The Papacy in the 3rd to 7th Centuries: Protestant Critique
Вставка
- Опубліковано 1 кві 2021
- Is the vision of papal supremacy in Vatican 1 consistent with the beliefs and practices of the early church? Here I list 5 episodes from 3rd to the 7th century that challenge contemporary Roman Catholic claims about the papacy.
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.
Website: gavinortlund.com/
Twitter: / gavinortlund
Facebook: / truthunitespage
Become a patron: / truthunites
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...
You’ve got to write a book about all this. Your content is so awesome and well researched. I always learn so much from watching your videos.
Thanks Will! So glad it’s helpful!
@@TruthUnites I know that the council of Constance removed the pope and the two anti-popes. And I know that Vatican II ruled that a council cannot be above a pope. Do you know if in the 5th Lateran council if it said the same thing as in Vatican II? I thought I read somewhere that Luther knew about this, since the Lateran council was in his lifetime, which led to his statement at the Diet of Worms that even councils contradict each other. If so, do you know the particular canon within the Lateran council where it says this? This would be really helpful with a presentation I am doing to demonstrate that even ecumenical councils contradict each other.
I'm a fan of Gavin, but it needs to be said that books have already been written on the papacy...lots of them. Gavin's work is valuable because he works hard at being respectful and as humble as possible.
It's all a matter of repetition. Keep it up, and the rest of us need to step up as well. I am deeply concerned that guys like Trent Horn are taken seriously. It's not good.
And you should read a book about the Papacy from a affirming position if you're truly fair.
@@t.d6379He’s written books and read a lot of books doing research. You’d be hard pressed to find a fairer Protestant perspective on the matter.
I can officially say you've convinced me not to join the Catholic church. I've been giving a serious look at Catholicism over the last several months. Their claim to be the continuation of the church fathers was intriguing and the fact that many protestants don't know church history well or reference it much at all seem to prove their case, but the huge focus on Mary was something I just couldn't bring myself to embrace, especially since these are newer-ish doctrines in the Catholic church and you have to believe them if you are to join. In my mind, it really came down to the papacy, if the pope is really infallible and entrusted with the power to make these doctrines official by Christ or not. I'm confident now that the papacy in its current form in Catholicism is not true, and not historic, it is something that developed much later. I love the church father quotes you mention about "apostolic succession" meaning nothing if the doctrine is in error, I think that is something that the current Catholic church doesn't grasp and that also gave the reformers divine authority to do what they did. I'm still on a search for a more historic/sacramental church, so I'll probably look the Missouri Synod Lutheran Church now. I really appreciate that you've taken the time to make these videos from protestant perspective. God bless!
glad my videos were of use! God bless you!
@TruthUnites well done, what a horror! I hope you have contemplated what you're doing by steering souls away from Jesus' Holy Church. You will have to stand trial for it you know!
@@t.d6379 I'm actually quite grateful that he convinced me not to join a church that historically believed that if I don't bow before an image of a saint I'll go to hell (7th council) or the false, unbiblical teaching of Mary's sinlessness that wasn't a dogma in the church until the 1800's, or a church that did a complete 180 on their view of protestant's salvation, saying in the Council of Trent that Protestants and all non-Catholics are going to hell and then changing their minds in the 1960's in Vatican II, saying that we actually are Christians who are saved- all while claiming to be the unchanging, infallible church.
@@Zonie-xv9ep I'll pray for you. You need help.
Instead of being condescending and arrogant, why dont you try countering his arguments?@@t.d6379
I'm late life RCC convert but I learn so much from Gavin. He's really incredible. God bless him.
Thank you Dennis, happy to be connected to you.
I don’t understand how someone can see what Gavin is clearly showing as unbiblical and against the faith and affirm that and then remain a RC. Just confuses me. Biggest concern for me is the false gospel in Rome. It can’t and won’t save you. Only Jesus can. It breaks my heart that people can see the truth in what Gavin is saying, but still stay attached to Rome and its errors
Btw Dr. Ortlund, I am an Orthodox catechumen but your channel has helped me immensely by filling in some of the gaps in understanding. Your humility is a blessing. You strike a good balance between thoroughness, solid scholarship, and pastoral care. I find with other scholars/apologeticists that they either charicature other traditions, or they go sooo deep into rigorous minutiae that I get lost and can't even follow them. Thank you so much for your work, and may God bless you richly!
