**Follow the Orthodox scholar who put this great list of canons together so you can stay up to date with his work in the future!**👉twitter.com/EasternPhronema Follow along with Snek as he moves through the various canons with this link! www.evernote.com/shard/s266/client/snv?noteGuid=a030cdad-eb37-4572-8c89-33c3abf65c56¬eKey=a5ceec762bd80fd70dac6093990de0b7&sn=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.evernote.com%2Fshard%2Fs266%2Fsh%2Fa030cdad-eb37-4572-8c89-33c3abf65c56%2Fa5ceec762bd80fd70dac6093990de0b7&title=Rome%252C%2BSchism%252C%2Band%2Bthe%2BSeven%2BEcumenical%2BCouncils
Oh ok brother, I will add a link to your twitter right now. I assure you it wasn't anything deliberate on my part, I was not aware you put the list together. Sorry about that. God bless 🙏
It definitely is brother. Great work! Thank God for guys like you and Snek. I'm sure it took you long time going through those canons and you deserve the credit for it. Thank you for what you're doing. God bless 🙏
@@ChurchoftheEternalLogos There is an alternate list we compiled found here: ruclips.net/video/ibZN9U3kbzw/видео.html 12:10-32-47 contains the pertinent sections.
Church of the Eternal Logos, Great episode. The only way Roman Catholics can avoid these canons is by denying the Pope functions as a bishop when acting as pope but there's no evidence the Church considered being Pope apart from the realm of the bishop, which is why, at Chalcedon, they called St. Leo "archbishop of the world," linking his role as universal primate to the role of a local primate - one of appelate jurisdiction.
Acts 15 7 Peter takes authority himself saying God chose him from among the apostles to use HIS mouth to evangelize. Where the Orthodox came from with power? I have no idea. Power lies with Rome because of St Peter.
@@koppite9600 Kop, with all due respect this is a huge straw man argument. 1. Acts 15:2 makes it very clear that the Judaizers requested that St. Paul, Barnabas, and others that were with them appeal to the other apostles and the elders regarding circumcision of gentiles. It was not to Peter alone. Such attempts to argue such would be dishonest. 2. Peter did not “take authority”, but was given authority in Matthew 16:18, which extended to all the other apostles as well according to the fathers. But for argument sake, let’s say that the authority was given to Peter alone to bind and loose - it would not be limited to Rome alone as Alexandria and Antioch are also Petrine sees, which have equal authority as declared in Nicea 1 and Constantinople 1. In fact, Rome admits this. Pope St. Damascus: The first see, therefore, is that of Peter the Apostle, that of the Roman church, which has neither stain nor blemish, nor anything like that. The second see is that of Alexandria, consecrated on behalf of the blessed Peter by Mark, his disciple and an Evangelist, who was sent to Egypt by the Apostle Peter, where he preached the word of truth and finished his glorious martyrdom. The third see is that of Antioch, which belonged to the most blessed Peter, where first he dwelled before he came to Rome, and where the name ‘Christians’ was first applied, as to a new people." (Decree of Damasus # 3, 382 A.D.) Pope Gregory: Though there are many apostles, yet with regard to the principality itself the See of the Prince of the apostles alone has grown strong in authority, which in three places is the See of one. For he [Peter] himself exalted the See in which he deigned even to rest and end the present life [Rome]. He himself adorned the See to which he sent his disciple as evangelist [Mark to Alexandria]. He himself established the See in which, though he was to leave it, he sat for seven years [Antioch]. Since then it is the See of one, and one See, over which by Divine authority three bishops now preside, whatever good I hear of you, this I impute to myself. If you believe anything good of me, impute this to your merits, since we are one in Him Who says, “That they all may be one, as You, Father, art in me, and I in you that they also may be one in us” [John 17:21]. Another historical source: Pope St. Alexander of Alexandria (+326) “O you, blessed with the gift of healing, in the likeness of Peter, the first of the apostle, your namesake, from whom you have inherited his power of binding and loosing in heaven!” ~An Appraisal of St. Peter of Alexandria Letter of 497 from the Church of Alexandria to the Church of Rome: “The venerable holy churches of the cities of Rome and Alexandria have always preserved concord, not only in the true and immaculate faith from the time the word of salvation was preached in them, but also in divine ministry. That is to say in both of them the foundation of faith was laid by the same man - we mean the blessed Apostle Peter, whose imitator in everything was the holy evangelist Mark - so that, whenever it happened that in times of uncertainty some councils of bishops were due to be held, the most holy man who presided over the church of Rome used to delegate the most reverend archbishop of the city of Alexandria to take his place”
@@StoleBearer I think i have a case here that Peter is the one to split the tie because of his office given in Matthew 16. The Judeans could respectfully dismiss Paul's position on circumcision and Paul could do the opposite but it's not a stalemate because Peter has spoken. Today we can have that kind of stalemate but because of the Pope there would be no such stalemate. If we had the issue of circumcision today, and the Orthodox say it's not a must while the RCC says it is a must, how would we solve it? We would accept a stalemate because we are equal but in Acts 15 it is clear Peter dictated his position and everyone had to accept it. He is chosen from the apostles by God and his office which was in the OT, Isaiah continues.
