@@marcuswilliams7448 Read Mt 18:15-18 more carefully if you can find them given keys. They're given authority, but not keys. They only have authority insofar as they're united to him to whom the keys were given.
God didn’t want there to be a king but the people begged for one so they could look like the world. To me the argument isn’t the most compelling, not to say Papal authority is wrong because it could be right, I’m on a journey right now. However that specific argument was ill stated, but he’s a clever guy!
Yeah, people who leave the church - this church or that - over scandal have forgotten that humanity is desperate and wicked, and that's why we pursue the truth of the gospel and need the Savior in the first place.
Or maybe they took the idea that you shall know them by thier fruit seriously. Look at the actual effects of the divide between catholic and orthodox. In catholisism, you see a departure of spirit and tradition. Orthodoxy stays the same, despite being beaten on from all sides.
The Eastern Orthodox (officially the Orthodox Catholics) do not outright reject the Papacy. The Orthodox believe that the Pope had a historical role as the primus inter pares among the patriarchs and believe this proper role should be restored to the Pope of Rome. However, they reject innovative teachings that have come from Rome with regard to the Papacy, most notably the dogma of Papal Infallibility (from Vatican I) and universal and supreme jurisdiction of the Pope. Both of these have no basis in the teachings of the Fathers, Greek or Latin. Hence, these are the main reasons the Orthodox cannot come into union with Rome.
Wrong. We also have theological differences like the teaching on the immaculate conception, purgatory, indulgences, etc which are ALL FOREIGN to Orthodoxy and on and on
Wrong. We also have theological differences like the teaching on the immaculate conception, purgatory, indulgences, etc which are ALL FOREIGN to Orthodoxy and on and on
@@degamas1 yes those teachings you mentioned are also differences but minor compared to the papacy. Most of what you mentioned have to do with Eastern vs. Latin theology. For instance, the Latin view of original sin necessitates the dogma of the immaculate conception so the Theotokos didn’t inherit Adam’s guilt, but the Orthodox still believe she was all immaculate and sinless. Same with Purgatory. The Latins view of temporal punishment of venial sin after death necessitates a state of purging fire. The Orthodox do view a state of purification after death but do not define it and dogmatise it like the Latins. Often theologians call this the ‘toll houses’ but it’s not official teaching.
@@livmilesparanormalromanceb6891 ....All Christian Denominations should be kind to one another because we get Much hostility from secular culture and Other religions.
@@PhilAlumb I agree. But, in all reality, Protestants tend to lash out at Catholics before they would a satanist or atheist. That happened at a satanic meeting in Canada. Catholics and Protestants came together to protest the satanists, ending up turning on the Catholic group.
Both Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholics should pray, in true fidelity, that our two Churches can once again become one. Christ’s last prayer to his father is that “they do not fight among each other”.We all give to the evil one when we do not heed Christ’s prayer. May we all get beyond our pride of wanting to say we are right to we are one in Christ. Amen.
@@novusrex9809Yeah sure it was basically an ultimatum, either the Orthodox nations accept the Pope and the Western nations help them against the Ottoman Empire or else. Not really 'whole hearted'.
Guys this is a great discussion, we Catholics and Orthadox need these discussions together in order to unite again. If two siblings fight and seperate from one another they must sit and resolve the misunderstandings that have lead to this and strive for unification. Please pray for this cause amd pray for the churches in Lebanon who unite today to pray for the tragedy that has rocked the country to its core. Amen
@@keytube1012 And then you sold indulgencies, devised a teaching of purgatory, even invaded Byzantine Empire and pillaged it thus contributing to the rise of the Ottoman Empire, later on you protected and procured some of the most vicious Nazis who killed millions of Orthodox Christians in Eastern Europe, even sanctified some of the Nazi supporters like bishop Alojzije Stepinac... There will never be unity. Unless all of your officials admit your wrongdoings, make it right and humbly repent. Only then you will be able to come back to one true Church.
TheThreatenedSwan The reason he is like that is because he was involved in Sedevacantism and SSPX during his time as a Catholic. He saw the looniest people imaginable and thinks all Catholics fall in those camps. Not excusing him, just explaining why he is like that.
This was so insightful and wonderful to listen to! I don't know why, but I could listen to the podcasts with Trent Horn for so many hours and would like to continue without break. It is each time a pleasure to hear about the Catholic Church and its tenet from Trent Horn!
Here’s food for thought. Let’s say Peter is indeed the rock upon which Christ built his church. BUT.... before Peter established the church in Rome, he was the first bishop of Antioch, and the Antiochian church is now a part of the Eastern Orthodox Communion. So why should peter being the rock give the Roman church legitimacy if the Orthodox have the first church Peter founded .
@@belyen6330 Peter was the first Bishop of Rome, but Rome was not the first church he was the bishop of, first he was the bishop of Antioch, therefore the pope is not the only successor of Peter.
Have you read the documents from the Ecumenical councils and how the churches were ranked in the councils? Read the documents from the council of Constantinople 381AD. Peter's successor, as in the one who took his place after he died, was the bishop of Rome. He would've appointed a bishop in Antioch as well, but he himself carried on to the heart of civilization (which was Rome) where both he and Paul were martyred for the faith. Due to this and the significance of the church of Rome- historically Rome was seen as the first among other apostolic churches, and the Bishop of Rome as both the first among bishops and the director successor of Peter.
How does Peter being the rock upon whom Christ would build his Church, then lead to him being infallible, and then eventually to a succession of leaders/Popes?
@@coastalcraftsmen9155 Peter being leader and Rock of Church obviously confirms the Tradition of Apostles that there is a leader System.... We should imitate the tradition of Apostles... Philippians 4:9 "Whatever you have learned or received or heard from me, or seen in me, put into practice. And the God of peace will be with you."
pinoy sarisari Are those traditions inspired? Don’t think you can equate Paul’s instruction to imitate his actions, as then becoming traditions. It’s more like live how I’m living, act as I act, love as I love. Not funny hats and gold staffs. The succession of popes doesn’t even follow from building the church upon Peter... ludicrous, no biblical backing to have a succession popes.
It put me to sleep. From where I sit, Trent is getting "lost in the weeds" about a topic that is easy to google. His delivery is also flat and dry. I was hoping to hear a compare and contrast between Catholocism and Orthodox and some real important reasons why they didn't just join the Orthodox church. The hyper-academic discussion on apostolic succession ... as their reason for not going over to Orthodoxy is not believable. People make most of their decisions based on emotion so unless Trent is one of the few people on Earth who are Uber-intellectual and override their emotions then ... well the listeners are not. The brain is not set up to be that logical, what typically happens is that we create an attachment to an idea via our emotions then our minds look for "reasons" to defend the decision. Eastern Catholics have a form of worship that looks SO MUCH like Orthodoxy that I really wanted to know why they didn't fully embrace Orthodoxy but then we got a big argument about "how many angles dance on the head of a pin."
