@@dann285 That is not correct. Jesus had already changed Simon's name to Cephas (Peter) in John 1:42 when Andrew introduce Peter to Jesus. Jesus said, "You are Simon, son of John, you will be called Cephas." (John 1:42) This is long before Caesarea Philippi event in Matthew 16. So the name was not changed because of Peter's answer in Matthew 16
@@brianfleming1310 Jesus answered and said to him, “Blessed are you, SIMON BAR - JONAH for flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but My Father who is in heaven. 18 And I also say to you that you are Peter,. He calls him Simon. And he was blessed because of what was reveled to him, namely that Jesus is the Christ.
In other Catholic Answers tracts, we have shown that the Church Fathers recognized that Jesus made Peter the rock on which he would build his Church, that this gave Peter a special primacy, that Peter went to Rome, and that he left successors there. In this tract we will show that they also understood that Peter’s successors shared in his special authority or primacy. In a wide variety of ways, the Fathers attest to the fact that the church of Rome was the central and most authoritative church. They attest to the Church’s reliance on Rome for advice, for mediation of disputes, and for guidance on doctrinal issues. They note, as Ignatius of Antioch does, that Rome “holds the presidency” among the other churches, and that, as Irenaeus explains, “because of its superior origin, all the churches must agree” with Rome. They are also clear on the fact that it is communion with Rome and the bishop of Rome that causes one to be in communion with the Catholic Church. This displays a recognition that, as Cyprian of Carthage puts it, Rome is “the principal church, in which sacerdotal unity has its source.” Most significant are the passages below in which the popes, by their statements or their actions, reveal their understanding of their own authority in the Church, such as when Pope Clement I commanded the church of Corinth to reinstate its leadership, or when Pope Victor excommunicated the churches of Asia Minor as a group, after which the other bishops sought to change Victor’s mind but did not challenge his authority to have made the excommunication. In this tract we will cover the views of the popes and other Church Fathers up to the year A.D. 341. The views of the Fathers after this period will be covered in the tract, The Authority of the Pope: Part II. Pope Clement I “Owing to the sudden and repeated calamities and misfortunes which have befallen us, we must acknowledge that we have been somewhat tardy in turning our attention to the matters in dispute among you, beloved; and especially that abominable and unholy sedition, alien and foreign to the elect of God, which a few rash and self-willed persons have inflamed to such madness that your venerable and illustrious name, worthy to be loved by all men, has been greatly defamed. . . . Accept our counsel and you will have nothing to regret. . . . If anyone disobey the things which have been said by him [God] through us [i.e., that you must reinstate your leaders], let them know that they will involve themselves in transgression and in no small danger. . . . You will afford us joy and gladness if being obedient to the things which we have written through the Holy Spirit, you will root out the wicked passion of jealousy” (Letter to the Corinthians 1, 58-59, 63 [A.D. 80]). Ignatius of Antioch “Ignatius . . . to the church also which holds the presidency, in the location of the country of the Romans, worthy of God, worthy of honor, worthy of blessing, worthy of praise, worthy of success, worthy of sanctification, and, because you hold the presidency in love, named after Christ and named after the Father” (Letter to the Romans 1:1 [A.D. 110]). “You [the church at Rome] have envied no one, but others you have taught. I desire only that what you have enjoined in your instructions may remain in force” (ibid., 3:1). Dionysius of Corinth “For from the beginning it has been your custom to do good to all the brethren in various ways and to send contributions to all the churches in every city. . . . This custom your blessed Bishop Soter has not only preserved, but is augmenting, by furnishing an abundance of supplies to the saints and by urging with consoling words, as a loving father his children, the brethren who are journeying” (Letter to Pope Soter in Eusebius, Church History 4:23:9 [A.D. 170]). “Today we have observed the Lord’s holy day, in which we have read your letter [Pope Soter]. Whenever we do read it [in church], we shall be able to profit thereby, as also we do when we read the earlier letter written to us by Clement” (ibid., 4:23:11). The Martyrs of Lyons “And when a dissension arose about these said people [the Montanists], the brethren in Gaul once more . . . [sent letters] to the brethren in Asia and Phrygia and, moreover to Eleutherius, who was then [A.D. 175] bishop of the Romans, negotiating for the peace of the churches” (Eusebius, Church History 5:3:4 [A.D. 312]) “And the same martyrs too commended Irenaeus, already at that time [A.D. 175] a presbyter of the community of Lyons, to the said bishop of Rome, rendering abundant testimony to the man, as the following expressions show: ‘Once more and always we pray that you may rejoice in God, Pope Eleutherius. This letter we have charged our brother and companion Irenaeus to convey to you, and we beg you to receive him as zealous for the covenant of Christ’” (ibid., 5:4:1-2). Irenaeus “But since it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the succession of all the churches, we shall confound all those who, in whatever manner, whether through self-satisfaction or vainglory, or through blindness and wicked opinion, assemble other than where it is proper, by pointing out here the successions of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul, that church which has the tradition and the faith which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the apostles. With that church, because of its superior origin, all the churches must agree, that is, all the faithful in the whole world, and it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the apostolic tradition” (Against Heresies 3:3:2 [A.D. 189]). Eusebius of Caesarea “A question of no small importance arose at that time [A.D. 190]. For the parishes of all Asia [Minor], as from an older tradition held that the fourteenth day of the moon, on which the Jews were commanded to sacrifice the lamb, should be observed as the feast of the Savior’s Passover. . . . But it was not the custom of the churches in the rest of the world . . . as they observed the practice which, from apostolic tradition, has prevailed to the present time, of terminating the fast [of Lent] on no other day than on that of the resurrection of the Savior [Sunday]. Synods and assemblies of bishops were held on this account, and all, with one consent, through mutual correspondence drew up an ecclesiastical decree that the mystery of the resurrection of the Lord should be celebrated on no other but the Lord’s day and that we should observe the close of the paschal fast on this day only. . . . Thereupon [Pope] Victor, who presided over the church at Rome, immediately attempted to cut off from the community the parishes of all Asia [Minor], with the churches that agreed with them, as heterodox. And he wrote letters and declared all the brethren there wholly excommunicate. But this did not please all the bishops, and they besought him to consider the things of peace and of neighborly unity and love” (Church History 5:23:1-24:11). Cyprian of Carthage “The Lord says to Peter: ‘I say to you,’ he says, ‘that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not overcome it. And to you I will give the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatever things you bind on earth shall be bound also in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth, they shall be loosed also in heaven’ [Matt. 16:18-19]). . . . On him [Peter] he builds the Church, and to him he gives the command to feed the sheep [John 21:17], and although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single chair [cathedra], and he established by his own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity. Indeed, the others were also what Peter was [i.e., apostles], but a primacy is given to Peter, whereby it is made clear that there is but one Church and one chair. So too, all [the apostles] are shepherds, and the flock is shown to be one, fed by all the apostles in single-minded accord. 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?” (The Unity of the Catholic Church 4; 1st edition [A.D. 251]). “Cyprian to [Pope] Cornelius, his brother. Greeting. . . . We decided to send and are sending a letter to you from all throughout the province [where I am] so that all our colleagues might give their decided approval and support to you and to your communion, that is, to both the unity and the charity of the Catholic Church” (Letters 48:1, 3 [A.D. 253]). “Cyprian to Antonian, his brother. Greeting … You wrote … that I should forward a copy of the same letter to our colleague [Pope] Cornelius, so that, laying aside all anxiety, he might at once know that you held communion with him, that is, with the Catholic Church” (ibid., 55[52]:1). “With a false bishop appointed for themselves by heretics, they dare even to set sail and carry letters from schismatics and blasphemers to the chair of Peter and to the principal church [at Rome], in which sacerdotal unity has its source” (ibid., 59:14). Firmilian “[Pope] Stephen . . . boasts of the place of his episcopate, and contends that he holds the succession from Peter, on whom the foundations of the Church were laid [Matt. 16:18]. … Stephen . . . announces that he holds by succession the throne of Peter” (collected in Cyprian’s Letters 74[75]:17 [A.D. 253]).
Wow thanks. I just read through all these references, thanks for your efforts. To be as clear as possible NONE of these references addresses what I have asked in my Catholic Challenge! I HIGHLY recommend you go to the actual sources yourself and see what they state since all you did is copy and paste from some site. Also note [Pope] is in brackets in those references BUT is not there in the actual sources. Thank you for sharing I plan to do follow up on these and other posts attempts showing the ACTUAL references in their context.
None of those verses teaches Peter is THE leader OVER the whole Christian church. Sorry, not happening. In facts when you read Matthew 18 and John 20 all the apostles had the same authority to go and serve. Yes Peter was one of the main leaders, but he is not the Pope nor does the Bible teach he was the MAIN leader OVER the whole Christian church.
You've got to be kidding! This is like 4th grade stuff. There's no real debate on Matthew 16. It's not Petra vs. Petros; it's Kepha and Kepha, the Aramaic...
Protestants are obstinate even when you charitably show they are wrong. On another note….Protestantism is not even a church so it eliminates itself from MT 16 and is thereby false. Its “spiritual anarchy” comprising of dozens and dozens of sects with conflicting and contradictory beliefs.
Why is Peter mention over 95 times in the bible and Paul 28 to 30 times , James 17 times maybe a little more , OK , Why did Peter stand up and said did not the Lord give me the authority to preach to the Gentiles ,again Protestant lies .
@@jamesfrazier5148? Jesus can, and has appointed men several times , to lead. Moises led and he didn’t get taken up to heaven, yet Enoch was taken. Peter, never has or will take Jesus spot, everything Peter did god was because of the grace god Gave him.
ST. CLEMENT OF ALEXANDRIA [T]he blessed Peter, the chosen, the preeminent, the first of the disciples, for whom alone and himself the Savior paid tribute [Mt 17:27], quickly seized and comprehended the saying. And what does he say? “Lo, we have left all and followed you” [Who Is the Rich Man That Shall Be Saved? 21 (c. A.D. 200)].
Actual quote: "Therefore on hearing those words, the blessed Peter, the chosen, the pre-eminent, the first of the disciples, for whom alone and Himself the Saviour paid tribute, Matthew 17:27 quickly seized and comprehended the saying. And what does he say? Lo, we have left all and followed You. Now if by all he means his own property, he boasts of leaving four oboli perhaps in all, and forgets to show the kingdom of heaven to be their recompense. But if, casting away what we were now speaking of, the old mental possessions and soul diseases, they follow in the Master's footsteps, this now joins them to those who are to be enrolled in the heavens. For it is thus that one truly follows the Saviour, by aiming at sinlessness and at His perfection, and adorning and composing the soul before it as a mirror, and arranging everything in all respects similarly." www.newadvent.org/fathers/0207.htm This does not STATE Peter is in authority OVER the whole Christian church as a Pope or that there is succession in equal authority to be passed on. Peter was one who Jesus addressed, but remember Matthew 18 and John 20 that the leadership authority was unto all the apostles. Thanks for trying.
@@BereanPerspectiveApologetics If you are looking for that specific custom made phrase, you never going to find it. But if you use common sense the evidence is all over the place, and it is. Peace out! I've got better thing to do...
List of POPES (33 A.D. - 2013) 1. St. Peter (33-67) 2. St. Linus (67-76) 3. St. Anacletus (Cletus) (76-88) 4. St. Clement I (88-97) 5. St. Evaristus (97-105) 6. St. Alexander I (105-115) 7. St. Sixtus I (115-125) 8. St. Telesphorus (125-136) 9. St. Hyginus (136-140) 10. St. Pius I (140-155) 11. St. Anicetus (155-166) 12. St. Soter (166-175) 13. St. Eleutherius (175-189) 14. St. Victor I (189-199) 15. St. Zephyrinus (199-217) 16. St. Callistus I (217-222) Callistus and the following three popes were opposed by St. Hippolytus, antipope (217-236) 17. St. Urban I (222-230) 18. St. Pontain (230-235) 19. St. Anterus (235-236) 20. St. Fabian (236-250) 21. St. Cornelius (251-253) Opposed by Novatian, antipope (251) 22. St. Lucius I (253-254) 23. St. Stephen I (254-257) 24. St. Sixtus II (257-258) 25. St. Dionysius (260-268) 26. St. Felix I (269-274) 27. St. Eutychian (275-283) 28. St. Caius (283-296) 29. St. Marcellinus (296-304) 30. St. Marcellus I (308-309) 31. St. Eusebius (309-310) 32. St. Miltiades (311-314) 33. St. Sylvester I (314-335) 34. St. Marcus (336) 35. St. Julius I (337-352) 36. Liberius (352-366) Opposed by Felix II, antipope (355-365) 37. St. Damasus I (366-84) Opposed by Ursicinus, antipope (366-367) 38. St. Siricius (384-399) 39. St. Anastasius I (399-401) 40. St. Innocent I (401-417) 41. St. Zosimus (417-418) 42. St. Boniface I (418-422) Opposed by Eulalius, antipope (418-419) 43. St. Celestine I (422-432) 44. St. Sixtus III (432-440) 45. St. Leo I (the Great) (440-461) 46. St. Hilarius (461-468) 47. St. Simplicius (468-483) 48. St. Felix III (II) (483-492) 49. St. Gelasius I (492-496) 50. Anastasius II (496-498) 51. St. Symmachus (498-514) Opposed by Laurentius, antipope (498-501) 52. St. Hormisdas (514-523) 53. St. John I (523-526) 54. St. Felix IV (III) (526-530) 55. Boniface II (530-532) Opposed by Dioscorus, antipope (530) 56. John II (533-535) 57. St. Agapetus I (535-536) 58. St. Silverius (536-537) 59. Vigilius (537-555) 60. Pelagius I (556-561) 61. John III (561-574) 62. Benedict I (575-579) 63. Pelagius II (579-590) 64. St. Gregory I (the Great) (590-604) 65. Sabinian (604-606) 66. Boniface III (607) 67. St. Boniface IV (608-615) 68. St. Deusdedit (Adeodatus I) (615-618) 69. Boniface V (619-625) 70. Honorius I (625-638) 71. Severinus (640) 72. John IV (640-642) 73. Theodore I (642-649) 74. St. Martin I (649-655) 75. St. Eugene I (655-657) 76. St. Vitalian (657-672) 77. Adeodatus II (672-676) 78. Donus (676-678) 79. St. Agatho (678-681) 80. St. Leo II (682-683) 81. St. Benedict II (684-685) 82. John V (685-686) 83. Conon (686-687) 84. St. Sergius I (687-701) Opposed by Theodore and Paschal, antipopes (687) 85. John VI (701-705) 86. John VII (705-707) 87. Sisinnius (708) 88. Constantine (708-715) 89. St. Gregory II (715-731) 90. St. Gregory III (731-741) 91. St. Zachary (741-752) Stephen II followed Zachary, but because he died before being consecrated, modern lists omit him 92. Stephen II (III) (752-757) 93. St. Paul I (757-767) 94. Stephen III (IV) (767-772) Opposed by Constantine II (767) and Philip (768), antipopes (767) 95. Adrian I (772-795) 96. St. Leo III (795-816) 97. Stephen IV (V) (816-817) 98. St. Paschal I (817-824) 99. Eugene II (824-827) 100. Valentine (827) 101. Gregory IV (827-844) 102. Sergius II (844-847) Opposed by John, antipope 103. St. Leo IV (847-855) 104. Benedict III (855-858) Opposed by Anastasius, antipope (855) 105. St. Nicholas I (the Great) (858-867) 106. Adrian II (867-872) 107. John VIII (872-882) 108. Marinus I (882-884) 109. St. Adrian III (884-885) 110. Stephen V (VI) (885-891) 111. Formosus (891-896) 112. Boniface VI (896) 113. Stephen VI (VII) (896-897) 114. Romanus (897) 115. Theodore II (897) 116. John IX (898-900) 117. Benedict IV (900-903) 118. Leo V (903) Opposed by Christopher, antipope (903-904) 119. Sergius III (904-911) 120. Anastasius III (911-913) 121. Lando (913-914) 122. John X (914-928) 123. Leo VI (928) 124. Stephen VIII (929-931) 125. John XI (931-935) 126. Leo VII (936-939) 127. Stephen IX (939-942) 128. Marinus II (942-946) 129. Agapetus II (946-955) 130. John XII (955-963) 131. Leo VIII (963-964) 132. Benedict V (964) 133. John XIII (965-972) 134. Benedict VI (973-974) 135. Benedict VII (974-983) Benedict VII and John XIV were opposed by Boniface VII, antipope (974; 984-985) 136. John XIV (983-984) 137. John XV (985-996) 138. Gregory V (996-999) Opposed by John XVI, antipope (997-998) 139. Sylvester II (999-1003) 140. John XVII (1003) 141. John XVIII (1003-1009) 142. Sergius IV (1009-1012) 143. Benedict VIII (1012-1024) Opposed by Gregory, antipope (1012) 144. John XIX (1024-1032) 145. Benedict IX (1032-1045) He appears on this list three separate times, because he was twice deposed and restored 146. Sylvester III (1045) Considered by some to be an antipope 147. Benedict IX (1045) 148. Gregory VI (1045-1046) 149. Clement II (1046-1047) 150. Benedict IX (1047-1048) 151. Damasus II (1048) 152. St. Leo IX (1049-1054) 153. Victor II (1055-1057) 154. Stephen X (1057-1058) 155. Nicholas II (1058-61) Opposed by Benedict X, antipope (1058) 156. Alexander II (1061-73) Opposed by Honorius II, antipope (1061-1072) 157. St. Gregory VII (1073-85) Gregory and the following three popes were opposed by Guibert ("Clement III"), antipope (1080-1100) 158. Blessed Victor III (1086-1087) 159. Blessed Urban II (1088-1099) 160. Paschal II (1099-1118) Opposed by Theodoric (1100), Aleric (1102) and Maginulf ("Sylvester IV", 1105-1111), antipopes 161. Gelasius II (1118-1119) Opposed by Burdin ("Gregory VIII"), antipope (1118) 162. Callistus II (1119-1124) 163. Honorius II (1124-1130) Opposed by Celestine II, antipope (1124) 164. Innocent II (1130-1143) Opposed by Anacletus II (1130-1138) and Gregory Conti ("Victor IV") (1138), antipopes (1138) 165. Celestine II (1143-1144) 166. Lucius II (1144-1145) 167. Blessed Eugene III (1145-1153) 168. Anastasius IV (1153-1154) 169. Adrian IV (1154-1159) 170. Alexander III (1159-81) Opposed by Octavius ("Victor IV") (1159-1164), Pascal III (1165-1168), Callistus III (1168-1177) and Innocent III (1178-1180), antipopes 171. Lucius III (1181-1185) 172. Urban III (1185-1187) 173. Gregory VIII (1187) 174. Clement III (1187-1191) 175. Celestine III (1191-1198) 176. Innocent III (1198-1216) 177. Honorius III (1216-1227) 178. Gregory IX (1227-1241) 179. Celestine IV (1241) 180. Innocent IV (1243-1254) 181. Alexander IV (1254-1261) 182. Urban IV (1261-1264) 183. Clement IV (1265-1268) 184. Blessed Gregory X (1271-1276) 185. Blessed Innocent V (1276) 186. Adrian V (1276) 187. John XXI (1276-1277) 188. Nicholas III (1277-1280) 189. Martin IV (1281-1285) 190. Honorius IV (1285-1287) 191. Nicholas IV (1288-1292) 192. St. Celestine V (1294) 193. Boniface VIII (1294-1303) 194. Blessed Benedict XI (1303-1304) 195. Clement V (1305-1314) 196. John XXII (1316-1334) Opposed by Nicholas V, antipope (1328-1330) 197. Benedict XII (1334-1342) 198. Clement VI (1342-1352) 199. Innocent VI (1352-1362) 200. Blessed Urban V (1362-1370) 201. Gregory XI (1370-1378) 202. Urban VI (1378-1389) Opposed by Robert of Geneva ("Clement VII"), antipope (1378-1394) 203. Boniface IX (1389-1404) Opposed by Robert of Geneva ("Clement VII") (1378-1394), Pedro de Luna ("Benedict XIII") (1394-1417) and Baldassare Cossa ("John XXIII") (1400-1415), antipopes 204. Innocent VII (1404-1406) Opposed by Pedro de Luna ("Benedict XIII") (1394-1417) and Baldassare Cossa ("John XXIII") (1400-1415), antipopes 205. Gregory XII (1406-1415) Opposed by Pedro de Luna ("Benedict XIII") (1394-1417), Baldassare Cossa ("John XXIII") (1400-1415), and Pietro Philarghi ("Alexander V") (1409-1410), antipopes 206. Martin V (1417-1431) 207. Eugene IV (1431-1447) Opposed by Amadeus of Savoy ("Felix V"), antipope (1439-1449) 208. Nicholas V (1447-1455) 209. Callistus III (1455-1458) 210. Pius II (1458-1464) 211. Paul II (1464-1471) 212. Sixtus IV (1471-1484) 213. Innocent VIII (1484-1492) 214. Alexander VI (1492-1503) 215. Pius III (1503) 216. Julius II (1503-1513) 217. Leo X (1513-1521) 218. Adrian VI (1522-1523) 219. Clement VII (1523-1534) 220. Paul III (1534-1549) 221. Julius III (1550-1555) 222. Marcellus II (1555) 223. Paul IV (1555-1559) 224. Pius IV (1559-1565) 225. St. Pius V (1566-1572) 226. Gregory XIII (1572-1585) 227. Sixtus V (1585-1590) 228. Urban VII (1590) 229. Gregory XIV (1590-1591) 230. Innocent IX (1591) 231. Clement VIII (1592-1605) 232. Leo XI (1605) 233. Paul V (1605-1621) 234. Gregory XV (1621-1623) 235. Urban VIII (1623-1644) 236. Innocent X (1644-1655) 237. Alexander VII (1655-1667) 238. Clement IX (1667-1669) 239. Clement X (1670-1676) 240. Blessed Innocent XI (1676-1689) 241. Alexander VIII (1689-1691) 242. Innocent XII (1691-1700) 243. Clement XI (1700-1721) 244. Innocent XIII (1721-1724) 245. Benedict XIII (1724-1730) 246. Clement XII (1730-1740) 247. Benedict XIV (1740-1758) 248. Clement XIII (1758-1769) 249. Clement XIV (1769-1774) 250. Pius VI (1775-1799) 251. Pius VII (1800-1823) 252. Leo XII (1823-1829) 253. Pius VIII (1829-1830) 254. Gregory XVI (1831-1846) 255. Blessed Pius IX (1846-1878) 256. Leo XIII (1878-1903) 257. St. Pius X (1903-1914) 258. Benedict XV (1914-1922) 259. Pius XI (1922-1939) 260. Pius XII (1939-1958) 261. St. John XXIII (1958-1963) 262. Paul VI (1963-1978) 263. John Paul I (1978) 264 St. John Paul II (1978-2005) 265. Benedict XVI (2005-2013) 266. Francis (2013 - ) Is it worth sharing😀?
Cyprian of Carthage “The Lord says to Peter: ‘I say to you,’ he says, ‘that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not overcome it. . . . ’ [Matt. 16:18]. On him [Peter] he builds the Church, and to him he gives the command to feed the sheep [John 21:17], and although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single chair [cathedra], and he established by his own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity. . . . If someone [today] 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?” (The Unity of the Catholic Church 4; first edition [A.D. 251]).
Roman Catholic scholar Richard P. McBrien concedes, “from the New Testament record alone, we have no basis for positing a line of succession from Peter through subsequent bishops of Rome” (Richard P. McBrien, Catholicism: Completely Revised& Updated, [HarperCollins, 1994], p. 753).
I would hope that a 3rd century Church Father’s identifying the seat of Rome as a unifying force for the whole Church should be afforded more weight than a 20th century historian arguing to the contrary.
Go read the actual reference please: "4. If any one consider and examine these things, there is no need for lengthened discussion and arguments. There is easy proof for faith in a short summary of the truth. The Lord speaks to Peter, saying, I say unto you, that you are Peter; and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give unto you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatsoever you shall bind on earth shall be bound also in heaven, and whatsoever you shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. And again to the same He says, after His resurrection, Feed my sheep. And although to all the apostles, after His resurrection, He gives an equal power, and says, As the Father has sent me, even so send I you: Receive the Holy Ghost: Whose soever sins you remit, they shall be remitted unto him; and whose soever sins you retain, they shall be retained; John 20:21 yet, that He might set forth unity, He arranged by His authority the origin of that unity, as beginning from one. Assuredly the rest of the apostles were also the same as was Peter, endowed with a like partnership both of honour and power; but the beginning proceeds from unity. Which one Church, also, the Holy Spirit in the Song of Songs designated in the person of our Lord, and says, My dove, my spotless one, is but one. She is the only one of her mother, elect of her that bare her. Song of Songs 6:9 Does he who does not hold this unity of the Church think that he holds the faith? Does he who strives against and resists the Church trust that he is in the Church, when moreover the blessed Apostle Paul teaches the same thing, and sets forth the sacrament of unity, saying, There is one body and one spirit, one hope of your calling, one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God? Ephesians 4:4" www.newadvent.org/fathers/050701.htm Notice it says here equal authority and and partnership was given to all the apostles! Please actually read the sources yourselves and stop just reading what the so called Catholic sites cut and paste. This quote refutes the claim that Peter was the MAIN leader in authority OVER the whole Christian church.
I wish you would address two things: (1) only Peter being described as being given the keys (an allusion to Shebna from the Old Testament) and (2) Cyprian of Carthage’s explicitly identifying Peter as the one to whom Christians need be united. These are two points that I feel need to be addressed in your critique, as they appear to be unique to Peter and (per Cyprian of Carthage and other Church Fathers) to Peter’s successors.
Since, however, it would be very tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon up the successions of all the Churches, we do put to confusion all those who, in whatever manner, whether by an evil self-pleasing, by vainglory, or by blindness and perverse opinion, assemble in unauthorized meetings; [we do this, I say,] by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its preeminent authority. The blessed apostles, then, having founded and built up the Church, committed into the hands of Linus the office of the episcopate. Of this Linus, Paul makes mention in the Epistles to Timothy. To him succeeded Anacletus; and after him, in the third place from the apostles, Clement was allotted the bishopric. This man, as he had seen the blessed apostles, and had been conversant with them, might be said to have the preaching of the apostles still echoing [in his ears], and their traditions before his eyes. Nor was he alone [in this], for there were many still remaining who had received instructions from the apostles. In the time of this Clement, no small dissension having occurred among the brethren at Corinth, the Church in Rome dispatched a most powerful letter to the Corinthians, exhorting them to peace, renewing their faith, and declaring the tradition which it had lately received from the apostles, proclaiming the one God, omnipotent, the Maker of heaven and earth, the Creator of man, who brought on the deluge, and called Abraham, who led the people from the land of Egypt, spoke with Moses, set forth the law, sent the prophets, and who has prepared fire for the devil and his angels. From this document, whosoever chooses to do so, may learn that He, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, was preached by the Churches, and may also understand the apostolic tradition of the Church, since this Epistle is of older date than these men who are now propagating falsehood, and who conjure into existence another god beyond the Creator and the Maker of all existing things. To this Clement there succeeded Evaristus. Alexander followed Evaristus; then, sixth from the apostles, Sixtus was appointed; after him, Telephorus, who was gloriously martyred; then Hyginus; after him, Pius; then after him, Anicetus. Soter having succeeded Anicetus, Eleutherius does now, in the twelfth place from the apostles, hold the inheritance of the episcopate. In this order, and by this succession, the ecclesiastical tradition from the apostles, and the preaching of the truth, have come down to us. And this is most abundant proof that there is one and the same vivifying faith, which has been preserved in the Church from the apostles until now, and handed down in truth. Iraneus, Against Heresies Book 3, 189ad
The petro and Petra argument is ridiculous. Why would the author give Peter a feminine name ? In John 1:42 Jesus called Peter Cephas which is a sizeable stone, so that argument is ridiculous. Before I made the decision to join the Catholic Church I knew this was ludicrous. TATIAN THE SYRIAN Simon Cephas answered and said, “You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.” Jesus answered and said unto him, “Blessed are you, Simon, son of Jonah: flesh and blood has not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven. And I say unto thee also, that you are Cephas, and on this rock will I build my Church; and the gates of hades shall not prevail against it” [Diatesseron 23 (c. A.D. 170)]. TERTULLIAN OF CARTHAGE Was anything withheld from the knowledge of Peter, who is called “the rock on which the Church would be built” [Mt 16:18] with the power of “loosing and binding in heaven and on earth? [Mt 16:19]” [Prescription Against Heretics 22 (c. A.D. 200)]. [T]he Lord said to Peter, “On this rock I will build my Church, I have given you the keys of the kingdom of heaven [and] whatever you shall have bound or loosed on earth will be bound or loosed in heaven” [Mt 16:18-19]. . . . What kind of man are you, subverting and changing what was the clear intent of the Lord when he himself conferred this upon Peter? Upon you, he says, I will build my Church; and I will give to you the keys [Modesty 21 (c. A.D. 220)]. ORIGEN OF ALEXANDRIA Look at [Peter], the great foundation of the Church, that most solid of rocks, upon whom Christ built the Church [Mt 16:18]. And what does our Lord say to him? “O you of little faith,” he says, “why do you doubt?” [Mt 14:31] [Homilies on Exodus 5:4 (c. A.D. 249)]. ST. CYPRIAN OF CARTHAGE The Lord says to Peter: “I say to you,” he says, “that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not overcome it. And to you I will give the keys of the kingdom of heaven . . .” [Mt 16:18-19]. On him he builds the Church, and commands him to feed the sheep [Jn 21:17], and although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single chair [cathedra], and he established by his own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity. Indeed, the others were also what Peter was [apostles], but a primacy is given to Peter, by which it is made clear that there is one Church and one chair. . . . If someone does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he think that he holds the faith? If he deserts the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he be confident that he is in the Church? [Unity of the Catholic Church 4; first edition (Treatise 1:4) (A.D. 251)]. There is one God, and Christ is one, and there is one Church, and one chair founded upon the rock by the word of the Lord. Another altar cannot be constituted nor a new priesthood be made, except the one altar and the one priesthood. Whosoever gathers elsewhere, scatters [Letters 39:5 (A.D. 251)]. Peter, on whom the Church was to be built, speaks there [Jn 6:67-69], teaching and showing in the name of the Church, that although a rebellious and arrogant multitude of those who will not hear and obey may depart, yet the Church does not depart from Christ; and they are the Church who are a people united to the priest, and the flock that adheres to its pastor. You ought to know that the bishop is in the Church, and the Church in the bishop; and if anyone be not with the bishop, then he is not in the Church, nor those who flatter themselves in vain and creep in, not having peace with God’s priests, and think that they communicate secretly with some; while the Church, which is Catholic and one, is not cut nor divided, but is indeed connected and bound together by the cement of priests who cohere with one another [Letters 68:8 (A.D. 254)]. FIRMILIAN OF CAESAREA But his error . . . [for he] who does not remain on the foundation of the one Church founded upon the rock by Christ [Mt 16:18], can be learned from this, which Christ said only to Peter: “Whatever things you shall bind on earth shall be bound also in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth, they shall be loosed in heaven” [Mt 16:19] [quoted in St. Cyprian’s Letters 74:16 (c. A.D. 255)]. [Pope] Stephen [I] . . . boasts of the place of his episcopate, and contends that he holds the succession from Peter, on whom the foundations of the Church were laid [Mt 16:18]. . . . [Pope] Stephen . . . announces that he holds by succession the throne of Peter [ibid., 74:17 (c. A.D. 255)]. LETTER OF CLEMENT TO JAMES Be it known to you, my lord, that Simon [Peter], who, for the sake of the true faith, and the sure foundation of his doctrine, was set apart to be the foundation of the Church, and for this end was, by Jesus himself, with his truthful mouth, named Peter [Letter of Clement to James 2 (c. A.D. 290)]. CLEMENTINE HOMILIES [Simon Peter said to Simon Magus in Rome:] “For you now stand in direct opposition to me, who am a firm rock, the foundation of the Church” [Mt 16:18] [Clementine Homilies 17:19 (c. A.D. 290)]. ST. OPTATUS OF MILEVIS You cannot then deny that you do know that upon Peter first in the city of Rome was bestowed the episcopal cathedra, on which sat Peter, the head of all the apostles (for which reason he was called Cephas), that, in this one cathedra, unity should be preserved by all [Schism of the Donatists 2:2 (c. A.D. 367)].
Thank you for sharing. I have went to these sources online before 300AD and I encourage you to do the same. You copied and pasted from a Catholic site and these references do not address or answer my Catholic Challenge. None of these state Peter is in authority OVER the whole Christian church, much less there would be people after him to take his exact position in authority OVER the whole Christian church. Thank you for trying.
