The Bishop of Rome - Can we find a way forward for unity? 

Catholic here. God bless all of you.

Grew up Protestant, now Catholic. Loved this video! One of my primary motivations in becoming Catholic was Christian unity. Austin's ability to see this issue with fresh eyes reminds us of the big picture. Many of our churches observe the annual week of prayer for Christian unity, and we should never cease.

Thanks for reading a Catholic document most of us Catholics are not going to take the time to read.

You're a better Christian than I'll ever be. I really appreciate the charitable and thoughtful response you give to all Christian denominations.

Have you watched the videos about the First Five Hundred Years by The Catholic Brothers? They present a very human way that the universal Church developed, in the very particular situation of the Roman Empire. And I really do appreciate the good faith that you have always shown towards our differences as Christians.

I love how you approach these topics!

I didn't have the time to read the whole document yet, only the summary at the back (which sounded really good!) thanks for this video!

As a Protestant with an interest in this topic, I don’t want to oversimplify the issue as a whole by saying this, but the actual answer, to me, does seem simple, straightforward, and obvious, and people just seem to dance around it pretending there can be some other way: the only way the East and West would actually unite would be for the Orthodox to just accept the primacy of the Pope and everything that goes with that. While that’s a huge ask, between that and the RCC going back on key things like Papal primacy and infallibility, that’s far more likely to happen, so much so that it’s the only “real” option. There really isn’t any compromise that could be reached that either church would consider acceptable. As for bringing Protestants back into the fold, I truly do think that’s impossible, as we are generally fundamentally opposed to too many things that are integral to the other traditions. In truth, I don’t see a reunification ever happening. I think it will always be an “agree to disagree, but at least agree on Christ” thing, and I think that, while definitely not ideal, that’s fine and has worked well enough thus far. What we can do more work on is treating each other like brothers in Christ. If we can unite in that way under that banner, that’s all that actually matters.

As a Catholic with an interest in history I will agree that while the Papacy (Prime minister of the Kingdom on earth) is rooted in scripture, and clearly Peter was given a unique roll different than the rest of the apostles. When Jesus speaks to Peter in Mat 16:18-20 He was referring back to Isiah 22: 20-25. Peter becomes the "Prime Minister" of the church, and is to oversee the kingdom on earth while the king (Christ) is away. Again in John 21;15-17 Peter is given the Petrine ministry. Tensions with the bishop of Rome show up very early even with the Greek Popes. According to Irenaeus of Lyon in his work Against heresies he illuminates his remarks about the church of Rome: That if there are disputes in a local church they should have recourse to the Roman church, for there is contained the Tradition which is preserved by all the churches. Rome was the arbiter for settling contentious issues. Rome was the center where all converged if they wanted their doctrine accepted by the conscience of the church. From the beginning all had a high view of the Church of Rome and its bishop. As the Roman empire receded and the west collapsed the only structure of law and order, justice and mercy left was the church of Rome and the Pope. Pope St Leo the Great had a huge impact on increasing the authority an dignity of the office. Leo's Tome explaining the position of the Papacy in matters of Christology was accepted at the Council of Chalcedon in 451 with the resounding voice of Peter speaks through leo! One problem that arose quite early was the language problem, once the Latins in the west gained control of the Bishopric of Rome the language barrier became more evident, out of the five major sees four spoke Greek, and one Latin. Relying on poor educated translators sometime caused a difference in understanding between east and west. History played a roll in the development of the Papacy, and if God is guiding the church to do His will, then it is not a stretch to say Papal development is of the will of God. Vat I has to be looked at from the view of the events of the times. Anticlericalism was rampant, the Italian Revolution was on going, the Papal states fell and the Pope became a ruler without a country, and his authority was being questioned. Pius IX was somewhat authoritarian and saw modernism as the cause of all the social troubles of the day, and he wanted to make clear that while his temporal authority was gone, his spiritual and moral authority was absolute. It is clear that the Catholic church realizes the issues at hand that still prevent unity with the east, and has made gesture after gesture to show good will and a real desire for unity. How ever it comes about it will have to be agreed upon by both from the starting point of where things broke off. Part of the issue with the Orthodox is that we made decisions without them, and these decisions on doctrine while in reality are not all that different, they must involve the church as a whole, both east and west in order for trust and unity to come about. The last remaining issue is the Papacy.

I really appreciate your kind treatment of this subject. Catholics are having a hard time with this presently, "brother against brother".

Impressed that you’ve read Jean Daniélou!

Extreme fair treatment of the document, some traditionalists catholics should learn how to read documents from the Church like you do. Even if the document is not authoritative or binding for catholics, still it has great value in how we catholis should approach the papacy with other christian faiths in a manner that can be actually fruitful, without abandoning any doctrine or dogma of our faith.

Good summary. It is hard for us Catholics to concede ground because many Protestants still hate or put down Catholics without much depth of knowledge. But Christ was both divine and human as is the Church and even Scripture. So the papacy clearly shows the same traits. But playing pope ourselves is hardly the solution. God bless, a convert from Pentecostalism to the Catholic Church ♥️🙏📿

Awesome video

No I don’t think it is conceding too much ground. I had a feeling that if you read the document, your take would be the one that was perhaps one of the most objective and the most interesting. From what I have seen, both orthodox and even Catholic RU-vidrs and others, I’ve not been disappointed. In a way the document was written for people like you as well as dialogue theologians. I thought your take was very thoughtful and hopeful. and nice shout out to Matthew Levering. 👍

The Anglican Ordinariate is probably the better model for those outside of the jurisdiction of Rome, especially protestants. Lets not forget the Eastern Catholics that have reunited over the history of the Church and the Maronites that have never left Papal Primacy. There are already plenty of options that would keep both sides happy in current practice and key practices from the first millennium. Lets be frank, even in the Orthodox church the lack of a final authority is an issue that only those who have lived as Orthodox have encountered. Kallistos Ware had some interesting ideas on the subject and I believe that the Greek Orthodox Patriarch may be open to unity sooner than we think.

In my opinion, the pope / papacy represents the guarantee of unity on the fundamental / critical points of *Christian theology* . Remaining (all Christians) united on fundamental points means maintaining the *Christian identity* . Otherwise it will no longer be clear what it means to be Christian or not. The point is, we Catholics, Orthodox and Protestants, have not yet achieved this type of unity. We must go on with studies. Meanwhile, Our Lord look at us with Love. Actually, Our Lord look at everyone with Love. Especially He loves people who are building Peace, in human hearts and on all the earth.

