Why The Papacy Is Biblical w/ Suan Sonna
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 2 окт 2024
- I chat with Suan about why the Papacy is biblical. We'll be taking questions from Patrons and Superchatters! (Patrons, ask here: / 49986721 )
Learn more about Suan:
RUclips Channel: / @intellectualcatholicism
Podcast: podcasts.apple...
Patreon: / intellectualconservatism
🔴 FREE E-book "You Can Understand Aquinas": pintswithaquin...
🔴 SPONSORS
Hallow: hallow.app/matt...
STRIVE: www.strive21.c...
Catholic Chemistry: catholicchemis...
🔴 GIVING
Patreon or Directly: pintswithaquin...
This show (and all the plans we have in store) wouldn't be possible without you. I can't thank those of you who support me enough. Seriously! Thanks for essentially being a co-producer co-producer of the show.
🔴 LINKS
Website: pintswithaquin...
Merch: teespring.com/stores/matt-fradd
FREE 21 Day Detox From Porn Course: www.strive21.c...
🔴 SOCIAL
Facebook: / mattfradd
Twitter: / mattfradd
Instagram: / mattfradd
Gab: gab.com/mattfradd
Suan here: I misspoke at 19:18 when I said 1st Clement was written before the martyrdom of Peter and Paul. It was written after their martyrdom in 64-67 AD and before the destruction of the Jerusalem temple in 70 AD.
Tertullian is not a saint.
Also, from what I recall, "binding and loosing" came from the binding and loosing of scrolls, meaning that there are more reasons for thinking that binding and loosing does not necessarily entail nor imply the possession of the keys. Although, I am still tracking down the source for this claim.
Thanks for your answer, the keys (singular vs plural) was something I always wondered about. Awesome work man keep it up.
@Based Byzantine Your gift for dates surpasses a calendar!!
Really enjoyed tonight. So informative. Peace be with you from Scotland 🏴🏴🏴
You couldn't hear me because I listened to the replay (not live), but I kept telling you to please do go on and on (and hoped Matt would let you) 😆😇
To say Tertullian was not a saint is judgmental.
accordingly Paul’s writings all believers in Christ Jesus are saints
1Philippians 1:1 Paul and Timotheus, the servants of Jesus Christ, to all the the saints in Christ Jesus. With the bishops and deacons: (overseers).
1TIMOTHY 3 This is a true saying, If a man desire the office of a bishop, he desired a good work, A bishop then must be blameless, THE HUSBAND OF ONE WIFE, vigilant, sober, of good behavior, given to hospitality, apt to teach.
Please enlighten me according to scripture where did Peter have the head of the Papacy, over the other apostles, Jesus gave the Keys directly to Peter and indirectly to the other apostles. John writes that Jesus is the door, and to have the keys is to unlock the door by preaching the gospel unto salvation, Peter was rebuked by Paul when it was time to bring the Gentiles in for salvation. He finally was in agreement with Paul.
Paul never married, but Peter was married. The C.C. First Pope.
For the C.C. To force celibacy to the leaders of the church is unbiblical.” The husband of one wife”
The keys are to be used to unlock and lock the door, that is where the binding and loosing the kingdom of heaven comes in.
For they are for those who do not want hear or hear the gospel
I’m discerning between Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy. Suan has given me more to think about.
all my favorite channels collaborating recently makes me so incredibly happy
Suan has agreed to teach a 7 part video series on the Papacy for my patrons! So pumped! Go sign up at Patreon.com/mattfradd to get access. And thanks for supporting this channel.
Awesome
Where is the patreon to get Dr.Pitre and this guy to write a book on the Papacy?
I don't care for those Orthobros. Testimonies from Jewish traditions are really appreciated. Pitre and Suan would be awesome.
@YAJUN YUAN Ok?
Is the papacy series stoll there in 2024? I subbed on locals recently and can't find it there
I'm glad you chose to interview Suan. Awesome discussion. He is a great guy. Rigorous thinker. Pivotal in helping me move towards Rome from protestantism.
As someone who has heavily considered Eastern Orthodoxy in the past, and chose Catholicism reluctantly after much internal debate, this has put me more at ease about the papacy than anything else I've come across. Thank you!
Thank you for your comment and support.your comments and constant support has brought me this far.keep supporting ❤️please send a mail prayerrequest459@gmail.com....
Wait till you discover biblical Christianity!
@@Volleyball_Chess_and_Geoguessr ya! I've finally found Biblical Christianity! I can't believe it!
I'm actually struggling with that same internal debate as of now. Do you mind me asking what convinced you of Catholicism and, if it's not too much trouble, would you mind giving some advice for someone who is honestly trying to come to a conclusion on this issue?
@@soggygoose3480 research the council of Florence 1438-1439. It’s the biggest juggernaut to the Orthodox’s claims.
Good job suan. That outro music was 🔥
Nice teeth Mikey
@@iraborpeter That is a fake account above. Please report them.
Great lecture. I actually loved that Suan went at length with the explanations. For me his passion is contagious.
Thank God for another exeptionally smart convert who teaches us more about our church.
God bless.
Suan is the GOAT. A genius and a blessing to K-State
What is K-state?
@@Mkvine Kansas State I think. 3:02
@@Mkvine Kansas State University. In Manhattan Kansas.
@@jjmorgan75 thanks 🙏
@@Mkvine Kansas State University baby best university in the nation.
Loved this episode! Please invite Suan again
@@iraborpeter Well, thats a scary promotion. I do hope I can you all in prayers!
Suan Sonna going big time. Thanks Matt for having him as guest.
Suan did a fantastic job here! God bless both of your ministries!
Protestants challenge that quote by St. Cyprian as having later/inauthentic Catholic interpolations. So quoting Cyprian like that drags one into another argument, though still some substantial evidence for papacy apart from alleged interpolations.
Suan is amazing! It was like listening to Brant Pitre for the first time.
Dustin Quick made a point recently on the Messianic Me YT channel about Isaiah 22 vs 19-24 which prophecies Peters role in Matthew 16. In Isaiah 22 the stewardship (Al-bayith) role of Shebna who is succeeded by Eliakim is also a priestly role with the "keys of the House of David" given to them. The "keys" in Isaiah are keys to the Temple. The steward (Al-bayith) would wear the keys and everyone who saw it knew what his role was, he had stewardship over the Kingdom during any absence of the King. He could make laws and sacrifices just as David the priest-king. The Pope has stewardship over Christs sheep while Christ is away ,because Christ gave Peter the "keys". Christ is the Supreme Priest-King because He is a descendent of David and the Pope is His steward (Al-Bayith).
