Was There a Bishop of Rome in the First Century? Protestant Critique
Вставка
- Опубліковано 27 лют 2021
- Was there a single bishop over the church in Rome in the first century, or does the emergence of a monarchical episcopate in the Roman church date into the second century? I offer some reflections on this topic here, following up on my dialogue with Joe Heschmeyer about the papacy and other Protestant and Roman Catholic differences.
Our initial dialogue: • INTENSE Discussion on ...
Joe's response: shamelesspopery.com/papacy-di...
Joe's book: www.amazon.com/Pope-Peter-Def...
Eamon Duffy's book: www.amazon.com/Saints-Sinners...
Truth Unites is a mixture of apologetics and theology, with an irenic focus.
Gavin Ortlund (PhD, Fuller Theological Seminary) serves as senior pastor of First Baptist Church of Ojai.
Become a patron: / truthunites
Website: gavinortlund.com/
Twitter: / gavinortlund
Facebook: / truthunitespage
My books:
--Why God Makes Sense in a World That Doesn’t: The Beauty of Christian Theism: www.amazon.com/Makes-Sense-Wo...
--Retrieving Augustine’s Doctrine of Creation: Ancient Wisdom for Current Controversy: www.amazon.com/Retrieving-Aug...
--Anselm’s Pursuit of Joy: A Commentary on the Proslogion: www.amazon.com/Anselms-Pursui...
--Finding the Right Hills to Die On: The Case for Theological Triage: www.amazon.com/Finding-Right-...
--Theological Retrieval for Evangelicals: Why We Need Our Past to Have a Future: www.amazon.com/Theological-Re...
I am so happy I have found a Protestant scholar who can address the questions I have about Catholic beliefs.
Glad to help!
"Very happy to have found the 1 guy who justifies my inane ahistorical heresy"
@@mclkr9174 If you actually listen you might learn something.
@@mclkr9174 I used to fear statements such as this….until I actually started studying church history.
Ironically, in my personal experience, statements such as yours seem to come from folks who don’t actually study the history, but just listen to whatever their personal flavor of apologetics are.
Hoping the best for you. Please, study the history yourself
Be careful, this guy is preaching false doctrines, but you need to be aware and catch him on his lies. Notice how he says at 7:36 "We have no examples in holly scripture or first epistle or clement or anywhere in the first century of a single leader, whatever term you use for that, like Philippians 1-1 it does not talk about a leader in the church. Nowhere in the new testament do we have one individual, whatever the terminology is used over a church."
John 21:15-17 "When they had finished breakfast, Jesus said to Simon Peter, ‘Simon son of John, do you love me more than these?’ He said to him, ‘Yes, Lord; you know that I love you.’ Jesus said to him, ‘Feed my lambs.’ A second time he said to him, ‘Simon son of John, do you love me?’ He said to him, ‘Yes, Lord; you know that I love you.’ Jesus said to him, ‘Tend my sheep.’ He said to him the third time, ‘Simon son of John, do you love me?’ Peter felt hurt because he said to him the third time, ‘Do you love me?’ And he said to him, ‘Lord, you know everything; you know that I love you.’ Jesus said to him, ‘Feed my sheep."
Jesus clearly wanted his Church (sheep) to be pastured by a single man named Peter. So, this protestant "theologian" is clearly teaching a false doctrine because we know that Jesus himself appointed Peter as the one and only shepherd that must take care of Jesus sheep (church).
The bible very clearly says that Peter is FIRST and that's written in: Matthew 10:2-4 "These are the names of the twelve apostles: FIRST, Simon, also known as Peter, and his brother Andrew; James son of Zebedee, and his brother John; Philip and Bartholomew; Thomas and Matthew the tax-collector; James son of Alphaeus, and Thaddaeus; Simon the Cananaean, and Judas Iscariot, the one who betrayed him."
There you have it, we know Peter was not the first disciple, in fact we know Andrew the brother of Simon was the first one to follow Jesus because it is written in John 1:38-42 "When Jesus turned and saw them following, he said to them, ‘What are you looking for?’ They said to him, ‘Rabbi’ (which translated means Teacher), ‘where are you staying?’ He said to them, ‘Come and see.’ They came and saw where he was staying, and they remained with him that day. It was about four o’clock in the afternoon. One of the two who heard John speak and followed him was Andrew, Simon Peter’s brother. He first found his brother Simon and said to him, ‘We have found the Messiah’ (which is translated Anointed). He brought Simon to Jesus, who looked at him and said, ‘You are Simon son of John. You are to be called Cephas’ (which is translated Peter)."
So, why Matthew 10:2-4 says that FIRST, Simon, also known as Peter? BECAUSE SIMON IS FIRST IN THE HIERARCHY and furthermore the bible calls him Peter (rock) so that you remember who he is! Jesus changed his name for a reason and appointed him with authority in Matthew 16:18-19. Notice how there is no second, third or forth mentioned. Peter is FIRST!
This is the gospel that has been preached by the Catholic Churhc of Jesus Christ and it is the gospel that will continue to be preach by the TRUE CHURCH OF JESUS, but now this protestant "theologian" comes and brings his new gospel proclaiming otherwise. You can literally hear it from his lips at 7:35
Galatians 1:6-9 "I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting the one who called you in the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel- not that there is another gospel, but there are some who are confusing you and want to pervert the gospel of Christ. But even if we or an angel from heaven should proclaim to you a gospel contrary to what we proclaimed to you, let that one be accursed! As we have said before, so now I repeat, if anyone proclaims to you a gospel contrary to what you received, let that one be accursed!"
Be careful who you follow! There are people like this "theologian" that want to pervert the gospel of Jesus Christ, the gospel where it says that Jesus appointed ONE shepherd to take care of the sheep (church of Jesus) John 21:15-17.
Watched your discussion regarding the Papacy on the Gospel Simplicity, last night. You did an excellent job! You've inspired me as a Protestant to read the church fathers and get deep in history. Thanks for all you do.
Thanks so much, so glad it was helpful!
For sure get deep in History. John Henry Cardinal Newman once said, "To be deep in history is to cease to be Protestant." Who was a convert from Anglicanism to the one true Church. God bless🙏🏻
@@INRIVivatChristusRex I'd beg to differ. The truth is that to be deep in real history, as opposed to Rome’s whitewashed, revisionist, and often forged history, is to cease to be a Roman Catholic. God bless!
@@elvisisacs3955 Keep reading and get informed. God bless🙏🏻
@@INRIVivatChristusRex ua-cam.com/video/uFUMoe80G94/v-deo.html
One of the best presentations of 1st and 2nd-century evidence from the early church fathers I've seen. It is very clear that the role of the Bishop was a very important church leadership role, however, there is no evidence that one single bishop arose (let alone from Rome) to claim an "exclusive succession from Peter" with the authority to be a "Pope" over ALL bishops everywhere. Most importantly, you taught me an important lesson regarding giving an "Apologia" for the true hope that lies within us (Gospel of Jesus Christ), but doing so with "kindness" and "respect". A lesson I needed to learn. Thank you, Gavin, I look forward to viewing more of your content.
Thanks Charles, glad to be connected to you
What I found in research was that the first bishop of Rome to claim primacy over ALL the bishops was around 600 AD, and many bishops/churches rejected that claim. There had been gradual movement towards that, but not definite until around 600 AD. Before that it was a college of bishops, each over their own church/territory, and all equal with no head bishop.
Yeah, the kindness and respect gets difficult when the other person is the opposite.
There is no doubt that the Bishop of Rome had a special primacy. If you were not in communion with Rome you were not viewed as in communion with the Church.
@@dman7668 No. There never was the Church; there were many churches. The majority of churches were in Asia Minor. Rome was the only church in the West. It had the primacy of the West and the capital of the Roman Empire, but was not the largest or most prominent church.
ALL the bishops had been of equal standing. The bishop of Rome often wasn't even part of the councils. The Eastern churches/bishops didn't all support the primacy claim of the bishop of Rome when it happened.
@@joycegreer9391 No Joyce it's crystal clear from early writings one had to be in communion with Rome to even be considered part of the Church, this is wishful thinking at best to say otherwise. They were not of equal standing.
Great to see this discussion continuing!
Yes discussion. Did I missed something or there were no an individual defending the Catholic position. God bless🙏🏻
@@INRIVivatChristusRex At the beginning he refers to Joe blogging his own afterthoughts, which he links in the description.
@@colmwhateveryoulike3240 Good to know. His own thoughts. Thanks.
Let's get em back together 🙂
@@INRIVivatChristusRex We wouldn't want anyone thinking for themself, after reading the word of God. There needs to be the Catholic church to wholly tell you what to think and what to do.
Hi Dr. Gavin
Your Channel became my class room😊.
Thank heap & God Bless
so glad it's of use to you!
Keep making these Pr. Gavin! We need a loving and knowledgeable apologist of the protestant faith.
May God's peace be to my Catholic and Orthodox Brothers and Sisters. May Christ's mercy be upon us all and may we be miraculously unified despite our differences.
Thanks David!
This is some of the best and clearest teaching I have seen on the topic. A very strong attempt to be as objective as possible with the evidence. Well done and please keep it coming.
I would like say that you put a lot of thought and work into your videos. I have never met any low-church Protestants who could skillfully discuss the Church Fathers like you can. I still disagree with your conclusions, but I think your scholarly work is highly commendable.
Thanks for the kind comment!
@@TruthUnites You're most welcome.
I think you can make a strong argument for bishops in the early church without that necessarily saying anything about the validity of the papacy. The development of the papacy is an entirely separate discussion.
Also, when considering the history of the early church, Eastern and Oriental Orthodox history has to be considered. All the ancient churches believe they have apostolic succession through their bishops.
Totally agree! that is why I said this is just one small part of the argument against the papacy. Thanks for the comment!
Agreed.
Not the Christian Church. We just follow Jesus.
@@iamshredder3587 Of you aren't in Christian church you aren't, by definition, a Christian. The disciples were called Christians and church is the gathering of those so called. We are commanded to gather.
@@Phill0old You are a Christian because you follow Christ/you belong to Christ, not because you are a member of any specific church. Plenty of people in churches are not true saved believers. The earliest believers called themselves "The Way", and they met in homes. The truest expression of early church/gathering is small groups meeting in homes.
Can my Catholic friends help me understand this: Why are we assuming that the structure of the 1st century would be correct even if there were evidence? Was not the NT written to correct all the incorrect churches of the 1st century?
