What nonsense. We have a kingly figure in the pope, who is the prime minister of Jesus' Kingdom. That's what people who have read the Old Testament know about Matthew 16:18. Protestants take our flowery language in prayers or honorifics given to saints and popes and make up a new religion and call it Catholic. It's really sad.
@@AveChristusRex Why not just become Orthodox? What is the need for your papacy? The old church had no such need. St Gregory's church had no such need.
@@chucktownattack I just got done replying to someone about Pope St. Gregory. So I'll paste some of it. "As for Gregory, even Philip Schaff (translator of the Fathers; Protestant), admitted that Gregory isn't denying his own papacy or supremacy by saying no bishop should appropriate the term universal bishop, since it was taught before him and after him, by the popes. Also, this quote from Gregory: "Behold, he [Peter] recieved the keys of the heavenly kingdom, and power to bind and loose is given to him, the care and headship of the whole Church is committed to him, and yet he is not called the universal apostle; while the most holy man, my fellow presbyter John, attempts to be called universal bishop." "Certainly, in honour of Peter, Prince of the Apostles, it was offered by the venerable Council of Chalcedon to the Roman Pontiff. But none of them has ever consented to use this name of singularity, lest, by something being given preculiarly to one, priests in general should be deprived of the honour due to them." An Ecumenical Council conferred this title to the Pope yet no Pope uses it because of his argument: it makes the local bishop a mere servant of the pope, and deprives them of their own honour. Not because it's not true, or the bishopss of the Ecumenical Council just came up with the idea that the Pope was randomly the universal bishop... His problem is with the pretense being seeking the title, not with the title or position itself, as Schaff even notes (i.e. the title is legitimate if the position is legitimate, but the pretense behind seeking it can be wrong -even for Peter himself!) Did you know that Pope Gregory taught that "the Church of Constantinople" is "subject" to the Pope "as both our most pious lord the Emperor and the bishop of that city acknowledge?" Inasmuch as Rome is "set over all the churches" and "our decision is awaited with the view to the consecration of a bishop." Or that even if a Council came to a conclusion, it would mean nothing unless it was a approved by the Pope, since "without the authority and consent of the Apostolic See nothing that might be passed would have any force?" None of this remotely makes sense given modern Orthodoxy, especially since most of the early Popes are saints in Orthodoxy. Why are Saint-Popes teaching anything even remotely like this? There was no 'gradual papacy.' There was the papacy when Christianity was illegal and they were being fed to lions, and there was the papacy afterwards. They look different for the same reason Christian art and churches look different. I wouldn't like to be an Orthodox having to contend with the See literally known for its orthodoxy and steadfastness being this wrong about something so fundamental to the ecclesiastical structure of the Church for thousands of years, consistently. Not one Pope condemning his predecessor as a heretic for 'inventing the papacy' or anything modern Orthodox claim."
St. Gregory Nazianzus is my favorite Saint! What a theologian! Thanks for this.
Love the vids! I know the faith, but I didn't know many of the historical people that passed the faith down to us. This is great!
Thanks Mike - always enjoy sharing in your gifts. Blessings
Love hearing about my faiths history. Great work.
Can you explain more the thesis that "they live celibacy in marriage"? I'm a catholic.
Jiani Ying. And what pray, if you will pardon the pun, is wrong with that??
Thank you thy ancient royal historian. But I am not Protestant!
Catholics, still worshipping the god-emperor of Rome
What nonsense. We have a kingly figure in the pope, who is the prime minister of Jesus' Kingdom. That's what people who have read the Old Testament know about Matthew 16:18.
Protestants take our flowery language in prayers or honorifics given to saints and popes and make up a new religion and call it Catholic. It's really sad.
@@AveChristusRex Why not just become Orthodox? What is the need for your papacy? The old church had no such need. St Gregory's church had no such need.
@@chucktownattack I just got done replying to someone about Pope St. Gregory. So I'll paste some of it.
"As for Gregory, even Philip Schaff (translator of the Fathers; Protestant), admitted that Gregory isn't denying his own papacy or supremacy by saying no bishop should appropriate the term universal bishop, since it was taught before him and after him, by the popes.
Also, this quote from Gregory:
"Behold, he [Peter] recieved the keys of the heavenly kingdom, and power to bind and loose is given to him, the care and headship of the whole Church is committed to him, and yet he is not called the universal apostle; while the most holy man, my fellow presbyter John, attempts to be called universal bishop."
"Certainly, in honour of Peter, Prince of the Apostles, it was offered by the venerable Council of Chalcedon to the Roman Pontiff. But none of them has ever consented to use this name of singularity, lest, by something being given preculiarly to one, priests in general should be deprived of the honour due to them."
An Ecumenical Council conferred this title to the Pope yet no Pope uses it because of his argument: it makes the local bishop a mere servant of the pope, and deprives them of their own honour. Not because it's not true, or the bishopss of the Ecumenical Council just came up with the idea that the Pope was randomly the universal bishop...
His problem is with the pretense being seeking the title, not with the title or position itself, as Schaff even notes (i.e. the title is legitimate if the position is legitimate, but the pretense behind seeking it can be wrong -even for Peter himself!)
Did you know that Pope Gregory taught that "the Church of Constantinople" is "subject" to the Pope "as both our most pious lord the Emperor and the bishop of that city acknowledge?" Inasmuch as Rome is "set over all the churches" and "our decision is awaited with the view to the consecration of a bishop." Or that even if a Council came to a conclusion, it would mean nothing unless it was a approved by the Pope, since "without the authority and consent of the Apostolic See nothing that might be passed would have any force?"
None of this remotely makes sense given modern Orthodoxy, especially since most of the early Popes are saints in Orthodoxy. Why are Saint-Popes teaching anything even remotely like this?
There was no 'gradual papacy.' There was the papacy when Christianity was illegal and they were being fed to lions, and there was the papacy afterwards. They look different for the same reason Christian art and churches look different.
I wouldn't like to be an Orthodox having to contend with the See literally known for its orthodoxy and steadfastness being this wrong about something so fundamental to the ecclesiastical structure of the Church for thousands of years, consistently. Not one Pope condemning his predecessor as a heretic for 'inventing the papacy' or anything modern Orthodox claim."