mine is St Francis of Assisi but I had a difficult time choosing between him and St Peter! I prayed to the Holy Spirit to illuminate my heart with the correct path and boy oh boy do I love the life of St Francis!
Important information I learned today St Andrew was a disciple of St John the Baptist Zachariah and Elizabeth were martyred for protecting John during Herods persecution John grew up in the dessert cared by Angels St Peter was martyred for converting the concubines of Herods Court
38:17 Feels appropriate that the first Non-Jewish Christian would be a Roman Latin who was baptized and catechized by the one who would become Bishop of Roma and would found there the Latin Church .Sancte Petre et Cornelie , orate pro Popvlii Latini .
I am eternally loyal to the Seat of Sancte Simon Ceophas Petros , established by Iesvs Christvs , God Incarnate , to guide Mankind . I am a not just a Christian , I am a Latin Christian and I am proud of it .Roma was made glorious when it became the seat of the Prince of the Apostles , Servant of the Servants of God and Vicar of Christ .It was refounded in the name of God by his martyrdom , making him the greatest Roman .Latinhood became great when it spread its culture under the guide of God's Church . VIVA EL OBISPO Y OBISPADO DE ROMA , GUÍA PARA LA HUMANIDAD .
46:20 can you please elaborate more about this? I would like to know because I have always thought Vatican2 didn’t establish any new dogmas or anatomize anything. There for Vatican 2 is not really an ecumenical council it’s more a pastoral council. I don’t want to be unknowingly spewing lies. Thanks
VII was an ecumenical council, and you're correct in stating that it was pastoral. Ecumenical speaks both to diverse participation and matters that would affect all of Christendom, including sui iuris churches.
39:05 I strongly believe that what you are trying to explain there about grace of the Holy Spirit is pure conjecture. John 3:5 speaks directly about being born again of water, AND the Holy Ghost, and words of the Holy Christ himself show no signs of exceptions. Reaction of St. Peter moved by the Holy Spirit poured on Cornelius was: "Then Peter answered: Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, who have received the Holy Ghost, as well as we? And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ." Peter HASN'T answered: "You see that gentiles received gifts of the Holy Spirit already as we did, they have believed, and they do not need to be baptized in water". Pouring of the Holy Ghost on Cornelius was a direct cause of him being Baptized, as Lord's willed, and to show that as unclean food is good to eat - the same people regarded as ritually unclean: Gentiles are also acceptable. Gratiae gratis datae, or graces freely given perceived in individuals do not mean that they have to be in a state of grace. St. Robert Bellarmine, De Gratia Et Libero Arbitrio, Book 2, Chap. 13: “By the name of talents those gratiae gratis datae [charisms or graces freely given] are understood, which are common to the elect and the reprobate, such as the grace of healing, the gift of languages, the interpretation of speech...” Does your argument amount to: "Gift from God, from the Holy Spirit = A person must necessary be regenerated, and in the sanctifying grace"? If yes: A person who believes that Jesus Christ is the Lord already received the gift of the Holy Ghost. Yes, it amounts to "faith alone", and "grace alone" errors if taken seriously. Even if whole Acts 10 situation was providentially given to St. Peter to allow for baptizing gentiles. Mark 16:16: "He that believeth and is baptized, shall be saved: but he that believeth not shall be condemned." Yes, "without faith it's impossible to please God" (Hebrew 11:6) still stands, baptized, but faithless won't be saved, water and the Holy Ghost are necessary for baptism which altogether saved Cornelius, by the grace of God which in turn allowed my gentile ancestors to be baptized likewise.
drw, no, not faith ALONE, for even if one has ALL FAITH, but does not LOVE, IT IS USELESS, for it is by WORKS and NOT BY FAITH ALONE that we are JUSTIFIED, as Holy Scripture teaches we must cooperate with God's saving grace and repent and bear fruit and forgive others and love one another and keep the commandments and persevere to the end to be saved! Peace always in Jesus Christ our Great and Kind God and Savior, He whose Flesh is true food and Blood true drink!