Thanks for the video. As a Catholic I agree with your analysis. The papacy is both of divine origin and human development. It was necessary for the Papacy to be initiated by Christ himself (The beginning and the end). God is the creator and the source of everything, and we are not. Even how we worship God is of divine origin: “Do this in memory of me” (Luke 22:19), and Leviticus 9:24, “Fire came out from the presence of the LORD and consumed the burnt offering and the fat portions on the altar. And when all the people saw it, they shouted for joy and fell facedown.” It didn’t end well for 2 of Aaron’s sons when they tried to start their own fire for the sacrifice. God Launched worship for Israel and Christ launched worship for Christians. Even though the following verse is rarely used in this context, I think it does help in understanding God’s ways: John 15:16, “You did not choose Me, but I chose you, and appointed you that you would go and bear fruit, and that your fruit would remain, so that whatever you ask of the Father in My name He may give to you.” I think most people are familiar with the Biblical foundation of the Papacy even though we disagree on it. No need to cover that.

I have no doubt that the Church is a Divine Institution, with a Divine plan. From the Pope, Bishops, Priest, to the Magesterium. The Pope, along with the infallible Magesterium, played a vital role within the world at large, our communities, and intimately in our families. We are always striving for unity in the Church, which I'm not sure if it's possible. For the last thousand years, the Church has tried to reunite with the Orthodox. Sadly that hasn't happened yet. Five hundred years later, the Reformation came along with a whole new set of problems. Present day, we have the confusion of the SSPX. We also have the threat of the radical traditionalist seperating themselves from the Church, along with the German Bishop's. Everyone has their views and ideas on how things should be. Just before Jesus went to the Cross, He prayed for unity in His Church! What we need to get better at is trusting in Him! He knows what is best for us! We need to trust in Him and in the Church that He established for us! We need humility and to set our Pride aside and trust in Him! God bless! 🙏

A couple of concepts to keep in mind when contemplating this issue. 1. The Catholic Church adheres to the principal of subsidiarity.(decision-making authority is best placed (a) where responsibility for outcomes will occur; and (b) in the closest appropriate proximity to where the actions will be taken that will produce the outcomes. In other words, governing from bottom.up rather than from top down) 2. By looking at Jesus' teachings, the authority at issue is much different from contemporary society's view of authority. It's servant leadership. In Luke 22:31-32 Jesus tells Peter He prayed for him so that when Peter turns back after the "sifting" by Satan, that Peter must strengthen the other Apostles. 3. Jesus gives Peter the authority to bind and loose in Matthew 16:19, which essentially makes him(and by extension his successors) the final arbiter when there is disagreement between the Apostles(and by extension their successors) in matters of faith and morals which we see played out in more than one instance in the book of Acts. The proper lense through which to contemplate Papal authority is servant leadership, subsidiarity, and God's instrument for unity on matters of faith and morals.

Catholic here. Yes I think the idea of Jesus setting up dominoes to fall throughout history to institute His Divine Will in His church is the most viable understanding of history. I mean that's how God worked for the Jewish people in the old covenant, why should it be substantially different in the new covenant? I personally think that hindsight into history is exactly how we should seek to understand God's word - seeing what worked and what didn't. For me the Catholic church fits Jesus's prayer for the Church best

Regarding turning back the clock, I greatly appreciate the understanding that it doesn't always work. People don't always think about what must be addressed when going back to the way things used to be. 1. If one goes back to exactly the way things used to be, then whatever happened later (the schism, in this case) could easily happen again, if one allows the same underlying conditions to exist. 2. Thus, one must address the underlying causes for division by understanding both sides (which I believe they are trying to do), and figure out how to address that so it's not exactly the way it used to be, but BETTER. 3. Not everyone tends to be convinced. Many of the Eastern Catholic Churches arose from reunification of Orthodox Churches into the Catholic Church. But the Orthodox Churches of those nations remain, because people don't all agree. 4. People hold onto division far too readily. Although there are people of good faith who would embrace a united Church, as we see in too much of culture and politics, there are people who will point out anything they could even remotely spin as being bad. If they have deemed the Pope to be evil or misguided, or perhaps certain Catholic stances made clear in the past, then when a Pope says or does something or the Church issues statements on some matter, there are those people who will almost reflexively reject and perhaps even attack the ideas, actions, or character of those involved. If one doubts some of what I am saying, also consider how this goes with Protestants and Catholics. Reconciliation is difficult, which is why it takes so long each time it is attempted, and it's why it tends to only bring unity among some people, and not all. It's a good thing, but it's difficult.

Austin, let's hear about your church too.

Interesting

I don’t mind ceding that the foundation that Jesus laid unfolded in a kind of “human and fleshy” way. It is the same reason why He wants us to receive him in his flesh in the Eucharist… His flesh being one with our flesh. It’s the same reason why I affirm baptismal regeneration… this liquid thing washing our flesh, which is not just flesh but soul and spirit. Regarding the different interpretations in the first millennium of the pope, Ben Bollinger does a good job of showing that the understanding was the same in the east and the west… he cites prominent eastern writers of the time who are still revered in the east today. Count me in for the journey to the most unity that we can possibly have, Austin!

There has never ever been complete unity, there has always been people or groups that have rejected God and his church in part or in whole. It will always been this way. Even after the second coming, I think before we get into talks of any kind we need to realize that. It reminds me of CS Lewis’s vision of hell and how the lady could go to heaven but chooses not to because of her son. She doesn’t understand she is there, but non the less is. That is the way I view this question. It is good that the church is trying to bring everyone in though, the fullness of Christ is for everyone.

There already is unity in the body of Christ in the Bishop of Rome. If you are intentionally separated from the Pope unless you have some extremely rare mitigation of culpability the assumption should be you are outside the body of Christ.

Happy weekend Austin

Vatican I, Vatican II, and Synodality. Revd Anthony Currer offered this wonderful reflection during the official presentation of the document at the Angelicum: "Vatican II put Vatican I into a new context [namely] the Collegiality of Bishops.... [Now], Synodality [offers] another recontextualization... which is to put both [Vatican I and Vatican II] into the context of the Synodality (or Conciliarity) of the Whole People of God. [This is the] new hermeneutical frame within which to see Vatican I. So the exercise of Synodality decentralizes our church by [a:] recognizing the indispensable part that is played by the whole church in discerning the meaning of the Gospel for our times; and [b:] [attending] properly to the Baptized, allowing their faith to be expressed in the local churches and the Bishops conferences." *** In other news, this week Pope Francis highlights JDDJ (25 years) in speaking with a delegation from the Lutheran World Federation at the Vatican. The massive ecumenical gesture of Vatican II is beginning to bear real fruit.

8:02 As a Catholic, this seems like a reasonable way of talking about it. I've heard a lot of people talk about the Church in history being like a seed that grows and develops. It's the same "thing" now as it was 2000 years ago, like a tree is the same "thing" as a seed in the most fundamental way.

Yes, the way forward is submitting to the authority of Peter's successor.