@@Kevin5279 Keyboard warrior? he has said his opinion that's why comment sanctions exists and if there will be chance trust someone will tell Trent exact same thing
<a href="#" class="seekto" data-time="202">3:22</a> I have been pondering on this in like the last 24 hours and it occurred to me that Christ was coming into a Covenant with St. Peter!! This is a great way to explain it to Evangelicals who love the whole "Our God is a Covenant-keeping God!!!" rhetoric. I mean St. Peter gets a name-change like Abraham did. And just as Abraham is the Father of The Old Covenant, St. Peter is the Father of the New Covenant. And I'm sure this understanding has already been covered/discussed somewhere in Church History/by the Church Fathers....nevertheless I thank God for the Revelation.
@@delvaassante5699because they have to in order to uphold the rest of their theology. They disagree with catholics on many things so of course they cannot concede this point. Otherwise they would have to accept the pope telling them that they are wrong about eucharist, mary and sola scriptura. Theyre really grasping on straws on this topic. Whenever im somewhat split on a theological issue like I used to be about mary, i remember that one party is legitimised by christ and the other isnt.
I have been in the Protestant-what I prefer to call Reformed-tradition since the Lord called me. I have been incredibly opposed to Catholic theological distinctives in the past…however, I have been softening recently. The rationalization in Peter’s name change in the reformed tradition has never been completely satisfying. I am starting to become more open to the papal claim because of it. It does not make sense to rename Peter to “rock” if he was not the rock the Lord was referring to in some way. Please pray that the Lord lead me into all truth brothers and sisters. Do NOT pray that I become Catholic, please merely pray that He lead me into all truth. Maybe that is the direction He will lead. Regardless, may He bless and protect you all, and-more importantly-use you mightily to reach the lost for Him. That is the only reason we are here. May we be strong and courageous and warn of the judgement to come.
@@AlixPrappas hello Alix, I will include you in my Mass and Rosary intentions. Generally speaking including a person in one's prayer intentions in Catholicism involves simply bringing a person to God The Father (either through Jesus' intercession in The Mass or Mary's intercession in The Rosary) and asking Him to pour out His Graces on the person, removing blockages in their life and putting them on the path He has called them on. So no, I won't be specifically praying that you become Catholic, but do keep it at the back of your mind that God desires that the entire world be Catholic. Finally, I need to leave this on here for you:- Protestantism is not Christianity. I have been talking about this Truth on m y c o m m u n i t y page for almost a year now. I will be making videos discussing it all and calling all Protestants out of Protestantism in the very near future, God willing.. God bless.
@@thekingslady1If you consider me at all in your prayers, I will be much appreciative of your graciousness my friend. Regarding Protestantism, I want to humbly urge you to reconsider. Firstly, the categories of “Protestant,” “Catholic,” and “Orthodox”-though not without important meaning-are intellectual categories that crear unnecessary division. It grieves the Lord to see us divided. We are to be of one mind are we not? An example of this is the term Catholic itself. All traditions that affirm the nicene creed-“Protestants” included-assert that there is one Catholic Church to which they profess allegiance. The term Catholic as it is used now is a title rather than a descriptive word as it was used in the patristic era. I want to again humbly urge you to loosen your category of who your brothers and sisters are, to not unnecessarily reject those that you will share in the Lord’s presence for eternity. Those who profess the Nicene creed, diligently seek the Lord, and to live within His will are your brothers and sisters. They may be in error on doctrine or practice, but they aren’t salvific errors. Please consider this.
The example of The Office is a very good one for why a man-made institution needs it to be only one chief, but bad example on why a God-made institution would need it to be just one.
Orthodoxy acknowledges the primacy of the Pope, its just to what extent. The Roman Catholics think the Pope should be an absolute monarchy whereas the Orthodox think that the monarchy has limited powers and those powers are shared among the other patriarchs.
@@richardb263 when you're getting meried your making a vow to god "not to cheat not to abuse and etc." If someone beaks the promise than divorce is justified but it's not like you can just sign documents, your pastor has to break the oath that you as a couple gave to god. English isn't my first language and because of that it's hard to explain, i hope you understood 💚
Both my parents belong to eastern catholic churches. One parent belongs to the greek Melkite Catholic church and the other to the Maronite catholic church, I love both catholic church's. We were raised maronite. In my teens I identify as a Roman Catholic and since then I always went to mass on my own, even Christmas and Easter. My royalty is to Rome.
You canonically belong to the Church of your father. You are not Roman Catholic. If your father is Maronite, you are a Maronite. If your father is Melkite, you are Melkite.
@@davidfigueroa8188 That's a common claim I have seen only in South and South East Asia. Are you from there? (it could look like a Kerala/Goa name). Canonically you belong to the church you were baptized from, that could even be different from your parents'.
bobon123 That’s completely false. This article is written by a canon lawyer. It discusses this question. canonlawmadeeasy.com/2016/12/01/dont-marry-validly-ukrainian-catholic-priest-eastern-churches-part/
I'm not Catholic, but something came into my mind the other day. Peter asked to be crucified upsidedown because he didn't feel worthy to die in the same way Jesus died. Like a tree growing next to a lake is reflected in the water, Peter's cross was a reflection of Christ's. Jesus is the Shepherd above Peter, but Peter is sub-shepherd...
If I had a choice, I would be Eastern Catholic. It was through Orthodoxy that I discovered the True Faith that is Catholicism. However, the closest Eastern Catholic parish is a mission that’s 2 hours away from me. So for the time being, I am a Roman Catholic. While I love the Roman Rite to the Mass, I do miss quite a lot of elements from the Eastern Rite that was so attractive in Orthodoxy.
Orthodoxy is the truth. Not eastern Catholicism. Although they are closer to the true faith. They still recognize the supremacy and infallibility heresy.
The Roman Catholic church and the Orthodox church belong together. We were one church for the first thousand years and I think God in his time will bring us back together. It seems in His providence that the two will come back together and mutually re-enrich and balance one another in their unique strengths, excesses and defects and we will be one body healed.