@@iggyantiochneither does every church father agree with eachother. Tatian forbade marriage and eating meat and joined a cult called the encratites which was condemned in 1 Timothy 4:1-4, you know rcc and eo use this mans teaching on many of their doctrines and also mentioned in the above post by the rcc member.
@@BereanPerspectiveApologetics Says the guy reading from protestant sites that do eisegesis, not exegesis. All those reference address your challenge perfectly.
To start with, you're asking a question to be answered literally by a church father using scriptures alone or sola scriptura. And your parameter is if it agrees of what you think. It's like asking you the same kind of question of where you can find in the bible its table of contents written in scriptures. So, if you can not answer that question, then your faith is false. But Just this one already answers your question. The reference (verses) of what this church father is teaching/saying/writing that is in the bible is open and closed parentheses. Tertullian “Was anything withheld from the knowledge of Peter, who is called ‘the rock on which the Church would be built’ [Matt. 16:18] with the power of ‘loosing and binding in heaven and on earth’ [Matt. 16:19]?” (Demurrer Against the Heretics 22 [A.D. 200]). “[T]he Lord said to Peter, ‘On this rock I will build my Church, I have given you the keys of the kingdom of heaven [and] whatever you shall have bound or loosed on earth will be bound or loosed in heaven’ [Matt. 16:18-19]. . . . What kind of man are you, subverting and changing what was the manifest intent of the Lord when he conferred this personally upon Peter? Upon you, he says, I will build my Church; and I will give to you the keys” (Modesty 21:9-10 [A.D. 220]).
Apostolic succession is explicit in Scripture and historical record. The idea that the bishop of rome has authority over all was a doctrine that developed over time. It was developed by the successors to the apostles--the bishops--over time. Just like other doctrines that have developed over time under the leadership of the successors to the apostles. Of course this gentleman in this video rejects apostolic succession so he is going to reject any doctrine that developed over time under their leadership.
St Irenaeus Against Heresies Book 3 Chapter 2 (circa AD 180) Since, however, it would be very tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon up the successions of all the Churches, we do put to confusion all those who, in whatever manner, whether by an evil self-pleasing, by vainglory, or by blindness and perverse opinion, assemble in unauthorized meetings; [we do this, I say,] by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its preeminent authority [potiorem principalitatem].
Tertullian 200 A.D. The Demurrer against Heretics But if there be any (heresies) which are bold enough to plant themselves in the midst of the apostolic age, that they may thereby seem to have been handed down by the apostles, because they existed in the time of the apostles, we can say: Let them produce the original records of their churches; let them unfold the roll of their bishops, running down in due succession from the beginning in such a manner that [that first bishop of theirs] bishop shall be able to show for his ordainer and predecessor some one of the apostles or of apostolic men,-a man, moreover, who continued stedfast with the apostles. For this is the manner in which the apostolic churches transmit their registers: as the church of Smyrna, which records that Polycarp was placed therein by John; as also the church of Rome, which makes Clement to have been ordained in like manner by Peter. In exactly the same way the other churches likewise exhibit (their several worthies), whom, as having been appointed to their episcopal places by apostles, they regard as transmitters of the apostolic seed. Let the heretics contrive something of the same kind. For after their blasphemy, what is there that is unlawful for them (to attempt)? But should they even effect the contrivance, they will not advance a step. For their very doctrine, after comparison with that of the apostles, will declare, by its own diversity and contrariety, that it had for its author neither an apostle nor an apostolic man; because, as the apostles would never have taught things which were self-contradictory, so the apostolic men would not have inculcated teaching different from the apostles, unless they who received their instruction from the apostles went and preached in a contrary manner. To this test, therefore will they be submitted for proof by those churches, who, although they derive not their founder from apostles or apostolic men (as being of much later date, for they are in fact being founded daily), yet, since they agree in the same faith, they are accounted as not less apostolic because they are akin in doctrine. Then let all the heresies, when challenged to these two tests by our apostolic church, offer their proof of how they deem themselves to be apostolic. But in truth they neither are so, nor are they able to prove themselves to be what they are not. Nor are they admitted to peaceful relations and communion by such churches as are in any way connected with apostles, inasmuch as they are in no sense themselves apostolic because of their diversity as to the mysteries of the faith.
This does not state Peter was the person in authority OVER the WHOLE Christian church, and that his authority was to be passed on to someone else over and over. In fact it shows the very opposite that there were others who were bishops. Thanks for trying.
@@BereanPerspectiveApologetics If the Roman church "holds the PRESIDENCY" as Ignatius states in 110, I would say that that one is in charge. And writing 70 years later Irenaeus writes "the most ancient church...organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul, that church . With that church, because of its superior origin, ALL CHURCH'S MUST AGREE." If all church's must agree with the Roman church, I would say that that the Roman church is in charge. Furthermore, that same paragraph notes that the bishops at Rome are the successors of Peter and Paul. They are the bishops or overseers of the church that all others must agree with.
@@BereanPerspectiveApologetics This is quite a little game of Jeopardy you get to be the Alex Trebec of, isnt it. You come up with an anti-Catholic talking point du jour, you review relevant comments from Church Fathers on that point and then establish a criteria thats slightly too narrow for their comments to reach and then you go out and "prove" that your ridiculous position is correct and that you've "won" the argument. This is just dishonest.
There was an issue with the congregation of the Corinthians who got rid of there bishops and of course tbis congregation is closer to Constantinople and Antioch but it was Clement 1 bishop ( Pope ) of Rome which he went outside his jurisdiction as he sent a letter to the Corinthians to take these bishops back . That recognition was there
And of course with time things do change when the apostles had died it was Ignatius a student of John paved the way for bishops from the scriptual Presbyter and Deacon . Why ? Because of the phenomenal growth for the support of the congregations . And this is true when the title of the first pope was in Alexandria and was known as father of fathers again because of the phenomenal growth of Christians. But the pope in Alexandria never claimed to be the pope of all , only in his region . If you look into the early history you will see that the change came out of peace from persecution so they had the freedoms to establish themselves. Within the community and doctrine
Pope comes from the Greek word ‘pappas’ meaning ‘papa’. There were popes of Alexandria, Antioch, Constantinople, Jerusalem and Rome. The primacy of the Roman Pope, or papa, was recognised by the other apostolic churches but Paul also recognises the special position of Rome when he says in Romans 1:8 “your faith is proclaimed throughout the world” and at 15:20 “…so that I do not build on someone else’s foundation.” The ‘someone else’ who laid this foundation renown ‘throughout the world’ was of course Peter. (1Peter 5:13, “He who is at Babylon [the ancient code name for Rome among the followers] who is likewise chosen, sends you greetings, and so does Mark my son.”)
Papa means father, and Jesus said call no man father for you have One Father Who is in Heaven. God is my Papa. And we are all brethren. So I will not call any RC bishop a pope.
@@SeekTheCross You must have one of those very thin one-verse-wonder bibles! Jesus does indeed say to call no man father at Mt 23:9. In the verse immediately before (23:8) he also says to call no one ‘teacher’ and in the verse after (23:10) he says no one is to be called an ‘instructor’. (Did you not call the person at the front of the class 'teacher' when you went to school?). You have no context to your quote. Jesus was speaking about the Pharisees in a 36 verse condemnation of their hypocrisy. How does your one verse interpretation explain St Stephen, the first Christian Martyr, calling the people in the crowd, ‘Fathers’ in Acts 7:2, or Paul describing himself as our father in 1 Corinthians 4:16? Both David and Abraham are described as being our father in the New Testament. You need to go beyond a single verse to understand context.
Origen Commentary on the Gospel of John Book V Chapter 3 But he who was made fit to be a minister of the New Covenant, not of the letter, but of the spirit, Paul, who fulfilled the Gospel from Jerusalem round about to Illyricum, did not write epistles to all the churches he taught, and to those to whom he did write he sent no more than a few lines. And Peter, on whom the Church of Christ is built, against which the gates of hell shall not prevail left only one epistle of acknowledged genuineness.
Your interpretation of scripture is meaningless, as no where in scripture is it clearly stated by the standard you hold to Peter. You simply fall back on claiming there is a misunderstanding of a word as the Protestant position. You ignore Christ spoke Aramaic, and there is only Rock, claiming the translation however does not call Peter a women is meaningful. This has been refuted for years. (The Church at Corinth writes for help to Pope Clement 1000 miles away instead of the Apostle John who was alive in Ephesus only 250 miles away. In the letter he expects them to submit the proper authority). Ignatius of Antioch Epistle to the Romans preface [50-117 AD] "Ignatius . . . to the church also which holds the presidency, in the location of the country of the Romans, worthy of God, worthy of honor, worthy of blessing, worthy of praise, worthy of success, worthy of sanctification, and, because you hold the presidency in love, named after Christ and named after the Father" Tertullian Prescription Against Heretics ch 22 (160- 240 ad) Was anything withheld from the knowledge of Peter, who is called "the rock on which the church should be built," who also obtained "the keys of the kingdom of heaven," with the power of "loosing and binding in heaven and on earth?" Caius Fragment 2 AGAINST THE HERESY OF ARTEMON ch 1 (180-240 ad) For they say that all those of the first age, and the apostles themselves, both received and taught those things which these men now maintain; and that the truth of Gospel preaching was preserved until the times of Victor, who was the thirteenth bishop in Rome from Peter, Cyprian of Carthage Epistle 45 par 2 [200-270 AD] We," they say, "know that Cornelius is bishop of the most holy Catholic Church elected by Almighty God, and by Christ our Lord. We confess our error; we have suffered imposture; we were deceived by captious perfidy and loquacity. For although we seemed, as it were, to have held a kind of communion with a man who was a schismatic and a heretic, yet our mind was always sincere in the Church. For we are not ignorant that there is one God; that there is one Christ the Lord whom we have confessed, and one Holy Spirit; and that in the Catholic Church there ought to be one bishop."
Easy. Matthew 16:18. Now, you say that's not what that verse means. But what authority are you, or any other Protestant, invoking to prove that is or isn’t the proper interpretation? Are you claiming to be infallible?
@@DashRiprock-m3b Not at all. Many people can be scholars of linguistics. Are you saying if someone is a linguistic scholar they are automatically infallible in Christian doctrine?
@@CantStopTheMattWalsh You should stop while you're ahead. I'm an ex-Catholic who knows what you believe. The Catholic Church is not infallible by any means regarding doctrine.
@@DashRiprock-m3b I'll take the compliment that the Catholic stance is superior. Thank you for that. By your own admission, you defected to the losing side.
@@CantStopTheMattWalsh Like most Catholic Doctrines, You go and infer that I admitted defeat. Far from it. "... you defected to the losing side." This is why I left the RCC, their arrogance is beyond comprehension.
Here is my take on Matthew 16, whether it is Petros or Petra, it cant deny the fact that our Lord built his church on it. Even if it were a mere pebble, still our Lord can do it. who are we To put the standard and limitation on our Lord?. Have we ever humble ourselves and asking our Lord, "LORD WHERE IS YOUR CHURCH THAT YOU HAVE BUILT ON PETER BCZ YOU HAVE SAID THAT THE GATES OF HELL CANNOT PREVAIL IT"
So to be clear, because you put a lot of restrictions on this, if a church father said a Church had the highest authority then you wouldn’t accept that? You are looking for specifically someone being called the highest authority? I would reject that because Peter was his church in Rome, that was his office.
You're don't seem to be searching for truth but for clicks! But I'd show you exactly what you have requested in your challenge as soon as you are able to show me where the word Bible can be found in the Bible and show me any of the early Church fathers that used the word.
Malachi 2:7 It is the duty of PRIESTS to teach the true knowledge of God. People should go to them to learn my will, because they are the messengers of the Lord Almighty.
The name “Berean Perspective” demonstrates how the creator mishandles Scripture from the outset. In Protestant circles (in which I was for 40+ years), it is very common to cite St. Luke’s praise for the Berean Jews as clear evidence that all doctrine and Christian teaching can and must be found in the pages of Scripture. That is not the context of the passage in Acts 17 at all. St. Luke praises the Berean Jews because they listened to St. Paul, who cited (OT) Scripture and then went back to see if Paul quoted the Scriptures correctly. People didn’t have copies of the Scriptures that they could carry around and, not being trained Pharisees like Paul, they didn’t have vast passages of OT Scripture memorized. Instead of being like the Thessalonian Jews and starting a riot before even trying to check Paul’s sources, the Bereans, being more “noble” did check Paul’s sources and found that he, indeed, had cited the Scriptures properly. Paul cited Scripture because it was a common authority between him and his audience. Protestants may way too much of the Bereans because it’s a cheap means of bolstering their claims about “Sola Scriptura.” In answer to the question in the video: Irenaeus of Lyon in “Against Heresies,” book 3, chapt 3, sect 3 - "The blessed apostles, then, having founded and built up the Church, committed into the hands of Linus the office of the episcopate. Of this Linus, Paul makes mention in the Epistles to Timothy. To him succeeded Anacletus; and after him, in the third place from the apostles, Clement was allotted the bishopric. This man, as he had seen the blessed apostles and had been conversant with them, might be said to have the preaching of the apostles still echoing [in his ears], and their traditions before his eyes. Nor was he alone [in this], for there were many still remaining who had received instructions from the apostles. In the time of this Clement, no small dissension having occurred among the brethren at Corinth, the Church in Rome dispatched a most powerful letter to the Corinthians, exhorting them to peace, renewing their faith, and declaring the tradition which it had lately received from the apostles, proclaiming the one God, omnipotent, the Maker of heaven and earth, the Creator of man, who brought on the deluge, and called Abraham, who led the people from the land of Egypt, spoke with Moses, set forth the law, sent the prophets, and who has prepared fire for the devil and his angels. From this document, whosoever chooses to do so, may learn that He, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, was preached by the churches, and may also understand the apostolic tradition of the Church, since this Epistle is of older date than these men who are now propagating falsehood, and who conjure into existence another god beyond the Creator and the Maker of all existing things. To this Clement there succeeded Evaristus. Alexander followed Evaristus; then, sixth from the apostles, Sixtus was appointed; after him, Telephorus, who was gloriously martyred; then Hyginus; after him, Pius; then after him, Anicetus; Soter having succeeded Anicetus, Eleutherius does now, in the twelfth place from the apostles, hold the inheritance of the episcopate. In this order, and by this succession, the ecclesiastical tradition from the apostles, and the preaching of the truth, have come down to us. And this is most abundant proof that there is one and the same vivifying faith, which has been preserved in the Church from the apostles until now, and handed down in truth."
@@jamesfrazier5148 this is the most bizarre interpretation of that passage I have ever heard. Fortunately, there is no divine authority that declares this interpretation valid, so I don’t have to entertain it.
@@jamesfrazier5148 there is an undefined, possibly very long, period of time between verses 20 and 21. The context makes it pretty clear that Christ's giving of "the keys to the kingdom of heaven," and "Get behind me satan," did not occur in the same event.
@@jamesfrazier5148 there is absolutely no historical evidence that the Church ever interpreted that event as you do. But..."Sola Scriptura" allows anyone to interpret anything any way they like. No one can argue with you because you'll just say, "I've been convinced by the Spirit that this is the proper interpretation."
I can say the same thing to you. Show me one Scripture just one that says calvery Chapel is the true church. Or one just one Scripture giving chuck Smith the authority to start his own church..
The body of Christ is the one true church, which started in the first century believers who are born again and followers of Jesus Christ Acts 2, 1 Corinthians 12:12-13, Romans 12:4-5, Galatians 3:28, 1 Peter 1:3-12, 1 Peter 2:9, 1 John 5:1-5, etc. Chuck Smith did not start a church he was a pastor (Ephesians 4:11-16, 1 Corinthians 12:11, Acts 20:28) of a church that later became a movement in the 60-70 as the Jesus Revolution which changed the world and thousands of people became Christians. Good grief what joke your comments are smh 🤦♂️
@@BereanPerspectiveApologetics The Reformation was more of a deformation since it caused Christianity to splinter into thousands of groups or denominations. Jesus prayer in John 17 of being one does not exist today because people I know do not even try to find a church because they don't know where to go. Even non Christians know so-called churches fight against each other by teaching different doctrines. Paul said he taught the same thing in all the churches 1stCorinthians chapter 4. That's not being done today. God is not the author of confusion but of peace. When people drive up and down the street and see all these different churches teaching different things that is not piece it's confusion I can even tell you that the way you look at John 3:5 is not orthodox no it's not amniotic fluid.