I really appreciated your analysis, Austin! Trying to de-mythologize the “First Millennium” as this idilic time when no serious disagreements were held on was a highlight! Despite the usual argument that two concurrent ecclesial models were developing in parallel in the East and the West (I really don’t like the argument, although I understand it, if only there is room for some nuance that is “muscular” enough), still the question stands: how were divergences in the Church settled at the universal level? It’s the unavoidable issue. In matters of ecclesiology, if we go down to Catholic-Eastern Orthodox deep dialogues (and one could add Oriental Orthodoxy, the Church of the East and even Anglicans, at least to a extent) in honesty and good faith, we must avoid to represent Catholic position presupposing the papacy means a “Rambo bishop”, an autocratic ecclesiastical tyrant, transvested into a sort of Christian oracle that positively affirms infallible doctrines out of the wind, depending on his humor, benevolence or audacity. That is equivalent to squeezing Philosophical Modernity into ecclesiology: curiously enough, the First Vatican Council’s leitmotif was to specifically deal with this particular epitomization of Modernity; therefore, to fall into that pernicious game is to actually vindicate Modernity over the perennial Church and to make it trump her authority, spiritual power and ‘modus vivendi’. To all extents, even MUCH prior to Vatican I (we are talking about more than 800 years, if the historical demarcation of rupture points to 1054), the large majority of churches of Greek-Byzantine influence were objectively in state of reciprocal schism with the Catholic Church in communion with Rome, so nothing in the matters of schism could indeed be attributable - at least in some sort of honest and not on “post hoc” argumentation - to First Vatican Council’s dogmatic decrees ‘per se’. And if we are talking about the prior consolidated schisms of 431 (Assyrian Church of the East) and 451 (Oriental Orthodoxy), then we must consider more than 1400 years separating the events without having First Vatican Council’s dogmatic decrees as any sort of efficient, formal and final causation. On the exact reverse, it’s absolutely true to affirm that, if all schisms in history don’t relate to refusing papal authority directly, but rather to other doctrinal and/or disciplinary matters vindicated, ALL schismatic processes, or doctrinal struggles threatening huge divisions, were actually solved by some unquestionable monstrance of papal authority nevertheless, to one degree or another: one could mention Ephesus/431 (St Cyril of Alexandria constituted by Pope St Celestine a Roman legate in the Ecumenical Council, using every inch of Roman authority against fellow Patriarch Nestorius of Constantinople, with Philip the Legate giving his famous Petrine affirmation of the Roman prerrogatives); Chalcedon/451 (Pope St Leo’s nullification of the so-called Robber Council, the Tome in all its doctrinal assertion of authority with the specific Chalcedonian mode of reception of it), the Acacian Schism’s solution (and the Hormisdas Libel or “Formula” with the clear affirmation, under the oak of the Emperor and solemn adhesion of the important majority of Eastern bishops of the world, on how to recognize the visible Catholic Church’s governance and also rule of orthodox faith in a disruptive ecclesiastical scenario), 3rd Constantinople/680-681 (and the Monothelite attempting of reuniting the Empire with the Pre-Chalcedonians, with the huge acclamations of Pope St Agatho concerning the Petrine authority tied to his See and the divine protection perpetually tied to the Roman See, as a way to gather both orthodoxy and visible governance) and 2nd Nicea/787 (and the Imperial pressure for Iconoclasm, with the heroic intervention and affirmations of Pope Hadrian concerning his own See and the acclamation received at the Council), for example. It’s inevitable that we will see a definite radiography of history, at least if we have eyes to see and a softened heart. With that in mind, if one tries to start the dialogue from a genuine reflection and honest vantage point of trying to understand what the Church’ constitutive elements are, it’s obviously easier to understand Catholic ecclesiology in light of the ministry of universal unity and, by force of consequence, First Vatican’s concepts through its own lenses and functionality. Just THEN the next step should be taken, as the document discussed suggests in compiling non-Catholics’ proposals, since I’m confidently sure most people never actually read anything of the Session 4 of Vatican I. With that being said, and just to avoid caricatures, the very ecclesiological concepts must be explained first in and of themselves. I think it’s more urgent to do that than seeking to re-phrase explanations or to reword the very concepts, which must only be a SUBSEQUENT step conditioned to the good will we pack in journeying through the previous one. Because I sense it’s not only that people cannot stop to misinterpret Catholics somehow, as they also maybe NEED to misrepresent what the ecclesiological promises of Christ to Peter in Catholic dogmatics are, in light of the Biblical, Patristic and historical data (for any other groups, frankly, it’s absolutely ethereal to decipher what the promises mean instead, if using that set of data, apart from a sort of fabricated clarity in just “knowing” the Catholic one needs to be fought against without any possible solution - apart from obstinacy in rejecting the Catholic one). Well, knowing that this description comes from the Catholic angle, sometimes it is off-putting that non-Catholics, even the highly educated ones, are always almost trying to make the Petrine promises of Our Lord Christ Jesus referential to the person of Peter, not to the office/ Church with and through Peter, as the subject of the promise itself, therefore to find pokes in some historical papal figures becomes their way to dismiss a theory without REALLY dealing with the vast historical material in light of the Bible, the Patristic patrimony, the clear episodes of history or, above all else, documents of Ecumenical Councils, at least with even-handedness and without the urge to reject it by the mere fact that one started rejecting it already. The theology here relates to the difference between the gifts of the Holy Spirit and the charisms of the Holy Spirit: the previous are permanent, given at Baptism, and they work for the person’s own sanctification; the latter are special - sometimes extraordinary -, given for the good of the community, for the service of others and for the assistance of the Church to lead its mission. In a brief sentence, the gifts of the Spirit are personal; the *charisms are ecclesial.* Many non-Catholics - even scholars, somewhat contaminated with the “spirit of Philosophical Modernity”, either they see/ admit it or not - try hard to make a case that a heretic pope would “destroy” Catholicism; if that made sense for Catholics, then the long yet famous theological divergences between Cardinal Cajetan (a Dominican) and St Robert Bellarmine (a Jesuit) in the 1500-1600s over the issue of a heretical pope would make no sense: they would be talking over an absurdity. Knowing it, then the most equipped minds could - not necessarily they’d rather - further discuss the Church’s complexities relating to having problematic popes and bishops in the first place. Our primary role is to understand God’s promises and order our trust to God in love, not to defy it, so as to make our faith be (in)formed by love [cont].