Yes, most of the epistles were occasional letters to correct practices in the various churches and a few were general letters. And who wrote them but the apostles and their helpers who had authority because of the hierarchical structure established by our Lord. “Let no man do ANYTHING connected to the Church without the bishop”
-Ignatius of Antioch
@@mikelopez8564 thanks Mike. We're they not all corrected by a non-Pope?
No the the NT is not written for that reason. But we have Clement 1 that explicitly says apostolic succession taught through Peter. And Ireneaus taught through Apostle John, actually does write just that, to address the heresies. He wrote in “Against the Heresies” Book III, Ch 3 says explicitly the bishop of Rome, the way Jesus structured the church, has authority over every church. And names the first 12 bishops of Rome in order.
@C JT
You are good in making stuff up that is not true. 🥴
I appreciate the respectful discussion. I don’t expect that we are ever going to have an AhHa moment in the debates where everyone comes to complete agreement. I do find more reason for grace and kindness as we strive to follow CHRIST.
What the modern Church needs is a New Covenant Revival (Heb. 9:10) in which members of various denominations are willing to re-examine everything they believe and see if it agrees with the Bible, instead of the traditions of men. We need to be like the Bereans. It will be a battle between our flesh and the Holy Spirit. It will not be easy. If you get mad and upset when someone challenges your man-made Bible doctrines, that is your flesh resisting the truth found in God's Word.
Nobody can completely understand the Bible unless they understand the relationship between the Old Covenant given to Moses at Mount Sinai and the New Covenant fulfilled in blood at Calvary.
What brings all local churches together into one Body under the blood of Christ? The answer is found below.
New Covenant Whole Gospel:
Let us now share the Old Testament Gospel found below with the whole world. On the road to Emmaus He said the Old Testament is about Him.
He is the very Word of God in John 1:1, 14. Awaken Church to this truth.
Jer 31:31 Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah:
Jer 31:32 Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by husband unto them, saith the LORD:
Jer 31:33 But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people.
Jer 31:34 And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the LORD: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the LORD: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.
Is the most important genealogy in the Bible found in Matthew 1:1 (Gal. 3:16)? Is God's Son the ultimate fulfillment of Israel (John 1:49)? Why has the modern Church done a pitiful job of sharing the Gospel with modern Orthodox Jews? Why would someone tell them they are God's chosen people and then fail to share the Gospel with them? Who is the seed of the woman promised in Genesis 3:15? What did Paul say about Genesis 12:3 in Galatians 3:8? Who is the "son" in Psalm 2? Who is the "suffering servant" of Isaiah 53? Who would fulfill the New Covenant promised in Jeremiah 31:31-34? Who would fulfill the timeline of Daniel chapter 9 before the second temple was destroyed? Why have we not heard this simple Old Testament Gospel preached on Christian television in the United States on a regular basis?
Once a person comes to understand the New Covenant promised to Israel and Judah in Jeremiah 31:31-34, which is found fulfilled by Christ during the first century in Hebrews 8:6-13, and Hebrews 10:16-18, and specifically applied to the Church in 2 Corinthians 3:6-8, and Hebrews 12:22-24, man-made Bible doctrines fall apart.
Let us now learn to preach the whole Gospel until He comes back. The King of Israel is risen from the dead! (John 1:49, Acts 2:36)
We are not come to Mount Sinai in Hebrews 12:18. We are come instead to the New Covenant church of Mount Zion and the blood in Hebrews 12:22-24.
1Jn 3:22 And whatsoever we ask, we receive of him, because we keep his commandments, and do those things that are pleasing in his sight.
1Jn 3:23 And this is his commandment, That we should believe on the name of his Son Jesus Christ, and love one another, as he gave us commandment.
1Jn 3:24 And he that keepeth his commandments dwelleth in him, and he in him. And hereby we know that he abideth in us, by the Spirit which he hath given us.
The following verses prove the Holy Spirit is the master teacher for those now in the New Covenant.
Jer 31:34 And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the LORD: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the LORD: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.
Mar 1:8 I indeed have baptized you with water: but he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost.
Joh 14:26 But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.
Act 11:16 Then remembered I the word of the Lord, how that he said, John indeed baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost.
1Co 12:13 For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit.
1Jn 2:27 But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him.
Watch the UA-cam videos “The New Covenant” by David Wilkerson, or Bob George, and David H.J. Gay.
Thanks so much for these videos Gavin. They are a huge blessing to me as I engage in dialogue with Catholic friends.
I was wondering if you have any recommendations of books to dive into to begin studying Church History?
Thanks Justin, glad they are useful! You know, Timothy George's book Theology of the Reformers is great for the Reformers. I often recommend Mark Noll's Turning Points also. You might even try my Theological Retrieval For Evangelicals if you are looking for a Protestant view of church history.
@@TruthUnites Thanks for the suggestions! I’ll be adding those to my list and I’ll definitely be picking up Theological Retrieval for Evangelicals!
@@Imjustinn724 wonderful, enjoy!
Read the Church Fathers, who were all Catholic priests.
Thanks Gavin, helpful video
Thanks Will, glad it was helpful!
I enjoyed listening to your episode. Though, as an Orthodox (and many Catholics) wouldn’t think it is unlike someone to have first hand information about people that lived 100 years ago. I am referring to your comment regarding Iraneus. I come from a small village in Eastern Europe and though people cannot point in the Bible where their faith is justified, they live their faith according to their ancestors, the saints, and those fathers of the early church you have mentioned. People in such villages know everyone’s business, literally cannot hide anything! That shows how really knit together communities from such places are and that the apostles walked through those villages/towns left a lot of history behind that is treasured today. With that being said it is definitely possible that Iraneus had a strong connection to the history of those that walked in faith 100+ years before him. Because if something was true every one knew it to be true, if it was not true than a big fuss and gatherings would take place. Think about the apostles when they were coming back from the empty tomb and Jesus walked with them and asked them about the conversation they were having and they answered:“Are You the only stranger in Jerusalem, and have You not known the things which happened there in these days?” (Lk. 24:18)
That is exactly how things are (at least used to be 13 years ago 😅) in the our villages. Everyone knows everyone, words and news get passed down and remembered! Now how could someone forget such unforgettable news and experiences? If you met someone that knew an apostle first hand, wouldn’t you tell everyone what you experienced? Multiple times? And wouldn’t that someone pass down what you shared to others? As most people who love God cannot stop talking about their faith and love for God, so were those who lived close to 2000 years ago ☺️.
I am sure you’ve heard this argument maaaany times before 😅. Either way, what your arguments are make sense!
P.S. You should listen to Dr. Jeannie Constantinou’s podcast, Search the Scriptures Live, episode from Feb. 16th, 2021 and the next ones. She has great information that you might find interests ☺️
May God illumine our minds and hearts, and lead our paths to salvation, In Christ!
Well said. Bishops of Rome were in office in the first century.
It is hard to imagine the absence of a particular bishop _by name_ in the first 150 years whose relationship to Peter was one of direct succession. If indeed a papal system was in evidence after Peter's death, such an identification would be prominent in the early part of the second century. In my view, if the development theory is correct, it suggests a deviation and departure from Apostolic tradition with respect to normative authority in the Church.
By the way, doesn't the rejection of Rome's Bishop as Pope by the other four synods in 1054 AD prove that no such succession could have occurred in the preceding 1000 years?
Not necessarily, but the attestation of history proves that modern definitions of succession and the papal office mean that that kind of succession could not have occurred, as evidenced by the four synods.
This is fantastic work, Gavin. 🙌👍 Have you considered a theory advanced by Alistair Stewart (I think) in his book The Original Bishops that episcopos in the NT was an office and presbyteros in the NT was an honorific (which later developed into an office)? It seems to elegantly resolve the issue of two words being used interchangeably in a way that doesn't really make sense if they were synonymous in the NT...
I think an Orthodox perspective might be helpful. I suggest the book, “Two Paths: Orthodoxy & Catholicism: Rome’s Claims of Papal Supremacy in the Light of Orthodox Christian Teaching.”
Thanks for the reccomendations brother, will try my best to keep this in mind.
@@benjamind547 name some
Very coherent and well investigated point of view, Dr. Your dialogue with Joe Heschmeyer will probably be fruitful! Want to point out it is not uncommon for a large diocese to have more than one bishop. Case in point is Bishop Robert Barron, an auxilliary bishop in the LA Diocese, and very prolific social media-ite
Thanks Mike! Great comment.
St. Jerome said that there was indeed a change in polity, "Elder is identical with bishop; and before the urging of the devil gave rise to factionalism in religion, so much that it was being said among the people, 'I am of Paul, I of Apollos, I of Cephas', the churches were governed by a joint council of elders. After it was... decreed throughout the world that one chosen from among the presbyters should be placed over the others." -St. Jerome (347-420) "In Epistle Titus", vol. iv, W.A. Jurgens, "The Faith of the Early Fathers." pg. 194 Thank you for sharing your informative thoughts, God bless you and keep you Pastor.
I know that I'm kinda late to the party on this video, but do you have the citations available for the quotes that you gave around the 26:29 mark?
Is their a place where we can find all the sources for the quotes that you brought up? I really need them
I can’t find Augustine saying anything “we are unwilling to prove our church…” as quoted at 26:42. Can I get a citation please?
These are so helpful
Gavin can you (or someone) please help me understand how if Peter who supposedly started the church in Rome was not the pope or supreme bishop, what church fathers mean then when they say the bishop of Rome is very important due to its relationship to Peter ? If it’s not said from their understanding of Peter being the supreme of all apostles, then what are they thinking in terms of significance of Peter? I’m Protestant and reject the papacy but still confused.
As he said in another video, Rome, Antioch, and Alexandria (The main three churches founded by Peter) didn't even have bishops until later. The Assyrian Church of the East didn't have bishops until about 300.
The bishop of Rome had a special place of honor in the early church. He was considered “first among equals”. This doesn’t equate to a Vatican 1 idea of the papacy. Also other jurisdictions had “popes” too like Constantinople
@@MygoalwogelThen why did Ignatius praise Rome if it didn't meet his episcopal standarts?
Everything you say here is consistent with what I know of ecclesial history and the episcopate in the patristic period. I am in a non-episcopal denomination. FWIW I was quite shocked reading Letter to the Magnesians for the first time. My first question was whether the hierarchal predilections of Roman society had influenced the church. This could have been both good and bad at the same time.
Perhaps the hierarchical predilections of Judaism continued into the church built by Christ.