@@koppite9600read further down after Peter, Barnabas and Paul spoke, then finally James. And what does it say in verse 22 Then it pleased the apostles and elders with the whole church, to send chosen men of their own company to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas; namely, Judas surnamed Barsabas and Silas, chief men among the brethren: also verse 25 It seemed good unto us, being assembled with one accord, to send chosen men unto you with our beloved Barnabas and Paul Again verse 28 For it seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things; Where does this single out Peter alone? What you are pointed out does support your claim. No where does it say it seem good to Peter or Peter saying I declare this all to be true etc....
Zandragal The type of squabbling you see in our Church is the same type you see in the first millenium. The Meletian Schism is a prime example. The type of fall out immediately before and for two years after Ephesus I is another as numerous bishops were in communion with Rome and Alexandria as well as Antioch or Antioch being in communion with Nestorius on the one hand and Rome and Alexandria in the other prior to the council but after Rome and Alexandria's condemnations of Nestorius. The Photian Schism and the Acacian Schisms were likewise a mess, not to mention the fall out *in the West* over Constantinople II. These really only blew up when the Pope got involved because the popes didn't understand how to smooth things out within Eastern Greek culture. Keep in mind, those situations were ones that were actually deferred to the Pope - and Emperor - too and they were still more of a mess than the current MP/EP rift. Rome, Antioch, Alexandria, Constantinople, Jerusalem; they spent so much time in schism from one another in the first millenium that it begs the question of why you think the pope and emperor created unity. If we're the first millenium Church, we're going to have first millenium problems and those we do. We've got on, just fine without an emperor since 1453 - or 1461 if we count Trabizon. I'm unsure how the pope has created unity in the West when Rome's hardline views created the Photian and Great Schism (as well as causing Lyon and Florence to fail...) it's corruption created the Reformation, and it's ecclesiology created not only the Western Schism where you had three popes but Vatican II where the Church imploded and now, where's the unity? Uniates are saying one thing, SSPX another, diocesans are all over the board, and the FSSP saying yet another. I don't see any unity there.
“Doctrine develops gradually”. “Organic growth and continuity of Doctrinal development”. Roman Catholic apologist seem to argue out of both sides of their mouths, especially when challenging Francis’, that the Roman Catholic Church is “constant and unchanging”. If this special role of the Pope developed over the centuries and presumably guided by the Holy Spirit in fact replacing the system defined by Scripture as pleasing to the Holy Spirit why are you so willing to suggest its failure in Francis? If homosexual union and the ordination of women become pages 850 and 851 of the Catechism, why is that gradual change any different to the development of the Papacy itself as just described? Hypocrisy always reveals error. Both can’t be true and this conflict strongly suggest that the abandonment by the Papacy of the fundamental organizational principle of enduring Consensus defined by Scripture was a mistake. By the way, Irenaeus’ wasn’t supporting the Papacy he was acknowledging that the Bishop of Rome as first among equals had a role especially when dealing with an un controversial topic. But what happened after Irenaeus? Constantinople was made equal to Rome in the hierarchy of Bishops by the Ecumenical Council of Chalcedon in 451 and nothing ever prior to 1054 ever suggested that the Bishop of Rome or Constantinople or any other Bishop could self decree anything whatsoever at any time on any topic and more importantly couldn’t be overruled by the enduring voices of the many, I.e. the other bishops of the world.