Matthew 16:18 And I say to you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build My church; and the gates of Hades (death) will not overpower it [by preventing the resurrection of the Christ]. [19] I will give you the keys (authority) of the kingdom of heaven; and whatever you bind [forbid, declare to be improper and unlawful] on earth will have [already] been bound in heaven, and whatever you loose [permit, declare lawful] on earth will have [already] been loosed in heaven.”
Constantine introduced Paganism... The Sabbath is Saturday. Not Sunday ... Who gave authority to break Gods Word. Moving priests to another Parrish to reoffend ... And so and so on 😢
Eusebius Church History Chapter 25 And Peter, on whom the Church of Christ is built, 'against which the gates of hell shall not prevail,' has left one acknowledged epistle; perhaps also a second, but this is doubtful.
The verse you quoted that Peter was the rock and you said he was not. Yes he was. These are the word of Jesus; "You are rock, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give you the keys...." The last sentence there should show you that Jesus is talking to and about peter. Not revelation. Even Muslims believe Jesus is christ. I dont think you will accept them as part of that Church. He also starts by ponting out, "You are rock." That is as clear as it is except when a deluded protestant reads it. Three, since you dont understand greek, the greek cases here point to Peter as the object whom the church is build upon (receiving the action of the verb) Study some greek bro !! 2. Peter peter, do you love me ? Yes Lord, you know I love you. Feed My sheep. This is as clear as it us except when a deluded protestant reads it then the intention of Jesus is changed to whatever that protestant wants it to be. 4. Paul said he went to be confirmed by Peter. Maybe you should read your Bible well if you have never seen it. The reason for that is as clear as it is except when a deluded protestant reads it. Bye
Thanks for sharing. Petros means stone, Petra means massive rock, go do some more research my friend. That is extremely obvious on the meaning. The corner stone is Jesus Christ Eph. 2:20, not Peter. Also the same authority is given to all the apostles in John 20 after Jesus resurrection. The church is built upon the apostles (plural) and the prophets (plural), and Jesus Christ the corner stone (singular)!!! No where in the Acts or the Epistles is anything anywhere close to teaching Peter is the Rock of the church, the main leader OVER the Christian church.......
@@BereanPerspectiveApologetics Haha, I speak greek bro. Not my first language but I have studied enough greek. Πέτρος and Πέτρα is the same thing just that Πέτρ(ος) is masculine direct object and Πέτρ(α) is in feminine form, indirect object in this statement. Both means rock or stone but in this context, rock. You also ignored my point that the cases in greek point to peter as the receipient of the action. It is like saying "You are Peter, and upon you (This) rock, I will build my church. Yes it is the demontrative pronoun (this) (τάυτη) but remember greek have cases. The case here is Dative. Which shows indirect object pointing to the (συ) "You" at the begining. Hence Peter is the one whom the church is built upon. This is very simple to see but cases might be confusing in greek for a beginer. Also, just go ahead and you will see Jesus still saying "And I will give you the keys of heaven and earth" I am very sorry but the greek word is σοι (You) and it is not plural, it is singular second person pronoun. So try that plural trick again next time with someone who doesnt speak greek. That is pointing to Peter. Also note how your response contradicts your video where you claimed Peter's response was the rock. Here it has changed to Jesus himself, not Peter's response. The Catholic church clearly teaches that Jesus is the conerstone just as the verse you have quoted says. Not the stone upon which the church is built on. The work of the conerstone is to hold the house. Gives it strenth preventing it from falling (The gates of hell shall not prevail against it) This is not the foundation stone which the church is built upon. Also, you ignored the point where Jesus tells Peter to feed his sheep 3 times.
“For no man can lay a foundation other than the one which is laid, which is Jesus Christ.” 1 Cor. 3:11 “having been built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus Himself being the corner stone” Eph. 2:20 “And when He had said this, He breathed on them and *said to them, “Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive the sins of any, their sins have been forgiven them; if you retain the sins of any, they have been retained.”” John 20:22-23 “Truly I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall have been bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall have been loosed in heaven. “Again I say to you, that if two of you agree on earth about anything that they may ask, it shall be done for them by My Father who is in heaven. For where two or three have gathered together in My name, I am there in their midst.”” Matt. 18:18-20 Notice leadership, authority, is among the apostles, not Peter singled out. Who is the foundation upon? Peter? Nope!!!
@@BereanPerspectiveApologetics My comment answers your concerns perfectly. 1 cor 3:11 is all about faith. Not church. Of course our faith is laid upon Christ. Therr is no doubt about that. Just read a couple of verses ahead and below youll knowbwhat Paul is talking about.
Although there may not be written evidence for one bishop in the first 300 years or so.... Neither was there a Holy Bible. Just saying, but i think that's highly relevant.
You must have missed Matt 16:18-19, where Jesus said he will give one man - Peter - the "keys of the kingdom of heaven", thereby declaring Peter to be the supreme leader of the Church. The principal apostles were Peter, James and John. James and John are mentioned six or seven times each in the book of Acts, while Peter is mentioned more than 60 times. The very first time Jesus (the rock) met Simon, he told Simon his name would be "rock" (John 1:42). Why? The answer is found in Matt 16:18. Jesus (the rock) governs his Church infallibly thru his "rock" on earth - ie, Peter (Matt 16:18).and his successors, known as the Pope(s) of the Catholic Church.
@jamesfrazier5148 The text (Matt 16:18-19) says Jesus will give the "keys" only to Peter. Jesus begins the sentence (v.18) by directly addressing Peter.
@jamesfrazier5148 It doesn't matter that Jesus gave Peter "the keys of the kingdom of heaven"? Only God can hold the keys of the kingdom of heaven, yet here is Jesus giving those "keys" to a man ... and you say it doesn't matter? Wow.
@jamesfrazier5148 I went from agnosticism to Protestantism, but eventually realized that I wasn't practising true Christianity. I came to understand that Christianity is not the Bible - rather, Christianity is the Catholic Church ... and has been from the very beginning. If your church is not Catholic (or at least an Eastern Orthodox), you're not in the true Church. Jesus gave the "keys of the kingdom of heaven" to Peter (Matt 16:19) - ie, to the Church - not to a book.
@@iggyantiochlike Sammy buffet? No, Kelly and protestants are not doing it for the clicks as you insinuate. They want to reach people with the truth, that's a different approach than just doing it for the clicks as if they got something to boast about like Sam Shamoun boasting about himself and his channel. Kelly is a humble guy who is bold about the gospel truth, and not at all how you try to make him out to be. I disagree with your slander because there may be if there is a small splinter in this Protestant's eye but there is a LOG in your Catholic brother's eye.
@@SeekTheCross so Simon's name was changed to rock by Jesus for nothing? (The name Peter is derived from the Greek version, Petros, which translates to "stone.")
@@David77757 what about Saul to Paul name change? What about the Hebrew and Aramaic versions? Or is that analogy only in Greek and people reading into it?
Why the specific parameters of before 300AD? Did the early church fathers cease being early church fathers, or maybe after 300AD they just become corrupt? If you say, well before 300 they are truly considered “Early”, if that’s your stance, then that definition is subjective. It can change from person to person. For example, a friend asks you to go to a concert, and they say lets get their early. You show up 15 minutes early from showtime and your friend says to you once you arrive, where have you been, I’ve been here for an hour and a half. Who is write on their definition of early? I’ll comment on your video but I know something will be wrong with it. In 251 Bishop (Cyprian) of Carthage in The Unity of the Catholic Church 4: 1st edition says “The Lord says to Peter: ‘I say to you,’ he says, ‘that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not overcome it. And to you I will give the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatever things you bind on earth shall be bound also in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth, they shall be loosed also in heaven’ [Matt. 16:18-19]). … On him [Peter] he builds the Church, and to him he gives the command to feed the sheep [John 21:17], and although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single chair [cathedra], and he established by his own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity. Indeed, the others were also what Peter was [i.e., apostles], but a primacy is given to Peter, whereby it is made clear that there is but one Church and one chair. So too, all [the apostles] are shepherds, and the flock is shown to be one, fed by all the apostles in single-minded accord. 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?” Single rock, single keys, single Church, single chair and single primacy. Sure, you can continue making your criteria or parameters smaller and smaller to fit your argument but I can’t make you believe anything. I can set up a similar criterion pretty easily, for example, I’m going to make a video and say I don’t believe in the doctrines of the Trinity and the incarnation because the terms Trinity and Incarnation are not used in the Bible and I need someone to show me that the early church fathers used the terms Trinity and Incarnation before 150 AD, in order for me to think about it. Absurd or a true argument?
@@jamesfrazier5148 You claim "shouldn’t Jesus have known better than to call his vicar Satan?" Well Peter was assuming the traditional Jewish view that the Messiah would conquer rather than suffer, and so Jesus corrected him on that point. In fact, Jesus needed to rebuke Peter publicly because in that instant, as he often did, Peter spoke for all of the apostles and he would become the leader of the entire church. According to the Protestant scholars, W.F. Albright and C.S. Mann, they write, “To deny the preeminent position of Peter among the disciples or in the early Christian community is a denial of the evidence. The interest in Peter’s failures and vacillations does not detract from the preeminence, rather it emphasizes it. Had Peter been a lesser figure, his behavior would’ve been a far less consequence.” In other words, the fact that scripture focuses so much on Peter’s successes and failures is because Peter had such a central role in the life of the early Church.
@@jamesfrazier5148 You are really getting into the weeds with your comments. Just to show one example, you claim that something important must be "mentioned twice or more in the Bible" Who in fact said that, Did Jesus? Did the disciples? No! Jesus nor the disciples said that, Just you! It seems that I hit a nerve or something because you just sort of go off and for every one post I write you post twice. I predict there will be two more posts from James Frazier after this one, at least. I'm still waiting to see if there is a response from the Berean perspective guy.
@@jamesfrazier5148 Okay, common sense but no one in the Bible says that. My point! Also I guess you didn't think that your last post was important because you didn't post two times consecutively. I guess you didn't think that your last post was important because you didn't post two times consecutively.👍 That was important!
@@jamesfrazier5148 Are you having fun having a conversation with yourself. You keep just posting one comment after another each time you post. Don’t believe me, just count. Me with 6 posts and you with 10. And you repeated music in an elevator twice, it must mean that is important! I’m not sure about you but I don’t live in an elevator so I’m not hearing the music that you do. I bet it took all that you had to not capitalize ABSURD in the last two posts. You want absolutely everything important to happen at least twice but you conveniently don’t believe it when Jesus says eat (to gnaw, crunch, chew) my flesh. Me yelling the following: JESUS SAYS THIS MORE THAN TWICE AND YOU DON’T BELIEVE HIM ON THAT. So you contradict you own assertion. Try your best to keep it under one post if you could. I also just clicked thumps up on this post.
Matthew 18:18-19 refutes the idea that Peter alone was given the keys, and further explains what the keys are. All the verbs are plural. "Whatever (all of) you loose on Earth....". When Peter asked who is the greatest of them, which is what started the whole discussion, Jesus warned "Satan has demanded to have you, that he might sift you like wheat".
where are the keys stated in Matthew 18:18-19? All the apostles were given authority to bind and loose. However only Peter was given the keys in Matthew 16:18. Did Jesus say in Matthew 18 that all of you are given keys? Do you know the 1st century Jewish concept of Keys? How important 'keys' were to Priests? It is precisely at Matthew 16 when fishermen came to realize that they are the new 'levitical' priest and had authority. Before that they were merely followers.
I just read the verse Matthew 18:16. I don't think it's very clear that Jesus is talking about the confession of Peter. Are you refering to another verse? Or you have other verses to support this interpretation?
What's the definition of "one early Apostolic father"? 1st century, 2nd century, disciples of the Apostles? What? If they weren't direct disciples of the Apostles then, for me, it becomes hearsay or a better way of putting it, third grade game of "pass the story."
Hebrews 13:17 Obey your [spiritual] leaders and submit to them [recognizing their authority over you], for they are keeping watch over your souls and continually guarding your spiritual welfare as those who will give an account [of their stewardship of you]. Let them do this with joy and not with grief and groans, for this would be of no benefit to you.
@@AndrewLane-pm2ro oh, forgot to mention verse. In Matthew 23, Jesus talking in Jerusalem to the crowds, - verse 9, for the one to call father , who is in heaven, and no one else.
The title "pope" was from the early 3rd century an honorific designation used for any bishop in the West. In the East, it was used only for the bishop of Alexandria. Marcellinus (d. 304) is the first bishop of Rome shown in sources to have had the title "pope" used of him. From the 6th century, the imperial chancery of Constantinople normally reserved this designation for the bishop of Rome. From the early 6th century, it began to be confined in the West to the bishop of Rome, a practice that was firmly in place by the 11th century. The early martyrs were NOT Popes as understood by Roman Catholic doctrine today... no matter how much you try to shoehorn the idea into history
You say not to believe mere men… who do you think put the books in the Bible and declare them to be sacred scripture? Who did you believe about the 66 books in your Bible and not 73? Why those 66 books and not the shepherd of hamas? I guess the answer is that you too followed what mere men told you… by the way, if Peter was not at Rome at the moment of Paul’s, that doesn’t mean he never went there. It’s like we both went to NY city, but separate moments and someone in the future say that only you have been there, while me myself have been there twice, but earlier or later. So as you see, I totally disagree with you.
God who is perfect, Does everything Perfectly. That's why the Bible has so much repeittion patterns. Since the beginning of History, God always used ONE man. He had used murderers, lustful, power hungry, even pagan man one at a time. God had never use 1 book ever in salvation history. Since we know God never changes, what made God change to suddenly depend on a book and a book that caused hundreds of splits and denominations where ALL of them declare BIBLE ALONE!
The basic Roman Catholic teaching to their laity is: just trust us, because we have done all the thinking for you, and we 😇can't be wrong. It isn't that Catholics don't listen to your question. They hear it, and they know that *_they cannot produce_** a quote from 300 A.D. or earlier of any church father saying that there is one bishop (or person other than Jesus) over the whole church,* so they try to divert, dissemble, distract, etc. They do this out of emotional self-preservation, because they know that they need to justify the papacy in their own minds _by some means_ or they'll be forced to face the fact that they're in the wrong denomination.ua-cam.com/users/sgaming/emoji/7ff574f2/emoji_u1f607.png
Yes, Catholic friends, Peter's confession is the petra that started the foundation (after Jesus establishing himself as the cornerstone), not the start of a papacy. Why do you think we're all called "living stones" elsewhere in the New Testament? Our faith adds to the foundation of the Church (the universal body of Christ).
Hello out there. I really hope people pay attention to the question.
Look forward to the responses.
Kelly
What a dumb question... Just like Muslims
So Simon's name was changed to rock by Jesus for nothing?
@@David77757 It was changed because of his answer.
@@dann285 That is not correct. Jesus had already changed Simon's name to Cephas (Peter) in John 1:42 when Andrew introduce Peter to Jesus. Jesus said, "You are Simon, son of John, you will be called Cephas." (John 1:42) This is long before Caesarea Philippi event in Matthew 16. So the name was not changed because of Peter's answer in Matthew 16
@@brianfleming1310 Jesus answered and said to him, “Blessed are you, SIMON BAR - JONAH for flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but My Father who is in heaven. 18 And I also say to you that you are Peter,. He calls him Simon. And he was blessed because of what was reveled to him, namely that Jesus is the Christ.
In other Catholic Answers tracts, we have shown that the Church Fathers recognized that Jesus made Peter the rock on which he would build his Church, that this gave Peter a special primacy, that Peter went to Rome, and that he left successors there. In this tract we will show that they also understood that Peter’s successors shared in his special authority or primacy.
In a wide variety of ways, the Fathers attest to the fact that the church of Rome was the central and most authoritative church. They attest to the Church’s reliance on Rome for advice, for mediation of disputes, and for guidance on doctrinal issues. They note, as Ignatius of Antioch does, that Rome “holds the presidency” among the other churches, and that, as Irenaeus explains, “because of its superior origin, all the churches must agree” with Rome. They are also clear on the fact that it is communion with Rome and the bishop of Rome that causes one to be in communion with the Catholic Church. This displays a recognition that, as Cyprian of Carthage puts it, Rome is “the principal church, in which sacerdotal unity has its source.”
Most significant are the passages below in which the popes, by their statements or their actions, reveal their understanding of their own authority in the Church, such as when Pope Clement I commanded the church of Corinth to reinstate its leadership, or when Pope Victor excommunicated the churches of Asia Minor as a group, after which the other bishops sought to change Victor’s mind but did not challenge his authority to have made the excommunication.
