Since I'm a Catholic, I study writings from the Early Church. So I wonder why the Eastern Orthodox accept the Council of Ephesus that net in 431 A.D. when they know that council's Fathers believed their council taught infallibly and that Pope Celestine taught with St. Peter's authority. How can the true Church be Eastern Orthodox when the Eastern Orthodox have never accepted the Catholic Church's infallibility and the Council of Ephesus met before the Catholic/Eastern Orthodox schism began in 1054. www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf214.x.ii.html
“The Place of Rome in the Apostolic Church Significantly, most Roman Catholic historians recognize that the Popes did not have universal jurisdiction during the first centuries of Christian history. Instead, they recognize that the Papacy, as it exists today, was the result of centuries of growth and evolution. For example, the Pope did not achieve complete authority over Roman Catholic doctrine until the declaration of papal infallibility at the First Vatican Council in 1870. One Roman Catholic historian wrote, “The primacy of the Church of Rome naturally did not appear all at once and in its full external development. It developed organically and as need required.” 308 As the bishop of the largest and most influential city in the world, the Bishop of Rome naturally occupied a position of great prestige. Most Christians looked to the Church of Rome for leadership from the very beginning of church history. Anyone with a cause would have had a stronger case with Roman support. For this reason, both heretics and Orthodox theologians tried to win the favor of the Bishop of Rome for their cause. In 343 or 344, the Council of Sardica, one of the local councils recognized by the Council in Trullo, granted deposed bishops the right to request that the Bishop of Rome appoint local bishops to hear their appeal. However, the canon did not give the Pope the authority to resolve the matter himself. 309 The Bishop of Rome as “First Among Equals” in the Apostolic Church There was no question that the Pope held a primacy of honor as “first among equals,” during the first 1,000 years of Christian history. For example, St. Ignatius addresses the Church of Rome in very flowerily words, “worthy of honour, worthy of the highest happiness, worthy of praise, worthy of credit worthy of being deemed holy, and which presides over love…” 310 However, this honorary status did not give the Pope universal jurisdiction. In the same letter, St. Ignatius is also careful to limit the actual authority of the Bishop of Rome to “the region of the Romans.” 311 During his disagreement with Pope St. Stephen over Baptism, St. Cyprian specifically rejected the idea that Rome had authority over the other bishops. He wrote, “Certainly the rest of the apostles were exactly what Peter was; they were endowed with an equal share of office and power…. The episcopate is a single whole, in which each bishop’s share gives him a right to, and a responsibility for the whole.” 312 Although Roman Bishops began to claim authority over other bishops fairly early, it took centuries before they were strong enough to enforce these claims. Because the early Church used the administrative divisions already used by the Roman Empire, the Bishop of Rome only exercised jurisdiction over the ten provinces governed by the prefect of Rome during the first five centuries of Church history. For example, at the close of the first century, St. Clement, the Bishop of Rome, had the authority to advise the Church of Corinth in his Epistle to the Church in Corinth because the city was one of those ruled directly by Rome. For this reason, the Corinthian Church was under the authority of the Bishop of the imperial city. Outside of the areas ruled directly from Rome, the Western Church followed the same practice of the East, where local metropolitans and synods administered the Church. For example, Milan operated as an independent or autocephalous Church under the leadership of its own bishop rather than that of the Bishop of Rome. 313 The Bishop of Rome was only able to extend his authority over the other bishops of the West after centuries of effort. Rome was never able to persuade the Eastern Bishops to accept papal authority. Unfortunately, the Eastern bishops were not fully aware of the growing Roman claims until it was too late to avoid conflict with Rome. 314 Thus, Rome did not exercise universal jurisdiction during the era of the Ecumenical Councils. Nor was Rome above the authority of a general council as later Popes would claim. Instead, the Bishops of Rome were subject to the decisions of ecumenical councils just like any other bishop. For example, the Sixth Ecumenical Council, Constantinople III, did not hesitate to claim authority over the Pope when it condemned Pope Honorius I in 680. The Canons of the Ecumenical Councils and Papal Authority It is not possible to reconcile the papal claims to universal jurisdiction with the canons of the Ecumenical Councils. In addition to its doctrinal decisions, the Councils adopted rules called canons to regulate the life of the Church. Because the Church used the administrative divisions of the Roman Empire, the bishops of the provincial capitals had presided over meetings or synods of the bishops of the smaller towns in the province since the beginning of Church history. The bishops who lived in the provincial capital or metropolis of the region were eventually called Metropolitans. The First Council of Nicea reaffirmed this practice and recognized the authority of provincial synods to elect the bishops of the dioceses in their provinces. The council also decreed that the local synods of the bishops should meet in each province at least twice a year, once before Lent and once in the fall. In 528, the Emperor Justinian ruled that the metropolitan and bishops of a province would elect bishops from a list of three candidates nominated by the clergy and faithful of the diocese. 315 Canon thirty five of the Apostolic Canons, a set of ancient canons given ecumenical authority by the Council in Trullo in 692, considered by Orthodox a continuation of the Fifth and Sixth Ecumenical Councils, summarizes the Eastern model for the proper administration of the Church. The bishops of every nation must acknowledge him who is first among them and account him as their head, and do nothing of consequence without his consent; but each may do those things only which concern his own parish and the country places which belong to it. But neither let him (who is the first) do anything without the consent of all; for so there will be unanimity and God will be glorified through the Lord in the Holy Spirit. 316...”
