“Because of his primacy, the Pontiff of Rome is not required to attend an Ecumenical Council; but without his participation, manifested by sending some subordinates, every Ecumenical Council is as non-existent, for it is he who presides over the Council.” (Methodius - -N. Brianchaninov, The Russian Church (1931), 46; cited by Butler, Church and Infallibility, 210) (Upon This Rock (San Francisco: Ignatius, 1999), p. 177 [c. A.D. 865]). -Sts. Cyril & Methodius
You're reading that as a Catholic would! The Roman Pontiff was accepted as 'first among equals' and had an honored position. That's all it's saying. Nothing more.
Not only is that simply wrong factually, since Constantinople 1 was presided over by a bishop not in communion with the Pope, but Roman Catholics don’t argue for PRIMACY. If that’s all that was desired there would have been no schism. They argue for SUPREMACY.
@@KyleVaughan1996 What is it you would like to say about the Formula of Hormisdas? Would you claim that the mention of "Catholic" means "Roman Catholic"? I hope not, because that's a naive assumption--an anachronism. ("Catholic" did not become associated with the western, "Roman Catholic" church until after the Great Schism.) Or would you point to the end of the formula where the pope states that if he deviates even in the least from his own profession (of faith), then he is also condemned. That's pretty much how history rolled out and justifies need for the Reformation.
From conception the Church was an OFFICIAL sect within Judaism. When you read Acts 1 and if you are familiar with Halakhah Law you will immediately notice that the Church is a legal entity WITHIN Judaism. There are 3 requirements which are met. Firstly, notice that there are 120 members in this synagogue. Why is this important? It is the exact number of persons in the Halakhah regulations to form a full fledged synagogue. The 120 is the Knesset HaGadolah which was supposed to be restored in the Olam Haba when Messiah comes. Judaism and Catholicism was born on Shavuot/Pentecost. To this day the Catholic Conclave has a maximum limit of 120 electors to elect the Pope. Secondly next according to Halakhah regulations there must be a "beit din" (Hebrew court) formed. We see that there is a beit-din and it draws lots and Matthias a disciple is chosen to take over Judas bishopric (episkopen). The first example of Apostolic Succession. So two of the three requirements are met. Thirdly, there must be a NASI (prince/temporal) and an AB (father/spiritual) appointed. Curiously Peter is filling both these positions in this beit din. Why? In 190 BC the Kohan Gadol (jewish high-priest) fell into apostasy and bei-din gadol (Hebrew court) cast a vote of no confidence splitting the Kohan Gadol into two offices the "NASI" and the "AB" within the Beit Din Gadol. Fast forward to Matt16, in this new Beit Din Gadol (70 disciples) Christ has placed His confidence in Peter (the first AB/father/pope meaning papa) by presenting him the Keys to the temple/governance bringing the two offices back into one high priesthood the way it originally was. Rachi/Jewish sage writes a commentary on the priestly role of the steward/vizier and the Keys are the keys of the Temple and Authority. When the davidic kings were away the steward/vizier of the davidic kingdoms was in charge. The pope has both temporal and spiritual powers. Peter is the NASI prince of the apostles and the AB/pope (Pope meaning papa - meaning father) as you see even today the pope as Peters documented unbroken apostolic successor is both ‘nasi’ and the ‘ab’ in Catholicism. Christ appointed Peter as His steward with the keys as per Isaiah 22 vs 19-24 and Matt16. Peter/successors is First amongst equals. In the Davidic kingdoms there was always an al-bayith (steward/vizier), that is Peters role. Christ also renames Peter (the only Apostle renamed) as Abraham and Jacob were renamed by God in preparation for their specific role in salvation history. The Apostles knew exactly what had occurred when Jesus gave Peter the keys. Peter's successors (Popes) are first amongst equals ie the bishops. It's not a lording over them type of role. He figuratively sits in the Seat of Moses which we now call the Seat of Peter. Moses had the 70 elders who he consulted as equals but he was first. First book of Kings lists all the Kings and the royal steward/vizier is always listed next to the King because in the absence of the King he was in charge of the Kingdom. The steward would wear the keys around his neck so the citizens of the davidic kingdoms knew who he was. The steward is given the sash/robes/keys to the temple because the role is also a priestly role. Jesus created a Melchezidek priesthood which pre-exists the Aaronic/Levitical priesthood. This is why all Catholic priests belong to the order of Melchizedek, the fulfilment of the theophany of Melchizedek giving wine/bread to Father Abraham. Jesus, Son of David rebuilt the davidic kingdom as per 2SamCh7 - He is the King, Peter/successors are His royal stewards/viziers and the Hebrew court/beit-din is the Magesterium. Jesus is Son of David rebuilding davidic kingdom per 2SamCh7 - one of these sons will establish this throne forever and this son will be Gods son. -In midrash 2319 the Petra midrash Abraham is referred to as Rock -In the Thanksgiving hymn of the Dead Sea Scrolls it mentions the fact that the jewish people are built on a Rock -Isaiah 51/vs 1-2 “look to the rock from which you were hewn, look to Abraham your father and Sarah your mother.” -Matt 10vs2 list of Apostles, Peter is listed first/protos Catholicism is not a new religion, it is the legitimate continuation of Temple Judaism (not Rabbinic Judaism). Catholics do not throw out what God has revealed prior and these continue to hold that all that is revealed is a single continuous revelation culminating in the Catholic Faith. Jewish Priest followers of Christ brought over temple practices/beliefs eg priests, tabernacle, incense, altar, menorah, sanctuary, relics, purgatory, confession, indulgences etc. Judaism and Catholicism is the same faith in two covenants one old and another new.
Not second temple Judaism which was the whore of Babylon. The second temple cult was an abomination due to their false priesthood and sacrifice of animals. The original Jewish Christians(the ones referred to as Nazoreans which is the sect Jesus belonged to) believed the scriptures had been corrupted by lying scribes(you can see this belief in the prophets). Need to make a distinction between the religion of the Jews (Judaism, the religion of the second temple), and the religion of Old Israel (Melchizedek priesthood, religion of the first temple). The first temple had the Asherah, which represented El Shaddai (the God with breasts; the feminine aspect, or immanent Shekinah power) who is represented in the Church as Mary.
@@sarahboehlke744 It's the politically incorrect elephant in the room nobody wants to talk about. Jesus never started a new religion. HebrewCatholicDOTnet is a good resource.
Read the papal approved SYNODALITY AND PRIMACY DURING THE FIRST MILLENNIUM: TOWARDS A COMMON UNDERSTANDING IN SERVICE TO THE UNITY OF THE CHURCH - Chieti, 21 September 2016 From the Joint International Commission for Theological Dialogue Between the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church at Dicastery for Promoting Christian Unity And note "the bishop of Rome did not exercise canonical authority over the churches of the East"
As is Lofton here. What a twist. Lofton routinely tells anyone who questions his Francis apologetics, that they are in schism like the Orthodox and Protestants. So not being able to brush Francis' failings under the rug like Lofton himself does, they make a run for Orthodoxy or High Church Protestantism. Not everyone can live with the dissonance that Lofton himself must live with. I'm staying Catholic. But unlike Lofton, I will not try to explain away Francis. I believe in the papacy but there have been some bad Popes.
@@t.l.ciottoli4319 But I did not state my position . Saying there have been bad Popes is not the same as Antipope Apologetics. In light of the vast history of the church, this is a blip. I'm not reactionary.
It is the position of the Eastern Orthodox Church that it has never accepted the pope as de jure leader of the entire church. All bishops are equal "as Peter", therefore every church under every bishop (consecrated in apostolic succession) is fully complete (the original meaning of catholic).
Oh Look! (concerning the deceitful acacian schism presupposition of Lofton): "The patriarch's preamble [of his reticence to acquiesce to Rome while being threatened with war mongers from the Roman see] was a protest against the claim of Rome to dictate terms of communion to Constantinople and an assertion of the co-ordinate authority of his own see. He says, "Know therefore, most holy one, that, according to what I have written, agreeing in the truth with thee, I too, loving peace, renounce all the heretics repudiated by thee: for I hold the most holy churches of the elder and of the new Rome to be one; I define that see of the apostle Peter and this of the imperial city [Constantinople] to be one see."
I'm not attracted to Orthodoxy but actually the first Christian churches in the Roman empire were autocephalous, of which the church of Rome was one co-equal with the others. Bc as Jesus said; "That they may be one" and *NOT* that any one should dominate over the others
This a bit silly argument, though I don't think you meant it to be too serious. Nevertheless, it's worth noting that "autocephalous" is not the natural state of the Church. There was a prolonged movement to turn the Orthodox church into the national system that exists today. The Apostolic and Patristic practice was to centre the power of the Church with regions, so Rome to the west and Antioch and Alexandria to the east (picking up the slack left by James). With Rome being labeling the centre of unity due to its place as the place of martyrdom of Ss Peter and Paul. Whatever other doctrines we derive from this and the devolpments like 2 Rome that span later, the origins are not autocephalous--it's an anachronism to say so.
@@ultimateoriginalgodis that why the pentarchy isn't seen until the 6th century? You realize as borders change and nations are birthed these regions no longer serve in the same manner or capacity they once did, right?
@@caseycardenas1668 Given how Rome during the late 5th and most of 6th century was in under Arian kings and Constantinople was in schism with Rome, yet Rome maintained her authority and it was Constantinople that returned to communion with Rome through the formula of Hermisdas, it is not accurate to say these are based on the nations that existed at the time. The pentarchy was one political solution to the crisises affecting the Church at the time, but having 5 great sees is not that same as each nation having it's own archbishop and patriarch operating with near autonomy. Again, it seems anacronistic to say so. There are Movements in the west that reflect autocephalous in the east, around the same time of the 18th-19th centuries, but it was abandoned due to its clear novelty and the French revolutionary and Napoleonic wars. It seems this doctrine is a historical Moment, one that the Orthodox are paying for in the schism over Ukraine.
@@caseycardenas1668 I was pointing to his anacronisic use of the word autocephalous. That us not the same as the original 3 petrine sees nor the Pentarcy. It's not even what the east believed in the days after the break with Rome. It requires certain political intrusions into the Church that we've seen till this day.
If the early church recognized papacy why shouldn’t we. My question is: did Jesus only give the twelve and Paul authority to forgive sins. Or did that pass down as well?
@@AlbertEinstein-gt8uu exactly. And you can find some of them writing on the Papacy. How could they pretend they’ve never heard of Papal Authority when it was an established belief in existence.
From "Synodality and Primacy during the First Millennium: Towards a Common Understanding in Service to the Unity of the Church" Section 19: "Over the centuries, a number of appeals were made to the bishop of Rome, also from the East, in disciplinary matters, such as the deposition of a bishop. An attempt was made at the Synod of Sardica (343) to establish rules for such a procedure Cf. Synod of Sardica (343), canons 3 and 5.. Sardica was received at the Council in Trullo (692)Cf. Council in Trullo, canon 2. Similarly, the Photian Council of 861 accepted the canons of Sardica as recognising the bishop of Rome as having a right of cassation in cases already judged in Constantinople.. The canons of Sardica determined that a bishop who had been condemned could appeal to the bishop of Rome, and that the latter, if he deemed it appropriate, might order a retrial, to be conducted by the bishops in the province neighbouring the bishop’s own. Appeals regarding disciplinary matters were also made to the see of ConstantinopleCf. Fourth Ecumenical Council (Chalcedon, 451), canons 9 and 17., and to other sees. Such appeals to major sees were always treated in a synodical way. Appeals to the bishop of Rome from the East expressed the communion of the Church, but the bishop of Rome did not exercise canonical authority over the churches of the East."
One can not exercise canonical authority while having canonical authority, and - as the video says - the canonical subjects recognizing that authority.
That's an incoherent statement from the author. "The Popes exercised authority over all other churches, that authority was accepted and considered legitimate, but it wasn't canonical somehow. And the multiple instances of indefectability and divine foundation attributed to the Papacy apparently don't matter." Pretty nonsensical.
I appreciate the information about the Orthodox. Orthodoxy, with its many National churches, is very confusing for me as a Catholic. Michael is a great resource for bridging this divide as he was very seriously involved when he was Orthodox.
He misunderstands the Orthodox perspective unfortunately. There's a lot more going on that isn't discussed. Rome admitted that in the first millennium the Latin Patriarchate had a universal appellate jurisdiction in the Chieti Document and not Vatican I authority. This is just a historical fact.
@@iliya3110you are misunderstanding the history unfortunately. The council of sardica states that Rome is the last court of appeal but it doesnt state that rome is only this. You are unfortunately completely ignoring Pope Leo and the terms of hormisdas which 250 eastern bishops literally signed off on.
This is an interesting claim. But he really doesn't go over the evidence. He mentions it but doesn't really go over the where, how, and why. Maybe he didn't have enough time but I would have loved to see him go over exactly how the formula proves supremacy and summarize Orthodox arugement and why it's flawed. Is there a different video where he does that?
@@carolinpurayidom4570 There was proto Orthodox in 1st and 2nd century. There was the Catholic church once the Creed was established. Pope of Roam was the highest authority amongst equals. Once pope Constantine the great came into power, pope became god an equal to Christ. Pope changed the original faith from 1st and 2nd vatican so Orthidox broke away to preserve the original church and traditions.
Show me one debate the Lofton had ever been in where he was a deabtor with and eastren Orthodox. I know he has been asked over and over again but he refuses, i have asked him several times why he doesn't in the comments section if his videos and he always ignores only answer people before me and after me. What os he afraid of?
If the Papacy was infallible, then why did they recently admit that the filioque was a papist invention? The Holy Father, in the homily he gave in St Peter Basilica on 29 June in the presence of the Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew I, expressed a desire that "the traditional doctrine of the Filioque, present in the liturgical version of the Latin Credo, [be clarified] in order to highlight its full harmony with what the Ecumenical Council of Constantinople of 381 confesses in its creed: the Father as the source of the whole Trinity, the one origin both of the Son and of the Holy Spirit". ... In the ninth century, however, faced with Charlemagne, Pope Leo III, in his anxiety to preserve unity with the Orient in the confession of faith, resisted this development of the Symbol which had spread spontaneously in the West, while safeguarding the truth contained in the Filioque. Rome only admitted it in 1014 into the liturgical Latin version of the Creed.
He's paraphrasing the catechism, It's not news. Whatever interpretation we have of that liturgical development, we also need to remember it took a bit for the creed to be incorporated into liturgy and the west was teaching the filioque after Constantinople I, seeing the concept implied in the creed and in scripture.
The pope presiding over a council is one thing, and the pope deciding by himself is a whole completely different thing. Catholics tend to ignore the politics behind the pope's decisions and try to look for documents and statements and historical instances, when in fact the reality is this. After the Lombard and Frankic conquests, the popes either under pressure or out of diplomacy estranged themselves from the other partriarchates and created a new "Christianity" that exalted Latin papacy over Greek Christianity, which complimented his new Germanic patron kings and subjects. When the pope crowned Charlemagne as Roman emperor, he broke ties with Constantinople, which served both Charlemagne and the pope, who no longer needed military support or approval from the East. This has nothing to do with the Bible, councils, hierarchy or Christianity for that matter. The pope chose Nicolo Machiavelli over Jesus Christ, and the rest is details. So let's be honest and don't try to excuse things which are inexcusable, because hypocrisy is the worst sin.
Was it really much better in the East, having Patriarchs being picked by the Byzantine Emperors, like Justinian? Secular leaders, politicians and the like should have no say in the appointments of Patriarchs, Bishops, or any other clergy in the Church.
@@siervodedios5952 the first ecumenical synod of Nicea was summoned by Constantine the 1st, emperor of Rome, not the pope of Rome. It was Charlemagne who should've stayed out of the church, not the Roman emperors. Enjoy your mess and save the criticism for the mirror. Byzantine is a defamation by the way
@@Thanos_Kyriakopoulosand who do you think had the autority to invite all the other bishops to participate? Constantine just had autority to call people outside the empire? Especially those who were formally persecuted? It was obviously the bishop.of Rome that attending the requests of constantine summoned the council ecclesiologically, if constantine could summon councils by being the emperor, wouldnt also Nero do it? Or other romans? Only the Pope could have summoned the bishops without them fearing a suspicion
@@Onlyafool172 it is a historical fact that all seven ecumenical synods were summoned by the emperor, this is history, we can't discuss that. And let it be noted that none of them was held in Rome.
@@johnnyd2383 agree, it's hard to convey sarcasm. Clearly the assumption that everyone has sufficient theological training to interpret the Bible has been proved wrong given that there's 30k denominations all who claim they know the truth.
It is interesting that, when we go to actually study the history regarding Hormisdas and the other claims that Lofton makes here, we discover that his statements are completely false. Small problem there. Talking fast and throwing around the terms "objective" and "definitive" doesn't make one's claims true... unfortunately.
CJ P. wrote: "^ Typical ortho arrogance while being wrong at the same time. Nothing new here." Well... to reflect his (or her) tactics: ^ Typical RC ignorance while being wrong at the same time. Nothing new here. 1) I'm not Orthodox. 2) I've studied this matter deeply for decades. 3) I am an expert in Roman Catholic theology and Christian history. No need to take my word for any of this. I encourage anyone and everyone to simply study this matter (thoroughly) for themselves. When you do so, you will discover that Lofton's claims are false. It is nothing personal. I'm sure Lofton is a nice guy. He's just wrong about this. Hopefully his error here doesn't cause anyone spiritual (or other) harm.
Name one thing Lofton misinterpreted here. The Formula of Hormisdas is very explicit with its papal claims and they absolutely do not align with EO. The fact that said claims were accepted in the east without trouble goes to show that what the EO call heresy today was accepted ecclesiology in the first millennium. I have yet to see a sufficient response from any EO scholars that explains this problem. Also, Michael's not giving a dissertation here. He's just giving a breakdown of why he converted. He has videos that spend much more time on this material.
@@john-el9636 wrote "Name one thing Lofton misinterpreted here." Well, Lofton asserts that FH -- and we have to ask here exactly which one, since there are many versions of it -- supports Papal Supremacy. PS is the assertion that, among other things, the Bishop of Rome has unilateral authority over all of Christianity and other bishops, and that the Bishop of Rome is infallible. FH nowhere actually states this. Rather, Roman apologists already believe this, then inject that meaning back into the document, then claim that this is what the signers were agreeing to. It is notable that NONE of the bodies represented by those who signed hold that these things are true or are what they agreed to you, yet people like you and Lofton seem to know better. Lofton and similar take one document like this, assert that it says something that isn't actually in the text, then generally ignore the fact that the very thing that they claim is true (Papal Supremacy) is actually the cause and perpetuator of huge schisms, and that even the Church of Rome admits was never really accepted by the rest of the Church. "Also, Michael's not giving a dissertation here. He's just giving a breakdown of why he converted. He has videos that spend much more time on this material." Yes, that is among the typical excuses, especially for Lofton. "Just watch my other videos." Never mind that they are just as full of misinformation.
Papal supremacy took a while to develop. In 1-3 century, there was no papal supremacy. Not untill the 8-9-10 centurys. It also wasnt an offical coined term till vatican one. From the 3rd century onword the some weatren bishops tried to over power eastren bishops. But the idea of the centralized heierarchl structure of the roman catholic church did not formally take hold untill 9-10 century. I was also was not an accepted homogonus practice in the early church. So to say at one point the orthodox church accepted the papal supremacy is brazen and misleading. It lacks historical claims to back it up. Non the less if we want to get closer to the truth the farther we go back in time to the 1-3 century there absolutly was no notion of papal suoremacy. As this was also before the time the bible was even written. There are eastren litragies that are older than that.
Would you give us the formula, or do you want us to take your word for it? That being said, the Bishop of Rome is not immune from teaching heresy, and currently is so doing. Please show us the letter you are talking about for the Sixth Ecumenical Council. That also be said, the Sixth Council was NOT entirely legitimate. It has Canons that are contrary to Scripture, so this also may be contrary to Scripture as well.
I mean, most of his videos are going over these documents line by line. So you could go over the formula with him if that's what you mean. You're kind of assuming things about the sixth council and the papacy in the same way you're accusing the guest, but its due to the format oc. The issue is not what you think but it's too dense for a UA-cam comment, as I think you'd agree lol.