Dr Brant pitre has an amazing lecture on this it’s called the Jewish roots of the papacy definitely worth a watch
MY BOY SUANNNN
Loved that Matt let him go on and on!!!!
Great conversation, Suan again just outstanding.
This is so good! It's Steve Ray but fully fleshed out academically.
Awesome stream, this was the most beneficial headache I've ever gotten lol
Well I'm a new Suan Sonna fan now!
Thank you for your comment and support.your comments and constant support has brought me this far.keep supporting ❤️please send a mail prayerrequest459@gmail.com....
Amazing Suan, Jesus bless you.
Great conversation guys!
Is this video not working on purpose I shared it with my church group now it's a broken link.
Same for me, not working :(
Thank you for your comment and support.your comments and constant support has brought me this far.keep supporting ❤️please send a mail prayerrequest459@gmail.com....
Yeah me too, but I think it works now. Try again !
Good Show
I've listened to this three times in the past few months and each time I'm fascinated. Great work Suan and thanks Matt and team for the podcast!
Very interesting and strong presentation from Suan.
Check out Suans debate with Ubi Petrus on the Papacy it was a very good discussion
You are Peter and upon this rock, I will build my church.....shockingly plain and simple.
Yes indeed.
Are you also aware that Saint Peter was bishop of Antioch first, leaving behind a continuous line of succession?
@@Jordan-1999 Pop Catholicism has no idea about this. Suan didnt have a good defense against this against Ubi either.
@@TommyGunzzz
And the sad thing is, the Roman Catholics who do know about this intend on denying this Church tradition.
@@Jordan-1999 I know some EO brothers (specially new converts from Protestantism) desperately want to say that Antioch, just as Rome, is associated with Peter.
But St Peter constituted St Evodius as the Bishop of Antioch in 53 AD when he went to Rome.
And St Peter did NOT exercise the episcopal governance of Antioch and Rome at the same time; when St Peter was martyred, the successor of Peter was the Roman Bishop, not the Roman and the Antiochian Bishop.
Of course Antioch had some honorific usage for its origins, but nothing more than that, if we go deeper in history. There is no SINGLE register in the history of Ecumenical Councils of any Bishop/Patriarchs of Antioch explicitly or implicitly saying they were using the “power of the keys” and speaking on behalf and as the voice of St Peter, or them being taken as such by other bishops/patriarchs. In reference to Popes, it happened nothing less than many times. Read Phillip, legate of Pope St Celestine in the Council of Ephesus, and all the letter of Pope St Leo the Great during Chalcedon.
You will then see that this cantilena “Peter founded Antioch and Catholics don’t even know it” is being used in EO pop-Internet apologetics in insanely twisted fashion.
Besides, ANYTIME in the Patristic literature there was a reference to the “Apostolic See” in the singular, it was necessarily a reference to the Roman See, even though many others were of apostolic origin.
Those are the facts, my friend.
@@masterchief8179
Not so my friend.
Even according to the Antiochian Orthodox Christian Archdiocese of North America website, states that Saint Peter was bishop of Antioch from AD 37 to AD 53.
You choose to deny this Church tradition, not me.
I too agree that Saint Peter was the first bishop of Rome.
This came out at the right time! Thanks Matt & Suan!
Can we get a “One Church, One Chair” bumper sticker?
If this went for another 6 hours, I'd listen to all of it! This was great!
The answer about the keys is awesome.
Can you please give me the timestamp? Thank you.
Wonderful Session on the validity of the Papacy by Suan ....Keep it up Suan ! And God Bless 🙏
22 I will place on his shoulder the key to the house of David; what he opens no one can shut, and what he shuts no one can open. 23 I will drive him like a peg into a firm place; he will be a seat of honor for the house of his father. 24 All the glory of his family will hang on him: its offspring and offshoots-all its lesser vessels, from the bowls to all the jars.
25 “In that day,” declares the LORD Almighty, “the peg driven into the firm place will give way; it will be sheared off and will fall, and the load hanging on it will be cut down.” The LORD has spoken.
(Is 22:22-25)... When did the typological peg of the Petrine papacy give way? :)
Peter is compared to a rock whereas Eliakim is compared to a collapsible peg. Both are nonetheless likened to objects. Rocks in Jewish tradition are associated with everlasting foundations. Therefore, we have a non-ad hoc symmetry breaker where we can say that although Eliakim's peg gave way, the rock of Christ's Church shall endure forever.
Here's from pg. 12 of my Heythrop paper:
"Finally, I agree with Walls that Eliakim’s peg cannot be imputed into Matt. 16:18-19, but it
is because Peter is identified as the rock of Christ’s Church and not a collapsible peg. Rocks in
Jewish tradition are associated with reliable, everlasting foundations, as in the case of Abraham
being the rock upon which God built old Israel, or the temple being built on a rock that continues to exist from the beginning of creation (currently the Dome of the Rock).81 In light of Judaic
traditions, Peter’s status as rock is to be understood as ‘both immovable and secured.’82"
81 Bivin, David N. ‘Jesus’ Petros-Petra Wordplay (Matthew 16:18): Is It Greek, Aramaic, or Hebrew?,’
in The Language Environment of First Century Judaea: Jerusalem Studies in the Synoptic Gospels 2 vols.,
(edited by Randall Buth and R. Steven. Notley, vol. 2), 384-385. Leiden, Netherlands: Brill, 2014. Bivin cites
the anonymous 13th century Num. 23:9 Avraham-petra midrash where God builds the world on Abraham as its
foundation. This midrash is well-known and used among scholars to understand Judaic traditions surrounding
Matt. 16:18; Keck, The New Interpreter’s Bible, 8:345. The foundation stone or the Dome of the Rock in Jewish
tradition is sacralized as the center or navel of the earth from which creation began and Abraham almost sacrificed Isaac.
82 Basser and Cohen, Matthew, 421
@@intellectualcatholicism Hey! Thanks for responding! My point was not that peg=rock but that the context of the key-holder in Isaiah does not end well for the key-holder. Also, in my note below, I contend that Peter's 'rockness' was in his Holy Spirit-given confession of Christ's identity as Messiah not as an implication of some future permanent papacy. Immediately Peter proves that his faith statement was his rockness as he rebukes Jesus future suffering and is actually called Satan versus a stone, this change in identity in Peter's shifting confession of the gospel. Thanks, I am reading 1 Clement!