1- Peter never claimed to be the supreme leader of the entire church. 2- The apostles never claimed he was the supreme leader of the church. 3- The papacy (supreme bishop leader of the entire church) is never mentioned as a church office in any of the offices of the church described in the New Testament. See I Corinthians <a href="#" class="seekto" data-time="748">12:28</a>-29; Ephesians <a href="#" class="seekto" data-time="140">2:20</a>-21, <a href="#" class="seekto" data-time="191">3:11</a>; I Timothy <a href="#" class="seekto" data-time="181">3:1</a>-13 and Titus <a href="#" class="seekto" data-time="65">1:5</a>-9
I’ve visited the Eastern Orthodox Church and love love love the Divine Liturgy. Contemporary Catholicism should take lessons. However the Papacy is the singular aspect of the faith that keeps me Roman. I found even more genuine love and devotion in the East for the Blessed Mother than in the West!!! The East helped prop my love and devotion the The Most Holy Theotokos. As JPII said “The church must breath with her two lungs.” Union with the East is not far fetched I pray for the unity God wills!
The problem with papal superiority is that it isn’t true historically. Even in Acts 15, Peter is subject to James who was the Bishop of Jerusalem. Moreover, to believe in the modern papacy as fact one would have to believe in the progress of dogma - incredibly dangerous and wrong heresy.
Faulty logic. Christ even states his kingdom is not of this world. Isaiah was referencing Christ. And read further down The rock Christ referenced was written in the feminine. Not the masculine. Latin vulgate is a terrible translation. For us Orthodox Christ is the head on earth and in heaven.
But the church is like a sacrament: a physical sign of a spiritual reality. So that kingdom not of this world is made real by the sign of the physical church, with the Rock given the keys just like a prime minister when the king was away, just as the King right now is away until His return.
Faulty logic. Christ stating His kingdom is not of this world means that its power and origin are not of man. God promised to establish the Davidic kingdom forever on earth. (2 Sam. 7:16; Psalm 89:3-4; 1 Chron.17:12,14). Matt. 1:1 - Matthew clearly establishes this tie of David to Jesus. Jesus is the new King of the new House of David, and the King will assign a chief steward to rule over the house while the King is in heaven. Luke 1:32 - the archangel Gabriel announces to Mary that her Son would be given “the throne of His father David. Isaiah 22:22 - In the old Davidic kingdom, there were royal ministers who conducted the liturgical worship and bound the people in teaching and doctrine. But there was also a Prime Minister or chief steward of the kingdom who held the keys. Jesus gives Peter these keys to His earthly kingdom, the Church. The rock Christ referenced was written in the feminine, THAT'S WHY THE GREEK NOUN IS CHANGED TO THE MASCULINE WHEN ADDRESSED DIRECTLY TO SIMEON. Yet, that isn't the only place where Jesus calls Simon "Rock". Read John 1:42, where Jesus calls him Cephas (which is the greek transliteration of the Aramaic word "Kepha". Then in 1 Corinthians 15:5, St Paul also refers to Simon as 'Cephas', just as he does throughout his Epistles. And if Orthodox believe Christ is the head on earth why do you have Bishops? Why do you even need a Church hierarchy?
ultimouomo11 we maintain the clearly established structure that was in place from the time of the apostles. Unlike Catholics we don’t “develop” or add to doctrine and unlike Protestants we don’t strip it down to something cultish and unrecognizable. We preserve the teachings of the apostles whether it be by oral tradition or written word as written in the scriptures.
@@mattbellacotti You maintain the clearly established structure that was in place from the time of the apostles? That's actually only partially true. By their own testimony, the early Eastern Fathers held a different view regarding the Bishop of Rome than Eastern Orthodox do today. ebougis.wordpress.com/my-eastern-papist-florilegium/ And despite your claims to the contrary, the Orthodox Church has changed on contraception, divorce, Primacy of Peter, and certain aspects regarding Mary's sinlessness. So don't tell me you don’t “develop” or add to doctrine or strip it down to something cultish and unrecognizable.
after the (politically-motivated) unions of brest (1596) and uzhhorod (1646), a lot of eastern catholics in central and eastern europe thought they were still orthodox...right on through the early 20th century.
Really? You think? That's not the point. It's about who is leading the Church on earth. There has to be leadership or we have the "protestant" problem of just going to Jesus ourselves and let the chips fall. We need not be fearful of having a unified Church leader since we can trust the Holy Spirit despite the flaws any leader might have.
I'm currently looking at roman vs Orthodox Catholic churches. As a Protestant, this Convo helped me make a decision. Orthodox. All your arguments stem from a perspective that your already correct.
I recently read: APOSTOLIC LETTER ORIENTALE LUMEN by St. JOHN PAUL II TO THE BISHOPS, CLERGY AND FAITHFUL TO MARK THE CENTENARY OF ORIENTALIUM DIGNITAS OF POPE LEO XIII I found it to be deeply insightful into this issue
My main thought is twofold: (1) As Catholics, we have a nuanced understanding of the Church in which other Christians and Christian communities participate in its visible nature to one extent or another. So for us, Orthodox Christians are part of true churches, gathered around true bishops, but are not united with Peter and so do not inherit the fullness of Christ’s church. But as I understand it, this is a more generous view than the Orthodox have of the Catholic Church. (2) The Orthodox view always strikes me as curious. There is a variety of Orthodox ways of describing or explaining the primacy of Rome. I even met an Orthodox Christian the other day who said he believed in the Pope’s primacy. But I stick with the common sense notion that the church with the primacy would be expected to have the correct view of that office, especially if it was established by Christ.
Shao Yu Mai Wang it comes down to who established the primacy: Christ or the Church. Catholics say Christ, and this was the earliest theory, as Rome was always connected to Peter for its primacy, not the state, as the later “5 patriarchate” theory that rose in the East. Also, there was no significant power grab or change after 1,000 years. In fact, the papacy wasn’t even the main issue that led to the schism, just the formal issue. Culture and hardened human hearts were the main ones.
Orthodox are not true churches regardless if Vatican II may have hinted that they are just to be friendly with everybody in the world. It is true that they have valid sacraments, of which there are seven (even though orthodox themselves do not stick to that number as they had no council, o define that). But do valid sacraments make them true churches? It might seem so because sacrament are God’s grace and our salvation. However, being valid sacrament they are unlawful sacraments, meaning they are catholic sacraments unlawfully used by them. How can that be you ask? A simple analogy would be this: you are the lawful owner of a cell phone. Youre phone gets stoten by a theif. Do the law of physics make the phone stop working when it lands in the hand of the thief. No, it continues to work, but that phone is not his - it is still yours although he is using it.
There is no station higher than that of Bishop. Certain bishops have special titles, such as Pope or Ecumenical Patriarch. Most Orthodox are more than glad to grant primacy to the Bishop of Rome, but that depends on your definition of Primacy. The Orthodox view is that the Church of Rome held a special place and its Bishop would be First Among Equals. That does not grant him power over others. It is a place of honor, not power. They argue that the original tradition has been changed by Catholics to support their idea of Primacy. Which would be supported by history. There was never a case in early Church history of the Bishop of Rome having powers over any other church.
