Did St Peter Leave a Successor in Rome?
Вставка
- Опубліковано 3 гру 2024
- The scholarly consensus, by far, is that the Roman Church in the early second century did not have a single bishop but was ruled by a collection of presbyteral bodies. This would seem to undercut the Catholic Church’s claim that the pope is the successor of St Peter, let alone Vatican 1’s teaching on papal infallibility.
Drawing upon their work in previous episodes, and a careful examination of the ancient sources, the Brothers present an alternative thesis which challenges the prevailing narrative of Protestant and secular scholars.
.
.
.
SOCIAL:
/ thecatholicb.. .
/ thecatholic.. .
/ thecathbros
NOW STREAMING ON ALL MAJOR PODCASTING PLATFORMS!
SEND US AN EMAIL WITH QUESTIONS OR TOPIC REQUESTS:
thecatholicbrothers@gmail.com
I recently found my way to the Catholic church and am falling in love with the Liturgy. After decades as a Bible-studying Protestant, I finally realized they all are just "doing their own thing". They have no lineage with the Apostles or their successors who carried on their teachings. All they have is intellectual Bible study or Charismatic emotionalism. I was starving for tradition and liturgy along with Scripture.
Trying to make up church in their own image. Protestantism leads to sola-popes!
Exactly my experience.
I listened to this again after your most recent post. Y'all guys are truly great! I'm trying my best to make my way through your 1st 500 years series.
Keep it up guys. I’ve been sharing y’all in my Catholic circles and in the RCIA sessions I teach. Just a matter of time before thousands of Catholics discover you.
VERY kind words Ryan, thank you for your support!
I totally agree. There's no one putting this kind of content out there. I feel like I'm getting a Masters degree in the historicity of the Church.
A good example of this idea that scholars move at the pace of the sources is that many scholars will now say that the four gospels tradition started around the time of St. Irrenaus. Because he's the first person to mention the Gospels being no more no less than 4. The tradition must have started at his time and not before. However, I've always read him as appealing to a tradition that is already accepted by all the churches and his long standing.
Great episode chaps!
I learnt alot, highly recommended.
Dan, I love what you’ve done with your hair
The plant behind his head lioks crazy,ike Daniel from the Home Alone movies...
“Ha-a-a-a-rrryyy” ⚡️ lol
Very insightful conversation..really appreciate it.
Another great video. Thanks for posting
I always get a new, fresh, and relevant Church father citation or two from yall (e.g. Polycarp went to Rome to persuade Pope Anicetus). And I consume a lot of Catholic content. Much appreciated.
(156 A.D.) 123 years AFTER CHRIST, St. Polycarp an Apostle of Yochannon (St. John):
“CHURCH OF GOD… ALL … HOLY and CATHOLIC CHURCH in EVERY PLACE.”
(The Smyrnaeans. The Encyclical Epistle of the Church at Smyrna Concerning the Martyrdom of the Holy Polycarp, 0:1, 16.2.)
Well, Cameron is now a Catholic so maybe this episode helped haha. You guys are awesome keep up the Lord’s work!!
Finally made it here, can’t wait for the next one, can I push back a bit on the concept that Paul may have organized churches differently because he was a Pharisee? Pharisees still had a Sanhedrin of their own. They had councils with elders, a Beit Din, they had a Vice President per say and they had a Nasi, a prince, sitting in the cathedra. What do you do with rulers of synagogues? Wasn’t that a single ruler with elders around him? This was the relationship between Rabbi Hillel and Rabbi Shammai. They had their walls around the Torah that they taught their students in their respective schools but they were still part of the larger Pharisaic council, it wasn’t until Rabbi Shammai threaten Hillel with the sword that his rulings became the norm and some say that these were the Pharisees that Jesus was interlocking with. Also I heard it mention that Paul was a Pharisee under Shammai, I would push back on that too because Paul studied under Rabbi Gamaliel and Gamaliel was the grandson or son of Rabbi Hillel. I would even go as far as saying that the Circumcision Party was more aligned with Rabbi Shammai and Paul with Rabbi Hillel, because Shammai believed that Torah and salvation was only for Jews while Hillel believed it was gentiles as well. If I’m wrong, I’m open to being corrected on this.
