This is the RU-vid Channel for OrthodoxChristianTheology.com. Our mission is to help explain Orthodoxy to Christians of all stripes as well as cover topics such as Biblical exegesis, Church History, the teaching of the saints, and more.
Daniel Kakish is clearly lying or being ignorant of his own church. The syriac oriental orthodox archbishop Benjamin Atas in Sweden did bless an open lesbian arch bishop in Sweden and openly honoured her, gave her gifts and prayed blessings over her in the name of Jesus. Even though she openly is lesbian and has written books on how we should remove crosses and icons from Lutheran churches in Sweden so that muslims can use the lutheran church.
Matt. to Rev. - Peter is mentioned 155 times and the rest of apostles combined are only mentioned 130 times. Peter is also always listed first except in 1 Cor. 3:22 and Gal. 2:9 (which are obvious exceptions to the rule). Matt. 10:2; Mark 1:36; 3:16; Luke 6:14-16; Acts 1:3; 2:37; 5:29 - these are some of many examples where Peter is mentioned first among the apostles. Matt. 14:28-29 - only Peter has the faith to walk on water. No other man in Scripture is said to have the faith to walk on water. This faith ultimately did not fail. Matt. 16:16, Mark 8:29; John 6:69 - Peter is first among the apostles to confess the divinity of Christ. Matt. 16:17 - Peter alone is told he has received divine knowledge by a special revelation from God the Father. Matt. 16:18 - Jesus builds the Church only on Peter, the rock, with the other apostles as the foundation and Jesus as the Head. Matt. 16:19 - only Peter receives the keys, which represent authority over the Church and facilitate dynastic succession to his authority. Matt. 17:24-25 - the tax collector approaches Peter for Jesus’ tax. Peter is the spokesman for Jesus. He is the Vicar of Christ. Matt. 17:26-27 - Jesus pays the half-shekel tax with one shekel, for both Jesus and Peter. Peter is Christ’s representative on earth.
Peter’s Successors Claim Authority over the Church “The Church of God which sojourns in Rome to the Church of God which sojourns in Corinth….If anyone disobey the things which have been said by Him through us, let them know that they will involve themselves in transgression and in no small danger.” Pope Clement of Rome [regn. c A.D.91-101], 1st Epistle to the Corinthians, 1,59:1 (c. A.D. 96). “Thereupon Victor, who presided over the church at Rome, immediately attempted to cut off from the common unity the parishes of all Asia, with the churches that agreed with them, as heterodox; and he wrote letters and declared all the brethren there wholly excommunicate…” Pope Victor I [regn. A.D. 189-198], in Eusebius EH, 24:9 (A.D. 192).
Because of its “preeminent authority,” Irenaeus tells us, all churches must agree with the Church of Rome. Already in the second century, the Roman church is a kind of arbiter of the Faith: “For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its preeminent authority […] In this order, and by this succession, the ecclesiastical tradition from the apostles, and the preaching of the truth, have come down to us.” -Against Heresies 3:3
How did St. Irenaeus assist the papacy and the episcopacy in the early days of the Church? navigation How St. Irenaeus Helped the Pope and Bishops in the Early Church How did St. Irenaeus assist the papacy and the episcopacy in the early days of the Church? Primarily by making a rational defense of the truth of the faith. Lucien Bégule (1848-1935), “St. Irenaeus,” in the Church of St. Irenaeus in Lyon, France.(Photo: Register Files) Lucien Bégule (1848-1935), “St. Irenaeus,” in the Church of St. Irenaeus in Lyon, France. (Photo: Register Files) Father John P. Cush Blogs January 15, 2020 I had a blessing in November when the bishops of New York State were on their Ad Limina Apostolorum - I was given the opportunity to meet the Vicar of Christ, the Holy Father, Pope Francis. As a priest of the Diocese of Brooklyn in New York, and as the Academic Dean of the Pontifical North American College in Rome, Italy, I was invited to accompany the many bishops in New York State when they met with the Pope. Even though I had been serving in Rome even before Francis became pope, this was the very first time I had actually met him. As a priest studying for my doctorate in sacred theology, I was present, along with thousands of others in St. Peter’s Square on Wednesday, March 13, 2013 - the evening when Cardinal Jorge Mario Bergoglio was elected by the College of Cardinals in their conclave. Since that time, I have had the opportunity as a priest living and working in Rome to concelebrate Holy Mass with the Pope in St. Peter’s Basilica at these huge Masses. The last of which I had concelebrated was of one of my favorite saints, St. John Henry Newman (someone whom I pray will be named in the future as a Doctor of the Church). Yet, this past November was the first time I actually met the Pope. As I greeted the Pope, the realization hit me that Francis is the successor to St. Peter, the very first pope - the one whom the Lord Jesus had named the Rock, the “Petrus,” on which he would build his Church. Although it was a very different experience from meeting Pope St. John Paul II - I had served Mass for him in 1996 and then met him at an audience the day before my ordination to the diaconate in 1997 - these were, to be honest, almost mystical experiences for me! It was a beautiful confirmation of the reality of apostolic succession. Peter’s life and ministry continues in the papacy today. There is a living connection from Peter, Linus, Cletus and Clement in the early Church to our contemporary popes, John Paul II, Benedict XVI and Francis. Saint Irenaeus of Lyons, a bishop and martyr of the Church - someone whom some of the current bishops of the Church, including some from our own Episcopal conference in the United States of America, have suggested that should be considered a Doctor of Church - had a great deal to say about Apostolic Succession. As one could imagine, the Church was growing and expanding in its identity in her early days. Following the death of the last Apostle, St. John, it was the special task of the post-apostolic Fathers of the Church - men like Justin the Martyr, Ignatius of Antioch and Irenaeus of Lyons - to keep the faith alive. Irenaeus, as I had mentioned in a previous article, had been, by most accounts, a disciple of St. Polycarp, who was one of the followers of St. John the Evangelist. Thus, Irenaeus would have had a special connection, through Polycarp, to John, the Beloved Disciple - and thus, to the other Apostles, and to the first pope, Peter. How did St. Irenaeus assisted the papacy and the episcopacy Describing the rightful succession of the Apostles, Irenaeus writes: We point out here the successions of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient Church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul, that Church which has the tradition and the faith which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the apostles. With that Church, because of its superior origin, all the churches must agree, that is, all the faithful in the whole world, and it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the apostolic tradition. (Against the Heretics, 3:3:2) Since, however, it would be very tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon up the successions of all the Churches, we do put to confusion all those who, in whatever manner, whether by an evil self-pleasing, by vainglory, or by blindness and perverse opinion, assemble in unauthorized meetings; [we do this, I say,] by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its preeminent authority.” There is but one of many quotes of a Bishop from the second century. I know you know. Is his letter also hollow? it is by this succession that the “tradition from the apostles” and “the preaching of the truth” has “come down to us.” Irenaeus identifies the succession of the Roman bishops as the “most abundant proof” of authentic, orthodox faith. The central place of the bishop of Rome, the Pope, is already on full display:
I rather have a shorter book with detailed research and reference for a longer read, there is a great appeal in a book with a longer length- but not always living up to my standard. Truth be told, you actually don’t know what a book entails unless you read a few pages or its footnotes.. Don’t judge a book by its cover!
