📱 Save $40 off the Wisephone II through my discount code! ($50 during the Christmas sale!) Discount Link: www.wisephone.com/king Discount Code: KING "Consider a Healthy Smartphone for people who want a healthy relationship with their phone without sacrificing the benefits of healthy apps." 🗻 Explore more about Orthodoxy & Ancient Christianity through the Church Fathers & Inklings (C.S. Lewis & J.R.R. Tolkien) www.barrelagedfaith.com
"The Orthodox would have to rewrite history and they've done that!" How are the Donation of Constantine, Pseuo-Isidore Decreetals, and Against the Errors of the Greeks working out for you guys?
Exactly, their view is so dependent on proven forgeries because it's a provable fact that the Pope of Rome was never seen as more than a Patriarch. That's why the Patriarch of Alexandria's official title is The Pope of Alexandria. That's why the pope of Rome also held the title Patriarch of The West. Because he was never anything more than a Patriarch. He was just given seniority. And seniority and supremacy are not the same thing. The same way The Speaker of The House in American politics has seniority over the other representatives, so when he speaks, the house puts a lot of weight on his statements. But he cannot override the votes of all the other representatives, because he's not supreme.
you do realise all of those forgeries were used by the east very often for 600 years too lol. It wasn’t just the west using them. U guys have zero arguments 😂
@lionheart5078 really? Show me. Tell me the document right now. Show me the Mark of Ephesus document that relies on The Gify of Constantine. Do it now or accept your loss with grace. Or don't get felted liar
@@lionheart5078Show us who and where. A random theologian? A Patriarch or synod? Because on your side the Pope and his magisterium used. But, even if someone on our side used, our claims dont depend on forgeries, yours did LOL
This is absolutely fantastic! Excellent exegesis here, Kyle. As a former Roman Catholic, I used to listen to William Albrecht a lot - the clip of him reading St. Cyprian's "On the Unity of the Catholic Church" really showed the level of effort that goes into reading their ecclesiology into the text. If you look at it from St. Cyprian's perspective, it's clear as day what he means... Glad to be home in Holy Orthodoxy ☦
@JohnAlbinus Just so you're aware there is no Orthodox church, it's Orthodox churches. Holiness implies unity: 'one FAITH, one Baptism, on Lord who is above all, through all and in all.' "Be holy like your heavenly Father is holy."
@@anthonyburke2353one faith and one Church. Whatever Orthodox local Church you visit, you feel like home. I was a parishioner of Georgian Church, I was at home (although I am a parishioner of Russian Church). There are no separate local Churches.
@@anthonyburke2353LoL. At the same time you say that, other apologist (like Trent) says: "The catholic church is composed of 24 churches of different rites and customs!! We have universality!!" LoL hypocrites.
I think the biggest disconnect here is illustrated by Lofton’s statement: “papal primary and papal supremacy… they go hand in hand”. From an Orthodox perspective there’s so clearly a difference between being first in an honorific way vs being the ecclesial head of the Church in an authoritative way… but maybe since the west was always unified under a single head bishop this isn’t as obvious to Catholics. We have a historical track record for what it looks like for the Church to be led by multiple patriarchs, they don’t. I think you broadly see this in the latin theological tradition as well. They want things to be super cut and dry and defined. We’re comfortable with a little more nuance. I think the Church would benefit and did benefit from having both of those approaches present at the table.
Modern Roman Catholicism has generally forgotten "What a Patriarch is" which is what a Orthodoxy thinks the Bishop of Rome (Patriarch of the West) is. Many Vatican documents simply say the "Pope and bishops"
The problem with Jimmy Akin's statement around 16:10 is that it's question-begging: Many of the modern RCC's teachings DO NOT seem to be the same things taught by the 16th century RCC or the 13th century RCC, etc. It is not obvious why we should trust the modern RCC to have the correct interpretation of those older RCC teachings. Akin says we should trust the people who "have the institution," but I don't know that the modern RCC is the same institution as the 16th or 13th century RCC. That is, in fact, the very point that is in question. As Proto-Protestants, what every generation of the RCC does is re-interpret every prior pronouncement of the RCC to make it consistent with the modern views of the papacy. This yields all the same issues as Protestant interpretation of scripture: the meaning of text is not self-evident, and it can often be read in such a way that it has multiple possible meanings.
As a Catholic seminarian who almost converted to Orthodoxy. I appreciated the video and I can understand that given certain presuppositions, Orthodoxy can make sense more than Catholicism. I was torn and lost between the two for a long time with no peace.but I’m glad to be a seminarian for the Catholic Church, truly my home. Just sad to know about the divisions that we have between the West and the East. My heart breaks each time I attend an Orthodox Divine Liturgy. I just feel the division and it truly pains me on the verge of tears.
I hate to make this insinuation, but it is very difficult not to believe that Lofton and Ybarra are not being intentionally dishonest when they interviewed Dr Price and then presented his view later as precisely the opposite of what Dr Price said.
Erick Ybarra is openly honest about what Dr. Price says and I have seen him do this on multiple occasions. Lofton in a later video repackages Dr. Price for his own purposes in his Nicaea II video against Orthodoxy.
Another great video! The thing most RCs dont grasp about the first millennium is that the Church was decidedly conciliar in character. From provincial metropolitans to patriarchs, there were synods that met regularly. Any discussion about leadership, headship, etc., would have taken place in this (synodal) context.
Jimmy Akin unironically comparing Rome to the Jewish temple when Jesus specifically says the Father desires no such thing is hilarious. Don’t forget the fixed temple in one place wasn’t even God’s idea to begin with.
I was a papist heretic for almost a decade. They are beyond deceitful and arrogant. It is horrifying for me to look back and think about how I believed all their lies. Lord have mercy on us.
@lukefreeman3383 I'm not sure I would go so far as to say "deceitful," at least not deliberately. It seems to me the problem is that they are working backwards. They have assumed the conclusion - Vatican I Papacy - then are finding proof texts that could be read to support the pre-determined position.
I am still Roman Catholic, but these last months I've discovered the Eucharistic Ecclesiology in the Fathers and ever since then I have much the same reaction when hearing that stuff. It's so sad.
Honestly I have a hard time listening to any pro papal polemics anymore because it feels so disingenuous and presumptive and they’re more likely to throw out insults and accusations of deception. Everything I’ve ever seen pushed by them falls apart with research and context.
Peter was clearly the leader of the apostles. Jesus intended for there to be a successor to Peter to be the leader of the hierarchy. Hence the name change and the gift of keys to Peter.
@@charlesjoyce982 and all bishops have Petrine succession as Saint Peter made the other apostles bishops as well as founding three sees as especially Petrine (this was the interpretation of Petrine authority for the first thousand years as proven in the writings of the Fathers time and time again) your surface level anti Protestant polemics don’t find purchase here
@@Deathbytroll Only by being united with the actual successor of Peter do all bishops possess petrine succession. Not separate from the bishop of rome do they have petrine succession. Thats why someone like Chrysostom would say that all bishops possess the keys thru the bishop of rome who is the actual successor to Peter.
@@charlesjoyce982 Rome does not have exclusive Petrine succession and separated from the true Church Rome loses all authority or claim of apostolic succession. It’s supposed supremacy is based on (now admitted) forgeries and heresy.
The first clip from Wagner has mystified me since I first saw it. In what world are people like Ubi Petrus not putting forward a positive argument for Orthodox ecclesiology? Like half of his apologetic is just citing canons and councils in order to demonstrate the Orthodox conciliar model. No idea what these guys are talking about
I don't think he has adequately considered the Orthodox position of ecclesiology and so his comment is a bit over the top. Sure, a person is free to disagree with the model but don't say outlandish things. He has admitted that he hasn't even explored the historical arguments for the Papacy deep enough in his interview w/ Ybarra and that there isn't a clear case as many Roman Catholics think. So its a strange comment (Ybarra destroy Ubi) in light of what he said in that other interview.
Off topic, but I have yet to hear a Catholic defend his epistemology - _i.e._ muh infallible Magisterium. Evangelicals almost get a pass, as far as I'm concerned, for thinking silly things about the bible. They were reacting to "the Enlightenment", after all. Catholics don't get the same excuse. "The Enlightenment" was _their fault._
@@joachim847 I mean there’s a through line of thinkers and academics who were mostly Catholic leading up to what became the enlightenment but I wouldn’t place the blame at the feet of the Roman ecclesiastical structure for that.
Peter received a supreme power. He is "the only one chosen among the twelve, as chief” (Jerome, Against Jovinianus 1.26, ML 23.258). "Only on him Christ built the Church” (Cyprian, On the Unity of the Catholic Church 4, ML 4.514). "To him the primacy has been given” (Cyprian, ibid.). "The primacy among the disciples” (Augustine, On Ps. 108.1, ML 37.143 If.). He is "the prince of the apostles” (Eusebius of Caesarea, Eccl. Hist. 2.14, MG 20.171), "The head of the apostles” (Chrysostom, On John, horn. 88.1, MG 59.478-480). He is "the doctor of the whole world” (Chrysostom, ibid). He received "all power in heaven” (Chrysostom, On Matt., horn. 54.2, MG 58.534f.). "Peter rules over all priests and pastors” (Leo I, Serm. 4.2, ML 54.149f.). "Through Peter Christ gives to the bishops the key of heavenly things” (Gregory of Nyssa, On Mortification, MG 46.311). Christ "never gives anything to others but through him” (Leo I, ibid.) Peter received a never-ceasing power. He "personifies the Church” (Augustine, Epist. 53.2, ML 33.196); hence "Where Peter is, there is the Church” (Ambrose, On Ps. 40.30, ML 14.1134). "As the thing that Peter confessed in Christ is everlasting, so the thing that Christ established in Peter never ceases” (Leo I, Servn. 3.2f., ML 54.145f.). Peter "is always living in his successors” (Philip, apostolic legate in the Council of Ephesus, Denz. 3056), who occupy "Peter’s Chair” (Jerome Epist. 15.1, ML 22.355; Augustine, Against the Epistle of Manichaeus 4.5 ML 42.175; Leo I, Servn. 3.2 f, ML 54.145f.), in whom "Peter’s power is alive” (Leo I, ibid.), so that "through Leo and Agatho [Roman Pontiffs] Peter himself spoke” (Acclamation of the Fathers in the Councils of Chalcedon and Constantinople III). The sense of Tradition is summarized in the following common slogans: "Christ’s Vicar” (Ambrose), "Prince of the Apostles” (Eusebius of Caesarea), "Peter’s Chair” (Jerome, Augustine77), "Where Peter is, there is the Church” (Ambrose) _Emmanuel Doronzo - The Science Of Sacred Theology p309_
Beautiful This dude makes some claims and never justifies them he brings up some good points but ultimately scripture doesn’t agree with him but thank you for this
Many of the same saints/theologians you quote never apply the petrine stuff to the bishop pf Rome, but to the episcopacy in general: search for: "all bishops are successors of Peter - a florilegium".
Muslims have Mohamed. Catholics have the pope, the white Mohamed. Same claims there, same claims here. That's why many times, catholics argue like muslims. God and his only prophet, the pope. Full of sins and mistakes, but infallible.
The argument for Papal Infallibility and the primacy of Roman jurisdiction is the same as a Lambeth Conference of Anglican bishops declaring that the Archbishop of Canterbury (who is the first among equals of Anglican Bishops) is now the head of the whole christian church and Canterbury has total jurisdiction. Vatican I and Roman apologetics following it is simply the tail trying to wag the dog.
@anathamon No because you cannot trace the Archbishop of Canterbury's authority all the way back to Peter to whom Jesus gave the keys of the Kingdom. You may disagree with the view of us catholics on the Papacy and the authority, but it is not the same as anglicanism. The difference between the catholic and orthodox views on the papacy is really about the scope of his authority.
@@a.k.4486 Anglican orders were considered "null and void" because Leo considered the "form" and "intent" of Anglican ordination rites were defective. It was not because Anglican bishops cannot trace their apostolic succession back to the apostles.
@@chiefamongsinners16 Did you watch the video? If you simply apply your statement that "Christ himself established the primacy in St Peter and his successors" then you would have to say that John X, the Primate of Antioch, is the one who now has primacy in the Church today. St Peter was the first bishop of Antioch before he visited Rome.
Back when I was considering Roman Catholicism, I noticed that restricting the keys of Matthew 16 to Peter logically led to restricting the keys to Peter, that is to say, to Peter alone such that no firm Scriptural case could be made that Peter passed on the keys to a successor. Happy to be ex-Protestant and Orthodox now.
