The Anglican Ordinariate is probably the better model for those outside of the jurisdiction of Rome, especially protestants. Lets not forget the Eastern Catholics that have reunited over the history of the Church and the Maronites that have never left Papal Primacy. There are already plenty of options that would keep both sides happy in current practice and key practices from the first millennium. Lets be frank, even in the Orthodox church the lack of a final authority is an issue that only those who have lived as Orthodox have encountered. Kallistos Ware had some interesting ideas on the subject and I believe that the Greek Orthodox Patriarch may be open to unity sooner than we think.
None of the issues in Orthodoxy are unique to not having a universal head. The issues currently abound in Orthodoxy are the same types of issues that have come and gone for two millenium of Church History.
@@MrPeach1 in its essence it should be understood by Catholics that we strive for unity among Christians, and it can't be just the deafening call "Submit to Rome!".
@@christophlindinger2267 I dont know. When I look at the make up of authorites in the world like marriages and the priest bishop relationships. I think the world could do better to cultivate a attitude of submission. I see too many places in society now where the default is. I am not gonna do what you say because I am my own boss. I is causing societal melt down.
As a Protestant with an interest in this topic, I don’t want to oversimplify the issue as a whole by saying this, but the actual answer, to me, does seem simple, straightforward, and obvious, and people just seem to dance around it pretending there can be some other way: the only way the East and West would actually unite would be for the Orthodox to just accept the primacy of the Pope and everything that goes with that. While that’s a huge ask, between that and the RCC going back on key things like Papal primacy and infallibility, that’s far more likely to happen, so much so that it’s the only “real” option. There really isn’t any compromise that could be reached that either church would consider acceptable. As for bringing Protestants back into the fold, I truly do think that’s impossible, as we are generally fundamentally opposed to too many things that are integral to the other traditions. In truth, I don’t see a reunification ever happening. I think it will always be an “agree to disagree, but at least agree on Christ” thing, and I think that, while definitely not ideal, that’s fine and has worked well enough thus far. What we can do more work on is treating each other like brothers in Christ. If we can unite in that way under that banner, that’s all that actually matters.
I don't think that's _all_ that actually matters; but, it's a _huge chunk_ of what actually matters, so I'm giving this a Thumb's Up. 🙂 I agree that we shouldn't dance around it: Nobody can claim to have achieved significant Christian unity until some huge portion of the various communions unite such that, in every country, at least 2/3rds of the Christians _in_ that country belong to the same communion. But the Catholics represent, slimly, the majority of all the Christians; and Christians who reject Lutheran/Calvinist soteriology and who have hierarchical/sacerdotal ecclesiology --- that'd be the Catholics plus the various Orthodox churches -- represent a pretty _broad_ majority of all the Christians, but not quite 2/3rds. (At least, I don't think so. My quick search for figures leaves me suspicious about whether I have the proportions exactly right.) Anyhow, it seems to me that if the Catholics were able to get, say, half of the Orthodox folks and a third of the Protestant folks to be in communion with Apostolic Successors who're in communion with the Petrine Successor, the resulting communion would basically be describable as United Christianity, and the other bits would _pretty clearly_ be minority groups. I also don't think it's _possible_ for such a large unification to happen _without_ the Catholics. Only the Catholic church has a principle-of-unity (that is, a way of articulating who's-in/who's-out, and of teaching what's-in/what's-out) that doesn't rely on whether Individual Believer X, or Individual Bishop Y, is able to consent to Doctrine Z. So, any unity _without_ the Catholic Church is going to, by necessity, require that _all_ the adherents "agree on everything," without having a definitive place they can go to know what "everything" is, and without having anything but their own judgment about whether their individual view does/doesn't constitute sufficient "agreement." (Yeah...GOOD LUCK with that!) So, it's gonna be all about unifying with Catholics, and that's tricky because the Catholic epistemology becomes _useless_ if they ever reverse a defined dogma, even once. So it requires reunification to _all_ the currently-defined Catholic dogmas. They can be nuanced or explained in kindlier-sounding terms, perhaps: But _not even one_ of them can be contradicted, or the whole show is blown-up. So: Tricky. 😑 But, it'd be cool if we could do it. It would have significant _evangelistic_ punch, y'know? I say that, because I'm trusting Jesus' assertion in John 17 that when we are "one, as [the Father] and [Jesus] are one," then the world will "see, and recognize" that Jesus came from the Father! Obviously Jesus doesn't disagree with His Father about whether infant baptism is okay, or whether baptism is regenerative, or whether Jesus is Really Present in the Eucharist, or whether abortion should be legalized, or any of the other thousand things Christians have been disputing about for the last several centuries. According to Jesus, _when_ we all agree about all that, _then_ the world will see and recognize that Jesus came from the Father. Now, I imagine that one result would be an immediate doubling in the persecution of Christians, just like before. But, I expect that would be followed by a century of church growth filling the world (also just like before). I imagine society-at-large would return to finding atheism a broadly risible proposition, and that other non-Trinitarians (excluding perhaps our Jewish "older brethren," who I'm guessing will remain a sort of ongoing testimony to the Old Covenant until shortly before the end) being increasingly difficult to locate. We might see North Africa return to the Christian sphere, and Asia springing wide-open, and both Europe and the Anglosphere turning back from apostasy. Or, maybe I'm overstating the case. Either way, it'd be nice to not evangelize "with one hand tied behind our backs" for a change!
@@cw-on-yt I think 2/3rds is reasonable. That's roughly how I've envisioned the makeup (more than half, for sure). That's really the crux of my logic for why the rest of us (or as you said, significant portions of us) would need to just submit to Rome: going back on any dogmas, given what they say about the authority they claim to have, would undermine, and, I think, irreparably damage their credibility. And, as you've alluded to, the Catholics have the objectively more effective ecclesiology of the 3 branches, in my opinion, so us uniting to them makes the most sense if the goal is for the rest of us to more easily assimilate into the superior organization (to be clear, speaking more about things like its global network - saying nothing of its actual theology, lol). I'd agree that I don't think a large scale unification is realistically possible without the Catholics. But the only other hypothetical large scale unification would have to be the merging of the Protestants with the Orthodox, which, as crazy as it sounds, to me seems more likely than a Protestant unification with Catholicism just based on both my own experience with, and perception of, Orthodoxy, as well as what I see being the trend online right now (though I'm aware this doesn't necessarily represent what's going on in the real world). Their doctrines, overall, seem to be less "offensive" to the Protestant mindset. But given the fragmented nature of Protestantism and the suboptimal autocephalus structure of the Orthodox that they hold is immutable apostolic tradition, it just wouldn't actually work. It'd be like herding cats. It would definitely be cool if it were possible, though. A truly unified, global, visible body would be incredible. Given how much Christian influence has waned in the parts of the world where it really matters (in terms of in countries with power), I'd agree that the result would be significantly increased persecution due to the powers that be feeling threatened, which in turn would lead to us thriving as in the days of the apostles, and as such, would then lead to an eventual turning of the tide and a global wave of Christianity flooding the globe. I don't think you're overstating the case. It follows that those things would happen in this scenario. It definitely would be nice. One can dream (and pray).
After the time of the anti Christ there will be a reinification of the church. All the people of God will be one people and one church. The church cannot afford to be divided before Satan is unleashed before the end of time because it will such be a difficult time
Grew up Protestant, now Catholic. Loved this video! One of my primary motivations in becoming Catholic was Christian unity. Austin's ability to see this issue with fresh eyes reminds us of the big picture. Many of our churches observe the annual week of prayer for Christian unity, and we should never cease.
I'm not an expert in this area by any means, but to me it makes sense that the Petrine ministry of primacy is de iure divino and its location in the bishop of Rome is de iure humano.
@@johnalexis8284 John, Every Catholic is "Born Again" of water and Spirit at Baptism. However, being "born again" is a phrase so misused by many protestant churches and sects. Also, regarding the practice of Children Baptism performed since Apostolic times by the Roman, Orthodox and Oriental Catholic Church. The proper understanding is that each must be baptized in the Trinity, no matter the age, since each human being inherits the sin of Adam at birth. 1 Peter 3:21 21. And now you also are Saved, in a similar manner, By Baptism, not by the testimony of sordid flesh, but by the examination of a good conscience in God, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ. God bless.
@@kevinmauer3738 Kevin, The location at Rome is a providential act. Look at the difference. The Catholic Church founded by Jesus on Peter, despite being subject to persecution and deaths, remained secured growing everywhere by God's providence. In comparison, when the Emperor moved to Constantinople, The Orthodox Patriarch put his fate in the hands of the Roman Emperor. What happened to such Empire? It was conquered by the Turks and replaced by The Muslim Ottoman Empire. Today, the Eastern Patriarch lives in a confined space in Istanbul, without free access to its Cathedral, Hagia Sofia,. Whereas, the Pope lives free in the Vatican, a sovereign territory within Italy. Ruling 2 Billion Catholics around the world. Having 89 countries with respective Ambassadors accredited to The Holy See. In contrast, The Orthodox number around 200 million faithful. There are no ambassadors. God bless.
@@joecastillo8798 you mean like how all the mafioso's were baptized and born again through the RCC yet were still capable of doing some of the most monstrous and depraved, no-nut, feminine, half-a-fag literally kind of stuff? OP, you made the wrong choice. It's okay though, you can still return to Righteous Reformism and to return to the faith you once had. - Balkan Slav who grew up Orthodox but mixed in an also heavy RCC setting. I've met ONE person who was truly born again serving as a volunteer at one of my local EO churches and no one could stand her except me. She couldn't stop interjecting God into the useless political conversations going on in that damned social club...
I don’t mind ceding that the foundation that Jesus laid unfolded in a kind of “human and fleshy” way. It is the same reason why He wants us to receive him in his flesh in the Eucharist… His flesh being one with our flesh. It’s the same reason why I affirm baptismal regeneration… this liquid thing washing our flesh, which is not just flesh but soul and spirit. Regarding the different interpretations in the first millennium of the pope, Ben Bollinger does a good job of showing that the understanding was the same in the east and the west… he cites prominent eastern writers of the time who are still revered in the east today. Count me in for the journey to the most unity that we can possibly have, Austin!
As a Catholic with an interest in history I will agree that while the Papacy (Prime minister of the Kingdom on earth) is rooted in scripture, and clearly Peter was given a unique roll different than the rest of the apostles. When Jesus speaks to Peter in Mat 16:18-20 He was referring back to Isiah 22: 20-25. Peter becomes the "Prime Minister" of the church, and is to oversee the kingdom on earth while the king (Christ) is away. Again in John 21;15-17 Peter is given the Petrine ministry. Tensions with the bishop of Rome show up very early even with the Greek Popes. According to Irenaeus of Lyon in his work Against heresies he illuminates his remarks about the church of Rome: That if there are disputes in a local church they should have recourse to the Roman church, for there is contained the Tradition which is preserved by all the churches. Rome was the arbiter for settling contentious issues. Rome was the center where all converged if they wanted their doctrine accepted by the conscience of the church. From the beginning all had a high view of the Church of Rome and its bishop. As the Roman empire receded and the west collapsed the only structure of law and order, justice and mercy left was the church of Rome and the Pope. Pope St Leo the Great had a huge impact on increasing the authority an dignity of the office. Leo's Tome explaining the position of the Papacy in matters of Christology was accepted at the Council of Chalcedon in 451 with the resounding voice of Peter speaks through leo! One problem that arose quite early was the language problem, once the Latins in the west gained control of the Bishopric of Rome the language barrier became more evident, out of the five major sees four spoke Greek, and one Latin. Relying on poor educated translators sometime caused a difference in understanding between east and west. History played a roll in the development of the Papacy, and if God is guiding the church to do His will, then it is not a stretch to say Papal development is of the will of God. Vat I has to be looked at from the view of the events of the times. Anticlericalism was rampant, the Italian Revolution was on going, the Papal states fell and the Pope became a ruler without a country, and his authority was being questioned. Pius IX was somewhat authoritarian and saw modernism as the cause of all the social troubles of the day, and he wanted to make clear that while his temporal authority was gone, his spiritual and moral authority was absolute. It is clear that the Catholic church realizes the issues at hand that still prevent unity with the east, and has made gesture after gesture to show good will and a real desire for unity. How ever it comes about it will have to be agreed upon by both from the starting point of where things broke off. Part of the issue with the Orthodox is that we made decisions without them, and these decisions on doctrine while in reality are not all that different, they must involve the church as a whole, both east and west in order for trust and unity to come about. The last remaining issue is the Papacy.
@eucharistangel4662 All your diatribe shows is you need to read church history and the early church Father's. For all his efforts and accomplishment, Jesus called Simon, not Paul, and by changing his name to Peter (Rock) this is a significant event when Jesus changes a name, it was for a reason. The early church supports what I stated no matter how much you hate it. You can babble on and twist things to support a position that never existed in the first millennium. You refuted nothing.
@eucharistangel4662 an answer to your 'list': Scriptural evidence and the structure of the primitive Church make it absolutely undeniable that Christ chose Peter and that Peter was first among the twelve. Depending on the translation, Peter is mentioned 195 times. The closest is John (the beloved disciple) at just 29 times. The rest even less. Consider: Jesus entered Peter’s house. (Matthew 8:14) Jesus changed Simon's name to Peter. (John 1:42) Jesus gave Peter the keys to the gates of Heaven. (Matthew 16:19 & Isaiah 22:20-23) Jesus declared Peter be to the the rock. (Matthew 16:18 & Joshua 24:25-28) Jesus made Peter shepherd. (John 21:15-17) Jesus told Peter to strengthen his brothers (Luke 22:32) Jesus paid the Temple tax only for Himself and Peter. (Matthew 17:24-27) Jesus preached from Peter's boat. (Luke 5:3) Jesus told Peter to "Follow me" (John 21:19) Jesus called only Peter to walk on the water. (Matthew 14:29) Jesus predicted Peter's three-fold denial. (Matthew 26:34) Jesus predicted Peter's repentance and three-fold affirmation. (Luke 22:32) Jesus prophesied only Peter's manner of death. (John 21:18-19) Jesus taught Peter forgiveness 70 times 7 times. (Matthew 18:21-22) Jesus spoke only to Peter at Gethsemane. (Mark 14:37) Peter is always listed first of the Apostles. (Matthew 10:2, Luke 6:14, Acts 1:13) Peter was first to confess Jesus as Messiah. (Matthew 16:18) Peter alone spoke at the Transfiguration. (Matthew 17:4, Mark 9:5, Luke 9:33) Peter pointed out the withered fig tree. (Mark 11:21) Peter entered the tomb first - John deferring to him. (Luke 24:12, John 20:3-4)) Peter decided the manner of replacing Judas. (Acts 1:15-26) Peter spoke for the eleven at the Pentecost. (Acts 2:14-36) Peter was released from prison by the Angel. (Acts 12:6-11) Peter spoke for the eleven before the Council. (Acts 4:8-12) Peter held sin bound to Ananias and Sapphira. (Acts 5:1-10) Peter's shadow healed. (Acts 5:15) Peter declared the sin of Simony. (Acts 8:18-23) Peter revealed the salvation of Gentiles to the Church at Jerusalem. (Acts 11:1-18) The Angel told Cornelius to call for Peter. (Acts 10:3-8) The Holy Spirit fell upon the Gentiles as Peter preached to them. (Acts 10:44-45) At the empty tomb, the Angel said, "Go tell His disciples, and Peter." (Mark 16:7) Mary Magdalene ran to tell Peter and the beloved disciple. (John 20:2) The vision of all foods being clean was given only to Peter. (Acts 10:9-16) Peter's words silence the first council in Jerusalem. (Acts 15:7-12) Paul went to Peter to affirm that his Gospel was not in vain. (Galatians 1:18) Peter was given the revelation of the end of the world. (2 Peter 3:10-11) Peter taught that Paul’s words were easily twisted. (2 Peter 3:16) Peter taught that baptism now saves you (1 Peter 3:21) And many other references. One may deny that Peter was primary, but it takes an amazing ignorance or denial of scripture and history to do so.
With all due respect, please read what Catholic Biblical scholar, Dr Jules Gomes, writes of the Church Fathers on this topic, “44 fathers understood the rock to be Peter’s confession of faith, 16 interpreted the rock as Jesus, 8 interpreted the rock as all the apostles, and a few believed the rock to be the faithful. Only 17 fathers thought the rock was Peter.”
@@EdnaNord-py7rn this is a ridiculous sound bite. These are not examples where an early Christian states one thing and condemns the other. This is simply a survey of the various interpretations that were discussed. I could tell one person that I’ve been dating my best friend for 27 years. I could write a letter to someone else inviting them to my 20th wedding anniversary. Both interpretations are true and neither excludes the truth of The other. This is a gross misinterpretation of the data
@Motomack1042 The early church had 5 different views on the Rock interpretation of Matt 16:18 and the MINORITY view was Peter as the Rock! You are mistaken. Also the scholarship points to a monarchical episcopacy/papacy as a later development...The fractionation in Rome favored a collegial presbyterial system of governance and prevented for a long time, until the second half of the second century, the development of a monarchical episcopacy in the city. Victor (c. 189-99) was the first who, after faint-hearted attempts by Eleutherus (c. 175-89), Soter (c. 166-75), and Anicetus (c. 155-66), energetically stepped forward as monarchical bishop and (at times, only because he was incited from the outside) attempted to place the different groups in the city under his supervision or, where that was not possible, to draw a line by means of excommunication. Before the second half of the second century there was in Rome no monarchical episcopacy for the circles mutually bound in fellowship. Peter Lampe, From Paul to Valentinus: Christians at Rome in the First Two Centuries, trans. Michael Steinhauser (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2003) p. 397....Some Catholic apologists have even admitted this and in light of the bulk of scholarship nowadays some of the Catholic apologists have changed their strategy to place the papacy within Cardinal Newmans 19th century Doctrinal Development hypothesis (which admits A. The Catholic apologists are making admissions and concessions and B. It's highly suggestive they have no intention of following the evidence where it leads but rather doubling down on the papacy no matter what).
Catholic here. I appreciate you presenting the Magisterium’s ecumenical reflection which balances historical circumstances around the formation of the papacy with the Divine institution. I’ve personally thought that’s where the truth and ground for reconciliation lies; is so good to see that the Church has this mind, too. I’m bran new to your channel. We’ll take a look around.
A couple of concepts to keep in mind when contemplating this issue. 1. The Catholic Church adheres to the principal of subsidiarity.(decision-making authority is best placed (a) where responsibility for outcomes will occur; and (b) in the closest appropriate proximity to where the actions will be taken that will produce the outcomes. In other words, governing from bottom.up rather than from top down) 2. By looking at Jesus' teachings, the authority at issue is much different from contemporary society's view of authority. It's servant leadership. In Luke 22:31-32 Jesus tells Peter He prayed for him so that when Peter turns back after the "sifting" by Satan, that Peter must strengthen the other Apostles. 3. Jesus gives Peter the authority to bind and loose in Matthew 16:19, which essentially makes him(and by extension his successors) the final arbiter when there is disagreement between the Apostles(and by extension their successors) in matters of faith and morals which we see played out in more than one instance in the book of Acts. The proper lense through which to contemplate Papal authority is servant leadership, subsidiarity, and God's instrument for unity on matters of faith and morals.
Extreme fair treatment of the document, some traditionalists catholics should learn how to read documents from the Church like you do. Even if the document is not authoritative or binding for catholics, still it has great value in how we catholis should approach the papacy with other christian faiths in a manner that can be actually fruitful, without abandoning any doctrine or dogma of our faith.
Have you watched the videos about the First Five Hundred Years by The Catholic Brothers? They present a very human way that the universal Church developed, in the very particular situation of the Roman Empire. And I really do appreciate the good faith that you have always shown towards our differences as Christians.
Catholic here. Yes I think the idea of Jesus setting up dominoes to fall throughout history to institute His Divine Will in His church is the most viable understanding of history. I mean that's how God worked for the Jewish people in the old covenant, why should it be substantially different in the new covenant? I personally think that hindsight into history is exactly how we should seek to understand God's word - seeing what worked and what didn't. For me the Catholic church fits Jesus's prayer for the Church best
No I don’t think it is conceding too much ground. I had a feeling that if you read the document, your take would be the one that was perhaps one of the most objective and the most interesting. From what I have seen, both orthodox and even Catholic RUclipsrs and others, I’ve not been disappointed. In a way the document was written for people like you as well as dialogue theologians. I thought your take was very thoughtful and hopeful. and nice shout out to Matthew Levering. 👍
Good summary. It is hard for us Catholics to concede ground because many Protestants still hate or put down Catholics without much depth of knowledge. But Christ was both divine and human as is the Church and even Scripture. So the papacy clearly shows the same traits. But playing pope ourselves is hardly the solution. God bless, a convert from Pentecostalism to the Catholic Church ♥️🙏📿
The problem is, according to Catholix Dogmstic Teachings, such as Vatican 1, Dictatus Papae, etc., if they concede on anything dogmatic, it literally proves the entire Roman Catholic ecclesiology wrong. Which they will HAVE to do if they want to unionize with anyone unless the others submit to them.
@@dallasbrat81 You're funny, too. I'm thankful that my Protestant grandfather and great-grandfather both married Catholic women and converted. Perhaps my four Catholic daughters will do the same. Viva Cristo Rey!
@@lellachu1682 I'm sorry that the Catholic church is dying in USA with only 30% going to mass regularly. I applaud those Christians May they get the courage to work to get the rest back and to actually correct there poor beliefs that make them vote to support killing babies and supporting gay marriage. When I visit the Catholic Church it's mainly Gen X women but that was for a family funeral so I guess the men were at home
@@lellachu1682 I also pray that the Catholic soften there hard hearts and actually try to focus on unity with other Christians. Enough pandering. Christ is head of the Church, not mortal pope but i hope the Holy Spirit makes unity Happen
In my opinion, the pope / papacy represents the guarantee of unity on the fundamental / critical points of *Christian theology* . Remaining (all Christians) united on fundamental points means maintaining the *Christian identity* . Otherwise it will no longer be clear what it means to be Christian or not. The point is, we Catholics, Orthodox and Protestants, have not yet achieved this type of unity. We must go on with studies. Meanwhile, Our Lord look at us with Love. Actually, Our Lord look at everyone with Love. Especially He loves people who are building Peace, in human hearts and on all the earth.
