I wholeheartedly agree with your analysis Jonah. The Papacy was a central cause for the Protestant Reformation and the Great Schism. The Pope, even with in the Catholic Church, throughout its whole history has been controversial. Whether if it was over Political beliefs, theology or sex scandals, the Papacy is one of thee biggest sources of disunity in the whole of Christianity. If the Papacy never came about, Christianity would most likely be institutionally unified in Europe and abroad.
lol. wdym. bishop of ROME was there since the 1st century. what you coping about heretic. what about all the sex scandals and political issues in anglican , lutheran and other prot cults??
@ I mean the Pope caused the Great Schism and the Protestant Reformation. If the idea the Pope held supreme authority and was the Vicar of Christ on Earth never came about, the Church would be way more unified. A literal cause of the Great Schism was the Eastern Orthodox rejecting the claim the Bishop of Rome as to having the sole authority over the whole Church and him having the power to declare the filioque as the standard without evoking an ecumenical council to make that change. The Pope also caused the Protestant Reformation when he excommunicated Luther when Luther had no intention in leaving and by the corrupt practices surrounding the indulgences that Luther criticized literally just on the wrong day when one of Pope’s liaisons was in town where he mildly publicly criticized the actions around indulgences that he thought no one would even care about since thats what all the other scholars do all the time with their public debates and thesis’s. Yet the Pope’s liason who was selling indulgences and was passing through Luther’s town when he posted his 95 thesis’s got offended, which brought another schism.
"One cannot enter into eternal life through another way that is not the door, that is, which is not Jesus. And, the Lord 'is the door of our life' - and not only of eternal life but also of our daily life.'" -- Pope Francis (2021, to seminarians, in words he would often repeat).
Sure, but why do Catholics quote something orthodox that Francis said when people say “hey he just said all religions are paths to God and that they’re like different languages”. You can’t just say “oh this quote from 3 years ago is very clear so Francis is clear on this issue!” Clearly he’s not clear if he’s saying that one day and then saying something else another day.
@@Roadietodamascus Saying all religions are 'paths to God,' as in they are a means for expressing the hunger and thirst for the Triune God, is consistent with Scripture, but this does exclude that they are in no way equal to the Christian path, nor do they lead to salvation What Pope Francis said in Singapore, he said, to a dozen kids in an interreligious conversation, of no doctrinal or dogmatic weight. But in front of hundreds of thousands of Christians, some of the largest gatherings in Christian history, he spoke emphatically about the exclusivity of the Gospel, Christ as The Way to salvation. I agree that, Pope Francis, given the first context, was too accommodating and lacking in clarity -- he is human and this can be his weakness. But his habit, as demonstrated several times over the years, he will come out, sometimes along with the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, to state things more clearly and to be more widely received. If your contention is, like RUclips presenter, that one of the three hundred or so Pope's in history is, on occasion, doctrinally confusing in his speech, and tends to have to clarify, that is not a strong argument against Catholicism -- unless the Pope was, in his position of authority ('from his chair') refuting dogma. In that case, Catholicism will never have existed, and Christians would subjectively have to select an alternative, and the most logical would be Orthodoxy. However did not speak definitively, or really very formally. He spoke like a Latin America, somewhat poetically, not very precisely, certainly not overturning dogma.
@@Roadietodamascus I could pick many, many orthodox things Francis has said in every year of his Pontificate, including 2024, but if you are assuming an unbroken teleology of heterodoxy, would it be possible to satisfy you, anyway? It's easier to give evidence than it is to change someone's narrative.
"Religions found everywhere try to counter the restlessness of the human heart, each in its own manner, by proposing ‘ways,’ comprising teachings, rules of life, and sacred rites. The Catholic Church rejects nothing that is true and holy in these religions. She regards with sincere reverence those ways of conduct and of life, those precepts and teachings which, though differing in many aspects from the ones she holds and sets forth, nonetheless often reflect a ray of that Truth which enlightens all men.” -- Pope St. St. Paul VI
"These are the questions which we find in the sacred writings of Israel, as also in the Veda and the Avesta; we find them in the writings of Confucius and Lao-Tze, and in the preaching of Tirthankara and Buddha; they appear in the poetry of Homer and in the tragedies of Euripides and Sophocles, as they do in the philosophical writings of Plato and Aristotle.” -- Pope St JPII
Catholic here. You said you think that the position of the Bishop of Rome stemmed from the position that the city of Rome had in the Roman Empire. That's an intruguing thought. As a counter argument I would present the fact that even in antique period if Antioch and Alexandria had a dispute they couldn't settle, they would invite Bishop of Rome to mediate. In addition, when islam conquered Levant, the contact with Churches of East was lost for a century. When the contact was established again, orthodox emissaries were refused by the Churches of the East saying they see Bishop of Rome as the Church leader, since the Schizm happened in the meantime. For me, this means that Bishop of Rome indeed had some esteemed position. The papacy is a highly controversial subject for Protestants and Orthodox.
Your logic is flawed as by the time Rome had already developed the Papacy. Just because Rome settled certain disputes doesn't mean he had power to dispose all Bishops nor was it ever meant that salvation alone in found in the supremacy of the Pope as stated in Vatican 1. Thats a huge jump. The papacy is responsible for schism after schism.
@clintwilliams6345 even if he did it still doesn't give him the supreme authority of all the church or call to be subject to the Pope for salvation. These guys reasoning is flawed
@@sinfulyetsaved "subject to the Pope for salvation"??! That's a gross exaggaration and caricatural presentation of Bishop of Rome authority. It is being perpetuated inside die-hard protestant circles who also claim that Pope is an antichrist. It is even emboddied in their confessions of faith. Are you the one? We can discuss normally if you want or we can spew middle-age slogans. I am open to discussion.
@@sinfulyetsaved OK, so you got rid of the Pope - did the schisms stop? Protestant churches are spawning on a daily basis. And it happening right as we speak now! Even in the early church the number of heresies is probably over a hundred. Arianism, Docetism, Nestorianism, etc... and they attracted substantial numbers of people. Don't you think that Church Fathers were concerned about it? Why don't you simply look at the papacy as an attempt to introduce theological standard that would identify and prevent heresies? I understand resistance to papacy and am ready to debate about whether it has gone too far over the centuries. But to say that papacy is the sole reason for schisms it just doesn't make sense in your own words. You say - the Bishop of Rome didn't have authority in the early Church and yet the number of heresies is staggering.
Different religions being means to approach God doesn’t equal all religions are equal or salvific. There are simply different Peoples’ means and starting point to approach the divine mysteries of God . A place to begin dialogue to show why what Catholicism offers answers twist is lacking. For one to read this aborant heterodox understanding into Pope Francis’s words is ideologically driven.
You have expressed the problem perfectly. I'm a catholic in communion with Rome, studying for the priesthood, who has been seriously looking into Anglican Catholicism because of this exact issue.
If you really are a Catholic studying for the priesthood and because of this issue with Pope Frances it would not deter you from leaving the Church. There is no such thing as Anglican Catholicism. I think you may be trolling.
@@aussierob7177 Not trolling, exploring the Anglican Contiuum in America. Anglican Catholicism is very real and is a legitimate part of church of Christ.
@@aussierob7177 The Mystical Body of Christ; militant, suffering, and triumphant. Those churches with apostolic succession professing the Catholic faith according to the Vincentian canon. The Eastern Orthodox, traditional Roman Catholics, Anglican Catholics, traditional Old Catholics and PNC, and the Oriental Orthodox. Apostolic, sacramental, and liturgical.
The development of Doctrine, articulated by St Cardinal Newman , a Catholic. Doctrine has been developing for 2,000 years. You can have the rad trads by the way or at least the ones who don't accept vatican II.
I am just counting up the number of Schisms in contemporary Anglicanism. It's very hard to keep track of them all. Rather like trying to gather the pieces of broken glass vase: Anglican Church in North America: Separated from the Episcopal Church and the Anglican Church of Canada in 2009 Anglican realignment: A series of schisms that began in 2002 Continuing Anglican movement: A series of schisms that began in 1977 Anglican Mission in the Americas: Formed by the province of Rwanda and the province of Southeast Asia Laterly of course we have perhaps the Greatest , quite recent Schism ,,when the Global South Fellowship of Anglican Churches announced their momentous decision to split from Canterbury on 21st February. Given all this I would have thought no Anglican would have time or stamina to post on problems in the Catholic Church when the Anglican Sect is basically falling apart.
