What we see is that Pope Victor and all the Romans followed a false tradition. Polycarp received the tradition he followed from Paul, Peter, and John. Thereforeme received their tradition from someone else, likely Simon Magus.
Victor was deluded into thinking he had the authority to excommunicate anyone in any church but he did not have that authority, thus he was cutting Rome off from those churches.
@adamantis4657 Yea, most of them were. But he was still the head of the church who could do or say whatever he wanted. He was one of the first antichrists.
The Articles of Confederation had a President and he was merely "first place among equals". No Bishop need act in place of Christ or be venerated in place of God or his Christ.
I like how you deceptively quote Ignatius to the Romans from the long version which dates to the time of the Great schism and contains the interpolation "Presidency of love". Ignatius never said that. The Shorter version is the older version.
Seems to me Rome is closer to Corinth than Ephesus. The Catholic faction of Cephas was begun in Corinth in Paul's lifetime. They should have gone to Timothy or John if they were followers of Paul but they were schismatics.
There was "primacy" with respect to the bishop of Rome, but Rome had no sole authority or divine right over the entire church. The early church was collegial in matters confronting the church. Papal authority and infallibility was decided at Vatican I.
@TenderTrap86 You are mixing apples and oranges. The First Council of Nicaea was Ecumenical, it included the entire church. Vatican I & II did not include the entire church. There were two causes of papal authority & infallibility. one was the political ambition of the Franks in Rome and the other was the ultramontan movement within the Latin church, that asserted superiority of papal authority.
@vasilyjc1955 PS It can easily be said the Council of Nicaea was only held for political reasons, too (Constantine). Secualrists and non-Christians claim that all the time. What do you say to them?
@TenderTrap86 They are not looking at the complete story. Certainly politics was at work in the Council of Nicea, both secular and ecclesiastical. The Council was not primarily a political convention. At the core of Nicea was the theological disputes of monumental significance.
@TenderTrap86 I stated," it was not a political convention". The Council dealt with the Arian question, the date of celebration of the Pascha/Easter, the Meletian schism, validity of baptism by heretics, the Trinity and the Creed, development of the Christian Biblical canon,and the promulgation of new canon laws.
@vasilyjc1955 - "I stated," it was not a political convention" -
You don't understand what I'm getting at...
*To non-Christians and secularists* it is perceived to have been a political convention; a power move by Constantine to solidify his power over the Roman Empire by uniting all his subjects under one religion for control.
If this is true, then when did the Roman Popes in the early church have and show any direct authority over the entire church? To' preside" over and to hold a "presidency" are two entirely different concepts. This is just another attempt of Catholic apologists to justifying papal authority.
@JDNWF66 The letter refers only to the presbyters of Corinth, and make no reference to the bishop there. There is no mention of a bishop at Rome , the letter is sent as from the Church of Rome collectively and Clement's name does not appear.
Orph80 If The eastern Orthodox never recognized Peter as Primacy of Jurisdiction why do we have so many Eastern Catholics In Union with Rome...ALL keeping their Traditions and having no intrusions by Rome. In fact the newly ordained Patriarch of the Maronite Church was elected by his own Bishops with any direct appointing by The Pope Of Rome.
@JDNWF66 The Orthodox place great importance on Peter and Paul. Peter never held a "primacy of jurisdiction". The Synods decisions in Jerusalem were all based upon the collegial rule of the bishops, not one ruling individual.
This idea of Papal infallibility and universal authority began with the political ambitions of the Franks and the ultramontanism movement within the Latin Church which asserted the superiority of Papal authority and powers.
@JDNWF66 The ultramontanists achieved victory over the conciliar way of the church at the First Vatican Council, with the pronouncement of Papal infallibility.
Orph80 Here is The Original reference of CANON 34:
34. Do not ye receive any stranger, whether bishop, or presbyter, or deacon, without commendatory letters; and when such are offered, let them be examined. And if they be preachers of piety, let them be received; but if not, supply their wants, but do not receive them to communion: for many things are done by surprise.
WHERE VASILYJC1955 does this canon mention anything about PRIMACY OF HONOR???????? LIAR.. DECEIVER...
@JDNWF66 No name calling. The Apostolic Canons is a collection of ancient ecclesiastical decrees concerning the government and discipline of the early Church, the synods of the Jerusalem Council. As far as the Eastern Rite is concerned, in most cases they have been Latinized, specifically in the U.S. The unia was founded at the Laterno Synod of 1215, and in the Bull of Pope Innocente 4th.The unia was created in Poland by two Jesuits and the plan was to Latinize the Orthodox in Poland - Ukraine.
Don't believe what VASILYJC1955 He is absurd and has no credence whatsoever.. Firstly he has ignored all referenced materials I sent him... never responded at all about this.. 2nd. I was able to get the Copy of The canon 34 and this is what it ACTUALLY says from the 3rd century. Something our friend made no mention thinking it will confuse others..
Here is the CANON 34 from an EASTERN ORTHODOX FRIEND.
Rome held a "primacy of honor", canon 34 of the Apostolic Canons. This universal "primacy" began with the ambitions of the Franks and the ultramontanism movement within the Latin Church. This movement closely associated with the Jesuits, defended the superiority of Popes over councils and kings. This began the process of departure from the Eastern Orthodox and the early Church's collegiate rule of bishops.
The Clement at this time was the bishop of Rome, not a pope per se, just another bishop. 1600 years to explain "us" is pretty funny from a comparison. The Church fathers have many opinions about who had power and control in the early church. No definitive answers exits. Rome gains in power due to politics, location of power. Jerusalem was the main early location, then moves to Rome in that Jerusalem is destroyed in 70AD. 5 location were main centers of primacy bishops.
Are you an expert on the early Church Fathers? It is easy for one to take certain quotes out of context and make certain interpretations to suite ones position. Rome was sometimes asked to intervene on church matters, but that does not prove Rome had a "primacy" of authority. St. Ignatius was a witness to Rome's primacy of love. St. Ireneus focused on Rome's primacy of witness to the Apostolic faith.
Please get with church history: The Orthodox are "catholic" and apostolic.
We must not argue about who split from who, because I think both the Orthodox and Catholic can agree the split was silly. We must instead turn are energy to restoring the Churches. I hope I have not sounded rude, but I think people tend to get upset when others tell them what they believe. Let us pray for unity.
We must not argue about who split from who, because I think both Orthodox and Catholic can agree the split was silly. We must turn are energy to restoring the Churches. I hope I have not sounded rude, but I think people tend to get upset when others tell them what they believe. Let us pray for the unity between the Orthodox and the Catholic!
This is not exact numbers in any way, but if you take the number of recognized popes, which is five, and you take how many ever claimed to recognize the Pope of Rome as the single leader, you get 80% of the ancient church never having recognized such a power. the other 20% became the Roman Catholic Church. All the Church except for, very conveniently, the Pope of Rome, have never believed in the papacy. No matter how much you claim we did, the fact is we know what we believe!
I pray I don't sound rude, but Catholic's like to tell us Orthodox that we used to acknowledge the papacy. Please stop telling us what we believe. I think us Orthodox know what we do or do not believe, we don't need the Catholics to tell us that! Oh, now I am sounding rude. I'm sorry. I hear the same thing over and over again. It makes me think, where do the Catholics get off telling us what we believe? Why does are belief make a difference?(see text above)
As to I Clement: 1. The Apostle John did not get involved in church affairs, he was deicated to contemplation and taking care of Mary (read Hans Urs von Balthasar, Catholic) so the fact that the Corinthians didn't go to Ephesus means nothing. Get your facts straight. 2. I Clement doesn't even claim to be written by the Bishop of Rome. In fact there was no Bishop of Rome at this time.
Not one place in the bible is there a clue that Apolostolic Succession was hinted at. The head of the Church of Rome, until the year 400, bowed down to all of the Gods at the Pantheon. The only reason anyone ever looked to Rome for anything, was because they were terrified not to. One shake of his serpent staff, and thousands would Perish to the lions. Vatican means oracle of the Serpent in Latin
@handydude6 So then you are saying that Jesus lied when He made the statements in John 14:16; John 14:26; John 15:26; John 16:12-13; Luke 10:16; and Matthew 16:18-19? If you are saying that the Church teaches error, then that is exactly what you are doing based on these verses.
Whenever the church has obtained political power she has used it to punish dissent from her doctrines. "The pacific tone of Rome in the United States does not imply a change of heart. She is tolerant where she is helpless. Says Bishop O'Connor: 'Religious liberty is merely endured until the opposite can be carried into effect without peril to the Catholic world.'" Men are closing their eyes to the real character of Romanism, and the dangers to be apprehended from her supremacy.
When the early church became corrupted by departing from the simplicity of the gospel, and accepting heathen rites and customs, she lost the Spirit and power of God; and in order to control the consciences of the people she sought the support of the secular power. The result was the papacy, a church that controlled the power of the State, and employed it to further her own ends, especially for the punishment of "heresy."