“...The Development of the Five Patriarchates From the division of the Church into local provincial Churches, the system of five Patriarchs developed. The First Council of Nicea reaffirmed the authority of the Metropolitan of Alexandria over the Churches in Egypt and North Africa, Antioch over the Churches in the Middle East, and Rome over the Churches in those areas ruled directly by Rome. 317 In time, the Metropolitans of Rome, Alexandria, and Antioch began to be called Patriarchs from the Greek word for Father. The Bishops of Rome and Alexandria also adopted the title Pope, also from the word for Father. Eventually, the Second Ecumenical Council approved a canon that would have wide-ranging consequences. The Second Canon of that council decreed that “The Bishop of Constantinople, however, shall have the prerogative of honor after the Bishop of Rome; because Constantinople is the New Rome.” 318 In 330, Emperor Constantine moved the capital of the Roman Empire to Byzantium, an ancient Greek fishing village. Byzantium, which he renamed Constantinople, became a Christian alternative to pagan Rome. 319 Finally, the Fourth Ecumenical Council, The Council of Chalcedon in 451, which set the standard for orthodox Christology, granted patriarchial dignity to Jerusalem. 320 This completed the formation of the Pentarchy or division of the Church into five self-governing local provincial Churches: Rome, Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem. The Orthodox Church has continued to this day to be a federation of locally governed Churches. The Council of Chalcedon made another very important decision concerning the administration of the Church. In 451, the Twenty Eighth Canon of the Council of Chalcedon recognized the equality of the Bishop of Constantinople with the Bishop of Rome. Significantly, the canon did not base the Roman primacy of honor on the belief that St. Peter was the traditional founder of the Roman Church. Instead, the fathers of the council considered the Bishop of Rome senior among the world’s bishops because he was bishop of the old capital of the empire. Since Constantinople had taken the place of the old Rome and was the new capital of the Empire, the fathers of the council decreed that the Bishop of Constantinople should have equal status with the Bishop of Rome. 321 Pope St. Leo View of Primacy Pope St. Leo objected strongly to Canon 28 of the Council of Chalcedon. His arguments are very interesting in the light of the claims of his successors. He did not object to the canon because of a theory of Papal or Petrine supremacy. Instead, he rejected the canon because it set aside the ranking of Churches established by the First Ecumenical Council, the First Council of Nicea. 322 Specifically, the Bishop of Rome rejected this canon because the council elevated Constantinople at the expense of Alexandria and Antioch which the Council of Nicea had ranked second and third in status. He wrote, “The rights of provincial primates may not be overthrown nor metropolitan bishops be defrauded of privileges based on “antiquity.” 323 Rome Begins to Claim Authority over Other Bishops Eventually, the Bishops of Rome forgot St. Leo’s words and sought to overthrow the “rights of provincial primates” by claiming authority far beyond the primacy of honor as first among equals traditionally accorded the Bishop of Rome. As the Patriarch of the West, the Pope already had influence over a much larger geographical area than any other Patriarch. He also had no rivals in the West for his claim to apostolic authority, because no other Western bishop had such a strong claim to Apostolic origins. For example, when St. Irenaeus, who was a bishop in what is now France, used the example of a Church founded by an Apostle during his argument with the Gnostics, he, naturally used the closest Apostolic Church, the Church of Rome. However, many Eastern Churches could claim one or more Apostles as their founders. St. James was the first bishop of Jerusalem. According to universally recognized tradition, Sts. Peter and Paul founded the Church of Antioch. Alexandria traced itself back to St. Mark, who was considered the co-worker to St. Peter. Even, the relatively new Church of Constantinople claimed St. Andrew its first bishop. However, the Eastern Church ranked local Churches on basis of the status of the city of a bishop rather it origins. Thus, in the Eastern view, Rome held a primacy of honor because it was the old capital of the empire, not because Sts. Peter and Paul had been martyred there. For this same reason, Eastern Christians considered Constantinople equal to Rome because it had taken its place as the capital of the empire...”
“...“Upon this Rock, I will build my Church…” St. Matthew 16: 13-19 and Papal Claims The West, on the other hand, ranked local churches on the status of their founder. Thus, Western Christians considered Rome the highest ranking Church because it was founded by St. Peter, who was universally recognized as the leader of the Apostles, not because it was the old capital of the empire. Supporters of Roman authority appealed to St. Matthew 16: 13-19: ‘Now when Jesus came into the district of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, “Who do men say that the Son of man is?” And they said, “Some say John the Baptist, others say Elijah, and others Jeremiah or one of the prophets.” He said to them, “But who do you say that I am?” Simon Peter replied, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” And Jesus answered him, “Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jona! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven. And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.’ Since the name “Peter” is obviously derived from the word “Petros,” which means rock in Greek, some authorities argued that the “rock” upon which Christ intends to build His Church is the person of St. Peter. In 382, Pope St. Damasius I, who was the first Bishop of Rome to refer to Rome as “the Apostolic See,” issued a decree in which he claimed primacy for Rome on the basis of Christ’s promise to St. Peter, “you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church” 324 Western authorities identified St. Peter as “the rock” upon which Christ would build His Church. However, the Eastern Fathers had a very different interpretation of this passage. St. John Chrysostom taught that Christ used the term “rock” to refer to “the faith of his confession,” rather than the person of St. Peter. 325 Significantly, even Pope St. Leo the Great states that faith in Christ is the rock upon which the Church is built. 326 St. Cyprian of Carthage believed that Christ’s promise to St. Peter applies to all bishops because he considered all bishops successors to the apostles and heirs to St. Peter’s authority. 327 Just as St. Peter was the leader of the Apostles because he professed the true faith in Christ, each bishop who professes the true faith in Christ is a successor to St. Peter. 328 St. Cyprian’s views of the place of Rome in the Church Although St. Cyprian respected the Roman Church, he did not hesitate to publically disagree with the Pope during the famous dispute over the receptions of converts from heretical and schismatic groups. St. Cyprian argued that all converts, including those who had received Baptism in an heretical or schismatic group, must enter the Church through Baptism. However, Pope St. Stephen disagreed and argued that the Church should receive those baptized outside of the Church through a profession of faith and the Sacrament of Chrismation. When he learned that the Bishop of Rome did not agree with him, St. Cyprian wrote, “No one among us sets himself up as a bishop of bishops, or by tyranny and terror forces his colleagues to compulsory obedience.” 329 . Eastern theologians also made a distinction between the Apostles who had universal authority and their successors, the bishops who have authority only over a limited area. Thus, they believed that neither Rome nor any other Church had inherited special status from St. Peter. 330 Western theologians developed a very different interpretation of Christ’s statement to St. Peter. They argued that Christ specifically meant the person of St. Peter and his successors when he promised to build His Church on the “rock.” St. Jerome wrote that the “chair of Peter” in Rome is the “rock on which the Church is built.” 331 St. Ambrose also identified St. Peter with the rock upon which Christ founded the Church. The Growth of Papal Claims As the centuries progressed, the Bishops of Rome sought more and more power and authority. As a result, the primacy of honor originally held by the Popes slowly evolved into a primacy of jurisdiction, at least in the West. Pope St. Innocent wrote in 417 that every major issue in the Church would not be resolved until “it had come to notice of this See.” 332 Pope St. Leo I, who had successfully persuaded the Church to renounce the Robber Council of Ephesus and condemn Monophysitism at the Council of Chalcedon in 451, wrote, “all gifts flow into the entire body from Peter himself as if from the head, in such a way that anyone who had dared to separate himself from the solidarity of Peter would realize that he was no longer a sharer in the divine mystery.” 