As I see it, all you Protestants should come back to the fold. And if we end up disappointing you, then you could always just say F it and demand a refund in the form of another Reformation. Then perhaps we could try again in the year 2500
@@KFish-bw1om Nonsense, the Council of Trent anathematised Luther's erroneous interpretation of St Paul, we are not justified by faith alone, but instead by faith that works through love that produces good works.
@@lukewilliams448 Yeah here's the problem. The only way to reach your conclusion is to pretend that words don't mean what they actually mean. Trent 6 Canon 24 "If any one saith, that the justice received is not preserved and also increased before God through good works; but that the said works are merely the fruits and signs of Justification obtained, but not a cause of the increase thereof; let him be anathema." There is absolutely no rational way to deny that that statement anathematizes not only Paul, but the vast majority of the early church. See, no one has a "no works exist" doctrine. That's a lie told by Rome in response to the reformation. Their statement in Trent 6 makes it clear that they're anathematizing anyone who claims that works are the fruit of salvation through faith, not part of the cause of it. This anathematizes Paul, Clement, Augustine, and many others. It even anathematizes Thomas Aquinas. Go ahead, read their writings. See how many in church history dared to say that works are the fruit of salvation, and find themselves posthumously anathematized by "infallible" Rome.
Dear @@KFish-bw1om, please read again what you wrote of Canon 24: "If any one saith, that the *justice received*..." The "justice" which has already been received is the unearned justice that comes through faith. This is your "salvation through faith", in other words, the initial justification. Certainly not caused by works, since Catholics always baptized babies -- when they have received justification. But this initial justification, as you say, must be followed by fruits in order to maintain that initial justification. And the good works provide "sanctification." Read the rest of Canon 24: ...." is not preserved and also increased before God through good works; but that the said works are *merely* the fruits and signs of Justification obtained, but not a cause of the *increase* thereof; let him be anathema." Do any of the Church Fathers claim that good works are *merely* the fruit of the initial justification? Does Thomas Aquinas reduce the role of virtuous deeds to be *merely* a sign of the initial justification? No, indeed! Good works *do* flow from the initial justification of the soul, and they *are* a sign by which others can "see their fruits" and know who is holy and who is not (miracles, which are good works continued after death, are a needful indication of the life of a saint in Heaven before the Church can make a statement about God affirming that person to be a Saint worthy of imitation). But that is not *all* that they do. Jesus has a lot to say about Good Works and their necessity to increase our reward in Heaven. Please read the parable of the Talents.
This is an amazing video along with a very fair and balanced reading of the document. Unity is going to be difficult, but we are absolutely moving in the right direction.
@Gospel Simplicity. You need to watch this video by @The Jewish Catholic because he just talked about this on his channel why he converted from Judaism to Catholicism instead of becoming Orthodox
Ratzinger plays a similar note as Danielou in regards to the Divine progression of history. The two questions while distinct, this is to say the human and divine element of papal primacy, aren't really disconnected. The entire Church after all is an echo of the hypostatic union. Honestly, to posit the divine institution of apostolic succession is in some way to concede to papal primacy as divinely instituted to some degree or another...I guess at that point the question is what exactly does "primacy" entail.
8:02 As a Catholic, this seems like a reasonable way of talking about it. I've heard a lot of people talk about the Church in history being like a seed that grows and develops. It's the same "thing" now as it was 2000 years ago, like a tree is the same "thing" as a seed in the most fundamental way.
I have spent the last few month, everyday, devoting time to understanding the papacy. I have been humbled by how much i DID NOT know. As an EO, i do think some form of primacy is good. We have a first among equals, but we are fractured. While most of Orthodoxy is in communion, there isnt unity. In doctrime, yes, but the charitable brotherly love is lacking. It seems this is happening in RC as well with the infighting about Tradition and the LM. Regardless, i fell in live with Christ in the Divine Liturgy and now the pain of the schism is felt in my heart and i will pray.
Notice that the infighting in the loud, but small, group of "rad-trads" is coming to an end. Those who cannot see the Holy Spirit is still at work in the Church through the Second Vatican Council are being exposed for their un-Traditional stance that Pope Francis is not the pope. They will either repent, or be excommunicated from the Church. I hope we are all Traditional. The Holy Scriptures and Tradition and the Magisterium (including the Pope) complement one another, and are the means by which the Holy Spirit guides the Church. The Pope is not against the Latin Mass; he has recently reaffirmed the faithful groups that have both continued celebrating the 1962 Latin Mass and maintained their connections with the papacy -- the FSSP and ICKSP. And the other things that are held over the faithful as fear-inducing whipping posts to draw innocents into the ranks of the "rad-trads" or "Traditionalists" (as you wisely call them) are the three things they fault Vatican ii for -- freedom of religion, Different Orthodox churches will have different answers about the Mysteries/ Sacraments. The Church does not allow divorced and remarried to receive communion, unless a tribunal has found that the precious marriage(s) were invalid from the start. The Catholic Church does not allow Second Baptisms -- if a baptism has been received, but it is not known if the proper words were spoken, a conditional baptism is allowed. In other words, the Church has worked all these things out, that we hear are questions in and among Orthodox churches.
Thanks for the video. As a Catholic I agree with your analysis. The papacy is both of divine origin and human development. It was necessary for the Papacy to be initiated by Christ himself (The beginning and the end). God is the creator and the source of everything, and we are not. Even how we worship God is of divine origin: “Do this in memory of me” (Luke 22:19), and Leviticus 9:24, “Fire came out from the presence of the LORD and consumed the burnt offering and the fat portions on the altar. And when all the people saw it, they shouted for joy and fell facedown.” It didn’t end well for 2 of Aaron’s sons when they tried to start their own fire for the sacrifice. God Launched worship for Israel and Christ launched worship for Christians. Even though the following verse is rarely used in this context, I think it does help in understanding God’s ways: John 15:16, “You did not choose Me, but I chose you, and appointed you that you would go and bear fruit, and that your fruit would remain, so that whatever you ask of the Father in My name He may give to you.” I think most people are familiar with the Biblical foundation of the Papacy even though we disagree on it. No need to cover that.
I have no doubt that the Church is a Divine Institution, with a Divine plan. From the Pope, Bishops, Priest, to the Magesterium. The Pope, along with the infallible Magesterium, played a vital role within the world at large, our communities, and intimately in our families. We are always striving for unity in the Church, which I'm not sure if it's possible. For the last thousand years, the Church has tried to reunite with the Orthodox. Sadly that hasn't happened yet. Five hundred years later, the Reformation came along with a whole new set of problems. Present day, we have the confusion of the SSPX. We also have the threat of the radical traditionalist seperating themselves from the Church, along with the German Bishop's. Everyone has their views and ideas on how things should be. Just before Jesus went to the Cross, He prayed for unity in His Church! What we need to get better at is trusting in Him! He knows what is best for us! We need to trust in Him and in the Church that He established for us! We need humility and to set our Pride aside and trust in Him! God bless! 🙏
Regarding turning back the clock, I greatly appreciate the understanding that it doesn't always work. People don't always think about what must be addressed when going back to the way things used to be. 1. If one goes back to exactly the way things used to be, then whatever happened later (the schism, in this case) could easily happen again, if one allows the same underlying conditions to exist. 2. Thus, one must address the underlying causes for division by understanding both sides (which I believe they are trying to do), and figure out how to address that so it's not exactly the way it used to be, but BETTER. 3. Not everyone tends to be convinced. Many of the Eastern Catholic Churches arose from reunification of Orthodox Churches into the Catholic Church. But the Orthodox Churches of those nations remain, because people don't all agree. 4. People hold onto division far too readily. Although there are people of good faith who would embrace a united Church, as we see in too much of culture and politics, there are people who will point out anything they could even remotely spin as being bad. If they have deemed the Pope to be evil or misguided, or perhaps certain Catholic stances made clear in the past, then when a Pope says or does something or the Church issues statements on some matter, there are those people who will almost reflexively reject and perhaps even attack the ideas, actions, or character of those involved. If one doubts some of what I am saying, also consider how this goes with Protestants and Catholics. Reconciliation is difficult, which is why it takes so long each time it is attempted, and it's why it tends to only bring unity among some people, and not all. It's a good thing, but it's difficult.
There has never ever been complete unity, there has always been people or groups that have rejected God and his church in part or in whole. It will always been this way. Even after the second coming, I think before we get into talks of any kind we need to realize that. It reminds me of CS Lewis’s vision of hell and how the lady could go to heaven but chooses not to because of her son. She doesn’t understand she is there, but non the less is. That is the way I view this question. It is good that the church is trying to bring everyone in though, the fullness of Christ is for everyone.
Vatican I, Vatican II, and Synodality. Revd Anthony Currer offered this wonderful reflection during the official presentation of the document at the Angelicum: "Vatican II put Vatican I into a new context [namely] the Collegiality of Bishops.... [Now], Synodality [offers] another recontextualization... which is to put both [Vatican I and Vatican II] into the context of the Synodality (or Conciliarity) of the Whole People of God. [This is the] new hermeneutical frame within which to see Vatican I. So the exercise of Synodality decentralizes our church by [a:] recognizing the indispensable part that is played by the whole church in discerning the meaning of the Gospel for our times; and [b:] [attending] properly to the Baptized, allowing their faith to be expressed in the local churches and the Bishops conferences." *** In other news, this week Pope Francis highlights JDDJ (25 years) in speaking with a delegation from the Lutheran World Federation at the Vatican. The massive ecumenical gesture of Vatican II is beginning to bear real fruit.
1. Vatican 1, like Vatican 2, was a disaster for the church . 2. Synodality is a joke. There’s no decentalisation: Francis rules as a tyrant and bishops are too craven to depose him. He meddles where he has no authority-presuming to depose Strickland, and to abolish the Tridentine Mass
One thing often missing from these conversations is Israel's monarchy simply because I think most people miss the association. God did not want a king in Israel, rather Israel wanted a king. God had given them laws and priests so that there was order but no man was set as ruler. Of course once Israel was given a king, a majority of them became corupted by power and fell into thier sinful lusts. Even the better ones. What we see from this is that no man, no matter thier heart for God, is capable of ordaining the laws of God onto the rest of man. The papacy is in a way a christian theocracy that many question if God has ordained. However Israel's monarchy would make it seem to me that God would not ordain a theocracy as the first one ordained was to show why man cannot be trusted with such power.
Your Israel metaphor is useful but from a different direction, in my opinion. It is the Catholic Church (and really all of the Apostolic churches, unfortunately divided as they are at this moment) that, like Judea, have the Temple, have the priesthood, and have the sacrifice. It is protestantism that does not have any of those, which makes it the nothern tribe's counterpoint to the Catholic Church's Judea. The priests of the Temple may have at times been pretty terrible people but they did have real God-ordained authority, and one of them would be designated the High Priests the others deferred to, as with the Pope and the other Bishops. Since Jesus came not to overturn the law but to fulfill it, He did that in part by establishing a new priesthood with a new hierarchy for a new temple. It is in this renewal of the priesthood around a bloodless sacrifice that the principle of unity would be established and fulfilled. The trouble now is that Peter's denial of Jesus is being reprised in the unfortunate person of Pope Francis, and frankly, nearly the entirety of the Catholic episcopacy. They are all running away from the suffering of, not Jesus, but His bride the Church. This will be resolved though, hopefully soon but all in God's good time. Until then, its hard to imagine these men as worthy successors of the Apostles, and as men possessing God-given authority. But they do. It's taking more faith right now to see it. Peace.
Whether we can or can't, we should be nonetheless striving for it. If Christ catches us persisting in division when He returns, it won't be a good look.
Why should we be striving for partnership with darkness? The Reformist's already won. Besides, what will Christ catch us with if WE KEEP PUSHING IT BACK. CHRISTIAN NATIONALISM? Yeah, that sure sounds like days that will be WORSE than the days of Noah... Get behind us, Satan.
As for us, through the grace of the Holy Spirit, our sole goal is to build ourselves on the foundation of St. Peter, he who directed the six holy councils. These councils were gathered by command of the Bishop of Rome, the city of the world. Whoever sits on that city's throne is authorized by Christ to have compassion on the people of the church, by summoning the ecumenical council, and to strengthen them, even as we have demonstrated in other places. We ask Christ to confirm us in this forever, that we might inherit through it his kingdom, in that we have joined with it the doing of his commandments. To him be praise, along with the Father and the Holy Spirit, forever and forever." Abu Qurrah
I think the idea of UNITY is not really a primary concern for the Catholic Church (reseved to individual protestants) BUT it is very, very important for the Church to preserve and teach the doctrine of Faith from the deposit of faith, which is the DIVINE Revelaiton of God.
The yes/and approach to revelation and history sounds very sacramental, which is right in line with a Catholic worldview. One who defends the idea that the Will of God is revealed in history might make a similar argument from nature- that humanity’s tendency to form hierarchical societies and families is inherited from God, and reflects His plan for His Church. This also ties in with the argument that the presence of Divinely-appointed leaders in the Old Testament finds its fulfillment in the office of the Papacy. It’s a question that can be raised from Scripture itself, and it’s one that’s worth chewing on, especially for those who see “Church history” as only going back 2,000 years. In wrestling with and debating the question of unity, it seems it would be helpful to bring the principle of subsidiary into the mix. The fact that the Church teaches both this and the primacy of the Pope is an acknowledgement of the need to use different tools in addressing diverse local needs and cultures while maintaining a visible doctrinal and Sacramental unity, which she contends is not just good, but necessary to maximize her witness to the world per her understanding of John 17. The way these tools function and to what extent they should be used could be an interesting way to frame the discussion. Some of this may be in the document, but I’ll admit to having not read it 😅. You make me want to, though. Thanks for this video!
I really appreciated your analysis, Austin! Trying to de-mythologize the “First Millennium” as this idilic time when no serious disagreements were held on was a highlight! Despite the usual argument that two concurrent ecclesial models were developing in parallel in the East and the West (I really don’t like the argument, although I understand it, if only there is room for some nuance that is “muscular” enough), still the question stands: how were divergences in the Church settled at the universal level? It’s the unavoidable issue. In matters of ecclesiology, if we go down to Catholic-Eastern Orthodox deep dialogues (and one could add Oriental Orthodoxy, the Church of the East and even Anglicans, at least to a extent) in honesty and good faith, we must avoid to represent Catholic position presupposing the papacy means a “Rambo bishop”, an autocratic ecclesiastical tyrant, transvested into a sort of Christian oracle that positively affirms infallible doctrines out of the wind, depending on his humor, benevolence or audacity. That is equivalent to squeezing Philosophical Modernity into ecclesiology: curiously enough, the First Vatican Council’s leitmotif was to specifically deal with this particular epitomization of Modernity; therefore, to fall into that pernicious game is to actually vindicate Modernity over the perennial Church and to make it trump her authority, spiritual power and ‘modus vivendi’. To all extents, even MUCH prior to Vatican I (we are talking about more than 800 years, if the historical demarcation of rupture points to 1054), the large majority of churches of Greek-Byzantine influence were objectively in state of reciprocal schism with the Catholic Church in communion with Rome, so nothing in the matters of schism could indeed be attributable - at least in some sort of honest and not on “post hoc” argumentation - to First Vatican Council’s dogmatic decrees ‘per se’. And if we are talking about the prior consolidated schisms of 431 (Assyrian Church of the East) and 451 (Oriental Orthodoxy), then we must consider more than 1400 years separating the events without having First Vatican Council’s dogmatic decrees as any sort of efficient, formal and final causation. On the exact reverse, it’s absolutely true to affirm that, if all schisms in history don’t relate to refusing papal authority directly, but rather to other doctrinal and/or disciplinary matters vindicated, ALL schismatic processes, or doctrinal struggles threatening huge divisions, were actually solved by some unquestionable monstrance of papal authority nevertheless, to one degree or another: one could mention Ephesus/431 (St Cyril of Alexandria constituted by Pope St Celestine a Roman legate in the Ecumenical Council, using every inch of Roman authority against fellow Patriarch Nestorius of Constantinople, with Philip the Legate giving his famous Petrine affirmation of the Roman prerrogatives); Chalcedon/451 (Pope St Leo’s nullification of the so-called Robber Council, the Tome in all its doctrinal assertion of authority with the specific Chalcedonian mode of reception of it), the Acacian Schism’s solution (and the Hormisdas Libel or “Formula” with the clear affirmation, under the oak of the Emperor and solemn adhesion of the important majority of Eastern bishops of the world, on how to recognize the visible Catholic Church’s governance and also rule of orthodox faith in a disruptive ecclesiastical scenario), 3rd Constantinople/680-681 (and the Monothelite attempting of reuniting the Empire with the Pre-Chalcedonians, with the huge acclamations of Pope St Agatho concerning the Petrine authority tied to his See and the divine protection perpetually tied to the Roman See, as a way to gather both orthodoxy and visible governance) and 2nd Nicea/787 (and the Imperial pressure for Iconoclasm, with the heroic intervention and affirmations of Pope Hadrian concerning his own See and the acclamation received at the Council), for example. It’s inevitable that we will see a definite radiography of history, at least if we have eyes to see and a softened heart. With that in mind, if one tries to start the dialogue from a genuine reflection and honest vantage point of trying to understand what the Church’ constitutive elements are, it’s obviously easier to understand Catholic ecclesiology in light of the ministry of universal unity and, by force of consequence, First Vatican’s concepts through its own lenses and functionality. Just THEN the next step should be taken, as the document discussed suggests in compiling non-Catholics’ proposals, since I’m confidently sure most people never actually read anything of the Session 4 of Vatican I. With that being said, and just to avoid caricatures, the very ecclesiological concepts must be explained first in and of themselves. I think it’s more urgent to do that than seeking to re-phrase explanations or to reword the very concepts, which must only be a SUBSEQUENT step conditioned to the good will we pack in journeying through the previous one. Because I sense it’s not only that people cannot stop to misinterpret Catholics somehow, as they also maybe NEED to misrepresent what the ecclesiological promises of Christ to Peter in Catholic dogmatics are, in light of the Biblical, Patristic and historical data (for any other groups, frankly, it’s absolutely ethereal to decipher what the promises mean instead, if using that set of data, apart from a sort of fabricated clarity in just “knowing” the Catholic one needs to be fought against without any possible solution - apart from obstinacy in rejecting the Catholic one). Well, knowing that this description comes from the Catholic angle, sometimes it is off-putting that non-Catholics, even the highly educated ones, are always almost trying to make the Petrine promises of Our Lord Christ Jesus referential to the person of Peter, not to the office/ Church with and through Peter, as the subject of the promise itself, therefore to find pokes in some historical papal figures becomes their way to dismiss a theory without REALLY dealing with the vast historical material in light of the Bible, the Patristic patrimony, the clear episodes of history or, above all else, documents of Ecumenical Councils, at least with even-handedness and without the urge to reject it by the mere fact that one started rejecting it already. The theology here relates to the difference between the gifts of the Holy Spirit and the charisms of the Holy Spirit: the previous are permanent, given at Baptism, and they work for the person’s own sanctification; the latter are special - sometimes extraordinary -, given for the good of the community, for the service of others and for the assistance of the Church to lead its mission. In a brief sentence, the gifts of the Spirit are personal; the *charisms are ecclesial.* Many non-Catholics - even scholars, somewhat contaminated with the “spirit of Philosophical Modernity”, either they see/ admit it or not - try hard to make a case that a heretic pope would “destroy” Catholicism; if that made sense for Catholics, then the long yet famous theological divergences between Cardinal Cajetan (a Dominican) and St Robert Bellarmine (a Jesuit) in the 1500-1600s over the issue of a heretical pope would make no sense: they would be talking over an absurdity. Knowing it, then the most equipped minds could - not necessarily they’d rather - further discuss the Church’s complexities relating to having problematic popes and bishops in the first place. Our primary role is to understand God’s promises and order our trust to God in love, not to defy it, so as to make our faith be (in)formed by love [cont].