The yes/and approach to revelation and history sounds very sacramental, which is right in line with a Catholic worldview. One who defends the idea that the Will of God is revealed in history might make a similar argument from nature- that humanity’s tendency to form hierarchical societies and families is inherited from God, and reflects His plan for His Church. This also ties in with the argument that the presence of Divinely-appointed leaders in the Old Testament finds its fulfillment in the office of the Papacy. It’s a question that can be raised from Scripture itself, and it’s one that’s worth chewing on, especially for those who see “Church history” as only going back 2,000 years. In wrestling with and debating the question of unity, it seems it would be helpful to bring the principle of subsidiary into the mix. The fact that the Church teaches both this and the primacy of the Pope is an acknowledgement of the need to use different tools in addressing diverse local needs and cultures while maintaining a visible doctrinal and Sacramental unity, which she contends is not just good, but necessary to maximize her witness to the world per her understanding of John 17. The way these tools function and to what extent they should be used could be an interesting way to frame the discussion. Some of this may be in the document, but I’ll admit to having not read it 😅. You make me want to, though. Thanks for this video!

Whether we can or can't, we should be nonetheless striving for it. If Christ catches us persisting in division when He returns, it won't be a good look.

I think the idea of UNITY is not really a primary concern for the Catholic Church (reseved to individual protestants) BUT it is very, very important for the Church to preserve and teach the doctrine of Faith from the deposit of faith, which is the DIVINE Revelaiton of God.

Pope Leo 13 first warned about this in the 19th century

“Lutheran Catholic Church” Going to be interesting to see the logistics of reunion. How dioceses overlap or are consolidated and so on. Idk

Austin, check out Pope Benedict’s Called to Communion if you haven’t already

As for us, through the grace of the Holy Spirit, our sole goal is to build ourselves on the foundation of St. Peter, he who directed the six holy councils. These councils were gathered by command of the Bishop of Rome, the city of the world. Whoever sits on that city's throne is authorized by Christ to have compassion on the people of the church, by summoning the ecumenical council, and to strengthen them, even as we have demonstrated in other places. We ask Christ to confirm us in this forever, that we might inherit through it his kingdom, in that we have joined with it the doing of his commandments. To him be praise, along with the Father and the Holy Spirit, forever and forever." Abu Qurrah

@Gospel Simplicity. You need to watch this video by @The Jewish Catholic because he just talked about this on his channel why he converted from Judaism to Catholicism instead of becoming Orthodox

I once heard an Orthodox youtuber say: "The primacy of Rome is good when the Pope is good. It is bad when the Pope is bad." Not the most complex analysis in the world, but I appreciated it. It's easy to argue for the Papacy when John Paul II is leading a crowd in communist occupied Poland saying, "We want God." It is far harder to argue for the Papacy when Pope Francis is signing a document saying God willed a plurality of religions.

I Corinthians 12:18, and 28 both state that it is God who places individuals in the Church, including the positions of authority. What is God's purpose for the placement of the Bishop of Rome? What does God want from the Bishop of Rome in the Church? Trying to see it from God's purpose instead of from a historical "what did people way back when think" may help clear up the issue.

The Lutheran Confessions have a document called, “Treatise on the Power and Primacy of the Pope” (1539), which is an appendix to the Augsburg Confession. It states the office of the Pope is merely by “human right,” but if the Pope would accept the Gospel (justification by faith alone) then having a head of the Church by human arrangement would be a good thing.

I like the idea of "unity" but mutual respect and dialogue would be a more realistic goal. One has to be careful not to spend too much time on unrealistic goals such as "unity" because it would be more efficient to spend that time on something else.

I have spent the last few month, everyday, devoting time to understanding the papacy. I have been humbled by how much i DID NOT know. As an EO, i do think some form of primacy is good. We have a first among equals, but we are fractured. While most of Orthodoxy is in communion, there isnt unity. In doctrime, yes, but the charitable brotherly love is lacking. It seems this is happening in RC as well with the infighting about Tradition and the LM. Regardless, i fell in live with Christ in the Divine Liturgy and now the pain of the schism is felt in my heart and i will pray.

Great discussion. When I read “Ut unum sint” in seminary I was very hopeful that the traditional gridlock between Rome and everyone else might break up and we could eventually move to a “communion of communions” with the pope as “first among equals”. Glad to see a possible inching in that direction. Of course, since Pope St John Paul 2 wrote that document there has been an increase of division in all of the major Western churches. It’s a shame.

The center of theocracy is the Jerusalem above (Galatians 4:25-26), not Rome.

I am very sorry, I meant Austin.

Maybe

The RU-vid comment section is broken. So many comments get automatically deleted.

