Did The Early Christian Church have a POPE?!
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 8 сен 2024
- In this video I answer another protestant objection about the early church and the papacy.
If you'd like to support this ministry, please consider becoming a patron for exclusive content, behind-the-scenes, group zoom calls and MORE.
patreon.com/Vo...
Social Media:
Tik-Tok: @voiceofreason_clips
Instagram: @voiceofreason_clips
#pope #papacy #catholic #catholicism #christianity #earlychurch #catholicchurch #protestant #protestantism
As a former protestant, I have this to say to them. When Paul had a question of doctrine, he went to Peter and the Apostles. Peter was always the leader of the group, as seen at the day of Pentecost. It was Peter that Jesus told to feed his sheep. Peter is always seen in a leadership position of the first Church after the descent of the Holy Spirit.
Yeah it’s so obvious but you can’t argue with people who think they know scripture.
@@bw8384 - Interesting points you raised. I found something of similar interest. We see Paul calling out Peter for his hypocrisy in the Bible for siding with the Jews when Peter had begun to live like the gentiles even though he was Jewish.
Do popes (according to Catholicism) get to be called a hypocrite by a lower apostle? I don't think so!
@@lifethroughromans8295that was before our popes were infallible duh!
nonsense, Sir -- Peter was leader in the Council of Jerusalem. Peter made mistakes just like all others. there was no 'pope' -- Christians gathered together to study and discuss God's Word for guidance -- see Acts 17:11
@@kevinmc62 'infallible'?? only Christ is infallible.
catholicism mandates sin and doesn't even follow God's Word, kevin.
Love the Video, I am protestant but becoming Catholic soon. God bless you all. The reason for my conversion is because you see a lot of division in the non-demonational Church. I was generally confused why everyone had there own interpretation of scripture. So I read some history about the early church fathers and was led to the Catholic Church. I am fully convinced this is truly the Church Jesus Christ has founded. Glory to the Father and to the son and to the Holy spirit .
Feels so good when it all starts to make sense, doesn’t it? Welcome!
Will be praying for you❤
How can disproving the papacy disprove the entire religion?
The WORD says keep Sabbath!
The WORLD says keep Sunday!
WHO DO YOU 🫵 OBEY❓
@@chrisparris7211From a protestant perspective to justify things like solo scriptura and solo fide you have to dismiss the papacy, bishops and hierarchy of the catholic faith. Catholicism is rich in traditions that can on the surface appear to be conflicting to authority of scripture and salvation through faith. Councils that were held to settle differing interpretations of scriptures throughout history are headed by bishops of the catholic church. These councils are meant to clarify the catholic churches official stance on particular issues when they arise to maintain unity of the church and doctrines of faith. Some of the settlements in these councils go against the interpretation that protestants want to accept, therefore they have to find ways to try and reject the authority of the papacy. Usually by failure to understand history properly, or by taking historical sources that are contrary to the catholic stance as authoritative, or outright skewing of history altogether. So by rejecting the papacy they are able to hold the interpretations they are willing to accept, on their own authority.
Saint Peter, Prince of the Apostles
The kinds of "arguments" Protestants use for these issues (I'm a Protestant) sound a whole lot like atheist arguments. "No evidence until 180 AD" is extraordinarily close to the event in ancient history. As a comparison, the earliest extant record of Alexander the Great is 400 years later. That is NOT evidence against anything. It just so happens, the more time goes on, the more and more historical records are created about major events and figures, and the more likely archaeologists are to find one of them many centuries later. If they find several, independent ones this is almost unheard of.
The fact that someone in Christian history as profound as St Irenaeus literally listed them all is irrefutable evidence in my opinion.
Thanks for this info, I did not know.
This misunderstands the argument:
1. There was a leader of the church in Rome from the earliest days. The historical record, in this case Roman and Jewish, does in fact suggest Peter is the first leader
2. The concept of bishops however was a concept which gradually evolved. Reason why is because this leadership concept evolves into the concept of overseas and finally bishop once the diocese are organized. So it’s probably around the time of st Ignatius and 1 Timothy (around 100 ad) that the concept gets formalized and st ignatius was one of the prime factors
3. The question of whether a bishop of Rome exists differs from whether the bishop of Rome has supremacy. Indeed Constantine and the eastern Roman emperors claimed the supremacy over the church
4. The biggest problem for Rome supremacists, however is that Peter was not the first leader of the church. The first leader was James, who was called, as set out in Acts, the brother of Jesus. This is substantiated by Josephus and Roman sources. Peter, at best, according to Acts was part of the triumvirate leading the church but it was the church in Jerusalem that claimed supremacy. The church in Jerusalem came into conflict with Paul over whether gentiles had to observe the Jewish law. The supremacy of the church in Jerusalem was ended when the Roman’s under Vespasian sacked Jerusalem. From there on out the bishop of Rome claimed supremacy under the Petrine doctrine, but that came into conflict with the Christian emperors who claimed supremacy in Constantinople.
Hence the date and why Rome comes into play after 70ad when Jerusalem is destroyed in the Jewish revolt. The Roman bishops were stepping into a power vacuum.
Nope, we have contemporary coins with Alexander's face and name, Babylonian diaries, Greek and Egyptian inscriptions etc.
I am a former protestant that became Catholic last year. I have other protestant friends that are more curious about eastern orthodoxy because they don’t believe that the bishop of Rome had primacy.
Tell them to read Mt 16 18-19 & Isa 22:22
Well, most of orthodox churches recognize the spiritual primacy of the bishop of Rome but not his authority.
Book of Acts describes people being cured by Peter's shadow.
“Jesus Christ the King sits on the throne of David forever”. Ask your protestant friends, if they agree with this statement, why then they don’t feel Jesus Christ the king would be allowed to appoint his Al Habayit. Like Ahishar was to Solomon, Shebna and Eliakem were to Hezekiah, etc. Al Habayit is hebrew for “the one over the house”. See 1 Kings 4:6, Isaiah 22, and of course Matt 16. Obviously the office wasn’t instituted by the Catholic Church but by God himself. Ask them to look up the term Al Habayit so they can understand the jewish roots. It is what it is and Christ wouldn’t leave this earth without one.
Good one. You covered most of the arguments I wanted to know about.You should write this down as an article somewhere. God bless you.
VOICE OF REASON VIDEO!!! LET'S GOOOOOO!!!
I’m focusing on the Papacy on my journey back to the faith, and this is exactly the topic I need to hear more on. Thank you 🙏🏽
The WORD says keep Sabbath!
The WORLD says keep Sunday!
WHO DO YOU 🫵 OBEY❓
I recommend focusing on God's Word, the Bible. It's called GOD's Word for a reason. That's your starting point for your journey back to the faith.
I wonder if the Popes actually felt any different when they spoke with Papal infallibility. Like suspending any disbelief, given the doctrine itself, I wonder if The Pope ever felt different or if they knew spiritually or physically when The Holy Spirit was speaking through them?
@@ParanormalTheology
I wonder if they understood:
1 John 2:4
He that saith, I know him, and keepeth not his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is NOT in him.
@@ParanormalTheology They probably thought, "Hmmm, this isn't in the Bible, but let me tell people it's from God. That always works!"
What I love about the Papacy is that it acts as the pastoral caretaker and protector of every church, liturgy and rite that has existed from early Christendom. No other institution on Earth is doing this, nor has any other done better to reunify all the churches separated by centuries of schisms. It also makes sense to have a hierarchy anyway since throughout scripture it clearly indicates that Peter was given a primacy level of attention and authority by Christ not given to the other apostles. We humans naturally organize and administer ourselves accordingly and the early church 2000 years ago was no different.
Scripture doesn't give Peter any primacy. that's from a cherry picked verse. try taking the entire account into consideration with CONTEXT.
"Pastoral caretaker"? Do you know what a pastor is? It's a shepherd. Yes, someone who cares for the sheep. Shepherds know their sheep by name. They PERSONALLY visit them and tend to them, feed them, nurture them. Has the papacy visited your home and fed you? Nurtured you? Do they even know your name? Here's a thought provoking question: Do they even care about you?
@@B-Money112 a more provoking question is -- did you know catholicism mandates sin?
Bible proves it clearly and without doubt!
@@tony1685 I'm most likely going to agree with you, because I know some myself, but I still want to verify. Which ones are you referring to?
@@tony1685Haven’t you read Mt 16 18-19?
What a great video. Fantastic job, total respect on the research.
I’m active LDS and am investigating the catholic faith. If you ever do any response videos to the Saints Unscripted channel that would be awesome! They have a few about the Great Apostasy and the need for a restoration that I would be curious to hear your take on.
The WORD says keep Sabbath!
The WORLD says keep Sunday!
WHO DO YOU 🫵 OBEY❓
LDS apologists won’t chat with Catholics. Pints with Aquinas tried set up a chat and they backed out at the last moment.
@@protestant77The Church through Christs resurrection said to make the Lords Day our Sabbath. Follow the Church Christ began
@@protestant77 I obey the infallible Catholic Church established by Jesus Christ who gave Peter the keys of the office of steward and told him WHATEVER you loose...is loosed in heaven. This Church loosed worship on Sunday (and every other day, but you get the idea 😇).
@rhyde0731 God bless you in your search for truth, friend.
This is the video I’ve been waiting forrrrr
Clement is also named dropped in Philippians 4:1-3 Paul says his name is the book of life 🤷♂️ to further drive home that Clement opinion is authoritative.
Churches with issues seeked Clements authority even when St. John was alive the last remaining apostle.
How do we know it's the same Clement?
First of all, it says his name is IN the book of life. Second, that does not make someones opinions authoritative... Where did you get that conclusion... That's like saying, "Well Billy's going to Heaven so all his opinions are authoritative". What makes someones opinion authoritative is not their book of life status, but whether or not their opinions are in line with God's Word. The Bible is the final authority.😔
Amen.
21 Greet every saint in Christ Jesus. The brethren who are with me greet you. 22 All the saints greet you, especially those of Caesar’s household.
Caesar's Household is Rome, Paul adds emphasis to the Church of Rome. He doesn't have to do this, clearly this is a hint of established primacy or else the mention could have been Lyon, Jerusalem, or any other Church of the time.
@@B-Money112 so what did that mean for the first 350 years when no one had more then a epistles or one of the gospels? lol the church and the mass predates the Bible so 🤷♂️ Christianity is not just a book.
Pope Voice Face for the next conclave 🙏😉
In fact Jesus Himself was the first Priest of the First mass in the History : The Last Supper (See JOHN, chapter 13). He consecrated the FIRST EUCHARIST, the first Priests (the Apostles) and the first CHURCH (building) of the History. He Loved His Mother (exactly as a catholic does), He Loved the SAINTS (his APOSTLES) and himself consacrated the First SAINT of the History (The Peninent Thief). And He had an important personal prayer as every catholic have or must have.