The ability of GSFA to denounce heretical leaders is exactly what is keeping the Church together. You can't even proclaim a clearly hererical Pope to be outside the Church, instead fighting internally to no end.
The Anglican realignment is what formed the ACNA and it includes the AMIA. The ACNA is in communion with the GSFA members. In reality you are addressing two schisms: The Continuing Anglicans and the GAFCON/GSFA Anglicans. In both of these cases it’s the Western Anglicans who went liberal being rejected by conservatives. As for the GAFCON/GSFA it’s majority of Anglicans denouncing CofE/TEC and the other western liberals as being heretics and not within the Anglican communion since we are conciliar, meaning that GSFA isn’t a schism from TEC/CofE but is the majority communion still
They all consider each other to be part of the Universal Church, aka the Catholic Church. Therefore this is not comparable, because break aways from the roman catholic church aren't considered to be in the church at all. This is not comparable.
This is the biggest problem with Catholicism. If a legitimately appointed Pope actively says that "there is no God, Jesus is not God" in his official capacity as the Pope, where do you even go from there? Obviously this is not as serious as that, but still... is the idea that it would be impossible for him to officially state this? If he did anyway, what do you do then?
I think you are misinterpreting what Pope Francis is trying to say. Please try to read this with an open mind.....The Catholic Church recognises in other religions that search, among shadows and images, for the God who is unknown yet near since he gives life and breath and all things and wants all men to be saved. Thus, the Church considers all goodness and truth found in these religions as "a preparation for the Gospel and given by him who enlightens all men that they may at length have life. G 16; cf. NA 2; EN 53 Christ is the head of the Church. The Popes go all the way back to Peter....The Lord made Simon alone, whom he named Peter, the "rock" of his Church. He gave him the keys to his Church and instituted him shepherd of the whole flock. The office of binding and loosing, which was given to Peter, was also assigned to the college of apostles united to its head. This pastoral office of Peter and the other apostles belong to the Church's very foundation and is continued by the bishops under the primacy of the Pope. The Papacy is not "sacramental". How did you arrive at this ? The Papacy is not the "great divider of the Church" That honour goes to the Reformation of the 16th century Why do you even care what the Pope says ? When the Pope is not the centre of attention, you guys have nothing nice to say about the Pope. But, as soon as the media highlights what the Pope is saying, you jump on him like a pack of wolves. There have been bad Popes in the Church much more sinful than Francis (all men are sinners) Yet the Church has survived. Over the last 2,000 years, the Catholic Church has been guilty of many atrocities, such as corruption, bad Popes. holy wars, pedophile Priests, man-made traditions, lies, and a lot more. However, this is not new. Christ did say that his Church must suffer great trials and tribulations on her earthly pilgrimage, before it can be perfected. He also said it can never be destroyed.
Bro, if we truly believe the pope can err and truly mean it when we say that we don't take every word of his as infallible teaching, can we just admit he dropped the ball in Singapore?
Ridiculous. The thousands who heard his heresy don't just all hear the retractions. All Popes are liars because they pretend to the world they are Vicars of God and have the power to speak infallibly when in their magic chair. Apparently when they are no in the magic chair they can spout anti-Christ doctrine and its ok, even defended. Is it the chair that has the magic power of infallibility?
Did you hear or read the two clarifications made by Pope Francis? Also, the piece by Where Peter Is (online publication) that dives into the details of the controversial Singapore dialogue is very much worth reading. I think if the host had been aware of the Pope's declarations to hundreds of thousands of people after. And, regardless, we must not just have faith in charity, but also a hermeneutic of charity.
Why would a source of truth confuse you by making you juggle orthodox and heterodox statements in your head. Wavering in confession of faith is the same as denying it. It is the shifting sand Christ tells us to not not build upon. True doctrine is a rock which is unambigous
After he said this. The Pope said that Christ is the only way to change human hearts into salvation. I don't remember the exact quote he basically recanted what he said in Indonesia.
By all means, please show where Francis recanted that statement. Initially the Vatican tried to offer a mistranslation that softened what he said except a few 1000 people criticized them for intentionally mistranslating it before Francis doubled down on what he said. Please let us all know where he has since recanted. I won’t hold my breath.
He said a few days later, that Christ is the only way of salvation. I'm a Catechumen of Orthodoxy coming out of the RC church. But all of his statements must be considered.
He does that intentionally to cause confusion. Any confusion and division in the Church do not come from God, but from Satan to destroy and conquer. The one we have is the fulfillment of the vision of 2 popes (one true -- Benedict XVI, the other -- false demolishing the church and building a strange one) seen by Blessed Anne Catherine Emmerich, and a part of the mystery of the iniquity (2 Thes 2:7). He is the false prophet (Rev 13:11, 19:20), destroying the Catholic Church and establishing 1 world religion and a false church for the Antichrist. The Catholic Church, the Bride of Christ (Eph 5:23) is destined to follow in the footsteps of Her Lord to Calvary to suffer, die, and be resurrected (Catechism #675, 677) for the purification of renewal of the Church and the world, before the 2nd coming of Christ and the Era of Peace (Rev 20:4-6). So, it is. Soon we will see the great schism, denial of the Real Presence of Christ in the Holy Eucharist (Matt 24:15), banning of the Holy Sacrifice of Mass, cruel persecutions of the Church and Her faithful, ... All prophecies of the end times are being fulfilled now. In the end, the Catholic Church will triumph and remain, and to be transferred to the Heavenly Kingdom (Rev 21:9-14). Amen!
@@hyeminkwun9523Do you not feel like the Protestant reformation was the great Apostasy and that it already took place? That's what I always thought at least
@@a.ihistory5879 Yes, the protestant reformation was a big heresy and a big schism, caused by Satan. What is coming is the biggest the Church will ever experience.
I don't know how to feel about all of this. I was a Roman Catholic and then left and started attending a traditional Anglican church, but I was feeling guilty for leaving and still wasn't able to combat the sin of lust. Fast forward a few months later and I eventually went back to the Roman Catholic church and did confession and received the eucharist and by the grace of God, I was able to combat the sin of lust that I've been struggling with. Not even a thought enters my head, it's insane. I can't go back to being an Anglican because I've received God's grace in the RCC, but I also completely agree with everything you are stating and cannot stand the statements of the Pope and documents such as Nostra Aetate. I pray for unity. God Bless.
