That commentary is just brilliant. This man is one of the most gifted scholars of the Bible that I have ever heard.The explanations are from a different planet. May God bless him and his family for expounding the scriptures to us and may God give him a long life.
I want to see Joseph Ratzinger dressed in his finest Hitler Youth regalia give the Sceptor of Rome over The Ark of The Covenant to Peter Turkson, dressed in his finest cultural Ghanaian garments, Gloria Olivae: man to man, and how a the miracle of Fatima's "Jesus Christ" can save a former Nazi Hitler Youth bowing to his Coronated Black man from the foundation of the earth, in the name of The Father, The Son, and The Holy Spirit: the Spirit of Peace. 🕊 The Ark of This Testament: The Witnesses of Revelation 11, ARE Francisco, Jacinta, and Lucia. Exodus 25:21-22 (KJV) And thou shalt put the mercy seat above upon the ark; and in the ark thou shalt put the testimony that I shall give thee. And there I will meet with thee, and I will commune with thee from above the mercy seat, from between the two cherubims which are upon the ark of the testimony, of all things which I will give thee in commandment unto the children of Israel. This is not a request. 👽💨🔥
Right?! If all Christians would just really trust in Jesus and what He says, and what He wills, it would be so simple... and we'd all remain as one, like He prayed for.
I can't hear this enough of this topic and every time Dr Pitre talks about it, I learn more of the context that supports the conclusions and defeats my prior beliefs in the Calvinist church. Thank you so much.
One more Calvinist in the books...my way there is a famous Evangelical-Calvinist seminary that is the making the fatal error of teaching Aquinas, and are losing half their students!!!
Stephen Ray also has a wonderful book on the papacy. Dr. Pitre's and Mr. Ray's books are my two go to references on this subject from a biblical theological perspective.
It's funny that apostle Peter didn't tell apostle Paul to not talk to the pope that way when Paul rebuked Peter for teaching error when dealing with jews and gentiles. I thought popes are infallible? Not according to Peter or Paul. Peter realized he was wrong, Paul knew he did correct error. And never forget, ALL APOSTLES had the same binding and loosening power, so stop saying Peter only because it is Easily refutable. Stop lying to yourself. Catholics cherry pick the Bible while ignoring other clear passages that rebuke catholics narrow minded claims.
@@Kurt2222 Go back and reread St. Paul's account of this matter. Notice that St. Paul uses the VERY NAME Jesus Christ gave to St. Peter (Cephas) to denote the respect to the Petrine office. Infallibility does not mean impeccability, sir. Infallibility means the Pope cannot teach error with regards to doctrine; it doesn't mean he is incapable of personally acting in a way that contradicts the teaching - in other words it doesn't mean he cannot personally sin. I can proclaim that 2+2=4 (I am teaching correct doctrine), and then go and MISADD the two numbers in a mathematical problem. My mistaken adding doesn't negate the principle, sir. It was to St. Peter that the divine revelation was given (cf. Acts 10) that non-Jewish Gentiles would be admitted into the Church (which up to that time was primarily ethnically and religiously Jewish: all of the Apostles were Hebrews, and all of the first disciples were Hebrews). So Peter goes around convincing the other Church leadership Gentiles received the Holy Spirit as the Jewish converts had and they should be admitted into the Church (cf. Acts 11 & Acts 15). AND YET, at a particular time and place where St. Paul was present, Peter refused to eat with Gentiles in the presence of other Hebrew Christians and St. Paul called him out for his BEHAVIOR contradicting his teaching. It doesn't negate the teaching he was given at Acts 10 in a vision from God. It means he himself had acted contrary to the CORRECT TEACHING he had received and taught. He had sinned against his own teaching. It makes him a sinner, not a mistaken teacher.
@@QuisutDeusmpc deal with it Peter wasn't catholic. He never taught catholic doctrine, not a word of it. No other Bible writers lend any support of any body other than God and Christ ever forgiving sins. People teach by example, Bible proves this repeatedly, you just are not willing to accept it. not a word of men forgiving men, man made doctrine dude.
@@Kurt2222 Deal with what? Your mistaken interpretation? St. Peter is a Catholic. Do you even know where the English word "catholic" comes from? It comes from two 'koine Greek' words which are actually found in the NT: 'kata holos': 'kata' means 'according to', and 'holos' or 'holon' means 'the whole'. 'Catholic / 'kata holos' means 'according to the whole'. It comes from Ephesians 4 where St. Paul says Jesus Christ "breaks down the dividing wall" which separates Jew from Gentile. Meaning Christ's Church is to be "according to the WHOLE" of the human race, not merely a part (whether it be Jewish, or Gentile). Therefore the 'ekklesia' / Church is to be "according to the whole" of mankind, or universal. So, YES, St. Peter is a Catholic. At Matthew 16: 18-19 and John 21: 15-19, Jesus Christ establishes him as His hand chosen prime minister with universal jurisdiction (or deputized authority) over the entirety of the Church. You deny the truth and seek to replace it with your private interpretation. The Catholic Church has one pope: Protestantism has as many popes as it has Protestants. The very thing you deny to the Pope, you each individually arrogate to yourselves.
@@QuisutDeusmpc Peter never forgave or retained Simon's sin nor did Peter teach anyone to forgive sins like catholics teach. That teaching came long after. Irenaeus and Polycarp didn't write about it. Ignatius and Clement of Rome didn't even write about it either. That came long after Christianity began. Praying to Mary came hundreds of years later. The first pope was in the 7th century. Infallibility of pope is not even 400 years old, come on man, study history and look at the cold hard fact, catholicism is made up as time goes on. Its NOT from the apostles. True Christianity came from the apostles tradition. Catholicism came from Satan influencing men to ignore God's way and make their own way. No way for you to get past this fact.
I have been following Dr Pitre's lectures on catholic production and I thank the Lord for him , as i have never understood so well about our Catholic Faith till now. Especially to be able to defend my Catholic Faith against Protestanism Fundamentalist. May the Lord and Our Blessed Mother Bless You Dr Pitre.
me too I often got so dismayed that I can't even defend my faith to people who are bullying about my Catholic faith and I badly needed like Dr. Pitre's mind blowing explanations!,,, PRAISED GOD ALMIGHTY FATHER IN HEAVEN,, for giving Dr. Pitre to be our spiritual guide to love more, understand more my Catholic faith!,, IN JESUS MIGHTY NAME! AMEN 🙏❤️🙏
Thank you for your scholarly work, Dr. Pitre. As one born & raised Jewish, taught the Hebrew Scriptures by my Bubbie, the only one in my family who believed in and knew God the Father, these teachings are invaluable to underpin my Catholic faith even more. And these teachings are gorgeous. May God bless you richly for your service. 🙏
@@JasonCastillo-z3h If I know my history properly, the Ashkenazi Hebrews were almost all either killed or assimilated. I think it is something like 98% of the Hebrews who are now living descend from the Sephardi Hebrews, and only about 2% are Ashkenazi.
Dr. Pitre needs to write a “Jewish roots” book on the papacy. I am sure there will be a lot converts to Catholicism from a book like this. Thanks for these videos!!
He does have something! 🙂 If you go to Brantpitre.com you'll find all his publications. He has a presentation titled Jesus and the Jewish Roots of the Papacy. It's just a couple of bucks and it's AMAZING!!
Quite a long sermon for today, but pack with actions, explanations, and clarity of words. I felt like eating honey, sweet in the tounge. As gentle in taste just like milk. Thanks Dr. Petri, it’s a perfect score. You are the Best!.. My faith is always in the Rock in which Jesus instituted to Peter, and to the generation of Priests and Bisphop..I know, with this faith this will lead me to the Lord Jesus the Christ, the Son of Living God..
Wow! Thank you, Dr. Pitre! By far the best, most concise explanation of the papacy I have seen. You are a blessing to the Church. I love your books, and you have taught me so much. Thank you!!!!!
These videos are ALL so good, but like Peter among the apostles, this episode stands out, over and above nearly all other episodes. The clarity with which Dr. Pitre teaches, and the connections he makes all along the way are nothing short of magnificent. Well done! Bravo!!
@@tony1685 oh Tony, u N ur sda beliefs again trolling on a Catholic channel. Did ur church exist in Jesus time? I think not. not in less than 200yrs of your church existence. Hasn't ur False prophet egw already been exposed. Shame on you and her. Come back to the one True, Holy Apostolic Catholic Church.
This is one of the best explanations of what Jesus was doing, the church structure of the position of prime minister makes sense, the explicit language stands on its own. Binding and unbinding correlation, yes that serves this well. I'm going to listen to this again! 😁 PS Im in my 50's and currently converting to being Catholic after 40+ years as a Baptist.
Wow! May the Lord richly bless you and your ministry! I realized a few months ago how ahistorical Protestantism was and how contrary some of the beliefs are to the early church universal, then I realized how sola scriptura made no sense; then I narrowed my choices between Eastern Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism who were once a United church until the 11th century, I was really stuck in the middle between the two, and would at some times lean Catholic and then the next lean Eastern Orthodox, but this video has me no doubt, believing Roman Catholicism is true. Thanks.
Dr Pitre, i've heard this explanation before about Isaiah 22 and the papacy from different sources, but you took it up a notch. Thanks for the clarity of your explanations. Praise be Jesus and Mary!
We pray that our Holy Father is not ashamed of Peter the Rock. That our holy father take great pride in this gift of the Lord Jesus. The Spirit of Peter reigns in the Church, even if I have to carry it as a Laity, Life is in the life of the Church, our Lord died for!
