Glad I came across this! May not have known about you and your channel 2 years ago. Action-packed presos here. A little surprised Hormisdas didn't get more air time.
These passages seem rather definitive. The church of the 1,000 years was the Catholic Church, whose visible head has always been Peter and his successors. Props to you guys. Suan, write a book ASAP
Wonderful presentation everyone! Suan, I truly feel this is God's providence since I'm being baptized this Saturday into the Catholic Church, and from this presentation, it's clearly evident (to me at least) that Roman Catholic Ecclesiology makes so much more sense than Eastern Ecclesiology. God bless you all.
This is one of the best episodes you've ever done. All I can say is: "‘This is the faith of the fathers! This is the faith of the apostles! So we all believe! Thus the orthodox believe! Anathema to him who does not thus believe! Peter has spoken thus through Leo! . . . This is the true faith! Those of us who are orthodox thus believe! This is the faith of the Fathers!’” (Acts of the Council, session 2 [A.D. 451])
Dyer is mean, mkay, he's baaad, mkay, don't debate him, cuz he's mean, mkay, and being mean is bad, mkay, it's bad for you, mkay, it's just bad, mkay, cuz it's mean, mkay, cuz he's mean, mkay...
Hey Suan, you said in the interview with Matt something along the lines of, “Protestantism made the world secular” I find this a wildly interesting thread to look at (as a former Protestant). Are there any other resources or ways you could expand upon that topic for me?
Dr Scott Hahn’s book with Dr Benjamin Wiker _Politicizing the Bible: the Roots of Historical Criticism and the Secularization of Scripture 1300-1700”_ is a fantastic (and a pretty huge academic) resource. The smaller version of this book is the very recent _”The Decline and Fall of Sacred Scripture: how the Bible Became a Secular Book”_ by the same authors. It is good too. There is a pretty nice one called _”Permanent Revolution: The Reformation and the Illiberal Roots of Liberalism”_ by James Simpson, focusing on the English Reformation.
I love your channel, & thanks for defending the True faith 🛐🗝️🗝️📖💯 Catholic, I know a lot of ex Prostestants & even a few Ex Ortrodox who are now Catholic due to you & Catholic answers also, Thanks & God bless you brother.🗝️🗝️🛐💯 Catholic
That was a very good conversation. I had not heard of any of the presenters before but will look into them now. A question I had was about the exile of St Athanasius- I can't remember the argument now but someone once tried to use it for sedevacantism. I tried researching it then and basically came away confused about what happened to the saint
Hello gentlemen. I respect the effort and the zeal but personally I find many of these arguments a bit wanting. Key bits of history seem to be left undiscussed. I think we can give our audiences a fuller picture, and I'm open to cordial conversation with any and/or all of you anytime. Cheers and God Bless.
My main issue with francis (as a new catholic btw) is the entire pachamama situation, i can not find any defense in our outside the bible to support what he did in that scenario. Its one thing to be tolerant of other faiths, but he did take it to the next level. Its hard to defend that situation, i find it impossible to. Allowing idols in the church, literally, is a giant problem. Most other stuff i can get over but that one i cant
But you don’t need to defend the Pachamama episode, but we need to be fair. Actually you can say it was bad, even terribly bad, and mercifully pray for our pope. The problem is to argue for it allegedly proving papal infallibility to be false, which is an argument used “ad nauseam” by anti-Catholics, or make it unleash schismatic tendencies among faithful Catholics. Even if one would say the pope personally committed the grave sin of idolatry, as if he did dignify the idol in place of the Triune God and gave it the cult of “latria” (adoration), he is surely not impeccable. But still, it seems too much of a stretch: on the context of the Amazon Synod (here in Brazil unfortunately we had huge apprehension about what would happen) some Latin American natives with a group of sympathetic Bishops (that flirt with heresy at the very least) came in with a presentation of their customs and culture to show it to the Holy Father. It was bizarre, but it is even more bizarre to present the case as if the pope was personally responsible for arranging the details of what would happen when he entered the stage. That’s insanely uncharitable. For sure he failed (in my judgment, not necessarily others would say the same) to correct it immediately, even with the most charitable posture, on prudential judgment to protect the sacrality of our faith (considering he hypothetically had doubts on what that wooden statue was, if a pagan deity or not) and it scandalized many, but Pope Francis is known to have a kind of disciplinary weakness with anything that revolves susceptibilities of minorities and he specifically avoids them. And he is our pope, no one needs to defend everything he says or do ‘a priori’ but to know his office and that on one of His apostles, Peter, Our Savior and Redeemer built His church. But some fringe RadTrads are simply falling into crypto-Protestantism using these very issues as narrated by anti-Catholics to defy papal authority. What’s the point