@drwalmgc I am agreeing with you! No. Not faith ALONE! Peace always in Jesus Christ our Great and Kind God and Savior, He whose Flesh is true food and Blood true drink
You overlooked john the baptist. He declared jesus as the lamb of God. Peter never had that revelation. John was first martyr before Stephen. Jesus gave John the baptist greatest compliment." No.man born of a woman was greater than him.".who was greater john or Peter
This video just wasn't focused on John. Scripture and tradition both imply that John was greater than Peter morally and charismatically, but the office Peter held was greater in juridical authority than the one John held.
@@historiaecclesiastica my point is jesus gave him the greatest compliment for any man. Also jesus said he was more than just a prophet but the messenger of the covenant. Malachi chapter 3. Greater than any pope's since
Alex, Saint Peter was the Bishop of Rome! And was martyred there! Peace always in Jesus Christ our Great and Kind God and Savior, He whose Flesh is true food and Blood true drink!
Rome was his final see after founding others. He was definitely bishop of Rome at the end of his life. Eusebius affirms that Peter's successor at Antioch was Evodius then Ignatius. Peter did not stay at Antioch.
@@drstewart Wrong, St. Peter was Bishop of Antiochia as St. John Chrysostom says. In Rome there was a Church. Read the Fathers. The Throne of St. Peterbis in Antiochia
@@matthewbroderick6287 This is not what the Holy Fathers say They say that St. Peter was Bishop of Antiochia and later went to Rome. Rome did not play any Import role in the early Church
@@alexpanagiotis4706 I cited Church history. Church fathers confirm Peter being in Rome which I'll cite shortly. Read again and pay attention. He was bishop of Antioch before leaving to Rome, being succeeded at Antioch by Evodius. The Chair of Peter is in his final see, that of Rome. The Orthodox revisionism won't cut it. We're not going to debate independently verifiable historical facts my guy. We can read Church history. An article from Jimmy Akin states: "The evidence indicates that Peter was in Rome at the end of his career, and that he was martyred there, along with Paul, around A.D. 67. In 1 Peter 5:13, Peter writes, “She who is at Babylon, who is likewise chosen, sends you greetings; and so does my son Mark.” This is commonly understood as a greeting on behalf of the church in Rome to the churches to whom Peter was writing (1 Pet. 1:1). The term “Babylon” is understood as a code word for Rome, based on the fact that Babylon was a great persecutor of God’s people in the Old Testament. This usage also may be reflected in Revelation’s depiction of the Whore of Babylon (see Day 190). The Church Fathers make it even clearer that Peter was in Rome. Thus St. Ignatius of Antioch, writing around A.D. 110 (a mere for- ty-three years after Peter’s martyrdom) writes a letter to the church at Rome in which he states: “I do not, as Peter and Paul, issue commandments to you. They were apostles; I am but a condemned man: They were free, while I am, even until now, a servant” (Letter to the Romans 4). Around 170, St. Dionysius of Corinth wrote to Pope Soter and stated: “You have thus by such an admonition bound together the planting of Peter and of Paul at Rome and Corinth. For both of them planted and taught us in Corinth. And they taught together in Italy, and suffered martyrdom at the same time” (cited in Eusebius, Church History 2:25:8). To quote a third source from the second century, St. Irenaeus of Lyons wrote around A.D. 189: “Matthew also issued among the He- brews a written Gospel in their own language, while Peter and Paul were evangelizing in Rome and laying the foundation of the Church” (Against Heresies, 3:1:1). He also wrote: “The greatest and most ancient church known to all [was] founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul” (ibid., 3:3:2)." Stop arguing.
St Peter is also my confirmation saint
mine is St Francis of Assisi but I had a difficult time choosing between him and St Peter! I prayed to the Holy Spirit to illuminate my heart with the correct path and boy oh boy do I love the life of St Francis!