Austin, I've been subscribed for a good while now (I think? lol) which can probably be verified if it shows up as a stat for you; I assume it does on the creator's end - Idk just to say that I've been watching since I was non-denominational and just your typical Trinitarian Evangelical *(and have since returned to it, the faith I once had - in case you think this is another RC or EO comment trying to convert you LOL)* , as Dr. Michael Heiser would put it lol, and, the phenomenon and ABSOLUTE GIFT... I mean, like, WOW.... that Dr. Michael Heiser was, I realized was in much of the early churches theology and there's that meme that his teachings are 'helping' people convert to Orthodoxy, etc. lol but, all I wanted to say was, as you may have seen some of my other comments, I live in NA, probably in your generation group, I'm a '95 kid, ethnically Southern Slavic (Balkans) and grew up with EO.. and yeah, keep riding and pushing, man... You're truly, actually a bulwark. I find it funny that both EO and RC and pretty much EVERYONE including Joe Rogan know the name of Dr. Michael Heiser but treat his legacy as kind of like ... "eeehhhh, meh." At least with some of the EO content creators I've been watching recently. It's just too sus... it made me dive more into the history and even the esoteric portions of whatever the heck is going on in this world. Obviously, that's an insane amount of stuff for a RU-vid comment but let's just say when you read "Balkans" earlier, you heard exactly what you heard. Yup, NOT GOOD loool. Then there's the fact that Slavs in the Balkans today originally migrated from Northern Europe around the Baltic sea. OH! There it is again. How weird... This is gonna sound even more 4chan-ese, but I think there's a reason Blue and Red are always used for competing teams be it real life games, video games, board, etc. etc. and that is because the English language hides many secrets. You probably know how Rothschild means Redshield, if not you do now, Roth being red, and the etymology follows with Rosh/Rox(sh) as in the Roxolani tribe/Rot/Ruth/Rug/Rus/Ros/Roz etc. and I'm not even joking but I suspect Blue, the word, etymologically goes back to.... LOL yeah... Baal, the Fly Guy... I'm thinking "Baalu" or something. We know that the Antichrist is coming out of the tribe of Dan, historically the northernmost tribe of Israel who were the closest, being up north, to Bashan and Baal worship and notoriously fell back into it again and again. The Canaanites were also known by the Greeks as Phoenician's which literally means red/purple people. Cause of the royal purple dye they were famous for exporting and still is that purple that is associated with royalty to this day. Now, go ahead and mix the colors blue and red... Lol. Something about red-haired giant mummy's, too? The Irish say they came from a people or tribe called the Tuaatha De Danaan. Danmark, Danube, Dnieper, ScanDANavia. The Tribe of Dan, huh... I'm so far into this I think a Halfdan would suffice, huehuehuehue pun very much intended. Look up Iceland Commonwealth, the word island is Iceland's name and I guess where we get the dumb spelling for island lol. The S isn't silent. And according to this commonwealth, it is also known as a maritime empire or 'sea-empire'. So like, I don't think the S is silent in ANY CASE... if you know about the Falkands War for the island off the coast of Argentina, this would make that infamously weird war (weirder than Vietnam) make A LOT OF SENSE. It also matches up with the 'aliens' apparently coming from underwater, going faster in it than we can in the air, tic tacs and whatever lol. Yeah, whatever conflicts we are seeing right now are just a theatre show being directed by and starring people who are all apart of some elite family bloodlines. The real war is between the AEsir and the Vanir. Not joking. AEsir is pronounced like "Ai-Seer" and Vanir like "Vahn-eer". I think these two names go back to the flood, with the AEsir, the Norse mythological LINEAGE of gods associated with strength, might, power, metals, etc. going back to Assyria/Ashur or probably where the actual tower of Babel was built and Vanir referring to the lineage of gods associated with wisdom, fertility, seeing into the future, riddles, etc. going back to Mount Ararat, where the Ark landed upon when the waters receded, and to this day, if you go come down off of Mount Ararat, by the time you're on flatland you only have another small bit of a walk til you get to Lake VAN. The AEsir and their followers must die in battle to enter Valhalla, or Baalhalla as I'm calling it, while the Vanir go to Vanaheim. Check this out... in a poetic edda called Vafthrudismal, a Vanir god called Vafthrudnir is approached by Odin the One-Eyed (Antichrist will have one eye missing as well lol) but disguised, and engages in a 'game of wits' with Vafthrudnir regarding the war. Vafthrudnir explains to Odin/Vodin/Vodnasz (literally one who goes forth/he who goes forth before us/our leader) that this other 'minor' god named Njoror was given in exchange as a hostage to the AEsir, regarding this war, and that Njoror will return for the Vanir at the worlds end, Ragnarok. It gets better. Vaf means to weave/entangle/tie-up and Thrudnir means power/strength/might (in Slavic, Thrudnir means someone who suffers or to be longsuffering, we would say a pregnant woman is "thrudna/trudna", and that reversal is GLORIOUS)... you can do the math and see the meaning of the name Vafthrudnir. Nice coincidence I guess. Even Loki, apparently being so mischievous and causing a mess in Valhalla, Odin kicked him out. Loki's name comes from earlier etymology such as, and get this first one, LOGI/Lokke/Lok/Luk/Lukke/etc. which are words meaning things along the line of "entanglement, seizure, CLOSED-OFF ROOMS, LOCKS" .... LMAOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO HE PUT EM IN THEIR ABYSSAL PRISONS.... "KICKED OUT" HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH dudes, some of the stories and poems have Loki insulting the AEsir gods and everyone in the halls of Valhalla with some FIRE like "bench-ornaments" that would run away from an angry, spirited man. That's not angry-spirited, read it again. It's a spirited man, who happens to be angered. Ahhhhhhhhhhhh Austin and fellow viewers, have fun with this xD you can reach me at makeshift6969@gmail.com if you've decided I'm not a kook =D. P.S - Bitcoin's new protocol addition are called "Runes".... ^.^ these guys suck at hiding.

The problem is that the Pope is unwilling to let even his own bishops have autonomy (for example, over the traditional Latin Mass), or, like any other patriarch, to be subject to his Synod. As such, he does not exercise an authority that is acceptable to the Orthodox Church, and any agreement with him would be to abandon the Orthodox vision of the Church.

8:07 You made me chuckle with that question: "Do Catholics think _this_ would be conceding too much?" Because you're very likely going to run into a paradox: the Catholics more open and willing to make concessions vis a vis the separated churches are the ones who will more firmly uphold the authority of the Pope in the current rift within the Roman Church between “pope loyalists” and “rad trads.” This rift will always be present: if it so happens that the Pope of turn agrees with *their* interpretation, the group of self-appointed traditionalists will tend to affirm the bishop of Rome's authority, but the reason will always be the wrong one: not because of their understanding of a need to trust in the guidance of the Holy Spirit promised by Christ to his Church, in particular the one about a guarantee that Peter (and his successors) will always remain faithful even after being "sifted by Satan," faithful enough "to confirm his brethren." When push comes to shove, they are "fake" traditionalists, as they drop the one tradition that distinguishes the Catholics from *all* other Christians: the fidelity and submission to the bishop of Rome. And when you “shove” a little further, you’ll probably find out that it all comes down to a lack of faith in the words of Christ, which is always the demonic stratagem to make us yield to the pressure of our pride. For it really does take a lot of pride to think that one knows the Magisterium of the Church a lot better than the Pope (and the nearly unanimous college of bishops). I consider myself a true traditionalist. Therefore, I take very seriously the tradition made dogma about the authority of the bishops in communion with the bishop of Rome. I also take very seriously one of Jesus’ most endearing desires: “Ut unum sint,” that all may be one, as he is one with the Father. For that I’d be willing to sacrifice almost anything, except the truth. The authority of the bishop of Rome is dogmatic truth. But the proceedings for his election are not. I think a first step would be to allow the eastern orthodox bishops to participate in the conclaves. It requires a lot of trust, but I think the goal is worth it. A further step could be an alternance between bishops from the east and west, maybe for the next six popes... This would require a lot more trust, and I may be dreaming too much. But, if what Francis Chan suggests is true, I think it would totally be worth it. In the meantime, I would be all for a gesture of goodwill aimed at somewhat healing old wounds: the return of the Shroud of Turin to the Patriarch of Constantinople. If the most likely suggested historical trail is correct, a Templar crusader stole this most sacred relic during the sack of Constantinople. Now that the House of Savoy has definitely donated it to the Pope, it is within his power to return it to its last lawful custodian.

In acient times the second most powerful person in the church was the patriach of constantinople, because of political reasons. And because of political reasons the east coundn't accept the roman papacy as the west saw it. Yes the papacy became also a political figure, which damaged the relations heavily, but that doesn't change that the peter and the bishops of rome had a divine superior role, even before Constantine.

Austin are you considering converting to Catholicism? I’d love you to be transparent whatever your views. Thanks.

We can all find unity, in that we all believe in Jesus Christ the Son of God. If we can't find unity because of theology then something is wrong within us. Something not from God, but from Satan.

John 6

i think this is all quite curious. you don't seem to have solid positions on much at all.