Dr. Ortland states there is no Biblical evidence of a leader in the new testament at all! Peter is mentioned over 195 times, and the next of the 12 is John at 35 times. That is hardly equal! Peter alone was given the keys of the Kingdom in Matthew 16. The office of sole key holder is one of succession biblically. In Matthew 18, keys are never mentioned for the other Apostles.
Jesus prayed for Peter alone to strengthen his brethren, and Jesus gave Peter alone the command over all the flock of God. Jesus Christ renamed Simon alone as Cephas! Matthew acknowledges the primacy of Peter as FIRST, ( Protos, chief, leader, Matthew 10:1,2). Peace always in Jesus Christ our Great and Kind God and Savior, He whose Flesh is True food and Blood True drink
Hi Gavin,
Can you help me reconcile the fact that Clement kind of hinted at a primacy of the bishop of Rome? I understand that within the context of his time he did not mean what modern day catholics concluded about a papacy with overruling jurisdiction.
No Klement did not do any such thing. Gavin explicitly addressed that. Try to listen to it again.
Tertullian and Jerome both indicate that Clement was ordained directly by Saint Peter as his successor in Rome, although Jerome was also aware of other traditions. Several sources record traditions that Clement was preceded by Peter, Linus, and Cetus/Anacletus. Church tradition today holds that Clement was indeed the fourth pope. The Holy See's Annuario Pontificio (2003) cites a reign from 92 to 99.
He can't help you do that Sophia.
Primacy doesn’t equate to supremacy
Thanks for the video. Are there sources for the quotations from Augustine (the second one), Nazianzus and Ambrose?
Dr. Ortlund, what do you think of the claim that Jesus Christ instituted a new sanhedrin, with Peter as the new high priest?
That claim is actually a heresy. Hebrews confirm Jesus as the eternal high priest and is just confirming the Old Testament. If there is to be another high priest after Jesus, then he was not the savior and that's why it is a heresy.
Hebrews 7:26
For it was fitting for us to have such a high priest, holy, innocent, undefiled, separated from sinners and exalted above the heavens;
Hebrews 7:11
Now if perfection was through the Levitical priesthood (for on the basis of it the people received the Law), what further need was there for another priest to arise according to the order of Melchizedek, and not be designated according to the order of Aaron?
Psalm 110:4
The Lord has sworn and will not change His mind,
You are a priest forever
According to the order of Melchizedek.
Zechariah 6:13
Yes, it is He who will build the temple of the Lord, and He who will bear the honor and sit and rule on His throne. Thus, He will be a priest on His throne, and the counsel of peace will be between the two offices
Rewatching all these vids as I go through "From Apostles to Bishops." GOOD STUFF
Out of curiosity if you must choose between Orthodoxy or Catholicism what would it be?
You people always forget about the Chaldean, Syrian, and Assyrian Churches of the East when you mention the churches founded by Apostles!
So to try to answer the question you should have asked, "Which Apostolic succession church would you choose?" I've narrowed down my choice to the following:
Union of Utrecht Catholic Church, Union of Catholic Apostolic Churches, Genuine Orthodox Church, Russian Orthodox Old-Rite Church, Russian Old-Orthodox Church, Pomeranian Old-Orthodox Church, Autonomous Orthodox Metropolia, Old Calendar Orthodox Church, Oriental Orthodox Church, Syrian Church of the East, Assyrian Church of the East, Chaldean Church of the East, Ancient Church of the East.
Easily Catholicism over orthodoxy. Especially considering the mess over the Ukranian orthodox church
I feel like there are a lot of similarities between Judaism and Catholicism as far as structure, appearances of righteousness based on ceremony (tradition) and actions. “You aren’t Holy unless you do x, y and z, and your sins aren’t forgiven unless a priest intercedes for you”.
I absolutely agree. And, I think this parallel relationship has been used as an argument both for and against the Roman Catholic Church's claims for its authority.
You’re on to something. Purification after death too
Interesting points, all around. Perhaps the most pressing initial question that arises is, as Christians living in the 21st century who don't have the capacity to re-litigate the authoritative pronouncements of history, what deference to those Bishops of the past does a Christian owe in matters of the faith inclusive of its ecclesiology, sacramental theology, doctrine and liturgy? Put another way, how authoritatively bound to the witness of historic Christianity do you propose that modern Christians are mandated to give assent; how especially is a Protestant expected to navigate this under the rubic of an invisible indefectable church? Thanks
Thanks for the comment Michael! I'm not sure I fully understand the question, so clarify if this is off, but the basic claim from the Protestant side is that we must measure all developments in the church by the light of the apostolic deposit, so we should treat the bishops and leaders of the past with respect, but not as the final verdict. I may not be getting at your question; if so, I apologize.
@@TruthUnites Thanks for the reply. I think the thrust of the question is how bound to the historical authority of Bishops throughout history who have widespread and near universal acceptance are 21st century Christians (even irrespective of Catholic or Orthodox ecclesiology). Case in point, when in St. Ignatius's Epistle to the Ephesians he implores Christians to obey their Bishop and the presbytery, how binding is that admonition to the 21st century Christian to those bishops and their successors with their subsequent teachings to ensure that the historical witness and orthodoxy throughout the ages is maintained as the one, holy, catholic and apostolic faith?
I would submit that a path forward for the church universal is much greater emphasis and formal submission to the witness of this faith of our ancestors with two underlying presuppositions: 1. trust in the promise of the Spirit to guide the Church in truth and 2. the documentation that we have available to us today is sufficient to show us what we need to give asset to, regardless of whether the source originated in the 1st, 2nd, 3rd century, thereafter, etc. and seeing significant/near universal acceptance at points of settling doctrinal disputes as stronger evidence rather than attempting to construct arguments of what was included in the deposit of faith from arguments from silence or or agnosticism at the time of different writings. So much to say, so little combox space to say it. Thanks!
@@michaelbaumert4501 Thanks, I understand a little better now what you are saying. I address those questions in this video, in case it is of interest: ua-cam.com/video/2AEMGcpf4f8/v-deo.html&
@@TruthUnites Sounds good. I'll take a look.
I am amazed at your knowledge of the early Church.
I so appreciate your teachings on the early church
I am really appreciating your content and presentation. All that you said in this video is what I found in my research of the first few centuries of Christianity. All churches having a head bishop from the beginning is what is the historical fiction...lol. I think it is totally logical, reasonable, necessary that there was a development in the first centuries. This was a new thing, not the same as the Temple. Everyone was in the process of figuring out many things, leadership structure being one of them. Also, as more and more people became believers the size of fellowships became larger and more numerous. That would necessitate a more defined hierarchy.
According to the author of Hebrews, Jesus is our high priest, so the high priest argument doesn't work at all.
Yes! The first among equals. I think Papal infallibility and succession got heavy handed over the past 2000 years...and that's a euphemism for many.
As a former Catholic convert to Orthodoxy, I feel closer in spirit and truth to Peter and the early church than I did as a Catholic...why is that? Perhaps it's the humility. The first among equals is such a beautiful expression not just for church hierarchy but even for my own home. I am the queen. My husband king. But we are the first among equals.
God bless your efforts! ☦️
EA.C First among equals? Peter is mentioned over 195 times in Holy Scripture. The next of the 12 is John at 35 times. Is that equal? Jesus Christ renamed Simon alone as Cephas which is Aramaic for rock! Jesus Christ gave Peter alone the keys of the Kingdom. Jesus prayed for Peter alone to strengthen his brethren! The office of sole key holder is one of succession biblically! Peace always in Jesus Christ our Great and Kind God and Savior, He whose Flesh is True food and Blood True drink
How does any of that prove that Peter established an apostolic and universal position of the Bishop of Rome? Peter was the leader of the Twelve, and was one of the primary sources for the gospel and helped lead the church with James and Paul, of course he would be the most mentioned.
The issue is not whether he was a leader in the church, but whether he was THE leader and that he established an ongoing position of the Bishop of Rome, and if so, is that position meant to have the same powers that the Papacy has?
Even Irenaeus who mentions Roman primacy, links it to both Peter and Paul establishing it, and how firm they held to doctrine. He never mentions a Bishop of Rome as a reason to follow Rome.
There is no first among equals.
@@samueljennings4809 How does Ignatius of Antioch who was taught and converted by John the Apostle get captured as a Bishop over Anitioch and write to his churches on the way to Rome to be eaten by lions, he wrote "Where the Bishop is there is Jesus Christ and there is the Catholic Church" 107 AD There was no such thing as Sola Scriptura in the first 400 years of Christianity
You are very gracious.
Dr. Ortlund thanks for the video. I appreciate your demeanor coupled with the knowledge of both catholicism and church history. Its refreshing to see this. No offense, but i hadn't really heard of you until recently but you are rapidly becoming a favorite. Keep up the good work.
The problem with the scriptural evidence for the papacy is it doesn't exist. Trent Horn of catholic answers has even stated this on a video here. Virtually every catholic apologist including Joe has to appeal to a number of verses about Peter that has nothing to do with the papacy and then come to the conclusion that this amounts to Peters headship. I can do the same thing with Paul. But if the papacy were true it would have been detailed in the pastoral epistles along with; deacon, elder and overseer. If its an office, Paul would have covered it. But he didn't. At this point i think the discussion is over. Thanks again.
Thanks for the comment; glad you found the video useful!
Contending, Actually, the office of sole key holder is one of succession biblically! The same Church authority in Peter the rock and sole key holder, who stood up and put an end to all the debating at the council in Jerusalem, since Scripture alone could not, as Peter authoritatively ruled circumcision of the Flesh was no longer necessary, even though Holy Scripture said that it was! Peace always in Jesus Christ our Great and Kind God and Savior, He whose Flesh is True food and Blood True drink
@@matthewbroderick8756 Nice diversion. Now go to the pastorals and copy and paste for us all Paul said about this 'office' of the papacy.
@@ContendingEarnestly lol, I wish I knew how to copy and paste! Paul always refers to Peter as Cephas, which is Aramaic for rock, as Jesus Christ our Great and Kind God and Savior, built His Church on Peter the rock, way before the new testament was even written and that later determined the canon.
The same Church authority in Peter the rock and sole key holder, who stood up and put an end to all the debating at the council in Jerusalem, since Scripture alone could not, as Peter authoritatively ruled circumcision of the Flesh was no longer necessary, even though Holy Scripture said that it was! You are in my prayers as you journey toward Truth! Peace always in Jesus Christ our Great and Kind God and Savior, He whose Flesh is True food and Blood True drink
@@matthewbroderick8756 So thats a no? Thats all i needed to know. Thanks.