It's only the word of God that decides who the true church is. This compromise between paganism and Christianity resulted in the development of "the man of sin" foretold in prophecy as opposing and exalting himself above God. That gigantic system of false religion is a masterpiece of Satan's power--a monument of his efforts to seat himself upon the throne to rule the earth according to his will.
On the day of the Great Schism, when the legates of the Pope placed the bull of excommunication on the altar of Constantinople, the deacons begged them to take it away. Does this imply that they recognized the sovereignty of the Roman Pontiff? Of course not, that's the very issue that the schism occurred over.
Nobody disputes that the Pope of Rome regarded himself very highly fairly early. What is in dispute is if the whole church recognized this claim. The other churches were concerned with a potential schism created by the Pope cutting off communion with these other churches. Nothing implies that they recognized his power to excommunicate them.
Peter said it, that settles it? St. James: "It is my judgement, therefore, that we ought to stop troubling the Gentiles who turn to God, but tell them by letter to avoid pollution from idols, unlawful marriage, the meat of strangled animals, and blood." (Acts 15: 19-20) Didn't sound like James gave ONLY his opinion, he also reached a rulling, not Peter.
the word for "judgment" as used in this passage in greek just means opinion. And it makes sense that James would speak at the council since he was the bishop of Jerusalem.
An AUTHORITATIVE opinion. Even an presiding judge in a court gives his rulling, even though he only give his "opinion" as a result of a consesus of testimony from both sides. And when we say in the creed that Christ will come again to judge the living and the dead, does that mean He would give his "opinion"? I thought He's the Lord.
...And yes, there are rare exceptions to this teaching; one could accidently fall into a firely death, or be killed in an plane crash. But one's intention to carelessly have one's dead body cremated leads to trouble and that's how I found your Church's ruling since Vatican II, allowing the option for the sake of conveniece, so utterly appalling.
you don't understand the resurrection. In the resurrection we will rise with incorruptible bodies. it doesn't matter what happens to the body, it will be resurrected. Even cremated bodies. The problem is that cremation has been often viewed as a denial of the resurrection.
Oh yes I do pal. Christ, the last Adam, has risen from the dead and trample down death and Satin and reconcile with Adam and Eve back to paradise. If use the energy to live a pious life and learn how to be transformed of the mind and not to sub-come the fear of death itself, then we too will be resurrected in glory but glorification begins now, this is what has been lost in the West. That is my point. If cremation has become problematic, why then did Rome allow it?
you are the one that hasn't looked at the issues. you have yet to explain any of the quotes that i've provided and you confuse discipline with doctrine.
I think it's irrelevant to refute the subject at hand, because it's quite obvious viewing the video that your polemic techniques regarding the arguments for the Papacy were patristically sloppy and downright frauduent. I think you need to check those "sources" very carefully.
If the Pope of Rome is the Vicar of Christ here on earth, and is infallible when it comes to teaching faith and morals to his subjects, how come you so-called Catholics no longer observe the fast on Wednesdays and Fridays, let alone abstain from eating any meat on Fridays besides Ash Wednesday and Good Friday during Lent, the very thing your Pope Leo peach and teach what you should do to remain faithful to God?
again, fasting and days of abstinence are matters of discipline and not doctrine. there are a lot of things that were practiced in the Early Church that are no longer practiced today. For instance in the early church it was customary for priests to be elected by the community, now-a-days they go to seminary. also in the early church the eucharist was part of a meal but today it no longer is. Disciplines change all the time
Or really, Glenn? Bury the dead and no crimations, Leaven bread use as communion, Priest facing away from the people and facing east during the mass which your church had erroneously done away with (for the most part) since Vatical II; you going to tell me those things were just "disciplinary rules" and not doctrine either? Cut this dispicline crap, please?!
yes, actaully all of that is discipline. as for cremation, it is still viewed as problematic in the church but we understand that it is sometimes necessary. The Eucharist has always been performed with unleavened bread in the west to show that Jesus was without sin
Yeah, Glenn, since the split. Those things I just cited are scriptual as well. Christ has risen from the dead and tramper down death. We are not in a haste anymore, the laws have already been fufilled with Christ with the leaven bread resembles and with Rome has later done away with.
Who's the only Church that still observe this ancient fast on Wednesdays and Fridays, alone with many other fast days of the liturgical year, Glenn? The Orthodox; you know, the "schismatics" who "broke off" from the "Catholic" church? It is WE the Orthodox, Glenn, who kept this tradition of the Apostles. [Canon 69 of the Holy Apostles/ Apostolic Constitution]
days of fast are matters of discipline not doctrine and these can change as the church sees fit. The Eastern Orthodox, on the other hand, have compromised on issues that are essential to the faith such as their acceptance of contraception.
Glenn, honestly, where in the canons of the Ecumenical councils does it explicitly prohibit preventive conception, let alone say that all married couples should have kids? This is a typical Scholastic argument.
...."On Wednesday and Friday therefore let us fast: and on Saturday let us keep vigil with the most blessed Apostile Peter, who will deign to aid our supplications and fast and alms with his own prayers through our Lord Jesus Christ, who with the Father and the Holy Ghost lives and reigns for ever and ever, Amen"
[Sermon 17, On the Fast of the Tenth Month VI, and sermon 78 On Whidsuntide or Pentecost/Apostles Fast]
Everything! Why would the successor to Peter do away with this ancient practice the Apostles put forth, and in the canons of the Church through the Ecumenical Councils?
And when Pope Leo the Great gave two homilies on two seperate occasions, one of the main things he emphasize was the importance of fasting Wednesdays and Fridays. At the end of those sermons, Pope Leo gave the following:
...When the Filioque, at the Council of Carolingians in around 787 AD, was introduce as a novelty by the Franks to further "refute" the Arians, they demand then Pope Hadrian to accept it, yet he REFUSES to do so and nullify the false council for rejecting the Seventh Ecumenical Council of that same year. His sucessor, Pope Leo III follow his lead.
"While militants on both sides would have us believe the " papal jurisdiction " debate is actually very simple, such simplicity is both a necessity and a luxury for them. A necessity because we must believe that the things about which we are passionate are either clearly good or clearly bad. But because the belief in simplicity reduces any possibility of dialogue or learning or coming to terms with REAL HUMAN DILEMMAS, it is a luxury that neither society nor the debate itself can afford."
Surely the existance of SSPX, Orthodox and Protestants can be no accident. So often I see the Latin Catholic side as presenting an argument of "this is why we are right, this is the truth, please stop being heretics and join us". There is a failure to address the legitimate reasons perceived schismatic/heretical groups came to exist. The legitimate abuses and sins that gave rise to them. The Latin Catholic Church has it's own weaknesses. Perhaps it would be prudent to mention them.
there arn't any legitimate reasons for separating for the church of Rome. Yes there have been popes who have been bad and who have sinned but that is no excuse for schism. That would be like leaving Peter because of Judas. You did not address my example of the Arian crisis where large numbers of people can fall into error even on a universal belief in the church. Surely you arn't going to say "well since alot of people deny the deity of Christ there must be a good reason for it"
There is a legitimate reason for separating from Rome, simply put it is heresy. If the Pope has fallen into theological error, than there is no reason to remain in union with him.
Pope Honorius errored privitely in a letter to another bishop. He did not manifest this heresy publically nor attempt to bind the church to this belief. In fact Pope Agatho, the pope that condemned him acknowledged this and said that Honorious' personal error did not interfere with the charism of infallibility which is given to the papacy.
a series of factors might be able to shed further light on how the predominant and initially more numerous side, the Nicene Party, might have been overrun by a seemingly less populated, less organized enemy, as was the Arian party. These factors are 1) The existing Roman administrations support and Arian inclination, 2) The heresys rational appeal,
I would pose a question to you. You are coming from the perspective of seeing the universal jurisdiction and infallibility as they are today as a good thing. Perhaps you can try to see through the eyes of those that fear these as corruption?
If everything you say is true, why does the Eastern Orthodox Catholic Church exist? Why do the Protestant Churches exist? Surely there is some sort of explanation. If they all believed in universal juridiction in the past what changed their minds ?
because people out of hatred for the truth and a lack of charity fall into error and introduce damnable heresies and schisms. Your question could be applied to practically every heresy the church has dealt with. For instance, the deity of Christ is something that was held to since the earliest times, yet in the 4th century, Arian heretics began denying this doctrine.
Just like how eastern schismatics and protestants abandoned the correct view of the papacy
I would say the papacy fell into error by introducing the Filioque clause into the Nicene Creed. By doing so, they denied the personhood of the Holy Spirit and introduced (by accident) two sources to the Trinity instead of one (i.e. God the Father).