I'm EO I love my Catholic brothers and sisters. Would it prove which comes down to that the more the papacy God involved in politics and tried to infuse that in to it Sacramental authority it lost its way. I'm personally it's freaking out right now the the patriarch of Moscow is trying take the 1st among equals spot from Constantinople. From my experience the Pope did best when it didn't have intent secular power but was able to be a referee during the great council's.
@@Fredo_StarRunner Who's a patriarch!! Actually he is the first among the bishops of the Synod of a Church Autocephalous. That gives him jurisdiction over the whole Church guided by the Synod. Similarly , the Pope of Rome is the first among all Patriarchs. So he has jurisdiction over Catholic (universal) Church.
Ιve spent years in orthodoxy and I really like catholicism and I believe they have valid sacraments but I really cant deal with papal infallibility and immaculate conception of Mary.
The question isn't "is papism unjustified", it's "is the DEVELOPMENT of the papacy erroneous and a barrier to ecclesial unity"? Harder topic. A great resource from an Orthodox perspective is the Meyendorff-edited collection of essays, _The Primacy of Peter_.
Trent, you’re a good man, but as an eastern Catholic, you don’t understand the PAIN of Novus Ordo. That liturgy (if you can call it that) is enough to shake anyone’s faith. That might have been the intention of it’s design...
"Orthodox haven't had a single ecumenical council since the Schism" Yeah, considering where the councils have led the Catholics I think it's a good thing.
Before leaving Jerusalem, Peter designated his own succesor by handing over the leadership to James. If such thing as Peter's primacy exists, which is not true, then the only one who could claim it is the Patriarch of Jerusalem.
Patriarchy of Jerusalem has always been know in tradition as "The Mother Church" it's logic. After all "The Holy Fire" descends there at the Holy Sepulcrum. Not in Vatican, not in Antioch and not in Constantinople!
I am a Greek Orthodox and I have a question that is not related with the main issue of this video. What will happen in the Vatican City, if the Schism is restored (Reunification of Orthodox and Catholic Churches)
This actually happened when Pope Paul VI met with Patriarch Athenagoras, and they mutually dissolved the anathemas and excommunications. For a brief period of time, they were giving communion to both Roman Catholics and Orthodox. And when they were asked about the schism, they both replied "What schism?"
Hi there Matt and Trent, As a convert to Eastern Orthodoxy myself (though not from the Catholic Church), I would just like to correct you on the very first point that was made. Whilst it was true that the rates of offense of sexual assaults against minors, was as low if not slightly lower than Protestant churches or even in the public schooling, this was not the issue; and this is often forgotten in much Catholic apologetics. The problem was the systemic coverup by Church hierarchy which was manifestly not present (and not able to be present) in these other institutions. The offense was bad, but what made it worse was the silencing of the victims and the consistent obfuscation (well intentioned or not) of priests' abhorrent behaviour by moving them to another diocese or parish, etc. This was manifest in Australia where priests were simply moved around based on complaints, instead of taking these up with the authorities, and then not subject to law enforcement until many years later. The voices of the victims themselves were also silenced and disregarded. It's an issue with a systemic problem in the hierarchy which looks after their own, not the priests themselves.
Suffer from almost constant secular anti-Church revolutions for centuries and you'll understand why the Chruch resorted to "covering up" its own. The secular authorities in Protestant nations and later during the French revolution were demonically anti Catholic and would take any excuse to exterminate priests, seminarians etc..
@@josealzaibar5274 That's a horrible justification for covering up rapists, it is a direct violation of scripture. "But now I have written unto you not to keep company, if any man that is called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner; with such a one, no, not to eat. For what have I to do to judge them also that are without? do not ye judge them that are within? But them that are without God judgeth. Therefore put away from among yourselves that wicked person." 1 Corinthians 5:11-13 KJV
@@Dominio-Cattolico When you have abuse of the flesh used as theology as in the case of father Rupnik who told to nuns that having group fornication with him was a devotion to the trinity, you have a serious problem in the faith of you Church. When the Pontiff protects that abuser rather than defrocking him you know that the woolves rule the flock. In fact you Catholics no coherent dogmas in general. Vatican 2 contradicts the Gregorian Reformation on all most essential dogmatic issues, ruined the liturgy as well as sacred art and sacred architecture. It's a controlled demolition of the Roman Catholic Church. You are lucky we orthodox maintained the faith and the tradition alive while you nuked your own tradition and faith. You have a place to see refuge before it's too late.
They didn't lay any accusations, they simply stated the problem is universal, not relegated to one culture, religion, communion, or sect. They were pointing to the problem of people leaving communion with the Catholic Church because of the scandal, of some, in the Church--this is not a good reason, in itself, to convert to anything. If someone wants to become Orthodox it should be because they believe Orthodoxy to be true, not because of scandal in Catholicism. What becomes of the faith of that person when and if they encounter the same scandal, or some other scandal, in their current communion?
@@bradsizemore3333 I agree that people should become Orthodox out of conviction not because of an offence at another tradition. But if someone is disillusioned with the Catholic Church and finds Orthodoxy through that process, then at least some good came out of bad. The problem in the Catholic Church is not mirrored in the Orthodox Church. There might be cases, but it is certainly neither systemic nor covered up. I pray often for the good Catholic priests tarnished by their sinful peers, but you need to be honest about the problem in order to root it out. But stating that Orthodox priests are as guilty in this instance is simply deflection, potentially slanderous and legally libellous, though I want to be charitable and not assume the worst.
@@unam9931 People who wish to prey upon children seek positions to exploit children where their being along with a child will not be questioned. (Pastors, teachers, coaches, fields within health-care … nursing***, etc.) ***Male nurses raping elderly …… males and females has become a problem in nursing homes and facilities that care for people with many disabilities. (Some of the younger women in these facilities have become pregnant by these nurses/orderlies)
I converted to Catholicism when I was 17 - I am now 66. A number of life events shook me, including the scandals. But I've also been among the Orthodox several times, and also was pretty badly abuseed especially just recently, among them. I think it was a particular family which abused me, but it was still done to push me into Orthodoxy. So this gave me a HUGE appreciation of my Catholic faith. The organization of the Catholic Church and the Office of the Pope and how that occurred etc (as was discussed here), is exactly why I think the Catholic Church is the true Church.
Eastern Orthodoxy is a bit different. There are English speaking Orthodox churches....one parish in Howell Township NJ...the priests speak impeccable English. Upon entering the church, you get your candle and if you aren't RO, they will give you an English handout of Liturgy....be prepared to make the sign of the Cross ✝️ often !
