focused on matters of the soul rather than the flesh.
Can't you guys ever focus on important matters of faith instead of constantly fetishizing Mary and trying to turn the Trinity into a quaternity?
“Papal infallibility isn’t arbitrary” until you realize it didn’t exist for the first 1000 years of Christianity, or until an “infallible” pope gets anathematized for being a heretic, or when an “infallible” pope venerates the book of Muhammad with a kiss for the cameras.
I just have one question: Which Roman council approved of the veneration of Pachamama? I must have missed that one.
Read his comment again. It says the Pope is only briefly infallible when he speaks ex cathedra. Not when he does anything else.
@@kevind.k7512 So the bishop of Rome is only briefly infallible when speaking ex cathedra (as determined by the bishops), yet he also holds the sole power to excommunicate anyone he pleases (including the bishops), even when not speaking ex cathedra.
The pope having the power to excommunicate the very bishops which determine his infallibility seems to extend beyond the “conciliar manner” of making decisions professed in the 5th ecumenical council.
@@charless2930
No matter how many times you state a lie because you refuse to understend something, it will become true. The Pope is not Hommer Simpson excommunicating every bishop or christian who says something he doesn't like, using a magic stick he was given. For instance, Martin Luther was excommunicated more than 2 years after he stabbed his 95 thesis on the door of Wütenberg cathedral; first, he received a reply of 40 answers to his heresy; secondly, he was given 60 days to reply. Instead, he burned the Pope's bull in public, and only after his sovereing act of arrogance (he did not accept he had a single mistake in his thesis, also rejecting the right of reply he was given by, yes, the Pope), then he was excommunicated also reciving a Pope's bull and not as you may imagine, that a wimpy old man screaming around to everybody saying "excommunicated".
Orthodox were with the Catholic church until the 1100s when it fell into error
No human is infallible.
“The pope has authority to declare anything as dogma.”
Your words. Also, a lie.
This has never been a doctrine of the Catholic Church.
Both the Orthodox and Catholic church cracked down on Protestant movements of the era.
This isn't a lie, read romes catechism
Orthodox the true church❤
Churches must be part of One Church, so it must be "let"s reconcile", only Christ can say "reconcile with me".
Right after the "who is the greatest" discourse.
Luke 22:32
_"but I have prayed for you Simon, that your faith may not fail. And when you have turned again, strengthen your brothers.”_
I wonder how the other patriarchs, I mean apostles felt when Jesus said that to Peter in front of them all.
Let’s throw out a few of the ecumenical councils we share since they teach papal infallibility
@@glorgis Leo’s tome, Pooe Agatho
Matthew 16:8
Jesus handed the keys/authority to St. Peter so he continues the church Jesus started.
He even said that Peter is the rock who will establish His church.
Jesus also said: "Whatever you bind in eart shall be bound in Heaven."
Thus giving the full authority.
And who is the FIRST Pope of the Catholic Church?
Peter.
👍
the catholic Bible says this, not the actual Bible, Orthodox Bible (True Church)
@@FierceLord2 Scriptures are the same. unless your religion created or twisted the words of Scriptures, thats already invalid.
the verses you want is Matthew 16:16-19 grammatically, it appears that the statement to Peter is "Blessed are you, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood has not revealed it unto you, but my Father who is in heaven. And I say also unto you, That you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hades shall not prevail against it."(Matthew 16:17-18) and then jesus turns to the rest of the apostles and says "And I will give unto you the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever you shall bind on earth shall be what has been bound in heaven: and whatsoever you shall loose on earth shall be what has been loosed in heaven."(Matthew 16:19) but for the sake of argument, lets assume the reading that all of this is directed only to Peter.
Two chapters later, Jesus speaks to all the apostles "Verily I say unto you, whatsoever you shall bind on earth shall be what has been bound in heaven: and whatsoever you shall loose on earth shall be what has been loosed in heaven."(Matthew 18:18) same power of binding and loosing. all we can tell from the new testament is that Peter is the first bishop, but not that he has any particularly unique authority, especially not unique authority that will be inherited by the bishop in the city he died in.
if anything, if Peter is granted any unique authority, the most senior Petreine see, that of Antioch, would inherit whatever unique authority Peter had. nobody argues this seriously so lets continue to the logical conclusion, why was Rome historically given a special honor. The answer is partly because Rome was the old capital of the Roman Empire, and in the same way the then new capital, Constantinople, receives the same deference. Further it is also because Rome is di-apostolic since both Peter and Paul died in Rome, a proposition that Roman Catholicism directly rejected in modern times.