Dr, Ortlund,
I love your content so much! I am a Protestant (Reformed Baptist like yourself) with strong interest in church history. It is helpful to watch you think through these things from a Protestant perspective. The temptation is to think that Rome has the better claim to historical grounding because they make Tradition a coequal mode of revelation. It’s helpful to get a balanced Protestant view on church history to counter that line of thinking!
Thanks Colin! So glad you are enjoying the content! Nice to meet another Baptist!
The Bible is the written Tradition of the Church because it was the church that officially compiled the bible.
I’m a cradle Catholic who has been doing a deep dive into this subject. Thank you so much for this, Gavin. I have to say, your reasoning sounds solid. Your argument sounds much like many Orthodox arguments regarding Rome.
I’m convinced that God has raised up Gavin, with his temperament, to deconstruct the errors and false claims of Rome and the EO. It is so needed in a current environment where Rome is reinventing history and making outlandish claims that are devoid of fact
I’m looking forward to this! I happen to be a Protestant leaning-Catholic here, so if there’s any strong reason why I shouldn’t be Catholic I want to hear it! I appreciate your content so much Dr. Ortlund
Thanks Tim! Hope it is useful for you!
I would greatly recommend you look into the Orthodox since Rome broke off communion with us in 1054.
Without understanding your primary reason (s), it will be difficult to give right perspectives. I left the Baptist denomination being disillusioned with Baptist pastors after making ordination vows in God's name to submit to creeds of the denomination, then repeatedly breaking these confessions. They acted too much like mini-Popes to be honest with constant flux in creeds/confessions.
After looking into RC, I found Papacy and Marian Dogmas, just too creepy theologically. I researched EO a bit, but just too foreign and found them to be too much like RC without the Pope. After studying bible and church history, I am a firm believer that early Protestant reformers were right and joined a Presbyterian church.
Before you do anything can I advise you read some good Protestant literature of what Protestantism is and what the reformers stood against and why. Can I recommend a book that I have found very helpful on the Papacy. Romes Audacious Claim by Paul Pavao.
Hi Tim, I have a channel, “Soteriology 400” that has some videos related to this topic. 🤓
Sincere appreciation and thanks that you are using your God given gifts of wisdom, passion and intellect to reach out to our siblings in the Catholic church in the way that you do. As a father of 7 (all grown and some in His presence now), I know what's on your plate. Stay encouraged, stay strong and may God give you even more of His love, strength and protection as you move forward
Great video! Grateful for the work you're doing. Looking forward to all that is to come!
Thanks Austin!
Your excellent historical mind has clearly led to a humble approach. I love all your videos! From a fellow Protestant!
So glad you enjoyed! Thanks for commenting!
I find it to be a strange claim when Roman Catholics say that the pope cannot be led into error. In the Bible, Peter is rebuked by Paul regarding the gentile christians. I find it strange that Roman catholics think that they were given something that was not even given to Peter.
@ JD Apologetics , forgive me, but that seems like a wholly artificial distinction. The fact is that we humans learn mostly by example, not instruction. Much of the Christian tradition consists of following the examples of many of the Biblical stories. If we were to reduce the Christian tradition to only that which was specifically instructed or commanded, there wouldn't be much left. Teaching, therefore consists not only of explicit instructions, but also example. As far as I can see there is no valid distinction then.
@ JE Apologetics, in this case, it seems that inerrancy was preserved through the correction from Paul. It seems to be a pity that the later popes refused corrections from the protestant reformers.
@JD Apologetics, thank you, may you have a blessed Easter as well.
Wow Gavin! Thank you so much. It was you who introduced me to church history. Now I am so eager to learn and study from the churchfathers. As I am doing so I do not at all cease to be Protestant(as Newman argues) but I am growing even more confident that the childlike beliefs I had reading my bible are true and confirmed by fathers. I feel like god is really using you to shed light on churchhistory for Protestants like me who felt like the only thing which is needed is the bible. Still love my bible and filtering everything through it but wow I was missing out on the riches of our fathers!
Wonderful to hear, Frederic, thanks so much for sharing!