You guys are under appreciated. Thanks for the great work you do. The more I hear, the more I'm convinced that those who makes arguments against the Catholic Church, their arguments are either straw man arguments of distractions. After all is said and done, the early church writings all prove the early church was Catholic from the beginning and has remained so for 2,000 years. All the arguments and distractions will not change that fact. The Church existed long before the Canon so trying to argue the early using the Canon alone is like trying to find the acorn in an oak tree. You're wasting a lot of time and energy and you'll never make that oak tree turn back into its acorn.
Still less than 5k subs. This channel is so informative. Perhaps it's not as glossy as something like pints with Aquinas. Yes, that does factor into attracting ANY audience.
Spread the word :)
Thanks for tuning in, as always
Just found your channel today. Subscribed. So happy to see so many great Catholic channels being developed and it's exciting to see how much they have been growing in recent years. People are waking up and realizing how much this is needed.
An honor to have you aboard, and we do sincerely appreciate the kind words!
The ending summed it up perfectly! Using the 6 elements of the authoritative decision-making process, I was able to draw a neat little flow chart to sum up the video. Thanks Bros. Keep up the amazing work.
Can't wait to watch this! (Your #1 fan from New Zealand)
You’re the man, Timmy!
Really great content! I am learning a lot from this. God bless
What does Galatians 2 especially v 6 tell you about Paul's experience and attitude?
it is from my understanding that the Papacy can still exist even without a 2nd century mono episcopate no? which is why Catholic scholars can agree with the academic census and yet still be Catholic.
Absolutely, it makes sense that the need for a figurehead would be lessened when the "Apostolic Fingerprint" was still so strongly impressed upon Christendom, so to speak.
Excellent
❤
Would it be inappropriate to believe that these non-papal bishops in Rome could have been like cardinals? I had this idea because as someone that lives in Rome, in one sunday I could walk and catch 5 masses all performed validly by different bishops, despite that the one bishop of my diocese is the Pope.
It seems to me that the inner circle of Apostles that began as Peter and the sons of Zebedee always has the pope at its center and its 2 other members always geographically with him. For example we know from Eusibius that James the just's successor was Simeon as the bishop of Jerusalem, but he was never listed alongside Peter in the same way James the Just was.
As a cradle Catholic who fell away from the faith in my teens and then came back to the faith in my 30s and nearly got sucked in by the "bible alone" it's great to hear these teachings and understandings, I've heard them many times and they never get old.. God bless you guys
Stories like yours give me hope. My daughter left the Catholic Church in her early 20's and is now 31 and has been all about "Bible alone" for several years now. She believes she is justified in distancing herself from family. Please pray for Alicia. Thank you.
Funny because I started with Cameron V, then found him converted to Catholicism. Now I’m here 😅
I have no idea why more ppl have not seen your content! UA-cam needs to work on their algorithms!
Found you guys through the Cordial Catholic. Really like your channel. Catching up on your videos from the beginning. When you say James, the brother of Jesus, are you saying James is Joseph's son from a previous marriage, so he's a stepbrother of Jesus?
Wow new subscriber
Really great information from historical perspective. So much of this type of content has nothing to do with true Christianity.
Dope video.
Clement as Peter himself said.
my twin brother and I are named Daniel(me) and Steven(brother) my first time here, so I'm interested in hope you see the Catholic Church
I think we all need to stop sayings things like, “Protestants don’t see things that are clearly there because they just don’t want to see them.” Or the converse: “Catholics see things that AREN’T really there because they so badly WANT to see them.”
Paradigms can be seen to skew-or accurately direct-our perspectives on things. So much of what the Catholic Brothers conclude about historical matters seems ad hoc to me. I start counting non-sequiturs, as they rain down fast and furious. But I’m fairly certain they would see my arguments in similar fashion!
Gavin has requested that we stop referring to each other as disingenuous. It’s really easy to say of one’s opponents that nobody could honestly believe what they believe. That their stances appear ludicrous on the face of things.
We’ll all be a lot more productive in our discussions if we quit the incessant triumphalism.
Why Rome? Besides the practical and accidental circumstances of Peter at Rome, I think there is something to be said for the Jewish expectation that the Messiah would conquer Rome, the chief pagan empire. It just didn't happen through military might or by the direct action of the messianic King but through the power of the martyrdom of the King's chief steward.
Because..