The Petrine papacy endures till Christ’s return, as it is only Him that has any authority to dismantle it, as it was only by His authority it was established. Jesus came to relieve Judaism of its authority when it was completely corrupted and will return for the same reason because the faith isn’t being faithfully transmitted.
@@johnbouwers6787 Thanks for your response as well. My point is that although the fate of the key holder is not good in Isaiah as evidenced by the choice object - the collapsible peg - the fate of the New Covenant key holder is different based upon the choice object - a rock. Moreover, I will reassert not only the consensus of scholarship on the person of Peter being the rock, as even indicated by his name change which you will know is significant in a Jewish context for understanding the identity of a person, but also the other linguistic arguments I gave.
“Jesus now sums up Peter’s significance in a name, Peter… It describes not so much Peter’s character (he did not prove to be ‘rock-like’ in terms of stability or reliability), but his function, as the foundation-stone of Jesus’ church. The feminine word for ‘rock’, ‘petra’, is necessarily changed to the masculine ‘petros’ (stone) to give a man’s name, but the word-play is unmistakable (and in Aramaic would be even more so, as the same form ‘kepha’ would occur in both places). It is only Protestant overreaction to the Roman Catholic claim… that what is here said of Peter applies also to the later bishops of Rome, that has led some to claim that the ‘rock’ here is not Peter at all but the faith which he has just confessed. The word-play, and the whole structure of the passage, demands that this verse is every bit as much Jesus’ declaration about Peter as v.16 was Peter’s declaration about Jesus… It is to Peter, not to his confession, that the rock metaphor is applied… Peter is to be the foundation-stone of Jesus’ new community… which will last forever.”
France, R. T. The Gospel According to Matthew: An Introduction and Commentary. InterVasity Press, 1985, pg. 256.
For a defense of R.T France’s claim see Horn, Trent. The Case for Catholicism: Answers to Classic and Con-temporary Protestant Objections. Ignatius Press, 2017, pg. 105.
The debate has been settled since the 1970s.
The keys to the house of David are keys to the temple which were given by King David to his steward/al-bayith, the keys represented who was in authority whenever the King was absent from the kingdom on travels etc. The steward would be in charge of the Kings subjects. David was priest-king, he wore priestly garments and gave sacrifices in the temple even though he was not from a priestly tribe. The role of the al-bayith/stweard in Isaiah 22 is also a priestly role, those keys opened the temple for sacrifices to be offered to God. Jesus is the High Priest-King and He gave the keys to Peter, to be his steward/al-bayith. This office has succession because Shebna is replaced by Eliakim.
Suan and Eric Ybarra 2 masters on the papacy
St. John Chrysostom made it clear in one of his homilies that James received the chair or throne of Jerusalem but Peter was appointed by Christ to be the teacher and sit on the throne of the whole world. That should address the issues of Sts. Peter and James and their respective roles in the church and in Acts 15.
Which homily was that?
@@TommyGunzzz I believe the citation is from a Joan. Hom. You can do a basic Google search and type in keywords like "Saint John Chrysostom" and "Saint Peter" and "universal chair" to find links that will provide the full citation. The point is that none other than St. John Chrysostom (a patriarch of Constantinople) knew of and defended St. Peter's universal primacy and anticipated later Orthodox and Protestant polemics concerning the respective roles of Sts. Peter and James at the (proto-)council of Jerusalem in Acts 15.
@@robertopacheco2997 Sorry, can you actually find that quotation? I was having trouble finding it.
That is quite a bizarre claim, you are saying St John Knew of the Catholic Split 700 years later and then a later protestant split 500 years later after that and that it would revolve around the 1st council? Do you seriously believe that? This is a good example of why Catholics and Protestants are essentially the same (two sides of the same coin) and have the same epistemic dilemmas of not caring about context, but grabbing what they need as it suits them; Protestants grab single scripture verses while Catholics quote mine the fathers, both are lazy approaches without context. Did you know that the 1st council of Constantinople that Constantinople is declared as the new Rome and given the new honor? Also anyone can quote mine the fathers without context. Here is St Ignatius declaring bishops are the final authority under Christ, as the Orthodox believe:
“let all reverence the deacons as an appointment of Jesus Christ, and the bishop as Jesus Christ, who is the Son of the Father, and the presbyters as the sanhedrim of God, and assembly of the apostles. Apart from these, there is no Church”
“For, since you are subject to the bishop as to Jesus Christ, you appear to me to live not after the manner of men, but according to Jesus Christ, who died for us, in order, by believing in His death, you may escape from death. It is therefore necessary that, as you indeed do, so without the bishop you should do nothing, but should also be subject to the presbytery, as to the apostle of Jesus Christ, who is our hope, in whom, if we live, we shall [at last] be found”
@@TommyGunzzz Saint John Chrysostom, the Fourth Century Patriarch of Constantinople:
"And why, then, passing by the others, does He converse with Peter on these things? (John 21:15). He was the chosen one of the Apostles, and the mouth of the disciples, and the leader of the choir. On this account, Paul also went up on a time to see him rather than the others (Galatians 1:18). And withal, to show him that he must thenceforward have confidence, as the denial was done away with, He puts into his hands the presidency over the brethren. And He brings not forward the denial, nor reproaches him with what had past, but says, 'If you love me, preside over the brethren.' ...And the third time He gives him the same injunction, showing what a price He sets the presidency over His own sheep. And if one should say, 'How then did James receive the throne of Jerusalem?,' this I would answer that He appointed this man (Peter) teacher, not of that throne, but of the whole world."
Chrysostom, In Joan. Hom. 1xxxviii. n. 1, tom. viii
Why does Christ naming Peter as the rock necessarily point to him being a pope. I understand that he was established as the head of the church and representative of Christ’s gospel, but why would the terminology change from prophets to popes? All throughout the Bible, prophets were gods representatives while popes aren’t referred to. Why the sudden transition?
1:13:30 It was those Jerusalem Pharisees who had been troubling the Church at Antioch, so it was suitable that the condemnation of those usurpers come from James their own Bishop, Patriarch, and Apostle, rather than have James suffer the humiliation of having Peter, going over James' head, directly slap down lay members of James' Jerusalem Church rather than Peter confirming James in the Faith, allowing James to slap them down.