333 He also wrote, that “although bishops have a common dignity, they are not all of the same rank.” Instead, he argued a hierarchy of bishops had emerged with regional primacies meant that “care of the Universal Church would converge in the one See of Peter.” 334 During St. Leo’s time, the Bishop of Rome began to extend his power outside of central Italy into North Africa, Spain and Gaul (modern France). 335 However, these areas were already a part of the Western Patriarchate. St. Leo made no effort to extend his authority over the Eastern Bishops. 336 Thus, although St. Leo objected Canon 28 of Chalcedon, he continued to recognize the historic rights of the regional metropolitans ratified by the First Ecumenical Council and never attempted to exercise jurisdiction over the Eastern Patriarchs.”-Historian & Archpriest John W. Morris References: 308: Karl Bihlmeyer, Hermann Tuchle, Church History (Westminster: The Newman Press, 1968) vol. I, p. 114 309: Sardica. A.D. 343 or 344, “Canons III, IV, and V,” in Nicene Fathers, Second Series, vol. XIV, pp. 416-419 310: Ignatius, “The Epistle of Ignatius to the Romans,” in Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol. I, p. 73 311 Ibid. 312: Cyprian, “Unity of the Catholic Church,” pp. 126-127 313: Meyendorff, Imperial Unity and Christian Divisions, p. 64 314: John Meyendorff, “St. Peter in Byzantine Theology,” in John Meyendorff, ed. The Primacy of Peter (Crestwood: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 1992), p. 69 315: Ibid., p. 44 316: “The Apostolic Canons,” in Nicene Fathers, Second Series, Vol. XIV, p. 596 317: “Canons IV, V, VI, and VII in I Nicea,” in Nicene Fathers, Second Series, vol. XIV, pp. 11-17. 318: I Constantinople, “Canon II,” in Nicene Fathers, Second Series, vol. XIV, p. 178 319: “The Apostolic Canons,” in Nicene Fathers, Second Series, Vol. XIV, p. 596 320: “Decree on the Jurisdiction of Jerusalem and Antioch,” in Ibid., p. 266 321: Ibid, p. 267-268 322: St. Leo, “Letter CIV” in Ibid., vol. XII, p. 75 323: St. Leo, “Letter CVI To Anatolis, Bishop of Constantinople, in Rebuke of His Self-Seeking,” in Ibid., pp. 77-79 324: St. Damascus I, Pope, “The Decree of Damascus,” in Jurgens, Early Fathers, vol. I, p. 406; Walker, A History of the Christian Church, p. 151 325: St. John Chrysostom, The Gospel of St. Matthew, in Nicene Fathers, Second Series, vol. X, p. 333 326: Leo the Great, “Sermon LXII,” in Nicene Fathers, Second Series, vol. XII, p. 174 327: Veselin Kesich, “Peter’s Primacy in the New Testament and the Early Tradition,” in Meyendorff, The Primacy of Peter, p. 63 328: Philip Sherrard, Church, Papacy, and Schism: A Theological Enquiry, (Limmi, Evia, Greece: Denise Harvey Publisher, 1996), pp. 29-30 329: Quasten, Patrology, p. 375-376 330: Kesich, “Peter’s Primacy,” pp. 56-66 331: Jerome, “Letter 15,” in Greenslade, Early Latin Theology, p. 308 332: St. Innocent I, “Letter of Pope Innocent to the Fathers of the Council of Carthage, Jan. 27, 417 A.D. [In requirendis],” in Jurgens, Early Fathers, p. 182 333: St. Leo I, “Letter of Leo I to the Bishops of the Province of Vienne, July, 445 A.D. [Divinae cutum]” in Ibid., p. 369 334: St. Leo I, “Letter of Pope Leo I to Anastasus, Bishop of Thessalonica A.D. 446 (?) [Quanta fraternitate]” in Ibid., p. 270 335: Walker, A History of the Christian Church, p. 152 336: Meyendorff, Imperial Unity and Christian Divisions, p. 154
“Academic historians tend toward the view echoed also by many Roman Catholic scholars that there is not so much as a trace of papal infallibility in the entire first millennium of Christianity. Dominican Cardinal Yyves Congar said there was not even a *germ* of what developed into papal infallibility until the 1200s. The notion seems to have originated first on the lips of "dissident Franciscans" (cf. Tierney, Origins of Papal Infallibility, cited below) Fr. Hans Kung observes: ""[before the Orthodox/Latin Schism]The Eastern patriarchs and metropolitans certainly still regarded the pope as bishop of the old imperial capital and sole patriarch of the West. But as such he was first among equals. And this was not, say because of a special biblical promise or a legal authority. Of course, no one at that time, even in Rome would have thought that the bishops of Rome were infallible... "Historical research, notably that of Yves Congar, has shown that down to the twelfth century, outside Rome, the significance of the Roman church was not understood as a real teaching authority in the legal sense (magisterium)... No one in the whole of the first millennium regarded decisions of the pope as infallible. 'But historical research has also shown that the popes, particularly from the fifth century on, decisively extended their power with explicit forgeries. The freely invented legend of the holy Pope Silvester comes from the fifth/sixth centuries. In the eighth century it led to a highly influential forgery, the Donation of Constantine (shown to be a forgery in the fifteenth century), according to which Constantine left Rome and the Western half of the empire to Pope Silvester, allowed him the imperial insignia and garments (purple) and a court to match; and bestowed on him the primacy over all other churches, especially Antioch, Alexandria, Constantinople, and Jerusalem. In fact Constantine had left him only the Lateran palace and the new basilicas of the Lateran and St. Peter's" Fr. Hans Kung, The Catholic Church: A Short History (2001), pp. 60-61. Brian Tierney, Origins of Papal Infallibility, 1150-1350: A Study on the Concepts of Infallibility, Sovereignty and Tradition in the Middle Ages, affirms "There is no convincing evidence that papal infallibility formed any part of the theological or canonical tradition of the church before the thirteenth century; the doctrine was invented in the first place by a few dissident Franciscans because it suited their convenience to invent it; eventually, but only after much initial reluctance, it was accepted by the papacy because it suited the convenience of the popes to accept it" (p. 281). cf. also Bernhard Hasler, (Roman Catholic priest) How the Pope Became Infallible: Pius IX and the Politics of Persuasion( (1981). Vatican I had said it was a part of the faith of the Latin church from the beginning. The adamant denial that this is so by academic historians including Roman Catholic academics is sometimes explained theologically with reference to the paradigm of development defended by Cardinal John Henry Newman (cf. Hegelian dialectic) which became a prominent factor in Vatican II according to Pope John Paul who called it "Newman's Council." Arguments to the contrary notwithstanding it seems reasonable to suggest if there is no trace of papal infallibility for a thousand years as many scholars argue- that the Latin church is susceptible to the same criticism Cardinal Newman in his Development of Christian Doctrine used to counter Protestantism: "...this utter incongruity between Protestantism and historical Christianity is a plain fact, whether the latter be regarded in its earlier or in its later centuries. Protestants can as little bear its Ante-nicene as its Posttridentine period. I have elsewhere observed on this circumstance: "So much must the Protestant grant that, if such a system of doctrine as he would now introduce ever existed in early times, it has been clean swept away as if by a deluge, suddenly, silently, and without memorial; by a deluge coming in a night, and utterly soaking, rotting, heaving up, and hurrying off every vestige of what it found in the Church, before cock-crowing: so that 'when they rose in the morning' her true seed 'were all dead corpses'-Nay dead and buried-and without grave-stone. 'The waters went over them; there was not one of them left; they sunk like lead in the mighty waters.' Strange antitype, indeed, to the early fortunes of Israel!-then the enemy was drowned, and 'Israel saw them dead upon the sea-shore.' But now, it would seem, water proceeded as a flood 'out of the serpent's mouth, and covered all the witnesses, so that not even their dead bodies lay in the streets of the great city.' Let him take which of his doctrines he will,... and let him consider how far Antiquity, as it has come down to us, will countenance him in it. No; he must allow that the alleged deluge has done its work; yes, and has in turn disappeared itself; it has been swallowed up by the earth, mercilessly as itself was merciless."”