In this tract we will cover the views of the popes and other Church Fathers up to the year A.D. 341. The views of the Fathers after this period will be covered in the tract, The Authority of the Pope: Part II.
Pope Clement I
“Owing to the sudden and repeated calamities and misfortunes which have befallen us, we must acknowledge that we have been somewhat tardy in turning our attention to the matters in dispute among you, beloved; and especially that abominable and unholy sedition, alien and foreign to the elect of God, which a few rash and self-willed persons have inflamed to such madness that your venerable and illustrious name, worthy to be loved by all men, has been greatly defamed. . . . Accept our counsel and you will have nothing to regret. . . . If anyone disobey the things which have been said by him [God] through us [i.e., that you must reinstate your leaders], let them know that they will involve themselves in transgression and in no small danger. . . . You will afford us joy and gladness if being obedient to the things which we have written through the Holy Spirit, you will root out the wicked passion of jealousy” (Letter to the Corinthians 1, 58-59, 63 [A.D. 80]).
Ignatius of Antioch
“Ignatius . . . to the church also which holds the presidency, in the location of the country of the Romans, worthy of God, worthy of honor, worthy of blessing, worthy of praise, worthy of success, worthy of sanctification, and, because you hold the presidency in love, named after Christ and named after the Father” (Letter to the Romans 1:1 [A.D. 110]).
“You [the church at Rome] have envied no one, but others you have taught. I desire only that what you have enjoined in your instructions may remain in force” (ibid., 3:1).
Dionysius of Corinth
“For from the beginning it has been your custom to do good to all the brethren in various ways and to send contributions to all the churches in every city. . . . This custom your blessed Bishop Soter has not only preserved, but is augmenting, by furnishing an abundance of supplies to the saints and by urging with consoling words, as a loving father his children, the brethren who are journeying” (Letter to Pope Soter in Eusebius, Church History 4:23:9 [A.D. 170]).
“Today we have observed the Lord’s holy day, in which we have read your letter [Pope Soter]. Whenever we do read it [in church], we shall be able to profit thereby, as also we do when we read the earlier letter written to us by Clement” (ibid., 4:23:11).
The Martyrs of Lyons
“And when a dissension arose about these said people [the Montanists], the brethren in Gaul once more . . . [sent letters] to the brethren in Asia and Phrygia and, moreover to Eleutherius, who was then [A.D. 175] bishop of the Romans, negotiating for the peace of the churches” (Eusebius, Church History 5:3:4 [A.D. 312])
“And the same martyrs too commended Irenaeus, already at that time [A.D. 175] a presbyter of the community of Lyons, to the said bishop of Rome, rendering abundant testimony to the man, as the following expressions show: ‘Once more and always we pray that you may rejoice in God, Pope Eleutherius. This letter we have charged our brother and companion Irenaeus to convey to you, and we beg you to receive him as zealous for the covenant of Christ’” (ibid., 5:4:1-2).
Irenaeus
“But since it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the succession of all the churches, we shall confound all those who, in whatever manner, whether through self-satisfaction or vainglory, or through blindness and wicked opinion, assemble other than where it is proper, by pointing out here the successions of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul, that church which has the tradition and the faith which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the apostles. With that church, because of its superior origin, all the churches must agree, that is, all the faithful in the whole world, and it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the apostolic tradition” (Against Heresies 3:3:2 [A.D. 189]).
Eusebius of Caesarea
“A question of no small importance arose at that time [A.D. 190]. For the parishes of all Asia [Minor], as from an older tradition held that the fourteenth day of the moon, on which the Jews were commanded to sacrifice the lamb, should be observed as the feast of the Savior’s Passover. . . . But it was not the custom of the churches in the rest of the world . . . as they observed the practice which, from apostolic tradition, has prevailed to the present time, of terminating the fast [of Lent] on no other day than on that of the resurrection of the Savior [Sunday]. Synods and assemblies of bishops were held on this account, and all, with one consent, through mutual correspondence drew up an ecclesiastical decree that the mystery of the resurrection of the Lord should be celebrated on no other but the Lord’s day and that we should observe the close of the paschal fast on this day only. . . . Thereupon [Pope] Victor, who presided over the church at Rome, immediately attempted to cut off from the community the parishes of all Asia [Minor], with the churches that agreed with them, as heterodox. And he wrote letters and declared all the brethren there wholly excommunicate. But this did not please all the bishops, and they besought him to consider the things of peace and of neighborly unity and love” (Church History 5:23:1-24:11).
Cyprian of Carthage
“The Lord says to Peter: ‘I say to you,’ he says, ‘that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not overcome it. And to you I will give the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatever things you bind on earth shall be bound also in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth, they shall be loosed also in heaven’ [Matt. 16:18-19]). . . . On him [Peter] he builds the Church, and to him he gives the command to feed the sheep [John 21:17], and although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single chair [cathedra], and he established by his own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity. Indeed, the others were also what Peter was [i.e., apostles], but a primacy is given to Peter, whereby it is made clear that there is but one Church and one chair. So too, all [the apostles] are shepherds, and the flock is shown to be one, fed by all the apostles in single-minded accord. 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?” (The Unity of the Catholic Church 4; 1st edition [A.D. 251]).
“Cyprian to [Pope] Cornelius, his brother. Greeting. . . . We decided to send and are sending a letter to you from all throughout the province [where I am] so that all our colleagues might give their decided approval and support to you and to your communion, that is, to both the unity and the charity of the Catholic Church” (Letters 48:1, 3 [A.D. 253]).
“Cyprian to Antonian, his brother. Greeting … You wrote … that I should forward a copy of the same letter to our colleague [Pope] Cornelius, so that, laying aside all anxiety, he might at once know that you held communion with him, that is, with the Catholic Church” (ibid., 55[52]:1).
“With a false bishop appointed for themselves by heretics, they dare even to set sail and carry letters from schismatics and blasphemers to the chair of Peter and to the principal church [at Rome], in which sacerdotal unity has its source” (ibid., 59:14).
Firmilian
“[Pope] Stephen . . . boasts of the place of his episcopate, and contends that he holds the succession from Peter, on whom the foundations of the Church were laid [Matt. 16:18]. … Stephen . . . announces that he holds by succession the throne of Peter” (collected in Cyprian’s Letters 74[75]:17 [A.D. 253]).
@@iggyantioch There you go!
Good info, let's see him refute these. He can't.
@@sanjoy_deori Let's see...
Wow thanks. I just read through all these references, thanks for your efforts. To be as clear as possible NONE of these references addresses what I have asked in my Catholic Challenge! I HIGHLY recommend you go to the actual sources yourself and see what they state since all you did is copy and paste from some site. Also note [Pope] is in brackets in those references BUT is not there in the actual sources. Thank you for sharing I plan to do follow up on these and other posts attempts showing the ACTUAL references in their context.
None of those verses teaches Peter is THE leader OVER the whole Christian church. Sorry, not happening. In facts when you read Matthew 18 and John 20 all the apostles had the same authority to go and serve. Yes Peter was one of the main leaders, but he is not the Pope nor does the Bible teach he was the MAIN leader OVER the whole Christian church.
You've got to be kidding! This is like 4th grade stuff. There's no real debate on Matthew 16. It's not Petra vs. Petros; it's Kepha and Kepha, the Aramaic...
Protestants are obstinate even when you charitably show they are wrong.
On another note….Protestantism is not even a church so it eliminates itself from MT 16 and is thereby false. Its “spiritual anarchy” comprising of dozens and dozens of sects with conflicting and contradictory beliefs.
Why is Peter mention over 95 times in the bible and Paul 28 to 30 times , James 17 times maybe a little more , OK , Why did Peter stand up and said did not the Lord give me the authority to preach to the Gentiles ,again Protestant lies .
@@ronaldeglewski3073 Amen.
I agree with you. I was saying there is no debate that Our Lord named Peter as the Rock on which His Church is built.
@@jamesfrazier5148?
Jesus can, and has appointed men several times , to lead. Moises led and he didn’t get taken up to heaven, yet Enoch was taken.
Peter, never has or will take Jesus spot, everything Peter did god was because of the grace god Gave him.
ST. CLEMENT OF ALEXANDRIA
[T]he blessed Peter, the chosen, the preeminent, the first of the disciples, for whom alone and himself the Savior paid tribute [Mt 17:27], quickly seized and comprehended the saying. And what does he say? “Lo, we have left all and followed you” [Who Is the Rich Man That Shall Be Saved? 21 (c. A.D. 200)].
Actual quote: "Therefore on hearing those words, the blessed Peter, the chosen, the pre-eminent, the first of the disciples, for whom alone and Himself the Saviour paid tribute, Matthew 17:27 quickly seized and comprehended the saying. And what does he say? Lo, we have left all and followed You. Now if by all he means his own property, he boasts of leaving four oboli perhaps in all, and forgets to show the kingdom of heaven to be their recompense. But if, casting away what we were now speaking of, the old mental possessions and soul diseases, they follow in the Master's footsteps, this now joins them to those who are to be enrolled in the heavens. For it is thus that one truly follows the Saviour, by aiming at sinlessness and at His perfection, and adorning and composing the soul before it as a mirror, and arranging everything in all respects similarly." www.newadvent.org/fathers/0207.htm
This does not STATE Peter is in authority OVER the whole Christian church as a Pope or that there is succession in equal authority to be passed on. Peter was one who Jesus addressed, but remember Matthew 18 and John 20 that the leadership authority was unto all the apostles. Thanks for trying.
@@BereanPerspectiveApologetics If you are looking for that specific custom made phrase, you never going to find it. But if you use common sense the evidence is all over the place, and it is. Peace out! I've got better thing to do...
List of POPES (33 A.D. - 2013)
1. St. Peter (33-67)
2. St. Linus (67-76)
3. St. Anacletus (Cletus) (76-88)
4. St. Clement I (88-97)
5. St. Evaristus (97-105)
6. St. Alexander I (105-115)
7. St. Sixtus I (115-125)
8. St. Telesphorus (125-136)
9. St. Hyginus (136-140)
10. St. Pius I (140-155)
11. St. Anicetus (155-166)
12. St. Soter (166-175)
13. St. Eleutherius (175-189)
14. St. Victor I (189-199)
15. St. Zephyrinus (199-217)
16. St. Callistus I (217-222)
Callistus and the following three popes were opposed by St. Hippolytus, antipope (217-236)
17. St. Urban I (222-230)
18. St. Pontain (230-235)
19. St. Anterus (235-236)
20. St. Fabian (236-250)
21. St. Cornelius (251-253)
Opposed by Novatian, antipope (251)
22. St. Lucius I (253-254)
23. St. Stephen I (254-257)
24. St. Sixtus II (257-258)
25. St. Dionysius (260-268)
26. St. Felix I (269-274)
27. St. Eutychian (275-283)
28. St. Caius (283-296)
29. St. Marcellinus (296-304)
30. St. Marcellus I (308-309)
31. St. Eusebius (309-310)
32. St. Miltiades (311-314)
33. St. Sylvester I (314-335)
34. St. Marcus (336)
35. St. Julius I (337-352)
36. Liberius (352-366)
Opposed by Felix II, antipope (355-365)
37. St. Damasus I (366-84)
Opposed by Ursicinus, antipope (366-367)
38. St. Siricius (384-399)
39. St. Anastasius I (399-401)
40. St. Innocent I (401-417)
41. St. Zosimus (417-418)
42. St. Boniface I (418-422)
Opposed by Eulalius, antipope (418-419)
43. St. Celestine I (422-432)
44. St. Sixtus III (432-440)
45. St. Leo I (the Great) (440-461)
46. St. Hilarius (461-468)
47. St. Simplicius (468-483)
48. St. Felix III (II) (483-492)
49. St. Gelasius I (492-496)
50. Anastasius II (496-498)
51. St. Symmachus (498-514)
Opposed by Laurentius, antipope (498-501)
52. St. Hormisdas (514-523)
53. St. John I (523-526)
54. St. Felix IV (III) (526-530)
55. Boniface II (530-532)
Opposed by Dioscorus, antipope (530)
56. John II (533-535)
57. St. Agapetus I (535-536)
58. St. Silverius (536-537)
59. Vigilius (537-555)
60. Pelagius I (556-561)
61. John III (561-574)
62. Benedict I (575-579)
63. Pelagius II (579-590)
64. St. Gregory I (the Great) (590-604)
65. Sabinian (604-606)
66. Boniface III (607)
67. St. Boniface IV (608-615)
68. St. Deusdedit (Adeodatus I) (615-618)
69. Boniface V (619-625)
70. Honorius I (625-638)
71. Severinus (640)
72. John IV (640-642)
73. Theodore I (642-649)
74. St. Martin I (649-655)
75. St. Eugene I (655-657)
76. St. Vitalian (657-672)
77. Adeodatus II (672-676)
78. Donus (676-678)
79. St. Agatho (678-681)
80. St. Leo II (682-683)
81. St. Benedict II (684-685)
82. John V (685-686)
83. Conon (686-687)
84. St. Sergius I (687-701)
Opposed by Theodore and Paschal, antipopes (687)
85. John VI (701-705)
86. John VII (705-707)
87. Sisinnius (708)
88. Constantine (708-715)
89. St. Gregory II (715-731)
90. St. Gregory III (731-741)
91. St. Zachary (741-752)
Stephen II followed Zachary, but because he died before being consecrated, modern lists omit him
92. Stephen II (III) (752-757)
93. St. Paul I (757-767)
94. Stephen III (IV) (767-772)
Opposed by Constantine II (767) and Philip (768), antipopes (767)
95. Adrian I (772-795)
96. St. Leo III (795-816)
97. Stephen IV (V) (816-817)
98. St. Paschal I (817-824)
99. Eugene II (824-827)
100. Valentine (827)
101. Gregory IV (827-844)
102. Sergius II (844-847)
Opposed by John, antipope
103. St. Leo IV (847-855)
104. Benedict III (855-858)
Opposed by Anastasius, antipope (855)
105. St. Nicholas I (the Great) (858-867)
106. Adrian II (867-872)
107. John VIII (872-882)
108. Marinus I (882-884)
109. St. Adrian III (884-885)
110. Stephen V (VI) (885-891)
111. Formosus (891-896)
112. Boniface VI (896)
113. Stephen VI (VII) (896-897)
114. Romanus (897)
115. Theodore II (897)
116. John IX (898-900)
117. Benedict IV (900-903)
118. Leo V (903)
Opposed by Christopher, antipope (903-904)
119. Sergius III (904-911)
120. Anastasius III (911-913)
121. Lando (913-914)
122. John X (914-928)
123. Leo VI (928)
124. Stephen VIII (929-931)
125. John XI (931-935)
126. Leo VII (936-939)
127. Stephen IX (939-942)
128. Marinus II (942-946)
129. Agapetus II (946-955)
130. John XII (955-963)
131. Leo VIII (963-964)
132. Benedict V (964)
133. John XIII (965-972)
134. Benedict VI (973-974)
135. Benedict VII (974-983)
Benedict VII and John XIV were opposed by Boniface VII, antipope (974; 984-985)
136. John XIV (983-984)
137. John XV (985-996)
138. Gregory V (996-999)
Opposed by John XVI, antipope (997-998)
139. Sylvester II (999-1003)
140. John XVII (1003)
141. John XVIII (1003-1009)
142. Sergius IV (1009-1012)
143. Benedict VIII (1012-1024)
Opposed by Gregory, antipope (1012)
144. John XIX (1024-1032)
145. Benedict IX (1032-1045)
He appears on this list three separate times, because he was twice deposed and restored
146. Sylvester III (1045)
Considered by some to be an antipope
147. Benedict IX (1045)
148. Gregory VI (1045-1046)
149. Clement II (1046-1047)
150. Benedict IX (1047-1048)
151. Damasus II (1048)
152. St. Leo IX (1049-1054)
153. Victor II (1055-1057)
154. Stephen X (1057-1058)
155. Nicholas II (1058-61)
Opposed by Benedict X, antipope (1058)
156. Alexander II (1061-73)
Opposed by Honorius II, antipope (1061-1072)
157. St. Gregory VII (1073-85)
Gregory and the following three popes were opposed by Guibert ("Clement III"), antipope (1080-1100)
158. Blessed Victor III (1086-1087)
159. Blessed Urban II (1088-1099)
160. Paschal II (1099-1118)
Opposed by Theodoric (1100), Aleric (1102) and Maginulf ("Sylvester IV", 1105-1111), antipopes
161. Gelasius II (1118-1119)
Opposed by Burdin ("Gregory VIII"), antipope (1118)
162. Callistus II (1119-1124)
163. Honorius II (1124-1130)
Opposed by Celestine II, antipope (1124)
164. Innocent II (1130-1143)
Opposed by Anacletus II (1130-1138) and Gregory Conti ("Victor IV") (1138), antipopes (1138)