Why can’t Protestants see the obvious? Darkened intellectual?
Peter was over all the Church. Clement was too, right after Peter, while John was alive.
So statistically, the number of citizens in the West (Europe and the US) who identify as Christians is steadily declining. The biggest drop are mainline Protestants: lutheran's, episcopalians, baptist, methodist, etc etc. the Catholicism numbers is also declining, however the Catholic church has the highest amount of Converts among all denominations.
Regardless, Christianity is in danger.
I'm tired of arguing apologetics among my fellow Christians. We need to unite, and unite sooner than later. There are over 6,000 mosques under construction in Europe and America as we speak.
I was a huge fan of eucumenism and the unity of christians until I witnessed a protestant refusing to pray the Our Father with a catholic because "with all your Mary stuff you're not christian, we have to be carefull with who we pray". I was shocked ! Now I'm just catholic and I'm ready to answer this kind of random protestant attack.
Well, I'm still happy to build unity throug eucumenism when it is with christians of good will.
Eucumenism doesn't means negating all differences but puting them in waiting while we work together.
Good one. Keep up the good work.
In refuting the Protestant claim by default you disprove Protestantism.
Awesome Session Alex 👍👍👍❤❤❤
Someone wrote : “You practice catholicism not Christianity" But, in fact, The early christians celebrate EUCHARIST as asked and teached by JESUS-CHRIST ! The Early Christians did celebrate the EUCARIST in Houses transformed in CHURCHES very quickly after the rise of JESUS-CHRIST !
They were orthodox. Not Roman Catholic.☦️
@@Hope_Boat ?? Does orthodox christians NOT celebrate the EUCARIST ??
?? Does Orthodox christians NOT have Churches ??
@@Hope_Boat
At which date do we hear about the catholic Church for the first time ?
-> The first mention of the term "catholic" (from the Greek "katholikos," meaning "universal") by the Church Fathers dates back to the letter of Saint Ignatius of Antioch to the Smyrnaeans, around the year 107 AD.
At which date the great schism occured ?
-> The schism between the Eastern Church (Orthodox) and the Western Church (Catholic) officially dates back to the year 1054. This event is often referred to as the Great Schism of 1054 or the East-West Schism.
At which date can we begins to see references to the orthodox Church ?
-> After the Great Schism of 1054, the term "Orthodox Church" became more formally associated with the Eastern Churches.
We have a common Apostolic Tradition until 1054. For what reason was the great schism ?
The iconoclasm crisis. And yet, look at you now: Icons everywhere.
@@maximeganter6385 you are wrong. The first time 'orthodox' was defined as we understand it today was in 810AD when the new emperor of the West Charlemagne send a delegation to saint pope Leo III in order to request the insertion of the filioque into the creed. According to the Liber Pontificalis saint pope Leo III rejected it, explained that he had no power to change the creed and nailed two silver shields on the doors of his basilica with the unaltered creed engraved in Greek and Latin followed by the sentence:
I LEO DID THIS FOR THE SAKE AND THE LOVE OF THE ORTHODOX FAITH.
The Carolingian dynasty continued to pressure the orthodox popes of Rome until the 8th ecumenical council of 880 hold in Constantinople anathematized anyone who dares to add or remove anything to or from the Nicene - Constantinopolitan creed.
The canons of the 8th E.C. of 880 were validated by saint pope John VIII. This put an end to the filioque dispute and set officially the orthodox faith of the universal Church.
Unfortunately this was not well received by you know who and in 882 saint pope John VIII was murdered with a hammer.
A war hammer that is.the German kind of weapon.
Rome fall in total chaos afterwards, while Germans and Italians fought over the chair of Peter. After a shameful period known as the Pornocratia (the rule of the Harlot) pope Benedict VIII was expelled from Rome and asked the Bavarian king Henry to help him.
Henry II marched on Rome, restored the scandalous pope and in exchange was crowned holy Roman Germanic emperor. That's when the filioque was introduced to the Creed by a pope.
The Germans started to impose German popes, the second of them being count Bruno von Eguisheim-Dagsbourg who became pope Leo IX in 1050 and provoked the Great Schism in 1054.
In order to cancel the 8th ecumenical council of 880 the filioquists defamed saint pope John VIII, pretending he was a woman in drag and nullifyed all his acts.
In 1075 Dictatus Papae proclaimed they only the Roman Church is Catholic and established the basic dogma of the Roman Catholic religion: salvation by submission to the Roman Pontiff.
In Clements letter to James, Clement stated he was the immediate successor of Peter. Not Linus. Why?
There has always been an Authoritative Supreme Bishop, its just historical facts that Protestants need to get over...& stop pulling the Constantine card, apostatized, false church or possibly the worst, ignoring factual church history, saying the Catholic Church was established centuries later. Then research this ancient Church & you will see how wrong & unnecessary the Protest was, nm unbiblical. This channel is throwing out facts & anyone can research, hopefully honestly
Great content 👍
Ignatius_of_Antioch - Letter to the Magnesians 2, 6:1
He is also responsible for the first known use of the Greek word katholikos (καθολικός), or catholic, meaning "universal", "complete", "general", and/or "whole" to describe the Church, writing:
Wherever the bishop appears, there let the people be; as wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church. It is not lawful to baptize or give communion without the consent of the bishop. On the other hand, whatever has his approval is pleasing to God. Thus, whatever is done will be safe and valid.
That's the orthodox faith. Not the Roman Catholic faith.
@@Hope_Boatread Ignatius’s letter to the Romans please. Let us know what your definition of “presides over” means.
@@TheCoachsCoach933 it certainly does not mean to lord it over the nations and call him a benefactor since it was forbidden by our lord Jesus Christ in Luke 22:24-26
@@Hope_Boat how does a man with an official title of “Servant to the servants of God” lord it over the nations?
@@TheCoachsCoach933 by proclaming in Dictatus Papae -1075AD :
- That he [the Roman Pontiff] alone can use the imperial insignia,
- That all princes are to kiss the feet of the pope alone.
- That for him it is licit to depose emperors.
- That he himself must be judged by no one.
And by proclaming in Unam Sanctam (1302AD) _that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff_
Did I Just become catholic?
Did you get baptized, confirmed, and first communion? If if so, yes, you became Catholic.
@user-jm4kz5bg9f I said it more as a joke because the video was so convincing. I've already been baptized in a protestant church like 6 years ago.
We hope so! The catholic faith is so amazing and life changing. Jesus is truly with us ❤❤❤
@@forgiveness2670 well, here's to hoping! I believe you and the rest Protestantdom, love Jesus, and wont miss your reward for being faithful to the gospel message, but also believe the Fullness of Christianity is found in the Holy Apostolic and Catholic Church.
@@forgiveness2670 If you were baptized in the name of the Father, Son and the Holy Spirit then we consider you baptized validly. (Some Protestants like Pentacostals only baptize in the name of Jesus) If you want to become Catholic, enroll in RCIA at your local parish. You will study for about a year and then you will confirmed in the faith on Easter and receive your first communion. A few weeks later, you recieve your first confession. It's a beautiful process and you will be bless by your bishop who has had the Pope's laid on him which will connect you to St. Peter since there has been a direct laying on of hands for 265 Popes. God bless you! Watch Bishop Barron and Fr. Gregory Pine, too. The Church needs you!
Ave Christus Rex ✝️☦️
The WORD says keep Sabbath!
The WORLD says keep Sunday!
WHO DO YOU 🫵 OBEY❓
Are you a Jew sabbath was for the Jews but the gentiles were not bound by the sabbath. Case closed 😂😁
@@LaurenceNaseb-si7nl
JESÚS said:
The Sabbath was made for mankind
👉(Mark 2:27) NOT just for Jews!
☝️God has the last word!
I like your show. Great show.
Irenaeus was the first person to ever use the phrase “apostolic succession”… in fact, he was the first person to ever make the claim. The problem is no one believed him. Irenaeus also claimed the apostles taught him a concept called the Recapitulation Theory, which taught that Jesus died as an old man, so that his salvation could save people of “all” ages. We cannot not read Catholicism into history. Because *anything* will be used as evidence for Rome.
Jerome defines the mono-episcopate as a “subsequent” or “gradual” change. His commentary on Titus explicitly distinguishes between a “commandment from God” and “tradition”, and in Letter 146 he openly stated that presbyters and bishops have always been the same office; however, the change to a mono-episcopate was a decision made by the presbyters themselves, which is the case of what happened in Alexandria. He makes this statement by commenting on books after 1 Corinthians (Galatians, Titus, Philemon).. The Apostles never told the first century church to make any such change:
“For even at Alexandria from the time of Mark the Evangelist until the episcopates of Heraclas and Dionysius, **the presbyter always named as bishop one of their own number chosen by themselves** and set in a more exalted position, just as an army elects a general, or as deacons appoint themselves whom they know to be diligent and call him archdeacon.”
Between Mark (AD 50) and Dionysius (AD 250) there was a shift to a mono-episcopate and he is leveraging this information for correction in his own time period in the early 4th century. He argues that this was a subsequent addition that took place on the latter end of the spectrum in AD 250. Many other early historians give testimony to this as well.
10th century Patriarch, Eutychius of Alexandria states: “Nor did this custom respecting the presbyters, namely, that they should create their Patriarchs from the twelve presbyters, cease at Alexandria until the times of Alexander, who was of the number of bishops at Nice.” So Eutychius is placing this subsequent change at the early 4th century for episcopal succession.
Eutychius continues; “and thus that ancient custom by which the Patriarch used to be created by the presbyters disappeared, and in its place succeeded the ordinance for the creation of the Patriarch by the bishops.”
Severus of Antioch, 6th century bishop, says the bishop of Alexandria “used in former to be appointed by presbyters.”
It is VERY evident that history is inconsistent with the definition and requirement for apostolic succession, because it *requires* ordination by a bishop. Clement of Rome even corroborates this by stating there are two (2) offices in the church that the apostles appointed. Clement 42 vol. 1,16 he states “They [Apostles] appointed the first fruits, having first proved them by the Spirit, to be bishops and deacons of those who should afterwards believe.” And in chapter 4, he uses bishop and presbyter interchangeably regarding the churches of Rome and Corinth. He consistently throughout all of his volumes refers to the church leaders as “presbyters”.
"Irenaeus" What a gangster name for a Catholic baby
Bishops are also priests.
@@fantasia55 in a Catholic context yes, but not a historical perspective. Completely different roles
@Hypnotoad206 Historically, there were only bishops, the Apostles and their successors. Even as early as the Didache, bishops appointed priests to assist with spiritual matters and deacons with temporal matters.