Would it be a good analogy to say Rome was basically a court magistrate who could determine whether or not there was probable cause for a court hearing, which would be the actual council itself?
That would be the council of Sardica, the prerogatives of which were evidently transferred to Constantinople by the time of the council of Ephesus, decision sealed at Chalcedon. It is interesting because the memory of Apostle Peter is mentioned there, but Constantinople which is not a petrine see, sees nonetheless the prerogatives being transferred. The likely explanation, as explained by Roman Catholic historian Hefele is that the mention of St Peter is added way later.
The Eastern Church split off from Rome and the Catholic Church on at least six occasions before 1054: The Arian schisms (343-98); The controversy over St. John Chrysostom (404-415); The Acacian schism (484-519); Concerning Monothelitism (640-681); Concerning Iconoclasm (726-87 and 815-43). This adds up to 231 out of 500 years in schism (46% of the time)! In every case, Rome was on the right side of the debate.
All those errors were refuted by other bishops of the east, and Rome was the one who was anathematized for monothelite position by future council in the east. Also, it was the Frankish west who became iconoclast after the seventh council. This is laughable history straight out of the “Dimond Brothers” heretical ecclesiology, soteriology, triadology
@@that_sun_guy6527 Heretics and schismatics have existed since Judas, the first schismatic. The pope cannot control evil doers, those whom remained in communion with the Pope constituted the true Church
@@that_sun_guy6527 They were present. Just like in the first century when Pope St. Victor excommunicated the churches of Asia Minor for having a different date for Easter to bring unity on a common liturgical date. Just to reiterate: *This was in the first century*. Seems the EO opposition to the Papacy is a spectrum and can range from the Protestant "there was no papacy" to the indefensible "the pope had no special power, only honorifics". But as I previously stated, if it was merely honorifics, how did the Bishop of Rome exercise such power and why did they submit?
I find it adorable how they call themselves "Orthodox" and then refuse to follow Orthodoxy , such as the obvious reality of the Papacy and Papal Primacy .
😂 cope brutha, you read Erick ybarras book on the papacy he himself said that he doesn’t think this is obvious at all he thinks we have almost identically valid claims
Schismatic laymen talking about canons, now that's hilarious. Let's see what Pope Boniface says: “The universal ordering of the Church at its birth took its origin from the office of Blessed Peter, *in which is found both its directing power and its supreme authority* . From him, as from a source, at the time when our religion was in the stage of growth, all churches received their common order. *This much is shown by the injunctions of the council of Nicaea, since it did not venture to make a decree in his regard, recognizing that nothing could be added to his dignity: in fact it knew that all had been assigned to him by the word of the Lord. So it is clear that THIS CHURCH is to all churches throughout the world as the head is to the members, and that whoever separates himself from it becomes an exile from the Christian religion, since he ceases to belong to its fellowship”* (Pope St. Boniface, Epistle 14)
Nothing about his papacy backs this up. He was deposed as pope, replaced with new pope that was later declared an anti pope because he lost (if he won I guess boniface would have been the anti pope) and the emperor put boniface back in his see. The emperor. I guess your supreme absolute authority that cannot be questioned could still be deposed, replaced and needed someone more powerful with more authority then himself to give him his chair back, eh?