165. Celestine II (1143-1144)
166. Lucius II (1144-1145)
167. Blessed Eugene III (1145-1153)
168. Anastasius IV (1153-1154)
169. Adrian IV (1154-1159)
170. Alexander III (1159-81)
Opposed by Octavius ("Victor IV") (1159-1164), Pascal III (1165-1168), Callistus III (1168-1177) and Innocent III (1178-1180), antipopes
171. Lucius III (1181-1185)
172. Urban III (1185-1187)
173. Gregory VIII (1187)
174. Clement III (1187-1191)
175. Celestine III (1191-1198)
176. Innocent III (1198-1216)
177. Honorius III (1216-1227)
178. Gregory IX (1227-1241)
179. Celestine IV (1241)
180. Innocent IV (1243-1254)
181. Alexander IV (1254-1261)
182. Urban IV (1261-1264)
183. Clement IV (1265-1268)
184. Blessed Gregory X (1271-1276)
185. Blessed Innocent V (1276)
186. Adrian V (1276)
187. John XXI (1276-1277)
188. Nicholas III (1277-1280)
189. Martin IV (1281-1285)
190. Honorius IV (1285-1287)
191. Nicholas IV (1288-1292)
192. St. Celestine V (1294)
193. Boniface VIII (1294-1303)
194. Blessed Benedict XI (1303-1304)
195. Clement V (1305-1314)
196. John XXII (1316-1334)
Opposed by Nicholas V, antipope (1328-1330)
197. Benedict XII (1334-1342)
198. Clement VI (1342-1352)
199. Innocent VI (1352-1362)
200. Blessed Urban V (1362-1370)
201. Gregory XI (1370-1378)
202. Urban VI (1378-1389)
Opposed by Robert of Geneva ("Clement VII"), antipope (1378-1394)
203. Boniface IX (1389-1404)
Opposed by Robert of Geneva ("Clement VII") (1378-1394), Pedro de Luna ("Benedict XIII") (1394-1417) and Baldassare Cossa ("John XXIII") (1400-1415), antipopes
204. Innocent VII (1404-1406)
Opposed by Pedro de Luna ("Benedict XIII")
(1394-1417) and Baldassare Cossa ("John XXIII") (1400-1415), antipopes
205. Gregory XII (1406-1415) Opposed by Pedro de Luna ("Benedict XIII") (1394-1417), Baldassare Cossa ("John XXIII") (1400-1415), and Pietro Philarghi ("Alexander V") (1409-1410), antipopes
206. Martin V (1417-1431)
207. Eugene IV (1431-1447)
Opposed by Amadeus of Savoy ("Felix V"), antipope (1439-1449)
208. Nicholas V (1447-1455)
209. Callistus III (1455-1458)
210. Pius II (1458-1464)
211. Paul II (1464-1471)
212. Sixtus IV (1471-1484)
213. Innocent VIII (1484-1492)
214. Alexander VI (1492-1503)
215. Pius III (1503)
216. Julius II (1503-1513)
217. Leo X (1513-1521)
218. Adrian VI (1522-1523)
219. Clement VII (1523-1534)
220. Paul III (1534-1549)
221. Julius III (1550-1555)
222. Marcellus II (1555)
223. Paul IV (1555-1559)
224. Pius IV (1559-1565)
225. St. Pius V (1566-1572)
226. Gregory XIII (1572-1585)
227. Sixtus V (1585-1590)
228. Urban VII (1590)
229. Gregory XIV (1590-1591)
230. Innocent IX (1591)
231. Clement VIII (1592-1605)
232. Leo XI (1605)
233. Paul V (1605-1621)
234. Gregory XV (1621-1623)
235. Urban VIII (1623-1644)
236. Innocent X (1644-1655)
237. Alexander VII (1655-1667)
238. Clement IX (1667-1669)
239. Clement X (1670-1676)
240. Blessed Innocent XI (1676-1689)
241. Alexander VIII (1689-1691)
242. Innocent XII (1691-1700)
243. Clement XI (1700-1721)
244. Innocent XIII (1721-1724)
245. Benedict XIII (1724-1730)
246. Clement XII (1730-1740)
247. Benedict XIV (1740-1758)
248. Clement XIII (1758-1769)
249. Clement XIV (1769-1774)
250. Pius VI (1775-1799)
251. Pius VII (1800-1823)
252. Leo XII (1823-1829)
253. Pius VIII (1829-1830)
254. Gregory XVI (1831-1846)
255. Blessed Pius IX (1846-1878)
256. Leo XIII (1878-1903)
257. St. Pius X (1903-1914)
258. Benedict XV (1914-1922)
259. Pius XI (1922-1939)
260. Pius XII (1939-1958)
261. St. John XXIII (1958-1963)
262. Paul VI (1963-1978)
263. John Paul I (1978)
264 St. John Paul II (1978-2005)
265. Benedict XVI (2005-2013)
266. Francis (2013 - )
Is it worth sharing😀?
Cyprian of Carthage
“The Lord says to Peter: ‘I say to you,’ he says, ‘that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not overcome it. . . . ’ [Matt. 16:18]. On him [Peter] he builds the Church, and to him he gives the command to feed the sheep [John 21:17], and although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single chair [cathedra], and he established by his own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity. . . . If someone [today] 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?” (The Unity of the Catholic Church 4; first edition [A.D. 251]).
Roman Catholic scholar Richard P. McBrien concedes, “from the New Testament record alone, we have no basis for positing a line of succession from Peter through subsequent bishops of Rome” (Richard P. McBrien, Catholicism: Completely Revised& Updated, [HarperCollins, 1994], p. 753).
I would hope that a 3rd century Church Father’s identifying the seat of Rome as a unifying force for the whole Church should be afforded more weight than a 20th century historian arguing to the contrary.
@@michaeldulman5487 McBrien is right.
Go read the actual reference please: "4. If any one consider and examine these things, there is no need for lengthened discussion and arguments. There is easy proof for faith in a short summary of the truth. The Lord speaks to Peter, saying, I say unto you, that you are Peter; and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give unto you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatsoever you shall bind on earth shall be bound also in heaven, and whatsoever you shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. And again to the same He says, after His resurrection, Feed my sheep. And although to all the apostles, after His resurrection, He gives an equal power, and says, As the Father has sent me, even so send I you: Receive the Holy Ghost: Whose soever sins you remit, they shall be remitted unto him; and whose soever sins you retain, they shall be retained; John 20:21 yet, that He might set forth unity, He arranged by His authority the origin of that unity, as beginning from one. Assuredly the rest of the apostles were also the same as was Peter, endowed with a like partnership both of honour and power; but the beginning proceeds from unity. Which one Church, also, the Holy Spirit in the Song of Songs designated in the person of our Lord, and says, My dove, my spotless one, is but one. She is the only one of her mother, elect of her that bare her. Song of Songs 6:9 Does he who does not hold this unity of the Church think that he holds the faith? Does he who strives against and resists the Church trust that he is in the Church, when moreover the blessed Apostle Paul teaches the same thing, and sets forth the sacrament of unity, saying, There is one body and one spirit, one hope of your calling, one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God? Ephesians 4:4" www.newadvent.org/fathers/050701.htm
Notice it says here equal authority and and partnership was given to all the apostles! Please actually read the sources yourselves and stop just reading what the so called Catholic sites cut and paste. This quote refutes the claim that Peter was the MAIN leader in authority OVER the whole Christian church.
I wish you would address two things: (1) only Peter being described as being given the keys (an allusion to Shebna from the Old Testament) and (2) Cyprian of Carthage’s explicitly identifying Peter as the one to whom Christians need be united. These are two points that I feel need to be addressed in your critique, as they appear to be unique to Peter and (per Cyprian of Carthage and other Church Fathers) to Peter’s successors.
Since, however, it would be very tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon up the successions of all the Churches, we do put to confusion all those who, in whatever manner, whether by an evil self-pleasing, by vainglory, or by blindness and perverse opinion, assemble in unauthorized meetings; [we do this, I say,] by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its preeminent authority.
The blessed apostles, then, having founded and built up the Church, committed into the hands of Linus the office of the episcopate. Of this Linus, Paul makes mention in the Epistles to Timothy. To him succeeded Anacletus; and after him, in the third place from the apostles, Clement was allotted the bishopric. This man, as he had seen the blessed apostles, and had been conversant with them, might be said to have the preaching of the apostles still echoing [in his ears], and their traditions before his eyes. Nor was he alone [in this], for there were many still remaining who had received instructions from the apostles. In the time of this Clement, no small dissension having occurred among the brethren at Corinth, the Church in Rome dispatched a most powerful letter to the Corinthians, exhorting them to peace, renewing their faith, and declaring the tradition which it had lately received from the apostles, proclaiming the one God, omnipotent, the Maker of heaven and earth, the Creator of man, who brought on the deluge, and called Abraham, who led the people from the land of Egypt, spoke with Moses, set forth the law, sent the prophets, and who has prepared fire for the devil and his angels. From this document, whosoever chooses to do so, may learn that He, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, was preached by the Churches, and may also understand the apostolic tradition of the Church, since this Epistle is of older date than these men who are now propagating falsehood, and who conjure into existence another god beyond the Creator and the Maker of all existing things. To this Clement there succeeded Evaristus. Alexander followed Evaristus; then, sixth from the apostles, Sixtus was appointed; after him, Telephorus, who was gloriously martyred; then Hyginus; after him, Pius; then after him, Anicetus. Soter having succeeded Anicetus, Eleutherius does now, in the twelfth place from the apostles, hold the inheritance of the episcopate. In this order, and by this succession, the ecclesiastical tradition from the apostles, and the preaching of the truth, have come down to us. And this is most abundant proof that there is one and the same vivifying faith, which has been preserved in the Church from the apostles until now, and handed down in truth.
Iraneus, Against Heresies Book 3, 189ad
The petro and Petra argument is ridiculous. Why would the author give Peter a feminine name ? In John 1:42 Jesus called Peter Cephas which is a sizeable stone, so that argument is ridiculous. Before I made the decision to join the Catholic Church I knew this was ludicrous.
TATIAN THE SYRIAN
Simon Cephas answered and said, “You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.” Jesus answered and said unto him, “Blessed are you, Simon, son of Jonah: flesh and blood has not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven. And I say unto thee also, that you are Cephas, and on this rock will I build my Church; and the gates of hades shall not prevail against it” [Diatesseron 23 (c. A.D. 170)].
TERTULLIAN OF CARTHAGE
Was anything withheld from the knowledge of Peter, who is called “the rock on which the Church would be built” [Mt 16:18] with the power of “loosing and binding in heaven and on earth? [Mt 16:19]” [Prescription Against Heretics 22 (c. A.D. 200)].
[T]he Lord said to Peter, “On this rock I will build my Church, I have given you the keys of the kingdom of heaven [and] whatever you shall have bound or loosed on earth will be bound or loosed in heaven” [Mt 16:18-19]. . . . What kind of man are you, subverting and changing what was the clear intent of the Lord when he himself conferred this upon Peter? Upon you, he says, I will build my Church; and I will give to you the keys [Modesty 21 (c. A.D. 220)].
ORIGEN OF ALEXANDRIA
Look at [Peter], the great foundation of the Church, that most solid of rocks, upon whom Christ built the Church [Mt 16:18]. And what does our Lord say to him? “O you of little faith,” he says, “why do you doubt?” [Mt 14:31] [Homilies on Exodus 5:4 (c. A.D. 249)].
ST. CYPRIAN OF CARTHAGE
The Lord says to Peter: “I say to you,” he says, “that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not overcome it. And to you I will give the keys of the kingdom of heaven . . .” [Mt 16:18-19]. On him he builds the Church, and commands him to feed the sheep [Jn 21:17], and although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single chair [cathedra], and he established by his own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity. Indeed, the others were also what Peter was [apostles], but a primacy is given to Peter, by which it is made clear that there is one Church and one chair. . . . If someone does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he think that he holds the faith? If he deserts the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he be confident that he is in the Church? [Unity of the Catholic Church 4; first edition (Treatise 1:4) (A.D. 251)].
There is one God, and Christ is one, and there is one Church, and one chair founded upon the rock by the word of the Lord. Another altar cannot be constituted nor a new priesthood be made, except the one altar and the one priesthood. Whosoever gathers elsewhere, scatters [Letters 39:5 (A.D. 251)].
Peter, on whom the Church was to be built, speaks there [Jn 6:67-69], teaching and showing in the name of the Church, that although a rebellious and arrogant multitude of those who will not hear and obey may depart, yet the Church does not depart from Christ; and they are the Church who are a people united to the priest, and the flock that adheres to its pastor. You ought to know that the bishop is in the Church, and the Church in the bishop; and if anyone be not with the bishop, then he is not in the Church, nor those who flatter themselves in vain and creep in, not having peace with God’s priests, and think that they communicate secretly with some; while the Church, which is Catholic and one, is not cut nor divided, but is indeed connected and bound together by the cement of priests who cohere with one another [Letters 68:8 (A.D. 254)].
FIRMILIAN OF CAESAREA
But his error . . . [for he] who does not remain on the foundation of the one Church founded upon the rock by Christ [Mt 16:18], can be learned from this, which Christ said only to Peter: “Whatever things you shall bind on earth shall be bound also in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth, they shall be loosed in heaven” [Mt 16:19] [quoted in St. Cyprian’s Letters 74:16 (c. A.D. 255)].
[Pope] Stephen [I] . . . boasts of the place of his episcopate, and contends that he holds the succession from Peter, on whom the foundations of the Church were laid [Mt 16:18]. . . . [Pope] Stephen . . . announces that he holds by succession the throne of Peter [ibid., 74:17 (c. A.D. 255)].
LETTER OF CLEMENT TO JAMES
Be it known to you, my lord, that Simon [Peter], who, for the sake of the true faith, and the sure foundation of his doctrine, was set apart to be the foundation of the Church, and for this end was, by Jesus himself, with his truthful mouth, named Peter [Letter of Clement to James 2 (c. A.D. 290)].
CLEMENTINE HOMILIES
[Simon Peter said to Simon Magus in Rome:] “For you now stand in direct opposition to me, who am a firm rock, the foundation of the Church” [Mt 16:18] [Clementine Homilies 17:19 (c. A.D. 290)].
ST. OPTATUS OF MILEVIS
You cannot then deny that you do know that upon Peter first in the city of Rome was bestowed the episcopal cathedra, on which sat Peter, the head of all the apostles (for which reason he was called Cephas), that, in this one cathedra, unity should be preserved by all [Schism of the Donatists 2:2 (c. A.D. 367)].
Please don’t delete ❤
Thank you for sharing. I have went to these sources online before 300AD and I encourage you to do the same. You copied and pasted from a Catholic site and these references do not address or answer my Catholic Challenge. None of these state Peter is in authority OVER the whole Christian church, much less there would be people after him to take his exact position in authority OVER the whole Christian church. Thank you for trying.
@@iggyantiochneither does every church father agree with eachother. Tatian forbade marriage and eating meat and joined a cult called the encratites which was condemned in 1 Timothy 4:1-4, you know rcc and eo use this mans teaching on many of their doctrines and also mentioned in the above post by the rcc member.
@@BereanPerspectiveApologetics Says the guy reading from protestant sites that do eisegesis, not exegesis.
All those reference address your challenge perfectly.
@@GranMaese Again, another Catholic (crack)pot calling the kettle black.
To start with, you're asking a question to be answered literally by a church father using scriptures alone or sola scriptura. And your parameter is if it agrees of what you think.
It's like asking you the same kind of question of where you can find in the bible its table of contents written in scriptures. So, if you can not answer that question, then your faith is false.
But Just this one already answers your question.
The reference (verses) of what this church father is teaching/saying/writing that is in the bible is open and closed parentheses.
Tertullian
“Was anything withheld from the knowledge of Peter, who is called ‘the rock on which the Church would be built’ [Matt. 16:18] with the power of ‘loosing and binding in heaven and on earth’ [Matt. 16:19]?” (Demurrer Against the Heretics 22 [A.D. 200]).