It is a good book but personally you have to be really understanding all the councils first and you have to understand it in There's so many interpretation though what's his name this Roman cat like with the mask and all of that and this other They have other documents what Pope virgilius and Pope whatever his name is with the h Honorius. If I said that right they didn't talk it about those documents in a way then they were talking about how can we know about ourselves about which documents are 2 you guys don't have a magisterium So I just don't know personally that doesn't mean I'm leaving The holy Catholic orthodox church But in a way I only could see that the only way to be true Is to argue these documents of which ones are true and how can we know which orthodox councils can we accept or not to accept that's where I'm going so I just don't know because I'm not that knowledgeable I'm only 20 years old And I have studied theology for 5 years but it doesn't mean that I know Eastern orthodox theology for 5 years only for 1 year to Be baptized and have the holy Eucharist and that's the only thing that is for me and staying as spiritual living life.
Also nogood answers? Not allowed to use the Savior's words in relationship to Isaiah. hollow?. Interesting that you null this part. I see this in many separated Brethern when discussing this topic. RC Sproul , James White have used this. I will use this argument. The burden is on you to prove that its "Hollow". My response is from bothe the Scriptures and the early pre schismatic Church Fathers.
I null it because honestly the typology is the opposite of compelling to the extreme. There is no way to put it nicely. This is why no father draws the comparison and with the litany of much clearer Petrine Scriptures, for anyone to reach this far reveals the sort of desperate, unthinking exegesis they engage in. Is 22 is about the Father and Christ. As for the clear as day Petrine Scriptures: orthodoxchristiantheology.com/2022/11/17/does-the-bible-teach-papal-primacy-or-supremacy/ Interesting the RC side has no good answers to these.
☦️Greeting Brothers, in case of Wisdom of Solomon (written by a Jewish authority Ben Sirah, contemporary of Simeon the Righteous - another huge authority for Jews), I believe St. Augustinus point was that, like the other books who were found in the dead sea scrolls, which was held as authoritative *oral tradition* (hence wasn't read in temple), and not merely a consensus. The majority is not always correct, in fact in many periods the majority was the sinners, so I wouldn't argue that our faith is like a democratic system. Yes, a ratification of the Sees is essential, but it doesn't guaranty that a synod is guided by the Spirit (see the iconoclast periods, robber synods etc.). The Church will always prevail means that even though a rogue Augustus & Patriarch will go against the faith with a so-called Ecumenical council, eventually a Pious Emperor &/or his Constantinopolian Patriarch will correct the wrong, and that what was happening also in the time of the Israelites, so I would say that both democratic majority AND papal infallibility goes out the window. So, no I disagree with you all that Rome didn't have supremacy before Constantinopolis (the point about Antioch doesn't fly, since the Orthodox view is that Rome as a city & empire was appointed by God as universal leader of Christianity & the Saints were very clear that the official seat of St. Petrus was in Rome, especially in light of the presence & authority of St. Paulus there with him), but never did Rome have absolute rule over the others, only special privileges as the leader of the Bishops, which the Pope always had to have their full consent. As for St. Theophilus of Alexandria, ok, so in light of the ancient position regarding his sainthood, some things today like a feast-day must be corrected. God bless, thank you for your work & evangelical work🙏❤️
I disagree and you seem to miss Augustine's point. No one is saying it is "democratic," democratic is mere majority vote. Robber councils lack the consensus Nicea 2 speaks of.
@@OrthodoxChristianTheology Well, let's agree to disagree regarding St. Avgustinus, but on your clearification in your 2nd point, I will accept that & agree.
@@OrthodoxChristianTheologyAlso, Craig, look again at the Juris Civilis of the Blessed Emperor Justinianus & you will find there exorcism of demonically possesed individuals, in a number of canons. Also, something that needs to be corrected today & conform to antiquity.
@@OrthodoxChristianTheology Also Craig. Go over the Juris Civilis of St. Emperor Justinianus & you will find multiple canons regarding exorcism for demonically possessed individuals - needs to be corrected by today's church & conform to this codex of Christian law..
@@OrthodoxChristianTheology Btw, brother, go over our beloved Blessed Emperor Justinianus' Juris Civilis codex of law & you will find there multiple canons about exorcism of demonically possesed individuals - today's churches need to be corrected (on that Catholics are correct).
@@OrthodoxChristianTheology Yes, how are you doing Craig? I live in Ethiopia and it is a public holiday here. We celebrate it outside of churches on main roads, especially there is a public square named after the Cross called Meskel where the patriarch and bishops also celebrate. I even saw the video of Russian Orthodox deacons singing hyms. Google it, I am sure you will enjoy.
In chapter three of volume three of Adversus Haeresēs, Iranaeus does actually mention that we ought to harmonize with the Church of Rome, not because of its location / politics / geography, but rather because Peter and Paul founded it. Edit: "Ad hanc enim ecclessiam, propter potentiorem principalitatem, necesse est omnem convenīre Ecclesiam" Potentiorem principalitatem = a more potent first place / superiority
@@CASOTTINCLASHDCclashofclansita Bro, I don't like it either man, but Iranaeus accepts Petrine supremacy because Our Lord preaches it in the scriptures.
@OrthodoxChristianTheology I mean that your appeal to Acts 15 would already presuppose you know that account is true - how else if not that it is God's self-authenticating revelation?
@@rhedrich3 If in Christian theology we cannot presuppose upon the authenticity of Acts, it is time to do away with theology. I don't start with natural revelation, natural revelation may get us to Theism, but it does not get us to Christian doctrine. Hence, philosophy cannot be the basis of our Christian epistemology, it must be revelation.
As a Georgian, I wanted to comment on Daniel’s statement on Peter the Iberian being venerated by Georgians. This is explicitly wrong and he’s getting this from the Peter the Iberian’s wikipedia page. However, there are some in the Georgian Church, who out of national pride, are petitioning him to be canonised, which the Georgian Synod has rejected. The wikipedia page incorrectly cites a Georgian bishop’s work that argues for Peter the Iberian’s canonisation as proof of his veneration in Georgia. There is more historical nuance about this topic that could be brought up but, to put it bluntly, he is definitely not recognised as a saint in the Georgian Orthodox Church
I know there are saints who were missionaries to Georgia from churches that signed onto the Henotikon. But, the saints in Antioch and Jerusalem were Chalcedonian and signed the Henotikon. So, it is bit of a messy era.
How much detail do you go into the tradition that St Peter ordained the rest of the Apostles? If it's an adequate amount it may justify my purchase, given that's all I'm after. If you don't go into too much detail regarding this, please be honest because if you don't I'm probably not gonna buy the book.