Amazing how Catholic apologists cherry pick parts of history to back up papal authority. But it was never that cut and dried until after 1000AD. Everything became mixed with politics and it all came out of that. The early Christians had a structure similar to the Orthodox church where bishops and popes had a system of the head being "first among equals" but they made decisions together in council. They do the same today. So who is the "church that Jesus founded"? It is both Catholics and Orthodox. They split up over all this. Today, each argues that the other was guilty of schism but, in reality, they are 2 branches of the same tree. Reality is that the Catholic church became horrendously corrupt after 1000AD, Burning people at the stake and other terrible things. It's no wonder the protestant reformation happened in 1500+-. Maybe the Catholic church is the church Jesus founded but is it still "the one true church"? Just because he started it doesn't mean it could not become so corrupt that he had to hand the baton to others. He did that with Israel, don't forget. As Jesus said "He who does the will of my father is my mother, sister and brother".
Orthodoxy seems to be a precursor of protestantism but more racially or ethnically defined rather than doctrinal and of course the keeping of the sacraments and holy orders separates them.
@@KingSquirtle999 extremely doubtful you have looked into the Orthodox position based on your original post. You're mad if you think the schism had anything to do with ethnicity. You are bringing your own 20th century american presupositions to the analysis, that's why, as you said, it "seems" to be that way. You need to actually read through the reasons for schism from the Orthodox perspective. Yes, that means actually taking some time to do so rather than relying on what "seems" to be the case to you. The precursor to Protestanism is the Roman epistemology that developed after it left the Orthodox Church. Without those changes in Roman epistemology developed after it left, it is doubtful the reformation would have occured in the west. There was, of course, no protestant reformation in Orthodoxy.
No, Craig Truglia is not a serious interlocutor. He argues extremely dishonestly and then poisons the well of conversation, which is why he was unanimously kicked from the original Reason and Theology crew. He should focus on acting like a Christian in his life before pretending to be "Orthodox."
I’m currently between Orthodoxy and Catholicism but when Mr Lofton deliberately misrepresents things like this it only pushes people like in one direction.
The desire for a logical conclusion is a part of that distinctly western phronema that is simply not present in the eastern church. I don't know if there is a right answer, or an objective way to confirm it, but if you want something like that you shouldn't look to the Orthodox Church. You won't find it. You will however find a new phronema.
No. We never believed in Papal authority over the other Patriarchs. The seat of Rome was a honorary position amongst the Patriarchs. The Patriarch of Constantinople for most of church history circa 500 to schism held more authority amongst the Patriarchs.
@@CPATuttle of course I watched the video. So saying wrong and then telling me to watch it is just dumb. The only unique thing about Rome was they had a different culture that allowed them to handle heretics better in some cases because Roman culture was more legalistic. And that’s still very true of Western Christianity. That has absolutely no bearing on any bishops’ thoughts on one of them having an unique authority at any point of Church history. The reason the canonical Councils had such a vast gathering of bishops was because they all respected each other’s authority and jurisdictions. That’s a foundational point of view which we can see for example in St. Ignatius’s letters.
@@nathanielhegge5582My guy, in this very video we see the eastern churches agree that Rome has a unique authority beyond any of the other Patriarchs. And these were just some of the well known one's Michael listed off the top of his head. You can't say "We never believed that" when there's literally sources brought up in this video saying otherwise. I'd suggest looking up some of the Emperor's responses to the Formula of Hormisdas btw. Quite literally defending papal supremacy.
Why's that? These sources show that the papal claims were known and broadly accepted in the first millennium. Meaning, by EO standards, the Church in the first millennium was accepting heresy.
There is if you look at the jewish roots of the church structure when it was established in Acts1/Matt16. The keys Peter receives from Jesus are signs of Authority AND governance AND priesthood. Read Rachi/jewish sage writings on the office of the royal steward of Davidic kingdoms symbolised by the keys the king gave him to wear. He was in charge of the people when the King was away on business or holiday.
What would being first among equals merit if there is no weight behind it? Even Romans utilized this in times of tie breaking, final decision making, etc. The purpose of first among equals is to be the deciding voice and leadership on topics that are pertinent.
@@augustvonmacksen2526 From conception the Church was an OFFICIAL sect within Judaism. When you read Acts 1 and if you are familiar with Halakhah Law you will immediately notice that the Church is a legal entity WITHIN Judaism. There are 3 requirements which are met. Firstly, notice that there are 120 members in this synagogue. Why is this important? It is the exact number of persons in the Halakhah regulations to form a full fledged synagogue. The 120 is the Knesset HaGadolah which was supposed to be restored in the Olam Haba when Messiah comes. Judaism and Catholicism was born on Shavuot/Pentecost. To this day the Catholic Conclave has a maximum limit of 120 electors to elect the Pope. Secondly next according to Halakhah regulations there must be a "beit din" (Hebrew court) formed. We see that there is a beit-din and it draws lots and Matthias a disciple is chosen to take over Judas bishopric (episkopen). The first example of Apostolic Succession. So two of the three requirements are met. Thirdly, there must be a NASI (prince/temporal) and an AB (father/spiritual) appointed. Curiously Peter is filling both these positions in this beit din. Why? In 190 BC the Kohan Gadol (jewish high-priest) fell into apostasy and bei-din gadol (Hebrew court) cast a vote of no confidence splitting the Kohan Gadol into two offices the "NASI" and the "AB" within the Beit Din Gadol. Fast forward to Matt16, in this new Beit Din Gadol (70 disciples) Christ has placed His confidence in Peter (the first AB/father/pope meaning papa) by presenting him the Keys to the temple/governance bringing the two offices back into one high priesthood the way it originally was. Rachi/Jewish sage writes a commentary on the priestly role of the steward/vizier and the Keys are the keys of the Temple and Authority. When the davidic kings were away the steward/vizier of the davidic kingdoms was in charge. The pope has both temporal and spiritual powers. Peter is the NASI prince of the apostles and the AB/pope (Pope meaning papa - meaning father) as you see even today the pope as Peters documented unbroken apostolic successor is both ‘nasi’ and the ‘ab’ in Catholicism. Christ appointed Peter as His steward with the keys as per Isaiah 22 vs 19-24 and Matt16. Peter/successors is First amongst equals. In the Davidic kingdoms there was always an al-bayith (steward/vizier), that is Peters role. Christ also renames Peter (the only Apostle renamed) as Abraham and Jacob were renamed by God in preparation for their specific role in salvation history. The Apostles knew exactly what had occurred when Jesus gave Peter the keys. Peter's successors (Popes) are first amongst equals ie the bishops. It's not a lording over them type of role. He figuratively sits in the Seat of Moses which we now call the Seat of Peter. Moses had the 70 elders who he consulted as equals but he was first. First book of Kings lists all the Kings and the royal steward/vizier is always listed next to the King because in the absence of the King he was in charge of the Kingdom. The steward would wear the keys around his neck so the citizens of the davidic kingdoms knew who he was. The steward is given the sash/robes/keys to the temple because the role is also a priestly role. Jesus created a Melchezidek priesthood which pre-exists the Aaronic/Levitical priesthood. This is why all Catholic priests belong to the order of Melchizedek, the fulfilment of the theophany of Melchizedek giving wine/bread to Father Abraham. Jesus, Son of David rebuilt the davidic kingdom as per 2SamCh7 - He is the King, Peter/successors are His royal stewards/viziers and the Hebrew court/beit-din is the Magesterium. Jesus is Son of David rebuilding davidic kingdom per 2SamCh7 - one of these sons will establish this throne forever and this son will be Gods son. -In midrash 2319 the Petra midrash Abraham is referred to as Rock -In the Thanksgiving hymn of the Dead Sea Scrolls it mentions the fact that the jewish people are built on a Rock -Isaiah 51/vs 1-2 “look to the rock from which you were hewn, look to Abraham your father and Sarah your mother.” -Matt 10vs2 list of Apostles, Peter is listed first/protos Catholicism is not a new religion, it is the legitimate continuation of Temple Judaism (not Rabbinic Judaism). Catholics do not throw out what God has revealed prior and these continue to hold that all that is revealed is a single continuous revelation culminating in the Catholic Faith. Jewish Priest followers of Christ brought over temple practices/beliefs eg priests, tabernacle, incense, altar, menorah, sanctuary, relics, purgatory, confession, indulgences etc. Judaism and Catholicism is the same faith in two covenants one old and another new.
@@augustvonmacksen2526 You are absolutely right: "First-among-equals" means absolute buttfuck as it plays out in real life. What can Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew I do? What are his limits? Him and Alexandria seem to be at odds with Moscow over what he can do. There isn't actually any defined limits as to what this "First-Among-Equals" bullshit even means. If there is: I ask any Orthodox here to bring us a document, accepted by all Eastern Orthodox, that defines its definition and limits.
Just because you ask for advice from someone doesn't mean you're letting them rule over you. The Orthodox Pope of Rome was the Patriarch of the West, equal to the other Patriarchs (because Rome was the capital of the Roman Empire he was given a primacy of honor). Since the Coptic Church was created after Chalcedon Alexandria has had 2 Popes; Rome should have had 2 Popes after Leo coronated Carolus Magnus and became the first Catholic Pope (12-25-800). The Church should have elected a new Orthoodox Pope of Rome at that time, but due to the distraction of defending against the 2nd Jihad they didn't react.
@@zachpeterson8341 You don't know Church history very well, do you? Originally, the Pope of Rome and Patriarch of the West was given a primacy of honor because he dealt with the Emperor and Senate; the Pope of Alexandria and Patriarch of Africa was next on the list because he was the chief theologian due to the presence of the great catachetical school being in Alexandria; the Patriarch of Antioch was third and in charge of liturgy, hymns, prayers, etc. When Constantine moved the capital to New Rome the City of Constantine, a patriarchate with the imperial title "ecumenical" was added to the list, but out of respect for tradition was inserted between Rome and Alexandria. At Chalcedon the function of chief theologian was transferred from Alexandria to Rome to make up for the loss of Emperor and Senate, which now belonged to the Ecumenical Patriarch. The list was simply a priority of honor, no one Patriarch outranked the other, each was prime in his patriarchate. Chalcedon also remedied an omission by creating a Patriarchate of the Mother Church in Jerusalem; the Balkans were also transferred from Rome/West to New Rome/Ecumenical. The Catholic Church was created out of the Western Patriarchate of the Orthodox Church 12/25/800; there should be an Orthodox Pope of Rome (as Alexandria has both an Orthodox Pope and a Coptic Pope).
@@ROCdave5861 Are you mixing secular politics with ecclesiology? It was not chosen because it was the capital. It retained primacy way after the change of capital. The bishop of Ravenna got no recognition when the capital was moved there permanently either. This doesn't follow at all.
@@crusaderACR No--it was a respect for tradition--the Pope of Rome dealt with the Emperor and Senate, the Pope of Alexandria was chief theologian, and the patriarch of Antioch dealt with liturgy, hymns, and prayer. When EMperor St. Constantine, equal of the Apostles, moved the capital to New Rome the City of Constantine, a Patriarchate was created there (given the Imperial title "Ecumenical"), and placed second on the list out of respect for tradition. At Chalcedon the chief theologian aspect was transferred from Alexandria to Rome since the Pope of Rome had no current function. When the Catholic Church was created from the Western Patriarchate of the Orthodox Church the Pope of Rome became head of that church and simply called Catholic Pope (just as the Pope of Alexandria became head of that church after Chalcedon and subsequently called Coptic Pope). So your confusion can be answered by one word: tradition. You've tried to make it too complicated without fully understanding the history! (Or perhaps you were misled by the tunnel-vision version of history taught here in the West (aka fake history)).
@@ROCdave5861Bro your understanding of Church history is all out of whack. You won't find a credible scholar today who still supports the notion of "Rome was just given authority later." It's patently obvious that Rome was always held with unique authority that couldn't be transfered elsewhere.
What is the "gospel"? What is the gospel defined as? Definition of gospel The message concerning Christ, the kingdom of God, and salvation. : the first four New Testament books telling of the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ Read that again!! The first 4 gospels: Mathew , Mark Luke and John. And what does those four gospels say about the death, burial and resurrection of Christ??? Mathew 28:1 In the end of the Sabbath, as it began to dawn toward the first day of the week, came Mary Magdalene and the other Mary to see the sepulchre Mark 15:42 42 It was Preparation Day (that is, the day before the Sabbath). So as evening approached, Mark 16:1-2 When the Sabbath was over, Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, and Salome bought spices so that they might go to anoint Jesus’ body. 2 Very early on the first day of the week, just after sunrise, they were on their way to the tomb Mark 16:9 When Jesus rose early on the first day of the week, Luke 23:56 Then they went home and prepared spices and perfumes. But they rested on the Sabbath in obedience to the commandment. Luke 24:1 On the first day of the week, very early in the morning, the women took the spices they had prepared and went to the tomb. John 19:42 Because it was the Jewish day of Preparation (Friday) and since the tomb was nearby, they laid Jesus there. John 20:1 Early on the first day of the week, while it was still dark, Now, Either these verses are lies, or the truth. Christ was crucified on Friday, the Jewish Preparation day. Rested on the Seventh day, Sabbath. Arose on the first day of the week, Sunday. Tell me, where in the Holy Bible does it say GOD RESTED on the First day of creation?? Tell me, where in the Holy Bible does it say GOD BLESSED the First day of the week? Tell me, where in the Holy Bible does it say GOD SANCTIFIED ( made holy) the First day of the week? Tell me, where in the Holy Bible does it say GOD NAMED the First day of the week? Tell me, where in the Holy Bible does it say GOD DECLARE the First day of the week as HIS Holy Day? ---Catholics claim Sunday is the day of worship, a holy day.PROVE IT!!!! --------Galatians 1:8 But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be under a curse! &&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&& Written by God Written by GOD-----The ONLY day God RESTED was the Seventh day. Written by GOD-----The ONLY day God BLESSED was the Seventh day. Written by GOD-----The ONLY day God SANCTIFIED was the Seventh day. Written by GOD-----The ONLY day God named was the Seventh day. Written by GOD----The ONLY day God calls HIS HOLY Day was the Seventh day.---- NO OTHER DAY!!!!!
@@debbiedmeades3805 quote---Christ's resurrection was on a Sunday -.. unquote HE FULFILLED prophesy!!! #1--Where in the Bible does God REST on the first day of the week to make that day special? #2--Where in the Bible does God BLESS the first day of the week to make that day special? #3Where in the Bible does God SANCTIFY the first day of the week to make that day special? #4--Where in the Bible does God give a name the first day of the week to make that day special? #5--Where in the Bible does God DECLARE the first day of the week as HIS HOLY DAY to make that day special? GOD NEVER DECLARED IT A SABBATH or a HOLY DAY!!! --quote--- the new beginning -.. unquoet A new beginning fo the person that became a follower of Christ. NOTHING MORE!!! quote---The Lord's Day. unquoet THE ONLY DAY GOD DECLARED AS HIS HOLY DAY, The LORD''S Day-- Isaiah 58:13-14 13 “If you keep your feet from breaking the Sabbath and from doing as you please onMY HOLY DAY, if you call the Sabbath a delight and the Lord’s HOLY DAY honorable, and if you honor it by not going your own way and not doing as you please or speaking idle words, 14 then you will find your joy in the Lord, and I will cause you to ride in triumph on the heights of the land and to feast on the inheritance of your father Jacob.” For the mouth of the Lord has spoken. FOR THE MOUTH OF THE LORD HAS SPOKEN!@!!!! --- quote---The NEW Covenant,.. unquote Nope--- Only better The New Covenant is the promise that God will forgive sin and restore fellowship with those whose hearts are turned toward Him. Jesus Christ is the mediator of the New Covenant, and His death on the cross is the basis of the promise (Luke 22:20). The New Covenant was predicted while the Old Covenant was still in effect-the prophets Moses, Jeremiah, and Ezekiel all allude to the New Covenant. he Old Covenant that God had established with His people required strict obedience to the Mosaic Law. Because the wages of sin is death (Romans 6:23), the Law required that Israel perform daily sacrifices in order to atone for sin. But Moses, through whom God established the Old Covenant, also anticipated the New Covenant. In one of his final addresses to the nation of Israel, Moses looks forward to a time when Israel would be given “a heart to understand” (Deuteronomy 29:4, ESV). Moses predicts that Israel would fail in keeping the Old Covenant (verses 22-28), but he then sees a time of restoration (Deuteronomy 30:1-5). At that time, Moses says, “The Lord your God will circumcise your hearts and the hearts of your descendants, so that you may love him with all your heart and with all your soul, and live” (verse 6). The New Covenant involves a total change of heart so that God’s people are naturally pleasing to Him. ***
If the Roman Catholic Church is the true church- why would the fathers not recognize it? The Filioque, the destruction of baptism- excommunication of children.
@@wiseguysshow1871 the filoque was to fight off Arianism. St athanasius taught filoque as well in his letters to Serapion. As the Son is only-begotten offspring, so the Spirit, being given and sent from the Son, is himself one and not many, nor one from among many but only Spirit. As the Son, the living Word, is one, so must the vital activity and gift whereby he sanctifies and enlightens [the Spirit] be one perfect and complete; which is said to proceed from the Father because it is from the Word, who is confessed to be from the Father, and shines forth and is sent and is given. The Son is sent from the Father, for he says, “God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son.” The Son sends the Spirit; “If I go away,” he says, “I will send the Paraclete.” The Son glorifies the Father, saying, “Father, I have glorified thee.” The Spirit glorifies the Son, for he says, “he shall glorify me.” The Son says, “the things I have heard from the Father speak I unto the world.” The Spirit takes of the Son; “he shall take of mine,” he says, “and declare it unto you.” The Son came in the name of the Father. “The Holy Spirit,” says the Son, “whom the Father will send in my name.” But if in regard to order and nature the Spirit bears the same relation to the Son as the Son to the Father, will not he who holds the Spirit to be a creature necessarily hold the same to be true also of the Son? St. Athanasius, First Letter to Serapion, PG, 26:576D-80B, qtd. in Fr. Thomas Crean, Vindicating the Filioque, p. 47.
The Orthodox believe the Pope is the Bishop of Rome, and the 1st among equals of the Patriarchs! Orthodox only object to the Pope’s, “supreme authority without consultation” of all the Patriarchs! The Bible clearly demonstrates the apostles were collegiate! (Even Peter!) 🙏🌺☦️🌺🙏
And the Christians of the early Church believed otherwise. Rome always held an authoritative and necessary role for the Church. Your own Saints and bishops tended to agree with the west on this matter. Hence the sources Michael gives. Burden of proof is on the EO to explain how the Church, at an ecumenical council, could accept something like the claims of Pope Agatho when he clearly views the Papacy as much more than a primacy of honor or first among equals.
By the fruits? The fruit of being the largest charity in the world now and historically? The fruit of being the largest non government provider of education and healthcare? The fruit of 10k hospitals and schools in Africa? Do you really want to try this?
What a twisting. Stop just state the truth and be free from these sins of papal infallibility, and the present statements by your pope proves this is false. Stop lying
19. Of the Church. The visible Church of Christ is a congregation of faithful men, in which the pure Word of God is preached, and the Sacraments be duly ministered according to Christ's ordinance, in all those things that of necessity are requisite to the same. As the Church of Jerusalem, Alexandria, and Antioch, have erred, so also the Church of Rome hath erred, not only in their living and manner of Ceremonies, but also in matters of Faith. Article 19 of the Articles of Religion of the Church of England
quote---The visible Church of Christ is a congregation of faithful men, in which the pure Word of God is preached, .. unquote LOL-LAMO-ROFL Such BS!!!! The [Catholic] Church took the pagan buckler of faith against the heathen. She took the pagan Roman Pantheon [the Roman], temple to all the gods, and made it sacred to all the martyrs; so it stands to this day. She took the pagan Sunday and made it the Christian Sunday. .The Sun was a foremost god with heathendom. Balder the beautiful: the White God, the old Scandinavians called him. The sun has worshipers at this very hour in Persia and other lands. .Hence the Church would seem to have said, 'Keep that old pagan name. It shall remain consecrated, sanctified.' And thus the pagan Sunday, dedicated to Balder, became the Christian Sunday, sacred to Jesus. The sun is a fitting emblem of Jesus. The Fathers often compared Jesus to the sun; as they compared Mary to the moon." -William L. Gildea, "Paschale Gaudium," in The Catholic World, p. 58, March 1894. >>>>>>>Colossians 1:18 New International Version 18 And he (Jesus) is the head of the body, the church; he is the beginning and the firstborn from among the dead, so that in everything he might have the supremacy. TRUTH of the BIBLE!!!! >>>>>>> Ephesians 1:22-23 New International Version 22 And God placed all things under his (Jesus") feet and appointed him to be head over everything for the church, 23 which is his body, the fullness of him who fills everything in every way. TRUTH of the BIBLE!!!! >>>>>>John 14:6 Jesus answered, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me." Since Jesus IS THE TRUTH, then what about the contradictions of the "Church"?? According to Catholics, they are the truth!!! According to Cathoics, they are the ONLY way to God!!! #1--Where in the Bible does God REST on the first day of the week to make that day special? #2--Where in the Bible does God BLESS the first day of the week to make that day special? #3Where in the Bible does God SANCTIFY the first day of the week to make that day special? #4--Where in the Bible does God give a name the first day of the week to make that day special? #5--Where in the Bible does God DECLARE the first day of the week as HIS HOLY DAY to make that day special? (Sunday keepers don’t realize that when they keep Sunday holy they are making a day holy that man ordained, not God, by doing that they have violated the 2nd commandment by making an image, they also violate the 4th commandment and the 9th commandment by lying about the Sabbath being changed to Sunday. I’m sure you could find a few different commandments that are broken by keeping Sunday. That’s why the Bible says if you break one commandment you break them all. Please open your eyes brothers and sisters that keep Sunday before it is to late!) #6--Quote the Holy Bible that says Mary prayed to/with beads. #7--Quote the Holy Bible that says Mary went to/ will go to heaven. #8--Quote the Holy Bible that says Mary is an mediator/intercessor. #9--Quote the Holy Bible that says Mary remained a virgin all her life. #10--Quote the Holy Bible that says Mary did not sin. #11--Quote the Holy Bible that says a mere man is Head of the church. #12--Quote the Holy Bible that says there are popes in God's kingdom. #13--Quote the Holy Bible that says we are to confess our sins to a priest. #14--Quote the Holy Bible that says there is an "one holy Apolistic church? #15--Quote the Holy Bible that says the seventh day is not the Sabbath. #16--Quote the Holy Bible that says Rome is where Jesus will have His headquarters. #17--Quote the Holy Bible that says Peter was in Rome. #18--Quote the Holy Bible that says Mary is the Ark of the covenant.