Thank you so much Dr. Pitre I am learning a lot from you. I am approached occasionally about these topics and can now make sense of them the way you teach/explain them. God bless you immensely!
@@tony1685 Hey Tony some more hard facts for you: Answer these first for your false religion. Still running from my challenge too: www.bible.ca/7-sabbath-questions.htm facebook.com/Seventh-day-Adventism-SDA-Exposed-409314105814892/
This was outstanding! You are such a gifted teacher! I am always fascinated by the connections / links you make between the Old and New Testaments. Thanks so much!
Amazing! Thank you Dr Pitre. I have heard such a variety of interpretations of this passage about ‘cephas’ so that I didn’t imagine there would be one understanding I could ever rely on. You have given it to me. I’ve loved all the popes in my lifetime from 1950 until now (I’m 70), thinking they all bring something perfect for their time. Pope Francis (supported in prayer by Pope emeritus Benedict) is doing this now - courageously. God abundantly bless you & yours with miracles of His goodness. Loree
The best explanation for the papacy I have ever read. The present pope would do well to consider the immediately subsequent verses of Isaiah 22 : 23 -25 which explain how the Lord will "fasten" the Prime Minister "as a peg in a secure place" but that one day "the peg shall be removed, which was fastened in a secure place: and it shall be broken and shall fall".
Wonderfully explained beloved Brother in Christ; have never heard this at all before; Being from an Evangelical Background the Petra vs Petros was explained differently --now I see -- so as to nullify the Papacy & the Ordination of the name changed from Simon To Peter . Thanks so much & praying for the Unification of the Body of Christ in ONE HOLY APOSTOLIC CATHOLIC CHURCH . Dr Stephen India
No more Priest that lead the church but we come through Jesus to God ourselves once the veil was removed. 2 Corinthians 3:16 Jubilee Bible 2000 (JUB) 16 Nevertheless when they convert to the Lord, the veil shall be taken away.)
*Also I forgot to add that at least some Rabbi's believed Hezekiah was the promised Moshiach. Even the well known anti missionary Rabbi Tovia Singer believes there was no and will be no greater king in Israel than Hezekiah(2Kings18:5). Hezekiah foreshadowed Christ which is a possible reason why Christ employed the imagery from Isaiah22 when he gave the keys to Peter. It may even be that Shebna foreshadowed Caiaphas who God takes the stewardship away from and gives it to Eliakim(Peter). Especially when you read the following verses; Isaiah22:15 Thus says the Lord God of hosts: Come, go to this steward, to Shebna, who is master of the household, and say to him: 16 *What right do you have here? Who are your relatives here,* that you have cut out a tomb here for yourself, cutting a tomb on the height, and carving a habitation for yourself in the rock? Caiaphas most likely only attained the position of High Priest due to the fact he was Ananias's(the former High Priests) son-in-law.
Dr. Pitre. Your videos have given so many of us a deeper understanding of the Gospel,. Thank you for your work, and your in depth study that brings both the Old and New Testaments into the light.You have given us a fuller understanding of the God's message, and the relationship, between the two, the old and new Covenants. I am so far out of my comfort zone, in making any observations or interpretations, that I feel totally out of my league to ask a question. But here it is. "If"the masculine of the Rock is Petros, and the feminine is Petra. Could it be that Petra is "The Bride of Christ?" Would our Saviour have used that terminology on purpose, as He was always so exacting in His speech. And again, my knowledge is so scant on any these matters,that I am actually afraid to put the question out there. ..... R. Vacon
Learnt so much more about the Papacy, thanks to Dr Pitre. By the way, St. Irenaeus was writing originally in which language? My protestant friends will surely ask me if I share his quote.
Originally Greek, but was then translated into Latin. In this case (I think Dr. Pitre was quoting Against Heresies) the work that survived in totality is the Latin translation, though I think that means we still have parts of the original Greek text.
6:55 Notice that Jesus calls him Simon Bar Jona. It's significant, because Jona means "pigeon" in Hebrew. We miss the symbology because we usually see the Holy Spirit represented as a dove, but it's the humble pigeon that Jesus chose to represent the Holy Spirit. Jesus is acknowledging that Peter received this information from the Holy Spirit.
THis is really easy to understand in Spanish; which come from Latin. Rock is feminine (una piedra, la piedra), the name for a man is Pedro, masculine. The way we read that passage on the Spanish's Bible is something like this. "Pedro, tú eres la roca, y sobre esta roca construiré mi iglesia"
Ephesians 2:13-22 (KJV) But now in Christ Jesus ye who sometimes were far off are made nigh by the blood of Christ. For he is our peace, who hath made both one, and hath broken down the middle wall of partition between us; Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; for to make in himself of twain one new man, so making peace; And that he might reconcile both unto God in one body by the cross, having slain the enmity thereby: And came and preached peace to you which were afar off, and to them that were nigh. For through him we both have access by one Spirit unto the Father. Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellowcitizens with the saints, and of the household of God; And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, *Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone;* *In whom all the building fitly framed together groweth unto an holy temple in the Lord:* *In whom ye also are builded together for an habitation of God through the Spirit.* The "rock" upon which Christ builds his church is the revelation of Christ the office of Jesus
tony Where does this clear logic train that Dr. Pitre has laid out quite plainly fail Tony? I’d be interested in knowing how someone could deny this based on Scripture when it is Scripture which makes it clear.
tony Yes, it does. And, more importantly, there is the proof of the early church fathers and 2000 years of Church history that disputes you. Sorry Tony. Ellen White just didn’t have the answers.
@@RumorHazi History is not a point Even error can exist within the church for millennia when the the Bible isn't allowed to be read by congregants as the so called catholic church did for so long. Long enough for them to learn how to read in meanings to this passage.
Ok.. this was great and it makes sense. I'm a Jewish Believer in Yeshua (Jesus) learning about Catholicism. But I do have a question, if there were 12 successors to Kefa (Peter), how can we say that one of them is the supreme or arch successor? Thanks for your reply!
Actually, none of the original Twelve became a successor. Linus and Clement were second and third popes. Both are named in the New Testament, and clearly identified as individuals other than and presumably younger than the Twelve (so not a multiple name/nickname kind of thing). One must go to the Church fathers to clearly see that Linus and Clement became successor bishops of Rome, though. As far as I know, there is little information available on how a successor was chosen - my guess is a smaller version of what happens today; a gathering of recognized bishops who hold an election. While there may not be any record of such an election, there also is no record of any controversy over the elevation of Linus and Clement to the office.
There wasn't multiple successors at the same time, it was a single successor and it never stopped at the 12th successor - the stewardship office of Peter continues until Christ returns. It has NEVER been broken and all the successors are documented. Pope Francis is the 265th successor of Saint Peter. In Dr Pitre's clip, Saint Irenaeus was writing in the time of the 12th successor to Peter, that's why he only refers to the "12th after Peter". The first successor to Peter was Linus, he was ordained by Saint Paul in Rome, Linus is mentioned in the New Testament. After Linus passed away, he was succeeded by Anacletus. Anacletus was succeeded by Clement who was ordained by Peter as a young man. Clement is mentioned in the New Testament. Clement was succeeded by Evarisus and so on to Francis. If you see the clip below👇🏾 it shows you ALL the Successors of Saint Peter up till today with Pope Francis. ruclips.net/video/305OOQGc2yY/видео.html
Christianity is divided because many clerics and laity have rejected the primacy of the Petrine authority. It was the Bishop of Rome who ratified the decisions of the ecumenical councils in the First Millenium. His final word was accepted by the orthodox bishops and preserved Christian doctrines in the wake of heresies. The councils at Ephesus and Chalcedon are historical proofs.
Today is the Solemnity of the Immaculate Conception. I am getting ready to go to Mass. I'm listening to this video....as you explain the argument over the Greek masculine and feminine terms for "Rock", I thought of Mary, Mother of Jesus, and the close relationship of the Apostles to Mary. Pope John Paul II led the Church in a very close communion with our Blessed Mother which was obvious to the entire world. Might it be Providence that the Greek term for Rock 🪨 is sometimes referred to in its masculine tense, and other times in its feminine tense? How St. Peter, our first Pope, must have looked to Mary for help and grace. Together they are one in bringing Souls to know and to love Christ.
Protestants have so many issues that this one is minutia. The important thing to substantiate is that the teaching role of the other bishops is subordinate to that of the bishop of Rome. The case should be made in a Jewish context that the king would directly designate other ministers who had full teaching authority except to the extent that the prime minister could override their authority, and that those ministers could designate their own successors (otherwise the Roman Church shouldn't recognize the validity of the sacraments in the Orthodox churches).
It's the Gospel reading for this coming Sunday. That's the point of these videos; to give Catholics the context for the readings we will hear in Mass on Sunday.