You know that the rulers of the Gentiles ilord it over them, and their great ones exercise authority over them. 26 jIt shall not be so among you. But whoever would be great among you must be your servant,3 27 and whoever would be first among you must be your slave,4

I’m Catholic and I’m troubled by how much power Vatican 1 gives the Pope. Vatican 2 said nice things about the college of bishops BUT it didn’t reign in the V1 powers at all. I accept papal infallible but it’s the total unchecked power over every single Catholic in the entire church. The pope can do whatever he wants whenever he wants for any reason. He wants to defrock a priest or bishop? Great. He can do that with the stroke of a pen and doesn’t have to give a reason. Wants to excommunicate a particular Catholic? Again, he can just decide to do that and doesn’t need to give a reason. Not we are opening the possibility of a cult leader. If a Pope started to openly live like the worst of the renaissance popes with mistresses etc, what can anyone do about it? The answer is nothing except pray. If we speak out the Pope could instantly excommunicate us. V1 needs to be reigned in by a future Ecumenical Council and nice platitudes aren’t enough

One thing for sure is the Church is either Orthodoxy or Catholicism one of these has not strayed...

God bless Pope Francis and his authority divinely established by God himself to lead the Church. As for unity, he's already established this when he said we can acknowledge each other “as brothers and sisters, united in diversity and capable of bearing witness to the love of Christ." in his Unity in Diversity speech. There's nothing to talk about. You've either done your homework or believe what you want to believe.

One thing often missing from these conversations is Israel's monarchy simply because I think most people miss the association. God did not want a king in Israel, rather Israel wanted a king. God had given them laws and priests so that there was order but no man was set as ruler. Of course once Israel was given a king, a majority of them became corupted by power and fell into thier sinful lusts. Even the better ones. What we see from this is that no man, no matter thier heart for God, is capable of ordaining the laws of God onto the rest of man. The papacy is in a way a christian theocracy that many question if God has ordained. However Israel's monarchy would make it seem to me that God would not ordain a theocracy as the first one ordained was to show why man cannot be trusted with such power.

When God institutes a Holy Office such as the Papacy, it is the Office through which He speaks and acts, not just the sinner who is holding it. Read this passage of Scripture about Caiaphas the High Priest of Israel (an evil man) and you will see what I mean. This meeting takes place right after Jesus raised Lazarus from the dead: John 11:45 "Many of the Jews therefore, who had come with Mary and had seen what Jesus did, believed in him. 46 But some of them went to the Pharisees and told them what he had done. 47 So the chief priests and the Pharisees called a meeting of the council, and said, ‘What are we to do? This man is performing many signs. 48 If we let him go on like this, everyone will believe in him, and the Romans will come and destroy both our holy place and our nation.’ 49 But one of them, Caiaphas, who was high priest that year, said to them, ‘You know nothing at all! 50 You do not understand that it is better for you to have one man die for the people than to have the whole nation destroyed.’ 51 *He did not say this on his own, but being high priest that year he prophesied that Jesus was about to die for the nation*, 52 and not for the nation only, but to gather into one the dispersed children of God. 53 So from that day on they planned to put him to death." So, we see that Caiaphas prophesied by the power of the Holy Spirit even while he was plotting to murder our Lord! That is because Caiaphas was holding the Office of High Priest that year. The same prophecy would have been delivered if someone else was High Priest that year. Keep in mind that various Popes have only spoken ex cathedra (infallibly) perhaps 8 times in 2,000 years. They do express their opinions often, and write them down in treatises, but these are not considered infallible teachings. On the other hand, we trust that Jesus guides, confirms and corrects the teachings of the Pope and the Magisterium *because He promised He would*.

The Vatican believes that the Eucharist is to be presented by a ROMAN Catholic priest - AND NO OTHER. So, should we invite Roman Catholic priests once a month into Baptist & Evangelical churches so we can experience Communion with Christ?

Let's be clear about one thing: there's a lot of division within the Catholic Church, the Radtrad community (Radical Traditionalists) in particular hate Pope Francis.

The Bishop of Rome is the Apostle Peter, continuing to rule Christ's Church until the end of times, according to His will.

As you note, the root of this question lies in the concepts of development and continuity, which also form the basis of the division between Rome and Orthodoxy. It is evident that the extent of papal authority and the centralization of authority in Rome represent developments over time. However, what is less clear is whether the doctrine of development itself is a historical development. Did the early church possess a doctrine of development, or was its focus on continuity? If it emphasized continuity, then Rome’s claim to reflect the early church’s commitments, particularly concerning the development of papal doctrines, becomes problematic.

A problem I see with "first among equals" is who's in charge? You've got a problem in Orthodoxy today where the Patriarch of Moscow had excommunicated the Ukrainian Patriarch and the Patriarch of Constantinople. They can't have an ecumenical council because they can't agree about hardly anything. What did Jesus mean when he told Peter hew would give him the keys to kingdom of heaven and what he bound on earth would be bound in heaven? Then in John 21 he tells Peter to "Feed my lambs" "Tend my sheep" and"Feed my sheep"? He was talking to Peter, no one else.

IMHO, the schism between the East and West was, essentially', political that took on theological differences. For example, the Filioque. "I believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life, who proceeds from the Father and the Son, who with the Father and the Son is adored and glorified, who has spoken through the prophets." (Nicene Creed) The Filioque is " who proceeds from the Father and the Son ". Whereas, "The Eastern Orthodox interpretation of the Trinity is that the Holy Spirit originates, has his cause for existence or being (manner of existence) from the Father alone." The Son having no role in the forming (?) of the Trinity. But the Athanasius Creed, which was the basis for the Nicene Creed has, "The Father is made of none: neither created, nor begotten. The Son is of the Father alone: not made, nor created, but begotten. The Holy Ghost is of the Father and of the Son: neither made, nor created, nor begotten, but proceeding. So there is one Father, not three Fathers; one Son, not three Sons: one Holy Ghost, not three Holy Ghosts." The reason I think it was actually political was due to the process by which Bishops are appointed. A Council of Bishops submit a name to the Pope and the Pope, generally, rubber stamps it. But in one case, the Byzantine Emperor simply kicked out the Patriarch of Constantinople and appointed his person to replace him. Which, the Emperor had no authority to do. The fellow he replaced the Patriarch with, was subsequently removed and the original Patriarch was re-established, which ticked off the fellow the Emperor appointed. And though he later was approved to replace the Patriarch when he died, his successor had a bone to pick with Rome and the Pope.

If every pope was Pope John Paul II, everyone would be a catholic. Including me. Unfortunately, in my reading of history, there have been as many wicked popes as there have been great popes.

These are very wily nily questions about the papacy.

All of these questions are like complaining about a crooked roof on a house when, in fact, the problem is that the foundation is the crooked.

Intentionally or not, Pope Francis's rather bizarre leadership style has encouraged more conservative Catholics to question and tone down the ultramontanism of the post-V-One era. It strikes me that this is a good example of God writing straight with crooked lines. Clearly now, it has become timely to revisit the teachings of an era when the pope dared to claim "I am the Church, I am the tradition." For that, we can all thank Jorge Bergoglio.