Yes, someone correct me if I misunderstand, but aren’t councils held to answer some question of faith, or correct some heresy that’s starting to fester? If that’s not happening, do they even HAVE councils? Perhaps there’s not a need to have one at the moment, because there’s not something like Arius’ teaching, to try to correct, like there was in the 4th century, for example.
All one has to do is research history to find the one true Church of Christ and the Eastern Orthodox Church is the only one that has not added or subtracted from the faith. The Roman Catholic Church and all the Protestant denominations cannot make those claims.
@@johnyang1420 During the first 1000 years there was only one Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. When Rome split from the Patriarchates of Constantinople, Antioch, Jerusalem and Alexandria it separated itself from the one true church of Christ. The evidence of this is the fact that it has added to the doctrines of faith that were established through the Seven Ecumenical councils from 325AD through 787AD. The Orthodox Church continues to adhere to the original teaching while Rome does not. Plain and simple.
@@johnyang1420 It does not because in the early church each Patriarch of which the Pope of Rome was one only had jurisdiction in their own regions. There was never a Papal dictatorship within the Early Church as Rome would have you believe. Papal Infallibility was anathema in the early church as opposed to today.
The main differences between Orthodox Christianity and Roman Catholicism. the main things which keep our religions separate are: Papal Supremacy, Papal Infallibility, The Filioque, Absolute Divine Simplicity, Created Grace Doctrine, natural theology, scholasticism, Original sin, sacred heart doctrine, Immaculate conception, Purgatory, Merits/Indulgences, evolution of Dogma,imaginative prayer, "beatific vision" etc Then the Forced Celibacy of Priests, The use of Unleavened Bread in the Eucharist, The Adoption and change of the Christian calendar, The use of Renaissance statues, Pews, Child Communion, improper non immersion baptism, Cardinals, and differences in liturgical practices (Alter tables, Iconostasis, priest positioning etc) all of those things, we say the Western Church adopted and innovated and became heretical when they adopted these things. And we say that in the early church NONE of these things existed, there is no evidence of these things. No examples of Papal Infallibility, No examples of merits/indulgences, and no examples of unleavened wafer bread, and such. In fact in the west, In Rome. It looked a lot similar to how we Orthodox exist today. Our priests can get married, we use Icons and not statues, we use the old calendar etc Orthodoxy Vs Roman Catholicism: Energy Essence Distinction vs Absolute Divine Simplicity Ancestral Sin vs Original Sin Non Filioque Trinity vs Filioque Trinity Patriarchy vs Papacy Revealed Theology vs Natural Theology Hesychasm Vs Scholasticism Theosis vs Sanctification Married Priest vs Celibate Priests Infant Communion Vs Non Infant Communion Iconography vs Statues Full Immersion Baptism vs Sprinkle Baptism One Baptism vs Confirmation Baptism Leavened Communion Bread vs Unleavened Communion bread Julian Calendar vs Pope Gregory's Calendar We are not the same Religion, we do not have the same faith, and anyone who looks into either religions genuinely will see how different we are.
Half the things you said aren't a difference in doctrine, and things like the calendar, baptism, the Immaculate Conception aren't a consensus even amongst Eastern Orthodox churches
And the calendar is just hilarious since the Julian calendar was created by a pagan Consul obssessed with how much the older Roman calendar had deviated from the seasons, but somehow this is the holy calendar that everyone has to use even though it has significant drift from the actual solar year.
According to Trent's own reasoning, he should reject Roman Catholicism. Trent argues that we should choose a church structure (with Peter as "king") because that is the structure that God chose for Israel... except that is not what God chose for Israel. God said clearly that it was never his intention that Israel would have a king and that the desire for a king represented a rejection of God. Roman Catholicism has many wonderful things and is an instrument of salvation for many. However, its myopic and disproportionate emphasis on the Pope is its fundamental error. The general arguments for Papal Supremacy, Infallibility, etc., including those Trent presents here, are just a parade of non-sequiturs. The proponents seem to think that presenting a collection of weak and fallacious arguments somehow adds up to a sound argument. Such tactics may be persuasive, but they are basic reasoning errors.
Not a king as the pagan nations, but a father as a reflection of the closeness of the Father to His Son. Now the Church is the body of Christ, every body has members but also a Head, else we would have a MONSTRUOUS DECAPITATED CHRIST as the Church, His Body. Lol
God intented the New Testament church to be a Kingdom as predicted by the Prophet Amos... "In that day I will restore KING David's fallen shelter-- I will repair its broken walls and restore its ruins-- and will rebuild it as it used to be," -----Amos 9:11 Jesus is obviously the King of the Church, but Peter and his successors are the Prime ministers because Jesus obviously went up to heaven to prepare heaven.... This can be shown by St. Paul himself who declares... "If your gift is to encourage others, be encouraging. If it is giving, give generously. If God has given you LEADERSHIP ability, take the responsibility seriously." ---(Romans 12:8) === OBVIOUSLY if there is a Gift of Leadership then there is a LEADER and a Follower.... ====Even Jesus considers it MADNESS if there is no Leadership system....Jesus said... “No one can serve two masters. For you will hate one and love the other; you will be devoted to one and despise the other." -----(Matthew 6:24)
@@BRNRDNCK LOL...it's a good argument.... Unless you declare St. PAul a Liar since St. Paul is obviously a "LEADERSHIP system" believer....Just like Catholics...
@Tiger "If God has given you LEADERSHIP ability, take the responsibility seriously." ---(Romans 12:8) Yes , St. Paul believe in the Council system of Acts 15 and leadership system of Romans 12:8... It obviously looks like a modern Company with Board of Directors and Meeting of Board of Directors with the CEO as the leader...
@Filaretos The Zealot I am sorry, I think you have missed the point. Members are by nature plural, while head is by nature singular. Again, the Pope is the visible head of the Church, as the Church is the Visible Body of Christ. Good luck trying to elect which of the national orthodox churches who daily excommunicate everyone else or the uncle bob's protestant sects are SECRETLY the One True Church...
"How often I wanted to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, but you were not willing!" Matthew <a href="#" class="seekto" data-time="1417">23:37</a>
I wonder if God thinks that about every Church. Eastern Orthodox, Baptist, Lutheran, Catholicism, Protestantism, Heck, even Mormonism... that we just take the Bible for how He gave it to us and just listen it it that way
@@deussacracommunioest2108 take the block out of your eyes first, your pope literally bows down to an idol, pray towards mecca and your council literally allows liturgical abuse to happen easier. P.s, I only say this because you said/eludes to a corruption of the orthodox church, but every denomination got some form of corruption, so just be quiet mate.