Part 2 : Comment ...Unfortunately the Church's philosophers, like St Ambrose, an admirer of Origen, forgot all about the original interpretation and ran with Origen's.... and so the tradition developed of equating “sins of heretics” to the “gates of Hell”. We see this exaggerated emphasis on “gates” = “heresy” as in: Pope Vigilius at the Second Council of Constantinople, in 553 called “the tongues of heretics” the “gates of hell.” Pope St. Leo IX’s, In Terra Pax Hominibus, Sept. 2, 1053, declared to Michael Cerularius that “the gates of Hell” are the “disputations of heretics.” So from there it was extrapolated and heavily promoted as the Church could never teach heresy or fall into error. ...and so it is when commenters throw out the "gates of Hell" passage as some type of proof text that the institutional church can never get it wrong, it simply shows the ignorance and foolishness of most Catholics who cannot be bothered seeking the Church's first and original interpretation which has been totally and deliberately forgotten by "most exegetes." Doctrine may develop, but that is not what happened in the case of the "gates" passage...What happened was a fad of one influential theologian has been promoted so as to obscure the original meaning... The “Gates of Hades (Hell) shall not prevail” was and is about the resurrection of the body. The freeing of the Christian from the jail of Death , by Jesus Christ who conquered it… The verse has a rich history of interpretation as referring to the resurrection - and was held by plenty of people in the Church...including Saints Peter and Paul, Saints, Doctors and Popes. It is well known Jesus spoke Matthew 16:18 in front of the Temple to Pan in Ceaserea Philipi - commonly held as an entrance to the underworld...Also, you should consider this scripture - which ties in the power of the "keys": Revelation 1:17-18 And when I saw him, I fell at his feet as dead. And he laid his right hand upon me, saying unto me, Fear not; I am the first and the last: 18 I am he that liveth, and was dead; and, behold, I am alive for evermore, Amen; and have the keys of hell and of death.... Jesus is the one and only power behind the keys of the kingdom. St Peter spoke of the power of Jesus over the power (gates) of death on the day of Pentecost: Acts 2:24 But God raised him up, having freed him from death because it was impossible for him to be held in its power. Act 2:34 He was not abandoned to Hades, nor did his flesh experience corruption. Likewise Saint Paul taught the power of Jesus was greater than Death Romans 6:9 Death no longer has dominion over him It is very clear “gates of Hades” is to be considered a figure of speech for death, which cannot keep the Christ or members of His Church imprisoned. The terminology "the gates of death", "the gates of Sheol", or "the gates of Hades" all mean the same thing. These gates are a metaphor for the imprisonment of the dead in the realm of the dead. And, most importantly, this would have been its only understanding in Jesus’ time. ....But since Catholics have been conditioned to only think of the passage as meaning some type of "proof " that the institutional Church can never make a mistake - they get confounded because they believe the passage applies when it doesn't....and yet they see the Church falling apart in front of their eyes, and its supposed leaders teaching and acting out heresy… What has been obscured and almost forgotten today is the Gospel is all about Resurrection! A promise given to us by God, as reflected in many Old Testament promises : Psalm 9:14 “Be gracious to me, Lord; see how my foes afflict me! You alone can raise me from the gates of death." Psalm of Solomon 16 When my soul slumbered being afar from the Lord, I had all but slipped down to the pit, When I was far from God, my soul had been well nigh poured out unto death, I had been nigh unto the gates of Sheol with the sinner, when my soul departed from the Lord God of Israel- Had not the Lord helped me with His ever lasting mercy. But in today’s presumptuous Church, eternal life is taken for granted, almost to the point of universal salvation, such that the Gospel has been turned to nothing more that doing good works of mercy. There are plenty of forgotten historical examples of Matthews 16:18 words being treated by the Church as a promise of the Resurrection: The ‘Song of Light’ : a Syriac hymn used by all East Syrian Christians on Sunday mornings also reflects the power of Christ over Death: His glory he hath caused to shine forth in the world : and hath enlightened the lowest abysses : death is extinguished and darkness hath fled : and the doors of Sheol are broken St. Hilary of Poitiers, commenting on Matthew 16:18 ties the passage to the breaking of the bindings that Death had : …But in this bestowing of a new name is a happy foundation of the Church, and a rock worthy of that building, which should break up the laws of hell … and all the shackles of death. St Leo the Great Sermon 62 On the Passion preached the Christian does not fear Death - and he quotes the passage in its proper context: ” You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build My Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. The strength, therefore, of the Christian Faith, which, built upon an impregnable rock, fears not the gates of death,…” Church historian Eusebuis also clearly tied the passage to the “gates of death” tradition: “The Church also which He foretold by name stands strongly rooted, and lifted up as high as the vaults of heaven by prayers of holy men beloved of God, and day by day is glorified, flashing forth unto all men the intellectual and divine light of the religion announced by Him, and is in no way vanquished or subjected by His enemies, nay, yields not even to the gates of death, because of that one speech uttered by Himself, saying: ‘Upon the rock will I build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.’ “ Eusebius of Caesarea: Praeparatio Evangelica (Preparation for the Gospel). Tr. E.H. Gifford (1903) .. St Paul in Ephesians 4:8-10 teaches the that Jesus fulfilled the promises of the resurrection: Therefore it is said, “When he ascended on high he led a host of captives, and he gave gifts to men.” (In saying, “He ascended,” what does it mean but that he had also descended into the lower parts of the earth? He who descended is he who also ascended far above all the heavens, that he might fill all things.) Paul directly links this passage with Christ’s descent into Hades the abode of the Dead and leading the dead souls there up to Heaven because he is quoting the Old Testament Psalm 68, where the Lord saves his people and brings them up to dwell with Him at Sinai... That the official church is somehow protected from teaching or promoting heresy is a very tenuous teasing out of the Matthew 16:18 passage which cannot be really be supported by the essentially Jewish meaning that Jesus spoke and the Apostles would have understood…That meaning was made up by church theologians speculations that have no grounding in the real meaning of the passage. The Church itself may be indefectible, but this passage is not a proof text of some perpetual guarantee of the fidelity of Church authorities…It is a promise of the Resurrection for those who know Christ. John 11:25 Jesus said to her, “I am the resurrection and the life. Those who believe in me, even though they die, will live…
I think this is a really great explanation, and as a Protestant person considering Catholocism, I'm almost convinced in the Jewish/Biblical roots of the Pope, but I just have one question. In Luke 22:24-29, it says the disciples were arguing about who was to be greatest. This is right before Jesus is to be crucified and on the night of the last supper. If they knew Peter was to be the leader and had the keys of the kingdom, why would they be discussing this amongst themselves? Honestly would like to know if someone has an answer, because I think these teachings from Dr. Pitre sound legit. Thanks!!
Jesus gave the title "sons of Thunder" to John and James before he gave the name "Peter" to Simon, so maybe they thought that they were superior in some way. It should be noted that probably none of the Apostles was a rabbi, so even though Jesus used technical language deeply tied with not just the Bible but to rabbinical jargon too (bind and loose), it's unlikely that fishermen would have catched the full meaning. Jesus' sayings can be hard, even for the young Apostles.
We can call Peter Cephas just as we can call Yeshua Jesus, it's just transliteration, nothing to get hung up on. They are the same person regardless of either name. The Church doesn't force people to call them a certain name although we usually use the title "Christ" (greek for Messiah/annointed One) when we refer to Yeshua. I have noticed a lot of Catholics now refer to Jesus with His original name Yeshua, I like that trend.
@@SaintCharbelMiracleworker True about transliteration, but one exception I've noticed is many folks seem put off when hearing St. Therese of Lisieux's name in anything other than the French pronunciation.
I see Petros as Peter and Petra as the bride of Jesus. Peter has the responsibility to look after the bride as the house keeper. If I become the Pope, I will name myself as Papa Joseph
so I wonder can the binding authority be used to refer to the authority of priest to listen to confessions or it is just fixated on the teaching authority?
newslink bridge I think a bit of both. There is definitely a power that is granted here when Jesus gives this authority to Peter. I personally have always equated Chapter 20 of the Gospel of John when speaking of the ability of a priest to hear confessions. “Whoever’s sins you forgive are forgiven. Whoever’s sins you retain are retained.”
Both. As the Jewish Encyclopedia said "The power of binding and loosing was always claimed by the Pharisees. Under Queen Alexandra, the Pharisees, says Josephus ("B J." i, 5, § 2), "became the administrators of all public affairs so as to be empowered to banish and readmit whom they pleased, as well as to loose and to bind." This does not mean that, as the learned men, they merely decided what, according to the Law, was forbidden or allowed, but that they possessed and exercised the power of tying or untying a thing by the spell of their divine authority, just as they could, by the power vested in them, pronounce and revoke an anathema upon a person." ... "In this sense Jesus, when appointing his disciples to be his successors, used the familiar formula (Matt. xvi. 19, xviii. 18). By these words he virtually invested them with the same authority as that which he found belonging to the scribes and Pharisees"... The encyclopedia goes on to say " In the same sense, in the second epistle of Clement to James II. ("Clementine Homilies," Introduction), Peter is represented as having appointed Clement as his successor, saying: "I communicate to him the power of binding and loosing so that, with respect to everything which he shall ordain in the earth, it shall be decreed in the heavens; for he shall bind what ought to be bound and loose what ought to be loosed as knowing the rule of the church." Quite different from this Judaic and ancient view of the apostolic power of binding and loosing is the one expressed in John xx. 23, where Jesus is represented as having said to his disciples after they had received the Holy Spirit: "Whosesoever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them; and whosesoever sins ye retain, they are retained."
@@lonelyberg1808 Excellent. See also how in Revelation, the 4 angels holding back the winds, are BOUND at the Euphrates. This authority given to Peter binds heaven and earth.
Dr. Pitre, I hope you end up seeing this comment because I need some serious clarification/help. In Matthew 16, the Lord says that "flesh and blood did not reveal [to St. Peter the Lord's identity], but the Father in heaven." However, in Matthew 14, after the Lord and St. Peter return to the boat after walking on water, everyone on the boat worshiped the Lord saying, "Truly you are the Son of God." My confusion/dilemma is that it seems St. Peter had already known/learnt that the Lord is the Son of God since everyone on the boat was proclaiming it. It seems as though, in Caesarea Philippi, St. Peter is merely repeating what has already been said in Matthew 14. Yet the Lord says that St. Peter did not receive this knowledge "from flesh and blood" but from God the Father Himself. Please help me understand this seeming discrepancy. I've been torn over this and asked numerous people on two forums but no one seems to have offered a satisfactory/definitive answer. I don't know if I explained myself well, but if you need me to clarify anything feel free to ask. I'm not trying to troll or bait anyone; I just really want to get to the bottom of this seeming discrepancy. Thank you.