Justin, You are not Catholic so how does having a pope apply to you?

6:13 - "Your name is now Rock" - Hey Austin, we know what Our Lord meant at Mat 16:18 just as HE shows us in his word in the OT: Just as his forefather Joshua (Joshua 24:25-28) set a stone/rock as witness that "HEARD God's Word and is to **witness against those who don't hold to it** " So now does Jesus - Definitely establishing an 'executive' office not 'over' but as a Right Arm to His Word! But unlike Joshua, the Stone/Rock Jesus SET - IS A Living Rock . :) Thoughts? Joshua 24:25-28 25 On that day Joshua made a covenant for the people, and there at Shechem he reaffirmed for them decrees and laws. 26 And Joshua recorded these things in the Book of the Law of God. Then he took a large stone and set it up there under the oak near the holy place of the LORD. 27 “See!” he said to all the people. ** “This stone will be a witness against us. It has heard all the words the LORD has said to us. It will be a witness against you if you are untrue to your God.” ** 28 Then Joshua dismissed the people, each to their own inheritance

*JESUS RE-ESTABLISHED THE OFFICE OF THE ROYAL STEWARD* _Peter alone received the keys of the perpetual office in an eternal kingdom._ The concept of the royal stewardship finds its roots in the Old Testament archetype of Joseph, who was appointed as a royal steward by Pharaoh: "You shall be in charge of my palace, and all my people are to submit to your orders. Only with respect to the throne will I be greater than you.” So Pharaoh said to Joseph, “I hereby put you in charge of the whole land of Egypt.” Then Pharaoh took his signet ring from his finger and put it on Joseph’s finger. He dressed him in robes of fine linen and put a gold chain around his neck. He had him ride in a chariot as his second-in-command, and people shouted before him, “Make way!” Thus he put him in charge of the whole land of Egypt. Then Pharaoh said to Joseph, “I am Pharaoh, but without your word no one will lift hand or foot in all Egypt.” (Genesis 41:40-44) Joseph's elevation to this esteemed position granted him significant authority, second only to Pharaoh himself. He was entrusted with overseeing the entire land of Egypt, symbolized by the transfer of Pharaoh's signet ring and robes of fine linen. This Old Testament precedent sets the stage for understanding Eliakim's role seen in Isaiah: "In that day I will summon my servant, Eliakim son of Hilkiah. I will clothe him with your robe and fasten your sash around him and hand your authority over to him. He will be a father to those who live in Jerusalem and to the people of Judah. I will place on his shoulder the key to the house of David; what he opens no one can shut, and what he shuts no one can open." (Isaiah 22:20-22) Just as Joseph was appointed as Pharaoh's steward, Eliakim is chosen by God to serve as a steward over the house of David. God bestows upon Eliakim the authority symbolized by the key to the house of David, granting him the power to open and shut, with his decisions binding and unbinding. In Matthew, Jesus echoes this ancient imagery when he commissions Peter as the steward of the kingdom of heaven: "I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven." (Matthew 16:19) By entrusting Peter with the keys of the kingdom, Jesus bestows upon him the authority to make decisions that hold weight both on earth and in heaven. This continuity, tracing from the Old Testament archetype of Joseph to the prophetic anticipation of Eliakim, reaches its climax in Jesus' explicit commissioning of Peter as the steward in Jesus’ kingdom. This act underscores the profound authority and responsibility that Jesus confers upon Peter.

There can be no real unity outside communion with Rome. Humility, Submission, and obedience is what we need more than anything in our day and age.

The role of the Bishop of Rome is to oversee the church of Rome. Unity will mean his repenting from trying to do more than this.

If Jesus intended to be united under the Pope and the Church in Rome, it's rather lacking in substance and clarity in the Bible. I would expect that James, Paul, Mark, and others would have emphasized this point in the Bible considering the monumental nature of the claim by the Roman Catholics. The pattern in the early church as shown in the scripture was physically separated but spiritually united in Christ.

Natural Law requires a leader. People are doomed without one. What is an evangelical pastor but a Pope with a smaller audience.

Impossible for us to ever accept the current papacy. The pope has to return to defending Orthodoxy as the Orthodox popes once did. Of course we will see him as First.

It's not just the Pope at this point in time time though. It's the entire structure around him and the masses of wrong theology. For a genuine reunion, the Romans wouldn't just have to tolerate Palamism, which they do now and which is highly inappropriate considering their previous takes. They would have to let go of Thomism and Absolute Divine Simplicity. That's where the dilemma starts. The only Catholics who care about consistency and traditional dogma care far more about those doctrines than the ecumenist liberals. It really doesn't matter what the Vatican says. If the Orthodox EP decides to become Uniate, there will simply be a schism from the Orthodox Church. Tradcats probably wouldn't schism over that, because they care more about the Pope than they do about doctrine, but they would make any correction of scholastic dogma impossible. Also, why unity? Doesn't political unity suffice? Why would we go back into communion when, in turn, we would have to compromise the faith? Accepting both Thomism and Palamism really just betrays indifference towards theology.

I can say for certain that there is dialogue between the apostolic hierarchies of Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, and Oriental Orthodox.. but not protestants (nor should they) because protestants are not apostolic. In his interview with 60 minutes last month, Pope Francis already admitted he's not infallible

Jude 11 warns of Korah's rebellion. Numbers 16: 3 is what the Orthodox and protestants say to the authority that Christ left over His church. Why not listen to Jude?

What does “unity” even mean? Seems like it’s just a soy way of saying ecumenism The pope doesn’t work either way. You have to interpret the pope, his documents, other people’s documents (which are not infallible) and other clergy (who are not infallible)

Why did God allow 1500 years of error before the reformation or is it the other way?

Austin, why do you speak so much about Catholicism?

Sure, we could talk about the Papal Office as an institutional beacon of ecclesiological unity, but the real question is, Why have we come to a channel where a hipster-coffeehouse-intellectual-looking dude recommends books like Calvin's Institutes? And I think the answer is obvious: We all want to hear some open mic poetry about Witch Burning

The Pope is not a Rambo Pope. The Pope properly understood is to protect Christian doctrine just as it did early on with Arianism when over 50% of the Bishops believed in that doctrine. Think about it for a moment. If the CC was set up like some Protestant Churches where they decided upon popular vote in their council Christianity today would not exist. Jesus would not be known as God, the 2nd person of the Trinity. The set up of the hierarchical nature of the Church was done this way by Jesus and the Apostles then used that. Im not saying this the best system of government in the secular world but when it comes to Gods Church it has withstood the test of time Lastly stating the East only saw the Papacy as ceremonial directly conflicts with historical events such as on the heresy of re baptizing to which the East submitted to the Pope on. Secondly that also directly conflicts with papal indefectability that the East signed off on at the 6th Ecumenical Council. It is good to hold the West to account but to ignore the East’s on change on historical positions should not be done. They need their own feet held to the fire as well.