If you word it that way...TONS of detail. This is a good source for the same, but it lacks contextualization such as explaining the genealogies: orthodoxchristiantheology.com/2022/08/28/the-early-church-fathers-on-the-papacy-an-orthodox-quote-mine/
Someone should make an apologetic centered on the Roman Catholic tendency to quote mine "Pope" and running with it but using it to prove that the Patriarch of Alexandria was in charge of the early Church. I'm thinking in the vein of Fulton Sheen's vid using the logic of atheists who deny Christ's existence to prove that Napoleon never existed and it was just the "sun god leto" or whatever
In defense of Craig’s statement that all bishops have the keys I would concur that this is in the Fathers. In defense of Cameron’s statement that Peter (and Bishop of Rome) has it in a universal way is also in the Fathers. Take the following instances. 1.) Chrysostom in his commentary on John reflects on the question as to why James, and not Peter, was given the See of Jerusalem. Shouldn’t the teacher Par Excellent who was commissioned to feed the sheep have the first see of Jerusalem? To which, Chrysostom responds that James was ordained to teach in Jerusalem while Peter was ordained to teach in the whole world. Being that the whole world is the sum of every local jurisdiction shows that Chrysostom believed Peter had authority overarching all jurisdictions. This is why Peter silenced the dispute in Acts 15 prior to James issuing the formal decree. And, in the order of James the Justs reasoning, it was “Simon decreed” (a private revelation too) that was his first acknowledgement prior to appealing to Scripture. 2.) Maximus the Confessor states the following in his 12th Opuscula: “according to the canons and decrees, this See (Rome), over all the Holy Churches of God, hath universal authority and power to bind and to loose throughout the whole orb of the earth in all places.” The confessor seemed to believe that Romes authority was not circumscribed but penetrated into the domain of all jurisdictions. Since to “bind and loose” is a function of the key holder. 3.) Leo the Great in his feast of Peter and Paul states that Peter’s Cathedra in Rome is for the whole world. “you (Rome) might be made head of the world through the sacred cathedra of blessed Peter.” And again, “When the twelve apostles, in receiving the speech of all languages from the Holy Spirit, had undertaken to fill the world with the Gospel, and the territories of the earth were distributed to them, blessed Peter, chief of the order of the apostles, was assigned to the citadel of the Roman Empire. The light of truth, which was revealed for the salvation of all nations, would then pour itself out more effectively from the head itself (Rome) through the whole body of the world.” Leo was clear that each Apostle was assigned “a territory of the earth” which was distributed to them. But, the See of Peter where his bones laid to rest (Rome) is the head in which the light is poured out “to the whole world.” Given just these examples alone (there are certainly more), it is clear that Cameron’s statement is also to be found in the Fathers. Namely, Rome exercises in a Universal way what each diocese exercises locally. This is why Leo the Great says the keys, though given to all, is given to Peter “uniquely.” Good conversation. -Irenaeus
I would beg to differ. I appreciate your irenic response, but your quotations above lack credible/a usable citation and are read through a peculiar lens. For example, Maximus' statement could be about appeals and even then would be highly qualified. I won't belabor the others, especially without proper citation. Gregory the Great, in the "Universal Patriarch" debacle, was directly responding to the idea that *any* bishop had universal jurisdiction (an accusation he levied against Constantinople). His response? "Certainly Peter, the first of the apostles, himself a member of the holy and universal Church, Paul, Andrew, John, - what were they but heads of particular communities? And yet all were members under one Head...Was it not the case, as your Fraternity knows, that the prelates of this Apostolic See which by the providence of God I serve, had the honour offered them of being called universal by the venerable Council of Chalcedon. But yet not one of them has ever wished to be called by such a title, or seized upon this ill-advised name, lest if, in virtue of the rank of the pontificate, he took to himself the glory of singularity, he might seem to have denied it to all his brethren." (Epistles Book 5 Letter 18) Here, we have a pope explicitly denying that even Peter himself had a universal community, he had a "particular" one--a local jurisdiction. He even states that popes refused the title "universal" so that they would become a bishop with jurisdiction over everyone. In the late 7th century the pope ascribed himself the title and did not object to the EP's title either. Everyone understood it was a honorific. But, Gregory's overly literal response against it reveals his self understanding of papaljurisdiction, and it is not what you say. God bless.
@@OrthodoxChristianTheology Craig, Thanks for your response. First I will respond to your quote from Gregory the Great and then I will share the quotes I am referencing and explain why your possible interpretation of Maximus is hard pressed. The quote you share from Gregory is often used by those on both sides to prove or disprove the Catholic claims. If you notice, Gregory does not deny that the Council of Chalcedon imposed this title privilege (Universal) upon the Roman Pontiff (who was Leo). Gregory, with the humble mind of a monastic (which he longed to continue as), feared that the title would evoke uneasiness among the other bishops and somehow diminish their privileges. Notice, he does not, however, reject it altogether (for Leo was called it). It is clear in his 40th letter to the bishop of Alexandria that Gregory was the most humble of all popes. The bishop of Alexandria wrote so many wonderful things about the See of Rome to which Gregory sought to humbly take the eyes off him (his humility) and urges all the Petrine sees to join as “one”. (Which was not Constantinople or Jerusalem either) Having read his Morals of Job, his homilies on Ezekiel, and his Dialogues with Peter, Gregory never departed his monastic mind and constantly bemoaned his “cares” imposed upon him by the Papal office. His monastic mind conditioned him to reject any title that could potentially elate his mind. I don’t think the quote you’ve provided is a solid reproof of the Papal prerogatives. With this in mind, I turn back to Leo who did not live a rigorous monastic life even remotely likened to Saint Gregory. Leo states clearly in his 82-83 sermons his thoughts about Peter in relation to the other Apostles. When commenting on Luke 22, Leo states the following: Leo the Great: In Peter, therefore, the fortitude of all is reinforced, for the aid of divine grace is ordered in such a way that the firmness given to Peter through Christ is conferred upon the apostles through Peter. (Sermon 83) This shows that Leo believes Peter had received “immediate” firmness from Christ and the others “mediately” through Peter. This is further solidified when you consider the other quotes I shared from Sermon 82. “Yet these are the men who raised you to this glory, that, as "a holy nation, a people set apart, a priestly and royal city," you might be made HEAD OF THE WORLD through the sacred throne of blessed Peter.” (Sermon 82) In Sermon 82, Leo is comparing and contrasting secular Romes aspiration to “lord it over all as benefactors” with the established See of Peter which has true (in the fuller sense then Rome did) worldwide dominion as a Servant of all. This is no doubt informed by Daniel’s prophecy of the “stone” (Peter) which was to be thrown at the foot of the fourth kingdom (Rome) from which an eternal kingdom would be ushered in. Leo’s whole Sermon is showing how the earthly aspirations of Rome was spiritually transferred to the Catholic Church by the Cathedra set up in that City which he calls “Peter’s throne.” (That stone shall become, “a great mountain and fill the whole earth” (Dan 2: 35)) To be sure, Leo acknowledges that Peter passed through the other cities in which he established Bishops. But, Leo takes note that Rome is where he came to rest and receive “his inheritance” since it was here that the Lord showed him (when he had the ability to escape) that he was to be crucified a second time in that place. (Which, we both know what that means when we remember Moses who struck the rock twice and was condemned) Chrysostom backs Leo’s reading. Not only is “binding and loosing” exercised by the Petrine Chair in the form of appeals (as you posit) but also in the form of “teaching” to which all the faithful our bound in conscience. Chrysostom writes as follows: CHRYSOSTOM: "This spoke He, signifying by what death he should glorify God." He said not, "Should