With that being said, I’ll try to share some concepts used: *1) immediate jurisdiction:* it means that the primacy of Peter in the Apostolic collegiate didn’t signify the Apostles were recognized as a group and then the group subsequently decided - i.e., collegially - to recognize Peter’s leadership due to mere practicalities, but that the primacy was God-given, that means conferred directly by Christ, without mediation. It means the Bishop of Rome was not recognized historically as such to function as the leader of the universal church by the churches’ self-headed decision, let alone by the Empire, but by Our Lord Jesus Christ Himself (“imediatum” in Latin means ‘without mediation’ or, in a more concrete sense, “direct by God”). That signifies that the Holy See, when issuing to exercise its leadership, has not received its due authority by the consensus of other churches through a plebiscite or a synod, nor is subject to this “ex post hoc” consensus in the strictest sense of the term, since its role is so by divine institution and not by a democratic principle. Therefore, and just to exemplify, when the Bishop of Rome happens to act on the universal level (under the specifc circumstances justifiable), his decision is not subject to a synodical “referendum” to be applicable; Petrine authority derives from Christ himself (although, because of the sacramental nature of the Church - that means the Church “as a sacrament” -, mediatory participation is in general preferable). *2) universal jurisdiction:* it doesn’t mean that Peter was recognized as a solipsistic leader in the apostolic collegiate; nor it meant - patently - the Successor of Peter is a bishop whose diocesan territory meant “the globe”. He is the Bishop of the diocese of Rome, where Peter’s succession was defined by death, but he is the ONLY one who could speak, as the unitive factor of the Church, on behalf of all the “oikumene”, just like Peter is the only of the Apostles who can speak by himself or - under specific circumstances - on behalf of all the Apostolic collegiate, as seen throughout both the biblical ecclesiological testimony and ecclesiastical history (despite denials of some). To Peter alone Christ Jesus gave the keys of the kingdom ‘stricto sensu’ - and one can only say that every apostle received the keys ‘lato sensu’ or by means of participation / communion with Peter - and we know that meant a king conferring power to a representative (“vicarium” in Latin), as in the Hebrew tradition one would understand how governance functions in any Davidic kingdom (Isaiah 22, 21-22), although the powers of binding and losing (the so called apostolic powers) were given further down to all of his brother Apostles collectively. Therefore, this singularity and the subsequent collegiality predicates that Peter himself was commissioned with a specific OFFICE, so that the unique role in pastoring the flock of Christ (John 21, 15-17) signifies a Petrine commission to the feeding of the (universal) church vis-a-vis the other apostles’ successors in the episcopate (not in relation to presbyters or deacons, but in a bishop-to-bishop relation), from particularity to universality and vice-versa. As St John Chrysostom says, _“And if any should say, “How then did James receive the chair at Jerusalem?” I would make this reply, that He appointed Peter teacher, not of this chair, but OF THE WORLD”_ (Homily 88 on the Gospel of John). There resides the reason of the blessing called “Urbe et Orbi” that the Popes give to us from Saint Peter Square in the Vatican City, the place of the martyrdom of Peter. This is a blessing to the city (= “urbe”) of Rome, as the Pope is “de iure” and in fact the Bishop of Rome; and also a blessing to the world or the universal Christianity (= “orbi”), as the Pope is “de iure” and in fact the single Sucessor of Peter - in this specific sense - and the true and one Pastor of the universal Church. *3) supremacy:* it means a specific kind of episcopal primacy that is defined through a categorial difference, not really a difference of quantity of power, residing on the very kind of primatial role exercised by the Successor of Peter that makes it different from the rankings of bishops at the mere organizational level of an archdiocese (archbishop), a metropolitanate (metropolitan) and a patriarchate (patriarch). Therefore, the primacies recognized by ecclesiastical matters (like archepiscopal, metropolitan or patriarchal) inside ecclesiastical canonical regulations are not applicable ‘mutatis mutandis’ to the primacy of the Successor of Peter, since the distinction is not on “quantity” of “episcopal primacy” but it is rather categorial, manifested in the power of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Some may conflate ecclesiology with ecclesiastical canon law, which should be a basic error from a Catholic point of view (entirely related to the inflation of power of the Byzantine Empire and the ecclesiastical capture of the power - quasi-episcopal, by the way - by the Emperor through the Imperial See of Constantinople). It doesn’t work that way. The word “supremacy” (‘supremum’) used by the Fathers of the Vatican Council in Latin does not predicate, as obvious, a tyrant universal leader; on the contrary, it’s referential to a leadership whose primatial role has no further point above, if checked among other kinds of ecclesiastical primacies. “Suprema” in Latin or “ανώτατος” (‘anótatos’) in Greek is a word seen during important occasions in the church of the first millennium to describe the position of Rome, even by the Byzantines (and it had zero relation to Byzantine flattery). So the word “suprema” means, strictly speaking, the superior point of nothing coming above, not autocracy, tyranny or whatever caricature can be made of it. In the USA there is the “Supreme Court” as the highest judicial authority and the guardian of the Constitution, but no one should think of the word “supreme” in any caricatural meaning to argue it should change the name to “Primate Court that is First Among Equals” (sorry about the quip). For example, the “gramatical susceptibilities” of the anti-Catholics who get furious on the word “supreme” (rectius: on what they think it means) can be strangely selective: the Greek Orthodox Patriarch of Alexandria (not the Coptic Patriarch) does not resonate with the very argument: the burlesque title _”His Most Divine Beatitude the Pope and Patriarch of the Great City of Alexandria, Libya, Pentapolis, Ethiopia, all the land of Egypt, and all Africa, Father of Fathers, Shepherd of Shepherds, Prelate of Prelates, thirteenth of the Apostles and Judge of the Œcumene"_ is ridiculously more pompous and pretentious then any of the official titles of the Bishop of Rome. I like to post this just to help people who are discerning these things, so that they are not wronged by gross satires. Thanks for work you do to make people better understanding each other, Austin! I really appreciated the balanced view in the video. God bless!
I Corinthians 12:18, and 28 both state that it is God who places individuals in the Church, including the positions of authority. What is God's purpose for the placement of the Bishop of Rome? What does God want from the Bishop of Rome in the Church? Trying to see it from God's purpose instead of from a historical "what did people way back when think" may help clear up the issue.
I’m Orthodox but the Papacy doesn’t bother me. I hope for unity. The NT is literally the OT religion taken to the Gentiles with Christ on the altar instead of a lamb. There was Moses for the Israelites then there was Peter for the Gentiles. Korah said “we don’t need your authority…” that didn’t end well. 🤷♀️ The whole Israelite kingdom splintered just like the church has. Jesus came for the Pharisee and the Samaritan. I try to remember that.
@@James-fk2ki It already came shortly after Jesus ascended. Acts 2:25-28 and Galatians 4:25-26. The city of Vatican is not a fulfillment of any prophecy whatsoever.
I like the idea of "unity" but mutual respect and dialogue would be a more realistic goal. One has to be careful not to spend too much time on unrealistic goals such as "unity" because it would be more efficient to spend that time on something else.
I once heard an Orthodox youtuber say: "The primacy of Rome is good when the Pope is good. It is bad when the Pope is bad." Not the most complex analysis in the world, but I appreciated it. It's easy to argue for the Papacy when John Paul II is leading a crowd in communist occupied Poland saying, "We want God." It is far harder to argue for the Papacy when Pope Francis is signing a document saying God willed a plurality of religions.
actsapologist1991 Mr. "Act..." The fact is, because of: John 14:16-18 16. I shall ask the Father, and he will give you another Paraclete to be with you For Ever, 17. the Spirit of truth whom the world can never accept since it neither sees nor knows him; but you know him, because he is with you, he is in you. 18. I shall not leave you orphans; I shall come to you. The evidence is the presence of a Father, a "Pope" since St. Peter, guiding the Church through the Spirit of Truth, guaranteed by Jesus Christ our founder and builder. May God bless your discernment.
@@roberthightower9889 Robert, If you believe our Lord, then you shouldn't be acting like that. Our Lord tells you, Robert, a truth you must accept about His one Church: • Luke 10:16 16. 'Anyone who listens to you listens to Me; anyone who rejects you rejects Me, and those who reject Me reject the one who sent Me.' Do you see any hint of not listening to His Vicar, the Pope? Our Lord just told you, if you want to know His Will, you must listen to His Vicar the successor of Peter, The Pope. God bless.
Which is exactly why it is important to go beyond 'our favorite candidate' mindset regarding the papacy, and towards a deep understanding of Christ's will for His Church, which included the decision to appoint a unifying leader on earth until the end of time, when the successor of Peter will return the keys to our Lord. We must understand the 'why' of the papacy.
In acient times the second most powerful person in the church was the patriach of constantinople, because of political reasons. And because of political reasons the east coundn't accept the roman papacy as the west saw it. Yes the papacy became also a political figure, which damaged the relations heavily, but that doesn't change that the peter and the bishops of rome had a divine superior role, even before Constantine.
The problem is that the Pope is unwilling to let even his own bishops have autonomy (for example, over the traditional Latin Mass), or, like any other patriarch, to be subject to his Synod. As such, he does not exercise an authority that is acceptable to the Orthodox Church, and any agreement with him would be to abandon the Orthodox vision of the Church.
@eucharistangel4662 some definitely get deleted or made invisible. I had recently reply someone to a comment, then my comment disappeared, and even the person that replied to it, couldn't see it anymore. And it was a harmless comment, no idea what triggers it.
across the board; sometimes deleted, sometimes don't show - but found if I change settings to Newest First re comments, a lot show up; I follow a lot of political leaning channels, and same thing happens; some other points that may assist, is to clear caches & disable extensions on your phone or pc and/or use refresh
We can all find unity, in that we all believe in Jesus Christ the Son of God. If we can't find unity because of theology then something is wrong within us. Something not from God, but from Satan.
@@marincusman9303 The Scriptures say, who is a liar, but he who denies that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist who denies the Father and the Son. Whoever denies the Son does not have the Father either. He who acknowledges the Son has the Father also.
@@Jordan-1999 Mormons and JW say Jesus is Christ. My point is that you are saying theology shouldn’t cause division, when it definitely should in some cases.
I am Catholic, so highly biaised. I just don’t see how there can be any sort of unity without an ultimate authority. For example, contraception, ok or not ok. EO and Protestant are divided on this issue, with no means to resolve it. And what I find unfair, is that the burden then comes down to the laity to decide which has the better interpretation, but the laity are not theologians. This is not ok for high ranking men in positions of power, and with a scholarly background and time on their hands to think things through to impose a burden of choice to the people. Some people may think that choice is a good thing, but no. Faith, religion is not a consumer good in which the more the choices the better. Now for many, they think that if they did have a pope as their head, that suddenly everything would change, that there would be no freedom, and it would look like a dictatorship. But that is a caricature and a far cry from the lived experience of Catholics. For example: married Anglican pastors have converted to Catholicism and they stayed married, the are Orthodox who are Catholics and they have kept their own specific rites. I don’t get what the big deal is, unless there is a question of pride within certain church leaders or their desire for ultimate power (and dare I say money?). The pope has hardly ever taught infallibly. Pope Francis may says strange things, but really, unless he changes teaching, which he hasn’t, then he can be considered a bad pope, like there have been many. Nothing new under Peter’s dome here. I would like unity, but as a Catholic, I do not want to sacrifice on essential teachings. The Papacy was given to Peter from Jesus, if people don’t get the « rock » or the « keys » I highly suggest they look more into ancient Jewish tradition. Plus, I think we can all agree, that Jesus did not install a Church to have endless schisms.
Austin, I've been subscribed for a good while now (I think? lol) which can probably be verified if it shows up as a stat for you; I assume it does on the creator's end - Idk just to say that I've been watching since I was non-denominational and just your typical Trinitarian Evangelical *(and have since returned to it, the faith I once had - in case you think this is another RC or EO comment trying to convert you LOL)* , as Dr. Michael Heiser would put it lol, and, the phenomenon and ABSOLUTE GIFT... I mean, like, WOW.... that Dr. Michael Heiser was, I realized was in much of the early churches theology and there's that meme that his teachings are 'helping' people convert to Orthodoxy, etc. lol but, all I wanted to say was, as you may have seen some of my other comments, I live in NA, probably in your generation group, I'm a '95 kid, ethnically Southern Slavic (Balkans) and grew up with EO.. and yeah, keep riding and pushing, man... You're truly, actually a bulwark. I find it funny that both EO and RC and pretty much EVERYONE including Joe Rogan know the name of Dr. Michael Heiser but treat his legacy as kind of like ... "eeehhhh, meh." At least with some of the EO content creators I've been watching recently. It's just too sus... it made me dive more into the history and even the esoteric portions of whatever the heck is going on in this world. Obviously, that's an insane amount of stuff for a RUclips comment but let's just say when you read "Balkans" earlier, you heard exactly what you heard. Yup, NOT GOOD loool. Then there's the fact that Slavs in the Balkans today originally migrated from Northern Europe around the Baltic sea. OH! There it is again. How weird... This is gonna sound even more 4chan-ese, but I think there's a reason Blue and Red are always used for competing teams be it real life games, video games, board, etc. etc. and that is because the English language hides many secrets. You probably know how Rothschild means Redshield, if not you do now, Roth being red, and the etymology follows with Rosh/Rox(sh) as in the Roxolani tribe/Rot/Ruth/Rug/Rus/Ros/Roz etc. and I'm not even joking but I suspect Blue, the word, etymologically goes back to.... LOL yeah... Baal, the Fly Guy... I'm thinking "Baalu" or something. We know that the Antichrist is coming out of the tribe of Dan, historically the northernmost tribe of Israel who were the closest, being up north, to Bashan and Baal worship and notoriously fell back into it again and again. The Canaanites were also known by the Greeks as Phoenician's which literally means red/purple people. Cause of the royal purple dye they were famous for exporting and still is that purple that is associated with royalty to this day. Now, go ahead and mix the colors blue and red... Lol. Something about red-haired giant mummy's, too? The Irish say they came from a people or tribe called the Tuaatha De Danaan. Danmark, Danube, Dnieper, ScanDANavia. The Tribe of Dan, huh... I'm so far into this I think a Halfdan would suffice, huehuehuehue pun very much intended. Look up Iceland Commonwealth, the word island is Iceland's name and I guess where we get the dumb spelling for island lol. The S isn't silent. And according to this commonwealth, it is also known as a maritime empire or 'sea-empire'. So like, I don't think the S is silent in ANY CASE... if you know about the Falkands War for the island off the coast of Argentina, this would make that infamously weird war (weirder than Vietnam) make A LOT OF SENSE. It also matches up with the 'aliens' apparently coming from underwater, going faster in it than we can in the air, tic tacs and whatever lol. Yeah, whatever conflicts we are seeing right now are just a theatre show being directed by and starring people who are all apart of some elite family bloodlines. The real war is between the AEsir and the Vanir. Not joking. AEsir is pronounced like "Ai-Seer" and Vanir like "Vahn-eer". I think these two names go back to the flood, with the AEsir, the Norse mythological LINEAGE of gods associated with strength, might, power, metals, etc. going back to Assyria/Ashur or probably where the actual tower of Babel was built and Vanir referring to the lineage of gods associated with wisdom, fertility, seeing into the future, riddles, etc. going back to Mount Ararat, where the Ark landed upon when the waters receded, and to this day, if you go come down off of Mount Ararat, by the time you're on flatland you only have another small bit of a walk til you get to Lake VAN. The AEsir and their followers must die in battle to enter Valhalla, or Baalhalla as I'm calling it, while the Vanir go to Vanaheim. Check this out... in a poetic edda called Vafthrudismal, a Vanir god called Vafthrudnir is approached by Odin the One-Eyed (Antichrist will have one eye missing as well lol) but disguised, and engages in a 'game of wits' with Vafthrudnir regarding the war. Vafthrudnir explains to Odin/Vodin/Vodnasz (literally one who goes forth/he who goes forth before us/our leader) that this other 'minor' god named Njoror was given in exchange as a hostage to the AEsir, regarding this war, and that Njoror will return for the Vanir at the worlds end, Ragnarok. It gets better. Vaf means to weave/entangle/tie-up and Thrudnir means power/strength/might (in Slavic, Thrudnir means someone who suffers or to be longsuffering, we would say a pregnant woman is "thrudna/trudna", and that reversal is GLORIOUS)... you can do the math and see the meaning of the name Vafthrudnir. Nice coincidence I guess. Even Loki, apparently being so mischievous and causing a mess in Valhalla, Odin kicked him out. Loki's name comes from earlier etymology such as, and get this first one, LOGI/Lokke/Lok/Luk/Lukke/etc. which are words meaning things along the line of "entanglement, seizure, CLOSED-OFF ROOMS, LOCKS" .... LMAOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO HE PUT EM IN THEIR ABYSSAL PRISONS.... "KICKED OUT" HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH dudes, some of the stories and poems have Loki insulting the AEsir gods and everyone in the halls of Valhalla with some FIRE like "bench-ornaments" that would run away from an angry, spirited man. That's not angry-spirited, read it again. It's a spirited man, who happens to be angered. Ahhhhhhhhhhhh Austin and fellow viewers, have fun with this xD you can reach me at makeshift6969@gmail.com if you've decided I'm not a kook =D. P.S - Bitcoin's new protocol addition are called "Runes".... ^.^ these guys suck at hiding.
The Lutheran Confessions have a document called, “Treatise on the Power and Primacy of the Pope” (1539), which is an appendix to the Augsburg Confession. It states the office of the Pope is merely by “human right,” but if the Pope would accept the Gospel (justification by faith alone) then having a head of the Church by human arrangement would be a good thing.
@@kevinmauer3738 Yes, I believe they would have been familiar with this. Last year, Austin interviewed Dr. Michael Root, who was the Lutheran theologian in the committee that drafted the Joint Declaration. Dr. Root discussed part of his role was to make sure the Joint Declaration was consistent with the Lutheran position in the 700-page Book of Concord. The Treatise on the Power and Primacy of the Pope is included in the Book of Concord. Dr. Root would have had extensive knowledge of every document in the Book of Concord, including this one; and I believe that would have helped shape the conversations the committee had while drafting the Joint Declaration.
POST 1 First, we all need to acknowledge that denomination is culture. People deeply love their culture, or they leave it and look for another one. If Germany Declared themselves as best and most right and all nations should give obeisance and preeminance to german food, culture, language, etc., you would have rebellion as well as compliance among other nations (denominations) that would further split existing nations/ denominations exacerbating existing fragmentation. I am a convert to Catholicism. I was not drawn to it because of their spirituality, but because the weight of history and evidence was on their side. So, since my quest was and is for truth, I came to believe they had more evidence and more truth, therefore I converted. The deep corruption in the catholic hierarchy has continued and even expanded, while revelations of the same corruption has come forth in many protestant denominations. I will have to do this in several posts...
8:07 You made me chuckle with that question: "Do Catholics think _this_ would be conceding too much?" Because you're very likely going to run into a paradox: the Catholics more open and willing to make concessions vis a vis the separated churches are the ones who will more firmly uphold the authority of the Pope in the current rift within the Roman Church between “pope loyalists” and “rad trads.” This rift will always be present: if it so happens that the Pope of turn agrees with *their* interpretation, the group of self-appointed traditionalists will tend to affirm the bishop of Rome's authority, but the reason will always be the wrong one: not because of their understanding of a need to trust in the guidance of the Holy Spirit promised by Christ to his Church, in particular the one about a guarantee that Peter (and his successors) will always remain faithful even after being "sifted by Satan," faithful enough "to confirm his brethren." When push comes to shove, they are "fake" traditionalists, as they drop the one tradition that distinguishes the Catholics from *all* other Christians: the fidelity and submission to the bishop of Rome. And when you “shove” a little further, you’ll probably find out that it all comes down to a lack of faith in the words of Christ, which is always the demonic stratagem to make us yield to the pressure of our pride. For it really does take a lot of pride to think that one knows the Magisterium of the Church a lot better than the Pope (and the nearly unanimous college of bishops). I consider myself a true traditionalist. Therefore, I take very seriously the tradition made dogma about the authority of the bishops in communion with the bishop of Rome. I also take very seriously one of Jesus’ most endearing desires: “Ut unum sint,” that all may be one, as he is one with the Father. For that I’d be willing to sacrifice almost anything, except the truth. The authority of the bishop of Rome is dogmatic truth. But the proceedings for his election are not. I think a first step would be to allow the eastern orthodox bishops to participate in the conclaves. It requires a lot of trust, but I think the goal is worth it. A further step could be an alternance between bishops from the east and west, maybe for the next six popes... This would require a lot more trust, and I may be dreaming too much. But, if what Francis Chan suggests is true, I think it would totally be worth it. In the meantime, I would be all for a gesture of goodwill aimed at somewhat healing old wounds: the return of the Shroud of Turin to the Patriarch of Constantinople. If the most likely suggested historical trail is correct, a Templar crusader stole this most sacred relic during the sack of Constantinople. Now that the House of Savoy has definitely donated it to the Pope, it is within his power to return it to its last lawful custodian.
God bless Pope Francis and his authority divinely established by God himself to lead the Church. As for unity, he's already established this when he said we can acknowledge each other “as brothers and sisters, united in diversity and capable of bearing witness to the love of Christ." in his Unity in Diversity speech. There's nothing to talk about. You've either done your homework or believe what you want to believe.
The Vatican believes that the Eucharist is to be presented by a ROMAN Catholic priest - AND NO OTHER. So, should we invite Roman Catholic priests once a month into Baptist & Evangelical churches so we can experience Communion with Christ?
They actually accept the Orthodox as having apostlic Succession and valid form. Thus they have proper consecration and real Eucharistic transformation.
An interesting idea, but we Catholics would warn that you should only receive communion if you really believe that Jesus is truly present in the Eucharist. Generally, we restrict communion to fellow Catholics out of concern that outsiders might eat and drink condemnation on themselves, as St Paul warns.
@@Joker22593 "but we Catholics would warn that you should only receive communion if you really believe that Jesus is truly present in the Eucharist." We Protestants believe Jesus is indeed present, during Communion, and is actually always present when TRUE born again Christians who are truly saved meet, in that there are two or more. Are you suggesting that if that Protestants do not believe that somehow the elements are actually the blood and body of Christ yet not in a physical sense (not genetically changed, the bread and wine don't turn into human DNA, with human cells), then we Evangelicals shouldn't practice holy communion at all? Do YOU believe that the Eucharist is the "real body and blood of Christ" apart from an actual physical change?
I’m Catholic and I’m troubled by how much power Vatican 1 gives the Pope. Vatican 2 said nice things about the college of bishops BUT it didn’t reign in the V1 powers at all. I accept papal infallible but it’s the total unchecked power over every single Catholic in the entire church. The pope can do whatever he wants whenever he wants for any reason. He wants to defrock a priest or bishop? Great. He can do that with the stroke of a pen and doesn’t have to give a reason. Wants to excommunicate a particular Catholic? Again, he can just decide to do that and doesn’t need to give a reason. Not we are opening the possibility of a cult leader. If a Pope started to openly live like the worst of the renaissance popes with mistresses etc, what can anyone do about it? The answer is nothing except pray. If we speak out the Pope could instantly excommunicate us. V1 needs to be reigned in by a future Ecumenical Council and nice platitudes aren’t enough
Either you have faith that the Holy Spirit guides do Pope when he exercise his infallible authority or not. Simple as that. And against the common sense, Vatican I actually teaches the limits of the Pope's infallibility.