For Tolkein fans, this is in some sense reminiscent, at the Council of Elrond, of everyone falling silent. "Frodo glanced at all the faces, but they were not turned to him. All the Council sat with downcast eyes, as if in deep thought. A great dread fell on him, as if he was awaiting the pronouncement of some doom that he had long foreseen and vainly hoped might after all never be spoken. An overwhelming longing to rest and remain at peace by Bilbo's side in Rivendell filled all his heart. At last with an effort he spoke, and wondered to hear his own words, as if some other will was using his small voice. 'I will take the Ring, ' he said, 'though I do not know the way.' Elrond raised his eyes and looked at him, and Frodo felt his heart pierced by the sudden keenness of the glance. 'If I understand aright all that I have heard,' he said, 'I think that this task is appointed for you, Frodo.... But this is a heavy burden. So heavy that none could lay it on another. I do not lay it on you. But if you take if freely, I will say that your choice is right.'"
The only way it's biblical is because the church says it is. There is NOTHING in the bible about the papacy. No mention of pope in Matthew 16. The church can take any scripture and make it mean what it wants. Just like calling Peter the rock. Even when there are scriptures that refute the church's false claim. But when has the church ever agreed with scripture?
How many have you watched him debate Seraphim Hamilton?
Dang Matt you are a great listener.
Please read Rev 3:7
“And to the angel of the church in Philadelphia write: ‘The words of the holy one, the true one, who has the key of David, who opens and no one will shut, who shuts and no one opens."
direct reference to Isaiah 22:22 and talking about "the holy one, the true one" Christ himself. If anything Isaiah, a direct refence to Rev. 3:7 is prophetic about Christ
That's an interesting verse, but in Matthew our Lord is explicitly giving the power to Saint Peter. No way around that. In Revelation this power is explicitly given to Christ. No way around that either.
So I would say that just because it's true for Christ doesn't negate it for Saint Peter. It's not a dichotomy, an "either this or that" -- rather it seems to be a "both", in their own respects.
Densely packed episode nails shut the case for the Catholic understanding of the office of Peter. Impressive research! Welcome home Brother.
Sorry but he did no such thing. Look, either scripture is clear about this 'office' or its not. There are clearly positions much lower than the papacy like deacon or elder and those are explicit in the pastorals. Why is looking for the papacy in the n.t. like a snipe hunt? It should be prominent, in your face explicit but its not or Suan wouldn't have to hop scotch through the bible cobbling together a truck load of unrelated verses to manufacture something that doesn't exist.
Don't you just love it? Catholic apologists can make anything biblical.
I wish I had his notes to look over
Its because the church says so. It surely not because its biblical
Awesome!!
On the argument of Peter as the Rock, I was just reading the end of Deuteronomy where Moses gives the people the song to remember their covenant with and there are so many lines about The Rock and it really got me contemplating these passages more
““The Rock, his work is perfect; for all his ways are justice. A God of faithfulness and without iniquity, just and right is he.”
Deuteronomy 32:4 RSV
“For their rock is not as our Rock, even our enemies themselves being judges.”
Deuteronomy 32:31 RSV
St. James was the first Head of the Church, not St. Peter [who was never Bishop of Rome]
PANARION BOOK II
EPIPHANIUS OF SALAMIS
Against the Nazoreans
III.VII. But with the transfer of the royal throne the rank of king passed, in Christ, from the physical house of David and Israel to the church.13 The throne is established in God’s holy church forever, and has both the kingly and the high-priestly rank for two reasons. (8) It has the kingly rank from our Lord Jesus Christ, in two ways: because he is physically descended from King David, and because he is in fact a greater king from all eternity in virtue of his Godhead. But it has the priestly rank because Christ himself is high priest and the founder of the offi ce14 of the high priests (9) SINCE JAMES, WHO WAS CALLED THE LORD’S BROTHER AND WHO WAS HIS APOSTLE, WAS IMMEDIATELY15 MADE THE FIRST BISHOP.16 He was Joseph’s son by birth, but was ranked as the Lord’s brother because of their upbringing together
The church is not the new Israel. The church is the restored Israel. All of the prophets -- Isaiah, Jeremiah, etc. -- all prophesy Jesus as restoring Israel through a remnant of believers. This is what Jesus confirms when he affirms over and over that He came for the lost sheep of Israel. Paul also confirms the church as the restoration of Israel, specifically in Romans 9-11 and 15 by actually specifically stacking up quotes from these OT prophecies to make the case for this restoration of Israel by leading the scattered tribes (as specifically addressed in James 1) back to God through Jesus Christ.
Pet peeve: "Jew," especially when referring to the Bible, can only mean from the House of Judah or from Judea. Technically it can't even mean a convert to judaism, because the Bible seems to call out converts as such. We need to remember, there have been two houses of Israel, the House of Judah (known as Judahites, and in more modern times shortened to what it is today) and the House of Israel, representing the ten tribes and headed by Ephraim (Joseph's son adopted by Jacob), who actually holds the birthright. It isn't possible to use "Jew" to refer to any of the ten tribes of the House of Israel -- the Bible never does.
"Gentile" is not in the original Bible. It was thrown in later in translation. When the word first appeared in the Vulgate, it did not mean non-Israelite, but rather simply "heathen," because the Israelites had forsaken God for pagan idols and that is why He scattered them among the nations. (St Patrick, for example, an Englishman, places himself naturally as an Israelite who is preaching to the gentile -- or heathen -- Irish.) But God promised to restore the heathen tribes of Israel, scattered among the nations, and this restoration is the church.
This is not to mean exclusive salvation for Israel, but as Romans 9 clearly says, the promises of redemption were exclusively for Israel and God keeps His promises. Once the Israelites, scattered among the nations (largely in Europe, where the apostles went) were redeemed through the work of the apostles, they could then fulfill the original intention as God's people, to be salt and light and a blessing to the nations and to proclaim God among the nations and lead others into salvation as well.
It is as biblical as sola fide.
:)
where's the triple-like button?
Thank you for your comment and support.your comments and constant support has brought me this far.keep supporting ❤️please send a mail prayerrequest459@gmail.com....
The speaker mentioned several times a book about the early episcopacy: Title: The First Bishops? or The Earliest Bishops? The author? Can someone help identify this book?