You have to know 2 things: first, my friend, we, the orthodox Cristian, have different view of the church: There is ONE Christ church, and this church is made of people from earth together whith people who passes away and are in heaven with Jesus and al Saints. Who can be the head and leader of this church? Jesus Christ! Therefore, we will never replace Jesus Christ for the pope. And second, what have to do Peter with Rome? He never teach Christianity there, Pavel did. Peter was killed somewhere nearby Rome not even entering the city.
I have some questions : 1. Why Peter = Rome ? He created the church of Antioch also no ? Am I wrong ? 2. Assuming Rome is head of the Church, is it reasonable to change a part of the creed without a whole council agreement as it has always been ? Leading to the division of the church. In that case wouldn’t it be an abusive authority... More over no other patriarch followed the Roman pope, were there all corrupted ? 3. The union of some Eastern churches (these unions made local divisions by the way) to Rome happened with money counterparts, wouldn’t you call that corruption. More over they stick to the first creed, why did Rome change the creed and then allowed other churches to keep the old creed... Does it make sense ? 4. Rome might be the first among peers, but it should go back to where it belongs with the other churches not above them. 5. The king is Christ and the Church is the mystical body as it is written, so no need to have only one leader, no ?
Major Wolf could a Roman Catholic bishop (other than the RC bishop of Rome) today in the USA call for a council today? Or can only the bishop of Rome today call for a council? If the RC pope can only call for a council today why wasn’t that the case in the original councils?
Trent Horn, How does Peter being first, chief, leader, etc. mean he is an infallible autocrat like Pastor Aeternus and Satis Cognitum indicate? Yeah, we haven't had an ecumenical council since pre-schism but we haven't had a Vatican II either. We've had plenty of pan-Orthodox councils: Blachernae, the Palamite councils, Iasi, the Moscow synod of 1666, Jerusalem 1672, Constantinople 1872, etc. In the first millenium, councils were made possible by the emperor legally forcing the issue (and paying for the travel and lodgings of attendees he had summoned). In the case of an ecumenical council called by the pope in the first millenium, Lateran 649, hardly anyone came. The pope had to pull up letters from years before to make it look as though the council was being appealed to. In reality, it was not until 681 that anything really changed and that was due to the emperor forcing the issue. Further, all bishops are Peter: ubipetrusibiecclesia.com/2020/01/24/all-bishops-are-successors-of-peter-florilegium/ Is thr abuse problem in the public schools and Protestant churches worse than in the Catholic Church? Depends. Are we basing this off of convicted abusers? Then it's possible. But are we basing this off of number of victims (due to a hierarchy that has knowingly protected and moved around abusers) and how far high up the hierarchy it runs? I highly doubt it. Isaiah 22 was rarely appealed to by Church Fathers, and I don't believe any pope ever cited it. It was that weak of a connection in the eyes of the Church Fathers.
If Peter was the infallible pope why was his suggestion not made theological law in the jeruselem council in acts 15? Seems like at that point it would have been pretty well understood that Christ gave Peter this “power” so why even fight him in the council?
Maria, thats a Pagan argument, thats exactly what Nordic and Germanic Pagans would argue for their faith, that they are honouring their history and ancestry, who cares, the truth isn't determined what you're born into.
@Flav C eastern europe are no better....the number of atheists still outnumber eastern orthodox...number of church attendance are worse that catholic countries in europe...clean your backyard first...
"And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock, I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it." -Peter's previous name was Simon and Jesus has changed it to Peter which means rock. Jesus, therefore, didn't just give him a new name but also a title. He didn't change the names of the others. It literally translates to: "And I tell you, you are (the)rock, and on this rock, I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it." "And I will give unto thee [Peter] the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven." -Note that he specifically said that to Peter. So he alone holds the keys as Jesus stated himself. Jesus is the head of the Church and he left Peter and his successors in charge. The list of Popes can be traced back to Peter himself. Most people (especially those who hate the Church) just don't want to see what the Church really says and what it really is. Usually, just because they don't want to. Most just believe what others say about the Church and just copy it without checking the facts.
Of course we would love to have you guys convert, but we know we can’t make anyone leave an abusive relationship. At some point people get fed up and leave. The Orthodox Church is here for those who seek healing. In the meantime we love and pray for our separated brethren.
Argument for pope is weak. The church was designed by Christ who is the head and for his church to be controlled by a council of bishops not a single person in this case pope. Catholics split in 1053 and through her heresy she gave birth to the Protestants which are not in communion with one another. Orthodoxy (truth in Greek) is the original church which is incorruptible as Jesus promised her to be. Wake up and come back home like the prodigal son.
Those Eastern Orthodox who came back to union with the Roman bishop you are referring to were essentially forced back into union... didn't mention that one though. Anyways, Papists can't name one heresy we believe but on the contrary we can name quite a few Rome has fallen into that was not confessed or believed by the Church for the first 1,000 years. Rome birthed the Reformation and has departed from the ancient faith on many levels it's so evident and obvious and will only get worse and worse as we near toward the end.
Not to mention their atrocities in Balkan region during and after WW2. Their clerics openly supported Nazi's, and later on even secretly transported them to Vatican where they were given fake passports to access the South America. One of them was Alojzije Stepinac who was not so long ago sanctified by them, who is in some cases directly and indirectly responsible for killings of millions Orthodox Christians, not to mention the forceful catholicization of hundreds of thousands of them.
He says the council of orthodox bishops has never been... If I'm not mistaken last time it was in 80s. Crazy how he speaks knowing nothing about it And then maybe a bit knowledge of history would have been great? How every bishop could have attend pan-orthodox meeting in 17th century?.. The bishops of Rome didn't attend original 7 ecumenical councils for example. And there's a second point: Why fix that which isn't broken?!
I think enough Orthodox have commented on Trent's arguments, but I wanted to quickly point out three falsehoods Trent stated regarding Orthodoxy during this portion of the interview: 1. "A Large Number of Eastern Churches Came Back to Rome." While technically true historically, this is misleading. These unions, such as the Union of Brest in the late 1500's, were largely political treaties that were not based on theology. They also led to centuries of forced Latinization on these Eastern Churches, which only ended around Vatican II. To see an American example of this, check out the story of Alexis Toth and his dealing with Bishop John Ireland of Minneapolis. 2. "Orthodoxy Believes All Bishops Have Equal Authority." This is untrue. While all bishops have the same sacramental authority, Orthodoxy does in fact have an understanding of primacy. Primates and Patriarchs have administrative authority over their synod of bishops, and the Patriarch of Constantinople possess a universal primacy that Rome once held (see 3rd Canon of 1st Constantinople). The difference between Catholicism and Orthodoxy is that these primates/patriarchs do not have IMMEDIATE JURISDICTION over all the dioceses in their synod, nor can they just act unilaterally without the consent of their synod (see Apostolic canon 34 for reference). The issue isn't papal primacy, it's papal supremacy. 3. "The Orthodox Haven't Had Any Councils Since the Schism." This is blatantly false, and shows how little Trent has dived into the issue. Two notable examples of post-1054 councils accepted by all of Orthodoxy include the Palamite Councils (1300's) and the Synod of Jerusalem of 1672.