@@panose6542 no Bible verse said Jesus turned to the Apostles. maybe that religion has corrupted the Verse so they cancel Peter. It is very clear to the whole verse Peter was made Prime Minister of Jesus, 100% authority.
No religion dates back 2,000 years ago and fully documented leaders down to Apostle Peter: only the Catholic Church.
as a matter of fact, most churches re-used the original materials of the Catholic Church. every documents are preserved. You can always challenge the history of Catholicism.
Jesus never started a church he didnt even create chrisitanity or introduce the bible, or audit it or verify it.
What about Matthew 16:19? In which Peter, as the head of the church, is given the authority to decide what is binding and what isn’t on earth?
@@telosbound can you tell me where? Because I’ve read that passage and I can never seem to find when Jesus addresses the rest of the Apostles
As a Roman Catholic, I have to add that you forgot to mention that This has only been used once by our Pope of an ex cathedra statement thereafter took place in 1950, when Pope Pius XII defined the Assumption of Mary as an article of faith.- you don’t have anything against that do you?
This is a straw man of what the Church teaches.
what does “””the church””” teach?
No it isn't
On Papal infallibility the Church teaches that the Pope when speaking ex cathedra on issues concerning faith and morals, so far as it does not contradict what the Church has always taught, is protected by the holy spirit from error. He said we teach that anything the Pope says is infallible.
@@Ian-fw2fp Since you know better how is this not a straw man.
Orthodoxy has horrible infighting amoung themselves.
Well,they are not the cause of Protestant, Calvinist, Anglican and 400 more denominations and cults,all "children" of Rome.....
So did the original church
Name 1 example
@@Ian-fw2fp Kirill of Moscow agreeing with Putin to exterminate the Ukraine Orthodox.
The Eastern Catholics reject the Filioque in the Creed. At least we Orthodox follow the same teachings as each other.
Jesus tells Peter that he has prayed for him "that his faith fail not". Look it up in the gospel
Dude just literally read the internet and made a video based on it without consulting experts.
Papal infallibility is to ensure that the doctrinal declaration of the Church is free of theological error. Such declaration is always an ecclesiastical effort.
Papal infallibility was invoked once on the declaration of the Assumption of Mary, and it was a collective effort of the bishops.
Goodnight Jesus teach that no man has authority over the next man, because we are all brothers and sisters under the living God 🤔💭
Dang, took that straw man down perfectly. Nice.
First among equals is a hilarious stretch
Come back home to the true Church of Christ....Roman Catholic Church build by Christ himself upon the first Pope ...st Peter.
Absolutely. Once the Catholic Church becomes orthodox again as it always should have been.
If you wanna watch trans pole dancing in a cathedral and still go around eradicating random tribes, do it but don't beg God for salvation when those others strike back hard.
Now is not a good time to be proclaiming that. Especially considering “the Pope” and a majority of Bishops are heretics or at least turn a blind eye to heresy.
But I believe the Catholic Orthodox faith to be the true faith. Unfortunately we are now in the prophesied time of the great apostasy
As a Christian. Lean on Christ, not this religion or that.
Orthdox means-true
You guys don't know Papal Infallibility
Papal infallibility is a dogma of the Catholic Church which states that, in virtue of the promise of Jesus to Peter, the Pope when he speaks ex cathedra is preserved from the possibility of error on doctrine "initially given to the apostolic Church and handed down in Scripture and tradition".
In the Orthodox Church, the Pope is considered, “First among equals” which is technically Correct! Draw your own conclusions! God bless you…+Fr.James, Catholic Priest
Both constantinople and rome were considered first among equals in the first church.
Its only ever been used twice: When it was defined at Vatican I (1870) & 1950, when Pope Pius XII defined the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary as an article of faith.
It will, in all liklihood, never be used again.
It's clear from Scripture that Christ established an office of authority where one man held the keys (Isaiah 20:22)
The papacy is absolutely Biblical and the Catholic Church is Christ's Bride. That's why over the years many Eastern Rites have entered the fold like the Byzantine Catholic Church I attend. Ave Maria
Lmao sure. Centuries of western invasions and oppression against Orthodox is the reason. You're no different than muslims when it comes to forcing yourselves onto others.