When God institutes a Holy Office such as the Papacy, it is the Office through which He speaks and acts, not just the sinner who is holding it. Read this passage of Scripture about Caiaphas the High Priest of Israel (an evil man) and you will see what I mean. This meeting takes place right after Jesus raised Lazarus from the dead: John 11:45 "Many of the Jews therefore, who had come with Mary and had seen what Jesus did, believed in him. 46 But some of them went to the Pharisees and told them what he had done. 47 So the chief priests and the Pharisees called a meeting of the council, and said, ‘What are we to do? This man is performing many signs. 48 If we let him go on like this, everyone will believe in him, and the Romans will come and destroy both our holy place and our nation.’ 49 But one of them, Caiaphas, who was high priest that year, said to them, ‘You know nothing at all! 50 You do not understand that it is better for you to have one man die for the people than to have the whole nation destroyed.’ 51 *He did not say this on his own, but being high priest that year he prophesied that Jesus was about to die for the nation*, 52 and not for the nation only, but to gather into one the dispersed children of God. 53 So from that day on they planned to put him to death." So, we see that Caiaphas prophesied by the power of the Holy Spirit even while he was plotting to murder our Lord! That is because Caiaphas was holding the Office of High Priest that year. The same prophecy would have been delivered if someone else was High Priest that year. Keep in mind that various Popes have only spoken ex cathedra (infallibly) perhaps 8 times in 2,000 years. They do express their opinions often, and write them down in treatises, but these are not considered infallible teachings. On the other hand, we trust that Jesus guides, confirms and corrects the teachings of the Pope and the Magisterium *because He promised He would*.
Orthodoxy is not one unified front. The Eastern and Oriental churches are a hodgepodge of sects, some in communion with others and some not, but all in some form of disagreement. So which of those strayed from the other? Stop this nonsense reasoning.
@@jwilsonhandmadeknives2760 No nonsense the Church started and originated in the east son. No Protestant sect or thousands of denominations is the church... Orthodoxy is the Church but yes they've had disagreements. Read Acts 20:17-32 Paul explains what will happen to the Church... For sure no large bible study with multiple ppl is a church. Just a large bible study.
@@jwilsonhandmadeknives2760 "Orthodoxy" is Eastern Orthodox (and all the jurisdictions therein). The Oriental Orthodox are non-chalcedonians, and have not been part of the Church for over a millennium and a half. It is true, however, that some of jurisdictions within Eastern Orthodoxy have fallen out of communion with one another (as four of the five sees did with Rome a millennium ago); but those jurisdictions remain in communion with other jurisdictions of the Church, and division between jurisdictions need not be permanent. At any rate, the Latin Church can claim to apostolic succession. So can the East. So can the Coptic, Ethiopian and Armenian Orthodox churches. Any church founded by an apostle can make that claim. There is, however, only one holy, catholic and apostolic church: Which of the above has been the most faithful to the teachings of the apostles?
Hahahahahah, good one. It's Protestant IF ANYTHING. - Balkan Slav that grew up in Orthodoxy and knows what my people are like and what they do lolololol.
@@xBurzurkurx I was Protestant for 30yrs and ive seen the Pride and protests even against the gatherings of the(churches) down the block how they did not have the write doctrine as "we do.". Eventually the Asst. pastor would protest against the head pastor( though none of this is biblical) and open a church down the block and take some of the congregants with him... All thats happening in Protestant churches during service is a large bible study. And the Worship of God is a concert, with the worship leader wearing skinny Jeans with a Tamborine and the head Pastor looking cool in a warehouse. No liturgical worship whatsoever. The temple of the Jews had liturgical worship...There is no difference from a small bible study at someone's house to the mega churches. Its about making money and fleecing the flock...Been there and done that. And have matured.
Great discussion. When I read “Ut unum sint” in seminary I was very hopeful that the traditional gridlock between Rome and everyone else might break up and we could eventually move to a “communion of communions” with the pope as “first among equals”. Glad to see a possible inching in that direction. Of course, since Pope St John Paul 2 wrote that document there has been an increase of division in all of the major Western churches. It’s a shame.
You know that the rulers of the Gentiles ilord it over them, and their great ones exercise authority over them. 26 jIt shall not be so among you. But whoever would be great among you must be your servant,3 27 and whoever would be first among you must be your slave,4
6:13 - "Your name is now Rock" - Hey Austin, we know what Our Lord meant at Mat 16:18 just as HE shows us in his word in the OT: Just as his forefather Joshua (Joshua 24:25-28) set a stone/rock as witness that "HEARD God's Word and is to **witness against those who don't hold to it** " So now does Jesus - Definitely establishing an 'executive' office not 'over' but as a Right Arm to His Word! But unlike Joshua, the Stone/Rock Jesus SET - IS A Living Rock . :) Thoughts? Joshua 24:25-28 25 On that day Joshua made a covenant for the people, and there at Shechem he reaffirmed for them decrees and laws. 26 And Joshua recorded these things in the Book of the Law of God. Then he took a large stone and set it up there under the oak near the holy place of the LORD. 27 “See!” he said to all the people. ** “This stone will be a witness against us. It has heard all the words the LORD has said to us. It will be a witness against you if you are untrue to your God.” ** 28 Then Joshua dismissed the people, each to their own inheritance
IMHO, the schism between the East and West was, essentially', political that took on theological differences. For example, the Filioque. "I believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life, who proceeds from the Father and the Son, who with the Father and the Son is adored and glorified, who has spoken through the prophets." (Nicene Creed) The Filioque is " who proceeds from the Father and the Son ". Whereas, "The Eastern Orthodox interpretation of the Trinity is that the Holy Spirit originates, has his cause for existence or being (manner of existence) from the Father alone." The Son having no role in the forming (?) of the Trinity. But the Athanasius Creed, which was the basis for the Nicene Creed has, "The Father is made of none: neither created, nor begotten. The Son is of the Father alone: not made, nor created, but begotten. The Holy Ghost is of the Father and of the Son: neither made, nor created, nor begotten, but proceeding. So there is one Father, not three Fathers; one Son, not three Sons: one Holy Ghost, not three Holy Ghosts." The reason I think it was actually political was due to the process by which Bishops are appointed. A Council of Bishops submit a name to the Pope and the Pope, generally, rubber stamps it. But in one case, the Byzantine Emperor simply kicked out the Patriarch of Constantinople and appointed his person to replace him. Which, the Emperor had no authority to do. The fellow he replaced the Patriarch with, was subsequently removed and the original Patriarch was re-established, which ticked off the fellow the Emperor appointed. And though he later was approved to replace the Patriarch when he died, his successor had a bone to pick with Rome and the Pope.
Intentionally or not, Pope Francis's rather bizarre leadership style has encouraged more conservative Catholics to question and tone down the ultramontanism of the post-V-One era. It strikes me that this is a good example of God writing straight with crooked lines. Clearly now, it has become timely to revisit the teachings of an era when the pope dared to claim "I am the Church, I am the tradition." For that, we can all thank Jorge Bergoglio.
If Jesus intended to be united under the Pope and the Church in Rome, it's rather lacking in substance and clarity in the Bible. I would expect that James, Paul, Mark, and others would have emphasized this point in the Bible considering the monumental nature of the claim by the Roman Catholics. The pattern in the early church as shown in the scripture was physically separated but spiritually united in Christ.
*JESUS RE-ESTABLISHED THE OFFICE OF THE ROYAL STEWARD* _Peter alone received the keys of the perpetual office in an eternal kingdom._ The concept of the royal stewardship finds its roots in the Old Testament archetype of Joseph, who was appointed as a royal steward by Pharaoh: "You shall be in charge of my palace, and all my people are to submit to your orders. Only with respect to the throne will I be greater than you.” So Pharaoh said to Joseph, “I hereby put you in charge of the whole land of Egypt.” Then Pharaoh took his signet ring from his finger and put it on Joseph’s finger. He dressed him in robes of fine linen and put a gold chain around his neck. He had him ride in a chariot as his second-in-command, and people shouted before him, “Make way!” Thus he put him in charge of the whole land of Egypt. Then Pharaoh said to Joseph, “I am Pharaoh, but without your word no one will lift hand or foot in all Egypt.” (Genesis 41:40-44) Joseph's elevation to this esteemed position granted him significant authority, second only to Pharaoh himself. He was entrusted with overseeing the entire land of Egypt, symbolized by the transfer of Pharaoh's signet ring and robes of fine linen. This Old Testament precedent sets the stage for understanding Eliakim's role seen in Isaiah: "In that day I will summon my servant, Eliakim son of Hilkiah. I will clothe him with your robe and fasten your sash around him and hand your authority over to him. He will be a father to those who live in Jerusalem and to the people of Judah. I will place on his shoulder the key to the house of David; what he opens no one can shut, and what he shuts no one can open." (Isaiah 22:20-22) Just as Joseph was appointed as Pharaoh's steward, Eliakim is chosen by God to serve as a steward over the house of David. God bestows upon Eliakim the authority symbolized by the key to the house of David, granting him the power to open and shut, with his decisions binding and unbinding. In Matthew, Jesus echoes this ancient imagery when he commissions Peter as the steward of the kingdom of heaven: "I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven." (Matthew 16:19) By entrusting Peter with the keys of the kingdom, Jesus bestows upon him the authority to make decisions that hold weight both on earth and in heaven. This continuity, tracing from the Old Testament archetype of Joseph to the prophetic anticipation of Eliakim, reaches its climax in Jesus' explicit commissioning of Peter as the steward in Jesus’ kingdom. This act underscores the profound authority and responsibility that Jesus confers upon Peter.
A problem I see with "first among equals" is who's in charge? You've got a problem in Orthodoxy today where the Patriarch of Moscow had excommunicated the Ukrainian Patriarch and the Patriarch of Constantinople. They can't have an ecumenical council because they can't agree about hardly anything. What did Jesus mean when he told Peter hew would give him the keys to kingdom of heaven and what he bound on earth would be bound in heaven? Then in John 21 he tells Peter to "Feed my lambs" "Tend my sheep" and"Feed my sheep"? He was talking to Peter, no one else.
Who's in charge? Jesus Christ. The template for decision-making in the Church comes to us from the Council of Jerusalem: "For it has seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to lay on you no greater burden than these requirements" (Acts 15:28) There's a rift between Moscow and Constantinople, on the surface, about the (fake) Ukrainian church. Christ can heal the rift. He does not need a pope to heal it.
Sounds to me like you're close to, or already have, calculated that triple-digit number. I'm a Balkan Slav and grew up in Orthodoxy. It ain't it. Keep asking questions, you will be gracefully guided as you seem to be on the same path of questions I was just recently pondering about. We could both just need some fresh air, but not a bad confirmation for myself, and now for you I would say lol God bless and God's Peace, brother 🙌
Let's be clear about one thing: there's a lot of division within the Catholic Church, the Radtrad community (Radical Traditionalists) in particular hate Pope Francis.
@@roberthightower9889 you know who asked for clarity as well from Jesus? The Pharisees, when they brought a certain woman to him to have her judged by Him.
@@christophlindinger2267 I think you are arguing from bad faith. You cannot tell me in good faith there is nothing Pope Francis should clarify. That is an unreasonable position taken only for arguing for arguments sake
As you note, the root of this question lies in the concepts of development and continuity, which also form the basis of the division between Rome and Orthodoxy. It is evident that the extent of papal authority and the centralization of authority in Rome represent developments over time. However, what is less clear is whether the doctrine of development itself is a historical development. Did the early church possess a doctrine of development, or was its focus on continuity? If it emphasized continuity, then Rome’s claim to reflect the early church’s commitments, particularly concerning the development of papal doctrines, becomes problematic.
That is basically the question this document was designed to answer: how can we understand the Papacy in a way that can lead to reunion with non-Catholic Christians. It is fairly important what non-Catholic Christians think of that.
@@ericlammerman2777. What do Protestants know about unity when one considers the fruits of personal interpretation ie confusion, division & scandal of 000’s of sects.
@@SUPERHEAVYBOOSTER Actually, he gave his Revelation to Asia Minor, not Rome, and he did it through Angels, not Bishops. These are facts, unlike your opinions.
If every pope was Pope John Paul II, everyone would be a catholic. Including me. Unfortunately, in my reading of history, there have been as many wicked popes as there have been great popes.
@@cuatro336 Christ is present in His Apostles and especially with the Pope. This isn't a matter of your preferences. Christ gave us His Church. You can either accept or reject it but you can't pick and choose. You can't be a little bit pregnant and you can't be a little bit Catholic. It is all or nothing.
@@IAMNationX that's a silly and immature response. Please engage in fruitful dialogue rather than cheap shots that don't actually speak to the topic at hand.
@@IAMNationX Friend, In case you didn't know, sin is individual. That means, you're not guilty of your neighbors sins. Remember! Hebrews 9:27 27. And just as it is appointed for man to die once, and after that comes judgement, No one is guilty of a neighbor's sins.
Jude 11 warns of Korah's rebellion. Numbers 16: 3 is what the Orthodox and protestants say to the authority that Christ left over His church. Why not listen to Jude?
There already is unity in the body of Christ in the Bishop of Rome. If you are intentionally separated from the Pope unless you have some extremely rare mitigation of culpability the assumption should be you are outside the body of Christ.
@@ericlammerman2777. Jesus est His One True Church Mt 16 18-19 which is the pillar & foundation of Truth 1 Tim 3:15 & the pope is His earthly representative. Protestantism, without hierarchy & unifying authority is not sustainable as personal interpretation has resulted in confusion, division & scandal of 000’s of sects which is not of Jesus who willed unity Jn 17 11-23
Unfortunately that's a loaded question based on a false premise. The early church didn’t become the RCC quickly. The RCC didn’t come together until centuries later. (There is no direct apostolic line.) And the RCC that emerged then did not descend into grave error until many centuries after that formation. The word accretion is key.
What does “unity” even mean? Seems like it’s just a soy way of saying ecumenism The pope doesn’t work either way. You have to interpret the pope, his documents, other people’s documents (which are not infallible) and other clergy (who are not infallible)
I can say for certain that there is dialogue between the apostolic hierarchies of Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, and Oriental Orthodox.. but not protestants (nor should they) because protestants are not apostolic. In his interview with 60 minutes last month, Pope Francis already admitted he's not infallible
@@stuntman083 Pope in his office is infallible on matters of faith and morals. So not infallible all the time but when needed. So you said just half truth. I will watch the whole interview cos I am sure you take it out of context.
The Pope is not a Rambo Pope. The Pope properly understood is to protect Christian doctrine just as it did early on with Arianism when over 50% of the Bishops believed in that doctrine. Think about it for a moment. If the CC was set up like some Protestant Churches where they decided upon popular vote in their council Christianity today would not exist. Jesus would not be known as God, the 2nd person of the Trinity. The set up of the hierarchical nature of the Church was done this way by Jesus and the Apostles then used that. Im not saying this the best system of government in the secular world but when it comes to Gods Church it has withstood the test of time Lastly stating the East only saw the Papacy as ceremonial directly conflicts with historical events such as on the heresy of re baptizing to which the East submitted to the Pope on. Secondly that also directly conflicts with papal indefectability that the East signed off on at the 6th Ecumenical Council. It is good to hold the West to account but to ignore the East’s on change on historical positions should not be done. They need their own feet held to the fire as well.
POST 2 God found such corruption in the Judaism of Jesus time that Jesus repeatedly condemned their religious authorities and practices because it had all diverged so far from God's intent and He informed them that the temple would be destroyed. This event made it impossible for Judaism to continue in its then current form. So in an attempt to keep the Jewish culture and people together and obedient to the Jewish religious hierarchy, the rabbis created a new version of Judaism which kept them in power but also preserved the scribal troves and skills to which we owe our current access to ancient records of God's dealings with mankind especially through the jews. The good and the bad. Originally Christianity was a Jewish sect, like the pharisees, sadduccees, essenes, Zealots etc. But the early Jewish Christians were expelled from the synagogue, Jesus and Christians were reviled by the Rabbis and Christianity was severed from Judaism by the Rabbis, then later Constantine expunged all judaistic practices from Christianity while at the same time stopping the wholesale slaughter and execution of Christians. The good and the bad.
Impossible for us to ever accept the current papacy. The pope has to return to defending Orthodoxy as the Orthodox popes once did. Of course we will see him as First.
As a Catholic I have to break it to you, many Catholics don't even submit to the Pope. The hate towards the Pope from within the Church is shocking, especially from the radtrads community.
Not if it means compromising the gospel. I'm sorry, but once you cross over the line of the self-exalting satanic pride to claim yourself infallible, and then anathematize the entire early church including the Apostle Paul. There's no unity until you repent, humble yourself, and submit to the true authority of the word of God. If it were just some minor doctrinal differences, sure then we could probably have fellowship and agree to disagree on non-essential doctrines. But Rome has compromised the gospel, and still holds to the claim that its decrees in doing so were infallible and equal in authority to the word of God. No, I'm sorry, that demands serious repentance. Trent 6 Canon 24 "If any one saith, that the justice received is not preserved and also increased before God through good works; but that the said works are merely the fruits and signs of Justification obtained, but not a cause of the increase thereof; let him be anathema."
I appreciate your kindness and sincerity. You know the history is clear that there was no single bishop of Rome for at least the first 100 or so years after the resurrection. The early churches, including Rome, were ruled by a plurality of bishops/elders. As Gavin points out this was clearly an accretion. I would also point out that we ARE UNITED in the confession of faith Jesus gave to Paul that he passed to us in 1 COR as of first importance.
The Papacy developed through history as the accumulation of human authority. Jesus gave ALL of the disciples "the Keys of the Kingdom" and the power to "bind and loose," as in, to expel demons and to hear confession and forgive sins, and together, as a group collectively, to define authoritative doctrine. Without that unity, no one bishop can declare a teaching that must be binding upon the whole Church. The Magisterium must not stand against the ancient traditions. The Holy Spirit can, and does, teach all that is needed for understanding, for us to know about the Father and the Son. However, it is the place of the Whole Church, in council, to discern the truth and necessity of any new teaching, by the criteria of whether it conforms to the Apostolic deposit and the Scriptures that they left behind. We need that to prevent the accretions that could lead us to the extremes that become heresy.
You're a better Christian than I'll ever be. I really appreciate the charitable and thoughtful response you give to all Christian denominations.
The Anglican Ordinariate is probably the better model for those outside of the jurisdiction of Rome, especially protestants. Lets not forget the Eastern Catholics that have reunited over the history of the Church and the Maronites that have never left Papal Primacy. There are already plenty of options that would keep both sides happy in current practice and key practices from the first millennium. Lets be frank, even in the Orthodox church the lack of a final authority is an issue that only those who have lived as Orthodox have encountered. Kallistos Ware had some interesting ideas on the subject and I believe that the Greek Orthodox Patriarch may be open to unity sooner than we think.
None of the issues in Orthodoxy are unique to not having a universal head. The issues currently abound in Orthodoxy are the same types of issues that have come and gone for two millenium of Church History.
Catholic here. God bless all of you.
I love how you approach these topics!
Thanks for reading a Catholic document most of us Catholics are not going to take the time to read.
Exactly! Thank you as well for such a thoughtful comment.
@@christophlindinger2267that said I am not sure the doc was meant for us
@@MrPeach1 in its essence it should be understood by Catholics that we strive for unity among Christians, and it can't be just the deafening call "Submit to Rome!".
@@christophlindinger2267 I dont know. When I look at the make up of authorites in the world like marriages and the priest bishop relationships. I think the world could do better to cultivate a attitude of submission. I see too many places in society now where the default is. I am not gonna do what you say because I am my own boss. I is causing societal melt down.
At least you admit it 😂
As a Protestant with an interest in this topic, I don’t want to oversimplify the issue as a whole by saying this, but the actual answer, to me, does seem simple, straightforward, and obvious, and people just seem to dance around it pretending there can be some other way: the only way the East and West would actually unite would be for the Orthodox to just accept the primacy of the Pope and everything that goes with that. While that’s a huge ask, between that and the RCC going back on key things like Papal primacy and infallibility, that’s far more likely to happen, so much so that it’s the only “real” option. There really isn’t any compromise that could be reached that either church would consider acceptable.
As for bringing Protestants back into the fold, I truly do think that’s impossible, as we are generally fundamentally opposed to too many things that are integral to the other traditions.
In truth, I don’t see a reunification ever happening. I think it will always be an “agree to disagree, but at least agree on Christ” thing, and I think that, while definitely not ideal, that’s fine and has worked well enough thus far. What we can do more work on is treating each other like brothers in Christ. If we can unite in that way under that banner, that’s all that actually matters.
We can go through this whole thing and we will find out that the East does not want reunification.
I don't think that's _all_ that actually matters; but, it's a _huge chunk_ of what actually matters, so I'm giving this a Thumb's Up. 🙂
I agree that we shouldn't dance around it: Nobody can claim to have achieved significant Christian unity until some huge portion of the various communions unite such that, in every country, at least 2/3rds of the Christians _in_ that country belong to the same communion.
But the Catholics represent, slimly, the majority of all the Christians; and Christians who reject Lutheran/Calvinist soteriology and who have hierarchical/sacerdotal ecclesiology --- that'd be the Catholics plus the various Orthodox churches -- represent a pretty _broad_ majority of all the Christians, but not quite 2/3rds.
(At least, I don't think so. My quick search for figures leaves me suspicious about whether I have the proportions exactly right.)
Anyhow, it seems to me that if the Catholics were able to get, say, half of the Orthodox folks and a third of the Protestant folks to be in communion with Apostolic Successors who're in communion with the Petrine Successor, the resulting communion would basically be describable as United Christianity, and the other bits would _pretty clearly_ be minority groups.