➨ BIBLICAL AND HISTORICAL PROOF THAT THE CATHOLIC CHURCH GOES BACK TO JESUS:
(ALL copied from the protestant version of the Bible by Cynthia X)
➨ JESUS gives authority of the Church TO PETER the first Pope. (NOT TO CONSTANTINE, Not to Luther, not Calvin, not Ellen White or any other "reformer" )
✦ MATT 16:13-19: Jesus gives keys of the Kingdom to PETER and builds his church upon PETER.
✦ ACTS 15:7-12: "After much debate had taken place, PETER got up and said to them, “My brothers, you are well aware that from early days God made his choice among you THAT THROUGH MY MOUTH THE GENTILES WOULD HEAR THE WORD OF THE GOSPEL AND BELIEVE."
✦ JOHN 21:15-19: Jesus tells PETER to "Feed my sheep"
✦ HEBREWS 13:17 Obey them that have the rule over you, and submit yourselves: for they watch for your souls, as they that must give account, that they may do it with joy, and not with grief: for that is unprofitable for you.
✦ JOHN 13:20 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that receiveth whomsoever I send receiveth me; and he that receiveth me receiveth him that sent me.
➨ ➨ HISTORICAL EVIDENCE:
➨ The body of PETER now lies under the altar of St Peter's basilica. Evidence is even shown by unbiased secular media giants National Geographic, A&E & a book: "The Bones of St Peter"
➨ WRITINGS FROM THE EARLY CHURCH FATHERS:
The word "Catholic" was used to describe the church in writing in the year 110 by St Ignatius of Antioch, and was used in a manner which suggests that it was already in use and understood. These writings also confirm Catholic teachings, not protestant teachings, and thgey confirm PETER as head of the church.
Sources for the writings of the early church:
book: The Fathers klnow best
book: The four witnesses
I recommend the book, Pope Peter by Joe Heshmeyer.
Can we get a video on St Ignatius of Antioch?
I had a very quick question I am a devout catholic and firm believer in the Catholic Church it’s teachings and Christ but I have a quick question when we pray the rosary (I’m Roman Catholic) in Spanish we say “libra virgen del infierno a los que rezan tu santo rosario” is this considered worship? I am a really big fan and i hope you pls answer this question it doesn’t have to be a long response or atleast acknowledge my question
Fr. Ripperer mentions in a video that the blessed Virgin has a special office in releasing souls from purgatory.
VOICE OF REASON FOR THE PRIESTHOOD 🇻🇦
⬇
sincere question, Sir:
how can you consider catholicism as Christianity, when it doesn't meet God's criteria -- 1 Tim 3:15 ??
@@tony1685 ''it doesn't meet God's criteria'' God's criteria or your criteria ? be more explicit
@@mjramirez6008 well Sir, see His criteria in 1 Tim 3:15 and/or John 14:15
either of them prove what i am saying up above.
@@tony1685Tim 3:15 "But if I should be delayed, you should know how to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of truth."
John 14:15 "“If you love me, you will keep my commandments"
I don't see anything that would say Catholics are not Christian.
If anything, not baptizing in the name of the Father and of the Son and of there Holy Spirit, would be disobeying Jesus.
Or not offering the eternal, perfect sacrifice (the Lamb of God) to the Father would also be disobeying Him.
@@DRWH044 see Exodus 20:4-6, they still make and bow to statues, idols and body parts.
Exodus 20:8-11, they are a day late. the Lord's day in Christianity will forever be the 7th day Sabbath.
there is much, much more -- but you're right in baptism as well -- only adults can 'repent' and 'believe' -- infants cant. sprinkling doesn't count. and it should be in Their name.
May Jesus bless you and thank you for your videos on defending the faith.
Irenaeus originally wrote in Greek. Against heresies is a Latin translation of a Greek manuscript we will never have. The official Latin translation we have wasn’t written until 1000 A.D. and this was after it had underwent two faulty translations in the 4th century. This screams that it was not a first century priority or concept. Irenaeus also, in the same volume, “speaks of the Roman church as the ‘very ancient and universally known church founded and organized by Peter and Paul’” there is at least one error: we know from Romans that the Roman church was not founded by Paul. This easily calls into question the viability of Peter being a “founder” as well.
Alex become a priest already bro
Or get married and have lots of children who spread the word 🙏🏼
@@hiddenhand6973 Both are valid vocations. God offers and we choose to accept or not.
@@hiddenhand6973 agree. Married and have a faithful children.
@EasternChristian333 There are some Catholic priests who are married - converts from Anglicanism, for example. But in general, celibacy is a discipline voluntarily accepted. Orthodox bishops do the same, I believe. I could be wrong on that.
@EasternChristian333 because a married man, taking away time from his wife and children to minister to the sheep, would be a disservice to the wife and children. A priest is married to the church and that is his first work. Read the gospels about celibacy, and a married man being concerned with the world. Take care and stay curious.
My archdiocese has four bishops.
St. Linus was the first Bishop of Rome ordained by St. Paul.
"Apostolic Constitutions" (Bk. I, Chap. 46) read: ' 'Concerning those Bishops who have been ordained in our lifetime, we make known to you that they are these; of Antioch Eudius, ordained by me, Peter; of the Church of Rome, Linus, brother of Claudia, was first ordained by Paul, and after Linus' death, Clemens, the second ordained by me, Peter. In another statement Peter affirms that Linus was a Briton, son of a royal king. Irenaeus, a disciple of Polycarp (Born cir. A.D. 130) and later Bishop of Smyrna, also confirms Linus' appointment. He wrote: "The apostles, having founded and built up the Church at Rome, committed the ministry of its supervision to Linus. This is the Linus mentioned by Paul in his Epistle to Timothy." (Irenaei Opera Lib. III. C.I.).
Hi, this is very cool and succint. Do you know on any good book about the early Church Fathers, with a focus on this topic?
In all this confusions....
what it comes down to is this ... Have we repented for our sins, do we know JESUS as our Savior. Are we doing GODS will ???
You aren't wrong...But the Catholic Church IS the Church Christ founded. God bless
yes
I like the fact that you brought up Saint Ignatius' epistle to Rome, because it shows that the Church was present in Rome. But does it mean that Paul's epistle to Rome also addresses the fact that there was a bishop in Rome as well? And since Paul's epistle is scripture, then what does that say about the arguments from Protestants?
this is great for leaning Curch history.
Ego non sum dignus.
💪🏽🇻🇦
The WORD says keep Sabbath!
The WORLD says keep Sunday!
WHO DO YOU 🫵 OBEY❓
@@protestant77 🤦🏽♂️🤦🏽♂️🤦🏽♂️🤦🏽♂️🤦🏽♂️
@@EliasRendonJr
You don’t like words huh?
“ In the West, the primacy of the see of Rome was understood, particularly from the fourth century onwards, with reference to Peter’s role among the Apostles. The primacy of the bishop of Rome among the bishops was gradually interpreted as a prerogative that was his because he was successor of Peter, the first of the apostles.(12) This understanding was not adopted in the East, which had a different interpretation of the Scriptures and the Fathers on this point. Our dialogue may return to this matter in the future.” - Paragraph 16, SYNODALITY AND PRIMACY DURING THE FIRST MILLENNIUM:
TOWARDS A COMMON UNDERSTANDING
IN SERVICE TO THE UNITY OF THE CHURCH
Chieti, 21 September 2016
Enjoyed the video. The argument seems kind of anachronistic to me though. While Iraneus identifies Clement as one of the first popes, Clement in his letter doesn’t seem to recognize himself as having authority over the Corinthians. In chapter 44, Clement seems to indicate that the presbyters/bishops are the authority over the congregation and that the people of Corinth should not have dismissed them as they did nothing wrong (Clement also uses presbyter in the plural indicating there were multiple presbyters not just one over a congregation). In fact in chapter 45 Clement appeals to scripture to show the Corinthians error, not his own authority. I’m still new to the study of the early church, but would like to hear others opinions.
Dude - only Protestants are this pedantic. Just chill and say the rosary
Thank you #Jesus #Christianity
The WORD says keep Sabbath!
The WORLD says keep Sunday!
WHO DO YOU 🫵 OBEY❓
@@protestant77 The Sabbath day has been Sunday since Jesus rose.
@@CPATuttle
I’m sorry I can NEVER find this verse!
Can you please show me where in the Bible Sunday blessed, sanctified or called the “New sabbath” ???
@@protestant77you have a verse after Jesus rose that the Sabbath day was Friday?
That’s not the standard for Christianity. It comes from Apostolic Succession. Not self interpreting your Bible that didn’t exist for 1,500 years. 66 books of scripture chosen by dudes.
@@protestant77 Sunday because Jesus Christ rose from the dead that day. Ain't gonna follow what the Jews believe to be the Sabbath which is Saturday. We follow the day on which our Lord Jesus Christ arose and conquered death.
On the first day of the week, when we were gathered together to break bread,* Paul talked with them, intending to depart on the next day; and he prolonged his speech until midnight. - Acts 20:7 (Celebration of the Eucharist)
On the first day of every week, each of you is to put something aside and store it up, as he may prosper, so that contributions need not be made when I come. - 1 Corinthians 16:2 (Gathering and worship on the first day which is Sunday, the day of resurrection)
Placing so much confidence in St Ignatius is interesting since Peter ordained him in Antioch in AD 69. So how could Peter be in Rome around this time
Who told you Peter ordained St. Ignatius in AD 69?
Peter appointed by him in 67 AD but I've never heard that St. Peter ordained St Ignatius of Antioch. More likely by letter. Those guys wrote a LOT OF LETTERS.
It's believed that Ignatius converted to Christianity at a young age. Tradition identifies him and his friend Polycarp as disciples of John the Apostle.
The connection between Peter and the Bishop of Rome was not explicitly made until the fifth century during the reign of Pope Leo I.
Read history.
PS Did Peter move to Rome and die there and lead the Church there? Yes. His remains are in the crypt beneath the main altar of St. Peter's Basilica in Vatican City, Italy.
Did they call leaders in the early Church Bishops? YES!
Ignatius of Antioch (In the year One hundred and ten, the Year of Our Lord)
“Take care to do all things in harmony with God, with the bishop presiding in the place of God, and with the presbyters in the place of the council of the apostles, and with the deacons, who are most dear to me, entrusted with the business of Jesus Christ, who was with the Father from the beginning and is at last made manifest” (ibid., 6:1).(Letter to the Magnesians 2 [A.D. 110]).
“It is necessary, therefore-and such is your practice that you do nothing without the bishop, and that you be subject also to the presbytery, as to the apostles of Jesus Christ our hope, in whom we shall be found, if we live in him. It is necessary also that the deacons, the dispensers of the mysteries [sacraments] of Jesus Christ, be in every way pleasing to all men” (Letter to the Trallians 2:1-3 [A.D. 110]).