The Catholic Church is the only united Church today. Protestants are divided and have nothing better to do besides nitpicking an d passing judgement on Catholic traditions. We Catholics worship God and follow the teachings of Christ. You seem more obsessed with your German idol and follow his doctrine 'justification by faith alone.' It is love for God and neigh bour, not judgement - which shd be the core of your Christian faith!!
"It is love for God and neigh bour, not judgement "
John 3:18 "He that believeth on him is not condemned : but he that believeth not is condemned already , because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God"
Stop worring about Protestors they only want to hear they are "saved" you need to worry about the fact you are attending a fake messe totally void of God, you don't even have Catholic music! It sounds like circus music look at the words! New world order one church all the same as a
real Catholic it is appauling and vile. I showed my children THEY WERE IN CULTURE SHOCK and now know why we drive so far to a real valid Mass. People in short shorts! We would throw them out of our Church and have !
But wait Newchurch says all "christyunns" are a-o.k. ! Your own "mass" was approved and created by 6 protestant "ministers" do you deny this?
You are a goodguy and smart I like you.
You need to wake up and see my channel
You SHOULD know better! Who knows where those hands have been, no wonder you touch the bread disk! You're hero JPII let the gays run wild and would just transfer them around. He was a heretic from hell, B16 is a liar. Jesus is still with his Church NOT in Rome !
The British/Celtic Churches are centuries older than the Papal system. They didn't recognise the pope as head of any "church" because the title of Pope/Universal bishop didn't even exist until the early 7th century!
No misunderstanding. The early Church was in Jerusalem (not Rome) and the word "Catholic" isn't mentioned until over a century later. It was the Apostle James (not Peter) who exercised authority in the early Church (Acts 15:13, 19).
The Celtic Church Christianised most of north west Europe from Britain, Iceland into France, Germany and even into Italy. We have written correspondence from the time of the first Pope in 604AD to prove they didn't recognise him as head Christ's Church.
actually, no. James was just giving his opinion or own personal judgment in Acts 15. It was Peter who stood up and everyone fell silent. But it makes sense that James would have a role at Jerusalem since he was the bishop of that city. And no the first Pope was not in 604, this is more poor protestant pseudo-scholarship at work. Btw, Ireneus of Lyons lived in what is now France and recognized papal primacy as these videos clearly demonstrate if you actually watched them
Christianity was forced to find refuge beyonds the bounds of the Roman Empire in the 2nd century AD. The Celtic Church was the only Church in N.W Europe. The title of Universal bishop was conferred on Boniface IV by imperial decree in 604AD..
If Peter were alive today the Vatican would label him a heretic! I have watched your video and i disagree on Peter's so called papal primacy. The chair of St. Peter is his confession of faith and not the chair of the Roman Ceasar/the Pontifex Maximus!
Do you know why the Gospel was forced to find refuge beyond the bounds of the Roman Empire (Hadrian's wall)? The Caesars of Rome ruled as vicegerents of Satan and persecuted the people of God. Before Constantine established the Papacy there had been 10 great persecutions of Christians in the Roman Empire. The British Isles escaped the first nine and during the tenth , Christianity was forced to find refuge. Fleeing from Rome! The Vatican eventually usurped the Celtic Church in the 11th century..
..But remnants of the Church lasted right down until the Reformation until King James authorised the greatest selling Book of all time! Yet even today, the greatest opponent of the Gospel is Papal Rome.
But ALL the apostles were there, Glenn. And it was James who precided that council, not Peter. That's the point. The idea that Peter had "primacy" when he spoke and everyone else stay silent is irrelevant.
James didn't preside over the council. he just gave his opinion at the end of it and it was based on Peter's decree. they fell silent because there was no more debate. peter had spoken the matter was settled
Hello OTC, it's me again. Don't worry, I'm not here to argue about stuff. I just want to ask a genuine question relating to this issue.
In the epistles of Ignatious of Antioch (which are some of my favorite writings :P) is it true that the Church of Rome is the only one in which he doesn't mention the Bishop of that Church? Or am I mistaken?
Alright, thanks for confirming that. It's been a few months since I've read his letters and wanted to be sure.
Now let me ask you this question. Don't you find it odd or at least curious that St. Ignatius did not mention the Bishop of Rome? Or might there be a reason for it?
I really don't find it that relevent. Ignatius does talk about the Authority of that Church which, in my opinion, pressuposes the existance of a governing bishop. Another thing that is interesting is that his letter to the Romans is that he does not write as a doctor the way he does to the other churches
I think another possibility just to throw out there is that the Church of Rome at the time had a plurality of elders governing it, with St. Clement perhaps being the spokesman for them. The Church of Rome would still have it's primacy being the largest church in the area.
At least, that's what crossed my mind when I noticed he didn't mention the Pope at all. One would think he would if he addressed the others anyway.
in the letter of Clement,he (Clement) never said "I Clement" the plural "we" is used thorough out of the letter because of the plurality of elders in the church at rome,modern scholars are of the view that Clement was a simple SECRETARY of the elders of the church.
If you read the whole letter you will never get this nonsense about Clement being a "pope" and having "authority" over the church at Corinth...stop posting OUT OF CONTEXT(as you usually do, with the Bible ) texts !!!
if you were listening, you would know that i adressed the issue of Clement's use of the words "we" and "us". This is common language for popes and many in the past have used that kind of language when refering to themselves. As for Clement being a simple secretary, I suppose if I was an intellectually dishonest scholar who wanted ot undermine the papacy, i would say the same thing to.
"This is common language for popes and many in the past" besides the "we" in the Letter to Corinth,give me another date(the earliest...) when your popes used the "we",referring to a man(pope)...
The Papal use of We as a plural for the Pope was always used up until the papacy of John Paul I 1978, he modernized the term by using I instead of We.
So I must be a Roman Catholic to follow Christ. Where do you get that from. I want from the Bible only, I did not ask what a particular church said, or what a particular church tradition said, or what a pope said, or any man, I want what the Bible says.
Glenn, you are certainly 100% correct that Jesus started the Catholic Church. There's just one problem,you don't belong to the correct Catholic Church. You belong to to a differnt Catholic Church. You belong to a Catholic Church thats ran by Joseph Ratzigner. I belong to the real Catholic Church, thats run by Jesus Christ.
Ignatious of Antioch didn't say the bishoip of Rome was the president of the whole Church, HE SAID THE BISHOP OF ROME WAS THE PRESIDENT OF ROME.
figures, it wasn't enough for protestants to hijack the term "christian", now they have t hijack the name "catholic" as well! But Augustine spoke well of heretics like you. He said that even heretics claim to be catholic, but if a person were to ask them where the nearest catholic church is, they would never point to their own church. You are being intellectually dishonest here. Protestants calling themselves catholic is a rediculous as LDSers calling themselves christians
Does apply to you too, Glenn? Because even Augustine himself didn't support this theory that Peter was THE rock by which Christ will build His Church. Now, this time, I have "refute" your argument here.
Clement trying to boss around the Corinthians doesn't prove that he had any control of the East. As I said already they had bishops all over the places and in the 400's they became known as popes. Back then bishops were always trying to boss around other bishops. Clement trying to boss around the Corinthians doesn't prove he had control over the whole East. All it proves that he wanted to boss around the Corinthians. Decides there a lot more to the East than just the Corinthians.
Cassman, the Corinthians appealed to Clement's authority. Speaking of bishops, which bishop are you under Cassman? You arn't under any of the western or eastern bishops.
The Papacy evolved over a long time. Back in the early middle ages (from about 400's-1000's) there were popes all over Europe. Each pope had control over a different area, depending where they lived. Sometmes through history other popes from one area will try to boss around other popes from another area.
Why do you care what clement said? So what he claims God speaks through Him? Heretics like Benny Hinn always claims that God speaks through him, How do u know clement is any better?
It is funny that when Victor attempted to cut off fellowship a host of bishops stood against him. If he had such unquestioned authority would they just not bend to his decision?
Becasue they didn't agree with his decision. and if you notice it says that Ireneus admonished him. meaning he begged him not to. Nobody questioned his authority to make this decision, they just thought that it wasn't a wise decision
Actually admonish does not mean to beg in any sense other than a crude colloquial use that any translator would not use.
admonish
verb
1. admonish or counsel in terms of someone's behavior
2. warn strongly; put on guard
3. take to task
synonyms
advise, berate, call down, censure, check, chide, come down hard on, counsel, enjoin, exhort, forewarn, give a going over, give a piece of ones mind, rebuke, reprimand, reprove, scold, tell off, upbraid, warn
ok. Maybe "beg" was teh wrong word to use. but either way, there is no denial of Victor's authority here. A disagreement on his decision, yes. but no denial of his authority to make this decision. Keep in mind that if the Easten Orthodox are right, Victor wouldn't have had the authority to do this in the first place. Yet nobody questions his authority
No it doesn't. Lets say for example that the president of the company wants to fire an employee for unjust reasons. He has every authority and power to do so since he is the guy in charge. However, lets say that the vice president of the company warms him that firing this employee is a bad idea because he is an asset to the company.