Ironically Newman was an awful, awful historian, as the Oxford movement were generally (mostly because history as a subject was just awful in the period)
Don't apologize for the minutia of Church history and Patristric texts, it's fascinating. I just wish there was a 10 hour movie reel on Church history covering the first 12 centuries.
Thank you, brother, for your work-love the content, even more the nuance and spirit with which you present it.
Thank you for this. I find it astonishing the extent to which the RCC projects its opinions in the present back on the church of the past, when any fair reading of the material, such as you have given here, shows that the recent claims of the RCC are at considerable variance with historical reality. I appreciate your even-handedness and clarity of thought. As a Reformed Evangelical Anglican (Anglican Reformed Evangelical?) issues of authority and validity in “doctrinal development” have considerable poignancy at this time in the life of the church (Sept 2023).
Thank you for this, excellently put. Watching this on a rainy Sunday morning in south London - God bless
Glad you enjoyed it! I miss London! A beautiful city. Enjoy the rain.
Hi, Gavin! Appreciate the video. Your content always encourages me to look deeper into my faith and so more research (as a Catholic). Grateful for your channel!
Thanks is wonderful to hear! Thanks for engaging with humility and grace!
Have you always been Catholic?
@@Adam-ue2ig yes, I have been!
@@janiejackson234 well you seem open minded and willing to challenge yourself intellectually on the matters at hand. I would love to engage in discussion with you.
@Jacque Anderson I'm Catholic too!
Absolutely fantastic video.
I’ve only recently discovered your page and am now happily subscribed.
Roll tide! I appreciate your videos. Very charitable and well presented.
Thanks Philip! Glad you enjoyed it!
Thanks for serving the broader church Gavin! So very helpful!
Thanks David!
Did Peter really die at Rome? Paul never mentions Peter as being with him in prison. Paul never disguises his presence in Rome. Peter would be risking himself by calling Rome Babylon more than if he called Rome Rome. During the first ecumenical council recorded in the book of Acts, Peter agreed to preach 'to the Jews' while Paul was sent 'to the gentiles'. It makes sense to me that Peter was actually in Babylon, a large Jewish community rivaling Jerusalem. Peter indeed went 'to the Jews" while Paul went 'to the gentiles'.
Thanks for the brilliant video.
Watching 3rd time so that i can absorb the content correctly 🙏
Glad it was helpful!
Thank you for this video! It is being too useful for me here in Angola, it's always good to learn more about church history and to know that it do not lead us to Roman Church. - Thanks you, from a presbyterian brother.
Thankfully the presbyterians lead me to be Orthodox, the first Catholics.
Which Church does it lead to then? "We must concede the Church of Rome has given us the Scriptures ", ( Martin Luther, works. Vol. 40)..
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 office of sole key holder is one of succession biblically! Faith alone, like Scripture alone, are man made traditions not found in Holy Scripture! Peace always in Jesus Christ our Great and Kind God and Savior, He whose Flesh is True food and Blood True drink
@@Dlee-eo5vv Jesus Christ our Great and Kind God and Savior, built His Church on Peter the rock, way before the later development of the Orthodox Church! Peace always in Jesus Christ our Great and Kind God and Savior, He whose Flesh is True food and Blood True drink
@@matthewbroderick8756 I sorry you have no history of the church outside of your bible.
@@matthewbroderick8756 matt, don't be defincive of any group without wisdom and knowledge. The scripture was settled in 364. We were one church in conciliar or synodal governance. It wasn't till 800ad that Rome began her departure from Orthodox teaching( right worship not group) when the pope was synonymous as the church.
I as well as yourself I'm sure only want truth and to Glorify God by one day being one again.
Thank you very much for your content Sr. Very useful for me. Glory to Christ; thankful for his work through you. Hope you and yours are well!
Gavin said, "Can you imagine" an episode like the Zosimus/Celestine thing playing out today? Well, it did, and in our own time! Paul VI found himself unable to rein in the Jesuits in the 1970s. His successor, John Paul I had been in office but a few days when Jesuit "General" Arrupe's assistant, Vincent O'Keefe, told a Dutch newspaper in an interview that the new Pope should reconsider the Church's bans on abortion, homosexuality, and priesthood for women; John Paul I was incensed and wrote a scathing speech of warning to the Jesuits, but he died in bed before he could deliver it. John Paul II was set to push for Arrupe's resignation when he was struck by a would-be assasin's bullets, causing him to lose 6 months in recovery. Fortunately, John Paul II won that round when Arrupe had a stroke a few months later.