I am a Roman Catholic who has been troubled by this exact issue. I have been examining Orthodox sources on it. I'd say you have stated the problem and its logical consequences exactly correctly. If the papacy has served as a source of unity, it is only a unity as to the papal office and not to Catholic dogma, Christian doctrine or Jesus Christ. The papacy is the defining feature of Catholicism. You must accept papal authority and claims about supremacy of the office above all else. To be a Catholic Christian is to be a papist. Post Schism and prior to Vatican 2, that acceptance was a bit easier to achieve when we saw what appeared to be the steadfastness and doctrinal purity of the Church. The Traditionalists would be quick wield the sword of the Papacy against outsiders. But Post Vatican 2, that certainty that the Catholic Church is the true church and holds fast to the Apostolic faith is gravely weakened. With Francis's latest heretical statements, the Church is now promoting clear heresy through the Pope. What's a Catholic to do? One approach is to hold fast to the Catholic idea that Jesus Christ empowered the office through Peter and therefore it is God's will whatever happens because the Catholic Church is the one true church of Jesus Christ and the gates of Hell will never prevail against it. Therefore, don't worry about the heretical statements. Just pray your rosary, work on your personal holiness and God will take care of the problem. There is merit to this approach. However, I do worry about the effects on your faith and relationship with the Holy Trinity when you hang out with the wrong crowd. In other words, if you expose yourself to heresy and heretical practices, how much damage do you do to yourself? V2 and the Novus Ordo have destroyed Catholics and the Catholic Church. Do you stay in that poisonous atmosphere? Do you risk your eternal salvation? I don't think so. Just as you wouldn't hang out with friends who lead you astray, I don't think you should remain with a church that misleading you. The other approach is to parse papal statements and limit their impact. This is what Catholics who point out that the Pope isn't speaking ex cathedra so the statements do not change the Catholic faith. But then again even though Catholics claim only statements made ex cathedra have any effect, in practice Catholics are required to give great deference to all Papal statements in fact treated as if they were ex cathedra. Now we have a Traditional problem. So, the Trads hang their pride of Catholicism on these super papal claims and see Catholicism as really post Schism claims made by the Church. They insist that to be catholic and Christian is to be papal. But they can't claim that since Vatican 2. So, they have moved into a protestant position for to be Catholic is to be a papist and to accept the pope as the vicar of Christ and head of the Church. In other words, the Catholic Church has accepted and promoted heretical positions. Therefore, it cannot be the one true Church or the Papacy has been an erroneous doctrine throughout its history. It has been, and I think you are correct, a political office with a place of honor due to its placement in the Captial of the Roman Empire. I suspect that the Bishops of Rome in the first millennium realized that in order to maintain some sort of political power they conjured this false idea of they acted as the Vicar of Christ due to Peter's presence in Rome and Christ's giving Peter the keys to the kingdom. It imbued with their claim to power with an irrefutable authority and one that if challenged would leave the challenger in threat of eternal damnation. (Really nothing's change as that is still the underlying threat to anyone who thinks of leaving the Catholic Church or who doesn't joint it.) But in truth there is no indication in that grant of authority that it applies to Peter's successors, especially not the Roman bishops. Do recall the Peter was the Bishop at Antioch first and if the Roman claim to superiority is based on that statement of Christ, then the Bishop of Antioch is the true Vicar of Christ. He's not, though, as only Jesus Christ is the head of the Church and the bishops are all equal in authority and responsibility for proclaiming Christ to the world. I think the Orthodox view on this issue is the correct one. Traditionalists need to come to terms with the fact that what they value in Catholicism is really first millennium Catholic Orthodoxy. That is to say, the Traditional Latin Mass coupled with Orthodox theology with an equality among the bishops, each serving as a check and balance to the other. Furthermore, all bishops subordinate to the Church Councils, which we know from the Book of Acts and Council of Jerusalem is the model for discerning the will of the Holy Spirit for the Church. No bishop is permitted EVER to change unilaterally the teachings of the Councils. The Roman addition of the filioque is a grave error, and I think the slow devolution to heresy in Rome with its adoption of various theological fads in the last 1000 years is a direct consequence of adding the filioque, marginalizing the Holy Spirit and minimizing his authority in the Church. Great video. Thanks for putting your thoughts on the matter out there. This may be the defining problem of our age for it threatens to destroy the Catholic Church, and may have already done so.
" In matters of faith and morals, the bishops speak in the name of Christ and the faithful are to accept their teaching and adhere to it with a religious assent. This religious submission of mind and will must be shown in a special way to the authentic magisterium of the Roman Pontiff, even when he is not speaking ex cathedra; that is, it must be shown in such a way that his supreme magisterium is acknowledged with reverence, the judgments made by him are sincerely adhered to, according to his manifest mind and will. His mind and will in the matter may be known either from the character of the documents, from his frequent repetition of the same doctrine, or from his manner of speaking." Lumen Gentium 25. Even if the Pope is not speaking ex cathedra, Roman Catholics are required to give a religious submission of mind and will to the Pope. This is seriously problematic.
Before you criticize the Holy Father you should take time to actually read something that he has authored during his wonderful pontificate. Almost every time he speaks about Christ, exclusivity is highlighted; probably half the time he speaks of reading the Bible more, he recommends carrying a pocket gospel with us at all times; nearly every time he speaks he expresses his closeness to all in his prayers and implores us to pray for him. His comments about other religion make perfect sense if understood in the context of tradition. Saint Pope John Paul II talked about seeds of the Word in other religions, VII is clear on the reality that there is much that is true, good, and beautiful in other religions. Even everybody’s favorite “ultra-conservative Pope Benedict XVI makes similar statements and of course promoted the council and the CCC which say exactly the same. And for Catholic traditionalists: there are many examples of this attitude towards other religions before VII. Jesus said he would divide households, father and son and so forth and you think his representative on earth would not do the same. He is at the center of division precisely because he is the visible head of the militant Church. All he does is call for unity, who is unwilling to unite? He like the merciful father in Luke 15 is ready to welcome all schismatics back into the fold. Blessings brother!
@@gilbertsaller913 Thank you brother! I rarely comment anything anymore because everybody proves that they have no business discussing these issues for lack of having informed themselves and studying all the relevant sources. Every time I get a reply notification dread fills me that somebody just wants to fight me over their personal bias so your complement is a breath of fresh air! Blessings!
Wonderful pontificate? Your communion is more divided than ever before, largely due to the Holy Father's extremely confusing pontificate. Has there ever been a more divided Roman Church?
Hello, my dear brother in the Lord. A Catholic from Cuba greets you. I find your comments to be very balanced, coming from that Anglo-Catholic perspective you adhere to. I understand your concerns about the direction of the Catholic Church. From your videos, it seems that you love the Roman Catholic Church, even though you might still be somewhat entangled in Protestantism. Take comfort in your heart; the Barque of Peter will not sink. Judaizers and Gnostics tried to destroy it and failed (1st century), Nero could not do it either, nor could the Arians (4th century), Nestorians, Manicheans, or Iconoclasts (4th-8th centuries). The East-West Schism did not destroy it (11th century), nor did Muslims, and even the Western Schism (with two popes in dispute) could not bring it down. The Protestant Reformation did not succeed, nor did Rationalism and the Enlightenment, and neither could Napoleon. Two World Wars and Hitler also failed to do so. Don’t you see that since it descended from the Cenacle, the Church has been in imminent danger of death? To human eyes, it has seemed a failed project from the beginning. Take comfort in your heart. The Lord will be with us until the end of the world. --- I used CHAT GPT for translation, I hope you enjoy it😊
@YourBoyJohnny94 probably every nationally represented in that demographic, just because they pretend it doesn't happen doesn't mean it doesn't, their history tells us this.
There is only one language and only one dialect to GOD, that is in Revelation through His son Our Lord Jesus Christ given to Him by The Father. Anything outside of that is a lie and false.
I'm a catholic. You are confusing the father with God. Jesus said you have to go through Jesus to get to the father. But that's not the same as getting to God .
@merecatholicity hey, its true. Jesus said to the FATHER. Not to GOD. If you don't believe in the trinity, fine. But the way I read it, Jesus was talking about the three persons of the God head, Jesus,Father, etc. The Godhead itself is something different. So technically it might be true. And yes I'm catholic. But am I going to say that NONE of the billions of Buddhists, Hindus, or even non catholic Christians are going to heaven? Thats a call for God, not me. Sorry, I don't think it's tenable God is going to lock out so many people that never heard about Jesus. Or at least never had a fair amount of exposure. Just my personal opinion.
@@nosuchthing8The Catholic Church for the majority of it’s history said non-Christians are not going to heaven. They claimed that all Protestants were heretics. Many in the church believed unbaptized babies were not going to heaven. You can find this in Vatican 1, the Council of Trent and other councils.
You could even mention the Old Catholics who separated over the Vatican I claims of its claims of the Papacy. The Papacy is the singular focal point of schism in the Church. Great video.
How many Old Catholics separated? Are we going to abandon the 99% for the 1% which dissented? Your assessment is completely wrong. The singular focal point of schism in the Church is rebelliousness, also a lack of charity and love. We could get rid of Papal Supremacy, and the Eastern Orthodox would still have enough reason to stay in schism. Ultimately, the only thing we can do is get rid of Catholicism entirely and adopt the next largest group's ecclesiology and theology, which would be Eastern Orthodoxy. But then this new group would be at odds with Anglicans and the rest, so then the Orthodox would have to then eliminate facets of its Orthodoxy to come into ecumenical communion with the Anglicans and the rest. The final logical conclusion is that we all become vague non-denominational reformed Christians because there is no other way to unite all the churches. Either the lower churches must unite upward, or the high churches of the ancient and apostolic traditions must unite downward. In either case, the particular beliefs they have must be abandoned to achieve this kind of unity.
