Thanks, man. I doubt anyone would describe he as a hard ass, no! Me in class can be seen in the Tolkien and Lewis course on my channel, though. I at least try never to be boring. :)
Isn't conciliarism what the Orthodox churches believe? Essentially that the Holy Ghost moves the councils and thus makes the decisions there infallible, and not the pontiff of Rome? I mean it seems as if the Roman Catholic church and the other Chalcedonian churches could have united in the 14th century had the idea of conciliarism actually become doctrine, if you disregard the issue of the unleavened vs leavened bread in communion, the Holy Roman Emperor vs "Byzantine" Emperor and the other questions where East and West would differ during the time.
Saint Peter was martyred in the Colosseum. That, by itself, supports the tradition that he founded the Diocese of Rome. The Romans didn't transport people to Rome *just* to kill them. If you were executed by the Romans, you were killed more or less where you already were. Saint Teresa, one of the few female Doctors of the Church, knew this, too.
You mean the tradition that Peter was martyred in the Colosseum supports the tradition that he founded the Diocese of Rome? The intro paragraphs to his Wiki article: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saint_Peter suggest that Tradition says that he was crucified in the present location of a Catholic building. Even if it is fact that he was martyred in the Colosseum, that could mean that he was in Rome when captured and that could mean that he spent a lot of time in Rome, and that could mean that he led the Roman church... but founding the Diocese of Rome, as we understand it, perhaps not so much.
The councils repeatedly intervened and only succeeded in prolonging the problem, voting in horrible men that nobody wanted to support. These craven councils were too easily swayed by secular powers and ambitious men with their own agendas. It's a good thing that the church rejected conciliarism. But then it over-reacted the other way and declared the pope to be infallible. One good thing that the papal infallibility declaration did, though, is limit the pope to infallibility only in matters of faith and morals. Before that, popes could presumably make pronouncements on scientific matters and anything else according to their whim.
Yeah I agree. The councils were at times had wise voices and leaders, but by and large the rot had set in extensively there. And your understanding of infallibility is the same as mine: it was to limit the constant overturning of previous edicts by those who had ulterior motives for doing so.
this is a great example of in depth history, free of editorialization. therefore, if you find any advocacy of one organized religion over another, you brought that with you when you clicked on the thumbnail.
I'm an atheist but a worldbuilder, creating a government/state that is mix of fuedal era japanese shogunates and medieval papacies in the catholic church, and this is just fantastic. Thank you for this.
Thanks for throwing in the bit about past crises and contested papacies. I have been putting a good deal of time in on Bernard and Innocent II and I was wondering how that related to the "Babylon Captivity of the Papacy" since it came so much before the more famous split.
While I thoroughly enjoy your firm voice and it's my sincere wish others could learn from you (or that you'd more lectures), I can recommend keeping turkmerin and kelp as daily foods, to kick push that thyroid to the next level. Thanks.
Hi Ryan, I have a question for you that I've been trying to address for quite some time. Why did the papacy hate the Lombards so much ? I have a number of reasons such as the Carolingian influence, Arianism or paganism etc. But I would like to know what you think about the conflict?
Actually, no (though it's confusing). Since John XXIII in the medieval period was declared an anti-pope his name was not registered. So later when someone chose the name 'John' they received the XXIII numbering.
actually that's not that radical of an idea we Orthodox Christians see Jesus Christ as the only head of the Church, the bishop of Rome its see broke from the Church in what you call the byzantine schism thus the idea of Jesus being the only head of the Church is not as radical as an idea to the Church however papism is very apostate, since the apostolic era it was always accepted this way that Christ is the only head all the papal schism shows is the Roman Church is already broken from the begging because of their apostasy of their papism
+Nick Dixon // Yes I supposed you could stand the difference in my words up on the word 'only'. I used that to mean exclusive of human claims as those who head the church on earth under Christ. The teachings you refer to, of course, would not believe that 'only' must be interpreted exclusively. Good point of clarification!
thanks there's some of my orthodox breatheren that think Jan Hus should b canonized as a Saint and some of my protestant bretheren (most of my fam is protestant, I just converted to orthodoxy bc i find it as the closest belief to the Apostles in my studies of Christianity and its history) consider him to be one of many great reformers for the ones that even studied a little bit of their history, y not make a video on him cause their may b some history i missed that was a great vid on the papal schism though
how can they when theirs not an intellectual argument for atheism i mean when it comes to science yes one needs a brain but with the philosophy of atheism itself one only needs a lobotomy of their logical parts of their brain
+Tullius Agrippa // You mean the Greek origin καθέδρα, but this is not the root of why cathedrals are called this, which comes from the Latin-speaking centuries in the West. In the Greek it means any stool or seat, but cathedra in Latin means specifically chair for rule by this point, hence a bishop's chair. Etymological roots are not the same thing as a word's meaning.
