This is NOT a substitute for reading the fathers, just an oversimplified summary. Also, if you have the return dislike extension and it shows my videos having tons of dislikes, it's not accurate. My videos nearly all have over 95% likes, and are NOT getting "dislike-bombed"
"Let us clothe ourselves with concord and humility, ever exercising self-control, standing far off from all whispering and evil-speaking, being justified by our works, and not our words." Clement Chapter 30 No he sounds Catholic. Protestants please read the whole letter, not just Gavin Ourtland's quote mines
Yes, but remember, this is not a matter of salvation. Let us remember not to "divide" the body of Christ just if some other bros and sis interpret the nature of God differently. I'm sure God won't say to any human being: "Welcome to heav..Oh wait! I see you didn't quite understand My eternal and all mighty nature and spiritual essence that transcends all things! Sorry son..."
Are you sure about that? Tertullian believed that there was a time when the Father was alone and that he created the Son, and only then did the Father become a Father. _Because God is in like manner a Father, and He is also a Judge; _*_but He has not always been Father_*_ and Judge, merely on the ground of His having always been God. For _*_He could not have been the Father previous to the Son_*_ , nor a Judge previous to sin. (There was, however, a time when neither sin existed with Him, _*_nor the Son_*_ ); the former of which was to constitute the Lord a Judge, _*_and the latter a Father_*_ . In this way He was not Lord previous to those things of which He was to be the Lord. But He was only to become Lord at some future time: _*_just as He became the Father by the Son_*_ , and a Judge by sin, so also did He become Lord by means of those things which He had made, in order that they might serve Him. - (Against Hermogenes, Chapter 3)_ _Let Hermogenes then confess that _*_the very Wisdom of God is declared to be born and created_*_ , for the special reason that we should not suppose that there is any other being than _*_God alone who is unbegotten and uncreated_*_ . For if that, which from its being inherent in the Lord was of Him and in Him, was yet _*_not without a beginning_*_ - I mean His wisdom, which was then _*_born and created_*_ , when in the thought of God It began to assume motion for the arrangement of His creative works...But if this same _*_Wisdom is the Word of God_*_ , in the capacity of Wisdom, and (as being He) without whom nothing was made, just as also (nothing) was set in order without Wisdom, how can it be that anything, except the Father, should be older, and on this account indeed nobler, than the Son of God, the _*_only-begotten_*_ and _*_first-begotten_*_ Word? Not to say that _*_what is unbegotten is stronger than that which is born, and what is not made more powerful than that which is made. Because that which did not require a Maker to give it existence, will be much more elevated in rank than that which had an author to bring it into being_*_ - (Against Hermogenes, Chapter 18)_
Clement of Alexandria believed that Jesus was God's first creation. _They were misled by what is said in the book of Wisdom: "He pervades and passes through all by reason of His purity;" Wisdom __7:24__ since they did not understand that this was said of _*_Wisdom, which was the first of the creation of God._*_ (The Stromata, V, 14)_ _For _*_He was the Wisdom_*_ "in which" the Sovereign God "delighted." (The Stromata, VII, 2)_ _But the nature of the Son, which is _*_nearest to Him who is alone the Almighty One,_*_ is the most perfect, and most holy, and most potent, and most princely, and most kingly, and most beneficent. (The Stromata, VII, 2)_ _And when Paul says, “Put on the new man created according to God” it is as if he said, _*_Believe on him who was “created” by God, “according to God,” that is, the Logos in God_*_ . And “created according to God” can refer to the end of advance which man will reach, as does...he rejected the end for which he was created. And in other passages he speaks still more plainly and distinctly: “Who is an image of the invisible God”; then he goes on, “First-Born of all creation.” For he calls the Logos of the essential Logos “an image of the invisible God,” but “First-Born of all creation.” Having been begotten without passion he became the creator and progenitor of all creation and substance, for by him the Father made all things. (Excerpta ex Theodoto, 19)_ _For we thus understand “I begot thee before the morning star” with reference to the _*_first-created Logos of God_*_ and similarly “thy name is before sun” and moon and before all creation. - (Excerpta ex Theodoto, 20)_
@@Veritas231 we, as humans, the church, can say something is "damnable heresy", but let me tell you something, I'm sure that lots of "heretics" will be resurrected to everlasting life. Why? Simply because God is not looking for perfect dogma or doctrine, God is looking for followers that learn how to love others (enemies included of course) as Jesus taught; people that learned how to see other people through the eyes of Jesus, that my friend, is better than any creed, better than any doctrine or dogma. And, let me tell you something , some brothers and sisters accept Jesus in their hearts as their Savior, and that leads to a transformation in their lives. I'm also sure that when the moment comes (and I hope it comes soon) He will not tell them: "Welcome son! I see you accepted Me as your substitute atonement, also you accepted my sacrifice in the cro...Oh...wait.... I also see here that you weren't able to understand the mystery that states I was the everlasting God incarnated... Sorry son... Good luck burning in Hell you Heretic!" No... No... Sadly, that's the God of many believers... A God that condemns them, a God that punishes them, a God that rejects them for "not believing" in the "right things". That's certainly NOT my God (#NotMyGod) But who knows! I might be wrong. I'm not dogmatic about it. 😁 God bless you!
Here are the Catholic things you left out: All the Catholic things the earliest fathers agreed on: regenerative baptism, Church hierarchy/authority, Eucharistic sacrifice & transubstantiation, Mary as New Eve, etc. Why is there not a line from Peter to Clement of Rome? Ignatius also had glowing words for the Church at Rome compared to other churches he wrote to. Clement of Rome also said we are justified by our works and not by our words. He also claimed to speak with the voice of God/Christ Himself and commanded obedience from the Corinthian Christians, restoring the leaders to their offices. Irenaeus opposed the Gnostics not with Scripture alone but also with APOSTOLIC TRADITION & APOSTOLIC SUCCESSION especially as found in the Church at Rome. How about an actual citation for Clement of Alexandria's alleged view of an invisible Church? Just doing a word search of "church" in Clement's writings is showing a more visible understanding of the Church as Bride of Christ the King, Mother of Christians, a Holy Mountain, and led by shepherd leaders. The alleged iconoclasm of Clement and Tertullian is extremely questionable and debatable. Clement talks of Christian imagery/symbols on signet rings. Tertullian was also a rigorist that many believe became a heretic later, so rigorism on icons doesn't count for much. People may be misled by your video to think Constantine made Christianity the state religion; he did not do that. Jerome was the very first father to propose a 66 book canon, and there is strong evidence he abandoned that position later. It is also very misleading to say that Jerome believed the monarchical bishop "developed over time." No, Jerome believed the Apostles themselves instituted monarchical bishops. Augustine wrote A LOT. He even wrote a work looking back on and retracting or revising his earlier works/positions. You can make Augustine say almost anything.
Jerome in his letter 15 to Pope damasus I claims the Pope is bigger than a council, and that the Papacy is thr rock, and that Christ stablished it as its vicar
He doesn't invoke his Pope powers against the Corinthians and doesn't even seem to know he has such authority. He doesn't even mention being THE (Exclusive) Bishop of Rome, he doesn't even seem to know such an office exists.
I love him. He was called "golden mouth" because of how moving of a speaker he could be. He was born into wealth, so was likely well-educated, then became responsible for what seems to be a wayward congregation. We see that in sermons we have from him, some of which are in the excellent collection called, On Marriage and Family Life.
@@trone3630 once he decided to become a preacher, he reclused himself for 2 years in a cave and then became a simple folk preacher. People come to him cause he created an amazing atmoshere, and he became a favorite of simple folk For his popularity and a way with words they chose him to be patriarch of Constantinople, but when he came to his office, he started to expose corruption and protect simple folk. He exposed how greedy the queen was and she started to hate him for it. They started to falsely accuse him etc, in the end they rejected him from Constantinople and forced him to walk a loong way with their guards, they deprived him from food and water and he fainted many times in the path. One day they were coming by the Church and he came in, said "Thank you God for everything" and collapsed and died. That's what i remember, read his life if you want to know more
@@Air-wr4vv I hadn't heard that, so thank you for sharing that. It's consistent with what I've read of him, but adds a lot more detail. I'll look for more info about him.
Let's quote mine St Clement. Let us clothe ourselves with concord and humility, ever exercising self-control, standing far off from all whispering and evil-speaking, being justified by our works, and not our words.
Thanks for all the great videos Zoomer! I personally love St. John Chrysostom: “Christ conquered the devil with the same weapons the devil used against us: a virgin, a tree, and death. These tokens of our demise have now become the tokens of our victory. Instead of Eve, there is Mary; instead of the tree of knowledge, there is the Cross; and instead of Adam’s death, there is the death of Christ."
How about he conquered with a man - namely, Jesus? I mean ya a virgin was involved but let’s get it straight. Adam’s sin caused the fall and Christs perfection is the new life and restoration to come.
0:51 Ignatius here is saying that Peter and Paul had more authority than he did, not their writings. This is what is mean by him saying "issue commandments unto you." He isnt referencing their writings, rather their authority as Apostles.
This is so nice. I am looking into Saints because I’m getting baptised in a month, and I prayed to the Lord yesterday to help me find a direction to aim at, and now this pops up. Just, wow. Thank the Lord.
Because we Protestants translated and distributed the Church Fathers writings, you Orthobros are terrible at promoting and translating ancient resources
Easy. You understand that the church fathers are human and not God and you make sure you study the Bible, pray, and consult the historical record on the church 😎
@@LuzianJ right. As far as I can tell, every single one wrote about the importance of maintaining the direct line of succession of ordination from the bishops to the apostles.
@@charlesjoyce982 You said "They [Prots] can’t actually explain why something is bad, they can only explain why the new seems cooler. I said, "study your Bible and the historical record...Is that too difficult to do?" Right and wrong come from reason and conscience surrendered to the Word of God. Luther declared, ""Unless I am convinced by Scripture and plain reason, my conscience is captive to the Word of God. I cannot and I will not recant anything, for to go against conscience would be neither right nor safe. God help me. Here I stand, I can do no other." Do you really believe that someone who surrenders to the scriptures is going to call Jesus accursed? Is it a sin to have your reason and conscience held captive to the word of God? Do you believe that the Gospel is the answer or rational secularism?
Clement sounds like a Catholic when he talks about justification as well. He just doesn't sound like what many Protestants, especially evangelicals, too often say Catholics sound like.
@@kingarth0r Ok I'll bite: When was protestantism born in your opinion? You didn't direct the comment my way but I am honestly curious what you're thinking.
Yeah, they build a strawman out of the Church that Jesus Christ established and then pretend they came up with everything later. The so-called "New Perspective on Paul" isn't very new, for instance. It's literally just what Catholics have maintained from the very beginning. Silly kids. Thankfully, many of them are being drawn back to Rome through independent study, now that the works of the Church Fathers are so widely available. Praise be to God for that!
@@jaggedstarrPIit was “born” in the early church, if not when the church was. The ideas were not new. The Reformation was just that: a Reformation. Not a revolution. It was a conservative movement that accused Rome of becoming more “progressive” (to borrow a term from our day). That Rome had changed in many bad ways over time. That they had evolved themselves right out of biblical orthodoxy and the apostolic faith.
Could you please do some other church history ones: 1. Every Reformer explained in 10 minutes. 2. Every Scholastic explained in 10 minutes. 3. Every Puritan explained in 10 minutes. 4. Every Pope explained in 10 minutes. 5. Every Missionary explained in 10 minutes. 6. Every Theologian explained in 10 minutes. 7. Every Church Musician explained in 10 minutes. 8. Every Apologist explained in 10 minutes. 9. Every Martyr explained in 10 minutes. 10. Every Preacher explained in 10 minutes.