**Follow the Orthodox scholar who put this great list of canons together so you can stay up to date with his work in the future!**👉twitter.com/EasternPhronema
Follow along with Snek as he moves through the various canons with this link! www.evernote.com/shard/s266/client/snv?noteGuid=a030cdad-eb37-4572-8c89-33c3abf65c56¬eKey=a5ceec762bd80fd70dac6093990de0b7&sn=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.evernote.com%2Fshard%2Fs266%2Fsh%2Fa030cdad-eb37-4572-8c89-33c3abf65c56%2Fa5ceec762bd80fd70dac6093990de0b7&title=Rome%252C%2BSchism%252C%2Band%2Bthe%2BSeven%2BEcumenical%2BCouncils
Oh ok brother, I will add a link to your twitter right now. I assure you it wasn't anything deliberate on my part, I was not aware you put the list together. Sorry about that. God bless 🙏
It definitely is brother. Great work! Thank God for guys like you and Snek. I'm sure it took you long time going through those canons and you deserve the credit for it. Thank you for what you're doing. God bless 🙏
@@ChurchoftheEternalLogos There is an alternate list we compiled found here: ruclips.net/video/ibZN9U3kbzw/видео.html
12:10-32-47 contains the pertinent sections.
Hey guys, that link is no longer accessible. Has the note been made private?
Church of the Eternal Logos,
Great episode. The only way Roman Catholics can avoid these canons is by denying the Pope functions as a bishop when acting as pope but there's no evidence the Church considered being Pope apart from the realm of the bishop, which is why, at Chalcedon, they called St. Leo "archbishop of the world," linking his role as universal primate to the role of a local primate - one of appelate jurisdiction.
Acts 15 7
Peter takes authority himself saying God chose him from among the apostles to use HIS mouth to evangelize. Where the Orthodox came from with power? I have no idea. Power lies with Rome because of St Peter.
@@koppite9600 Kop, with all due respect this is a huge straw man argument.
1. Acts 15:2 makes it very clear that the Judaizers requested that St. Paul, Barnabas, and others that were with them appeal to the other apostles and the elders regarding circumcision of gentiles. It was not to Peter alone. Such attempts to argue such would be dishonest.
2. Peter did not “take authority”, but was given authority in Matthew 16:18, which extended to all the other apostles as well according to the fathers.
But for argument sake, let’s say that the authority was given to Peter alone to bind and loose - it would not be limited to Rome alone as Alexandria and Antioch are also Petrine sees, which have equal authority as declared in Nicea 1 and Constantinople 1.
In fact, Rome admits this. Pope St. Damascus: The first see, therefore, is that of Peter the Apostle, that of the Roman church, which has neither stain nor blemish, nor anything like that. The second see is that of Alexandria, consecrated on behalf of the blessed Peter by Mark, his disciple and an Evangelist, who was sent to Egypt by the Apostle Peter, where he preached the word of truth and finished his glorious martyrdom. The third see is that of Antioch, which belonged to the most blessed Peter, where first he dwelled before he came to Rome, and where the name ‘Christians’ was first applied, as to a new people." (Decree of Damasus # 3, 382 A.D.)
Pope Gregory:
Though there are many apostles, yet with regard to the principality itself the See of the Prince of the apostles alone has grown strong in authority, which in three places is the See of one. For he [Peter] himself exalted the See in which he deigned even to rest and end the present life [Rome]. He himself adorned the See to which he sent his disciple as evangelist [Mark to Alexandria]. He himself established the See in which, though he was to leave it, he sat for seven years [Antioch]. Since then it is the See of one, and one See, over which by Divine authority three bishops now preside, whatever good I hear of you, this I impute to myself. If you believe anything good of me, impute this to your merits, since we are one in Him Who says, “That they all may be one, as You, Father, art in me, and I in you that they also may be one in us” [John 17:21].
Another historical source:
Pope St. Alexander of Alexandria (+326)
“O you, blessed with the gift of healing, in the likeness of Peter, the first of the apostle, your namesake, from whom you have inherited his power of binding and loosing in heaven!” ~An Appraisal of St. Peter of Alexandria
Letter of 497 from the Church of Alexandria to the Church of Rome:
“The venerable holy churches of the cities of Rome and Alexandria have always preserved concord, not only in the true and immaculate faith from the time the word of salvation was preached in them, but also in divine ministry. That is to say in both of them the foundation of faith was laid by the same man - we mean the blessed Apostle Peter, whose imitator in everything was the holy evangelist Mark - so that, whenever it happened that in times of uncertainty some councils of bishops were due to be held, the most holy man who presided over the church of Rome used to delegate the most reverend archbishop of the city of Alexandria to take his place”
@@StoleBearer I think i have a case here that Peter is the one to split the tie because of his office given in Matthew 16.
