Such a great case for the papacy, I'll definitely be using this as a refference to defend the papacy! It has helped me a lot in my decision of converting to Catholicism
@Intellectual Conservatism Great show! You should dedicate a show solely for book recommendations on each of the topics you've covered in the past from the bottom up: 1) Against Scientism 2) Positive case for the Existence of God 3) Positive Case for the Existence of an Immortal Soul 4) The Case for Objective Morality and Natural Law 5) Historical Case for Christ 6) Biblical and Patristic Case for Catholicism 7) Biblical, Patristic and Historical Case for the Papacy 8) Tackling Catholic misconceptions.
You all probably dont give a damn but does anyone know a method to log back into an Instagram account..? I stupidly forgot the account password. I would love any tricks you can offer me.
@Jamie Darren thanks so much for your reply. I got to the site on google and Im in the hacking process now. Looks like it's gonna take a while so I will get back to you later with my results.
Some Russian theologians thought Khomiakov to be a heretic, because of what his conclusions meant for the state Church of the Russian Empire that sure did work (and in many ways still works) like papacy. But the "freedom" objection actually became quite popular, even among the so-called traditionalists.
The First Vatican Council is quoting from Session III of the Council of Ephesus: “Philip the presbyter and legate of the Apostolic See said: There is no doubt, and in fact it has been known in all ages, that the holy and most blessed Peter, prince (ἔξαρχος) and head of the Apostles, pillar of the faith, and foundation (θεμέλιος) of the Catholic Church, received the keys of the kingdom from our Lord Jesus Christ, the Saviour and Redeemer of the human race, and that to him was given the power of loosing and binding sins: who down even to today and forever both lives and judges in his successors.”
Even if he did, it doesn’t matter because that’s the doctors personal opinion, not consensus of the magisterium. Bellarmine is merely proposing a hypothetical situation, you should read his work yourself rather than listen to “Brother” Peter Dimond.
Would you care to do a debate on the papacy? I’ve been looking to debate with a Catholic on Papal supremacy and/or Papal primacy for some time now and I’d love to talk to you.
Intellectual Conservatism wouldn’t have it any other way, my friend! I appreciate your time. My email is TheACPchannel@gmail.com, that’s usually the best way to contact me. Again, I appreciate your time.
The Bible scholar and self-proclaimed "Paulinist", F.F.Bruce, in his book, "Peter, Stephen, James and John", states that (1 Peter) is addressed to Gentile converts in various provinces of Asia Minor. (including two which were evangelized by Paul).
Pope Stephen's ruling willingly accepted by every bishop in the Church, with the sole exception of Cyprian and of Firmilian of Caesarea in Cappadocia, whose local church followed a discipline of re-baptism similar to Cyprian's African discipline. Indeed, in order to support his case, Cyprian was turn to Firmilian in far-off Cappadocia, because NO OTHER METROPOLTAN BISHOP agreed with his view! Rather, all the prominent bishops who Cyprian would reasonably have turned to sided with Pope Stephen. This included the Bishop of Alexandria (who presided over the second See), the Bishop of Antioch (who presided over the third See), the Bishop of Ephesus (who was the successor of St. John and the metropolitan of Asia Minor), the Bishop of Aelia (aka Jerusalem, where James once ruled as bishop), etc. All of these Sees and Bishops were in accord with the authority of Rome. www.biblicalcatholic.com/apologetics/a87.htm
I congratulate you for the title of this video, "a case for the papacy." That means that it's probably Catholic teachings of doctrine. What you could not and did not label it was "A BIBLICAL case for the papacy." Why? Because there is no biblical case.
Acts 15:6-8 "And the APOSTLES and ANCIENTS ***ASSEMBLED*** to consider of this matter.. and **PETER** rose up and said "Men AND Brethren: *YOU ALL KNOW* [can't claim ignorance] that **GOD CHOSE ME** from *AMONG YOU* that by ***MY MOUTH*** the GENTILES should **HEAR** the word of **THE GOSPEL** and *BELIEVE.* -(some at this meeting were *NOT* Brethren so it's a VERY SCARY thought he might be speaking to *YOU* and are NOT considered to be his brethren (aka Christian)! Am I wrong? Do you accept what St. Peter is saying? No?) Why? Because the source of much Anti-Catholic hatred are from *Fake Christian baptisms* because they DO indeed impart unto the souls of men *ANOTHER SPIRIT* - and it NOT Holy! 2 Cor 11:4 For if HE WHO COMES preaches **ANOTHER JESUS** .. or if you RECEIVE A **DIFFERENT SPIRIT** which you have NOT RECEIVED from us.. 2 Cor 11:4 Commentary: "a *Spirit different* from Him whom you received at your *BAPTISM"* -Expositor's Greek Testament Commentary
Such a great case for the papacy, I'll definitely be using this as a refference to defend the papacy! It has helped me a lot in my decision of converting to Catholicism
@Intellectual Conservatism
Great show! You should dedicate a show solely for book recommendations on each of the topics you've covered in the past from the bottom up:
1) Against Scientism
2) Positive case for the Existence of God
3) Positive Case for the Existence of an Immortal Soul
4) The Case for Objective Morality and Natural Law
5) Historical Case for Christ
6) Biblical and Patristic Case for Catholicism
7) Biblical, Patristic and Historical Case for the Papacy
8) Tackling Catholic misconceptions.
You all probably dont give a damn but does anyone know a method to log back into an Instagram account..?