“[T]he Lord said to Peter, ‘On this rock I will build my Church, I have given you the keys of the kingdom of heaven [and] whatever you shall have bound or loosed on earth will be bound or loosed in heaven’ [Matt. 16:18-19]. . . . What kind of man are you, subverting and changing what was the manifest intent of the Lord when he conferred this personally upon Peter? Upon you, he says, I will build my Church; and I will give to you the keys” (Modesty 21:9-10 [A.D. 220]).
Apostolic succession is explicit in Scripture and historical record.
The idea that the bishop of rome has authority over all was a doctrine that developed over time.
It was developed by the successors to the apostles--the bishops--over time.
Just like other doctrines that have developed over time under the leadership of the successors to the apostles.
Of course this gentleman in this video rejects apostolic succession so he is going to reject any doctrine that developed over time under their leadership.
Starting from what point in time? Don't infer anything, I want solid proof. You don't even have definitive evidence that Peter was ever in Rome.
St Irenaeus Against Heresies Book 3 Chapter 2 (circa AD 180)
Since, however, it would be very tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon up the successions of all the Churches, we do put to confusion all those who, in whatever manner, whether by an evil self-pleasing, by vainglory, or by blindness and perverse opinion, assemble in unauthorized meetings; [we do this, I say,] by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its preeminent authority [potiorem principalitatem].
Tertullian 200 A.D. The Demurrer against Heretics
But if there be any (heresies) which are bold enough to plant themselves in the midst of the apostolic age, that they may thereby seem to have been handed down by the apostles, because they existed in the time of the apostles, we can say: Let them produce the original records of their churches; let them unfold the roll of their bishops, running down in due succession from the beginning in such a manner that [that first bishop of theirs] bishop shall be able to show for his ordainer and predecessor some one of the apostles or of apostolic men,-a man, moreover, who continued stedfast with the apostles. For this is the manner in which the apostolic churches transmit their registers: as the church of Smyrna, which records that Polycarp was placed therein by John; as also the church of Rome, which makes Clement to have been ordained in like manner by Peter. In exactly the same way the other churches likewise exhibit (their several worthies), whom, as having been appointed to their episcopal places by apostles, they regard as transmitters of the apostolic seed. Let the heretics contrive something of the same kind. For after their blasphemy, what is there that is unlawful for them (to attempt)? But should they even effect the contrivance, they will not advance a step. For their very doctrine, after comparison with that of the apostles, will declare, by its own diversity and contrariety, that it had for its author neither an apostle nor an apostolic man; because, as the apostles would never have taught things which were self-contradictory, so the apostolic men would not have inculcated teaching different from the apostles, unless they who received their instruction from the apostles went and preached in a contrary manner. To this test, therefore will they be submitted for proof by those churches, who, although they derive not their founder from apostles or apostolic men (as being of much later date, for they are in fact being founded daily), yet, since they agree in the same faith, they are accounted as not less apostolic because they are akin in doctrine. Then let all the heresies, when challenged to these two tests by our apostolic church, offer their proof of how they deem themselves to be apostolic. But in truth they neither are so, nor are they able to prove themselves to be what they are not. Nor are they admitted to peaceful relations and communion by such churches as are in any way connected with apostles, inasmuch as they are in no sense themselves apostolic because of their diversity as to the mysteries of the faith.
This does not state Peter was the person in authority OVER the WHOLE Christian church, and that his authority was to be passed on to someone else over and over. In fact it shows the very opposite that there were others who were bishops. Thanks for trying.
@@BereanPerspectiveApologetics If the Roman church "holds the PRESIDENCY" as Ignatius states in 110, I would say that that one is in charge. And writing 70 years later Irenaeus writes "the most ancient church...organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul, that church . With that church, because of its superior origin, ALL CHURCH'S MUST AGREE." If all church's must agree with the Roman church, I would say that that the Roman church is in charge. Furthermore, that same paragraph notes that the bishops at Rome are the successors of Peter and Paul. They are the bishops or overseers of the church that all others must agree with.
@@BereanPerspectiveApologetics
This is quite a little game of Jeopardy you get to be the Alex Trebec of, isnt it.
You come up with an anti-Catholic talking point du jour, you review relevant comments from Church Fathers on that point and then establish a criteria thats slightly too narrow for their comments to reach and then you go out and "prove" that your ridiculous position is correct and that you've "won" the argument.
This is just dishonest.
There was an issue with the congregation of the Corinthians who got rid of there bishops and of course tbis congregation is closer to Constantinople and Antioch but it was Clement 1 bishop ( Pope ) of Rome which he went outside his jurisdiction as he sent a letter to the Corinthians to take these bishops back . That recognition was there
And of course with time things do change when the apostles had died it was Ignatius a student of John paved the way for bishops from the scriptual Presbyter and Deacon . Why ? Because of the phenomenal growth for the support of the congregations . And this is true when the title of the first pope was in Alexandria and was known as father of fathers again because of the phenomenal growth of Christians. But the pope in Alexandria never claimed to be the pope of all , only in his region . If you look into the early history you will see that the change came out of peace from persecution so they had the freedoms to establish themselves. Within the community and doctrine
Irenaeus.
Kindly show from Matthew 16:13-19 where Jesus says or the verses say that Peter's confession is the rock.
Pope comes from the Greek word ‘pappas’ meaning ‘papa’. There were popes of Alexandria, Antioch, Constantinople, Jerusalem and Rome. The primacy of the Roman Pope, or papa, was recognised by the other apostolic churches but Paul also recognises the special position of Rome when he says in Romans 1:8 “your faith is proclaimed throughout the world” and at 15:20 “…so that I do not build on someone else’s foundation.” The ‘someone else’ who laid this foundation renown ‘throughout the world’ was of course Peter. (1Peter 5:13, “He who is at Babylon [the ancient code name for Rome among the followers] who is likewise chosen, sends you greetings, and so does Mark my son.”)
Papa means father, and Jesus said call no man father for you have One Father Who is in Heaven. God is my Papa. And we are all brethren. So I will not call any RC bishop a pope.
@@SeekTheCross You must have one of those very thin one-verse-wonder bibles! Jesus does indeed say to call no man father at Mt 23:9. In the verse immediately before (23:8) he also says to call no one ‘teacher’ and in the verse after (23:10) he says no one is to be called an ‘instructor’. (Did you not call the person at the front of the class 'teacher' when you went to school?). You have no context to your quote. Jesus was speaking about the Pharisees in a 36 verse condemnation of their hypocrisy. How does your one verse interpretation explain St Stephen, the first Christian Martyr, calling the people in the crowd, ‘Fathers’ in Acts 7:2, or Paul describing himself as our father in 1 Corinthians 4:16? Both David and Abraham are described as being our father in the New Testament. You need to go beyond a single verse to understand context.
@@notaholyjoebutworkingonit so then, why does Jesus say this?
@@iggyantioch it arrogance was a person
@@SeekTheCross Did you not bother to read my post? The context is in the 36 verse condemnation of the Pharisees.
Origen Commentary on the Gospel of John Book V Chapter 3
But he who was made fit to be a minister of the New Covenant, not of the letter, but of the spirit, Paul, who fulfilled the Gospel from Jerusalem round about to Illyricum, did not write epistles to all the churches he taught, and to those to whom he did write he sent no more than a few lines. And Peter, on whom the Church of Christ is built, against which the gates of hell shall not prevail left only one epistle of acknowledged genuineness.
So what? What does that prove? It only proves that they didn’t write about it. You might want to consider taking a high school logic class.
WOW! Just WOW. Are you not seeing what is coming out the colleges today? Logic? Bwahahahahahaha.
Your interpretation of scripture is meaningless, as no where in scripture is it clearly stated by the standard you hold to Peter. You simply fall back on claiming there is a misunderstanding of a word as the Protestant position. You ignore Christ spoke Aramaic, and there is only Rock, claiming the translation however does not call Peter a women is meaningful. This has been refuted for years.
(The Church at Corinth writes for help to Pope Clement 1000 miles away instead of the Apostle John who was alive in Ephesus only 250 miles away. In the letter he expects them to submit the proper authority).
Ignatius of Antioch Epistle to the Romans preface [50-117 AD]
"Ignatius . . . to the church also which holds the presidency, in the location of the country of the Romans, worthy of God, worthy of honor, worthy of blessing, worthy of praise, worthy of success, worthy of sanctification, and, because you hold the presidency in love, named after Christ and named after the Father"
Tertullian Prescription Against Heretics ch 22 (160- 240 ad)
Was anything withheld from the knowledge of Peter, who is called "the rock on which the church should be built," who also obtained "the keys of the kingdom of heaven," with the power of "loosing and binding in heaven and on earth?"
Caius Fragment 2 AGAINST THE HERESY OF ARTEMON ch 1 (180-240 ad)
For they say that all those of the first age, and the apostles themselves, both received and taught those things which these men now maintain; and that the truth of Gospel preaching was preserved until the times of Victor, who was the thirteenth bishop in Rome from Peter,
Cyprian of Carthage Epistle 45 par 2 [200-270 AD]
We," they say, "know that Cornelius is bishop of the most holy Catholic Church elected by Almighty God, and by Christ our Lord. We confess our error; we have suffered imposture; we were deceived by captious perfidy and loquacity. For although we seemed, as it were, to have held a kind of communion with a man who was a schismatic and a heretic, yet our mind was always sincere in the Church. For we are not ignorant that there is one God; that there is one Christ the Lord whom we have confessed, and one Holy Spirit; and that in the Catholic Church there ought to be one bishop."
Easy. Matthew 16:18.
Now, you say that's not what that verse means. But what authority are you, or any other Protestant, invoking to prove that is or isn’t the proper interpretation?
Are you claiming to be infallible?
Are you saying that someone other than a Catholic can not be scholars in the biblical languages of Greek, Aramaic and Hebrew?
@@DashRiprock-m3b Not at all. Many people can be scholars of linguistics. Are you saying if someone is a linguistic scholar they are automatically infallible in Christian doctrine?
@@CantStopTheMattWalsh You should stop while you're ahead. I'm an ex-Catholic who knows what you believe. The Catholic Church is not infallible by any means regarding doctrine.
@@DashRiprock-m3b I'll take the compliment that the Catholic stance is superior. Thank you for that. By your own admission, you defected to the losing side.
@@CantStopTheMattWalsh Like most Catholic Doctrines, You go and infer that I admitted defeat. Far from it.
"... you defected to the losing side." This is why I left the RCC, their arrogance is beyond comprehension.
Here is my take on Matthew 16, whether it is Petros or Petra, it cant deny the fact that our Lord built his church on it. Even if it were a mere pebble, still our Lord can do it. who are we To put the standard and limitation on our Lord?. Have we ever humble ourselves and asking our Lord, "LORD WHERE IS YOUR CHURCH THAT YOU HAVE BUILT ON PETER BCZ YOU HAVE SAID THAT THE GATES OF HELL CANNOT PREVAIL IT"
Cool 😎
So to be clear, because you put a lot of restrictions on this, if a church father said a Church had the highest authority then you wouldn’t accept that? You are looking for specifically someone being called the highest authority? I would reject that because Peter was his church in Rome, that was his office.
You're don't seem to be searching for truth but for clicks!
But I'd show you exactly what you have requested in your challenge as soon as you are able to show me where the word Bible can be found in the Bible and show me any of the early Church fathers that used the word.
@@jamesfrazier5148 Lol...I don't get. Could you clarify what you mean?
Malachi 2:7 It is the duty of PRIESTS to teach the true knowledge of God. People should go to them to learn my will, because they are the messengers of the Lord Almighty.
The name “Berean Perspective” demonstrates how the creator mishandles Scripture from the outset. In Protestant circles (in which I was for 40+ years), it is very common to cite St. Luke’s praise for the Berean Jews as clear evidence that all doctrine and Christian teaching can and must be found in the pages of Scripture. That is not the context of the passage in Acts 17 at all. St. Luke praises the Berean Jews because they listened to St. Paul, who cited (OT) Scripture and then went back to see if Paul quoted the Scriptures correctly. People didn’t have copies of the Scriptures that they could carry around and, not being trained Pharisees like Paul, they didn’t have vast passages of OT Scripture memorized. Instead of being like the Thessalonian Jews and starting a riot before even trying to check Paul’s sources, the Bereans, being more “noble” did check Paul’s sources and found that he, indeed, had cited the Scriptures properly. Paul cited Scripture because it was a common authority between him and his audience. Protestants may way too much of the Bereans because it’s a cheap means of bolstering their claims about “Sola Scriptura.”
In answer to the question in the video: Irenaeus of Lyon in “Against Heresies,” book 3, chapt 3, sect 3 -
"The blessed apostles, then, having founded and built up the Church, committed into the hands of Linus the office of the episcopate. Of this Linus, Paul makes mention in the Epistles to Timothy. To him succeeded Anacletus; and after him, in the third place from the apostles, Clement was allotted the bishopric. This man, as he had seen the blessed apostles and had been conversant with them, might be said to have the preaching of the apostles still echoing [in his ears], and their traditions before his eyes. Nor was he alone [in this], for there were many still remaining who had received instructions from the apostles. In the time of this Clement, no small dissension having occurred among the brethren at Corinth, the Church in Rome dispatched a most powerful letter to the Corinthians, exhorting them to peace, renewing their faith, and declaring the tradition which it had lately received from the apostles, proclaiming the one God, omnipotent, the Maker of heaven and earth, the Creator of man, who brought on the deluge, and called Abraham, who led the people from the land of Egypt, spoke with Moses, set forth the law, sent the prophets, and who has prepared fire for the devil and his angels. From this document, whosoever chooses to do so, may learn that He, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, was preached by the churches, and may also understand the apostolic tradition of the Church, since this Epistle is of older date than these men who are now propagating falsehood, and who conjure into existence another god beyond the Creator and the Maker of all existing things. To this Clement there succeeded Evaristus. Alexander followed Evaristus; then, sixth from the apostles, Sixtus was appointed; after him, Telephorus, who was gloriously martyred; then Hyginus; after him, Pius; then after him, Anicetus; Soter having succeeded Anicetus, Eleutherius does now, in the twelfth place from the apostles, hold the inheritance of the episcopate. In this order, and by this succession, the ecclesiastical tradition from the apostles, and the preaching of the truth, have come down to us. And this is most abundant proof that there is one and the same vivifying faith, which has been preserved in the Church from the apostles until now, and handed down in truth."
@@jamesfrazier5148 this is the most bizarre interpretation of that passage I have ever heard. Fortunately, there is no divine authority that declares this interpretation valid, so I don’t have to entertain it.
@@jamesfrazier5148 apparently you need to take your own advice.
@@jamesfrazier5148 funny how your arguments go from Scriptural to emotional in a heartbeat.
@@jamesfrazier5148 there is an undefined, possibly very long, period of time between verses 20 and 21. The context makes it pretty clear that Christ's giving of "the keys to the kingdom of heaven," and "Get behind me satan," did not occur in the same event.
@@jamesfrazier5148 there is absolutely no historical evidence that the Church ever interpreted that event as you do. But..."Sola Scriptura" allows anyone to interpret anything any way they like. No one can argue with you because you'll just say, "I've been convinced by the Spirit that this is the proper interpretation."
I can say the same thing to you. Show me one Scripture just one that says calvery Chapel is the true church. Or one just one Scripture giving chuck Smith the authority to start his own church..
The body of Christ is the one true church, which started in the first century believers who are born again and followers of Jesus Christ Acts 2, 1 Corinthians 12:12-13, Romans 12:4-5, Galatians 3:28, 1 Peter 1:3-12, 1 Peter 2:9, 1 John 5:1-5, etc. Chuck Smith did not start a church he was a pastor (Ephesians 4:11-16, 1 Corinthians 12:11, Acts 20:28) of a church that later became a movement in the 60-70 as the Jesus Revolution which changed the world and thousands of people became Christians. Good grief what joke your comments are smh 🤦♂️
@@BereanPerspectiveApologetics The Reformation was more of a deformation since it caused Christianity to splinter into thousands of groups or denominations. Jesus prayer in John 17 of being one does not exist today because people I know do not even try to find a church because they don't know where to go. Even non Christians know so-called churches fight against each other by teaching different doctrines. Paul said he taught the same thing in all the churches 1stCorinthians chapter 4. That's not being done today. God is not the author of confusion but of peace. When people drive up and down the street and see all these different churches teaching different things that is not piece it's confusion I can even tell you that the way you look at John 3:5 is not orthodox no it's not amniotic fluid.
Matthew 16:18 And I say to you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build My church; and the gates of Hades (death) will not overpower it [by preventing the resurrection of the Christ].