Revelation 22:14
King James Version
14 Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city.
and yet Protestants claim to be Faith Alone
There is an equivocation here that significantly undermines this response to Protestants. More historically educated Protestants are happy to admit that there was always a bishop of Rome, but being a bishop of Rome doesn’t also entail all the properties which are assigned to the office of Pope in the subsequent generations of Roman Catholicism. Protestants will argue that the abilities of the pope which are seen after Vatican 1 were not present in the bishop of Rome until roughly 150 to 300 years after the church was started. That’s the difference, hence there can be a bishop of Rome in the first 150-300 years, but him not act as a bishop with universal jurisdiction until later.
Pope Clement issued an order to Greek Christians in AD 70.
@@vittoriopiazza7120 did you watch tge video? Have you read Ireneaus book 3 chapter 3? There’s only one church that he mentions that all must agree with.
There certainly was a Bishop of Rome during the first 150 years of the Church…however, he was not nor are any of his successors infallible. To claim “Papal Infallibility” is to claim equality with God, which is damaging to Christ’s Apostolic Body. The development of the Papacy was a politicized power-play to reconfigure authority from Constantinople in the Greek East to Rome of the Latin West. Also beloved, nowhere throughout the Holy Scriptures is Peter exalted as the “Pontifex Maximus”-Jesus only blessed and anointed him with Apostolic authority. Saint Paul published roughly 2/3rds of the entire New Testament and was the primary Apostle who preached to the Gentiles, so it would have made more sense to seat Paul on a Papist pedestal rather than Peter, but you get the point. Ultimately, the Papacy is the fallible formation of man, not God, because the Church does not need a Pope-which defeats the purpose and exclusivity of faith in our only divine and truly infallible High Priest: Jesus Christ.
Which protestant denomination has correctly interpreted the bible since it started?
bad logic
Can you help me see the writings of St Iraneus. Which book to refer ????
Internet
If you have to make up history in order to keep your beliefs, that should be a warning sign....
The video is about the facts.
Why is it made up?
I'm sorry. I don't mean to offend, but the doctrine of * Prime Primacy is very flawed with a big *.
?
👍🏻
Clement was one of the Apostle Paul is assistants and Rome was a gentile church. Apostle Paul addressed Rome in the epistal of Rome einstien. Apostle Paul also addressed, directed and guided Ephesus, crete and Corinth my confused friend. Apostle Paul worked together with Apostle Peter and the bishop aka senior pastor of Jerusalem Apostle James 1/2 brother of the Lord which you catholics deny.
James was son of Joseph's brother Clopas.
@@fantasia55
Different James, Jesus had half brothers, sorry undeniable
@@Moe-bb3bm You're confusing him with Cleophas.
@fantasia55
No I'm not I 've studied this all the time, for years buddy
@@Moe-bb3bm You'd enjoy reading more about the subject.
No pope till 180 no protestant's till 👍👍
1521, Martin Luther started the Lutherans when he broke away from the one true Church that had already existed for 15 centuries. Prior to this time, the false doctrine of "Sola Scriptura", or "Bible only", had not existed, and neither had the false man made doctrine of "Individual Interpretation" of Holy Scripture.
1521, Thomas Munzer started Anabaptists by breaking from Lutheranism in the same year.
1534, King Henry VIII started the Church of England. (Anglican)
1536, John Calvin, teaching predestination, formed the Calvinists.
1560, John Knox, who studied under Luther, started Presbyterians.
1582, Congregationalists started by Rob Brown, as a branch from Puritanism.
1609, John Smyth formed the Baptists. They have severely splintered since then.
1739, John Wesley started the Methodists, in a split from Anglicanism.
1774, Theophilus Lindley started Unitarians.
1789, Samuel Seabury started Episcopalians.
1793-1809, Churches of Christ had four separate founders.
1830, Joseph Smith founded the Mormons in Palmyra New York.
1860, William Miller, a farmer, started the Adventists.
1863, Ellen Gould White started the Seventh-Day Adventists.
1865, William Booth started the Salvation Army.
1875, New Age was started by Helena Blavatsky. *COL 2:8
1879, Mary Baker Eddy started Christian Scientists.
1879, Charles Russell started the Jehovah's Witnesses.
1895, French Abbe, Alfred Loisy and English Jesuit, George Tyrrell started Modernism.
1900-1920, conservative Episcopalians, Lutherans, Presbyterians, and Methodists,
formed a consortium, and started Fundamentalism.
1901, Pentecostalism was started in the United States. It has since split into many independents.
1914, Felix Manalo started Iglesia ni Cristo.
1930, Independent Churches of America (IFCA), was formed by a consortium of churches
1952, L. Ron Hubbard started the Church of Scientology.
1965, Chuck Smith began Calvary Chapel.
1968, Disciples of Christ, started as a splinter of Churches of Christ.
1974, Ken Gullickson started the Vineyard Christian Fellowship.
20th century. Assemblies of GOD, and other splinter Pentecostal groups, are some of hundreds of new sects founded by mere men.
The very founder of the "Reformation", Martin Luther, was the "regrettable" one, as he surveyed the damage that his rebellion against authority had caused. His writings show that he lamented his deed when he penned the following remarks...
"This one will not hear of Baptism, and that one denies the sacrament, another puts a world between this and the last day: some teach that Christ is not God, some say this, some say that: there are as many sects and creeds as there are heads. No yokel is so rude but when he has dreams and fancies, he thinks himself inspired by the Holy Ghost and must be a prophet."
De Wette III, 61. quoted in O'Hare, THE FACTS ABOUT LUTHER, 208.
"Noblemen, townsmen, peasants, all classes understand the Evangelium better than I or St. Paul; they are now wise and think themselves more learned than all the ministers."
Its obvious the Roman church tampered with the early church is writtings cuz thetly knew they were old but not considered scripture
What evidence do you have that makes it so obvious?
WHat a cope
You argued nicely for there being successive Bishops in Rome but is there evidence that the Roman Bishop had supremacy over the other Bishops?
One tiny detail to give to you: If you look to the Fathers, there is a letter from the 4th bishop of Rome, Pope St. Clement, to the Church in Corinth that likely dates in the late 1st to early 2nd century (like it may predate the Gospel of John). In that letter it is clear that Corinth has come to him for adjudication of various issues. From the very earliest, the Bishop of Rome was the one who could resolve high level ecclesial disputes like those between other bishops. That's a matter of power, not mere honor.
Maybe this will start to help. I understand you will want more answers but I thought this is a good start and I’m limited for time. God bless you.
There are many examples of the Primacy of Rome to be found in the writings of the Early Church Fathers. Here are a few of them:
Ignatius of Antioch
"You [Rome] have envied no one, but others have you taught. I desire only that what you have enjoined in your instructions may remain in force" (Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to the Romans 3:1, AD 110).
Irenaeus of Lyons
"The blessed apostles [Peter and Paul], having founded and built up the church [of Rome], they handed over the office of the episcopate to Linus. Paul makes mention of this Linus in the epistle to Timothy [2 Tim. 4:21]. To him succeeded Anencletus, and after him, in the third place from the apostles, Clement was chosen for the episcopate. He had seen the blessed apostles and was acquainted with them. It might be said that he still heard the echoes of the preaching of the apostles and had their traditions before his eyes. And not only he, for there were many still remaining who had been instructed by the apostles. In the time of Clement, no small dissension having arisen among the brethren in Corinth, the Church in Rome sent a very strong letter to the Corinthians, exhorting them to peace and renewing their faith. . . To this Clement, Evaristus succeeded. . . and now, in the twelfth place after the apostles, the lot of the episcopate [of Rome] has fallen to Eleutherus. In this order, and by the teaching of the apostles handed down in the Church, the preaching of the truth has come down to us" (Against Heresies 3:3:3 [inter AD. 180-190]).
"But since it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the succession of all the churches, we shall confound all those who, in whatever manner, whether through self-satisfaction or vainglory, or through blindness and wicked opinion, assemble other than where it is proper, by pointing out here the successions of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul, that church which has the tradition and the faith which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the apostles. With that church, because of its superior origin, all the churches must agree, that is, all the faithful in the whole world, and it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the apostolic tradition" (ibid. 3:3:2).
Tertullian
"[T]his is the way in which the apostolic churches transmit their lists: like the church of the Smyrneans, which records that Polycarp was placed there by John, like the church of the Romans, where Clement was ordained by Peter" (Demurrer Against the Heretics 32:2 [A.D. 200]).
The WORD says keep Sabbath!
The WORLD says keep Sunday!
WHO DO YOU 🫵 OBEY❓
@hiddenhand6973 this is true and very compelling evidence - Saint John was alive, yet they seeked the authority of the Bishop in Rome.
@@protestant77 The Infallible Catholic Church which has established Sunday as the day of worship by the Authority of Jesus Christ who IS the WORD made flesh.
Read the new bishop of Rome document if you are so confident in your ecclesiology.
WHy do Protestants use high falluten language? So pretentious! Cite scripture! Stop making up psycho-babble academia jargon. It's a COPE
Come home!
There is no first hand evidence (eyes on target) that actually saw Peter executed! Or actually saw him there. Its all second hand knowledge! Peter was in Jerusalem at the end of the Gospels and acts. He died there!
So if he wasn’t in Rome, why is he buried there under St Peter’s?
@@geoffjs He is not buried there. Where is your proof that he is buried there. Catholic historical documents are not true. The Roman Empire has the most accurate and extensive written history and yet there is nothing written about Peter. The new testament says nothing about Peter ever being in Rome. Thats your problem. Since it documents Pauls ministry in Rome extensively
Have you read the new document???
What document?
On the Papacy?
The new age document ? Nope.
Orthodox here. The issue is not about the pope. The issue is about the Roman Pontiff. What's the difference you might say? Well we have to look at what the Roman dogma says about the Roman Pontiff since the schism with orthodoxy.
The first document is Dictatus Papae published in 1075. It proclaimed among other things
That the Roman pontiff alone is called universal by right. (Note that it's the function of Roman Pontiff that gives hit the right to universality and I will explain later why that is)
That for him alone is it licit, according to the necessity of time to establish new laws...
That he alone can use the imperial insignia. That's why he's called the Roman Pontiff, the religious title of the Roman emperor)
That all princes are to kiss the feet of the pope alone. (Meaning as emperor he's above all the kings of the Earth a reference to keep in mind and compare to the Gospel)
That the name of him alone is to be recited in the churches.
That this is the only name in the world.
That for him it is licit to depose emperors.
That he himself must be judged by no one.
That one is not to be held to be catholic, who does not concord with the Roman church.
That the Roman church has never erred nor will ever err in perpetuity, as scripture testifies. (Where?)
This was later (1302) competed by the dogma of salvation by submission to the Roman Pontiff (not the pope again the Pontiff of Rome)
What we read here are the principles of the Gregorian Reform the Roman Church went through just after willingly separating herself from the orthodox Church and is known under the name of the doctrine of the two swords : the pope is the spiritual (auctoritas) authority of the World above all the bishops and the Roman Pontiff is the temporal (imperium) authority of the World, above all the kings of the Earth.
