Who's Right About the Papacy? A Historical Analysis of Catholic, Orthodox, and Protestant Views
Vložit
- čas přidán 14. 04. 2023
- Consider supporting this ministry: patreon.com/HistoriaEcclesias...
Please subscribe, like, share, and leave your comments below. All informed critiques are more than welcome. Please reach out to danielsuterec@gmail.com if you would like to discuss any of these contents further.
I'm being completely honest. This channel has played a major part in helping me transition from being a protestant to now becoming Catholic.
Congratulations! Tell your Protestant friends to join you!
@@CatETru I'm sharing the videos 😁
(393 A.D.) St. Jerome: “Peter chief of the apostles… to Rome in the second year of Claudius (42 A.D.)…
chair there for twenty-five years… wrote two epistles called CATHOLIC… Victor thirteenth bishop in Rome from Peter.” “Catholic Answers: The Papacy” (2015) (De viris illustribus, Chapter 1 Simon Peter, Chapter 34 Pope Victor) (CCC 862-863) *
(245 A.D.) Bishop Cyprian: “[Pope] Fabian, which is the place of Peter by the will of God.” (Epistle 51 Paragraph 8) * 8)
(383 A.D.) St. Jerome: “[Pope] Stephen Peter’s twenty-second successor in Rome.” (Against the Luciferians 23)
(449 A.D.) Peter Chrysologus: “Pope of the city of Rome, for blessed Peter.” (Letters 25:2) (CCC 85) * (189 A.D.) St. Irenaeus lists 12 Popes from Peter, Linus (2 Timothy 4:21), Clement (Philippians 4:3) etc., (Against Heresies, Book III Chapter 3:2-4) * *
(367 A.D.) St. Optatus lists 30 Popes from Peter, Linus, Clement etc., (Against the Donatists Book 2 Chapter 3) (CCC 552) *
(400 A.D.) St. Augustine lists 39 Popes from Peter, Linus, Clement etc., (Augustine to Generosus Letters 53:1-2)
(200 A.D.) Tertullian: Pope “Clement ordained by Peter.” “Polycarp by John.” (Prescription Against Heretics Chapter 32)
@@MUSIC-MARY
Thank you for the references 🙏🏽
Would it be possible to reorganize the comment so that it is clearer when one reference starts and ends?
Emperor Phocas declared Rome as the soul Church authority. He even said it specifically in response to the Diocese of Constantinople claiming to be above Rome. Rome was always and is still the true authority of the universal church
The Roman Empire was ruling in the time of Christ. Jesus Christ was Crucified and pierced by Pontius Pilate a Roman but Pilate was under the authority of Caesar.
Jews and Romans are connected until end of time. Jews said " We have no King but Caesar Crucify Him give us Barrabbas " Barrabbas represents a false church. All Royals in England were titled King or Queen of the Holy Roman Empire. Yes the Romans handed the Empire to England . Today England is telling us Charles 111 is King of Israel. See his coronation. God eventually gave it to Rome.
YES!
(253 A.D.)
Bishop Cyprian:
“Throne of Peter, the chief church,
the Romans.”
(Epistle 54:14)
“One Church, one chair… another altar cannot be set up, nor a new priesthood…
whoever gathers elsewhere scatters.”
(Letters 43[40]:5) (Mathew 12:30)
“Serpent (Satan) invented heresies and schisms,
whereby he might corrupt the truth.”
(De Catholicae Ecclesiae Unitate 1, 3-4)
(156 A.D.) St. Polycarp: “Church of God…
ALL Catholic in every place.”
(The Martyrdom of the Holy Polycarp Greeting 0:1, 16.2.)
Bible says church of God 15X (CCC 861) (Galatians 1:13)
The word Roman Catholic is first used by the Orthodox faith in 1208 A.D.
Church fathers call it the church @ Rome etc., (CCC 552, 830, 831, 868) (wiki/Roman_Catholic_(term)
(70-96 A.D.): “Church of God at Rome.” “Disobey will involve themselves in transgression.”
Pope Clement (Clement Letter to Corinthians, Chapters 1, 58, 59, 63) (www.scripturecatholic.com)
(110 A.D.) St. Ignatius: “Church beloved and enlightened the Romans… taught others.” (The Romans Greeting, 3:1, 4:3) * (189 A.D.) St. Irenaeus: “Church at Rome every church agree with its AUTHORITY.” (Against Heresies Book III 3:2) *
Thank you for making such an illuminating video on the topic. God bless you!
Amen
Great chat
Thanks for sharing.
Wow, this was great. Thank you!
