There was no pope until the 150s...and even CATHOLIC SCHOLARSHIP admits it!

[AchillesShield]

This isn't he only example of Roman Catholic historians admitting that some of their dogmas were gradual evolutions and not from the early church. The mariologist Juniper Carol admits that the Assumption of Mary CANNOT BE VALIDATED FROM DOCUMENTS IN THE PATRISTIC AGE, and insists that Catholics STOP TRYING TO DO SO: 'In these conditions we shall not ask Patristic thought - as some theologians still do today under one form or another - to transmit to us, with respect to the Assumption,

[AchillesShield]

@AchillesShield '...a truth received as such in the beginning and faithfully communicated to subsequent ages. SUCH AN ATTITUDE WOULD NOT FIT THE FACTS' (Mariology, Vol I, p. 154). He also admits that the first mention of this doctrine and its subsequent foundation was the apocryphal gospel 'Transitus Baetae Mariae'. What's interesting is that this writing was CONDEMNED AS HERETICAL BY POPE GELASIUS, who issued a decree which placed an indissoluble anathema on anyone who wrote or taught from it.

[imermiguel]

btw your computer is running slow :) good vid

[redbaron998]

@ MSM1876

Hey brother, Please keep our conversation to this video or private messages, it gets to chopped up if we start using comments on profiles as well. In reference to the document we were talking about the problem was I do not have that document, do you have a website where I can view it. Thank you.

[msm1876]

@redbaron998 I found it using google books.

[redbaron998]

@msm1876

I havent been able to, please feel free to PM me a link.

[TheRazorSwift]

Added to favourites. Great work Mike!

[redbaron998]

@msm1876

The wording of St. Clements letter does not lend itself to berely mere suggestion. An example of wording to this effect is "If, however, any shall disobey the words spoken by Him through us, let them know that they will involve themselves in transgression and serious danger" (1 Clement 59) and the use of "We" does not mean that the Bishop is not of importance. Indeed even today it is rare for the Pope to act independently of the Curia and oftne uses "We"

[redbaron998]

You claim to use several sources to argue against the existance of the papacy that in fact support it. For ex. St. Clement of Rome, himself the third Bishop of Rome after St. Linus and St. Anacletus, intervienes in the affirs of the church in Corinth with authority. Secondly Ignatious of Antioch writes that Church in Rome is "presiding over the brotherhood of love". In addition St. Irenaeus writes how the succsion of her bishops comes directly from Peter and Paul and lists those bishops by name.

[msm1876]

@redbaron998 RB! I wondered if you'd be droppin' by on this one. Tell ya what, my brother in Christ...I'm going to work now, but we can discuss this tonite/tommorrow.

I'll simply say that I don't make vids like this for folks like you, to poke your chest and demand you leave the RCC. I do it for the militant Caths who want apologies from Prots and Doxes for not being Caths, as well as for people spiritually starving, wanting to leave the RCC...but not sure if it's ok to do so.

[redbaron998]

@msm1876

Have a good day at work

[abbyguy]

@redbaron998 There is a HUGE difference between being a bishop and claiming to be the intermediary between God and man. If what you claim is correct we would not need Jesus, who is the one and only real intermediary.

Matt 23:9-11,12 9"And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven. 11But he that is greatest among you shall be your servant. 12And whosoever shall exalt himself shall be abased; and he that shall humble himself shall be exalted." cont...

[redbaron998]

@abbyguy

No pope has ever proclaimed anything that would suggest we would not need Jesus. Indeed they proclaim the eternal truth of the need for Christ in all things.

[abbyguy]

@redbaron998 So who exactly does your Pope serve? I have yet to see him serve ANYONE! He accepts all the glory of his followers but does nothing in return. He lives in luxury when his followers are suffering world wide. Matt 12:40 "Which devour widows' houses, and for a pretence make long prayers: these shall receive greater damnation." Matt23:14 "...therefore ye shall receive the greater damnation."

You and your Pope have it ALL BACKWARDS!

Read the bible, don't take anyone's word for it.