I don't really have a dog in this fight but I can tell from watching this feud that there's so much pride fueling all of this and I don't hear too many Biblical accounts as much as I hear arguments based on details after the scriptures were penned.
I assume you're not Catholic? For Catholics, Christianity doesn't end with the book of Revalation. "Details after the scriptures penned" are pretty important to us. :)
No. Not catholic. I am a what I prefer to call a follower of Christ. I see that yall use other texts to inform but it seemed that scripture is being brought up very seldomly and its not just the catholic apologist but also the orthodox apologist as well. If our instructions from Christ are in the Bible why is it being treated as though its secondary?
@@danielwatcherofthelord1823 well, to start, the entirety of the Mass Catholics and Orthodox partake in is spoken scripture. Yes. In 1700-2000 years of history POST the scriptures being written, things have happened and documents have been written.
2 Thessalonians 2:4 KJV Bible “Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God.” Christ is the head of the church. Not the popes who claim to be vicars of Christ. The popes teach a false gospel. The Lord's apostles are the one's who walked with Him. No other apostles after them.
Formula of Pope St. Hormisdas This was the formula of faith, also known as “Formula Hormisdae” that settled the first schism between East and West. It was concluded in Constantinople in AD 519: “The first condition of salvation is to keep the norm of the true faith and in no way to deviate from the established doctrine of the Fathers. For it is impossible that the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, who said, “Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church,” [Matthew 16:18], should not be verified. And their truth has been proved by the course of history, for in the Apostolic See the Catholic religion has always been kept unsullied. From this hope and faith we by no means desire to be separated and, following the doctrine of the Fathers, we declare anathema all heresies, and, especially, the heretic Nestorius, former bishop of Constantinople, who was condemned by the Council of Ephesus, by Blessed Celestine, bishop of Rome, and by the venerable Cyril, bishop of Alexandria. We likewise condemn and declare to be anathema Eutyches and Dioscoros of Alexandria, who were condemned in the holy Council of Chalcedon, which we follow and endorse. This Council followed the holy Council of Nicaea and preached the apostolic faith. And we condemn the assassin Timothy, surnamed Aelurus [“the Cat”] and also Peter [Mongos] of Alexandria, his disciple and follower in everything. We also declare anathema their helper and follower, Acacius of Constantinople, a bishop once condemned by the Apostolic See, and all those who remain in contact and company with them. Because this Acacius joined himself to their communion, he deserved to receive a judgment of condemnation similar to theirs. Furthermore, we condemn Peter [“the Fuller”] of Antioch with all his followers together together with the followers of all those mentioned above. Following, as we have said before, the Apostolic See in all things and proclaiming all its decisions, we endorse and approve all the letters which Pope St Leo wrote concerning the Christian religion. And so I hope I may deserve to be associated with you in the one communion which the Apostolic See proclaims, in which the whole, true, and perfect security of the Christian religion resides. I promise that from now on those who are separated from the communion of the Catholic Church, that is, who are not in agreement with the Apostolic See, will not have their names read during the sacred mysteries. But if I attempt even the least deviation from my profession, I admit that, according to my own declaration, I am an accomplice to those whom I have condemned. I have signed this, my profession, with my own hand, and I have directed it to you, Hormisdas, the holy and venerable pope of Rome.” Pope St Hormisdas (514-523)
@@mattboylan7318 quoteWhat do you think this proves?--unquote NOT all popes agreed about praying to beads---Obviously someone KNEW what the Holy Bible does NOT agree with.
@@mattboylan7318--quote--- haha that Pope was praising the rosary beads. Saying that they could be used to defeat the devil.--unquote AN OPINION!!!! Where in the Holy Bible does Jesus teach anyone to pray to beads????????????????????????? --Where in the Holy Bible does it say Mary prayed to beads???????????? ****Why do Catholics REFUSE to obey God and HIS HOLY WORDS??? By praying to Mary, Catholics are implying God is a lair!!! Does God lie??? 1 Peter 5:6----Humble yourselves, therefore, under God's mighty hand, that he may lift you up in due time. Cast all your anxiety on him because he cares for you. (John 14:6-----“I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me”). Christians are often criticized for claiming that Jesus is the only way to God. -----Do you really think God appreaciates the implication that He is a liar? ----John 14:13-14 13 And I will do whatever you ask in my name, so that the Father may be glorified in the Son. 14 You may ask me for anything in my name, and I will do it. -----1 Tim 2:5 For there is one God and one mediator between God and mankind, the man Christ Jesus,) Exodus -=---The NAME of Jesus!!! --Not the name of Mary!!! Not Joseph !!!! Not Michael!!! *****Even the Douay Rheims Bible says that Mary admitted needing the Saviour; read the Magnificat. Plus, Romans 3:23, says "All have sinned and come short of the glory of God." ***----NOT written down: (NOT BIBLICAL) Worship of relics Worship of Mary Mary as intercessor/mediator indulgences Purgatory Mass Tradition above scripture Sunday worship Eternal torment Confessional Infant Baptism NOT ONE is Biblical!!!!! ---Especially the claim by Catholics that Mary prayed to beads (rosary).. She was a JEW!!! Not one Jew would have prayed to beads. That IS IDOLATRY!!! A HUGE SIN!!!! Pray ONLY to God!!!! Had Mary prayed to beads, she would HAVE been stoned. (In the Pentateuch Sefer Torah The institution of capital punishment in Jewish law is defined in the Law of Moses (Torah) in multiple places. The Mosaic Law provides for the death penalty to be inflicted upon those persons convicted of the following offences: #1--adultery (for a married woman and her lover)[12][13] #2--bestiality[14] #3--blasphemy[15] #4--child sacrifice[16] #5--false testimony in capital cases[17] #6--false prophecy[18] #7--proselytizing and promoting other religions[19] #8--male homosexual relations[20] #9--idolatry, actual or virtual[21] #10--incestuous relations[22] #11---insubordination to supreme authority[23] #12--lying about one's virginity upon marrying a spouse (Deuteronomy 22:13-21)[13][24] #13--kidnapping[25] l#14--icentiousness of a priest's daughter[26] (which imples the priest was married). #15--murder[27] #16--rape committed against a betrothed woman[28] #17--striking, cursing, or otherwise rebelling against parental authority[29] #18--Sabbath-breaking[30] #19--touching Mount Sinai while God was giving Moses the Ten Commandments[31] #20--witchcraft, divination, necromancy, sorcery, etc (Talking, praying to the dead) --LOOK at the crime of IDOLATRY!!! DEATH!!!!! #9-- Mary also would have been accused of :#7--proselytizing and promoting other religions[19] ----I suggest Catholics take a LONG hard look at the claim Mary prayed to beads. UNDER Jewish law------She would have broken 2 laws--BOTH punishable by DEATH!!!! ----- Either Mary NEVER prayed to beads--and was Sinless---or she prayed to beads and WAS A SINNER!!!!------under the Jewish laws........Tell me, under which laws will she be judged by: Catholic or the laws of God (Jewish Laws)?--
And we do not pray to beads. We pray to God and we venerate our spiritual mother and ask that she pray for her us. Mary says in Luke 1:48 - For behold, henceforth all generations will call me blessed. When is the last time you called the mother of God blessed? You are called to imitate Jesus. Who would have lived by His law to honor thy father and thy mother. Are you honoring the mother of the new covenant? The mother of the church.
Jesus didn't say, "Upon you I will build my Church. Instead, He said, " Upon this I will build my Church." Thus, the question remains....what is "this?" I say Peter's confession of who Jesus was is what made him a rock, not who he was in himself. Don't believe it? The hard evidence is rock solid. Let's have a look. 1 Corinthians 1:10-13: Paul addresses the divisions among the Corinthians, where some were claiming allegiance to different apostles (Paul, Apollos, Peter, or Christ). Paul emphasizes that faith and unity in Christ is what truly matters, not allegiance to any human leader, including Peter. 1 Corinthians 1:12-13: "What I mean is this: One of you says, 'I follow Paul'; another, 'I follow Apollos'; another, 'I follow Cephas' (note that Peter wasn't even referred to as Peter here but by his original name, Cephas); still another, 'I follow Christ.' Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Were you baptized in the name of Paul?" Galatians 2:6-14: Paul speaks about how Peter's position did not matter to him and should not matter to others, emphasizing that what truly mattered was the truth of the Gospel. Also, in Galatians 2:11-14, Paul recounts how he publicly corrected Peter for his hypocrisy when Peter withdrew from eating with Gentiles due to pressure from certain Jewish Christians. Galatians 2:6: "As for those who were held in high esteem-whatever they were makes no difference to me; God does not show favoritism-they added nothing to my message." Galatians 2:11-14: "When Cephas (Peter) came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned. For before certain men came from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles. But when they arrived, he began to draw back and separate himself from the Gentiles because he was afraid of those who belonged to the circumcision group. The other Jews joined him in his hypocrisy, so that by their hypocrisy even Barnabas was led astray. When I saw that they were not acting in line with the truth of the gospel, I said to Cephas (Peter) in front of them all, 'You are a Jew, yet you live like a Gentile and not like a Jew. How is it, then, that you force Gentiles to follow Jewish customs?'" Galatians 2:7-8: Paul described Peter as simply the apostle to the Jews, while he himself was the apostle to the Gentiles. Galatians 2:7-8: "On the contrary, they recognized that I had been entrusted with the task of preaching the gospel to the uncircumcised, just as Peter had been to the circumcised. For God, who was at work in Peter as an apostle to the circumcised, was also at work in me as an apostle to the Gentiles." Galatians 2:9: Paul lists James before Peter when referencing apostles he met in Jerusalem. Galatians 2:9: "James, Cephas (again, calling Peter by his original name), and John, those esteemed as pillars, gave me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship when they recognized the grace given to me." Acts 15: James, brother of Jesus and senior leader for the Jerusalem church, had the final word in the discussion about whether Gentile converts to Christianity needed to follow the Law of Moses, particularly circumcision. After much debate, James offered a summary and issued the final judgment. Acts 15:13-19: "When they had finished, James spoke up: 'Brothers,' he said, 'listen to me. Simon (Like Paul, James also does not always refer to Peter as Peter] has described to us how God first intervened to choose a people for his name from the Gentiles. The words of the prophets are in agreement with this, as it is written... It is my judgment, therefore, that we should not make it difficult for the Gentiles who are turning to God.'" 1 Peter 1:1; 5:1: In his first letter, Peter refers to himself simply as an elder even as he is an apostle. Not as a bishop and not as a Pope but collegially as an elder. Also in 2 Peter 1:1, he refers to himself even more humbly, simply as a servant of Jesus Christ and an apostle. 1 Peter 1:1: "Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ,...." 1 Peter 5:1: "To the elders among you, I appeal as a fellow elder and a witness of Christ's sufferings who also will share in the glory to be revealed." 2 Peter 1:1: " Simon Peter, a servant and apostle of Jesus Christ...." These direct Scripture quotations demonstrate Paul's focus on the centrality of the Gospel and Christian unity in Christ Himself over personal allegiance to any human leaders, including Peter. They also emphasize Peter's original name, Cephas, revealing the essential irrelevance of his name change. They say that his primary mission was to evangelize Jews just as Paul's was to evangelize the larger Gentile population. They demonstrate James's supremacy over Peter in Jerusalem, the Mother Church of early Christianity. And, indeed, Peter's own letter demonstrates that he held no office of primacy in the early Church. Clearly, then, he could not have held anything resembling general authority over other apostles or churches. Finally, when looking at church history, we find that not a single church named in the New Testament was ever under the Roman Pope except for Rome itself. Therefore, all Catholic claims about Petrine-Papal supremacy are shown to be indefensible - biblically, theologically, and historically.
Even the Douay Rheims Bible says that Mary admitted needing the Saviour; read the Magnificat. Plus, Romans 3:23, says "All have sinned and come short of the glory of God."
@@codenametemplar quote---What dose the arch angel Gabriel say? Hail Mary full of grace. How could she be full of grace if she wasn’t?--unquote So, Gabriel lied??? An Angel of God!!!
@@mitchellosmer1293 no I am saying she was full of grace, I’m not saying the arch angel lied🤣 what I am saying is that Mary didn’t sin. Do you agree or not? (Just for clarification)
@@codenametemplar quote--- what I am saying is that Mary didn’t sin.--unquote That would make God a LIAR!!! Romans 3:23 for ALL have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 2 For we all stumble in many ways. And if anyone does not stumble in what he says, he is a perfect man, fable also to bridle his whole body. 8 If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. **** ALL HAVE SINNED--that INCLUDES MARY!! btw---NOT Biblical!!!!! ---Especially the claim by Catholics that Mary prayed to beads (rosary).. She was a JEW!!! Not one Jew would have prayed to beads. That IS IDOLATRY!!! A HUGE SIN!!!! Pray ONLY to God!!!! Had Mary prayed to beads, she would HAVE been stoned
@@mitchellosmer1293 first of all no Catholic believes she prayed to beads, the reason why we pray the rosary (which is a prayer quoting the bible and yes I mean the Hail Mary) is because 3rd century Christian’s would pray those prayers counting the roses at the colosseum when Christian’s were being forced into it. 2nd of all we don’t pray to Mary the way we pray to GOD, we use the term pray as in to ask for, are saints alive in heaven? Yes. Because with GOD we are alive again, so we ask them to pray for us in the same way you may ask your church or friend or pastor to pray for you. As for Mary having no sin, you are making GOD a liar when the Arch angel Gabriel said FULL OF GRACE. Meaning she (Mary was full of grace). She had to be to be the tabernacle to hold GOD manifested in the flesh within her womb. In the same way the the arch of the covenant was perfect. Because GOD being perfect cannot exist within imperfection.
If Christ established papal supremacy and infallibility, and the gates of hell will not prevail and the church is the Roman Catholic Church. Then you are saying that it is ok to deny the divinity of Christ accird to the cathechism of the Catholic Church. And if it is an error that it's ok to deny the divinity of Christ then the gates of hell has prevailed which means the roman Catholic church isn't the church Christ founded. But as usual Catholics will ignore this amount many things.
@@Phantom-xp2co841 of the cathechism of the Catholic Church Muslims deny Christ's divinity and therefore he isn't the second person of the trinity which is false, but according to the roman church you both worship the same God, then the divinity of Christ doesn't matter the trinity does matter according to the teachings of Roman Catholicism. Yous have many false teachings that roman catholics keep trying to explain away. And if you'd have to keep explaining what roman Catholicism teaches or what the pope really meant by many things and actions, again a great example of a fallen church that can't teach clearly
@@menofvirtue6238 Did Jews worship the true God while Jesus was a baby ? Did the contemporary Jews who lived as Christ was a baby worship a different God because they had no knowledge God incarnated ? If the answer is that they still worshipped the true God even with imperfect knowledge, it means the catechism is on point and you are wrong. Because you fail to distinguish between intention of worship and the knowledge invovled in worship, Muslims intend to worship Abraham's God, the catechism is on point. As for the verses saying that we do not have the Father without the Son that is true, because understanding of the Father comes by the Son.
@@VirginMostPowerfull @workinpromo read St John 15:22 If I had not come, and spoken to them, they would not have sin; but now they have no excuse for their sin. The Jews rejected Christ. The true God isn't just the Fat or isn't just the Son or just the Holy Spirit. You can't divide the Holy Trinity.
Pretty sure the Catechism says that Muslims *proclaim* to worship the one true God along with them, *not* that the Catholic Church thinks their beliefs are true and valid. No Catholic teaching says that Muslims are correct. That's a straw man and taking the Catechism out of context. I swear Orthodox will exploit anything if it means getting one over on the Catholics. It's pretty pathetic to be honest.
----Why do Catholics worship Mary instead of Jesus? The Catholic Church teaches that Mary is the Mother of God, that she is to be venerated as the Mother of God, and that she intercedes for us to secure our salvation. This is why Catholics love and respect her and pray to her as the Mother of God. Mary acts as the true mediator between God and humanity. AGAIN----Does God lie?????? --The Holy Bible CLEARLY says in 1 Tim 2:5---For there is one God and one mediator between God and mankind, the man Christ Jesus. Either God lied--or someone else did.-----Which is the truth???
@CJ P. quote-- Instead we should submit to the authority of the Church that Christ established.--unquote And what church is that??? Prove that from the Holy Bible what church Jesus established.. Guranteed it WAS NOT the Catholic Church because Jesus NEVER mentioned it ....