As someone involved in independent Catholicism even I have to say that the Old Catholic split hasn't provided some massive unity either. Lol. Quite the opposite. There are more tiny independent sacramentalist jurisdictions then anyone could ever keep track of. All that's left is to pray for unity, as Christ did.
You seem to be misunderstanding. The Papacy never causes division, it is those who are disloyal to Christ's church that cause schism due to pride. I'm sure you are part of a church that allows contraception, divorce and female pastors along with some rock music. I think you need to look deeper
Seems Sola Scriptura has done 100x better job at dividing the church than the Papacy. Historically it was actually a force for unity like in the Formula of Hormisdas.
And historically speaking it was a primary source for the Great Schism and the Protestant Reformation. Martin Luther did not cause the reformation. The Papacy and Vatican leadership did when they over reacted to some no name monk engaging in public debate in Germany about theology. That is what started the reformation
@@dallascopp4798 histoically speaking papacy is the primary source of unity for all eastern catholics and western catholics. the divison in protestant cults came from lust, sin, pride and rebellion, the spirit of satan. MARTIN LUTHER IS IN HELL..
News flash: the protest is over. The protestors themselves are in need of reform now more than ever. Return to Christ’s church. We need all the faithful who want to preserve our shared history and tradition of the church.
I am of the belief that if the Roman Catholic Church dropped some of the Dogmas and the supremacy of the Pope a large portion of the Church would come back together (Conservative Anglicans, Global Methodists, Eastern Orthodox) but I don’t believe it will happen anytime soon.
Aside from the fact that the central issue is not doctrine or dogma, but authority itself, what the Church has revealed is true or it is not. There is no going back and un-dogmatizing, nor should there be. The Catholic Church makes great efforts to accomodate, incorporate or generally give freedom to other ecclesial traditions to facilitate unity and catholicity. Why should Evangelicals dictate Papal teaching.
its nonsense. That's akin to arguing, if we just drop the idea that Jesus is God the Son, all of the unitarians and Mormons would come back into the Church. A supreme authority in the Church on Earth is NECESSARY. Without such, unity is impossible. If the Lord Jesus didn't want this ecclesial order, why then didn't He simply state that He would build His Church on all the Apostles? Why single out one Apostle, and state that He would build His Church on him, Peter the Rock, AND that the gates of Hell would not overcome it? By choosing one Apostle at the forefront of all the Apostles, to have built the Church upon that one Apostle, signifies an importance of position. Also, the promise that the gates of Hell would not overcome it seems true in more than one aspect, since all of the other principal sees (patriarchates) of the Christian world were destroyed, and Rome alone was spared. Antioch, where believers were first called Christians, lost in the crusades. Jerusalem, destroyed by the pagan Romans, and then by various Muslim caliphates. Alexandria, destroyed by the Muslim caliphates. Even Constantinople, which stood as the Shield of Christendom for centuries, was finally destroyed by the Muslims. Yet, when Rome faced its destruction at Lepanto, the grace of God provided the miracle to overcome certain defeat. Are we really to ignore such facts of history? The Bible says we are to subject ourselves to the elders of the Church, it doesn't say when the congregation disagrees with the elders, the elders need to acquiesce, or wave away fundamental aspects of our faith to appease miscreants.
You do realize that Augustine, Chrysostom, and Aquinas all believe that the rock was in reference to the profession of Peter, not Peter himself. You can see this is Aquinas commentary on Matt 16.. so would argue the rock is Jesus Christ. We are building on the cornerstone of Christ. The Apostles have layed the foundation on that cornerstone (Eph 2:20).
@@AluminiumT6 No one is denying the early church had “popes” all the patriarchs from Alexandria,Jerusalem,Antioch,Constantinople are all technically “popes” but the pope of Rome having supremacy over all of them is an innovation.
@@YourBoyJohnny94 Nice sophistry. The other patriarchs were titular Popes, not "technical Popes". The only "technical Pope" is the successor of Saint Peter in the See of Rome (where he died). This is not debated in the first 1000 years, and confirmed by the Church Fathers' writings. But sure, keep regurgitating these low-tier polemics, it's kind of good for us, as it works primarily on low-tier people, if at all. 👍
So just tear out all the passages that mention bishops and forget the verses in the NT that tell you to hold to traditions taught by word of mouth or by letter? Sounds like a Protestant church. “We just believe in the Bible; except the parts that sound like Orthodox or Catholic, we just don’t talk about those and pretend they don’t exist.”
Jesus Christ appointed the office of the pope, the church fathers we teachers of the gospel of Christ, and saints are found in the book of revelation. None of these are in conflict with Christ or in competition with Christ, and all are scriptural.
And his established Catholic and Apostolic church to get the fullness of the faith. Unless you feel like you have something that he lack since his church isn't good enough for you?
I agree. The pope definitely has been the great divider throughout the history of the church. Thus, the split from Orthodox Christian’s, and the Reformation.
If the Catholic church split from the Orthodox then why do you consider the reformation another split? Can there be other splits? If so you are implying there is still life still in the Catholic church. If not then you have to rethink at least your 2nd split.
Subscribed and then unsubscribed at about @ 11.40. Christ be with you, but if you are digging, keep digging. It wasn’t just the authority issue of the Pope, Jonah! If you are so concerned about it all, why did the creed need to change? Why don’t you look at why the fathers were against it. It wasn’t for lack of humility. That is an unfair assumption to make and present, even if vaguely. How many centuries will it take for those outside the church to understand this? It was just as liberal then as everything going on now!!!
Name me one single matter of faith and morals or any single doctrine the Holy Father has changes. You can not. You don't even understand the nature of the magisterium or the papacy. You clearly also don't understand the nature of infallibility. Why on earth are you sitting pontificating on the Catholic Church. Thanks for your concern for us, catholics, but why not just get on with your protestantism.
The catechism is not dogmatic, it’s just a teaching aid. The fact is we have some pretty lousy catechesis right now, but that doesn’t mean our doctrines have actually been altered.
@NisalLiyanage-i9e sounds good. But your leader is Mary. Mary for everything. You can't get to Jesus if you don't love Mary. You ask her to pray FOR you. On and on.
![BLACK BAG - Official Trailer [HD] - Only in Theaters March 14](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/Du0Xp8WX_7I/mqdefault.jpg)
I wholeheartedly agree with your analysis Jonah. The Papacy was a central cause for the Protestant Reformation and the Great Schism. The Pope, even with in the Catholic Church, throughout its whole history has been controversial. Whether if it was over Political beliefs, theology or sex scandals, the Papacy is one of thee biggest sources of disunity in the whole of Christianity. If the Papacy never came about, Christianity would most likely be institutionally unified in Europe and abroad.
lol. wdym. bishop of ROME was there since the 1st century. what you coping about heretic. what about all the sex scandals and political issues in anglican , lutheran and other prot cults??
@ I mean the Pope caused the Great Schism and the Protestant Reformation. If the idea the Pope held supreme authority and was the Vicar of Christ on Earth never came about, the Church would be way more unified. A literal cause of the Great Schism was the Eastern Orthodox rejecting the claim the Bishop of Rome as to having the sole authority over the whole Church and him having the power to declare the filioque as the standard without evoking an ecumenical council to make that change.
The Pope also caused the Protestant Reformation when he excommunicated Luther when Luther had no intention in leaving and by the corrupt practices surrounding the indulgences that Luther criticized literally just on the wrong day when one of Pope’s liaisons was in town where he mildly publicly criticized the actions around indulgences that he thought no one would even care about since thats what all the other scholars do all the time with their public debates and thesis’s. Yet the Pope’s liason who was selling indulgences and was passing through Luther’s town when he posted his 95 thesis’s got offended, which brought another schism.