(198 A.D.) Gaius:
“PAUL was BEHEADED in ROME… PETER… was CRUCIFIED.”
(Disputation with Proclus [A.D. 198]
in Eusebius, Church History 2:25:5)
They died there.
Why did y'all close the comments on the Taylor Marshall video? Unless the comments section was full of ad hominems, I don't see a reason to close it.
It was full of *vulgar* ad hominems. Marshall’s foot soldiers were basically just saying that we’re gay and all kinds of ridiculous stuff. The comments were a potential stumbling block for seekers who follow us, so we decided to close it.
@@TheCatholicBrothers
Ah I see. How unfortunate. I always like to hear both sides because at the end of the day, we are all on the same team. Prayers!
Peter was the leader of the Apostles. His leadership in Rome was Apostolic. He chose three bishops to help him in Rome. Three successors followed his death. Each in turn.
(200 A.D.) Clement of Alexandria: “PETER… the PREEMINENT.” (SUPREME)
(Who Is the Rich Man That Is Saved? 21:3-5)
JESUS gives PETER KEYS 2 Heaven (Mt. 16:19)
KEYS Symbolize AUTHORITY in Jewish Culture. “The Faith of Our Fathers” (2015)
“HEAD of the Apostles, PETER.” (Council of Ephesus, session 2 [A.D. 431]).
Great job!!!
That is correct! 😀
Why did you turn off the comments on your episode on Dr Taylor Marshall?
Because Marshall’s fans left a billion vulgar comments and we don’t want our comments section to become a stumbling block for anyone seeking to become Catholic.
Although their level of discourse *did* prove our point….
What is the cite for that $700 book?
Good news! She’s now half the price lol
www.amazon.com/Hippolytus-Roman-Church-Third-Century/dp/9004102450
(Also, just an FYI, I had a brain fart on the author. I think I said David Brakke in the episode instead of Allen Brent. David Brakke is a Gnostics scholar and we had been reviewing some of his work off set around that time lol. Allen Brent is who wrote on Hippolytus and monepiscopacy in Rome in the early 3rd century).
@@TheCatholicBrothers found a copy on abebooks for 150
On one of your other videos I asked for your top 10-20 survey books. I'd even bound this question to *before* nicea.
Assume I have the usual ivy equivalent books from taking new testament and early christian lit for undergrad
St. Jerome thinks that the council of presbyters model was primitive and that the monarchical bishop was instituted at the time of the Apostles (but post canon closing). That testimony is pretty weighty.
Actually, he doesn’t. This is an oft recycled product of Protestant apologetics and the text itself doesn’t say that. I believe an episode was devoted to this issue on our friend Suan’s channel w/ Keith Little. I’ll search for it and post the link here for you.
Here it is:
ua-cam.com/users/liveTmAIVTVRI7k?si=O0o6A_pXfSNE3pTW
@@TheCatholicBrothers. Gavin put out a rebuttal video contesting your (and Keith Little’s) conclusion:
ua-cam.com/video/p852Zm_hfwg/v-deo.htmlsi=kPACJQ_Xxu_PZFhK
James was the leader.
Sorry, but it is clear that Linus was the successor to Peter. Irenaeus made this clear in the 3rd chapter of Against All Heresies.
We treated that information in this episode and gave the reasons why there might be strong alternatives to Irenaeus’ record.
Gentlemen: Clearly I cannot and will not try to speak for Taylor Marshall but of course I have my own opinion on why he takes such a strong stance against some of the things that Pope Francis is saying and doing. That said, I wish you both well.
Joan, those who bear false witness against Pope Francis, have never read any of the encyclicals of Pope Francis! Catholic Canon Law expert, Dr Robert Fastiggi, confirms that Pope Francis has never taught anything contrary to Church teaching or Canon Law or Holy Scripture! As lies were told of Jesus Christ at His trial, so too even now of Pope Francis by modern day elders! Peace always in Jesus Christ our Great and Kind God and Savior, He whose Flesh is true food and Blood true drink
MAIN AUTHORITY IS ROME:
St. Ignatius: (110 A.D.) 77 years AFTER Christ:
“The CHURCH… which holds the PRESIDENCY (Main Authority)… the ROMANS.”