I would love to understand the Methodist church in Wales, like why is the Methodist church in Cornwall Arminian but the Methodist church in Wales is Presbyterian
@@ProfesserLuigi Yeah especially considering around 50 Christians had just been martyred in Lyons when Irenaeus became bishop there. And that's just one occasion.
@@Noblebird02 1. The Methodist congregations have varieties, mostly minor, from place to place. That mostly depends on the pastor from my observation, but that happens in every denomination. Next, Arminius was and will always be Calvinist. Yes, I know its super hip to use Arminius as a pinata by today's so-called "Calvinists" but the truth is Arminius never denounced Calvinism despite what liars today will say. Arminius saw the unbiblical flaws in the works of Jean Cauvin (real name) and attempted to correct them. There are a lot but Arminius exposed the 5 worst. Since Arminius died before the big debate, the anti-biblical faction in Holland declared victory for their side and proceeded to beat and even kill some of Arminius's supporters/followers. Charles and John Wesley could see the unbiblical parts of Cauvin's decrees and stood against them. That's why I've heard Wesleys being mocked and bashed by some high profile "calvinists" in the US. The devil does not like the truth to be broadcast. WHY was Cauvin and his idol Augustine so far away from the Bible and especially the words/commands of Jesus???? I could go on for hours on this but the supersonic version is....Augustine was a believer in the pagan Gnostic sect called Manichean after the false prophet Mani. There were various flavors of Gnosticism that floated around for hundreds of years. They all are anti-God. Augustine "converted" to Christianity and gained an elevated status in "the church". When he got into his rift with Pelagius and was not winning, Augustine started pulling rabbits from his pagan Gnostic Mani hat. That is terrible enough but Augustine was copied by Cauvin who was only a lawyer & humanist and formed his own ultra twisted religion which is actually a mirror image of himself. From the advice I got from Bryan Melvin. when I seriously started down the path back to God, was to stick with tried and trusted reformers like Wesley. No Calvinists. Bryan is someone you need to get to know as no man alive has the extensive insight into hell and heaven. Lots of interviews, lectures and his own channel here...Christian Marauder. For several more hours I can lay out the course for the truth that I prayed for and have been lead to one step at a time by the Holy Spirit which has been perfect beyond words. Looking back over the past 8 years is awesome how and when and to who and to what I needed to know at certain times. Absolute perfection is too puny a description. One thing I realized a few years ago that NONE of the righteous teachers were Calvinists and NONE of the righteous truth even touched Calvinism. Now I figured out why......the Holy Spirit was NOT with Jean Cauvin. He once claimed he felt like the HS was present in his room. What a vague claim to deceive the masses. The main reason Cauvin were able to get so far......nobody was allowed to challenge him without severe danger of torture and death. Yes, he had his own personal torturer whose name I was able to dredge from history. When Calvinists like to get squirrely like they know more than me, I ask them to provide the torturer's name. So far NONE have replied back.
Fascinating....my own 23 year quest to understand the Nature of God aligns quite well with that of Gregory of Nazianzus. Thank you Sir for this educational video.
Because he isn't a Church Father (just like mentioned in the video Tertullian). Part of Origen's believes was heretical, like e.g. whole conception of logikoi.
@@ironyusa3885 The Catholic University of America Press explicitly includes him in their collections on the Church Fathers. And not all the church fathers mentioned here had all their doctrines accepted as Orthodox.
I've been so confused lately. I've been researching a ton into Christianity and church history, trying to figure out the truth for myself. It's all extremely complicated and not everyone seems to agree on everything, even in the early church fathers it seems. I definitely believe in the Bible and am Christian but regarding the details denominationally and doctrinally speaking, I just don't know what to believe anymore. *Existential crisis creeps in*
the word ecumenical refers to the whole church. So the 4 ecumenical councils represent the whole church, so you can trust in their teaching (after that, the Oriental Orthodox split despite initially accepting the council). This comes from a baptist btw
In the end of the day, trust in Jesus. Men can make mistakes. The church fathers did great things but even them needed Jesus. We are all servants no matter what our prideful nature wants us to believe.
The problem seems to be the rejection of the Church as the pillar of truth (1 Timothy 3:15) that is built on Peter (Matthew 16:18) which is promised to be guided by the Holy Spirit (John 16:13). We're not asked to "figure out the truth for ourselves", but the opposite, that is, for *not* to lean on our understanding (Proverbs 3:5). Like Cyprian of Carthage said: "If someone does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he [should] desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that he is in the Church?" (A.D. 251)
This is why it’s so important for there to be a final infallible decision made on doctrine, because even the early Christian leaders had their differing beliefs and interpretations. Every one of those heresies can find scripture verses to support their beliefs. Ecumenical councils are necessary. Whether there is two or three levels of authority doesn’t matter as much because every bishop is a priest (elder). Priests are local while bishops oversee a larger region. Its more important to understand that it is biblical that there ARE different levels of authority. Deacons don’t have the authority of priests/bishops. And laypeople don’t have any authority to interpret scripture on their own. The Holy Spirit is of course, always with you guiding you morally, but the Holy Spirit works through the structure of the church to prevent doctrinal error. I love that one of the first things this video said is talk to your pastor.
This is a great way to convince Christians not to read their Bible. We do have authority to read it and know what it says. Which is how you can know when your "authorities" are in error.
@@jsharp9735 i read my bible all the time, i just don’t assume that i am interpreting it without error. I defer to the church which WAS given a means to interpret without error. I’m not saying the bible can’t guide you morally, but as laypeople we don’t have the authority to decide doctrine for ourselves. The people who read scripture and decide for themselves what we should and shouldn’t believe about Jesus and Christianity are called heretics. You also forget that for 1500 years or so, no one read their own bible and for some reason, the faith survived. It wasn’t a hinderance to only hear scripture read in mass followed by an explanation from a priest.
@@daniellenm395 Then you're already in error because the church is in error and that is why Roman dogmas are heretical. Who say's anything about deciding doctrine, its merely understanding the objective context of the Bible. That happens by reading it often and a meaningful amount of time each day if you can. You're just repeating boiler plat narratives. Plenty of the early church fathers had the same opinions as the reformers. There is a reason why Rome doesn't want you to "interpret" and come to them. Its so you don't know any better.
St. Clement of Rome, one of the most based popes in history. Was martyred by being chained to an anchor and thrown into the sea. Now he sits in the Presence of the Lord.
@@TheNewCrusade Its a fun story, but it is a later legend (at least 300 years after Clement). None of the earliest sources that talk about Clement mention his martyrdom.
Fact: Ignatius not only coined the word Christian (hence why Christs followers were first called Christians in Antioch; see Acts 11:26), but he also coined the phrase Catholic Church.
Curious about your summary of Jerome, I haven't read many of his writings, but he quotes Maccabees and even apocryphal books like Susanna as scripture in his letter 'Against Helvidius'
read the actual epistles that they wrote, not someone else cherry picking verses. Start with Ignatius and Polycarp, the two disciples of John the Apostle.
@@FisherOfMenParakletos I'd say, start with Papius and Clement, then Polycrates. Go in time order to preserve the context. There's a ten volume set called "The Writings of the AnteNicene Fathers". I read the first volume.
Former protestant here, the church fathers were huge in my conversion. St augustine is my confirmation saint. Here’s a based quote from him: For in the Catholic Church, not to speak of the purest wisdom, to the knowledge of which a few spiritual men attain in this life, so as to know it, in the scantiest measure, indeed, because they are but men, still without any uncertainty (since the rest of the multitude derive their entire security not from acuteness of intellect, but from simplicity of faith,)- not to speak of this wisdom, which you do not believe to be in the Catholic Church, there are many other things which most justly keep me in her bosom. The consent of peoples and nations keeps me in the Church; so does her authority, inaugurated by miracles, nourished by hope, enlarged by love, established by age. The succession of priests keeps me, beginning from the very seat of the Apostle Peter, to whom the Lord, after His resurrection, gave it in charge to feed His sheep, down to the present episcopate. And so, lastly, does the name itself of Catholic, which, not without reason, amid so many heresies, the Church has thus retained; so that, though all heretics wish to be called Catholics, yet when a stranger asks where the Catholic Church meets, no heretic will venture to point to his own chapel or house. Such then in number and importance are the precious ties belonging to the Christian name which keep a believer in the Catholic Church, as it is right they should, though from the slowness of our understanding, or the small attainment of our life, the truth may not yet fully disclose itself. But with you, where there is none of these things to attract or keep me, the promise of truth is the only thing that comes into play. Now if the truth is so clearly proved as to leave no possibility of doubt, it must be set before all the things that keep me in the Catholic Church; but if there is only a promise without any fulfillment, no one shall move me from the faith which binds my mind with ties so many and so strong to the Christian religion.
The channel "Ancient Egypt and the Bible" has a few videos called "Gnosticism Explained". Perhaps you could go there until Redeemed Zoomer makes a Video on it.
I love how -Ignatius- Irenaeus beat the Gnostics by telling everyone what they were concealing. Also, I think this is another time where history keeps echoing itself, because a modern 'hidden secrets' religion that is very litigious had the same thing happen to them! First in court (where they tried to deny it, then admitted that them trying to enforce a copyright claim meant it was true), then via South Park of all places. (Editing because I got the name wrong. I have the memory of a sieve)
I'm sure there are other Church fathers that aren't mentioned in this list... But, what can I say, what an incredible way of oversimplifying explanations of them... I like the part with Saint Nicholas... "BRO THAT'S HERESY!" 😂
7:40 you are incorrect. While you were correct on saying St. Jerome believed in using the Hebrew text, as he had a back and forth with St. Augustine about making the Vulgate from the Hebrew texts instead of the Septuagint, the "66 books that are actually bible" is referencing the Masoretic bible, which was made by the Masoretes, who were Jewish and did not compile any New Testament books into their canon, 300-500 years after the Vulgate. He translated the books that were considered canon by the Council of Rome, Hippo, and Carthage.
I loved this video! As someone who was raised in a 'prosperity gospel' environment and eventually left after studying the Bible, I’m only now starting to learn about the rich history and complexity of our faith. It's comforting to know that even throughout history, the Church Fathers had their own struggles and different interpretations of things. As long as we hold to the fundamental doctrines, discussing the secondary ones can be enjoyable-especially when we're open to having our minds changed. Once again, I really enjoyed this video!
I've been reading Athanasius' On The Incarnation. It's a great book which makes sense of how bad sin is and why Christ Jesus must have a divine nature.
@@melodygnFaith is human faith (I am going to cross the street and not get run over) and is different from GOD’s faith. God’s faith = GIFT of PEACE -a light yoke - because God is in charge of all things, of all ppls. What is your understanding of faith - because your question comes from deep thought already in your own mind.
@@JuliaNeubauer the alarming thing is that many Christians believe that their works or their obedience to the law will save them. One thing is to obey because we are grateful for what Jesus did for us, and another is to think that our obedience to the law will help us in our salvation.
Most of the Fathers also said important things on the Eucharist and the Mass... Not to mention, of course... ;-) God bless you. And may the Church Fathers pray for us all and the Militant Church still fighting in the world.
4:20 I believe you misrepresented tertullian here. This was a very common belief in the church that baptism washed away past sins, not particular to tertullian. He didn’t argue for delaying baptism to death either, but rather argued that the children should know who is saving them in baptism.
Do a video on the Church Mothers!! So many amazing women who are forgotten by history! Like St Macrina, older sister to st basil & gregory. Or St Paula who encouraged st Jerome to translate the Bible. Even jerome sings highly of her!!