I stupidly forgot the account password. I would love any tricks you can offer me.
@Jerome Kendall Instablaster =)
@Jamie Darren thanks so much for your reply. I got to the site on google and Im in the hacking process now.
Looks like it's gonna take a while so I will get back to you later with my results.
@Jamie Darren it worked and I actually got access to my account again. I am so happy!
Thank you so much you saved my account !
@Jerome Kendall Glad I could help :)
Christopher's parallel between 1 Chronicles 28 and Acts 15 seems to be from Dimond. :) It's cool too.
Just discovered your channel -- really great episode, keep 'em coming!
Make sure to share the channel! They definitely need more subscribers and views!
A wonderful conversation.
Submit to Rome!!!
Did Suan make a Step Brothers joke? "Pam? Pan?"
Some Russian theologians thought Khomiakov to be a heretic, because of what his conclusions meant for the state Church of the Russian Empire that sure did work (and in many ways still works) like papacy. But the "freedom" objection actually became quite popular, even among the so-called traditionalists.
Great show! I'll have to look at your Biblical case again though, with the slides. It was certainly an interesting presentation.
The First Vatican Council is quoting from Session III of the Council of Ephesus: “Philip the presbyter and legate of the Apostolic See said: There is no doubt, and in fact it has been known in all ages, that the holy and most blessed Peter, prince (ἔξαρχος) and head of the Apostles, pillar of the faith, and foundation (θεμέλιος) of the Catholic Church, received the keys of the kingdom from our Lord Jesus Christ, the Saviour and Redeemer of the human race, and that to him was given the power of loosing and binding sins: who down even to today and forever both lives and judges in his successors.”
Doesn't St. Robert Bellarmine tech that a heretic bishop or pope looses all jurisdiction from the time he begins to preach heresy?
Peter Dimond, is that you?
Even if he did, it doesn’t matter because that’s the doctors personal opinion, not consensus of the magisterium. Bellarmine is merely proposing a hypothetical situation, you should read his work yourself rather than listen to “Brother” Peter Dimond.
That'd be 2am here haha. Inasmuch as I want to watch it as soon as it is available, I'd be watching it tomorrow.
👁️👄👁️ hello there
G-Han!
Would you care to do a debate on the papacy? I’ve been looking to debate with a Catholic on Papal supremacy and/or Papal primacy for some time now and I’d love to talk to you.
I'm willing as long as the debate can remain civil. How should I contact you?
Intellectual Conservatism wouldn’t have it any other way, my friend! I appreciate your time. My email is TheACPchannel@gmail.com, that’s usually the best way to contact me. Again, I appreciate your time.
Can this be on UA-cam? I wanna listen :)
Matt Fradd recently hosted one on Pints with Aquinas
I am very much open to submitting to rome. But every time I hear one of these arguments it's just not convincing enough.
If you’re open, isn’t Matt 16 clear enough? Also, have you read the book Pope Peter? I found it convincing.
The Bible scholar and self-proclaimed "Paulinist", F.F.Bruce, in his book, "Peter, Stephen, James and John", states that (1 Peter) is addressed to Gentile converts in various provinces of Asia Minor. (including two which were evangelized by Paul).
Pope Stephen's ruling willingly accepted by every bishop in the Church, with the sole exception of Cyprian and of Firmilian of Caesarea in Cappadocia, whose local church followed a discipline of re-baptism similar to Cyprian's African discipline. Indeed, in order to support his case, Cyprian was turn to Firmilian in far-off Cappadocia, because NO OTHER METROPOLTAN BISHOP agreed with his view! Rather, all the prominent bishops who Cyprian would reasonably have turned to sided with Pope Stephen. This included the Bishop of Alexandria (who presided over the second See), the Bishop of Antioch (who presided over the third See), the Bishop of Ephesus (who was the successor of St. John and the metropolitan of Asia Minor), the Bishop of Aelia (aka Jerusalem, where James once ruled as bishop), etc. All of these Sees and Bishops were in accord with the authority of Rome. www.biblicalcatholic.com/apologetics/a87.htm
I congratulate you for the title of this video, "a case for the papacy." That means that it's probably Catholic teachings of doctrine. What you could not and did not label it was "A BIBLICAL case for the papacy." Why? Because there is no biblical case.
Acts 15:6-8 "And the APOSTLES and ANCIENTS ***ASSEMBLED*** to consider of this matter.. and **PETER** rose up and said "Men AND Brethren: *YOU ALL KNOW* [can't claim ignorance] that **GOD CHOSE ME** from *AMONG YOU* that by ***MY MOUTH*** the GENTILES should **HEAR** the word of **THE GOSPEL** and *BELIEVE.* -(some at this meeting were *NOT* Brethren so it's a VERY SCARY thought he might be speaking to *YOU* and are NOT considered to be his brethren (aka Christian)! Am I wrong? Do you accept what St. Peter is saying? No?)
Why? Because the source of much Anti-Catholic hatred are from *Fake Christian baptisms* because they DO indeed impart unto the souls of men *ANOTHER SPIRIT* - and it NOT Holy!
2 Cor 11:4 For if HE WHO COMES preaches **ANOTHER JESUS** .. or if you RECEIVE A **DIFFERENT SPIRIT** which you have NOT RECEIVED from us..
2 Cor 11:4 Commentary: "a *Spirit different* from Him whom you received at your *BAPTISM"* -Expositor's Greek Testament Commentary