Noticed something recently in Fr. Michael Pomazansky's "Orthodox Dogmatic Theology" recently that I hadn't considered before. In the Creed we say "One holy, catholic, APOSTOLIC church", meaning of all the apostles, not just one Apostles. Otherwise, why not say "One holy, catholic and Petrine church"? He also points out in Revelation 21:14, "And the walls of the city had *twelve* foundations, and in them the names of the *twelve Apostles" of the Lamb". If St. Peter is *the* rock, than there's be only one foundation.
Also its called Apostolic because it was founded on the Apostle Peter. Iranaues calls Rome the Apostolic see because it was where Peter founded and was the first bishop.
@@feeble_stirrings That may be true. But some authors have referred to Rome as "the apostolic see". Iranaeus for instance. Meaning that Rome was apostolic par excellence in a way that the others are not. He also said that Rome held preeminent authority on account of it being founded by Peter and Paul.
"And When He says ot the Spirit, He shall glorify Me [John 16:14] we conceiving aright say that not as lacking glory from another did the One Christ and Son receive Glory from the Holy Ghost, since neither is His Spirit superior to Him and above Him: but since for demonstration of His Godhead He was using His own Spirit for mighty deeds, He says that He is glorified by Him. Just as if one of us were to say of his own strength (for example) or understanding in regard to ought, They will glorify me. For even though the Spirit exist in His Own Person, and is conceived of by Himself inasmuch as He is the Spirit and not the Son, yet is He not therefore alien from Him*; for He is called the Spirit of truth [John 15:26], and Christ is the Truth [John 14:61] and HE PROCEEDETH FROM HIM, JUST AS FROM GOD THE FATHER"* Pope St Cyril of Alexandria, Third Letter to Nestorius, accepted at Ephesus 431
"If one should desert [the church], can he still be confident that he's in the church?" No. No he cannot. Now let's find out which one is the church the Apostles left 🤔.
For hundreds of years, the relationship between bishops was collegiality, with focus on serving the church (ekklesia: assembly of the people), not building a hierarchy.
Please answer this question. What do you think about your prior Christian experience now that you are Orthodox. Do you now think that you and all your colleagues in Catholicism were void of the sacraments and the grace of God? I’m asking because I’m really close to becoming Orthodox but I think that saying that the Holy Spirit is not present in Catholicism and Protestantism goes against scripture and the fruit and the spirit of God I’ve experienced in my life and the lives of Christians in those other traditions around me. I could accept that Orthodoxy is the one true church and contains the fullness of the faith but there is no way I could accept the rigorous position. I’m not saying this from an emotional perspective either because the truth does not care about our feelings but I think the rigorous position is contrary to parts of scripture that talk about people being Christian’s by their faith and then being recognized by their fruit (Mathew 7:15-20). Then I think of the verse that says no one can say Christ is Lord except by the Holy Spirit and the verses where the disciples see people who do not come from them fasting out demons in Jesus’s name and Jesus says no to stop them because if they are not against us they are for us and they will surely not lose their reward. The other thing that’s stopping me from converting is it’s hard for me to accept that Orthodoxy is the one true church when the Bible says that the church is supposed to be the pillar and foundation of the truth that the gates of hades will not prevail against but most of the world has never heard of Orthodoxy and I don’t really see Orthodox evangelism or the world or culture being impacted by it. Please give me your thoughts on this because if Orthodoxy is the one true church that Christ established then I want to experience the fullness of the faith and worship and serve God in Spirit and Truth but these things are holding me back. You seem like an intelligent and genuine God fearing man pursuing the truth and I would love to hear your thoughts on these things.
There is a story from Fr Peter Gillquist, a former Protestant pastor who became an Orthodox priest. He was talking with a more rigorist bishop who said that the Holy Spirit was absent in the other churches. Fr Peter responsed, "Then who lead me Here, Your Grace?" We pray in our liturgy that the Holy Spirit is everywhere present and filling all things. If we truly believe that (which we do), we cannot say the Holy Spirit is absent among the Catholics or Protestants. Nor, for that matter, can we say He is absent from the Muslims, pagans, etc. There is a story of St Herman and his monks coming to Alaska and listening to the Yupiks about their Mythos. The Yupiks described a world created by the Great Spirit, humanity coming from two humans after a Great Flood, and similar. When they heard this, the monks said, "The Holy Spirit has come before us and paved the way." They do not ask the Yupik to denounce everything about the Old Ways, but neither do they ask the Yupik to remain in them; they ask the Yupik to reach the fullness of their Mythos in the Church. Now, historically the Orthodox has distinguished between non-Christians and Christian heretics. For example, the Arians were often received by simple confession of faith. In the Serbian Church's guidelines the reception for Coptics and Catholics is quite different from Protestants, which is different from non-Christians. In our canonical guidelines we recognize them as, to use Vladmir Losskey's words, "separated brethren." We recognize that the disciples of St John the Baptist were casting out demons. We also recognized that they needed to join the Church (Acts 19:1-7). Clearly the Holy Spirit worked on them before, as Jesus Himself said. And this same Holy Spirit brought St Paul to them so they may be received into the fullness of the Church. As for most of the world not having heard of Orthodoxy, in AD 40 most of the world had never heard of Christ. Until the 16th century most of the New World had never heard of Christ. Before the Advent most of the world had never heard of Israel, God's chosen nation. The reknown of the Church does not make it true or false. For the past several centuries Orthodoxy had been repressed in most of the historic Orthodox countries. The Golden Horde, the Ottomans, the Soviets, and such. Evangelism is more difficult when simple survival is a constant challenge. Difficult, but not impossible. Ubi Petrus has done several videos on Orthodox evangelism. I would also point to St Nicholas of Japan to Japan; the many great evangelists to America such as St Herman of Alaska, St Innocent of Alaska, St Tikhon, St Raphael of Brooklyn, and so on; in older history the conversion of the Slavs by Sts Cyril and Methodius. Much of the spread of Catholicism and Protestantism came with the colonial empires. But I would suggest it would be a mistake to look at the current order and assume this is how it will be in perpetuity. Now with the advent of the Internet and mass communication Orthodox is seeing a surge of growth. Even earlier the Antiochians in America have done much for missionary work and outreach, and they are not alone. If I may profer, I would suggest finding a local Orthodox Church, visiting, and bringing your questions and concerns to the priest there. Do not feel like you must hold back. May God guide you in Wisdom and Truth.
Reposting a comment I made on Trent's video: I think [Trent's] section on Eastern Orthodox was the weakest, though this may be because it primarily focuses on debates between Orthodox and Catholics [trying to be charitable]. In Orthodox contra-Protestant apologetics, the two most common tactics I see are 1) the solas are false (negative case) and 2) Orthodox ecclesiology is true (positive case). I assume the latter arises less often in Orthodox-Catholic debates because both agree on the threefold ministry and Apostolic Succession, but I don't think it's absent as [Trent] suggest. Also, I think the Vatican 1 Papacy becomes a big focus because it's the only real difference many Catholic apologists will accept as a legitimate difference (aside from maybe the filioque). While people like Wagner will call the Essence-Energy distinction heresy and I respect him for it (even if I disagree), for almost every non-Papal objection Orthodox bring up many Catholic apologists will respond "Byzantine Catholics believe that too so it's not a real difference separating communion." Which is obviously going to drive focus to the Papacy. I don't think this is an argument of "you're wrong therefore we're the default" because these conversations are not happening in a vaccuum. It is more "We have already agreed on/conceded all of these points, here is where we differ." Even if I were to grant this is a "you're wrong therefore we're right" argument, the points of agreement and the foundations for that agreement wouldn't leave something like Progressive Christianity as an unaddressed alternative; the only real alternatives would be the Non-Chalcedonians, the Assyrian Church of the East, and _maybe_ the Anglicans.
Hi Kyle, Orthodox people would like to know that your priest has blessed your teaching activities. Could you please do a video on that so we know your priest is okay with this. Love your work. Blessings to you
You act like Jay Dyer is the end all be all. He debates in bad faith and consistently talks over people and hangs up on them when he can't answer the questions and accuses the callers for that when it's not true at all. He's a clown
@@a.ihistory5879bad faith? I’ve seen him do that maybe once or twice, but he typically just mirrors how you are to him. If you are civil so is he, it’s not our fault lofton is a clown.
I would suggest reading Fr Stephen De Young's _The Whole Counsel of God_ for a good treatment of the matter. Canon is descriptive, not prescriptive. That is, canonical books are those which are authoritative in a community. There can also be different levels of primacy in the canon (e.g. the Torah over the rest of the OT for the Jews, the Gospels over the rest of the Bible for Christians, the Quran over Sahih hadiths for Muslims). Jesus did not leave us with a Bible, but with a Church and the Holy Spirit, a community guided by God, however imperfectly we follow that guidance. We do not believe God inspired a certain number of books and only those books and none others are inspired. For the Orthodox, the canon had the added feature of those Scriptures to be read publicly, as opposed to those Scriptures to be read privately (Apocryphal). For the early Church, the New Testament were the Testaments of the Apostles, and the Old Testament were the Jewish Scriptures. But what exactly those were varied, because the Jews themselves did not have a unified canon; the Pharisees, Sadducees, Essenes, etc all had different canons. Hence the long debate on the canonicity of the canonicity of Esther; it was a debate within Pharisitical Judaism, where the answer changed over the years. The canon is determined by the community; different church communities can have different canons at the edge (books of lesser primacy considered canonical by one and apocryphal by the other) and that is ok for the _ecclesia._ This was tacitly recognized by the Catholics at Trent. Trent is often said to have closed the canon, but this is not true. There was debate on what to do with the books Rome recognized as canonical and the East did not, so their solution was the cement the Western canon as canonical Scriptures which cannot be removed, while leaving the door open for other books to be added. They did not do as the Westminster Confession did with the canon, where they did close it. Neither Rome nor Orthodox are Protestant; we reject _sola scriptura._ The basis for the canon list for Orthodox is that which the Church has recognized and reads in her liturgics.
Most slavic Churches only consider the 66 books canon (homolegomena), and the others (antilegoumena) as sacred books, eclesiastical books, but not on the same level as the others. Just like the first millenial church, different churches hold different canons, and there were no problems with that.
@@JD-eb7ek each church had their own eclesiastical tradition of private readings. It doesn't matter if it is 73,76 or 81. The homolegoumena is the canonical norm for liturgical reading.
These apologists like Horn are a joke frankly. But the worst is Wagner he is smug and been beaten numerous times yet still ignores the very problems Rome has.
Horn beat Dyer in a debate and has done a tremendous job debunking Protestants and Mormons. He alone has probably done more evangelizing the the entirety of the EOs who hate fulfilling Christ's command
Papist apologetics 101: 1. Peter very important, head of the apostles, so Roman bishop Pontifex maximus! 2. Muh Church bigger 3. Muh Church global 4. What Orthodox Church? 5. First millenium Saints and council correspondence quote mines of flowery language when addressing Rome 6. ad hominem attacks 7. The Orthodox bishop of Timbuktu spoused X heretical views, it’s over Orthobros! (Sweeps massive amounts of papal heresy throughout history under the rug) 8. Look at this time a foreign bishop appealed to Rome, and when this council sided with Rome! Oh, the times popes were excommunicated and declared heretics? You need to do a very nuanced and charitable reading of that event. Extra ecclesia nulla salus! If all else fails, my video or post will have 10X more views and likes, so you’re wrong by vox populi!
@@charlesjoyce982 Pope Honorius. He agreed with the monothelite Pat Sergius of Constantinople in letter. Sergius then held a synod in Cyprus 636 which Honorius sent legates to, and according to the few records we have left (as the records were all but destroyed later to expunge the heresy), *every Bishop present agreed* including the Papal Legates. Only one Patriarch, St Sophronius of Jerusalem, did not sign the decrees or the Ekthesis which tried to dogmatize monothelitism and forbid dyothelitism. Only Jerusalem and Rome were holdouts before Honorius, then Honorius submitted Rome to this heresy and joined the monothelites to his See with the expectation that all would fall in line and the issue would remain settled (per his letters with Sergius, this was his intent). It was later two Popes, Theodore and Martin, who worked with St Sophronius, St Maximus, and Stephen of Dora (Soprhonius' Patriarchal vicar while he was ill) to condemn monothelitism at Lateran 649, whose decrees were presented and reviewed again at Constantinople III - where Honorius was condemned. The council declared that Honorius was the tool of Satan to bring death upon humanity by "raising up for the whole Church the stumbling blocks of but one will and one operation... thus disseminating...a heresy similar to the mad and wicked doctrine of the impious Apollinaris, Severus, and Themistus." They then accuse him of wicked blasphemy, following the heretics Sergius et al in their heresy, and subjected him to anathema. Leo II later agreed to the condemnation of Honorius for permitting the purity of Apostolic tradition to be polluted "by profane treachery." II Constantinople had previously said that when Christ promised that hell would not prevail against the Church, he meant "the death-dealing tongues of heretics" and their "uncontrolled tongues and...heretical writings" would not prevail. Honorius condoned and ratified death-dealing heresy with an uncontrolled tongue, it was by the grace of God that some faithful Bishops opposed this until the matter was settled by the Third Council of Constantinople.