Dr Pitre rarely responds to his clips. Jesus gives the radical difference in His explanation: “For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, [Simon] but my Father in heaven.”. In Matthew 14, the Apostles came to a rational conclusion from what they saw: a miracle, Jesus walking on water but also Peter walked on water too for a short time.. The difference is between a rational conclusion, a work of “flesh and blood”, a work possible in the natural gifts of God to men, and on the other hand, a supernatural work of God acting directly in the human soul of Simon - an understanding given immediately in the light of God Himself. This crucial distinction is stressed in John’s Gospel: John 1:12 But to all who received him, who believed in his name, he gave power to become children of God; John 1:13 who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God. and again, to Nicodemus - who could see (at the time) only with his eyes of flesh: John 3:5 Jesus answered, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God. John 3:6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. This experience did not mean (obviously) that Simon would remain in this supernatural light! We see almost immediately after “hearing” this from God in his soul, “Peter” reverted to his old self: Matt 16:21 - 23
The important thing about this is the distinction between natural virtues (faith, hope and love) and infused, supernatural virtues (supernatural faith and hope, and holy divine charity). One can have natural faith from logical conclusions, from observing things in nature, from a powerful charismatic speaker - all human, natural responses from which one can draw out conclusions about God. Such can be called faith, but it is a belief about God or Jesus. The faith that is required to enter the Kingdom, is not a conclusion about, it is a gift from, which calls forth faith in, God and/or Jesus Christ. Thus St. Paul writes, “By grace are you saved, through faith, not because of works, lest any man should boast.” Drawing reasonable conclusions from observations and concluding some understandings about God, or Jesus, is a human work. It can be toward what is better - true, saving faith - but it is not there. The grace to believe is a gift from God. We cannot “do” a gift, we can only receive, and respond with the obedience of faith.
@@SaintCharbelMiracleworker I believe you may be the same person who provided the same answer to me in another forum. Your explanation still hasn't clarified the point I'm getting at. If St. Peter had, through rational conclusion, come to know that the Lord is the Son of God, then how could the supernatural work of God "reveal" to St. Peter that which he already knew? Wouldn't the supernatural revelation be a sort of redundancy? Excuse the slightly irreverent example, but this may help get my point across. If God were to reveal to me that 2+2=4, it would seem redundant since I had already come to that conclusion using the rational mind He had given me in the first place. In light of this seeming redundancy, then, I find it odd that the Lord would praise St. Peter's insight and bestow upon him the Keys. Hence, why I know I must be missing something (perhaps in the way the whole thing transpired in the Aramaic or in the Greek that doesn't translate well into English... or some other reason I can't possibly imagine). I'm just really really torn right now and I'm trusting God that He knew what He was doing; but I being myself, I will continue to bombard Him with questions until the matter is settled.
@@daenithriuszanathos9306 From a Catholic standpoint the matter is settled theologically. If you can't understand it I would recommend talking/corresponding via email with Catholic theologians or Dr Pitre or even the local priest/bishop. If you aren't Catholic then I'll pray for you to come to some understanding in your own way. You sound frustrated by this, please know that sometimes it's okay not to know/understand everything about the faith otherwise we risk falling into scrupulosity.
@@SaintCharbelMiracleworker Yes, and it's this theological settlement that I'd like to read. Directly from the Church Fathers, if possible. Yes, I am Catholic and being okay with not knowing/understanding everything doesn't mean I have to stop seeking the Truth. So while I won't let this seeming discrepancy rock my faith, I'm not going to sit idly and chuck it to "mystery" when I know people are fully capable of giving an answer. Yes, I've tried corresponding with priests and the only one who replied didn't give me a satisfactory answer (in fact, I didn't feel he answered the question at all). Hence, in my desperation, I'm seeking Dr. Pitre's help on his random video. If he sees it, great. If not, no big whoop. I trust that God will help me understand this if He wills it.
@@tony1685 We have already established strong indication you don't really care all that much about the seventh day stuff. It's most likely just your one-trick-pony-tony move for abusing Catholics. Well, two-trick-pony-tony, but you have to be pushed pretty hard to get into that other one, lol. No problem, as you know, I'm willing to push back against those who may be a bit on the demonic side.
@@tony1685 Occam's razor; the simpler explanation is probably right. What sounds simpler? That apostles faithfully passed down the Deposit of Faith as revealed by Jesus, or they didn't and the 'truth' (as in correct interpretation of Sacred Scripture) was only discovered more than 1800 years later in rural New England by a group with propensity for picking wrong dates for the Second Coming? Hmmm, that's a tough one, lol.
@@tony1685 A small group of New Englanders, by the way, who were 'defellowed' (or what the authentic Church established by Jesus might call 'excommunicated') by local Methodists for being too radical.
![Felix "Unfair" | [Stray Kids : SKZ-PLAYER]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/Oswujxm2Ag0/mqdefault.jpg)
That commentary is just brilliant. This man is one of the most gifted scholars of the Bible that I have ever heard.The explanations are from a different planet. May God bless him and his family for expounding the scriptures to us and may God give him a long life.
He's following in the traditional catholic school of Dr Hahn, from whom I took several classes. God bless them both.
amen, hallelujah!,, IN JESUS MIGHTY NAME!,,, amen🙏❤️🙏
He’s so sharp, I’m so glad to have Pitre in my Catholic arsenal. May God continue to bless you
Along with him, add Curtis Mitch, Scott Hahn, John Bergsma, etc. All from St. Paul Center.
Easy to understand too!
I love your profile picture
@@lonelyberg1316 thank you so much! The marvel comic book character nightcrawler was a German priest. He was my favorite!
@@monicabermea7652 he speaks eloquently yet simply, I agree. He’s smooth
So we have Pitre talking about Petra and Petros.
For Kepa's Sake
Lololol
😂😂
Lol
I want to see Joseph Ratzinger dressed in his finest Hitler Youth regalia give the Sceptor of Rome over The Ark of The Covenant to Peter Turkson, dressed in his finest cultural Ghanaian garments, Gloria Olivae: man to man, and how a the miracle of Fatima's "Jesus Christ" can save a former Nazi Hitler Youth bowing to his Coronated Black man from the foundation of the earth, in the name of The Father, The Son, and The Holy Spirit: the Spirit of Peace. 🕊
The Ark of This Testament: The Witnesses of Revelation 11, ARE Francisco, Jacinta, and Lucia.
Exodus 25:21-22 (KJV) And thou shalt put the mercy seat above upon the ark; and in the ark thou shalt put the testimony that I shall give thee.
And there I will meet with thee, and I will commune with thee from above the mercy seat, from between the two cherubims which are upon the ark of the testimony, of all things which I will give thee in commandment unto the children of Israel.
This is not a request. 👽💨🔥
Oh the mental gymnastics that must take place to deny this teaching. Thanks Dr. Pitre.👍
Right?! If all Christians would just really trust in Jesus and what He says, and what He wills, it would be so simple... and we'd all remain as one, like He prayed for.
@@tessa7413 I am sure Webster agrees.
So true.... It's sad 😢
I can't hear this enough of this topic and every time Dr Pitre talks about it, I learn more of the context that supports the conclusions and defeats my prior beliefs in the Calvinist church. Thank you so much.
One more Calvinist in the books...my way there is a famous Evangelical-Calvinist seminary that is the making the fatal error of teaching Aquinas, and are losing half their students!!!
Glenn Lanham
Welcome home brothers!
@@RGTomoenage11 yeah
Try John Bergsma.
Stephen Ray also has a wonderful book on the papacy. Dr. Pitre's and Mr. Ray's books are my two go to references on this subject from a biblical theological perspective.
That's THE BEST explanation I have ever heard on this passage regarding Petros and the Keys.
It's funny that apostle Peter didn't tell apostle Paul to not talk to the pope that way when Paul rebuked Peter for teaching error when dealing with jews and gentiles. I thought popes are infallible? Not according to Peter or Paul. Peter realized he was wrong, Paul knew he did correct error. And never forget, ALL APOSTLES had the same binding and loosening power, so stop saying Peter only because it is Easily refutable. Stop lying to yourself. Catholics cherry pick the Bible while ignoring other clear passages that rebuke catholics narrow minded claims.
@@Kurt2222
Go back and reread St. Paul's account of this matter. Notice that St. Paul uses the VERY NAME Jesus Christ gave to St. Peter (Cephas) to denote the respect to the Petrine office. Infallibility does not mean impeccability, sir. Infallibility means the Pope cannot teach error with regards to doctrine; it doesn't mean he is incapable of personally acting in a way that contradicts the teaching - in other words it doesn't mean he cannot personally sin. I can proclaim that 2+2=4 (I am teaching correct doctrine), and then go and MISADD the two numbers in a mathematical problem. My mistaken adding doesn't negate the principle, sir.