People would meet in their homes and the person who was the head of the house was called the episcopal. What? What part of scripture did you find that information.
Acts 2:46 And they, continuing daily “WITH ONE ACCORD” in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house, did eat their meat with gladness and singleness of heart.
Praising God, and having favour with all the people. And the Lord added to the church daily such as should de saved..
Great discussion! Does anyone know the title of the book Suan was talking about related to the Syriac fathers and St. Peter?
😚 I love you Monica.
PANARION BOOK II
EPIPHANIUS OF SALAMIS
XXIV. Against Nazoraeans. Number nine, but twenty-nine of the series
For David’s throne and kingly seat is the priesthood in the holy church. The Lord has combined this kingly and high priestly rank and conferred it on his holy church by transferring David’s throne to it, never to fail. (2) In time past David’s throne continued by succession until Christ himself, since the rulers from Judah did not fail until he came for whom are the things prepared, and he is the expectation of the nations,8 < as > scripture says
The Davidic Throne is the Priesthood of the Holy Church. All Priests, namely Bishops sit on the Davidic Throne, which also accords with what St. Cyril said, that Nestorius was a Keyholder [deposed] and Maximian was the Keyholder replacing him
PANARION BOOK I
EPIPHANIUS OF SALAMIS
XXIV. Against Nazoraeans. Number nine, but twenty-nine of the series
3,7 'But with the transfer of the royal throne the rank of king passed, in Christ, from the physical house of David and Israel to the church.13 The throne is established in God’s holy church forever, and has both the kingly and the high-priestly rank for two reasons. (8) It has the kingly rank from our Lord Jesus Christ, in two ways: because he is physically descended from King David, and because he is in fact a greater king from all eternity in virtue of his Godhead. But it has the priestly rank because Christ himself is high priest and the founder of the offi ce14 of the high priests (9) SINCE JAMES, WHO WAS CALLED THE LORD’S BROTHER AND WHO WAS HIS APOSTLE, WAS IMMEDIATELY15 MADE THE FIRST BISHOP.16 He was Joseph’s son by birth, but was ranked as the Lord’s brother because of their upbringing together'
James was the first Head of the Church sitting on the Davidic Throne of Christ. He was the first Universal Primate
4,5 'For he who is always king did not come to achieve sovereignty. He granted the crown to those whom he appointed-lest it be thought that he advanced from a lower estate to a higher. (8) For his throne endures, of his kingdom there shall be no end, AND HE IS SEATED ON THE THRONE OF DAVID AND HAS TRANSFERRED DAVID’S KINGSHIP AND GRANTED IT, TOGETHER WITH THE HIGH PRIESTHOOD, TO HIS OWN SERVANTS, THE HIGH PRIESTS OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH'
All the Bishops sit on the Davidic Throne, namely the High Priests of the Catholic Church
One comment on Matt Fradd's question at the beginning about why there needs to be papal infallibility--to define dogma when necessary. The problem with that argument (though I think there are other decent arguments for the papacy) is that it ignores that almost ALL dogma was not determined or defined by the pope by himself. The pope has only exercised infallibility twice as I understand it. That means all other dogmas were defined outside of the realm of papal infallibility (i.e. in a general council, the sensus fidelium, or whatever). There's no reason that the two doctrines the pope purported to define by himself couldn't have been defined dogmatically in the same way. Moreover, the Roman Catholic argument seems to be internally inconsistent to me. On the one hand, I hear Catholic apologists explaining that people shouldn't get hung up on papal infallibility because it is so limited in its application and has been used sparingly. But this is an argument against the papacy--if we need papal infallibility, the reason is to address controversial issues as they arise to maintain the unity of the church, not to define issues that the church has already pretty widely held. It just doesn't make sense that the same folks who say we must have the doctrine to maintain unity also then say, well, it's really limited and kind of irrelevant in practice anyway, which is what the argument tends toward. I say all this as someone who's open to the idea, but not convinced based on the history or the pragmatic arguments (I find the biblical argument pretty good, actually).
Thank you for your comment and support.your comments and constant support has brought me this far.keep supporting ❤️please send a mail prayerrequest459@gmail.com....
Because a Lutheran said so. 🤣😂😅
@@iraborpeter Greetings, was it your intention to send this comment to me?
@@timrosen1618 That's a fake account
In his letter to Maximian of Constantinople who succeeded the deposed Nestorius, St. Cyril applied Isaiah 22 and Eliakim to Maximian:
LETTER XXXI
CYRIL, to his most reverend and God-loving fellow bishop, Maximian, greetings in the Lord
VI. (5) Accordingly we rejoice with you since you have the true and blameless faith. For a man, whom you know, has arisen to offer sacrifice and much time was provided for you, and experience in affairs has crowned you. He is a man who has spent much time in good thoughts about you, for his most reverend grey head has thus gone past its youth. For it was necessary, it was necessary to give to the very select flocks of our Savior a wise and experienced master, having a mind filled with pastoral skill, one who knows how to graze his flock in a good meadow and a rich pasture, who has been tested in affairs as a trustworthy and sincere administrator. Those who have been accustomed to live thus Christ also suffers to approach him and deems worthy of every praise, but those who are not such he deposes from the ministry entrusted to their hands
VI. And that this is true can be seen from Holy Scripture. For God says in one place to the blessed prophet Isaiah, "Go get you in to him that dwells in the priests' quarters, to Sobna the steward, and say to him: Why are you so occupied and what is there that interests you so? Behold the Lord of hosts will throw out and destroy you, mortal man, and will take away your garment and your glorious crown, and will toss you into a large and spacious country and there you shall die, and you shall be removed from your function and station. And it shall come to pass in that day that I shall call my servant Eliacim, the son of Helcia, and I shall clothe him with your robe, and I will give your crown to him, and I will give your function into his hand, and he shall be a father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem, and to the house of J uda. And I will give the glory of David to him, and he shall rule, and there will be none to speak against him, and I will make him ruler in a trustworthy place, and he shall be a throne of glory to the house of his father, and every man of glory in his father's house will trust him, from the small to the great, and they shall depend upon him in that day. Thus, says the Lord of hosts, the man who was fastened in a trustworthy place shall be removed and he shall fall, and the glory which was upon him will be taken away, because the Lord has spoken it
VII. Therefore, the God of all truly loves the faithful man and the sincere minister, but he who is not such a man, he turns himself away from as unholy. But he will applaud us for encouraging your holiness, and will gladden you with a rich hand by graces from above, so that by teaching aright the word of truth and following after the faith of the holy Fathers you may persevere in high esteem through the mercy and benevolence of Christ, the Savior of us all, through whom and with whom may there be to God the Father with the Holy Spirit glory and power for ages and ages. Amen.