Jesus himself said you shall know them by their fruits. If you want to see a clear simple argument as to which church is the true Church of Christ look at their fruits. What are the fruits of the Orthodox Church? Compassionate dedicated Christians, monasteries filled with holy and clairvoyant monks, and a dedicated priesthood. What are the fruits of the Roman Catholic Church? Provable heresies, a judgemental and deceptive laity, and lastly the Vatican just settled a lawsuit because over 300 priests in one archdiocese alone liked to get touchy with children. It's very clear who belongs to the one true church of Christ.
They will just point out that Roman Catholicism is the dominant form of Christianity globally because they conquered the America’s and that Orthodoxy is small by comparison (popular equals true fallacy). Ignoring that many of these Catholics still honor pagan traditions and figures especially in South America but even in Africa and Asia. Concessions on the faith and letting you do what you want as long as you accept the pope is not new for them like with eastern Catholics venerating post schism saints. The papacy itself has been involved with so much political corruption with morally bankrupt and degenerate popes.
I want to point out a couple of problems with your argument. 1. The argument that since all of the Apostles received the keys, and by extension all of the Apostles are successors of the Apostles, and successors of Peter, DOES NOT refute our position. We know that already, many magisterial documents from the Vatican say that, and the fathers teach it. But, only one of the Apostles were set apart with the primacy to be the principle of unity for the entire Church, and that was Peter alone. You can find many examples of this teaching in the Fathers that a primacy was given to Peter, that the others receive the keys THROUGH Peter and by being in unity with him. Cyprian, Optatus, Leo I, etc. 2. Now this is the point where I think the Orthodox position falls apart. All bishops are successors of Peter, but not necessarily successors of Peter IN HIS PRIMACY, which is singular, and is that way for the sake of unity. Only the bishop of Rome, according to many Fathers, is the successor of Peter in this Primacy. Cyprian's Epistle 59 says this explicitly about the Roman episcopate, and you can also find this teaching in Leo I's writings, and many other places among the Fathers. But, this would mean that the primacy of the bishop of Rome as head of the whole Church is a divine institution. Christ set the bishop of Rome above all of the other bishops. Uh, oh. 3. Now the problem actually gets worse for your position when you actually study how it was in the old covenant. You had a threefold hierarchal structure of high priest, priest, and servant. But you also had one GREAT high priest, who was the primate of the entire Levitical priesthood. He also had SUPREME power over the entire Levitical assembly. So, all of the high priests in the local cities possesses the dignity and power of binding and loosing. But that doesn't mean that there is not a primate who has jurisdictional authority over the whole thing.
Sources that I am getting this from: Cyprian: "After such things as these, moreover, they still dare - a false bishop having been appointed for them by, heretics - to set sail and to bear letters from schismatic and profane persons to the throne of Peter, and to the chief Church whence priestly unity takes its source; and not to consider that these were the Romans whose faith was praised in the preaching of the apostle, to whom faithlessness could have no access." Optatus: "Those who do not know may sometimes be pardoned. You cannot then deny that you do know that upon Peter first in the City of Rome was bestowed the Episcopal Cathedra, on which sat Peter, the Head of all the Apostles (for which reason he was called Cephas), that, in this one Cathedra, unity should be preserved by all, lest the other Apostles might claim each for himself separate Cathedras, so that he who should set up a second Cathedra against the unique Cathedra would already be a schismatic and a sinner. Well then, on the one Cathedra, which is the first of the Endowments, Peter was the first to sit.” Leo I: " Therefore this is commended to Peter separately, because all the rulers of the Church are invested with the figure of Peter. The privilege therefore of Peter remains, wherever judgment is passed from his equity. Nor is there too much seventy or indulgence, where nothing is bound, nothing loosed, except what blessed Peter either looses or binds… So then in Peter the strength of all is fortified, and the help of divine grace is so ordered that the stability which through Christ is given to Peter, through Peter is conveyed to the Apostles." "The dispensation of truth therefore abides, and blessed Peter preserving the strength of the Rock, which he has received, has not abandoned the helm of the Church which he undertook. For he was ordained before the rest in such a way that from his being called the Rock, from his being pronounced the foundation, from his being constituted the Doorkeeper of the Kingdom of Heaven, from his being set as the umpire to bind and to loose, whose judgements shall retain their validity in heaven, from all these mystical titles we might know the nature of his association with Christ. And still today he more fully and effectively performs what is entrusted to him, and carries out every part of his duty and charge in Him and with Him, through whom he has been glorified (Jesus Christ). And so if anything has been rightly done and rightly decreed by us, if anything is won from the Mercy of God by our supplications, it is his work and merits whose power lives and whose authority prevails in his see." The great high priest having supreme authority: "The high priest was the presiding officer of the Sanhedrin. This view conflicts with the later Jewish tradition according to which the Pharisee tannaim at the head of the yeshivot presided over the great Sanhedrin also. However, a careful reading of the sources , as well as the fact that in the post-Maccabean period the high priest was looked upon as exercising in all things, political, legal, and sacerdotal, the supreme authority, shows it to be almost certain that the presidency of the Sanhedrin was vested in the high priest." -Wikipedia
So the council of Florence was agreed to then not agreed.? Also the primacy of the Bishop of rome was there from the beginning . Either there's a head of the Church Catholic or not.
The head of the Church is Christ, why would the head of the Church be a guy in the vatican that says Hindu demon worship is a way to approach the true God?
@@torindyson2918 "Therefore, the holy and most blessed Pope, the head of the universal Church, through us his representatives and with the assent of the holy council, endowed as he is with the dignity of blessed Peter the Apostle, who is called the foundation of the Church, the rock of faith, and the doorkeeper of the heavenly kingdom, has stripped him of episcopal dignity and excluded him from all priestly functions. What remains is for the venerable council assembled to pronounce, as justice bids, a canonical verdict against the aforementioned Dioscorus" -Acts of the council of Chalcedon Christ is the head of the Church, but that doesn't mean that there is not also a visible pastor set up by Christ himself for the unity of the Church. The ecumenical councils refer to the bishop of Rome as the head of the Church multiple times, and Christ. The distinction is that Christ is the invisible, supreme head, and the Pope is the visible, earthly head.
I’m going the Orthodox route but my heart tells me both Catholics and Orthodox are really the same Church. I don’t think the pope is some supreme super bishop anymore than I think the Catholics magically lost their sacraments as some Orthodox allege. It reminds me of Israel and Judah and I think God is most displeased with what man does to his Church as the flock suffers most.
Notice that when Christ meets the Samaritan woman, He says ““It is not right to take the children’s bread and toss it to the dogs.” The Judeans were the children of God and the Samaritans were the dogs. They were heretics. They did not have the truth. The Jews didnt even consider them Jews. They were a whole other religion. The same is true of Catholicism. Their legalistic view on things is harmful for their believers.
MT 16 is a clear parallel to the Royal Steward of Isaiah 22. One person to hold that one office. Reading your interpretation into MT 16 is eisegesis. Chrysostom and others taught that the other bishops hold the keys only thru Peter and in union with him. If a bishop separates from union with Rome, they lose the keys.
The first ancient teacher to connect Eliakim (Isaiah 22) to St. Peter (Matthew 16) goes from to Matthew 16 takes it to the bishops as the new governors/priests of the church. "“‘And I will give him the glory of David, he will command and there will be no one to contradict him; I will put the key of the House of David on his shoulder: if he opens, no one will close; if he closed, there will be no one to open.' In this passage are also prefigured the realities which are OURS: “Whatever you bind on earth, he says, will be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth, earth, will be loosed in heaven.” Theodoret of Cyrus (c. 445 AD)
@@barrelagedfaith @barrelagedfaith @barrelagedfaith Ok, but not separate from Peter. Only in communion with Peter. Others invoked Papal primacy before based upon Peter being the Rock and having the keys. Peter can be said to possess the keys independently as the Rock upon whom the Church is built. And the other bishops can be said to possess the keys thru Peter only. Jesus singled out Peter in MT 16 to give the keys and change his name. He did this in front of the other disciples. He later gave the others the power to bind and loose also. Peter was singled out by Jesus in MT 16. If Jesus had wanted all of them to possess the keys independently of each other, He would have given them all the keys in MT 16. But He did not. He only gave the keys to Peter. Matthew presents Peter as the leader of the disciples in other verses also.
Catholics seem to think that we claim the Pope has no authority whatsoever. This is not the case. To sum it up, our view is that he gets the first word, but not the last. The "last word" is the mutual agreement of all of the bishops of the Church. They misunderstand this and presuppose that any historical mention of the Pope having any kind of honour above other bishops must automatically mean what they want it to mean, that is papal supremacy and infalliblity. They fail to see it in the historical context, and frame it within thier own context, which is not only not a valid argument but a logical fallacy.
8:47 We catholic agree with you that "what Jesus made into Peter, he made into all the bishops as well". Now there is a higher level of responsibility when it comes to Peter as well. Jesus changed Simon's name to Peter when giving him the keys. He did not change others' names in that context. We know that when God changes one's name, it is because of a specific mission (e.g from Abram to Abraham, Sarai to Sarah, Jacod to Isreal etc). Also at the last supper, Jesus specifically said he has prayed for Peter so his faith may not fail, and so he strengthens and establishes his brethren. Does it mean that the Patriarch of Rome should be an emperor or a dictator? No. Mistakes have been made. I know. But he has a higher and specific responsibility. Finally Jesus specifically asks Peter to feed his lambs (meaning taking care of the people) and his sheeps (meaning taking care of the elders - the clergy). Again, higher and specific responsibility. We should take the time to share our perspectives in charity, guided by the Holy Spirit instead of attacking one anothers catholics vs orthodoxes. We are very close.
Yet, Jesus Christ promised Peter alone the keys of the Kingdom! The office of sole key holder is one of succession Biblically! Was Moses Peace one of many equals too? always in Jesus Christ our Great God and Savior, He whose Flesh is true food and Blood true drink!
Something that always bothers me is the old meme about someone who gets to the gates of heaven, and it's Saint Peter there at the gate who is like the ultimate bouncer of heaven. I've seen it in jokes and even a SNL skit, etc. Peter is an important saint, but that feels very wrong and I don't think any saint would appreciate the blasphemy of something like that. It's Jesus Christ who is the Way, the Truth, and the Life.
EDIT: this is the video I mentioned in my comment th-cam.com/video/ViiWV-D2eGI/w-d-xo.htmlsi=z2ayuJ5FU2YT6vR7 I'm not sure where this comment fits into the conversation, but I wanted to add this: Catholics and Orthodox seem to talk past each other. The late Met Kallistos Ware said it best (and I'm paraphrasing here) when he said the Orthodox have no problem with Papal primacy, but we take issue with Papal supremacy. One problem is that modern Catholic apologists seem to equate the two terms. So they'll quote mine the Fathers and find some excerpt about Peter being leader of the Church, or maybe some lush writings about Rome, and say "ah ha! That proves the Papacy!" I don't mean to be offensive, so forgive me if I've come across snarky. It's meant to be a candid summary of what I often see online.
St. Optatus of Milevis, Against the Donatists Book VII Without doubt it is evil to do anything against a prohibition, but it is worse not to have unity when you may. We see that this unity was preferred to punishment by Christ Himself, who chose that all His disciples should be in unity rather than punish a sin against Himself. For, as He did not wish to be denied, He declared that whosoever should deny Him before men him would He deny before His Father, but He did not declare that He would punish one who should give up any Scripture, since it is more serious to deny Him who spoke, than to give up the words which He has spoken. And though this has been thus written, nevertheless, for the sake of unity, blessed Peter (for whom it would have been enough if after his denial he had obtained pardon only) both deserved to be placed over all the Apostles, and alone received the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven, which he was to communicate to the rest. So from this example it is given us to understand that for the sake of unity sins should be buried, since the most blessed Apostle Paul says that charity can cover a multitude of sins.