[redbaron998]

@abbyguy

I have read the bible thank you. And do you follow the news about the Pope? Hes probably one of the hardest working 84 year olds around. Mostly he is engaged in his pastoral duties as the Bishop of Rome (preaching, writing, offering Mass, visiting those is prisons and hospitals, aiding charities etc...) in addition to encouraging peace and evangalization which are the hallmarks of his papacy. Id advise you subscribe to Rome Reports or the Vatican youtube channel to keep up with it.

[abbyguy]

@redbaron998 : So are you saying that works are the criteria for salvation? Show me from the scriptures where we need anyone other than Jesus as the head of the church and where a man can forgive sins. Why are your priests called "Father" when it is clear that we are not to do it, as in the scriptures I quoted. Still waiting of evidence for your beliefs. You should be able to back up ALL your beliefs in scripture, right? I'll wait.

[redbaron998]

@abbyguy

Who said works are the criteria for salvation? You merely claimed the Pope doesnt serve anyone and I showed examples to the contrary. As for where a man can forgive sins lets go to John 20:21-23 "Jesus said to them again, "Peace be with you. As the Father sent me, even so I send you." And when he said this, he breathed on them and said, "Recieve the Holy Spirit. If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained."

[redbaron998]

@abbyguy

In reference to calling Priests "Father" it should be noted that Mt 23:9 is speaking to the fact that God the Father alone is ultimately the source of all authority, not providing a blanket prohibition against using the term "Father". If he did this would prohibt calling biological fathers, founding fathers, etc... Jesus himself uses father in such a way in (Mt 15:4-5, 19:5, 21:31) and John (8:56) and several other places. He also uses the term "Father Abraham" twice (Lk 16:24,30)

[redbaron998]

@abbyguy

(For more instanes of the use of Father when not addressing God see Acts 7:2; Rom 4:12, and James 2:21)

Calling Christian leaders "Father" dates all the way back to the Apostles themselves. St. Paul uses the term when he writes, "I do not write this to make you ashamed, but to admonish you as my beloved children. For though you have countless guides in Christ, you do not have many fathers. For I became your father in Christ Jesus through the gospel" (1 Cor 4:15)

[abbyguy]

@redbaron998: RB, Acts 7:12 "fathers" is referring to older men, the fathers of the faith. There is no evidence that it was meant in the way you suggest. There is more evidence to the contrary. Plus this happened hundreds of years before the instructions in the New Testament.

Romans 4:12, James 2: 21, The word fathers(s), again refer to the father of an act, the beginning of something NOT anything else. There is only one Father of us all, the beginning of everything. Cont...

[redbaron998]

@abbyguy

You refuse clear evidence to the contrary of your opinion. You claim that using the term "Father" when not referencing the divine Father is sinful. However I have given you multiple examples that show not only St. Paul using it in such a manner but also St. Luke and our Lord Jesus Christ. You can eithier change your pre concieved notion or conform yourself to the scriptually sound Catholic position on this matter.

[abbyguy]

@redbaron998: Cont...There is never an instruction to call anyone Father as you suggest.

1 Corinthians 4:15 The authority which Paul claims here, is that which a father has in preference to an instructor.

There's a HUGE difference between referring to someone as "father" as opposed to "Father."

Please read everything in the correct context, the answer will flesh itself if you want only the truth, study the bible for that truth and not as a support mechanism for your specific dogma.

[redbaron998]

@abbyguy

The context I used it in is correct. It is not a difficult matter. He quite clearly states that he has beccome their father in the gospel. Just because it disagrees with your preconcived notion does not mean it is out of context.

[msm1876]

@redbaron998 Alright, I'm back. One piece at a time. 1 Clement is not written as a papal bull...it's not written as the Roman Bishop commanding the Corinthians to get their act together. It's written by a college of elders taking a "big brother reprimanding little brother" tone, telling the Corinthians that bouncing out elders for due to envy isn't cool. Again, "we" is used throughout the letter, not "I." Catholic scholars who sat on Papal Biblical Commissions would cont.