in that? Luther acted pretty much like that. Even non-infallible teachings (not necessarily acts) must receive the assent of intellect and will of the faithful, although they can be charitably criticized. Since you are a new Catholic (what a blessing, brother!), let me try to explain it to you: infallibility refers to a sort of ecclesial charism that prevents the church universal to be bound to doctrinal error on faith and morals: therefore, it applies to specific teachings on specific conditions. And the conditions are the following: i) the pope needs to pronounce himself explicitly as Peter’s successor, using (it may be implicitly here) the power of the keys given to the Apostle by Christ Jesus himself; ii) the pope has to say, explicitly, he is teaching the whole universal church in his proclamation (not addressing to his diocesan Rome, for example); iii) it needs to be referential to a doctrine of faith and morals (it cannot be disciplinary, for example) and iv) it needs to definitively issue the matter, declaring what the right doctrine is and prohibiting, with anathema, the opposite thesis. So the Pachamama thing, even if we dare to point out that the pope had directly anything related to the sin idolatry (“latria” given to that idol), it is NOT a papal teaching so on its face it’s obvious the pope committing sins, even grave ones (if so), does not refer to infallibility as defined by the Catholic Church. I hope you see what anti-Catholics do. We had popes that were allegedly murderers of opponents, we had a syphilitic pope due to bad sexual behavior, still we have much more monumental saints at the Chair of Peter and we don’t believe anything like papal impeccability.
I would question where you get the idea that the Pope knew and allowed a pagan idol would be worshiped. He himself said the exact opposite. So even if it were a pagan idol, your accusation against the Pope would not be accepted by the Pope himself since he doesn't accept the charge. Now, you might insist, "Ah, but it was idolatry nonetheless". But that would be slightly different than the Pope bringing idolatry to the Vatican. Nevertheless, the situation raises many questions anc concerns, and I'm not satisfied with the answers we have been given.
Francis is just a man, we have to distinguish between Francis the man and Francis the pope. The pope is many things, a man, a priest, a deacon, bishop of rome, and successor to Peter. As a bishop he is one with the college of bishop, first among equals of the college of bishops.. as successor of Peter he is the chief of the apostles and their successors. For papal infallibility to be invoked, the Pope must speak as universal pastor, successor to Peter, and his statements becomes doctrine, a matter of faith (belief+action). Anything less than a papal infallible statement, feel free to criticize, write your bishops etc.. the college of bishops as successors to the apostles also has a role to play in doctrine.. the petrine see does not act in a vacuum. th-cam.com/video/orYE4fMPcDY/w-d-xo.html hope this helps
Nice presentation! Of course the current problem for Catholic s is the obvious deficiencies in Pope Francis both doctrinally in what he seems to be teaching and in practice as his vision for the Church which is at variance with what has been handed on. The Papacy was extra blushed to be a bulwark of tradition - the job of the Pope is to uphold the Apostolic tradition. Catholic s are under no obligation to adhere to the dictates of any pope who teaches against or acts against the apostolic tradition. I fully accept the doctrine of papal infallibility as defined by Vatican 1. But I find that too many Catholic s incorrectly use this to defend everything that Francis says and does. I would love to hear a discussion on the limits of Papal authority - and also on what types of behavior would lead to a papal claimant losing his papacy (as was discussed by Robert Bellarmine - doctor of the church). Thimad Acquinas is pretty clear that even legitimate authority should be resisted if it is in error. Error has no rights
Had a blast! Thanks for having us!
Glad I came across this! May not have known about you and your channel 2 years ago. Action-packed presos here. A little surprised Hormisdas didn't get more air time.
These passages seem rather definitive. The church of the 1,000 years was the Catholic Church, whose visible head has always been Peter and his successors. Props to you guys. Suan, write a book ASAP
Wonderful presentation everyone! Suan, I truly feel this is God's providence since I'm being baptized this Saturday into the Catholic Church, and from this presentation, it's clearly evident (to me at least) that Roman Catholic Ecclesiology makes so much more sense than Eastern Ecclesiology. God bless you all.
Welcome! God bless you
Congrats!
GBU 🙏🏻🙏🏻
Welcome, brother
This is one of the best episodes you've ever done.
All I can say is:
"‘This is the faith of the fathers! This is the faith of the apostles! So we all believe! Thus the orthodox believe! Anathema to him who does not thus believe! Peter has spoken thus through Leo! . . . This is the true faith! Those of us who are orthodox thus believe! This is the faith of the Fathers!’”
(Acts of the Council, session 2 [A.D. 451])
I do not have time to watch this currently but I will watch this. 4 absolute powerhouses!
Just watched. Very compelling case.
