Это видео недоступно.
Сожалеем об этом.
Refuting The Historical Claims of The Pope | With The Other Paul.
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 19 июн 2024
- Paul's RUclips channel @TheOtherPaul
Support by becoming a Patreon member!
patreon.com/Me....
#protestant #anglicanchurch #romancatholic #pope
Method Ministries puts out content that is focused on teaching the Biblical Method of God's Word, to spread Scriptural holiness throughout the land, and to teach Scriptural Christianity. If you're looking for an online ministry that can help you with this path then subscribe to the channel!
Also subscribe on Spotify and Apple!
Follow on Instagram, Facebook, Twitter.
Hit the Like Button! 👇
Subscribe! 👇
Share! 👇
Comment Your Thoughts! 👊
NOW HERE'S A SOLID CROSSOVER
Let's gooo!!!
The image of Paul in a hillsong shirt carrying a Mary statue has me laughing 😂
LOL.
There is no way that when Peter was martyred that his status as leader would be passed to Linus or Clement while other apostles of Jesus ( John and probably others) were still alive. And that Linus could overrule John because he had received Peter's authority as hear of all Christians everywhere.
Great point!
Then why the church of corinthians would go for St. Clement for assistance when St. John was still alive and much closer to them than Rome? And the passing of leadership was clearly recognized by the early church fathers:
"The blessed apostles, then, having founded and built up the Church, committed into the hands of Linus the office of the episcopate. Of this Linus, Paul makes mention in the Epistles to Timothy. To him succeeded Anacletus; and after him, in the third place from the apostles, Clement was allotted the bishopric. This man, as he had seen the blessed apostles, and had been conversant with them, might be said to have the preaching of the apostles still echoing [in his ears], and their traditions before his eyes. Nor was he alone [in this], for there were many still remaining who had received instructions from the apostles. In the time of this Clement, no small dissension having occurred among the brethren at Corinth, the Church in Rome dispatched a most powerful letter to the Corinthians, exhorting them to peace, renewing their faith, and declaring the tradition which it had lately received from the apostles" - St. Irenaeus, Against Heresies, Book III, Chapter III, Paragraph 3.
@@methodministries " There is no way" Sir, you think that's a great point ! Let's try and be open minded on this ( for sake of argument ) Of course there is ' a way , I mean it is possible. MrBosnoyan comments are purely subjective, is it " a great point" because it matches up with your narrative? because it is certainly not appealing to evidence.
So, the case of Linus would indicate that he was confirmed in his position by the remaining apostles and other succeeding Church leaders. As to why Clement and not John, that would depend on the dating. It is entirely possible that John was in the process of being exiled to Patmos at the time and the Corinthians knowing this made an appeal to Clement. A bigger question would be why, if John was available, they went to Clement (actually as Irenaeus notes, the Church in Rome and not to Clement specifically) and not to Timothy in Ephesus or bishops in Thessaly or Athens or elsewhere in Greece or Asia Minor. This is probably more indicative of existing relationships between the Corinthians and the congregation in Rome that could be appealed to which were stronger than those with Ephesus et al. John is out of the picture, Timothy is out of the picture, Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem were perhaps too far away and connections to Rome faster and easier to accomplish.
According to available sources, Clement worked together with the apostle Paul. He might have helped plant or disciple the church, know its members or elders. John might not have known any of them.
Is the eunuch in Ethiopia expected to write letters to Rome? Or St Thomas Christians in Southern India? It would have been nigh impossible.
We are united by Christ and the apostles passed the gospel on to the churches they planted...and now we have their words reliably recorded in the new testament.
Excited to see you working with TOP! He and I have worked together at SSBS for a bit, definitely excited for when I get to fire this video up.
Let us know your thoughts!
@@methodministries Greatly enjoyed. A lot of great points Paul & I & many others have discussed at SSBS. Irenaeus is always good to bring up with him that's his big hobby horse, he & I reached similiar conclusions on Irenaeus around the same time. I kept telling him for a bit to make me a footnote when he writes a book 🤣
@@methodministries If you ever want to look into when the modern Papacy emerges many will argue Pope Innocent III is when it really settles in. A great book that touches on it well is The Shape of Sola Scriptura. It wasn't until well into the Medieval age we even get the beginnings of the idea of infallible pope.
At around 29:50, Paul quotes Irenaeus as speaking of the Roman church's "potentiorem principalitatem," and notes that Irenaeus shortly thereafter says, "that is." But Paul then seems to say that, by saying "that is," Irenaeus is explaining the "potentiorem principalitatem" (Paul says the "that is" is where Irenaeus "explains what he means by that," where "that" clearly refers to the words "potentiorem principalitatem" that Paul had just mentioned). Now, I'm not sure if he (Paul) just made a slip-up there or actually meant to say that. But it is at least definitely *not* clear from, and actually seems in tension with, the actual text of Irenaeus, which goes like this: "Ad hanc enim Ecclesiam, propter potentiorem principalitatem, necesse est omnem convenire ecclesiam, hoc est, eos qui sunt undique fideles." (For those who don't know Latin, "that is" is just the little phrase "hoc est" in the second-to-last clause. Woodenly translated, the quote says something like this: "For with [or: "to"] this Church, because of its greater pre-eminence [the translation of potentiorem principalitatem is controversial], it is necessary that every church agree [or: "come together"], that is, those who are the faithful everywhere.")