die,” but, "Should glorify God," that you may learn, that to suffer for Christ, is glory and honor to the sufferer. "And when He had spoken this, He says, Follow Me." Here again He alludes to his tender carefulness, and to his being very closely attached to Himself. And if any should say, "How then did James receive the chair at Jerusalem?" I would make this reply, that He appointed Peter teacher, not of the [Jerusalem] chair, but of the world. (Homily on John) This confirms that Peter has authority to Teach worldwide. “Strengthen your brethren.” Peter can only strengthen the brethren and feed the world if he has universal jurisdiction. Leo states that Peter is strengthened directly by Christ and the others by Peter. This is why, I believe, the Confessor also has a view of binding and loosing that cannot be limited to just hearing “appeals.” Maximus is aware of the prophecy of Daniel 2:7. All the Fathers unanimously (exception of a couple of Syriacs) recognize that the fourth kingdom of Iron was Rome. In it, a throne was to be establish by a “stone” cut out without hands (flesh and blood hasn’t revealed this to you). This is why in the same Opuscula where Maximus states that Rome has universal binding and loosing Powers he also states Rome is an “everlasting sun” at which to gaze at for the pure dogmas and decrees. Now some have attempted to cast doubt on Maximus by appealing to his tenth letter to Marinus where he is depicted as one who investigates Rome for error which proves he doesn’t believe in the Roman notion of infallibility. But, I think, the contrary, for myself, seems more plausible. Here is what I mean. In the letter to Marinus the date of its completion is shown to be between the 11th and 12th letters. This means that the letter to Marinus is surrounded by a Maximus who shows no wavering in his beliefs either prior to or posterior to his “investigation” letter. Before his investigation, he emphatically demonstrates in his 12th letter (which is prior to the tenth in chronology) that to be in communion with Rome is to be in the Catholic Church. To revolt against Rome is to revolt against the Catholic Church. It’s possible, when I think about it, that Maximus may have been challenged by his contemporaries for promoting Rome with such “flowery language.” This challenge, by those who doubted the Roman See, was on the basis of at least 2 well circulated objections. Namely, the belief that the Roman Pontiff recites the Filioque, and 2, that there was a seeming belief in something approximating Aphthartodoketism. Both of which Maximus goes through great intellectual pains in order to “cool” the stubbornness of those who had objections to the Roman Pontiff. Remember, it was Pope Theodore 1 (not the Latins in general) that was supposedly being objected to by Marinus (perhaps others vicariously through Marinus). In addition, Maximus, in several of his works, refuses to admit Honorius’s apostasy. For what purpose? It is clear to me, when I read him, that he had the greatest filial piety to the Roman Pontiff and continually fought on all sides to exonerate him from all arrows of heresy. 5 years after writing to Marinus he would state, with stronger language then he ever had, that Rome was an “everlasting sun,” and had juridical power to “bind and loose in the whole orb of the earth, in all places.” In conclusion, Maximus’s letter to Marinus seems to me to be a diplomatic one in which he seeks to gently draw those who had “suspicion” of Rome into taking shelter under its shade. Which of the two potential narratives seem to be nearer to the Confessors true intention? That’s for each individual to decide. As for me, I think what I have outlined above shows me that he believed in something approximating the Catholic papal claims. Again, for me, “the everlasting sun” cannot be conceived of (contrary to definition) as ever going dim. “I prayed for you that your faith remains.” “Strengthen the brethren.” Lastly, I will close with a quote from Syriac Father who shows this wasn’t just believed in the Greek Speaking and Latin Speaking world. EPHRAIM THE SYRIAC: "[Jesus said:] Simon, my follower, I have made you the foundation of the holy Church. I betimes called you Peter, because you will support all its buildings. You are the inspector of those who will build on Earth a Church for me. If they should wish to build what is false, you, the foundation, will condemn them. You are the head of the fountain from which my teaching flows; you are the chief of my disciples. Through you I will give drink to all peoples. Yours is that life-giving sweetness which I dispense. I have chosen you to be, as it were, the first-born in my institution [the Church] so that, as the heir, you may be executor of my treasures. I have given you the keys of my kingdom. Behold, I have given you authority over all my treasures." (Homilies 4:1 [AD 351]) One cannot give drink to all people if he only touches a limited area of jurisdiction. Have I proven the Papal claims? No. But, there is certainly some “difficulties” for the Orthodox as well as the Catholics. This should be humbly admitted and dialogue should continue.
@@MountAthosandAquinas "Thanks for your response." Same here. "...your quote from Gregory the Great...Gregory was the most humble of all popes....I don’t think the quote you’ve provided is a solid reproof of the Papal prerogatives." With all due respect, this is not a sufficient response. My book details his humble mindset. But you patently ignored the letter in question dismissing it wholesale that "he's just too humble." In that letter, amongst others, Gregory expounds an ecclesiology and rejects the title not due to humility, but its ecclesiastical ramifications. The term "particular community" is not a honorific or a humble "de-honorific," it is Gregory literally explaining what each Apostle had as an inheritance and bequeathed to their successors. "...you might be made HEAD OF THE WORLD through the sacred throne of blessed Peter.” (Leo, Sermon 82) I'm not sure if you aware that this was often a euphemism for Europe, not literally the whole world. That being said, even the more literal interpretation doesn't get you beyond the canonical privilege of Sardica, being that when Leo and later contemporary popes speak of their primacy, they cite Sardica specifically--which is much different than the issues you and I are at odds with. "Chrysostom backs Leo’s reading. Not only is “binding and loosing” exercised by the Petrine Chair in the form of appeals (as you posit) but also in the form of “teaching” to which all the faithful our bound in conscience." Rome teaching, as St Ignatius mentions in his letter to Romans and St Dionysius of Corinth the same, is a far cry from infallibility, indefectability, Vatican I no need for conciliar consent, etc, "This is why, I believe, the Confessor also has a view of binding and loosing that cannot be limited to just hearing “appeals.” Maximus is aware of the prophecy of Daniel 2:7. All the Fathers unanimously (exception of a couple of Syriacs) recognize that the fourth kingdom of Iron was Rome. In it, a throne was to be establish by a “stone” cut out without hands (flesh and blood hasn’t revealed this to you). This is why in the same Opuscula where Maximus states that Rome has universal binding and loosing Powers he also states Rome is an “everlasting sun” at which to gaze at for the pure dogmas and decrees." Perhaps. I am most open to Maximus taking a very expansive view (for very specific reasons, I think he alone explained such views presuming the authenticity of these documents which even RC scholarship admits is not completely a given). Even then, you would need to positive demonstrate your point, not presume upon it. As for the scholarship, Op 11, Adam Cooper (Catholic University in Melbourne), “it is not entirely impossible that a later writer with certain sympathies towards the Roman See-perhaps even Anastasius Bibliothecarius himself-composed and inserted the fragment [in Greek] we have come to know as Opusculum 11 in the Maximian corpus." (p. 186 t.co/SCIjgEyetC) "Lastly, I will close with a quote from Syriac Father who shows this wasn’t just believed in the Greek Speaking and Latin Speaking world. EPHRAIM THE SYRIAC: "[Jesus said:] Simon, my follower, I have made you the foundation of the holy Church...I have given you the keys of my kingdom. Behold, I have given you authority over all my treasures." (Homilies 4:1 [AD 351]) One cannot give drink to all people if he only touches a limited area of jurisdiction." You take a very selective reading of Ephraim (do you affirm with him that the Theotokos *was not* immaculately conceived?). More pertinent to this conversation, there are other explanations--Peter is the traditional origin of the episcopate. So, why couldn't he through all his successors provide spiritual drink? The passage is too vague to draw your inference and without other people explicitly making it, I don't see the point of presuming upon it. I'll give you the last word.