Catholic history and protestant folk turned me atheist almost 35 years ago. I will follow Jesus and God, not anything that came from or after the catholic church. So my choice looks like The Way, or orthodox.
@@Joey_Doeyes, because every saint was a life long catechumen , the Catholic favorite of “a splinter in your eye” really has no place in a conversation trying to spread the truth that Christ is king
I would suggest that's a conversation between him and his priest. He's done videos with priests before, so at the very least there are some priests aware of his work.
Yeah, as a protestant, I was definitely wondering why Jimmy wasn't seeing the easy made parallels between Rome and Samaria in that story; an organization built on a city God didn't ordain as His center of worship being argued that it is the only place to go. Yeah, this typology is just to malleable, but, hey, maybe Jimmy was just using good story telling to illustrate his point.🤷♂
You guys accepts heads from the human body, to the family, to the diocesan level, to the bishop and patriarch level... then at the universal level, no visible head... doesn't add up. But sure, you guys are correct because... yeah, the head is Jesus Christ so, heads all the way up only one missing head in the process of reaching to Christ... To be universal you need the bishop of Rome anyways so, you are still incomplete, just deal with the fact that the schism hurts everybody, fight for unity, not for views on youtube and pleasing your own psychology.
Pope St. Gregory the Great (6th century) addresses your concern. He states that Christ is the Head of the Mystical Body and that the bishops are 'heads of particular communities' including Peter himself. He writes, "“If then he shunned the subjecting of the members of Christ partially to certain heads, as if beside Christ, though this were to the apostles themselves, what will you say to Christ, who is the Head of the universal Church, in the scrutiny of the last judgment, having attempted to put all his members under yourself by the appellation of Universal?... Certainly Peter, the first of the apostles, himself a member of the holy and universal Church, Paul, Andrew, John, - what were they but heads of particular communities? And yet all were members under one Head. And (to bind all together in a short girth of speech) the saints before the law, the saints under the law, the saints under grace, all these making up the Lord's Body, were constituted as members of the Church, and not one of them has wished himself to be called universal. Now let your Holiness acknowledge to what extent you swell within yourself in desiring to be called by that name by which no one presumed to be called who was truly holy.” In regards to Patriarchs, they are heads of regions in a conciliar framework and so the lead (protos) Patriarch among the Patriarchs would have certain responsibilities at a global level in a limited way (see Sardica canon 34) when they are appealed to. I hope this helps.
@@barrelagedfaith Pope St. Gregory the Great is not cancelling what I am saying at all. If you understand the notion of hierarchy given by Saint Dyonisius then you would understand the notion of participation, and subsidiarity, Saint Peter is the first by participation in the first who is Jesus Christ, if he is the head is the head by participation in he who is the head, and every head in the created order is head by participation that's why you have an analogous reality of levels of participation within the same reality. Saying Christ is the head doesn't take away any other headship since every head below him are being a mirror (by participation) in his headship. Being something by yourself and your own essence is not the same as being by participation, God is and sustains himself by himself and by his own essence, every creature is and sustains themselves by participation in God who sustains them all, Christ is mediator by essence and by his own nature, the Holy Theotokos is a mediatrix by participation in Christ. You guys take away one level of participated headship, you take away the first, to say that since Christ is the first then everybody else is equal and there are no first in the created participated hierarchy.
Everything must be based on the authority of two or three witnesses, especially doctrine. Peter as the rock is only found in one place, Matthew 16:18, we can not base doctrine on this one verse with no further context. Not only is it only found in one place though, the context of what Jesus was saying is completely lost on the Roman church. Jesus called Peter Petros, or "little rock," while he said that Peter's confession, namely that Jesus was the Messiah and the Son of God, was the Petra, or "giant foundation stone," that Christ would build his church on. Jesus was not ordaining Peter as the first Pope, He was declaring that his confession, which Jesus said Peter received from the Father not of himself, was the foundation which His church would be built upon. The Pope has no authority over any other bishop, especially not the current one, who is an apostate.
@charlesjoyce982 How do you know? Were you there? You have no idea what language Jesus said that in. But it is recorded in Matthew in Greek, and the distinction is most certainly there, so it is absolutely not irrelevant. What is even more relevant though, is that Peter is not being called the foundation of the church, his confession is, and that confession is that Jesus is the Messiah and the Son of God. Christ is the Rock and the foundation that church is built on, and there are far more Scriptures than just one that explain that, including: Isaiah 96:4, Psalm 95:1, 1 Corinthians 10:4, Luke 6:47-49, Matthew 7:24-29, 1 Corinthians 3:11-13, and Ephesians 2:20 just to name a few. On the testimony of 2 or 3 witnesses, there's 7 for you, a nice Biblical number. There are exactly ZERO other verses in the Scripture that even come close to calling Peter the foundation stone of the church.
Do you Orthodox fellows ever pray or do you just make TH-cam videos all day? If you prayed more for us Catholics instead of whatever it is you think you're doing maybe then we would come to our senses and join the "true" church.
We pray way more then any catholic so weird salty projection you have, you’d probably think Jesus was insulting you if he talked to you as well, I’m sorry the truth is offensive to you, but Christ is king , leader of the church, not an Italian man who is a part of a cult
Protestant to Orthodox here. I don't get the Catholic position at all. And I've had to rethink a lot of things during conversion and have stopped being so harsh about Catholicism, though Orthodoxy is apparent to me to be the true church.
Ecumenical Council of Ephesus 431: Session 3 Philip the presbyter and legate of the Apostolic See said: There is no doubt, and in fact it has been known in all ages, that the holy and most blessed Peter, prince (ἔξαρχος) and head of the Apostles, pillar of the faith, and foundation (θεμέλιος) of the Catholic Church, received the keys of the kingdom from our Lord Jesus Christ, the Savior and Redeemer of the human race, and that to him was given the power of loosing and binding sins: who down even to today and forever both lives and judges in his successors. The holy and most blessed pope Cœlestine, according to due order, is his successor and holds his place, and us he sent to supply his place in this holy synod, which the most humane and Christian Emperors have commanded to assemble, bearing in mind and continually watching over the Catholic faith. For they both have kept and are now keeping intact the apostolic doctrine handed down to them from their most pious and humane grandfathers and fathers of holy memory down to the present time. Cyril, the bishop of Alexandria said: The professions which have been made by Arcadius and Projectus, the most holy and pious bishops, as also by Philip, the most religious presbyter of the Roman Church, stand manifest to the holy Synod. For they have made their profession in the place of the Apostolic See, and of the whole of the holy synod of the God-beloved and most holy bishops of the West.
This is a demonstably untrue statement. Orthodoxy hasn't been in Communion with Rome for almost 800-1000 years. As well as the Standard for Denominations is not even a Christian one, but was invented by Freemasons to prevent religious tensions in Colonial America.
Protestants are Apostolic when they practice according to the Apostolic decree of sola Scriptura: "And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works. (2 Timothy 3:15-17 KJV)" Protestants thus do have the Sanctuary and they do come to the Holt Communion of the Lord's Supper when they discern the Lord's Body, and by inference His Blood, therein (Matthew 18:20; 1 Corinthians 11:23-33 KJV).
@@Englishkin _Sola Scriptura_ is not the Apostolic Teaching. I am Orthodox and I agree with what St Paul says here. Rejecting _sola scriptura_ is not rejecting _scriptura._ When Christ ascended, He did not leave us with a Bible, He left us with the Church and the Holy Spirit. For at least a decade after Christ ascended there was no New Testament Scriptures at all. When St Paul refers to the Scriptures here, he refers to the Old Testament Scriptures. The same St Paul who tells us the value of Scripture tells us to hold fast to the Traditions taught, whether by word or epistle (2 Thessalonians 2:15). _Sola scriptura_ was an entirely foreign doctrine for the entirety of Christian history until Martin Luther. It was not taught by the Apostles, it is not in the Bible (nor is a list of canonical booms for that matter), it was not taught by the immediate successors of the Apostles, nor their successors, etc. Protestants mistake a high praise of the Holy Scriptures for _sola scriptura._ This does not follow, anymore than high praise of the Words of Christ means only the "red letters" are inspired.
"But they held their peace: for by the way they had disputed among themselves, who should be the greatest. And he sat down, and called the twelve, and saith unto them, If any man desire to be first, the same shall be last of all, and servant of all. (Mark 9:34,35 KJV)" "But Jesus called them to him, and saith unto them, Ye know that they which are accounted to rule over the Gentiles exercise lordship over them; and their great ones exercise authority upon them. But so shall it not be among you: but whosoever will be great among you, shall be your minister: And whosoever of you will be the chiefest, shall be servant of all. For even the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many. (Mark 10:42-45 KJV)" "And whosoever shall exalt himself shall be abased; and he that shall humble himself shall be exalted. But woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye shut up the kingdom of heaven against men: for ye neither go in yourselves, neither suffer ye them that are entering to go in. (Matthew 23:12,13 KJV)" "And Moses said unto him, Enviest thou for my sake? would God that all the LORD'S people were prophets, and that the LORD would put his spirit upon them! (Numbers 11:29 KJV)" "Ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ. (1 Peter 2:5 KJV)" "And it came to pass, that while he executed the priest's office before God in the order of his course,,,, (Luke 1:8 KJV)" "Let all things be done decently and in order. (1 Corinthians 14:40 KJV)"
📱 Save $40 off the Wisephone II through my discount code! ($50 during the Christmas sale!) Discount Link: www.wisephone.com/king Discount Code: KING "Consider a Healthy Smartphone for people who want a healthy relationship with their phone without sacrificing the benefits of healthy apps."
🗻 Explore more about Orthodoxy & Ancient Christianity through the Church Fathers & Inklings (C.S. Lewis & J.R.R. Tolkien) www.barrelagedfaith.com
"The Orthodox would have to rewrite history and they've done that!"
How are the Donation of Constantine, Pseuo-Isidore Decreetals, and Against the Errors of the Greeks working out for you guys?
Exactly, their view is so dependent on proven forgeries because it's a provable fact that the Pope of Rome was never seen as more than a Patriarch. That's why the Patriarch of Alexandria's official title is The Pope of Alexandria. That's why the pope of Rome also held the title Patriarch of The West. Because he was never anything more than a Patriarch. He was just given seniority. And seniority and supremacy are not the same thing. The same way The Speaker of The House in American politics has seniority over the other representatives, so when he speaks, the house puts a lot of weight on his statements. But he cannot override the votes of all the other representatives, because he's not supreme.
you do realise all of those forgeries were used by the east very often for 600 years too lol. It wasn’t just the west using them. U guys have zero arguments 😂
@lionheart5078 really? Show me. Tell me the document right now. Show me the Mark of Ephesus document that relies on The Gify of Constantine. Do it now or accept your loss with grace. Or don't get felted liar
@@lionheart5078Show us who and where. A random theologian? A Patriarch or synod? Because on your side the Pope and his magisterium used.
But, even if someone on our side used, our claims dont depend on forgeries, yours did LOL
@@Jerônimo_de_Estridão The Gift of Constantine is an uncontested forgery. Even Benedict admitted it was. So again, get felted liar
This is absolutely fantastic! Excellent exegesis here, Kyle. As a former Roman Catholic, I used to listen to William Albrecht a lot - the clip of him reading St. Cyprian's "On the Unity of the Catholic Church" really showed the level of effort that goes into reading their ecclesiology into the text. If you look at it from St. Cyprian's perspective, it's clear as day what he means... Glad to be home in Holy Orthodoxy ☦
@JohnAlbinus
Just so you're aware there is no Orthodox church, it's Orthodox churches.
Holiness implies unity: 'one FAITH, one Baptism, on Lord who is above all, through all and in all.'
"Be holy like your heavenly Father is holy."
@@anthonyburke2353one faith and one Church. Whatever Orthodox local Church you visit, you feel like home. I was a parishioner of Georgian Church, I was at home (although I am a parishioner of Russian Church). There are no separate local Churches.
@@anthonyburke2353LoL. At the same time you say that, other apologist (like Trent) says: "The catholic church is composed of 24 churches of different rites and customs!! We have universality!!" LoL hypocrites.
@@Jerônimo_de_Estridão
All churches are supposed to be united in the one body.
@@charlesjoyce982 Yes, they are one body, united by a single faith and baptism.
I think the biggest disconnect here is illustrated by Lofton’s statement: “papal primary and papal supremacy… they go hand in hand”.