The whole topic feels... slippery. Basically the Roman Catholic Church refuses to compromise on anything and always wants their way. Then they will play word games and rephrase things over and over until they get their way.

The Papacy developed through history as the accumulation of human authority. Jesus gave ALL of the disciples "the Keys of the Kingdom" and the power to "bind and loose," as in, to expel demons and to hear confession and forgive sins, and together, as a group collectively, to define authoritative doctrine. Without that unity, no one bishop can declare a teaching that must be binding upon the whole Church. The Magisterium must not stand against the ancient traditions. The Holy Spirit can, and does, teach all that is needed for understanding, for us to know about the Father and the Son. However, it is the place of the Whole Church, in council, to discern the truth and necessity of any new teaching, by the criteria of whether it conforms to the Apostolic deposit and the Scriptures that they left behind. We need that to prevent the accretions that could lead us to the extremes that become heresy.

Not if it means compromising the gospel. I'm sorry, but once you cross over the line of the self-exalting satanic pride to claim yourself infallible, and then anathematize the entire early church including the Apostle Paul. There's no unity until you repent, humble yourself, and submit to the true authority of the word of God. If it were just some minor doctrinal differences, sure then we could probably have fellowship and agree to disagree on non-essential doctrines. But Rome has compromised the gospel, and still holds to the claim that its decrees in doing so were infallible and equal in authority to the word of God. No, I'm sorry, that demands serious repentance. Trent 6 Canon 24 "If any one saith, that the justice received is not preserved and also increased before God through good works; but that the said works are merely the fruits and signs of Justification obtained, but not a cause of the increase thereof; let him be anathema."

Jesus already established perfect unity to claim otherwise is to call Jesus a liar when He promised “There will be ONE flock” Pray for God to humble your heart and give you the grace of supernatural faith. +JMJ+

read Hans Kungs' 'Infallibility' regarding Vatican I.

As a protestant, I am willing to concede that Peter was indeed appointed "the rock" of the church, and that the popes sit on the seat of Peter giving them real authority. However, Scripture is VERY CLEAR on certain things. The pharisees also sat on the seat of Moses and had real authority. But did their traditions ever equal Holy Scripture?? NEVER!! Jesus makes this clear. Holy Scripture will ALWAYS be the highest authority, even more than the traditions of man. Also Peter DENIED Christ three times! Yes, even after being appointed the rock! Infallible? By no means! Flawed and prone to error? YES!! And yes, even after Christ's resurrection and even after receiving the Holy Spirit, Peter the rock fell into error with the circumcision party and had to be publically CORRECTED by Paul according to Scripture. Yes, even on matters of the faith and church doctrines, Peter fell into ERROR and was subject to correction! How much MORE should Peter's successors the popes be subject to correction and the authority of God's Word!? These teachings were given to us for a reason!! Also I could never call any man by God's title of Holy Father. I love my catholic brothers, but if Peter was fallible even on matters of faith then how much more are the popes fallible on matters of faith! And we can see the BAD FRUITS that grow from a BAD TREE of treating the words of men as EQUAL to the Word of God. Bowing down to images? Communicating with the dead? Now blessing homosexual couples? And now catholics are stuck with these false doctrines FOREVER because they treat the words of men as EQUAL to the Word of God. This is so obvious and clear to me. Put away your graven images! Return to a simple faith in Jesus Christ and a simple obedience to His Word!

There's a difference between curiosity and outright mockery or criticism.... " Why do we need a Pope?" Your group of Protestants..... Don't You all made that perfectly clear over 500 years ago.... Why bring it up? This man reminds me of someone who is protesting for a cause and yet has no direct involvement in it.... Not unlike people who protest for peace.... What are they doing to foster peace in the world?? No 1 is forcing him to become Catholic or Orthodox. I would hope he's not prostyltising, either... I'm weary of all these " Protestantism makes more sense, Why don't you be 1?" arguments! It's similar to a man who teaches Greek and yet knows little about the language and culture... How good of a teacher can he be?

People complicate the "Pope" or bishop of Rome. Men in general have the mission to be in right worship with God the Father. God the Father is the father to Adam and Adam is husband to Eve and the father to Cain and Abel and so on. A father has jurisdiction over his family and hence is responsible for leading them to the right worship of God the Father examples are Abraham, Isaac and Jacob/Israel. When Jesus started His church He started it on the rock of St. Peter. Making him Father or Pope. He has jurisdiction over the church, the family of God, the Kingdom of God. The pope's mission is right worship with God the Father. He can fail that mission just as some men fail in their fatherhood but the authority of the father is undisputed. This is how the hierarchy goes. Pope father of all the family of God. My bishop is son to the Pope. My bishop is father to all of my diocese. My parish priest is son of my bishop. My parish priest is father to me. I am husband to my wife and father to my children. All of us fathers has the same responsibility, the right worship of God the Father as taught by our Lord Jesus Christ. I as a father is infallible-ish in my family. If I decide to move the family to another country for reasons, they are to follow me. I can do that prudentially or chaotically but I am the father and that is my responsibility. I can fail in my fatherhood, my parish priest can fail his fatherhood, my bishop can fail his fatherhood, the pope can fail his fatherhood but there is always a sinful human father that God instituted. Adam, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob/Israel, Judah, King David, King Solomon all the way to all fathers through generation. The pope is through ordination as established by Jesus Christ and the apostles. Just as St. Paul is ordained the father to Timothy. Everything else is legalistic mumbo jumbo for those who wants to somehow gain some portion of authority as the father because they are afraid that this current father fails. Unfortunately, Jesus never gave a provision that a father is diposed of his authority even when he beats the manservant and maidservant (Luke 12, 41-48 or Matthew 24, 45-51). It is Jesus who will do the disciplining of the fathers who fails. There is a huge Hope as Jesus sent forth the Holy Spirit to lead these fathers (bishops) to all truth. That guarantee is not given through generation to me as a father only through ordination. As the fathers started worshiping the golden calf in Moses times, I can decide to beat the red light while driving my family and potentially get t-boned at the intersection. Jesus guarantee that these fathers (bishops) will not fail the church wholesale (Mathew 18, 15-17 ).

Vatican 1 and Vatican 2 are a total contradiction

I appreciate your kindness and sincerity. You know the history is clear that there was no single bishop of Rome for at least the first 100 or so years after the resurrection. The early churches, including Rome, were ruled by a plurality of bishops/elders. As Gavin points out this was clearly an accretion. I would also point out that we ARE UNITED in the confession of faith Jesus gave to Paul that he passed to us in 1 COR as of first importance.