@@OrthodoxChristianTheology Appreciate the response. In all honesty, I don’t have much more to say by way of response. When it comes to Gregory, I don’t think I dismissed the letter. What I pointed out was he acknowledged that the title was given to Leo. This is important. Did Leo reject it? He has no indication he did and his Sermons seem to imply he holds to a kind of ecclesiology that Pope Gregory may have found to be potentially problematic. Notice, Pope Gregory does not state that the ones who gave Leo the title were wrong. But he recognized the potential ramifications. In response to Chrysostom, nobody can be said to teach “in the whole world” given that the teacher is limited by the depth his voice carries. The only way Rome can teach the whole world is by holding all of it accountable to what it speaks. Infallibility is, above all, a gift for the safeguarding of orthodox teaching. Again, Maximus calls Rome an everlasting eternal sun specifically because it shines forth the pure dogmas, councils, and decrees. In order to be everlasting it must shine at all times and places. Which is precisely his context. I will say that, in regards to the authenticity of the 11th Opu of Maximus, I think this has little bearing when considering his 12 Opuscula (written around 650) has even stronger language. But maybe you mean to imply that even letter 12 is also called into question. Nevertheless, it was translated by Dr. Farrell from the Greek and he doesn’t seem to question their authenticity. As a reader of Maximus, it seems, in my judgement, to be too similar to his style and language to imagine it was written by another. Not to mention his unwavering defense of Honorius as seen in three places in his corpus. Lastly I will just say that “demonstration” is impossible. It’s like trying to “demonstrate” from the pre-Nicean Fathers that the Nicean Fathers held to the exact faith and formulation as those in Nicea. I believe they did, but to “prove” it demonstratively is not altogether possible. But the question is “do we find intimations” of the pre Nicean Fathers that confirms Nicea is true? Yes. I believe so. The same, I believe, goes for what I have written above when considering the Fathers with the Vatican 1 claims. Demonstrate it? I can’t. But what I can demonstrate is Daniel 2, according to the Fathers, foretells the tossing of a stone into Rome. What follows? “It filled the whole world.” Without this as a backdrop, Leo and other Fathers will be misunderstood. Thanks for getting back to me. I’ll check into the link you sent. -Irenaeus
The Roman Catholic wants a monarchy in the Church but not a monarchy in the Trinity. The Orthodox wants a monarchy in the Trinity but not in the Church. This proves nothing but amuses me. “Maximal unity” is achieved by & in the Spirit not a monarchy. And Roman Catholicism is hardly “maximal unity.” Stick with the Fathers.
It is remarkable to see these two clearly intelligent, sincere gentlemen claim that they want to engage Mr. Schooping's thinking and narrative in a good spirit spend so much time smugly making presumptions and insinuations about his motives, psychology and inner spiritual disposition (e.g., all of this is simply a set up to publishing a greedy "tell all" book; do you actually think that those of us listening to your discussion are naive enough to think that books like that are vast money-makers?). Why not fulfill your professed commitment to fairness and stick to dialoguing with his stated arguments? You compromise your own otherwise useful discussion.
Instead of making videos of us attacking each other, we should be really defending our Apostolic fatih (apostolic as in Catholic, orthodox, assyrian church) against protestants and muslims. Theres already enough division we dont need more
40:09. Rather unconvincing argument. I think the gentleman to the right is missing the point entirely. I would venture to say that he doesn't pray to or cross himself in front of his driver's license?
42:10 Interesting point on Nestorianism. A disconnect in logic for me. Craig says "The Word was made flesh", ergo the creation of images (which cannot verily depict Christ, as all art is abstract in nature) is permissible? Flesh and paint are two very different things. Furthermore, Nicea II actually asserts one can depict the incarnation. "These honorable and venerable images, as has been said, we honor and salute and reverently venerate: to wit, the image of the *incarnation* of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ, and that of our spotless Lady the all-holy Mother of God, from whom he pleased to take flesh, and to save and deliver us from all impious idolatry; also the images of the holy and incorporeal Angels, who as men appeared to the just."
50:51. I believe the gentleman on the right is talking about Hiera. Will be interesting to see if he mentions Frankfurt (AD 795 (?) I believe, called by Charlemagne, had about 300 some western bishops if I remember correctly).
An hour in, and I'm really not seeing much of an actual response to the majority of the sources used by Wallace. Craig really just brushes off the issues with the Damascene's historical accounts. Not much of a rebuttal from the gentleman of the right either on this issue.
I'm very unimpressed with the gentleman on the right. 57:22 Certainly he's not insisting that the first icon (reputably painted by Luke the Evangelist, in the 1st century) was composed in the Byzantine Art Style?
Sorry what you said is not convincing at all. The primacy of bishop of Rome is stated in Scripture when Christ gave the keys of the kingdom of heaven to Peter (The Greek "you" is second person singular). Granted that the papacy did not appear overnight in the history of the Church but gradually developed with opposing views. This is something we expect because Scripture refers the Church as the Bride (singular) of Christ. The wedding between the Groom (Christ) and the Bride (the Church) will take place at the end of age depicted in the book of Revelation. Any married man had bride who is now his wife. She did not come into this world fully grown as on the day he married her. She was born as baby and grew up - on the wedding day there are parts of her that did not exist when she was a baby (or not developed yet).
if you are so deep into history, why do you refer to Catholicism as Roman Catholicism I would be interested in how the one unified Church became several separate autonomous Churches.