@CJ P. quote---You want the very Church that COMPILED and CANONIZED that very Bible you’re referring to… to prove itself in that same Bible.--unquote ABSOLUTELY--- When that Church supposedly "canonized" it, changes were made-- Who wrote the Latin Vulgate? Jerome The Vulgate is largely the work of Jerome who, in 382, had been commissioned by Pope Damasus I to revise the Vetus Latina Gospels used by the Roman Church. Later, on his own initiative, Jerome extended this work of revision and translation to include most of the books of the Bible. ---who wrote the Septuagint? The Greek Old Testament, or Septuagint (/ˈsɛptjuədʒɪnt/,[1] US also /sɛpˈtjuːədʒɪnt/;[2] from the Latin: septuaginta, lit. 'seventy'; often abbreviated 70; in Roman numerals, LXX), is the earliest extant Greek translation of books from the Hebrew Bible.[3] It includes several books beyond those contained in the Masoretic text of the Hebrew Bible as canonically used in the tradition of mainstream Rabbinical Judaism. The additional books were composed in Greek, Hebrew, or Aramaic, but in most cases, only the Greek version has survived to the present. It is the oldest and most important complete translation of the Hebrew Bible made by the Jews. Some targums translating or paraphrasing the Bible into Aramaic were also made around the same time. The first five books of the Hebrew Bible, known as the Torah or the Pentateuch, were translated in the mid-3rd century BCE.[4] The remaining translations are presumably from the 2nd century BCE.[5][6][7] The full title (Ancient Greek: Ἡ μετάφρασις τῶν Ἑβδομήκοντα, lit. 'The Translation of the Seventy') derives from the story recorded in the Letter of Aristeas that the Hebrew Torah was translated into Greek at the request of Ptolemy II Philadelphus (285-247 BCE) by 70 Jewish scholars or, according to later tradition, 72: six scholars from each of the Twelve Tribes of Israel, who independently produced identical translations. -------The SAME writings as the Catholics used for 100's of years. Until their idealogy (popes- and emporers) decided they wanted NO MORE to do with the Jews!!! unday was another work day in the Roman Empire. On March 7, 321, however, Roman Emperor Constantine I issued a civil decree making Sunday a day of rest from labor, stating: All judges and city people and the craftsmen shall rest upon the venerable day of the sun. -- SOURCE-----WIKIPEDIA-----Day of rest A common theme in criticism of Hebrew Shabbat rest was idleness, found not to be in the Christian spirit of rest.[citation needed] Irenaeus (late 2nd century), also citing continuous Sabbath observance, wrote that the Christian "will not be commanded to leave idle one day of rest, who is constantly keeping sabbath",[31] and Tertullian (early 3rd century) argued "that we still more ought to observe a sabbath from all servile work always, and not only every seventh-day, but through all time".[32] This early metaphorical interpretation of Sabbath applied it to the entire Christian life.[33] Ignatius, cautioning against "Judaizing" in the Epistle of Ignatius to the Magnesians,[34] contrasts the Jewish Shabbat practices with the Christian life which includes the Lord's Day:--(Read Idaiah 58:13--God claims the Sabbath is HIS HOLY DAY!!--So, which day is the day of the Lord? The Seventh day)----And--It is the ONLY day Jesus cliams He is the Lord of!!!) Let us therefore no longer keep the Sabbath after the Jewish manner, and rejoice in days of idleness. [...] But let every one of you keep the Sabbath after a spiritual manner, rejoicing in meditation on the law, not in relaxation of the body, admiring the workmanship of God, and not eating things prepared the day before, nor using lukewarm drinks, and walking within a prescribed space, nor finding delight in dancing and plaudits which have no sense in them. And after the observance of the Sabbath, let every friend of Christ keep the Lord's [Day, Dominicam] as a festival, the resurrection-day, the queen and chief of all the days.[35] The 2nd and 3rd centuries solidified the early church's emphasis upon Sunday worship and its rejection of a Jewish (Mosaic Law-based) observation of the Sabbath and manner of rest. Christian practice of following Sabbath after the manner of the Hebrews declined, prompting Tertullian to note "to [us] Sabbaths are strange" and unobserved.[36] Even as late as the 4th century, Judaizing was still sometimes a problem within the Church, but by this time it was repudiated strongly as heresy.[37][38][39]--(Who were the chosen people of God??? Jews!!!---God told the Jews the Sabbath was a PERPETUAL covenant with them. If the Sabbath was abolised at any time, then God LIED to them!!!) Sunday was another work day in the Roman Empire. On March 7, 321, however, Roman Emperor Constantine I issued a civil decree making Sunday a day of rest from labor, stating:[40]--(CONSTATINE changed the day of worship!!!) "All judges and city people and the craftsmen shall rest upon the venerable day of the sun. Country people, however, may freely attend to the cultivation of the fields, because it frequently happens that no other days are better adapted for planting the grain in the furrows or the vines in trenches. So that the advantage given by heavenly providence may not for the occasion of a short time perish." While established only in civil law rather than religious principle,[citation needed] the Church welcomed the development as a means by which Christians could the more easily attend Sunday worship and observe Christian rest. At Laodicea also, the Church encouraged Christians to make use of the day for Christian rest where possible,[39] without ascribing to it any of the regulation of Mosaic Law, and indeed anathematizing Hebrew observance on the Sabbath. The civil law and its effects made possible a pattern in Church life that has been imitated throughout the centuries in many places and cultures, wherever possible --quote--- But now you want to have it your own way when it’s convenient for you.--unquote-ABSOLUTELY NOT!! AGAIN----Where in the Holy Bible Does God---YOUR CREATOR--Say HE RESTED--------BLESSED-----SANCTIFIED--(Made Holy) -------NAMED (Sabbath)---and CLAIMS as His Holy day on the FIRST DAY Of the week ???????????? Come on--Prove the claim of the Catholics that GOD---- made Sunday a HOLY DAY!!!!
@@mitchellosmer1293 Do you know what the Sabbath was for? "The Sabbath is only a day of preparation for the banquet which will be laid out in the Olam Haba when Messiah arrives on the 8th day".- Rabbi Yakov (Teacher of Judah haNasi/the writer of the Mishna) Catholics believe Jesus is Messiah and he has already arrived, lived, died and resurrected. He has a fulfilled the Sabbath and we are living in the Messianic Olam Haba. God has put before us His feast, the Eucharistic sacrifice of thanksgiving of the 8th day. Rabbi Jacob explains that the Sabbath is the day of preparation for the Olam Haba. The seventh day = sabbath. So the eighth day is the day that they were preparing for. This is why in the NT the first day is also known as the eighth day as it follows the Sabbath. As you see, in the Olam Haba the day of worship is going to be the Eighth day/First day/Sunday when the Eucharistic banquet is set by God. To worship on Saturday instead of Sunday is to deny that we are living in the Messianic Age. It is a denial that Christ is the Messiah. He fulfils the last Sabbath by not disturbing it, rising on Sunday, fulfilling the Sabbath. How is this to be understood? The seventh day (Sabbath) is the day of preparation for the day that is to come in the Olam Haba (Sunday). God Himself will lay out the banquet. It is the Eucharist, the sacrifice of thanksgiving which the sages prophesied. The Pharisees were upset when Jesus did “works” of healing on the Sabbath, they were outraged that Jesus was healing on a Sabbath. Jesus healed on a Sabbath because He is the Lord of the Sabbath, the Sabbath has no power over Christ or His Church. It is the Jewish apostles who began worshiping on the Eighth Day/Sunday (according to Jewish calendar)... the day following the Sabbath, because the Sabbath is now fulfilled. Foolish of followers of Christ to want to continue worshipping on Saturdays when they have no idea why/what Sabbath was originally for.
@@SaintCharbelMiracleworker quote---Do you know what the Sabbath was for? "The Sabbath is only a day of preparation for the banquet which will be laid out in the Olam Haba when Messiah arrives on the 8th day".- Rabbi Yakov (Teacher of Judah haNasi/the writer of the Mishna) --unquote That is your opinion!! --Obviously you DO NOT believe in the Holy Bible. ****quote---He has a fulfilled the Sabbath and we are living in the Messianic Olam Haba. God has put before us His feast, the Eucharistic sacrifice of thanksgiving of the 8th day. --unquote--AGAIN--AM OPINION!! If Jesus fulfilled the Sabbath, then WHY did Hid wimen followers KEEP the Sabbath that Friday??? Luke 23:56----And--ALL the disciples kept the Sabbath in Acts. And--that means God lied to the Jews. The Sabbath is God's perpetual sign of His eternal covenant between Him and His people. Joyful observance of this holy time from evening to evening, sunset to sunset, is a celebration of God's creative and redemptive acts. (Gen. 2:1-3; Ex. 20:8-11; Luke 4:16; Isa. 56:5, 6; 58:13, 14; Matt. 12:1-12; Ex. 31:13-17; Eze. 20:12, 20; Deut. 5:12-15; Heb. 4:1-11; Lev. 23:32; Mark 1:32. -*** Does God lie??? Obviously you may nor know what "perpetual" means---FOREVER--NEVER ending!!! ****quote---To worship on Saturday instead of Sunday is to deny that we are living in the Messianic Age. It is a denial that Christ is the Messiah. He fulfils the last Sabbath by not disturbing it, rising on Sunday, fulfilling the Sabbath. --unquote AGAIN---OPINION You quote ABSOLUTELY NOT ONER scripture!!! *****Where in the Holy Bible does GOD say the first day of the week is the day HE RESTED on??? -------Where in the Holy Bible does GOD say the first day of the week is the day HE BLESSED???-------Where in the Holy Bible does GOD say the first day of the week is the day HE SACTIFIED (made Holy)?????????-------Where in the Holy Bible does GOD say the first day of the week is the day HE NAMED???---------------Where in the Holy Bible does GOD say the first day of the week is the day HE CLAIMED as HIS HOLY DAY??? *****quote--It is the Jewish apostles who began worshiping on the Eighth Day/Sunday (according to Jewish calendar)... the day following the Sabbath, because the Sabbath is now fulfilled.-unquote AGAIN--AN OPINION!!! And you want to take the verses totally OUT of context---- You refuse to ask questions---- about the verses and refuse to find the answers. ****quote---Foolish of followers of Christ to want to continue worshipping on Saturdays when they have no idea why/what Sabbath was originally for. unquote--LOL--- The Sabbath is a weekly day of rest or time of worship given in the Bible as the seventh day. It is observed differently in Judaism and Christianity and informs a similar occasion in several other faiths. Observation and remembrance of Sabbath is one of the Ten Commandments ("Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy") considered to be the fourth in Judaism, Eastern Orthodoxy, and most Protestant traditions, and the third in Roman Catholic and Lutheran traditions. ---The Biblical Hebrew Shabbat is a verb meaning "to cease" or "to rest", its noun form meaning a time or day of cessation or rest. It's Anglicized pronounciation is Sabbath. A cognate Babylonian Sapattum or Sabattum is reconstructed from the lost fifth Enūma Eliš creation account, which is read as: "[Sa]bbatu shalt thou then encounter, mid[month]ly". It is regarded as a form of Sumerian sa-bat ("mid-rest"), rendered in Akkadian as um nuh libbi ("day of mid-repose").[1] The dependent Greek cognate is Sabbaton, used in the New Testament 68 times. Two inflections, Hebrew Shabbathown and Greek "σαββατισμός" (Sabbatismós), also appear. The Greek form is cognate to the Septuagint verb sabbatizo (e.g., Ex. 16:30; Lev. 23:32; 26:34; 2 Chr. 36:21). In English, the concept of sabbatical is cognate to these two forms. The King James Bible uses the English form "sabbath(s)" 172 times. In the Old Testament, "sabbath(s)" translates Shabbath all 107 times (including 35 plurals), plus shebeth three times, shabath once, and the related mishbath once (plural). In the New Testament, "sabbath" translates Sabbaton 59 times; Sabbaton is also translated as "week" nine times, by synecdoche. Sabbatai Zevi in 1665 The name form is "Shabbethai"[2] a name appearing three times in the Tanakh.
@@SaintCharbelMiracleworker ----So God blessed the seventh day and made it holy, because on it God rested from all his work that he had done in Creation. -Gen. 2:3
What does the Bible say about Queen of Heaven? Hebrew Bible references The worship of a "Queen of Heaven" (Hebrew: מלכת השמים, Malkath haShamayim) is recorded in the Book of Jeremiah, in the context of the Prophet condemning such religious worship and it being the cause of God declaring that He would remove His people from the land. A pagan goddess!!!
Yes the Bible condemns worshipping pagan deities as the "queen of Heaven." The Bible also condemns worshipping pagan deities as "Lord," so does that mean we are worshipping demons instead of God any time we worship the Lord? Of course not. Think about this: Jesus is King of Heaven, and Mary is His mother. Therefore, according to custom, Mary is the Queen Mother of Heaven.
@@john-el9636 quote---Think about this: Jesus is King of Heaven, and Mary is His mother. Therefore, according to custom, Mary is the Queen Mother of Heaven.--unquote Nope!! Quote that from the Bible and NOT an opinion. First of all, Mary IS NOT in heaven. #2--IF she was in heaven on the right side of Jesus, that places her equal to God. #3---NOT ONR verse in ALL scripture places her in heaven. #4---If she is in heaven , that makes God a liar. --Apparently custom, tradition those are what you base your idealogy on and NOT the Word of God. THAT shows where your alligence is. On man and NOT on God. ---quote---The Bible also condemns worshipping pagan deities as "Lord," so does that mean we are worshipping demons instead of God any time we worship the Lord? -unquote That depend if you are worshipping the "LORD" according to God, and NOT according to man.
@mitchellosmer1293 Bro learn to type. Quotation marks exist. Use them. Not everything Christians believe is explicitly found in the Bible. Even you believe that since no passage in Sacred Scripture has such a rule, nor is there a list of books that are canonical anywhere in the Bible. Therefore, you can't dismiss my logic based solely on the fact that the Bible didn't hold your hand and explain it to you. Jesus is King of Heaven, and Mary is His mother. Therefore, Mary is the Queen Mother of Heaven. Case closed. If Mary, the Mother of God, wasn't saved, then nobody will be bud. What do you think our chances of attaining eternal life are if the mother Christ loved so much can't make it? Nobody said she's at the right hand of Christ, but even if we did, that wouldn't make her His equal. Hence the term "right hand man." It implies a kind of secondary or supporting role. There isn't a single verse in the Bible that says cars exist. Therefore, cars don't exist. See how that logic works? Also Mary is typically identified as the woman giving birth in Revelation so yeah. Probably her in Heaven right there. Why would Mary, the greatest among the Saints, being in Heaven make God a liar? I don't recall Him ever saying that Mary was condemned to Hell or that nobody was allowed in Heaven. Geez Christ literally opened Heaven after His crucifixion and descent into the realm of the dead. Do you really think He just did all that for nothing? Notice how I didn't appeal to anything outside of what the Bible tells us to refute your position. No traditions or customs needed to refute this kinda nonsense. So you make an exception for using the term "Lord" but you won't do so with the term "Queen of Heaven." That's a contradiction bud. Either both are okay to use in a Christian context, or neither of them are. So which is it? Also why are you liking your own comments?
@@john-el9636 quote---Not everything Christians believe is explicitly found in the Bible. Even you believe that since no passage in Sacred Scripture has such a rule, nor is there a list of books that are canonical anywhere in the Bible. Therefore, you can't dismiss my logic based solely on the fact that the Bible didn't hold your hand and explain it to you.--unquote I feel sorry for you that you believe every word spoken by anyone is what we are to follow. Where is that in the Bible??? I supposed when the Pope says to kill anyone that keeps the Sabbath, you will follow him? Jesus said several time,"FOLLOW ME!""" NOT a mere man. But you DO NOT FOLLOW Jesus!!!! ----I QUOTE the WORD OF GOD: Hebrews 4:12 12 Indeed, the word of God is living and effective, sharper than any two-edged sword, penetrating even between soul and spirit, joints and marrow, and able to discern reflections and thoughts of the heart), or seen implicitly through its lens. Ultimately, Sola Scriptura is the start and foundation of everything we know about God and His glory. Not according to Catholics. Indeed, the word of the Pope (priests) is living and effective........... ------Deuteronomy 17:14-20 states that we “shall not turn away from God’s Word, not to the right or the left”. Not according to Catholics. They turn to whatever direction they can to satisfy their itching ears. ------Psalm 1:2 and Joshua 1:7-8 says that “the righteous person dwells on the Word of the Lord day and night”. Not according to catholics. They DWELL on every word spoken by a mere man, the Pope (priests). ------Deuteronomy 8:3 states that “we do not live on bread alone, but by every word that comes from the mouth of God”.The Reformers did not create this idea on the basis of logic, virtue, experience, or tradition, but from the foundation of Scripture itself. Not according to Catholics.“we do not live on bread alone, but by every word that comes from the mouth of the Pope (priests)”. ----- Proverbs 30:5-6 states: 5 Every word of God proves true; he is a shield to those who take refuge in him. 6 Do not add to his words, lest he rebuke you and you be found a liar Not according to Catholics. 5 Every word of the Pope proves true; he is a shield to those who take refuge in him. 6 Do not add to his words, lest he rebuke you and you be found a heritic. Now, I have quoted scripture after scripture to prove it is ONLY the Word of Goid we are to accept as TRUTH!!! It is your turn to QUOTE scripture TO PROVE GOD is a liar. Who's words are we to accept as truth according to GOD???? **Mary as queen of heaven??? Jeremiah 7 KJV 18 The children gather wood, and the fathers kindle the fire, and the women knead their dough, to make cakes to the queen of heaven, and to pour out drink offerings unto other gods, that they may provoke me to anger. 19 Do they provoke me to anger? saith the LORD: do they not provoke themselves to the confusion of their own faces? 20 Therefore thus saith the Lord GOD; Behold, mine anger and my fury shall be poured out upon this place, upon man, and upon beast, and upon the trees of the field, and upon the fruit of the ground; and it shall burn, and shall not be quenched. What does the Bible say about Queen of Heaven? Hebrew Bible references The worship of a "Queen of Heaven" (Hebrew: מלכת השמים, Malkath haShamayim) is recorded in the Book of Jeremiah, in the context of the Prophet condemning such religious worship and it being the cause of God declaring that He would remove His people from the land. A pagan goddess!!! If you insist on worshipping a pagan goddess, that is between you and God. By placing Mary in heaven with Jesus IS placing her equal to God!!! Where is Mary in the Godhead??????
@mitchellosmer1293 I'm not going to bother responding again. You failed to grasp my points and you're engaging in fallacious argumentation. Plus you don't know how to use quotation marks. Have a good day.
When did Mary pray the Rosary? According to a Dominican tradition, in 1208 the rosary was given to St. Dominic in an apparition by the Blessed Virgin Mary in the church of Prouille. This Marian apparition received the title of Our Lady of the Rosary. A MAN MADE tradition!!! btw----If the rosary was "given" in 1208, then HOW could Mary have prayed it????---
Nobody says Mary prayed the rosary. Read the actual prayers then read where it comes from ie Luke 1:38, Luke 1:42, Luke 1:43, James 16 - then read the life of Jesus the Messiah the entire rosary is about His life. I recommend Bishop Barrons rosary ua-cam.com/video/ckUJRg04jyg/v-deo.html
----I suggest Catholics take a LONG hard look at the claim Mary prayed to beads. UNDER Jewish law------She would have broken 2 laws--BOTH punishable by DEATH!!!! ----- Either Mary NEVER prayed to beads--and was Sinless---or she prayed to beads and WAS A SINNER!!!!------under the Jewish laws........Tell me, under which laws will she be judged by: Catholic or the laws of God (Jewish Laws)?--
@@haronsmith8974 quote---he just pointed you in the right direction. unquote According to whom??? Prove to me WITH the Bible that what he wrote is correct!!!
“Because of his primacy, the Pontiff of Rome is not required to attend an Ecumenical Council; but without his participation, manifested by sending some subordinates, every Ecumenical Council is as non-existent, for it is he who presides over the Council.” (Methodius - -N. Brianchaninov, The Russian Church (1931), 46; cited by Butler, Church and Infallibility, 210) (Upon This Rock (San Francisco: Ignatius, 1999), p. 177 [c. A.D. 865]).
-Sts. Cyril & Methodius
You're reading that as a Catholic would! The Roman Pontiff was accepted as 'first among equals' and had an honored position. That's all it's saying. Nothing more.
The second ecumenical council was held out of communion with Rome and Rome later accepted it. This is utterly false.
Not only is that simply wrong factually, since Constantinople 1 was presided over by a bishop not in communion with the Pope, but Roman Catholics don’t argue for PRIMACY. If that’s all that was desired there would have been no schism. They argue for SUPREMACY.
@@choppy1356 Formula of Hormisdas
@@KyleVaughan1996 What is it you would like to say about the Formula of Hormisdas? Would you claim that the mention of "Catholic" means "Roman Catholic"? I hope not, because that's a naive assumption--an anachronism. ("Catholic" did not become associated with the western, "Roman Catholic" church until after the Great Schism.)
Or would you point to the end of the formula where the pope states that if he deviates even in the least from his own profession (of faith), then he is also condemned. That's pretty much how history rolled out and justifies need for the Reformation.
From conception the Church was an OFFICIAL sect within Judaism. When you read Acts 1 and if you are familiar with Halakhah Law you will immediately notice that the Church is a legal entity WITHIN Judaism. There are 3 requirements which are met.
Firstly, notice that there are 120 members in this synagogue. Why is this important? It is the exact number of persons in the Halakhah regulations to form a full fledged synagogue. The 120 is the Knesset HaGadolah which was supposed to be restored in the Olam Haba when Messiah comes. Judaism and Catholicism was born on Shavuot/Pentecost. To this day the Catholic Conclave has a maximum limit of 120 electors to elect the Pope.
Secondly next according to Halakhah regulations there must be a "beit din" (Hebrew court) formed. We see that there is a beit-din and it draws lots and Matthias a disciple is chosen to take over Judas bishopric (episkopen). The first example of Apostolic Succession. So two of the three requirements are met.
Thirdly, there must be a NASI (prince/temporal) and an AB (father/spiritual) appointed. Curiously Peter is filling both these positions in this beit din. Why?
In 190 BC the Kohan Gadol (jewish high-priest) fell into apostasy and bei-din gadol (Hebrew court) cast a vote of no confidence splitting the Kohan Gadol into two offices the "NASI" and the "AB" within the Beit Din Gadol.
Fast forward to Matt16, in this new Beit Din Gadol (70 disciples) Christ has placed His confidence in Peter (the first AB/father/pope meaning papa) by presenting him the Keys to the temple/governance bringing the two offices back into one high priesthood the way it originally was.
Rachi/Jewish sage writes a commentary on the priestly role of the steward/vizier and the Keys are the keys of the Temple and Authority. When the davidic kings were away the steward/vizier of the davidic kingdoms was in charge.
The pope has both temporal and spiritual powers. Peter is the NASI prince of the apostles and the AB/pope (Pope meaning papa - meaning father) as you see even today the pope as Peters documented unbroken apostolic successor is both ‘nasi’ and the ‘ab’ in Catholicism.