😂
@@luka243 I better lay down. That was devastating. Anything intelligent to add?
Orthodox* I think you meant Orthodox Church instead of the Catholic Church
@havenblack6562 that's not what I said at all, now is it?
I saw where Archbishop Elpidorophos (did I spell it right?) is asserting a rank of ‘First among equals. Is this right & is it acceptable?
I’ll take the papacy. You guys can have your 143 patriarchs.
And the Russian patriarch was elected by Putin, which tbh is upside down.
@@telosbound if u guys wanted to settle some matter or to pronounce dogma how would you do it actually ?
@@user-7lf7wone day I will become a Pope and unite the Catholic and Orthodox Church
I'll take Christ the King over a bishop from Rome, Italy.
Protestants reject All authority....even the Law of Moses!
( and That's biblical!)
Protestants dont reject authority or the law of Moses. They broke away and dont follow the Catholic church because its corrupted.
Surely Protestants believe in the authority of scripture (although no 2 Protestant denominations can agree on an understanding thereof). To say they reject all authority is not true.
Everyone their own Pope.
Protestant here, that's absolute nonsense. We accept the absolute authority of scripture, and we even accept the LESSER authority of Church leaders.
@@dokidelta1175 don't you hold the authority of your private interpretation of the Bible over the public interpretation of The Church?
Don't you guys pick your own Canon over The Church's Canon? Tell us that this doesn't happen.
Egalitarianism feels good, but I've never seen an institution survive intact without a singular leader.
@@telosboundThe Orthodox church it's a mess,they are always fighting and in schism with one another like Constantinople and Moscow.
AMEN!
Thanks for sharing.
Only God is all knowing.
I remember this crazy nun-type girl I tried to date telling me about the Pope’s ‘infallibility’ only being when he “sits in his chair!” I was so tempted to be like “oh, what happens when he sees his shadow then?!” *sarcasm. I’m Catholic but apparently not; the devout are something else. Keep doing what you’re doing, Orthodoxy, one day I may well join your number where I can worship the One True God the right way! 🤞🏻
As a Protestant, I would think that the danger of this doctrine lies in its ability to turn the pope into an object of veneration, like a personality cult.
Not all of Paul's letters were considered Scripture either just because they were written by Paul. Paul was not God, that everything he wrote outside of the NT-canon should be considered automatically the word of God also, even if he wrote in a formal setting. So why should ex cathedra be any different?
I'll give the obvious answer to why Peter and Paul are different. Nobody claimed the church was founded on Paul, unlike Peter, who Jesus assigned responsibility and power to. Check Matthew 16:18-19. Even if you don't think that means infallibility, it's definitely a different level than Paul.
As far as the cult part? I have to admit Catholics make "cults" about people, but because of their holiness, not any kind of power. Popes can be hated or venerated like any other person. Dante portrayed several popes as being in hell in The Divine Comedy, for example.
For the other meaning of the word cult, try Cult (religious practice) - Wikipedia or Canonization - Wikipedia.
@@johnhalberg6536 peter was also the bishop of antioch. Bro
@@ionictheist349the pope is a bishop in the position of pope.
No. The danger lies in the fact that the pope could approve any new dogma and completely change the faith (what happened actually)
☦️ God bless
@@Righteousauthority3926 what does that even mean
The Third Council of Constantinople states that the Roman See is free from Heresy and error based on the promise of Jesus to Peter.
Nope
Peter had denied Jesus at one point. No one is inflatable
SAINT Ignatius of ANTIOCH...ORA PRO NOBIS! 🙏
Pope is the only sign of the True church of our Lord Jesus Christ. There is no hope without the Pope.
Yeah sure, worship him while you're at it. Make him your god 🤦♂️
@@constantine2687 We do not worship him he followed Peter from the very beginning, catholics worship God not the pope
Pachimama?
IQ 90 detected opinion rejected
@@thecrow4597 not a very nice thing to say, but how is it dumb, I endeavor to tell you that it is in fact historically accurate
The second council of Ephesus was declared void because the papal legate dissented.
Submit to Rome.
Lol, the eastern churches aka orrhodoxy were established before there was ever a church in rome
And Peter never went to Rome, he went to antioch, which is what is stated in the bible
“Submit to Rome”-are you kidding? You sound like a Bond villain.
@@TomPlantagenet fr😆😆😆
"submit to Rome" ok worship that false church, I submit only to God
@@tomtemple69 exactly!