[msm1876]

@redbaron cont would actually agree with me, not you, on the issue of Clement being a Papal mandate.

2) Ignatius praises the Roman Church for "presiding over love" and rightly so. Dionysius of Corinth (c. A.D. 175) testifies to the world-wide charity of the Roman Church (Euseb. H. E. iv. 23). Definitely a church with primacy...Peter and Paul ministered and died there, and it was in the Empire's capital...but why no mention of a bishop, let alone Ignatius' boss? No salute? cnt

[redbaron998]

@msm1876

St. Igantius respect and salutory greeting is evident in the greeting of his letter, regardless the fact that Ignatius does not directly address the Bishop does not that there was not one (as we known there was from other writings) or that he wasnt of a special place of authority. Of course of interest also is that Ignatius does directly advocate a Catholic understanding of the Eucharist in the same letter.

[msm1876]

@redbaron998 >>>regardless the fact that Ignatius does not directly address the Bishop does not that there was not one

I don't think it's worth brushing aside...really, think about this. You're a bishop, writing to a church where the Vicar or Christ presides...you make it a point to mention bishops in all your other letters, yet say NOTHING of the bishop of bishops in the one to his Church??? I donno, RB...and neither do Brown or Meier.

[redbaron998]

@msm1876

And if the historical understanding of the authority of the papacy was based only on this source then I would probably agree with you, but when you have multiple early writers supporting the authority of Rome. However we do have the fact that when the Church Fathers do directly address the topic they do comment on the Authority of Rome.

[redbaron998]

@msm1876

For example when St. Irenaeus writting about Rome, "With that church, because of its superior origin, all the churches must agree, that is, all the faithful in the whole world, and it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the apostolic tradition" (Against Heresies 3:3:2) Whats more Irenaeus was a student of Polycarp, who himself was a student of St. John the Apostle.

[msm1876]

@redbaron998 You're not properly representing the Polycarp-Anicetus situation. Please go read Eusebius' Church History Bk 5, ch 24 and you'll see NOTHING about Polycarp going to Rome to get Anicetus' permission to celebrate the Pasch on the 14th. He said each tried to persuade the other of their position, with no success. And they both shrugged it off, thinking it an issue that they could agree to disagree on...and left as brothers in Christ.

[redbaron998]

@msm1876

They did agree peacefully not to push the issue, but that doesnt change the fact that the Bishop of Rome didnt have the authority to and as seen in St. Irenaeus letter to Pope Victor Anicetus does give Polycarp permission to holy Easter Mass according to the Eastern Calendar. Whats futhermore when Pope Victor threathens to excommunicate the Eastern Church about the proper date for Easter noone actually questions his authority to do so.

[msm1876]

@redbaron998 This is rather incredible that you can see the Bishop of Rome's first attempt at exercising his authority over other churches being a complete flop, nobody going along with it, and even another western bishop writing him to chew him out for being too big for his britches as an example of papal supremacy!

And let's read what Polycrates says concerning Pope Victor's Authority: Cont.

[msm1876]

@redbaron998 I, therefore, brethren, who have lived sixty-five years in the Lord, and have met with the brethren throughout the world, and have gone through every Holy Scripture, am not affrighted by terrifying words. For those greater than I have said `We ought to obey God rather than man.'"

That's a pretty explicit statement that Polycrates did NOT view Victor's authority as coming from God; to obey their tradition was to obey God, to obey Victor was to obey men. cont.

[msm1876]

@redbaron998 I think I may have to do a video tommorrow about this supposed lack of controversy concerning the bishop of Rome exerting his authority over other churches. Because if there was a time that bishops bucked the authority of the Roman bishop, and gave him the attitude that it wasn't his biz to interfere with their biz...that would cast some doubt on the apostolicity of the supremacy of the Bishop of Rome, wouldn't it?

Now, we've strayed from the topic. cont.

[msm1876]

@redbaron998 Getting back to the topic of the video...What are your thoughts of the arguments concerning the lack of a bishop in Rome before 150? What do you think of Epiphanius discussing Marcion's excommunication in Rome ca 144...and describing it as a group of presbuteros doing the excommunicating?