Good on ya for admitting that the real presence in Eucharist, three-tiered clergy, and Roman supremacy were present from the earliest Fathers. I was raised Protestant and had assumed those kinds of things were later corruptions.
Also, although St. Ignatius speaks of 3 distinct offices, it's important to note that his view of bishops is not that they are overseers of all churches in a region. That develops later on. The role of bishops in Ignatius' view is that they are the senior pastor/presbyter/priest of a congregation, much in the way that St. Jerome describes it. "Wherever the bishop appears, there let the congregation be; just as wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church." (Letter to the Ephesians) Note the singular in congregation. "It is not lawful without the bishop either to baptize or to celebrate a love-feast; but whatsoever he shall approve of, that is also pleasing to God." (Letter to the Smyrnaeans) Churches celebrated the Eucharist every Sunday and it would be impossible for a person to visit every church in his area every Sunday for the Eucharist and also administer every baptism in the area, especially considering that baptisms can often be unplanned and communication was not easy and very delayed.
@@Nonz.M Sure, I'm not one of those Catholics that think all these ideas were completely solidified in the early church. I think Christ told the Apostles to start a church, and then it took them a while to figure things out, like role of clergy, the Trinity, defining Christ's humanity and divinity, writing the New Testament, etc. Didn't happen over night.
The real presence is a heresy… according to you and the rest of Pastor Jim’s Bible Fellowship and Tire Center in the strip mall off I-86? Fine. But nobody of consequence or authority thought that until maybe the 17th century, so maybe your power to declare things heresy doesn’t have the weight you assume.
3:45 I thought that was Origen who believed in Universalism? Or did Clement of Alexandria also believe this? Edit: 6:26 oh okay, it seems there were more Universalists than I thought in the first centuries of Christianity...
I'm not here but to clarify, the protestant specifically Presbyterian came from the reforms, and had no roots in the Father of the church's, that thing is legitimate in succession with the Catholic Church.
no he didn't. You believe in the canon of Augustine, but I hold to Athanasius who also held the view of Jerome (read his easter letter). Cyril of Jerusalem did also hold that view and Melito of Sardis went back to Israel to learn about the canon and came to the same conclusion. God bless you and may God keep your faith strong !
@@michaelg4919 All the early Protestant leaders (Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, even the Anglicans) claimed that Saint Jerome rejected the deuterocanonical books of the Bible that Catholics include. This is a bold claim because it sets Saint Jerome, a preeminent saint and doctor of the Catholic Church, against the Catholic Church. So is it true? Certainly, no one can deny that Saint Jerome may have had early reservations about the canonical books of Tobit, Judith, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Baruch, and 1&2 Maccabees (and those portions of Daniel and Esther). However, by AD 382, we see a reversal in St Jerome’s sentiments. The reason for this is that in AD 382, Pope Damasus and the Council of Rome canonized these books as inerrant and inspired by the Holy Spirit. So then, after this date, Saint Jerome, as a faithful son of the Catholic Church, submitted to the papal decree. The same is true of Blessed John Henry Newman who personally disagreed with a quick decree on papal infallibility, but certainly obeyed it as soon as it was issued. Here’s proof that Saint Jerome submitted to the decree of Rome of Pope St Damasus. The following quote is taken from a letter written by Saint Jerome in A.D. 404. Does not the Scripture say: ‘Burden not thyself above thy power’? - Jerome, To Eustochium, Epistle 108 (Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers 2, VI:207) Here Saint Jerome quotes Sirach 13:2 (‘Burden not thyself above thy power’) as “Scripture”. In Saint Jerome’s prologue on the book of Judith, he recongizes that the First Council of Nicea (AD 325 - the council defended the Trinity and deity of Christ against Arians) recognized the book of Judith as “canonical”. Furthermore, Jerome in the year A.D. 402 defended the deuteroncanoical additions to the book of Daniel: What sin have I committed if I followed the judgment of the churches? But he who brings charges against me for relating the objections that the Hebrews are wont to raise against the Story of Susanna, the Song of the Three Children, and the story of Bel and the Dragon, which are not found in the Hebrew volume, proves that he is just a foolish sycophant. For I was not relating my own personal views, but rather the remarks that they [the Jews] are wont to make against us. (Against Rufinus, 11:33 [AD 402]). I rest may case. It seems clear that Saint Jerome did at one time reject the deuterocanonicals, but by A.D. 402-404 he had become a defender of them. Saint Jerome was not a dissenter.
@@michaelg4919 yeah ok, but still the Septuagint is historically more accurate. The earliest Christians and Jews used the Septuagint as it is the most quoted translation in the New testament. It doesn't matter if a saint in 4th century used a different text when the apostles used the Septuagint.
don’t have a pastor unfortunately as I’m not sure if I should start going to church as I’m in England and I think we all know what the modern Anglican Church is like, I feel pretty lost right now, I haven’t been baptised/Christened as I wasn’t raised a Christian, I haven’t read the Bible yet and I don’t go to church as I’m not sure if I should as they may be one of the liberal ones, I’m not really sure what to do as I’ve just began to turn to Jesus Christ and God has been answering my prayers recently but I would just like some advice, thank you.
Whatever you do, do not ever go into a church, any church. The "church" is all 100% apostate. Read the Bible yourself only and do not ever listen to anyone from any church. If anyone is preaching from anything called the/a church, they are preaching falsely.
See his video on map of churches which are Theological sound Or try to meet christian in online communities Then switch to offline church God will give the grace to help you find a good church
@@BlessyThomas-ip7sv ,...The fact is, there is no church that is theologically sound. There are only fake christians that think there is. Repent, and learn what the truth, the gospel, and the Christianity of the Bible actually is.
The RCC and EO would excommunicate pretty much all the Church Fathers for being heretics. Many believed Mary sinned, many were against the use of images for cultic practices and Augustine's predestination would send them into conniptions.
1:40 "Clement was the leader of the church in Rome shortly after Peter" Bruh, Peter was never the leader of the church in Rome. Surely if Peter were the leader of the church in Rome from 42 to 67 AD (according to church tradition), if that were the case: - Paul would have mentioned him in Romans 16 when greeting members of the church (58 AD) - If Peter had been in Rome for 16 years when Romans was written, Paul would not write in Rom 1:10-15 wishing that the church might be established (or made stable) - Paul would not have said only Luke was with him in 2 Tim 4:10-11 (64-65 AD)
@@Justeelisjust Incorrect, we do not "know" it is a code word for Rome. First, you have to prove they were writing in code at all; there's no precedent for that in this context. - Nowhere else do they write in code when referring to the location of their churches. - If a code word *were* needed for Rome here, why not elsewhere? Second, Babylon itself still existed at the time of writing of 1 Peter: - Antiquities, Book 15 Chapter 2 (Josephus) - The First epistle general of Peter (A. M. Stibbs, P. 65) - Acts 2:9 Third, Peter's ministry was primarily to the Jews; of which Babylon had a large population compared to a meager Jewish population in Rome. - Galatians 2:7-9 - The Embassy to Gaius XXXI (Philo) To make what you have said true, you have explain why contrary to Gal 2:7-9, Peter had gone to the gentiles instead of the Jews need to establish a one-time Biblical exception to the Apostles' writings in using code. The simpler and clearer explanation is that Peter meant Babylon as Babylon; it is an explanation that requires next to no assumptions or speculation. "Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem"
@@kentleighenglish1388 The book of Revelation refers Rome as Babylon in many places (Rev. 14.8; 16.19; 17.5-6; 18.2, 10, 21). Especially Rev. 17.5-6 is a reference to persecution of christians by the romans. Babylon symbolizes evil that Rome embodied that time. I can't grasp the intention behind your ahistoric ad hoc -view.
@@Justeelisjust I agree that IF he were using code, Rome would be the most likely explanation due to Revelation. (as opposed to the other common explanation of Jerusalem) We're not discussing that however, as there is little contention there. What we are discussing is why a code word would be used this one and only time (unless you'd like to claim there are other uses of code words), and why Peter would've been in Rome when his calling was to the Jews (to which Babylon itself makes more sense) Nice projection there calling my view "ahistoric" and "ad-hoc", as though it's not ad-hoc to try force Peter into Rome so that you can claim he was the first pope, when it is a far greater glorification of God that the Gospel would've reached the Euphrates within Peter's lifetime.
@@kentleighenglish1388 They used pseudonyms for symbolic purposes and as a measure to communicate information like the location of the Peter (in Rome) discreetly during the persecutions. Why do you think they hid Nero's name behind the numberic value of 666? To discreetly transmit unflattering information about the romans. Just like the fish-symbol the persecuted christians used to discreetly identifying themselves. You're ignoring the christian persecution happening at the time of the Peter's letters and denying early church history and obvious symbolism just to reject the fact of there were bishops in the early church. This is rightly called as ahistorical.
1:40 I have a question here. You say that Clement is an early example of the supremacy of the Roman church. I want to have clarification on your statement. I'm of the opinion that the different churches are of equal importance and should hold each other accountable. And if you have a competed scholar in one church his view holds more weight, for the fact that he is competent, not because he is member of that specific church. When I hear that Clement calls out another church, then I don't immediately jump to the conclusion that the church he belongs to holds a special authority above everybody else. I'm aware that the Roman Catholics use this situation as a justification for their claim for supremacy, but historically speaking, is that actually justified? Was that calling out done in a way of "Stop doing it, because I say so and I have higher authority."? Was there other calling out being done from one church to another or was it always from Rome towards others? How much of that Roman supremacy, if there was any, was for the reason that Rome was a city with a supremacy complex due to the political and historical power and how much was because the church is actually superior?
@@joshuajohansen1210Ignatius does acknowledge it, he says that Rome has primacy of love and that he has nothing to teach Rome but it has to teach him. I'll provide the quotes if necessary.
Question? Were the people that God used like the prophets, judges,kings, Apostles, Mother Mary Predestined for his plan, or how does that play out on God's Timeline? I know we have free will, but what about the others in the OT and NT?
@@VirginMostPowerfull lmao what? The Athanasian creed wasn't written by Athanasius. It was written a hundred years after him, and never gained popularity until Protestantism came about. Scholars universally agree on this.
@@anon8638 Never gained popularity ? Is that supposed to be an argument ? It was accepted by the West before the Great Schism and used by Western Christians. That Athanasius didn't write it doesn't take away from the fact his name is attached to a filioque creed accepted by the West. This is sufficient to prove the filioque position has traditionally beend recognized in Athanasius.
@@VirginMostPowerfull a creed that Athanasius didn't write is sufficient to prove Athanasius supported the filioque? That's complete nonsense. If it's so clear he believed the filioque then get an actual quote from him not a third party creed.
@@anon8638 No you don't understand the logic or you don't want to idk. If the Creed in question bears his name it means it reflected his theology for the West, which means the first millenium Church understood Athanasius as filioquist. There is no getting around that. And that right there is enough to end the debate.
@@Deus_Hoc_VultAt 2:54, he says, "That's not biblical," when the Bible had not even been compiled yet. He's altering history to support his view of sola scriptura.
2:38 not true all the church fathers before 300 were subordinationists. Justin martyr was a binatarian. He believed Jesus was a seperate and distinct subordinate god to god the father and he didn’t believe the holy spirit was god in any sense.
@@christophersalinas2722 go read a book bro lmao. “According to Badcock, virtually all orthodox theologians prior to the Arian controversy in the latter half of the fourth century were subordinationists to some extent, which also applies to Irenaeus, Tertullian, Origen, Hippolytus, Justin Martyr and Novatian.”