The Judeans could respectfully dismiss Paul's position on circumcision and Paul could do the opposite but it's not a stalemate because Peter has spoken.
Today we can have that kind of stalemate but because of the Pope there would be no such stalemate.
If we had the issue of circumcision today, and the Orthodox say it's not a must while the RCC says it is a must, how would we solve it? We would accept a stalemate because we are equal but in Acts 15 it is clear Peter dictated his position and everyone had to accept it. He is chosen from the apostles by God and his office which was in the OT, Isaiah continues.
@@koppite9600Ever Pope has been a heretic for nearly a thousand years now.
@@koppite9600read further down after Peter, Barnabas and Paul spoke, then finally James. And what does it say in verse 22 Then it pleased the apostles and elders with the whole church, to send chosen men of their own company to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas; namely, Judas surnamed Barsabas and Silas, chief men among the brethren: also verse 25 It seemed good unto us, being assembled with one accord, to send chosen men unto you with our beloved Barnabas and Paul
Again verse 28 For it seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things;
Where does this single out Peter alone? What you are pointed out does support your claim. No where does it say it seem good to Peter or Peter saying I declare this all to be true etc....
This is a huge help on some huge distinctions of East compared to West. Thanks for sharing guys!
Thanks brother, glad you liked it. God bless 🙏
Zandragal
The type of squabbling you see in our Church is the same type you see in the first millenium. The Meletian Schism is a prime example. The type of fall out immediately before and for two years after Ephesus I is another as numerous bishops were in communion with Rome and Alexandria as well as Antioch or Antioch being in communion with Nestorius on the one hand and Rome and Alexandria in the other prior to the council but after Rome and Alexandria's condemnations of Nestorius. The Photian Schism and the Acacian Schisms were likewise a mess, not to mention the fall out *in the West* over Constantinople II. These really only blew up when the Pope got involved because the popes didn't understand how to smooth things out within Eastern Greek culture. Keep in mind, those situations were ones that were actually deferred to the Pope - and Emperor - too and they were still more of a mess than the current MP/EP rift. Rome, Antioch, Alexandria, Constantinople, Jerusalem; they spent so much time in schism from one another in the first millenium that it begs the question of why you think the pope and emperor created unity. If we're the first millenium Church, we're going to have first millenium problems and those we do.
We've got on, just fine without an emperor since 1453 - or 1461 if we count Trabizon.
I'm unsure how the pope has created unity in the West when Rome's hardline views created the Photian and Great Schism (as well as causing Lyon and Florence to fail...) it's corruption created the Reformation, and it's ecclesiology created not only the Western Schism where you had three popes but Vatican II where the Church imploded and now, where's the unity? Uniates are saying one thing, SSPX another, diocesans are all over the board, and the FSSP saying yet another. I don't see any unity there.
Good shit brother! Thank you
Thank you brother. God bless 🙏
can you do a video on the acts of each council?
Keep up the good work big guy
Thank you, absolutely will do. God bless 🙏
“Doctrine develops gradually”. “Organic growth and continuity of Doctrinal development”. Roman Catholic apologist seem to argue out of both sides of their mouths, especially when challenging Francis’, that the Roman Catholic Church is “constant and unchanging”. If this special role of the Pope developed over the centuries and presumably guided by the Holy Spirit in fact replacing the system defined by Scripture as pleasing to the Holy Spirit why are you so willing to suggest its failure in Francis? If homosexual union and the ordination of women become pages 850 and 851 of the Catechism, why is that gradual change any different to the development of the Papacy itself as just described?
Hypocrisy always reveals error. Both can’t be true and this conflict strongly suggest that the abandonment by the Papacy of the fundamental organizational principle of enduring Consensus defined by Scripture was a mistake. By the way, Irenaeus’ wasn’t supporting the Papacy he was acknowledging that the Bishop of Rome as first among equals had a role especially when dealing with an un controversial topic. But what happened after Irenaeus? Constantinople was made equal to Rome in the hierarchy of Bishops by the Ecumenical Council of Chalcedon in 451 and nothing ever prior to 1054 ever suggested that the Bishop of Rome or Constantinople or any other Bishop could self decree anything whatsoever at any time on any topic and more importantly couldn’t be overruled by the enduring voices of the many, I.e. the other bishops of the world.