I'm not sure how this would disprove Catholic/Orthodox Christianity if it were true. It seems to me that multiple bishops could easily have been the case with a president presiding over them, I believe president is how Schaff's translation of either Clement and/or Ignatius refer to the head bishop in a given Church. Even to this day we have multiple Bishop in most Catholic diocese with one given particular authority over the rest and the rest called auxiliary bishops. It may not have functioned exactly as it does now, but I don't see why there couldn't also be a setup with multiple bishops back then as well, but still clearly in apostolic succession like the multiple bishop's per diocese are today. And yes, they tended to be chosen from among the congregation, but where else would they get them back then? Even today, so far as I know at least, most ordained auxiliary bishop within a given diocese were chosen from among the priests in that diocese, so it's still a selection that is made somewhat locally from among the local region.
If the Church that Jesus founded and gave authority to rule and govern was given power to ordain not just Bishops but also offices with partial powers of a bishop, like deacons for example, then why could they not also ordain slightly more authority to priests who do not have full bishopric authority? I realize I am speculating a little bit here, but such a scenario would seem to me to fit the evidence better than your conclusion.
I was going to add this comment but you beet me to it. Multiple bishops does not disprove the papacy; there is still a hierarchy. Other bishops rejecting the will of the Pope does not mean that it's appropriate to reject the will of the Pope. The gospels do not agree on the details of who saw Our Lord first after the resurrection, that doesn't mean Our Lord did not rise. Likewise, Tertulian and Iranaeus not agreeing about the details surrounding the succession of the papacy does not mean that there was no Pope in the first century. Nothing in this video disproves the papacy.
What do you think is the explanation for the lists tracing bishops to the apostles that do exist? I wasn't clear on that.
Catholics can give you a clear answer on when the papacy/Catholic church started. Protestants can not give a clear answer when it started.
@@JJ-cw3nf Catholics obviously cannot give a clear answer as the debate has shown in spades. There is zero biblical evidence for the papacy and as was mentioned, Irenaeus has a list of bishops 'from the apostles.' Not Peter or the papacy or the 'chair'. A papacy as it is seen today, the early church knew nothing of it.
Even in the late 6th century Gregory the Great knew nothing of a single bishop over the entire church. The rcc has never enjoyed that level of supremacy, ever.
@@ContendingEarnestly Catholics couldn’t be clearer. You just reject it all. You might as well say there’s no clear evidence Jesus existed
@@JJ-cw3nf Trent Horn, catholic answers apologist said not long ago that there are no explicit verses in the n.t. for the papacy. Suan (forgot his last name) just had a debate with Dr. Ortlund where he admitted there are no verses for an 'office' of the papacy in the n.t. Clearer? Not hardly, even from the catholic perspective.
@@ContendingEarnestly No he didn't say that. Your taking what he's saying way out of context. He's not debating some rookie. He's debating someone that already rejects the bible verses of the papacy. You should stop worrying about Catholics and start worrying about the sharp rise of Protestants turning into Atheist's who aren't convinced to even believe in the bible period. abcnews.go.com/Politics/protestants-decline-religion-sharply-shifting-religious-landscape-poll/story?id=54995663
Gavin, thanks so much for this. Couple questions, if you have time.
Is it possible that Peter could have both (a) made Linus a Bishop as well as (b) ordained Clement? Is it your position that to ordain someone is to raise them to the episcopate?
Maybe it’s the case that Turtullian and Irenaeus would want to distinguish where you would see both ordination and “handing over of the episcopate” as one and the same thing. Is it possible that Linus was ordained prior to being raised to Bishop of Rome?
hi Chris! That is one way people attempt to reconcile them, but the problem is that in the context, Tertullian is talking specifically about ordination to the office of bishop in terms of apostolic succession. For instance, he mentions Polycarp in Smyrna as parallel. Then there is the problem of whether it's Peter, or Peter and Paul together, doing the ordination. Here are his words:
"This is the way in which the apostolic Churches transmit their lists: like the Church of the Smyrnaeans, which records that Polycarp was placed there by John; like the Church of the Romans, where Clement was ordained by Peter."
@@TruthUnites Ok great! I was wondering what the fuller context was. That makes sense. Do you have the citation so that I could read the fuller context?
This is about Rome, so my criticism here is a little oblique. BUT. It’s not just a debate over “did the development take 30 vs 50 years.” Your view, it seems to me, is that the episcopacy developed EVERYWHERE at approximately the same time but without any record of a change taking place anywhere. Am I wrong?
the scholarly near-consensus is not that it happened at the same time everywhere, but that it is earlier in the West. This near-consensus includes many Catholic scholars like Francis Sullivan, Raymond Brown, etc. It is documented by the evidence from the time in question as to what churches looked like, as well as later recognition of it happening (e.g., Jerome). hope that helps!
Dr. Ortlund, could you tell the source of Augustine's quote "We are unwilling to prove our church either from a succession of bishops or from the authority of councils or from the frequency of miracles"? I would like to read it in the light of its context. Whereas this quote may suggest that Augustine didn't regard apostolic succession as important as succession of doctrine, others indicate that he believed apostolic succession to be of essential importance in order for the identification of the Church, its unity and the location of true doctrine. I'll post two quotes below:
For if the lineal succession of bishops is to be taken into account, with how much more certainty and benefit to the Church do we reckon back till we reach Peter himself, to whom, as bearing in a figure the whole Church, the Lord said: Upon this rock will I build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it! Matthew 16:18 The successor of Peter was Linus, and his successors in unbroken continuity were these:- Clement, Anacletus, Evaristus, Alexander, Sixtus, Telesphorus, Iginus, Anicetus, Pius, Soter, Eleutherius, Victor, Zephirinus, Calixtus, Urbanus, Pontianus, Antherus, Fabianus, Cornelius, Lucius, Stephanus, Xystus, Dionysius, Felix, Eutychianus, Gaius, Marcellinus, Marcellus, Eusebius, Miltiades, Sylvester, Marcus, Julius, Liberius, Damasus, and Siricius, whose successor is the present Bishop Anastasius. In this order of succession no Donatist bishop is found. But, reversing the natural course of things, the Donatists sent to Rome from Africa an ordained bishop, who, putting himself at the head of a few Africans in the great metropolis, gave some notoriety to the name of mountain men, or Cutzupits, by which they were known.
3. Now, even although some traditor had in the course of these centuries, through inadvertence, obtained a place in that order of bishops, reaching from Peter himself to Anastasius, who now occupies that see - this fact would do no harm to the Church and to Christians having no share in the guilt of another; for the Lord, providing against such a case, says, concerning officers in the Church who are wicked: All whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do; but do not ye after their works: for they say, and do not. Matthew 23:3 Thus the stability of the hope of the faithful is secured, inasmuch as being fixed, not in man, but in the Lord, it never can be swept away by the raging of impious schism; whereas they themselves are swept away who read in the Holy Scriptures the names of churches to which the apostles wrote, and in which they have no bishop. For what could more clearly prove their perversity and their folly, than their saying to their clergy, when they read these letters, Peace be with you, at the very time that they are themselves disjoined from the peace of those churches to which the letters were originally written? (Letters 53:1:2-3 [A.D. 412])
"For in the Catholic Church, not to speak of the purest wisdom, to the knowledge of which a few spiritual men attain in this life, so as to know it, in the scantiest measure, indeed, because they are but men, still without any uncertainty (since the rest of the multitude derive their entire security not from acuteness of intellect, but from simplicity of faith,)- not to speak of this wisdom, which you do not believe to be in the Catholic Church, there are many other things which most justly keep me in her bosom. The consent of peoples and nations keeps me in the Church; so does her authority, inaugurated by miracles, nourished by hope, enlarged by love, established by age. The succession of priests keeps me, beginning from the very seat of the Apostle Peter, to whom the Lord, after His resurrection, gave it in charge to feed His sheep, down to the present episcopate. And so, lastly, does the name itself of Catholic, which, not without reason, amid so many heresies, the Church has thus retained; so that, though all heretics wish to be called Catholics, yet when a stranger asks where the Catholic Church meets, no heretic will venture to point to his own chapel or house." (Against the Letter of Mani Called 'The Foundation' 4:5 [A.D. 397]).
Thank you for these quotes! Both of mine were from Augustine's The Unity of the Church, I believe 4.7 and then 16 (at least that is what is in my notes right now). I hope this does not send you on a wild goose chase!
The guys was a little weird orthodox doesn’t put much emphasis on Augustine as the west
The statement, sometimes rendered as “Rome has spoken; the cause is finished” or in Latin ” Roma locuta; causa finita est,” derives from a statement Augustine made early in the fifth century.
In a sermon to his flock, Augustine informed them that the pope had ratified the condemnations of the Pelagian heresy pronounced at the councils of Milevi and Carthage. He said “The two councils sent their decrees to the Apostolic See and the decrees quickly came back. The cause is finished; would that the error were as quickly finished (Sermon 131:10).” This has developed over the centuries into the commonly known formula.
Augustine was commenting on the authority of the pope and the fact that councils of the Church are authoritative only if approved by the bishop of Rome.
Was Augustine a Protestant?
22:47+ I would still believe that there is still a need for this positions. It’s within the same denomination that I see different teachings all claiming to be biblical. However I feel like the RCC also changes in teachings throughout the centuries as well. It’s hard for me to settle on either side
At this point in the history of the church we cannot unite on every single doctrine and that is not something to be worried about. We have the primary essentials, the secondary (where denominations come in) and even the tertiary essentials where even if we all belonges to one church we will have differing opinions on say what nail polish to wear or how long our skirts should be. Catholics like to pretend that Protestants do not unite on any doctrine. Far from the truth, we do, and that is why we can worship together. As for dangerous doctrines and bad practices, it is not limited to Protestants alone.
What matters is a church that can teach you solidly what the gospel is and help you to grow in your salvation, and that the Catholic church is not even passionate or good at.
Thanks for the video. What is someone supposed to do who is searching for the truth? I am a protestant drawn to the catholic church but feel like I need 10 PhDs to keep up with each side of the protestant catholic orthodox debate. There are very smart people who have dedicated their entire lives to this. I am going on 12 yrs wavering back and forth with this search.
Any pastoral advice?
"Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life"
Thanks for sharing Will, I appreciate your struggle. I know it can be daunting on issues with a lot of smart people on all sides. I don’t mean this to sound trite, but I truly believe this, that prayer and an open heart before God are the best route to personal clarity and peace, alongside studying as well of course. While there are complicated points of difference, there are also some basic points that anyone can get a handle on through studying. Let me know if I can recommend books on any specific topics for you. May God guide you.
12 years is a long time of wavering, maybe Catholic Church is not the way, have you looked into Orthodox Church? ☺️
But honestly, shut out all the noise, all the worldly influences, kneel down and cry out praying! A humble and contrite heart, God will not despise (Ps.51) All you have to say is Lord I am knocking, open my heart to understand thy gospel teaching! Teach me how to do Your will, You are my God! Amin 🙏 without fear and without shame, let Him in!
May God bless and illumine your journey!
Aks the Mother of God this: "If you hear me, please show me the Church of your Son."
@@vituzui9070 Why not grand mother of God? Mary would listen her mother really well.
ua-cam.com/video/mhB1vugdP9w/v-deo.html
Great video, love to see Protestants interacting with the early church! As someone said (or maybe should have said) "To be deep in history is to *become* Protestant".
Do you happen to have a source for the Augustine and Nazianzus quotes?
I don't mean to be rude, but I don't think your statement holds much water. If you did not see my other comment in the feed, here it is. I keep typing comments, and I keep putting a lot of work into them, and they keep disappearing. So, here it goes again.
The Shepherd of Hermas does maintain a distinction in three, our four offices, of apostle, bishop, teacher, and deacon.
Some Catholic scholars say that bishops started off as the heads of colleges of presbyters, and Saint Jerome would have agreed with them. In his Letter 146 To Evangelus, he says something very much like this. I would provide the quote, but I think direct quotes from other websites might have gotten my comments disappeared by algorithms.
Saint Chrysostom, in his Commentary on Phillipians, says that there were distinct offices, but the terms were not clear-cut. He says that in 2 Timothy 4:5, Saint Timothy is called a deacon. However, most English versions translate the word diakonos to ministry. He even said that in his day, bishops would call each-other "my fellow deacon".
I'll also point out that liturgy (look in the Didache), prayers for the dead, intercession of the saints, the Real Presence, and monasticism were also present from a rather early date. Saint Anthony (Desert Father) lived in the third and forth centuries, and was probably not the first monastic. Saints Augustine and Basil wrote the earliest monastic codes (forth and early fifth centuries), well after him. So the practice existed, it just was not as organized until then. For links to quotes about the other issues I mentioned, you can go to churchfathers.com and www.therealpresence.org/eucharst/father/fathers.htm
Low-church Protestants have to reckon with the fact that by the 300s, the historic Church was very different from their own.
@OrthodoxofUSA
Shepherd of Hermes is irrelevant and inferior to the Inspired Word of God. And the Inspired Word of God tells us of the offices in the church, and there is no pope. So we couldn't care less about how some church in 3 rd century looked like. There were heresies in the 1st century already and Paul was addressing them!!!! So how messed up it was in the 3rd is hard to imagine but we kind of get the picture when we look at Orthodox and Roman institutions...
@@OrthodoxofUSA What happened to the historic church after 70 AD? it seems to have changed enormously. Why is it said there is no history of the church between 70 and 120 AD? What happened to the Apostolic line of succession?
@@doriesse824 Who said there is no history of the Church between 70-120 AD? We have the Didache, the letters of St. Clement, and an epistle of St Polycarp to name a few, not to mention that some books of the Bible are thought to have been written in this time period. Also, in "Against Heresies", St. Irenaeus records bishops from that time period. We also have the letters of St Ignatius of Antioch, and although they were written in the 140s, the author was certainly alive during this time.
wow way to murder a great Newman quote
Hi Dr. Ortlund! Huge fan of your work. I’m a senior at Baylor University currently trying to decide whether or not to be received into the Catholic Church. Your work has been some of the only fair and accessible work by a Protestant scholar that I’ve found - so thank you for the work you do, and your clarity and gentleness!
Question for you: Could a Roman Catholic hold the idea that the Papacy was instituted by Christ with Peter, but at the same time the Papacy as we see it take shape in the 2nd and 3rd Century is a development of doctrine? So, while we might not see a clear “Bishop of Rome” in the 1st century, a Catholic could say that it just took some time for the Papacy in its true form to develop? So there’s a way of mixing the two ideas. Kind of like with the doctrine of the Trinity - while the word “The Trinity” was not there until the 4th century, we would say that it was still a reality.
Hi Henry! Nice to meet you, I have some friends at Baylor; I hope your studies finish up well. I think the problem or at least limitation for evolutionary/developmental theories of the papacy is that Vatican I seems to rule them out, because it says that "a primacy of jurisdiction over the whole church of God was *immediately and directly* promised to the blessed apostle Peter and conferred on him by Christ the lord," and it anathematizes anyone who denies that this was given to Peter. I suppose you could say the external details of how the pope functioned could develop, but the heart of it -- primacy of jurisdiction, received by the rest of the church as hierarchical subordination in terms of obedience -- needs to be there at the start, and I don't think the historical evidence supports that. So it seems to me, anyway!
@Mark Paul Francis Xavier
*Why aren't Jesus' own words "whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven" not sufficient historical evidence?*
Evidence of what? Thats pretty vague huh? In my experience catholics use this verse as a blank check for pretty much anything. I don't think thats how the verse is meant to be interpreted.
*Surely you are aware that development in the Catholic understanding does not mean a change in doctrine, rather an explicit articulation of what was there from the beginning.*
It didn't use to but it does now. For hundreds of years Vincent of Lerins model was used. Doctrine had three criteria. It had to be believed always, everywhere and by all. That changed with the help of Newman and Henry Edward Manning and the new concept of development of doctrine and viva voce. This is why teachings like marys assumption or IC were made dogma. Not because they were found in the bible but because the church says so; sola ecclesia.
Have you ever read “How the Pope became infallible” by Bernard Hassler ? It’s an eye opening and disturbing account of how papal infallability became dogma
Kunchang, Have you ever read Matthew 16? Jesus Christ gave Peter alone the keys of the Kingdom, to bind and loose on earth and in Heaven. The office of sole key holder is one of succession biblically! The same Church authority in Peter the rock and sole key holder, who stood up and put an end to all the debating at the council in Jerusalem, since Scripture alone could not, as Peter authoritatively ruled circumcision of the Flesh was no longer necessary, even though Holy Scripture said that it was! Jesus Christ promised His Church authority would be led into all Truth! Peace always in Jesus Christ our Great and Kind God and Savior, He whose Flesh is True food and Blood True drink
I haven't read it, will keep my eyes peeled! Thanks for the suggestion.
@JD Apologetics Because Peter alone received the keys of the Kingdom from Jesus Christ. In Matthew 18, the keys are not given to the other Apostles, and as in Isaiah 22, the office of sole key holder is one of succession. Peace always in Jesus Christ our Great and Kind God and Savior, He whose Flesh is True food and Blood True drink
@@TruthUnites Hello Dr. Ortland. You mentioned no where in the new testament, do we have one leader over the rest. Can you honestly say that, knowing Peter is mentioned over 195 times, and the next closest is John, at 35 times? Peter alone received the keys of the Kingdom from Jesus Christ in Matthew 16. In Matthew 18, the keys are not mentioned for the other Apostles, as was given to Peter alone in Matthew 16. The office of sole key holder is one of succession biblically.
Jesus Christ prayed for Peter alone to be his brethren in Luke 22, and Jesus gave Peter alone the command over all the flock of God in John 21, and Jesus Christ renamed Simon as Cephas which is Aramaic for rock. Peace always in Jesus Christ our Great and Kind God and Savior, He whose Flesh is True food and Blood True drink
@@matthewbroderick8756 Hello Matthew, I actually didn't say that "no where in the new testament, do we have one leader over the rest." I said nowhere do we have a single leader (whether bishop or another office) over a church.
Hi, overall solid video. I wish you would have actually read Ireneaus full text on bishops of Rome. But at least you mentioned it. I like that you admitted you don’t know when the Bishop of Rome started. But agree there was primacy formed at least as early as in the mid/late second century. One thing I’d also like to keep in mind, that fact that Christianity was illegal and were martyred in the first century, it would be very difficult for clean records, therefore the ORAL tradition was also there. And the Dead Sea Scrolls among other examples, has proven the oral tradition of Christianity
What happened in 2nd century doesn't matter. Paul adressed all the offices in the church and he did it thoroughly. There is no office of pope nor is it in other epistles. Case closed
@@luboshcamber1992 Yes it does matter. Highly doubt you know more than Ireneaus. You made an opinion. With no backing. Others will say the Papacy is is addressed and Paul affirms it. And that the case is closed to your opinion.
@@JJ-cw3nf It is you who made opinions and wrong connections and lies. Dead Sea scrolls confirmed oral Christian traditions?!? By discovering Jewish Scriptures? Wow...
And you tell me that I have no backing? Of course, Scriptures is no backing for Roman Catholic. What backing the Word of God would be indeed when there is some oral tradition... Paul never affirms any remote idea that would even resemble the deception of papacy, but one or two more lies on the pile, why would you care?
@@luboshcamber1992 what’s the name of your denomination? Jesus gave the keys to Peter to loose in bind before Paul was even Christian. That’s already in scripture. Yes the Dead Sea scrolls affirmed the credibility of the church on scripture that was passed down. What may not have been clear to you and others from early Christianity was also affirmed in the miracles of Our Lady of Lourdes “I am the immaculate conception”
@@JJ-cw3nf
I don't have any denomination. I was born as Roman Catholic, lived in that false cult for 30 years. I was raised in a fanatical Catholic family, grew up as an altar boy, wanted to be a priest and graduated on Catholic high school in a bigot Catholic country... I can quote you into oblivion fro RCC Catechism till this day. To bind and loose was given in two places and to all the disciples, but what do you care about the truth? Peter was also called Satan by Jesus Himself, Paul never was, Peter denied Him, and was publicly rebuked by Paul, that never happened to any other apostle, if you wanna go that route 😉🥳 Peter has never been to Rome, you believe lies. But... I understand you. I was once like you. Defending indefensible and why? Because I didn't have forgiveness in Christ. All I had was my false religiosity of "Only true "church""... Believed those lies, because I wanted to, because I loved this world. I understand you well...
I liked how even at the end of the debate you all greeted one another as brothers in Christ. Even when debating the intellectual disagreements about how to be Catholic and Apostolic, the Holy Spirit of God unites us all in love by grace.
