The Origins of Papacy and the Road to Power
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 26 ноя 2024
- For centuries the Pope represented the center of not only the Catholic, but also the political and social world. But what are the origins of Papacy and what was their road to power? How did a Christian bishop of Rome rise to such heights of influence becoming the leader of the Catholic church?
There was a time when there were no Catholics and Orthodox believers, only Christians. That’s where we start in this video, following the rise of the Roman Bishop, his growing influence on neighboring kingdoms and eventually the rise of the Papal States. Watch the video to dive into the entertaining, twisted and dark at times history of papacy, which is full of intrigues, murders and many other unholy crimes.
The Franks were never Arians, and converted directly to Roman Catholic Christianity.
Yes, unlike the Arian Goths, but it's interesting to note that like many Germanic leaders, Clovis dallied with Arian Christianity, and members of his family did indeed choose Arianism. However, he married a Catholic wife and developed a devotion to a Catholic saint, Martin of Tours. And the rest is history. Talk about a near miss for Arianism in the West lol.
So to clarify, there were surely Franks who were Arians but they didn't convert to it as a people following suit of their leader.
@@maxion5109 To bring your comment full circle, the development of the cultus of Martin of Tours is one of most significant factors in the conversion of the Visigoths in southern France from Arianism to Nicene Catholic Christianity. The relics of Martin of Tours became a place of local pilgrimage for Goths in the region before the Visigoths officially converted.
This channel shows it's ineptitude with its inaccuracies.
@@Thomas_Name What's the name of your RUclips channel?
Overall a good video on the early medieval development of the papacy.
A few errors/clarifications about the earlier centuries:
1:12 "By the end of the third century... Rome, Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem." Constantinople and Jerusalem were not extant cities under those names in the third century. Constantinople was the Greek city of Byzantion which was refounded by Constantine in the 330's as you note in the video. However, it's bishop did not receive comparable status to Rome, Alexandria, or Antioch until the council of Chalcedon in 451. Prior to that, the bishops of Caesarea, Thessaloniki, Heraclea, and Ephesus had more canonically established authority over the regions in that area. Jerusalem was called Aelia Capitolina from 130 to 325. It recovered its older name under Constantine during the council of Nicaea. It was elevated to a similar status as Rome, Constantinople, Alexandria, and Antioch at the council of Chalcedon 451. It's also worth noting that the bishops of Carthage and Milan, while never receiving the same kind of recognition on a universal level within the Roman state church, functioned on a similar level of authority in certain time periods.
2:45 "...though the movement quickly evolved into a political one." While true that the Arian controversy was deeply political from the start, you are overstating the levels to which the was conflict between lower and upper clergy. There were plenty of Arian bishops and emperors in the following five decades. At points they were the majority. Additionally, the criticism of Arius began in Alexandria. The bishops of Alexandria (who were and are still referred to as "pope" from before the 4th century) had strongly established centralized authority in Egypt and Libya. Pope Alexander of Alexandria presided over the council at Nicaea.
3:45 "It was during this time ... granted the title 'pope'" The bishop of Alexandria had been referred to by the term since the late 3rd century. It was not a formal title during the first 5 or so centuries of Christianity, and many bishops and priests may have been referred to by the term by those close to them or by their subordinates. The bishops of Constantinople, Antioch, and Jerusalem never used the title "pope" formally. Better terms that were officially being uses in Roman or canon law were "exarch" (Chacledon 451) or "patriarch" (Justinian 531).
4:01 "...many of which were Arians..." The Franks were never a majority Arian people. Also the map conflates many decades of the 5th century when it comes to estimated kingdom boundaries.
4:55 "...the Roman bishops began to extend..." They had already been doing this for the preceding couple centuries into North Africa (to mixed acceptance) and the western Balkans (to generally high acceptance). The development was that Rome began to eclipse Milan's influence in the north.
5:26 "This church spread without ... independent of the pope." Careful with the way this is phrased for this time period. Most Christian areas were equally "independent of the pope" at this time in the sense that the popes had no direct authority. What modern people think of as papal authority and jurisdiction starts with Nicholas II, Gregory VII, and Urban II.