Now here are some things to note about this text, all of which are in tension with what Paul says. First, there are additional words between "potentiorem principalitatem" and "hoc est," namely "necesse est omnem convenire ecclesiam," so it is immediately more natural to take "hoc est" to be referring back to the thing that immediately precedes it, the "necesse est omnem convenire ecclesiam." In other words, it seems that Irenaeus is explaining what he means when he says, immediately prior, that it is necessary for every church to agree with (or come to) the Roman church (he is saying that it means that the faithful everywhere, all of them, must agree with (or come to) this church). Second, the following words themselves strongly corroborate this. They are: "eos qui sunt undique fideles" ("those who are the faithful everywhere"). "Eos" is in the accusative case in Latin, just as "omnem . . . ecclesiam," which came immediately before "hoc est," is in the accusative case. So, these terms agree grammatically. And they are in the accusative case precisely because of the Accusative with Infinitive construction here, "necesse est . . . convenire" ("it is necessary . . . to agree with [or come to]"), as Latin requires. They go together. So it now seems even more strongly that Irenaeus is saying, "it is necessary that every church agree with [or come to] this [Roman] church, that is, those who are the faithful everywhere must agree with (or come to) this church" (he simply does not repeat the words "necesse est . . . convenire"; that would be unnecessary and stylistically bad Latin, which often refrains from repeating the verb even when we would add it in English). Third and finally, the "hoc" in "hoc est" is neuter in gender, whereas "potentiorem principalitatem" is feminine. "Hoc," therefore, grammatically cannot be referring back to "potentiorem principalitatem" directly. What it *can* be referring to, again, is the whole situation or requirement described by the clause "necesse est omnem convenire ecclesiam," namely, the claim that it is necessary that every church agree with or come to the Roman church. It is clarifying that this actually means *all of the faithful everywhere* (e.g., not just church officials, or the greater part of every church, but really *everyone*) must agree with or come to the Roman church. So it quite strongly seems to be the case that "hoc est" is clarifying something else, not the "potentiorem principalitatem" itself.
Ok, but if you’re going to do a semantic analysis of this quote by Irenaeus, why not directly analyse the Greek instead of the Latin? In that way any syntactic ambiguities present in the Latin are excluded from the get-go & the focus actually remains on what Irenaeus is saying in the original Greek.
@@dvinb Because we don’t have the Greek text, unfortunately.
Thank you. As a Latinist, I find it weird how Paul tries to put a protestant spin on Irenaeus. For Irenaeus, Rome is not preeminent because all the faithful agree with it, but all the faithful have to agree with Rome because it is preeminent. That is what the Latin text you quote clearly seems to state..
G'day Jason, thank you for the very granular (in a good way) critique. You are correct, I mis-remembered the order of statements by Irenaeus and thought 'pot[ent]iorem principalitatem' occurred immediately before 'hoc est'. Likewise with speaking of "that is, the faithful everywhere" as reflecting the consensus that Rome represents, as opposed to being "omnis ecclesia" that "convenire" (agrees with) Rome. This confusion is due to my confusing it with the statement in the latter part of the passage that speaks of the "qui sunt undique [in whom] conservata est ea quae est ab Apostolis traditio," which is the actual locus of my interpretive argument for the passage as not being reflective of the Papacy.
Historically when I have made this argument (e.g. in a debate with a Roman friend on Allen Ruhl's channel over Irenaeus), I made the case for potentior principalitas being defined contextually by the things that Irenaeus appeals to in the passage, namely, the pedigree of Rome's teaching via named, known bishops going back to the Apostles (which, from memory, I did raise in this discussion), as well as Rome's clear mirroring of a universal consensus. To my memory, I haven't made the mistake before of linking hoc est and potentior principalitas in a grammatical way or confused the "eos" with the "qui sunt undique" from just after, especially since I've tended to have the Latin text open in front of me in such discussions. It's possible I've made the error before but it's definitely not intentional or my argument at its core, so I hope that clears things up.
So, in sum, yes, "eos qui sunt undique fideles" refers to "every church" for whom it is necessary to "convenire" with Rome. What I do properly point to, however, is the latter part, which, for convenience' sake, continues (immediately after "fideles"):
"... in qua semper ab his, qui sunt undique, conservata est ea quae est Apostolis traditio."
I point to this as showing that the chief ground of obligation for agreement with Rome is, on top of her pedigree of teaching, her status as a mirror of the consent of the universal Church, because of the tradition being "conserved" "by those who are from everywhere." Precisely how this plays out depends a little on what we do with the "in qua" at the start. Some have considered it as referring to "hanc ecclesiam," that is, Rome, in which case it would be saying that Rome's tradition is preserved by Christians from across the world entering her borders, which would directly prove my case. It could also mean "Inasmuch as," that is, "It is necessary for every Church to agree with Rome, *inasmuch as* that tradition which is from the Apostles has always been preserved by those from everywhere." This too would signal how it is Rome's reflection of the universal witness of the Church that warrants agreement with her, without saying that Rome will necessarily always do so faithfullly. It's technically possible for "in qua" to refer to "omnem ecclesiam" too but this creates a weird redundancy, i.e. "every church, in which the tradition has always been conserved by those who are from everywhere [i.e. from every church]..." This tying of obedience to Rome with those "from everywhere" always preserving the Apostolic tradition suggests that Christians visiting Rome (the functional capital of the world) from abroad acted as constant checks on the tradition in Rome, keeping it pristine, and thus making perhaps the best Church in which to find true Apostolic teaching.
Sorry for the long winded reply but I hope this makes my case clearer. Thank you again for the critique :)
This dude is crazy knowledgeable on Anglicanism!!
your topics are great. This one is needed. Right on Lucas. Keep it up brother
I appreciate that!
Thank you for posting this. I’ve been experiencing some ecclesial anxiety (given the state of the UMC). Would love to know resources or hear about Wesley’s understanding of the “Ancient Catholic Church”
Here's a work that I plan on reading from a Wesleyan scholar, Kenneth Collins,
a.co/d/0fmFKgM4
@@methodministries thank you, kindly!