It was to St. Peter that the divine revelation was given (cf. Acts 10) that non-Jewish Gentiles would be admitted into the Church (which up to that time was primarily ethnically and religiously Jewish: all of the Apostles were Hebrews, and all of the first disciples were Hebrews). So Peter goes around convincing the other Church leadership Gentiles received the Holy Spirit as the Jewish converts had and they should be admitted into the Church (cf. Acts 11 & Acts 15). AND YET, at a particular time and place where St. Paul was present, Peter refused to eat with Gentiles in the presence of other Hebrew Christians and St. Paul called him out for his BEHAVIOR contradicting his teaching. It doesn't negate the teaching he was given at Acts 10 in a vision from God. It means he himself had acted contrary to the CORRECT TEACHING he had received and taught. He had sinned against his own teaching. It makes him a sinner, not a mistaken teacher.
@@QuisutDeusmpc deal with it
Peter wasn't catholic. He never taught catholic doctrine, not a word of it. No other Bible writers lend any support of any body other than God and Christ ever forgiving sins. People teach by example, Bible proves this repeatedly, you just are not willing to accept it. not a word of men forgiving men, man made doctrine dude.
@@Kurt2222
Deal with what? Your mistaken interpretation? St. Peter is a Catholic. Do you even know where the English word "catholic" comes from? It comes from two 'koine Greek' words which are actually found in the NT: 'kata holos':
'kata' means 'according to', and 'holos' or 'holon' means 'the whole'. 'Catholic / 'kata holos' means 'according to the whole'. It comes from Ephesians 4 where St. Paul says Jesus Christ "breaks down the dividing wall" which separates Jew from Gentile. Meaning Christ's Church is to be "according to the WHOLE" of the human race, not merely a part (whether it be Jewish, or Gentile). Therefore the 'ekklesia' / Church is to be "according to the whole" of mankind, or universal.
So, YES, St. Peter is a Catholic. At Matthew 16: 18-19 and John 21: 15-19, Jesus Christ establishes him as His hand chosen prime minister with universal jurisdiction (or deputized authority) over the entirety of the Church. You deny the truth and seek to replace it with your private interpretation. The Catholic Church has one pope: Protestantism has as many popes as it has Protestants. The very thing you deny to the Pope, you each individually arrogate to yourselves.
@@QuisutDeusmpc Peter never forgave or retained Simon's sin nor did Peter teach anyone to forgive sins like catholics teach. That teaching came long after. Irenaeus and Polycarp didn't write about it. Ignatius and Clement of Rome didn't even write about it either. That came long after Christianity began.
Praying to Mary came hundreds of years later. The first pope was in the 7th century. Infallibility of pope is not even 400 years old, come on man, study history and look at the cold hard fact, catholicism is made up as time goes on. Its NOT from the apostles.
True Christianity came from the apostles tradition. Catholicism came from Satan influencing men to ignore God's way and make their own way. No way for you to get past this fact.
So clearly explained. Thank you Dr. Pitre. May God bless the current Pope Francis and all Popes in the line of succession.
I have an uncle who is a priest AND biblical scholar and both he and Dr. PITRE have explained this passage better than anyone else I know .
@@tony1685 Lol, in your modern, wrong-headed and deceptive way?
@@paulmiller3469 Dont waste your time with this guy he is only comments on catholic channels to get attention
@@tony1685 Your deceptive tendencies are clear. How long did you say you were a Catholic?
@@tony1685 By the way, are you full-on SDA this week, or SDA-like but not really a member because of their support of abortion?
@@tony1685 If you were ever Catholic (as you know, I highly doubt you were), in what year at which parish were you confirmed?
I have been following Dr Pitre's lectures on catholic production and I thank the Lord for him , as i have never understood so well about our Catholic Faith till now. Especially to be able to defend my Catholic Faith against Protestanism Fundamentalist.
May the Lord and Our Blessed Mother Bless You Dr Pitre.
Yes we need the right tools to defend our church with so much nonsense which is going on .
That is SO true!
me too I often got so dismayed that I can't even defend my faith to people who are bullying about my Catholic faith and I badly needed like Dr. Pitre's mind blowing explanations!,,, PRAISED GOD ALMIGHTY FATHER IN HEAVEN,, for giving Dr. Pitre to be our spiritual guide to love more, understand more my Catholic faith!,, IN JESUS MIGHTY NAME! AMEN 🙏❤️🙏
Thank you for your scholarly work, Dr. Pitre. As one born & raised Jewish, taught the Hebrew Scriptures by my Bubbie, the only one in my family who believed in and knew God the Father, these teachings are invaluable to underpin my Catholic faith even more. And these teachings are gorgeous. May God bless you richly for your service. 🙏
Ashkenazi or Sephardi?
@@JasonCastillo-z3h
If I know my history properly, the Ashkenazi Hebrews were almost all either killed or assimilated. I think it is something like 98% of the Hebrews who are now living descend from the Sephardi Hebrews, and only about 2% are Ashkenazi.
Dr. Pitre needs to write a “Jewish roots” book on the papacy. I am sure there will be a lot converts to Catholicism from a book like this. Thanks for these videos!!
He does have something! 🙂 If you go to Brantpitre.com you'll find all his publications. He has a presentation titled Jesus and the Jewish Roots of the Papacy. It's just a couple of bucks and it's AMAZING!!
His Jewish root on the Eucharist changed my perception forever. Simply life changing. One of the greatest scholars on this earth by far
I am a convert to Roman Catholicism, but not due to this video. I converted about a year ago…✝️🙏
A huge gift of communicating the mysteries of Christ.
Amen
St John Bosco Guide, Teacher and Model for Priests: ruclips.net/video/QxnYt9Q3YtI/видео.html
Quite a long sermon for today, but pack with actions, explanations, and clarity of words.
I felt like eating honey, sweet in the tounge. As gentle in taste just like milk.
Thanks Dr. Petri, it’s a perfect score. You are the Best!..
My faith is always in the Rock in which Jesus instituted to Peter, and to the generation of Priests and Bisphop..I know, with this faith this will lead me to the Lord Jesus the Christ, the Son of Living God..
❤
amen, amen, amen, hallelujah,, IN JESUS MIGHTY NAME! AMEN 🙏❤️🙏
Pitre pitre hes our man, if he can't do it, no one can. Your the man Dr. Pitre, thanks again for another wonderful bible study scripture explanation.
🤣🤣🤣
I always get chills up my spine when even priests quote people like Hahn, Steve Ray or Dr Pitre. Just amazing
❤❤❤
Wow! Thank you, Dr. Pitre! By far the best, most concise explanation of the papacy I have seen. You are a blessing to the Church. I love your books, and you have taught me so much. Thank you!!!!!
These videos are ALL so good, but like Peter among the apostles, this episode stands out, over and above nearly all other episodes. The clarity with which Dr. Pitre teaches, and the connections he makes all along the way are nothing short of magnificent. Well done! Bravo!!
@@tony1685 oh Tony, u N ur sda beliefs again trolling on a Catholic channel. Did ur church exist in Jesus time? I think not. not in less than 200yrs of your church existence. Hasn't ur False prophet egw already been exposed. Shame on you and her.
Come back to the one True, Holy Apostolic Catholic Church.
This is one of the best explanations of what Jesus was doing, the church structure of the position of prime minister makes sense, the explicit language stands on its own. Binding and unbinding correlation, yes that serves this well. I'm going to listen to this again! 😁
PS Im in my 50's and currently converting to being Catholic after 40+ years as a Baptist.
God be with you on your journey. Bless you.
Dr. Pitre is the absolute best!!! I am so thankful for him!
Dr. Pitre is always so concise. Much respect I have for this man
LORD bless you, Dr Pitre
Wow! May the Lord richly bless you and your ministry! I realized a few months ago how ahistorical Protestantism was and how contrary some of the beliefs are to the early church universal, then I realized how sola scriptura made no sense; then I narrowed my choices between Eastern Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism who were once a United church until the 11th century, I was really stuck in the middle between the two, and would at some times lean Catholic and then the next lean Eastern Orthodox, but this video has me no doubt, believing Roman Catholicism is true. Thanks.
Thank you so much, Dr. Brant Pitre! God bless you & your family more.
Dr Pitre, i've heard this explanation before about Isaiah 22 and the papacy from different sources, but you took it up a notch. Thanks for the clarity of your explanations. Praise be Jesus and Mary!
You are amazing. Thanks for being a blessing with your great learning and grace🙏
This has been enlightening as well as enriching. Thanks Dr for this exegesis of Matt 16. God bless you
Dr. Pitre is brilliant, he doesn’t leave anything untouched. His explanation are straight forward. I have learned so much from him.
God bless you!🙏
What a gift! Brilliant!
Watching Dr. Pitre’s videos is always the most fascinating and fruitful part of my day. Thank you, Dr. Pitre, and God bless you!
well done. very easy to understand and clear. thank you Doctor.
Our faith is so beautiful, I love being Catholic and most of all I love being a child of God♥️♥️♥️!
Dr Pitre you are the modern day Church Father..God bless you
Well explained.Bravo Dr. Pitre! May God bless you.
Fantastic, dr. Pitre!
Dr Pitre is a great teacher. God bless
We pray that our Holy Father is not ashamed of Peter the Rock. That our holy father take great pride in this gift of the Lord Jesus. The Spirit of Peter reigns in the Church, even if I have to carry it as a Laity, Life is in the life of the Church, our Lord died for!
So beautifully said
Thanks, Dr. Pitre. Particularly good video, even by the high standards of this series.
This is so helpful! I subscribed and I know I will learn so much in defense of my Catholic faith!
