Where does it say that the Ecumenical Patriarch has jurisdiction in the New World? Originally, the Orthodox Church in America was under the Patriarch of Moscow. It wasn’t until the 1920s when the Greek Archdiocese was established under the EP. There should only be one bishop per city, but now we have multiple jurisdictions overlapping which is a travesty and clear violation of the canons.
It's never a good sign when it takes almost an hour and a half to teach that what Mt. 16:18 seems to mean by its plain sense doesn't mean that at all. A lot of these same arguments can be and are used by Protestants.
Why not? That's what this podcast does: it explains in detail the new testament passages. It would mean that the who podcast and all podcasts who do this "are never a good sign". It's all about arguments, not about how much time it takes to give them. Actually, it is not a good sign when one says "seems to mean"... And if an argument is used by protestants, it doesn't mean is not a valid argument. The protestants also argue for many central Christian dogma, like the Tinity, the ressurection of Christ and that Christ is God.
@@viravirakti When the plain sense makes sense...seek no other sense. Who is Jesus speaking to in that passage? Is he speaking to Paul or the other apostles? Did he change Simon's name or another apostle? Did he pray that Peter would not fail, or another apostle? Did he give Peter the authority to bind and loose, or did he give them to another apostle? If it's the same word used in Aramaic for Peter and rock, then why do "Pope deniers" harp on the Greek so much? EO and Prot's work so hard to deny the plain and clear sense of the passage that they turn themselves inside out. Perhaps look at the real motivation for denying the papacy.
@@N1IA-4 Yes, it's the plain sense that Christ spoke simply to Peter in that passage, not to or about the pope, or to/about the Bishop of Rome, or to/about Peter's successors. Most of these questions you ask have been answered and refuted by Dr. Jeanne from the first part of this episode, so it makes no sense to ask them again. Like, no, just like in Greek, it isn't the same word and meaning in Aramaic used for Peter and rock. Did Jesus said, in the parable of the house built the rock and on sand, that the rock is Peter, or the faith in Christ? Did Christ said "on you, Peter, I will build" or on "this rock"? And, of course, Christ later gave the authority to bind and loose to all Apostles, not just to Peter. Paul also said that Jacob, Cephas and John were consider pillars, not just Cephas. So, maybe look at the real motivations for denying the arguments and the plain and clear sense of the scriptures and accepted by the primary Church. Of course, maybe it has to do with the worldly and corrupted desire for power, supremacy and domination.
@@viravirakti Then why do so many early church fathers speak of the succession of Peter's office? Is that misunderstanding the Fathers too? The weight of the evidence lies heavily on the Catholic side. If one looks at it honestly and with an open mind. The fact that the Apostles were also given the keys does not negate or make of lesser importance the fact that Jesus spoke to Peter directly and changed his name. Name changes mean something very significant in Scripture. Abram was changed to Abraham was he not?
@@N1IA-4 Again, this was answered in the video, so why aren't you actually and honestly listen to this episode, instead of keeping asking questions which have been answered? Speaking about succession of Peter's office is not about and does not imply primacy or supremacy, but a coloqial and respectful term, just like speaking about any other important office or succession. And simply because Peter was an important and central Apostle, and his office also, but not because they had authority and ruled over the others. That Roman office was a first amongst equals, because it was the capital of the empire .Peter was also bishop of Antioch. And of course the fact that the Apostles were given the same authority changes everything about the Catholic claim, so, again, better look honestly, and don't try now to turn inside and to ignore the scriptures and the arguments. The evidence is strongly against the Roman Catholic claims, and not seeing them is just denial. That's why both the Orthodox and the Protestants see it, but only the Roman Catholic ignores and denies it. And, also, that's why the protestant movement happened within the Catholic Church, because of the Roman Catholic traditional persistence in abuse of power and authority, and corruption. Jesus also spoke with all the Apostles directly and gave them authority.. Plus 56:00, at the Council of Jerusalem, in Acts, Peter was neither the head of the council, where they decided together, nor the head of the Church of Jerusalem, who was James. This, honestly, shuld end any discussion or claim about the authority or supremacy of Peter's office or succession, just like, as I've said, Paul mentioned three apostolic pillars, not just one. And a change of name doesn't mean the creation of an office or seat. There was no Abrahamic office or seat... So, the Catholic arguments are, again, abusive and confusing, not sound and clear.
1:14:10 development of papal supremacy.