The reason why Rome had to get rid of the orthodox Church to pursue this imperial dream is that both Christ and the holy fathers formerly condemned such accumulation of spiritual and temporal powers, saint John of Patmos even calling that the great prostitution.
Christ told us that the first among us should not imitate the kings of the world who lord it over the nations pretending to be benefactors but rather act like the servants who wash the feet of the guests, not ask others to kiss his feet.
The Apostles proclaimed that there is no other name given to mankind other than Jesus Christ for their salvation.
Kyrie eleison ☦️
Speaking of Irenaeus, it was he who had to correct the bishop of Rome Victor who wanted to excommunicate all the churches of Asia for not wanting to celebrate Easter on the same day as he did. In his arrogance and madness Bishop Victor of Rome almost fractured the whole church of Asia for something as simple as what day they celebrated Easter, something which is absurdly unbiblical as Paul clearly states each man can celebrate days as they want and when they want. Bishop of Rome was never considered infallible or the head of all other churches
Paul made a judgement as a Bishop to his specific flock, the Pope also has that right.
@uchennanwogu2142 Romans 14 is Paul making a judgment call to his own flock?? Truly you have highlighted the blatant disregard and irreverence that Catholics today have for Scriptura. What a sad view of the infallibility of the Bible and Paul's teaching, all in the name of trying to defend the papacy. Irenaeus didn't think Romans 14 was subjective, thankfully he was able to turn Victor from his errors and establish sound doctrine, I hope the same can happen for you
Tell me your Protestant without telling me your Protestant
@Oreilly_1980 I actually just started making videos refuting protestant and calvinist doctrines lol
Irenaeus did not challenge the Pope's authority, merely his bad judgement
Wait. How do you know that list is correct or unbiased. Example Where (location) was the head of the church in first century? I'm pretty sure the bible says it was in Jerusalem and not Rome. Next in the bible who was the head of church at Jerusalem per acts? Was it not James or was each of the 12 not head. Peter was their to build churches not head them. You might be able to say the church in Rome, but that doesn't mean that List for the Church in Ephesus, or Corinthian, or Galai, or Egypt, ect. There is not universal pope other than Jesus.
Where in the bible does it say Jerusalem is the "head location" of the Church??
@@Oreilly_1980 though you misunderstand my point, here's the answer to your question (note I have several more)
Psalms 132:13-14
[13] For the Lord has chosen Zion; He has desired it for His habitation. [14] “This is My resting place forever; Here I will dwell, for I have desired it.
And before you try, where is Mount Zion located? Jerusalem.
👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍
Absolutely not the papacy might be essential to the roman catholic church but not to Christianity. The Church had no name at its beginnings the church took the name in the 1st Ecumenical council of 325 AD in Nicaea As One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church but not roman. Rome took the name Roman Catholic Church when it left in 1054 with the Grand Schism. The word Catholic is a Greek word meaning Universal but the patriarchate of Rome is not Universal regardless of their claims......
Your ignorance & bias are showing. Jesus est His One True Church Mt 16 18-19 which Ignatius named Catholic or Universal in 107AD. She is the pillar & foundation of Truth 1 Tim 3:15 & codified your bible in 382.
For the first 1000 yrs there was one Church with an unbroken line of apostolic succession until the Orthodox split in 1054. Until the chaos, confusion, division & scandal of sects commencing during the reformation, the pope was & remains the leader of Christianity on earth, as Jesus’ Prime Minister, Isa 22:22
The CC has hierarchy & a unifying authoritative Magisterial interpreter giving it objectivity & reliability which because of personal interpretation, Protestantism lacks resulting in disunity which is not of Jesus who willed unity Jn 17 11-23
You ignore Apostle Paul is role , crazy. Rome was a gentile church Galatians 2 says Apostle Paul was over the church at Rome not Apostle Peter. Its Apostle Paul admonishing Rome not Peter , the epistal to Roman is your evidence sherlock.
Every Bishop of all 220 or so Churches in 250AD were called Pope . 220 or so Popes! It only meant Father. Until Emperor Pochas made the first Pope in 607 to be exact.
The Papacy isn’t built on the word Pope. It’s built on the Bishop of Rome aka the successors of St. Peter.
@@uchennanwogu2142 In some circles, Peter is best known as the first bishop of Rome, the first pope. In the period I'm interested in for this book, however, there is little evidence to support this view. On the contrary, several authors indicate that Peter was not the first leader of the church there and certainly not its first bishop.
They had Elders run the Church from very early on so no need of a Bishop. Many early writings were to the people and not a Bishop. Also during the biblical time they were mostly women and children.so it is very likely that there was women Elders.
Yet Paul mentions women elders (using the feminine of presbyteroi) in his first letter sent to Timothy in Ephesus. Priscilla seems to have been a leader in the house church she hosted with her husband in Ephesus and, later, in her house church in Rome.
@@kennethprather9633 What is this trying to prove?
@@uchennanwogu2142 It is history.
I'm not protestant or a Roman catholic because neither of them are in accordance with the teaching of the early church or the Scriptures. Having read through much of the ante nicene literature like irenaeus and clement all the way up to eusebius, it's frustrating to listen to videos like this. To pretend like the papacy as it's understood today somehow corresponds to the bishopric in Rome in the first several centuries is incredibly disingenuous. Yes there was bishops all over the churches in the land from Jerusalem to Rome, the idea that men like Clement considered themselves pope or head bishop of the whole church is absolutely ridiculous and imaginative. Nothing of the sort is stated anywhere at any time.
@@nathanaeldavidAZ Pope Clement I
“Owing to the sudden and repeated calamities and misfortunes which have befallen us, we must acknowledge that we have been somewhat tardy in turning our attention to the matters in dispute among you, beloved; and especially that abominable and unholy sedition, alien and foreign to the elect of God, which a few rash and self-willed persons have inflamed to such madness that your venerable and illustrious name, worthy to be loved by all men, has been greatly defamed. . . . Accept our counsel and you will have nothing to regret. . . . If anyone disobey the things which have been said by him [God] through us [i.e., that you must reinstate your leaders], let them know that they will involve themselves in transgression and in no small danger. . . . You will afford us joy and gladness if being obedient to the things which we have written through the Holy Spirit, you will root out the wicked passion of jealousy” (Letter to the Corinthians 1, 58-59, 63 [A.D. 80]).
Ignatius of Antioch
“Ignatius . . . to the church also which holds the presidency, in the location of the country of the Romans, worthy of God, worthy of honor, worthy of blessing, worthy of praise, worthy of success, worthy of sanctification, and, because you hold the presidency in love, named after Christ and named after the Father” (Letter to the Romans 1:1 [A.D. 110]).
“You [the church at Rome] have envied no one, but others you have taught. I desire only that what you have enjoined in your instructions may remain in force” (ibid., 3:1).
Dionysius of Corinth
“For from the beginning it has been your custom to do good to all the brethren in various ways and to send contributions to all the churches in every city. . . . This custom your blessed Bishop Soter has not only preserved, but is augmenting, by furnishing an abundance of supplies to the saints and by urging with consoling words, as a loving father his children, the brethren who are journeying” (Letter to Pope Soter in Eusebius, Church History 4:23:9 [A.D. 170]).
“Today we have observed the Lord’s holy day, in which we have read your letter [Pope Soter]. Whenever we do read it [in church], we shall be able to profit thereby, as also we do when we read the earlier letter written to us by Clement” (ibid., 4:23:11).
The Martyrs of Lyons
“And when a dissension arose about these said people [the Montanists], the brethren in Gaul once more . . . [sent letters] to the brethren in Asia and Phrygia and, moreover to Eleutherius, who was then [A.D. 175] bishop of the Romans, negotiating for the peace of the churches” (Eusebius, Church History 5:3:4 [A.D. 312])
“And the same martyrs too commended Irenaeus, already at that time [A.D. 175] a presbyter of the community of Lyons, to the said bishop of Rome, rendering abundant testimony to the man, as the following expressions show: ‘Once more and always we pray that you may rejoice in God, Pope Eleutherius. This letter we have charged our brother and companion Irenaeus to convey to you, and we beg you to receive him as zealous for the covenant of Christ’” (ibid., 5:4:1-2).
Irenaeus
“But since it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the succession of all the churches, we shall confound all those who, in whatever manner, whether through self-satisfaction or vainglory, or through blindness and wicked opinion, assemble other than where it is proper, by pointing out here the successions of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul, that church which has the tradition and the faith which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the apostles. With that church, because of its superior origin, all the churches must agree, that is, all the faithful in the whole world, and it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the apostolic tradition” (Against Heresies 3:3:2 [A.D. 189]).
Eusebius of Caesarea
“A question of no small importance arose at that time [A.D. 190]. For the parishes of all Asia [Minor], as from an older tradition held that the fourteenth day of the moon, on which the Jews were commanded to sacrifice the lamb, should be observed as the feast of the Savior’s Passover. . . . But it was not the custom of the churches in the rest of the world . . . as they observed the practice which, from apostolic tradition, has prevailed to the present time, of terminating the fast [of Lent] on no other day than on that of the resurrection of the Savior [Sunday]. Synods and assemblies of bishops were held on this account, and all, with one consent, through mutual correspondence drew up an ecclesiastical decree that the mystery of the resurrection of the Lord should be celebrated on no other but the Lord’s day and that we should observe the close of the paschal fast on this day only. . . . Thereupon [Pope] Victor, who presided over the church at Rome, immediately attempted to cut off from the community the parishes of all Asia [Minor], with the churches that agreed with them, as heterodox. And he wrote letters and declared all the brethren there wholly excommunicate. But this did not please all the bishops, and they besought him to consider the things of peace and of neighborly unity and love” (Church History 5:23:1-24:11).
Cyprian of Carthage
“The Lord says to Peter: ‘I say to you,’ he says, ‘that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not overcome it. And to you I will give the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatever things you bind on earth shall be bound also in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth, they shall be loosed also in heaven’ [Matt. 16:18-19]). . . . On him [Peter] he builds the Church, and to him he gives the command to feed the sheep [John 21:17], and although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single chair [cathedra], and he established by his own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity. Indeed, the others were also what Peter was [i.e., apostles], but a primacy is given to Peter, whereby it is made clear that there is but one Church and one chair. So too, all [the apostles] are shepherds, and the flock is shown to be one, fed by all the apostles in single-minded accord. If someone does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he [should] desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that he is in the Church?” (The Unity of the Catholic Church 4; 1st edition [A.D. 251]).
“Cyprian to [Pope] Cornelius, his brother. Greeting. . . . We decided to send and are sending a letter to you from all throughout the province [where I am] so that all our colleagues might give their decided approval and support to you and to your communion, that is, to both the unity and the charity of the Catholic Church” (Letters 48:1, 3 [A.D. 253]).