@@christophersalinas2722 have you read any of the actual church fathers? Here a nice quote from Origen showing how he’s a subordinationist: “For we who say that the visible world is under the government to Him who created all things, do thereby declare that the Son is not mightier than the Father, but inferior to Him. And this belief we ground on the saying of Jesus Himself, The Father who sent Me is greater than I.” “Grant that there may be some individuals among the multitudes of believers who are not in entire agreement with us, and who incautiously assert that the Saviour is the Most High God; however, we do not hold with them, but rather believe Him when He says, The Father who sent Me is greater than I. We would not therefore make Him whom we call Father inferior - as Celsus accuses us of doing - to the Son of God.” Clearly here we see Origen doesn’t believe that the son is the most high god he believes he’s a second lesser divinity subordinate to the father. Contra Celsum, Book VIII Let’s look at another example maybe your not convinced still. Let’s look at St irenaeus Against Heresies (Book II, Chapter 28) he says “But, beyond reason inflated [with your own wisdom], you presumptuously maintain that you are acquainted with the unspeakable mysteries of God; while even the Lord, the very Son of God, allowed that the Father alone knows the very day and hour of judgment, when He plainly declares, But of that day and that hour knows no man, neither the Son, but the Father only. If, then, the Son was not ashamed to ascribe the knowledge of that day to the Father only, but declared what was true regarding the matter, neither let us be ashamed to reserve for God those greater questions which may occur to us. For no man is superior to his master. Matthew 10:24; Luke 11:40 If any one, therefore, says to us, How then was the Son produced by the Father? we reply to him, that no man understands that production, or generation, or calling, or revelation, or by whatever name one may describe His generation, which is in fact altogether indescribable.” Clearly St ireneaus says that the son doesn’t know the hours and is therefore subordinate to the father in knowledge. Also he is an eternal emanation of the father. Hopefully that’s enough proof for you😴
Justin believed the Spirit is God. He says he worships the Father, Son and Spirit. "But both Him, and the Son (who came forth from Him and taught us these things, and the host of the other good angels who follow and are made like to Him), and the prophetic Spirit, *we worship and adore."* (Justin Martyr, First Apology, ch 6).
@@ElijahDawkins-yb1uc literally the same thing. Using the schism to make it different is just being dumb and showing off your ignorance on both roman and orthodox history. And dont even come with that bs of constantine, i already had enough
@@chi2nt non, the guy is protestant, he will try to say the catholic church was born later because they dont like to admitt they are the only new guys in the hood you know? From the 16 century lol
@@chi2nt brother, the ideas of the catholic church came after they all died. Catholic church were delusional and misinterpeting the verse where Jesus gave the Keys of the church to Peter. And the curch that Peter created was more close to orthodoxy then it is to catholics now. Catholic change their curch, they don't follow Peter traditions anymore, how can that be the true church
Thank you ... Fathers of the Catholic Church in a NUTSHELL ... Good compit ... as now the laity is taking a peep into these developments ... Serves very handy ... Halleluia
Jerome did NOT translate all 73 books; he started working on them but when he discovered that the Apocrypha was not part of the Hebrew scriptures he refused to translate them, saying they were not part of the Bible, and he only translated the 66 books for the Vulgate. The Roman Catholic Church had to just borrow and update the Old Latin translations for the Apocryphal (Deuterocanonical, according to them) books because Jerome wouldn't translate them.
The gates of hell prevailed against the church, the church went missing for 1500 to 1600 years and Martin Luther was the only one who got it right and saved Christianity by spawning over 50000 denominations that depend on their own (trustworthy) private interpretation of the scriptures.
1 Clement 30, Let us clothe ourselves with concord, being humble, temperate, keeping ourselves far from all whispering and evil speaking, justified by our deeds, and not by our words. I think that it is only fair to quote this with clement 32
Some historians teach saint Nicholas didn't slapped Arius but an Arius's follower. Only bishops were allowed to debate in the Council and Arius was a deacon
Idk the church fathers and all their different beliefs are very confusing to me... How can it be that the people who were so close to the apostles had such different views?
You are not to take the Church Fathers writing independently. Even they in thier writings acknowledge conflict of opinions. However, they all believed in Apostolic Succession and they all rested final authority to interpret with the Church. Their writting are subordinate to the Holy Apostolic Church. That's where the Protestants lose, they can cherry pick the Fathers all day but they are missing the point entirely.
This is why we have the a living Church and Ecumenical Councils. The Church Fathers were unanimous on the fundamental doctrines the church still holds to this day. None of them, however, were infallible, nor does the Orthodox Church claim such.
Yep! They don’t understand/ know what to do with it and all though they don’t believe it carries any weight, they try and cherry pick statements to support their view. My wife will highlight how St Jérôme was adamant about the 66 books (which was true, although he DID concede to the Church which is a very Catholic thing to do) but ignore how St Jerome could not be swayed from believing the perpetual virginity of the Blessed Virgin Mary. Let us pray for them!
@@georgefuentes4112 if you read Justin Martyr "Dialogue with Trypho", he sounds a lot like protestant. Although protestant is a stupid word with a lot of bad connotation. He sounds like a simple Christian who rejects outward rituals but preaches change in the heart of man. I read it yesterday, it's amazing
Only funny when EOs or RCs make this claim because the translation you likely use is the Ante Nicene and Post Nicene Fathers set. That was written by Phillip Schaff. He was a devout Calvinist Presbyterian and remained so his whole life.
@navigator687 nah, just an example of how ignorant orthobros are when it comes to patristic scholarship and its history. The majority of the strongest patristic scholars were Protestants who remained so their entire life. Most terminally online EOs would better spend their time praying to make sure they get through the tollhouses (gotta satisfy those demons!) rather than exposing their scholarly ignorance.
This is NOT a substitute for reading the fathers, just an oversimplified summary. Also, if you have the return dislike extension and it shows my videos having tons of dislikes, it's not accurate. My videos nearly all have over 95% likes, and are NOT getting "dislike-bombed"
THERE'S A RETURN DISLIKES EXTENSION?
@@Namato360 Yes. It's very easy to get it.
@@Namato360 Only problem is, as he confirmed via screenshots a few times, it doesn't work right.
@@Namato360 y
"Let us clothe ourselves with concord and humility, ever exercising self-control, standing far off from all whispering and evil-speaking, being justified by our works, and not our words." Clement Chapter 30
No he sounds Catholic.
Protestants please read the whole letter, not just Gavin Ourtland's quote mines
The fact that “Santa punched someone in the face” actually historically happened is pretty funny
Eh, it might not've tbh
@KennyBare "Bro, that's heresy"
Well say he did
He actually did and was detained for a short time because of it
@@processofelimination3099 is it in the transcripts of the council?
All my homies affirm the triune God of scripture 🙏
Yes, but remember, this is not a matter of salvation. Let us remember not to "divide" the body of Christ just if some other bros and sis interpret the nature of God differently.
I'm sure God won't say to any human being: "Welcome to heav..Oh wait! I see you didn't quite understand My eternal and all mighty nature and spiritual essence that transcends all things! Sorry son..."
@melodygn
So who decides what is and what isnt damnable heresy?
Do you have to believe that Christ is God to be saved?
Are you sure about that? Tertullian believed that there was a time when the Father was alone and that he created the Son, and only then did the Father become a Father.
_Because God is in like manner a Father, and He is also a Judge; _*_but He has not always been Father_*_ and Judge, merely on the ground of His having always been God. For _*_He could not have been the Father previous to the Son_*_ , nor a Judge previous to sin. (There was, however, a time when neither sin existed with Him, _*_nor the Son_*_ ); the former of which was to constitute the Lord a Judge, _*_and the latter a Father_*_ . In this way He was not Lord previous to those things of which He was to be the Lord. But He was only to become Lord at some future time: _*_just as He became the Father by the Son_*_ , and a Judge by sin, so also did He become Lord by means of those things which He had made, in order that they might serve Him. - (Against Hermogenes, Chapter 3)_
_Let Hermogenes then confess that _*_the very Wisdom of God is declared to be born and created_*_ , for the special reason that we should not suppose that there is any other being than _*_God alone who is unbegotten and uncreated_*_ . For if that, which from its being inherent in the Lord was of Him and in Him, was yet _*_not without a beginning_*_ - I mean His wisdom, which was then _*_born and created_*_ , when in the thought of God It began to assume motion for the arrangement of His creative works...But if this same _*_Wisdom is the Word of God_*_ , in the capacity of Wisdom, and (as being He) without whom nothing was made, just as also (nothing) was set in order without Wisdom, how can it be that anything, except the Father, should be older, and on this account indeed nobler, than the Son of God, the _*_only-begotten_*_ and _*_first-begotten_*_ Word? Not to say that _*_what is unbegotten is stronger than that which is born, and what is not made more powerful than that which is made. Because that which did not require a Maker to give it existence, will be much more elevated in rank than that which had an author to bring it into being_*_ - (Against Hermogenes, Chapter 18)_
Clement of Alexandria believed that Jesus was God's first creation.
_They were misled by what is said in the book of Wisdom: "He pervades and passes through all by reason of His purity;" Wisdom __7:24__ since they did not understand that this was said of _*_Wisdom, which was the first of the creation of God._*_ (The Stromata, V, 14)_
_For _*_He was the Wisdom_*_ "in which" the Sovereign God "delighted." (The Stromata, VII, 2)_
_But the nature of the Son, which is _*_nearest to Him who is alone the Almighty One,_*_ is the most perfect, and most holy, and most potent, and most princely, and most kingly, and most beneficent. (The Stromata, VII, 2)_
_And when Paul says, “Put on the new man created according to God” it is as if he said, _*_Believe on him who was “created” by God, “according to God,” that is, the Logos in God_*_ . And “created according to God” can refer to the end of advance which man will reach, as does...he rejected the end for which he was created. And in other passages he speaks still more plainly and distinctly: “Who is an image of the invisible God”; then he goes on, “First-Born of all creation.” For he calls the Logos of the essential Logos “an image of the invisible God,” but “First-Born of all creation.” Having been begotten without passion he became the creator and progenitor of all creation and substance, for by him the Father made all things. (Excerpta ex Theodoto, 19)_
_For we thus understand “I begot thee before the morning star” with reference to the _*_first-created Logos of God_*_ and similarly “thy name is before sun” and moon and before all creation. - (Excerpta ex Theodoto, 20)_
@@Veritas231 we, as humans, the church, can say something is "damnable heresy", but let me tell you something, I'm sure that lots of "heretics" will be resurrected to everlasting life. Why? Simply because God is not looking for perfect dogma or doctrine, God is looking for followers that learn how to love others (enemies included of course) as Jesus taught; people that learned how to see other people through the eyes of Jesus, that my friend, is better than any creed, better than any doctrine or dogma.
And, let me tell you something , some brothers and sisters accept Jesus in their hearts as their Savior, and that leads to a transformation in their lives. I'm also sure that when the moment comes (and I hope it comes soon) He will not tell them: "Welcome son! I see you accepted Me as your substitute atonement, also you accepted my sacrifice in the cro...Oh...wait.... I also see here that you weren't able to understand the mystery that states I was the everlasting God incarnated... Sorry son... Good luck burning in Hell you Heretic!"
No... No...
Sadly, that's the God of many believers... A God that condemns them, a God that punishes them, a God that rejects them for "not believing" in the "right things".
That's certainly NOT my God (#NotMyGod)
But who knows! I might be wrong. I'm not dogmatic about it. 😁 God bless you!
Here are the Catholic things you left out:
All the Catholic things the earliest fathers agreed on: regenerative baptism, Church hierarchy/authority, Eucharistic sacrifice & transubstantiation, Mary as New Eve, etc.