I also don't think it's _possible_ for such a large unification to happen _without_ the Catholics. Only the Catholic church has a principle-of-unity (that is, a way of articulating who's-in/who's-out, and of teaching what's-in/what's-out) that doesn't rely on whether Individual Believer X, or Individual Bishop Y, is able to consent to Doctrine Z.
So, any unity _without_ the Catholic Church is going to, by necessity, require that _all_ the adherents "agree on everything," without having a definitive place they can go to know what "everything" is, and without having anything but their own judgment about whether their individual view does/doesn't constitute sufficient "agreement." (Yeah...GOOD LUCK with that!)
So, it's gonna be all about unifying with Catholics, and that's tricky because the Catholic epistemology becomes _useless_ if they ever reverse a defined dogma, even once. So it requires reunification to _all_ the currently-defined Catholic dogmas. They can be nuanced or explained in kindlier-sounding terms, perhaps: But _not even one_ of them can be contradicted, or the whole show is blown-up.
So: Tricky. 😑
But, it'd be cool if we could do it.
It would have significant _evangelistic_ punch, y'know?
I say that, because I'm trusting Jesus' assertion in John 17 that when we are "one, as [the Father] and [Jesus] are one," then the world will "see, and recognize" that Jesus came from the Father! Obviously Jesus doesn't disagree with His Father about whether infant baptism is okay, or whether baptism is regenerative, or whether Jesus is Really Present in the Eucharist, or whether abortion should be legalized, or any of the other thousand things Christians have been disputing about for the last several centuries. According to Jesus, _when_ we all agree about all that, _then_ the world will see and recognize that Jesus came from the Father.
Now, I imagine that one result would be an immediate doubling in the persecution of Christians, just like before. But, I expect that would be followed by a century of church growth filling the world (also just like before). I imagine society-at-large would return to finding atheism a broadly risible proposition, and that other non-Trinitarians (excluding perhaps our Jewish "older brethren," who I'm guessing will remain a sort of ongoing testimony to the Old Covenant until shortly before the end) being increasingly difficult to locate. We might see North Africa return to the Christian sphere, and Asia springing wide-open, and both Europe and the Anglosphere turning back from apostasy.
Or, maybe I'm overstating the case.
Either way, it'd be nice to not evangelize "with one hand tied behind our backs" for a change!
@@cw-on-yt I think 2/3rds is reasonable. That's roughly how I've envisioned the makeup (more than half, for sure).
That's really the crux of my logic for why the rest of us (or as you said, significant portions of us) would need to just submit to Rome: going back on any dogmas, given what they say about the authority they claim to have, would undermine, and, I think, irreparably damage their credibility. And, as you've alluded to, the Catholics have the objectively more effective ecclesiology of the 3 branches, in my opinion, so us uniting to them makes the most sense if the goal is for the rest of us to more easily assimilate into the superior organization (to be clear, speaking more about things like its global network - saying nothing of its actual theology, lol).
I'd agree that I don't think a large scale unification is realistically possible without the Catholics. But the only other hypothetical large scale unification would have to be the merging of the Protestants with the Orthodox, which, as crazy as it sounds, to me seems more likely than a Protestant unification with Catholicism just based on both my own experience with, and perception of, Orthodoxy, as well as what I see being the trend online right now (though I'm aware this doesn't necessarily represent what's going on in the real world). Their doctrines, overall, seem to be less "offensive" to the Protestant mindset. But given the fragmented nature of Protestantism and the suboptimal autocephalus structure of the Orthodox that they hold is immutable apostolic tradition, it just wouldn't actually work. It'd be like herding cats.
It would definitely be cool if it were possible, though. A truly unified, global, visible body would be incredible. Given how much Christian influence has waned in the parts of the world where it really matters (in terms of in countries with power), I'd agree that the result would be significantly increased persecution due to the powers that be feeling threatened, which in turn would lead to us thriving as in the days of the apostles, and as such, would then lead to an eventual turning of the tide and a global wave of Christianity flooding the globe. I don't think you're overstating the case. It follows that those things would happen in this scenario.
It definitely would be nice.
One can dream (and pray).
After the time of the anti Christ there will be a reinification of the church. All the people of God will be one people and one church. The church cannot afford to be divided before Satan is unleashed before the end of time because it will such be a difficult time
Treat your neighbor as yourself. I think someone said that once, and it sounds important. ( I like your thinking on this )
Grew up Protestant, now Catholic. Loved this video! One of my primary motivations in becoming Catholic was Christian unity. Austin's ability to see this issue with fresh eyes reminds us of the big picture. Many of our churches observe the annual week of prayer for Christian unity, and we should never cease.
I'm not an expert in this area by any means, but to me it makes sense that the Petrine ministry of primacy is de iure divino and its location in the bishop of Rome is de iure humano.
are you born again?
@@johnalexis8284
John,
Every Catholic is "Born Again" of water and Spirit at Baptism.
However, being "born again" is a phrase so misused by many protestant churches and sects.
Also, regarding the practice of Children Baptism performed since Apostolic times by the Roman, Orthodox and Oriental Catholic Church. The proper understanding is that each must be baptized in the Trinity, no matter the age, since each human being inherits the sin of Adam at birth.
1 Peter 3:21
21. And now you also are Saved, in a similar manner, By Baptism, not by the testimony of sordid flesh, but by the examination of a good conscience in God, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ.
God bless.
@@kevinmauer3738
Kevin,
The location at Rome is a providential act. Look at the difference. The Catholic Church founded by Jesus on Peter, despite being subject to persecution and deaths, remained secured growing everywhere by God's providence.
In comparison, when the Emperor moved to Constantinople, The Orthodox Patriarch put his fate in the hands of the Roman Emperor. What happened to such Empire?
It was conquered by the Turks and replaced by The Muslim Ottoman Empire.
Today, the Eastern Patriarch lives in a confined space in Istanbul, without free access to its Cathedral, Hagia Sofia,.
Whereas, the Pope lives free in the Vatican, a sovereign territory within Italy. Ruling 2 Billion Catholics around the world.
Having 89 countries with respective Ambassadors accredited to The Holy See.
In contrast, The Orthodox number around 200 million faithful. There are no ambassadors.
God bless.
@@joecastillo8798 you mean like how all the mafioso's were baptized and born again through the RCC yet were still capable of doing some of the most monstrous and depraved, no-nut, feminine, half-a-fag literally kind of stuff?
OP, you made the wrong choice. It's okay though, you can still return to Righteous Reformism and to return to the faith you once had.
- Balkan Slav who grew up Orthodox but mixed in an also heavy RCC setting. I've met ONE person who was truly born again serving as a volunteer at one of my local EO churches and no one could stand her except me. She couldn't stop interjecting God into the useless political conversations going on in that damned social club...
I don’t mind ceding that the foundation that Jesus laid unfolded in a kind of “human and fleshy” way. It is the same reason why He wants us to receive him in his flesh in the Eucharist… His flesh being one with our flesh. It’s the same reason why I affirm baptismal regeneration… this liquid thing washing our flesh, which is not just flesh but soul and spirit.
Regarding the different interpretations in the first millennium of the pope, Ben Bollinger does a good job of showing that the understanding was the same in the east and the west… he cites prominent eastern writers of the time who are still revered in the east today.
Count me in for the journey to the most unity that we can possibly have, Austin!
As a Catholic with an interest in history I will agree that while the Papacy (Prime minister of the Kingdom on earth) is rooted in scripture, and clearly Peter was given a unique roll different than the rest of the apostles. When Jesus speaks to Peter in Mat 16:18-20 He was referring back to Isiah 22: 20-25. Peter becomes the "Prime Minister" of the church, and is to oversee the kingdom on earth while the king (Christ) is away. Again in John 21;15-17 Peter is given the Petrine ministry. Tensions with the bishop of Rome show up very early even with the Greek Popes. According to Irenaeus of Lyon in his work Against heresies he illuminates his remarks about the church of Rome: That if there are disputes in a local church they should have recourse to the Roman church, for there is contained the Tradition which is preserved by all the churches. Rome was the arbiter for settling contentious issues. Rome was the center where all converged if they wanted their doctrine accepted by the conscience of the church. From the beginning all had a high view of the Church of Rome and its bishop. As the Roman empire receded and the west collapsed the only structure of law and order, justice and mercy left was the church of Rome and the Pope. Pope St Leo the Great had a huge impact on increasing the authority an dignity of the office. Leo's Tome explaining the position of the Papacy in matters of Christology was accepted at the Council of Chalcedon in 451 with the resounding voice of Peter speaks through leo! One problem that arose quite early was the language problem, once the Latins in the west gained control of the Bishopric of Rome the language barrier became more evident, out of the five major sees four spoke Greek, and one Latin. Relying on poor educated translators sometime caused a difference in understanding between east and west. History played a roll in the development of the Papacy, and if God is guiding the church to do His will, then it is not a stretch to say Papal development is of the will of God. Vat I has to be looked at from the view of the events of the times. Anticlericalism was rampant, the Italian Revolution was on going, the Papal states fell and the Pope became a ruler without a country, and his authority was being questioned. Pius IX was somewhat authoritarian and saw modernism as the cause of all the social troubles of the day, and he wanted to make clear that while his temporal authority was gone, his spiritual and moral authority was absolute. It is clear that the Catholic church realizes the issues at hand that still prevent unity with the east, and has made gesture after gesture to show good will and a real desire for unity. How ever it comes about it will have to be agreed upon by both from the starting point of where things broke off. Part of the issue with the Orthodox is that we made decisions without them, and these decisions on doctrine while in reality are not all that different, they must involve the church as a whole, both east and west in order for trust and unity to come about. The last remaining issue is the Papacy.
@eucharistangel4662 All your diatribe shows is you need to read church history and the early church Father's. For all his efforts and accomplishment, Jesus called Simon, not Paul, and by changing his name to Peter (Rock) this is a significant event when Jesus changes a name, it was for a reason. The early church supports what I stated no matter how much you hate it. You can babble on and twist things to support a position that never existed in the first millennium. You refuted nothing.
@eucharistangel4662 an answer to your 'list':
Scriptural evidence and the structure of the primitive Church make it absolutely undeniable that Christ chose Peter and that Peter was first among the twelve.
Depending on the translation, Peter is mentioned 195 times.
The closest is John (the beloved disciple) at just 29 times.
The rest even less. Consider:
Jesus entered Peter’s house. (Matthew 8:14)
Jesus changed Simon's name to Peter. (John 1:42)
Jesus gave Peter the keys to the gates of Heaven. (Matthew 16:19 & Isaiah 22:20-23)
Jesus declared Peter be to the the rock. (Matthew 16:18 & Joshua 24:25-28)
Jesus made Peter shepherd. (John 21:15-17)
Jesus told Peter to strengthen his brothers (Luke 22:32)
Jesus paid the Temple tax only for Himself and Peter. (Matthew 17:24-27)
Jesus preached from Peter's boat. (Luke 5:3)
Jesus told Peter to "Follow me" (John 21:19)
Jesus called only Peter to walk on the water. (Matthew 14:29)
Jesus predicted Peter's three-fold denial. (Matthew 26:34)
Jesus predicted Peter's repentance and three-fold affirmation. (Luke 22:32)
Jesus prophesied only Peter's manner of death. (John 21:18-19)
Jesus taught Peter forgiveness 70 times 7 times. (Matthew 18:21-22)
Jesus spoke only to Peter at Gethsemane. (Mark 14:37)
Peter is always listed first of the Apostles. (Matthew 10:2, Luke 6:14, Acts 1:13)
Peter was first to confess Jesus as Messiah. (Matthew 16:18)
Peter alone spoke at the Transfiguration. (Matthew 17:4, Mark 9:5, Luke 9:33)
Peter pointed out the withered fig tree. (Mark 11:21)
Peter entered the tomb first - John deferring to him. (Luke 24:12, John 20:3-4))
Peter decided the manner of replacing Judas. (Acts 1:15-26)
Peter spoke for the eleven at the Pentecost. (Acts 2:14-36)
Peter was released from prison by the Angel. (Acts 12:6-11)
Peter spoke for the eleven before the Council. (Acts 4:8-12)
Peter held sin bound to Ananias and Sapphira. (Acts 5:1-10)
Peter's shadow healed. (Acts 5:15)
Peter declared the sin of Simony. (Acts 8:18-23)
Peter revealed the salvation of Gentiles to the Church at Jerusalem. (Acts 11:1-18)
The Angel told Cornelius to call for Peter. (Acts 10:3-8)
The Holy Spirit fell upon the Gentiles as Peter preached to them. (Acts 10:44-45)
At the empty tomb, the Angel said, "Go tell His disciples, and Peter." (Mark 16:7)
Mary Magdalene ran to tell Peter and the beloved disciple. (John 20:2)
The vision of all foods being clean was given only to Peter. (Acts 10:9-16)
Peter's words silence the first council in Jerusalem. (Acts 15:7-12)
Paul went to Peter to affirm that his Gospel was not in vain. (Galatians 1:18)
Peter was given the revelation of the end of the world. (2 Peter 3:10-11)
Peter taught that Paul’s words were easily twisted. (2 Peter 3:16)
Peter taught that baptism now saves you (1 Peter 3:21)
And many other references.
One may deny that Peter was primary, but it takes an amazing ignorance or denial of scripture and history to do so.
With all due respect, please read what Catholic Biblical scholar, Dr Jules Gomes, writes of the Church Fathers on this topic, “44 fathers understood the rock to be Peter’s confession of faith, 16 interpreted the rock as Jesus, 8 interpreted the rock as all the apostles, and a few believed the rock to be the faithful. Only 17 fathers thought the rock was Peter.”
@@EdnaNord-py7rn this is a ridiculous sound bite. These are not examples where an early Christian states one thing and condemns the other. This is simply a survey of the various interpretations that were discussed. I could tell one person that I’ve been dating my best friend for 27 years. I could write a letter to someone else inviting them to my 20th wedding anniversary. Both interpretations are true and neither excludes the truth of The other. This is a gross misinterpretation of the data
@Motomack1042 The early church had 5 different views on the Rock interpretation of Matt 16:18 and the MINORITY view was Peter as the Rock! You are mistaken. Also the scholarship points to a monarchical episcopacy/papacy as a later development...The fractionation in Rome favored a collegial presbyterial system of governance and prevented for a long time, until the second half of the second century, the development of a monarchical episcopacy in the city. Victor (c. 189-99) was the first who, after faint-hearted attempts by Eleutherus (c. 175-89), Soter (c. 166-75), and Anicetus (c. 155-66), energetically stepped forward as monarchical bishop and (at times, only because he was incited from the outside) attempted to place the different groups in the city under his supervision or, where that was not possible, to draw a line by means of excommunication. Before the second half of the second century there was in Rome no monarchical episcopacy for the circles mutually bound in fellowship. Peter Lampe, From Paul to Valentinus: Christians at Rome in the First Two Centuries, trans. Michael Steinhauser (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2003) p. 397....Some Catholic apologists have even admitted this and in light of the bulk of scholarship nowadays some of the Catholic apologists have changed their strategy to place the papacy within Cardinal Newmans 19th century Doctrinal Development hypothesis (which admits A. The Catholic apologists are making admissions and concessions and B. It's highly suggestive they have no intention of following the evidence where it leads but rather doubling down on the papacy no matter what).
Catholic here. I appreciate you presenting the Magisterium’s ecumenical reflection which balances historical circumstances around the formation of the papacy with the Divine institution. I’ve personally thought that’s where the truth and ground for reconciliation lies; is so good to see that the Church has this mind, too.
I’m bran new to your channel. We’ll take a look around.
A couple of concepts to keep in mind when contemplating this issue.
1. The Catholic Church adheres to the principal of subsidiarity.(decision-making authority is best placed (a) where responsibility for outcomes will occur; and (b) in the closest appropriate proximity to where the actions will be taken that will produce the outcomes. In other words, governing from bottom.up rather than from top down)
2. By looking at Jesus' teachings, the authority at issue is much different from contemporary society's view of authority. It's servant leadership. In Luke 22:31-32 Jesus tells Peter He prayed for him so that when Peter turns back after the "sifting" by Satan, that Peter must strengthen the other Apostles.
3. Jesus gives Peter the authority to bind and loose in Matthew 16:19, which essentially makes him(and by extension his successors) the final arbiter when there is disagreement between the Apostles(and by extension their successors) in matters of faith and morals which we see played out in more than one instance in the book of Acts.
The proper lense through which to contemplate Papal authority is servant leadership, subsidiarity, and God's instrument for unity on matters of faith and morals.
Extreme fair treatment of the document, some traditionalists catholics should learn how to read documents from the Church like you do. Even if the document is not authoritative or binding for catholics, still it has great value in how we catholis should approach the papacy with other christian faiths in a manner that can be actually fruitful, without abandoning any doctrine or dogma of our faith.
I'm glad you found this to be a fair treatment!
Have you watched the videos about the First Five Hundred Years by The Catholic Brothers? They present a very human way that the universal Church developed, in the very particular situation of the Roman Empire.
And I really do appreciate the good faith that you have always shown towards our differences as Christians.
I have not, but it sounds interesting!
Catholic here. Yes I think the idea of Jesus setting up dominoes to fall throughout history to institute His Divine Will in His church is the most viable understanding of history. I mean that's how God worked for the Jewish people in the old covenant, why should it be substantially different in the new covenant?
I personally think that hindsight into history is exactly how we should seek to understand God's word - seeing what worked and what didn't. For me the Catholic church fits Jesus's prayer for the Church best
I didn't have the time to read the whole document yet, only the summary at the back (which sounded really good!) thanks for this video!
No I don’t think it is conceding too much ground. I had a feeling that if you read the document, your take would be the one that was perhaps one of the most objective and the most interesting. From what I have seen, both orthodox and even Catholic RUclipsrs and others, I’ve not been disappointed. In a way the document was written for people like you as well as dialogue theologians. I thought your take was very thoughtful and hopeful.
and nice shout out to Matthew Levering. 👍
Thanks for the kind words!
I really appreciate your kind treatment of this subject. Catholics are having a hard time with this presently, "brother against brother".
Good summary. It is hard for us Catholics to concede ground because many Protestants still hate or put down Catholics without much depth of knowledge. But Christ was both divine and human as is the Church and even Scripture. So the papacy clearly shows the same traits. But playing pope ourselves is hardly the solution. God bless, a convert from Pentecostalism to the Catholic Church ♥️🙏📿
The problem is, according to Catholix Dogmstic Teachings, such as Vatican 1, Dictatus Papae, etc., if they concede on anything dogmatic, it literally proves the entire Roman Catholic ecclesiology wrong. Which they will HAVE to do if they want to unionize with anyone unless the others submit to them.
Your funny . We will keep marrying Catholic women and you keep doing what your doing nobody hates Catholics 😀😝
@@dallasbrat81 You're funny, too. I'm thankful that my Protestant grandfather and great-grandfather both married Catholic women and converted. Perhaps my four Catholic daughters will do the same. Viva Cristo Rey!
@@lellachu1682 I'm sorry that the Catholic church is dying in USA with only 30% going to mass regularly. I applaud those Christians May they get the courage to work to get the rest back and to actually correct there poor beliefs that make them vote to support killing babies and supporting gay marriage. When I visit the Catholic Church it's mainly Gen X women but that was for a family funeral so I guess the men were at home
@@lellachu1682 I also pray that the Catholic soften there hard hearts and actually try to focus on unity with other Christians. Enough pandering. Christ is head of the Church, not mortal pope but i hope the Holy Spirit makes unity Happen
Impressed that you’ve read Jean Daniélou!
In my opinion, the pope / papacy represents the guarantee of unity on the fundamental / critical points of *Christian theology* . Remaining (all Christians) united on fundamental points means maintaining the *Christian identity* . Otherwise it will no longer be clear what it means to be Christian or not.
The point is, we Catholics, Orthodox and Protestants,
have not yet achieved this type of unity. We must go on with studies.
Meanwhile, Our Lord look at us with Love. Actually, Our Lord look at everyone with Love. Especially He loves people who are building Peace, in human hearts and on all the earth.
The papacy has compromised the gospel, and literally anathematized the Apostle Paul.
As I see it, all you Protestants should come back to the fold. And if we end up disappointing you, then you could always just say F it and demand a refund in the form of another Reformation. Then perhaps we could try again in the year 2500
@@KFish-bw1om Nonsense, the Council of Trent anathematised Luther's erroneous interpretation of St Paul, we are not justified by faith alone, but instead by faith that works through love that produces good works.
@@lukewilliams448 Yeah here's the problem. The only way to reach your conclusion is to pretend that words don't mean what they actually mean.
Trent 6 Canon 24
"If any one saith, that the justice received is not preserved and also increased before God through good works; but that the said works are merely the fruits and signs of Justification obtained, but not a cause of the increase thereof; let him be anathema."
There is absolutely no rational way to deny that that statement anathematizes not only Paul, but the vast majority of the early church. See, no one has a "no works exist" doctrine. That's a lie told by Rome in response to the reformation. Their statement in Trent 6 makes it clear that they're anathematizing anyone who claims that works are the fruit of salvation through faith, not part of the cause of it. This anathematizes Paul, Clement, Augustine, and many others. It even anathematizes Thomas Aquinas. Go ahead, read their writings. See how many in church history dared to say that works are the fruit of salvation, and find themselves posthumously anathematized by "infallible" Rome.
Dear @@KFish-bw1om, please read again what you wrote of Canon 24:
"If any one saith, that the *justice received*..."
The "justice" which has already been received is the unearned justice that comes through faith. This is your "salvation through faith", in other words, the initial justification. Certainly not caused by works, since Catholics always baptized babies -- when they have received justification.
But this initial justification, as you say, must be followed by fruits in order to maintain that initial justification. And the good works provide "sanctification." Read the rest of Canon 24:
...." is not preserved and also increased before God through good works; but that the said works are
*merely* the fruits and signs of Justification obtained, but not a cause of the *increase* thereof; let him be
anathema."