“Cyprian to Antonian, his brother. Greeting … You wrote … that I should forward a copy of the same letter to our colleague [Pope] Cornelius, so that, laying aside all anxiety, he might at once know that you held communion with him, that is, with the Catholic Church” (ibid., 55[52]:1).
“With a false bishop appointed for themselves by heretics, they dare even to set sail and carry letters from schismatics and blasphemers to the chair of Peter and to the principal church [at Rome], in which sacerdotal unity has its source” (ibid., 59:14).
@@VoiceOfReason_ I understand Roman Catholics read their doctrine into quotes like these, none of them even come close to establishing what the papacy represents today
you would debate dyer
That guys sounds so Protestant ( no humility ) and political...He's arrogant like Mark Driscoll. It's too bad. That have potential but lack virtue (and reason)
It is fine to say things about your religion to defend its doctrine whether you are a Catholic or a Protestant or any other religious belief like the Mormons, JW, SDA, Buddhism, and Islam but one thing that could be against you and your religion is that if you say something doctrinal that is a lie there is a good chance that you will end up in hell for eternity for being a liar.
As an example. The Roman Catholic church keeps preaching the doctrine of “Purgatory” to be true and the Protestants guarantee your “Salvation is Secure” if there is a possibility to convince you that those doctrines are a lie and you deny it to be a lie and as far your faith is in that religion and say you are a born again Christian and been baptized you still will not inherit the kingdom of God.
So, I would recommend all of you to be extra careful of what you are saying especially things that you say are not written in the inspired words of God in the Bible you could be blamed to send many to hell and yourself for lying.
It will be a terrible day for you when you will face your King and Judge Jesus Christ and Him telling you that those doctrines you have been teaching and preaching and you were warned about them that they were lies and you did not believe it and then be sent to hell. It will be too late to ask for forgiveness on that judgment day my friend.
Matthew 7:21-23 “Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father in heaven. Many will say to Me in that day, ‘Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in Your name, cast out demons in Your name, and done many wonders in Your name?’ And then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness!’
What you should all do is stick to the source of the word of God that's from the Bible and get rid of all your pride and man-made additional doctrine books, and stop trying to add or look for something more than what is not in the Bible or come with your interpretation by twisting the Scriptures to justify your belief, it is extremely dangerous to your soul.
2 Timothy 3:16 All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work. You see this passage proves the Bible is all you need you don't need additional books to add, you have everything you need to be saved just by reading and following the inspired word in the Bible.
Revelation 22:18-19 For I testify to everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: If anyone adds to these things, God will add to him the plagues that are written in this book; and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part from the [d]Book of Life, from the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.
Deuteronomy 4:2 You shall not add to the word which I command you, nor take from it, that you may keep the commandments of the Lord your God which I command you.
Many religions and churches have walked further and further away from the truth and have become apostates and that is why so many are on their way to hell today my friend.
Here are many Scriptures in the Bible that speak about lying. As you can see by these many Scriptures written in the Old Testament as well as in the New Testament God means what He says that He is very serious and angry with those who lie because it is an abomination to the Lord that sends many to hell.
Revelation 21:8 But the cowardly, unbelieving, abominable, murderers, sexually immoral, sorcerers, idolaters, and all liars shall have their part in the lake which burns with fire and brimstone, which is the second death.”
Leviticus 19:11 ‘You shall not steal, nor deal falsely, nor lie to one another.
Psalms 119:163 I hate and abhor lying, But I love Your law.
Proverbs 12:22 Lying lips are an abomination to the Lord, But those who deal truthfully are His delight.
Proverbs 14:5 A faithful witness does not lie, But a false witness will utter lies.
Proverbs 13:5 A righteous man hates lying, But a wicked man is loathsome and comes to shame.
Proverbs 17:7 Excellent speech is not becoming to a fool, Much less lying lips to a prince.
Hosea 11:12 “Ephraim has encircled Me with lies, And the house of Israel with deceit;
But Judah still walks with God, Even with the [a]Holy One who is faithful.
Zephaniah 3:13 The remnant of Israel shall do no unrighteousness And speak no lies,
Nor shall a deceitful tongue be found in their mouth; For they shall feed their flocks and lie down, And no one shall make them afraid.”
John 8:44 You are of your father the devil, and the desires of your father you want to do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and does not stand in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaks a lie, he speaks from his own resources, for he is a liar and the father of it.
Acts 5:3 But Peter said, “Ananias, why has Satan filled your heart to lie to the Holy Spirit and keep back part of the price of the land for yourself?
Ephesians 4:29 Let no corrupt word proceed out of your mouth, but what is good for necessary edification, that it may impart grace to the hearers.
Colossians 3:9 Do not lie to one another, since you have put off the old man with his deeds,
1 Timothy 4:2 speaking lies in hypocrisy, having their own conscience seared with a hot iron,
James 3:1 My brethren, let not many of you become teachers, knowing that we shall receive a stricter judgment.
Revelation 22:15 But outside are dogs and sorcerers and sexually immoral and murderers and idolaters, and whoever loves and practices a lie.
Purgatory
The concept of Purgatory does exist in Scripture which is very clear when it says, “But nothing unclean shall enter [heaven]” (Rev. 21:27). Hab. 1:13 says, “You [God]… are of purer eyes than to behold evil and cannot look on wrong…” How many of us will be perfectly sanctified at the time of our deaths? I dare say most of us will be in need of further purification in order to enter the gates of heaven after we die, if, please God, we die in a state of grace. Purgatory can be supported by II Maccabees 12:39-46, we discover Judas Maccabeus and members of his Jewish military forces collecting the bodies of some fallen comrades who had been killed in battle. When they discovered these men were carrying “sacred tokens of the idols of Jamnia, which the law forbids the Jews to wear” (vs. 40), Judas and his companions discerned they had died as a punishment for sin. Therefore, Judas and his men “turned to prayer beseeching that the sin which had been committed might be wholly blotted out… He also took up a collection… and sent it to Jerusalem to provide for a sin offering. In doing this he acted very well and honorably… Therefore he made atonement for the dead, that they might be delivered from their sin.” This may be why Luther removed Macabees from his bible & was tempted to do the same with the book of James
Luke 12 35-48 servants rewarded/punished in varying ways
For some Protestants to say that all sin is sin and to not differentiate between mortal sin like adultery and venial sin like stealing a dollar is illogical & a poor understanding
Confession is in the bible Jn 20:23
Some implicit scripture texts about Purgatory.
The Catechism of the Catholic Church teaches:
All who die in God’s grace, but still imperfectly purified, are indeed assured of their eternal salvation; but after death they undergo purification, so as to achieve the holiness necessary to enter the joy of heaven (1030) This seems so simple. It’s common sense. Scripture is very clear when it says, “But nothing unclean shall enter [heaven]” (Rev. 21:27). Hab. 1:13 says, “You [God]… are of purer eyes than to behold evil and cannot look on wrong…” How many of us will be perfectly sanctified at the time of our deaths? I dare say most of us will be in need of further purification in order to enter the gates of heaven after we die, if, please God, we die in a state of grace.
In II Maccabees 12:39-46, we discover Judas Maccabeus and members of his Jewish military forces collecting the bodies of some fallen comrades who had been killed in battle. When they discovered these men were carrying “sacred tokens of the idols of Jamnia, which the law forbids the Jews to wear” (vs. 40), Judas and his companions discerned they had died as a punishment for sin. Therefore, Judas and his men “turned to prayer beseeching that the sin which had been committed might be wholly blotted out… He also took up a collection… and sent it to Jerusalem to provide for a sin offering. In doing this he acted very well and honorably… Therefore he made atonement for the dead, that they might be delivered from their sin.”
Matthew 5:25-26 Make friends quickly with your accuser, while you are going with him to court, lest your accuser hand you over to the judge, and the judge to the guard, and you be put in prison; truly I say to you, you will never get out till you have paid the last penny
I Corinthians 3:11-15 15 If it is burned up, the builder will suffer loss but yet will be saved
1 John 5 16-17 reference to deadly (mortal) sin & non deadly sin (venial) sin
Luke 12 27-40 the four servants are treated differently, the faithful one gains Heaven, the second Hell & the other two, purgatory
@@geoffjs FYI Luther tore those pages out when he made his new bible/religion
@@Oreilly_1980 Yes, he did it without authority Deut 4:2 making him a heretic! As indicated, there are NT references to purgatory & certainly sin that does not kill ie venial which is what purgatory is all about!
@@Oreilly_1980 Yes, he did it without authority Deut 4:2 making him a heretic! As indicated, there are NT references to purgatory & certainly sin that does not kill ie venial which is what purgatory is all about!
Are you going to do anything with Coptic Orthodox Answers?
I guess not we are Dyophysites you are Monophysites big Difference
@@ex-cathedra3 Its a RUclips channel. Would be cool to see a collaboration between VoR and COA.
Either way, our understanding of Oriental Orthodox Theology and their own understanding of their Theology are very differently. When we explain Monophysitism, we're explaining it as a heresy. But when the Oriental Orthodox explain it, it doesn't sound heretical at all. It sounds very orthodox.
One big thing is that (from the Oriental Orthodox perceptive) since Jesus Christ is one Divine Person, and only Persons have wills, it stands that one Person will have one will. From their perceptive, a nature does not have a will, so if you have two natures and one Person, you will have one will, without necessarily compromising Christ being fully divine and fully human.
I know the Oriental Orthodox are seeking union with the Eastern Orthodox. But we know the Eastern Orthodox, and they're pretty stubborn. So it would be neat to see a dialogue between Oriental Orthodoxy and Eastern Catholicism.
I'm Eastern Catholic btw.
The WORD says keep Sabbath!
The WORLD says keep Sunday!
WHO DO YOU 🫵 OBEY❓
@@virginlamo8202
If you are really seeking for reunion, you are mostly the second orthodox I ear about to do so.
To my experience it was more the orthodoxes who won't listen.
It would be so amazing to find peace and unity between both.
For example by finding new doctins merging both realities. Like when a crisis happened between Alexandria and Antioch on the nature of Christ: Nestorianism in one hand and Monophysitism in the other. All is ended with the new doctin of Hypostatic Union in the Council of Chalcedon.
Nowaday, the first of many points that divize us is filioque.
Honestly, both have solid arguments in their own doctin.
Just like Alexandria and Antioch in their time. I wonder if a new doctin on which both catholics and orthodoxes can agree could be found on this topic. That would be so great.
@@maximeganter6385 I'm Ukrainian Catholic.
Either way, it seems that the biggest hurdle towards reunion is the Eastern Orthodox idea of what reunion looks like.
From what I've learned, the Eastern Orthodox basically want everyone to become Eastern Orthodox, while thinking that anything else would be a compromise in theology (favoring expression of theology over the substance of theology)
They seem to have this approach in regards to reunion with both the Oriental Orthodox and the Catholics.