The Vice president in no way is questioning his authority but rather the decision. The president still has the authority to fire the employee
You miss the basic premise of the thrust of the usage the word. It is not merely an open ended warning that carries no power with it. It is literally a warning to give you pause, to you question whether or not you have the right to do what you are doing and that if you do it serious actions against you could take place.
where does it say that? Where does it give any indication that Ireneus was doing any more than disagreeing with Victr's decision. Had Victor gone through with the excommunication, then the eastern churches would have been excommunicated end of story. If Victor had no authority to do this, then there would be no issue. Everyone could have just ignored Victor's excommunication. In fact, I would contend that the fact that such a big deal was made over this shows that he had this power.
If you care to read the text and not just focus on Irenaeus, it clearly states that there were other bishops who admonished Victor for what he had done.
yes because they thought that it was a bad idea and that the issue wasn't serious enough to warrent excommunication. Does the text say that they didn't beleive that he had authority to do this? No. Infact the text says "Ireneus admonisted Victor not to cut off whole churches just for observing an ancient custom" (paraphrased). Thus implicitly saying he did have the authority to do this but that it was a bad idea. There is nothing in here to indicate a questioning of authority
Does the text say that they believed he had the authority? You are reading the text in light of the interpretation you already have.
Of course he had the authority to cut off the fellowship of the Roman See itself, I do not dispute that, any bishop had that right for the See they oversaw, but he did not have the authority to do so over such an unimportant matter.
considering that he admonished him "not to cut off the churches" shows that he had the authority. If he did not have the authority to do this ireneus would have said so. Yu are the one reading into the text not me.
if the bishops did not believe he had the power to do this they wouldn't have made a big deal over it. They would have just said "you have no power to do this" and went about their buisness for refusing to comply with somebody who has no authority over you has no consequences. They could have just ignored his excommunication and laughed him off. But they recogonized that his opinion carried weight and consequences.
The first presidency would be better translated as presides and reflects where it presided, Rome.
As for your concept that presidency implies authority and jurisdiction. There are all sorts of people you defer to for opinions in your life that you do not allow to actually have an actual authority to command or rule over you.
Could it be that the reason John was not consulted was because he was already banished to Patmos at that point?
As for the royal we. It is interesting that you use examples well after the royal we was customary for the royal we to be used by anyone of that status. Trace it back further to the first few centuries, please, otherwise you have hardly proved any point other than the Popes were of a status to use it after it came into use.
Councils will also bring forth all sub problems in the main problem from each pocket of the world so that the council can have their experts give their knowledge to the council, then the Pope could do what God wills him to do with the knowledge he would receive... that would be my GUESS...
which seems better, the pope declaring something and hoping that everyone follows along. Or the pope calling a council and getting everyone on he same page at the council. Usually the pope would make a ruling at the council
Great insight. Keep it up. I'm not good at making such videos but at leat I can support your works. Keep it it and God bless you. Let's pray for the church.
It is great to see someone so concerned with Christianity. Just to let you know, in your second video, you don't have a link to this video. It is only a message with nothing to click, in case you want to go back and fix that. Take care. Also, I am not closing my other account. I don't know if that was you who asked on my channel comments.
What we see is that Pope Victor and all the Romans followed a false tradition. Polycarp received the tradition he followed from Paul, Peter, and John. Thereforeme received their tradition from someone else, likely Simon Magus.
pandirasbox 4 months ago in playlist early church fathers and catholic doctrine
Victor was deluded into thinking he had the authority to excommunicate anyone in any church but he did not have that authority, thus he was cutting Rome off from those churches.
pandirasbox 4 months ago in playlist early church fathers and catholic doctrine
@pandirasbox: Many Fathers were against VICTOR.
adamantis4657 2 weeks ago
@adamantis4657 Yea, most of them were. But he was still the head of the church who could do or say whatever he wanted. He was one of the first antichrists.
pandirasbox 2 weeks ago
The Articles of Confederation had a President and he was merely "first place among equals". No Bishop need act in place of Christ or be venerated in place of God or his Christ.
pandirasbox 4 months ago in playlist early church fathers and catholic doctrine
I like how you deceptively quote Ignatius to the Romans from the long version which dates to the time of the Great schism and contains the interpolation "Presidency of love". Ignatius never said that. The Shorter version is the older version.
pandirasbox 4 months ago in playlist early church fathers and catholic doctrine
I believe Leo was referring to the Magisterium and himself as "Us."
pandirasbox 4 months ago in playlist early church fathers and catholic doctrine
From Pope Leo XIII onward it is customary
pandirasbox 4 months ago in playlist early church fathers and catholic doctrine
Read the Clementine Homilies
pandirasbox 4 months ago in playlist early church fathers and catholic doctrine
Consequences is referring to God punishing them, not Clement being Pope. There is not one shred of proof that writing was written in 90-97AD.
pandirasbox 4 months ago in playlist early church fathers and catholic doctrine
Seems to me Rome is closer to Corinth than Ephesus. The Catholic faction of Cephas was begun in Corinth in Paul's lifetime. They should have gone to Timothy or John if they were followers of Paul but they were schismatics.
pandirasbox 4 months ago in playlist early church fathers and catholic doctrine
You use a later version of 1Clement
pandirasbox 4 months ago in playlist early church fathers and catholic doctrine
There was "primacy" with respect to the bishop of Rome, but Rome had no sole authority or divine right over the entire church. The early church was collegial in matters confronting the church. Papal authority and infallibility was decided at Vatican I.
vasilyjc1955 7 months ago
@vasilyjc1955 - "Papal authority and infallibility was decided at Vatican I." -
The same way the Trinity was decided at the First Council of Nicaea?
TenderTrap86 6 months ago
@TenderTrap86 You are mixing apples and oranges. The First Council of Nicaea was Ecumenical, it included the entire church. Vatican I & II did not include the entire church. There were two causes of papal authority & infallibility. one was the political ambition of the Franks in Rome and the other was the ultramontan movement within the Latin church, that asserted superiority of papal authority.
vasilyjc1955 6 months ago
@vasilyjc1955 - "You are mixing apples and oranges." -
No. You're just merely affirming that I am. What I already mentioned is relvant to this discussion.
To say the point I'm trying to prove with my example is nonsensical, I think, is intellectual dishonesty, on your part.
TenderTrap86 6 months ago
@vasilyjc1955 PS It can easily be said the Council of Nicaea was only held for political reasons, too (Constantine). Secualrists and non-Christians claim that all the time. What do you say to them?
TenderTrap86 6 months ago
@TenderTrap86 They are not looking at the complete story. Certainly politics was at work in the Council of Nicea, both secular and ecclesiastical. The Council was not primarily a political convention. At the core of Nicea was the theological disputes of monumental significance.
vasilyjc1955 6 months ago
@vasilyjc1955 - "At the core of Nicea was the theological disputes of monumental significance." -
As already stated, all it was to non-Christians and secularists was a political convention, and nothing more. What else do you have to say to them?
TenderTrap86 6 months ago
@TenderTrap86 I stated," it was not a political convention". The Council dealt with the Arian question, the date of celebration of the Pascha/Easter, the Meletian schism, validity of baptism by heretics, the Trinity and the Creed, development of the Christian Biblical canon,and the promulgation of new canon laws.
vasilyjc1955 6 months ago
@vasilyjc1955 - "I stated," it was not a political convention" -
You don't understand what I'm getting at...
*To non-Christians and secularists* it is perceived to have been a political convention; a power move by Constantine to solidify his power over the Roman Empire by uniting all his subjects under one religion for control.
TenderTrap86 6 months ago
If this is true, then when did the Roman Popes in the early church have and show any direct authority over the entire church? To' preside" over and to hold a "presidency" are two entirely different concepts. This is just another attempt of Catholic apologists to justifying papal authority.
trueorthodoxfaith 8 months ago
Popes write in The Plural meaning speaking for the WHOLE Church...BUT, CLEMENT OF ROME ALONE SIGNED THE LETTER TO THE CORINTHIAN CHURCH... Why?
JDNWF66 10 months ago
@JDNWF66 The letter refers only to the presbyters of Corinth, and make no reference to the bishop there. There is no mention of a bishop at Rome , the letter is sent as from the Church of Rome collectively and Clement's name does not appear.
vasilyjc1955 10 months ago
Orph80 If The eastern Orthodox never recognized Peter as Primacy of Jurisdiction why do we have so many Eastern Catholics In Union with Rome...ALL keeping their Traditions and having no intrusions by Rome. In fact the newly ordained Patriarch of the Maronite Church was elected by his own Bishops with any direct appointing by The Pope Of Rome.