[19] I will give you the keys (authority) of the kingdom of heaven; and whatever you bind [forbid, declare to be improper and unlawful] on earth will have [already] been bound in heaven, and whatever you loose [permit, declare lawful] on earth will have [already] been loosed in heaven.”
Amplified Bible (AMP)
#
Constantine introduced Paganism... The Sabbath is Saturday. Not Sunday ... Who gave authority to break Gods Word. Moving priests to another Parrish to reoffend ... And so and so on 😢
Eusebius Church History Chapter 25
And Peter, on whom the Church of Christ is built, 'against which the gates of hell shall not prevail,' has left one acknowledged epistle; perhaps also a second, but this is doubtful.
The verse you quoted that Peter was the rock and you said he was not.
Yes he was. These are the word of Jesus;
"You are rock, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give you the keys...."
The last sentence there should show you that Jesus is talking to and about peter. Not revelation. Even Muslims believe Jesus is christ. I dont think you will accept them as part of that Church.
He also starts by ponting out, "You are rock." That is as clear as it is except when a deluded protestant reads it.
Three, since you dont understand greek, the greek cases here point to Peter as the object whom the church is build upon (receiving the action of the verb)
Study some greek bro !!
2. Peter peter, do you love me ?
Yes Lord, you know I love you.
Feed My sheep.
This is as clear as it us except when a deluded protestant reads it then the intention of Jesus is changed to whatever that protestant wants it to be.
4. Paul said he went to be confirmed by Peter. Maybe you should read your Bible well if you have never seen it.
The reason for that is as clear as it is except when a deluded protestant reads it.
Bye
Thanks for sharing. Petros means stone, Petra means massive rock, go do some more research my friend. That is extremely obvious on the meaning. The corner stone is Jesus Christ Eph. 2:20, not Peter. Also the same authority is given to all the apostles in John 20 after Jesus resurrection. The church is built upon the apostles (plural) and the prophets (plural), and Jesus Christ the corner stone (singular)!!! No where in the Acts or the Epistles is anything anywhere close to teaching Peter is the Rock of the church, the main leader OVER the Christian church.......
@@BereanPerspectiveApologetics Haha, I speak greek bro. Not my first language but I have studied enough greek. Πέτρος and Πέτρα is the same thing just that Πέτρ(ος) is masculine direct object and Πέτρ(α) is in feminine form, indirect object in this statement. Both means rock or stone but in this context, rock.
You also ignored my point that the cases in greek point to peter as the receipient of the action. It is like saying "You are Peter, and upon you (This) rock, I will build my church. Yes it is the demontrative pronoun (this) (τάυτη) but remember greek have cases. The case here is Dative. Which shows indirect object pointing to the (συ) "You" at the begining. Hence Peter is the one whom the church is built upon. This is very simple to see but cases might be confusing in greek for a beginer.
Also, just go ahead and you will see Jesus still saying "And I will give you the keys of heaven and earth"
I am very sorry but the greek word is σοι (You) and it is not plural, it is singular second person pronoun. So try that plural trick again next time with someone who doesnt speak greek. That is pointing to Peter.
Also note how your response contradicts your video where you claimed Peter's response was the rock. Here it has changed to Jesus himself, not Peter's response.
The Catholic church clearly teaches that Jesus is the conerstone just as the verse you have quoted says. Not the stone upon which the church is built on.
The work of the conerstone is to hold the house. Gives it strenth preventing it from falling (The gates of hell shall not prevail against it) This is not the foundation stone which the church is built upon.
Also, you ignored the point where Jesus tells Peter to feed his sheep 3 times.
Even DA Carson one of the most respected Protestant Greek NT scholars says this verse refers to Peter being tue rock.
“For no man can lay a foundation other than the one which is laid, which is Jesus Christ.” 1 Cor. 3:11
“having been built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus Himself being the corner stone” Eph. 2:20
“And when He had said this, He breathed on them and *said to them, “Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive the sins of any, their sins have been forgiven them; if you retain the sins of any, they have been retained.”” John 20:22-23
“Truly I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall have been bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall have been loosed in heaven.
“Again I say to you, that if two of you agree on earth about anything that they may ask, it shall be done for them by My Father who is in heaven. For where two or three have gathered together in My name, I am there in their midst.”” Matt. 18:18-20
Notice leadership, authority, is among the apostles, not Peter singled out. Who is the foundation upon? Peter? Nope!!!
@@BereanPerspectiveApologetics My comment answers your concerns perfectly.
1 cor 3:11 is all about faith. Not church. Of course our faith is laid upon Christ. Therr is no doubt about that.
Just read a couple of verses ahead and below youll knowbwhat Paul is talking about.
Although there may not be written evidence for one bishop in the first 300 years or so.... Neither was there a Holy Bible. Just saying, but i think that's highly relevant.
Job 8:8 “Read the history books and see-
You must have missed Matt 16:18-19, where Jesus said he will give one man - Peter - the "keys of the kingdom of heaven", thereby declaring Peter to be the supreme leader of the Church.
The principal apostles were Peter, James and John. James and John are mentioned six or seven times each in the book of Acts, while Peter is mentioned more than 60 times.
The very first time Jesus (the rock) met Simon, he told Simon his name would be "rock" (John 1:42). Why? The answer is found in Matt 16:18.
Jesus (the rock) governs his Church infallibly thru his "rock" on earth - ie, Peter (Matt 16:18).and his successors, known as the Pope(s) of the Catholic Church.
@jamesfrazier5148 The text (Matt 16:18-19) says Jesus will give the "keys" only to Peter. Jesus begins the sentence (v.18) by directly addressing Peter.
@@jamesfrazier5148 Furthermore, the "you" in Matt 16:19 is singular, not plural.
@jamesfrazier5148 It doesn't matter that Jesus gave Peter "the keys of the kingdom of heaven"? Only God can hold the keys of the kingdom of heaven, yet here is Jesus giving those "keys" to a man ... and you say it doesn't matter? Wow.
@jamesfrazier5148 I'm very impressed by your intelligence, which is obviously very high. 👍
@jamesfrazier5148 I went from agnosticism to Protestantism, but eventually realized that I wasn't practising true Christianity.
I came to understand that Christianity is not the Bible - rather, Christianity is the
Catholic Church ... and has been from the very beginning.
If your church is not Catholic (or at least an Eastern Orthodox), you're not in the true Church.
Jesus gave the "keys of the kingdom of heaven" to Peter (Matt 16:19) - ie, to the Church - not to a book.
Matthew 16 must be read in light of Isaiah 22. Our Lord made Peter chief steward or master of the royal household.
St.Irenaus' letter. But anyway, why is this 0f any importance to you as a n0n-Cathlic?
@@iggyantiochlike Sammy buffet? No, Kelly and protestants are not doing it for the clicks as you insinuate. They want to reach people with the truth, that's a different approach than just doing it for the clicks as if they got something to boast about like Sam Shamoun boasting about himself and his channel. Kelly is a humble guy who is bold about the gospel truth, and not at all how you try to make him out to be. I disagree with your slander because there may be if there is a small splinter in this Protestant's eye but there is a LOG in your Catholic brother's eye.
Because the truth shall prevail
The answer is in the Bible. Your mind simply can't process it. I'm sorry for you.
Please show where in the Bible
@@SeekTheCross Matthew 16:18-19
@@David77757 read the context, Matthew 16:15-17, its Peter's confession which the church is build on; thats the rock.
@@SeekTheCross so Simon's name was changed to rock by Jesus for nothing? (The name Peter is derived from the Greek version, Petros, which translates to "stone.")
@@David77757 what about Saul to Paul name change? What about the Hebrew and Aramaic versions? Or is that analogy only in Greek and people reading into it?
Why the specific parameters of before 300AD? Did the early church fathers cease being early church fathers, or maybe after 300AD they just become corrupt? If you say, well before 300 they are truly considered “Early”, if that’s your stance, then that definition is subjective. It can change from person to person. For example, a friend asks you to go to a concert, and they say lets get their early. You show up 15 minutes early from showtime and your friend says to you once you arrive, where have you been, I’ve been here for an hour and a half. Who is write on their definition of early?
I’ll comment on your video but I know something will be wrong with it. In 251 Bishop (Cyprian) of Carthage in The Unity of the Catholic Church 4: 1st edition says “The Lord says to Peter: ‘I say to you,’ he says, ‘that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not overcome it. And to you I will give the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatever things you bind on earth shall be bound also in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth, they shall be loosed also in heaven’ [Matt. 16:18-19]). … On him [Peter] he builds the Church, and to him he gives the command to feed the sheep [John 21:17], and although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single chair [cathedra], and he established by his own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity. Indeed, the others were also what Peter was [i.e., apostles], but a primacy is given to Peter, whereby it is made clear that there is but one Church and one chair. So too, all [the apostles] are shepherds, and the flock is shown to be one, fed by all the apostles in single-minded accord. 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?”
Single rock, single keys, single Church, single chair and single primacy.
Sure, you can continue making your criteria or parameters smaller and smaller to fit your argument but I can’t make you believe anything. I can set up a similar criterion pretty easily, for example, I’m going to make a video and say I don’t believe in the doctrines of the Trinity and the incarnation because the terms Trinity and Incarnation are not used in the Bible and I need someone to show me that the early church fathers used the terms Trinity and Incarnation before 150 AD, in order for me to think about it. Absurd or a true argument?
@@jamesfrazier5148 You claim "shouldn’t Jesus have known better than to call his vicar Satan?"
Well Peter was assuming the traditional Jewish view that the Messiah would conquer rather than suffer, and so Jesus corrected him on that point. In fact, Jesus needed to rebuke Peter publicly because in that instant, as he often did, Peter spoke for all of the apostles and he would become the leader of the entire church. According to the Protestant scholars, W.F. Albright and C.S. Mann, they write, “To deny the preeminent position of Peter among the disciples or in the early Christian community is a denial of the evidence. The interest in Peter’s failures and vacillations does not detract from the preeminence, rather it emphasizes it. Had Peter been a lesser figure, his behavior would’ve been a far less consequence.” In other words, the fact that scripture focuses so much on Peter’s successes and failures is because Peter had such a central role in the life of the early Church.
@@jamesfrazier5148 You are really getting into the weeds with your comments. Just to show one example, you claim that something important must be "mentioned twice or more in the Bible" Who in fact said that, Did Jesus? Did the disciples? No! Jesus nor the disciples said that, Just you! It seems that I hit a nerve or something because you just sort of go off and for every one post I write you post twice. I predict there will be two more posts from James Frazier after this one, at least. I'm still waiting to see if there is a response from the Berean perspective guy.
@@jamesfrazier5148 Okay, common sense but no one in the Bible says that. My point! Also I guess you didn't think that your last post was important because you didn't post two times consecutively. I guess you didn't think that your last post was important because you didn't post two times consecutively.👍 That was important!
@@jamesfrazier5148 YELLING MY RESPONSE!!!! THANKS!!! I SOMETIMES CLICK LIKE ON MY OWN COMMENTS TOO!!!
@@jamesfrazier5148 Are you having fun having a conversation with yourself. You keep just posting one comment after another each time you post. Don’t believe me, just count. Me with 6 posts and you with 10. And you repeated music in an elevator twice, it must mean that is important! I’m not sure about you but I don’t live in an elevator so I’m not hearing the music that you do. I bet it took all that you had to not capitalize ABSURD in the last two posts. You want absolutely everything important to happen at least twice but you conveniently don’t believe it when Jesus says eat (to gnaw, crunch, chew) my flesh. Me yelling the following: JESUS SAYS THIS MORE THAN TWICE AND YOU DON’T BELIEVE HIM ON THAT. So you contradict you own assertion. Try your best to keep it under one post if you could. I also just clicked thumps up on this post.
you don't know anything about the catholic church...go and reach for truth
Matthew 18:18-19 refutes the idea that Peter alone was given the keys, and further explains what the keys are. All the verbs are plural. "Whatever (all of) you loose on Earth....". When Peter asked who is the greatest of them, which is what started the whole discussion, Jesus warned "Satan has demanded to have you, that he might sift you like wheat".
where are the keys stated in Matthew 18:18-19? All the apostles were given authority to bind and loose. However only Peter was given the keys in Matthew 16:18. Did Jesus say in Matthew 18 that all of you are given keys? Do you know the 1st century Jewish concept of Keys? How important 'keys' were to Priests? It is precisely at Matthew 16 when fishermen came to realize that they are the new 'levitical' priest and had authority. Before that they were merely followers.
@@Abduzzah_Abdul_Muṭṭalib Where do you get that all of you from ? It is unfortunate that in the original greek, it is singular. Not all of you.
so Simon's name was changed to rock by Jesus for nothing?
I just read the verse Matthew 18:16. I don't think it's very clear that Jesus is talking about the confession of Peter. Are you refering to another verse? Or you have other verses to support this interpretation?
What's the definition of "one early Apostolic father"? 1st century, 2nd century, disciples of the Apostles? What? If they weren't direct disciples of the Apostles then, for me, it becomes hearsay or a better way of putting it, third grade game of "pass the story."
Hebrews 13:17 Obey your [spiritual] leaders and submit to them [recognizing their authority over you], for they are keeping watch over your souls and continually guarding your spiritual welfare as those who will give an account [of their stewardship of you]. Let them do this with joy and not with grief and groans, for this would be of no benefit to you.
Peter and the Apostles said "We ought to obey God rather than men ". Acts 5,29
Do not call anyone father.
Amen
So you can't call your biological father, "father"??? 😂😅🤡
@@AndrewLane-pm2ro oh, forgot to mention verse. In Matthew 23, Jesus talking in Jerusalem to the crowds, - verse 9, for the one to call father , who is in heaven, and no one else.
@@Daviddaze 🤣😅🤡
@@AndrewLane-pm2ro when I see ur laugh emojis, I suddenly think of Estee Paulti, the impersonator of Kamala. Estee's videos crack me up.
Pope ... spelt P O W E R G R A B
You can’t be serious 🤦♂️😭
The title "pope" was from the early 3rd century an honorific designation used for any bishop in the West. In the East, it was used only for the bishop of Alexandria. Marcellinus (d. 304) is the first bishop of Rome shown in sources to have had the title "pope" used of him. From the 6th century, the imperial chancery of Constantinople normally reserved this designation for the bishop of Rome. From the early 6th century, it began to be confined in the West to the bishop of Rome, a practice that was firmly in place by the 11th century.
The early martyrs were NOT Popes as understood by Roman Catholic doctrine today... no matter how much you try to shoehorn the idea into history
There is not a one!!!!
You say not to believe mere men… who do you think put the books in the Bible and declare them to be sacred scripture? Who did you believe about the 66 books in your Bible and not 73? Why those 66 books and not the shepherd of hamas? I guess the answer is that you too followed what mere men told you… by the way, if Peter was not at Rome at the moment of Paul’s, that doesn’t mean he never went there. It’s like we both went to NY city, but separate moments and someone in the future say that only you have been there, while me myself have been there twice, but earlier or later. So as you see, I totally disagree with you.
Good thing God gave his final revelation to a German monk in the 1500s or else we would be so lost.
You haven't heard? the local priests who are touching kids are given that revelation.
God who is perfect, Does everything Perfectly. That's why the Bible has so much repeittion patterns. Since the beginning of History, God always used ONE man. He had used murderers, lustful, power hungry, even pagan man one at a time. God had never use 1 book ever in salvation history. Since we know God never changes, what made God change to suddenly depend on a book and a book that caused hundreds of splits and denominations where ALL of them declare BIBLE ALONE!
The one man Jesus, the word of God rev.19,13
The basic Roman Catholic teaching to their laity is: just trust us, because we have done all the thinking for you, and we 😇can't be wrong.
It isn't that Catholics don't listen to your question. They hear it, and they know that *_they cannot produce_** a quote from 300 A.D. or earlier of any church father saying that there is one bishop (or person other than Jesus) over the whole church,* so they try to divert, dissemble, distract, etc. They do this out of emotional self-preservation, because they know that they need to justify the papacy in their own minds _by some means_ or they'll be forced to face the fact that they're in the wrong denomination.ua-cam.com/users/sgaming/emoji/7ff574f2/emoji_u1f607.png
Great point. I think you nailed it.
Yes, Catholic friends, Peter's confession is the petra that started the foundation (after Jesus establishing himself as the cornerstone), not the start of a papacy. Why do you think we're all called "living stones" elsewhere in the New Testament? Our faith adds to the foundation of the Church (the universal body of Christ).
Doctrine matters, not unity.