Were Patriarch s there to correct heresy?
Where does it say that the Ecumenical Patriarch has jurisdiction in the New World? Originally, the Orthodox Church in America was under the Patriarch of Moscow. It wasn’t until the 1920s when the Greek Archdiocese was established under the EP. There should only be one bishop per city, but now we have multiple jurisdictions overlapping which is a travesty and clear violation of the canons.
It's never a good sign when it takes almost an hour and a half to teach that what Mt. 16:18 seems to mean by its plain sense doesn't mean that at all. A lot of these same arguments can be and are used by Protestants.
Why not? That's what this podcast does: it explains in detail the new testament passages. It would mean that the who podcast and all podcasts who do this "are never a good sign". It's all about arguments, not about how much time it takes to give them. Actually, it is not a good sign when one says "seems to mean"...
And if an argument is used by protestants, it doesn't mean is not a valid argument. The protestants also argue for many central Christian dogma, like the Tinity, the ressurection of Christ and that Christ is God.
@@viravirakti When the plain sense makes sense...seek no other sense. Who is Jesus speaking to in that passage? Is he speaking to Paul or the other apostles? Did he change Simon's name or another apostle? Did he pray that Peter would not fail, or another apostle? Did he give Peter the authority to bind and loose, or did he give them to another apostle? If it's the same word used in Aramaic for Peter and rock, then why do "Pope deniers" harp on the Greek so much? EO and Prot's work so hard to deny the plain and clear sense of the passage that they turn themselves inside out. Perhaps look at the real motivation for denying the papacy.
@@N1IA-4 Yes, it's the plain sense that Christ spoke simply to Peter in that passage, not to or about the pope, or to/about the Bishop of Rome, or to/about Peter's successors. Most of these questions you ask have been answered and refuted by Dr. Jeanne from the first part of this episode, so it makes no sense to ask them again. Like, no, just like in Greek, it isn't the same word and meaning in Aramaic used for Peter and rock. Did Jesus said, in the parable of the house built the rock and on sand, that the rock is Peter, or the faith in Christ? Did Christ said "on you, Peter, I will build" or on "this rock"? And, of course, Christ later gave the authority to bind and loose to all Apostles, not just to Peter. Paul also said that Jacob, Cephas and John were consider pillars, not just Cephas. So, maybe look at the real motivations for denying the arguments and the plain and clear sense of the scriptures and accepted by the primary Church. Of course, maybe it has to do with the worldly and corrupted desire for power, supremacy and domination.
@@viravirakti Then why do so many early church fathers speak of the succession of Peter's office? Is that misunderstanding the Fathers too? The weight of the evidence lies heavily on the Catholic side. If one looks at it honestly and with an open mind. The fact that the Apostles were also given the keys does not negate or make of lesser importance the fact that Jesus spoke to Peter directly and changed his name. Name changes mean something very significant in Scripture. Abram was changed to Abraham was he not?
@@N1IA-4 Again, this was answered in the video, so why aren't you actually and honestly listen to this episode, instead of keeping asking questions which have been answered? Speaking about succession of Peter's office is not about and does not imply primacy or supremacy, but a coloqial and respectful term, just like speaking about any other important office or succession. And simply because Peter was an important and central Apostle, and his office also, but not because they had authority and ruled over the others. That Roman office was a first amongst equals, because it was the capital of the empire .Peter was also bishop of Antioch. And of course the fact that the Apostles were given the same authority changes everything about the Catholic claim, so, again, better look honestly, and don't try now to turn inside and to ignore the scriptures and the arguments. The evidence is strongly against the Roman Catholic claims, and not seeing them is just denial. That's why both the Orthodox and the Protestants see it, but only the Roman Catholic ignores and denies it. And, also, that's why the protestant movement happened within the Catholic Church, because of the Roman Catholic traditional persistence in abuse of power and authority, and corruption.
Jesus also spoke with all the Apostles directly and gave them authority..
Plus 56:00, at the Council of Jerusalem, in Acts, Peter was neither the head of the council, where they decided together, nor the head of the Church of Jerusalem, who was James. This, honestly, shuld end any discussion or claim about the authority or supremacy of Peter's office or succession, just like, as I've said, Paul mentioned three apostolic pillars, not just one.
And a change of name doesn't mean the creation of an office or seat. There was no Abrahamic office or seat... So, the Catholic arguments are, again, abusive and confusing, not sound and clear.