Christ appointed Peter as His steward with the keys as per Isaiah 22 vs 19-24 and Matt16. Peter/successors is First amongst equals. In the Davidic kingdoms there was always an al-bayith (steward/vizier), that is Peters role. Christ also renames Peter (the only Apostle renamed) as Abraham and Jacob were renamed by God in preparation for their specific role in salvation history. The Apostles knew exactly what had occurred when Jesus gave Peter the keys.
Peter's successors (Popes) are first amongst equals ie the bishops. It's not a lording over them type of role. He figuratively sits in the Seat of Moses which we now call the Seat of Peter. Moses had the 70 elders who he consulted as equals but he was first.
First book of Kings lists all the Kings and the royal steward/vizier is always listed next to the King because in the absence of the King he was in charge of the Kingdom. The steward would wear the keys around his neck so the citizens of the davidic kingdoms knew who he was. The steward is given the sash/robes/keys to the temple because the role is also a priestly role.
Jesus created a Melchezidek priesthood which pre-exists the Aaronic/Levitical priesthood. This is why all Catholic priests belong to the order of Melchizedek, the fulfilment of the theophany of Melchizedek giving wine/bread to Father Abraham.
Jesus, Son of David rebuilt the davidic kingdom as per 2SamCh7 - He is the King, Peter/successors are His royal stewards/viziers and the Hebrew court/beit-din is the Magesterium.
Jesus is Son of David rebuilding davidic kingdom per 2SamCh7 - one of these sons will establish this throne forever and this son will be Gods son.
-In midrash 2319 the Petra midrash Abraham is referred to as Rock
-In the Thanksgiving hymn of the Dead Sea Scrolls it mentions the fact that the jewish people are built on a Rock
-Isaiah 51/vs 1-2 “look to the rock from which you were hewn, look to Abraham your father and Sarah your mother.”
-Matt 10vs2 list of Apostles, Peter is listed first/protos
Catholicism is not a new religion, it is the legitimate continuation of Temple Judaism (not Rabbinic Judaism). Catholics do not throw out what God has revealed prior and these continue to hold that all that is revealed is a single continuous revelation culminating in the Catholic Faith. Jewish Priest followers of Christ brought over temple practices/beliefs eg priests, tabernacle, incense, altar, menorah, sanctuary, relics, purgatory, confession, indulgences etc.
Judaism and Catholicism is the same faith in two covenants one old and another new.
That is wonderful information, brother. Where can I read more about how Catholicism stems from Judaism?
This is so eye opening. PLEASE share resources if you have them!
Not second temple Judaism which was the whore of Babylon. The second temple cult was an abomination due to their false priesthood and sacrifice of animals. The original Jewish Christians(the ones referred to as Nazoreans which is the sect Jesus belonged to) believed the scriptures had been corrupted by lying scribes(you can see this belief in the prophets). Need to make a distinction between the religion of the Jews (Judaism, the religion of the second temple), and the religion of Old Israel (Melchizedek priesthood, religion of the first temple). The first temple had the Asherah, which represented El Shaddai (the God with breasts; the feminine aspect, or immanent Shekinah power) who is represented in the Church as Mary.
@@sarahboehlke744 It's the politically incorrect elephant in the room nobody wants to talk about. Jesus never started a new religion. HebrewCatholicDOTnet is a good resource.
@@alyosha119 HebrewCatholicDOTnet
I'm just glad Matt asked what he was talking about at 1:00, I had no idea what that was😂
Read the papal approved
SYNODALITY AND PRIMACY DURING THE FIRST MILLENNIUM: TOWARDS A COMMON UNDERSTANDING IN SERVICE TO THE UNITY OF THE CHURCH - Chieti, 21 September 2016
From the Joint International Commission for Theological Dialogue Between the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church at Dicastery for Promoting Christian Unity
And note "the bishop of Rome did not exercise canonical authority over the churches of the East"
A lot of Orthodox say that Francis is the #1 evangelist for Orthodoxy
Until they end up disappointed in orthodoxy
@@l21n18 Exactly. They have the same issues.
As is Lofton here. What a twist.
Lofton routinely tells anyone who questions his Francis apologetics, that they are in schism like the Orthodox and Protestants. So not being able to brush Francis' failings under the rug like Lofton himself does, they make a run for Orthodoxy or High Church Protestantism. Not everyone can live with the dissonance that Lofton himself must live with.
I'm staying Catholic. But unlike Lofton, I will not try to explain away Francis. I believe in the papacy but there have been some bad Popes.
@@t.l.ciottoli4319 But I did not state my position . Saying there have been bad Popes is not the same as Antipope Apologetics. In light of the vast history of the church, this is a blip. I'm not reactionary.
I understand Papism. What I don't understand is hyperpapism.
I don't understand why you're getting all hyper either. 'Bros should be more chill.
It is the position of the Eastern Orthodox Church that it has never accepted the pope as de jure leader of the entire church. All bishops are equal "as Peter", therefore every church under every bishop (consecrated in apostolic succession) is fully complete (the original meaning of catholic).
Oh Look! (concerning the deceitful acacian schism presupposition of Lofton): "The patriarch's preamble [of his reticence to acquiesce to Rome while being threatened with war mongers from the Roman see] was a protest against the claim of Rome to dictate terms of communion to Constantinople and an assertion of the co-ordinate authority of his own see. He says, "Know therefore, most holy one, that, according to what I have written, agreeing in the truth with thee, I too, loving peace, renounce all the heretics repudiated by thee: for I hold the most holy churches of the elder and of the new Rome to be one; I define that see of the apostle Peter and this of the imperial city [Constantinople] to be one see."
Some people come to Bible study as looky-loos. It’s amazing that a few last a long time.
Great interview!!! I’ll pray for all my orthodox brothers that they may one day return to one holy Catholic and apostolic Church in union the pope 🙏
I'm not attracted to Orthodoxy but actually the first Christian churches in the Roman empire were autocephalous, of which the church of Rome was one co-equal with the others. Bc as Jesus said; "That they may be one" and *NOT* that any one should dominate over the others
This a bit silly argument, though I don't think you meant it to be too serious. Nevertheless, it's worth noting that "autocephalous" is not the natural state of the Church. There was a prolonged movement to turn the Orthodox church into the national system that exists today. The Apostolic and Patristic practice was to centre the power of the Church with regions, so Rome to the west and Antioch and Alexandria to the east (picking up the slack left by James). With Rome being labeling the centre of unity due to its place as the place of martyrdom of Ss Peter and Paul. Whatever other doctrines we derive from this and the devolpments like 2 Rome that span later, the origins are not autocephalous--it's an anachronism to say so.
@@ultimateoriginalgodis that why the pentarchy isn't seen until the 6th century?
You realize as borders change and nations are birthed these regions no longer serve in the same manner or capacity they once did, right?
@@caseycardenas1668 Given how Rome during the late 5th and most of 6th century was in under Arian kings and Constantinople was in schism with Rome, yet Rome maintained her authority and it was Constantinople that returned to communion with Rome through the formula of Hermisdas, it is not accurate to say these are based on the nations that existed at the time.
The pentarchy was one political solution to the crisises affecting the Church at the time, but having 5 great sees is not that same as each nation having it's own archbishop and patriarch operating with near autonomy. Again, it seems anacronistic to say so. There are Movements in the west that reflect autocephalous in the east, around the same time of the 18th-19th centuries, but it was abandoned due to its clear novelty and the French revolutionary and Napoleonic wars. It seems this doctrine is a historical Moment, one that the Orthodox are paying for in the schism over Ukraine.
@@caseycardenas1668 I was pointing to his anacronisic use of the word autocephalous. That us not the same as the original 3 petrine sees nor the Pentarcy. It's not even what the east believed in the days after the break with Rome. It requires certain political intrusions into the Church that we've seen till this day.
If the early church recognized papacy why shouldn’t we. My question is: did Jesus only give the twelve and Paul authority to forgive sins. Or did that pass down as well?
68 Eastern Orthodox saints were the Bishop of Rome
Because the early church was orthodox catholic Church Dumbo💀💀💀 later on the pope got possessed and schism took place
@@ultravegito4339 what the flip
Were
Ok? Eastern Orthodox and Catholic saints are pretty much the same until the schism. Afterward it’s different.
@@AlbertEinstein-gt8uu exactly. And you can find some of them writing on the Papacy. How could they pretend they’ve never heard of Papal Authority when it was an established belief in existence.
Eastern Orthodoxy? Roman Catholicism? Enter Oriental Orthodoxy. ☦️
From "Synodality and Primacy during the First Millennium: Towards a Common Understanding in Service to the Unity of the Church" Section 19:
"Over the centuries, a number of appeals were made to the bishop of Rome, also from the East, in disciplinary matters, such as the deposition of a bishop. An attempt was made at the Synod of Sardica (343) to establish rules for such a procedure Cf. Synod of Sardica (343), canons 3 and 5.. Sardica was received at the Council in Trullo (692)Cf. Council in Trullo, canon 2. Similarly, the Photian Council of 861 accepted the canons of Sardica as recognising the bishop of Rome as having a right of cassation in cases already judged in Constantinople.. The canons of Sardica determined that a bishop who had been condemned could appeal to the bishop of Rome, and that the latter, if he deemed it appropriate, might order a retrial, to be conducted by the bishops in the province neighbouring the bishop’s own. Appeals regarding disciplinary matters were also made to the see of ConstantinopleCf. Fourth Ecumenical Council (Chalcedon, 451), canons 9 and 17., and to other sees. Such appeals to major sees were always treated in a synodical way. Appeals to the bishop of Rome from the East expressed the communion of the Church, but the bishop of Rome did not exercise canonical authority over the churches of the East."
One can not exercise canonical authority while having canonical authority, and - as the video says - the canonical subjects recognizing that authority.
That's an incoherent statement from the author. "The Popes exercised authority over all other churches, that authority was accepted and considered legitimate, but it wasn't canonical somehow. And the multiple instances of indefectability and divine foundation attributed to the Papacy apparently don't matter." Pretty nonsensical.
I appreciate the information about the Orthodox. Orthodoxy, with its many National churches, is very confusing for me as a Catholic. Michael is a great resource for bridging this divide as he was very seriously involved when he was Orthodox.
He misunderstands the Orthodox perspective unfortunately. There's a lot more going on that isn't discussed. Rome admitted that in the first millennium the Latin Patriarchate had a universal appellate jurisdiction in the Chieti Document and not Vatican I authority. This is just a historical fact.
@@iliya3110 i think he understands it very well. He was Orthodox for three years and understands the history in depth
@@lionheart5078 I've been both. He doesn't demonstrate an Orthodox phronema and is using classic RC polemics and thinking.
@@iliya3110you are misunderstanding the history unfortunately. The council of sardica states that Rome is the last court of appeal but it doesnt state that rome is only this. You are unfortunately completely ignoring Pope Leo and the terms of hormisdas which 250 eastern bishops literally signed off on.
@@iliya3110 I don't love what clearly divides us, but misunderstanding one another hurts the most. Let's pray for light!
This gentleman has swallowed scholasticism hook-line-and-sinker!
Lofton is NOT a scholastic philosopher. He is a sophist.
This is an interesting claim. But he really doesn't go over the evidence. He mentions it but doesn't really go over the where, how, and why. Maybe he didn't have enough time but I would have loved to see him go over exactly how the formula proves supremacy and summarize Orthodox arugement and why it's flawed. Is there a different video where he does that?
Technically he is right their was no such thing as orthodox until the great schism happened so yeah they definelty believed papal authority
@@carolinpurayidom4570 No they didn't
Yes they did
@@carolinpurayidom4570 There was proto Orthodox in 1st and 2nd century. There was the Catholic church once the Creed was established. Pope of Roam was the highest authority amongst equals. Once pope Constantine the great came into power, pope became god an equal to Christ. Pope changed the original faith from 1st and 2nd vatican so Orthidox broke away to preserve the original church and traditions.
@@dwightschrute900They believed in papal primacy, not papal supremacy.
Show me one debate the Lofton had ever been in where he was a deabtor with and eastren Orthodox. I know he has been asked over and over again but he refuses, i have asked him several times why he doesn't in the comments section if his videos and he always ignores only answer people before me and after me. What os he afraid of?
If the Papacy was infallible, then why did they recently admit that the filioque was a papist invention?
The Holy Father, in the homily he gave in St Peter Basilica on 29 June in the presence of the Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew I, expressed a desire that "the traditional doctrine of the Filioque, present in the liturgical version of the Latin Credo, [be clarified] in order to highlight its full harmony with what the Ecumenical Council of Constantinople of 381 confesses in its creed: the Father as the source of the whole Trinity, the one origin both of the Son and of the Holy Spirit".
... In the ninth century, however, faced with Charlemagne, Pope Leo III, in his anxiety to preserve unity with the Orient in the confession of faith, resisted this development of the Symbol which had spread spontaneously in the West, while safeguarding the truth contained in the Filioque. Rome only admitted it in 1014 into the liturgical Latin version of the Creed.
He's paraphrasing the catechism, It's not news. Whatever interpretation we have of that liturgical development, we also need to remember it took a bit for the creed to be incorporated into liturgy and the west was teaching the filioque after Constantinople I, seeing the concept implied in the creed and in scripture.
The pope presiding over a council is one thing, and the pope deciding by himself is a whole completely different thing. Catholics tend to ignore the politics behind the pope's decisions and try to look for documents and statements and historical instances, when in fact the reality is this. After the Lombard and Frankic conquests, the popes either under pressure or out of diplomacy estranged themselves from the other partriarchates and created a new "Christianity" that exalted Latin papacy over Greek Christianity, which complimented his new Germanic patron kings and subjects. When the pope crowned Charlemagne as Roman emperor, he broke ties with Constantinople, which served both Charlemagne and the pope, who no longer needed military support or approval from the East. This has nothing to do with the Bible, councils, hierarchy or Christianity for that matter. The pope chose Nicolo Machiavelli over Jesus Christ, and the rest is details. So let's be honest and don't try to excuse things which are inexcusable, because hypocrisy is the worst sin.
Was it really much better in the East, having Patriarchs being picked by the Byzantine Emperors, like Justinian? Secular leaders, politicians and the like should have no say in the appointments of Patriarchs, Bishops, or any other clergy in the Church.
@@siervodedios5952 the first ecumenical synod of Nicea was summoned by Constantine the 1st, emperor of Rome, not the pope of Rome. It was Charlemagne who should've stayed out of the church, not the Roman emperors. Enjoy your mess and save the criticism for the mirror. Byzantine is a defamation by the way
@@Thanos_Kyriakopoulosregardless, enjoy dealing with the muscovites, the mess of Greece, toll houses and more my hypocritical friend!
@@Thanos_Kyriakopoulosand who do you think had the autority to invite all the other bishops to participate? Constantine just had autority to call people outside the empire? Especially those who were formally persecuted? It was obviously the bishop.of Rome that attending the requests of constantine summoned the council ecclesiologically, if constantine could summon councils by being the emperor, wouldnt also Nero do it? Or other romans? Only the Pope could have summoned the bishops without them fearing a suspicion
@@Onlyafool172 it is a historical fact that all seven ecumenical synods were summoned by the emperor, this is history, we can't discuss that. And let it be noted that none of them was held in Rome.
Eventually theres going to be enough protestant denominations that will eventually recapture the truth
BY reverse engineering Bible.? Past 500 years proved otherwise.
@@johnnyd2383 agree, it's hard to convey sarcasm. Clearly the assumption that everyone has sufficient theological training to interpret the Bible has been proved wrong given that there's 30k denominations all who claim they know the truth.
@@TheGodSchema the sarcasm wasn't lost on me. W comment
It is interesting that, when we go to actually study the history regarding Hormisdas and the other claims that Lofton makes here, we discover that his statements are completely false.
Small problem there. Talking fast and throwing around the terms "objective" and "definitive" doesn't make one's claims true... unfortunately.
CJ P. wrote: "^ Typical ortho arrogance while being wrong at the same time. Nothing new here."
Well... to reflect his (or her) tactics: ^ Typical RC ignorance while being wrong at the same time. Nothing new here.
1) I'm not Orthodox.
2) I've studied this matter deeply for decades.
3) I am an expert in Roman Catholic theology and Christian history.
No need to take my word for any of this. I encourage anyone and everyone to simply study this matter (thoroughly) for themselves. When you do so, you will discover that Lofton's claims are false. It is nothing personal. I'm sure Lofton is a nice guy. He's just wrong about this. Hopefully his error here doesn't cause anyone spiritual (or other) harm.
@@cjp.6880 Typical Papist arrogance while being wrong at the same time. Nothing new here
@@davidcolley7714How so?
Name one thing Lofton misinterpreted here. The Formula of Hormisdas is very explicit with its papal claims and they absolutely do not align with EO. The fact that said claims were accepted in the east without trouble goes to show that what the EO call heresy today was accepted ecclesiology in the first millennium. I have yet to see a sufficient response from any EO scholars that explains this problem.
Also, Michael's not giving a dissertation here. He's just giving a breakdown of why he converted. He has videos that spend much more time on this material.
@@john-el9636 wrote "Name one thing Lofton misinterpreted here."
Well, Lofton asserts that FH -- and we have to ask here exactly which one, since there are many versions of it -- supports Papal Supremacy. PS is the assertion that, among other things, the Bishop of Rome has unilateral authority over all of Christianity and other bishops, and that the Bishop of Rome is infallible. FH nowhere actually states this. Rather, Roman apologists already believe this, then inject that meaning back into the document, then claim that this is what the signers were agreeing to. It is notable that NONE of the bodies represented by those who signed hold that these things are true or are what they agreed to you, yet people like you and Lofton seem to know better.
Lofton and similar take one document like this, assert that it says something that isn't actually in the text, then generally ignore the fact that the very thing that they claim is true (Papal Supremacy) is actually the cause and perpetuator of huge schisms, and that even the Church of Rome admits was never really accepted by the rest of the Church.
"Also, Michael's not giving a dissertation here. He's just giving a breakdown of why he converted. He has videos that spend much more time on this material."
Yes, that is among the typical excuses, especially for Lofton. "Just watch my other videos." Never mind that they are just as full of misinformation.
Papal supremacy took a while to develop. In 1-3 century, there was no papal supremacy. Not untill the 8-9-10 centurys. It also wasnt an offical coined term till vatican one. From the 3rd century onword the some weatren bishops tried to over power eastren bishops. But the idea of the centralized heierarchl structure of the roman catholic church did not formally take hold untill 9-10 century. I was also was not an accepted homogonus practice in the early church. So to say at one point the orthodox church accepted the papal supremacy is brazen and misleading. It lacks historical claims to back it up. Non the less if we want to get closer to the truth the farther we go back in time to the 1-3 century there absolutly was no notion of papal suoremacy. As this was also before the time the bible was even written. There are eastren litragies that are older than that.
Oh, soooo good!!
Would you give us the formula, or do you want us to take your word for it? That being said, the Bishop of Rome is not immune from teaching heresy, and currently is so doing. Please show us the letter you are talking about for the Sixth Ecumenical Council. That also be said, the Sixth Council was NOT entirely legitimate. It has Canons that are contrary to Scripture, so this also may be contrary to Scripture as well.
I mean, most of his videos are going over these documents line by line. So you could go over the formula with him if that's what you mean.
You're kind of assuming things about the sixth council and the papacy in the same way you're accusing the guest, but its due to the format oc. The issue is not what you think but it's too dense for a UA-cam comment, as I think you'd agree lol.
Amazing how Catholic apologists cherry pick parts of history to back up papal authority. But it was never that cut and dried until after 1000AD. Everything became mixed with politics and it all came out of that.
The early Christians had a structure similar to the Orthodox church where bishops and popes had a system of the head being "first among equals" but they made decisions together in council. They do the same today.
So who is the "church that Jesus founded"? It is both Catholics and Orthodox. They split up over all this. Today, each argues that the other was guilty of schism but, in reality, they are 2 branches of the same tree.
Reality is that the Catholic church became horrendously corrupt after 1000AD, Burning people at the stake and other terrible things. It's no wonder the protestant reformation happened in 1500+-.
Maybe the Catholic church is the church Jesus founded but is it still "the one true church"? Just because he started it doesn't mean it could not become so corrupt that he had to hand the baton to others. He did that with Israel, don't forget.
As Jesus said "He who does the will of my father is my mother, sister and brother".
Michael, what are your thoughts on OO?
They reject chalcedon, and thus pope at the very beginning since fourth council
LOL ok Lofton, whatever you say.
Orthodoxy seems to be a precursor of protestantism but more racially or ethnically defined rather than doctrinal and of course the keeping of the sacraments and holy orders separates them.