Please can someone help me with the name of the music or song used in this video. I want to have it in my phone. Please. Someone should help me ❤
another excellent point - thanks for your posts!
This is a heretical belief. Christ said “Thou art Peter (Cephas) , and upon this rock I shall build My Church.” The name Cephas means “rock.” Clearly Jesus meant Peter to lead in His stead. As Jesus is infallible, so too is Peter when acting in the place of Christ. If the Pope were not infallible when ruling on matters of faith and morals, ie, Dogma, then the “Gates of Hell would prevail.” It makes perfect sense. “Conciliatory manner” means, in Christian terms, “a method to solve disputes consistent with scripture.” There would still need to be an infallible arbiter, ie, Pope acting ex cathedra.
Ok, but you didn't prove how that would go to the Bishop of Rome instead of elsewhere like Antioch.
You are misunderstanding catholic doctrine as usual, the pope doesn't choose unilateraly what is and isn't dogma, that would be insane, he simply declares as true and binding those things that are binding not because of his decision but because it is what is believed collectively. If a pope declares as a dogma that the Theotokos is corredemptrix for example he wouldn't be inventing anything unilaterallt, he would be declaring something that we all know it's true and has been believed implicitly and/or explicitly by the Church. Now if he doesn't make that claim is for prudential reasons, because it will need a lot of distinctions and as a general rule many people as yourself struggle to understand certain distinctions and would declare the Church as heretic for putting the Virgin Mary at the same level with Christ or some other weird misunderstanding. Now on the other hand if a pope declares a heresy as binding then he wouldn't be infallible, but until now I don't know of any heretic dogma, I just know about the misunderstanding of many, like the filioque, or the immaculate conception.
While putting Mary at the same level of Christ would be bad, even if we were to give you the benefit of the doubt that you didn't do that, it's painfully obvious to see that you are clearly worshiping her and treating her as if she is the fourth member of the quaternity. Perhaps not equal, maybe she's somewhere below, but it's painfully obvious to see that you dedicate way too much worship towards her, and treat her like she's some lesser deity that deserves worship and praise. You are distracting yourselves from worshiping God and Christ and building your relationship with Them, to fetishize Mary. It's still disgusting. You cannot build a cohesive and healthy relationship with Christ while you worship Mary like you do, because it shows that you don't really understand Christ's position in all this. You can have no other gods, even if you consider them lesser and not equal.
It does not matter that you verbally denounce and deny that you are treating her like a god, we can see you clearly are. You can't just have an idol, worship it, and then deny that you're worshiping it, and that somehow makes it right or acceptable.
And you can twist the definition of worshiping all you want, you can try to change our understanding and perception of everything with clever words or faulty but appealing propaganda, but know that there is an objective standard as to what God considers worshiping. You can't escape it just by changing definitions around and then claim on judgment day that you just didn't know better. You have all the resources you need to figure all of this out. But it's not a matter of evidence, it's a matter of the heart, your heart has become hardened, and you deny the very sins you commit, for the sake of fitting into an organization or community. Deluding yourself into thinking sins are right does not change the fact that they are wrong.
You see, this is exactly what I mean, when you are not capable of following distinctions you make these strong strawman cases that any serious Catholic would dismiss immediately. Worship includes sacrifice, and the sacrifice of the mass is a re-presentation of the only sacrifice worthy of God, that sacrifice of the mass has never been offered to the Virgin Mary, in your understanding of worship you don't have the notion of sacrifice, we do not offer the sacrifice of Jesus Christ to Mary we offer it to the Father. The fact that you are unaware of how much God has to lift and clean somebody up in order to reflect himself perfectly in the flesh shows how little you understand of God's way, he prefigured the image of the mother of Jesus Christ throughout the entire corpus of the Bible. He prepared his coming in a very special way from all eternity and manifested that all the way into his incarnation, she is a creature, she is not a goddess, but God assumed her humanity in him, that's why he is fully human, now he is also fully God, so God assuming humanity through her is not a random choice, it is a precise choice by God himself, and that's why we regard her so high up in the realm of created beings, she is the highest of all, not because something she did, but because she is full of graces in order to perfectly reflect God, she humbled herself to the highest degree possible to a creature, so that she is the perfect vessel for God to come into the created world as a human. Does that make her a goddess? does God assuming her humanity turn her into a goddess that is at the same level with the most Holy Trinity? not at all, because she is still created and God is uncreated, he is the creator.