In Matthew 16, Simon defines who Jesus the man is, that he is the "Christ, Son of the living God" Jesus reciprocates and defines who Simon the man is, "Simon, Son of Jonah, thou art Kepha"
Do you have a good resource that might be an answer to the book “The Papacy” by Abbe Guettee? He basically goes through historical points supposedly in favor of the Papacy and tries to debunk them, and some of his points are really convincing. I’m discerning between the Catholic and Orthodox churches and don’t really know where to go from here
PapalSoldier the Dimonds are cowards who seek to lie their way on to phone calls to ambush people and post the video. They always hide from debate challenges with actual men of the faith. Let them keep to keeping the life’s savings of suckers who join their group and have to sue in court to Get heir money back after leaving within a mere months of joining. Maybe read what Saint Paul wrote on Christians in pagan courts with each other in the kind of lawsuits the dimond s actually shamefully brag about on their own channel
I see this is an old comment so I hope these links will still be relevant for you. Have you read Orestes Brownson's thorough refutation of Abbe Guettee? If not, you can read it here, in 2 parts: part 1: webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:lL38drWNAyQJ:orestesbrownson.org/769.htm part 2: webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:avIm_y0HE-YJ:orestesbrownson.org/770.html
Erick your Journey is quite similar To mine, been baptized as a catholic When i Was a baby. Then i became evangélical, afterwards Was about to get anglican and now im in the middle Of eo or Rc. Studing a lot to see where I should be and your videos are really helpfull. I need unbiased ppl making points and you are one. Id like to ask if I can contact you to get recommandations on books i got a lot of books. I been in semminary (protestant) for almost 2 years, so I have an idea but would be awesome if you could help me Brother. T'hank you. Saludos hermanos un abrazo desde Barcelona España.
Please watch the following critical videos on youtube all uploaded by vaticancatholic: Eastern "Orthodoxy" Exposed: Their Heretical Doctrine Of God "Pastor" Steven Anderson Exposed - Documentary The Bible Proves The Papacy Mary's Sinlessness: A Biblical Documentary
I found this to be a very charitable 'rebuttal' to Whelton. I wouldn't say I agree with the overall larger scope (Papal Supremacy), but I do understand that the Catholic position is more cohesive than it can seem. My question as regards the canon spoken of, is this. You say that the statement in the Canon regards metropolitan primacy, and not universal primacy, but do we have sufficient evidence that shows that most Christians/Fathers/Metropolitans of the time did not think that the Bishop of Rome was just another Metropolitan?
Hi Daniel! I think I do have evidence of that. I provide what I see in my recent book entitled The Papacy: Revisiting the Debate between Catholics and Orthodox available at the St. Paul Center for Biblical Theology website, published by Emmaus Road Publishing.
Thank you for this video. I was born a Protestant, but later became an atheist. However, I have recently come back to belief in Jesus Christ and Christianity. The only problem was, when I tried to understand the faith there were many different teachings and interpretations. Now I am trying to figure out true church history to find the original church and it's teachings, I've found that the Orthodox Church and the Catholic Church were once together before the schism. So far, I find that the Catholic faith makes more sense. However, one thing I don't seem to understand is that Pope Francis said not to convert Orthodox brothers and sisters because it would be a great sin. Yet the Orthodox say Roman Catholic is wrong. Isn't the safer option to go to Orthodoxy if the pope says it's valid, but Orthodox say catholic isn't?
Erick T Ybarra Thank you so much! I'm very interested in the Catholic Church and it's teachings. I used to believe it was totally corrupt and believe all the Protestant teachings and conspiracies about it, without even considering the catholic's side of the story. When looking at church history, and asking God to show me the way, I'm really pulled to the catholic faith, but I'm still very cautious and scared of being 'deceived' as the Protestants call it. They say the Vatican is the whore of Babylon - but the more I think of it, isn't that what Jesus said would happen to his true followers? They would be hated and slandered. Thank you for your help, I know now for a fact that the true church is either Eastern Orthodox or Roman Catholic. The thing that pulls me more to your church is the authority of the pope, like the authority of peter, and the kindness from the catholic people themselves. Eastern Orthodox seem very nice, but very proud and sometimes boastful for their faith - Catholics on the other hand seem very humble in my experience.
Onvey Please. Never join the Eastern "Orthodox". Their religion is polytheistic heresy exposed. czcams.com/video/d07mgLoOW8g/video.html Also you were right about Francis's statement. He is an antipope and a heretical apostate. It is necessary to become a traditional catholic for salvation. Please see vaticancatholic.com for critical information on how to save your soul.
@@onvey2112 kindness is obviously good, but shouldn't be a measure of truth (not dissuading you from catholicism, as im catholic), but satan was kind to both eve and Jesus when tempting them. You will find a whole range of personalities within a parish and different cultures between catholic parishes, we're all sinners, regular human emotions and failings don't suddenly stop. We will always find hardships in this fallen world.
Orthodoxy is correct. Monarchism was not given to any patriarchs. Unfortunately both Constantinople and Rome got power hungry, and had a political falling out. Naturally both east and west developed their own spiritualites, and now here we are.
If that's true, why did Constantinople get to be the primary see once Rome "apostatized" ? Given the propensity to declare excommunication by the autocephalous churches, I wouldn't throw around the accusation that it was solely Rome that was "power hungry."
@@aloyalcatholic5785 Although it makes sense since Constantinople was made next patriarch up while the schism was settling, I recant my previous opinion that Rome decided to schism from Jesus's Church, as the Catholic Church is the true Church.
In the Last Supper, Jesus teaches the Apostles how to celebrate the Sacramental Mass, Jesus faced the Apostles it is not "ad orientem" that Jesus had teach the Apostles.
@@zer-sz5tu LOOK IN THE MIRROR..I embraced Vatican II Teachings and most of the Vatican II Popes are Canonized Saints and the remaining are pious Popes too..Do you embraced OBEDIENCE and TRUST all the Vatican II Popes? If NO, then who is the PROTEST-ant?
Eric, please consider writing a book answering Eastern Orthodox objections to the papacy. Thank you for your work and research.
^^
I think William Albrecht is writing a book on the papacy as well
The argument you make respecting Peter as rock vs. Peter's faith as rock (starting a couple of minutes before the half-hour mark) is really well done.
It would be very helpful if you debated Jay Dyer on the subject.
Definitely. I still can't decide which side is correct and this certainly would be very helpful.
@@lucasgama673 Watch the video on youtube called:
The Trinity & The Filioque: Catholicism Refutes Eastern "Orthodoxy"
uploader is vaticancatholic
Sylvain Durand read my mind!
PapalSoldier czcams.com/video/713jhGWpiv4/video.html
Jay Dyer is so rude to him though. Last debate I heard he had several personal insults thrown at him from Jay Dyer.