Refuting The Historical Claims of The Pope | With The Other Paul.
Part Seven - When did the Pope become the Antichrist and Which Pope was the first Antichrist? (Introduction)
Method Ministries speaking at 36:30-48: "So what is the earliest example that we can see where there was a Roman Catholic papal system set up?"
The Other Paul speaking at 38:02-48: "...but where the switch really happened ... honestly .. pretty much all my study focus has been on the first to sixth centuries and so far I haven't seen that system fully take hold. So for the papal system to have emerged ... I think that will have had to have come after the sixth century, although there were people before then, particularly bishops of Rome ... who were asserting papal like prerogatives."
Response:
1. From (A) an examination of Thomas Cranmer's treatise A Confutation of Unwritten Verities that was published posthumously and (B) by employing deductive reasoning involving the logic and parameters of his 39 Articles, Cramner appears to indicate when the Pope became the Antichrist and who this Pope was.
A. A Confutation of Unwritten Verities c. 1556
"A Confutation of unwritten verities, both bi the holye scriptures and moste auncient autors, and also probable arguments, and pithy reasons, with plaine aunswers to al (or at the least) to the moste part and strongest argumentes, which the adversaries of gods truth either have, or can bryng forth for the profe and defence of the same unwritten vanities, verities as they woulde have them called."
written by Thomas Cranmer, 1489-1556; edited by John Edmund Cox (Cambridge, England: Cambridge University, 1557), 67 page(s)
[Alexander Street Com /preview/work/bibliographic_entity|bibliographic_details|4906977]
B. Henry Craik, ed. English Prose. 1916. Vol. I. Fourteenth to Sixteenth Century. Critical Introduction by J. Churton Collins. Thomas Cranmer (1489-1556)
"The treatise entitled A Confutation of Unwritten Verities appears to have been a compilation derived from materials furnished by Cranmer; it appeared many years after his death."
[Bartleby Com /lit-hub/english-prose-an-anthology-in-five-volumes/thomas-cranmer-14891556]
2. The following quotes are taken from the website Archive Org /stream/theworksofthomas02cramuoft/theworksofthomas02cramuoft_djvu.txt,
- and -
its webpage titled Full text of "The works of Thomas Cranmer ... Edited for the Parker society" (It appears to be a microfilm scan from the University of Toronto Library that is one long continuous page)
- with -
the title A Confutation of Unwritten Verities - The Preface
A. "When Constantine was christened, then was the true religion first set forth and openly preached by public authority: and yet, in the space between Christ and this godly emperor, God was not without his church, though it were not known, seen, and so accepted of the world. In this prince's time, and by his authority, was kept the first and best general Council of Nicea ; where was set forth our common creed, containing shortly the chief and most necessary articles of our belief."
Comment: This is consistent with Thomas Cranmer's Article 21 that states "General Councils may not be gathered together without the commandment and will of Princes ..."
B. "This Constantinus' son, Constantius, favouring the error of the Arians, in Theodoreti, the council of Arimine, decreed that Christ was not God but man only: and then is to call Christ the Son of God, was by the outward known church, and by a general council, condemned for an heinous heresy. From that time forth, then painime princes, the priests reigned, idolatry and worshipping of false gods was the public doctrine. When heretics part, were reigned and bare the rule, heresy was openly preached for God's truth. Then painime princes, the priests, reigned, idolatry and worshipping of false gods was the public doctrine. When heretics part, were reigned and bare the rule, heresy was openly preached for God's truth."
Comment: This is referring to the time of the Council of Arminium/Rimini in 359 AD that was convened by Constantius, an Arian emperor. According to the Britannica Com article on Pope Liberius: "After Constantius’s death in 361, Liberius annulled the decrees of Rimini. In 362, with his authority renewed, he received some Eastern bishops and had them profess the Nicene faith and anathematize the formulary of Rimini." [Britannica Com /biography/Liberius]
C. "When the emperors were catholic, then was the true doctrine of the gospel openly preached. And an generally, such as was the faith of the emperors, kings, or other rulers, such did the priests preach. And if any, by the authority of God's word, preached the contrary, or withstood their corrupt teachings, straightway he was either deposed from his office, condemned for an heretic, banished, brent, or put to some other cruel death."
Comment: This is consistent with the church-state idealism of Thomas Cranmer's Article 37: "The King's Majesty hath the chief power in this Realm of England ... of all Estates of this Realm, whether they be Ecclesiastical or Civil." Heresy was a capital crime and the state could impose severe punishments including the death penalty for transgressions.
D. "After all these sprung up the pope, that triple-crowned monster, and great anti-christ, which took upon him authority, not only over the clergy, but also climbed above kings and emperors, deposing them at his pleasure, and settled himself in the temple of God [allusion to 2 Th 2:4], that is, in the consciences of men, extolling himself above God, dispensing with good laws, and giving men leave to break them, and to regard more his decrees than the everlasting commandments of God."
Comment: So the question is, when did this happen? The first six ecumenical councils were convened by emperors and they resolved doctrinal issues that were not contrary to the 39 Articles, so this can't clarify the issue. The seventh ecumenical council, Second Nicea, was convened by Patriarch Tarasios of Constantinople and it reaffirmed the veneration of images, so although this council violated Thomas Cranmer's Articles 21 & 22, it still doesn't address the issue. Also, if the pope became the Antichrist during the time of this council, it would place his "settled himself in the temple of God" at the end of the eighth century which would be far too late for The Other Paul. No, from Thomas Cranmer's perspective, the Pope must have become the Antichrist when he first acted directly contrary to the 39 Articles.
Stay tuned for Part Eight where deductive reasoning can legitimately identify who and when was the first Pope to become the Antichrist, the beginning of an institutional demonic succession that will plague the human race until destroyed by Jesus Christ at His Second Coming, according to Thomas Cranmer and the other 16th century Reformers.