Then, during John Paul II's time as Pope, the prelates in Central America led by the Jesuits openly flaunted his authority and disobeyed his orders to abandon their Liberation Theology and their socio-political activism with the Sandinistas. To combat this, John Paul II flew to Nicaragua and arranged to deliver a hard-hitting sermon during Mass there on March 4, 1983. Instead, the local prelates got the Mass attendees to shout John Paul II down. Malachi Martin writes of it in his book, "The Jesuits": "The microphone that had been set up for him could not overcome the well-rehearsed and beautifully timed cacaphony that now rose from the crowds, and ear-splitting litany of rhythmic, revolutionary slogans...The slogans continued through the entire Sacrifice of the Mass, drowning even its most sacred moment, the Consecration, in cries of 'Power to the People!' and 'It is possible to be Marxist and Christian!' and 'Speak to us about the injustice of capitalism!'" (p.119-120). The Marxist clergy deliberately humiliated the holy father to show him 'who is boss.'
Honestly, the almost universal disrespect of Francis by the RC world is not as precedential as one might have guessed.
For me, the straight forward reading suggest that the keys are faith in Jesus, the rock is knowing he is the Messiah, and what we bind is what we ourselves retain, and what we loose, we our selves loose. If we hold things like grudges, we retain it, if we forgive it, mend the wounds, we loose it. It simply describing how the new heavenly scheme of things will be, which is the foundation of our psyche ever since.
Faith is how one enters the kingdom, right now, not some time later on, although our perception of it shall certainly only grow. Being in the kingdom consists of experiencing joy over smiling children, warm relationships between all neighbours, etc, as well as sadness and mourning oner loss of such, and always without controlling the situation, but accepting what comes, praying for God's will, the loving unity of all. It's the actual experience that is the kingdom, and it can only be tasted by trust, i.e. faith.
Peter was chief over the Jews. Paul was chief over the gentiles. So Roman should be Pauline not Petrine.
Love all this content
hope it's helpful!
Hi Dr. Ortlund! Thank you for your thoughtful videos. I am a charismatic pastor and I find these videos about church history very useful. I find it helps my church understand people when we do evangelism.
So glad you are finding use in them! The Lord bless you and your ministry.
I have read some of Cyprian’s works but hadn’t come across this stuff. Thanks for sharing!
good content, well presented with cohesive argumentation :-) Thank you
Dr. Ortlund, I'm guessing you've read Denny's "Papalism", or at least excerpts of it? I'm working through it right now. Eye-opening. The thought that keeps coming into my head is that Rome does a superb job of framing narratives. "When you read the words of Matthew 16, equate that with the claims of Vatican 1". That claim seems less and less tenable the more I study. God bless you.
For clarification min 13:50, St Zosimus quoted Sardica as Nicaea because Sardica is numbered as continuation of Nicene council. This is similar with how we Eastern Catholics and Eastern Orthodox call Trullo as Third Constantinople. Because Trullo was convened as a continuation of the Sixth Ecumenical Council. I hope this help.
Appreciate your videos. I followed your Grandfather on Haven today back in the 80s. I saw your name on you tube and wondered if you were related and was pleased to find out that you were.
That is so cool! My grandfather was one of my great heroes. God bless.
Love your non bias approach!
Thanks! Glad it came across that way.
Extremely helpful, thanks Gavin. I recognize this took a lot of work, thank you.
Thanks Will! So glad it was helpful. Yeah, it was a lot of work, but I didn’t mind because it’s where my research interests lie right now.
@@TruthUnites Wishing a solemn good friday and a very happy easter to you and your family. God bless
@@ooooooppppp11 same to you brother.
Looking forward to this. Did you have one that covered the first two centuries?
Yep! ua-cam.com/video/eP2U_bC-oUI/v-deo.html
Really appreciate the clear presentation of the episodes. I have been very blessed by your addressing of Catholic views of authority, and I would like to ask that you perhaps talk about why you feel Protestantism is your view instead of Orthodoxy in a future video!
Thanks Benjamin, glad the videos have been a blessing! I am planning on doing a study on Orthodoxy, but it may take some time.