Since I'm a Catholic, I study writings from the Early Church. So I wonder why the Eastern Orthodox accept the Council of Ephesus that net in 431 A.D. when they know that council's Fathers believed their council taught infallibly and that Pope Celestine taught with St. Peter's authority. How can the true Church be Eastern Orthodox when the Eastern Orthodox have never accepted the Catholic Church's infallibility and the Council of Ephesus met before the Catholic/Eastern Orthodox schism began in 1054.
www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf214.x.ii.html
“The Place of Rome in the Apostolic Church
Significantly, most Roman Catholic historians recognize that the Popes did not have universal jurisdiction during the first centuries of Christian history. Instead, they recognize that the Papacy, as it exists today, was the result of centuries of growth and evolution. For example, the Pope did not achieve complete authority over Roman Catholic doctrine until the declaration of papal infallibility at the First Vatican Council in 1870. One Roman Catholic historian wrote, “The primacy of the Church of Rome naturally did not appear all at once and in its full external development. It developed organically and as need required.” 308
As the bishop of the largest and most influential city in the world, the Bishop of Rome naturally occupied a position of great prestige. Most Christians looked to the Church of Rome for leadership from the very beginning of church history. Anyone with a cause would have had a stronger case with Roman support. For this reason, both heretics and Orthodox theologians tried to win the favor of the Bishop of Rome for their cause. In 343 or 344, the Council of Sardica, one of the local councils recognized by the Council in Trullo, granted deposed bishops the right to request that the Bishop of Rome appoint local bishops to hear their appeal. However, the canon did not give the Pope the authority to resolve the matter himself. 309
The Bishop of Rome as “First Among Equals” in the Apostolic Church
There was no question that the Pope held a primacy of honor as “first among equals,” during the first 1,000 years of Christian history. For example, St. Ignatius addresses the Church of Rome in very flowerily words, “worthy of honour, worthy of the highest happiness, worthy of praise, worthy of credit worthy of being deemed holy, and which presides over love…” 310 However, this honorary status did not give the Pope universal jurisdiction. In the same letter, St. Ignatius is also careful to limit the actual authority of the Bishop of Rome to “the region of the Romans.” 311 During his disagreement with Pope St. Stephen over Baptism, St. Cyprian specifically rejected the idea that Rome had authority over the other bishops. He wrote, “Certainly the rest of the apostles were exactly what Peter was; they were endowed with an equal share of office and power…. The episcopate is a single whole, in which each bishop’s share gives him a right to, and a responsibility for the whole.” 312
Although Roman Bishops began to claim authority over other bishops fairly early, it took centuries before they were strong enough to enforce these claims. Because the early Church used the administrative divisions already used by the Roman Empire, the Bishop of Rome only exercised jurisdiction over the ten provinces governed by the prefect of Rome during the first five centuries of Church history. For example, at the close of the first century, St. Clement, the Bishop of Rome, had the authority to advise the Church of Corinth in his Epistle to the Church in Corinth because the city was one of those ruled directly by Rome. For this reason, the Corinthian Church was under the authority of the Bishop of the imperial city. Outside of the areas ruled directly from Rome, the Western Church followed the same practice of the East, where local metropolitans and synods administered the Church. For example, Milan operated as an independent or autocephalous Church under the leadership of its own bishop rather than that of the Bishop of Rome. 313 The Bishop of Rome was only able to extend his authority over the other bishops of the West after centuries of effort. Rome was never able to persuade the Eastern Bishops to accept papal authority. Unfortunately, the Eastern bishops were not fully aware of the growing Roman claims until it was too late to avoid conflict with Rome. 314 Thus, Rome did not exercise universal jurisdiction during the era of the Ecumenical Councils. Nor was Rome above the authority of a general council as later Popes would claim. Instead, the Bishops of Rome were subject to the decisions of ecumenical councils just like any other bishop. For example, the Sixth Ecumenical Council, Constantinople III, did not hesitate to claim authority over the Pope when it condemned Pope Honorius I in 680.
The Canons of the Ecumenical Councils and Papal Authority
It is not possible to reconcile the papal claims to universal jurisdiction with the canons of the Ecumenical Councils. In addition to its doctrinal decisions, the Councils adopted rules called canons to regulate the life of the Church. Because the Church used the administrative divisions of the Roman Empire, the bishops of the provincial capitals had presided over meetings or synods of the bishops of the smaller towns in the province since the beginning of Church history. The bishops who lived in the provincial capital or metropolis of the region were eventually called Metropolitans. The First Council of Nicea reaffirmed this practice and recognized the authority of provincial synods to elect the bishops of the dioceses in their provinces. The council also decreed that the local synods of the bishops should meet in each province at least twice a year, once before Lent and once in the fall. In 528, the Emperor Justinian ruled that the metropolitan and bishops of a province would elect bishops from a list of three candidates nominated by the clergy and faithful of the diocese. 315 Canon thirty five of the Apostolic Canons, a set of ancient canons given ecumenical authority by the Council in Trullo in 692, considered by Orthodox a continuation of the Fifth and Sixth Ecumenical Councils, summarizes the Eastern model for the proper administration of the Church.
The bishops of every nation must acknowledge him who is first among them and account him as their head, and do nothing of consequence without his consent; but each may do those things only which concern his own parish and the country places which belong to it. But neither let him (who is the first) do anything without the consent of all; for so there will be unanimity and God will be glorified through the Lord in the Holy Spirit. 316...”
“...The Development of the Five Patriarchates
From the division of the Church into local provincial Churches, the system of five Patriarchs developed. The First Council of Nicea reaffirmed the authority of the Metropolitan of Alexandria over the Churches in Egypt and North Africa, Antioch over the Churches in the Middle East, and Rome over the Churches in those areas ruled directly by Rome. 317 In time, the Metropolitans of Rome, Alexandria, and Antioch began to be called Patriarchs from the Greek word for Father. The Bishops of Rome and Alexandria also adopted the title Pope, also from the word for Father.
Eventually, the Second Ecumenical Council approved a canon that would have wide-ranging consequences. The Second Canon of that council decreed that “The Bishop of Constantinople, however, shall have the prerogative of honor after the Bishop of Rome; because Constantinople is the New Rome.” 318 In 330, Emperor Constantine moved the capital of the Roman Empire to Byzantium, an ancient Greek fishing village. Byzantium, which he renamed Constantinople, became a Christian alternative to pagan Rome. 319 Finally, the Fourth Ecumenical Council, The Council of Chalcedon in 451, which set the standard for orthodox Christology, granted patriarchial dignity to Jerusalem. 320 This completed the formation of the Pentarchy or division of the Church into five self-governing local provincial Churches: Rome, Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem. The Orthodox Church has continued to this day to be a federation of locally governed Churches.