LMFAOO I can’t tell the difference between a NO mass and a Lutheran church service
@@traditionallenses fair enough but doesn't dispute my point something actually happens in a NO mass and not in a Lutheran service
I think you need to look into Orthodoxy more. Many Orthodox view Rome as the first protestants. You should explore why.
@@George-ur8ow lol I have and no
@@KingSquirtle999 extremely doubtful you have looked into the Orthodox position based on your original post. You're mad if you think the schism had anything to do with ethnicity. You are bringing your own 20th century american presupositions to the analysis, that's why, as you said, it "seems" to be that way. You need to actually read through the reasons for schism from the Orthodox perspective. Yes, that means actually taking some time to do so rather than relying on what "seems" to be the case to you.
The precursor to Protestanism is the Roman epistemology that developed after it left the Orthodox Church. Without those changes in Roman epistemology developed after it left, it is doubtful the reformation would have occured in the west.
There was, of course, no protestant reformation in Orthodoxy.
You should have Craig Truglia on Matt. He's produced a good number of videos on the formula of hormisdas and Roman Catholic polemics based on it.
Not now considering he’s gone full orthobro
@@l21n18 literally how has he. He’s beyond charitable to Catholics
@@traditionallenses What is your tradition?
No, Craig Truglia is not a serious interlocutor. He argues extremely dishonestly and then poisons the well of conversation, which is why he was unanimously kicked from the original Reason and Theology crew. He should focus on acting like a Christian in his life before pretending to be "Orthodox."
@@thomascomerford9683 do you deem Michael Lofton as someone who argues honestly?
I’m currently between Orthodoxy and Catholicism but when Mr Lofton deliberately misrepresents things like this it only pushes people like in one direction.
Fantastic!
The desire for a logical conclusion is a part of that distinctly western phronema that is simply not present in the eastern church.
I don't know if there is a right answer, or an objective way to confirm it, but if you want something like that you shouldn't look to the Orthodox Church.
You won't find it. You will however find a new phronema.
No. We never believed in Papal authority over the other Patriarchs. The seat of Rome was a honorary position amongst the Patriarchs. The Patriarch of Constantinople for most of church history circa 500 to schism held more authority amongst the Patriarchs.
Wrong. Watch the video
@@CPATuttle of course I watched the video. So saying wrong and then telling me to watch it is just dumb. The only unique thing about Rome was they had a different culture that allowed them to handle heretics better in some cases because Roman culture was more legalistic. And that’s still very true of Western Christianity. That has absolutely no bearing on any bishops’ thoughts on one of them having an unique authority at any point of Church history. The reason the canonical Councils had such a vast gathering of bishops was because they all respected each other’s authority and jurisdictions. That’s a foundational point of view which we can see for example in St. Ignatius’s letters.
@@nathanielhegge5582My guy, in this very video we see the eastern churches agree that Rome has a unique authority beyond any of the other Patriarchs. And these were just some of the well known one's Michael listed off the top of his head. You can't say "We never believed that" when there's literally sources brought up in this video saying otherwise.
I'd suggest looking up some of the Emperor's responses to the Formula of Hormisdas btw. Quite literally defending papal supremacy.
Council of Constantinople I, A.D. 381 accepts that Rome has primacy over Constantinople. ua-cam.com/video/lv3XKCLwz1M/v-deo.html
History doesn't support your claim.
We need this brilliant defender of the faith back on the show
I would not have been convinced by the same evidence.
Why's that? These sources show that the papal claims were known and broadly accepted in the first millennium. Meaning, by EO standards, the Church in the first millennium was accepting heresy.
There was never belief in papal authority. There was belief that the bisop of Rome was first among equals, in honor of Peter.
Cope
There is if you look at the jewish roots of the church structure when it was established in Acts1/Matt16. The keys Peter receives from Jesus are signs of Authority AND governance AND priesthood. Read Rachi/jewish sage writings on the office of the royal steward of Davidic kingdoms symbolised by the keys the king gave him to wear. He was in charge of the people when the King was away on business or holiday.
What would being first among equals merit if there is no weight behind it? Even Romans utilized this in times of tie breaking, final decision making, etc. The purpose of first among equals is to be the deciding voice and leadership on topics that are pertinent.
@@augustvonmacksen2526 From conception the Church was an OFFICIAL sect within Judaism. When you read Acts 1 and if you are familiar with Halakhah Law you will immediately notice that the Church is a legal entity WITHIN Judaism. There are 3 requirements which are met.
Firstly, notice that there are 120 members in this synagogue. Why is this important? It is the exact number of persons in the Halakhah regulations to form a full fledged synagogue. The 120 is the Knesset HaGadolah which was supposed to be restored in the Olam Haba when Messiah comes. Judaism and Catholicism was born on Shavuot/Pentecost. To this day the Catholic Conclave has a maximum limit of 120 electors to elect the Pope.
Secondly next according to Halakhah regulations there must be a "beit din" (Hebrew court) formed. We see that there is a beit-din and it draws lots and Matthias a disciple is chosen to take over Judas bishopric (episkopen). The first example of Apostolic Succession. So two of the three requirements are met.
Thirdly, there must be a NASI (prince/temporal) and an AB (father/spiritual) appointed. Curiously Peter is filling both these positions in this beit din. Why?
In 190 BC the Kohan Gadol (jewish high-priest) fell into apostasy and bei-din gadol (Hebrew court) cast a vote of no confidence splitting the Kohan Gadol into two offices the "NASI" and the "AB" within the Beit Din Gadol.
Fast forward to Matt16, in this new Beit Din Gadol (70 disciples) Christ has placed His confidence in Peter (the first AB/father/pope meaning papa) by presenting him the Keys to the temple/governance bringing the two offices back into one high priesthood the way it originally was.
Rachi/Jewish sage writes a commentary on the priestly role of the steward/vizier and the Keys are the keys of the Temple and Authority. When the davidic kings were away the steward/vizier of the davidic kingdoms was in charge.
The pope has both temporal and spiritual powers. Peter is the NASI prince of the apostles and the AB/pope (Pope meaning papa - meaning father) as you see even today the pope as Peters documented unbroken apostolic successor is both ‘nasi’ and the ‘ab’ in Catholicism.
Christ appointed Peter as His steward with the keys as per Isaiah 22 vs 19-24 and Matt16. Peter/successors is First amongst equals. In the Davidic kingdoms there was always an al-bayith (steward/vizier), that is Peters role. Christ also renames Peter (the only Apostle renamed) as Abraham and Jacob were renamed by God in preparation for their specific role in salvation history. The Apostles knew exactly what had occurred when Jesus gave Peter the keys.
Peter's successors (Popes) are first amongst equals ie the bishops. It's not a lording over them type of role. He figuratively sits in the Seat of Moses which we now call the Seat of Peter. Moses had the 70 elders who he consulted as equals but he was first.
First book of Kings lists all the Kings and the royal steward/vizier is always listed next to the King because in the absence of the King he was in charge of the Kingdom. The steward would wear the keys around his neck so the citizens of the davidic kingdoms knew who he was. The steward is given the sash/robes/keys to the temple because the role is also a priestly role.
Jesus created a Melchezidek priesthood which pre-exists the Aaronic/Levitical priesthood. This is why all Catholic priests belong to the order of Melchizedek, the fulfilment of the theophany of Melchizedek giving wine/bread to Father Abraham.
Jesus, Son of David rebuilt the davidic kingdom as per 2SamCh7 - He is the King, Peter/successors are His royal stewards/viziers and the Hebrew court/beit-din is the Magesterium.
Jesus is Son of David rebuilding davidic kingdom per 2SamCh7 - one of these sons will establish this throne forever and this son will be Gods son.
-In midrash 2319 the Petra midrash Abraham is referred to as Rock
-In the Thanksgiving hymn of the Dead Sea Scrolls it mentions the fact that the jewish people are built on a Rock
-Isaiah 51/vs 1-2 “look to the rock from which you were hewn, look to Abraham your father and Sarah your mother.”
-Matt 10vs2 list of Apostles, Peter is listed first/protos
Catholicism is not a new religion, it is the legitimate continuation of Temple Judaism (not Rabbinic Judaism). Catholics do not throw out what God has revealed prior and these continue to hold that all that is revealed is a single continuous revelation culminating in the Catholic Faith. Jewish Priest followers of Christ brought over temple practices/beliefs eg priests, tabernacle, incense, altar, menorah, sanctuary, relics, purgatory, confession, indulgences etc.
Judaism and Catholicism is the same faith in two covenants one old and another new.
@@augustvonmacksen2526 You are absolutely right: "First-among-equals" means absolute buttfuck as it plays out in real life. What can Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew I do? What are his limits? Him and Alexandria seem to be at odds with Moscow over what he can do. There isn't actually any defined limits as to what this "First-Among-Equals" bullshit even means. If there is: I ask any Orthodox here to bring us a document, accepted by all Eastern Orthodox, that defines its definition and limits.
Just because you ask for advice from someone doesn't mean you're letting them rule over you. The Orthodox Pope of Rome was the Patriarch of the West, equal to the other Patriarchs (because Rome was the capital of the Roman Empire he was given a primacy of honor). Since the Coptic Church was created after Chalcedon Alexandria has had 2 Popes; Rome should have had 2 Popes after Leo coronated Carolus Magnus and became the first Catholic Pope (12-25-800). The Church should have elected a new Orthoodox Pope of Rome at that time, but due to the distraction of defending against the 2nd Jihad they didn't react.
@@zachpeterson8341 You don't know Church history very well, do you? Originally, the Pope of Rome and Patriarch of the West was given a primacy of honor because he dealt with the Emperor and Senate; the Pope of Alexandria and Patriarch of Africa was next on the list because he was the chief theologian due to the presence of the great catachetical school being in Alexandria; the Patriarch of Antioch was third and in charge of liturgy, hymns, prayers, etc. When Constantine moved the capital to New Rome the City of Constantine, a patriarchate with the imperial title "ecumenical" was added to the list, but out of respect for tradition was inserted between Rome and Alexandria. At Chalcedon the function of chief theologian was transferred from Alexandria to Rome to make up for the loss of Emperor and Senate, which now belonged to the Ecumenical Patriarch. The list was simply a priority of honor, no one Patriarch outranked the other, each was prime in his patriarchate. Chalcedon also remedied an omission by creating a Patriarchate of the Mother Church in Jerusalem; the Balkans were also transferred from Rome/West to New Rome/Ecumenical. The Catholic Church was created out of the Western Patriarchate of the Orthodox Church 12/25/800; there should be an Orthodox Pope of Rome (as Alexandria has both an Orthodox Pope and a Coptic Pope).
@@ROCdave5861 Are you mixing secular politics with ecclesiology? It was not chosen because it was the capital. It retained primacy way after the change of capital. The bishop of Ravenna got no recognition when the capital was moved there permanently either.
This doesn't follow at all.
@@crusaderACR No--it was a respect for tradition--the Pope of Rome dealt with the Emperor and Senate, the Pope of Alexandria was chief theologian, and the patriarch of Antioch dealt with liturgy, hymns, and prayer. When EMperor St. Constantine, equal of the Apostles, moved the capital to New Rome the City of Constantine, a Patriarchate was created there (given the Imperial title "Ecumenical"), and placed second on the list out of respect for tradition. At Chalcedon the chief theologian aspect was transferred from Alexandria to Rome since the Pope of Rome had no current function. When the Catholic Church was created from the Western Patriarchate of the Orthodox Church the Pope of Rome became head of that church and simply called Catholic Pope (just as the Pope of Alexandria became head of that church after Chalcedon and subsequently called Coptic Pope). So your confusion can be answered by one word: tradition. You've tried to make it too complicated without fully understanding the history! (Or perhaps you were misled by the tunnel-vision version of history taught here in the West (aka fake history)).
@@ROCdave5861Bro your understanding of Church history is all out of whack. You won't find a credible scholar today who still supports the notion of "Rome was just given authority later." It's patently obvious that Rome was always held with unique authority that couldn't be transfered elsewhere.
@@john-el9636 Maybe in the Western spin on Church History, but if you read sources from the East, you'll see that you've been taught fake history.
What is the "gospel"? What is the gospel defined as?
Definition of gospel
The message concerning Christ, the kingdom of God, and salvation. : the first four New Testament books telling of the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ
Read that again!! The first 4 gospels: Mathew , Mark Luke and John.
And what does those four gospels say about the death, burial and resurrection of Christ???
Mathew 28:1 In the end of the Sabbath, as it began to dawn toward the first day of the week, came Mary Magdalene and the other Mary to see the sepulchre
Mark 15:42 42 It was Preparation Day (that is, the day before the Sabbath). So as evening approached,
Mark 16:1-2 When the Sabbath was over, Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, and Salome bought spices so that they might go to anoint Jesus’ body. 2 Very early on the first day of the week, just after sunrise, they were on their way to the tomb
Mark 16:9 When Jesus rose early on the first day of the week,
Luke 23:56 Then they went home and prepared spices and perfumes. But they rested on the Sabbath in obedience to the commandment.
Luke 24:1 On the first day of the week, very early in the morning, the women took the spices they had prepared and went to the tomb.
John 19:42 Because it was the Jewish day of Preparation (Friday) and since the tomb was nearby, they laid Jesus there.
John 20:1 Early on the first day of the week, while it was still dark,
Now, Either these verses are lies, or the truth. Christ was crucified on Friday, the Jewish Preparation day. Rested on the Seventh day, Sabbath. Arose on the first day of the week, Sunday.
Tell me, where in the Holy Bible does it say GOD RESTED on the First day of creation??
Tell me, where in the Holy Bible does it say GOD BLESSED the First day of
the week?
Tell me, where in the Holy Bible does it say GOD SANCTIFIED ( made holy) the First day of the week?
Tell me, where in the Holy Bible does it say GOD NAMED the First day of
the week?
Tell me, where in the Holy Bible does it say GOD DECLARE the First day of the week as HIS Holy Day?
---Catholics claim Sunday is the day of worship, a holy day.PROVE IT!!!!
--------Galatians 1:8
But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be under a curse!
&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&
Written by God
Written by GOD-----The ONLY day God RESTED was the Seventh day.
Written by GOD-----The ONLY day God BLESSED was the Seventh day.
Written by GOD-----The ONLY day God SANCTIFIED was the Seventh day.
Written by GOD-----The ONLY day God named was the Seventh day.
Written by GOD----The ONLY day God calls HIS HOLY Day was the Seventh day.----
NO OTHER DAY!!!!!
If vodka had a personality it would be you
So then how come the Apostles didn't think worshipping on the Sabbath mattered?
Christ's resurrection was on a Sunday - the new beginning - The Lord's Day. The NEW Covenant, which superseded the old.
@@debbiedmeades3805 quote---Christ's resurrection was on a Sunday -.. unquote
HE FULFILLED prophesy!!!
#1--Where in the Bible does God REST on the first day of the week to make that day special?
#2--Where in the Bible does God BLESS the first day of the week to make that day special?
#3Where in the Bible does God SANCTIFY the first day of the week to make that day special?
#4--Where in the Bible does God give a name the first day of the week to make that day special?
#5--Where in the Bible does God DECLARE the first day of the week as HIS HOLY DAY to make that day special?
GOD NEVER DECLARED IT A SABBATH or a HOLY DAY!!!
--quote--- the new beginning -.. unquoet
A new beginning fo the person that became a follower of Christ. NOTHING MORE!!!
quote---The Lord's Day. unquoet
THE ONLY DAY GOD DECLARED AS HIS HOLY DAY, The LORD''S Day-- Isaiah 58:13-14
13 “If you keep your feet from breaking the Sabbath
and from doing as you please onMY HOLY DAY,
if you call the Sabbath a delight
and the Lord’s HOLY DAY honorable,
and if you honor it by not going your own way
and not doing as you please or speaking idle words,
14 then you will find your joy in the Lord,
and I will cause you to ride in triumph on the heights of the land
and to feast on the inheritance of your father Jacob.”
For the mouth of the Lord has spoken.
FOR THE MOUTH OF THE LORD HAS SPOKEN!@!!!!
---
quote---The NEW Covenant,.. unquote
Nope--- Only better
The New Covenant is the promise that God will forgive sin and restore fellowship with those whose hearts are turned toward Him. Jesus Christ is the mediator of the New Covenant, and His death on the cross is the basis of the promise (Luke 22:20). The New Covenant was predicted while the Old Covenant was still in effect-the prophets Moses, Jeremiah, and Ezekiel all allude to the New Covenant.
he Old Covenant that God had established with His people required strict obedience to the Mosaic Law. Because the wages of sin is death (Romans 6:23), the Law required that Israel perform daily sacrifices in order to atone for sin. But Moses, through whom God established the Old Covenant, also anticipated the New Covenant. In one of his final addresses to the nation of Israel, Moses looks forward to a time when Israel would be given “a heart to understand” (Deuteronomy 29:4, ESV). Moses predicts that Israel would fail in keeping the Old Covenant (verses 22-28), but he then sees a time of restoration (Deuteronomy 30:1-5). At that time, Moses says, “The Lord your God will circumcise your hearts and the hearts of your descendants, so that you may love him with all your heart and with all your soul, and live” (verse 6). The New Covenant involves a total change of heart so that God’s people are naturally pleasing to Him.
***
Lol another poor attempt from Lofton who won't debate an Orthodox because he knows he will fail
I wish another guest would address this. Lofton has been losing credibility with his biased discernments and lack of charity towards fellow Catholics.
If the Roman Catholic Church is the true church- why would the fathers not recognize it? The Filioque, the destruction of baptism- excommunication of children.
@@wiseguysshow1871 the filoque was to fight off Arianism. St athanasius taught filoque as well in his letters to Serapion.
As the Son is only-begotten offspring, so the Spirit, being given and sent from the Son, is himself one and not many, nor one from among many but only Spirit. As the Son, the living Word, is one, so must the vital activity and gift whereby he sanctifies and enlightens [the Spirit] be one perfect and complete; which is said to proceed from the Father because it is from the Word, who is confessed to be from the Father, and shines forth and is sent and is given. The Son is sent from the Father, for he says, “God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son.” The Son sends the Spirit; “If I go away,” he says, “I will send the Paraclete.” The Son glorifies the Father, saying, “Father, I have glorified thee.” The Spirit glorifies the Son, for he says, “he shall glorify me.” The Son says, “the things I have heard from the Father speak I unto the world.” The Spirit takes of the Son; “he shall take of mine,” he says, “and declare it unto you.” The Son came in the name of the Father. “The Holy Spirit,” says the Son, “whom the Father will send in my name.” But if in regard to order and nature the Spirit bears the same relation to the Son as the Son to the Father, will not he who holds the Spirit to be a creature necessarily hold the same to be true also of the Son?
St. Athanasius, First Letter to Serapion, PG, 26:576D-80B, qtd. in Fr. Thomas Crean, Vindicating the Filioque, p. 47.
Filoque is taught by st athanasius . He wrote letter to serapion, to fight off arianism.
The Orthodox believe the Pope is the Bishop of Rome, and the 1st among equals of the Patriarchs!
Orthodox only object to the Pope’s, “supreme authority without consultation” of all the Patriarchs! The Bible clearly demonstrates the apostles were collegiate! (Even Peter!) 🙏🌺☦️🌺🙏
And the Christians of the early Church believed otherwise. Rome always held an authoritative and necessary role for the Church. Your own Saints and bishops tended to agree with the west on this matter. Hence the sources Michael gives. Burden of proof is on the EO to explain how the Church, at an ecumenical council, could accept something like the claims of Pope Agatho when he clearly views the Papacy as much more than a primacy of honor or first among equals.
By your fruits you shall know them. Rome is power hungry and has abandoned tradition. No early Christian would recognize the “Catholic” church.
By the fruits? The fruit of being the largest charity in the world now and historically? The fruit of being the largest non government provider of education and healthcare? The fruit of 10k hospitals and schools in Africa? Do you really want to try this?
What a twisting. Stop just state the truth and be free from these sins of papal infallibility, and the present statements by your pope proves this is false. Stop lying
Never. :))
19. Of the Church.
The visible Church of Christ is a congregation of faithful men, in which the pure Word of God is preached, and the
Sacraments be duly ministered according to Christ's ordinance, in all those things that of necessity are requisite to
the same.
As the Church of Jerusalem, Alexandria, and Antioch, have erred, so also the Church of Rome hath erred, not only
in their living and manner of Ceremonies, but also in matters of Faith.
Article 19 of the Articles of Religion of the Church of England
quote---The visible Church of Christ is a congregation of faithful men, in which the pure Word of God is preached, .. unquote
LOL-LAMO-ROFL
Such BS!!!!