@@GarrulousHerald
@@AprendeMovimientoYou can dismiss my arguments all you want, but can you disprove them? Arbitrarily labeling them as strawmen does not make them so. You need to prove that they are strawmen.
Ah yes, you choose this form of worship and say it is only worthy of God, then you other forms of worship to someone who is not God, and then say because it is not the highest form of worship, it doesn't count as heretical. What?
Did ancient pagans use mass to worship Baal? Or any of the other idols and false gods? Can you worship a false god as long as it is not a high form of worship that God Himself is only deserving of? We see how easily this argument falls apart. This is just incredibly nonsensical. Not only do you have to deny the Bible for this to make any sense, you have to deny basic human rationality. Perhaps you believe that our capacity to reason is indeed a tool of the devil and God never meant for us to have it.... But I would say mysticism and authoritarianism is much more a tool of the devil than our capacity to think for ourselves, and using that thinking to bring us closer to God by being able to reliably choose and understand who is correctly worshiping Him and following His teachings, rather than arbitrarily picking a random church in putting all your eggs in one basket.
Your words seem like they are strong, but they fall apart quickly under scrutiny. You may be able to deceive your fellow brothers in your heresy, but you will not fool me.
Do you truly believe that Mary was sinless? Romans 3:23. So does the Bible contradict itself? Am I supposed to believe you over the Bible?
Also you speak extensively about God's way and how He prefers. However, every time that I have engaged with a Catholic about this matter, it always relies on external ponderings that are not scriptural at all. Your argument does not bode well, considering you did not provide any scripture for your own reasoning either. You just claim it's in the Bible, but you don't point to it.
I see, very often, Catholics inventing stuff that is not derived from scripture, and many times is often contrary to scriptural teaching. Yet I am accused of strawmanning them when I bring up the rather obvious questions that should be asked about these man-made ideas and forms of worship. Questions so obvious, that they would be asked over and over again within the Catholic church, if it was not so entrenched in mysticism and authoritarianism, that one cannot question, even on behalf of the Bible itself.
czcams.com/video/lLA6DG_KkGI/video.html @@GarrulousHerald
@@GarrulousHerald Full Conversation In The Description - #catholic #abbotscircle #stmichaelsabbey #nobertines #shorts - CZcams
What is the specific quote from the 5th ecumenical council? Would like to see how the argument works with more details please? Thanks!
Thank you
The Eastern Orthodox (EO) is wrong on this matter! That is why since the Great Schism in 1054 AD, the EO has not had an ecumenical council. The EO bishops cannot even be unanimous in many matters. Look at the Arian heresy where the vast majority of the bishops (including most Eastern bishops) were infected with the Arian heresy. This shows that there is a need for a Pope with infallible powers, should majority of bishops fall into heresy. Note: the Pope is not infallible all the time, but only infallible when certain criteria are met. Within the next 30 years, all EO Christians will witness the truth of the supremacy of the Pope over the entire Church in the world, when the Pope finally obeys the Message of Our Lady of Fatima, & do the collegial consecration of Russia to the Immaculate Heart of Mary correctly, and cause Russia to convert to the Holy Catholic Faith that comes to us from the Apostles.
Pope already done that year ago
The idea that a pope cannot be corrupted or compromised but the majority of bishops in a council can, goes against all common sense. The current pope is clearly compromised.
It is better for bishops to not be unanimous... As if that is even a dire issue as long as beliefs are questioned and challenged with scripture... Than for bishops to be forced to accept a certain belief. That goes against all Christian teaching, forced conversion is not a Christian principle. It knows that the only way to truly convert is through the mind and heart, not fear or authority.
What we need, is a more open debate structure where heresy can be combatted with scripture by anyone, be it a bishop or a pastor. Heresy hates debate and reason, but thrives in mysticism and authoritarianism. Which is probably why the Roman Catholic Church to this day has yet to acknowledge its pagan corruption. There is no shame in admitting it, but there is great shame in refusing to correct it.
Also, Mary weeps that you are distracting your connection to Jesus and God by worshipping her. She never wanted to be an idol, but you have corrupted her from a humble servant of God, to a fetishized member of a quaternity. It is sickening.
I know you also believe that Paul founded the Roman Catholic Church, but that is BS. We have no concrete evidence of it. And if the Bible has taught us anything, it is that there is no blind faith and there needs to be witnesses and corroboration.
