It’s a great one!

Thanks for watching!

He’s an awesome guy!

Yes!!! 🙌

Thanks for your feedback!

Yeah, I stopped replying to comments that are clearly willed ignorance, which is a sin. They are lying due to willed ignorance. No thank you. There is no teaching real Christianity to liars.

@Hal9000 🎯spot on!!

Thanks for watching!

Thanks Doug. Hello from Sarnia!

Thanks for watching!

Thanks so much!

Thank you, love the Philippines!

So Ignatius was taught by John, which means that there was a monoepiscopacy apparently universally enough that Ignatius is willing to say that if you aren't united to a single bishop, you don't have a church, within 20 years of John's death. Are we really saying that the church went off the rails in the East like this while John was still warm in his grave? As for the primacy of Rome, how do you account for Clement writing to Corinth to settle an internal dispute within a separate diocese? That sure sounds like the beginning of preeminent jurisdiction? Or Irenaus saying that all churches must agree with the Roman church to be orthodox?

You have so many misinterpretations and outright falsehoods in here I’m struggling to begin somewhere. Your entire comment is untrue

@@shanesolar3924 Your entire statement regarding my statement is untrue and it comes off as an ad hominem attack. So time to move on. I stand by my post as accurate. Interpretations had nothing to do with it. You don’t agree? fine.

@@mooretristan719 If we read Ignatius on his own terms, in his own setting, without anachronistically reading back into his words ninth- or thirteenth-century Roman Catholic ideas, the picture is rather different. In Ephesians 2:2, 4:1, Magnesians 2:1, and 6:1, among other places, Ignatius appealed to these three offices as roughly correlated. He had a high view of the episcopal office, the pastoral office in his scheme (and in Paul’s?) but not a hierarchical view. In Smyrnaeans 8:1 that high view of the episcopal office is on view: “Flee from divisions, as the beginning of evils. You must all follow the episkopos, as Jesus Christ followed the Father, and follow the presbytery as you would the apostles; respect the deacons as the commandment of God. Let no one do anything that has to do with the church without the episkopos. Only that Eucharist which is under the authority of the bishop (or whomever he himself designates) is to be considered valid (rev. from Michael William Holmes, The Apostolic Fathers: Greek Texts and English Translations, Updated ed. (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1999), Defenders of a monepiscopal polity (e.g., Romanists) might wish to seize on the first part of v.1 but keep reading. Christians are to follow the episkopos, which I argue is better understood here as pastor than “bishop,” as it is usually translated. It is almost impossible for us to read or hear the word bishop without loading it with notions that do not yet exist. The pastoral office here is something like that conveyed in the Dutch word Dominee (Dominie). A Dominie is a pastor, perhaps a strong pastor, but he is not a regional governor of church nor the source of the church. We are to follow the pastor and the elders. We are to respect the deacons. We are to avoid a church without a pastor and we are to receive the Supper, the eucharist, from the pastor. Agree or disagree with him, Ignatius had a high view of the visible church. As a Protestant, when properly understood, I have no problem with Ignatius. We are admonished to be subject to the rule of our pastors. I certainly reject any idea that he was referring to the contemporary Roman Catholic Church (which did not yet exist). Ignatius makes absolutely no reference to a Pope.

@@mooretristan719 Eamon Duffy is Professor of the History of Christianity, and Fellow and Director of Studies, Magdalene College, University of Cambridge. He is author of several significant works of church history including The Stripping of the Altars: Traditional Religion in England 1400-1570 (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1992) and Saints and Sinners: A History of the Popes (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1997). In the latter volume, discussing the origina of the Papacy he writes: Irenaeus thought that the Church had been ‘founded and organised at Rome by the two glorious Apostles, Peter and Paul,’ and that its faith had been reliably passed down to posterity by an unbroken succession of bishops, the first of them chosen and consecrated by the Apostles themselves. He named the bishops who had succeeded the Apostles, in the process providing us with the earliest surviving list of the popes - Linus, Anacletus, Clement, Evaristus, Alexander, Sixtus, and so on down to Irenaeus’ contemporary and friend Eleutherius, Bishop of Rome from AD 174 to 189. All the essential claims of the modern mpapacy, it might seem, are contained in this Gospel saying about the Rock, and in Irenaeus’ account of the apostolic pedigree of the early bishops of Rome. Yet matters are not so simple. The popes trace their commission from Christ through Peter, yet for Irenaeus the authority of the Church at Rome came from its foundation by two Apostles, not one, Peter and Paul, not Peter alone. The tradition that Peter and Paul had been put to death at the hands of Nero in Rome about the year ad 64 was universally accepted in the second century, and by the end of that century pilgrims to Rome were being shown the ‘trophies’ of the Apostles, their tombs or cenotaphs, Peter’s on the Vatical Hill, and Paul’s on the Via Ostiensis, outside the walls on the road to the coast. Yet on all of this the New Testament is silent. Later legend would fill out the details of Peter’s life and death in Rome - his struggles with the magician and father of heresy, Simon Magus, his miracles, his attempted escape from persecutionin Rome, a flight from which he was turned back by a reproachful vision by Christ (the ‘Quo Vadis’ legend), and finally his crucifixion upside down in the Vatican Circus at the time of the Emperor Nero. These stories were to be accepted as sober history by some of the greatest minds of the early Church - Origen, Ambrose, Augustine. But they are pious romance, not history, and the fact is that we have no reliable accounts either of Peter’s later life or the manner or place of his death. Neither Peter nor Paul founded the Church at Rome, for there were Christians in the city before either of the Apostles set foot there. Nor can we assume, as Irenaeus did, that the Apostles established there a succession of bishops to carry on their work in the city, for all the indications are that there was no single bishop at Rome for almost a century after the deaths of the Apostles. In fact, wherever we turn, the solid outlines of the Petrine succession at Rome seem to blur and dissolve. (Saints and Sinners, pg 2.)

Please yourself stay in the scriptures. don't be deceived by satan, stay in the scriptures.

@@adelbertleblanc1846 good advice from a church that pots traditions before scripture. If the church followed the bible Catholicism would cease to exist. It's no secret why your church says that not everything has to be in the bible. Because everything it teaches, is no to in the bible. That is so genius. Then it attaches anathemas to all its teachings. If the teachings were true or biblical, why the need for all the anathemas. Trent pronounces over 100 such anathemas. And you are told you can't question anything? Or you're damned to hell? Just like Peter wrote, right. "Not by constraint, but willingly, not for filthy lucre." Lucre, how much money, gold, read estate does the Vatican have? Peter also said "gold and silver have I none." So yeah, stay with scripture.

Papacy is biblical. Read book Pope Peter by Heschmeyer

This sounds great in principle but how does someone personally know and love Jesus?

@@TheCordialCatholic By faith. The Holy Spirit will lead the believer into all truth and work through him as He wills. I know this sounds very Protestant, but in practice I most closely associate myself as Orthodox. However, I love fellowshipping with all believers across invisible boundaries. Just curious though, the Church in its purest form from its inception was Orthodox-so why are you Catholic? There never was a Papacy in the beginning of the Church. Orthodoxy rejects the Papacy because a man exalted to a supposed infallible position absolutely has no Biblical basis, but is a forced inference. And the way things are happening today with a Pope that embraces one-world ecumenism, it’s not hard to see the ploys of the Enemy to derail Orthodoxy by hailing a Pope then strategically causing schism to scatter what’s left…