Why is there not a line from Peter to Clement of Rome? Ignatius also had glowing words for the Church at Rome compared to other churches he wrote to. Clement of Rome also said we are justified by our works and not by our words. He also claimed to speak with the voice of God/Christ Himself and commanded obedience from the Corinthian Christians, restoring the leaders to their offices. Irenaeus opposed the Gnostics not with Scripture alone but also with APOSTOLIC TRADITION & APOSTOLIC SUCCESSION especially as found in the Church at Rome.
How about an actual citation for Clement of Alexandria's alleged view of an invisible Church? Just doing a word search of "church" in Clement's writings is showing a more visible understanding of the Church as Bride of Christ the King, Mother of Christians, a Holy Mountain, and led by shepherd leaders.
The alleged iconoclasm of Clement and Tertullian is extremely questionable and debatable. Clement talks of Christian imagery/symbols on signet rings. Tertullian was also a rigorist that many believe became a heretic later, so rigorism on icons doesn't count for much.
People may be misled by your video to think Constantine made Christianity the state religion; he did not do that.
Jerome was the very first father to propose a 66 book canon, and there is strong evidence he abandoned that position later. It is also very misleading to say that Jerome believed the monarchical bishop "developed over time." No, Jerome believed the Apostles themselves instituted monarchical bishops.
Augustine wrote A LOT. He even wrote a work looking back on and retracting or revising his earlier works/positions. You can make Augustine say almost anything.
Nicely done 👏🏽
Jerome in his letter 15 to Pope damasus I claims the Pope is bigger than a council, and that the Papacy is thr rock, and that Christ stablished it as its vicar
Go off brother
you left out the pedophilia, paganism and gatekeeping the bible from the common man
Paul says that we are justified by faith, not by works of the Law. All of the book of Romans explicitly exasperates that in ad nauseum.
Clement only sounds Protestant if you fundamentally misunderstand the Catholic view of justification
Which is extremely common even among Catholics unfortunately
@@marvalice3455agreed but that’s most teachings I think it’s like over 90% of people that don’t believe in transubstantiation.
Same with Ephesians
It’s really as easy as doing the Google search to understand what Catholics believe 😥🫨
He doesn't invoke his Pope powers against the Corinthians and doesn't even seem to know he has such authority. He doesn't even mention being THE (Exclusive) Bishop of Rome, he doesn't even seem to know such an office exists.
You did Chrysostom dirty. Barely a word.
For real. Are we just gonna ignore that he wrote the Divine Liturgy
I love him. He was called "golden mouth" because of how moving of a speaker he could be. He was born into wealth, so was likely well-educated, then became responsible for what seems to be a wayward congregation. We see that in sermons we have from him, some of which are in the excellent collection called, On Marriage and Family Life.
Bro, it was just a 10 minutes video...
@@trone3630 once he decided to become a preacher, he reclused himself for 2 years in a cave and then became a simple folk preacher.
People come to him cause he created an amazing atmoshere, and he became a favorite of simple folk
For his popularity and a way with words they chose him to be patriarch of Constantinople, but when he came to his office, he started to expose corruption and protect simple folk.
He exposed how greedy the queen was and she started to hate him for it.
They started to falsely accuse him etc, in the end they rejected him from Constantinople and forced him to walk a loong way with their guards, they deprived him from food and water and he fainted many times in the path.
One day they were coming by the Church and he came in, said "Thank you God for everything" and collapsed and died.
That's what i remember, read his life if you want to know more
@@Air-wr4vv I hadn't heard that, so thank you for sharing that. It's consistent with what I've read of him, but adds a lot more detail. I'll look for more info about him.
I like you're just embracing
"BRO, THAT'S HERESY!!!"
at this point
"Come on Patrick!"
That's gnosticism Patrick!
Let's quote mine St Clement.
Let us clothe ourselves with concord and humility, ever exercising self-control, standing far off from all whispering and evil-speaking, being justified by our works, and not our words.
Thanks for all the great videos Zoomer! I personally love St. John Chrysostom:
“Christ conquered the devil with the same weapons the devil used against us: a virgin, a tree, and death. These tokens of our demise have now become the tokens of our victory. Instead of Eve, there is Mary; instead of the tree of knowledge, there is the Cross; and instead of Adam’s death, there is the death of Christ."
@KTheAlphabetArtistIt's a very clever conclusion.
I love that, thanks for sharing.
This is glorious. Thanks!
How about he conquered with a man - namely, Jesus? I mean ya a virgin was involved but let’s get it straight. Adam’s sin caused the fall and Christs perfection is the new life and restoration to come.
@@JB-em9po that would be sort of redundant to the 3rd point between Adam and Jesus no?
10:17 If you want to know more about the Church Fathers...you can actually READ them. There are English translations of them.
11 seconds into the video that's what he suggests. But if you want to learn more about their lives you can watch lectures on them!
Ignatius of Antioch 0:30
Polycarp 1:07
Clement of Rome 1:38
Justin Martyr 2:20
Irenaeus 2:43
Clement of Alexandria 3:15
Tertullian 3:50
Athanasius 5:10
Gregory of Nessa 6:14
Basil the great 6:29
Gregory of Nyanza 6:49
Jerome 7:34
Ambrose 8:03
Augustine 8:33
Fulgentius 9:12
Cyril of Alexandria 9:25
Chrysostom 10:00
0:51 Ignatius here is saying that Peter and Paul had more authority than he did, not their writings. This is what is mean by him saying "issue commandments unto you." He isnt referencing their writings, rather their authority as Apostles.
He knows that, he's just being dishonest, like they always are.
@@lain7758 Who is "they"?
@@lukejohnson1274 Protestants. Dunno if I can say it in one comment, YT's weird lately
I'm slightly confused. Wouldn't that authority also apply to their writings as well?
@@plumeless4462 as well as their personal authority, yes.
This is so nice. I am looking into Saints because I’m getting baptised in a month, and I prayed to the Lord yesterday to help me find a direction to aim at, and now this pops up. Just, wow. Thank the Lord.
Dont be a calvanist
@@henrikvalborgland4556😂
Calvinism = satanism
@@henrikvalborgland4556 I’m not… Catholic here.
@@Rieend Thank God 😅 Congratulations, my man! Any front-runners?
I love the humour you use to accent your well researched summary videos. Thank you.
How can you read the Fathers and stay protestant?
If you dislike yourself very much, yes
Because we Protestants translated and distributed the Church Fathers writings, you Orthobros are terrible at promoting and translating ancient resources
By ignoring the fact that they all taught Apostolic Succession.
That should be a new mystery for the church lol I cant figure out neither
Easy. You understand that the church fathers are human and not God and you make sure you study the Bible, pray, and consult the historical record on the church 😎
Which if any of these Fathers denied apostolic succession ?
None.
@@LuzianJ right. As far as I can tell, every single one wrote about the importance of maintaining the direct line of succession of ordination from the bishops to the apostles.
Study your Bible and the historical record....
Is that too difficult to do?
@@jaytv4eva
The answer is not a single one.
They all unanimously defend apostolic succession.
@@charlesjoyce982
You said "They [Prots] can’t actually explain why something is bad, they can only explain why the new seems cooler.
I said, "study your Bible and the historical record...Is that too difficult to do?"
Right and wrong come from reason and conscience surrendered to the Word of God.
Luther declared, ""Unless I am convinced by Scripture and plain reason, my conscience is captive to the Word of God. I cannot and I will not recant anything, for to go against conscience would be neither right nor safe. God help me. Here I stand, I can do no other."
Do you really believe that someone who surrenders to the scriptures is going to call Jesus accursed?
Is it a sin to have your reason and conscience held captive to the word of God?
Do you believe that the Gospel is the answer or rational secularism?
Hearing reformed theology is like hearing nails on a chalkboard
😂
Yeah the darkness cannot comprehend the light (truth)...
@@AllforOne_OneforAll1689 so you're condemning the majority of christians for 2000 years lol wild
@@AllforOne_OneforAll1689 just how protestant heretics can't comprehend tradition
I know bro. It's just endless fruit checking instead of looking to Christ.
Ex Protestant, now CATHOLIC! ❤️🔥✝️🇻🇦
Why did you join the mystery babylon church ?
Orthodox arc when? ☦️
@@jsharp9735 This idea that the Catholic church is babylon is a novel idea of the 1900s, like Protestantism with it’s innovations
@@seronymus I already looked into it heavily, choosing the Catholic church.
Hi, may I ask which branch of protestanism youre from? Thank you~
You even point people toward good follow up content. Thank you sir!
Thank you for this video sir, now i can finally go read the Bible! God bless you🙏
Clement sounds like a Catholic when he talks about justification as well. He just doesn't sound like what many Protestants, especially evangelicals, too often say Catholics sound like.
maybe because protestantism is from the 16 century lol
@yagocarvalho6546 this is demonstrably false.
@@kingarth0r Ok I'll bite: When was protestantism born in your opinion? You didn't direct the comment my way but I am honestly curious what you're thinking.
Yeah, they build a strawman out of the Church that Jesus Christ established and then pretend they came up with everything later. The so-called "New Perspective on Paul" isn't very new, for instance. It's literally just what Catholics have maintained from the very beginning. Silly kids. Thankfully, many of them are being drawn back to Rome through independent study, now that the works of the Church Fathers are so widely available. Praise be to God for that!
@@jaggedstarrPIit was “born” in the early church, if not when the church was. The ideas were not new. The Reformation was just that: a Reformation. Not a revolution. It was a conservative movement that accused Rome of becoming more “progressive” (to borrow a term from our day). That Rome had changed in many bad ways over time. That they had evolved themselves right out of biblical orthodoxy and the apostolic faith.
Could you please do some other church history ones:
1. Every Reformer explained in 10 minutes.
2. Every Scholastic explained in 10 minutes.
3. Every Puritan explained in 10 minutes.
4. Every Pope explained in 10 minutes.
5. Every Missionary explained in 10 minutes.
6. Every Theologian explained in 10 minutes.
7. Every Church Musician explained in 10 minutes.
8. Every Apologist explained in 10 minutes.
9. Every Martyr explained in 10 minutes.
10. Every Preacher explained in 10 minutes.
Do “Every Christian in 10 Minutes”
I would love to understand the Methodist church in Wales, like why is the Methodist church in Cornwall Arminian but the Methodist church in Wales is Presbyterian
Every Martyr sounds like a several hour video to me...
@@ProfesserLuigi Yeah especially considering around 50 Christians had just been martyred in Lyons when Irenaeus became bishop there. And that's just one occasion.
@@Noblebird02 1. The Methodist congregations have varieties, mostly minor, from place to place. That mostly depends on the pastor from my observation, but that happens in every denomination. Next, Arminius was and will always be Calvinist. Yes, I know its super hip to use Arminius as a pinata by today's so-called "Calvinists" but the truth is Arminius never denounced Calvinism despite what liars today will say. Arminius saw the unbiblical flaws in the works of Jean Cauvin (real name) and attempted to correct them. There are a lot but Arminius exposed the 5 worst. Since Arminius died before the big debate, the anti-biblical faction in Holland declared victory for their side and proceeded to beat and even kill some of Arminius's supporters/followers.
Charles and John Wesley could see the unbiblical parts of Cauvin's decrees and stood against them. That's why I've heard Wesleys being mocked and bashed by some high profile "calvinists" in the US. The devil does not like the truth to be broadcast.