@@Justas399 If the Church is not infallible, how does she maintain and transmit Divine Revelation? How can the dogmas defined and promulgated by the Ecumenical Councils be binding upon the faith of the believer in Christ? How can she declare anathemas, etc.? Christ is infallible, how can His Body not possess that virtue in some capacity?
Brad Sizemore infallibly is not necessary to know the truth nor to proclaim it. Only Christ was. We can know error by that which is contrary to Scripture. The Marian dogmas are an example of this.
it's very simple. ask yourself this question. Did the East abandon the teaching of Papal infallibility, or did they reject. obviously the latter. therefore, we know it was a novel and strange doctrine the 4 patriarchs had every right to reject
How can man (created) be ruled by another who is created, regardless of how much in the likeness that whom is created is? Only the uncreated holds the power and through whom the uncreated spirit is given. More and more does the Catholic man created dogma unravel, first with the Protestants and more now than ever with the falability of the Pope
Here’s a question that I wonder how often is asked. If St. Peter was understood as the head of the apostles (with papal infallibility you’re also saying superior to the other apostles where they listen to him), why then does St. Peter, in the book of acts, submit to St. James as the overseer of Jerusalem at the Council of Jerusalem? Another point: who installs the Pope at the papal throne in the Vatican? It’s not the Cardinals. Answer: The Patriarch of Constantinople. Another note St. Paul references Christ as “…and that rock is Christ.” (1 Cor. <a href="#" class="seekto" data-time="603">10:3</a>-4) also when you look in the Greek the word rock is not the same referring to the rock of Peter but out of Peter comes the rock which is Christ “Εις τον Πέτρος και στην πέτρα” do you see the Petro and the Petra? One is the accusative while the other is a form of something else entirely. Christ therefor le being the cornerstone…. How can you say the Saint is the same stone as Christ? How is it we venerate the Saints but do not understand this concept? Do we venerate the human person of the Saint? Or do we venerate the image of Christ they portray? Any Saint would tell you to not venerate them because they recognize the sinfulness of themselves but we see the godliness in them and venerate and ask for their intercessions because of our love for them and how close to our Lord and the possibility of becoming unified in Christ because of their great example.
@@presuntomr Yes they do. Its in their official titles as Bishops from Antioch and Alexandria. Those 2 Sees along with Rome have historically always been known as the 3 Petrine Sees. You never herd of the Holy 3 Petrine Sees?
@@cervantescisneros712 Sure have, but you miss an important point that is recognized by both East and West. Rome is not merely a Petrine See. It is the See where St. Peter ended his life and from whence he held his primacy in his last days. Not only this, but Rome was not founded just by Peter, but was founded by both Sts. Peter and Paul. Rome's origin is both Petrine and Pauline. This is why the fathers speak of Rome as The See of Peter, even though there are other sees he also founded.
@@presuntomr St Peter physically and actually passed on the "keys" by naming his own successor in Antioch, he didnt do that in Rome. In fact St Peter was in house arrest the whole time he was in Rome and didnt realley have the freedom to run a church like he did in Antoich.
@@cervantescisneros712 and yet he abandoned Antioch and headed for Rome. I don't think you'd disagree that his actions had been guided by the Holy Spirit? His martyrdom in Rome was no coincidence, and since than tradition has passed down his authority as leader of the Church to the successors in Rome. Can you point to any Church father who points to the Bishop of antioch as having Petrine authority over the Church? Why were the Bishops of Antioch and Alexendria never considered to be "first among equals"?
When one of the Popes wanted to buy chruch land in Croatia and church figures didnt want to sell it to Vatican, Pope replaced Croatian main chruch figure with the one from Vatican who was close to him, then that one sold the land and after couple of months after the job was done Pope brought back Croatian one back. That story tells me alot.
As a protestant who has always been taught that Peter is the rock, I find that argument not particularly convincing. Of course Peter is the rock, who founded the original church. No one else got this treatment, which is worth investigating. I’m not convinced that the Kingdom of God on Earth is meant to directly mimic the former kingdom. Does that mean that popes are just metaphoric ancestors to Solomon and the other kings of Israel? What does that say about their infallibility? None of this seems to add up.
You make a good point about it beikg strange that the popes would be the ancestors to the kings of Israel, since Jesus is the fulfillment of that kingship! Jesus is the new David. However, Catholics believe that the pope is the fulfillment of the steward of the kingdom of Israel (see Isaiah 22:15-25). In Isaiah, he is referred to as "he who is over the house". The authority given to the steward perfectly matches the authority given to Peter by Jesus. The only question now is: is this role meant to persist, or was Peter the only "pope"? Tradition and the writings of the church Fathers provide a strong case for apostolic succession, with many writers in particular drawing the line of the Bishop of Rome right back to Peter. If the authority of the apostles was passed on through apostolic succession, surely Peter's special authority is also passed on to his successors? Who else do we look to for his successors but the Bishop of Rome? The passage in Isiah confirms this general notion, as there was not only one steward. It was a role that persisted, and in Isiah we see the Lord replacing one steward with another.
yes...It is actually a rebuilding of David's house....As the prophecy said... (Amos 9: 11-12 ) "In that day I will restore David's fallen shelter-- I will repair its broken walls and restore its ruins-- and will rebuild it as it used to be, so that they may possess the remnant of Edom and all the Gentiles that bear my name," declares the LORD, who will do these things." (Acts 15: 16-17) 'After this I will return and rebuild David's fallen tent. Its ruins I will rebuild, and I will restore it, that the rest of mankind may seek the Lord, even all the Gentiles who bear my name, says the Lord, who does these things' --
Well, Peter obviously passed away when he was martyred... so how is he gonna hold the keys to the church if he's in Heaven? By passing it onto the next one of course.
A guy, named David Erhan, claims in his RU-vid video "The Ultimate Argument Against the Filioque" that he has 'debunked' the Catholic arguments for the 'Filioque'.