"One cannot enter into eternal life through another way that is not the door, that is, which is not Jesus. And, the Lord 'is the door of our life' - and not only of eternal life but also of our daily life.'" -- Pope Francis (2021, to seminarians, in words he would often repeat).
Sure, but why do Catholics quote something orthodox that Francis said when people say “hey he just said all religions are paths to God and that they’re like different languages”. You can’t just say “oh this quote from 3 years ago is very clear so Francis is clear on this issue!” Clearly he’s not clear if he’s saying that one day and then saying something else another day.
@@Roadietodamascus Saying all religions are 'paths to God,' as in they are a means for expressing the hunger and thirst for the Triune God, is consistent with Scripture, but this does exclude that they are in no way equal to the Christian path, nor do they lead to salvation
What Pope Francis said in Singapore, he said, to a dozen kids in an interreligious conversation, of no doctrinal or dogmatic weight.
But in front of hundreds of thousands of Christians, some of the largest gatherings in Christian history, he spoke emphatically about the exclusivity of the Gospel, Christ as The Way to salvation.
I agree that, Pope Francis, given the first context, was too accommodating and lacking in clarity -- he is human and this can be his weakness.
But his habit, as demonstrated several times over the years, he will come out, sometimes along with the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, to state things more clearly and to be more widely received.
If your contention is, like RUclips presenter, that one of the three hundred or so Pope's in history is, on occasion, doctrinally confusing in his speech, and tends to have to clarify, that is not a strong argument against Catholicism -- unless the Pope was, in his position of authority ('from his chair') refuting dogma. In that case, Catholicism will never have existed, and Christians would subjectively have to select an alternative, and the most logical would be Orthodoxy.
However did not speak definitively, or really very formally. He spoke like a Latin America, somewhat poetically, not very precisely, certainly not overturning dogma.
@@Roadietodamascus I could pick many, many orthodox things Francis has said in every year of his Pontificate, including 2024, but if you are assuming an unbroken teleology of heterodoxy, would it be possible to satisfy you, anyway? It's easier to give evidence than it is to change someone's narrative.
"Religions found everywhere try to counter the restlessness of the human heart, each in its own manner, by proposing ‘ways,’ comprising teachings, rules of life, and sacred rites. The Catholic Church rejects nothing that is true and holy in these religions. She regards with sincere reverence those ways of conduct and of life, those precepts and teachings which, though differing in many aspects from the ones she holds and sets forth, nonetheless often reflect a ray of that Truth which enlightens all men.” -- Pope St. St. Paul VI
"These are the questions which we find in the sacred writings of Israel, as also in the Veda and the Avesta; we find them in the writings of Confucius and Lao-Tze, and in the preaching of Tirthankara and Buddha; they appear in the poetry of Homer and in the tragedies of Euripides and Sophocles, as they do in the philosophical writings of Plato and Aristotle.” -- Pope St JPII
Catholic here. You said you think that the position of the Bishop of Rome stemmed from the position that the city of Rome had in the Roman Empire. That's an intruguing thought. As a counter argument I would present the fact that even in antique period if Antioch and Alexandria had a dispute they couldn't settle, they would invite Bishop of Rome to mediate. In addition, when islam conquered Levant, the contact with Churches of East was lost for a century. When the contact was established again, orthodox emissaries were refused by the Churches of the East saying they see Bishop of Rome as the Church leader, since the Schizm happened in the meantime. For me, this means that Bishop of Rome indeed had some esteemed position. The papacy is a highly controversial subject for Protestants and Orthodox.
Where do you find the bishop of Antioch and Alexandria calling on the bishop of Rome to settle disputes before 300 AD?
Your logic is flawed as by the time Rome had already developed the Papacy. Just because Rome settled certain disputes doesn't mean he had power to dispose all Bishops nor was it ever meant that salvation alone in found in the supremacy of the Pope as stated in Vatican 1. Thats a huge jump. The papacy is responsible for schism after schism.
@clintwilliams6345 even if he did it still doesn't give him the supreme authority of all the church or call to be subject to the Pope for salvation. These guys reasoning is flawed
@@sinfulyetsaved "subject to the Pope for salvation"??! That's a gross exaggaration and caricatural presentation of Bishop of Rome authority. It is being perpetuated inside die-hard protestant circles who also claim that Pope is an antichrist. It is even emboddied in their confessions of faith. Are you the one? We can discuss normally if you want or we can spew middle-age slogans. I am open to discussion.
@@sinfulyetsaved OK, so you got rid of the Pope - did the schisms stop? Protestant churches are spawning on a daily basis. And it happening right as we speak now! Even in the early church the number of heresies is probably over a hundred. Arianism, Docetism, Nestorianism, etc... and they attracted substantial numbers of people. Don't you think that Church Fathers were concerned about it? Why don't you simply look at the papacy as an attempt to introduce theological standard that would identify and prevent heresies? I understand resistance to papacy and am ready to debate about whether it has gone too far over the centuries. But to say that papacy is the sole reason for schisms it just doesn't make sense in your own words. You say - the Bishop of Rome didn't have authority in the early Church and yet the number of heresies is staggering.
Different religions being means to approach God doesn’t equal all religions are equal or salvific. There are simply different Peoples’ means and starting point to approach the divine mysteries of God .
A place to begin dialogue to show why what Catholicism offers answers twist is lacking.
For one to read this aborant heterodox understanding into Pope Francis’s words is ideologically driven.
The Holy Spirit holds the redder of the universal sheep. The sheep is going through a very rough storm, but it will duck at the right port.
I think Pope Benedict XVI spoke more about interreligious dialogue than Pope Francis. It would be a good exercise to compare their words.
You have expressed the problem perfectly. I'm a catholic in communion with Rome, studying for the priesthood, who has been seriously looking into Anglican Catholicism because of this exact issue.
If you really are a Catholic studying for the priesthood and because of this issue with Pope Frances it would not deter you from leaving the Church. There is no such thing as Anglican Catholicism. I think you may be trolling.
@@aussierob7177 Not trolling, exploring the Anglican Contiuum in America. Anglican Catholicism is very real and is a legitimate part of church of Christ.
@@briarscholar And, what is the "Church of Christ" ?
@@aussierob7177 The Mystical Body of Christ; militant, suffering, and triumphant. Those churches with apostolic succession professing the Catholic faith according to the Vincentian canon. The Eastern Orthodox, traditional Roman Catholics, Anglican Catholics, traditional Old Catholics and PNC, and the Oriental Orthodox. Apostolic, sacramental, and liturgical.
@@aussierob7177 it rather appears you are trolling here. Anglo-Catholicism is legitimate and even better than the Romish catholicism
The development of Doctrine, articulated by St Cardinal Newman , a Catholic. Doctrine has been developing for 2,000 years. You can have the rad trads by the way or at least the ones who don't accept vatican II.
Thank you for you insightful explanation of today's papacy dilemma.
I am just counting up the number of Schisms in contemporary Anglicanism. It's very hard to keep track of them all. Rather like trying to gather the pieces of broken glass vase:
Anglican Church in North America: Separated from the Episcopal Church and the Anglican Church of Canada in 2009
Anglican realignment: A series of schisms that began in 2002
Continuing Anglican movement: A series of schisms that began in 1977
Anglican Mission in the Americas: Formed by the province of Rwanda and the province of Southeast Asia
Laterly of course we have perhaps the Greatest , quite recent Schism ,,when the Global South Fellowship of Anglican Churches announced their momentous decision to split from Canterbury on 21st February.
Given all this I would have thought no Anglican would have time or stamina to post on problems in the Catholic Church when the Anglican Sect is basically falling apart.
The ability of GSFA to denounce heretical leaders is exactly what is keeping the Church together. You can't even proclaim a clearly hererical Pope to be outside the Church, instead fighting internally to no end.
@@KevinDay But they didn't simply, 'denounce', they walked away and went into schism
@@padraigpearse No, Welby was the schismatic just like the Pope. If we can't call them heretics then the Church is damned.