Refuting The Historical Claims of The Pope | With The Other Paul.
Part Two - Thomas Cranmer's 39 Articles are anti-Roman +
Article 6 - Of the Sufficiency of the holy Scriptures for salvation
"And the other Books (as Hierome saith) the Church doth read for example of life and instruction of manners; but yet doth it not apply them to establish any doctrine; such are these following: The Third Book of Esdras, The Fourth Book of Esdras, The Book of Tobias, The Book of Judith, The rest of the Book of Esther, The Book of Wisdom, Jesus the Son of Sirach, Baruch the Prophet, The Song of the Three Children, The Story of Susanna, Of Bel and the Dragon, The Prayer of Manasses, The First Book of Maccabees, The Second Book of Maccabees"
Response: By excluding the above books from the Old Testament Canon, Thomas Cranmer's Article 6 is not only anti-Roman, but also anti-Orthodox (Eastern & Oriental) and anti-Assyrican Church of the East.
Article 11 - Of the Justification of Man:
"...Wherefore, that we are justified by Faith only is a most wholesome Doctrine..."
Response: Thomas Cranmer's Article 11 is in agreement with Martin Luther. On his own authority in his 1522 German translation of the New Testament, Dr. Luther added the word ALONE (Allein) to Romans 3:28 to read, "For we hold that a man is justified by faith ALONE (Allein)" to justify his doctrine of Sola Fide, i.e., Justification by Faith Alone. [Michael Davies, Cranmer's Godly Order (Roman Catholic Books, Ft. Collins, Colorado, 1995, p.25]
Subsequent German translations of the New Testament removed Martin Luther's added word to the sacred text. Justification by faith alone is the first and chief article of Martin Luther's 1537 Smalcald Articles that became authoritative when added to the Lutheran Book of Concord in 1580.
Article 17 - Of Predestination and Election:
"Predestination to Life is the everlasting purpose of God, whereby (before the foundations of the world were laid) he hath constantly decreed by his counsel secret to us, to deliver from curse and damnation those whom he hath chosen in Christ out of mankind, and to bring them by Christ to everlasting salvation, as vessels made to honour."
Response: Although not quite as stark, Thomas Cranmer's Article 17, with its reference to God's secret counsels decreeing election before the world's creation, is compatible with John Calvin's Institutes of the Christian Religion, Book III, Chapter 21, No. 7:
"We say, then, that Scripture clearly proves this much, that GOD by his eternal and immutable counsel DETERMINED once for all those whom it was his PLEASURE one day to admit to salvation, and those whom, on the other hand, it was his PLEASURE to doom to destruction."
[Beveridge translation, P. 571; NTS Library Com, Institutes of the Christian Religion, pdf page 579 of 944]
Article 19 - Of the Church:
"As the Church of Jerusalem, Alexandria, and Antioch, have erred; so also the Church of Rome hath erred, not only in their living and manner of Ceremonies, but also in matters of Faith."
Response: Article 19 is stating that Thomas Cranmer and the Church of England have the authority to determine what is the correct doctrine for all other churches, particularly by naming not just Rome to be in error, but also the Orthodox Churches (Eastern & Oriental) and the Assyrian Church of the East, who with Rome claim an episcopal succession from the apostles.
Article 21 - Of the Authority of General Councils:
"General Councils may not be gathered together without the commandment and will of Princes ... Wherefore things ordained by them as necessary to salvation have neither strength nor authority, unless it may be declared that they be taken out of holy Scripture."
Response: Thomas Cranmer's Article 21 is declaring, in effect, that after the Council of Jerusalem that was called by the apostles in Acts 15, only temporal rulers can now call general councils. General councils have no authority except only when they agree with Thomas Cranmer's and the Church of England's doctrinal authority to interpret the Bible per Article 19.
Yeah I use the term sect over denomination to level the linguistic playing field over Papists since objectively they are using the term denomination incorrectly. Regardless on how strongly a mainline Lutheran holds to the Book of Concord or not, they are another sect within the larger denomination of Lutheranism. Calling the LCMS a denomination to me is insulting since we are Lutheran, not some random place HQed in Missouri that happen to be Lutheran. I also really don't like separating the reformed "denominations" like Presby, continental reformed or Congregationalists since they all objectively have the same theology just different views on polity. I just use the term presby as a blanket term because that's the most common term people know about in common talk.
I agree as an LCMS Lutheran myself. The one thing I always do though is specify elca as another separate denomination because their mainline members are not gonna be in agreement on just about anything of importance with classical Lutheranism.
That’s the word the East uses, along with “faction” in lieu of “denomination.”
Part Three - Thomas Cranmer's 39 Articles are anti-Roman + (continued)
Article 22 - Of Purgatory:
"The Romish Doctrine concerning Purgatory, Pardons, Worshipping, and Adoration, as well of Images as of Reliques, and also invocation of Saints, is a fond thing vainly invented, and grounded upon no warranty of Scripture, but rather repugnant to the Word of God."
Response: All of this Romish doctrine was condemned by Thomas Cranmer according to his interpretation of the Bible. Images, Reliques and invocation of Saints are also doctrines of the Orthodox Churches and the Assyrian Church of the East, so Article 22 is not only anti-Roman but also anti-Orthodox (Eastern & Oriental) and anti-Assyrian Church of the East.