+Ryan Reeves I am aware of that. But the word is nevertheless Greek and not Latin, even if it was used by the Latin church with a specialized meaning. Would anyone deny that angst is German, or that cuisine is French? Incidentally, I am not criticising your excellent and informative video, for which I thank you. I have watched a great many of your videos with interest and great profit.
+Tullius Agrippa // Again you're mistaking etymology with the word itself. Every word in English comes from somewhere, but we don't confuse the two in professional history. Cuisine for example in English means food, but in French it means 'kitchen', so the examples you give are the point I am making. Cathedra is a Latin word of Greek origin, but the Greek origin is not what the word means.
+Tullius Agrippa im still an amatuer in the languages but im finding that their are several similarities in latin and greek- though to that extent dont quote me
Ryan Reeves, as far as my grasp of English tells me, cuisine in English means a specific food culture (always used in phrases like "French cuisine", "Italian cuisine", "English cuisine" a k a "English cooking" etc). You do not say "a hungry man wants some cuisine". The Dufflepuds when promoting platitudes did not say "I always said, when a man is hungry, he wants some cuisine". The word was "vittels", dialectal for "victuals". I am sure if you had tried the other phrase for the same thing, they would not have hear-heared you (yes, I know, the word does not exist, it's my present to OED).
Jesus would be horrified and angry at these popes. Peter was never a pope and transubstantiation is a heresy, period.Look at Francis, he has said things that make me ask-has he ever read the Bible?
The Catholic church is a false Christian church - the mother of all harlots (Rev 17 & 18) everyone knows that Peter started the Church in Jerusalem read the book of Acts lol. Great presentation .
the Cathic and many other faiths are the mother of all harlets. In fact Jesus started the teachings of the teaching of his fathers in the heavens and his apostles preached about the good news of Gods Kingdom and after Jesus died the apostles, Paul would continue the work that Jesus taught them. Which the pharisees and the Sadducees, were Jewish leaders rejected Gods son Jesus wich God made a new covenant through his son Jesus; his perfect sacrifice for many that serve his father and him with accurate truth.
We dont have a nother Church Jesus is the groom and we Christians are HIs Bride. The early church started by peter is not the roman catholic church for goodnessakes when will you catholics confess to this Truth.?
Sorry to hear you have fallen away but if you were a romany protestant then its doubted whether you were really in Faith. The Book of Acts 1 & 2 tells us that of the First Church and it was established in Jerusalem and not Rome. We do not make intercessions to Mary for us Jesus alone is the Way to God the Father , Mary herself had to submit under her Sons Lordship.
Thank you for volunteering your time and effort to create and present this concise historical education.
This guy makes a very convincing case. I will watch everything he makes on history.
I have been really enjoying the education I am getting from your videos. You are very good at making them entertaining and informative, thank you.
Thank you for these wonderful lectures. You style and clarity are truly refreshing.
Many thanks for this illuminating lecture by Dr. Reeves. I am going to watch every such video-lecture of his.
Really appreciate these lectures :) Keep up the good work
Thanks lobogo! They have been fun to make and I'm plugging away at making another 75+ currently.
Very well presented. Thanks for posting
Thanks! Glad you enjoyed it.
Ryan Reeves You present topics with a clear unbiased message and you do it well. I hope you are a college professor somewhere.
Allen Lichner I appreciate that. Yep, I'm a seminary professor at Gordon-Conwell. :)
Ryan Reeves I imagine you are a real hard ass teach too. Just kidding. I would love to sit in one of you lectures.