JDNWF66 10 months ago
@JDNWF66 The Orthodox place great importance on Peter and Paul. Peter never held a "primacy of jurisdiction". The Synods decisions in Jerusalem were all based upon the collegial rule of the bishops, not one ruling individual.
This idea of Papal infallibility and universal authority began with the political ambitions of the Franks and the ultramontanism movement within the Latin Church which asserted the superiority of Papal authority and powers.
vasilyjc1955 10 months ago
@JDNWF66 The ultramontanists achieved victory over the conciliar way of the church at the First Vatican Council, with the pronouncement of Papal infallibility.
vasilyjc1955 10 months ago
@vasilyjc1955 I'm glad I have you above the WHOLE CATHOLIC CHURCH to have this clarified by... "Lord Have Mercy on This man"...
JDNWF66 10 months ago
Orph80 Here is The Original reference of CANON 34:
34. Do not ye receive any stranger, whether bishop, or presbyter, or deacon, without commendatory letters; and when such are offered, let them be examined. And if they be preachers of piety, let them be received; but if not, supply their wants, but do not receive them to communion: for many things are done by surprise.
WHERE VASILYJC1955 does this canon mention anything about PRIMACY OF HONOR???????? LIAR.. DECEIVER...
JDNWF66 10 months ago
@JDNWF66 No name calling. The Apostolic Canons is a collection of ancient ecclesiastical decrees concerning the government and discipline of the early Church, the synods of the Jerusalem Council. As far as the Eastern Rite is concerned, in most cases they have been Latinized, specifically in the U.S. The unia was founded at the Laterno Synod of 1215, and in the Bull of Pope Innocente 4th.The unia was created in Poland by two Jesuits and the plan was to Latinize the Orthodox in Poland - Ukraine.
vasilyjc1955 10 months ago
Don't believe what VASILYJC1955 He is absurd and has no credence whatsoever.. Firstly he has ignored all referenced materials I sent him... never responded at all about this.. 2nd. I was able to get the Copy of The canon 34 and this is what it ACTUALLY says from the 3rd century. Something our friend made no mention thinking it will confuse others..
Here is the CANON 34 from an EASTERN ORTHODOX FRIEND.
JDNWF66 10 months ago
Rome held a "primacy of honor", canon 34 of the Apostolic Canons. This universal "primacy" began with the ambitions of the Franks and the ultramontanism movement within the Latin Church. This movement closely associated with the Jesuits, defended the superiority of Popes over councils and kings. This began the process of departure from the Eastern Orthodox and the early Church's collegiate rule of bishops.
vasilyjc1955 10 months ago
The Clement at this time was the bishop of Rome, not a pope per se, just another bishop. 1600 years to explain "us" is pretty funny from a comparison. The Church fathers have many opinions about who had power and control in the early church. No definitive answers exits. Rome gains in power due to politics, location of power. Jerusalem was the main early location, then moves to Rome in that Jerusalem is destroyed in 70AD. 5 location were main centers of primacy bishops.
MRGV7373 11 months ago
Are you an expert on the early Church Fathers? It is easy for one to take certain quotes out of context and make certain interpretations to suite ones position. Rome was sometimes asked to intervene on church matters, but that does not prove Rome had a "primacy" of authority. St. Ignatius was a witness to Rome's primacy of love. St. Ireneus focused on Rome's primacy of witness to the Apostolic faith.
Please get with church history: The Orthodox are "catholic" and apostolic.
vasilyjc1955 1 year ago
We must not argue about who split from who, because I think both the Orthodox and Catholic can agree the split was silly. We must instead turn are energy to restoring the Churches. I hope I have not sounded rude, but I think people tend to get upset when others tell them what they believe. Let us pray for unity.
alexvillabona 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
We must not argue about who split from who, because I think both Orthodox and Catholic can agree the split was silly. We must turn are energy to restoring the Churches. I hope I have not sounded rude, but I think people tend to get upset when others tell them what they believe. Let us pray for the unity between the Orthodox and the Catholic!
alexvillabona 1 year ago
Comment removed
alexvillabona 1 year ago
This is not exact numbers in any way, but if you take the number of recognized popes, which is five, and you take how many ever claimed to recognize the Pope of Rome as the single leader, you get 80% of the ancient church never having recognized such a power. the other 20% became the Roman Catholic Church. All the Church except for, very conveniently, the Pope of Rome, have never believed in the papacy. No matter how much you claim we did, the fact is we know what we believe!
alexvillabona 1 year ago
I pray I don't sound rude, but Catholic's like to tell us Orthodox that we used to acknowledge the papacy. Please stop telling us what we believe. I think us Orthodox know what we do or do not believe, we don't need the Catholics to tell us that! Oh, now I am sounding rude. I'm sorry. I hear the same thing over and over again. It makes me think, where do the Catholics get off telling us what we believe? Why does are belief make a difference?(see text above)
alexvillabona 1 year ago
As to I Clement: 1. The Apostle John did not get involved in church affairs, he was deicated to contemplation and taking care of Mary (read Hans Urs von Balthasar, Catholic) so the fact that the Corinthians didn't go to Ephesus means nothing. Get your facts straight. 2. I Clement doesn't even claim to be written by the Bishop of Rome. In fact there was no Bishop of Rome at this time.
jconder45 1 year ago
Good video!
Howsoonisnow2009 1 year ago
Not one place in the bible is there a clue that Apolostolic Succession was hinted at. The head of the Church of Rome, until the year 400, bowed down to all of the Gods at the Pantheon. The only reason anyone ever looked to Rome for anything, was because they were terrified not to. One shake of his serpent staff, and thousands would Perish to the lions. Vatican means oracle of the Serpent in Latin
handydude6 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@handydude6 So then you are saying that Jesus lied when He made the statements in John 14:16; John 14:26; John 15:26; John 16:12-13; Luke 10:16; and Matthew 16:18-19? If you are saying that the Church teaches error, then that is exactly what you are doing based on these verses.
sbfjohnson 1 year ago
Whenever the church has obtained political power she has used it to punish dissent from her doctrines. "The pacific tone of Rome in the United States does not imply a change of heart. She is tolerant where she is helpless. Says Bishop O'Connor: 'Religious liberty is merely endured until the opposite can be carried into effect without peril to the Catholic world.'" Men are closing their eyes to the real character of Romanism, and the dangers to be apprehended from her supremacy.
thelastcrisis 1 year ago
When the early church became corrupted by departing from the simplicity of the gospel, and accepting heathen rites and customs, she lost the Spirit and power of God; and in order to control the consciences of the people she sought the support of the secular power. The result was the papacy, a church that controlled the power of the State, and employed it to further her own ends, especially for the punishment of "heresy."
thelastcrisis 1 year ago
It's only the word of God that decides who the true church is. This compromise between paganism and Christianity resulted in the development of "the man of sin" foretold in prophecy as opposing and exalting himself above God. That gigantic system of false religion is a masterpiece of Satan's power--a monument of his efforts to seat himself upon the throne to rule the earth according to his will.
thelastcrisis 1 year ago
On the day of the Great Schism, when the legates of the Pope placed the bull of excommunication on the altar of Constantinople, the deacons begged them to take it away. Does this imply that they recognized the sovereignty of the Roman Pontiff? Of course not, that's the very issue that the schism occurred over.
KabaneTheChristian 2 years ago
Nobody disputes that the Pope of Rome regarded himself very highly fairly early. What is in dispute is if the whole church recognized this claim. The other churches were concerned with a potential schism created by the Pope cutting off communion with these other churches. Nothing implies that they recognized his power to excommunicate them.
KabaneTheChristian 2 years ago
Corinth was part of the Western patriarchate at the time when St. Clement wrote. Gregory Nanzianzen writes regarding the Bishop of Alexandria:
"He is entrusted with the presidency over the people, which is the same as saying with the rule of the whole world. "
If presidency implies universal jurisdiction, then there were two bishops with universal jurisdiction.
KabaneTheChristian 2 years ago
Peter said it, that settles it? St. James: "It is my judgement, therefore, that we ought to stop troubling the Gentiles who turn to God, but tell them by letter to avoid pollution from idols, unlawful marriage, the meat of strangled animals, and blood." (Acts 15: 19-20) Didn't sound like James gave ONLY his opinion, he also reached a rulling, not Peter.
Orph80 2 years ago
the word for "judgment" as used in this passage in greek just means opinion. And it makes sense that James would speak at the council since he was the bishop of Jerusalem.
OneTrueChurch 2 years ago
An AUTHORITATIVE opinion. Even an presiding judge in a court gives his rulling, even though he only give his "opinion" as a result of a consesus of testimony from both sides. And when we say in the creed that Christ will come again to judge the living and the dead, does that mean He would give his "opinion"? I thought He's the Lord.