The Council of Chalcedon made another very important decision concerning the administration of the Church. In 451, the Twenty Eighth Canon of the Council of Chalcedon recognized the equality of the Bishop of Constantinople with the Bishop of Rome. Significantly, the canon did not base the Roman primacy of honor on the belief that St. Peter was the traditional founder of the Roman Church. Instead, the fathers of the council considered the Bishop of Rome senior among the world’s bishops because he was bishop of the old capital of the empire. Since Constantinople had taken the place of the old Rome and was the new capital of the Empire, the fathers of the council decreed that the Bishop of Constantinople should have equal status with the Bishop of Rome. 321
Pope St. Leo View of Primacy
Pope St. Leo objected strongly to Canon 28 of the Council of Chalcedon. His arguments are very interesting in the light of the claims of his successors. He did not object to the canon because of a theory of Papal or Petrine supremacy. Instead, he rejected the canon because it set aside the ranking of Churches established by the First Ecumenical Council, the First Council of Nicea. 322 Specifically, the Bishop of Rome rejected this canon because the council elevated Constantinople at the expense of Alexandria and Antioch which the Council of Nicea had ranked second and third in status. He wrote, “The rights of provincial primates may not be overthrown nor metropolitan bishops be defrauded of privileges based on “antiquity.” 323
Rome Begins to Claim Authority over Other Bishops
Eventually, the Bishops of Rome forgot St. Leo’s words and sought to overthrow the “rights of provincial primates” by claiming authority far beyond the primacy of honor as first among equals traditionally accorded the Bishop of Rome. As the Patriarch of the West, the Pope already had influence over a much larger geographical area than any other Patriarch. He also had no rivals in the West for his claim to apostolic authority, because no other Western bishop had such a strong claim to Apostolic origins. For example, when St. Irenaeus, who was a bishop in what is now France, used the example of a Church founded by an Apostle during his argument with the Gnostics, he, naturally used the closest Apostolic Church, the Church of Rome. However, many Eastern Churches could claim one or more Apostles as their founders. St. James was the first bishop of Jerusalem. According to universally recognized tradition, Sts. Peter and Paul founded the Church of Antioch. Alexandria traced itself back to St. Mark, who was considered the co-worker to St. Peter. Even, the relatively new Church of Constantinople claimed St. Andrew its first bishop. However, the Eastern Church ranked local Churches on basis of the status of the city of a bishop rather it origins. Thus, in the Eastern view, Rome held a primacy of honor because it was the old capital of the empire, not because Sts. Peter and Paul had been martyred there. For this same reason, Eastern Christians considered Constantinople equal to Rome because it had taken its place as the capital of the empire...”
“...“Upon this Rock, I will build my Church…” St. Matthew 16: 13-19 and Papal Claims
The West, on the other hand, ranked local churches on the status of their founder. Thus, Western Christians considered Rome the highest ranking Church because it was founded by St. Peter, who was universally recognized as the leader of the Apostles, not because it was the old capital of the empire. Supporters of Roman authority appealed to St. Matthew 16: 13-19:
‘Now when Jesus came into the district of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, “Who do men say that the Son of man is?” And they said, “Some say John the Baptist, others say Elijah, and others Jeremiah or one of the prophets.” He said to them, “But who do you say that I am?” Simon Peter replied, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” And Jesus answered him, “Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jona! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven. And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.’
Since the name “Peter” is obviously derived from the word “Petros,” which means rock in Greek, some authorities argued that the “rock” upon which Christ intends to build His Church is the person of St. Peter. In 382, Pope St. Damasius I, who was the first Bishop of Rome to refer to Rome as “the Apostolic See,” issued a decree in which he claimed primacy for Rome on the basis of Christ’s promise to St. Peter, “you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church” 324 Western authorities identified St. Peter as “the rock” upon which Christ would build His Church.
However, the Eastern Fathers had a very different interpretation of this passage. St. John Chrysostom taught that Christ used the term “rock” to refer to “the faith of his confession,” rather than the person of St. Peter. 325 Significantly, even Pope St. Leo the Great states that faith in Christ is the rock upon which the Church is built. 326 St. Cyprian of Carthage believed that Christ’s promise to St. Peter applies to all bishops because he considered all bishops successors to the apostles and heirs to St. Peter’s authority. 327 Just as St. Peter was the leader of the Apostles because he professed the true faith in Christ, each bishop who professes the true faith in Christ is a successor to St. Peter. 328
St. Cyprian’s views of the place of Rome in the Church
Although St. Cyprian respected the Roman Church, he did not hesitate to publically disagree with the Pope during the famous dispute over the receptions of converts from heretical and schismatic groups. St. Cyprian argued that all converts, including those who had received Baptism in an heretical or schismatic group, must enter the Church through Baptism. However, Pope St. Stephen disagreed and argued that the Church should receive those baptized outside of the Church through a profession of faith and the Sacrament of Chrismation. When he learned that the Bishop of Rome did not agree with him, St. Cyprian wrote, “No one among us sets himself up as a bishop of bishops, or by tyranny and terror forces his colleagues to compulsory obedience.” 329 . Eastern theologians also made a distinction between the Apostles who had universal authority and their successors, the bishops who have authority only over a limited area. Thus, they believed that neither Rome nor any other Church had inherited special status from St. Peter. 330
Western theologians developed a very different interpretation of Christ’s statement to St. Peter. They argued that Christ specifically meant the person of St. Peter and his successors when he promised to build His Church on the “rock.” St. Jerome wrote that the “chair of Peter” in Rome is the “rock on which the Church is built.” 331 St. Ambrose also identified St. Peter with the rock upon which Christ founded the Church.
The Growth of Papal Claims
As the centuries progressed, the Bishops of Rome sought more and more power and authority. As a result, the primacy of honor originally held by the Popes slowly evolved into a primacy of jurisdiction, at least in the West. Pope St. Innocent wrote in 417 that every major issue in the Church would not be resolved until “it had come to notice of this See.” 332 Pope St. Leo I, who had successfully persuaded the Church to renounce the Robber Council of Ephesus and condemn Monophysitism at the Council of Chalcedon in 451, wrote, “all gifts flow into the entire body from Peter himself as if from the head, in such a way that anyone who had dared to separate himself from the solidarity of Peter would realize that he was no longer a sharer in the divine mystery.” 333 He also wrote, that “although bishops have a common dignity, they are not all of the same rank.” Instead, he argued a hierarchy of bishops had emerged with regional primacies meant that “care of the Universal Church would converge in the one See of Peter.” 334 During St. Leo’s time, the Bishop of Rome began to extend his power outside of central Italy into North Africa, Spain and Gaul (modern France). 335 However, these areas were already a part of the Western Patriarchate. St. Leo made no effort to extend his authority over the Eastern Bishops. 336 Thus, although St. Leo objected Canon 28 of Chalcedon, he continued to recognize the historic rights of the regional metropolitans ratified by the First Ecumenical Council and never attempted to exercise jurisdiction over the Eastern Patriarchs.”-Historian & Archpriest John W. Morris
References:
308: Karl Bihlmeyer, Hermann Tuchle, Church History (Westminster: The Newman Press, 1968) vol. I, p. 114
309: Sardica. A.D. 343 or 344, “Canons III, IV, and V,” in Nicene Fathers, Second Series, vol. XIV, pp. 416-419
310: Ignatius, “The Epistle of Ignatius to the Romans,” in Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol. I, p. 73
311 Ibid.
312: Cyprian, “Unity of the Catholic Church,” pp. 126-127
313: Meyendorff, Imperial Unity and Christian Divisions, p. 64
314: John Meyendorff, “St. Peter in Byzantine Theology,” in John Meyendorff, ed. The Primacy of Peter (Crestwood: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 1992), p. 69
315: Ibid., p. 44
316: “The Apostolic Canons,” in Nicene Fathers, Second Series, Vol. XIV, p. 596
317: “Canons IV, V, VI, and VII in I Nicea,” in Nicene Fathers, Second Series, vol. XIV, pp. 11-17.