The English Reformation and its official iconoclasm as a practical corollary to Article 22
A. Concerning the 1536 & 1538 Injunctions promulgated by Archbishop of Canterbury Thomas Cranmer during the reign of King Henry VIII:
"The royal government gave the best evidence of what these Injunctions meant by tearing down, in this summer (1538), shrines which had for centuries been centres of international pilgrimage, of Our Lady of Walsingham in Norfolk, for example, and of St. Thomas at Canterbury. From this last shrine whole waggonloads of gold, silver, jewels, precious hanging were carted away to the King's treasury, while the relics of the saint were burned. The most magnificent jewel then known, the great ruby of France, given to the shrine by the French king who was the saint's contemporary, Henry VIII took for himself and, set in a ring, it thenceforth graced his sacrilegious hand."
[Philip Hughes, The Reformation: A Popular History (London, 1957), p. 211]
B. Once Henry VIII was dead and succeeded by the boy King Edward VI, Archbishop Cranmer was free to to implement the entirety of his agenda:
"At the heart of the Edwardine reform was the necessity of destroying, of cutting, hammering, scraping, or melting into a deserved oblivion the monuments of popery, so that the doctrines they embodied might be forgotten. ICONOCLASM WAS THE CENTRAL SACRAMENT OF THE REFORM, and, as the programme of the leaders became more radical in the years between 1547 and 1553, they sought with greater urgency the celebration of that sacrament of forgetfulness to every parish in the land. The churchwardens' accounts of the period witness a wholesale removal of the images, vestments, and vessels which had been the wonder of foreign visitors to the country, and in which the collective memory of the parishes were, quite literally, enshrined."
[Eamon Duffy, The Stripping of the Altars (New Haven, CT, 1992), p.410]
C. "By destroying so much of England's irreplaceable heritage of medieval stained glass, the English iconoclasts exceeded even the fanaticism of their counterparts in Zwingli's Zurich, who allowed the stained glass windows to remain."
[Ibid, p. 451]
I'm no Anglican and it would be great if the Other Paul would respond, but conerning the Purgatory, the Eastern Orthodox along with the Orientals and Church of the East have rejected this doctrine and called in innovation, ther don't hold to this bud.
This accusation of Iconaclasm in the Anglicans is laughable, have you ever went into an Anglican Church before? It's full of images!
You Papists should stop this anti-Protestantism, it's getting pathetic.
I'm no Anglican and it would be great if the Other Paul would respond, but conerning the Purgatory, the Eastern Orthodox along with the Orientals and Church of the East have rejected this doctrine and called it innovation, they don't hold this bud.
This accusation of Iconaclasm in the Anglicans is laughable, have you ever went into an Anglican Church before? It's full of images!
You Papists should stop this anti-Protestantism, it's getting pathetic.
Part Nine - When did the Pope become the Antichrist and Which Pope was the first Antichrist? (Epilogue)
1. According to the Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church: "A council probably held at Rome in 382 under St. Damasus gave a complete list of the canonical books of both the Old Testament and the New Testament (also known as the 'Gelasian Decree' because it was reproduced by Gelasius in 495), which is identical with the list given at Trent."
[Cross, F. L.; Livingstone, E. A., eds. (2005-01-01). "canon of Scripture". The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church (3 ed.). Oxford University Press. p. 282. doi:10.1093/acref/9780192802903.001.0001. ISBN 978-0-19-280290-3.]
2. Pope Damasus I's Old Testament canon violated Thomas Cranmer's Article 6 because it included as inspired "And the other Books (as Hierome saith) the Church doth read for example of life and instruction of manners; but yet doth it not apply them to establish any doctrine."
3. One of those books in Pope Damasus I's Old Testament canon included this passage from 2 Maccabees 12:38-45:
38 So Judas gathered his host, and came into the city of Odollam, And when the seventh day came, they purified themselves, as the custom was, and kept the sabbath in the same place. 39 And upon the day following, as the use had been, Judas and his company came to take up the bodies of them that were slain, and to bury them with their kinsmen in their fathers' graves.
40 Now under the coats of every one that was slain they found things consecrated to the idols of the Jamnites, which is forbidden the Jews by the law. Then every man saw that this was the cause wherefore they were slain.
41 All men therefore praising the Lord, the righteous Judge, who had opened the things that were hid,
42 Betook themselves unto prayer, and besought him that the sin committed might wholly be put out of remembrance. Besides, that noble Judas exhorted the people to keep themselves from sin, forsomuch as they saw before their eyes the things that came to pass for the sins of those that were slain.
43 And when he had made a gathering throughout the company to the sum of two thousand drachms of silver, he sent it to Jerusalem to offer a sin offering, doing therein very well and honestly, in that he was mindful of the resurrection:
44 For if he had not hoped that they that were slain should have risen again, it had been superfluous and vain to pray for the dead.
45 And also in that he perceived that there was great favour laid up for those that died godly, it was an holy and good thought. Whereupon he made a reconciliation for the dead, that they might be delivered from sin.
[King James Bible Online Org /2-Maccabees-Chapter-12/]
4. Establishing Roman doctrine on this passage would include Purgatory, praying for the dead and offering sacrifice for the dead. These would be violations of Thomas Cranmer's Article 22 - Of Purgatory and Article 31's "Wherefore the sacrifices of Masses, in the which it was commonly said, that the Priest did offer Christ for the quick and the dead, to have remission of pain or guilt, were blasphemous fables, and dangerous deceits."
5. The Church of England's 39 Articles of Religion were included in Archbishop Thomas Cranmer's Book of Common Prayer, one of the Anglican formularies that The Other Paul believes to be "the most faithful expression of the Christian faith writ large."
6. "Lex Orandi, Lex Credendi" (Let the law of worship fix the law of belief). Thomas Cranmer's Book of Common Prayer was specifically composed to exclude in its communion service any Romish notion of transubstantiation, the minister as a sacrificing priest and the mass as a corporeal sacrificial offering of Jesus Christ upon the altar for the living and the dead.