Orph80 2 years ago
...And yes, there are rare exceptions to this teaching; one could accidently fall into a firely death, or be killed in an plane crash. But one's intention to carelessly have one's dead body cremated leads to trouble and that's how I found your Church's ruling since Vatican II, allowing the option for the sake of conveniece, so utterly appalling.
Orph80 2 years ago
....And how is the body supposed to be resurrected during the last judgement if it is cremated by which Rome allows as a option?
Orph80 2 years ago
you don't understand the resurrection. In the resurrection we will rise with incorruptible bodies. it doesn't matter what happens to the body, it will be resurrected. Even cremated bodies. The problem is that cremation has been often viewed as a denial of the resurrection.
OneTrueChurch 2 years ago
Oh yes I do pal. Christ, the last Adam, has risen from the dead and trample down death and Satin and reconcile with Adam and Eve back to paradise. If use the energy to live a pious life and learn how to be transformed of the mind and not to sub-come the fear of death itself, then we too will be resurrected in glory but glorification begins now, this is what has been lost in the West. That is my point. If cremation has become problematic, why then did Rome allow it?
Orph80 2 years ago
How's my examples which contradict some of your arguments considered an "ad hominem attack"?
Orph80 2 years ago
....So who really hasn't look into the issues clearly as they should here? Us or you, Glenn?
Orph80 2 years ago
you are the one that hasn't looked at the issues. you have yet to explain any of the quotes that i've provided and you confuse discipline with doctrine.
OneTrueChurch 2 years ago
That's because YOU haven't give any references.
Orph80 2 years ago
thats ridiculous, i cited all the the sources that i quoted from
OneTrueChurch 2 years ago
I think it's irrelevant to refute the subject at hand, because it's quite obvious viewing the video that your polemic techniques regarding the arguments for the Papacy were patristically sloppy and downright frauduent. I think you need to check those "sources" very carefully.
Orph80 2 years ago
i did check the sources. At this point you are making adhominem attacks. This vid totally refutes the Eastern schismatics on the papacy.
OneTrueChurch 2 years ago
If the Pope of Rome is the Vicar of Christ here on earth, and is infallible when it comes to teaching faith and morals to his subjects, how come you so-called Catholics no longer observe the fast on Wednesdays and Fridays, let alone abstain from eating any meat on Fridays besides Ash Wednesday and Good Friday during Lent, the very thing your Pope Leo peach and teach what you should do to remain faithful to God?
Orph80 2 years ago
again, fasting and days of abstinence are matters of discipline and not doctrine. there are a lot of things that were practiced in the Early Church that are no longer practiced today. For instance in the early church it was customary for priests to be elected by the community, now-a-days they go to seminary. also in the early church the eucharist was part of a meal but today it no longer is. Disciplines change all the time
OneTrueChurch 2 years ago
Or really, Glenn? Bury the dead and no crimations, Leaven bread use as communion, Priest facing away from the people and facing east during the mass which your church had erroneously done away with (for the most part) since Vatical II; you going to tell me those things were just "disciplinary rules" and not doctrine either? Cut this dispicline crap, please?!
Orph80 2 years ago
yes, actaully all of that is discipline. as for cremation, it is still viewed as problematic in the church but we understand that it is sometimes necessary. The Eucharist has always been performed with unleavened bread in the west to show that Jesus was without sin
OneTrueChurch 2 years ago
Yeah, Glenn, since the split. Those things I just cited are scriptual as well. Christ has risen from the dead and tramper down death. We are not in a haste anymore, the laws have already been fufilled with Christ with the leaven bread resembles and with Rome has later done away with.
Orph80 2 years ago
it wasn't later done away with. it has always been done with unleavened bread in the western rite.
OneTrueChurch 2 years ago
Who's the only Church that still observe this ancient fast on Wednesdays and Fridays, alone with many other fast days of the liturgical year, Glenn? The Orthodox; you know, the "schismatics" who "broke off" from the "Catholic" church? It is WE the Orthodox, Glenn, who kept this tradition of the Apostles. [Canon 69 of the Holy Apostles/ Apostolic Constitution]
Orph80 2 years ago
days of fast are matters of discipline not doctrine and these can change as the church sees fit. The Eastern Orthodox, on the other hand, have compromised on issues that are essential to the faith such as their acceptance of contraception.
OneTrueChurch 2 years ago
Glenn, honestly, where in the canons of the Ecumenical councils does it explicitly prohibit preventive conception, let alone say that all married couples should have kids? This is a typical Scholastic argument.
Orph80 2 years ago
...."On Wednesday and Friday therefore let us fast: and on Saturday let us keep vigil with the most blessed Apostile Peter, who will deign to aid our supplications and fast and alms with his own prayers through our Lord Jesus Christ, who with the Father and the Holy Ghost lives and reigns for ever and ever, Amen"
[Sermon 17, On the Fast of the Tenth Month VI, and sermon 78 On Whidsuntide or Pentecost/Apostles Fast]
Orph80 2 years ago
how does this refute anything that i've said?
OneTrueChurch 2 years ago
Everything! Why would the successor to Peter do away with this ancient practice the Apostles put forth, and in the canons of the Church through the Ecumenical Councils?
Orph80 2 years ago
As Pope he has the power to do that , like it or not.
OneTrueChurch 2 years ago
And when Pope Leo the Great gave two homilies on two seperate occasions, one of the main things he emphasize was the importance of fasting Wednesdays and Fridays. At the end of those sermons, Pope Leo gave the following:
Orph80 2 years ago
...When the Filioque, at the Council of Carolingians in around 787 AD, was introduce as a novelty by the Franks to further "refute" the Arians, they demand then Pope Hadrian to accept it, yet he REFUSES to do so and nullify the false council for rejecting the Seventh Ecumenical Council of that same year. His sucessor, Pope Leo III follow his lead.
Orph80 2 years ago
Pope Adrian and Leo III did not reject the filioque, rather, they just did not feel that it needed to be added to the creed.
OneTrueChurch 2 years ago
Is it not a possibility that you have taking those quotes out of context?
And don't worry Glenn, I'll give you few examples by three Latin popes that you cannot easily explain, nor refute:
Orph80 2 years ago
"Great job my friend it [is] about time someone did this!!!"
Actually, there are other people who did, "Onetruechurch" here just boring us to death by beating the same dead horse.
Orph80 2 years ago
strange, you have yet to refute anything in this video. And these quotes clearly show that papal supremacy was recognized
OneTrueChurch 2 years ago
Great job my friend it is about time someone did this!!!
legalrule 2 years ago
"While militants on both sides would have us believe the " papal jurisdiction " debate is actually very simple, such simplicity is both a necessity and a luxury for them. A necessity because we must believe that the things about which we are passionate are either clearly good or clearly bad. But because the belief in simplicity reduces any possibility of dialogue or learning or coming to terms with REAL HUMAN DILEMMAS, it is a luxury that neither society nor the debate itself can afford."
LiturgicalChants 2 years ago
Surely the existance of SSPX, Orthodox and Protestants can be no accident. So often I see the Latin Catholic side as presenting an argument of "this is why we are right, this is the truth, please stop being heretics and join us". There is a failure to address the legitimate reasons perceived schismatic/heretical groups came to exist. The legitimate abuses and sins that gave rise to them. The Latin Catholic Church has it's own weaknesses. Perhaps it would be prudent to mention them.
LiturgicalChants 2 years ago
there arn't any legitimate reasons for separating for the church of Rome. Yes there have been popes who have been bad and who have sinned but that is no excuse for schism. That would be like leaving Peter because of Judas. You did not address my example of the Arian crisis where large numbers of people can fall into error even on a universal belief in the church. Surely you arn't going to say "well since alot of people deny the deity of Christ there must be a good reason for it"
OneTrueChurch 2 years ago
There is a legitimate reason for separating from Rome, simply put it is heresy. If the Pope has fallen into theological error, than there is no reason to remain in union with him.
Nicoseraph22 2 years ago
except he hasn't
OneTrueChurch 2 years ago
Forgetting Pope Honorius? He was condemned at an Ecumenical Council for teaching that Christ had only one will not two wills.
Nicoseraph22 2 years ago
Pope Honorius errored privitely in a letter to another bishop. He did not manifest this heresy publically nor attempt to bind the church to this belief. In fact Pope Agatho, the pope that condemned him acknowledged this and said that Honorious' personal error did not interfere with the charism of infallibility which is given to the papacy.
OneTrueChurch 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
a series of factors might be able to shed further light on how the predominant and initially more numerous side, the Nicene Party, might have been overrun by a seemingly less populated, less organized enemy, as was the Arian party. These factors are 1) The existing Roman administrations support and Arian inclination, 2) The heresys rational appeal,
LiturgicalChants 2 years ago
"To (Pope) Honorius, the heretic, anathema!" -Sixth Ecumenical Council Session XVI
Nicoseraph22 2 years ago
I would pose a question to you. You are coming from the perspective of seeing the universal jurisdiction and infallibility as they are today as a good thing. Perhaps you can try to see through the eyes of those that fear these as corruption?