18:43 "... schism of the Christian church..." The map of the schism is kind of all over the place. The weirdest part is the inclusion of Christians in Libya and Egypt as Roman Catholic. Tunisia maybe, but Egypt makes no sense.
I really like the way you present the cards, you've just won my follow✅
I have just discovered your channel and you are my new favourite channel to watch.❤❤
Amazing video. Excellent content as always.
thank you so much for support
I share very little these days, BUT this channel and this particular video are superb!
except it's got a some errors that could lead to misinformation
Excellent video…please keep it up!!
This video helped me understand the roles of popes and chiefs in Christianity
I am a muslim and i love Christians❤
It’s like any kingdom, except the rulers start off in their 60s and only last 10 years
Thanks For this! Love your content ❤❤
4:02 the Franks are claimed to be Arian on the map. This is incorrect as the franks converted directly from paganism to Roman Catholicism under Clovis
From the frying pan,into the fire, being pagans converted to pagans with a religious flavor.
@@leonvoltaire ???
@@commy1231 Statues and pagan holidays, need I to expound further?
when is episode 2 out?
Christians are capable of being sinful as individuals, Our Lord Jesus promised wolves will enter the Church, but the Church is perfect because God Himself established her, militantly and triumphantly, through His Apostles with authority to celebrate Christian sacraments. There existed Jewish priests capable of sin in the O.T. yet Jews did not abandon Israel and her traditions, knowing it was still God's promised. Now the Church is the new Israel and God promised the gates of hell will not destroy her.
great explanation thanks
02:07 That painting isn’t depicting Constantine the first or any Pope of Rome. Anthonis Van Dyke's 1619 painting of St. Ambrose blocking the cathedral door, refusing Theodosius's admittance.
Overall, your video is highly inaccurate.
I do hope the material in the first 3 minutes of the video followed a more strictly chronological order. Jumping from the Pentarchs (6th century) to Constantine the Great (4th century) was jarring.
Where are you getting your information on the reason why Constantine converted? That's not even one of the possible stories I could find. Except for that it wasn't true. Did you mention that part? That that's not the real reason that that he became a Christian. Supposedly Constantine had a dream and there was a big cross in the sky before a battle. In the dream it told him something like "with this sign conquer" something similar to that.
So then supposedly he had his whole army paint crosses on their Shields and they won the battle. So that's one of the official scholarly theories. Just going off of what is available to research.
Seems you might have come upon some propaganda in your research
" Tu sei Pietro e su questa pietra edificherò la mia Chiesa e le potenze degli inferi non prevarranno su di essa. A te darò le chiavi del Regno dei Cieli: tutto ciò che legherai sulla Terra sarà legato nei Cieli, e tutto ciò che scioglierai sulla Terra sarà sciolto nei Cieli. Vangelo di Matteo, capitolo 16.
I love your videos please make more ❤❤❤
Constantine was only baptized on his deathbed.
While true, this was not uncommon at the time. Constantine spent the last few years of his life planning to attack Persia. He wanted the war to be blessed by the church. He planned on starting the campaign by being baptized in the Jordan river as a show of piety. When he became seriously ill before this could happen, he seemed to have had an actual change of heart regarding how he used the Christian church politically. He never recovered, so we can't know for sure.
Great channel
This was a very informative video.
The video ended somewhat abruptly if you were mostly listening. You need an outro of some kind.
So much for being decent people !
Can you guys make a video about 30 years war? ❤❤
There's no evidence whatsoever in the early church writings that Peter was ever a bishop in Rome. He went to Rome, preached the gospel there with Mark, ordained a few elders with Paul, and then got executed.
The apostolic churches had a plurality of elders. There was never a monoepiscopy. This was invented by Ignatius of Antioch after the Apostles died. After that, you have two different writings emerge around the turn of the 3rd century claiming that either Linus or Clement was the first bishop of Rome. These were by Irenaeus of Lyon and Tertullian of Carthage, both well reputed scholars who had previously been in Rome. This proves that there was no monoepiscopy, and that people were trying to fudge records to make it look like there was after it became the norm.