Thanks for the meaningful explanation of the name change, foundation stone and office,with reference to the old testament
This is the single most important video on apologetics for the papacy, hands down. Every Catholic should watch this
I agree, it's the best video on apologetics for the papacy *aimed at catholics*, I would not share this with a protestant.
yah, so true,,, amen to that❤️
Every Christian, Catholic and Protestant should watch this. It would clear up much misunderstanding....❤️✝️
Thank you so much Dr. Pitre I am learning a lot from you. I am approached occasionally about these topics and can now make sense of them the way you teach/explain them. God bless you immensely!
Another excellent teaching as usual
Very elaborate analysis of the readings, thanks!
👏 👏 👏 God is good ! Amazing analysis. Thank God for his gift on you
Wow..thank u so much Dr.Pitre for explaining the binding & loosing. I thought it was something got to do with sins being forgiven.
Thank u so much 🥰
Dr Pitre is awesome!! Loved this! You’re also referring to John 20:22! This verse pertains to sins 😊
@@tony1685 second off, your first off is completely wrong. Now, stop being deceptive, like you know I know you are.
@@tony1685 'prove it...'
As I've said before, the great exclamation of atheists and demons. Your deceptive tendencies are obvious.
@@tony1685 Hey Tony some more hard facts for you: Answer these first for your false religion. Still running from my challenge too:
www.bible.ca/7-sabbath-questions.htm
facebook.com/Seventh-day-Adventism-SDA-Exposed-409314105814892/
@@tony1685
Why be Catholic with Tim
ruclips.net/video/EWR2fnRw2Eo/видео.html
1st and 2 century Church History
ruclips.net/video/rr487NNmfqQ/видео.html
Beautiful, as always, thank you so much Dr. Pitre
St. Peter, pray for us...
This is probably my favorite of your videos. Thanks.
This was outstanding! You are such a gifted teacher! I am always fascinated by the connections / links you make between the Old and New Testaments. Thanks so much!
Wowww....so enlightening..!!
Thank you Dr. Pitre
Amazing! Thank you Dr Pitre. I have heard such a variety of interpretations of this passage about ‘cephas’ so that I didn’t imagine there would be one understanding I could ever rely on. You have given it to me. I’ve loved all the popes in my lifetime from 1950 until now (I’m 70), thinking they all bring something perfect for their time. Pope Francis (supported in prayer by Pope emeritus Benedict) is doing this now - courageously. God abundantly bless you & yours with miracles of His goodness. Loree
DEVASTATINGLY logical
Absolutely LOVE your teachings Dr. Petrie. Simply GREAT andTHANK
YOU GOD for these great and wonderful teachers and ^YES^ Dr is ^Catholic.^ GOD BLESS
The best explanation for the papacy I have ever read. The present pope would do well to consider the immediately subsequent verses of Isaiah 22 : 23 -25 which explain how the Lord will "fasten" the Prime Minister "as a peg in a secure place" but that one day "the peg shall be removed, which was fastened in a secure place: and it shall be broken and shall fall".
Wonderfully explained beloved Brother in Christ; have never heard this at all before; Being from an Evangelical Background the Petra vs Petros was explained differently --now I see -- so as to nullify the Papacy & the Ordination of the name changed from Simon To Peter .
Thanks so much & praying for the Unification of the Body of Christ in ONE HOLY APOSTOLIC CATHOLIC CHURCH .
Dr Stephen
India
No more Priest that lead the church but we come through Jesus to God ourselves once the veil was removed.
2 Corinthians 3:16 Jubilee Bible 2000 (JUB)
16 Nevertheless when they convert to the Lord, the veil shall be taken away.)
*Also I forgot to add that at least some Rabbi's believed Hezekiah was the promised Moshiach. Even the well known anti missionary Rabbi Tovia Singer believes there was no and will be no greater king in Israel than Hezekiah(2Kings18:5).
Hezekiah foreshadowed Christ which is a possible reason why Christ employed the imagery from Isaiah22 when he gave the keys to Peter.
It may even be that Shebna foreshadowed Caiaphas who God takes the stewardship away from and gives it to Eliakim(Peter).
Especially when you read the following verses;
Isaiah22:15 Thus says the Lord God of hosts: Come, go to this steward, to Shebna, who is master of the household, and say to him: 16 *What right do you have here? Who are your relatives here,* that you have cut out a tomb here for yourself, cutting a tomb on the height, and carving a habitation for yourself in the rock?
Caiaphas most likely only attained the position of High Priest due to the fact he was Ananias's(the former High Priests) son-in-law.
HE TORE HIS GARMENT
Love the insight Brod. Pitre! Yuhuah Bless..,
God bless you thanks again
Very beautifully explained thank you sir n God bless you abundantly
This is gold
Dr. Pitre. Your videos have given so many of us a deeper understanding of the Gospel,. Thank you for your work, and your in depth study that brings both the Old and New Testaments into the light.You have given us a fuller understanding of the God's message, and the relationship, between the two, the old and new Covenants.
I am so far out of my comfort zone, in making any observations or interpretations, that I feel totally out of my league to ask a question. But here it is.
"If"the masculine of the Rock is Petros, and the feminine is Petra. Could it be that Petra is "The Bride of Christ?" Would our Saviour have used that terminology on purpose, as He was always so exacting in His speech. And again, my knowledge is so scant on any these matters,that I am actually afraid to put the question out there. ..... R. Vacon
God Bless You Sir
Learnt so much more about the Papacy, thanks to Dr Pitre. By the way, St. Irenaeus was writing originally in which language? My protestant friends will surely ask me if I share his quote.
Originally Greek, but was then translated into Latin. In this case (I think Dr. Pitre was quoting Against Heresies) the work that survived in totality is the Latin translation, though I think that means we still have parts of the original Greek text.
Praise be to christ
6:55 Notice that Jesus calls him Simon Bar Jona. It's significant, because Jona means "pigeon" in Hebrew. We miss the symbology because we usually see the Holy Spirit represented as a dove, but it's the humble pigeon that Jesus chose to represent the Holy Spirit. Jesus is acknowledging that Peter received this information from the Holy Spirit.
Beautiful
THis is really easy to understand in Spanish; which come from Latin. Rock is feminine (una piedra, la piedra), the name for a man is Pedro, masculine. The way we read that passage on the Spanish's Bible is something like this. "Pedro, tú eres la roca, y sobre esta roca construiré mi iglesia"
Ephesians 2:13-22 (KJV) But now in Christ Jesus ye who sometimes were far off are made nigh by the blood of Christ.
For he is our peace, who hath made both one, and hath broken down the middle wall of partition between us;
Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; for to make in himself of twain one new man, so making peace;
And that he might reconcile both unto God in one body by the cross, having slain the enmity thereby:
And came and preached peace to you which were afar off, and to them that were nigh.
For through him we both have access by one Spirit unto the Father.
Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellowcitizens with the saints, and of the household of God;
And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, *Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone;*
*In whom all the building fitly framed together groweth unto an holy temple in the Lord:*
*In whom ye also are builded together for an habitation of God through the Spirit.*
The "rock" upon which Christ builds his church is the revelation of Christ the office of Jesus
Bless you ❤❤
Another thing about Jesus names Simon as Petros is that it mirrors how Simon now Peter identifies Jesus as Christos.
Thank you
“You are KEFA and on this KEFA I will build my church”
13 protestants disliked the video.
Lol! They probably didn't even watch it.
@@saraj4452
They why they never learn what we really believe
tony Where does this clear logic train that Dr. Pitre has laid out quite plainly fail Tony? I’d be interested in knowing how someone could deny this based on Scripture when it is Scripture which makes it clear.
tony Yes, it does. And, more importantly, there is the proof of the early church fathers and 2000 years of Church history that disputes you. Sorry Tony. Ellen White just didn’t have the answers.
@@RumorHazi History is not a point
Even error can exist within the church for millennia when the the Bible isn't allowed to be read by congregants as the so called catholic church did for so long.
Long enough for them to learn how to read in meanings to this passage.
I pray that one day you will become a Saint Dr. Pitre
Ok.. this was great and it makes sense. I'm a Jewish Believer in Yeshua (Jesus) learning about Catholicism. But I do have a question, if there were 12 successors to Kefa (Peter), how can we say that one of them is the supreme or arch successor? Thanks for your reply!
They succeeded each other after the previous had died, there weren’t 12 successors all at the same time
@@sethgarries3219 oh hahaha. Sorry, I misunderstood that. Thank you!
Proud that you’re learning about Catholicism my friend!! Jesus is Lord, keep up the research!😊 Dr. Pitre is great, love his insight and gift!
Actually, none of the original Twelve became a successor. Linus and Clement were second and third popes. Both are named in the New Testament, and clearly identified as individuals other than and presumably younger than the Twelve (so not a multiple name/nickname kind of thing). One must go to the Church fathers to clearly see that Linus and Clement became successor bishops of Rome, though. As far as I know, there is little information available on how a successor was chosen - my guess is a smaller version of what happens today; a gathering of recognized bishops who hold an election. While there may not be any record of such an election, there also is no record of any controversy over the elevation of Linus and Clement to the office.
There wasn't multiple successors at the same time, it was a single successor and it never stopped at the 12th successor - the stewardship office of Peter continues until Christ returns. It has NEVER been broken and all the successors are documented. Pope Francis is the 265th successor of Saint Peter. In Dr Pitre's clip, Saint Irenaeus was writing in the time of the 12th successor to Peter, that's why he only refers to the "12th after Peter".
The first successor to Peter was Linus, he was ordained by Saint Paul in Rome, Linus is mentioned in the New Testament. After Linus passed away, he was succeeded by Anacletus. Anacletus was succeeded by Clement who was ordained by Peter as a young man. Clement is mentioned in the New Testament. Clement was succeeded by Evarisus and so on to Francis.