Same!
Hello, thanks for this
Important information I learned today
St Andrew was a disciple of St John the Baptist
Zachariah and Elizabeth were martyred for protecting John during Herods persecution
John grew up in the dessert cared by Angels
St Peter was martyred for converting the concubines of Herods Court
38:17 Feels appropriate that the first Non-Jewish Christian would be a Roman Latin who was baptized and catechized by the one who would become Bishop of Roma and would found there the Latin Church .Sancte Petre et Cornelie , orate pro Popvlii Latini .
I am eternally loyal to the Seat of Sancte Simon Ceophas Petros , established by Iesvs Christvs , God Incarnate , to guide Mankind .
I am a not just a Christian , I am a Latin Christian and I am proud of it .Roma was made glorious when it became the seat of the Prince of the Apostles , Servant of the Servants of God and Vicar of Christ .It was refounded in the name of God by his martyrdom , making him the greatest Roman .Latinhood became great when it spread its culture under the guide of God's Church .
VIVA EL OBISPO Y OBISPADO DE ROMA , GUÍA PARA LA HUMANIDAD .
46:20 can you please elaborate more about this? I would like to know because I have always thought Vatican2 didn’t establish any new dogmas or anatomize anything. There for Vatican 2 is not really an ecumenical council it’s more a pastoral council. I don’t want to be unknowingly spewing lies. Thanks
VII was an ecumenical council, and you're correct in stating that it was pastoral. Ecumenical speaks both to diverse participation and matters that would affect all of Christendom, including sui iuris churches.
39:05
I strongly believe that what you are trying to explain there about grace of the Holy Spirit is pure conjecture.
John 3:5 speaks directly about being born again of water, AND the Holy Ghost, and words of the Holy Christ himself show no signs of exceptions. Reaction of St. Peter moved by the Holy Spirit poured on Cornelius was:
"Then Peter answered: Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, who have received the Holy Ghost, as well as we? And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ."
Peter HASN'T answered: "You see that gentiles received gifts of the Holy Spirit already as we did, they have believed, and they do not need to be baptized in water".
Pouring of the Holy Ghost on Cornelius was a direct cause of him being Baptized, as Lord's willed, and to show that as unclean food is good to eat - the same people regarded as ritually unclean: Gentiles are also acceptable.
Gratiae gratis datae, or graces freely given perceived in individuals do not mean that they have to be in a state of grace.
St. Robert Bellarmine, De Gratia Et Libero Arbitrio, Book 2, Chap. 13: “By the name of talents those gratiae gratis datae [charisms or graces freely given] are understood, which are common to the elect and the reprobate, such as the grace of healing, the gift of languages, the interpretation of speech...”
Does your argument amount to: "Gift from God, from the Holy Spirit = A person must necessary be regenerated, and in the sanctifying grace"? If yes: A person who believes that Jesus Christ is the Lord already received the gift of the Holy Ghost.
Yes, it amounts to "faith alone", and "grace alone" errors if taken seriously. Even if whole Acts 10 situation was providentially given to St. Peter to allow for baptizing gentiles.
Mark 16:16:
"He that believeth and is baptized, shall be saved: but he that believeth not shall be condemned."
Yes, "without faith it's impossible to please God" (Hebrew 11:6) still stands, baptized, but faithless won't be saved, water and the Holy Ghost are necessary for baptism which altogether saved Cornelius, by the grace of God which in turn allowed my gentile ancestors to be baptized likewise.
drw, no, not faith ALONE, for even if one has ALL FAITH, but does not LOVE, IT IS USELESS, for it is by WORKS and NOT BY FAITH ALONE that we are JUSTIFIED, as Holy Scripture teaches we must cooperate with God's saving grace and repent and bear fruit and forgive others and love one another and keep the commandments and persevere to the end to be saved! Peace always in Jesus Christ our Great and Kind God and Savior, He whose Flesh is true food and Blood true drink!