Thanks, man. I doubt anyone would describe he as a hard ass, no! Me in class can be seen in the Tolkien and Lewis course on my channel, though. I at least try never to be boring. :)
Isn't conciliarism what the Orthodox churches believe? Essentially that the Holy Ghost moves the councils and thus makes the decisions there infallible, and not the pontiff of Rome? I mean it seems as if the Roman Catholic church and the other Chalcedonian churches could have united in the 14th century had the idea of conciliarism actually become doctrine, if you disregard the issue of the unleavened vs leavened bread in communion, the Holy Roman Emperor vs "Byzantine" Emperor and the other questions where East and West would differ during the time.
Great lecture, but the image used for Clement VII is of the true Pope Clement VII and not Antipope Clement VII
These are great. Thank you for making these lectures.
Saint Peter was martyred in the Colosseum. That, by itself, supports the tradition that he founded the Diocese of Rome. The Romans didn't transport people to Rome *just* to kill them. If you were executed by the Romans, you were killed more or less where you already were. Saint Teresa, one of the few female Doctors of the Church, knew this, too.
You mean the tradition that Peter was martyred in the Colosseum supports the tradition that he founded the Diocese of Rome? The intro paragraphs to his Wiki article: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saint_Peter suggest that Tradition says that he was crucified in the present location of a Catholic building.
Even if it is fact that he was martyred in the Colosseum, that could mean that he was in Rome when captured and that could mean that he spent a lot of time in Rome, and that could mean that he led the Roman church... but founding the Diocese of Rome, as we understand it, perhaps not so much.
The councils repeatedly intervened and only succeeded in prolonging the problem, voting in horrible men that nobody wanted to support. These craven councils were too easily swayed by secular powers and ambitious men with their own agendas. It's a good thing that the church rejected conciliarism. But then it over-reacted the other way and declared the pope to be infallible. One good thing that the papal infallibility declaration did, though, is limit the pope to infallibility only in matters of faith and morals. Before that, popes could presumably make pronouncements on scientific matters and anything else according to their whim.
Yeah I agree. The councils were at times had wise voices and leaders, but by and large the rot had set in extensively there.
And your understanding of infallibility is the same as mine: it was to limit the constant overturning of previous edicts by those who had ulterior motives for doing so.
dlwatib By the way papal infallibility has only been exercised twice in almost two millennia.
Two popes and then thee popes. Goodness.
this is a great example of in depth history, free of editorialization. therefore, if you find any advocacy of one organized religion over another, you brought that with you when you clicked on the thumbnail.
This was really good. Thank you!
I'm an atheist but a worldbuilder, creating a government/state that is mix of fuedal era japanese shogunates and medieval papacies in the catholic church, and this is just fantastic. Thank you for this.
very good lectures.
gda295 Aren't they just. Very interesting and well presented and clear.
Thanks for throwing in the bit about past crises and contested papacies. I have been putting a good deal of time in on Bernard and Innocent II and I was wondering how that related to the "Babylon Captivity of the Papacy" since it came so much before the more famous split.
While I thoroughly enjoy your firm voice and it's my sincere wish others could learn from you (or that you'd more lectures), I can recommend keeping turkmerin and kelp as daily foods, to kick push that thyroid to the next level. Thanks.
Never received diet exercises after posting a history video, but thanks! :)
How where there three popes after the council of Pisa if two of them were deposed prior to the election of Alexander?
Hi Ryan, I have a question for you that I've been trying to address for quite some time. Why did the papacy hate the Lombards so much ?
I have a number of reasons such as the Carolingian influence, Arianism or paganism etc.
But I would like to know what you think about the conflict?
TheLoverBoyEnTv It could be an ethnic issue as the Lombards were a Germanic tribe and part of the overthrow of 'Latin' Roman Italy.
Erm. Did anyone point out that John XXIII was the twentieth century, Vatican II pope? I think you misnumbered your medieval man.
Actually, no (though it's confusing). Since John XXIII in the medieval period was declared an anti-pope his name was not registered. So later when someone chose the name 'John' they received the XXIII numbering.
Ah, thanks for clearing that up.
And Dimond brothers have made a point of there now being TWO antipopes named John XXIII, and them having much in common.