Wow! Amazing, succinct breakdown of the some of the history of the development of the Roman Catholic papacy. So important. Thanks the Lord the veil is torn! Thanks!
Glad you enjoyed it!
Excellent talk
Absolute power corrupts Absolutely.
And absolutely power corrupts!!
Especially between the years 532 to 1532!
Hey Gavin! Awesome video. Could you name some of the presbyters you were talking about in this video?!
Please write a book about this
thank you
This series is absolutely fascinating.
awesome videos
Glad you think so!
Can you make a playlist just on your Papacy videos?
Ex RC from India. This is so informative.
You hit the nail on the head Gavin when you said doctrine was also key not just Apostolic succession from Peter. If there was not Apostolic doctrine succession then no Bishop could claim authority and it also united and determined a true Church.
Yes, apostolic succession requires direct and steadfast handing on of doctrine and authority.
The Pope has never formally taught heresy as binding on the entire Church for 2,000 years.
@@markrome9702the Marian dogmas, papal infallibility are just a few
Great articulation. Keep em coming. Thanks. The greatest videos on this subject is btw Fr. Mitchell Pacwa (A great Christian and devoted Catholic) and Dr. Walter Martin on The John Ankerberg Show (1986). Watch how lovingly and respectfully Dr. Martin dismantles every aspect of Roman Catholic structure. The Papacy, Veneration of Mary etc. Dr. Martin completely crushes in the most gentle way the historic Roman Catholic heresies.
Can you find a case in which an appeal was taken from a Bishop of Rome to the Bishop of another church?
“What would Catholics think if the Papacy goes off the rails?” Fiducia Supplican is starting to give us a good idea. Some faithful followers of the Roman church are already openly talking about a schism called by it. Priests and Bishops who have openly criticized it have been removed from office and at least one priest immediately excommunicated.
While I find this painful for a Christianity, I have pointed out to several followers of Rome that this would be a good opportunity to understand 1517. Furthermore, this could become a useful moment for reconciliation, even if Fiducia Supplican wasn’t issued ex cathedra, yet.
THE Papacy certainly developed from a multiple leadership of Bishops/Elders in each church established by Peter and Paul. The Apostle John may have used a different model later where a governing Bishop became prominent over the churches he started. Even if a Bishop had authority he was still a fellow Bishop in a pastoral role over other groups but did not have rule over every Church everywhere. That was a further development.
God bless
I think you need to write a book on the Papacy.
👍
Here's a question in my mind that I'd love to hear your take on.
If Roman Catholicism had not developed and instead we had a unified church according to the Eastern Orthodox traditions and theology by the 1500s, do you think the reformation would have happened?
Which issues would be unnecessary and which, if any, would have arisen and how do you think they'd be received, bearing in mind that there was some advice given to some reformers by EOC bishops?
The more I look into it, the more it seems like some bad faith elements in Catholicism created the necessity for further disunity along with a lot of other regrettably unChristian treatment of unbelievers and "heretics".
interesting question. It certainly must have been different, right, given the specific abuses (e.g., indulgences) that Luther was responding to?
@@TruthUnites Yeah. And given their tendency to leave unexplained mysteries along with their acceptance of cultural differences, I wouldn't be surprised if agreement and unity was prioritised over shutting down insubordination.
Just finished the video and it was great, thank you very much. God bless.
Do you ever comment on the apparent "supremacy" of the church council at Jerusalem (Acts 15) laying with James as opposed to Peter, who was also present? Seems that if Peter were always the "head of the Church," he would have headed this council, not James. Thanks! Love the channel!
Not really as it always has been customary for the bishop of the diocese that is hosting the council to head the council.
"And if one should say, 'How then did James receive the throne of Jerusalem?,' this I would answer that He appointed this man (Peter) teacher, not of that throne, but of the whole world."
(John Chrysostom, In Joan. Hom. 1xxxviii. n. 1, tom. viii, 4th century)
@@GR65330 such a tradition would likely have been started due to the view that all bishops are equal.
A note concerning a Roman argument appealing to the Council of Serdica (343 AD) as demonstrating Papal authority over the entire church.
The cannons of Serdica were not added as cannon in the Eastern churches until the Quinisext Council, also known as the Council in Trullo, in 692 AD.