Do any of the Church Fathers claim that good works are *merely* the fruit of the initial justification? Does Thomas Aquinas reduce the role of virtuous deeds to be *merely* a sign of the initial justification?
No, indeed!
Good works *do* flow from the initial justification of the soul, and they *are* a sign by which others can "see their fruits" and know who is holy and who is not (miracles, which are good works continued after death, are a needful indication of the life of a saint in Heaven before the Church can make a statement about God affirming that person to be a Saint worthy of imitation). But that is not *all* that they do.
Jesus has a lot to say about Good Works and their necessity to increase our reward in Heaven. Please read the parable of the Talents.
This is an amazing video along with a very fair and balanced reading of the document. Unity is going to be difficult, but we are absolutely moving in the right direction.
@Gospel Simplicity. You need to watch this video by @The Jewish Catholic because he just talked about this on his channel why he converted from Judaism to Catholicism instead of becoming Orthodox
Ratzinger plays a similar note as Danielou in regards to the Divine progression of history. The two questions while distinct, this is to say the human and divine element of papal primacy, aren't really disconnected. The entire Church after all is an echo of the hypostatic union. Honestly, to posit the divine institution of apostolic succession is in some way to concede to papal primacy as divinely instituted to some degree or another...I guess at that point the question is what exactly does "primacy" entail.
8:02 As a Catholic, this seems like a reasonable way of talking about it. I've heard a lot of people talk about the Church in history being like a seed that grows and develops. It's the same "thing" now as it was 2000 years ago, like a tree is the same "thing" as a seed in the most fundamental way.
I have spent the last few month, everyday, devoting time to understanding the papacy. I have been humbled by how much i DID NOT know. As an EO, i do think some form of primacy is good. We have a first among equals, but we are fractured. While most of Orthodoxy is in communion, there isnt unity. In doctrime, yes, but the charitable brotherly love is lacking.
It seems this is happening in RC as well with the infighting about Tradition and the LM.
Regardless, i fell in live with Christ in the Divine Liturgy and now the pain of the schism is felt in my heart and i will pray.
Notice that the infighting in the loud, but small, group of "rad-trads" is coming to an end. Those who cannot see the Holy Spirit is still at work in the Church through the Second Vatican Council are being exposed for their un-Traditional stance that Pope Francis is not the pope. They will either repent, or be excommunicated from the Church.
I hope we are all Traditional. The Holy Scriptures and Tradition and the Magisterium (including the Pope) complement one another, and are the means by which the Holy Spirit guides the Church. The Pope is not against the Latin Mass; he has recently reaffirmed the faithful groups that have both continued celebrating the 1962 Latin Mass and maintained their connections with the papacy -- the FSSP and ICKSP.
And the other things that are held over the faithful as fear-inducing whipping posts to draw innocents into the ranks of the "rad-trads" or "Traditionalists" (as you wisely call them) are the three things they fault Vatican ii for -- freedom of religion,
Different Orthodox churches will have different answers about the Mysteries/ Sacraments. The Church does not allow divorced and remarried to receive communion, unless a tribunal has found that the precious marriage(s) were invalid from the start. The Catholic Church does not allow Second Baptisms -- if a baptism has been received, but it is not known if the proper words were spoken, a conditional baptism is allowed. In other words, the Church has worked all these things out, that we hear are questions in and among Orthodox churches.
Thanks for the video. As a Catholic I agree with your analysis.
The papacy is both of divine origin and human development. It was necessary for the Papacy to be initiated by Christ himself (The beginning and the end). God is the creator and the source of everything, and we are not. Even how we worship God is of divine origin: “Do this in memory of me” (Luke 22:19), and Leviticus 9:24, “Fire came out from the presence of the LORD and consumed the burnt offering and the fat portions on the altar. And when all the people saw it, they shouted for joy and fell facedown.” It didn’t end well for 2 of Aaron’s sons when they tried to start their own fire for the sacrifice. God Launched worship for Israel and Christ launched worship for Christians.
Even though the following verse is rarely used in this context, I think it does help in understanding God’s ways: John 15:16, “You did not choose Me, but I chose you, and appointed you that you would go and bear fruit, and that your fruit would remain, so that whatever you ask of the Father in My name He may give to you.” I think most people are familiar with the Biblical foundation of the Papacy even though we disagree on it. No need to cover that.
I have no doubt that the Church is a Divine Institution, with a Divine plan.
From the Pope, Bishops, Priest, to the Magesterium.
The Pope, along with the infallible Magesterium, played a vital role within the world at large, our communities, and intimately in our families.
We are always striving for unity in the Church, which I'm not sure if it's possible. For the last thousand years, the Church has tried to reunite with the Orthodox. Sadly that hasn't happened yet.
Five hundred years later, the Reformation came along with a whole new set of problems.
Present day, we have the confusion of the SSPX.
We also have the threat of the radical traditionalist seperating themselves from the Church, along with the German Bishop's.
Everyone has their views and ideas on how things should be.
Just before Jesus went to the Cross, He prayed for unity in His Church!
What we need to get better at is trusting in Him!
He knows what is best for us!
We need to trust in Him and in the Church that He established for us!
We need humility and to set our Pride aside and trust in Him!
God bless! 🙏
Regarding turning back the clock, I greatly appreciate the understanding that it doesn't always work. People don't always think about what must be addressed when going back to the way things used to be.
1. If one goes back to exactly the way things used to be, then whatever happened later (the schism, in this case) could easily happen again, if one allows the same underlying conditions to exist.
2. Thus, one must address the underlying causes for division by understanding both sides (which I believe they are trying to do), and figure out how to address that so it's not exactly the way it used to be, but BETTER.
3. Not everyone tends to be convinced. Many of the Eastern Catholic Churches arose from reunification of Orthodox Churches into the Catholic Church. But the Orthodox Churches of those nations remain, because people don't all agree.
4. People hold onto division far too readily. Although there are people of good faith who would embrace a united Church, as we see in too much of culture and politics, there are people who will point out anything they could even remotely spin as being bad. If they have deemed the Pope to be evil or misguided, or perhaps certain Catholic stances made clear in the past, then when a Pope says or does something or the Church issues statements on some matter, there are those people who will almost reflexively reject and perhaps even attack the ideas, actions, or character of those involved.
If one doubts some of what I am saying, also consider how this goes with Protestants and Catholics. Reconciliation is difficult, which is why it takes so long each time it is attempted, and it's why it tends to only bring unity among some people, and not all. It's a good thing, but it's difficult.
There has never ever been complete unity, there has always been people or groups that have rejected God and his church in part or in whole. It will always been this way. Even after the second coming, I think before we get into talks of any kind we need to realize that. It reminds me of CS Lewis’s vision of hell and how the lady could go to heaven but chooses not to because of her son. She doesn’t understand she is there, but non the less is. That is the way I view this question. It is good that the church is trying to bring everyone in though, the fullness of Christ is for everyone.
Vatican I, Vatican II, and Synodality.
Revd Anthony Currer offered this wonderful reflection during the official presentation of the document at the Angelicum:
"Vatican II put Vatican I into a new context [namely] the Collegiality of Bishops.... [Now], Synodality [offers] another recontextualization... which is to put both [Vatican I and Vatican II] into the context of the Synodality (or Conciliarity) of the Whole People of God. [This is the] new hermeneutical frame within which to see Vatican I. So the exercise of Synodality decentralizes our church by [a:] recognizing the indispensable part that is played by the whole church in discerning the meaning of the Gospel for our times; and [b:] [attending] properly to the Baptized, allowing their faith to be expressed in the local churches and the Bishops conferences."
***
In other news, this week Pope Francis highlights JDDJ (25 years) in speaking with a delegation from the Lutheran World Federation at the Vatican. The massive ecumenical gesture of Vatican II is beginning to bear real fruit.
1. Vatican 1, like Vatican 2, was a disaster for the church .
2. Synodality is a joke. There’s no decentalisation: Francis rules as a tyrant and bishops are too craven to depose him. He meddles where he has no authority-presuming to depose Strickland, and to abolish the Tridentine Mass
One thing often missing from these conversations is Israel's monarchy simply because I think most people miss the association. God did not want a king in Israel, rather Israel wanted a king. God had given them laws and priests so that there was order but no man was set as ruler. Of course once Israel was given a king, a majority of them became corupted by power and fell into thier sinful lusts. Even the better ones. What we see from this is that no man, no matter thier heart for God, is capable of ordaining the laws of God onto the rest of man. The papacy is in a way a christian theocracy that many question if God has ordained. However Israel's monarchy would make it seem to me that God would not ordain a theocracy as the first one ordained was to show why man cannot be trusted with such power.
Good point.
Catholics do not see the Pope as King , if anything we see his role as a prime minister under Christ the King.
Your Israel metaphor is useful but from a different direction, in my opinion. It is the Catholic Church (and really all of the Apostolic churches, unfortunately divided as they are at this moment) that, like Judea, have the Temple, have the priesthood, and have the sacrifice. It is protestantism that does not have any of those, which makes it the nothern tribe's counterpoint to the Catholic Church's Judea.
The priests of the Temple may have at times been pretty terrible people but they did have real God-ordained authority, and one of them would be designated the High Priests the others deferred to, as with the Pope and the other Bishops.
Since Jesus came not to overturn the law but to fulfill it, He did that in part by establishing a new priesthood with a new hierarchy for a new temple.
It is in this renewal of the priesthood around a bloodless sacrifice that the principle of unity would be established and fulfilled. The trouble now is that Peter's denial of Jesus is being reprised in the unfortunate person of Pope Francis, and frankly, nearly the entirety of the Catholic episcopacy. They are all running away from the suffering of, not Jesus, but His bride the Church. This will be resolved though, hopefully soon but all in God's good time.
Until then, its hard to imagine these men as worthy successors of the Apostles, and as men possessing God-given authority. But they do. It's taking more faith right now to see it.
Peace.
Austin, let's hear about your church too.
Whether we can or can't, we should be nonetheless striving for it. If Christ catches us persisting in division when He returns, it won't be a good look.
Why should we be striving for partnership with darkness? The Reformist's already won. Besides, what will Christ catch us with if WE KEEP PUSHING IT BACK. CHRISTIAN NATIONALISM? Yeah, that sure sounds like days that will be WORSE than the days of Noah...
Get behind us, Satan.
As for us, through the grace of the Holy Spirit, our sole goal is to build ourselves on the foundation of St. Peter, he who directed the six holy councils. These councils were gathered by command of the Bishop of Rome, the city of the world. Whoever sits on that city's throne is authorized by Christ to have compassion on the people of the church, by summoning the ecumenical council, and to strengthen them, even as we have demonstrated in other places. We ask Christ to confirm us in this forever, that we might inherit through it his kingdom, in that we have joined with it the doing of his commandments. To him be praise, along with the Father and the Holy Spirit, forever and forever."
Abu Qurrah
Fabulous Syrian theologian and Melkite bishop of the 800s: Theodoros Aboukara (Abu Qurrah)!!! Thanks for the post!
I think the idea of UNITY is not really a primary concern for the Catholic Church (reseved to individual protestants) BUT it is very, very important for the Church to preserve and teach the doctrine of Faith from the deposit of faith, which is the DIVINE Revelaiton of God.
The yes/and approach to revelation and history sounds very sacramental, which is right in line with a Catholic worldview. One who defends the idea that the Will of God is revealed in history might make a similar argument from nature- that humanity’s tendency to form hierarchical societies and families is inherited from God, and reflects His plan for His Church.
This also ties in with the argument that the presence of Divinely-appointed leaders in the Old Testament finds its fulfillment in the office of the Papacy. It’s a question that can be raised from Scripture itself, and it’s one that’s worth chewing on, especially for those who see “Church history” as only going back 2,000 years.
In wrestling with and debating the question of unity, it seems it would be helpful to bring the principle of subsidiary into the mix. The fact that the Church teaches both this and the primacy of the Pope is an acknowledgement of the need to use different tools in addressing diverse local needs and cultures while maintaining a visible doctrinal and Sacramental unity, which she contends is not just good, but necessary to maximize her witness to the world per her understanding of John 17. The way these tools function and to what extent they should be used could be an interesting way to frame the discussion.
Some of this may be in the document, but I’ll admit to having not read it 😅. You make me want to, though. Thanks for this video!
Awesome video
I really appreciated your analysis, Austin! Trying to de-mythologize the “First Millennium” as this idilic time when no serious disagreements were held on was a highlight! Despite the usual argument that two concurrent ecclesial models were developing in parallel in the East and the West (I really don’t like the argument, although I understand it, if only there is room for some nuance that is “muscular” enough), still the question stands: how were divergences in the Church settled at the universal level? It’s the unavoidable issue. In matters of ecclesiology, if we go down to Catholic-Eastern Orthodox deep dialogues (and one could add Oriental Orthodoxy, the Church of the East and even Anglicans, at least to a extent) in honesty and good faith, we must avoid to represent Catholic position presupposing the papacy means a “Rambo bishop”, an autocratic ecclesiastical tyrant, transvested into a sort of Christian oracle that positively affirms infallible doctrines out of the wind, depending on his humor, benevolence or audacity. That is equivalent to squeezing Philosophical Modernity into ecclesiology: curiously enough, the First Vatican Council’s leitmotif was to specifically deal with this particular epitomization of Modernity; therefore, to fall into that pernicious game is to actually vindicate Modernity over the perennial Church and to make it trump her authority, spiritual power and ‘modus vivendi’. To all extents, even MUCH prior to Vatican I (we are talking about more than 800 years, if the historical demarcation of rupture points to 1054), the large majority of churches of Greek-Byzantine influence were objectively in state of reciprocal schism with the Catholic Church in communion with Rome, so nothing in the matters of schism could indeed be attributable - at least in some sort of honest and not on “post hoc” argumentation - to First Vatican Council’s dogmatic decrees ‘per se’. And if we are talking about the prior consolidated schisms of 431 (Assyrian Church of the East) and 451 (Oriental Orthodoxy), then we must consider more than 1400 years separating the events without having First Vatican Council’s dogmatic decrees as any sort of efficient, formal and final causation. On the exact reverse, it’s absolutely true to affirm that, if all schisms in history don’t relate to refusing papal authority directly, but rather to other doctrinal and/or disciplinary matters vindicated, ALL schismatic processes, or doctrinal struggles threatening huge divisions, were actually solved by some unquestionable monstrance of papal authority nevertheless, to one degree or another: one could mention Ephesus/431 (St Cyril of Alexandria constituted by Pope St Celestine a Roman legate in the Ecumenical Council, using every inch of Roman authority against fellow Patriarch Nestorius of Constantinople, with Philip the Legate giving his famous Petrine affirmation of the Roman prerrogatives); Chalcedon/451 (Pope St Leo’s nullification of the so-called Robber Council, the Tome in all its doctrinal assertion of authority with the specific Chalcedonian mode of reception of it), the Acacian Schism’s solution (and the Hormisdas Libel or “Formula” with the clear affirmation, under the oak of the Emperor and solemn adhesion of the important majority of Eastern bishops of the world, on how to recognize the visible Catholic Church’s governance and also rule of orthodox faith in a disruptive ecclesiastical scenario), 3rd Constantinople/680-681 (and the Monothelite attempting of reuniting the Empire with the Pre-Chalcedonians, with the huge acclamations of Pope St Agatho concerning the Petrine authority tied to his See and the divine protection perpetually tied to the Roman See, as a way to gather both orthodoxy and visible governance) and 2nd Nicea/787 (and the Imperial pressure for Iconoclasm, with the heroic intervention and affirmations of Pope Hadrian concerning his own See and the acclamation received at the Council), for example. It’s inevitable that we will see a definite radiography of history, at least if we have eyes to see and a softened heart. With that in mind, if one tries to start the dialogue from a genuine reflection and honest vantage point of trying to understand what the Church’ constitutive elements are, it’s obviously easier to understand Catholic ecclesiology in light of the ministry of universal unity and, by force of consequence, First Vatican’s concepts through its own lenses and functionality. Just THEN the next step should be taken, as the document discussed suggests in compiling non-Catholics’ proposals, since I’m confidently sure most people never actually read anything of the Session 4 of Vatican I.
With that being said, and just to avoid caricatures, the very ecclesiological concepts must be explained first in and of themselves. I think it’s more urgent to do that than seeking to re-phrase explanations or to reword the very concepts, which must only be a SUBSEQUENT step conditioned to the good will we pack in journeying through the previous one. Because I sense it’s not only that people cannot stop to misinterpret Catholics somehow, as they also maybe NEED to misrepresent what the ecclesiological promises of Christ to Peter in Catholic dogmatics are, in light of the Biblical, Patristic and historical data (for any other groups, frankly, it’s absolutely ethereal to decipher what the promises mean instead, if using that set of data, apart from a sort of fabricated clarity in just “knowing” the Catholic one needs to be fought against without any possible solution - apart from obstinacy in rejecting the Catholic one). Well, knowing that this description comes from the Catholic angle, sometimes it is off-putting that non-Catholics, even the highly educated ones, are always almost trying to make the Petrine promises of Our Lord Christ Jesus referential to the person of Peter, not to the office/ Church with and through Peter, as the subject of the promise itself, therefore to find pokes in some historical papal figures becomes their way to dismiss a theory without REALLY dealing with the vast historical material in light of the Bible, the Patristic patrimony, the clear episodes of history or, above all else, documents of Ecumenical Councils, at least with even-handedness and without the urge to reject it by the mere fact that one started rejecting it already. The theology here relates to the difference between the gifts of the Holy Spirit and the charisms of the Holy Spirit: the previous are permanent, given at Baptism, and they work for the person’s own sanctification; the latter are special - sometimes extraordinary -, given for the good of the community, for the service of others and for the assistance of the Church to lead its mission. In a brief sentence, the gifts of the Spirit are personal; the *charisms are ecclesial.* Many non-Catholics - even scholars, somewhat contaminated with the “spirit of Philosophical Modernity”, either they see/ admit it or not - try hard to make a case that a heretic pope would “destroy” Catholicism; if that made sense for Catholics, then the long yet famous theological divergences between Cardinal Cajetan (a Dominican) and St Robert Bellarmine (a Jesuit) in the 1500-1600s over the issue of a heretical pope would make no sense: they would be talking over an absurdity. Knowing it, then the most equipped minds could - not necessarily they’d rather - further discuss the Church’s complexities relating to having problematic popes and bishops in the first place. Our primary role is to understand God’s promises and order our trust to God in love, not to defy it, so as to make our faith be (in)formed by love [cont].
With that being said, I’ll try to share some concepts used:
*1) immediate jurisdiction:* it means that the primacy of Peter in the Apostolic collegiate didn’t signify the Apostles were recognized as a group and then the group subsequently decided - i.e., collegially - to recognize Peter’s leadership due to mere practicalities, but that the primacy was God-given, that means conferred directly by Christ, without mediation. It means the Bishop of Rome was not recognized historically as such to function as the leader of the universal church by the churches’ self-headed decision, let alone by the Empire, but by Our Lord Jesus Christ Himself (“imediatum” in Latin means ‘without mediation’ or, in a more concrete sense, “direct by God”). That signifies that the Holy See, when issuing to exercise its leadership, has not received its due authority by the consensus of other churches through a plebiscite or a synod, nor is subject to this “ex post hoc” consensus in the strictest sense of the term, since its role is so by divine institution and not by a democratic principle. Therefore, and just to exemplify, when the Bishop of Rome happens to act on the universal level (under the specifc circumstances justifiable), his decision is not subject to a synodical “referendum” to be applicable; Petrine authority derives from Christ himself (although, because of the sacramental nature of the Church - that means the Church “as a sacrament” -, mediatory participation is in general preferable).
*2) universal jurisdiction:* it doesn’t mean that Peter was recognized as a solipsistic leader in the apostolic collegiate; nor it meant - patently - the Successor of Peter is a bishop whose diocesan territory meant “the globe”. He is the Bishop of the diocese of Rome, where Peter’s succession was defined by death, but he is the ONLY one who could speak, as the unitive factor of the Church, on behalf of all the “oikumene”, just like Peter is the only of the Apostles who can speak by himself or - under specific circumstances - on behalf of all the Apostolic collegiate, as seen throughout both the biblical ecclesiological testimony and ecclesiastical history (despite denials of some). To Peter alone Christ Jesus gave the keys of the kingdom ‘stricto sensu’ - and one can only say that every apostle received the keys ‘lato sensu’ or by means of participation / communion with Peter - and we know that meant a king conferring power to a representative (“vicarium” in Latin), as in the Hebrew tradition one would understand how governance functions in any Davidic kingdom (Isaiah 22, 21-22), although the powers of binding and losing (the so called apostolic powers) were given further down to all of his brother Apostles collectively. Therefore, this singularity and the subsequent collegiality predicates that Peter himself was commissioned with a specific OFFICE, so that the unique role in pastoring the flock of Christ (John 21, 15-17) signifies a Petrine commission to the feeding of the (universal) church vis-a-vis the other apostles’ successors in the episcopate (not in relation to presbyters or deacons, but in a bishop-to-bishop relation), from particularity to universality and vice-versa. As St John Chrysostom says, _“And if any should say, “How then did James receive the chair at Jerusalem?” I would make this reply, that He appointed Peter teacher, not of this chair, but OF THE WORLD”_ (Homily 88 on the Gospel of John). There resides the reason of the blessing called “Urbe et Orbi” that the Popes give to us from Saint Peter Square in the Vatican City, the place of the martyrdom of Peter. This is a blessing to the city (= “urbe”) of Rome, as the Pope is “de iure” and in fact the Bishop of Rome; and also a blessing to the world or the universal Christianity (= “orbi”), as the Pope is “de iure” and in fact the single Sucessor of Peter - in this specific sense - and the true and one Pastor of the universal Church.