But arianism was solved without modern understanding of papal authority, I don't get how that episode is evidence for the need of a "Pope with infallible powers".
@@issaavedra Apparently if bishops have a heretical thought for more than a second, that is proof that we need authoritarianism in the church. As if none of us have ever had heretical thoughts or beliefs that were dispelled with either debate or further understanding of scripture.
Somehow a pope is more immune to this than bishops? I'd like to see the evidence for that.
@@GarrulousHerald It is weird. And I don't get the whole: "the pope will cast the spell right next time!" thing. I like roman catholics, specially trads, but all their arguments are either hopeless (sedes) or copes (sspx).
Imagine thinking an ecumenist and syncretist who kissed the Quran is a saint.
What about the Formula of Hormisdas?
Good content, it shares ideas that are worth knowing. Keep going this way!
I’m a faithful Catholic don’t plan to change but I too agree that the popes don’t have the power nor rights to decide new doctrines they should be upholding the commandments and maintaining tradition and being a role model of what a good Christian should be like
I would love for you to do a little more on the churches of Poland-Lithuania, I think you will find their attempts to unify the church fascinating
also nice channel, just subscribed.
"Papal Infallibility" is a vague way to phrase it, and is very easy to misconstrue and strawman. The Pope is not infallible in all things. If Francis came out tomorrow and dogmatically declared that pineapple belongs on pizza, everyone would laugh, the Bishops would strip him of his office, and the Cardinals would convene to elect a new Pope.
It's more accurate to say that the Pope, by virtue of his station as successor of St. Peter, has a special charism that grants him the capacity to speak infallibly on matters of faith and morals, and only under special conditions.
A Pope has only spoken ex cathedra twice in history, both times in matters related to the Theotokos: once in 1854 when Pope Pius IX declared the Immaculate Conception, and again in 1950 when Pope Pius XII declared the Assumption of Mary. These declarations were not theological hot-takes, and the conversation around them had reached such a universal level of consensus that Popes Pius IX & XII declared them dogma.
Let's not forget who broke away from the main tree trunk in 1054
We can both agree to disagree on that point.
Tell me how Apostolic succession works in the many Orthodox Churches? Which Apostles do the Patriarchs succeed in the many Orthodox branches?
And yet... Jesus Christ still made St. Peter his Vicar
If so why rome and not antioch?
No he didn't. "Vicar" wasn't from Christ.
Possibly do an updated short of this video? It seems a lot of Roman Catholics (myself included) feel this video is misreading information. I know you mean no ill will though brother 🙏
I'll make a response video❤
No human is without MISTAKES
Only God dosent made mistakes
I really interested in orthodox. So unique
God also asks all the other gods their opinion before making decisions... Oh wait. No he doesn't.
In the Orthodox Christian Faith, the Pope of Rome was the Primate of the Church, having a Primacy of Honor and authority (autorictas non potestas), in an order that included Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem coming after, but not universal and immediate jurisdiction, like _ALL_ the 12 Apostles had, according to the Church Fathers. The power of the Keys of the Kingdom were given to all 12 Apostles (Matthew 18), and not just Peter. The Roman Catholic doctrine is a heresy because it's a stretch in how the Church functioned, the Pope having the power of an Apostle over all the other Bihops of the world.
I get the Matthew verse on Simon getting called Petrus, but where can I find proof of Petrus going to Rome? Like ok Jesus has Peter to lead the church after Jesus's death - how did the Bishop of Rome get the key?
Name of the chant????
Yes I want to know too!!!!!! What is it?????
Sometimes when I hear this song, and certain other songs.. I wonder if the OP or how many others know what community has both adopted the music and uses it widely as a sort of signal or theme song.
Anyone else here?
Just me?
Anyone know of a church which is a good advertisement for being run by a committee of bishops?
23/12/2023. How about the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church?
What about the Patriarch of Constantinople/Istanbul? Or of Moscow?? Or even of Jerusalem? Papal Infallibility is not what you say it is.
Its best to think of Papal Infallibility as what the Pope CANNOT do. When he speaks ex cathedra on a matter of faith or morals, the Holy Spirit will prevent him from saying something false. That doesn't mean it will be said in the best way. It doesn't mean it won't need later clarity. It doesn't mean it will be said at the best time. It doesn't mean it will be complete. It doesn't mean it won't need to be carefully understood in light of other docterines. It simply means the substance of what he says will not be false.