@@matthewbroderick6287 I don't advocate the thing that I call error.
Please read my comment again.
@drwalmgc I am agreeing with you! No. Not faith ALONE! Peace always in Jesus Christ our Great and Kind God and Savior, He whose Flesh is true food and Blood true drink
You overlooked john the baptist. He declared jesus as the lamb of God. Peter never had that revelation. John was first martyr before Stephen. Jesus gave John the baptist greatest compliment." No.man born of a woman was greater than him.".who was greater john or Peter
This video just wasn't focused on John. Scripture and tradition both imply that John was greater than Peter morally and charismatically, but the office Peter held was greater in juridical authority than the one John held.
@@historiaecclesiastica my point is jesus gave him the greatest compliment for any man. Also jesus said he was more than just a prophet but the messenger of the covenant. Malachi chapter 3. Greater than any pope's since
@43:30 definition of dogma.
@@elizabethnelson321 never found a definition of human being. Because every one is different.
St. Peter was Bishop of Antiochia not Rome
Alex, Saint Peter was the Bishop of Rome! And was martyred there! Peace always in Jesus Christ our Great and Kind God and Savior, He whose Flesh is true food and Blood true drink!
Rome was his final see after founding others. He was definitely bishop of Rome at the end of his life. Eusebius affirms that Peter's successor at Antioch was Evodius then Ignatius. Peter did not stay at Antioch.
@@drstewart Wrong, St. Peter was Bishop of Antiochia as St. John Chrysostom says. In Rome there was a Church. Read the Fathers. The Throne of St. Peterbis in Antiochia
@@matthewbroderick6287 This is not what the Holy Fathers say
They say that St. Peter was Bishop of Antiochia and later went to Rome.
Rome did not play any Import role in the early Church
@@alexpanagiotis4706 I cited Church history. Church fathers confirm Peter being in Rome which I'll cite shortly. Read again and pay attention. He was bishop of Antioch before leaving to Rome, being succeeded at Antioch by Evodius. The Chair of Peter is in his final see, that of Rome. The Orthodox revisionism won't cut it. We're not going to debate independently verifiable historical facts my guy. We can read Church history.
An article from Jimmy Akin states: "The evidence indicates that Peter was in Rome at the end of his career, and that he was martyred there, along with Paul, around A.D. 67.
In 1 Peter 5:13, Peter writes, “She who is at Babylon, who is likewise chosen, sends you greetings; and so does my son Mark.”
This is commonly understood as a greeting on behalf of the church in Rome to the churches to whom Peter was writing (1 Pet. 1:1). The term “Babylon” is understood as a code word for Rome, based on the fact that Babylon was a great persecutor of God’s people in the Old Testament. This usage also may be reflected in Revelation’s depiction of the Whore of Babylon (see Day 190).
The Church Fathers make it even clearer that Peter was in Rome. Thus St. Ignatius of Antioch, writing around A.D. 110 (a mere for- ty-three years after Peter’s martyrdom) writes a letter to the church at Rome in which he states: “I do not, as Peter and Paul, issue commandments to you. They were apostles; I am but a condemned man: They were free, while I am, even until now, a servant” (Letter to the Romans 4).
Around 170, St. Dionysius of Corinth wrote to Pope Soter and stated: “You have thus by such an admonition bound together the planting of Peter and of Paul at Rome and Corinth. For both of them planted and taught us in Corinth. And they taught together in Italy, and suffered martyrdom at the same time” (cited in Eusebius, Church History 2:25:8).
To quote a third source from the second century, St. Irenaeus of Lyons wrote around A.D. 189: “Matthew also issued among the He- brews a written Gospel in their own language, while Peter and Paul were evangelizing in Rome and laying the foundation of the Church” (Against Heresies, 3:1:1).
He also wrote: “The greatest and most ancient church known to all [was] founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul” (ibid., 3:3:2)."
Stop arguing.