If you see the clip below👇🏾 it shows you ALL the Successors of Saint Peter up till today with Pope Francis. ruclips.net/video/305OOQGc2yY/видео.html
Excellent!!!!!
If Peter had no successors then Christian doctrine / teaching would have ended when he died. I don't think so.
Christianity is divided because many clerics and laity have rejected the primacy of the Petrine authority. It was the Bishop of Rome who ratified the decisions of the ecumenical councils in the First Millenium. His final word was accepted by the orthodox bishops and preserved Christian doctrines in the wake of heresies. The councils at Ephesus and Chalcedon are historical proofs.
Thank you. I always wondered why he changed people’s names. I learned a lot 🙏❤️
Today is the Solemnity of the Immaculate Conception. I am getting ready to go to Mass. I'm listening to this video....as you explain the argument over the Greek masculine and feminine terms for "Rock", I thought of Mary, Mother of Jesus, and the close relationship of the Apostles to Mary. Pope John Paul II led the Church in a very close communion with our Blessed Mother which was obvious to the entire world. Might it be Providence that the Greek term for Rock 🪨 is sometimes referred to in its masculine tense, and other times in its feminine tense? How St. Peter, our first Pope, must have looked to Mary for help and grace. Together they are one in bringing Souls to know and to love Christ.
Protestants have so many issues that this one is minutia. The important thing to substantiate is that the teaching role of the other bishops is subordinate to that of the bishop of Rome. The case should be made in a Jewish context that the king would directly designate other ministers who had full teaching authority except to the extent that the prime minister could override their authority, and that those ministers could designate their own successors (otherwise the Roman Church shouldn't recognize the validity of the sacraments in the Orthodox churches).
Beautiful.
Thank you!
Thank you for giving me ammunition to debate my Protestant friends about the Papacy.
Yes
@@po18guy The info is much appreciated. Merry Christmas!
great video
May I know if the Bishop of Rome have been called Pope already since the earliest time of Christianity? Or when did it started if not?
It started in Rome when believers called Peter "pepe" meaning (affectionately) "father" in Latin.
Isn't this an old topic already covered by Dr. Pitre years back?
Can't hurt to make another video.
Well, as a newer Catholic, I definitely appreciate it. ❤️
It's the Gospel reading for this coming Sunday. That's the point of these videos; to give Catholics the context for the readings we will hear in Mass on Sunday.
@@paulmiller3469 oh. Well, I'll watch it again, my forgetful brain will need it.
It was today’s reading at Mass...
Why aren't you on Catholic Answers, Dr. Pitre?
Excellent!
Part 2 : Comment ...Unfortunately the Church's philosophers, like St Ambrose, an admirer of Origen, forgot all about the original interpretation and ran with Origen's.... and so the tradition developed of equating “sins of heretics” to the “gates of Hell”. We see this exaggerated emphasis on “gates” = “heresy” as in: Pope Vigilius at the Second Council of Constantinople, in 553 called “the tongues of heretics” the “gates of hell.” Pope St. Leo IX’s, In Terra Pax Hominibus, Sept. 2, 1053, declared to Michael Cerularius that “the gates of Hell” are the “disputations of heretics.”
So from there it was extrapolated and heavily promoted as the Church could never teach heresy or fall into error.
...and so it is when commenters throw out the "gates of Hell" passage as some type of proof text that the institutional church can never get it wrong, it simply shows the ignorance and foolishness of most Catholics who cannot be bothered seeking the Church's first and original interpretation which has been totally and deliberately forgotten by "most exegetes."
Doctrine may develop, but that is not what happened in the case of the "gates" passage...What happened was a fad of one influential theologian has been promoted so as to obscure the original meaning...
The “Gates of Hades (Hell) shall not prevail” was and is about the resurrection of the body. The freeing of the Christian from the jail of Death , by Jesus Christ who conquered it… The verse has a rich history of interpretation as referring to the resurrection - and was held by plenty of people in the Church...including Saints Peter and Paul, Saints, Doctors and Popes.
It is well known Jesus spoke Matthew 16:18 in front of the Temple to Pan in Ceaserea Philipi - commonly held as an entrance to the underworld...Also, you should consider this scripture - which ties in the power of the "keys":
Revelation 1:17-18 And when I saw him, I fell at his feet as dead. And he laid his right hand upon me, saying unto me, Fear not; I am the first and the last: 18 I am he that liveth, and was dead; and, behold, I am alive for evermore, Amen; and have the keys of hell and of death....
Jesus is the one and only power behind the keys of the kingdom. St Peter spoke of the power of Jesus over the power (gates) of death on the day of Pentecost:
Acts 2:24 But God raised him up, having freed him from death because it was impossible for him to be held in its power.
Act 2:34 He was not abandoned to Hades, nor did his flesh experience corruption.
Likewise Saint Paul taught the power of Jesus was greater than Death
Romans 6:9 Death no longer has dominion over him
It is very clear “gates of Hades” is to be considered a figure of speech for death, which cannot keep the Christ or members of His Church imprisoned. The terminology "the gates of death", "the gates of Sheol", or "the gates of Hades" all mean the same thing. These gates are a metaphor for the imprisonment of the dead in the realm of the dead. And, most importantly, this would have been its only understanding in Jesus’ time.
....But since Catholics have been conditioned to only think of the passage as meaning some type of "proof " that the institutional Church can never make a mistake - they get confounded because they believe the passage applies when it doesn't....and yet they see the Church falling apart in front of their eyes, and its supposed leaders teaching and acting out heresy…
What has been obscured and almost forgotten today is the Gospel is all about Resurrection! A promise given to us by God, as reflected in many Old Testament promises :
Psalm 9:14 “Be gracious to me, Lord; see how my foes afflict me! You alone can raise me from the gates of death."
Psalm of Solomon 16 When my soul slumbered being afar from the Lord, I had all but slipped down to the pit, When I was far from God, my soul had been well nigh poured out unto death, I had been nigh unto the gates of Sheol with the sinner, when my soul departed from the Lord God of Israel- Had not the Lord helped me with His ever lasting mercy.
But in today’s presumptuous Church, eternal life is taken for granted, almost to the point of universal salvation, such that the Gospel has been turned to nothing more that doing good works of mercy.
There are plenty of forgotten historical examples of Matthews 16:18 words being treated by the Church as a promise of the Resurrection:
The ‘Song of Light’ : a Syriac hymn used by all East Syrian Christians on Sunday mornings also reflects the power of Christ over Death:
His glory he hath caused to shine forth in the world : and hath enlightened the lowest abysses : death is extinguished and darkness hath fled : and the doors of Sheol are broken
St. Hilary of Poitiers, commenting on Matthew 16:18 ties the passage to the breaking of the bindings that Death had :
…But in this bestowing of a new name is a happy foundation of the Church, and a rock worthy of that building, which should break up the laws of hell … and all the shackles of death.
St Leo the Great Sermon 62 On the Passion preached the Christian does not fear Death - and he quotes the passage in its proper context:
” You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build My Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. The strength, therefore, of the Christian Faith, which, built upon an impregnable rock, fears not the gates of death,…”
Church historian Eusebuis also clearly tied the passage to the “gates of death” tradition:
“The Church also which He foretold by name stands strongly rooted, and lifted up as high as the vaults of heaven by prayers of holy men beloved of God, and day by day is glorified, flashing forth unto all men the intellectual and divine light of the religion announced by Him, and is in no way vanquished or subjected by His enemies, nay, yields not even to the gates of death, because of that one speech uttered by Himself, saying: ‘Upon the rock will I build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.’ “
Eusebius of Caesarea: Praeparatio Evangelica (Preparation for the Gospel). Tr. E.H. Gifford (1903) ..
St Paul in Ephesians 4:8-10 teaches the that Jesus fulfilled the promises of the resurrection:
Therefore it is said, “When he ascended on high he led a host of captives, and he gave gifts to men.” (In saying, “He ascended,” what does it mean but that he had also descended into the lower parts of the earth? He who descended is he who also ascended far above all the heavens, that he might fill all things.)
Paul directly links this passage with Christ’s descent into Hades the abode of the Dead and leading the dead souls there up to Heaven because he is quoting the Old Testament Psalm 68, where the Lord saves his people and brings them up to dwell with Him at Sinai...
That the official church is somehow protected from teaching or promoting heresy is a very tenuous teasing out of the Matthew 16:18 passage which cannot be really be supported by the essentially Jewish meaning that Jesus spoke and the Apostles would have understood…That meaning was made up by church theologians speculations that have no grounding in the real meaning of the passage. The Church itself may be indefectible, but this passage is not a proof text of some perpetual guarantee of the fidelity of Church authorities…It is a promise of the Resurrection for those who know Christ.
John 11:25 Jesus said to her, “I am the resurrection and the life. Those who believe in me, even though they die, will live…
I think this is a really great explanation, and as a Protestant person considering Catholocism, I'm almost convinced in the Jewish/Biblical roots of the Pope, but I just have one question. In Luke 22:24-29, it says the disciples were arguing about who was to be greatest. This is right before Jesus is to be crucified and on the night of the last supper. If they knew Peter was to be the leader and had the keys of the kingdom, why would they be discussing this amongst themselves? Honestly would like to know if someone has an answer, because I think these teachings from Dr. Pitre sound legit. Thanks!!