The [Catholic] Church took the pagan buckler of faith against the heathen. She took the pagan Roman Pantheon [the Roman], temple to all the gods, and made it sacred to all the martyrs; so it stands to this day. She took the pagan Sunday and made it the Christian Sunday. .The Sun was a foremost god with heathendom. Balder the beautiful: the White God, the old Scandinavians called him. The sun has worshipers at this very hour in Persia and other lands. .Hence the Church would seem to have said, 'Keep that old pagan name. It shall remain consecrated, sanctified.' And thus the pagan Sunday, dedicated to Balder, became the Christian Sunday, sacred to Jesus. The sun is a fitting emblem of Jesus. The Fathers often compared Jesus to the sun; as they compared Mary to the moon." -William L. Gildea, "Paschale Gaudium," in The Catholic World, p. 58, March 1894.
>>>>>>>Colossians 1:18
New International Version
18 And he (Jesus) is the head of the body, the church; he is the beginning and the firstborn from among the dead, so that in everything he might have the supremacy.
TRUTH of the BIBLE!!!!
>>>>>>>
Ephesians 1:22-23
New International Version
22 And God placed all things under his (Jesus") feet and appointed him to be head over everything for the church, 23 which is his body, the fullness of him who fills everything in every way.
TRUTH of the BIBLE!!!!
>>>>>>John 14:6
Jesus answered, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me."
Since Jesus IS THE TRUTH, then what about the contradictions of the "Church"??
According to Catholics, they are the truth!!!
According to Cathoics, they are the ONLY way to God!!!
#1--Where in the Bible does God REST on the first day of the week to make that day special?
#2--Where in the Bible does God BLESS the first day of the week to make that day special?
#3Where in the Bible does God SANCTIFY the first day of the week to make that day special?
#4--Where in the Bible does God give a name the first day of the week to make that day special?
#5--Where in the Bible does God DECLARE the first day of the week as HIS HOLY DAY to make that day special?
(Sunday keepers don’t realize that when they keep Sunday holy they are making a day holy that man ordained, not God, by doing that they have violated the 2nd commandment by making an image, they also violate the 4th commandment and the 9th commandment by lying about the Sabbath being changed to Sunday. I’m sure you could find a few different commandments that are broken by keeping Sunday. That’s why the Bible says if you break one commandment you break them all. Please open your eyes brothers and sisters that keep Sunday before it is to late!)
#6--Quote the Holy Bible that says Mary prayed to/with beads.
#7--Quote the Holy Bible that says Mary went to/ will go to heaven.
#8--Quote the Holy Bible that says Mary is an mediator/intercessor.
#9--Quote the Holy Bible that says Mary remained a virgin all her life.
#10--Quote the Holy Bible that says Mary did not sin.
#11--Quote the Holy Bible that says a mere man is Head of the church.
#12--Quote the Holy Bible that says there are popes in God's kingdom.
#13--Quote the Holy Bible that says we are to confess our sins to a
priest.
#14--Quote the Holy Bible that says there is an "one holy Apolistic church?
#15--Quote the Holy Bible that says the seventh day is not the Sabbath.
#16--Quote the Holy Bible that says Rome is where Jesus will have His headquarters.
#17--Quote the Holy Bible that says Peter was in Rome.
#18--Quote the Holy Bible that says Mary is the Ark of the covenant.
I don't really have a dog in this fight but I can tell from watching this feud that there's so much pride fueling all of this and I don't hear too many Biblical accounts as much as I hear arguments based on details after the scriptures were penned.
Yeah, we ain't sola scriptura, bub.
I assume you're not Catholic?
For Catholics, Christianity doesn't end with the book of Revalation. "Details after the scriptures penned" are pretty important to us. :)
No. Not catholic. I am a what I prefer to call a follower of Christ. I see that yall use other texts to inform but it seemed that scripture is being brought up very seldomly and its not just the catholic apologist but also the orthodox apologist as well. If our instructions from Christ are in the Bible why is it being treated as though its secondary?
@@ContemplativeSoul i don't speak latin
@@danielwatcherofthelord1823 well, to start, the entirety of the Mass Catholics and Orthodox partake in is spoken scripture.
Yes. In 1700-2000 years of history POST the scriptures being written, things have happened and documents have been written.
2 Thessalonians 2:4 KJV Bible
“Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God.”
Christ is the head of the church. Not the popes who claim to be vicars of Christ. The popes teach a false gospel. The Lord's apostles are the one's who walked with Him. No other apostles after them.
Ok prot
Actually formula of Hormisdas doesn't say that Pope is inflammable, it says that Rome at the time was Orthodox, which is true.
Is that all it says?
Formula of Pope St. Hormisdas
This was the formula of faith, also known as “Formula Hormisdae” that settled the first schism between East and West. It was concluded in Constantinople in AD 519:
“The first condition of salvation is to keep the norm of the true faith and in no way to deviate from the established doctrine of the Fathers.
For it is impossible that the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, who said, “Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church,” [Matthew 16:18], should not be verified. And their truth has been proved by the course of history, for in the Apostolic See the Catholic religion has always been kept unsullied.
From this hope and faith we by no means desire to be separated and, following the doctrine of the Fathers, we declare anathema all heresies, and, especially, the heretic Nestorius, former bishop of Constantinople, who was condemned by the Council of Ephesus, by Blessed Celestine, bishop of Rome, and by the venerable Cyril, bishop of Alexandria. We likewise condemn and declare to be anathema Eutyches and Dioscoros of Alexandria, who were condemned in the holy Council of Chalcedon, which we follow and endorse. This Council followed the holy Council of Nicaea and preached the apostolic faith. And we condemn the assassin Timothy, surnamed Aelurus [“the Cat”] and also Peter [Mongos] of Alexandria, his disciple and follower in everything. We also declare anathema their helper and follower, Acacius of Constantinople, a bishop once condemned by the Apostolic See, and all those who remain in contact and company with them. Because this Acacius joined himself to their communion, he deserved to receive a judgment of condemnation similar to theirs. Furthermore, we condemn Peter [“the Fuller”] of Antioch with all his followers together together with the followers of all those mentioned above.
Following, as we have said before, the Apostolic See in all things and proclaiming all its decisions, we endorse and approve all the letters which Pope St Leo wrote concerning the Christian religion. And so I hope I may deserve to be associated with you in the one communion which the Apostolic See proclaims, in which the whole, true, and perfect security of the Christian religion resides. I promise that from now on those who are separated from the communion of the Catholic Church, that is, who are not in agreement with the Apostolic See, will not have their names read during the sacred mysteries. But if I attempt even the least deviation from my profession, I admit that, according to my own declaration, I am an accomplice to those whom I have condemned. I have signed this, my profession, with my own hand, and I have directed it to you, Hormisdas, the holy and venerable pope of Rome.”
Pope St Hormisdas (514-523)
“The rosary is the scourge of the devil”
-Pope Adrian VI
What do you think this proves?
@@mattboylan7318 quoteWhat do you think this proves?--unquote
NOT all popes agreed about praying to beads---Obviously someone KNEW what the Holy Bible does NOT agree with.
@@mitchellosmer1293 haha that Pope was praising the rosary beads. Saying that they could be used to defeat the devil.
@@mattboylan7318--quote--- haha that Pope was praising the rosary beads. Saying that they could be used to defeat the devil.--unquote
AN OPINION!!!! Where in the Holy Bible does Jesus teach anyone to pray to beads?????????????????????????
--Where in the Holy Bible does it say Mary prayed to beads????????????
****Why do Catholics REFUSE to obey God and HIS HOLY WORDS??? By praying to Mary, Catholics are implying God is a lair!!! Does God lie???
1 Peter 5:6----Humble yourselves, therefore, under God's mighty hand, that he may lift you up in due time. Cast all your anxiety on him because he cares for you.
(John 14:6-----“I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me”). Christians are often criticized for claiming that Jesus is the only way to God.
-----Do you really think God appreaciates the implication that He is a liar?
----John 14:13-14 13 And I will do whatever you ask in my name, so that the Father may be glorified in the Son.
14 You may ask me for anything in my name, and I will do it.
-----1 Tim 2:5 For there is one God and one mediator between God and mankind, the man Christ Jesus,)
Exodus -=---The NAME of Jesus!!! --Not the name of Mary!!! Not Joseph !!!!
Not Michael!!!
*****Even the Douay Rheims Bible says that Mary admitted needing the Saviour; read the Magnificat. Plus, Romans 3:23, says "All have sinned and come short of the glory of God."
***----NOT written down: (NOT BIBLICAL)
Worship of relics
Worship of Mary
Mary as intercessor/mediator
indulgences
Purgatory
Mass
Tradition above scripture
Sunday worship
Eternal torment
Confessional
Infant Baptism
NOT ONE is Biblical!!!!!
---Especially the claim by Catholics that Mary prayed to beads (rosary).. She was a JEW!!! Not one Jew would have prayed to beads. That IS IDOLATRY!!! A HUGE SIN!!!! Pray ONLY to God!!!! Had Mary prayed to beads, she would HAVE been stoned.
(In the Pentateuch
Sefer Torah
The institution of capital punishment in Jewish law is defined in the Law of Moses (Torah) in multiple places. The Mosaic Law provides for the death penalty to be inflicted upon those persons convicted of the following offences:
#1--adultery (for a married woman and her lover)[12][13]
#2--bestiality[14]
#3--blasphemy[15]
#4--child sacrifice[16]
#5--false testimony in capital cases[17]
#6--false prophecy[18]
#7--proselytizing and promoting other religions[19]
#8--male homosexual relations[20]
#9--idolatry, actual or virtual[21]
#10--incestuous relations[22]
#11---insubordination to supreme authority[23]
#12--lying about one's virginity upon marrying a spouse (Deuteronomy
22:13-21)[13][24]
#13--kidnapping[25]
l#14--icentiousness of a priest's daughter[26] (which imples the priest was married).
#15--murder[27]
#16--rape committed against a betrothed woman[28]
#17--striking, cursing, or otherwise rebelling against parental authority[29]
#18--Sabbath-breaking[30]
#19--touching Mount Sinai while God was giving Moses the Ten Commandments[31]
#20--witchcraft, divination, necromancy, sorcery, etc
(Talking, praying to the dead)
--LOOK at the crime of IDOLATRY!!! DEATH!!!!! #9--
Mary also would have been accused of :#7--proselytizing and promoting other religions[19]
----I suggest Catholics take a LONG hard look at the claim Mary prayed to beads. UNDER Jewish law------She would have broken 2 laws--BOTH punishable by DEATH!!!!
----- Either Mary NEVER prayed to beads--and was Sinless---or she prayed to beads and WAS A SINNER!!!!------under the Jewish laws........Tell me, under which laws will she be judged by: Catholic or the laws of God (Jewish Laws)?--
And we do not pray to beads. We pray to God and we venerate our spiritual mother and ask that she pray for her us. Mary says in Luke 1:48 - For behold, henceforth all generations will call me blessed. When is the last time you called the mother of God blessed? You are called to imitate Jesus. Who would have lived by His law to honor thy father and thy mother. Are you honoring the mother of the new covenant? The mother of the church.
Jesus didn't say, "Upon you I will build my Church. Instead, He said, " Upon this I will build my Church." Thus, the question remains....what is "this?"
I say Peter's confession of who Jesus was is what made him a rock, not who he was in himself. Don't believe it? The hard evidence is rock solid. Let's have a look.
1 Corinthians 1:10-13: Paul addresses the divisions among the Corinthians, where some were claiming allegiance to different apostles (Paul, Apollos, Peter, or Christ). Paul emphasizes that faith and unity in Christ is what truly matters, not allegiance to any human leader, including Peter.
1 Corinthians 1:12-13: "What I mean is this: One of you says, 'I follow Paul'; another, 'I follow Apollos'; another, 'I follow Cephas' (note that Peter wasn't even referred to as Peter here but by his original name, Cephas); still another, 'I follow Christ.' Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Were you baptized in the name of Paul?"
Galatians 2:6-14: Paul speaks about how Peter's position did not matter to him and should not matter to others, emphasizing that what truly mattered was the truth of the Gospel. Also, in Galatians 2:11-14, Paul recounts how he publicly corrected Peter for his hypocrisy when Peter withdrew from eating with Gentiles due to pressure from certain Jewish Christians.
Galatians 2:6: "As for those who were held in high esteem-whatever they were makes no difference to me; God does not show favoritism-they added nothing to my message."
Galatians 2:11-14: "When Cephas (Peter) came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned. For before certain men came from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles. But when they arrived, he began to draw back and separate himself from the Gentiles because he was afraid of those who belonged to the circumcision group. The other Jews joined him in his hypocrisy, so that by their hypocrisy even Barnabas was led astray. When I saw that they were not acting in line with the truth of the gospel, I said to Cephas (Peter) in front of them all, 'You are a Jew, yet you live like a Gentile and not like a Jew. How is it, then, that you force Gentiles to follow Jewish customs?'"
Galatians 2:7-8: Paul described Peter as simply the apostle to the Jews, while he himself was the apostle to the Gentiles.
Galatians 2:7-8: "On the contrary, they recognized that I had been entrusted with the task of preaching the gospel to the uncircumcised, just as Peter had been to the circumcised. For God, who was at work in Peter as an apostle to the circumcised, was also at work in me as an apostle to the Gentiles."
Galatians 2:9: Paul lists James before Peter when referencing apostles he met in Jerusalem.
Galatians 2:9: "James, Cephas (again, calling Peter by his original name), and John, those esteemed as pillars, gave me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship when they recognized the grace given to me."
Acts 15: James, brother of Jesus and senior leader for the Jerusalem church, had the final word in the discussion about whether Gentile converts to Christianity needed to follow the Law of Moses, particularly circumcision. After much debate, James offered a summary and issued the final judgment.
Acts 15:13-19: "When they had finished, James spoke up: 'Brothers,' he said, 'listen to me. Simon (Like Paul, James also does not always refer to Peter as Peter] has described to us how God first intervened to choose a people for his name from the Gentiles. The words of the prophets are in agreement with this, as it is written... It is my judgment, therefore, that we should not make it difficult for the Gentiles who are turning to God.'"
1 Peter 1:1; 5:1: In his first letter, Peter refers to himself simply as an elder even as he is an apostle. Not as a bishop and not as a Pope but collegially as an elder. Also in 2 Peter 1:1, he refers to himself even more humbly, simply as a servant of Jesus Christ and an apostle.
1 Peter 1:1: "Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ,...."
1 Peter 5:1: "To the elders among you, I appeal as a fellow elder and a witness of Christ's sufferings who also will share in the glory to be revealed."
2 Peter 1:1: " Simon Peter, a servant and apostle of Jesus Christ...."
These direct Scripture quotations demonstrate Paul's focus on the centrality of the Gospel and Christian unity in Christ Himself over personal allegiance to any human leaders, including Peter. They also emphasize Peter's original name, Cephas, revealing the essential irrelevance of his name change. They say that his primary mission was to evangelize Jews just as Paul's was to evangelize the larger Gentile population. They demonstrate James's supremacy over Peter in Jerusalem, the Mother Church of early Christianity. And, indeed, Peter's own letter demonstrates that he held no office of primacy in the early Church. Clearly, then, he could not have held anything resembling general authority over other apostles or churches.
Finally, when looking at church history, we find that not a single church named in the New Testament was ever under the Roman Pope except for Rome itself.
Therefore, all Catholic claims about Petrine-Papal supremacy are shown to be indefensible - biblically, theologically, and historically.
Peter is no doubt the first Pope appointed by Jesus.
Even the Douay Rheims Bible says that Mary admitted needing the Saviour; read the Magnificat. Plus, Romans 3:23, says "All have sinned and come short of the glory of God."
What dose the arch angel Gabriel say? Hail Mary full of grace. How could she be full of grace if she wasn’t?
@@codenametemplar quote---What dose the arch angel Gabriel say? Hail Mary full of grace. How could she be full of grace if she wasn’t?--unquote
So, Gabriel lied??? An Angel of God!!!
@@mitchellosmer1293 no I am saying she was full of grace, I’m not saying the arch angel lied🤣 what I am saying is that Mary didn’t sin. Do you agree or not? (Just for clarification)
@@codenametemplar quote--- what I am saying is that Mary didn’t sin.--unquote
That would make God a LIAR!!!
Romans 3:23 for ALL have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 2 For we all stumble in many ways. And if anyone does not stumble in what he says, he is a perfect man, fable also to bridle his whole body. 8 If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.
**** ALL HAVE SINNED--that INCLUDES MARY!!
btw---NOT Biblical!!!!!
---Especially the claim by Catholics that Mary prayed to beads (rosary).. She was a JEW!!! Not one Jew would have prayed to beads. That IS IDOLATRY!!! A HUGE SIN!!!! Pray ONLY to God!!!! Had Mary prayed to beads, she would HAVE been stoned
@@mitchellosmer1293 first of all no Catholic believes she prayed to beads, the reason why we pray the rosary (which is a prayer quoting the bible and yes I mean the Hail Mary) is because 3rd century Christian’s would pray those prayers counting the roses at the colosseum when Christian’s were being forced into it. 2nd of all we don’t pray to Mary the way we pray to GOD, we use the term pray as in to ask for, are saints alive in heaven? Yes. Because with GOD we are alive again, so we ask them to pray for us in the same way you may ask your church or friend or pastor to pray for you. As for Mary having no sin, you are making GOD a liar when the Arch angel Gabriel said FULL OF GRACE. Meaning she (Mary was full of grace). She had to be to be the tabernacle to hold GOD manifested in the flesh within her womb. In the same way the the arch of the covenant was perfect. Because GOD being perfect cannot exist within imperfection.
If Christ established papal supremacy and infallibility, and the gates of hell will not prevail and the church is the Roman Catholic Church. Then you are saying that it is ok to deny the divinity of Christ accird to the cathechism of the Catholic Church. And if it is an error that it's ok to deny the divinity of Christ then the gates of hell has prevailed which means the roman Catholic church isn't the church Christ founded. But as usual Catholics will ignore this amount many things.
Since when the RCC denyed Christ's deity?
Christ is God
@@Phantom-xp2co841 of the cathechism of the Catholic Church
Muslims deny Christ's divinity and therefore he isn't the second person of the trinity which is false, but according to the roman church you both worship the same God, then the divinity of Christ doesn't matter the trinity does matter according to the teachings of Roman Catholicism. Yous have many false teachings that roman catholics keep trying to explain away. And if you'd have to keep explaining what roman Catholicism teaches or what the pope really meant by many things and actions, again a great example of a fallen church that can't teach clearly
@@menofvirtue6238 Did Jews worship the true God while Jesus was a baby ? Did the contemporary Jews who lived as Christ was a baby worship a different God because they had no knowledge God incarnated ? If the answer is that they still worshipped the true God even with imperfect knowledge, it means the catechism is on point and you are wrong. Because you fail to distinguish between intention of worship and the knowledge invovled in worship, Muslims intend to worship Abraham's God, the catechism is on point. As for the verses saying that we do not have the Father without the Son that is true, because understanding of the Father comes by the Son.
@@VirginMostPowerfull @workinpromo read St John 15:22 If I had not come, and spoken to them, they would not have sin; but now they have no excuse for their sin.
The Jews rejected Christ. The true God isn't just the Fat or isn't just the Son or just the Holy Spirit. You can't divide the Holy Trinity.
Pretty sure the Catechism says that Muslims *proclaim* to worship the one true God along with them, *not* that the Catholic Church thinks their beliefs are true and valid. No Catholic teaching says that Muslims are correct. That's a straw man and taking the Catechism out of context. I swear Orthodox will exploit anything if it means getting one over on the Catholics. It's pretty pathetic to be honest.
----Why do Catholics worship Mary instead of Jesus?
The Catholic Church teaches that Mary is the Mother of God, that she is to be venerated as the Mother of God, and that she intercedes for us to secure our salvation. This is why Catholics love and respect her and pray to her as the Mother of God. Mary acts as the true mediator between God and humanity.
AGAIN----Does God lie?????? --The Holy Bible CLEARLY says in 1 Tim 2:5---For there is one God and one mediator between God and mankind, the man Christ Jesus.
Either God lied--or someone else did.-----Which is the truth???
@CJ P. quote-- Instead we should submit to the authority of the Church that Christ established.--unquote
And what church is that???
Prove that from the Holy Bible what church Jesus established..
Guranteed it WAS NOT the Catholic Church because Jesus NEVER mentioned it ....
@CJ P. quote---You want the very Church that COMPILED and CANONIZED that very Bible you’re referring to… to prove itself in that same Bible.--unquote
ABSOLUTELY--- When that Church supposedly "canonized" it, changes were made--
Who wrote the Latin Vulgate?