Would it be a good analogy to say Rome was basically a court magistrate who could determine whether or not there was probable cause for a court hearing, which would be the actual council itself?
That would be the council of Sardica, the prerogatives of which were evidently transferred to Constantinople by the time of the council of Ephesus, decision sealed at Chalcedon.
It is interesting because the memory of Apostle Peter is mentioned there, but Constantinople which is not a petrine see, sees nonetheless the prerogatives being transferred. The likely explanation, as explained by Roman Catholic historian Hefele is that the mention of St Peter is added way later.
9/28/23
What’s name of the opening chant at the beginning?
The Eastern Church split off from Rome and the Catholic Church on at least six occasions before 1054:
The Arian schisms (343-98);
The controversy over St. John Chrysostom (404-415);
The Acacian schism (484-519);
Concerning Monothelitism (640-681);
Concerning Iconoclasm (726-87 and 815-43).
This adds up to 231 out of 500 years in schism (46% of the time)! In every case, Rome was on the right side of the debate.
All those errors were refuted by other bishops of the east, and Rome was the one who was anathematized for monothelite position by future council in the east. Also, it was the Frankish west who became iconoclast after the seventh council. This is laughable history straight out of the “Dimond Brothers” heretical ecclesiology, soteriology, triadology
Ironic how Rome is now practicing or justifying each and every single one of those heresies via modernism and ecumenism.
Where was the pope to create unity in those days?
@@that_sun_guy6527
Heretics and schismatics have existed since Judas, the first schismatic. The pope cannot control evil doers, those whom remained in communion with the Pope constituted the true Church
@@that_sun_guy6527 They were present. Just like in the first century when Pope St. Victor excommunicated the churches of Asia Minor for having a different date for Easter to bring unity on a common liturgical date. Just to reiterate: *This was in the first century*. Seems the EO opposition to the Papacy is a spectrum and can range from the Protestant "there was no papacy" to the indefensible "the pope had no special power, only honorifics". But as I previously stated, if it was merely honorifics, how did the Bishop of Rome exercise such power and why did they submit?
I find it adorable how they call themselves "Orthodox" and then refuse to follow Orthodoxy , such as the obvious reality of the Papacy and Papal Primacy .
😂 cope brutha, you read Erick ybarras book on the papacy he himself said that he doesn’t think this is obvious at all he thinks we have almost identically valid claims
KKK 43:20
Schismatic laymen talking about canons, now that's hilarious. Let's see what Pope Boniface says:
“The universal ordering of the Church at its birth took its origin from the office of Blessed Peter, *in which is found both its directing power and its supreme authority* . From him, as from a source, at the time when our religion was in the stage of growth, all churches received their common order. *This much is shown by the injunctions of the council of Nicaea, since it did not venture to make a decree in his regard, recognizing that nothing could be added to his dignity: in fact it knew that all had been assigned to him by the word of the Lord. So it is clear that THIS CHURCH is to all churches throughout the world as the head is to the members, and that whoever separates himself from it becomes an exile from the Christian religion, since he ceases to belong to its fellowship”* (Pope St. Boniface, Epistle 14)
Nothing about his papacy backs this up.
He was deposed as pope, replaced with new pope that was later declared an anti pope because he lost (if he won I guess boniface would have been the anti pope) and the emperor put boniface back in his see.
The emperor. I guess your supreme absolute authority that cannot be questioned could still be deposed, replaced and needed someone more powerful with more authority then himself to give him his chair back, eh?
Wonderful circular logic... listen to the Pope on the papacy!
@@Durnyful
Pope St Boniface is a Saint in the Eastern Heterodox sect. These schismatics should listen to their own saint.
@@SAHOVNICU One among many
Ok, so how does this relate to the papacy today with Pope Francis, or by being in communion with an empty Chair (as the Sedes would have it)?