I'm a Catechumen in my Catholic Church and after seeing this and talking to my Orthodox friend, clearly Roman Catholicism is not the true Church. The Pope is a heretic! Please pray for me.
What? As a medical professional I encourage multiple opinions from sources of merit. The patriarchs are cutting each other out all the time schism after schism. The Russian Orthodox Church just set up competing Churches in Alexandria In a lot of not all cases don't even acknowledge the Catholic Churches baptism as valid requiring re/ baptism in direct contradiction to the Nicean Creed pre 1054. Grass is not greener. It's driven by ethnic and pseudo political expediancy
I shocked a Greek Orthodox monk with a passage from the Historical Introduction to the Council of Ephesus because that council said it taught infallibly. That council's fathers also believed that Pope Celestine taught with St. Peter's authority. So, if they were right, does that show that Celestine had primacy of Jurisdiction? If you read the quotation below and the document I'm quoting it from, it may help you see why my conscience won't let me be Eastern Orthodox. "Finally, Celestine himself, after the conclusion of the whole matter, sends a letter to the holy Council of Ephesus, which he thus begins: “At length we must rejoice at the conclusion of evils.” The learned reader understands where he recognizes the conclusion; that is, after the condemnation of Nestorius by the infallible authority of an Ecumenical Council, viz., of the whole Catholic Church. He proceeds: “We see, that you, with us, have executed this matter so faithfully transacted.” All decree, and all execute, that is, by giving a common judgment. Whence Celestine adds, “We have been informed of a just deposition, and a still juster exaltation:” the deposition of Nestorius, begun, indeed, by the Roman See, but brought to a conclusion by the sentence of the Council; to a full and complete settlement, as we have seen above: the exaltation of Maximianus, who was substituted in place of Nestorius immediately after the Ephesine decrees; this is the conclusion of the question. Even Celestine himself recognises this conclusion to lie not in his own examination and judgment, but in that of an Ecumenical Council. And this was done in that Council in which it is admitted that the authority of the Apostolic See was most clearly set forth, not only by words, but by deeds, of any since the birth of Christ. At least the Holy Council gives credence to Philip uttering these true and magnificent encomiums, concerning the dignity of the Apostolic See, and “Peter the head and pillar of the Faith, and foundation of the Catholic Church, and by Christ’s authority administering the keys, who to this very time lives ever, and exercises judgment, in his successors.” This, he says, after having seen all the Acts of the Council itself, which we have mentioned, so that we may indeed understand, that all these privileges of Peter and the Apostolic See entirely agree with the decrees of the Council, and the judgment entered into afresh, and deliberation upon matters of Faith held after the Apostolic See." ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf214/npnf214.x.ii.html
I cited The Historical Introduction to the Council of Ephesus because I'm curious about why the Eastern Orthodox Churches rejected council infallibility when at least one council accepted it before the schism between East and West in about 1054. Those Churches also insist that the Pope has no primacy of jurisdiction. If he doesn't, then please explain why the Council Fathers believed that Pope Celestine taught with St. Peter's authority at the Council of Ephesus. If the council didn't treat the excommunication as final, the Council Fathers may have waited for Celestine to approve it. I'm sure you know Catholics believe that for a council to teach anything infallibly, the Pope must sign off on what it intends to teach. I'd love to know why my Greek Orthodox monk acquaintance didn't know that the fathers in Ephesus thought their council taught infallibly. Meanwhile, you may want to review some Catholic beliefs about ecumenical councils and infallibility. If an ecumenical council teaches infallibly, infallibility protects only dogmatic definitions and anathemas. An excommunication isn't either a dogmatic definition or an anathema. Here's the Catholic Encyclopedia's article about infallibility published in about 1913. www.newadvent.org/cathen/07790a.htm#IIIA
Ortho bros pounding sand losing hope. Globally 100ks of orthodox convert to evangelicalism/Pentacostalism every year (in Eastern Europe, Africa and MidEast.)
Around the 22:00 mark, I'd say that the Pope claiming to be the head of the Church is a deincarnation, as Christ is the one monarch and head of the Church. And its basically blasphemy for the Pope to take Christs place.
I just don't get how Papal supremacy would even be possible before modern technology tbh, imagine trying to enforce this from the begining of Christianity to the 1800s, it's impossible. The looser Orthodox method is the only practical way tbh
The sole scripture besides John 16:7. “…I will send Him to you.” Since we reject Sola Scriptura, we can omit this argument that it must be in the NT Canon and it is only once mentioning Father. Relying on the Omission of “father” with “proceeds” is good theology? What if the Filioque was omitted from the Creed simply because the Creed was also a clarifying reaction to heresy? The EO falsely assert by implying Catholics require everyone to say “and the Son.” They do not. The Filioque does not threaten the mystery of the Holy Trinity. Seems like theological fearmongering by the Orths.
46:00 Why do the guy read Bishop of Rome in this typology? It is eisegesis.. Also, The Church Fathers saw Christ as Heliakim/the prime minister who received the Kingdom from the Father and than he gave to the 12 Apostles/Ministers in the figure of Peter. St. Cyril of Alexandria: "But when he says, "I will call Eliakim (whose name is interpreted as the resurrection of God)... then he says, "All the glory of his father's house shall hang upon him" (Isaiah 22:20-24). And what other house of Christ's Father could there be but the Church? But whoever is glorious in it will trust in Christ, and not only one who is glorious according to the judgment of the world, but even if he is insignificant according to this judgment, for the righteous and unfeigned God of all men, on the contrary, rewards everyone according to the measure of his spiritual age, since in spiritual respect some are fathers, while others are still children, adolescents, young men. (Commentary on the prophet Isaiah). St. Jerome But when thou art cast down from thy service, I will call my servant Eliakim, to whom I said in another place, "Great is this, that thou shouldest be called my servant" (Isaiah 49:6). Eliakim means the resurrecting God, or God's resurrection. Therefore this resurrecting God, who is the son of Helkiah, i.e., the Lord's portion, shall receive thy place, and shall be clothed with thy garments, and strengthened with thy girdle, so that what thou hast in the letter, he shall possess in the spirit, and shall be the father of them that dwell in Jerusalem, i.e., in the vision of the world, by which the church is signified, and the father to the house of Judah, wherein is the true profession of faith. That is why He Himself says to the apostles, "Children, I am still with you few (John 13:33), and to another, "Child, your sins are forgiven you (Matt. 9:2), and to another, "Children, your faith will save you (Luke 7:50). I will give him, he says, the key of the house of David,-to him that openeth, and no man shutteth; that shutteth, and no man openeth (Rev. 3). And this very key shall be upon his frame, i.e. in his sufferings, according to that which is written in another place: his rulership shall be upon his frame (Isaiah 9:6). For what He opens by His suffering it is impossible to open, and what He forbids in the rites of the Jews it shall not be opened by any other; for I will fix that nail in a firm place, in a sure place, where there is a congregation of believers. Therefore those who believe in Christ are called faithful. And he shall be the throne of the glory of his father's house, that is, the church, and they shall hang upon him all the glory of his father's house. That is why in the Gospel it is written, "But all the people held fast to it" (Luke 19:48), which was not only the glory of his father's house, but also the glory of his father's house. which was not only at that time, but is fulfilled to this day, so that wisdom and truth, and all that Christ is called, are held upon it, as if they were different vessels. There are different kinds of vessels, instead of which Aquila translated sasaim and sephoth, which Simmachus translates grandchildren and mixed, so that both the apostles and all believers, i.e. sons of sons, and mixed from all nations, are held upon it, - from drinking vessels, instead of which Theodotion put aganoth, for both small and great shall believe in the Lord. The drinking vessels are, I think, the apostles filled with vital waters, of whom it is said, Bless God from the spring of Israel (Psalm 67:27). (Interpretation on the book of the prophet Isaiah. Book V)