But most importantly, Serdica only granted the Bishop of Rome the limited authority to hear appeals of bishops who believe they were unjustly removed from their office (canons 3 and 4). With it’s acceptance by the East in 692, the Bishop of Rome gained this limited appellate authority in the West and the East. However, this is not the “Authority over all” the churches of the West and the East. The Bishop of Rome acts only as an appellate judge in these specific cases.
Some may argue that canons 7 and 17 also confer authority to the Bishop of Rome. However, this is only due to applying the modern understanding of “Catholic Church” to the canons. When read in context, these canons do not talk about the Roman church, but rather the “universal church”. These canons direct Bishops in the West and the East to grant sanctuary until the cases have been resolved.
And once this limited authority has been accepted, the Roman argument must still overcome any objections raised by Metropolitans based upon their jurisdiction granted by the Ecumenical Council of Nicaea in cannon 6, as stated by Dr. Ortland. This is because Ecumenical Councils must take precedent over non-Ecumenical council like Serdica and Quinisext.
Seu conteúdo é bom demais.
Obrigado, e Deus abençoe.
I really do not understand how this idea that the Pope of Rome had this authority over the church ever caught on amongst the bishops over time. It very clearly has no basis in scripture.
What underpins all medieval hierarchalism is the author known as Pseudo Dionysius. Catholics and Orthodox won't touch it with a ten foot pole, so it will take some time to tease out how this affects the apostolic Churches, but I have found this to be the singular thread which will unravel much of the neo-platonic silliness of the historic East and West.
So, are you telling me, there are no prizes or anything? Why! I never!!!
Given that the claim of Rome to supremacy over the other bishopric of the early church, what are the grounds for Protestant supremacy over Rome? Are the human failings so evident in the Roman Church not also evident within the hierarchy of the churches of Calvin and Luther?
This subject has been given much attention in the writings of Anglo Catholic (Anglican) theologians such as Alexander Penrose Forbes, Charles Chapman Grafton and Darwell Stone. Also by High Church Anglican Bishop Christopher Wordsworth of Lincoln. Also by the RC historian Ignaz von Doellinger, who was a dissenter to the Vatican One proposal.
interesting! Is there a particular book you'd recommend starting with?
@@TruthUnites Internet Archive is a good source for their writings, although some may be found in reprints. Alexander Penrose Forbes , besides An Explanation of the Thirty Nine Articles, had a small book entitled The Church of England and the Doctrine of Papal Infallibility. Darwell Stone's Outlines of Christian Dogma has chapters on the Church, including a discussion of the Vatican Council. Christopher Wordsworth's Theophilus Anglicanus upholds the claim of the Church of England to be an Apostolic Church since prior to the dominance of the papacy. Charles Chapman Grafton's work I think is called Christian and Catholic. The Anglo Catholic position, which is where I come from, stresses the Branch Theory that Anglican, RC and Eastern Orthodox are equally branches of the one Church, having tactile Apostolic Succession of bishops. I am very sympathetic to the position of my traditionalist RC friends, who have the dilemma of trying to square the innovations of the popes since Vatican 2 with the supposed infallibility and unquestionable authority of the pope. I know sedevacantists who, holding the Vatican 1 definition of papal infallibility, feel bound to affirm that their has been no true pope since Pius XII died in 1958. I have other traditionalist friends who think popes can err, and so be resisted. Resisting a true pope is unthinkable to the sedevacantists because of Vatican 1. I am very sympathetic to the traditional RC position, but the words and actions of modernist popes seems to throw in doubt the theory that God would ensure that every Bishop of Rome would be a guarantor of orthodoxy. As an Anglo Catholic, I can perceive the grace of God active in different churches and denominations. I used to hope for a reunion of all Trinitarian Christians, but I do not know if it will happen this side of glory. I find your investigations interesting and commendable.
Newman was atleast at first a vat 1 dissenter, apparently submitted eventually and ironically wrote the book on doctrinal development hypothesis.
Not directly related to the video topic, but have you read Peter Martyr VermigillI particularly Oxford Disputations on the Eucharist? Found it very interesting especially in light of some of Bradford Little John work and understanding with Anglican tradition/Eucharist.
@@Adam-ue2ig no but someone recently recommended it to me! I need to get it.