As we can see here, Isaiah 22 has indeed been fulfilled in the Orthodox Church in the Archbishop of Constantinople, since now His All-Holiness sits as Peter on the stability of the Rock of the Orthodox Faith, upon which Peter and the Apostles were founded
But the Pope tottered and fell from the Rock of Faith and cut himself off from Peter and the Apostles. His Robe and Keys were taken away from him and he was cast off to a strange country, and Eliakim has been chosen to replace him
LETTER XXXII
CYRIL, to my lords, my most cherished and God-fearing brothers and fellow bishops, Juvenal, Flavian, Arcadius, Projectus, Firmus, Theodoretus, Acacius, and Philip, the priests, greetings in the Lord
II. '...Accordingly, when congratulating all the churches and the people there, I would rightly say, "Blessed be the Lord because he has visited and wrought redemption for his people."4 It was not possible that the good shepherd be slumbering, so that he also "lay down his life for his sheep,"5 but as he always knew how to save, he has driven away the wretched beast from his sacred and religious dwelling and lifted up a very wise steward skilled in all virtue, whom we also believe will be eminent in all goodness, and will restore the people under his hand to the pure and chosen way of life'
Here St. Cyril says that Maximian was lifted up as that Steward in Isaiah 22 [replacing Nestorius], but we also see that this Prophecy has been fulfilled more generally since the Archbishop of Constantinople has replaced the Archbishop of Rome as Universal Primate of the Catholic Church
there is no support in the bible for the papacy. the establishment of peter as the "rock" of the church is very debatable. there is no connection (except false roman catholic constructs using the bishops of rome (which had no authority over other bishops) between peter and the first "pope", gregory 1. peter was not even the head of the church in jerusalem. he stated himself, he was simply an elder in the church. the statements about the authority of the pope in interpreting scripture, are rejected by scripture, because all Christians , not only have the authority, but have a command to examine church leadership by the bible.
Would prefer a debate format...
Questions:
1. Did Christ come to institute a political monarchy? Isn't this chiliasm?
2. Can Christ be King without the Pope?
St Robert Bellarmine talks about it in his controversy, I invite you to check
1. No He didn't (except if you consider the community of saints in Heaven as political, which would be a bit strange).
2. Yes, if Christ wants to. But he chose to institute the papacy.
@@lonelyberg1808
I invite you to post it here
@@adothariman966 I can't post link
@@lonelyberg1808
Post quote
Wow I did wonder why Christ said lambs and sheep in the order he did. This has really swayed me to think the pope is on the throne of Moses. And I suppose christ is literally giving the whole system over to Peter then the old covenant basically ended with the temple breaking whilst he was on the cross.
Moses spoke face to face with God. Is Pope Francis speaking directly with God? I don't think so.
The whole bible culminated to... Peter? Something about that sounds wrong. Did Peter die for you? You serve Peter or Jesus? Who is your lord?
@@Volleyball_Chess_and_Geoguessr I think it’s striking When you see the end of the gospel of John and then Matthew 24:45 - Matt 24:47 he’s putting Peter in charge of his possessions don’t you think?
@@Volleyball_Chess_and_Geoguessr even more striking when Peter asks the question in luke 12:41 and Jesus reply. (Parable of the faithful servant)
16 Simon Peter answered, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.”
17 Jesus replied, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by man, but by my Father in heaven. 18 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. 19 I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.” 20 Then he warned his disciples not to tell anyone that he was the Christ. 21 From that time on Jesus began to explain to his disciples that he must go to Jerusalem and suffer many things at the hands of the elders, chief priests and teachers of the law, and that he must be killed and on the third day be raised to life.
22 Peter took him aside and began to rebuke him. “Never, Lord!” he said. “This shall never happen to you!”
23 Jesus turned and said to Peter, “Get behind me, Satan! You are a stumbling block to me; you do not have in mind the things of God, but the things of men.”
(Mt 16:16-23)... what changed here in a few verses? I'd say it was the confession of faith in Jesus; Peter like his Messiah-ship but not so much the suffering servant.
And yet Peter came to love Christ the Suffering Servant.
@@kimfleury Amen.
I would also make the case that Simon like many of the Jews at the time saw the coming messiah as saving Israel from the earthly oppression of the Roman Empire.
@@iraborpeter Matt Have you been hacked?
A question:
Was Linus Bishop of Rome? How about Cletus?
Adot, Cletus was right after Linus
@@mikelopez8564
Yeah. And both Linus and Cletus were Bishops of Rome while Peter was still alive in Rome. That's because Peter was never Bishop of Rome
I would like to hear Saun discuss thees matters with John MacArthur.
I don't think MacArthur would come on.
@@stevekay4220 but if he did? Your entire Christology would collapse.
@@williamcrane9248 i sincerely doubt that would happen, pastors are just on the level of emptions.. nobody bothers to read the bible in the context it was written.. all they do is proof texting bible.. like finding passage here verses there to prove martin luther.. but in the end reading the early jewish christianity would cease being protestant... such modern thinkers as bishop fulton sheen or john henry newman even have to agree...
Can not say I agree with Suan Sonna on most of the areas covered. It seems to be a case of stretching weak points too far. But they are interesting and thought provoking.
Personally I have a few big hurdles that I am waiting to overcome for me to be more open to Catholicism. One that confounds me every time I think of it is the infallibility of the Pope and the Catholic church. How can humans or human institutions be infallible?! Imagine the nerve given our fallen nature! Surely only God is infallible?
The Catholic Church was instituted by Christ, it's not a human institution. It's composed by humans, and we all sin (including the Pope), but Jesus is with His Church every day, until the end of time, like He said.
We believe the pope is infallible in certain situations in the same way that you probably believe that the New Testament authors are infallible in a certain situation - we know for a fact that St. Peter sinned when he denied Our Lord - but we also believe that his letters in Sacred Scripture are preserved from error by the Holy Spirit. It is not Peter who is infallible - clearly - it is the Holy Spirit working through fallible people at particular times in particular ways to guide humanity into all truth.