Do yourself a favor and look at the bishop's list for Jerusalem. It's on Wikipedia. It makes perfect sense if you understand they were several bishops or elders at a time. But if you try to make it a Monoepiscopy, You have James's brother Jude at the head of the church in 130 AD, despite the fact that his grandchildren are testifying before Diocletian around 95 AD.
The Roman Catholic tradition is just full of lies. What they really are is the last vestige of the Roman State, and the false church that was ordered and ordained by Constantine and his successors. It created the Pentarchy, and put Christians in the Roman empire under the Nicene Creed, which contained language that was used exclusively by gnostics and heretics but never found in the Bible. It officially merged Christianity with Platonism, and essentially banned marriage among the clergy so that the many non-trad rhetoricians in the Greco-Roman world could find a place to hide and gain massive tax advantages. All of this is well documented if you know where to look. Find me on my channel if you're interested.
To me, this shows & I think most scholars would agree that Peter of the Bible never held any office like a “Pope” like it came to be and understood in later centuries because that didn’t exist in the first century. Tough also to maintain the Holy Spirit “chooses” the Popes with all the great corruption that occurred with it. Seems more historical to say fallible men chose the Popes, instead.
Very interesting
The Franks were NEVER Arians. They converted to chalcadonian christianity from Germanic paganism.
And then we have the Catholic Pope and the Orthodox Nobles, which had to unite for the First Crusade
Finally, Henry VI., with his growing power and separate location making foreign intervention difficult, decided that he does not need some week ruler n Rome to order him what to do in his state and made himself the head of his own (Anglican) church independent of the pope. Then Reformation started, resulting in protestant churches not subject to the pope.
Henry VIII of England. Reformation ideas and churches were already present on the continent in German states and the Netherlands. But Henry VIII was the first to turn his whole country away from Rome's interference. But it wasn't from any theological reasons, but so he could divorce his first wife.
@@peterweeks2066 Esatto. ho anche saputo che, negli ultimi decenni, molti anglicani sono diventati cattolici come i loro antenati.
@@peterweeks2066 Reformation attempts could be traced back to Wickliffe. My point is that the old explanation for Henry's church separation, that is his need for a separation from his wife, is likely superficial. As a stateman, he had more powerful reasons, not to be subservient to some remote pope.
Great breakdown. A great video on the evils of politics and religion.
Should be pointed out that contrary to popular believes many Germanic tribes did have Roman citizenship (after Edict of Caracalla). Clovis I was officially recognized as Roman Consul. And Vandals intervened under orders of Roman Emperor against usurpers. Whole Barbaric Kingdoms thing was invented by Greek Byzantine to revoke citizenship of Latins. For reminder Odoaker send Imperial insignia back to Byzantine (as Emperor was a figurehead at this point). It was not a move of conqueror as he get position of Byzantine governor in its place. Most Germanic tribes fused with local Latin communists and French, Italian, Spanish, Portuguese and Romanian are in fact dialects of the Latin. Papal State what was after Justinian treason a Byzantine Province. And they did recognized again fact that European Kingdoms are Roman. Which stop recognizing Eastern Emperor only with crowing of Charlemagne. Furthermore after fall of Byzantium. Imperial insignia were send to Spain and end in hands of the Hapsburg Emperor.
The RCC illegitimately usurped all power unto itself after 1054. The original five churches in the pentarchy were:
Rome: Founded by the Apostle Peter
Constantinople: Founded by the Apostle Andrew
Alexandria: Founded by the Apostle Mark
Antioch: Founded by the Apostles Peter and Paul
Jerusalem: Founded by the Apostle James
The pentarchy was a model for organizing the Christian church that was established by Emperor Justinian I in the 6th century. The word "pentarchy" comes from the Greek words pente, meaning "five", and archein, meaning "to rule". The five churches were the first to be recognized by Justinian's legislation and were later confirmed by the Council in Trullo in 692
They were each autonomous, autocephalous and Catholic. The Roman Catholic Church did NOT start out as the boss of everyone. That did not begin in earnest until ab. 800 AD with Charlemagne who needed the to have primacy in order to legitimize his reign
You’ll never be taught this in Sunday School 😂
Notice that the majority if eclestiastic terms are greek. It shows the origins of Christianity’s source.
I Vangeli ci sono arrivati in lingua greca.