From an Orthodox perspective there’s so clearly a difference between being first in an honorific way vs being the ecclesial head of the Church in an authoritative way… but maybe since the west was always unified under a single head bishop this isn’t as obvious to Catholics. We have a historical track record for what it looks like for the Church to be led by multiple patriarchs, they don’t.
I think you broadly see this in the latin theological tradition as well. They want things to be super cut and dry and defined. We’re comfortable with a little more nuance. I think the Church would benefit and did benefit from having both of those approaches present at the table.
Modern Roman Catholicism has generally forgotten "What a Patriarch is" which is what a Orthodoxy thinks the Bishop of Rome (Patriarch of the West) is. Many Vatican documents simply say the "Pope and bishops"
To be fair, he said infallibility* and supremacy
Look how much it has benefited Constantinople.
Oops, Istanbul I meant.
You mean less nuance. Clear cut is as nuanced as you can get.
The east has been comfortable with heresy many times too.
Rome had to rescue the east time and time again from errors that consumed the east.
Man.... How much was I missing as a protestant. Beautiful
The problem with Jimmy Akin's statement around 16:10 is that it's question-begging: Many of the modern RCC's teachings DO NOT seem to be the same things taught by the 16th century RCC or the 13th century RCC, etc. It is not obvious why we should trust the modern RCC to have the correct interpretation of those older RCC teachings. Akin says we should trust the people who "have the institution," but I don't know that the modern RCC is the same institution as the 16th or 13th century RCC. That is, in fact, the very point that is in question.
As Proto-Protestants, what every generation of the RCC does is re-interpret every prior pronouncement of the RCC to make it consistent with the modern views of the papacy. This yields all the same issues as Protestant interpretation of scripture: the meaning of text is not self-evident, and it can often be read in such a way that it has multiple possible meanings.
The problem with Akin's statement is that it has no support in the Patristic sources.
So true!
As a Catholic seminarian who almost converted to Orthodoxy. I appreciated the video and I can understand that given certain presuppositions, Orthodoxy can make sense more than Catholicism. I was torn and lost between the two for a long time with no peace.but I’m glad to be a seminarian for the Catholic Church, truly my home.
Just sad to know about the divisions that we have between the West and the East. My heart breaks each time I attend an Orthodox Divine Liturgy. I just feel the division and it truly pains me on the verge of tears.
And yet Catholics allow communion for Orthodox at our liturgies, but not vice versa.
What does that tell us?
I hate to make this insinuation, but it is very difficult not to believe that Lofton and Ybarra are not being intentionally dishonest when they interviewed Dr Price and then presented his view later as precisely the opposite of what Dr Price said.
Erick Ybarra is openly honest about what Dr. Price says and I have seen him do this on multiple occasions. Lofton in a later video repackages Dr. Price for his own purposes in his Nicaea II video against Orthodoxy.
Ybarra is probably about as honest as it gets
Another great video! The thing most RCs dont grasp about the first millennium is that the Church was decidedly conciliar in character. From provincial metropolitans to patriarchs, there were synods that met regularly. Any discussion about leadership, headship, etc., would have taken place in this (synodal) context.
Jimmy Akin unironically comparing Rome to the Jewish temple when Jesus specifically says the Father desires no such thing is hilarious.
Don’t forget the fixed temple in one place wasn’t even God’s idea to begin with.
As a former Roman Catholic, I cannot stand listening to these apologists. It’s all just rhetoric.
I was a papist heretic for almost a decade. They are beyond deceitful and arrogant. It is horrifying for me to look back and think about how I believed all their lies. Lord have mercy on us.
@lukefreeman3383 I'm not sure I would go so far as to say "deceitful," at least not deliberately. It seems to me the problem is that they are working backwards. They have assumed the conclusion - Vatican I Papacy - then are finding proof texts that could be read to support the pre-determined position.
I am still Roman Catholic, but these last months I've discovered the Eucharistic Ecclesiology in the Fathers and ever since then I have much the same reaction when hearing that stuff. It's so sad.
Come to europe and look at the Catholic Church. It is completely destroyed
@@2anthranilicacid You should read (or re-read) Vatican I and Satis cognitum by Leo XIII if you haven't, and then, please, read Craig Truglia's book.
Honestly I have a hard time listening to any pro papal polemics anymore because it feels so disingenuous and presumptive and they’re more likely to throw out insults and accusations of deception. Everything I’ve ever seen pushed by them falls apart with research and context.
Peter was clearly the leader of the apostles.
Jesus intended for there to be a successor to Peter to be the leader of the hierarchy.
Hence the name change and the gift of keys to Peter.
That's the EOs too though. Look at your Pope Dyer and Ubi and Kyle. They're online scumbags
@@charlesjoyce982 and all bishops have Petrine succession as Saint Peter made the other apostles bishops as well as founding three sees as especially Petrine (this was the interpretation of Petrine authority for the first thousand years as proven in the writings of the Fathers time and time again) your surface level anti Protestant polemics don’t find purchase here
@@Deathbytroll
Only by being united with the actual successor of Peter do all bishops possess petrine succession. Not separate from the bishop of rome do they have petrine succession.
Thats why someone like Chrysostom would say that all bishops possess the keys thru the bishop of rome who is the actual successor to Peter.
@@charlesjoyce982 Rome does not have exclusive Petrine succession and separated from the true Church Rome loses all authority or claim of apostolic succession. It’s supposed supremacy is based on (now admitted) forgeries and heresy.
The first clip from Wagner has mystified me since I first saw it. In what world are people like Ubi Petrus not putting forward a positive argument for Orthodox ecclesiology? Like half of his apologetic is just citing canons and councils in order to demonstrate the Orthodox conciliar model. No idea what these guys are talking about
I don't think he has adequately considered the Orthodox position of ecclesiology and so his comment is a bit over the top. Sure, a person is free to disagree with the model but don't say outlandish things. He has admitted that he hasn't even explored the historical arguments for the Papacy deep enough in his interview w/ Ybarra and that there isn't a clear case as many Roman Catholics think. So its a strange comment (Ybarra destroy Ubi) in light of what he said in that other interview.
@@barrelagedfaithYeah I recall those statements too. Very strange stuff
How can one (Wagner) be so utterly disrespectful and still pretend to be a good Christian?
Absolutely correct. Roman Catholicism today is completely unmoored from the Apostolic Church.
Yes it is. And we see in the Vatican II and post-VII docs an effort to get it back.
Cope, it is easy to control a Church under Putins domain😂
Off topic, but I have yet to hear a Catholic defend his epistemology - _i.e._ muh infallible Magisterium. Evangelicals almost get a pass, as far as I'm concerned, for thinking silly things about the bible. They were reacting to "the Enlightenment", after all. Catholics don't get the same excuse. "The Enlightenment" was _their fault._
@@joachim847 I mean there’s a through line of thinkers and academics who were mostly Catholic leading up to what became the enlightenment but I wouldn’t place the blame at the feet of the Roman ecclesiastical structure for that.
Peter received a supreme power. He is "the only one chosen among the twelve, as chief” (Jerome, Against Jovinianus 1.26, ML 23.258). "Only on him Christ built the Church” (Cyprian, On the Unity of the Catholic Church 4, ML 4.514). "To him the primacy has been given” (Cyprian, ibid.). "The primacy among the disciples” (Augustine, On Ps. 108.1, ML 37.143 If.). He is "the prince of the apostles” (Eusebius of Caesarea, Eccl. Hist. 2.14, MG 20.171), "The head of the apostles” (Chrysostom, On John, horn. 88.1, MG 59.478-480). He is "the doctor of the whole world” (Chrysostom, ibid). He received "all power in heaven” (Chrysostom, On Matt., horn. 54.2, MG 58.534f.). "Peter rules over all priests and pastors” (Leo I, Serm. 4.2, ML 54.149f.). "Through Peter Christ gives to the bishops the key of heavenly things” (Gregory of Nyssa, On Mortification, MG 46.311). Christ "never gives anything to others but through him” (Leo I, ibid.) Peter received a never-ceasing power. He "personifies the Church” (Augustine, Epist. 53.2, ML 33.196); hence "Where Peter is, there is the Church” (Ambrose, On Ps. 40.30, ML 14.1134). "As the thing that Peter confessed in Christ is everlasting, so the thing that Christ established in Peter never ceases” (Leo I, Servn. 3.2f., ML 54.145f.). Peter "is always living in his successors” (Philip, apostolic legate in the Council of Ephesus, Denz. 3056), who occupy "Peter’s Chair” (Jerome Epist. 15.1, ML 22.355; Augustine, Against the Epistle of Manichaeus 4.5 ML 42.175; Leo I, Servn. 3.2 f, ML 54.145f.), in whom "Peter’s power is alive” (Leo I, ibid.), so that "through Leo and Agatho [Roman Pontiffs] Peter himself spoke” (Acclamation of the Fathers in the Councils of Chalcedon and Constantinople III).
The sense of Tradition is summarized in the following common slogans: "Christ’s Vicar” (Ambrose), "Prince of the Apostles” (Eusebius of Caesarea), "Peter’s Chair” (Jerome, Augustine77), "Where Peter is, there is the Church” (Ambrose)
_Emmanuel Doronzo - The Science Of Sacred Theology p309_
Beautiful
This dude makes some claims and never justifies them he brings up some good points but ultimately scripture doesn’t agree with him but thank you for this
Many of the same saints/theologians you quote never apply the petrine stuff to the bishop pf Rome, but to the episcopacy in general: search for: "all bishops are successors of Peter - a florilegium".
Exactly just quote mines not paying attention the quotes, "to bishops" St. Cyprian says, the rest is just again quote mines not worth addressing.
Muslims have Mohamed. Catholics have the pope, the white Mohamed. Same claims there, same claims here. That's why many times, catholics argue like muslims. God and his only prophet, the pope. Full of sins and mistakes, but infallible.
@ I’d like to have what you’re smoking bro our pope is righteous and divinely chosen
This is awesome, thank you for sharing this. ☦️❤️
The argument for Papal Infallibility and the primacy of Roman jurisdiction is the same as a Lambeth Conference of Anglican bishops declaring that the Archbishop of Canterbury (who is the first among equals of Anglican Bishops) is now the head of the whole christian church and Canterbury has total jurisdiction. Vatican I and Roman apologetics following it is simply the tail trying to wag the dog.
@anathamon No because you cannot trace the Archbishop of Canterbury's authority all the way back to Peter to whom Jesus gave the keys of the Kingdom. You may disagree with the view of us catholics on the Papacy and the authority, but it is not the same as anglicanism. The difference between the catholic and orthodox views on the papacy is really about the scope of his authority.
Except it is Christ Himself who established the primacy in St. Peter and his successors.
@@a.k.4486 Anglican orders were considered "null and void" because Leo considered the "form" and "intent" of Anglican ordination rites were defective. It was not because Anglican bishops cannot trace their apostolic succession back to the apostles.
@@chiefamongsinners16 Did you watch the video? If you simply apply your statement that "Christ himself established the primacy in St Peter and his successors" then you would have to say that John X, the Primate of Antioch, is the one who now has primacy in the Church today. St Peter was the first bishop of Antioch before he visited Rome.
@@aussiebloke51 The Ecumenical Councils acknowledge that it is St. Peter’s successor in Rome who holds the primacy in the Church.
Back when I was considering Roman Catholicism, I noticed that restricting the keys of Matthew 16 to Peter logically led to restricting the keys to Peter, that is to say, to Peter alone such that no firm Scriptural case could be made that Peter passed on the keys to a successor. Happy to be ex-Protestant and Orthodox now.
Noticed something recently in Fr. Michael Pomazansky's "Orthodox Dogmatic Theology" recently that I hadn't considered before. In the Creed we say "One holy, catholic, APOSTOLIC church", meaning of all the apostles, not just one Apostles. Otherwise, why not say "One holy, catholic and Petrine church"? He also points out in Revelation 21:14, "And the walls of the city had *twelve* foundations, and in them the names of the *twelve Apostles" of the Lamb". If St. Peter is *the* rock, than there's be only one foundation.
All the others are Rock thru union with the one who was made Rock.
Just as all others possess keys thru union with the one who was given the keys.
Also its called Apostolic because it was founded on the Apostle Peter.
Iranaues calls Rome the Apostolic see because it was where Peter founded and was the first bishop.
@@charlesjoyce982 An Apostolic See is any See founded by an Apostle.
@@feeble_stirrings
That may be true.
But some authors have referred to Rome as "the apostolic see".
Iranaeus for instance.
Meaning that Rome was apostolic par excellence in a way that the others are not.
He also said that Rome held preeminent authority on account of it being founded by Peter and Paul.