WHY was Cauvin and his idol Augustine so far away from the Bible and especially the words/commands of Jesus???? I could go on for hours on this but the supersonic version is....Augustine was a believer in the pagan Gnostic sect called Manichean after the false prophet Mani. There were various flavors of Gnosticism that floated around for hundreds of years. They all are anti-God.
Augustine "converted" to Christianity and gained an elevated status in "the church". When he got into his rift with Pelagius and was not winning, Augustine started pulling rabbits from his pagan Gnostic Mani hat. That is terrible enough but Augustine was copied by Cauvin who was only a lawyer & humanist and formed his own ultra twisted religion which is actually a mirror image of himself.
From the advice I got from Bryan Melvin. when I seriously started down the path back to God, was to stick with tried and trusted reformers like Wesley. No Calvinists. Bryan is someone you need to get to know as no man alive has the extensive insight into hell and heaven. Lots of interviews, lectures and his own channel here...Christian Marauder.
For several more hours I can lay out the course for the truth that I prayed for and have been lead to one step at a time by the Holy Spirit which has been perfect beyond words. Looking back over the past 8 years is awesome how and when and to who and to what I needed to know at certain times. Absolute perfection is too puny a description. One thing I realized a few years ago that NONE of the righteous teachers were Calvinists and NONE of the righteous truth even touched Calvinism. Now I figured out why......the Holy Spirit was NOT with Jean Cauvin. He once claimed he felt like the HS was present in his room. What a vague claim to deceive the masses. The main reason Cauvin were able to get so far......nobody was allowed to challenge him without severe danger of torture and death. Yes, he had his own personal torturer whose name I was able to dredge from history. When Calvinists like to get squirrely like they know more than me, I ask them to provide the torturer's name. So far NONE have replied back.
"Bro, that's heresy!" Said santa Claus. 😂😂
Wild when I found out that actually happened 😂
Fascinating....my own 23 year quest to understand the Nature of God aligns quite well with that of Gregory of Nazianzus. Thank you Sir for this educational video.
Why u skipped Origen?.
Because he isn't a Church Father (just like mentioned in the video Tertullian). Part of Origen's believes was heretical, like e.g. whole conception of logikoi.
@@neat7568 his heresy meant he wasn't a saint but it didn't mean he wasn't a church father. Not all Church fathers are Saints.
@@ikengaspirit3063 He is referred to as a "church historian," but his theology was problematic.
@@ironyusa3885 The Catholic University of America Press explicitly includes him in their collections on the Church Fathers. And not all the church fathers mentioned here had all their doctrines accepted as Orthodox.
@@neat7568he was a church father but is not a saint
I've been so confused lately. I've been researching a ton into Christianity and church history, trying to figure out the truth for myself. It's all extremely complicated and not everyone seems to agree on everything, even in the early church fathers it seems. I definitely believe in the Bible and am Christian but regarding the details denominationally and doctrinally speaking, I just don't know what to believe anymore. *Existential crisis creeps in*
the word ecumenical refers to the whole church. So the 4 ecumenical councils represent the whole church, so you can trust in their teaching (after that, the Oriental Orthodox split despite initially accepting the council). This comes from a baptist btw
In the end of the day, trust in Jesus. Men can make mistakes. The church fathers did great things but even them needed Jesus. We are all servants no matter what our prideful nature wants us to believe.
Become Lutheran
The problem seems to be the rejection of the Church as the pillar of truth (1 Timothy 3:15) that is built on Peter (Matthew 16:18) which is promised to be guided by the Holy Spirit (John 16:13). We're not asked to "figure out the truth for ourselves", but the opposite, that is, for *not* to lean on our understanding (Proverbs 3:5). Like Cyprian of Carthage said:
"If someone does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he [should] desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that he is in the Church?" (A.D. 251)
@@nobyrabased and Christ-pilled.
Thank you for the video Mr Zoomer but is that all you have have go to say about Chrysostom ??
You mean his opinion about the (((juice)))?
Baptized and raised Episcopalian, converted to Catholicism, and growing more Eastern in my theology as I read more of the Church fathers
God bless all of the church fathers
This is why it’s so important for there to be a final infallible decision made on doctrine, because even the early Christian leaders had their differing beliefs and interpretations. Every one of those heresies can find scripture verses to support their beliefs. Ecumenical councils are necessary. Whether there is two or three levels of authority doesn’t matter as much because every bishop is a priest (elder). Priests are local while bishops oversee a larger region. Its more important to understand that it is biblical that there ARE different levels of authority. Deacons don’t have the authority of priests/bishops. And laypeople don’t have any authority to interpret scripture on their own. The Holy Spirit is of course, always with you guiding you morally, but the Holy Spirit works through the structure of the church to prevent doctrinal error. I love that one of the first things this video said is talk to your pastor.
This is a great way to convince Christians not to read their Bible. We do have authority to read it and know what it says. Which is how you can know when your "authorities" are in error.
@@jsharp9735 Amen to that brother
@@jsharp9735 Who compiled that bible for you, Prodestant filth?
@@jsharp9735 i read my bible all the time, i just don’t assume that i am interpreting it without error. I defer to the church which WAS given a means to interpret without error. I’m not saying the bible can’t guide you morally, but as laypeople we don’t have the authority to decide doctrine for ourselves. The people who read scripture and decide for themselves what we should and shouldn’t believe about Jesus and Christianity are called heretics. You also forget that for 1500 years or so, no one read their own bible and for some reason, the faith survived. It wasn’t a hinderance to only hear scripture read in mass followed by an explanation from a priest.
@@daniellenm395 Then you're already in error because the church is in error and that is why Roman dogmas are heretical. Who say's anything about deciding doctrine, its merely understanding the objective context of the Bible. That happens by reading it often and a meaningful amount of time each day if you can. You're just repeating boiler plat narratives. Plenty of the early church fathers had the same opinions as the reformers. There is a reason why Rome doesn't want you to "interpret" and come to them. Its so you don't know any better.
St. Clement of Rome, one of the most based popes in history. Was martyred by being chained to an anchor and thrown into the sea. Now he sits in the Presence of the Lord.
He probably didn't die that way.
@@joshuajohansen1210 Shut up Heretic!
@@joshuajohansen1210 He did Bro
@@TheNewCrusade Its a fun story, but it is a later legend (at least 300 years after Clement). None of the earliest sources that talk about Clement mention his martyrdom.
Universalism?
Fact: Ignatius not only coined the word Christian (hence why Christs followers were first called Christians in Antioch; see Acts 11:26), but he also coined the phrase Catholic Church.
What about St John of Damascus who condemned iconoclasm?
He also didn't mention Cyril of Jerusalem... (maybe the video would have been too long)
He was later
@@redeemedzoomer6053 What ?
Curious about your summary of Jerome, I haven't read many of his writings, but he quotes Maccabees and even apocryphal books like Susanna as scripture in his letter 'Against Helvidius'
What is your opinion on Mar Mari Emmanuel?
@@drjanitor3747 I asked redeemed zoomer not you
@@drjanitor3747I could tell he is Protestant by his misconception.
Nestorian.
Yes Eastern Church grew in a seemingly parallel manner ... Mix them Chronologically ... It is time of ECUMENISM ... Narsai ... !!! Ave Maria
Crazy that you mention Bruce Gore. I’ve been listening to him for over two years now. He’s an excellent teacher.
Any suggested reading on the history of the Church Fathers?
2,000 Years of Christ Power vol. 1
@@joshuajohansen1210 Thank you!
read the actual epistles that they wrote, not someone else cherry picking verses. Start with Ignatius and Polycarp, the two disciples of John the Apostle.
@@FisherOfMenParakletos I'd say, start with Papius and Clement, then Polycrates. Go in time order to preserve the context. There's a ten volume set called "The Writings of the AnteNicene Fathers". I read the first volume.
Four Witnesses by Rod Bennett
Former protestant here, the church fathers were huge in my conversion. St augustine is my confirmation saint. Here’s a based quote from him:
For in the Catholic Church, not to speak of the purest wisdom, to the knowledge of which a few spiritual men attain in this life, so as to know it, in the scantiest measure, indeed, because they are but men, still without any uncertainty (since the rest of the multitude derive their entire security not from acuteness of intellect, but from simplicity of faith,)- not to speak of this wisdom, which you do not believe to be in the Catholic Church, there are many other things which most justly keep me in her bosom. The consent of peoples and nations keeps me in the Church; so does her authority, inaugurated by miracles, nourished by hope, enlarged by love, established by age. The succession of priests keeps me, beginning from the very seat of the Apostle Peter, to whom the Lord, after His resurrection, gave it in charge to feed His sheep, down to the present episcopate. And so, lastly, does the name itself of Catholic, which, not without reason, amid so many heresies, the Church has thus retained; so that, though all heretics wish to be called Catholics, yet when a stranger asks where the Catholic Church meets, no heretic will venture to point to his own chapel or house. Such then in number and importance are the precious ties belonging to the Christian name which keep a believer in the Catholic Church, as it is right they should, though from the slowness of our understanding, or the small attainment of our life, the truth may not yet fully disclose itself. But with you, where there is none of these things to attract or keep me, the promise of truth is the only thing that comes into play. Now if the truth is so clearly proved as to leave no possibility of doubt, it must be set before all the things that keep me in the Catholic Church; but if there is only a promise without any fulfillment, no one shall move me from the faith which binds my mind with ties so many and so strong to the Christian religion.
3:05 I would like an entire video explaining gnostic lore please. I am now interested
The channel "Ancient Egypt and the Bible" has a few videos called "Gnosticism Explained". Perhaps you could go there until Redeemed Zoomer makes a Video on it.
To know why they're wrong, right?...
..Right? 😅
@@Gnostics-Gnightmare yes
Just read Against Heresies.
That’s secret knowledge, sorry.
The New York accent just makes the video that much better!
Justin the Martyr also believed in the Real Presence of Jesus as the Eucharist, Apology #1
"If the world is against the truth, then I am against the world" - St. Athanasius
I love how -Ignatius- Irenaeus beat the Gnostics by telling everyone what they were concealing.
Also, I think this is another time where history keeps echoing itself, because a modern 'hidden secrets' religion that is very litigious had the same thing happen to them! First in court (where they tried to deny it, then admitted that them trying to enforce a copyright claim meant it was true), then via South Park of all places.
(Editing because I got the name wrong. I have the memory of a sieve)
Scientology?
😂😂 that white polar bear sticking its head out at Arianism
.
Gold 😂
I'm sure there are other Church fathers that aren't mentioned in this list... But, what can I say, what an incredible way of oversimplifying explanations of them... I like the part with Saint Nicholas... "BRO THAT'S HERESY!" 😂
7:40 you are incorrect. While you were correct on saying St. Jerome believed in using the Hebrew text, as he had a back and forth with St. Augustine about making the Vulgate from the Hebrew texts instead of the Septuagint, the "66 books that are actually bible" is referencing the Masoretic bible, which was made by the Masoretes, who were Jewish and did not compile any New Testament books into their canon, 300-500 years after the Vulgate. He translated the books that were considered canon by the Council of Rome, Hippo, and Carthage.
I caught that too
This is one of your best videos. Great job
agreed!
Yup
Also remember about John Damascene (Damascus): he wrote An Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith and talked about Plato philosophy
So as an Irenaeus nerd, I always want more... but for what you were trying to do, in the time you were doing it- well done.
I loved this video! As someone who was raised in a 'prosperity gospel' environment and eventually left after studying the Bible, I’m only now starting to learn about the rich history and complexity of our faith. It's comforting to know that even throughout history, the Church Fathers had their own struggles and different interpretations of things. As long as we hold to the fundamental doctrines, discussing the secondary ones can be enjoyable-especially when we're open to having our minds changed. Once again, I really enjoyed this video!