Not that I say this to dismiss the role of such discourse and debate, but the only singular (and triune) head of the Church - Jesus Christ - already told us the answer.
For where two or three are gathered together in My name, there I am in their midst.”
Matthew 18:20
Dr. Ortland forgot to mention that John Chrysostom says of Peter "Peter, the LEADER OF THE APOSTLES". "Peter is the one set over the Entire Universe ", ( homilies,iii de.Dec, in illud, hoc.Scitote). Peace always in Jesus Christ our Great and Kind God and Savior, He whose Flesh is True food and Blood True drink
22:00 to 23:00ish and on is very charitable and nice to Catholic belief.
Why everybody ignores that the church of Antioch claims also Peter as his first bishop. So why Rome and not Antioch I really don't understand
No one ignores the truth you have pointed out, but Peter moved on to Rome and was martyred there, as did Paul
Antioch was a Roman province. It was the 3rd largest city in the Roman empire. Rome, Alexandria and Antioch were the biggest cities within the Roman empire.
So the claim to papal infallibility all boils down to where Peter was martyred and not succession?
No, not where Peter was martyred but where he pontificated from. Rome, not Antioch.
*THERE WAS A BISHOP IN ROME IN THE FIRST CENTURY PROVEN*
_Peter, Linus, Anencletus, and Clement all served as Bishops in Rome before AD 100._
In approximately AD 96, during the pontificate of Clement of Rome (the fourth Pope), a schism arose in the Church of Corinth. In response, Clement wrote a stern letter addressing the issue. He acknowledged his delay in addressing the dispute due to Roman persecution then went on to condemn the Corinthian schism as "execrable and godless". Asserting the voice of the Holy Spirit through him, Clement commanded obedience to his directives under penalty of transgression thereby illustrating the authority of the apostolic successors. His authority and judgment were accepted in Corinth.
This episode highlights the emerging recognition of Rome's authority in resolving Church disputes. Corinth's appeal to Clement, the successor of Peter, rather than to the Apostle John in Ephesus who was physically much closer to Corinth, indicates Rome's growing prominence in the Church hierarchy by the end of the first century.
Peter had arrived in Rome sometime before being martyred there in AD 63-64, and Clement clearly exercised the authority of the early papacy by AD 96. Therefore, it is reasonable to conclude that the "migration" to Rome occurred sometime in this 30-year window.
Three of the first four popes - Peter, Linus, and Clement - are mentioned in the Bible.
What are the scriptures on this and the explanations on how we are to assume they are popes? I know the argument for Peter as pope, come from when Jesus called Peter the rock and gave him the keys. How about the other two "popes"?
@@saintejeannedarc9460 How would I prove that any portion of history occurred after the last historical event in Scripture?
@@Malygosblues That would understandably be pretty hard. Esp. when we don't see the history as the same, from what we read directly in scripture. There are things we have to give each other grace to disagree on, w/out rancor.
Where do we get started with reading the church fathers?
newadvent
org
UA-cam doesn't like hyperlinks.
I am a Greek Orthodox Christian. I believe their were bishops of Rome in the first century.
I don’t think anyone doubts that Rome had bishops in the early church, the question is whether the Roman bishop had supremacy over all the church.
Succession is in Acts. The Bible never says this succession ends. It doesn’t say it ends with the last Apostle’s death. The Apostles were given a lot of the same responsibilities, but only Peter was granted the keys to the kingdom. So, where in the Bible does it say these keys will not be granted to his successors? This is actually a problem for Sola Scriptura. People following it may say where is Peter’s succession in the Bible. The Apostles were given the ability to bind and loose, but not every example of that is in Scripture. We are missing books from the vast majority of Apostles and each if their examples of binding and loosing are not in the Bible. Apostolic success is in Acts. Peter is an Apostle with the Keys to the Kingdom. The question is not whether succession is in the Bible, but where in the Bible does the Bible say it ends. It doesn’t say. So, are Protestants not creating their own belief by saying this succession ends? I believe it is. It’s like confessing sins. It’s literally in John and after the resurrection. The Bible never says the need for people to have their sins forgiven by Apostles or someone they have handed the ability to “binding in heaven…” ever ends. Protestants have created a religious belief by saying succession and the need for Apostles to forgive sins ended. The Bible says the Church is the Pillar of Truth. It doesn’t say Scripture is the Pillar of Truth.
It is true. Scripture does not state apostolic succession ends. But we do seem to have an example of it saying it continues when judas is replaced by Matthias suggestion offices continue.
@@dman7668 Yes, Protestants do not see the man made traditions like saying the succession ends that they have created. Or the need for select men to forgive sins. The Bible has God breathing on the Apostles, so the Bible isn’t the only thing God breathed, and then God gives 11 men the ability to forgive sins. And it doesn’t say this need for these people to do this ever ends.
Wait a minute. Whether or not there was a singular bishop at Rome is not even close to the same question of whether or not there was a pope, by whatever term used. They are entirely different questions.
"Pope" is just a title assigned to the Bishop of Rome and which distinguishes him from all his brother bishops. The Pope is also a priest and a Bishop.
What does the angel of a church mean in revelation?
pastors of the local churches,
@@thelinkeducationalsupports2949 So there was a single pastor to the different churches mentioned in the Bible?
@@elliott2389 You must read the entire context and tell me.
Having a person as symbolic head of a church organization is a good thing,. As a Protestant I have no problem looking to the pope, recognize that he does function as a de facto head of all churches, wether they realize or not, and learn from him. I sometimes pray for him, just as I do for my king, who is the symbolic head of both my country and my church. I think none of them are infallible, or anywhere close, they just serve a role. I do not think of myself as against the pope, or papacy, just against a lot of the dogma surrounding that role among many of my brethren who are more formally tied to him in the Roman church. I don't think anything needs to be done about the situation, I think unity is greater in the church than it's ever been. Buy we should continue to discuss our theology and approach to things. I think all traditions have their pitfalls which people sometimes get stuck in, and we should all be concerned about finding out own, and listen to the others to contrast with them.
Eastern Orthodox here. Linus was a first Pope of Rome: 67 AD - 76 AD. This is historical stuff... Besides, prior to the establishment of the Roman church, Apostles were already established other 4 ancient sees:
Jerusalem: 33 AD by St. James the Just
Antioch: 34 AD by St. Peter
Constantinople: 38 AD by St. Andrew the Apostle
Alexandria: 42 AD by St. Mark the Evangelist
Same principle was used over and over again... meaning whatever was the structure of previously founded sees was also used in Rome. We Orthodox have a list of those 70 disciples Lord chose Himself and they mostly became first Bishops of the early Church. We have their names and cities they officiated in.
I have an epistemological question. The common ground between us would posit that the episcopacy is older than much that is held as orthodox. How much certainty would it be proper to require that the entire Church erred in the middle of the 2nd century, and that error was discovered in the early Modern era by schismatics?
"The writings of the Apostle do not agree entirely with the hierarchy which is now in the Church, because they were written at the very beginning. He even calls Timothy, whom he himself made a presbyter, the bishop, because first presbyters were being called bishops becuase when a bishop passed away, a presbyter succeeded him. In Egypt, presbyters even do confirm if the bishop is absent." --Ambrosiaster commenting on Ephesians 4:11-12
St. Willehad the presbyter built churches and ordained presbyters in Lower Saxony starting in 781. He was not made bishop until 787. Nobody thought he was acting wrongly or reconsecrated his presbyters.
Paphnutius the presbyter ordained his own successor, Daniel, according to Cassian.
There's also the famous Letter 146 of Jerome.
The Assyrian Church of the East did not change from a presbyterial to an episcopal structure until the 300s.
These examples have led several Papist scholars to conclude that Presbyterial ordination is not entirely invalid.
Fr. George Tavard concluded that presbyterial successions are a matter of history, and said:
"I would be prepared to go further, and to admit that episcopal succession is not absolutely required for valid ordination…. The main problem, in our ecumenical context, does not lie in evaluating historical lines of succession, but in appreciating the catholicity of Protestantism today."
Fr. Harry McSorley concluded, after a thorough study of the Council of Trent:
"We can say without qualification that there is nothing whatever in the Tridentine doctrine on sacrament of order concerning the reality of the eucharist celebrated by Christians of the Reformation churches. Catholic theologians who have maintained that there is no sacrament of the body and blood of Christ in Protestant churches because Protestant ministers are radically incapable of consecrating the eucharist are incorrect if they think this opinion is necessitated by the teaching of Trent."
ua-cam.com/video/-0w1TtfTIlU/v-deo.html
Beats me too! When Jesus already said his people would be one as He and His Father are one, and He will be with them till the end of time. So must be Jesus words doesn't mean a thing that the 1st and 2nd century Christians erred immediately and were so divided unlike how Jesus and His Father are one. Only to be rectified thousands of years later. Jesus lied?
I don't think you have to understand Jesus' promise applying immediately and continually for it to be true. The Son and the Father are one in spirit, and through the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, every true believer is always one with God and the rest of the church. Or, we could say that we have imperfect unity now on earth, but when the church is resurrected and brought together after the End Times the promise of complete unity will then be perfectly fulfilled.
I see in Hebrews 13:7, it says;
”Remember those who led you, who spoke the word of God to you; and considering the result of their way of life, imitate their faith.“
Hebrews 13:7 NASB2020
I don’t think this means they have authority over a person. Imitate their faith can mean to act like them in godliness etc. To be like them in their faith, their walk.
I think one of the problems with the Protestant focus on "was their really a head bishop" usually comes with a presumption that the position of Pope has more power or authority than it really does. I guess my question is "Why do you care?". Catholics don't worship the Pope, nor is every word that comes out of a Pope's mouth binding to my faith. He's still just another Bishop, he's just the head one.
Because the doctrines that surround the Papacy.
@@chanano1689 like what?
@@Veritas1234 papal infallibility in which the Pope can speak authoritatively. This was used for the Marian Dogmas in which the Church has to believe it de fide, for the Pope spoke ex cathedra
@@chanano1689 The Marian Dogmas have been believed by the Church since the beginning. Even the Protestant reformers believed in Marian dogmas. The Pope also consulted with many bishops before speaking ex-cathedra. So if your problem is that the Pope makes claims that we all already believe, then that seems to be a very trivial problem you have with the Church.
@@Veritas1234 name me in early church father that addressed that Mary was bodily assumed in heaven.