3:58 Germanics destroy the west roman state .
Some latin priests that managed to stay rich : Can I tell you about Jesus.
Germanics :Yeah.
Popes (these latins) that will influence the barbarians throw christianity : You fallen right under my trap.
In fondo il Cristianesimo è davvero una trappola, in senso buono ovviamente perchè quando si conosce la persona e la predicazione di Gesù Cristo è difficile non rimanerne colpiti.
Constantine did not contradt leprosy. He had a vision before the battle of the Milvian bridge and converted. This page is sus now.
This video seems to draw a little too much from whig "history".
The main differences between Orthodox Christianity and Roman Catholicism. the main things which keep our religions separate are:
Papal Supremacy, Papal Infallibility, The Filioque, Absolute Divine Simplicity, Created Grace Doctrine, natural theology, scholasticism, Original sin, sacred heart doctrine, Immaculate conception, Purgatory, Merits/Indulgences, PSA - Penal Substitutionary Atonement, evolution of Dogma,imaginative prayer, "beatific vision" etc
Then the Forced Celibacy of Priests, The use of Unleavened Bread in the Eucharist, The Adoption and change of the Christian calendar, The use of Renaissance statues, Pews, Child Communion, improper non immersion baptism, Cardinals, and differences in liturgical practices (Alter tables, Iconostasis, priest positioning etc)
all of those things, we say the Western Church adopted and innovated and became heretical when they adopted these things.
And we say that in the early church NONE of these things existed, there is no evidence of these things.
No examples of Papal Infallibility, No examples of merits/indulgences, and no examples of unleavened wafer bread, and such.
In fact in the west, In Rome. It looked a lot similar to how we Orthodox exist today. Our priests can get married, we use Icons and not statues, we use the old calendar etc
Orthodoxy Vs Roman Catholicism:
Energy Essence Distinction vs Absolute Divine Simplicity
Ancestral Sin vs Original Sin
Non Filioque Trinity vs Filioque Trinity
Patriarchy vs Papacy
Revealed Theology vs Natural Theology
Hesychasm Vs Scholasticism
Theosis vs Sanctification
Married Priest vs Celibate Priests
Infant Communion Vs Non Infant Communion
Iconography vs Statues
Full Immersion Baptism vs Sprinkle Baptism
One Baptism vs Confirmation Baptism
Leavened Communion Bread vs Unleavened Communion bread
Julian Calendar vs Pope Gregory's Calendar
We are not the same Religion, we do not have the same faith, and anyone who looks into either religions genuinely will see how different we are.
Il nostro Papa Giovanni XXIII diceva: "Dobbiamo cercare sempre quello che ci unisce e non quello che ci divide". Ricordo che la parola "diavolo" significa "colui che divide". Spiegare il cattolicesimo in un commento diventa troppo lungo, mi auguro solo che ci siano buoni rapporti tra le nostre Chiese, nel nome di Gesù Cristo.
although I think all religion is nonsense, and that most religions have done immense harm in the world, I agree that the Eastern Orthodox Church holds most true to early Christianity, and Roman Catholicism has invented all sorts of nonsense. It's a pity it came to dominate Western Europe and imposed its tyranny on so many for so long.
@@peterweeks2066 Dal punto di vista teologico, cioè quello che riguarda le verità fondamentali, non c'è quasi nessuna differenza tra cattolicesimo (la parola Cattolica vuol dire Universale) e cristianesimo ortodosso, tranne per la centralità del successore di Pietro. Questo lo dicono i teologi, io sono una semplice fedele. Per quanto riguarda le varie tradizioni cattoliche, queste sono appunto "tradizioni", non verità fondamentali e non c'è nessun obbligo per un cattolico di aderire. Non si può spiegare tutto in un commento, diventa troppo lungo.
I believe all Christians are one faith (faith in Jesus) and the different denomination are just different ways of expressing that.
@@daveweiss5647 Sì, è così. Tutti gli anni noi facciamo una settimana di preghiera per l'unità dei Cristiani. Dio è più grande delle nostre divisioni.
You Missed Alexandria
Don’t worry about it. you’re never gonna make religious nerds happy. you did a good job.
The Franks were from the early belonging to the rightful faith, not arians.