7. To conclude the Epilogue on the upbeat, the following is a quotation from British historian Michael Davies's book Cranmer's Godly Order:
"Cranmer's greatest achievement was the composition of the liturgical books imposed during the reign of Edward VI, which, from a literary standpoint, constitute a work of genius. The Book of Common Prayer, in partiular, ranks with the works of Shakespeare and the King James Bible among the highest pinnacles of English literature."
[Davies, Michael. Cranmer's Godly Order (Roman Catholic Books: Ft. Collins, Colorado, USA, 1995) p. 320]
May the Lord Jesus Christ bless you all 🙏✝️
Abbra cadabra
Refuting The Historical Claims of The Pope | With The Other Paul.
Part Five - Thomas Cranmer's 39 Articles are anti-Roman + (continued)
Article 31 - Of the one Oblation of Christ finished upon the Cross
"The Offering of Christ once made is that perfect redemption, propitiation, and satisfaction, for all the sins of the whole world, both original and actual; and there is none other satisfaction for sin, but that alone. Wherefore the sacrifices of Masses, in the which it was commonly said, that the Priest did offer Christ for the quick and the dead, to have remission of pain or guilt, were blasphemous fables, and dangerous deceits."
Response: In his published writings, Thomas Cranmer amplifies the anti-Roman nature of his Article 31 by linking its "the sacrifice of Masses ... were blasphemous fables, and dangerous deceits" to the papacy through the pope's ministers who are described as antichrists:
"But it is a wondrous thing to see what shifts and cautels the popish antichrists devise to colour and cloke their wicked errors ... For the Papists, to excuse themselves, do say that they make no new sacrifice, nor none other sacrifice than Christ made (for they be not so blind but they see, that then they should add another sacrific to Christ's sacrifice, and so make his sacrifice unperfect): but they say that they make the self-same sacrifice for sin that Christ himself made. And here they run headlong into the foulest and most heinous error that ever was imagined." [Thomas Cranmer, Works, Volume I, Writings on the Lord's Supper; Parker Society: Cambridge, 1844, p. 348]
Thomas Cranmer's Article 31 is consistent with the entire 16th century Reformation teaching on the Roman Mass and, in particular, with that of Martin Luther and John Calvin:
A. Martin Luther, 1537 Smalcald Articles (authoritative in Lutheranism's Book of Concord), The Second Part, Article II: "That the Mass in the Papacy must be the greatest and most horrible abomination, as it directly and powerfully conflicts with this chief article, and yet above and before all other popish idolatries it has been the chief and most specious." [Gutenberg Org /files/273/273-h/273-h.htm#link2H_4_0003]
The chief article Dr. Luther is referring to is: "Now, since it is necessary to believe this, and it cannot be otherwise acquired or apprehended by any work, law, or merit, it is clear and certain that this faith alone justifies us as St. Paul says, Rom. 3, 28" quoting from the Preface to Article II and including the word 'alone' he added to Romans 3:28 in his 1522 New Testament translation. [Ibid]
B. John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, Book IV, Chapter 18, No. 1:
"By these and similar inventions, Satan has attempted to adulterate and envelop the sacred Supper of Christ as with thick darkness, that its purity might not be preserved in the Church. But the head of this horrid abomination was, when he raised a sign by which it was not only obscured and perverted, but altogether obliterated and abolished, vanished away and disappeared from the memory of man-namely, when, with most pestilential error, he blinded almost the whole world into the belief that the Mass was a sacrifice and oblation for obtaining the remission of sins... let my readers understand that I am here combating that opinion with which the ROMAN ANTICHRIST and his prophets have imbued the whole world- viz. that the mass is a work by which the priest who offers Christ, and the others who in the oblation receive him, gain merit with God, or that it is an expiatory victim by which they regain the favour of God ... But when it shall have been most clearly proved by the word of God, THAT THIS MASS, HOWEVER GLOSSED AND SPLENDID, OFFERS THE GREATEST INSULT TO CHRIST, suppresses and buries his cross, consigns his death to oblivion, takes away the benefit which it was designed to convey, enervates and dissipates the sacrament, by which the remembrance of his death was retained, will its roots be so deep that this most powerful axe, the word of God, will not cut it down and destroy it? Will any semblance be so specious that this light will not expose the lurking evil?"
[Beveridge translation, P. 866, NTS Library Com, Institutes of the Christian Religion, pdf 874 of 944]
Article 37 - Of the Civil Magistrates
"The King's Majesty hath the chief power in this Realm of England, and other his Dominions, unto whom the chief Government of all Estates of this Realm, whether they be Ecclesiastical or Civil, in all causes doth appertain, and is not, nor ought to be, subject to any foreign Jurisdiction."
Response: Article 37 is anti-Roman because for Thomas Cranmer and the Church of England, the temporal ruler "hath the chief power" whether..."Ecclesiastical or Civil" so that the church is joined to and subordinate to the state. The Roman Church, as well as the Orthodox Churches (Eastern & Oriental) and the Assyrian Church of the East are separate from and independent of the state.
Refuting The Historical Claims of The Pope | With The Other Paul.
Part Eight - When did the Pope become the Antichrist and Which Pope was the first Antichrist? (Conclusion)
Answer: Pope Damasus I (c. 304 - 395 AD), according to the logic and parameters of Thomas Cranmer's 39 Articles, a component of the Anglican formularies that The Other Paul believes represents "the most faithful expression of the Christian faith writ large."
1. Pope Damasus succeeded the previously mentioned Pope Liberius, the pope who presided over the efforts to stamp out the Arian heresy rekindled by Emperor Constantius, the son of Constantine.