PLEASE SHED SOME LIGHT ON THE JOHN CHRYSOSTOM QUOTE @ 3:35 .... is this a real quote ?? it seems to be a convoluted quote speaking on one apostle, one of the son's of thunder, who is also the beloved of Christ, which Biblically and even extra biblically, was and has always been, the Apostle John, son of Zebedee.... BUT WHAT IS THIS LAST PORTION???? The pillar of the churches who holds the keys of heaven. I've never seen this quote by him, in all my studies..... Can anyone shed light if this is a real quote and if so.... why does it sound like he is attempting to assign attributes of 2 separate Apostles, to only one Apostle Maybe I need the rest of the verse, from before "son of thunder", to understand it completely. Anyone have any answers or familiar with this quote???
Yes.
to paraphrase "no church can name the names of it's early bishops" Whew! God knew what He was doing when he charged the Catholic Church with preserving the writings that became the bible.
Tertullian was never recognized as a Saint by the Eastern or Western Catholic Churches. Some Catholic apologist quote some of his early writings on Church doctrine but he later rejected Orthodoxy for Montanism. He eventually broke with them to found his own sect.
Dr. Ortlund
First Corinthians 5 says we're not to even associate with those who call themselves brothers but live in sin. Among those to stay away from, Paul mentions idolaters.
I enjoy your historical findings that disprove the practices of icon veneration and the cult of Mary.
Are they idolaters? If so, shouldn't we stand on the words of the apostle Paul, and have no association with them?
I look forward to your response.
Bless you
You have nothing to worry about; Catholics are not idolaters. Since the days of the apostles, the Catholic Church has consistently condemned the sin of idolatry. The early Church Fathers warned against this sin, and Church councils also dealt with the issue.
What anti-Catholics fail to recognize is the distinction between a) thinking a piece of stone or plaster is a god and b) desiring to visually remember Christ and the saints in heaven by making statues in their honor.
I may stand when the judge enters the courtroom; I may genuflect when meeting the King of England, and I may kiss the ring of the Pope (which is a symbol of the office). All of these are signs of respect; they are not worship.
Here's a fun example: Playing miniature golf while on vacation at the beach and playing in the British Open share the fundamental objective of putting a golf ball into a hole in as few strokes as possible, but they differ significantly in almost every other way. Just because two things LOOK similar, it does not mean they are exactly the same.
@@randycarson9812 Are you Dr. Ortlund?
Pretty sure Irenaeus wrote the Peter and Paul ordained Linus as Episcopa of Rome. It's actually contrary to Papal succession though since Peter was alive, and Irenaeus called Linus the first Episcopa. So do the Apostolic Constitutions which claim that Paul physically ordained Linus. A.C. is not dogma but is evidence of the prevailing beliefs.
Regarding Presbyters being beyond reproach, it was assumed that due to martyrdom, any priest could be called upon to become a bishop at some point. Likewise any deacon had to meet the requirements to be a priest if necessary.
"Succession of scripture as well." Can you be more clear this Dr Ortland? Also Augustine and Gregory of Nazianzus were living in the A.D 300s. And were catholic. Help to understand.It seems to me succession and scripture.
No they weren't, they were Oriental Orthodox.
@@Mygoalwogel Augustine was the bishop of Hippo (now Annaba, Algeria) from 396 to 430. A renowned theologian and prolific writer, he was also a skilled preacher and rhetorician. He is one of the Latin Fathers of the Church and, in Roman Catholicism, is formally recognized as a doctor of the church.
@@believer8793 And died shortly before the Persian schism which is still going on, and shortly before the Chalcenonian Council which divided the Church three ways. I grant we can't know for sure whether he would have agreed with Theodoret or Cyril. But Theodoret was far more familiar with and similar to Augustine than was Cyril.
Does the Church, understood as the mystical body of Christ, have a single source of truth that we can access? Or, is it simply a collection of the best thought leaders of the day? If it is simply a vague collection of theological intellectuals discerning as best they can to know ALL truth, then I would be compelled to debate about who those "thought leaders" are. Seems to me God has always created a single conduit so as not to confuse His people. Division is clearly the devils work - unity is the work of God; "That they be one". Gavin, I am guessing you know of Dr. Scott Hahn's story, but if not it is beautiful!!
Loved the way you approached from 1st, 2nd, and 3rd century. Also, I thought your comment on how bible is so silent on a matter as important as the supremacy of Peter and Apostolic Succession was very powerful,
Thanks, glad it was helpful!
The Sacred Scriptures are not silent about Apostolic Succession. Study the arguments for the Papacy and Apostolic Succession through the Catholic understanding and then draw your own conclusions. Get both sides of the story. Not just the one biased against it. God bless🙏🏻
@@INRIVivatChristusRex I have read what Joe wrote afterward, so you should avoid stating things like reading only the biased one side. I didn't find his argument strong. Judaism puts both the scripture and tradition as equally authoritative and was severely reprimanded by Jesus in Matt. 15:3. I find that RCC and Eastern Orthodox do something similar which I find eerie to be honest.
This is how I see it. Both the Father and Son (leaving out the Holy Spirit for the argument sake) are equally God and important. However, the Son submits to the Father in perfect love and harmony. The scripture and tradition are equally important, but the tradition submits to the scripture because the scripture is the word of God. You can't have the scripture submitting to the tradition because that's like the word of God submitting to human made tradition.
Whenever the Church decides on major issues like Acts 1 where Peter quotes from the Old Testament before the casting lots fell on Matthias and Acts 15 where James quotes from the Old Testament before making the verdict on gentiles, there are two things that were present. First, it's decided in the council format of elders/bishops and never "Peter spoke so must be orthodox". Second, the harmony with the scripture is always present just as Jesus often quoted from the scripture. Jesus never mentioned how the "tradition" must be obeyed, in fact, he is harsh toward Pharisees and Sadducees because of over-emphasis the tradition over the scripture.
Last and most importantly, I just find that the eternal king and high priest Jesus setting up an earthly figurehead like Peter when he still rules from heaven just ridiculous. Jesus said that the Holy Spirit will come after him, not Peter. Ironically, this is written in Epistles to the Romans. The magnum opus, Romans 8, says we are to be guided by the Holy Spirit, not Peter. Considering that Paul wrote this through the inspiration of the Spirit, I would assume Peter will be mentioned somewhere to signify his prominent role in the future Church, but instead it clearly states that the Holy Spirit will guide the church.
As Gavin said, the scripture itself is so silent on the supremacy of Peter. Even Peter's epistles are silent on this matter which indicates that Peter humbled himself to the authority of Holy Spirit that left the New Testament for future Christians.
I am just a deacon in a small church, so need to get back to work to feed the family.
Romans 8:9
9 You, however, live not by your natural inclinations, but by the Spirit, since the Spirit of God has made a home in you. Indeed, anyone who does not have the Spirit of Christ does not belong to him.
Romans 8:14-16
14 All who are guided by the Spirit of God are sons of God;
15 for what you received was not the spirit of slavery to bring you back into fear; you received the Spirit of adoption, enabling us to cry out, 'Abba, Father!'
16 The Spirit himself joins with our spirit to bear witness that we are children of God.
@@thomasc9036 In which church you are a deacon?
@@INRIVivatChristusRex I am a deacon at a small Presbyterian church in the Bay Area. My church is part of PCA denomination.
I'm not convince on what you have said Gavin. Anyway I'm your fan when I was still a Protestant.
Yes, there was, otherwise St Ignatius wouldn't praise Rome, since praise indicates someone is above your standarts and his standarts include a monarchichal episcopate.
According to the early Church fathers there was. Hard to argue with people who knew and studied under the Apostles.
It doesn't ultimately matter within the framework of Rome's theology. Curia and episcopal tradition is so elevated that later historical developments are on par, or even exceed early historical evidence, let alone the Bible. This is a halmark in every theological system that embraces progressive revelation. Not just within Christendom but others as well. The later revelation supercedes the earlier. Etc...
Living memory is not of the individual writer, but Tradition: the living continous memory of the Church
The problem is so-called tradition changes, and obviously so.
Was There a Bishop of Rome in the First Century? Protestant Critique
Response:
From Orthodox Wikipedia: "Our father among the saints Clement of Rome (also called Clemens Romanus to distinguish him from Clement of Alexandria) was the third in succession after the Apostle Peter as bishop of Rome. Clement is known mainly for the letter he wrote to the Corinthians in about AD 96. He is counted among the apostolic fathers. His feast day is November 23 in the west, but in the east he is remembered on November 25."
In A.D. 96, Clement of Rome intervened in a Corinth church struggle by penning a Letter To The Corinthians and sending it there with his legates to resolve the dispute. It contains the following passage:
“Accept our advice and you will never regret it. For as God lives, and as the Lord Jesus Christ lives and the Holy Spirit (on whom the elect believe and hope), the man who with humility and eager considerateness and with no regrets does what God has decreed and ordered will be enlisted and enrolled in the ranks of those who are save through Jesus Christ. Through Him be the glory to God forever and ever. Amen. If, on the other hand, there be some who fail to obey what God has told them through us, they must realize that they will enmesh themselves in sin and in no insignificant danger. We, for our part, will not be responsible for such a sin.”
[Richardson, Cyril C., Th. D., D.D., editor, et al, Early Christian Fathers (Simon & Schuster: New York, 1996), p. 70]
I keep typing comments, and I keep putting a lot of work into them, and they keep disappearing. So, here it goes again.
The Shepherd of Hermas does maintain a distinction in three, our four offices, of apostle, bishop, teacher, and deacon.
Some Catholic scholars say that bishops started off as the heads of colleges of presbyters, and Saint Jerome would have agreed with them. In his Letter 146 To Evangelus, he says something very much like this. I would provide the quote, but I think direct quotes from other websites might have gotten my comments disappeared by algorithms.
Saint Chrysostom, in his Commentary on Phillipians, says that there were distinct offices, but the terms were not clear-cut. He says that in 2 Timothy 4:5, Saint Timothy is called a deacon. However, most English versions translate the word diakonos to ministry. He even said that in his day, bishops would call each-other "my fellow deacon".
Thanks for engaging! I am getting notifications for all your comments. Sorry, not sure why they are disappearing. Maybe they take some time to appear. I'll keep monitoring this.
Thank you as well. Your videos are very well-done, and you do a good job defending your position. You make respectable and interesting arguments.
I think the algorithms may have deleted them because they had direct quotes from other sites, so they might have thought I was plagiarizing, even though I listed the sources.
@@OrthodoxofUSA ah, that makes sense! If only my other commenters were so astute when their comments were deleted! :)
@@TruthUnites Thank you! It's happened to me before, so I have some idea of what to expect.