*3) supremacy:* it means a specific kind of episcopal primacy that is defined through a categorial difference, not really a difference of quantity of power, residing on the very kind of primatial role exercised by the Successor of Peter that makes it different from the rankings of bishops at the mere organizational level of an archdiocese (archbishop), a metropolitanate (metropolitan) and a patriarchate (patriarch). Therefore, the primacies recognized by ecclesiastical matters (like archepiscopal, metropolitan or patriarchal) inside ecclesiastical canonical regulations are not applicable ‘mutatis mutandis’ to the primacy of the Successor of Peter, since the distinction is not on “quantity” of “episcopal primacy” but it is rather categorial, manifested in the power of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Some may conflate ecclesiology with ecclesiastical canon law, which should be a basic error from a Catholic point of view (entirely related to the inflation of power of the Byzantine Empire and the ecclesiastical capture of the power - quasi-episcopal, by the way - by the Emperor through the Imperial See of Constantinople). It doesn’t work that way. The word “supremacy” (‘supremum’) used by the Fathers of the Vatican Council in Latin does not predicate, as obvious, a tyrant universal leader; on the contrary, it’s referential to a leadership whose primatial role has no further point above, if checked among other kinds of ecclesiastical primacies. “Suprema” in Latin or “ανώτατος” (‘anótatos’) in Greek is a word seen during important occasions in the church of the first millennium to describe the position of Rome, even by the Byzantines (and it had zero relation to Byzantine flattery). So the word “suprema” means, strictly speaking, the superior point of nothing coming above, not autocracy, tyranny or whatever caricature can be made of it. In the USA there is the “Supreme Court” as the highest judicial authority and the guardian of the Constitution, but no one should think of the word “supreme” in any caricatural meaning to argue it should change the name to “Primate Court that is First Among Equals” (sorry about the quip). For example, the “gramatical susceptibilities” of the anti-Catholics who get furious on the word “supreme” (rectius: on what they think it means) can be strangely selective: the Greek Orthodox Patriarch of Alexandria (not the Coptic Patriarch) does not resonate with the very argument: the burlesque title _”His Most Divine Beatitude the Pope and Patriarch of the Great City of Alexandria, Libya, Pentapolis, Ethiopia, all the land of Egypt, and all Africa, Father of Fathers, Shepherd of Shepherds, Prelate of Prelates, thirteenth of the Apostles and Judge of the Œcumene"_ is ridiculously more pompous and pretentious then any of the official titles of the Bishop of Rome.
I like to post this just to help people who are discerning these things, so that they are not wronged by gross satires.
Thanks for work you do to make people better understanding each other, Austin! I really appreciated the balanced view in the video. God bless!
I Corinthians 12:18, and 28 both state that it is God who places individuals in the Church, including the positions of authority. What is God's purpose for the placement of the Bishop of Rome? What does God want from the Bishop of Rome in the Church? Trying to see it from God's purpose instead of from a historical "what did people way back when think" may help clear up the issue.
I’m Orthodox but the Papacy doesn’t bother me. I hope for unity. The NT is literally the OT religion taken to the Gentiles with Christ on the altar instead of a lamb. There was Moses for the Israelites then there was Peter for the Gentiles. Korah said “we don’t need your authority…” that didn’t end well. 🤷♀️ The whole Israelite kingdom splintered just like the church has. Jesus came for the Pharisee and the Samaritan. I try to remember that.
“Lutheran Catholic Church”
Going to be interesting to see the logistics of reunion. How dioceses overlap or are consolidated and so on.
Idk
Pope Leo 13 first warned about this in the 19th century
If Pooe Benedict say “we can’t ask the East to accept anything more than they accepted in the first milenia,” does that not vindicate Orthodoxy?
The center of theocracy is the Jerusalem above (Galatians 4:25-26), not Rome.
Jesus the son of David has come to establish the davidic kingdom on this earth. It has come to fruition in the very city of Vatican
@@James-fk2ki It already came shortly after Jesus ascended. Acts 2:25-28 and Galatians 4:25-26.
The city of Vatican is not a fulfillment of any prophecy whatsoever.
I like the idea of "unity" but mutual respect and dialogue would be a more realistic goal. One has to be careful not to spend too much time on unrealistic goals such as "unity" because it would be more efficient to spend that time on something else.
Good thing we follow Jesus and not you.
Austin, check out Pope Benedict’s Called to Communion if you haven’t already
…In one kind?
I once heard an Orthodox youtuber say: "The primacy of Rome is good when the Pope is good. It is bad when the Pope is bad."
Not the most complex analysis in the world, but I appreciated it. It's easy to argue for the Papacy when John Paul II is leading a crowd in communist occupied Poland saying, "We want God." It is far harder to argue for the Papacy when Pope Francis is signing a document saying God willed a plurality of religions.
It ain't any easier for us Catholics at the moment. Anytime I hear Pope Francis in any news report I turn off the radio
actsapologist1991
Mr. "Act..."
The fact is, because of:
John 14:16-18
16. I shall ask the Father, and he will give you another Paraclete to be with you For Ever,
17. the Spirit of truth whom the world can never accept since it neither sees nor knows him; but you know him, because he is with you, he is in you.
18. I shall not leave you orphans; I shall come to you.
The evidence is the presence of a Father, a "Pope" since St. Peter, guiding the Church through the Spirit of Truth, guaranteed by Jesus Christ our founder and builder.
May God bless your discernment.
Remember!
The Spirit of Truth, promised by Jesus, guides the Catholic Church, founded by Christ, throughout the centuries.
@@roberthightower9889
Robert,
If you believe our Lord, then you shouldn't be acting like that.
Our Lord tells you, Robert, a truth you must accept about His one Church:
• Luke 10:16
16. 'Anyone who listens to you listens to Me; anyone who rejects you rejects Me, and those who reject Me reject the one who sent Me.'
Do you see any hint of not listening to His Vicar, the Pope?
Our Lord just told you, if you want to know His Will, you must listen to His Vicar the successor of Peter, The Pope.
God bless.
Which is exactly why it is important to go beyond 'our favorite candidate' mindset regarding the papacy, and towards a deep understanding of Christ's will for His Church, which included the decision to appoint a unifying leader on earth until the end of time, when the successor of Peter will return the keys to our Lord. We must understand the 'why' of the papacy.
In acient times the second most powerful person in the church was the patriach of constantinople, because of political reasons. And because of political reasons the east coundn't accept the roman papacy as the west saw it. Yes the papacy became also a political figure, which damaged the relations heavily, but that doesn't change that the peter and the bishops of rome had a divine superior role, even before Constantine.
The problem is that the Pope is unwilling to let even his own bishops have autonomy (for example, over the traditional Latin Mass), or, like any other patriarch, to be subject to his Synod. As such, he does not exercise an authority that is acceptable to the Orthodox Church, and any agreement with him would be to abandon the Orthodox vision of the Church.
The RUclips comment section is broken. So many comments get automatically deleted.
@eucharistangel4662 some definitely get deleted or made invisible. I had recently reply someone to a comment, then my comment disappeared, and even the person that replied to it, couldn't see it anymore. And it was a harmless comment, no idea what triggers it.
across the board; sometimes deleted, sometimes don't show - but found if I change settings to Newest First re comments, a lot show up; I follow a lot of political leaning channels, and same thing happens; some other points that may assist, is to clear caches & disable extensions on your phone or pc and/or use refresh
Austin are you considering converting to Catholicism?
I’d love you to be transparent whatever your views. Thanks.
No, he's not betraying Christ. That's as transparent as it can be.
@@xBurzurkurx What makes you so sure that it would be a betrayal of Christ?
Interesting
Yes very
We can all find unity, in that we all believe in Jesus Christ the Son of God. If we can't find unity because of theology then something is wrong within us. Something not from God, but from Satan.
Do you have union with Mormons and jehovah’s witnesses?
@eucharistangel4662
Is your comment addressed to me my friend?
@@marincusman9303
The Scriptures say, who is a liar, but he who denies that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist who denies the Father and the Son. Whoever denies the Son does not have the Father either. He who acknowledges the Son has the Father also.
@@Jordan-1999 Mormons and JW say Jesus is Christ. My point is that you are saying theology shouldn’t cause division, when it definitely should in some cases.
@@marincusman9303
But what does the scriptures say. What does our Lord Jesus Christ say?
I am Catholic, so highly biaised.
I just don’t see how there can be any sort of unity without an ultimate authority.
For example, contraception, ok or not ok. EO and Protestant are divided on this issue, with no means to resolve it. And what I find unfair, is that the burden then comes down to the laity to decide which has the better interpretation, but the laity are not theologians.
This is not ok for high ranking men in positions of power, and with a scholarly background and time on their hands to think things through to impose a burden of choice to the people.
Some people may think that choice is a good thing, but no. Faith, religion is not a consumer good in which the more the choices the better.
Now for many, they think that if they did have a pope as their head, that suddenly everything would change, that there would be no freedom, and it would look like a dictatorship. But that is a caricature and a far cry from the lived experience of Catholics.
For example: married Anglican pastors have converted to Catholicism and they stayed married, the are Orthodox who are Catholics and they have kept their own specific rites.
I don’t get what the big deal is, unless there is a question of pride within certain church leaders or their desire for ultimate power (and dare I say money?).
The pope has hardly ever taught infallibly.
Pope Francis may says strange things, but really, unless he changes teaching, which he hasn’t, then he can be considered a bad pope, like there have been many. Nothing new under Peter’s dome here.
I would like unity, but as a Catholic, I do not want to sacrifice on essential teachings.
The Papacy was given to Peter from Jesus, if people don’t get the « rock » or the « keys » I highly suggest they look more into ancient Jewish tradition.
Plus, I think we can all agree, that Jesus did not install a Church to have endless schisms.
Austin, I've been subscribed for a good while now (I think? lol) which can probably be verified if it shows up as a stat for you; I assume it does on the creator's end - Idk just to say that I've been watching since I was non-denominational and just your typical Trinitarian Evangelical *(and have since returned to it, the faith I once had - in case you think this is another RC or EO comment trying to convert you LOL)* , as Dr. Michael Heiser would put it lol, and, the phenomenon and ABSOLUTE GIFT... I mean, like, WOW.... that Dr. Michael Heiser was, I realized was in much of the early churches theology and there's that meme that his teachings are 'helping' people convert to Orthodoxy, etc. lol
but, all I wanted to say was, as you may have seen some of my other comments, I live in NA, probably in your generation group, I'm a '95 kid, ethnically Southern Slavic (Balkans) and grew up with EO.. and yeah, keep riding and pushing, man... You're truly, actually a bulwark. I find it funny that both EO and RC and pretty much EVERYONE including Joe Rogan know the name of Dr. Michael Heiser but treat his legacy as kind of like ... "eeehhhh, meh." At least with some of the EO content creators I've been watching recently. It's just too sus... it made me dive more into the history and even the esoteric portions of whatever the heck is going on in this world. Obviously, that's an insane amount of stuff for a RUclips comment but let's just say when you read "Balkans" earlier, you heard exactly what you heard. Yup, NOT GOOD loool. Then there's the fact that Slavs in the Balkans today originally migrated from Northern Europe around the Baltic sea. OH! There it is again. How weird... This is gonna sound even more 4chan-ese, but I think there's a reason Blue and Red are always used for competing teams be it real life games, video games, board, etc. etc. and that is because the English language hides many secrets. You probably know how Rothschild means Redshield, if not you do now, Roth being red, and the etymology follows with Rosh/Rox(sh) as in the Roxolani tribe/Rot/Ruth/Rug/Rus/Ros/Roz etc. and I'm not even joking but I suspect Blue, the word, etymologically goes back to.... LOL yeah... Baal, the Fly Guy... I'm thinking "Baalu" or something. We know that the Antichrist is coming out of the tribe of Dan, historically the northernmost tribe of Israel who were the closest, being up north, to Bashan and Baal worship and notoriously fell back into it again and again. The Canaanites were also known by the Greeks as Phoenician's which literally means red/purple people. Cause of the royal purple dye they were famous for exporting and still is that purple that is associated with royalty to this day. Now, go ahead and mix the colors blue and red... Lol. Something about red-haired giant mummy's, too? The Irish say they came from a people or tribe called the Tuaatha De Danaan. Danmark, Danube, Dnieper, ScanDANavia. The Tribe of Dan, huh... I'm so far into this I think a Halfdan would suffice, huehuehuehue pun very much intended. Look up Iceland Commonwealth, the word island is Iceland's name and I guess where we get the dumb spelling for island lol. The S isn't silent. And according to this commonwealth, it is also known as a maritime empire or 'sea-empire'. So like, I don't think the S is silent in ANY CASE... if you know about the Falkands War for the island off the coast of Argentina, this would make that infamously weird war (weirder than Vietnam) make A LOT OF SENSE. It also matches up with the 'aliens' apparently coming from underwater, going faster in it than we can in the air, tic tacs and whatever lol. Yeah, whatever conflicts we are seeing right now are just a theatre show being directed by and starring people who are all apart of some elite family bloodlines. The real war is between the AEsir and the Vanir. Not joking. AEsir is pronounced like "Ai-Seer" and Vanir like "Vahn-eer". I think these two names go back to the flood, with the AEsir, the Norse mythological LINEAGE of gods associated with strength, might, power, metals, etc. going back to Assyria/Ashur or probably where the actual tower of Babel was built and Vanir referring to the lineage of gods associated with wisdom, fertility, seeing into the future, riddles, etc. going back to Mount Ararat, where the Ark landed upon when the waters receded, and to this day, if you go come down off of Mount Ararat, by the time you're on flatland you only have another small bit of a walk til you get to Lake VAN. The AEsir and their followers must die in battle to enter Valhalla, or Baalhalla as I'm calling it, while the Vanir go to Vanaheim. Check this out... in a poetic edda called Vafthrudismal, a Vanir god called Vafthrudnir is approached by Odin the One-Eyed (Antichrist will have one eye missing as well lol) but disguised, and engages in a 'game of wits' with Vafthrudnir regarding the war. Vafthrudnir explains to Odin/Vodin/Vodnasz (literally one who goes forth/he who goes forth before us/our leader) that this other 'minor' god named Njoror was given in exchange as a hostage to the AEsir, regarding this war, and that Njoror will return for the Vanir at the worlds end, Ragnarok. It gets better. Vaf means to weave/entangle/tie-up and Thrudnir means power/strength/might (in Slavic, Thrudnir means someone who suffers or to be longsuffering, we would say a pregnant woman is "thrudna/trudna", and that reversal is GLORIOUS)... you can do the math and see the meaning of the name Vafthrudnir. Nice coincidence I guess. Even Loki, apparently being so mischievous and causing a mess in Valhalla, Odin kicked him out. Loki's name comes from earlier etymology such as, and get this first one, LOGI/Lokke/Lok/Luk/Lukke/etc. which are words meaning things along the line of "entanglement, seizure, CLOSED-OFF ROOMS, LOCKS" .... LMAOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO HE PUT EM IN THEIR ABYSSAL PRISONS.... "KICKED OUT" HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH dudes, some of the stories and poems have Loki insulting the AEsir gods and everyone in the halls of Valhalla with some FIRE like "bench-ornaments" that would run away from an angry, spirited man. That's not angry-spirited, read it again. It's a spirited man, who happens to be angered. Ahhhhhhhhhhhh
Austin and fellow viewers, have fun with this xD you can reach me at makeshift6969@gmail.com if you've decided I'm not a kook =D.
P.S - Bitcoin's new protocol addition are called "Runes".... ^.^ these guys suck at hiding.
The Lutheran Confessions have a document called, “Treatise on the Power and Primacy of the Pope” (1539), which is an appendix to the Augsburg Confession. It states the office of the Pope is merely by “human right,” but if the Pope would accept the Gospel (justification by faith alone) then having a head of the Church by human arrangement would be a good thing.
This is interesting. I wonder how many Lutheran signatories of the Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification were familiar with this history.
@@kevinmauer3738 Yes, I believe they would have been familiar with this. Last year, Austin interviewed Dr. Michael Root, who was the Lutheran theologian in the committee that drafted the Joint Declaration. Dr. Root discussed part of his role was to make sure the Joint Declaration was consistent with the Lutheran position in the 700-page Book of Concord. The Treatise on the Power and Primacy of the Pope is included in the Book of Concord. Dr. Root would have had extensive knowledge of every document in the Book of Concord, including this one; and I believe that would have helped shape the conversations the committee had while drafting the Joint Declaration.
I am very sorry, I meant Austin.
POST 1
First, we all need to acknowledge that denomination is culture. People deeply love their culture, or they leave it and look for another one. If Germany Declared themselves as best and most right and all nations should give obeisance and preeminance to german food, culture, language, etc., you would have rebellion as well as compliance among other nations (denominations) that would further split existing nations/ denominations exacerbating existing fragmentation. I am a convert to Catholicism. I was not drawn to it because of their spirituality, but because the weight of history and evidence was on their side. So, since my quest was and is for truth, I came to believe they had more evidence and more truth, therefore I converted. The deep corruption in the catholic hierarchy has continued and even expanded, while revelations of the same corruption has come forth in many protestant denominations. I will have to do this in several posts...
8:07 You made me chuckle with that question: "Do Catholics think _this_ would be conceding too much?" Because you're very likely going to run into a paradox: the Catholics more open and willing to make concessions vis a vis the separated churches are the ones who will more firmly uphold the authority of the Pope in the current rift within the Roman Church between “pope loyalists” and “rad trads.”
This rift will always be present: if it so happens that the Pope of turn agrees with *their* interpretation, the group of self-appointed traditionalists will tend to affirm the bishop of Rome's authority, but the reason will always be the wrong one: not because of their understanding of a need to trust in the guidance of the Holy Spirit promised by Christ to his Church, in particular the one about a guarantee that Peter (and his successors) will always remain faithful even after being "sifted by Satan," faithful enough "to confirm his brethren."
When push comes to shove, they are "fake" traditionalists, as they drop the one tradition that distinguishes the Catholics from *all* other Christians: the fidelity and submission to the bishop of Rome. And when you “shove” a little further, you’ll probably find out that it all comes down to a lack of faith in the words of Christ, which is always the demonic stratagem to make us yield to the pressure of our pride. For it really does take a lot of pride to think that one knows the Magisterium of the Church a lot better than the Pope (and the nearly unanimous college of bishops).
I consider myself a true traditionalist. Therefore, I take very seriously the tradition made dogma about the authority of the bishops in communion with the bishop of Rome. I also take very seriously one of Jesus’ most endearing desires: “Ut unum sint,” that all may be one, as he is one with the Father. For that I’d be willing to sacrifice almost anything, except the truth. The authority of the bishop of Rome is dogmatic truth. But the proceedings for his election are not. I think a first step would be to allow the eastern orthodox bishops to participate in the conclaves. It requires a lot of trust, but I think the goal is worth it. A further step could be an alternance between bishops from the east and west, maybe for the next six popes... This would require a lot more trust, and I may be dreaming too much. But, if what Francis Chan suggests is true, I think it would totally be worth it.
In the meantime, I would be all for a gesture of goodwill aimed at somewhat healing old wounds: the return of the Shroud of Turin to the Patriarch of Constantinople. If the most likely suggested historical trail is correct, a Templar crusader stole this most sacred relic during the sack of Constantinople. Now that the House of Savoy has definitely donated it to the Pope, it is within his power to return it to its last lawful custodian.
God bless Pope Francis and his authority divinely established by God himself to lead the Church. As for unity, he's already established this when he said we can acknowledge each other “as brothers and sisters, united in diversity and capable of bearing witness to the love of Christ." in his Unity in Diversity speech.
There's nothing to talk about. You've either done your homework or believe what you want to believe.
The Vatican believes that the Eucharist is to be presented by a ROMAN Catholic priest - AND NO OTHER. So, should we invite Roman Catholic priests once a month into Baptist & Evangelical churches so we can experience Communion with Christ?
They actually accept the Orthodox as having apostlic Succession and valid form. Thus they have proper consecration and real Eucharistic transformation.
@@DanielAluni-v2t But not, say, an Evangelical or Baptist pastor?
@@soulosxpiotov7280 def not...
An interesting idea, but we Catholics would warn that you should only receive communion if you really believe that Jesus is truly present in the Eucharist. Generally, we restrict communion to fellow Catholics out of concern that outsiders might eat and drink condemnation on themselves, as St Paul warns.
@@Joker22593 "but we Catholics would warn that you should only receive communion if you really believe that Jesus is truly present in the Eucharist." We Protestants believe Jesus is indeed present, during Communion, and is actually always present when TRUE born again Christians who are truly saved meet, in that there are two or more. Are you suggesting that if that Protestants do not believe that somehow the elements are actually the blood and body of Christ yet not in a physical sense (not genetically changed, the bread and wine don't turn into human DNA, with human cells), then we Evangelicals shouldn't practice holy communion at all? Do YOU believe that the Eucharist is the "real body and blood of Christ" apart from an actual physical change?
I’m Catholic and I’m troubled by how much power Vatican 1 gives the Pope. Vatican 2 said nice things about the college of bishops BUT it didn’t reign in the V1 powers at all. I accept papal infallible but it’s the total unchecked power over every single Catholic in the entire church. The pope can do whatever he wants whenever he wants for any reason. He wants to defrock a priest or bishop? Great. He can do that with the stroke of a pen and doesn’t have to give a reason. Wants to excommunicate a particular Catholic? Again, he can just decide to do that and doesn’t need to give a reason. Not we are opening the possibility of a cult leader. If a Pope started to openly live like the worst of the renaissance popes with mistresses etc, what can anyone do about it? The answer is nothing except pray. If we speak out the Pope could instantly excommunicate us.
V1 needs to be reigned in by a future Ecumenical Council and nice platitudes aren’t enough
Either you have faith that the Holy Spirit guides do Pope when he exercise his infallible authority or not. Simple as that. And against the common sense, Vatican I actually teaches the limits of the Pope's infallibility.
@@ghostapostle7225 I can handle the infallibility. It’s universal jurisdiction I have trouble with.