Here before dyerites
Dyer is mean, mkay, he's baaad, mkay, don't debate him, cuz he's mean, mkay, and being mean is bad, mkay, it's bad for you, mkay, it's just bad, mkay, cuz it's mean, mkay, cuz he's mean, mkay...
Catholic_based won he got the first orthobros cope! 😁😆
@@alvarengasoso hes mean plus unorthodox 😎
I'm new here what's dyerites? Background?
@@iacobusmonsi3645 follower of Jay Dyer
this was great and informative, can't wait for Erick Ybarra's book
Same here
@God Triune alone matters or there partnered book 😳
Tu canal es una maravilla Suan
Amazing work, brothers!
Thank you for your work
Great brothers✝️
2 hours, 24 minutes 😍
LET'S GOOOOO
Unstoppable Papal Squad
Great guests! Thank you.
Great stuff Suan!
Suan would it be possible to have these guys on, plus an EO for a round table discussion?
Thank you so much everyone. I think this video is the single best defense of the Vatican I Papal Claims I have ever seen.
Hey Suan, you said in the interview with Matt something along the lines of, “Protestantism made the world secular” I find this a wildly interesting thread to look at (as a former Protestant). Are there any other resources or ways you could expand upon that topic for me?
Dr Scott Hahn’s book with Dr Benjamin Wiker _Politicizing the Bible: the Roots of Historical Criticism and the Secularization of Scripture 1300-1700”_ is a fantastic (and a pretty huge academic) resource.
The smaller version of this book is the very recent _”The Decline and Fall of Sacred Scripture: how the Bible Became a Secular Book”_ by the same authors. It is good too.
There is a pretty nice one called _”Permanent Revolution: The Reformation and the Illiberal Roots of Liberalism”_ by James Simpson, focusing on the English Reformation.
@@masterchief8179 Thank you so much, brother!
The Unintended Reformation - Brad S. Gregory (he's a Catholic).
Historian Niall Ferguson, in his book Civilization, explicitly credits the reformation with severing church and state and ushering in secularism
@@masterchief8179 Bard S Gregory's book.
I love your channel, & thanks for defending the True faith 🛐🗝️🗝️📖💯 Catholic, I know a lot of ex Prostestants & even a few Ex Ortrodox who are now Catholic due to you & Catholic answers also, Thanks & God bless you brother.🗝️🗝️🛐💯 Catholic
This was an epic slam dunk! 😁👍
What's the painting in the thumbnail? Or did you edit several paintings together. Looks amazing 😍.
The painting is called "The Defenders of the Eucharist"
That was a very good conversation. I had not heard of any of the presenters before but will look into them now. A question I had was about the exile of St Athanasius- I can't remember the argument now but someone once tried to use it for sedevacantism. I tried researching it then and basically came away confused about what happened to the saint
Hi Suan, I was wondering if I could email you because I have some questions regarding Eliakim and his connection to St. Peter. Would that be ok?
Dang this pretty good
Caught bro 😂
LOL you caught me - ended up changing my mind on that haha@@achilles4242
Hello gentlemen. I respect the effort and the zeal but personally I find many of these arguments a bit wanting. Key bits of history seem to be left undiscussed. I think we can give our audiences a fuller picture, and I'm open to cordial conversation with any and/or all of you anytime. Cheers and God Bless.
Orthobros cope and SEETHE
😆
DENIEL!!! Where you been bro
@@TheChunkyCrusader I’ve just been busy with life man, but I do catch R&T vids when I can
❤️❤️🙏🏾
My main issue with francis (as a new catholic btw) is the entire pachamama situation, i can not find any defense in our outside the bible to support what he did in that scenario. Its one thing to be tolerant of other faiths, but he did take it to the next level. Its hard to defend that situation, i find it impossible to. Allowing idols in the church, literally, is a giant problem. Most other stuff i can get over but that one i cant
But you don’t need to defend the Pachamama episode, but we need to be fair. Actually you can say it was bad, even terribly bad, and mercifully pray for our pope. The problem is to argue for it allegedly proving papal infallibility to be false, which is an argument used “ad nauseam” by anti-Catholics, or make it unleash schismatic tendencies among faithful Catholics. Even if one would say the pope personally committed the grave sin of idolatry, as if he did dignify the idol in place of the Triune God and gave it the cult of “latria” (adoration), he is surely not impeccable. But still, it seems too much of a stretch: on the context of the Amazon Synod (here in Brazil unfortunately we had huge apprehension about what would happen) some Latin American natives with a group of sympathetic Bishops (that flirt with heresy at the very least) came in with a presentation of their customs and culture to show it to the Holy Father. It was bizarre, but it is even more bizarre to present the case as if the pope was personally responsible for arranging the details of what would happen when he entered the stage. That’s insanely uncharitable. For sure he failed (in my judgment, not necessarily others would say the same) to correct it immediately, even with the most charitable posture, on prudential judgment to protect the sacrality of our faith (considering he hypothetically had doubts on what that wooden statue was, if a pagan deity or not) and it scandalized many, but Pope Francis is known to have a kind of disciplinary weakness with anything that revolves susceptibilities of minorities and he specifically avoids them. And he is our pope, no one needs to defend everything he says or do ‘a priori’ but to know his office and that on one of His apostles, Peter, Our Savior and Redeemer built His church. But some fringe RadTrads are simply falling into crypto-Protestantism using these very issues as narrated by anti-Catholics to defy papal authority. What’s the point in that? Luther acted pretty much like that. Even non-infallible teachings (not necessarily acts) must receive the assent of intellect and will of the faithful, although they can be charitably criticized.