"And When He says ot the Spirit, He shall glorify Me [John 16:14] we conceiving aright say that not as
lacking glory from another did the One Christ and Son receive Glory from the Holy Ghost, since neither is His
Spirit superior to Him and above Him: but since for demonstration of His Godhead He was using His own
Spirit for mighty deeds, He says that He is glorified by Him. Just as if one of us were to say of his own strength (for example) or understanding in regard
to ought, They will glorify me. For even though the Spirit exist in His Own Person, and is conceived of by
Himself inasmuch as He is the Spirit and not the Son, yet is He not therefore alien from Him*; for He is called the Spirit of truth [John 15:26], and Christ is the Truth [John 14:61] and HE PROCEEDETH FROM HIM, JUST AS FROM GOD THE FATHER"*
Pope St Cyril of Alexandria, Third Letter to Nestorius, accepted at Ephesus 431
Amen
Thank God I stayed Catholic 🙏
"If one should desert [the church], can he still be confident that he's in the church?" No. No he cannot. Now let's find out which one is the church the Apostles left 🤔.
QUICK ANSWER - HELL NO.
For hundreds of years, the relationship between bishops was collegiality, with focus on serving the church (ekklesia: assembly of the people), not building a hierarchy.
Please answer this question. What do you think about your prior Christian experience now that you are Orthodox. Do you now think that you and all your colleagues in Catholicism were void of the sacraments and the grace of God? I’m asking because I’m really close to becoming Orthodox but I think that saying that the Holy Spirit is not present in Catholicism and Protestantism goes against scripture and the fruit and the spirit of God I’ve experienced in my life and the lives of Christians in those other traditions around me. I could accept that Orthodoxy is the one true church and contains the fullness of the faith but there is no way I could accept the rigorous position. I’m not saying this from an emotional perspective either because the truth does not care about our feelings but I think the rigorous position is contrary to parts of scripture that talk about people being Christian’s by their faith and then being recognized by their fruit (Mathew 7:15-20). Then I think of the verse that says no one can say Christ is Lord except by the Holy Spirit and the verses where the disciples see people who do not come from them fasting out demons in Jesus’s name and Jesus says no to stop them because if they are not against us they are for us and they will surely not lose their reward. The other thing that’s stopping me from converting is it’s hard for me to accept that Orthodoxy is the one true church when the Bible says that the church is supposed to be the pillar and foundation of the truth that the gates of hades will not prevail against but most of the world has never heard of Orthodoxy and I don’t really see Orthodox evangelism or the world or culture being impacted by it. Please give me your thoughts on this because if Orthodoxy is the one true church that Christ established then I want to experience the fullness of the faith and worship and serve God in Spirit and Truth but these things are holding me back. You seem like an intelligent and genuine God fearing man pursuing the truth and I would love to hear your thoughts on these things.
There is a story from Fr Peter Gillquist, a former Protestant pastor who became an Orthodox priest. He was talking with a more rigorist bishop who said that the Holy Spirit was absent in the other churches. Fr Peter responsed, "Then who lead me Here, Your Grace?"
We pray in our liturgy that the Holy Spirit is everywhere present and filling all things. If we truly believe that (which we do), we cannot say the Holy Spirit is absent among the Catholics or Protestants. Nor, for that matter, can we say He is absent from the Muslims, pagans, etc. There is a story of St Herman and his monks coming to Alaska and listening to the Yupiks about their Mythos. The Yupiks described a world created by the Great Spirit, humanity coming from two humans after a Great Flood, and similar. When they heard this, the monks said, "The Holy Spirit has come before us and paved the way." They do not ask the Yupik to denounce everything about the Old Ways, but neither do they ask the Yupik to remain in them; they ask the Yupik to reach the fullness of their Mythos in the Church.
Now, historically the Orthodox has distinguished between non-Christians and Christian heretics. For example, the Arians were often received by simple confession of faith. In the Serbian Church's guidelines the reception for Coptics and Catholics is quite different from Protestants, which is different from non-Christians. In our canonical guidelines we recognize them as, to use Vladmir Losskey's words, "separated brethren." We recognize that the disciples of St John the Baptist were casting out demons. We also recognized that they needed to join the Church (Acts 19:1-7). Clearly the Holy Spirit worked on them before, as Jesus Himself said. And this same Holy Spirit brought St Paul to them so they may be received into the fullness of the Church.
As for most of the world not having heard of Orthodoxy, in AD 40 most of the world had never heard of Christ. Until the 16th century most of the New World had never heard of Christ. Before the Advent most of the world had never heard of Israel, God's chosen nation. The reknown of the Church does not make it true or false. For the past several centuries Orthodoxy had been repressed in most of the historic Orthodox countries. The Golden Horde, the Ottomans, the Soviets, and such. Evangelism is more difficult when simple survival is a constant challenge. Difficult, but not impossible. Ubi Petrus has done several videos on Orthodox evangelism. I would also point to St Nicholas of Japan to Japan; the many great evangelists to America such as St Herman of Alaska, St Innocent of Alaska, St Tikhon, St Raphael of Brooklyn, and so on; in older history the conversion of the Slavs by Sts Cyril and Methodius. Much of the spread of Catholicism and Protestantism came with the colonial empires. But I would suggest it would be a mistake to look at the current order and assume this is how it will be in perpetuity. Now with the advent of the Internet and mass communication Orthodox is seeing a surge of growth. Even earlier the Antiochians in America have done much for missionary work and outreach, and they are not alone.
If I may profer, I would suggest finding a local Orthodox Church, visiting, and bringing your questions and concerns to the priest there. Do not feel like you must hold back. May God guide you in Wisdom and Truth.
I just can’t take theologians without beards seriously. Double for priests and bishops. I’m being cheeky. But also…serious 😅☦️❤️God bless.
Reposting a comment I made on Trent's video:
I think [Trent's] section on Eastern Orthodox was the weakest, though this may be because it primarily focuses on debates between Orthodox and Catholics [trying to be charitable]. In Orthodox contra-Protestant apologetics, the two most common tactics I see are 1) the solas are false (negative case) and 2) Orthodox ecclesiology is true (positive case). I assume the latter arises less often in Orthodox-Catholic debates because both agree on the threefold ministry and Apostolic Succession, but I don't think it's absent as [Trent] suggest.
Also, I think the Vatican 1 Papacy becomes a big focus because it's the only real difference many Catholic apologists will accept as a legitimate difference (aside from maybe the filioque). While people like Wagner will call the Essence-Energy distinction heresy and I respect him for it (even if I disagree), for almost every non-Papal objection Orthodox bring up many Catholic apologists will respond "Byzantine Catholics believe that too so it's not a real difference separating communion." Which is obviously going to drive focus to the Papacy. I don't think this is an argument of "you're wrong therefore we're the default" because these conversations are not happening in a vaccuum. It is more "We have already agreed on/conceded all of these points, here is where we differ." Even if I were to grant this is a "you're wrong therefore we're right" argument, the points of agreement and the foundations for that agreement wouldn't leave something like Progressive Christianity as an unaddressed alternative; the only real alternatives would be the Non-Chalcedonians, the Assyrian Church of the East, and _maybe_ the Anglicans.
Hi Kyle, Orthodox people would like to know that your priest has blessed your teaching activities. Could you please do a video on that so we know your priest is okay with this. Love your work. Blessings to you
Anyone who refuses to debate Jay Dyer on these issues automatically loses any little credibility they may have had
You act like Jay Dyer is the end all be all. He debates in bad faith and consistently talks over people and hangs up on them when he can't answer the questions and accuses the callers for that when it's not true at all. He's a clown
@@a.ihistory5879bad faith? I’ve seen him do that maybe once or twice, but he typically just mirrors how you are to him. If you are civil so is he, it’s not our fault lofton is a clown.
@@Varangian777 Lofton is a clown and so is Dyer
Are you going to respond to Gavin Ortlunds recent video on Eastern Orthodoxy?
My biggest problem with EO is the 76 book canon, there no basis for this canon
I would suggest reading Fr Stephen De Young's _The Whole Counsel of God_ for a good treatment of the matter. Canon is descriptive, not prescriptive. That is, canonical books are those which are authoritative in a community. There can also be different levels of primacy in the canon (e.g. the Torah over the rest of the OT for the Jews, the Gospels over the rest of the Bible for Christians, the Quran over Sahih hadiths for Muslims). Jesus did not leave us with a Bible, but with a Church and the Holy Spirit, a community guided by God, however imperfectly we follow that guidance. We do not believe God inspired a certain number of books and only those books and none others are inspired. For the Orthodox, the canon had the added feature of those Scriptures to be read publicly, as opposed to those Scriptures to be read privately (Apocryphal). For the early Church, the New Testament were the Testaments of the Apostles, and the Old Testament were the Jewish Scriptures. But what exactly those were varied, because the Jews themselves did not have a unified canon; the Pharisees, Sadducees, Essenes, etc all had different canons. Hence the long debate on the canonicity of the canonicity of Esther; it was a debate within Pharisitical Judaism, where the answer changed over the years. The canon is determined by the community; different church communities can have different canons at the edge (books of lesser primacy considered canonical by one and apocryphal by the other) and that is ok for the _ecclesia._ This was tacitly recognized by the Catholics at Trent. Trent is often said to have closed the canon, but this is not true. There was debate on what to do with the books Rome recognized as canonical and the East did not, so their solution was the cement the Western canon as canonical Scriptures which cannot be removed, while leaving the door open for other books to be added. They did not do as the Westminster Confession did with the canon, where they did close it. Neither Rome nor Orthodox are Protestant; we reject _sola scriptura._ The basis for the canon list for Orthodox is that which the Church has recognized and reads in her liturgics.
You should change your profile pic then
Most slavic Churches only consider the 66 books canon (homolegomena), and the others (antilegoumena) as sacred books, eclesiastical books, but not on the same level as the others. Just like the first millenial church, different churches hold different canons, and there were no problems with that.
@ why should o accept the 76 books over the 73
@@JD-eb7ek each church had their own eclesiastical tradition of private readings. It doesn't matter if it is 73,76 or 81. The homolegoumena is the canonical norm for liturgical reading.
These apologists like Horn are a joke frankly. But the worst is Wagner he is smug and been beaten numerous times yet still ignores the very problems Rome has.
Horn beat Dyer in a debate and has done a tremendous job debunking Protestants and Mormons. He alone has probably done more evangelizing the the entirety of the EOs who hate fulfilling Christ's command
@a.ihistory5879 horn has not beaten Jay Dyer lol
@@joseonwalking8666 Yes my friend, it wasn't even close. Jay getting frustrated and talking over people doesn't mean he won lol.
@@a.ihistory5879 What point did Jay make that was refuted by Horn. I will wait.
@@joseonwalking8666 "I'll wait" like I'm going to present to you hours worth of a rebuttal in the comments section when you can watch it lmao.
They always use this trick: “OH! Want something unexpected? That what you never think about.” And it sounds like they are very knowledgeable😁
Papist apologetics 101:
1. Peter very important, head of the apostles, so Roman bishop Pontifex maximus!
2. Muh Church bigger
3. Muh Church global
4. What Orthodox Church?
5. First millenium Saints and council correspondence quote mines of flowery language when addressing Rome
6. ad hominem attacks
7. The Orthodox bishop of Timbuktu spoused X heretical views, it’s over Orthobros! (Sweeps massive amounts of papal heresy throughout history under the rug)
8. Look at this time a foreign bishop appealed to Rome, and when this council sided with Rome! Oh, the times popes were excommunicated and declared heretics? You need to do a very nuanced and charitable reading of that event. Extra ecclesia nulla salus!
If all else fails, my video or post will have 10X more views and likes, so you’re wrong by vox populi!
When did a single roman bishop ever try to teach heresy to the whole Church dogmatically ?
@@charlesjoyce982Do you have a list of Papal dogmatic statements? The Vatican hasn't published one
@@rmcccxxv
There are only two.
Immaculate conception and assumption.
@@charlesjoyce982 Pope Honorius. He agreed with the monothelite Pat Sergius of Constantinople in letter. Sergius then held a synod in Cyprus 636 which Honorius sent legates to, and according to the few records we have left (as the records were all but destroyed later to expunge the heresy), *every Bishop present agreed* including the Papal Legates.
Only one Patriarch, St Sophronius of Jerusalem, did not sign the decrees or the Ekthesis which tried to dogmatize monothelitism and forbid dyothelitism. Only Jerusalem and Rome were holdouts before Honorius, then Honorius submitted Rome to this heresy and joined the monothelites to his See with the expectation that all would fall in line and the issue would remain settled (per his letters with Sergius, this was his intent).