The Anglican realignment is what formed the ACNA and it includes the AMIA. The ACNA is in communion with the GSFA members. In reality you are addressing two schisms: The Continuing Anglicans and the GAFCON/GSFA Anglicans. In both of these cases it’s the Western Anglicans who went liberal being rejected by conservatives. As for the GAFCON/GSFA it’s majority of Anglicans denouncing CofE/TEC and the other western liberals as being heretics and not within the Anglican communion since we are conciliar, meaning that GSFA isn’t a schism from TEC/CofE but is the majority communion still
They all consider each other to be part of the Universal Church, aka the Catholic Church. Therefore this is not comparable, because break aways from the roman catholic church aren't considered to be in the church at all. This is not comparable.
This is the biggest problem with Catholicism. If a legitimately appointed Pope actively says that "there is no God, Jesus is not God" in his official capacity as the Pope, where do you even go from there? Obviously this is not as serious as that, but still... is the idea that it would be impossible for him to officially state this? If he did anyway, what do you do then?
I think you are misinterpreting what Pope Francis is trying to say.
Please try to read this with an open mind.....The Catholic Church recognises in other religions that search, among shadows and images, for the God who is unknown yet near since he gives life and breath and all things and wants all men to be saved. Thus, the Church considers all goodness and truth found in these religions as "a preparation for the Gospel and given by him who enlightens all men that they may at length have life.
G 16; cf. NA 2; EN 53
Christ is the head of the Church. The Popes go all the way back to Peter....The Lord made Simon alone, whom he named Peter, the "rock" of his Church. He gave him the keys to his Church and instituted him shepherd of the whole flock. The office of binding and loosing, which was given to Peter, was also assigned to the college of apostles united to its head. This pastoral office of Peter and the other apostles belong to the Church's very foundation and is continued by the bishops under the primacy of the Pope.
The Papacy is not "sacramental". How did you arrive at this ?
The Papacy is not the "great divider of the Church" That honour goes to the Reformation of the 16th century
Why do you even care what the Pope says ?
When the Pope is not the centre of attention, you guys have nothing nice to say about the Pope. But, as soon as the media highlights what the Pope is saying, you jump on him like a pack of wolves.
There have been bad Popes in the Church much more sinful than Francis (all men are sinners) Yet the Church has survived.
Over the last 2,000 years, the Catholic Church has been guilty of many atrocities, such as corruption, bad Popes. holy wars, pedophile Priests, man-made traditions, lies, and a lot more. However, this is not new. Christ did say that his Church must suffer great trials and tribulations on her earthly pilgrimage, before it can be perfected. He also said it can never be destroyed.
Bro, if we truly believe the pope can err and truly mean it when we say that we don't take every word of his as infallible teaching, can we just admit he dropped the ball in Singapore?
Ridiculous. The thousands who heard his heresy don't just all hear the retractions. All Popes are liars because they pretend to the world they are Vicars of God and have the power to speak infallibly when in their magic chair. Apparently when they are no in the magic chair they can spout anti-Christ doctrine and its ok, even defended.
Is it the chair that has the magic power of infallibility?
@@GremlinsAndGnomes He is not infallible on every word he says. I thought you knew that.
Did you hear or read the two clarifications made by Pope Francis? Also, the piece by Where Peter Is (online publication) that dives into the details of the controversial Singapore dialogue is very much worth reading. I think if the host had been aware of the Pope's declarations to hundreds of thousands of people after. And, regardless, we must not just have faith in charity, but also a hermeneutic of charity.
Why would a source of truth confuse you by making you juggle orthodox and heterodox statements in your head. Wavering in confession of faith is the same as denying it. It is the shifting sand Christ tells us to not not build upon. True doctrine is a rock which is unambigous
After he said this. The Pope said that Christ is the only way to change human hearts into salvation. I don't remember the exact quote he basically recanted what he said in Indonesia.
By all means, please show where Francis recanted that statement. Initially the Vatican tried to offer a mistranslation that softened what he said except a few 1000 people criticized them for intentionally mistranslating it before Francis doubled down on what he said. Please let us all know where he has since recanted. I won’t hold my breath.
He didn’t be sure what he said in Indonesia didn’t violate catholic teaching as his detractors reported.
He said a few days later, that Christ is the only way of salvation. I'm a Catechumen of Orthodoxy coming out of the RC church. But all of his statements must be considered.
He does that intentionally to cause confusion. Any confusion and division in the Church do not come from God, but from Satan to destroy and conquer. The one we have is the fulfillment of the vision of 2 popes (one true -- Benedict XVI, the other -- false demolishing the church and building a strange one) seen by Blessed Anne Catherine Emmerich, and a part of the mystery of the iniquity (2 Thes 2:7). He is the false prophet (Rev 13:11, 19:20), destroying the Catholic Church and establishing 1 world religion and a false church for the Antichrist. The Catholic Church, the Bride of Christ (Eph 5:23) is destined to follow in the footsteps of Her Lord to Calvary to suffer, die, and be resurrected (Catechism #675, 677) for the purification of renewal of the Church and the world, before the 2nd coming of Christ and the Era of Peace (Rev 20:4-6). So, it is. Soon we will see the great schism, denial of the Real Presence of Christ in the Holy Eucharist (Matt 24:15), banning of the Holy Sacrifice of Mass, cruel persecutions of the Church and Her faithful, ... All prophecies of the end times are being fulfilled now. In the end, the Catholic Church will triumph and remain, and to be transferred to the Heavenly Kingdom (Rev 21:9-14). Amen!
@@hyeminkwun9523Do you not feel like the Protestant reformation was the great Apostasy and that it already took place? That's what I always thought at least
@@a.ihistory5879 Yes, the protestant reformation was a big heresy and a big schism, caused by Satan. What is coming is the biggest the Church will ever experience.
I don't know how to feel about all of this. I was a Roman Catholic and then left and started attending a traditional Anglican church, but I was feeling guilty for leaving and still wasn't able to combat the sin of lust. Fast forward a few months later and I eventually went back to the Roman Catholic church and did confession and received the eucharist and by the grace of God, I was able to combat the sin of lust that I've been struggling with. Not even a thought enters my head, it's insane. I can't go back to being an Anglican because I've received God's grace in the RCC, but I also completely agree with everything you are stating and cannot stand the statements of the Pope and documents such as Nostra Aetate. I pray for unity. God Bless.
And there in lies an unresolved problem with pride and submission to authority.
I am a Roman Catholic who has been troubled by this exact issue. I have been examining Orthodox sources on it. I'd say you have stated the problem and its logical consequences exactly correctly. If the papacy has served as a source of unity, it is only a unity as to the papal office and not to Catholic dogma, Christian doctrine or Jesus Christ. The papacy is the defining feature of Catholicism. You must accept papal authority and claims about supremacy of the office above all else. To be a Catholic Christian is to be a papist. Post Schism and prior to Vatican 2, that acceptance was a bit easier to achieve when we saw what appeared to be the steadfastness and doctrinal purity of the Church. The Traditionalists would be quick wield the sword of the Papacy against outsiders. But Post Vatican 2, that certainty that the Catholic Church is the true church and holds fast to the Apostolic faith is gravely weakened. With Francis's latest heretical statements, the Church is now promoting clear heresy through the Pope.
What's a Catholic to do? One approach is to hold fast to the Catholic idea that Jesus Christ empowered the office through Peter and therefore it is God's will whatever happens because the Catholic Church is the one true church of Jesus Christ and the gates of Hell will never prevail against it. Therefore, don't worry about the heretical statements. Just pray your rosary, work on your personal holiness and God will take care of the problem. There is merit to this approach. However, I do worry about the effects on your faith and relationship with the Holy Trinity when you hang out with the wrong crowd. In other words, if you expose yourself to heresy and heretical practices, how much damage do you do to yourself? V2 and the Novus Ordo have destroyed Catholics and the Catholic Church. Do you stay in that poisonous atmosphere? Do you risk your eternal salvation? I don't think so. Just as you wouldn't hang out with friends who lead you astray, I don't think you should remain with a church that misleading you.
