The Issue of Authority in Early Christianity - Dr. Kenneth Howell - Deep in History 

Yes ,Amen .That is why , I am proud of being Catholic Christian .church has the authority to forgive the sin .Gospel is the reflection of the experience of the church father .when I was little ,we had no bible in our house but we were under the blessing of the church.I am pleased of this talk .yes yes and yes .I am highly pleased of this .

Jesus started one church and said it would last FOREVER God told David, “I will build u a throne and it shall last FOREVER.” “Thou art a priest FOREVER, in the line of Melchizedek.” Jesus said “I will be with you ALWAYS.”

So I'm reading Acts this month and it was so fascinating to confirm all his views on the book. It's indeed the book where the Holy Spirit worked through the apostles. It's so amazing to see that they were so in tune with the HS that all they did was exactly what they were told. So powerful, humbling and beautiful.

No matter where you come down on it, this is THE question.

Yes ,though I am Catholic ,it was not clear to me but now it is clear what is Catholic Church .thank you.catholic church has the full authority to forgive our sin .It is true that our sin can be destroyed if we come to confession .

Excellent collection .

Amen...

It is certain from scripture that Simon Peter was one of the first of those whom our Lord called to be his disciples and followers, that he was a person of excellent endowments, both natural and gracious, of great parts and ready elocution, quick to apprehend and bold to execute whatever he knew to be his duty. When our Saviour called his apostles, and gave them their commission, he nominated him first in the list; and by his behaviour towards him he seems to have distinguished him as a special favourite among the twelve. Many instances of our Lord's affection to him, both during his life and after his resurrection, are upon record. But there are many things confidently affirmed of this holy man that are directly false: as, That he had a primacy and superior power over the rest of the apostles - that he was more than their equal - that he was their prince, monarch, and sovereign - and that he exercised a jurisdiction over the whole college of the apostles: moreover, That he as the sole and universal pastor over all the Christian world, the only vicar of Christ upon earth - that he was for above twenty years bishop of Rome - that the popes of Rome succeed to St. Peter, and derive from him a universal supremacy and jurisdiction over all churches and Christians upon earth - and that all this was by our Lord's ordering and appointment; whereas Christ never gave him any pre-eminence of this kind, but positively forbade it, and gave precepts to the contrary. The other apostles never consented to any such claim. Paul declares himself not a whit behind the very chief apostles, 2Co 11:5 and 2Co 12:11. Here is no exception of Peter's superior dignity, whom Paul took the freedom to blame, and withstood him to the face, Gal 2:11. And Peter himself never assumed any thing like it, but modestly styles himself an apostle of Jesus Christ; and, when he writes to the presbyters of the church, he humbly places himself in the same rank with them: The elders who are among you I exhort, who am also an elder, 1Pe 5:1. It is remarkable that you find not so much as one word savouring of the spirit and pride of a pope in either of these epistles.

Uh-oh, my like for this video brought it to 666…😬

This is an excellent presentation. However, Dr. Howell engages in a pretty dramatic nonsequitur (if not outright misrepresentation) at around the 48-minute mark in an attempt to support his greater thesis. Specifically, he asserts that Clement -- the Bishop of Rome or "Pope" -- had authority to step in and correct distant churches. There are several problems here. 1) Clement wasn't "stepping in." Clement's input was invited by the church in question (as is clear in the opening paragraphs of the letter). 2) EVEN IF Clement was in fact intruding into the affairs of a distant church and thought himself to have the authority to do so, it doesn't follow that he actually had that authority. Saying or believing "I have authority to do X" and actually having it are not the same thing. (Most Papal Supremacy claims rely on exactly this kind of "I say I have it, therefore, I have it" kind of 'reasoning.') 3) Early ecumenical councils make it VERY clear that bishops do not have authority beyond their own dioceses. Rome doesn't get a free pass in this. There isn't any wording to the effect of, "all bishops have authority in their own dioceses, except for Rome, which has authority over all." The history of the first several centuries only affirms this.

It seems to me that thre is no continuity between Benedict XVI and Francis.

Holy Ghost you modernist

Amen..