It was later two Popes, Theodore and Martin, who worked with St Sophronius, St Maximus, and Stephen of Dora (Soprhonius' Patriarchal vicar while he was ill) to condemn monothelitism at Lateran 649, whose decrees were presented and reviewed again at Constantinople III - where Honorius was condemned. The council declared that Honorius was the tool of Satan to bring death upon humanity by "raising up for the whole Church the stumbling blocks of but one will and one operation... thus disseminating...a heresy similar to the mad and wicked doctrine of the impious Apollinaris, Severus, and Themistus." They then accuse him of wicked blasphemy, following the heretics Sergius et al in their heresy, and subjected him to anathema. Leo II later agreed to the condemnation of Honorius for permitting the purity of Apostolic tradition to be polluted "by profane treachery."
II Constantinople had previously said that when Christ promised that hell would not prevail against the Church, he meant "the death-dealing tongues of heretics" and their "uncontrolled tongues and...heretical writings" would not prevail. Honorius condoned and ratified death-dealing heresy with an uncontrolled tongue, it was by the grace of God that some faithful Bishops opposed this until the matter was settled by the Third Council of Constantinople.
Great video brother. God bless ☦
Jesus himself said you shall know them by their fruits. If you want to see a clear simple argument as to which church is the true Church of Christ look at their fruits. What are the fruits of the Orthodox Church? Compassionate dedicated Christians, monasteries filled with holy and clairvoyant monks, and a dedicated priesthood. What are the fruits of the Roman Catholic Church? Provable heresies, a judgemental and deceptive laity, and lastly the Vatican just settled a lawsuit because over 300 priests in one archdiocese alone liked to get touchy with children. It's very clear who belongs to the one true church of Christ.
Very true. I also love MGS
They will just point out that Roman Catholicism is the dominant form of Christianity globally because they conquered the America’s and that Orthodoxy is small by comparison (popular equals true fallacy). Ignoring that many of these Catholics still honor pagan traditions and figures especially in South America but even in Africa and Asia. Concessions on the faith and letting you do what you want as long as you accept the pope is not new for them like with eastern Catholics venerating post schism saints. The papacy itself has been involved with so much political corruption with morally bankrupt and degenerate popes.
I want to point out a couple of problems with your argument.
1. The argument that since all of the Apostles received the keys, and by extension all of the Apostles are successors of the Apostles, and successors of Peter, DOES NOT refute our position. We know that already, many magisterial documents from the Vatican say that, and the fathers teach it. But, only one of the Apostles were set apart with the primacy to be the principle of unity for the entire Church, and that was Peter alone. You can find many examples of this teaching in the Fathers that a primacy was given to Peter, that the others receive the keys THROUGH Peter and by being in unity with him. Cyprian, Optatus, Leo I, etc.
2. Now this is the point where I think the Orthodox position falls apart. All bishops are successors of Peter, but not necessarily successors of Peter IN HIS PRIMACY, which is singular, and is that way for the sake of unity. Only the bishop of Rome, according to many Fathers, is the successor of Peter in this Primacy. Cyprian's Epistle 59 says this explicitly about the Roman episcopate, and you can also find this teaching in Leo I's writings, and many other places among the Fathers. But, this would mean that the primacy of the bishop of Rome as head of the whole Church is a divine institution. Christ set the bishop of Rome above all of the other bishops. Uh, oh.
3. Now the problem actually gets worse for your position when you actually study how it was in the old covenant. You had a threefold hierarchal structure of high priest, priest, and servant. But you also had one GREAT high priest, who was the primate of the entire Levitical priesthood. He also had SUPREME power over the entire Levitical assembly. So, all of the high priests in the local cities possesses the dignity and power of binding and loosing. But that doesn't mean that there is not a primate who has jurisdictional authority over the whole thing.
Sources that I am getting this from:
Cyprian:
"After such things as these, moreover, they still dare - a false bishop having been appointed for them by, heretics - to set sail and to bear letters from schismatic and profane persons to the throne of Peter, and to the chief Church whence priestly unity takes its source; and not to consider that these were the Romans whose faith was praised in the preaching of the apostle, to whom faithlessness could have no access."
Optatus:
"Those who do not know may sometimes be pardoned. You cannot then deny that you do know that upon Peter first in the City of Rome was bestowed the Episcopal Cathedra, on which sat Peter, the Head of all the Apostles (for which reason he was called Cephas), that, in this one Cathedra, unity should be preserved by all, lest the other Apostles might claim each for himself separate Cathedras, so that he who should set up a second Cathedra against the unique Cathedra would already be a schismatic and a sinner. Well then, on the one Cathedra, which is the first of the Endowments, Peter was the first to sit.”
Leo I:
" Therefore this is commended to Peter separately, because all the rulers of the Church are invested with the figure of Peter. The privilege therefore of Peter remains, wherever judgment is passed from his equity. Nor is there too much seventy or indulgence, where nothing is bound, nothing loosed, except what blessed Peter either looses or binds… So then in Peter the strength of all is fortified, and the help of divine grace is so ordered that the stability which through Christ is given to Peter, through Peter is conveyed to the Apostles."
"The dispensation of truth therefore abides, and blessed Peter preserving the strength of the Rock, which he has received, has not abandoned the helm of the Church which he undertook. For he was ordained before the rest in such a way that from his being called the Rock, from his being pronounced the foundation, from his being constituted the Doorkeeper of the Kingdom of Heaven, from his being set as the umpire to bind and to loose, whose judgements shall retain their validity in heaven, from all these mystical titles we might know the nature of his association with Christ. And still today he more fully and effectively performs what is entrusted to him, and carries out every part of his duty and charge in Him and with Him, through whom he has been glorified (Jesus Christ). And so if anything has been rightly done and rightly decreed by us, if anything is won from the Mercy of God by our supplications, it is his work and merits whose power lives and whose authority prevails in his see."
The great high priest having supreme authority:
"The high priest was the presiding officer of the Sanhedrin. This view conflicts with the later Jewish tradition according to which the Pharisee tannaim at the head of the yeshivot presided over the great Sanhedrin also. However, a careful reading of the sources , as well as the fact that in the post-Maccabean period the high priest was looked upon as exercising in all things, political, legal, and sacerdotal, the supreme authority, shows it to be almost certain that the presidency of the Sanhedrin was vested in the high priest." -Wikipedia
Amen
Are you sure it’s Cyprian’s epistle 59?
@@chiefamongsinners16 According to E Giles Documents Illustrating Papal Authority it's epistle 59. But I think sometimes it's cited as epistle 54.
So the council of Florence was agreed to then not agreed.?
Also the primacy of the Bishop of rome was there from the beginning .
Either there's a head of the Church Catholic or not.
The head of the Church is Christ, why would the head of the Church be a guy in the vatican that says Hindu demon worship is a way to approach the true God?
@@torindyson2918
"Therefore, the holy and most blessed Pope, the head of the universal Church, through us his representatives and with the assent of the holy council, endowed as he is with the dignity of blessed Peter the Apostle, who is called the foundation of the Church, the rock of faith, and the doorkeeper of the heavenly kingdom, has stripped him of episcopal dignity and excluded him from all priestly functions. What remains is for the venerable council assembled to pronounce, as justice bids, a canonical verdict against the aforementioned Dioscorus" -Acts of the council of Chalcedon
Christ is the head of the Church, but that doesn't mean that there is not also a visible pastor set up by Christ himself for the unity of the Church. The ecumenical councils refer to the bishop of Rome as the head of the Church multiple times, and Christ. The distinction is that Christ is the invisible, supreme head, and the Pope is the visible, earthly head.
I’m going the Orthodox route but my heart tells me both Catholics and Orthodox are really the same Church. I don’t think the pope is some supreme super bishop anymore than I think the Catholics magically lost their sacraments as some Orthodox allege. It reminds me of Israel and Judah and I think God is most displeased with what man does to his Church as the flock suffers most.
Notice that when Christ meets the Samaritan woman, He says ““It is not right to take the children’s bread and toss it to the dogs.” The Judeans were the children of God and the Samaritans were the dogs. They were heretics. They did not have the truth. The Jews didnt even consider them Jews. They were a whole other religion. The same is true of Catholicism. Their legalistic view on things is harmful for their believers.
MT 16 is a clear parallel to the Royal Steward of Isaiah 22.
One person to hold that one office.
Reading your interpretation into MT 16 is eisegesis.
Chrysostom and others taught that the other bishops hold the keys only thru Peter and in union with him.
If a bishop separates from union with Rome, they lose the keys.
The first ancient teacher to connect Eliakim (Isaiah 22) to St. Peter (Matthew 16) goes from to Matthew 16 takes it to the bishops as the new governors/priests of the church. "“‘And I will give him the glory of David, he will command and there will be no one to contradict him; I will put the key of the House of David on his shoulder: if he opens, no one will close; if he closed, there will be no one to open.' In this passage are also prefigured the realities which are OURS: “Whatever you bind on earth, he says, will be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth, earth, will be loosed in heaven.” Theodoret of Cyrus (c. 445 AD)
@@barrelagedfaith
@barrelagedfaith @barrelagedfaith
Ok, but not separate from Peter.
Only in communion with Peter.
Others invoked Papal primacy before based upon Peter being the Rock and having the keys.
Peter can be said to possess the keys independently as the Rock upon whom the Church is built.
And the other bishops can be said to possess the keys thru Peter only.
Jesus singled out Peter in MT 16 to give the keys and change his name. He did this in front of the other disciples.
He later gave the others the power to bind and loose also.
Peter was singled out by Jesus in MT 16.
If Jesus had wanted all of them to possess the keys independently of each other, He would have given them all the keys in MT 16. But He did not. He only gave the keys to Peter.
Matthew presents Peter as the leader of the disciples in other verses also.
Yes it’s very sad that Rome has separated from its Petrine lineage through heresy.
@@Varangian777
Iranaeus in 180ad said Rome had preeminent authority.
« Whoever calls himself the Universal Bishop is the precursor of the Antichrist »
Gregory the Great… pope of Rome.
Catholics seem to think that we claim the Pope has no authority whatsoever. This is not the case. To sum it up, our view is that he gets the first word, but not the last. The "last word" is the mutual agreement of all of the bishops of the Church.
They misunderstand this and presuppose that any historical mention of the Pope having any kind of honour above other bishops must automatically mean what they want it to mean, that is papal supremacy and infalliblity. They fail to see it in the historical context, and frame it within thier own context, which is not only not a valid argument but a logical fallacy.
8:47 We catholic agree with you that "what Jesus made into Peter, he made into all the bishops as well". Now there is a higher level of responsibility when it comes to Peter as well. Jesus changed Simon's name to Peter when giving him the keys. He did not change others' names in that context. We know that when God changes one's name, it is because of a specific mission (e.g from Abram to Abraham, Sarai to Sarah, Jacod to Isreal etc).
Also at the last supper, Jesus specifically said he has prayed for Peter so his faith may not fail, and so he strengthens and establishes his brethren. Does it mean that the Patriarch of Rome should be an emperor or a dictator? No. Mistakes have been made. I know. But he has a higher and specific responsibility.
Finally Jesus specifically asks Peter to feed his lambs (meaning taking care of the people) and his sheeps (meaning taking care of the elders - the clergy). Again, higher and specific responsibility.
We should take the time to share our perspectives in charity, guided by the Holy Spirit instead of attacking one anothers catholics vs orthodoxes. We are very close.
Copium. Didn't really do the exegetical work for the thesis, then sidestepped Akin's reading.
Thank you.
Yet, Jesus Christ promised Peter alone the keys of the Kingdom! The office of sole key holder is one of succession Biblically! Was Moses Peace one of many equals too? always in Jesus Christ our Great God and Savior, He whose Flesh is true food and Blood true drink!
Something that always bothers me is the old meme about someone who gets to the gates of heaven, and it's Saint Peter there at the gate who is like the ultimate bouncer of heaven. I've seen it in jokes and even a SNL skit, etc. Peter is an important saint, but that feels very wrong and I don't think any saint would appreciate the blasphemy of something like that. It's Jesus Christ who is the Way, the Truth, and the Life.
EDIT: this is the video I mentioned in my comment th-cam.com/video/ViiWV-D2eGI/w-d-xo.htmlsi=z2ayuJ5FU2YT6vR7
I'm not sure where this comment fits into the conversation, but I wanted to add this: Catholics and Orthodox seem to talk past each other. The late Met Kallistos Ware said it best (and I'm paraphrasing here) when he said the Orthodox have no problem with Papal primacy, but we take issue with Papal supremacy. One problem is that modern Catholic apologists seem to equate the two terms. So they'll quote mine the Fathers and find some excerpt about Peter being leader of the Church, or maybe some lush writings about Rome, and say "ah ha! That proves the Papacy!"