This channel is 🐐 status
Another couple points about the petros vs petra controversy are 1) that, as I understand it, it is likely that Jesus was not speaking Greek here but rather Aramaic, in which case he would have used the word cephas both times without distinction (Peter is referred to as Cephas in John 1:42 and elsewhere such as 1 Corinthians and Galatians); and 2) that the word petra was the commonly used word for rock, and the use of petros as meaning "small pebble" was relegated to some poetry. Why then did Matthew distinguish between Petros and petra? Likely because he didn't want to give the manly fisherman Simon a feminine name (petra), and so gave it a masculine ending (Petros).
Greetings, do you know any good literature, books of commentaries on the bible? Asking as a returning Catholic.
I think a wonderful way to read the Bible is to read the Catechism of the Catholic Church, beginning to end, and take time to read each footnote to a Bible Verse as they come up. I recommend the app Catena is a way to quickly see what a variety of Church Fathers have had to say about any given bible verse. I personally enjoy the George Leo Haydock Douay Rheims Bible. I also am sure the Bishop Robert Barron Word on Fire New Testament Bibles are solid commentaries. Perhaps some other viewers might have some other suggestions.
@Historia Ecclesiastica I have also been recommended using the catechism, I recently purchased a copy too. Thanks
(www.scripturecatholic.com)
This shows all scripture that defends the RCC!
First of all, the Greek says Petros, not Petro. Secondly, Petros is simply the masculine form of Petra.
Thirdly, Paul refers to Peter as Cephas in the Aramaic.. even though the rest of the epistle is in Greek. The word rock in Aramaic is neuter. It's the sane word. It's probable, therefore that Jesus was speaking Aramaic to Simon bar Jonah.
The big rock, little rock argument, holds no water
(393 A.D.) St. Jerome: “Peter chief of the apostles… to Rome in the second year of Claudius (42 A.D.)…
chair there for twenty-five years… wrote two epistles called CATHOLIC… Victor thirteenth bishop in Rome from Peter.” “Catholic Answers: The Papacy” (2015) (De viris illustribus, Chapter 1 Simon Peter, Chapter 34 Pope Victor) (CCC 862-863)
I would like to hear your thoughts on this subject in light of the current pontificate and pronouncements, this is the stumbling block I'm struggling with.
I think it's important to consider that when the Church held an ecumenical council to define the parameters of papal infallibility, the Holy Spirit guided the Church to understand that the pope speak infallibly, but when speaking "from the chair" (with the full weight of his office, and not his personal musings) in an effort to explicitly doctrine. The Holy Spirit thus implies that a pope can err in judgement and prudence when speaking of his personal thoughts (which are most of the controversial statements we have heard) or when promulgating disciplinary or procedural documents that don't define doctrine. While we owe the pope a favorable interpretation, we cannot owe him a denial of logic if a non-dogmatic pronouncement cannot be reconciled with a plain comparison with defined tradition or Scripture.
I think it's important to move away from a "Pope-Centered" spirituality. By saying that, I'm not saying that we shouldn't respect the pope, and I'm not saying we should act in a way that contradicts what we believe about the papacy as Catholics. But I think we should realize that the pope has a limited role - to defend the revealed tradition and hold an office that unites the many local churches under one juridical head. He does not need to be a figure that we think about daily, or weekly, or even monthly. If a particular pope is particularly inspiring to us, it's great to have the blessing to be able to keep up on his statements and homilies for edification. But if another pope's homilies are not edifying or inspiring to us, there is nothing wrong with tuning out everything he does that is not directly relevant to our walk of discipleship.
Imagine if you were an Eastern Rite Catholic. Do you think you would be as engaged with the daily / weekly news with the Pope? Probably, you would have a perfectly healthy and appropriate relationship with the Pope - you would recognize his juridical authority over the universal Church and you would submit to his dogmatic pronouncements. Even as a Latin Rite Catholic, you can live out your life of faith perfectly fine without being super "tuned-in" to what the pope does on a daily basis.
It could be argued that for most of Church history, most Catholics did not even know the name of the current pope - yet this didn't prevent them from living a pious life as a good Catholic.
Scripture and the revealed Tradition are the two means by which God expressed Divine Revelation. The living Magisterium has the role of defending the Deposit of Faith from alteration. So, in our personal lives, we should be primarily focused on Scripture and Tradition and focused on the living Magisterium when it is necessary to receive clarification on the "boundaries" of acceptable belief when presented with a new idea that may or may not be consistent with the Deposit of Faith.