Santa Clause speed running to sock some heretic in the mouth with a righteous overhand right is actually hilarious
"God, give me the strength to slap the heresy out of Arius." -St. Nicholas
where can I read the church fathers? Work writing, etc.
I've been reading Athanasius' On The Incarnation. It's a great book which makes sense of how bad sin is and why Christ Jesus must have a divine nature.
Hello, which books by Polycarp should I read(most important ones)
There's really only two and one of them is on his martyrdom. Just read them.
Clement understanding of justification is exactly like the modern day Catholic understanding of justification. You are justified through faith alone.
Faith in what exactly?
@TCZ17090 do we need works in order to "stay" saved?
@@melodygnFaith is human faith (I am going to cross the street and not get run over) and is different from GOD’s faith. God’s faith = GIFT of PEACE -a light yoke - because God is in charge of all things, of all ppls.
What is your understanding of faith - because your question comes from deep thought already in your own mind.
@@PoppinPsinceAD33 so you believe in salvation by works?
@@JuliaNeubauer the alarming thing is that many Christians believe that their works or their obedience to the law will save them.
One thing is to obey because we are grateful for what Jesus did for us, and another is to think that our obedience to the law will help us in our salvation.
Excellent video bro. Respecting and knowing church history is the medicine against sectarian bias, heresy, and kills Liberal stupidity.
No Papias?
Most of the Fathers also said important things on the Eucharist and the Mass... Not to mention, of course... ;-) God bless you. And may the Church Fathers pray for us all and the Militant Church still fighting in the world.
The St Nicholas slapping Arius part was so iconic I voiced the lines of both characters while the video was playing
4:20
I believe you misrepresented tertullian here. This was a very common belief in the church that baptism washed away past sins, not particular to tertullian.
He didn’t argue for delaying baptism to death either, but rather argued that the children should know who is saving them in baptism.
0:08 or priest.
Funny, too, because only Priests can be real Pastors.
Omg Conway I’m Xavier
I love this! Thank you a bunch for explaining this for us!
Do a video on the Church Mothers!! So many amazing women who are forgotten by history! Like St Macrina, older sister to st basil & gregory. Or St Paula who encouraged st Jerome to translate the Bible. Even jerome sings highly of her!!
Does anyone know where I can read the Church Fathers? What are the books called?
Good on ya for admitting that the real presence in Eucharist, three-tiered clergy, and Roman supremacy were present from the earliest Fathers. I was raised Protestant and had assumed those kinds of things were later corruptions.
*Roman primacy
Also, although St. Ignatius speaks of 3 distinct offices, it's important to note that his view of bishops is not that they are overseers of all churches in a region. That develops later on. The role of bishops in Ignatius' view is that they are the senior pastor/presbyter/priest of a congregation, much in the way that St. Jerome describes it.
"Wherever the bishop appears, there let the congregation be; just as wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church." (Letter to the Ephesians)
Note the singular in congregation.
"It is not lawful without the bishop either to baptize or to celebrate a love-feast; but whatsoever he shall approve of, that is also pleasing to God." (Letter to the Smyrnaeans)
Churches celebrated the Eucharist every Sunday and it would be impossible for a person to visit every church in his area every Sunday for the Eucharist and also administer every baptism in the area, especially considering that baptisms can often be unplanned and communication was not easy and very delayed.
@@Nonz.M Sure, I'm not one of those Catholics that think all these ideas were completely solidified in the early church. I think Christ told the Apostles to start a church, and then it took them a while to figure things out, like role of clergy, the Trinity, defining Christ's humanity and divinity, writing the New Testament, etc. Didn't happen over night.
@@DavidLarson100 real presence is a heresy created to fight heresy. Many such cases
The real presence is a heresy… according to you and the rest of Pastor Jim’s Bible Fellowship and Tire Center in the strip mall off I-86? Fine. But nobody of consequence or authority thought that until maybe the 17th century, so maybe your power to declare things heresy doesn’t have the weight you assume.
3:45 I thought that was Origen who believed in Universalism? Or did Clement of Alexandria also believe this?
Edit: 6:26 oh okay, it seems there were more Universalists than I thought in the first centuries of Christianity...
RZ again with the blessed timing - Looking to get deep into theology and doctrine this summer. This came at a perfect time! God bless ❤❤❤❤✝✝
I'm not here but to clarify, the protestant specifically Presbyterian came from the reforms, and had no roots in the Father of the church's, that thing is legitimate in succession with the Catholic Church.
Jerome also changed his view on the Deuterocanonical’s.
no he didn't. You believe in the canon of Augustine, but I hold to Athanasius who also held the view of Jerome (read his easter letter). Cyril of Jerusalem did also hold that view and Melito of Sardis went back to Israel to learn about the canon and came to the same conclusion. God bless you and may God keep your faith strong !
@@michaelg4919 All the early Protestant leaders (Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, even the Anglicans) claimed that Saint Jerome rejected the deuterocanonical books of the Bible that Catholics include. This is a bold claim because it sets Saint Jerome, a preeminent saint and doctor of the Catholic Church, against the Catholic Church.
So is it true?
Certainly, no one can deny that Saint Jerome may have had early reservations about the canonical books of Tobit, Judith, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Baruch, and 1&2 Maccabees (and those portions of Daniel and Esther).
However, by AD 382, we see a reversal in St Jerome’s sentiments. The reason for this is that in AD 382, Pope Damasus and the Council of Rome canonized these books as inerrant and inspired by the Holy Spirit. So then, after this date, Saint Jerome, as a faithful son of the Catholic Church, submitted to the papal decree. The same is true of Blessed John Henry Newman who personally disagreed with a quick decree on papal infallibility, but certainly obeyed it as soon as it was issued.
Here’s proof that Saint Jerome submitted to the decree of Rome of Pope St Damasus. The following quote is taken from a letter written by Saint Jerome in A.D. 404.
Does not the Scripture say: ‘Burden not thyself above thy power’?
- Jerome, To Eustochium, Epistle 108 (Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers 2, VI:207)
Here Saint Jerome quotes Sirach 13:2 (‘Burden not thyself above thy power’) as “Scripture”.
In Saint Jerome’s prologue on the book of Judith, he recongizes that the First Council of Nicea (AD 325 - the council defended the Trinity and deity of Christ against Arians) recognized the book of Judith as “canonical”.
Furthermore, Jerome in the year A.D. 402 defended the deuteroncanoical additions to the book of Daniel:
What sin have I committed if I followed the judgment of the churches? But he who brings charges against me for relating the objections that the Hebrews are wont to raise against the Story of Susanna, the Song of the Three Children, and the story of Bel and the Dragon, which are not found in the Hebrew volume, proves that he is just a foolish sycophant. For I was not relating my own personal views, but rather the remarks that they [the Jews] are wont to make against us. (Against Rufinus, 11:33 [AD 402]).
I rest may case. It seems clear that Saint Jerome did at one time reject the deuterocanonicals, but by A.D. 402-404 he had become a defender of them. Saint Jerome was not a dissenter.
@@michaelg4919 yeah ok, but still the Septuagint is historically more accurate. The earliest Christians and Jews used the Septuagint as it is the most quoted translation in the New testament. It doesn't matter if a saint in 4th century used a different text when the apostles used the Septuagint.
don’t have a pastor unfortunately as I’m not sure if I should start going to church as I’m in England and I think we all know what the modern Anglican Church is like, I feel pretty lost right now, I haven’t been baptised/Christened as I wasn’t raised a Christian, I haven’t read the Bible yet and I don’t go to church as I’m not sure if I should as they may be one of the liberal ones, I’m not really sure what to do as I’ve just began to turn to Jesus Christ and God has been answering my prayers recently but I would just like some advice, thank you.
Whatever you do, do not ever go into a church, any church. The "church" is all 100% apostate. Read the Bible yourself only and do not ever listen to anyone from any church. If anyone is preaching from anything called the/a church, they are preaching falsely.
See his video on map of churches which are
Theological sound
Or try to meet christian in online communities
Then switch to offline church
God will give the grace to help you find a good church
@@BlessyThomas-ip7sv ,...The fact is, there is no church that is theologically sound. There are only fake christians that think there is. Repent, and learn what the truth, the gospel, and the Christianity of the Bible actually is.
There are few of them actually good
RZ tries not to misrepresent early Christian Fathers. Difficulty: Impossible
The RCC and EO would excommunicate pretty much all the Church Fathers for being heretics. Many believed Mary sinned, many were against the use of images for cultic practices and Augustine's predestination would send them into conniptions.
@@clivejungle6999 yeah, but not the direct lineage (aka mainline) Fathers, except maybe weird cases like Tertullian and Origen
@@clivejungle6999not true.
Thank you for your videos they keep me from doom scrolling
0:21 if you read church fathers you would come catholic or orthodox
Especially St. Ignatius of Antioch’s 7 letters (epistles)
@@fadeark1446 0:30
@@fadeark1446quote one thing from there
1:40 "Clement was the leader of the church in Rome shortly after Peter"
Bruh, Peter was never the leader of the church in Rome.
Surely if Peter were the leader of the church in Rome from 42 to 67 AD (according to church tradition), if that were the case:
- Paul would have mentioned him in Romans 16 when greeting members of the church (58 AD)
- If Peter had been in Rome for 16 years when Romans was written, Paul would not write in Rom 1:10-15 wishing that the church might be established (or made stable)
- Paul would not have said only Luke was with him in 2 Tim 4:10-11 (64-65 AD)
In 1 Peter 5:13, Peter sends greetings in behalf of his church "in Babylon" which we know being a code word for Rome during christian persecution
@@Justeelisjust Incorrect, we do not "know" it is a code word for Rome.
First, you have to prove they were writing in code at all; there's no precedent for that in this context.
- Nowhere else do they write in code when referring to the location of their churches.
- If a code word *were* needed for Rome here, why not elsewhere?
Second, Babylon itself still existed at the time of writing of 1 Peter:
- Antiquities, Book 15 Chapter 2 (Josephus)
- The First epistle general of Peter (A. M. Stibbs, P. 65)
- Acts 2:9
Third, Peter's ministry was primarily to the Jews; of which Babylon had a large population compared to a meager Jewish population in Rome.
- Galatians 2:7-9
- The Embassy to Gaius XXXI (Philo)
To make what you have said true, you have explain why contrary to Gal 2:7-9, Peter had gone to the gentiles instead of the Jews need to establish a one-time Biblical exception to the Apostles' writings in using code.
The simpler and clearer explanation is that Peter meant Babylon as Babylon; it is an explanation that requires next to no assumptions or speculation.
"Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem"
@@kentleighenglish1388 The book of Revelation refers Rome as Babylon in many places (Rev. 14.8; 16.19; 17.5-6; 18.2, 10, 21). Especially Rev. 17.5-6 is a reference to persecution of christians by the romans. Babylon symbolizes evil that Rome embodied that time. I can't grasp the intention behind your ahistoric ad hoc -view.
@@Justeelisjust I agree that IF he were using code, Rome would be the most likely explanation due to Revelation. (as opposed to the other common explanation of Jerusalem)
We're not discussing that however, as there is little contention there.
What we are discussing is why a code word would be used this one and only time (unless you'd like to claim there are other uses of code words),
and why Peter would've been in Rome when his calling was to the Jews (to which Babylon itself makes more sense)
Nice projection there calling my view "ahistoric" and "ad-hoc", as though it's not ad-hoc to try force Peter into Rome so that you can claim he was the first pope, when it is a far greater glorification of God that the Gospel would've reached the Euphrates within Peter's lifetime.