When God institutes a Holy Office such as the Papacy, it is the Office through which He speaks and acts, not just the sinner who is holding it.
Read this passage of Scripture about Caiaphas the High Priest of Israel (an evil man) and you will see what I mean. This meeting takes place right after Jesus raised Lazarus from the dead:
John 11:45 "Many of the Jews therefore, who had come with Mary and had seen what Jesus did, believed in him. 46 But some of them went to the Pharisees and told them what he had done. 47 So the chief priests and the Pharisees called a meeting of the council, and said, ‘What are we to do? This man is performing many signs. 48 If we let him go on like this, everyone will believe in him, and the Romans will come and destroy both our holy place and our nation.’ 49 But one of them, Caiaphas, who was high priest that year, said to them, ‘You know nothing at all! 50 You do not understand that it is better for you to have one man die for the people than to have the whole nation destroyed.’ 51 *He did not say this on his own, but being high priest that year he prophesied that Jesus was about to die for the nation*, 52 and not for the nation only, but to gather into one the dispersed children of God. 53 So from that day on they planned to put him to death."
So, we see that Caiaphas prophesied by the power of the Holy Spirit even while he was plotting to murder our Lord! That is because Caiaphas was holding the Office of High Priest that year. The same prophecy would have been delivered if someone else was High Priest that year.
Keep in mind that various Popes have only spoken ex cathedra (infallibly) perhaps 8 times in 2,000 years. They do express their opinions often, and write them down in treatises, but these are not considered infallible teachings. On the other hand, we trust that Jesus guides, confirms and corrects the teachings of the Pope and the Magisterium *because He promised He would*.
i think this is all quite curious. you don't seem to have solid positions on much at all.
One thing for sure is the Church is either Orthodoxy or Catholicism one of these has not strayed...
Orthodoxy is not one unified front. The Eastern and Oriental churches are a hodgepodge of sects, some in communion with others and some not, but all in some form of disagreement. So which of those strayed from the other? Stop this nonsense reasoning.
@@jwilsonhandmadeknives2760 No nonsense the Church started and originated in the east son. No Protestant sect or thousands of denominations is the church... Orthodoxy is the Church but yes they've had disagreements. Read Acts 20:17-32 Paul explains what will happen to the Church... For sure no large bible study with multiple ppl is a church. Just a large bible study.
@@jwilsonhandmadeknives2760 "Orthodoxy" is Eastern Orthodox (and all the jurisdictions therein). The Oriental Orthodox are non-chalcedonians, and have not been part of the Church for over a millennium and a half.
It is true, however, that some of jurisdictions within Eastern Orthodoxy have fallen out of communion with one another (as four of the five sees did with Rome a millennium ago); but those jurisdictions remain in communion with other jurisdictions of the Church, and division between jurisdictions need not be permanent.
At any rate, the Latin Church can claim to apostolic succession. So can the East. So can the Coptic, Ethiopian and Armenian Orthodox churches. Any church founded by an apostle can make that claim.
There is, however, only one holy, catholic and apostolic church: Which of the above has been the most faithful to the teachings of the apostles?
Hahahahahah, good one.
It's Protestant IF ANYTHING.
- Balkan Slav that grew up in Orthodoxy and knows what my people are like and what they do lolololol.
@@xBurzurkurx I was Protestant for 30yrs and ive seen the Pride and protests even against the gatherings of the(churches) down the block how they did not have the write doctrine as "we do.". Eventually the Asst. pastor would protest against the head pastor( though none of this is biblical) and open a church down the block and take some of the congregants with him... All thats happening in Protestant churches during service is a large bible study. And the Worship of God is a concert, with the worship leader wearing skinny Jeans with a Tamborine and the head Pastor looking cool in a warehouse. No liturgical worship whatsoever. The temple of the Jews had liturgical worship...There is no difference from a small bible study at someone's house to the mega churches. Its about making money and fleecing the flock...Been there and done that. And have matured.
Great discussion. When I read “Ut unum sint” in seminary I was very hopeful that the traditional gridlock between Rome and everyone else might break up and we could eventually move to a “communion of communions” with the pope as “first among equals”. Glad to see a possible inching in that direction. Of course, since Pope St John Paul 2 wrote that document there has been an increase of division in all of the major Western churches. It’s a shame.
You know that the rulers of the Gentiles ilord it over them, and their great ones exercise authority over them. 26 jIt shall not be so among you. But whoever would be great among you must be your servant,3 27 and whoever would be first among you must be your slave,4
6:13 - "Your name is now Rock" - Hey Austin, we know what Our Lord meant at Mat 16:18 just as HE shows us in his word in the OT:
Just as his forefather Joshua (Joshua 24:25-28) set a stone/rock as witness that "HEARD God's Word and is to **witness against those who don't hold to it** "
So now does Jesus - Definitely establishing an 'executive' office not 'over' but as a Right Arm to His Word!
But unlike Joshua, the Stone/Rock Jesus SET - IS A Living Rock . :) Thoughts?
Joshua 24:25-28
25 On that day Joshua made a covenant for the people, and there at Shechem he reaffirmed for them decrees and laws.
26 And Joshua recorded these things in the Book of the Law of God. Then he took a large stone and set it up there under the oak near the holy place of the LORD.
27 “See!” he said to all the people. ** “This stone will be a witness against us. It has heard all the words the LORD has said to us.
It will be a witness against you if you are untrue to your God.” **
28 Then Joshua dismissed the people, each to their own inheritance
IMHO, the schism between the East and West was, essentially', political that took on theological differences. For example, the Filioque. "I believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life, who proceeds from the Father and the Son, who with the Father and the Son is adored and glorified, who has spoken through the prophets." (Nicene Creed)
The Filioque is " who proceeds from the Father and the Son ".
Whereas, "The Eastern Orthodox interpretation of the Trinity is that the Holy Spirit originates, has his cause for existence or being (manner of existence) from the Father alone." The Son having no role in the forming (?) of the Trinity. But the Athanasius Creed, which was the basis for the Nicene Creed has,
"The Father is made of none: neither created, nor begotten.
The Son is of the Father alone: not made, nor created, but begotten.
The Holy Ghost is of the Father and of the Son: neither made, nor created, nor begotten, but proceeding.
So there is one Father, not three Fathers; one Son, not three Sons: one Holy Ghost, not three Holy Ghosts."
The reason I think it was actually political was due to the process by which Bishops are appointed. A Council of Bishops submit a name to the Pope and the Pope, generally, rubber stamps it.
But in one case, the Byzantine Emperor simply kicked out the Patriarch of Constantinople and appointed his person to replace him. Which, the Emperor had no authority to do. The fellow he replaced the Patriarch with, was subsequently removed and the original Patriarch was re-established, which ticked off the fellow the Emperor appointed. And though he later was approved to replace the Patriarch when he died, his successor had a bone to pick with Rome and the Pope.
Maybe
Happy weekend Austin
Intentionally or not, Pope Francis's rather bizarre leadership style has encouraged more conservative Catholics to question and tone down the ultramontanism of the post-V-One era. It strikes me that this is a good example of God writing straight with crooked lines. Clearly now, it has become timely to revisit the teachings of an era when the pope dared to claim "I am the Church, I am the tradition." For that, we can all thank Jorge Bergoglio.
If Jesus intended to be united under the Pope and the Church in Rome, it's rather lacking in substance and clarity in the Bible. I would expect that James, Paul, Mark, and others would have emphasized this point in the Bible considering the monumental nature of the claim by the Roman Catholics. The pattern in the early church as shown in the scripture was physically separated but spiritually united in Christ.
*JESUS RE-ESTABLISHED THE OFFICE OF THE ROYAL STEWARD*
_Peter alone received the keys of the perpetual office in an eternal kingdom._
The concept of the royal stewardship finds its roots in the Old Testament archetype of Joseph, who was appointed as a royal steward by Pharaoh:
"You shall be in charge of my palace, and all my people are to submit to your orders. Only with respect to the throne will I be greater than you.” So Pharaoh said to Joseph, “I hereby put you in charge of the whole land of Egypt.” Then Pharaoh took his signet ring from his finger and put it on Joseph’s finger. He dressed him in robes of fine linen and put a gold chain around his neck. He had him ride in a chariot as his second-in-command, and people shouted before him, “Make way!” Thus he put him in charge of the whole land of Egypt. Then Pharaoh said to Joseph, “I am Pharaoh, but without your word no one will lift hand or foot in all Egypt.” (Genesis 41:40-44)
Joseph's elevation to this esteemed position granted him significant authority, second only to Pharaoh himself. He was entrusted with overseeing the entire land of Egypt, symbolized by the transfer of Pharaoh's signet ring and robes of fine linen.
This Old Testament precedent sets the stage for understanding Eliakim's role seen in Isaiah:
"In that day I will summon my servant, Eliakim son of Hilkiah. I will clothe him with your robe and fasten your sash around him and hand your authority over to him. He will be a father to those who live in Jerusalem and to the people of Judah. I will place on his shoulder the key to the house of David; what he opens no one can shut, and what he shuts no one can open." (Isaiah 22:20-22)
Just as Joseph was appointed as Pharaoh's steward, Eliakim is chosen by God to serve as a steward over the house of David. God bestows upon Eliakim the authority symbolized by the key to the house of David, granting him the power to open and shut, with his decisions binding and unbinding.
In Matthew, Jesus echoes this ancient imagery when he commissions Peter as the steward of the kingdom of heaven:
"I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven." (Matthew 16:19)
By entrusting Peter with the keys of the kingdom, Jesus bestows upon him the authority to make decisions that hold weight both on earth and in heaven. This continuity, tracing from the Old Testament archetype of Joseph to the prophetic anticipation of Eliakim, reaches its climax in Jesus' explicit commissioning of Peter as the steward in Jesus’ kingdom. This act underscores the profound authority and responsibility that Jesus confers upon Peter.
The role of the Bishop of Rome is to oversee the church of Rome. Unity will mean his repenting from trying to do more than this.
A problem I see with "first among equals" is who's in charge? You've got a problem in Orthodoxy today where the Patriarch of Moscow had excommunicated the Ukrainian Patriarch and the Patriarch of Constantinople. They can't have an ecumenical council because they can't agree about hardly anything. What did Jesus mean when he told Peter hew would give him the keys to kingdom of heaven and what he bound on earth would be bound in heaven? Then in John 21 he tells Peter to "Feed my lambs" "Tend my sheep" and"Feed my sheep"? He was talking to Peter, no one else.
Who's in charge? Jesus Christ.
The template for decision-making in the Church comes to us from the Council of Jerusalem: "For it has seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to lay on you no greater burden than these requirements" (Acts 15:28)
There's a rift between Moscow and Constantinople, on the surface, about the (fake) Ukrainian church. Christ can heal the rift. He does not need a pope to heal it.
Sounds to me like you're close to, or already have, calculated that triple-digit number.
I'm a Balkan Slav and grew up in Orthodoxy. It ain't it.
Keep asking questions, you will be gracefully guided as you seem to be on the same path of questions I was just recently pondering about.
We could both just need some fresh air, but not a bad confirmation for myself, and now for you I would say lol
God bless and God's Peace, brother 🙌
They've had councils. Schisms have been a common part of the Church and her history for 2,000 years, where have you been?
Let's be clear about one thing: there's a lot of division within the Catholic Church, the Radtrad community (Radical Traditionalists) in particular hate Pope Francis.
That's a perception, there are certainly those out there who feel that way but I have yet to meet many who don't pray for Pope Francis' conversion
@@roberthightower9889 pray for his conversion? To what? TLM onlyism?
@@christophlindinger2267 TLM folks are not the only ones who recognize problematic ambiguities of words and actions. Conversion from that to clarity
@@roberthightower9889 you know who asked for clarity as well from Jesus? The Pharisees, when they brought a certain woman to him to have her judged by Him.
@@christophlindinger2267 I think you are arguing from bad faith. You cannot tell me in good faith there is nothing Pope Francis should clarify. That is an unreasonable position taken only for arguing for arguments sake
John 6
As you note, the root of this question lies in the concepts of development and continuity, which also form the basis of the division between Rome and Orthodoxy. It is evident that the extent of papal authority and the centralization of authority in Rome represent developments over time. However, what is less clear is whether the doctrine of development itself is a historical development. Did the early church possess a doctrine of development, or was its focus on continuity? If it emphasized continuity, then Rome’s claim to reflect the early church’s commitments, particularly concerning the development of papal doctrines, becomes problematic.
Justin, You are not Catholic so how does having a pope apply to you?
I'm very sorry, I meant Austin.
You RCC are so patronising,. I will let GOD be my judge
That is basically the question this document was designed to answer: how can we understand the Papacy in a way that can lead to reunion with non-Catholic Christians. It is fairly important what non-Catholic Christians think of that.
Yes, the way forward is submitting to the authority of Peter's successor.
That perspective hasn't brought unity about for a millennium: Perhaps it's time to give it up?
@@ericlammerman2777. What do Protestants know about unity when one considers the fruits of personal interpretation ie confusion, division & scandal of 000’s of sects.
No. Calculate the number...
@@ericlammerman2777 just the opposite fortunately. Must be why Jesus instituted the office.
@@SUPERHEAVYBOOSTER Actually, he gave his Revelation to Asia Minor, not Rome, and he did it through Angels, not Bishops. These are facts, unlike your opinions.
If every pope was Pope John Paul II, everyone would be a catholic. Including me.
Unfortunately, in my reading of history, there have been as many wicked popes as there have been great popes.
Then you wouldn't really be Catholic. You don't get to pick and choose popes. If you can't take the bad ones then you have no faith.
@@PaulDo22 I have faith in Christ, I have no faith in the papacy.
@@cuatro336 Christ is present in His Apostles and especially with the Pope. This isn't a matter of your preferences. Christ gave us His Church. You can either accept or reject it but you can't pick and choose. You can't be a little bit pregnant and you can't be a little bit Catholic. It is all or nothing.
The Bishop of Rome is the Apostle Peter, continuing to rule Christ's Church until the end of times, according to His will.
im sure Apostle Peter didnt agree to child sex abuse
@@IAMNationX that's a silly and immature response. Please engage in fruitful dialogue rather than cheap shots that don't actually speak to the topic at hand.
@@mariac4602 silly and immature? tell that to the THOUSANDS abused by the church
@@IAMNationX
Friend,
In case you didn't know, sin is individual. That means, you're not guilty of your neighbors sins.
Remember!
Hebrews 9:27
27. And just as it is appointed for man to die once, and after that comes judgement,
No one is guilty of a neighbor's sins.
@@IAMNationX
Mr. X,
Haven't you learned?
Sin is an individual act!
Therefore your discernment is flawed by yiur ardent, irrational prejudice.
Jude 11 warns of Korah's rebellion.
Numbers 16: 3 is what the Orthodox and protestants say to the authority that Christ left over His church.
Why not listen to Jude?
There already is unity in the body of Christ in the Bishop of Rome. If you are intentionally separated from the Pope unless you have some extremely rare mitigation of culpability the assumption should be you are outside the body of Christ.
The bishop of Rome is not the body of Christ. The body of Christ is His Church, and the bishop of Rome isn't even in communion with her.
@@ericlammerman2777. Jesus est His One True Church Mt 16 18-19 which is the pillar & foundation of Truth 1 Tim 3:15 & the pope is His earthly representative. Protestantism, without hierarchy & unifying authority is not sustainable as personal interpretation has resulted in confusion, division & scandal of 000’s of sects which is not of Jesus who willed unity Jn 17 11-23
Natural Law requires a leader. People are doomed without one. What is an evangelical pastor but a Pope with a smaller audience.
Christ is our leader. He is the head of the Church, not the bishop of Rome.
@@ericlammerman2777 Christ is the head of the body... the ultimate head of the Church. The steward of the earthly Church sits on the Chair of Peter.
Why did God allow 1500 years of error before the reformation or is it the other way?
Unfortunately that's a loaded question based on a false premise. The early church didn’t become the RCC quickly. The RCC didn’t come together until centuries later. (There is no direct apostolic line.) And the RCC that emerged then did not descend into grave error until many centuries after that formation. The word accretion is key.
@@Isaiah53-FLThat's the best explanation and response I have ever heard . Thank you for that!
Because the true church persisted in byzantium
Why does God allow human sin and error in general. It's part of being human. We are not made perfect until after death.
@@kianoghuz1033 ah, ok
All of these questions are like complaining about a crooked roof on a house when, in fact, the problem is that the foundation is the crooked.
Peter, the rock that Jesus appointed as a foundation for His church is crooked? Let me say I strongly disagree!
These are very wily nily questions about the papacy.
What does “unity” even mean? Seems like it’s just a soy way of saying ecumenism
The pope doesn’t work either way.
You have to interpret the pope, his documents, other people’s documents (which are not infallible) and other clergy (who are not infallible)
I can say for certain that there is dialogue between the apostolic hierarchies of Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, and Oriental Orthodox.. but not protestants (nor should they) because protestants are not apostolic. In his interview with 60 minutes last month, Pope Francis already admitted he's not infallible
At what minute of this interview did he say he is not infallible?
@@JanGavlas I wasn't counting the minutes
@@stuntman083 Pope in his office is infallible on matters of faith and morals. So not infallible all the time but when needed. So you said just half truth. I will watch the whole interview cos I am sure you take it out of context.
@@JanGavlas wrong, he is never infallible
@@stuntman083 How do you know? Are you sure infallibly?
The Pope is not a Rambo Pope. The Pope properly understood is to protect Christian doctrine just as it did early on with Arianism when over 50% of the Bishops believed in that doctrine.
Think about it for a moment. If the CC was set up like some Protestant Churches where they decided upon popular vote in their council Christianity today would not exist. Jesus would not be known as God, the 2nd person of the Trinity.
The set up of the hierarchical nature of the Church was done this way by Jesus and the Apostles then used that. Im not saying this the best system of government in the secular world but when it comes to Gods Church it has withstood the test of time
Lastly stating the East only saw the Papacy as ceremonial directly conflicts with historical events such as on the heresy of re baptizing to which the East submitted to the Pope on. Secondly that also directly conflicts with papal indefectability that the East signed off on at the 6th Ecumenical Council.
It is good to hold the West to account but to ignore the East’s on change on historical positions should not be done. They need their own feet held to the fire as well.
POST 2
God found such corruption in the Judaism of Jesus time that Jesus repeatedly condemned their religious authorities and practices because it had all diverged so far from God's intent and He informed them that the temple would be destroyed. This event made it impossible for Judaism to continue in its then current form. So in an attempt to keep the Jewish culture and people together and obedient to the Jewish religious hierarchy, the rabbis created a new version of Judaism which kept them in power but also preserved the scribal troves and skills to which we owe our current access to ancient records of God's dealings with mankind especially through the jews. The good and the bad. Originally Christianity was a Jewish sect, like the pharisees, sadduccees, essenes, Zealots etc.
But the early Jewish Christians were expelled from the synagogue, Jesus and Christians were reviled by the Rabbis and Christianity was severed from Judaism by the Rabbis, then later Constantine expunged all judaistic practices from Christianity while at the same time stopping the wholesale slaughter and execution of Christians. The good and the bad.
Impossible for us to ever accept the current papacy.
The pope has to return to defending Orthodoxy as the Orthodox popes once did.
Of course we will see him as First.
Austin, why do you speak so much about Catholicism?
Cause he knows its the truth obviously
Can we find a way forward for unity? Yes! Submit to Rome
History says submit or die
As a Catholic I have to break it to you, many Catholics don't even submit to the Pope. The hate towards the Pope from within the Church is shocking, especially from the radtrads community.
@eucharistangel4662 God does give us free will. 👍🏻
@@bakhtior2589I don’t really think this is true. If it were Orthodoxy and Protestantism and Jews would have been wiped out.
I'd rather submit to Jesus
Not if it means compromising the gospel. I'm sorry, but once you cross over the line of the self-exalting satanic pride to claim yourself infallible, and then anathematize the entire early church including the Apostle Paul. There's no unity until you repent, humble yourself, and submit to the true authority of the word of God.
If it were just some minor doctrinal differences, sure then we could probably have fellowship and agree to disagree on non-essential doctrines. But Rome has compromised the gospel, and still holds to the claim that its decrees in doing so were infallible and equal in authority to the word of God.
No, I'm sorry, that demands serious repentance.
Trent 6 Canon 24
"If any one saith, that the justice received is not preserved and also increased before God through good works; but that the said works are merely the fruits and signs of Justification obtained, but not a cause of the increase thereof; let him be anathema."
There can be no real unity outside communion with Rome. Humility, Submission, and obedience is what we need more than anything in our day and age.
Agreed. Rome should display humility, submission and obedience to Christ...then it can be restored to communion with His bride.
I appreciate your kindness and sincerity. You know the history is clear that there was no single bishop of Rome for at least the first 100 or so years after the resurrection. The early churches, including Rome, were ruled by a plurality of bishops/elders. As Gavin points out this was clearly an accretion.
I would also point out that we ARE UNITED in the confession of faith Jesus gave to Paul that he passed to us in 1 COR as of first importance.
Rome has nothing to do with it. That's a complete irrelevancy. Could be in Hawaii for all we care.
The Papacy developed through history as the accumulation of human authority.
Jesus gave ALL of the disciples "the Keys of the Kingdom" and the power to "bind and loose," as in, to expel demons and to hear confession and forgive sins, and together, as a group collectively, to define authoritative doctrine. Without that unity, no one bishop can declare a teaching that must be binding upon the whole Church. The Magisterium must not stand against the ancient traditions.
The Holy Spirit can, and does, teach all that is needed for understanding, for us to know about the Father and the Son. However, it is the place of the Whole Church, in council, to discern the truth and necessity of any new teaching, by the criteria of whether it conforms to the Apostolic deposit and the Scriptures that they left behind.
We need that to prevent the accretions that could lead us to the extremes that become heresy.
Where in the Bible did Jesus give the keys to all the apostles?