Jesus gave the title "sons of Thunder" to John and James before he gave the name "Peter" to Simon, so maybe they thought that they were superior in some way. It should be noted that probably none of the Apostles was a rabbi, so even though Jesus used technical language deeply tied with not just the Bible but to rabbinical jargon too (bind and loose), it's unlikely that fishermen would have catched the full meaning.
Jesus' sayings can be hard, even for the young Apostles.
Is it possible to have a video about how different Jesus was from other Jews and how different his teaching was from Jewish teaching?
what would be the thoughts of church of christ 1914 founded by manalo and church of God founded by eli soriano in the Philippines about this?
Broken link when trying to share on FB
Soooo.... if Yeshua renamed Simion to Cephus in Aramaic, does this mean we should be calling him St. Cephus?
We can call Peter Cephas just as we can call Yeshua Jesus, it's just transliteration, nothing to get hung up on. They are the same person regardless of either name. The Church doesn't force people to call them a certain name although we usually use the title "Christ" (greek for Messiah/annointed One) when we refer to Yeshua. I have noticed a lot of Catholics now refer to Jesus with His original name Yeshua, I like that trend.
If you speak Aramaic, yes.
@@SaintCharbelMiracleworker True about transliteration, but one exception I've noticed is many folks seem put off when hearing St. Therese of Lisieux's name in anything other than the French pronunciation.
@@paulmiller3469
The French... lol
French fries
French toast
French kisses
Not much else I'm a fan of coming out of that place.
@@paulmiller3469 ? Here is France we say sainte Thérèse de Lisieux
I see Petros as Peter and Petra as the bride of Jesus. Peter has the responsibility to look after the bride as the house keeper. If I become the Pope, I will name myself as Papa Joseph
Pitre talking about Peter...nice
so I wonder can the binding authority be used to refer to the authority of priest to listen to confessions or it is just fixated on the teaching authority?
newslink bridge I think a bit of both. There is definitely a power that is granted here when Jesus gives this authority to Peter. I personally have always equated Chapter 20 of the Gospel of John when speaking of the ability of a priest to hear confessions. “Whoever’s sins you forgive are forgiven. Whoever’s sins you retain are retained.”
Both. As the Jewish Encyclopedia said "The power of binding and loosing was always claimed by the Pharisees. Under Queen Alexandra, the Pharisees, says Josephus ("B J." i, 5, § 2), "became the administrators of all public affairs so as to be empowered to banish and readmit whom they pleased, as well as to loose and to bind." This does not mean that, as the learned men, they merely decided what, according to the Law, was forbidden or allowed, but that they possessed and exercised the power of tying or untying a thing by the spell of their divine authority, just as they could, by the power vested in them, pronounce and revoke an anathema upon a person."
...
"In this sense Jesus, when appointing his disciples to be his successors, used the familiar formula (Matt. xvi. 19, xviii. 18). By these words he virtually invested them with the same authority as that which he found belonging to the scribes and Pharisees"...
The encyclopedia goes on to say
" In the same sense, in the second epistle of Clement to James II. ("Clementine Homilies," Introduction), Peter is represented as having appointed Clement as his successor, saying: "I communicate to him the power of binding and loosing so that, with respect to everything which he shall ordain in the earth, it shall be decreed in the heavens; for he shall bind what ought to be bound and loose what ought to be loosed as knowing the rule of the church." Quite different from this Judaic and ancient view of the apostolic power of binding and loosing is the one expressed in John xx. 23, where Jesus is represented as having said to his disciples after they had received the Holy Spirit: "Whosesoever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them; and whosesoever sins ye retain, they are retained."
@@lonelyberg1808
Excellent. See also how in Revelation, the 4 angels holding back the winds, are BOUND at the Euphrates. This authority given to Peter binds heaven and earth.
Dr. Pitre, I hope you end up seeing this comment because I need some serious clarification/help. In Matthew 16, the Lord says that "flesh and blood did not reveal [to St. Peter the Lord's identity], but the Father in heaven." However, in Matthew 14, after the Lord and St. Peter return to the boat after walking on water, everyone on the boat worshiped the Lord saying, "Truly you are the Son of God." My confusion/dilemma is that it seems St. Peter had already known/learnt that the Lord is the Son of God since everyone on the boat was proclaiming it. It seems as though, in Caesarea Philippi, St. Peter is merely repeating what has already been said in Matthew 14. Yet the Lord says that St. Peter did not receive this knowledge "from flesh and blood" but from God the Father Himself. Please help me understand this seeming discrepancy. I've been torn over this and asked numerous people on two forums but no one seems to have offered a satisfactory/definitive answer.
I don't know if I explained myself well, but if you need me to clarify anything feel free to ask. I'm not trying to troll or bait anyone; I just really want to get to the bottom of this seeming discrepancy. Thank you.
Dr Pitre rarely responds to his clips. Jesus gives the radical difference in His explanation: “For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, [Simon] but my Father in heaven.”. In Matthew 14, the Apostles came to a rational conclusion from what they saw: a miracle, Jesus walking on water but also Peter walked on water too for a short time..
The difference is between a rational conclusion, a work of “flesh and blood”, a work possible in the natural gifts of God to men, and on the other hand, a supernatural work of God acting directly in the human soul of Simon - an understanding given immediately in the light of God Himself.
This crucial distinction is stressed in John’s Gospel:
John 1:12 But to all who received him, who believed in his name, he gave power to become children of God;
John 1:13 who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God.
and again, to Nicodemus - who could see (at the time) only with his eyes of flesh:
John 3:5 Jesus answered, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.
John 3:6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.
This experience did not mean (obviously) that Simon would remain in this supernatural light! We see almost immediately after “hearing” this from God in his soul, “Peter” reverted to his old self: Matt 16:21 - 23
The important thing about this is the distinction between natural virtues (faith, hope and love) and infused, supernatural virtues (supernatural faith and hope, and holy divine charity). One can have natural faith from logical conclusions, from observing things in nature, from a powerful charismatic speaker - all human, natural responses from which one can draw out conclusions about God. Such can be called faith, but it is a belief about God or Jesus. The faith that is required to enter the Kingdom, is not a conclusion about, it is a gift from, which calls forth faith in, God and/or Jesus Christ.
Thus St. Paul writes, “By grace are you saved, through faith, not because of works, lest any man should boast.” Drawing reasonable conclusions from observations and concluding some understandings about God, or Jesus, is a human work. It can be toward what is better - true, saving faith - but it is not there. The grace to believe is a gift from God. We cannot “do” a gift, we can only receive, and respond with the obedience of faith.
@@SaintCharbelMiracleworker I believe you may be the same person who provided the same answer to me in another forum. Your explanation still hasn't clarified the point I'm getting at. If St. Peter had, through rational conclusion, come to know that the Lord is the Son of God, then how could the supernatural work of God "reveal" to St. Peter that which he already knew? Wouldn't the supernatural revelation be a sort of redundancy? Excuse the slightly irreverent example, but this may help get my point across. If God were to reveal to me that 2+2=4, it would seem redundant since I had already come to that conclusion using the rational mind He had given me in the first place. In light of this seeming redundancy, then, I find it odd that the Lord would praise St. Peter's insight and bestow upon him the Keys. Hence, why I know I must be missing something (perhaps in the way the whole thing transpired in the Aramaic or in the Greek that doesn't translate well into English... or some other reason I can't possibly imagine). I'm just really really torn right now and I'm trusting God that He knew what He was doing; but I being myself, I will continue to bombard Him with questions until the matter is settled.
@@daenithriuszanathos9306 From a Catholic standpoint the matter is settled theologically. If you can't understand it I would recommend talking/corresponding via email with Catholic theologians or Dr Pitre or even the local priest/bishop. If you aren't Catholic then I'll pray for you to come to some understanding in your own way. You sound frustrated by this, please know that sometimes it's okay not to know/understand everything about the faith otherwise we risk falling into scrupulosity.
@@SaintCharbelMiracleworker Yes, and it's this theological settlement that I'd like to read. Directly from the Church Fathers, if possible. Yes, I am Catholic and being okay with not knowing/understanding everything doesn't mean I have to stop seeking the Truth. So while I won't let this seeming discrepancy rock my faith, I'm not going to sit idly and chuck it to "mystery" when I know people are fully capable of giving an answer. Yes, I've tried corresponding with priests and the only one who replied didn't give me a satisfactory answer (in fact, I didn't feel he answered the question at all). Hence, in my desperation, I'm seeking Dr. Pitre's help on his random video. If he sees it, great. If not, no big whoop. I trust that God will help me understand this if He wills it.
Dr Brant is the Sabbath day that we must keep holy in the commandments from God a Saturday or a Sunday?
catholicproductions.com/blogs/blog/sunday-sabbath Dr Pitre has discussed this in other posts
@@soniak2865 Thank you Sonia thank you thank you 🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏
@@tony1685 We have already established strong indication you don't really care all that much about the seventh day stuff. It's most likely just your one-trick-pony-tony move for abusing Catholics. Well, two-trick-pony-tony, but you have to be pushed pretty hard to get into that other one, lol. No problem, as you know, I'm willing to push back against those who may be a bit on the demonic side.
@@tony1685 Occam's razor; the simpler explanation is probably right. What sounds simpler? That apostles faithfully passed down the Deposit of Faith as revealed by Jesus, or they didn't and the 'truth' (as in correct interpretation of Sacred Scripture) was only discovered more than 1800 years later in rural New England by a group with propensity for picking wrong dates for the Second Coming? Hmmm, that's a tough one, lol.
@@tony1685 A small group of New Englanders, by the way, who were 'defellowed' (or what the authentic Church established by Jesus might call 'excommunicated') by local Methodists for being too radical.