Since you are a new Catholic (what a blessing, brother!), let me try to explain it to you: infallibility refers to a sort of ecclesial charism that prevents the church universal to be bound to doctrinal error on faith and morals: therefore, it applies to specific teachings on specific conditions. And the conditions are the following: i) the pope needs to pronounce himself explicitly as Peter’s successor, using (it may be implicitly here) the power of the keys given to the Apostle by Christ Jesus himself; ii) the pope has to say, explicitly, he is teaching the whole universal church in his proclamation (not addressing to his diocesan Rome, for example); iii) it needs to be referential to a doctrine of faith and morals (it cannot be disciplinary, for example) and iv) it needs to definitively issue the matter, declaring what the right doctrine is and prohibiting, with anathema, the opposite thesis. So the Pachamama thing, even if we dare to point out that the pope had directly anything related to the sin idolatry (“latria” given to that idol), it is NOT a papal teaching so on its face it’s obvious the pope committing sins, even grave ones (if so), does not refer to infallibility as defined by the Catholic Church. I hope you see what anti-Catholics do. We had popes that were allegedly murderers of opponents, we had a syphilitic pope due to bad sexual behavior, still we have much more monumental saints at the Chair of Peter and we don’t believe anything like papal impeccability.
I would question where you get the idea that the Pope knew and allowed a pagan idol would be worshiped. He himself said the exact opposite. So even if it were a pagan idol, your accusation against the Pope would not be accepted by the Pope himself since he doesn't accept the charge. Now, you might insist, "Ah, but it was idolatry nonetheless". But that would be slightly different than the Pope bringing idolatry to the Vatican. Nevertheless, the situation raises many questions anc concerns, and I'm not satisfied with the answers we have been given.
@Classical Christian Thought A fan of you in Brazil, Erick. Go on with your studying and being the nice guy you always are! God bless!
Francis is just a man, we have to distinguish between Francis the man and Francis the pope. The pope is many things, a man, a priest, a deacon, bishop of rome, and successor to Peter. As a bishop he is one with the college of bishop, first among equals of the college of bishops.. as successor of Peter he is the chief of the apostles and their successors. For papal infallibility to be invoked, the Pope must speak as universal pastor, successor to Peter, and his statements becomes doctrine, a matter of faith (belief+action). Anything less than a papal infallible statement, feel free to criticize, write your bishops etc.. the college of bishops as successors to the apostles also has a role to play in doctrine.. the petrine see does not act in a vacuum. th-cam.com/video/orYE4fMPcDY/w-d-xo.html hope this helps
Nice presentation!
Of course the current problem for Catholic s is the obvious deficiencies in Pope Francis both doctrinally in what he seems to be teaching and in practice as his vision for the Church which is at variance with what has been handed on.
The Papacy was extra blushed to be a bulwark of tradition - the job of the Pope is to uphold the Apostolic tradition. Catholic s are under no obligation to adhere to the dictates of any pope who teaches against or acts against the apostolic tradition.
I fully accept the doctrine of papal infallibility as defined by Vatican 1. But I find that too many Catholic s incorrectly use this to defend everything that Francis says and does.
I would love to hear a discussion on the limits of Papal authority - and also on what types of behavior would lead to a papal claimant losing his papacy (as was discussed by Robert Bellarmine - doctor of the church). Thimad Acquinas is pretty clear that even legitimate authority should be resisted if it is in error. Error has no rights
😳☺️👏👏👏👏👏🇻🇦🇻🇦
Left out all the good stuff huh?
Like
"Terra nullis"
Smh
Intellectual dishonesty is so evil
Erick Ybarra is a goober
What a powerful argument.
@@Erick_Ybarra really powerful argument. Erick you just got exposed broooo. Smoking copium broooo..... 😉
Popium > Copium
@@glof2553 exactly