The other approach is to parse papal statements and limit their impact. This is what Catholics who point out that the Pope isn't speaking ex cathedra so the statements do not change the Catholic faith. But then again even though Catholics claim only statements made ex cathedra have any effect, in practice Catholics are required to give great deference to all Papal statements in fact treated as if they were ex cathedra. Now we have a Traditional problem. So, the Trads hang their pride of Catholicism on these super papal claims and see Catholicism as really post Schism claims made by the Church. They insist that to be catholic and Christian is to be papal. But they can't claim that since Vatican 2. So, they have moved into a protestant position for to be Catholic is to be a papist and to accept the pope as the vicar of Christ and head of the Church. In other words, the Catholic Church has accepted and promoted heretical positions.
Therefore, it cannot be the one true Church or the Papacy has been an erroneous doctrine throughout its history. It has been, and I think you are correct, a political office with a place of honor due to its placement in the Captial of the Roman Empire. I suspect that the Bishops of Rome in the first millennium realized that in order to maintain some sort of political power they conjured this false idea of they acted as the Vicar of Christ due to Peter's presence in Rome and Christ's giving Peter the keys to the kingdom. It imbued with their claim to power with an irrefutable authority and one that if challenged would leave the challenger in threat of eternal damnation. (Really nothing's change as that is still the underlying threat to anyone who thinks of leaving the Catholic Church or who doesn't joint it.) But in truth there is no indication in that grant of authority that it applies to Peter's successors, especially not the Roman bishops. Do recall the Peter was the Bishop at Antioch first and if the Roman claim to superiority is based on that statement of Christ, then the Bishop of Antioch is the true Vicar of Christ. He's not, though, as only Jesus Christ is the head of the Church and the bishops are all equal in authority and responsibility for proclaiming Christ to the world.
I think the Orthodox view on this issue is the correct one. Traditionalists need to come to terms with the fact that what they value in Catholicism is really first millennium Catholic Orthodoxy. That is to say, the Traditional Latin Mass coupled with Orthodox theology with an equality among the bishops, each serving as a check and balance to the other. Furthermore, all bishops subordinate to the Church Councils, which we know from the Book of Acts and Council of Jerusalem is the model for discerning the will of the Holy Spirit for the Church. No bishop is permitted EVER to change unilaterally the teachings of the Councils. The Roman addition of the filioque is a grave error, and I think the slow devolution to heresy in Rome with its adoption of various theological fads in the last 1000 years is a direct consequence of adding the filioque, marginalizing the Holy Spirit and minimizing his authority in the Church.
Great video. Thanks for putting your thoughts on the matter out there. This may be the defining problem of our age for it threatens to destroy the Catholic Church, and may have already done so.
" In matters of faith and morals, the bishops speak in the name of Christ and the faithful are to accept their teaching and adhere to it with a religious assent. This religious submission of mind and will must be shown in a special way to the authentic magisterium of the Roman Pontiff, even when he is not speaking ex cathedra; that is, it must be shown in such a way that his supreme magisterium is acknowledged with reverence, the judgments made by him are sincerely adhered to, according to his manifest mind and will. His mind and will in the matter may be known either from the character of the documents, from his frequent repetition of the same doctrine, or from his manner of speaking."
Lumen Gentium 25. Even if the Pope is not speaking ex cathedra, Roman Catholics are required to give a religious submission of mind and will to the Pope. This is seriously problematic.
Before you criticize the Holy Father you should take time to actually read something that he has authored during his wonderful pontificate. Almost every time he speaks about Christ, exclusivity is highlighted; probably half the time he speaks of reading the Bible more, he recommends carrying a pocket gospel with us at all times; nearly every time he speaks he expresses his closeness to all in his prayers and implores us to pray for him. His comments about other religion make perfect sense if understood in the context of tradition. Saint Pope John Paul II talked about seeds of the Word in other religions, VII is clear on the reality that there is much that is true, good, and beautiful in other religions. Even everybody’s favorite “ultra-conservative Pope Benedict XVI makes similar statements and of course promoted the council and the CCC which say exactly the same. And for Catholic traditionalists: there are many examples of this attitude towards other religions before VII. Jesus said he would divide households, father and son and so forth and you think his representative on earth would not do the same. He is at the center of division precisely because he is the visible head of the militant Church. All he does is call for unity, who is unwilling to unite? He like the merciful father in Luke 15 is ready to welcome all schismatics back into the fold. Blessings brother!
Very well said.
@@gilbertsaller913 Thank you brother! I rarely comment anything anymore because everybody proves that they have no business discussing these issues for lack of having informed themselves and studying all the relevant sources. Every time I get a reply notification dread fills me that somebody just wants to fight me over their personal bias so your complement is a breath of fresh air! Blessings!
@@TheCatholicSamurai I feel the same exact way, unfortunately. Glad my comment could be a breath of fresh air! God bless!
@@gilbertsaller913 Keep praying for him and defending against the uninformed masses! Blessings!
Wonderful pontificate? Your communion is more divided than ever before, largely due to the Holy Father's extremely confusing pontificate. Has there ever been a more divided Roman Church?
Hello, my dear brother in the Lord. A Catholic from Cuba greets you. I find your comments to be very balanced, coming from that Anglo-Catholic perspective you adhere to. I understand your concerns about the direction of the Catholic Church. From your videos, it seems that you love the Roman Catholic Church, even though you might still be somewhat entangled in Protestantism. Take comfort in your heart; the Barque of Peter will not sink. Judaizers and Gnostics tried to destroy it and failed (1st century), Nero could not do it either, nor could the Arians (4th century), Nestorians, Manicheans, or Iconoclasts (4th-8th centuries). The East-West Schism did not destroy it (11th century), nor did Muslims, and even the Western Schism (with two popes in dispute) could not bring it down. The Protestant Reformation did not succeed, nor did Rationalism and the Enlightenment, and neither could Napoleon. Two World Wars and Hitler also failed to do so. Don’t you see that since it descended from the Cenacle, the Church has been in imminent danger of death? To human eyes, it has seemed a failed project from the beginning. Take comfort in your heart. The Lord will be with us until the end of the world.
---
I used CHAT GPT for translation, I hope you enjoy it😊
Like watching the fall of the Romans, infighting was the major reason for their fall, I guess the apple didn't fall far from the tree.
what about the fall of the anglicans with gay bishops. the catholic church of jesus still stands..
😂There are gay German bishops in Rome too
@YourBoyJohnny94 probably every nationally represented in that demographic, just because they pretend it doesn't happen doesn't mean it doesn't, their history tells us this.
There is only one language and only one dialect to GOD, that is in Revelation through His son Our Lord Jesus Christ given to Him by The Father. Anything outside of that is a lie and false.
The Pope thinks that all religions were established with the objective to worship and adore God!!!
I'm a catholic. You are confusing the father with God.
Jesus said you have to go through Jesus to get to the father.
But that's not the same as getting to God .
You're not even close to being a Catholic if you believe this.
@merecatholicity hey, its true. Jesus said to the FATHER. Not to GOD.
If you don't believe in the trinity, fine. But the way I read it, Jesus was talking about the three persons of the God head, Jesus,Father, etc.
The Godhead itself is something different.
So technically it might be true. And yes I'm catholic. But am I going to say that NONE of the billions of Buddhists, Hindus, or even non catholic Christians are going to heaven? Thats a call for God, not me.
Sorry, I don't think it's tenable God is going to lock out so many people that never heard about Jesus. Or at least never had a fair amount of exposure.
Just my personal opinion.
@@nosuchthing8The Catholic Church for the majority of it’s history said non-Christians are not going to heaven. They claimed that all Protestants were heretics. Many in the church believed unbaptized babies were not going to heaven. You can find this in Vatican 1, the Council of Trent and other councils.
You could even mention the Old Catholics who separated over the Vatican I claims of its claims of the Papacy.
The Papacy is the singular focal point of schism in the Church.
Great video.