Do you believe St. Peter ever taught infallibly?
The pope being infallible does NOT mean that the pope has some special knowledge, or that he sees the truth in some kind of supernatural way. It ONLY means that he will be prevented to make erroneous definitions of faith. So it is not a positive infallibilty (as some kind of special knowledge) but only a negative infallibility. So a pope can in fact be a heretic (as saint Bellarmine says), but if this is the case, God will make sure that he never define his heresy as a truth of faith. That is what papal infallibility is about.
@Prasanth Thomas that is all well and maybe but I get the sense historically it was used more in its absolute sense than in this deeply qualified and ambiguous way.
I do thank all you lovely people for your thoughts on this matter.
Plz do part 2!!!!!!!!!!!
LETTER LV
CYRIL OF ALEXANDRIA
A letter of the same on the holy creed. To the beloved and most desired Anastasius, Alexander, Martinian, John, Paregorius, the priest, Maximus the deacon, and the other orthodox fathers of monks, and to those living the solitary life with you secure in the faith of God, Cyril sends greetings in the Lord
XXXVIII. '...For the God of all had ordained that the foot-length garment would belong to Aaron, a garment finely woven, and this was a garment proper only to the high priesthood and attributed to it. And on the breast of the high priest were certain stones hanging, twelve in number,s3 in the midst of which were placed two other stones, manifestation and truth.54 By means of a riddle through these the chorus of the holy apostles is clearly signified being, as it were, in a circle around Emmanuel, who is manifestation and truth, for he manifested the truth by having taken away the worship of God in shadows and in types...'
Here we see the Typology of Christ as Urim and Thummim, and surrounding Him are the Twelve Apostles as the twelve stones on the High Priestly Ephod
Typology of the Twelve Apostles
1. Twelve stones upon which are written the names of the twelve tribes of New Israel
2. Twelve foundation stones of Heavenly Jerusalem upon which are written the names of the twelve Apostles
3. Twelve Patriarchs sitting on twelve Thrones jugding the twelve tribes of New Israel
4. Twelve Keyholders of the twelve Gates of Heavenly Jerusalem
Thank you for your comment and support.your comments and constant support has brought me this far.keep supporting ❤️please send a mail prayerrequest459@gmail.com....
@@pastorjoelrichardson7836
I pray that you will encounter the Truth in the One Holy Catholic Apostolic Church, the Orthodox Catholic Church
Look at the testimonies of the Fathers
@@adothariman966 this is a bot brother
@@adothariman966 To be in communion with the Pope is to be in communion with the Church of Christ (Catholic) ”(St. Cyprian of Carthage, 200 AD - 258 AD, Epist. 55)
@@adothariman966 EPHRAIM THE SYRIAN
“[Jesus said:] Simon, my follower, I have made you the foundation of the holy Church. I betimes called you Peter, because you will support all its buildings. You are the inspector of those who will build on Earth a Church for me. If they should wish to build what is false, you, the foundation, will condemn them. You are the head of the fountain from which my teaching flows; you are the chief of my disciples. Through you I will give drink to all peoples. Yours is that life-giving sweetness which I dispense. I have chosen you to be, as it were, the firstborn in my institution so that, as the heir, you may be executor of my treasures. I have given you the keys of my kingdom. Behold, I have given you authority over all my treasures” (Homilies 4:1 [A.D. 351]).
Of course it is biblical. In Revelation chapter 17 there is a perfect description of the Papacy in all it's corruption and evil.
@@iraborpeter I have peace with God and the peace of God in my heart and life. I have no fear in that context at all. As regards your revelation about me, if I were not a born of the Spirit Christian, I would tell you where to stick it. Your God is not the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, but Satan.
Why Pachamama is biblical
according to the free mason post modernist pope... but your attacking the person borgolio not the seat of Peter... it is not the person but the office.. unfortunately the church is being eclipsed by satanist at the highest office... we faithful catholics will hold the fort... attacks from inside and out will not prevail agaist the Church Christ Himself instituted
The bishop of rome has authority of his bishops like a father over sons. The patriarchs of the east have authority over their respective bishops like fathers over their respective sons. The pope has a different authority over the patriarchs like an elder brother over younger brothers in the absence of Jesus the father authority over all of them. Though the pope is greater than any individual patriach or brother, he is not greater than the whole family of brother patriarchs. He can order his own bishops and expect obedience, but he needs some concensus when directing the patriarchs of the east.
This makes sense, yet my intuition is that the brother patriarchs not being in agreement with the succession of Peter doesn't automatically indicate error on Peter's part. When and where they dissent from one another, if they do not remain clasped until they come to agreement, one or the other is surely in error, but it's not obvious which one. It may be that Peter has the elder brother's responsibility of fostering unity throughout dissent so as to arrive at agreement. As a big sister who was put in charge of younger brothers, I can vouch that siblings are prone to bristle at the suggestion that their older siblings have any authority over them 😆😇
Who says the bishop of Rome is the big bishop? Men seizing power is all.
The papacy is indeeded in the Bible, but not the way Catholics think. The papacy is the 1st beast in rev 13, little horn in Daniel, antichrist, and the whh0re of babylon
Nothing in your Roman Cult religion is Biblical.
The best way for a Roman Catholic captive to know what is truth is to listen very carefully to Roman Catholic Apologists, and whatever is exactly the opposite of what they say, is the Truth!
And that's foolproof!
When Peter says that 'you are a holy nation,' he is quoting Exodus 19. He then quotes Hosea, 'you who were not my people have become my people.' In both cases, the Old Testament passages Peter quotes are specifically about Israel. It is hard to make a case that Peter is making a case for non-Israelites being the new Israel. Especially if you note the fact that Peter addresses this letter specifically to the scattered tribes of Israel -- the diaspora of Israel among the nations, where they had been mosto since the time of the Assyrian and Babylonian captivities. This, however, does not deny that the church is indeed the new Israel. But Peter, rather, is showing that the Church has as its founding members Israelites (not non-Israelites), who having been scattered among the nations were tjen redeemed as prophecied through our Lord Jesus Christ. Jesus through The apostles redeemed all Israel (see Romans 9-11), and the redeemed Israel as the Church spread that message as salt and light (which was always Israel's purpose) through missionaries to the entire world.