318: I Constantinople, “Canon II,” in Nicene Fathers, Second Series, vol. XIV, p. 178
319: “The Apostolic Canons,” in Nicene Fathers, Second Series, Vol. XIV, p. 596
320: “Decree on the Jurisdiction of Jerusalem and Antioch,” in Ibid., p. 266
321: Ibid, p. 267-268
322: St. Leo, “Letter CIV” in Ibid., vol. XII, p. 75
323: St. Leo, “Letter CVI To Anatolis, Bishop of Constantinople, in Rebuke of His Self-Seeking,” in Ibid., pp. 77-79
324: St. Damascus I, Pope, “The Decree of Damascus,” in Jurgens, Early Fathers, vol. I, p. 406; Walker, A History of the Christian Church, p. 151
325: St. John Chrysostom, The Gospel of St. Matthew, in Nicene Fathers, Second Series, vol. X, p. 333
326: Leo the Great, “Sermon LXII,” in Nicene Fathers, Second Series, vol. XII, p. 174
327: Veselin Kesich, “Peter’s Primacy in the New Testament and the Early Tradition,” in Meyendorff, The Primacy of Peter, p. 63
328: Philip Sherrard, Church, Papacy, and Schism: A Theological Enquiry, (Limmi, Evia, Greece: Denise Harvey Publisher, 1996), pp. 29-30
329: Quasten, Patrology, p. 375-376
330: Kesich, “Peter’s Primacy,” pp. 56-66
331: Jerome, “Letter 15,” in Greenslade, Early Latin Theology, p. 308
332: St. Innocent I, “Letter of Pope Innocent to the Fathers of the Council of Carthage, Jan. 27, 417 A.D. [In requirendis],” in Jurgens, Early Fathers, p. 182
333: St. Leo I, “Letter of Leo I to the Bishops of the Province of Vienne, July, 445 A.D. [Divinae cutum]” in Ibid., p. 369
334: St. Leo I, “Letter of Pope Leo I to Anastasus, Bishop of Thessalonica A.D. 446 (?) [Quanta fraternitate]” in Ibid., p. 270
335: Walker, A History of the Christian Church, p. 152
336: Meyendorff, Imperial Unity and Christian Divisions, p. 154
“Academic historians tend toward the view echoed also by many Roman Catholic scholars that there is not so much as a trace of papal infallibility in the entire first millennium of Christianity.
Dominican Cardinal Yyves Congar said there was not even a *germ* of what developed into papal infallibility until the 1200s. The notion seems to have originated first on the lips of "dissident Franciscans" (cf. Tierney, Origins of Papal Infallibility, cited below)
Fr. Hans Kung observes: ""[before the Orthodox/Latin Schism]The Eastern patriarchs and metropolitans certainly still regarded the pope as bishop of the old imperial capital and sole patriarch of the West. But as such he was first among equals. And this was not, say because of a special biblical promise or a legal authority. Of course, no one at that time, even in Rome would have thought that the bishops of Rome were infallible...
"Historical research, notably that of Yves Congar, has shown that down to the twelfth century, outside Rome, the significance of the Roman church was not understood as a real teaching authority in the legal sense (magisterium)... No one in the whole of the first millennium regarded decisions of the pope as infallible.
'But historical research has also shown that the popes, particularly from the fifth century on, decisively extended their power with explicit forgeries. The freely invented legend of the holy Pope Silvester comes from the fifth/sixth centuries. In the eighth century it led to a highly influential forgery, the Donation of Constantine (shown to be a forgery in the fifteenth century), according to which Constantine left Rome and the Western half of the empire to Pope Silvester, allowed him the imperial insignia and garments (purple) and a court to match; and bestowed on him the primacy over all other churches, especially Antioch, Alexandria, Constantinople, and Jerusalem. In fact Constantine had left him only the Lateran palace and the new basilicas of the Lateran and St. Peter's" Fr. Hans Kung, The Catholic Church: A Short History (2001), pp. 60-61.
Brian Tierney, Origins of Papal Infallibility, 1150-1350: A Study on the Concepts of Infallibility, Sovereignty and Tradition in the Middle Ages, affirms
"There is no convincing evidence that papal infallibility formed any part of the theological or canonical tradition of the church before the thirteenth century; the doctrine was invented in the first place by a few dissident Franciscans because it suited their convenience to invent it; eventually, but only after much initial reluctance, it was accepted by the papacy because it suited the convenience of the popes to accept it" (p. 281).
cf. also Bernhard Hasler, (Roman Catholic priest) How the Pope Became Infallible: Pius IX and the Politics of Persuasion( (1981).
Vatican I had said it was a part of the faith of the Latin church from the beginning. The adamant denial that this is so by academic historians including Roman Catholic academics is sometimes explained theologically with reference to the paradigm of development defended by Cardinal John Henry Newman (cf. Hegelian dialectic) which became a prominent factor in Vatican II according to Pope John Paul who called it "Newman's Council." Arguments to the contrary notwithstanding it seems reasonable to suggest if there is no trace of papal infallibility for a thousand years as many scholars argue- that the Latin church is susceptible to the same criticism Cardinal Newman in his Development of Christian Doctrine used to counter Protestantism:
"...this utter incongruity between Protestantism and historical Christianity is a plain fact, whether the latter be regarded in its earlier or in its later centuries. Protestants can as little bear its Ante-nicene as its Posttridentine period. I have elsewhere observed on this circumstance: "So much must the Protestant grant that, if such a system of doctrine as he would now introduce ever existed in early times, it has been clean swept away as if by a deluge, suddenly, silently, and without memorial; by a deluge coming in a night, and utterly soaking, rotting, heaving up, and hurrying off every vestige of what it found in the Church, before cock-crowing: so that 'when they rose in the morning' her true seed 'were all dead corpses'-Nay dead and buried-and without grave-stone. 'The waters went over them; there was not one of them left; they sunk like lead in the mighty waters.' Strange antitype, indeed, to the early fortunes of Israel!-then the enemy was drowned, and 'Israel saw them dead upon the sea-shore.' But now, it would seem, water proceeded as a flood 'out of the serpent's mouth, and covered all the witnesses, so that not even their dead bodies lay in the streets of the great city.' Let him take which of his doctrines he will,... and let him consider how far Antiquity, as it has come down to us, will countenance him in it. No; he must allow that the alleged deluge has done its work; yes, and has in turn disappeared itself; it has been swallowed up by the earth, mercilessly as itself was merciless."”
Samuel Saenz you on Facebook brother
In Matthew 16, Simon defines who Jesus the man is, that he is the "Christ, Son of the living God" Jesus reciprocates and defines who Simon the man is, "Simon, Son of Jonah, thou art Kepha"
I am glad to find your channel.
I found your talks helpful. I look forward to more videos.