I so long for an end to the disunity between us. I pray always for reconciliation and full communion. For God all things are possible. Love and best wishes to all our Orthodox brothers and sisters. If we must compete, let us compete in love, mercy and forgiveness to each other and for each other. ✝♥☦
We Orthodox agree with various things that were said in this video. However, the differencew that Roman Catholics don't understand are these: 1 - The Rock is the Faith on Jesus Christ the Son of God, after which Saint Peter was named after. 2 - The promise of Infallibility is given to the Church as a whole, not just to Saint Peter. 3 - All the other Apostles also equally reveived the Power of the Keys, according to Matthew 18 and the Church Fathers. 4 - All the Aposltes had immediate and universal jurisdiction, not just Saint Peter. 5 - The Bishop of Rome is not Saint Peter, no Bishop has equal authority to the Apostles.
“The Master has appointed you [Peter] as director not of tabernacles, but of the Church throughout the whole world. Your disciples, your sheep, the Good Chief Shepherd has put into your hands.” (St. John of Damascus, Homily on the Transfiguration [c. A.D. 675-749]).
@@cruznature7545 1 - The Bishop of Rome is not Saint Peter. He's one of his sucessors (which the Pope of Alexandria and the Bishop of Antioch are too). Although the Bishop of Rome is indeed his main and first sucessor. 2 - How does that entail papal infallibility, and universal and supreme power over the Church and the all the other Bishops?
@matheusmotta1750 ..one first must understand what is meant by infallibility, but also one thinks the Pope has often spoken infallibly which is not the case research and you will find that throughout the 2000 year history very rarely has he spoken ex cathedra (from the seat of Peter) . Ok what does one mean by infallibility. When one speaks an undeniable truth such as Jesus is God as it pertains to our teaching it has to be infallible truth meaning you can't be wrong about it, so when the Pope says Mary is the mother of Christ he is bound to speak infabably about this truth, otherwise it's straight out heresy. When the Pope gives an opinion or statement outside of ex cathedra he is just speaking an opinion. Example, I would hope Hell is empty, that's an opinion not ex cathedra.
If I had to go to another parish for mass, I’d be anxious about what kind of mass I’d be attending. As a matter of fact, if I’d go to another mass in my own parish it could be so strikingly different from my usual one that I’d be pressed to believe that it was the same parish and the same priest, alas the same church. So much for the central authority of Rome, except when it comes to abolishing every traditional mass.
I was born and raised Catholic and left the Catholic church over 20 years ago to be chrismated into the Eastern Orthodox church. I wanted to be in the historical church being the closest to what I believe Jesus wanted. The Orthodox church is that church to me. I've learned more, grown more, and found a closer walk with Christ in Orthodoxy. Best decision I ever made thru lots of prayer. I know it's where God was leading me! I've also been an Orthodox Sunday school teacher for years. I'm right where God wants me. Anyone looking for a church home should look into the Eastern Orthodox church.
Yikes. The claim that "strengthen your brethren" comes right after "who is greatest," in the "same chapter" with only a section break is way off and very deceptive. One is Luke 9. The other is Luke 22.
St. Peter founded Orthodox Patriarchate of Antioch in the year 34 AD... “For no one can lay a foundation other than that which is laid, which is Jesus Christ” (1 Cor 3, 11)
At 3.40- yes the rock in Matthew 16 has multiple meanings- Peter, his confession that Jesus is the Christ, ..... but to jump from this to Rome, apostolic succession, papal infallibility etc is just bad exegesis. It is reading back into scripture your own beliefs.
It means confessio and Peter himself, all fathers have one or the other or both. Stephen the I in 250 AD cites this to Dionysus. Leo cites this in his letters. Pope Gregory the Great cites this in his letters. for the first 500 years of the Church almost every Pope held to this point. The rest of Peter in Scripture supports this as well as the typology in Isaiah 22.
It's interesting. I hear you. But at the same time, this is what was held to be true from the beginning. All the Early Church Fathers testifying to the primacy of Peter/bishop of rome, apostolic Succesion from the first centuries of the Church has to say something.
Timothy Freeman hi, I find it hard to believe ALL church fathers agreed to rome's supremacy- there were at least 5 other centres of Christian authority- Antioch etc
We Orthodox do believe in Papal primacy, but not supremacy and infallibility because they're not supported by Scripture and thus not found in the Early Church. In Acts 15 James is the Bishop of Jerusalem and thus is the one to make the final decision which is also the majority decision. The Apostles' letter to the gentiles states "it seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us" showing that not one single bishop has supreme and infallible authority over the others. And you bring up the catholic church mirroring the kingdom of Israel yet fail to mention that God warned the Israelites against having a monarchy, and He raised several prophets to correct the actions of the kings You also bring up that the Pope is not underneath any earthly authority (in the church) yet also admit that Paul stood up to Peter. How could Paul do this if Peter is the ultimate authority in the church? In regards to the order of Apostles in the Gospels, they're listed in order of faith. Judas Iscariot had the least amount of faith, for he was a deceitful thief, which allowed Satan to enter him when he could enter no other Apostle, who all had greater faith. Peter of course had the most faith since he was the first one to confess Christ as the Son of God
I dont think that everyone agreeing means that everyones approval was necessary. If the pope was fallible like all others, how could his word ever be capable of settling disputes within the church? If your pope is fallible as everyone else is, then you may as well not have a pope. Peter being the first pope and the FOUNDATION of the church from Mat 16:18 makes it pretty obvious that the church would crumble without the foundation. Despite being the foundation of the church the Pope is not infallible as a person, but he is unable to lead the church astray, since the Gates of hell will not prevail against it. So this makes it pretty obvious to me that in order to fulfill his duty he must be infallible in teaching, because god protects him from error.
Peter started the Antiochian church. Peter went to Rome. Rome killed Peter. Rome said: " Look at me, I am Peter now". 1. The pope is not Peter...unless you believe in some sort of reincarnation, Pope Clement is Pope Clement, Pope John II is Pope John the Second and Peter was Peter. 2. Just judge the tree by it`s fruits. The west fails at every point. 3. If you think God made the truth only available to the very smart and educated theologians that would imply an unreasonable god. All of it is very simple. Who changed? Whomever changed from the original teachings must be in the wrong. And look at the catholic Church...they are forever changing. In both doctrine and in practice of the faith. The Catholic church from today has very little to do wit the one from 200 years ago, and that was different from the one from 500 years ago, and that was very different from the one from 1500 years ago.
The Orthodox are all that is left of the first church. The Pope broke for the church when he asserted he was "first among equals" and thus had supreme authority over all faithful Christians. That is all. Responses are welcome.
Roman Catholicism is heresy. Just for starters the Filioque, purgatory, and immaculate conception are all heresies and innovations that didn't exist 1000 years ago.
@Philippe Labonte The bible refutes the filioque John 14: 26 "But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name" Where in the bible does it say that "we are made clean after we die"