I don't mean to be offensive, so forgive me if I've come across snarky. It's meant to be a candid summary of what I often see online.
Thank you for this video.
My brother, this is absolute FIRE 🔥🔥🔥
Great stuff
St. Optatus of Milevis, Against the Donatists Book VII
Without doubt it is evil to do anything against a prohibition, but it is worse not to have unity when you may. We see that this unity was preferred to punishment by Christ Himself, who chose that all His disciples should be in unity rather than punish a sin against Himself. For, as He did not wish to be denied, He declared that whosoever should deny Him before men him would He deny before His Father, but He did not declare that He would punish one who should give up any Scripture, since it is more serious to deny Him who spoke, than to give up the words which He has spoken. And though this has been thus written, nevertheless, for the sake of unity, blessed Peter (for whom it would have been enough if after his denial he had obtained pardon only) both deserved to be placed over all the Apostles, and alone received the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven, which he was to communicate to the rest. So from this example it is given us to understand that for the sake of unity sins should be buried, since the most blessed Apostle Paul says that charity can cover a multitude of sins.
They overlooked jesus teaching judge not take the plank out of your own eyes.
🔥🔥🔥
If he's first -- he's first. Not second, not third, and not equal.
I could be true orthodox over orthodox or Coptic orthodox
Catholic history and protestant folk turned me atheist almost 35 years ago.
I will follow Jesus and God, not anything that came from or after the catholic church. So my choice looks like The Way, or orthodox.
Aren't you a catechumin?
So?
@@joachim847 do you think it's proper for a person to engage in polemics or apologetics while they're still a catechumen?
@@Joey_Doeyes, because every saint was a life long catechumen , the Catholic favorite of “a splinter in your eye” really has no place in a conversation trying to spread the truth that Christ is king
I would suggest that's a conversation between him and his priest. He's done videos with priests before, so at the very least there are some priests aware of his work.
Its just so tiring...
Yeah, as a protestant, I was definitely wondering why Jimmy wasn't seeing the easy made parallels between Rome and Samaria in that story; an organization built on a city God didn't ordain as His center of worship being argued that it is the only place to go. Yeah, this typology is just to malleable, but, hey, maybe Jimmy was just using good story telling to illustrate his point.🤷♂
You guys accepts heads from the human body, to the family, to the diocesan level, to the bishop and patriarch level... then at the universal level, no visible head... doesn't add up. But sure, you guys are correct because... yeah, the head is Jesus Christ so, heads all the way up only one missing head in the process of reaching to Christ... To be universal you need the bishop of Rome anyways so, you are still incomplete, just deal with the fact that the schism hurts everybody, fight for unity, not for views on youtube and pleasing your own psychology.
@@irodjetson Christ is the head, we are the body. No man can take the place of Christ.
Pope St. Gregory the Great (6th century) addresses your concern. He states that Christ is the Head of the Mystical Body and that the bishops are 'heads of particular communities' including Peter himself. He writes, "“If then he shunned the subjecting of the members of Christ partially to certain heads, as if beside Christ, though this were to the apostles themselves, what will you say to Christ, who is the Head of the universal Church, in the scrutiny of the last judgment, having attempted to put all his members under yourself by the appellation of Universal?... Certainly Peter, the first of the apostles, himself a member of the holy and universal Church, Paul, Andrew, John, - what were they but heads of particular communities? And yet all were members under one Head. And (to bind all together in a short girth of speech) the saints before the law, the saints under the law, the saints under grace, all these making up the Lord's Body, were constituted as members of the Church, and not one of them has wished himself to be called universal. Now let your Holiness acknowledge to what extent you swell within yourself in desiring to be called by that name by which no one presumed to be called who was truly holy.”
In regards to Patriarchs, they are heads of regions in a conciliar framework and so the lead (protos) Patriarch among the Patriarchs would have certain responsibilities at a global level in a limited way (see Sardica canon 34) when they are appealed to. I hope this helps.
You Roman Catholics are such deceitful liars, insane.
I think he meant heads as in terms of hierarchy @@harrygarris6921
@@barrelagedfaith Pope St. Gregory the Great is not cancelling what I am saying at all. If you understand the notion of hierarchy given by Saint Dyonisius then you would understand the notion of participation, and subsidiarity, Saint Peter is the first by participation in the first who is Jesus Christ, if he is the head is the head by participation in he who is the head, and every head in the created order is head by participation that's why you have an analogous reality of levels of participation within the same reality. Saying Christ is the head doesn't take away any other headship since every head below him are being a mirror (by participation) in his headship. Being something by yourself and your own essence is not the same as being by participation, God is and sustains himself by himself and by his own essence, every creature is and sustains themselves by participation in God who sustains them all, Christ is mediator by essence and by his own nature, the Holy Theotokos is a mediatrix by participation in Christ. You guys take away one level of participated headship, you take away the first, to say that since Christ is the first then everybody else is equal and there are no first in the created participated hierarchy.
Boost.
Have you read Newman's Development of Doctrine?
All Christianity is rhetoric and emotional manipulation. It doesn't matter what sect.
Hey brother you should respond to Gavin’s recent videos.
Everything must be based on the authority of two or three witnesses, especially doctrine. Peter as the rock is only found in one place, Matthew 16:18, we can not base doctrine on this one verse with no further context. Not only is it only found in one place though, the context of what Jesus was saying is completely lost on the Roman church. Jesus called Peter Petros, or "little rock," while he said that Peter's confession, namely that Jesus was the Messiah and the Son of God, was the Petra, or "giant foundation stone," that Christ would build his church on. Jesus was not ordaining Peter as the first Pope, He was declaring that his confession, which Jesus said Peter received from the Father not of himself, was the foundation which His church would be built upon. The Pope has no authority over any other bishop, especially not the current one, who is an apostate.
The petros petra distinction is irrelevant.
Jesus didnt speak greek to his apostles.
@charlesjoyce982 How do you know? Were you there? You have no idea what language Jesus said that in. But it is recorded in Matthew in Greek, and the distinction is most certainly there, so it is absolutely not irrelevant. What is even more relevant though, is that Peter is not being called the foundation of the church, his confession is, and that confession is that Jesus is the Messiah and the Son of God. Christ is the Rock and the foundation that church is built on, and there are far more Scriptures than just one that explain that, including: Isaiah 96:4, Psalm 95:1, 1 Corinthians 10:4, Luke 6:47-49, Matthew 7:24-29, 1 Corinthians 3:11-13, and Ephesians 2:20 just to name a few. On the testimony of 2 or 3 witnesses, there's 7 for you, a nice Biblical number. There are exactly ZERO other verses in the Scripture that even come close to calling Peter the foundation stone of the church.
@@Tony_4_Chiliasm
No one. Asbolutely no one. Thinks Jesus spoke greek to anyone at any time.
@@Tony_4_Chiliasm
Jesus did not specify that it was his confession that was the rock.
Thats your own reading-into that verse.
@@Tony_4_Chiliasm
Be honest -- youre new to debating this issue, arent you?
Do you Orthodox fellows ever pray or do you just make TH-cam videos all day?
If you prayed more for us Catholics instead of whatever it is you think you're doing maybe then we would come to our senses and join the "true" church.
We pray way more then any catholic so weird salty projection you have, you’d probably think Jesus was insulting you if he talked to you as well, I’m sorry the truth is offensive to you, but Christ is king , leader of the church, not an Italian man who is a part of a cult
_Looks at his upload schedule_
...his last video was almost 2 weeks ago. I think he's had some time to pray since uploading his last video.
What a good faith argument.
weird Jewish and Catholics work together didn’t realize criticism of Catholics gets you treated the same way with censored comments
@@billcynic1815 I felt inclined to post this because I follow a number of Orthodox dudes on IG and YT, this gentleman I see for the first time
Protestant to Orthodox here. I don't get the Catholic position at all. And I've had to rethink a lot of things during conversion and have stopped being so harsh about Catholicism, though Orthodoxy is apparent to me to be the true church.
Newman's Essay on the Development of Doctrine is helpful.
Ecumenical Council of Ephesus 431:
Session 3
Philip the presbyter and legate of the Apostolic See said: There is no doubt, and in fact it has been known in all ages, that the holy and most blessed Peter, prince (ἔξαρχος) and head of the Apostles, pillar of the faith, and foundation (θεμέλιος) of the Catholic Church, received the keys of the kingdom from our Lord Jesus Christ, the Savior and Redeemer of the human race, and that to him was given the power of loosing and binding sins: who down even to today and forever both lives and judges in his successors. The holy and most blessed pope Cœlestine, according to due order, is his successor and holds his place, and us he sent to supply his place in this holy synod, which the most humane and Christian Emperors have commanded to assemble, bearing in mind and continually watching over the Catholic faith. For they both have kept and are now keeping intact the apostolic doctrine handed down to them from their most pious and humane grandfathers and fathers of holy memory down to the present time.
Cyril, the bishop of Alexandria said: The professions which have been made by Arcadius and Projectus, the most holy and pious bishops, as also by Philip, the most religious presbyter of the Roman Church, stand manifest to the holy Synod. For they have made their profession in the place of the Apostolic See, and of the whole of the holy synod of the God-beloved and most holy bishops of the West.
orthodox is a branch, denomination, of the rcc
This is a demonstably untrue statement.
Orthodoxy hasn't been in Communion with Rome for almost 800-1000 years.
As well as the Standard for Denominations is not even a Christian one, but was invented by Freemasons to prevent religious tensions in Colonial America.
@@acekoala457
Orthodoxy is a sect.
Romes authority was always clear.
This roman-chatolics are hungry for power,it’s diabolical and anti apostolic teaching that way papal teaching it’s fool whit heresy .
You are wrong
Protestants are Apostolic when they practice according to the Apostolic decree of sola Scriptura: "And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works. (2 Timothy 3:15-17 KJV)" Protestants thus do have the Sanctuary and they do come to the Holt Communion of the Lord's Supper when they discern the Lord's Body, and by inference His Blood, therein (Matthew 18:20; 1 Corinthians 11:23-33 KJV).
@@Englishkin _Sola Scriptura_ is not the Apostolic Teaching. I am Orthodox and I agree with what St Paul says here. Rejecting _sola scriptura_ is not rejecting _scriptura._ When Christ ascended, He did not leave us with a Bible, He left us with the Church and the Holy Spirit. For at least a decade after Christ ascended there was no New Testament Scriptures at all. When St Paul refers to the Scriptures here, he refers to the Old Testament Scriptures. The same St Paul who tells us the value of Scripture tells us to hold fast to the Traditions taught, whether by word or epistle (2 Thessalonians 2:15). _Sola scriptura_ was an entirely foreign doctrine for the entirety of Christian history until Martin Luther. It was not taught by the Apostles, it is not in the Bible (nor is a list of canonical booms for that matter), it was not taught by the immediate successors of the Apostles, nor their successors, etc. Protestants mistake a high praise of the Holy Scriptures for _sola scriptura._ This does not follow, anymore than high praise of the Words of Christ means only the "red letters" are inspired.
"But they held their peace: for by the way they had disputed among themselves, who should be the greatest. And he sat down, and called the twelve, and saith unto them, If any man desire to be first, the same shall be last of all, and servant of all. (Mark 9:34,35 KJV)" "But Jesus called them to him, and saith unto them, Ye know that they which are accounted to rule over the Gentiles exercise lordship over them; and their great ones exercise authority upon them. But so shall it not be among you: but whosoever will be great among you, shall be your minister: And whosoever of you will be the chiefest, shall be servant of all. For even the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many. (Mark 10:42-45 KJV)" "And whosoever shall exalt himself shall be abased; and he that shall humble himself shall be exalted. But woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye shut up the kingdom of heaven against men: for ye neither go in yourselves, neither suffer ye them that are entering to go in. (Matthew 23:12,13 KJV)" "And Moses said unto him, Enviest thou for my sake? would God that all the LORD'S people were prophets, and that the LORD would put his spirit upon them! (Numbers 11:29 KJV)" "Ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ. (1 Peter 2:5 KJV)" "And it came to pass, that while he executed the priest's office before God in the order of his course,,,, (Luke 1:8 KJV)" "Let all things be done decently and in order. (1 Corinthians 14:40 KJV)"
A powerful witness from the Holy Scriptures! Thanks for sharing this.