I think the "Gay Blessings" controversy is bit blown out of proportion in light of what the actual document says. I understand that clerics of bad will likely abuse what the document says, but I don't think that these abuses are the fault of the document. The document clearly states parameters for blessing individuals that are in a gay relationship, and in no way gives license to give the impression that the gay union is being blessed. It explicitly states that a blessing cannot take place in conjunction with a "marriage" ceremony, cannot give the impression that the union is being endorsed, and the clothing of the individuals cannot resemble that of a marriage.
This is my best understanding of the Church's answer to the topic you raised, and if I've spoken anything against the teachings of Mother Church, this was unintentional, and I would accept correction.
@@historiaecclesiastica I appreciate the response, thank you! I’m a convert first from Lutheranism to Orthodoxy, and then from Orthodoxy to the Catholic faith, this has been a trying few years for me.
2018-2021 or so was very trying for me as well. Taking "refuge" in Church history has stabilized my faith life tremendously.@@devonmoreau
I hope some day maybe you can explain some things about like were twelve disciples bishops? Was Paul a priest or even a bishop? When did we started having dioceses and diocesan bishops? Also the whole modern Bible scholarship? How much of it should be believe and how much should we be skeptical? How should we view the Old Testament pseudepigrapha and New Testament apocrypha?
Great questions. The authorship of particular Old Testament texts is not particularly the focus area of this channel at this time. I do, however, take as a rule of faith that the New Testament is the inerrant Word of God. Additionally, on historical grounds alone, the Gospels and Acts can be legitimately viewed as historically superior documents to the most well-respected biographies of Julius Caesar or Alexander the Great, both of which were written over a century after their deaths by individuals who were influenced by their own political motives.
There are a few videos on my channel I would encourage you to check out. There is one on the historical context of each letter of the New Testament book which should answer your question about how literally we should take these texts. There is another one titled "Who's Right about the Twelve Apostles?" which discusses whether or not the apostles served a priestly, episcopal ministry. Further, the entire Book 1 series "The Reign of the Apostles" discusses a great deal of oral tradition and scriptural references for the specifics of the apostolic ministry. One of these videos goes into the Missionary Journeys of St. Paul. In these videos, the question of whether (and when) he received Holy Orders is addressed.
Good stuff!
By the way, it's "In nomine PATRIS et FILII et SPIRITUS SANCTI." These are all genitive cases, not datives (as in the Gloria Patri). Just so you know. You should learn Latin! It's an amazing language.
Also, it's not PETRO, it's PETROS (Gk. Πέτρος). I also think you concede too much to the Prots on this subject with the whole "petros = pebble/small rock" thing. Petros is just the masculine form of petra (which is feminine), and Jesus wouldn't have used a feminine noun for Peter. Moreover, petros never occurs in the Bible as denoting a small stone, but always as the name of the apostle Peter. Lithos (λίθος) is the word used for a "small stone." Suan Sonna has done some good work on this as well.
Yes!
Jesus poke Aramaic. He would have said you are kephas and on this kephas I will build my church. The reason there is a problem in the Greek is because the Greek word for rock is a feminine word petras changed to petros to make it masculine.
Even when the church did overreach in the case of St. Pio, he rebuked his supporters who spoke against the church. He thought the church was wrong but still remained in it and rebuked those who did not follow it.
Petra and Petros are Greek words. Jesus spoke Aramaic, in Aramaic there’s only one word for rock, it’s Kepha. There’s no masculine and feminine words in Aramaic. The Petra and Petros were just the translation in Greek!
Yes, the Second Council of Constantinople affirms a "primacy of honor" (πρωτοκαθεδρία της τιμής) for the Bishop of Rome, but you are misinterpreting those words here. We have always recognized that the Bishop of Rome holds a place of honor, but this does not mean he was ever considered the ultimate arbiter of spiritual truth, as you Westerners began to claim. I say "began to claim," because before the publication of the _Liber Pontificalis_ in the sixth century, Western theologians agreed with the East on this point. The Roman doctrine is, indubitably, an innovation.
St. Photios the Great exemplifies how the Western doctrine moved from papal _honor_ to papal _supremacy._ Even after having his appointment confirmed as canonically legitimate by the pope's own delegates in 861, Pope Nicholas attempted to depose St. Photios, even excommunicating the delegates that had confirmed him. This was all concerning territorial demands that Nicholas had made, demanding that Illyricum and several southern Italian territories be returned to him.
Westerners are always accusing Byzantium of being inappropriately invested in "worldly" territories, when in fact Westerners were far more invested in such petty conflicts. The doctrine of papal supremacy really developed only after the fall of western Rome, as popes tried to cling to power.
Are you accurately representing the perspective of the Eastern Orthodox here? It seems that you are only quoting small portions of the work of Eastern theologians, or more modern _latinophronoi_ which are basically so liberal as to be universalist.