2. According to the Britannica Com article St. Damasus I. pope:
[Britannica Com /biography/Saint-Damasus-I]
A. "St. Damasus I ... was the pope from October 1, 366, to December 11, 384. During his rule the primacy of the Roman see was asserted."
B. "Damasus was the first pope to refer to Rome as the apostolic see, to distinguish it as that established by the apostle St. Peter, founder of the church."
C. "Rome’s primacy was officially pronounced by a synod called in Rome in 382 by Damasus, who was perhaps wary of the growing strength of Constantinople, which was already claiming to be the New Rome."
D. "He was notable also for his work in discovering the tombs of martyrs, for which he wrote many verse inscriptions, and was responsible for the restoration of Rome’s catacombs."
3. From the Britannica article, one can see the direct violations of Thomas Cranmer's 39 Articles:
A. Pope Damasus's assertion of "the primacy of the Roman See" and referring "to Rome as the apostolic see" violated the authority of Thomas Cranmer and the Church of England to pronounce judgement on all other churches in Article 19's "so also the Church of Rome hath erred, not only in their living and manner of Ceremonies, but also in matters of Faith."
B. "Rome’s primacy was officially pronounced by a synod called in Rome in 382 by Damasus" violated Thomas Cranmer's Article 21 that states: "General Councils may not be gathered together without the commandment and will of Princes."
C. Pope Damsus's leadership "... in discovering the tombs of martyrs, for which he wrote many verse inscriptions, and was responsible for the restoration of Rome’s catacombs" violated Thomas Cranmer's Article 22's "The Romish Doctrine concerning ... Images as of Reliques, and also invocation of Saints, is a fond thing vainly invented, and grounded upon no warranty of Scripture, but rather repugnant to the Word of God."
4. So in addition to 'who' (Pope Damasus I) and 'when' (382 AD), there now is added the 'where' (Council of Rome) regarding the first Antichrist Pope in terms of violating Thomas Cranmer's Articles 19, 21 & 22.
5. But there is also a 'what' involving the content of the Council of Rome that further violates a number of other of Thomas Cranmer's 39 Articles that definitively cements Pope Damasus I's status as the first Antichrist Pope.
Stay tuned for Part Nine that will provide the Epilogue.
Refuting The Historical Claims of The Pope | With The Other Paul.
Part One - Formularies, 39 Articles & Thomas Cranmer
The Other Paul speaking at 1:10-29: "I am geniunely in depth in study and trying to keep faithful to the tradition as received in the 16th and 17th centuries and in our formularies because I believe that is the best expression of Anglicanism which is likewise the most faithful expression of the Christian faith writ large."
Response:
1. Very precise.
2. According to the Anglicanism Info website: (A) "The historic formularies name and explain the essential doctrines of the Anglican Communion" and (B) "Thirty-nine Articles. The Articles of Religion are doctrinal statements, evangelical essentials, that define what Anglicans believe. These do more than address sixteenth century matters; they are considered authoritative Anglican core values then and today." [Anglicanism Info /anglican-formularies]
3. According to the Church of England UK webpage on the 39 Articles:
(A) "Articles of Religion. Articles. Agreed upon by the Archbishops and Bishops of both Provinces and the whole clergy in the Convocation holden at London in the year 1562 for the avoiding of diversities of opinions and for the establishing of consent touching true religion. Reprinted by command of His Majesty King Charles 1 with his royal declaration prefixed thereunto ..."
- and -
(B) "His Majesty's Declaration. Being by God's Ordinance, according to Our just Title, Defender of the Faith, and Supreme Governor of the Church, within these Our Dominions, We hold it most agreeable to this Our Kingly Office, and Our own religious Zeal, to conserve and maintain the Church committed to Our Charge, in Unity of true Religion, and in the Bond of Peace; and not to suffer unnecessary Disputations, Altercations, or Questions to be raised, which may nourish Faction both in the Church and Commonwealth. We have therefore, upon mature Deliberation, and with the Advice of so many of Our Bishops as might conveniently be called together, thought fit to make this Declaration following ... That the Articles of the Church of England (which have been allowed and authorized heretofore, and which Our Clergy generally have subscribed unto) do contain the true Doctrine of the Church of England agreeable to God's Word: which We do therefore ratify and confirm, requiring all Our loving Subjects to continue in the uniform Profession thereof, and prohibiting the least difference from the said Articles; which to that End We command to be new printed, and this Our Declaration to be published therewith. That We are Supreme Governor of the Church of England..." [Church of England Org /prayer-and-worship/worship-texts-and-resources/book-common-prayer/articles-religion]
4. According to the Britannica Com article Thirty-nine Articles. Church of England: "Thirty-nine Articles, the doctrinal statement of the Church of England. With the Book of Common Prayer, they present the liturgy and doctrine of that church. The Thirty-nine Articles developed from the the Forty-two Articles, written by Archbishop Thomas Cranmer in 1553 'for the avoiding of controversy in opinions.'"
[Britannica Com /topic/Thirty-nine-Articles#:~:text=Thirty-nine Articles%2C the doctrinal statement of the Church,1553 “for the avoiding of controversy in opinions.”]
5. Therefore, the Church of England's 39 Articles composed by Archbishop Thomas Cranmer are authoritative for The Other Paul, since they are included in the formularies he believes are "the most faithful expression of the Christian faith writ large."
The names of the twelve apostles are these: first Simon who is called Peter...(Matt 10:2)
Christanity did not start in the 16th Century.
Who claims this?
@@CheekyHaggis Every Pastor who found a need to start his Church, since they couldn't find Christ's Church that reflected their opinion of scripture.
It was Peters confession of faith that Jesus would build his church on.
Not on Peter himself.
When Jesus came into the coasts of *Caesarea Philippi* he asked his disciples, saying, "Whom do men say that I the Son of man am?"