If everything you say is true, why does the Eastern Orthodox Catholic Church exist? Why do the Protestant Churches exist? Surely there is some sort of explanation. If they all believed in universal juridiction in the past what changed their minds ?
LiturgicalChants 2 years ago
because people out of hatred for the truth and a lack of charity fall into error and introduce damnable heresies and schisms. Your question could be applied to practically every heresy the church has dealt with. For instance, the deity of Christ is something that was held to since the earliest times, yet in the 4th century, Arian heretics began denying this doctrine.
Just like how eastern schismatics and protestants abandoned the correct view of the papacy
OneTrueChurch 2 years ago
I would say the papacy fell into error by introducing the Filioque clause into the Nicene Creed. By doing so, they denied the personhood of the Holy Spirit and introduced (by accident) two sources to the Trinity instead of one (i.e. God the Father).
Nicoseraph22 2 years ago
The pope, at the time, 2 ST. FRANCIS OF ASSISI, "U in your humility put US 2 shame." YUP. Go Saint Francis!!! :)
bimboblacky 2 years ago
The Catholic Church is the only united Church today. Protestants are divided and have nothing better to do besides nitpicking an d passing judgement on Catholic traditions. We Catholics worship God and follow the teachings of Christ. You seem more obsessed with your German idol and follow his doctrine 'justification by faith alone.' It is love for God and neigh bour, not judgement - which shd be the core of your Christian faith!!
TroyeHaryanto 3 years ago
"It is love for God and neigh bour, not judgement "
John 3:18 "He that believeth on him is not condemned : but he that believeth not is condemned already , because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God"
martalog121 3 years ago
Stop worring about Protestors they only want to hear they are "saved" you need to worry about the fact you are attending a fake messe totally void of God, you don't even have Catholic music! It sounds like circus music look at the words! New world order one church all the same as a
real Catholic it is appauling and vile. I showed my children THEY WERE IN CULTURE SHOCK and now know why we drive so far to a real valid Mass. People in short shorts! We would throw them out of our Church and have !
SAYYOURROSARY 3 years ago
But wait Newchurch says all "christyunns" are a-o.k. ! Your own "mass" was approved and created by 6 protestant "ministers" do you deny this?
You are a goodguy and smart I like you.
You need to wake up and see my channel
You SHOULD know better! Who knows where those hands have been, no wonder you touch the bread disk! You're hero JPII let the gays run wild and would just transfer them around. He was a heretic from hell, B16 is a liar. Jesus is still with his Church NOT in Rome !
SAYYOURROSARY 3 years ago
The British/Celtic Churches are centuries older than the Papal system. They didn't recognise the pope as head of any "church" because the title of Pope/Universal bishop didn't even exist until the early 7th century!
Islandretreat 3 years ago
total missunderstanding of church history here
OneTrueChurch 3 years ago
No misunderstanding. The early Church was in Jerusalem (not Rome) and the word "Catholic" isn't mentioned until over a century later. It was the Apostle James (not Peter) who exercised authority in the early Church (Acts 15:13, 19).
The Celtic Church Christianised most of north west Europe from Britain, Iceland into France, Germany and even into Italy. We have written correspondence from the time of the first Pope in 604AD to prove they didn't recognise him as head Christ's Church.
Islandretreat 3 years ago
head of*
Islandretreat 3 years ago
actually, no. James was just giving his opinion or own personal judgment in Acts 15. It was Peter who stood up and everyone fell silent. But it makes sense that James would have a role at Jerusalem since he was the bishop of that city. And no the first Pope was not in 604, this is more poor protestant pseudo-scholarship at work. Btw, Ireneus of Lyons lived in what is now France and recognized papal primacy as these videos clearly demonstrate if you actually watched them
OneTrueChurch 3 years ago
Christianity was forced to find refuge beyonds the bounds of the Roman Empire in the 2nd century AD. The Celtic Church was the only Church in N.W Europe. The title of Universal bishop was conferred on Boniface IV by imperial decree in 604AD..
If Peter were alive today the Vatican would label him a heretic! I have watched your video and i disagree on Peter's so called papal primacy. The chair of St. Peter is his confession of faith and not the chair of the Roman Ceasar/the Pontifex Maximus!
Islandretreat 3 years ago
Do you know why the Gospel was forced to find refuge beyond the bounds of the Roman Empire (Hadrian's wall)? The Caesars of Rome ruled as vicegerents of Satan and persecuted the people of God. Before Constantine established the Papacy there had been 10 great persecutions of Christians in the Roman Empire. The British Isles escaped the first nine and during the tenth , Christianity was forced to find refuge. Fleeing from Rome! The Vatican eventually usurped the Celtic Church in the 11th century..
Islandretreat 3 years ago
..But remnants of the Church lasted right down until the Reformation until King James authorised the greatest selling Book of all time! Yet even today, the greatest opponent of the Gospel is Papal Rome.
Islandretreat 3 years ago
But ALL the apostles were there, Glenn. And it was James who precided that council, not Peter. That's the point. The idea that Peter had "primacy" when he spoke and everyone else stay silent is irrelevant.
Orph80 2 years ago
James didn't preside over the council. he just gave his opinion at the end of it and it was based on Peter's decree. they fell silent because there was no more debate. peter had spoken the matter was settled
OneTrueChurch 2 years ago
Comment removed
Orph80 2 years ago
Hello OTC, it's me again. Don't worry, I'm not here to argue about stuff. I just want to ask a genuine question relating to this issue.
In the epistles of Ignatious of Antioch (which are some of my favorite writings :P) is it true that the Church of Rome is the only one in which he doesn't mention the Bishop of that Church? Or am I mistaken?
GuardianofTwilight 3 years ago
Hey good to hear from you. To answer your question, yes i believe so
OneTrueChurch 3 years ago
Alright, thanks for confirming that. It's been a few months since I've read his letters and wanted to be sure.
Now let me ask you this question. Don't you find it odd or at least curious that St. Ignatius did not mention the Bishop of Rome? Or might there be a reason for it?
GuardianofTwilight 3 years ago
I really don't find it that relevent. Ignatius does talk about the Authority of that Church which, in my opinion, pressuposes the existance of a governing bishop. Another thing that is interesting is that his letter to the Romans is that he does not write as a doctor the way he does to the other churches
OneTrueChurch 3 years ago
Ok, fair enough.
I think another possibility just to throw out there is that the Church of Rome at the time had a plurality of elders governing it, with St. Clement perhaps being the spokesman for them. The Church of Rome would still have it's primacy being the largest church in the area.
At least, that's what crossed my mind when I noticed he didn't mention the Pope at all. One would think he would if he addressed the others anyway.
Anyways, God bless and good to see you back.
GuardianofTwilight 3 years ago
in the letter of Clement,he (Clement) never said "I Clement" the plural "we" is used thorough out of the letter because of the plurality of elders in the church at rome,modern scholars are of the view that Clement was a simple SECRETARY of the elders of the church.
If you read the whole letter you will never get this nonsense about Clement being a "pope" and having "authority" over the church at Corinth...stop posting OUT OF CONTEXT(as you usually do, with the Bible ) texts !!!
martalog121 3 years ago
if you were listening, you would know that i adressed the issue of Clement's use of the words "we" and "us". This is common language for popes and many in the past have used that kind of language when refering to themselves. As for Clement being a simple secretary, I suppose if I was an intellectually dishonest scholar who wanted ot undermine the papacy, i would say the same thing to.
OneTrueChurch 3 years ago
"This is common language for popes and many in the past" besides the "we" in the Letter to Corinth,give me another date(the earliest...) when your popes used the "we",referring to a man(pope)...
martalog121 3 years ago
Jesus Christ founded our beliefs and church.
DerektheDuctTape 3 years ago
The Papal use of We as a plural for the Pope was always used up until the papacy of John Paul I 1978, he modernized the term by using I instead of We.
cathaustralia 3 years ago
So I must be a Roman Catholic to follow Christ. Where do you get that from. I want from the Bible only, I did not ask what a particular church said, or what a particular church tradition said, or what a pope said, or any man, I want what the Bible says.
DerektheDuctTape 3 years ago
But you wouldn't have a bible if it wearn't for the Catholic Church
OneTrueChurch 3 years ago
Glenn, you are certainly 100% correct that Jesus started the Catholic Church. There's just one problem,you don't belong to the correct Catholic Church. You belong to to a differnt Catholic Church. You belong to a Catholic Church thats ran by Joseph Ratzigner. I belong to the real Catholic Church, thats run by Jesus Christ.
Ignatious of Antioch didn't say the bishoip of Rome was the president of the whole Church, HE SAID THE BISHOP OF ROME WAS THE PRESIDENT OF ROME.