Only Pope Urban seemed like he was meant for the job
There are many more this dude just named the worst ones.
Petu was not A Christian or a Jew He was Yahudim Natsarenes/Sect
That sounds like a completely made-up modern thing. Peter was definitely a "Jew" and a "Christian" based on the normal historical definitions of those words.
Your maps and visuals are cool but you really need to do more research. A lot of the information in your videos is flat out wrong.
You skipped the historical evidence and understanding of the Bishop of Rome’s universal authority that was written by the Apostolic Fathers way before “Constantine united the Church.” The Apostolic Fathers give evidence that there was a person on earth where the buck ultimately stopped, the Petrine Office. This is God’s Design because He is wise and would never create a democracy. He created a Kingdom and an office of Prime Minister (St. Peter’s Office).
The Catholic Church was founded in inaccuracies. Peter was never in Rome, the church is not built over his grave. Most of the religious “artifacts” are just fabrications.
God did not “design” this system regardless of how many learned men appointed it to be so. If it were how do you justify the absolute corruption of the papacy? Not just back then, include the current pope.
I had a great deal of respect for Pope John Paul II, I believe he was one of the best. There were some others. But on the whole I doubt God would allow this if it was the one true church. Look at how many times he had his hand on Israel. Not sure the same is true about the Papacy.
BTW I do not hate Catholics , I have tons of Catholic friends. I just think the institution, especially at the top, is sinful.
Does that authority apply to the degenerate popes?
There is absolutely no biblical foundation to what you say. Jesus established all ministries and the position of “pope” does not exist in the Bible. The Justinian Code is what distinguished the bishop of Rome to elevate him over the others, which is not based on Scripture.
@@alexisbonilla5942"If someone does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can imagine that he still holds the faith? If he desert the chair of Peter upon
can he still confident that he is in the Church?" - St. Cyprian of Carthage
"For as to what they say about the Church of Constantinople, who can doubt that it is subject to the Apostolic See" - Pope St. Gregory the Great
@@alexisbonilla5942 God established the government structure of the Nation of Israel with the Mediator Moses. God created the High Priesthood of Aaron and his sons and their successors in the Old Testament. God created the Kingship over His Covenant through the Mediator King David. I’m not sure what Bible you’re reading (or not actually reading and studying) but typologically, God ALWAYS leaves certain men on earth with His Authority. Jesus is the New Moses. Jesus is the New Son of David. He did start a government for His Covenant People. The Catholic interpretation of the New Testament is the most biblical form of Christianity.
The title comes from latin "Pater patrorum" "Father of fathers" then made into Papa
you skipped the part where: no, peter doesn't disappears from history, he actually says that he is in Babylon.
Of course the Catholic church insists that he went to Rome cause otherwise their whole Lore doesn't work XD.
Peter's tomb and bones were discovered in 1942, beneath the Vatican altar - where the Catholic Church always said it was.
whatever helps you sleep at night 🙄
@@Juve_Fan2601 Denying history helps Protestants sleep at night.
@@Juve_Fan2601 You can't be bothered to look it up.
@@Juve_Fan2601 There is a ZERO reason why he would go to Babylon. Peter was a Roman citizen. It is not that far-fetched that he could end in Rome. Wait! Wasn't Rome compared to Babylon by many Christians?
There was no such thing as the "Byzantine Empire". That was created by historians.
Crazy you and overly sarcastic made videos that included the pornocracy that premiered today
The Papacy was always so corrupt
yes
No
No all of them.
nowadays it isn't
And still is...
Nice try
Map is wrong. All of North Africa and Syria was part of the Roman Empire
Dude there are so many factual errors from frame to frame regarding Constantine LOL. This is TRASH!
What are the errors?
@ google my dude it’s called google.
@@youngmaddogg5230 What should i ask Google? "what are the mistakes of the video origins of papacy from this channel"?
@@youngmaddogg5230 and if you already know it, why make me go all the way to find the mistakes when i could be using this time to study what really matters(the content of my college), instead of just simply telling me?
@@ÍtaloResiå it will do you good. Learning is GOOD Fir you.
No llegue tan pronto ni a mi nacimiento jajajajajaja
Very interesting