And they said, Some say that thou art John the Baptist: some, Elias; and others, Jeremias, or one of the prophets.
He saith unto them, "But whom say ye that I am?"
And Simon Peter answered and said, *Thou art the Christ the Son of the living God*
And Jesus answered and said unto him, "Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.
And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and *upon this rock I will build my church* and *the gates of hell* shall not prevail against it.”
{Matthew 16:13-18}
"upon *this rock* I will build my church"
is a demonstrated pronoun.
No different than,
Jesus answered and said unto them, "Destroy *this temple* and in three days I will raise it up.”
{John 2:19}
"the gates of hell"
Here Jesus was using satire, for the pagans believed that the gates of hades was at a cave in Caesarea Philippi.
“And I will give unto thee *the keys of the kingdom of heaven* and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”
{Matthew 16:19}
The keys to the kingdom is not exclusive to Peter, for anyone can open the kingdom of heaven by their witness of the gospel to unbelievers.
“Whosoever therefore shall confess me before men, him will I confess also before my Father which is in heaven.”
{Matthew 10:32}
That *if thou shalt confess with thy mouth* the Lord Jesus and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.
For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and *with the mouth confession is made unto salvation*
{Romans 10:9-10}
And that *every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord* to the glory of God the Father.
{Philippians 2:11}
Whosoever shall confess that Jesus is the Son of God, God dwelleth in him, and he in God.
{1 John 4:15}
And as they went on their way, they came unto a certain water: and the eunuch said, See, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized?
And Philip said, *If thou believest with all thine heart thou mayest* And he answered and said, *I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God*
{Acts 8:35-36}
Respectfully Larry, it seems like you’re twisting the scriptures to suit your point of view.
@@JonathanDavidDummar
“It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.”
Don't you think the 1st century Jewish church in Jerusalem is the most faithful expression of the faith, before it was taken over by the gentiles in the 3rd - 4th century and basically institutionalized, walking farther and farther away from its original organic function and practice?
Never heard of the gentiles ,Paul.Titus.Timothy?
@@franciscafazzo3460 Doesn't change the fact .
The idea of denominations in
Christianity is not a Christian idea.Please discuss this
The book The searchlight of saint hippolytus is an excellent work exposing false Popish dogma of the Roman Catholic Church
I’ll have to check that out! Thanks for the recommendation!
Can you tell me, using the map of Imperial Rome from say the time of Christ to the death of Saint John the Apostle, which according to Saint Irenaeus of Lyons writing around 180 AD took place during the reign of Trajan (96 to 117 AD, which btw was when Rome was at its geographical, political and economic peak) where a Church in what is the UK was founded directly by an Apostle, or indirectly by someone who was appointed by an Apostle. I have my map of Rome and have gone through all the NT Churches that were founded that way and can't seem to find one outside of southern Europe (Italy and Greece) thus nothing north of the Alps, much more in the British Isles.
Thanks, from an American of Italian ancestry whose ancestors immigrated to the USA around 1900 and thus I am not and never have been associated with WASPism, so maybe I am defacto not as smart as u.
@@palermotrapani9067I think Eusubius might have some answers.
And please understand geography...Ireland is an Irish Isle...
An awful lot of words to say not very much.
Using a St. Ireneus quote to try and refute the Papacy and saying middle of the road anglicanism is the truest expression of Christianty is wild. Just because you angli-can doesn't mean you angli-should.
If you reject the authority of Rome, surely Eastern Orthodoxy is the logical position? Much as I admire many aspects of the Anglican Church, it is a pretty fuzzy institution and these days woke, and it would never have existed if Henry VIII had not had his application for divorce thrown out. They've got it right about the pope, though.
I never miss BBC Choral Evensong, usually Anglican.
Matthew 18:19-20 King James Version (KJV)
Again I say unto you, That if two of you shall agree on earth as touching any thing that they shall ask, it shall be done for them of my Father which is in heaven. For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them.
Just like today the Pope only exercises authority with and through the Magisterium, and as the Church is not made up of a single lone ranger, the fact that Paul was there with Peter, demonstrates how the the Apostolic Authority worked and continues to work today.
A Digression; Rome became known as the Eternal City progressively through time due to - the Roman poet Virgil in his poem called ‘Aeneid'(29-19 BC) calls Rome the Eternal City in order to pour on about its never -ending nature.
In his poem “Adonais” (1821) the English poet Percy Bysshe Shelley refers to Rome as eternal due to a quality of timeless beauty that it holds.
American novelist Nathanial Hawthorne wrote in his book “The Marble Faun” (1860) about Roe’s eternality due to its historical and artistic richness. He also said, “How is it possible to say an unkind or irrevential word of Rome? The city of all time, and of all the World?”
Italian poet Gabriele D’Annunzio in works like “Roma Redenta” (1909) calls it the Eternal City and delves into its historical and cultural significance.
These are just a few examples of the many references that have been made over time about Rome as an Eternal City.
www.walksinsiderome.com/blog/rome-the-eternal-city/#:~:text=The%20Roman%20poet%20Virgil%20in,timeless%20beauty%20that%20it%20holds.
cognosces veritatem et veritas liberabit vos
Moscow is the Third Rome?
Sounds like a couple of guys who need to do alot more research. The stuff on Constantine was naive and ignorant. A maturity of the Church and influence on politics and maturity on authority of binding and loosing or the keys doesnt detach it from its line.
Kinda disappointing dialogue. I would have wanted to hear you guys have a dialogue with a knowledgeable Catholic in the room rather than two Protestante enter an echo chamber.
If we’re gonna refute the Pope, why would we have a Catholic in the convo? Those are called debates. This is a discussion.
StrawPope absolutely decimated
COPE
Anglican community ( Schismatic ) not The Church.