The saddest thing is that both the Catholics and Oriental Orthodox are both actively seeking reunion with the Eastern Orthodox, but the Eastern Orthodox aren't as cooperative as the Catholics or Oriental Orthodox. There seems to be a strange pride permeates Orthodoxy.
Idk
Scholastic Answers (Militant Thomist) called you out and that your understanding of the Sacrament of Baptism is Heresy.
Just put the claim in writing. Some of these trad/Sedevacantist types have Protestant energy. If Alex strayed from the Catechism call him out in writing
Sorry. Being the Bishop of Rome and being the Pope (universal jurisdiction implied) are not the same.
No need to apologize?
Without one leader overseeing an ecclestical hierarchy which includes lay people at the base, we'd have thousands of denominations arguing about their own interpretations of scripture and morality. And that would be demonic madness. Remember, the Holy Spirit unites and the Devil divides. The name Diable means one who scatters. Did the Protestant Deformation unite or scatter?
Church Fathers disagreed.
The Tomb of the real Peter was found in Jerusalem. Reseatch it
He died in Rome
@Oreilly_1980
No evidence to prove that he died in Rome but some apocryphal book called the acts of Peter. Sorry buddy they found evidence and Apostle Peter is seplicar with his name in hebrew and it said the Apostle that was actually buried in Jerusalem where the book of acts says he was posted at. He would conduct missionary trips as the bible described but his fellowship was Jerusalem Acts 15. I'm going to believe the Bible over the Roman religion who is not telling the truth.
You're whole religion is just a big cope. If you're going to reject the Church Christ founded just focus on living the Gospels and quit with the made-up copes.
The issue is, when I say there is no pope, what I mean is there is no Vatican 2 definition pope. If papal primacy was the only thing attributed to the pope, I would likely be fine with that because it’s clear the bishop of Rome had primacy. But what I don’t see is papal infallibility early on, this part seems like a development.
so you don't have a problem with the papacy mandating sin?
you don't have a problem chanting to the dead, pretending to speak with dead humans?
you don't have a problem making and bowing to idols, statues and body parts?
you don't have a problem ignoring the Lord's day, only to be a day late?
you don't have a problem being exposed by the Word of our Creator as a 'Liar' ?
@@tony1685 thats a rather large assumption you have made. I never stated any of my opinions on that. I simply said the bishop of Rome having a primacy is clear in the early church so if it was simply that I could be ok with that but since the papacy has become something else I am not ok with it.
@@bejamen14 you wrote: _'...the bishop of Rome having primacy is clear in the early church...'_ -- yet what the Bible proves a 'church' is, isn't what the papacy is -- see 1 Tim 3:15
its never been Christianity, Sir.
this is what our Creator is trying to show us with the most basic understanding of His Word.
@@bejamen14 be warned
This guy is a well known SDA internet troll.
@@Kitiwake ah that makes a lot of sense. Explains the desire to avoid church history.
So you’re supposed to be subject to your bishop ?!
Then why did the pope threaten excommunication for the church’s in Asia Minor (after polycarps martyrdom) if they continued to observe Passover on Nisan 14?!
Your story sounds good in theory but as expected, your own church fathers expose the Catholic Church 😂😂😂
Do you listen to you pastor? I'm sure if your a good Christian you would listen to your pastor. Now does that make you not a Christian?
@@hectorramirez2943
The first Christian’s observed Passover on Nisan 14
The Catholic Church forced everyone to stop keeping it over time
Thus proving the Catholic Church hated God and his laws
Name the first Christians? Who were they?
@@hectorramirez2943
The first Christian’s were Jews and slowly more and more gentiles came afterwards
@@nikopaschali
Your a brilliant man I'm sure many Christians didn't know that 😂
Do you believe that there is salvation outside the Catholic church?
(Extra ecclesiam nulla salus).?
@@iggyantioch What does this document say? And how does the Catholic Church back this up biblically?
No Pope until 610. Forced by the Emperor.
Council of Nicea, AD 325, was chaired by the papal legate, who began discussion by reading a letter from the Pope.
@@fantasia55 Which one of the 220 + Popes?
@@fantasia55
Nobody was “renamed” pope.
“Pope” comes from the Greek pappas, which means father. It is a translation of the Aramaic abba, which gives us Abbot, the “Father” of a monastic community.
As far as we can tell, the earliest use of calling any church leader “Father” comes from the desert monastic communities of Egypt in the early 200s. The leader of the community became not just one among the brothers, but ‘father’ - Abbot.
Then the practice spread to the bishop, the “father” of the local church. The bishop of Alexandria is the first bishop called “pope”, Bishop Heracleus (232-249).
By the end of the century, the practice had spread, and most bishops were called “pope” or some other translation of “father”. This practice of calling the bishops “father” eventually spread to the deacons and presbyters as well - which is why we call clergy “father” today.
By the 6th century, there were some efforts to limit its use to the bishop of Rome in the western church, though it was only in the 11th century that Gregory VII formally restricted the style “pope” to the bishop of Rome.
So, Pope Marcellinus (296-304) is generally thought to be the first bishop of Rome addressed as “pope”, but it was another 700 years and change before this became a style of address unique and exclusive to the bishop of Rome (and to the coptic patriarch of Alexandria, who is still also called pope).
“Pope” never replaced “bishop of Rome” as the pope’s title. The pope is the bishop of Rome. Better: The bishop of Rome is called “pope”.
7th DAY SABBATH = SIGN of God!
🙏🏽
~ Ezekiel 20:12
Moreover also I gave them my sabbaths, to be a SIGN between me and them, that they might know that I am the LORD that sanctify them.
1st DAY SUNDAY = MARK of Beast!
👺
“Sunday is our MARK of authority...
The church is above the Bible, and this observance is proof of that fact." -Catholic Record, September 1, 1923.
Do you want God’s seal?
OR
Do you want Satan’s mark?
Seek help.
Jesus let Peter be the first Pope and the apostles created the Bible after the Catholic church was created Jesus said upon this rock you will build my church what does Peter mean?
It means rock/stone so Jesus said you the rock will build my church. the holy Catholic apostolic church
@@noahmorgan569
JESÚS IS THE ROCK!
Isaiah 1:13 Colossians 2:16-17 Mt 28:1-10 Mk 16:1-10 Lk 24:1-12 Jn 20:1-10 did God Create the world from the beginning Genesis 1:5 Evening passed and morning came - that was the FIRST DAY. you twist the word of God. Are you honour the true God Catholic Church honour the true God Almighty.
@@tasiaflynn3549
Colossians 2:16 EXPLAINED!!!
To understand Colossians 2:16,
I think we should first get a little more context on the verse.
Colossians 2:14 Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross;
Colossians 2:14 speaks of:
-Handwriting
-Ordinances
-Contrary & Against us!!!
👆🏽This sure doesn’t sound like
God’s Ten Commandments written on stone tablets with the Finger of GOD!
God’s Law is PERFECT!!!
👉(Psalm 19:7)
God’s Law is forever!
👉(Luke 16:17)
The 10 Commandments is NEVER referred to as “ordinances” in the Holy Bible!
The Law of Moses
👉was written with HANDWRITING!
👉did contain ORDINANCES!
👉 was CONTRARY & AGAINST us!!!
👆🏽This was just for a little more context
(Colossians 2:16 😃Great question! )
There's TWO different Sabbaths in the Holy Bible.
1) The WEEKLY 7th day sabbath
Established at creation (Genesis 2:2,3)
Commanded in God's Law(Exo.20:8-11)
An eternal law for all mankind!
2) The 7 ANNUAL feast sabbaths
Found in the "Law of Moses"
(Leviticus Ch.23) a temporary law commanded for ancient Israel.
Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moons, or of the sabbath days.
~ Colossians 2:16
▪️MEAT = Sacrificing animals
▪️DRINK = Drink offerings
▪️HOLYDAY = feast days were also called "holyday"
▪️NEW MOONS = the feast days fell according to the new moons cycle.
▪️SABBATHS = the feast days were also called "sabbaths" regardless of the day of the week it might have fallen on.
(Col.2:16)
is obviously speaking of the
"Feast Sabbaths" found in the:
👉Law of Moses.
Now if a "Feast Sabbath" happen to fall on the "Weekly Sabbath" then this was called a: HIGH SABBATH!
👉(John 19:31)
For more info on the feast sabbaths
READ 👉(Leviticus Ch.23)
I pray this sheds more light on this verse, please let me know your thoughts?
God bless you🙏🏽🙏🏽🙏🏽
Still no pope
Christ is the head and lead by the Holy Ghost.
Read Mt 16 18-19!
Jesus is head of His One True Church with an earthly Prime Minister Isa 22:22, we the people of God are His body & His mother is the neck.
No entity from family to corporates & govt can function properly without hierarchy & unifying authority which is obvious when one observes the Protestant chaos, confusion, division & scandal of 000’s of sects which is not of Jesus who willed unity Jn 17 11-23. This very disunity proves the falsehood of Protestantism which claims to be guided by personal interpretation & the Holy Spirit, which it clearly isn’t. If I dec8ded to become a Protestant, how would I choose a denomination p, scandalous to non Christians!
@@geoffjs I could careless about Protestantism nothing you teach is biblical from Mary being a virgin to prayers to departed saints etc etc,not once is Peter addressed as any kind of leadership role except an apostle to the Jews and that’s it according to apostle Paul beyond that is inventions of your popes hundreds of years after the true church had been established.
First, Protestants do not set out to undermine the pope. We look to scripture and see what conforms to that. If you read “history of the papacy saints and sinners” by a catholic you will see that it is clear history that there was no single ruling bishop in Rome.
Read the early fathers!
There are no priests today but God said to Jesus you are forever High priest in the order of Melchizedek read Hebrews.
Please....take a class in "Basic Christianity 101" that includes study of the Church before 1600 A.D. (about the time your way of interpreting Scripture came about!) and you just might find out a few things about the "Faith Once Delivered
🤢🤢
really show me in the bible This office has now expired then show me where thiese have expired as well John 20:21 John 20:22 John 20:23 Matt. 9:8 Matt. 9:6; Mark 2:10 Luke 5:24 Matt. 18:18 John 20:22-23; Matt. 18:18 2 Cor. 2:10 2 Cor. 5:18 James 5:15-16 1 Tim. 2:5 Lev. 5:4-6; 19:21-22 James 5:16 James 5:14-15 Acts 19:18 Matt. 3:6; Mark 1:5 1 Tim. 6:12 1 John 1:9 Num. 5:7 2 Sam. 12:14 Neh. 9:2-3 Sir. 4:26 Baruch 1:14 1 John 5:16-17; Luke 12:47-48 Matt. 5:19
“For I know* their works and their thoughts, and I am* coming to gather all nations and tongues; and they shall come and shall see my glory, And some of them also I will take for priests and for Levites, says the Lord. - Isaiah 66:18, 21
This prophecy says God will make priests from all the nations. So yes, there are priests
You guy did not read Acts did you
No they did not. Peter bound and loosened all the way until Christs coming in AD66 (sign occurred in the sky on May 2, AD66). Matthew 10:23.