@@Jerônimo_de_Estridão According to Scripture, Christ founded a visible Church that would never go out of existence and had authority to teach and discipline believers (see Matt. 16:18-19, 18:17). St. Paul tells us this Church is “the pillar and foundation of truth” (1 Tim. 3:15) and it was built on “the foundation of the apostles” (Eph. 2:20). Paul also tells us the Church would have a hierarchy composed of deacons (1 Tim. 2:8-13); presbyters, from where we get the English word priest (1 Tim. 5:17); and bishops (1 Tim. 3:1-7). Paul even instructed one of these bishops, Titus, to appoint priests on the island of Crete (Titus 1:5). In A.D. 110, St. Ignatius of Antioch told his readers, “Follow the bishop, even as Jesus Christ does the Father, and the presbytery as you would the apostles; and reverence the deacons, as being the institution of God. Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop.” (Letter to the Smyrnaeans, 8) Unlike the apostles, Christ’s Church would exist for all ages, so the apostle’s passed on to their successors the authority to bind and loose doctrine (see Matt. 18:18), forgive sins (see John 20:23), and speak on behalf of Christ (see Luke 10:16). Acts 1:20, for example, records how after Judas’s death Peter proclaimed that Judas’s office (or, in Greek, his bishoporic) would be transferred to a worthy successor. In 1 Timothy 5:22, Paul warned Timothy to “not be hasty in the laying on of hands” when he appointed new leaders in the church. At the end of the first century, Clement of Rome, who according to ancient tradition was ordained by Peter himself, wrote, “Our apostles knew through our Lord Jesus Christ that there would be strife for the office of bishop . . . [so they made preparations that] . . . if they should die, other approved men should succeed to their ministry” (Letter to the Corinthians 44:1-3). As the royal son of David, Christ is the owner of the key of David, but this doesn’t mean he can’t give to Peter, as his “prime minister,” the keys to his heavenly kingdom. In the passage to which Revelation 3:7 alludes, Isaiah 22:20-23, Eliakim is made master of the palace, a post roughly equivalent to prime minister. As the king’s right-hand man, the master of the palace is given the “key of the House of David.” Keys symbolize authority, so bestowing the key to the House of David upon Eliakim is equivalent to giving him, as the king’s duly appointed representative, authority over the kingdom. Revelation 3:7 speaks of Jesus as the “holder of the key of David.” Some argue this means he fulfills the role Eliakim foreshadowed in Isaiah 22:20-23. They claim this excludes a prophetic application of this text to Peter by Christ in Matthew 16:18-19. There’s a problem with this argument. In Isaiah 22 Eliakim is master of the palace-the king isn’t. Eliakim possesses the key of the kingdom not as its owner, but as one deputed to oversee the king’s affairs. If we apply this to Christ, then we must conclude he’s not the true messianic king, merely his prime minister, the Messiah’s chief representative! Although Jesus is called the “holder of the key of David” in Revelation 3:7, he doesn’t hold it as Eliakim did. As the son of David, Jesus is the heir to the throne of his ancestor (Lk 1:32-33). He really is the king, not the master of the king’s palace, as was Eliakim. As king, Jesus is free to bestow the keys of his kingdom on whomever he wishes-without losing the authority those keys represent. It’s the Catholic position that this is precisely what Jesus does in Matthew 16:18-19. Peter identifies Jesus as the Messiah, which means, among other things, acknowledging his kingship. Christ then shows his kingly authority by bestowing on Peter something only the king could give-the keys of the kingdom of heaven-thus making Peter the messianic equivalent of Eliakim. So what does Isaiah reveal that Jesus is doing here in Matthew’s Gospel, and how does it affirm the papacy? Jesus is in effect appointing Peter as chief steward (similar to a prime minister today) over the Church, as Eliakim once was over Israel. The chief steward in the Old Testament had remarkable authority. Archeologist Roland de Vaux and Old Testament scholar Tryggve N.D. Mettinger liken the office to Joseph’s position under Pharaoh. Recall that all of Pharaoh’s possessions, including his own house or palace, were placed under Joseph’s care (Gen. 39:5; Ps. 105:21). Eliakim is similarly described as “over the [king’s] house” as its master or chief steward (2 Kings 19:2; Isa. 36:22). His jurisdiction as “father” extends not only over the house of David, but “to the inhabitants of Jerusalem and to the house of Judah” (Isa. 22:21). (It’s worth noting here that after King Solomon’s reign ended, Israel split in half, into the northern kingdom, called Israel, and southern kingdom, called Judah. During the stewardship of Eliakim under King Hezekiah, the northern kingdom was under Assyrian occupation. Thus, by process of elimination, all that remained of Israel was under Eliakim’s jurisdiction. It is still appropriate to say that he possessed universal jurisdiction over the kingdom.) Let’s talk about the connection between Eliakim and Peter. First, note the common structure: someone with key(s) of a kingdom (David/heaven) exercises definitive use of them (open-shut/bind-loose). “Opening and shutting” probably refers to the chief steward’s ability to decide who may see the king based on the steward opening or shutting the doors of the palace or any other royal estate. “Binding and loosing” is a common Jewish phrase for the authority to interpret Scripture and thereby decide who may enter or be excommunicated from God’s community. There are other uncanny similarities between Peter and Eliakim that bolster the papacy. Both are compared to an object-Peter to a rock (Matt. 16:18) and Eliakim to a peg (Isa. 22:23). Their names always appear first on the list of their kings’ servants (2 Kings 18:18; Matt. 10:2). They both represent a transition from corruption to purity: Eliakim replaces the corrupt Shebna (Isa. 22:15-22), and Peter (as the rock of Christ’s Church) triumphs over the pagan rock of Caesarea Philippi. The rock had been a worship site for the deity Pan, and the city itself was named in honor of Caesar Augustus by Philip the Tetrarch, Herod the Great’s son. Jesus’ bold proclamation about Peter and the Church occurs in a location entrenched in paganism. The final and most important sign pointing to the Isaiah-Matthew parallel is Jesus himself. Nathan prophesies in 2 Samuel 7:8-17 that one of David’s sons will establish David’s kingdom forever and be God’s son. Luke 1:32-33 boldly declares, “He [Jesus] will be great, and will be called the Son of the Most High, and the Lord God will give to him the throne of his ancestor David. He will reign over the house of Jacob forever, and of his kingdom there will be no end.” Jesus even quotes Isaiah 61:1-2 to disclose his messianic identity (Luke 4:16-21). Not only does the Isaiah-Matthew parallel make perfect sense in light of Jesus’ royal ancestry, but it is expected, given Jesus’ tendency to mention Isaiah when his identity is revealed. No matter what controversies surround the papacy, we can know with confidence that the office was instituted by Christ. The pope is not just another bishop or theologian, but is the highest royal official in Christ’s Davidic kingdom. Like the Israelites in the Old Testament, we are under the kingship of David’s son and the chief steward of the son’s kingdom. www.catholic.com/magazine/online-edition/refuting-papal-myths-the-papacy-is-unbiblical-and-unhistorical
@@geoffjs 😴😴😴 I asked for quotes of the "early fathers" not for papist copium eisegesis. You said "the early fathers see Peter as the Prime Minister...". Prove it. And what Father, if he conects that with Peter, apply it to the Bishop of Rome, and not his own Patriarch?.