Do all these monks not know about Nivea?
actually that's not that radical of an idea we Orthodox Christians see Jesus Christ as the only head of the Church,
the bishop of Rome its see broke from the Church in what you call the byzantine schism
thus the idea of Jesus being the only head of the Church is not as radical as an idea to the Church however papism is very apostate, since the apostolic era it was always accepted this way that Christ is the only head
all the papal schism shows is the Roman Church is already broken from the begging because of their apostasy of their papism
+Nick Dixon // Yes I supposed you could stand the difference in my words up on the word 'only'. I used that to mean exclusive of human claims as those who head the church on earth under Christ. The teachings you refer to, of course, would not believe that 'only' must be interpreted exclusively. Good point of clarification!
thanks
there's some of my orthodox breatheren that think Jan Hus should b canonized as a Saint and some of my protestant bretheren (most of my fam is protestant, I just converted to orthodoxy bc i find it as the closest belief to the Apostles in my studies of Christianity and its history) consider him to be one of many great reformers for the ones that even studied a little bit of their history,
y not make a video on him cause their may b some history i missed
that was a great vid on the papal schism though
+Ryan Reeves please make an intellectual argument against atheism.
how can they when theirs not an intellectual argument for atheism i mean when it comes to science yes one needs a brain but with the philosophy of atheism itself one only needs a lobotomy of their logical parts of their brain
+Nick Dixon good point.
Is "bozo" an academic noun?
yes, the Papacy is the Problem, not the Solution! And still apt today!
Cathedra is not Latin - it is Greek.
+Tullius Agrippa // You mean the Greek origin καθέδρα, but this is not the root of why cathedrals are called this, which comes from the Latin-speaking centuries in the West. In the Greek it means any stool or seat, but cathedra in Latin means specifically chair for rule by this point, hence a bishop's chair. Etymological roots are not the same thing as a word's meaning.
+Ryan Reeves I am aware of that. But the word is nevertheless Greek and not Latin, even if it was used by the Latin church with a specialized meaning. Would anyone deny that angst is German, or that cuisine is French? Incidentally, I am not criticising your excellent and informative video, for which I thank you. I have watched a great many of your videos with interest and great profit.
+Tullius Agrippa // Again you're mistaking etymology with the word itself. Every word in English comes from somewhere, but we don't confuse the two in professional history. Cuisine for example in English means food, but in French it means 'kitchen', so the examples you give are the point I am making. Cathedra is a Latin word of Greek origin, but the Greek origin is not what the word means.
+Tullius Agrippa im still an amatuer in the languages but im finding that their are several similarities in latin and greek- though to that extent dont quote me
Ryan Reeves, as far as my grasp of English tells me, cuisine in English means a specific food culture (always used in phrases like "French cuisine", "Italian cuisine", "English cuisine" a k a "English cooking" etc).
You do not say "a hungry man wants some cuisine".
The Dufflepuds when promoting platitudes did not say "I always said, when a man is hungry, he wants some cuisine". The word was "vittels", dialectal for "victuals". I am sure if you had tried the other phrase for the same thing, they would not have hear-heared you (yes, I know, the word does not exist, it's my present to OED).
Medieval mumbo-gumbo
Jesus would be horrified and angry at these popes. Peter was never a pope and transubstantiation is a heresy, period.Look at Francis, he has said things that make me ask-has he ever read the Bible?
The Catholic church is a false Christian church - the mother of all harlots (Rev 17 & 18) everyone knows that Peter started the Church in Jerusalem read the book of Acts lol. Great presentation .
the Cathic and many other faiths are the mother of all harlets. In fact Jesus started the teachings of the teaching of his fathers in the heavens and his apostles preached about the good news of Gods Kingdom and after Jesus died the apostles, Paul would continue the work that Jesus taught them. Which the pharisees and the Sadducees, were Jewish leaders rejected Gods son Jesus wich God made a new covenant through his son Jesus; his perfect sacrifice for many that serve his father and him with accurate truth.
Victoria merydiaz
The Catholic Church is the HQ hence called the mother of all harlots. She controls all harlotry in the world.
Bertrum Hurny
still they refuse to hear and save themselves
We dont have a nother Church Jesus is the groom and we Christians are HIs Bride. The early church started by peter is not the roman catholic church for goodnessakes when will you catholics confess to this Truth.?
Sorry to hear you have fallen away but if you were a romany protestant then its doubted whether you were really in Faith. The Book of Acts 1 & 2 tells us that of the First Church and it was established in Jerusalem and not Rome. We do not make intercessions to Mary for us Jesus alone is the Way to God the Father , Mary herself had to submit under her Sons Lordship.