Jerome
The Vulgate is largely the work of Jerome who, in 382, had been commissioned by Pope Damasus I to revise the Vetus Latina Gospels used by the Roman Church. Later, on his own initiative, Jerome extended this work of revision and translation to include most of the books of the Bible.
---who wrote the Septuagint?
The Greek Old Testament, or Septuagint (/ˈsɛptjuədʒɪnt/,[1] US also /sɛpˈtjuːədʒɪnt/;[2] from the Latin: septuaginta, lit. 'seventy'; often abbreviated 70; in Roman numerals, LXX), is the earliest extant Greek translation of books from the Hebrew Bible.[3] It includes several books beyond those contained in the Masoretic text of the Hebrew Bible as canonically used in the tradition of mainstream Rabbinical Judaism. The additional books were composed in Greek, Hebrew, or Aramaic, but in most cases, only the Greek version has survived to the present. It is the oldest and most important complete translation of the Hebrew Bible made by the Jews. Some targums translating or paraphrasing the Bible into Aramaic were also made around the same time.
The first five books of the Hebrew Bible, known as the Torah or the Pentateuch, were translated in the mid-3rd century BCE.[4] The remaining translations are presumably from the 2nd century BCE.[5][6][7]
The full title (Ancient Greek: Ἡ μετάφρασις τῶν Ἑβδομήκοντα, lit. 'The Translation of the Seventy') derives from the story recorded in the Letter of Aristeas that the Hebrew Torah was translated into Greek at the request of Ptolemy II Philadelphus (285-247 BCE) by 70 Jewish scholars or, according to later tradition, 72: six scholars from each of the Twelve Tribes of Israel, who independently produced identical translations.
-------The SAME writings as the Catholics used for 100's of years. Until their idealogy (popes- and emporers) decided they wanted NO MORE to do with the Jews!!!
unday was another work day in the Roman Empire. On March 7, 321, however, Roman Emperor Constantine I issued a civil decree making Sunday a day of rest from labor, stating: All judges and city people and the craftsmen shall rest upon the venerable day of the sun.
-- SOURCE-----WIKIPEDIA-----Day of rest
A common theme in criticism of Hebrew Shabbat rest was idleness, found not to be in the Christian spirit of rest.[citation needed] Irenaeus (late 2nd century), also citing continuous Sabbath observance, wrote that the Christian "will not be commanded to leave idle one day of rest, who is constantly keeping sabbath",[31] and Tertullian (early 3rd century) argued "that we still more ought to observe a sabbath from all servile work always, and not only every seventh-day, but through all time".[32] This early metaphorical interpretation of Sabbath applied it to the entire Christian life.[33]
Ignatius, cautioning against "Judaizing" in the Epistle of Ignatius to the Magnesians,[34] contrasts the Jewish Shabbat practices with the Christian life which includes the Lord's Day:--(Read Idaiah 58:13--God claims the Sabbath is HIS HOLY DAY!!--So, which day is the day of the Lord? The Seventh day)----And--It is the ONLY day Jesus cliams He is the Lord of!!!)
Let us therefore no longer keep the Sabbath after the Jewish manner, and rejoice in days of idleness. [...] But let every one of you keep the Sabbath after a spiritual manner, rejoicing in meditation on the law, not in relaxation of the body, admiring the workmanship of God, and not eating things prepared the day before, nor using lukewarm drinks, and walking within a prescribed space, nor finding delight in dancing and plaudits which have no sense in them. And after the observance of the Sabbath, let every friend of Christ keep the Lord's [Day, Dominicam] as a festival, the resurrection-day, the queen and chief of all the days.[35]
The 2nd and 3rd centuries solidified the early church's emphasis upon Sunday worship and its rejection of a Jewish (Mosaic Law-based) observation of the Sabbath and manner of rest. Christian practice of following Sabbath after the manner of the Hebrews declined, prompting Tertullian to note "to [us] Sabbaths are strange" and unobserved.[36] Even as late as the 4th century, Judaizing was still sometimes a problem within the Church, but by this time it was repudiated strongly as heresy.[37][38][39]--(Who were the chosen people of God??? Jews!!!---God told the Jews the Sabbath was a PERPETUAL covenant with them. If the Sabbath was abolised at any time, then God LIED to them!!!)
Sunday was another work day in the Roman Empire. On March 7, 321, however, Roman Emperor Constantine I issued a civil decree making Sunday a day of rest from labor, stating:[40]--(CONSTATINE changed the day of worship!!!)
"All judges and city people and the craftsmen shall rest upon the venerable day of the sun. Country people, however, may freely attend to the cultivation of the fields, because it frequently happens that no other days are better adapted for planting the grain in the furrows or the vines in trenches. So that the advantage given by heavenly providence may not for the occasion of a short time perish."
While established only in civil law rather than religious principle,[citation needed] the Church welcomed the development as a means by which Christians could the more easily attend Sunday worship and observe Christian rest. At Laodicea also, the Church encouraged Christians to make use of the day for Christian rest where possible,[39] without ascribing to it any of the regulation of Mosaic Law, and indeed anathematizing Hebrew observance on the Sabbath. The civil law and its effects made possible a pattern in Church life that has been imitated throughout the centuries in many places and cultures, wherever possible
--quote--- But now you want to have it your own way when it’s convenient for you.--unquote-ABSOLUTELY NOT!!
AGAIN----Where in the Holy Bible Does God---YOUR CREATOR--Say HE RESTED--------BLESSED-----SANCTIFIED--(Made Holy) -------NAMED (Sabbath)---and CLAIMS as His Holy day on the FIRST DAY Of the week ????????????
Come on--Prove the claim of the Catholics that GOD---- made Sunday a HOLY DAY!!!!
@@mitchellosmer1293 Do you know what the Sabbath was for? "The Sabbath is only a day of preparation for the banquet which will be laid out in the Olam Haba when Messiah arrives on the 8th day".- Rabbi Yakov (Teacher of Judah haNasi/the writer of the Mishna)
Catholics believe Jesus is Messiah and he has already arrived, lived, died and resurrected. He has a fulfilled the Sabbath and we are living in the Messianic Olam Haba. God has put before us His feast, the Eucharistic sacrifice of thanksgiving of the 8th day.
Rabbi Jacob explains that the Sabbath is the day of preparation for the Olam Haba. The seventh day = sabbath. So the eighth day is the day that they were preparing for. This is why in the NT the first day is also known as the eighth day as it follows the Sabbath. As you see, in the Olam Haba the day of worship is going to be the Eighth day/First day/Sunday when the Eucharistic banquet is set by God.
To worship on Saturday instead of Sunday is to deny that we are living in the Messianic Age. It is a denial that Christ is the Messiah. He fulfils the last Sabbath by not disturbing it, rising on Sunday, fulfilling the Sabbath.
How is this to be understood? The seventh day (Sabbath) is the day of preparation for the day that is to come in the Olam Haba (Sunday). God Himself will lay out the banquet. It is the Eucharist, the sacrifice of thanksgiving which the sages prophesied.
The Pharisees were upset when Jesus did “works” of healing on the Sabbath, they were outraged that Jesus was healing on a Sabbath. Jesus healed on a Sabbath because He is the Lord of the Sabbath, the Sabbath has no power over Christ or His Church.
It is the Jewish apostles who began worshiping on the Eighth Day/Sunday (according to Jewish calendar)... the day following the Sabbath, because the Sabbath is now fulfilled.
Foolish of followers of Christ to want to continue worshipping on Saturdays when they have no idea why/what Sabbath was originally for.
@@SaintCharbelMiracleworker quote---Do you know what the Sabbath was for? "The Sabbath is only a day of preparation for the banquet which will be laid out in the Olam Haba when Messiah arrives on the 8th day".- Rabbi Yakov (Teacher of Judah haNasi/the writer of the Mishna) --unquote
That is your opinion!!
--Obviously you DO NOT believe in the Holy Bible.
****quote---He has a fulfilled the Sabbath and we are living in the Messianic Olam Haba. God has put before us His feast, the Eucharistic sacrifice of thanksgiving of the 8th day. --unquote--AGAIN--AM OPINION!!
If Jesus fulfilled the Sabbath, then WHY did Hid wimen followers KEEP the Sabbath that Friday??? Luke 23:56----And--ALL the disciples kept the Sabbath in Acts. And--that means God lied to the Jews.
The Sabbath is God's perpetual sign of His eternal covenant between Him and His people. Joyful observance of this holy time from evening to evening, sunset to sunset, is a celebration of God's creative and redemptive acts. (Gen. 2:1-3; Ex. 20:8-11; Luke 4:16; Isa. 56:5, 6; 58:13, 14; Matt. 12:1-12; Ex. 31:13-17; Eze. 20:12, 20; Deut. 5:12-15; Heb. 4:1-11; Lev. 23:32; Mark 1:32.
-*** Does God lie??? Obviously you may nor know what "perpetual" means---FOREVER--NEVER ending!!!
****quote---To worship on Saturday instead of Sunday is to deny that we are living in the Messianic Age. It is a denial that Christ is the Messiah. He fulfils the last Sabbath by not disturbing it, rising on Sunday, fulfilling the Sabbath. --unquote AGAIN---OPINION
You quote ABSOLUTELY NOT ONER scripture!!!
*****Where in the Holy Bible does GOD say the first day of the week is the day HE RESTED on??? -------Where in the Holy Bible does GOD say the first day of the week is the day HE BLESSED???-------Where in the Holy Bible does GOD say the first day of the week is the day HE SACTIFIED (made Holy)?????????-------Where in the Holy Bible does GOD say the first day of the week is the day HE NAMED???---------------Where in the Holy Bible does GOD say the first day of the week is the day HE CLAIMED as HIS HOLY DAY???
*****quote--It is the Jewish apostles who began worshiping on the Eighth Day/Sunday (according to Jewish calendar)... the day following the Sabbath, because the Sabbath is now fulfilled.-unquote
AGAIN--AN OPINION!!! And you want to take the verses totally OUT of context---- You refuse to ask questions---- about the verses and refuse to find the answers.
****quote---Foolish of followers of Christ to want to continue worshipping on Saturdays when they have no idea why/what Sabbath was originally for.
unquote--LOL---
The Sabbath is a weekly day of rest or time of worship given in the Bible as the seventh day. It is observed differently in Judaism and Christianity and informs a similar occasion in several other faiths. Observation and remembrance of Sabbath is one of the Ten Commandments ("Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy") considered to be the fourth in Judaism, Eastern Orthodoxy, and most Protestant traditions, and the third in Roman Catholic and Lutheran traditions.
---The Biblical Hebrew Shabbat is a verb meaning "to cease" or "to rest", its noun form meaning a time or day of cessation or rest. It's Anglicized pronounciation is Sabbath. A cognate Babylonian Sapattum or Sabattum is reconstructed from the lost fifth Enūma Eliš creation account, which is read as: "[Sa]bbatu shalt thou then encounter, mid[month]ly". It is regarded as a form of Sumerian sa-bat ("mid-rest"), rendered in Akkadian as um nuh libbi ("day of mid-repose").[1]
The dependent Greek cognate is Sabbaton, used in the New Testament 68 times. Two inflections, Hebrew Shabbathown and Greek "σαββατισμός" (Sabbatismós), also appear. The Greek form is cognate to the Septuagint verb sabbatizo (e.g., Ex. 16:30; Lev. 23:32; 26:34; 2 Chr. 36:21). In English, the concept of sabbatical is cognate to these two forms.
The King James Bible uses the English form "sabbath(s)" 172 times. In the Old Testament, "sabbath(s)" translates Shabbath all 107 times (including 35 plurals), plus shebeth three times, shabath once, and the related mishbath once (plural). In the New Testament, "sabbath" translates Sabbaton 59 times; Sabbaton is also translated as "week" nine times, by synecdoche.
Sabbatai Zevi in 1665
The name form is "Shabbethai"[2] a name appearing three times in the Tanakh.
@@SaintCharbelMiracleworker ----So God blessed the seventh day and made it holy, because on it God rested from all his work that he had done in Creation. -Gen. 2:3
What does the Bible say about Queen of Heaven?
Hebrew Bible references
The worship of a "Queen of Heaven" (Hebrew: מלכת השמים, Malkath haShamayim) is recorded in the Book of Jeremiah, in the context of the Prophet condemning such religious worship and it being the cause of God declaring that He would remove His people from the land.
A pagan goddess!!!
Yes the Bible condemns worshipping pagan deities as the "queen of Heaven." The Bible also condemns worshipping pagan deities as "Lord," so does that mean we are worshipping demons instead of God any time we worship the Lord? Of course not.
Think about this: Jesus is King of Heaven, and Mary is His mother. Therefore, according to custom, Mary is the Queen Mother of Heaven.
@@john-el9636 quote---Think about this: Jesus is King of Heaven, and Mary is His mother. Therefore, according to custom, Mary is the Queen Mother of Heaven.--unquote
Nope!! Quote that from the Bible and NOT an opinion.
First of all, Mary IS NOT in heaven.
#2--IF she was in heaven on the right side of Jesus, that places her equal to God.
#3---NOT ONR verse in ALL scripture places her in heaven.
#4---If she is in heaven , that makes God a liar.
--Apparently custom, tradition those are what you base your idealogy on and NOT the Word of God. THAT shows where your alligence is. On man and NOT on God.
---quote---The Bible also condemns worshipping pagan deities as "Lord," so does that mean we are worshipping demons instead of God any time we worship the Lord? -unquote
That depend if you are worshipping the "LORD" according to God, and NOT according to man.
@mitchellosmer1293 Bro learn to type. Quotation marks exist. Use them.
Not everything Christians believe is explicitly found in the Bible. Even you believe that since no passage in Sacred Scripture has such a rule, nor is there a list of books that are canonical anywhere in the Bible. Therefore, you can't dismiss my logic based solely on the fact that the Bible didn't hold your hand and explain it to you. Jesus is King of Heaven, and Mary is His mother. Therefore, Mary is the Queen Mother of Heaven. Case closed.
If Mary, the Mother of God, wasn't saved, then nobody will be bud. What do you think our chances of attaining eternal life are if the mother Christ loved so much can't make it?
Nobody said she's at the right hand of Christ, but even if we did, that wouldn't make her His equal. Hence the term "right hand man." It implies a kind of secondary or supporting role.
There isn't a single verse in the Bible that says cars exist. Therefore, cars don't exist. See how that logic works? Also Mary is typically identified as the woman giving birth in Revelation so yeah. Probably her in Heaven right there.
Why would Mary, the greatest among the Saints, being in Heaven make God a liar? I don't recall Him ever saying that Mary was condemned to Hell or that nobody was allowed in Heaven. Geez Christ literally opened Heaven after His crucifixion and descent into the realm of the dead. Do you really think He just did all that for nothing?
Notice how I didn't appeal to anything outside of what the Bible tells us to refute your position. No traditions or customs needed to refute this kinda nonsense.
So you make an exception for using the term "Lord" but you won't do so with the term "Queen of Heaven." That's a contradiction bud. Either both are okay to use in a Christian context, or neither of them are. So which is it?
Also why are you liking your own comments?
@@john-el9636 quote---Not everything Christians believe is explicitly found in the Bible. Even you believe that since no passage in Sacred Scripture has such a rule, nor is there a list of books that are canonical anywhere in the Bible. Therefore, you can't dismiss my logic based solely on the fact that the Bible didn't hold your hand and explain it to you.--unquote
I feel sorry for you that you believe every word spoken by anyone is what we are to follow. Where is that in the Bible??? I supposed when the Pope says to kill anyone that keeps the Sabbath, you will follow him?
Jesus said several time,"FOLLOW ME!""" NOT a mere man.
But you DO NOT FOLLOW Jesus!!!!
----I QUOTE the WORD OF GOD:
Hebrews 4:12 12 Indeed, the word of God is living and effective, sharper than any two-edged sword, penetrating even between soul and spirit, joints and marrow, and able to discern reflections and thoughts of the heart), or seen implicitly through its lens. Ultimately, Sola Scriptura is the start and foundation of everything we know about God and His glory.
Not according to Catholics. Indeed, the word of the Pope (priests) is living and effective...........
------Deuteronomy 17:14-20 states that we “shall not turn away from God’s Word, not to the right or the left”.
Not according to Catholics. They turn to whatever direction they can to satisfy their itching ears.
------Psalm 1:2 and Joshua 1:7-8 says that “the righteous person dwells on the Word of the Lord day and night”.
Not according to catholics. They DWELL on every word spoken by a mere man, the Pope (priests).
------Deuteronomy 8:3 states that “we do not live on bread alone, but by every word that comes from the mouth of God”.The Reformers did not create this idea on the basis of logic, virtue, experience, or tradition, but from the foundation of Scripture itself.
Not according to Catholics.“we do not live on bread alone, but by every word that comes from the mouth of the Pope (priests)”.
----- Proverbs 30:5-6 states: 5 Every word of God proves true; he is a shield to those who take refuge in him. 6 Do not add to his words, lest he rebuke you and you be found a liar
Not according to Catholics. 5 Every word of the Pope proves true; he is a shield to those who take refuge in him. 6 Do not add to his words, lest he rebuke you and you be found a heritic.
Now, I have quoted scripture after scripture to prove it is ONLY the Word of Goid we are to accept as TRUTH!!! It is your turn to QUOTE scripture TO PROVE GOD is a liar.
Who's words are we to accept as truth according to GOD????
**Mary as queen of heaven???
Jeremiah 7 KJV
18 The children gather wood, and the fathers kindle the fire, and the women knead their dough, to make cakes to the queen of heaven, and to pour out drink offerings unto other gods, that they may provoke me to anger.
19 Do they provoke me to anger? saith the LORD: do they not provoke themselves to the confusion of their own faces?
20 Therefore thus saith the Lord GOD; Behold, mine anger and my fury shall be poured out upon this place, upon man, and upon beast, and upon the trees of the field, and upon the fruit of the ground; and it shall burn, and shall not be quenched.
What does the Bible say about Queen of Heaven?
Hebrew Bible references
The worship of a "Queen of Heaven" (Hebrew: מלכת השמים, Malkath haShamayim) is recorded in the Book of Jeremiah, in the context of the Prophet condemning such religious worship and it being the cause of God declaring that He would remove His people from the land.
A pagan goddess!!!
If you insist on worshipping a pagan goddess, that is between you and God.
By placing Mary in heaven with Jesus IS placing her equal to God!!!
Where is Mary in the Godhead??????
@mitchellosmer1293 I'm not going to bother responding again. You failed to grasp my points and you're engaging in fallacious argumentation. Plus you don't know how to use quotation marks. Have a good day.
When did Mary pray the Rosary?
According to a Dominican tradition, in 1208 the rosary was given to St. Dominic in an apparition by the Blessed Virgin Mary in the church of Prouille. This Marian apparition received the title of Our Lady of the Rosary.
A MAN MADE tradition!!!
btw----If the rosary was "given" in 1208, then HOW could Mary have prayed it????---
Nobody says Mary prayed the rosary. Read the actual prayers then read where it comes from ie Luke 1:38, Luke 1:42, Luke 1:43, James 16 - then read the life of Jesus the Messiah the entire rosary is about His life. I recommend Bishop Barrons rosary ua-cam.com/video/ckUJRg04jyg/v-deo.html
No one said you need to use the Rosary to pray. The Protest 66 book matching Bible started after Martin Luther in the 1,500’s. MAN MADE!!!
Nobody claimed that Mary prayed the rosary.
----I suggest Catholics take a LONG hard look at the claim Mary prayed to beads. UNDER Jewish law------She would have broken 2 laws--BOTH punishable by DEATH!!!!
----- Either Mary NEVER prayed to beads--and was Sinless---or she prayed to beads and WAS A SINNER!!!!------under the Jewish laws........Tell me, under which laws will she be judged by: Catholic or the laws of God (Jewish Laws)?--
Watch this clip to understand the scriptural basis for Mary's role. ua-cam.com/video/kUdYeYy3NQA/v-deo.html
@@SaintCharbelMiracleworker Apparently you want someone else to answer my questions.
Why????
@@mitchellosmer1293 I have a life I don't have time to explain it to you.
@@mitchellosmer1293 he took time to do his research and just pointed you in the right direction. You dont have an obligation to other peopels time.
@@haronsmith8974 quote---he just pointed you in the right direction. unquote
According to whom??? Prove to me WITH the Bible that what he wrote is correct!!!
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastern_Orthodox_Church
The Eastern Orthodox Church officially calls itself the Orthodox Catholic Church
And?
@@Sean-398they never got over the split
Both churches purport to be the one true Orthodox and Catholic Church. Not sure what pointing that out is supposed to demonstrate.
Um yeah there's never been a papal petrine heresy, get it right Orthodoxy or be a heretic
Blind.