How many Old Catholics separated? Are we going to abandon the 99% for the 1% which dissented? Your assessment is completely wrong. The singular focal point of schism in the Church is rebelliousness, also a lack of charity and love. We could get rid of Papal Supremacy, and the Eastern Orthodox would still have enough reason to stay in schism. Ultimately, the only thing we can do is get rid of Catholicism entirely and adopt the next largest group's ecclesiology and theology, which would be Eastern Orthodoxy. But then this new group would be at odds with Anglicans and the rest, so then the Orthodox would have to then eliminate facets of its Orthodoxy to come into ecumenical communion with the Anglicans and the rest. The final logical conclusion is that we all become vague non-denominational reformed Christians because there is no other way to unite all the churches. Either the lower churches must unite upward, or the high churches of the ancient and apostolic traditions must unite downward. In either case, the particular beliefs they have must be abandoned to achieve this kind of unity.
As someone involved in independent Catholicism even I have to say that the Old Catholic split hasn't provided some massive unity either. Lol. Quite the opposite. There are more tiny independent sacramentalist jurisdictions then anyone could ever keep track of. All that's left is to pray for unity, as Christ did.
You seem to be misunderstanding. The Papacy never causes division, it is those who are disloyal to Christ's church that cause schism due to pride. I'm sure you are part of a church that allows contraception, divorce and female pastors along with some rock music. I think you need to look deeper
Seems Sola Scriptura has done 100x better job at dividing the church than the Papacy. Historically it was actually a force for unity like in the Formula of Hormisdas.
And historically speaking it was a primary source for the Great Schism and the Protestant Reformation. Martin Luther did not cause the reformation. The Papacy and Vatican leadership did when they over reacted to some no name monk engaging in public debate in Germany about theology. That is what started the reformation
@@dallascopp4798 histoically speaking papacy is the primary source of unity for all eastern catholics and western catholics. the divison in protestant cults came from lust, sin, pride and rebellion, the spirit of satan. MARTIN LUTHER IS IN HELL..
Constantinople didnt exists in the ealry church
Well put brother
I agree-good video 👍🏻
(Professional Popesplainers incoming in 5…4…3…)
Thank you, brother.
heretic praising a satanic heretic.,
All religions are trying to explain God.
News flash: the protest is over. The protestors themselves are in need of reform now more than ever. Return to Christ’s church. We need all the faithful who want to preserve our shared history and tradition of the church.
facts bruh. the best comment..
I am of the belief that if the Roman Catholic Church dropped some of the Dogmas and the supremacy of the Pope a large portion of the Church would come back together (Conservative Anglicans, Global Methodists, Eastern Orthodox) but I don’t believe it will happen anytime soon.
Aside from the fact that the central issue is not doctrine or dogma, but authority itself, what the Church has revealed is true or it is not. There is no going back and un-dogmatizing, nor should there be. The Catholic Church makes great efforts to accomodate, incorporate or generally give freedom to other ecclesial traditions to facilitate unity and catholicity. Why should Evangelicals dictate Papal teaching.
Why would the Church practice heresy to get more members ?
its nonsense. That's akin to arguing, if we just drop the idea that Jesus is God the Son, all of the unitarians and Mormons would come back into the Church. A supreme authority in the Church on Earth is NECESSARY. Without such, unity is impossible. If the Lord Jesus didn't want this ecclesial order, why then didn't He simply state that He would build His Church on all the Apostles? Why single out one Apostle, and state that He would build His Church on him, Peter the Rock, AND that the gates of Hell would not overcome it? By choosing one Apostle at the forefront of all the Apostles, to have built the Church upon that one Apostle, signifies an importance of position. Also, the promise that the gates of Hell would not overcome it seems true in more than one aspect, since all of the other principal sees (patriarchates) of the Christian world were destroyed, and Rome alone was spared. Antioch, where believers were first called Christians, lost in the crusades. Jerusalem, destroyed by the pagan Romans, and then by various Muslim caliphates. Alexandria, destroyed by the Muslim caliphates. Even Constantinople, which stood as the Shield of Christendom for centuries, was finally destroyed by the Muslims. Yet, when Rome faced its destruction at Lepanto, the grace of God provided the miracle to overcome certain defeat. Are we really to ignore such facts of history? The Bible says we are to subject ourselves to the elders of the Church, it doesn't say when the congregation disagrees with the elders, the elders need to acquiesce, or wave away fundamental aspects of our faith to appease miscreants.
You do realize that Augustine, Chrysostom, and Aquinas all believe that the rock was in reference to the profession of Peter, not Peter himself. You can see this is Aquinas commentary on Matt 16..
so would argue the rock is Jesus Christ. We are building on the cornerstone of Christ. The Apostles have layed the foundation on that cornerstone (Eph 2:20).
That is indeed a funny story.
Amen to you Jonah, Francis is a woke man, not even a pope
This is not about just Francis, this is about Rome going all the way back to the Frankish Papacy period in the 9-11 centuries
The idea of the Papacy is a medieval invention! A man made tradition - nothing more, nothing less!
Im pretty sure there were “popes” much longer than the medieval period. At least the arguments against them have been going on much longer.
another satanic lie. im not roman catholic even.,
This is demonstrably false. The Early Church had Popes.
@@AluminiumT6 No one is denying the early church had “popes” all the patriarchs from Alexandria,Jerusalem,Antioch,Constantinople are all technically “popes” but the pope of Rome having supremacy over all of them is an innovation.
@@YourBoyJohnny94 Nice sophistry. The other patriarchs were titular Popes, not "technical Popes". The only "technical Pope" is the successor of Saint Peter in the See of Rome (where he died). This is not debated in the first 1000 years, and confirmed by the Church Fathers' writings. But sure, keep regurgitating these low-tier polemics, it's kind of good for us, as it works primarily on low-tier people, if at all. 👍
Wow, we never thought of that, Christ is the head of the Chutch! Thank you so much.
Not popes, not church fathers, not “saints”, but Christ alone!
The follow Christ, not protestants
So just tear out all the passages that mention bishops and forget the verses in the NT that tell you to hold to traditions taught by word of mouth or by letter? Sounds like a Protestant church. “We just believe in the Bible; except the parts that sound like Orthodox or Catholic, we just don’t talk about those and pretend they don’t exist.”
Jesus Christ appointed the office of the pope, the church fathers we teachers of the gospel of Christ, and saints are found in the book of revelation. None of these are in conflict with Christ or in competition with Christ, and all are scriptural.
And his established Catholic and Apostolic church to get the fullness of the faith. Unless you feel like you have something that he lack since his church isn't good enough for you?
I agree. The pope definitely has been the great divider throughout the history of the church. Thus, the split from Orthodox Christian’s, and the Reformation.
If the Catholic church split from the Orthodox then why do you consider the reformation another split? Can there be other splits? If so you are implying there is still life still in the Catholic church. If not then you have to rethink at least your 2nd split.
Subscribed and then unsubscribed at about @ 11.40. Christ be with you, but if you are digging, keep digging. It wasn’t just the authority issue of the Pope, Jonah! If you are so concerned about it all, why did the creed need to change? Why don’t you look at why the fathers were against it. It wasn’t for lack of humility. That is an unfair assumption to make and present, even if vaguely. How many centuries will it take for those outside the church to understand this? It was just as liberal then as everything going on now!!!
A very powerful argument, thank you.
Dang, so good!
Name me one single matter of faith and morals or any single doctrine the Holy Father has changes. You can not. You don't even understand the nature of the magisterium or the papacy. You clearly also don't understand the nature of infallibility. Why on earth are you sitting pontificating on the Catholic Church. Thanks for your concern for us, catholics, but why not just get on with your protestantism.
The pope has updated to Catholic Catechism particularly on Capital Punishment.
No man is holy save Christ, and God is the only father!
The cognitive dissonance is strong.
@@merecatholicityI think what he is saying is to stay in your lane. The ACNA has female priests......
The catechism is not dogmatic, it’s just a teaching aid. The fact is we have some pretty lousy catechesis right now, but that doesn’t mean our doctrines have actually been altered.
That is the problem with religions that have earthly leaders. ALL of them, including catholicism.
our leader is jesus. pope is his representative, cope protiee.,
@NisalLiyanage-i9e sounds good. But your leader is Mary. Mary for everything. You can't get to Jesus if you don't love Mary. You ask her to pray FOR you. On and on.