If there WERE a bishop in Rome...wouldn't you think he'd want to be there for the excomming of a NOTORIUS heretic...and for the returning of his donation?

[redbaron998]

@msm1876

In regards to the first question we know the bishops of Rome before 150. (Heck we were qouting one earlier with Clement) St. Irenaeus in Against Heresies III.3.3 lists them as Peter, Linus, Anacletus, Clement, etc. through Pope St. Eleutheriu (c. 174-189)

Eusebius's "Church History V.6" provides the same list

[redbaron998]

@msm1876

In reference to Marcion's excommunication I have source that discuss him debating with the presbyters of Rome but I do not having a source saying that the excommuncation was enacted by the presbuteros but merely by the Church in Rome. If you can supply that I would be grateful. Still I find it interesting that if that is true that a group of Roman presbuteros had the authority to excommuncation a Bishop of Sinope.

[msm1876]

@redbaron>>>group of Roman presbuteros...excommuncate a Bishop of Sinope.

SMH. C'mon, brother...you're better than this. I like you, and I know you love our Lord Jesus. You've got to ask yourself whether ginning up the facts for the sake of putting a Catholic spin on things honors God. Marcion was not a Sinopian bishop when in Rome; he had already been excommed in Sinope by his Father for seducing a virgin (epiphanius, panarion, Bk 1, ch42, sec 2). He was just a lay heretic.

[redbaron998]

@msm1876

I dont have access to this text, if you have it online I would be happy to look over it for you. Of course at any time if my answers are not sufficent to you feel free to dialogue with an Apologist (I can give you the contact information of several) I do not claim to be an apologist or Church Father scholar. That being said the Catholic Encyclopedia article on Maricon gives an excellect overview on how he was most likely considered to be an active bishop by the Church in Rome.

[redbaron998]

@msm1876

Regardless to the point, even today the Pope only rarely directly places an excommuncation in effect, and this job is often delegated to others. So the fact that a source does not directly indicate the Bishop enacting the excommuncation does not mean one did not exist.

[redbaron998]

@msm1876

Of Interest with St. Polycarp is that he, at very old age, took the trip to Rome to discuss among other things the matter of the proper day to celebrate Easter with St. Anicetus (11th Bishop of Rome) I find it intereting that a student of the Apostle St. John had to have the permission of the Bishop of Rome (Who as far as we know did not meet any of the Apostles) to celebrate Easter Mass in accordance with the eastern calendar.

[msm1876]

@redbaron998 Quick sidebar about the Eucharistic language...I don't know too many people at the Lutheran Church I've been attending who wouldn't "Amen" Ignatius' statement in Ch 7 about the Body and Blood of Christ.  I think it's safe to say that the early Church DID believe in the Real Presence in the Eucharist...but I have SERIOUS doubts that they saw it in the Transubstantiantion sense. But that's another topic for another vid. cont.

[msm1876]

@rb Now, what do you think about the issue of Marcion being excommed by a synod of presbuteros...not a synod lead by a bishop...which excommunicated him, returning a FAT sum of money? If there WAS a monachical episcopate reigning in Rome in 144, wouldn't he be leading the Synod to toss out such a notorious heretic? ESPECIALLY if that bishop was the Vicar of CHrist? This is described in Ephiphanius' Panarion, Ch 46, sec 2. Epi even gives the dialog between the elders and Marcion.

[KeithTruth]

Nice vid bro. Good citations. Check this one out from another Catholic scholar: “In the late 2nd or early 3rd cent. the tradition identified Peter as the first bishop of Rome. This was a natural development once the monarchical episcopate, i.e., government of the local church by a single bishop as distinct from a group of presbyter-bishops, finally emerged in Rome in the mid-2nd cent.” Joseph Kelly, The Concise Dictionary of Early Christianity, [The Liturgical Press, 1992], p. 6

[TheGenuineChristian]

Your heros are starting to crumble? LOL.

[msm1876]

@TheGenuineChristian What? I'm not Catholic!