(St. Ignatius Letter to the Romans, 1:1, 3:1, 4:3)
St. Irenaeus: (189 A.D.) 156 years AFTER Christ:
“CHURCH… at ROME… Every CHURCH… agree with this Church…
its pre- eminent AUTHORITY.” (Against Heresies 3:3:2)
(381 A.D.) Council of Constantinople (3rd Canon):
ROMAN CATHOLIC is Main AUTHORITY!
Since you wouldn’t allow comments in your anti Taylor Marshall video, I am going to post my criticism of it here. The problem with your argument that Marshall draws upon a fundamentalist background in forming his teachings is that he was never a fundamentalist. He began his Christian journey as an Episcopalian. The last time I checked Episcopalianism was not a fundamentalist sect so your entire argument dissolves. Is Taylor Marshall perfect? Without a doubt he is flawed as you yourselves demonstrably are.
Friend, fundamentalism does not denote a particular denomination. Every denomination has a fundamentalist group within it, including Anglicanism (Ehem…We came from Anglicanism too, where I was a postulant for Orders).
Fundamentalism was a school of theology that arose in the 19th and early 20th century in reaction to modernism, but it was based on all of the same faulty assumptions as modernism. Marshall has always been of the fundamentalist school of theology, with each denomination he has been a part of- from Presbyterianism, to Episcopalianism, to Catholicism.
You misunderstand what fundamentalism is.
Friend, I realize that Fundamentalism doesn’t denote a specific denomination. However, If you google Fundamentalism you will read that fundamentalists uphold a strict literal interpretation of the Scriptures. Modernism holds quite the contrary to a strict literal interpretation of Scripture. There are denominations that are known as Fundamentalists such as Southern Baptist, Assembly of God and Seventh Day Adventist. Strangely, according to your claims, The Episcopalian Church doesn’t fall into this group.
@@katiestover8954 yes it does. Have you ever heard of the Continuing Anglican movement ? There are many fundamentalists in that crowd, and they’re all Episcopalian groups. Taylor Marshall studied briefly at Nashotah House, which at the time was a safe haven for both regular traditional *and* more sketchy fundamentalist types. When he was a Presbyterian, he was a fundamentalist, TULIP Calvinist. Now, as a Catholic, he is, of course, in the rad trad sphere… He has been consistently on the fringe, with each denomination he has joined.
and your disrespectful presentation of such; filled with joking and inappropriate laughter. At the very LEAST, where is your Christian Chariity. I also follow Taylor Marshall and have NEVER heard him cast dispersion on either one of you.
But you HAVE heard him cast *aspersions* on no less than the pope himself though, haven’t you…
Hold him to the same standard by which you are measuring us. Rebuking a fellow *lay* Catholic (even in biting sarcasm) is most appropriate if the man has stoked paranoia, calumny, conspiracy, and controversy. Grifting is far beneath a Catholic man; derision is not, especially when directed at something worthy of derision and rebuke.
Bishop of Constantinople was always “First among equals”. You guys ignore history and look only for Catholic approach to history.
Constantinople as a city did not exist until Constantine, and didn't become a Patriarchate until after that. This video is about the second century. "Constantinople" was still just the modest Byzantium at this point.
Nick, how is it possible that the church in Constantinople was “first among equals” in the second century when the “city of Constantinople” did not even exist yet?
MAIN AUTHORITY IS ROME:
St. Ignatius: (110 A.D.) 77 years AFTER Christ:
“The CHURCH… which holds the PRESIDENCY (Main Authority)… the ROMANS.”
(St. Ignatius Letter to the Romans, 1:1, 3:1, 4:3)
St. Irenaeus: (189 A.D.) 156 years AFTER Christ:
“CHURCH… at ROME… Every CHURCH… agree with this Church…
its pre- eminent AUTHORITY.” (Against Heresies 3:3:2)
(381 A.D.) Council of Constantinople (3rd Canon):
ROMAN CATHOLIC is Main AUTHORITY!
Even before Constantinople, St. Paul was establishing churches and leaders(bishops) all the way from Jerusalem to Rome so even though Constantinople didn’t officially exist in the second century doesn’t mean that there weren’t bishops of equal standing to the bishop of Rome. Sorry brothers, you did miss this important fact. No early 1st or 2nd century bishop had any inclination that there was one above all the rest. This is a fact. Only in Rome are your arguments valid.
@@dogmalife2540 So why did Clement write the letter he did?