@@kentleighenglish1388 They used pseudonyms for symbolic purposes and as a measure to communicate information like the location of the Peter (in Rome) discreetly during the persecutions. Why do you think they hid Nero's name behind the numberic value of 666? To discreetly transmit unflattering information about the romans. Just like the fish-symbol the persecuted christians used to discreetly identifying themselves. You're ignoring the christian persecution happening at the time of the Peter's letters and denying early church history and obvious symbolism just to reject the fact of there were bishops in the early church. This is rightly called as ahistorical.
1:40 I have a question here. You say that Clement is an early example of the supremacy of the Roman church. I want to have clarification on your statement. I'm of the opinion that the different churches are of equal importance and should hold each other accountable. And if you have a competed scholar in one church his view holds more weight, for the fact that he is competent, not because he is member of that specific church.
When I hear that Clement calls out another church, then I don't immediately jump to the conclusion that the church he belongs to holds a special authority above everybody else. I'm aware that the Roman Catholics use this situation as a justification for their claim for supremacy, but historically speaking, is that actually justified?
Was that calling out done in a way of "Stop doing it, because I say so and I have higher authority."?
Was there other calling out being done from one church to another or was it always from Rome towards others?
How much of that Roman supremacy, if there was any, was for the reason that Rome was a city with a supremacy complex due to the political and historical power and how much was because the church is actually superior?
If Rome supposedly had primacy all the way back in 1 Clement, why didn't Ignatius acknowledge it in his letter to Rome decades later?
@strawberry4988 I don't care about statements like "x followed truth". I asked specific questions to avoid responses like this.
@@joshuajohansen1210Ignatius does acknowledge it, he says that Rome has primacy of love and that he has nothing to teach Rome but it has to teach him. I'll provide the quotes if necessary.
Question? Were the people that God used like the prophets, judges,kings, Apostles, Mother Mary Predestined for his plan, or how does that play out on God's Timeline? I know we have free will, but what about the others in the OT and NT?
Mankind does NOT have freewill. You have been deceived.
why didnt you talk about origen he is much more than just a bullet point in the list of the alexandrian fathers
Can you recommend some books about the church Fathers?
Jimmy Akin’s book “The Fathers Know Best” is a good place to start 😊
'Early Christian Writings' (Penguin Classics) is a short book on the apostolic fathers and is quite neutral.
Athanasius did not suggest the filioque. He's discussing economy of the trinity, not eternal procession.
That's false. The Athanasian Creed is about eternal processions only so the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father and the Son is eternal.
@@VirginMostPowerfull lmao what? The Athanasian creed wasn't written by Athanasius. It was written a hundred years after him, and never gained popularity until Protestantism came about. Scholars universally agree on this.
@@anon8638 Never gained popularity ? Is that supposed to be an argument ? It was accepted by the West before the Great Schism and used by Western Christians. That Athanasius didn't write it doesn't take away from the fact his name is attached to a filioque creed accepted by the West.
This is sufficient to prove the filioque position has traditionally beend recognized in Athanasius.
@@VirginMostPowerfull a creed that Athanasius didn't write is sufficient to prove Athanasius supported the filioque? That's complete nonsense. If it's so clear he believed the filioque then get an actual quote from him not a third party creed.
@@anon8638 No you don't understand the logic or you don't want to idk. If the Creed in question bears his name it means it reflected his theology for the West, which means the first millenium Church understood Athanasius as filioquist. There is no getting around that.
And that right there is enough to end the debate.
Could you do the same with the reformers?
As a Catholic, I approve of this.
As a catholic, I dont
@@mrbradley3309 And why is that my dear brother in Christ?
@@Deus_Hoc_Vult He tries to make the church fathers sound Protestant which they didn’t he just forces it upon them
@@Gloria_In_Excelsis_Deo Indeed
@@Deus_Hoc_VultAt 2:54, he says, "That's not biblical," when the Bible had not even been compiled yet. He's altering history to support his view of sola scriptura.
This video was extremely helpful to me. Thank you for the overview RZ
imagine getting church history from a prot lol
Imagine sitting through a 10.5 minute video of a prot talking church history just to leave this comment. The jokes really do write themselves.
Lol because church history from ortho bros and papists are unbiased amirite?
2:38 not true all the church fathers before 300 were subordinationists. Justin martyr was a binatarian. He believed Jesus was a seperate and distinct subordinate god to god the father and he didn’t believe the holy spirit was god in any sense.
Proof?
@@christophersalinas2722 go read a book bro lmao. “According to Badcock, virtually all orthodox theologians prior to the Arian controversy in the latter half of the fourth century were subordinationists to some extent, which also applies to Irenaeus, Tertullian, Origen, Hippolytus, Justin Martyr and Novatian.”
@@badvibes2568 Where’s the proof to that?
@@christophersalinas2722 have you read any of the actual church fathers? Here a nice quote from Origen showing how he’s a subordinationist:
“For we who say that the visible world is under the government to Him who created all things, do thereby declare that the Son is not mightier than the Father, but inferior to Him. And this belief we ground on the saying of Jesus Himself, The Father who sent Me is greater than I.”
“Grant that there may be some individuals among the multitudes of believers who are not in entire agreement with us, and who incautiously assert that the Saviour is the Most High God; however, we do not hold with them, but rather believe Him when He says, The Father who sent Me is greater than I. We would not therefore make Him whom we call Father inferior - as Celsus accuses us of doing - to the Son of God.”
Clearly here we see Origen doesn’t believe that the son is the most high god he believes he’s a second lesser divinity subordinate to the father.
Contra Celsum, Book VIII
Let’s look at another example maybe your not convinced still. Let’s look at St irenaeus Against Heresies (Book II, Chapter 28) he says “But, beyond reason inflated [with your own wisdom], you presumptuously maintain that you are acquainted with the unspeakable mysteries of God; while even the Lord, the very Son of God, allowed that the Father alone knows the very day and hour of judgment, when He plainly declares, But of that day and that hour knows no man, neither the Son, but the Father only. If, then, the Son was not ashamed to ascribe the knowledge of that day to the Father only, but declared what was true regarding the matter, neither let us be ashamed to reserve for God those greater questions which may occur to us. For no man is superior to his master. Matthew 10:24; Luke 11:40 If any one, therefore, says to us, How then was the Son produced by the Father? we reply to him, that no man understands that production, or generation, or calling, or revelation, or by whatever name one may describe His generation, which is in fact altogether indescribable.”
Clearly St ireneaus says that the son doesn’t know the hours and is therefore subordinate to the father in knowledge. Also he is an eternal emanation of the father.
Hopefully that’s enough proof for you😴
Justin believed the Spirit is God. He says he worships the Father, Son and Spirit. "But both Him, and the Son (who came forth from Him and taught us these things, and the host of the other good angels who follow and are made like to Him), and the prophetic Spirit, *we worship and adore."* (Justin Martyr, First Apology, ch 6).
Are the church fathers catholic?
They came significantly before the Roman Catholic Church, so no.
@@ElijahDawkins-yb1uc whats the difference?
@@ElijahDawkins-yb1uc literally the same thing. Using the schism to make it different is just being dumb and showing off your ignorance on both roman and orthodox history. And dont even come with that bs of constantine, i already had enough
@@chi2nt non, the guy is protestant, he will try to say the catholic church was born later because they dont like to admitt they are the only new guys in the hood you know? From the 16 century lol
@@chi2nt brother, the ideas of the catholic church came after they all died. Catholic church were delusional and misinterpeting the verse where Jesus gave the Keys of the church to Peter. And the curch that Peter created was more close to orthodoxy then it is to catholics now. Catholic change their curch, they don't follow Peter traditions anymore, how can that be the true church
All the differences of thoughts, even within orthodoxy, makes me think of Mark 9:40
“for whoever is not against us is for us.”
I can only remember St. Nikholas
Thank you ... Fathers of the Catholic Church in a NUTSHELL ... Good compit ... as now the laity is taking a peep into these developments ... Serves very handy ... Halleluia
Jerome did NOT translate all 73 books; he started working on them but when he discovered that the Apocrypha was not part of the Hebrew scriptures he refused to translate them, saying they were not part of the Bible, and he only translated the 66 books for the Vulgate. The Roman Catholic Church had to just borrow and update the Old Latin translations for the Apocryphal (Deuterocanonical, according to them) books because Jerome wouldn't translate them.
The gates of hell prevailed against the church, the church went missing for 1500 to 1600 years and Martin Luther was the only one who got it right and saved Christianity by spawning over 50000 denominations that depend on their own (trustworthy) private interpretation of the scriptures.
I can’t tell whether this is satire or not. If it is, it’s great.
So true, I must donate to Pastor Mike and his mansion
So true. I must make my own church now where we have cheesecake instead of bread and wine as the Eucharist
1 Clement 30,
Let us clothe ourselves with concord, being humble, temperate, keeping ourselves far from all whispering and evil speaking, justified by our deeds, and not by our words.
I think that it is only fair to quote this with clement 32
You gotta ask why there were so many 'unitarians'. Because that is what scripture plainly tells us.
Some historians teach saint Nicholas didn't slapped Arius but an Arius's follower. Only bishops were allowed to debate in the Council and Arius was a deacon
All church history is manmade fraud. The entire church is 100% apostate and has always been.
St Cyril of Alexandria is my confirmation saint. I loved reading about what he did.
The classic memes give this a delightful taste.
Even tho I don't really like the protestant reforms,I still like your videos and I think they're very useful for new christians
Idk the church fathers and all their different beliefs are very confusing to me... How can it be that the people who were so close to the apostles had such different views?
You are not to take the Church Fathers writing independently. Even they in thier writings acknowledge conflict of opinions. However, they all believed in Apostolic Succession and they all rested final authority to interpret with the Church. Their writting are subordinate to the Holy Apostolic Church. That's where the Protestants lose, they can cherry pick the Fathers all day but they are missing the point entirely.
This is why we have the a living Church and Ecumenical Councils. The Church Fathers were unanimous on the fundamental doctrines the church still holds to this day. None of them, however, were infallible, nor does the Orthodox Church claim such.
Protestants discussing the church fathers is one of the funniest things imaginable
Yep! They don’t understand/ know what to do with it and all though they don’t believe it carries any weight, they try and cherry pick statements to support their view.
My wife will highlight how St Jérôme was adamant about the 66 books (which was true, although he DID concede to the Church which is a very Catholic thing to do) but ignore how St Jerome could not be swayed from believing the perpetual virginity of the Blessed Virgin Mary. Let us pray for them!
@@georgefuentes4112 if you read Justin Martyr "Dialogue with Trypho", he sounds a lot like protestant.
Although protestant is a stupid word with a lot of bad connotation.
He sounds like a simple Christian who rejects outward rituals but preaches change in the heart of man.
I read it yesterday, it's amazing
Only funny when EOs or RCs make this claim because the translation you likely use is the Ante Nicene and Post Nicene Fathers set. That was written by Phillip Schaff. He was a devout Calvinist Presbyterian and remained so his whole life.
@@thomasturton1118 LOL is that supposed to be an argument 🤣
@navigator687 nah, just an example of how ignorant orthobros are when it comes to patristic scholarship and its history. The majority of the strongest patristic scholars were Protestants who remained so their entire life.
Most terminally online EOs would better spend their time praying to make sure they get through the tollhouses (gotta satisfy those demons!) rather than exposing their scholarly ignorance.
4:06 LOL, that was my literal reaction (Indy Baptist here) and then that graphic came up! @Redeemed Zoomer you are elite
"To be deep in History is cease to be Protestant" John Henry Newman, Anglican convert to Catholicism