Matt, I did not know you did not hold communion with the Pope.
I think the video sufficiently addresses as many Orthodox perspectives as I could find - which are not uniform, making the matter difficult. I am aware that the most popular position is that the Pope has a Christ-ordained "position of honor" but that since Leo the Great or so (who is a venerable Orthodox Saint) the pope's have claimed too much power and therefore should be revolted against. I believe the video sufficiently demonstrates that it is incoherent to hold that Christ established an honorary leader that He wills Christians to revolt against.
I also demonstrate in this video that the Church fathers did believe in papal supremacy, that papal supremacy, not papal "honorary leadership" is the most logical reading of Matthew 18, and that Byzantine patriarchs were the ones claiming non-traditional power for their See, pushing Roman pontiffs to assert their authority more from the 5th century onwards. This was not because Roman pontiffs were fabricating their authority from then onwards, but because they never had a reason to so explicitly assert it when it was universally accepted. We find that in all ancient Church documents, we generally find only those beliefs that are being challenged clearly articulated.
You claimed that the Western fathers changed their theology in the 5th century on the papacy. I provided many quotes that proved to the contrary from patristic sources and conciliar canons. Further, we do hold that the pope held a place of honor and supremacy in the early church. Finding a quote where a Church father articulates an honorary role does not mean that he did not believe he also held juridical authority. You would need to find a patristic source from the West who articulated that the pope did not hold juridical authority over the universal church to stand as a proof of your point.
Primacy of honor was definitely not held in the west, Tertullian when he was a heretic complained that the Pope cited Matthew 16 and was claiming universal jurisdiction (see, eg, Giles’ primary source compendium. Giles was an Anglican).
The Formula of Hormisdas, the Sermons of Pope Leo, the Letter of Pope Agatho in Constantinople III and Nicea 2 all clearly affirm something much greater than mere primacy of honor
FALSE!
It began with Peter!
“The ‘power of KEYS’ designates authority to govern the house of God, which is the church.” (CCC 553)
5.) Why is Peter the main authority? The apostles have authority to BIND or LOSE,
however Jesus gives ONLY Peter the KEYS to Heaven (CCC 881) (Mathew 16:19, 18:18-20)
& makes him the ROCK the FATHER to the CHURCH! YES! (Mathew 16:18) (John 21:17)
David gives Eli’akim the KEYS to Judah to BIND or LOSE & makes him the PEG the FATHER to the HOUSE of JUDAH! (Isaiah 22:15-23)
The word Roman Catholic is first used by the Orthodox faith in 1208 A.D. (wiki/Roman_Catholic_(term)
Church fathers call it the church @ Rome etc., YES! (CCC 552, 830, 831, 868)
(70-96 A.D.) Pope Clement: “Church of God at Rome.” “Disobey will involve themselves in transgression.”
(Clement Letter to Corinthians Chapters 1, 58, 59, 63) (www.scripturecatholic.com)
(110 A.D.) St. Ignatius: “Church beloved and enlightened the Romans… taught others.” (The Romans, Greeting, 3:1, 4:3) * (189 A.D.) St. Irenaeus: “Church at Rome every church agree with its AUTHORITY.” (Against Heresies Book III 3:2) * (195 A.D.) Pope Victor: “Exercise of Roman authority over other churches.” Celebrate Easter on Sunday! *
(Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History Book 5 Chapter 23 Verses 2-3) (Britannica St. Pope Victor I) (Wikipedia.org/wiki/pope)
(431 A.D.) Council of Ephesus: “Pope Celestine… Catholic church… SUPREME authority.” (Historical Introduction)
(451 A.D.) Council of Chalcedon: “Elder Rome… foundation of the Catholic Church and orthodox faith.” (Session 3)
(2007 A.D.) (13 October) (Ravenna Document): “Bishop of Rome as protos.” (First) (Apostolic see - Wikipedia) (Pope - Wikipedia)
The word Roman Catholic is first used by the Orthodox faith in 1208 A.D.
Church fathers call it the church @ Rome etc., (CCC 552, 830, 831, 868) (wiki/Roman_Catholic_(term)
(70-96 A.D.): “Church of God at Rome.” “Disobey will involve themselves in transgression.”