Such a wonderful video. Please post more. Phenomenal. Where is the link to all the quotes? I think you mentioned there being one
Do you have a good resource that might be an answer to the book “The Papacy” by Abbe Guettee? He basically goes through historical points supposedly in favor of the Papacy and tries to debunk them, and some of his points are really convincing. I’m discerning between the Catholic and Orthodox churches and don’t really know where to go from here
PapalSoldier the Dimonds are cowards who seek to lie their way on to phone calls to ambush people and post the video. They always hide from debate challenges with actual men of the faith. Let them keep to keeping the life’s savings of suckers who join their group and have to sue in court to
Get heir money back after leaving within a mere months of joining. Maybe read what Saint Paul wrote on Christians in pagan courts with each other in the kind of lawsuits the dimond s actually shamefully brag about on their own channel
PapalSoldier watch this instead
czcams.com/video/713jhGWpiv4/video.html
I see this is an old comment so I hope these links will still be relevant for you. Have you read Orestes Brownson's thorough refutation of Abbe Guettee? If not, you can read it here, in 2 parts:
part 1: webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:lL38drWNAyQJ:orestesbrownson.org/769.htm
part 2: webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:avIm_y0HE-YJ:orestesbrownson.org/770.html
I teach theology and found this interesting. Thanks
Erick your Journey is quite similar To mine, been baptized as a catholic When i Was a baby. Then i became evangélical, afterwards Was about to get anglican and now im in the middle Of eo or Rc. Studing a lot to see where I should be and your videos are really helpfull.
I need unbiased ppl making points and you are one.
Id like to ask if I can contact you to get recommandations on books i got a lot of books. I been in semminary (protestant) for almost 2 years, so I have an idea but would be awesome if you could help me Brother.
T'hank you.
Saludos hermanos un abrazo desde Barcelona España.
Please watch the following critical videos on youtube all uploaded by vaticancatholic:
Eastern "Orthodoxy" Exposed: Their Heretical Doctrine Of God
"Pastor" Steven Anderson Exposed - Documentary
The Bible Proves The Papacy
Mary's Sinlessness: A Biblical Documentary
PapalSoldier give it rest the dimonds are a joke I’m shocked this is even allowed to be spammed on his page
PapalSoldier watch this instead
czcams.com/video/713jhGWpiv4/video.html
In Matthew 16:18, there is only one, true, living, Church established by Jesus Church, that Church is the Catholic Church.
@@svatoslavholonic “we are the true catholics” hurr durr
Where is the document or website that you were going to link?
Paralysis by analysis. THanks for sharing anyway.
I found this to be a very charitable 'rebuttal' to Whelton. I wouldn't say I agree with the overall larger scope (Papal Supremacy), but I do understand that the Catholic position is more cohesive than it can seem.
My question as regards the canon spoken of, is this. You say that the statement in the Canon regards metropolitan primacy, and not universal primacy, but do we have sufficient evidence that shows that most Christians/Fathers/Metropolitans of the time did not think that the Bishop of Rome was just another Metropolitan?
Hi Daniel!
I think I do have evidence of that. I provide what I see in my recent book entitled The Papacy: Revisiting the Debate between Catholics and Orthodox available at the St. Paul Center for Biblical Theology website, published by Emmaus Road Publishing.
Thank you for this video. I was born a Protestant, but later became an atheist. However, I have recently come back to belief in Jesus Christ and Christianity. The only problem was, when I tried to understand the faith there were many different teachings and interpretations.
Now I am trying to figure out true church history to find the original church and it's teachings, I've found that the Orthodox Church and the Catholic Church were once together before the schism.
So far, I find that the Catholic faith makes more sense. However, one thing I don't seem to understand is that Pope Francis said not to convert Orthodox brothers and sisters because it would be a great sin.
Yet the Orthodox say Roman Catholic is wrong.
Isn't the safer option to go to Orthodoxy if the pope says it's valid, but Orthodox say catholic isn't?
Erick T Ybarra Thank you so much! I'm very interested in the Catholic Church and it's teachings. I used to believe it was totally corrupt and believe all the Protestant teachings and conspiracies about it, without even considering the catholic's side of the story.
When looking at church history, and asking God to show me the way, I'm really pulled to the catholic faith, but I'm still very cautious and scared of being 'deceived' as the Protestants call it. They say the Vatican is the whore of Babylon - but the more I think of it, isn't that what Jesus said would happen to his true followers? They would be hated and slandered.
Thank you for your help, I know now for a fact that the true church is either Eastern Orthodox or Roman Catholic.
The thing that pulls me more to your church is the authority of the pope, like the authority of peter, and the kindness from the catholic people themselves.
Eastern Orthodox seem very nice, but very proud and sometimes boastful for their faith - Catholics on the other hand seem very humble in my experience.
Onvey
Please. Never join the Eastern "Orthodox". Their religion is polytheistic heresy exposed.
czcams.com/video/d07mgLoOW8g/video.html
Also you were right about Francis's statement. He is an antipope and a heretical apostate. It is necessary to become a traditional catholic for salvation. Please see vaticancatholic.com for critical information on how to save your soul.
REad St. Augustine's book... Against the Fundamental epistle of Mani..398 A.D....From there, you be the judge if you will be CAtholic or Orthodox...
Onvey as you see the crazies come
Out here. If you are on Facebook please reach out on Facebook
@@onvey2112 kindness is obviously good, but shouldn't be a measure of truth (not dissuading you from catholicism, as im catholic), but satan was kind to both eve and Jesus when tempting them. You will find a whole range of personalities within a parish and different cultures between catholic parishes, we're all sinners, regular human emotions and failings don't suddenly stop.
We will always find hardships in this fallen world.
I know that this isn't on topic, but are you a flat earther? You seem to have liked a video that attempts to "prove" the flat earth hypothesis.
@Eremias Ranwolf I forget
He’s not
Orthodoxy is correct. Monarchism was not given to any patriarchs. Unfortunately both Constantinople and Rome got power hungry, and had a political falling out. Naturally both east and west developed their own spiritualites, and now here we are.
If that's true, why did Constantinople get to be the primary see once Rome "apostatized" ? Given the propensity to declare excommunication by the autocephalous churches, I wouldn't throw around the accusation that it was solely Rome that was "power hungry."
@@aloyalcatholic5785 Although it makes sense since Constantinople was made next patriarch up while the schism was settling, I recant my previous opinion that Rome decided to schism from Jesus's Church, as the Catholic Church is the true Church.
In the Last Supper, Jesus teaches the Apostles how to celebrate the Sacramental Mass, Jesus faced the Apostles it is not "ad orientem" that Jesus had teach the Apostles.
@@zer-sz5tu LOOK IN THE MIRROR..I embraced Vatican II Teachings and most of the Vatican II Popes are Canonized Saints and the remaining are pious Popes too..Do you embraced OBEDIENCE and TRUST all the Vatican II Popes? If NO, then who is the PROTEST-ant?
The sacrifice of the mass is meant to mirror the Last Supper, but is not supposed to be a complete replication of very part of it.