When Jesus said "You are Peter and upon this Rock I will build my Church", the "Rock" he was referring to was Peter's statement of faith that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of the Living God. This was the first time in the history of the universe that a son of Adam made that affirmation and the Church that Christ was referring to was to be built of every subsequent statement of faith made by every son and daughter of Adam up to the present moment. Each statement of faith of each and every believer being a "living stone" (petros), with Christ being the Chief Cornerstone of that eternal edifice. But God has said it much better than me;
"you also, as living stones, are being built up as a spiritual house for a holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ."
1 Peter 2:5
Amen. I rest my case 😎
Papacy is, current establishment isn't
Incoherent
The gates of hell will never prevail against it. I guess Jesus is a liar!
@@johnyang1420 Lol, no the Orthodox church, which hasnt changed, still exists. So the fact the original reply still stands, its just incoherent in Catholic ecclesiology to make that orginal comment since the CC that is based on the magisterium, and not on the living tradition (like Orthodoxy).
@@johnyang1420 Vatican II so corrupted it that we can say it is not The Church, but a church
@@FirstnameLastname-py3bc The gates of hell will never prevail against it. You are calling Jesus a liar.
You can make a 2 hour video about how the papacy is biblical, but it's not. Read the bible. Zippo.
Romans, you obviously didn’t listen to the video. Easily 80% of Susan’s proofs are from scripture.
6o years of study. No pope in the Bible.
Well I guess that settles it! No need to engage Scriptural evidence put forth in this video....
@@tonyl3762 Catholic doctrine is not scripture.
@@donhaddix3770 No one said it was. Just pointing out your comment doesn't actually engage the biblical arguments made in the video.
@@tonyl3762 RCC holds doctrine superior. Such as Mary and the Pope.
@@bbseal6174 no private interpretation. RCC not in bible. Many religions have traditions.
Yes Linus is in the bible . There are many names in the bible. Doesn't make them all popes! Linus is in the middle of a list of people lol Come on.
Straw man. No one is claiming that the mention of Linus or Clement in Scripture makes them popes. Rather, Irenaeus identifies the bishops of Rome after Peter, including Linus, and then also identifies him as the same Linus mentioned in Phil 4:3.
@@tonyl3762 Catholics often proudly state that Linus' name is in the bible.
@@tonyl3762 the bishop of rome does not equal pope. The Greek Orthodox have bishops too but reject the idea of a pope. What's more likely, that someone seized power over time or that someone relinquished power?
@@Volleyball_Chess_and_Geoguessr I've yet to meet one who does, and I actually hang around Catholics!
You're full of straw men. No one thinks the mere existence of the bishop of Rome equals sufficient evidence for the papacy. What's more likely: the Davidic King Jesus left His Church a Steward/Prime Minister so they can actually have unity and certainty when necessary or that people rebelled against the authority established by Christ? See, I can do it too.
@@tonyl3762 I'm talking about Catholic apologist-types who write on youtube comments. You're right that real Catholics out in the wild are lackluster and never talk about their faith or think about anything or read the bible at all. If they're devout, they show up for the bread and leave.
Interesting that Peter never claims to be the rock nor the Pope of the church in any of his writings. Nor do the apostles.
So we need Peter to claim it as opposed to Christ? Seems legit. I always thought that humility was huge in scripture. Weird.
@@alwayschasingjesus3452 It is weird that Peter never claims to be the rock nor did the apostles acknowledge him as such. Not even at the 1st council in Acts 15 is Peter said to be the rock.
@@Justas399 his name was literally changed to Rock. Peter means rock.
@@stcolreplover so what? Where does Peter say that means he is the rock of the church?
@@Justas399 It doesn't matter what Peter said. It only matters what Jesus said.
Very impressive scholarship. Thank you both
If one actually believes the papacy is biblical, one can get the Bible to say anything.
There is no way Peter, who was an apostle to the Jews (1 Peter 1:1 64AD, 2 Peter 1:1 65AD) would have abandoned his role as an apostle given what was going on with the Jews at the time. They were going through a severe famine and about to face severe judgment with the destruction of the temple. To the Jews, the temple was the center of their universe. It also marked the end of the entire Jewish age. Any material that says Peter was a pope, is an absolute rewrite of history.
Here is an article I thought would be helpful on the subject:
www.vision.org/origin-of-claim-apostle-peter-was-first-pope-965
Irenaeus lived from 130-202AD. He wasn’t even around during the time of Peter. There are no writings at the time of Peter that suggests he was a bishop or pope let alone was in Rome. People were trying to validate their church and would make false claims (from what I gathered). There were two coffins that had the claim they were Peters. 🧐🤓 There is nothing prior to Irenaeus that backs up his claim. Is it wise to put so much weight on someone who at best is going by hearsay especially when nothing backs it up?
If one believes praying to Mary is scriptural, then one can get the Bible to say anything.
Those who believe these are scriptural, would love to see your hermeneutical model.
You got the bible to say Catholicism is from God. One can clearly get the bible to say anything.
@@Volleyball_Chess_and_Geoguessr Did you watch the whole video here?
Matt, friend, if you’re genuinely trying to figure out the orthodox position, ask a priest on your show
Don’t ask a first year convert to Catholicism.
You’ve a got a point and I don’t want to be polemical, but I was convinced of Matt’s sincerity there. Besides, how many Catholic priests are called to participate in EO apologists shows? Well, by your own standards, maybe they are not trying to figure out the Catholic position, specially the more infuriated channels. I am not trying to be disrespectful, of course.
@@brunot2481 All the time. Catholics dont usually understand the 1st millenium well (including the top apologists) and havent read much of Denzinger so they dont usually want to debate it. Most Catholics dont like to bring up multiple popes or the Franks and go into the weeds of any of that. The unfortunate truth here is that Catholic apologists ultimately become papal lawyers.
Right. Although oftentimes, new converts have amazingly more inclination to study more, therefore it makes them a fair resource as well. In this case I appreciate meritology over seniority. See the cases for Scott Hahn, Steve Ray, Jeff Cavins, Trent Horn, Lizzie Reezay, and James White's sister (forgot her name)... witness their amazing passion and proficiency in their newfound faith.
My two cents.
@@maehabes4097 but.. those are Catholics. Matt seemed (although I’m skeptical) genuine in wanted to know how Orthodox would solve disputes and what not. Why not just have Fr. Josiah Trenham on the show and ask him?
@Prasanth Thomas not about that Orthodoxy.