Pope Clement (Clement Letter to Corinthians, Chapters 1, 58, 59, 63) (www.scripturecatholic.com)
(110 A.D.) St. Ignatius: “Church beloved and enlightened the Romans… taught others.” (The Romans Greeting, 3:1, 4:3) * (189 A.D.) St. Irenaeus: “Church at Rome every church agree with its AUTHORITY.” (Against Heresies Book III 3:2) * (195 A.D.) Pope Victor: “Exercise of Roman authority over other churches.” Celebrate Easter on Sunday! *
(Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, Book 5, Chapter 23, Verses 2-3) (Britannica St. Pope Victor I) (Wikipedia.org/wiki/pope)
(431 A.D.) Council of Ephesus: “Pope Celestine… Catholic church… SUPREME authority.” (Historical Introduction)
(451 A.D.) Council of Chalcedon: “Elder Rome… foundation of the Catholic Church and orthodox faith.” (Session 3)
(2007 A.D.) (13 October) (Ravenna Document): “Bishop of Rome as protos.” (First) (Apostolic see - Wikipedia) (Pope - Wikipedia) *
Read the Chieti document. Not even Rome believes in papal supremacy
The document says did not. It doesn't say can not.
@@alternativefactory7190 Either way, "can not" or "did not" doesn't help the papal supremacy argument. If the pope "did not" exercise authority over the churches in the east for the first 1000 years, that means that papal supremacy never existed to begin with. Keep in mind that the Orthodox Catholic Church doesn't reject papal primacy, but we do reject papal supremacy. Have you read the Alexandria document? That document even admitted that Rome initially used forged documents to justify their invention of papal supremacy, which led to the schism. Also, have you read the recent bishop of Rome document from the other day? If so, did you see the part about Vatican 1? Also, have you noticed that Francis removed his "Vicar of Christ" title, and now calls himself either the bishop of Rome or the Patriarch of the West? It's clear that Rome is slowly returning to Orthodoxy.
Sola Scriptura is false, Bible Contradicts itself! “Call no man your father.” (Mathew 23:9) Jesus calls men father 11X “Father Abraham.” (Luke 16:24, Matthew 15:4-5, 19:5, 19, 29, 21:31, John 8:56), “Father Abraham, Isaac & Jacob.” (Exodus 3:6, Romans 9:10), “Father David.” Λουκᾶς Loukas (Luke 1:26, 33, 55), “Fathers.” (1 Corinthians 4:15) (Acts 7:2), Jesus is the way, then St. Paul says “The Jews” (1 Corinthians 9:20-22) “Gentiles… I SAVE some.” (Romans 11:13-14) & Eucharist (John 14:6, 6:53), baptism (Romans 2:6-7), works (Mark 16:16), suffering (2 Corinthians 1:6-7) & fear (Jude 1:23) SAVES! “Prayers, INTERCESSIONS made for all men.” then says one mediator Christ (1 Timothy 2:1-2, 5), People MEDIATE for others: Mary for people in Cana (CCC 2674) (John 2:5-7) Peter for dead Tabitha (Acts 9:36-42), Paul for dead Onesiphorus (2 Timothy 1:16-18), Moses for Israelites (Exodus 32:30-35), Abraham for Sodom (Genesis 18:22-32), Moses & Samuel in Heaven for Hebrews on Earth (Jeremiah 15:1), Saul in Heaven for Samuel on Earth (1 Samuel 28:15-26), Priest on Earth prays to Jeremiah in Heaven & Apparition ) (2 Maccabees 15:12-16), Angels & Saints in Heaven MEDIATE (intercede) prayers for saints on Earth! (CCC 946-975) (Revelation 5:8, 6:9-11, 8:4) )
(1522 A.D.) Martin Luther:
“Christ wrote NOT His teaching and gave no command to write it.”
Weimarer Ausgabe (WA) (W.A., 10, pp. 625-28)
“The ‘power of KEYS’ designates authority to govern the house of God, which is the church.” (CCC 553)
Jewish Encyclopedia (1906, page 480): “Keys as a symbol of authority.” (wikipedia.org/wiki/Primacy_of_Peter)
5.) The apostles have authority to BIND or LOSE, but Peter is the MAIN authority
because Jesus gives ONLY Peter the KEYS to Heaven (CCC 881) (Mathew 16:18-19, 18:15-20)
& makes him the ROCK the FATHER to the CHURCH! (Mathew 16:18)
David gives Eli’akim the KEYS to Judah to BIND or LOSE &
& makes him the PEG the FATHER to the HOUSE of JUDAH! (Isaiah 22:15-23)
The Magisterium: “Teaching authority of the Pope and the bishops.” (CCC 85-90) “He that heareth you heareth me.” (Luke 10:16) (Mathew 16:18-19) (Acts 2:42)
“Peter feed my sheep.” (John 21:17)
John: Holy Ghost teach you all things (14:26)
ye also witness (15:26-27) he hear he speak: he shew you.” (16:13, 20:22)