CASSMAN777 3 years ago
figures, it wasn't enough for protestants to hijack the term "christian", now they have t hijack the name "catholic" as well! But Augustine spoke well of heretics like you. He said that even heretics claim to be catholic, but if a person were to ask them where the nearest catholic church is, they would never point to their own church. You are being intellectually dishonest here. Protestants calling themselves catholic is a rediculous as LDSers calling themselves christians
OneTrueChurch 3 years ago
Do you even know what the word heretic means.
DerektheDuctTape 3 years ago
its somebody who does not hold the entire faith. One who deviates from it
OneTrueChurch 3 years ago
Does apply to you too, Glenn? Because even Augustine himself didn't support this theory that Peter was THE rock by which Christ will build His Church. Now, this time, I have "refute" your argument here.
Orph80 2 years ago
no, Augustine did accept the Catholic view of the papacy
OneTrueChurch 2 years ago
You got any proof of that?
Orph80 2 years ago
Clement trying to boss around the Corinthians doesn't prove that he had any control of the East. As I said already they had bishops all over the places and in the 400's they became known as popes. Back then bishops were always trying to boss around other bishops. Clement trying to boss around the Corinthians doesn't prove he had control over the whole East. All it proves that he wanted to boss around the Corinthians. Decides there a lot more to the East than just the Corinthians.
CASSMAN777 3 years ago
Cassman, the Corinthians appealed to Clement's authority. Speaking of bishops, which bishop are you under Cassman? You arn't under any of the western or eastern bishops.
OneTrueChurch 3 years ago
The Papacy evolved over a long time. Back in the early middle ages (from about 400's-1000's) there were popes all over Europe. Each pope had control over a different area, depending where they lived. Sometmes through history other popes from one area will try to boss around other popes from another area.
Why do you care what clement said? So what he claims God speaks through Him? Heretics like Benny Hinn always claims that God speaks through him, How do u know clement is any better?
CASSMAN777 3 years ago
CAssman, if you paid attention to the video (and part II) you would see that the whole church recognized the bishop of Rome's authority
OneTrueChurch 3 years ago
Monarchs often use "we" as well. I think that it sometimes called the "royal we."
lourdesgirl101 3 years ago
As far as Victor and Irenaeus.
It is funny that when Victor attempted to cut off fellowship a host of bishops stood against him. If he had such unquestioned authority would they just not bend to his decision?
corsec144 3 years ago
Becasue they didn't agree with his decision. and if you notice it says that Ireneus admonished him. meaning he begged him not to. Nobody questioned his authority to make this decision, they just thought that it wasn't a wise decision
OneTrueChurch 3 years ago
Actually admonish does not mean to beg in any sense other than a crude colloquial use that any translator would not use.
admonish
verb
1. admonish or counsel in terms of someone's behavior
2. warn strongly; put on guard
3. take to task
synonyms
advise, berate, call down, censure, check, chide, come down hard on, counsel, enjoin, exhort, forewarn, give a going over, give a piece of ones mind, rebuke, reprimand, reprove, scold, tell off, upbraid, warn
corsec144 3 years ago
ok. Maybe "beg" was teh wrong word to use. but either way, there is no denial of Victor's authority here. A disagreement on his decision, yes. but no denial of his authority to make this decision. Keep in mind that if the Easten Orthodox are right, Victor wouldn't have had the authority to do this in the first place. Yet nobody questions his authority
OneTrueChurch 3 years ago
To call someone to account over something necessarily implies a question of their authority to make such a decision.
corsec144 3 years ago
No it doesn't. Lets say for example that the president of the company wants to fire an employee for unjust reasons. He has every authority and power to do so since he is the guy in charge. However, lets say that the vice president of the company warms him that firing this employee is a bad idea because he is an asset to the company.
The Vice president in no way is questioning his authority but rather the decision. The president still has the authority to fire the employee
OneTrueChurch 3 years ago
You miss the basic premise of the thrust of the usage the word. It is not merely an open ended warning that carries no power with it. It is literally a warning to give you pause, to you question whether or not you have the right to do what you are doing and that if you do it serious actions against you could take place.
corsec144 3 years ago
where does it say that? Where does it give any indication that Ireneus was doing any more than disagreeing with Victr's decision. Had Victor gone through with the excommunication, then the eastern churches would have been excommunicated end of story. If Victor had no authority to do this, then there would be no issue. Everyone could have just ignored Victor's excommunication. In fact, I would contend that the fact that such a big deal was made over this shows that he had this power.
OneTrueChurch 3 years ago
If you care to read the text and not just focus on Irenaeus, it clearly states that there were other bishops who admonished Victor for what he had done.
corsec144 3 years ago
yes because they thought that it was a bad idea and that the issue wasn't serious enough to warrent excommunication. Does the text say that they didn't beleive that he had authority to do this? No. Infact the text says "Ireneus admonisted Victor not to cut off whole churches just for observing an ancient custom" (paraphrased). Thus implicitly saying he did have the authority to do this but that it was a bad idea. There is nothing in here to indicate a questioning of authority
OneTrueChurch 3 years ago
Nice argument from silence.
Does the text say that they believed he had the authority? You are reading the text in light of the interpretation you already have.
Of course he had the authority to cut off the fellowship of the Roman See itself, I do not dispute that, any bishop had that right for the See they oversaw, but he did not have the authority to do so over such an unimportant matter.
corsec144 3 years ago
considering that he admonished him "not to cut off the churches" shows that he had the authority. If he did not have the authority to do this ireneus would have said so. Yu are the one reading into the text not me.
OneTrueChurch 3 years ago
Show that "cutting off" implies anything more than cutting off fellowship within his particular See.
corsec144 3 years ago
He wanted to cut off the churches of asia, not his own see
OneTrueChurch 3 years ago
Yes, cut off the churches of Asia from fellowship with his See.
corsec144 3 years ago
"In fact, I would contend that the fact that such a big deal was made over this shows that he had this power."
And I would contend that many Bishops shouting Victor down for his actions would imply that he had overstepped his bounds.
corsec144 3 years ago
if the bishops did not believe he had the power to do this they wouldn't have made a big deal over it. They would have just said "you have no power to do this" and went about their buisness for refusing to comply with somebody who has no authority over you has no consequences. They could have just ignored his excommunication and laughed him off. But they recogonized that his opinion carried weight and consequences.
OneTrueChurch 3 years ago
They reacted so badly because of the offensiveness of the action.
corsec144 3 years ago
As far as Ignatius.
The first presidency would be better translated as presides and reflects where it presided, Rome.
As for your concept that presidency implies authority and jurisdiction. There are all sorts of people you defer to for opinions in your life that you do not allow to actually have an actual authority to command or rule over you.
corsec144 3 years ago
Could it be that the reason John was not consulted was because he was already banished to Patmos at that point?
As for the royal we. It is interesting that you use examples well after the royal we was customary for the royal we to be used by anyone of that status. Trace it back further to the first few centuries, please, otherwise you have hardly proved any point other than the Popes were of a status to use it after it came into use.
corsec144 3 years ago
the point is that "we" and "us" do not nessesarilly mean a plurality of people in charge.
OneTrueChurch 3 years ago
Councils will also bring forth all sub problems in the main problem from each pocket of the world so that the council can have their experts give their knowledge to the council, then the Pope could do what God wills him to do with the knowledge he would receive... that would be my GUESS...
CatholicOrthodoxy 3 years ago
which seems better, the pope declaring something and hoping that everyone follows along. Or the pope calling a council and getting everyone on he same page at the council. Usually the pope would make a ruling at the council
OneTrueChurch 3 years ago
Great insight. Keep it up. I'm not good at making such videos but at leat I can support your works. Keep it it and God bless you. Let's pray for the church.
newworldorder08 3 years ago
I've been waiting for these videos for a long time. Thank You.
valius0519 3 years ago
Nice follow up!
Keep up the good work!
onecatholicchurch 3 years ago
thanks
OneTrueChurch 3 years ago
It is great to see someone so concerned with Christianity. Just to let you know, in your second video, you don't have a link to this video. It is only a message with nothing to click, in case you want to go back and fix that. Take care. Also, I am not closing my other account. I don't know if that was you who asked on my channel comments.
ChronicPhilosopher 3 years ago
i fixed the link. and no, it wasn't me that asked this. I like the user name "Cronic Philospher"
OneTrueChurch 3 years ago
Oh.. we have the same conection today, I posted a link in myspace the series Pope Fiction with Patrick Madrid
I gone sent you the link is very Good , Thanks again , God bless you and keep you good work dear Friend , And Merry Christmas and Happy New Year
jerrysmith29 3 years ago
Plurale Maiestatis is always fun :P
Great video!
Viva il Papa!!!
Agila1 3 years ago 2