I have videos on the Peter of the Bible vs the Peter of the Roman Catholic faith on my channel. They are not the same Peter.
Promises to Peter When he first saw Simon,
“Jesus looked at him, and said, ‘So you are Simon the son of John? You shall be called Cephas (which means Peter)’” (John 1:42). The word Cephas is merely the transliteration of the Aramaic Kepha into Greek. Later,
after Peter and the other disciples had been with Christ for some time, they went to Caesarea Philippi, where Peter made his profession of faith: “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God” (Matt. 16:16). Jesus told him that this truth was specially revealed to him, and then he solemnly reiterated: “And I tell you, you are Peter” (Matt. 16:18). To this was added the promise that the Church would be founded, on Peter (Matt. 16:18).
Then two important things were told the apostle. “Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven” (Matt. 16:19). Here Peter was singled out for the authority that provides for the forgiveness of sins and the making of disciplinary rules
. Later the apostles as a whole would be given similar power [Matt.18:18], but here Peter received it in a special sense. Peter alone was promised something else also: “I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven” (Matt. 16:19). In ancient times, keys were the hallmark of authority. A walled city might have one great gate; and that gate had one great lock, worked by one great key. To be given the key to the city-an honor that exists even today, though its import is lost-meant to be given free access to and authority over the city. The city to which Peter was given the keys was the heavenly city itself. This symbolism for authority is used elsewhere in the Bible (Isa. 22:22, Rev. 1:18). Finally, after the Resurrection, Jesus appeared to his disciples and asked Peter three times, “Do you love me?” (John 21:15-17). In repentance for his threefold denial, FPeter gave a threefold affirmation of love. Then Christ, the Good Shepherd (John 10:11, 14), gave Peter the authority he earlier had promised: “Feed my sheep” (John 21:17). This specifically included the other apostles, since Jesus asked Peter, “Do you love me more than these?” (John 21:15), the word “these” referring to the other apostles who were present (John 21:2). Thus was completed the prediction made just before Jesus and his followers went for the last time to the Mount of Olives. Immediately before his denials were predicted, Peter was told, “Simon, Simon, behold, Satan demanded to have you, that he might sift you like wheat, but I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail; and when you have turned again [after the denials], strengthen your brethren” (Luke 22:31-32). It was Peter who Christ prayed would have faith that would not fail and that would be a guide for the others; and his prayer, being perfectly efficacious, was sure to be fulfilled
@@bibleman8010 Thanks, but you are doing what is called "eisegesis". The Father revealed it to him in Matthew 16:17-18, vs Andrew revealing it to him earlier on in John 1:42. The church is not built on flesh and blood of Peter, nor is it built on Peter's spirit. The church is built on a chief cornerstone, and that cornerstone the church is built on is also for the spiritual temple as Peter put it. Peter never died on the cross for our sins, so the church can not be built on Peter. When Jesus died on the cross, He said "Father, into your hands I commit My spirit". This is the spirit believers are born of, not Peter's. The church is built on spirit, not flesh and blood. Matthew 16:17-19 says nothing about pope, infallibility, nor succession. The first person to ever act as a pope, was Emperor Constans, during the Council of Serdica (AD342). He had the final authority over doctrine. The church realized they had a problem, and needed to create the position of pope. about 42 years later, the first person in history to refer to himself as pope, was St. Siricius. None of the apostles or anyone in the bible acted this way. They all either leaned to scripture, or divine revelation they were receiving before the canon was closed in AD66. They all leaned on God, not a human being for final authority.
The sheep in John 21 they were referring to was the house of Israel, not the Gentiles. The Gentiles were not even on their radar at the time they had this conversation. Peter did preach to the Gentile household, but after this, he withdrew from the Gentiles (Acts 11:1-18, Galatians 2:12). He was an apostle to the Jews, not Gentiles (Galatians 2:7). In AD49, there was an expulsion of Jews from Rome. So Peter had no reason to go there, plus, he never spoke the languages of Rome (Acts 4:13). Why would Peter abandon the house of Israel, and run off to Rome when he was supposed to feed the sheep of the house of Israel? Again, he was an apostle to the Jews, not Gentiles (Galatians 2:7). Galatians was written after Acts 10 btw.
Peter was not the only one given the keys to the kingdom btw, the apostles did as well, as they were binding and loosing (Matthew 18:18). Did you know Paul never used the term binding and loosing to the Gentiles? This term had to do with the apostles and the house of Israel. They were to bind and loosen all the way until the judgment coming (Matthew 10:23), which the sign occurred in the sky on May 2, AD66. Then the judgment of the 12 tribes of Israel began.
@@soteriology400 "Peter never died on the cross for our sins, so the church can not be built on Peter."
It seems to me that you are building your own church with this statement by taking out St.Peter's given authority by Jesus to impose your authority on how Jesus should build his Church, that's the Protestant way. If you keep playing with the scriptures then you might get tired of them to later throw them all out because you're building your own foundation this way. I would suggest to trust that Jesus did build His Church on St. Peter and that this is the Church that exists until today because it is visible and old. Just do the research on it if you have doubts without trying to impose your authority.
@@Misael-Hernandez Do you realize when you say the church is built on Peter, you are either saying it was built on the flesh and blood of Peter, or built on his spirit. Neither one is true.
@@soteriology400 and that's my point, therefore you assume authority, it's the Protestant dilemma, instead of finding out what His Church actually teaches.
No popes, nowhere in the New Covenant is thier such titles
The WORD says keep Sabbath!
The WORLD says keep Sunday!
WHO DO YOU 🫵 OBEY❓
You obey man made traditions whilst accusing others of doing so. Goon.
Ignorance on fire here. Jesus rose on Sunday making this the Lords Day and the day Christian’s follow the Sabbath.
@@catholicguy1073
Jesus rose on the the FIRST day 👍
The first day became the Sabbath 🤦🏻♂️
@@protestant77Sunday is the first day of the week braniac
@@protestant77 He rose on Sunday. That’s the first day. The day to worship God for Christian’s is Sunday not Saturday. In fact the Church declared this early on in the 2nd century and those who worship God on Saturday is a heresy in Christianity and are called Judaizers
Perhaps go learn some actual history
Why did you say that part of the matter of baptism is faith? Lol
👍
Its obvious the Roman church tampered with the early church is writtings cuz thetly knew they were old but not considered scripture
How is it obvious? If that did happen you'd have no way to know.
@@kisstune
Read them, the earliest history is the book of acts which is the begging of the foundation of the real church. The book of Acts speaks of no priest, no popes , no nuns, no carndals and no sacraments. All this is non foundational and sacreligious. The first church was all jewish and acts 15 established basic rules for gentiles added to the orginal church, jeremiah 31:31 prophesied this. Apparently catholic followers are ignorant of this truth written in closed canon scripture. Meaning you cannot add or take away only build on it as Apostle Paul pointed out.
The roman catholic church is planted to misslead millions and pray who follow that religion come to the knowlege of the truth and truly get born again. We walk by faith not by sacraments which the concept is damnibale heresy.
Sacraments are defined as blood oaths which heresy according to this verse.
Matthew 5:33-37 NKJV
[33] “Again you have heard that it was said to those of old, ‘You shall not swear falsely, but shall perform your oaths to the Lord.’ [34] But I say to you, do not swear at all: neither by heaven, for it is God’s throne; [35] nor by the earth, for it is His footstool; nor by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the great King. [36] Nor shall you swear by your head, because you cannot make one hair white or black. [37] But let your ‘Yes’ be ‘Yes,’ and your ‘No,’ ‘No.’ For whatever is more than these is from the evil one.
Cant replace the written down established faith only build on it. You relgion created its own system and syncretised ancient Roman paganism of ancient king Numa Pomilus 700bc(look up) and New Testament Christianity meshed with a slice of levitcal priesthood.
Can build
1 Corinthians 3:10 NIV
[10] By the grace God has given me, I laid a foundation as a wise builder, and someone else is building on it. But each one should build with care.
Cant replace
1 Corthians 3:11
For no one can lay any foundation other than the one already laid, which is Jesus Christ.
Built on the Apostle and Christ which is the New Testament not on popes or any denomination or religion.
Jew and Gentile the catholic church has no genuine jews only born again christianity does, big red flag.
Ephesians 2:19-20 NIV
[19] Consequently, you are no longer foreigners and strangers, but fellow citizens with God’s people and also members of his household, [20] built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus himself as the chief cornerstone.
@@kisstune
TAKE IT TO THE BANK , AND RESEARCH
Read them, the earliest history is the book of acts which is the begging of the foundation of the real church. The book of Acts speaks of no priest, no popes , no nuns, no carndals and no sacraments. All this is non foundational and sacreligious. The first church was all jewish and acts 15 established basic rules for gentiles added to the orginal church, jeremiah 31:31 prophesied this. Apparently catholic followers are ignorant of this truth written in closed canon scripture. Meaning you cannot add or take away only build on it as Apostle Paul pointed out.
The roman catholic church is planted to misslead millions and pray who follow that religion come to the knowlege of the truth and truly get born again. We walk by faith not by sacraments which the concept is damnibale heresy.
Sacraments are defined as blood oaths which heresy according to this verse.
Matthew 5:33-37 NKJV
[33] “Again you have heard that it was said to those of old, ‘You shall not swear falsely, but shall perform your oaths to the Lord.’ [34] But I say to you, do not swear at all: neither by heaven, for it is God’s throne; [35] nor by the earth, for it is His footstool; nor by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the great King. [36] Nor shall you swear by your head, because you cannot make one hair white or black. [37] But let your ‘Yes’ be ‘Yes,’ and your ‘No,’ ‘No.’ For whatever is more than these is from the evil one.
Cant replace the written down established faith only build on it. You relgion created its own system and syncretised ancient Roman paganism of ancient king Numa Pomilus 700bc(look up) and New Testament Christianity meshed with a slice of levitcal priesthood.
Can build
1 Corinthians 3:10 NIV
[10] By the grace God has given me, I laid a foundation as a wise builder, and someone else is building on it. But each one should build with care.
Cant replace
1 Corthians 3:11
For no one can lay any foundation other than the one already laid, which is Jesus Christ.
Built on the Apostle and Christ which is the New Testament not on popes or any denomination or religion.
Jew and Gentile the catholic church has no genuine jews only born again christianity does, big red flag.
Ephesians 2:19-20 NIV
[19] Consequently, you are no longer foreigners and strangers, but fellow citizens with God’s people and also members of his household, [20] built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus himself as the chief cornerstone.