@@OrthodoxofUSA UA-cam has certain attributes of posts it looks for at certain times and deletes posts. Now those attributes change over time statistically, so it's not merely a matter of avoiding sensitive words, but that helps.
Yes, Linus succeeded Peter as sole key holder and Visible Shepherd over all the flock. This is confirmed by Eusbius and Augustine and others. Peace always in Jesus Christ our Great and Kind God and Savior, He whose Flesh is True food and Blood True drink
Saint Irenaeus also confirms it.
All of the disciples had the keys.
Matthew 18:18 Verily I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. They were to share the gospel, and it is up to God to give mercy, & regenerate.
This was referring to the disciples.
Going back to Matthew 16, Peter was born again at that moment (the first). It is a personal, intimate moment. It would make no sense for the Holy Spirit to wash Peter and ignore the other apostles and wash them later. By the disciples being born again, then the rest of the text would make sense to them since it all ties to the born-again experience.
@@OrthodoxofUSA "confirms" or rather asserts it without citing any sources and in conflict with other sources and hundred years after the supposed fact.
@@cunjoz
Paul testifies that Crescens was sent to Gaul [cf. 2 Tim. 4:10], but Linus, whom he mentions in the second epistle to Timothy [cf. 2 Tim. 4:21] as his companion at Rome, was Peter’s successor in the episcopate of the Church there, as has already been shown. Clement also, who was appointed third bishop of the Church at Rome, was, as Paul testifies, his co-laborer and fellow-soldier [cf. Phil. 4:3] (Eusebius of Caesarea Church History 3:4:9-10 [A.D. 312]).
The blessed apostles [Peter and Paul], having founded and built up the church [of Rome] . . . handed over the office of the episcopate to Linus (St. Irenaeus, Against Heresies 3:3:3 [A.D. 189]).
St. Augustine Bishop of Hippo
They are wretched indeed, because they do not recognize in Peter the rock and they refuse to believe that the keys of heaven, lost from their own hands, have been given to the Church. (Christian Combat, 31:33; from William A. Jurgens, editor and translator, The Faith of the Early Fathers, 3 volumes, Collegeville, Minnesota: Liturgical Press, 1970, vol. 3: 51)
For if the lineal succession of bishops is to be taken into account, with how much more certainty and benefit to the Church do we reckon back till we reach Peter himself, to whom, as bearing in a figure the whole Church, the Lord said: ‘Upon this rock will I build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it !’ The successor of Peter was Linus, and his successors in unbroken continuity were these: - Clement, Anacletus, Evaristus, Alexander, Sixtus, Telesphorus, Iginus, Anicetus, Pius, Soter, Eleutherius, Victor, Zephirinus, Calixtus, Urbanus, Pontianus, Antherus, Fabianus, Cornelius, Lucius, Stephanus, Xystus, Dionysius, Felix, Eutychianus, Gaius, Marcellinus, Marcellus, Eusebius, Miltiades, Sylvester, Marcus, Julius, Liberius, Damasus, and Siricius, whose successor is the present Bishop Anastasius. In this order of succession no Donatist bishop is found. (Letter to Generosus, 53:2, in NPNF I, I:298)
I have to say, this is one of your more confusing presentations, in my view. I can't tell if you're arguing against the papacy, against bishops in general (i.e., their distinction from priests and the three-fold ecclesial structure of the Church) or both. You said repeatedly that "there's no evidence" but then you cite St. Igantius, who clearly provides evidence for a presbyter/bishop distinction and a three-tiered structure. St. Dionysios does too, but I'm assuming you dismiss him as a 6th century monophysite, neo-Platonist as most academics do. I'm also not sure what your point is on Irenaeus and Tertullian. Both clearly affirm/posit the distinction between presbyter and bishop and both clearly affirm apostolic succession. The fact that there's a discrepancy in their lists does not change that. Also, I'm not sure that discrepancy can't be resolved. Further, you can have presbyter/bishop overlap while simultaneously positing a distinction between the two.
The Orthodox position is that the Eucharist is with the Bishop. As the Church expanded, the Bishop delegated that to the presbyters and thus the distinction became more pronounced. Isn't that consistent with Scripture, history and tradition?
"I can't tell if you're arguing against the papacy, against bishops in general (i.e., their distinction from priests and the three-fold ecclesial structure of the Church) or both."
Both. As I mentioned 2:59, the argument against the monarchical episcopal structure early on in Rome is also de facto an argument against the papacy (though it's not my *main* argument against the papacy). Let me know if I can clarify further.
"You said repeatedly that "there's no evidence" but then you cite St. Ignatius, who clearly provides evidence for a presbyter/bishop distinction and a three-tiered structure. St. Dionysios does too, but I'm assuming you dismiss him as a 6th century monophysite, neo-Platonist as most academics do."
I didn't claim there is *never* any evidence for the monarchical episcopacy. I said there is none in the first century. Then I covered the second century evidence, including Ignatius, and argued there is a development from the first to the second. What I'm arguing for is the overwhelming consensus view among historians, Catholic and Protestant, as I discuss more here: ua-cam.com/video/2pp-2RaMEsY/v-deo.html
"I'm also not sure what your point is on Irenaeus and Tertullian. Both clearly affirm/posit the distinction between presbyter and bishop and both clearly affirm apostolic succession. The fact that there's a discrepancy in their lists does not change that."
Agreed. Whether Tertullian and Irenaeus affirm a distinction between elder and presbyter is not in question. They are writing in the late 2nd century, when everyone admits this structure was in place.
"The Orthodox position is that the Eucharist is with the Bishop. As the Church expanded, the Bishop delegated that to the presbyters and thus the distinction became more pronounced. Isn't that consistent with Scripture, history and tradition?"
I've argued in this video it is not. For example, I argued that in Scripture there is no distinction between presbyter and bishop, or any single leader over a church called a "bishop." Perhaps it would be clearer on a second listen, or let me know how I can help.
@@TruthUnites right, thanks for the clarification. I guess I didn't appreciate how you were using the term "innovation," i.e., to refer to clearly defined doctrine in the early second century from those directly in contact with and selected by the Apostles.
Do you believe that the monarchial episcopacy is wrong? In other words, do you think it contradicts/opposes the ecclesiology of the Apostles?
I appreciate your responses.
@@cultofmodernism8477 the video I linked to in my previous comment addresses that question directly. Hope that helps!
@@TruthUnites great thanks.
Why did Paul speak of going to ROME...but somehow the first "Pope" didnt?????????
There are answers to that question. Most historians believe Peter went to Rome also. Other historical writings support this. It's not widely disputed.
Thank you this is helpful for my catholic friends who want to leave their church
So glad it was useful!
Why not refer to James appointed a Bishop in J'Salem apart from other Apostles, even Apostle Paul came to him to settle the Christianity v. Jews question. Peter himself was moving underground or might have writings sent to all over Asia minor churches from the Eastern location because going to Rome required a strategic passageway like Paul had to use?!
Roman Empire had mostly existed as Byzantine during all crucial time
...
Foundation's of course 'underground' for pillars erected as Superstructure.
Joe H is also right
Meanwhile he goes to a church that is what, 20yrs old ? LoL
“He who only likes victory is always late for battle.”
GK Chesterton
Was there a mention of non-denominational, Lutheran, Calvinist, or any of the countless other non-Catholic churches within the same time frame you used in the dialogue? If anything this discussion strengthens the Catholic stance and shows how cantankerous anti-Catholics are.
T.U. Why would you not assume a power struggle whenever any organization of people is in operation? Is there not a power struggle right now in the papal Organization? Which pope was not involved in power struggle/ Power struggle is human nature. & I think every local church has its wars given time.
Sooo.... you're not the Bishop of Ojai?
I'm working on it!
The argument over the bishops of Rome being the head of the one church is somewhat complex, however, there is no argument that there was one church.
I would agree. However, that is a far, far different issue from whether the Roman bishop is perpetual head of that church.
1 person? how about Diotrephes 3 John? Of course he is condemned. Doesn't 1 Peter 5 equate bishops & elders?
Paul clearly corrects Peter in Galatians in a matter of faith. In Peter himself infallibility did not exist.
In the 1st - 3rd centuries Christians are fighting for their very lives. These are the days of the martyrs and their is clearly more at stake here than figuring out how we as Church organize ourselves and document that process. When the Church does get that opportunity in the early 4th century, after the Constantine’s Edict of Milan, we do see the more intentional organization of the Church along already latent organizational structures. For example Sylvester is clearly the chief priest of the Christian Community of Rome - its Bishop - at the time of Constantine’s victory over Maxentius at the Milvian Bridge. The victory which cements his claim to the Emperorship of Rome in 312.
I have to say that we have late evidence that the Pope was not recognised even into the fourth century when you consider that the Pope didn't convene or participate in the Council of Nicaea.
Why was Augustine unable to appeal to the church's highest human authority to settle the debate raging about whether Jesus was divine or not?
I'd love to say because he did not exist, but Pope Sylvester certainly existed. But it does show that the Pope did not have the authority that the RC attributes to the office, since there was a debate of any kind.
The church was, in fact, rent in twain to use RHC Davis's words, and Constantine struggled to find an authority that various factions would recognise. Where was the Pope's supposed authority?
It seems anachronistic. Anyway, I still have much to learn about church history, but this, I think, is a point worth making in the discussion.
In some way, all this seems like "straining at gnats and swallowing camels" because as a Christian, I for one need BOTH Word and Sacrament to sustain my spiritual life in Christ. The Word alone ("The Word of God in the words of man": Vatican II) is simply not enough, indeed, was never meant to be enough. I hear the Word of God proclaimed in church and I read it every day privately but like countless other Christians, I also need the Sacrament of the Eucharist, the "Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity of Christ" (to quote a famous RC phrase) to "preserve my body and soul unto everlasting life" (to quote the words of administration from the 1662 Anglican BCP). As I understand it, Baptists and many other Protestant groups simply do not provide this means of grace, "The first and indispensible source of the true Christian spirit" (another well-known RC phrase) and therefore my faith could not survive if I belonged to one of these groups. For those whose spiritual lives in Christ can be sustained by the Word alone, good luck to them.
Thanks for the comment, Mark. I'd argue that Protestants can and do appreciate the sacraments in a full-blooded, life-giving way. I'll do a video on this sometime.
@@TruthUnites Thanks Gavin. Many do, but many others do not.
St Peter • janitor of heaven • pray for us