@@Jerônimo_de_Estridão Some quotes of the early fathers, more about the papacy than the term prime minister. Consider this from St. Ignatius in A.D. 110: Take care to do all things in harmony with God, with the bishop presiding in the place of God, and with the presbyters [priests] in the place of the council of the apostles, and with the deacons, who are most dear to me, entrusted with the business of Jesus Christ (Letter to the Magnesians 6.1). There was a succession of the apostles, and this succession-called apostolic succession-continues to the present day. Every bishop in the Catholic Church has been ordained in a direct line from the original twelve apostles of Christ (see Acts 1:20) . St. Clement of Rome, one of the Church’s first popes and a disciple of Peter, writes around A.D. 80: Our apostles knew through our Lord Jesus Christ that there would be strife for the office of bishop. For this reason, therefore, having received perfect foreknowledge, they appointed those who have already been mentioned and afterwards added the further provision that, if they should die, other approved men should succeed to their ministry (Letter to the Corinthians 42:4-5, 44:1-3 [A.D. 80], emphasis added). An early record of the line of successive popes (and bishops of Rome), beginning with St. Peter, is provided by St. Irenaeus at the tail end of the second century (see Against Heresies 3.3.3). From the beginning, it was understood that the bishop of Rome was the “chief” bishop, the one who held “the keys to the kingdom of heaven” (see Matthew 16:18-20). Here is a later excerpt from the early Church (there are earlier examples that confirm the bishop of Rome’s primacy within the college of bishops). St. Cyprian of Carthage writes in A.D. 251: Indeed, the others were also what Peter was [apostles], but a primacy is given to Peter, whereby it is made clear that there is but one Church and one chair. . . . If someone does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he [should] desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that he is in the Church? (The Unity of the Catholic Church 4, emphasis added). Now, when you read the New Testament, here’s what you’ll find regarding St. Peter: 1. Every time the apostles are listed, Peter is the first to be mentioned (see Matthew 10:2, Luke 6:13-16, Acts 1:3). 2. Peter is called the chief apostle (see Matthew 10:2). 3. Peter is listed before James and John whenever Jesus’ inner circle of three is listed (See Matthew 17:1; Mark 5:37, 9:2, 14:33; Luke 8:51, 9:28). 4. On several occasions Peter is the only name mentioned when referring to the group of disciples. St. Paul does this (see 1 Corinthinans 9:5, 15:5). St. Luke does this (see Acts 2:37), as does St. Mark (Mark 16:7). 5. Peter’s name (in the forms of Peter, Kepha, and Cephas) is mentioned in the New Testament more than all of the other apostles’ names put together. This is why the Church has remained so rock-solid through the ages. That the people of God would heed his prayer that “they may be one,” Jesus, in his infinite wisdom, built his house upon the rock (see Matthew 7:25; 16:18). Peter (from Petros, meaning rock) was given the strength to uphold the integrity of the Church (see Luke 22:32). The apostles and their successors are established guardians of the deposit of faith-fallible men with a special gift from God to help them do the job (see 1 Timothy 4:14, 2 Timothy 1:6)-led by a chief guardian who represents God as his prime minister until he returns once and for all (see Isaiah 22). God’s word, which the bishops protect, has been handed down both in written and oral forms to the Church (see 1 Thessalonians 2:15, 1 Peter 1:25). The Bible was never considered the sole authority in the early Church. The Bible (see 1 Timothy 3:16), along with Tradition (see 1 Thessalonians 2:13, 2 Thessalonians 2:15, 1 Corinthians 11:2) and the teaching authority of the Church (see Matthew 16:18, 18:18) served as a tripod-as they do today-holding the Church steady in faith and morals.
@32:30 It was not only the Melkites Craig, but the Western Church in general (before V1) didn't saw their post-schism councils as ecumenical. In the Council of Constance we read: "...that as long as I am in this fragile life I will firmly believe and hold the catholic faith, according to the traditions of the apostles, of the general councils and of other holy fathers, especially of the *eight holy universal councils* - namely the first at Nicaea, the second at Constantinople, the third at Ephesus, the fourth at Chalcedon, the fifth and sixth at Constantinople, the seventh at Nicaea and the eighth at Constantinople- as well as of the *general councils* at the Lateran, Lyons and Vienne, and I will preserve this faith unchanged to the last dot and will confirm..." They had their "Lateran Synods" with their one Patriarch, we had our "Blachernæ Synods" with our four Patriarchs, but they get delusional and start to call them ecumenical, we don't.
Rome was an apostolic Throne and also had primacy in the early Church. Many Popes of Rome are orthodox Saints and Great Fathers. Rome is the Mother Church of ALL CHURCHES IN THE WEST BUT NOT IN THE EAST. ROME became more and more secular, full of pride and arrogance, hungry for power amd money. THEY THOUGHT THEY ARE ABOVE JERUSALEM OR THE ANCIENT PATRIARCHS.
@@Seanain_O_hEarchai oh, but they have see Pope Pius IX binding of the heresy of papal infallibility as defined at Vatican I. Or the popes during the times of the greogrian reforms who forced clerics to split from their wives and referred to the wives as worse than whores.
I enjoyed your guys’ charitable discussion about Church history! I don’t mind that the Eastern Orthodox Church doesn’t believe in Papal primacy/infallibility. We believe in a more presidential authority, EO in a more democratic authority. We’re both in communion with Patriarch(s) and Bishops who hold Apostolic Succession, and that’s a blessing from God to celebrate. There are no “Churches” outside apostolic ones, and it makes me glad when I see members of the Churches collaborate and have fruitful discussions. God bless you guys.