The Papacy in the 3rd to 7th Centuries: Protestant Critique
Response:
One 3rd century example from the lives and writings of first millenium Church Fathers that are (A) venerated by the Orthodox Church and (B) designated as such by Dr. Constantine N. Tsirpanlis in his book Introduction to Eastern Patristic Thought and Orthodox Theology:
ST. CYPRIAN, BISHOP OF CARTHAGE (A.D. c. 210 - 14 September 258)
From Orthodox Wikipedia: "Hieromartyr Cyprian of Carthage was the leading bishop of the Church of Africa during the mid-third century. He was martyred during the persecution of emperor Valerian. His feast day is August 31."
Quoting from St. Cyprian's work On The Unity Of The Church, c. 251 is the following from its Chapter Four, "If anyone considers and examines these things, there is no need of a lengthy discussion and arguments. Proof for faith is easy in a brief statement of the truth. The Lord speaks to Peter: 'I say to thee,' He says, 'thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound also in heaven, and whatever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed also in heaven.' Upon him, being one, He builds His Church, and although after His resurrection He bestows equal power upon all the Apostles, and says: 'As the Father has sent me, I also send you. Receive ye the Holy Spirit: if you forgive the sins of anyone, they will be forgiven him; if you retain the sins of anyone, they will be retained,' yet that He might display unity, He established by His authority the origin of the same unity as beginning from one. Surely the rest of the Apostles also were that which Peter was, endowed with an equal partnership of office and of power, but the beginning proceeds from unity, that the Church of Christ may be shown to be one."
[Translated by Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson. The Ante-Nicene Fathers. Translations of the Writings of the Fathers down to A.D. 325. Vol. 5. American reprint of the Edinburgh edition revised by A. Cleveland Coxe. Grand Rapids, Michigan : Eerdmans, 1956-1962]
The Papacy in the 3rd to 7th Centuries: Protestant Critique
Response:
Three 4th century examples from the lives and writings of first millenium Church Fathers that are (A) venerated by the Orthodox Church and (B) designated as such by Dr. Constantine N. Tsirpanlis in his book Introduction to Eastern Patristic Thought and Orthodox Theology:
A. ST. ATHANASIUS, BISHOP OF ALEXANDRIA (A.D. 295 - 373)
From Orthodox Wikipedia: "Our father among the saints Athanasius of Alexandria (also spelled 'Athanasios'; from Greek, 'immortal') was a bishop of Alexandria and major theological writer in the fourth century. He is also called Athanasius the Great and (by the Coptic church) Athanasius the Apostolic. He was born in 298 and died on May 2, 373. His feast day in the Orthodox Church is January 18."
(1) When being deposed by a council of Arian bishops in the East, he wrote the following in a letter to the emperor Constantus II, “When I left Alexandria, I did not go to your brother’s headquarters, or to any other persons, but only to Rome; and having laid my case before the Church (for this was my only concern), I spent my time in the public worship.”
[Ray, Stephen K., Upon This Rock (Ignatius Press: San Francisco, 1999), p. 201]
(2) Further in his letter St. Athanasius quotes from Pope St. Julius’ Letter To The Orientals, A.D. 341, which questioned the judgment of the council of Eastern Arian bishops that had deposed St. Athanasius from his see: “Why was nothing written to us about the Church of Alexandria especially? Did you not know that the Custom was this: to write to us first, and thus from here justice would be determined? Therefore, if any such suspicion fell upon the bishop of Alexandria, the thing to do was to write to this Church.”
[Clarkson, John F., S.J. translator, et al, The Church Teaches (Tan Books and Publishers, Inc.: Rockford, IL, 1973), p. 68.]
B. ST. EPHREM, SYRIAN DEACON FROM THE ANTIOCHENE CHURCH OF EDESSA (c. A.D. 306 - 373)
From Orthodox Wikipedia: "Our Righteous Father Ephrem the Syrian was a prolific Syriac language hymn writer and theologian of the 4th century. He is venerated by Christians throughout the world, but especially among Syriac Christians, as a saint. His feast day in the Orthodox Church is January 28."
He wrote many poems that were put to music and used for prayer, teaching, and contemplation. One poem includes the following text, “Simon, My follower, I have made you the foundation of the holy Church. I betimes called you Peter [Kefa, or Rock, in the original text], because you will support all its buildings. You are the inspector of those who will build on earth a Church for Me. If they should wish to build what is false, you, the foundation, will condemn them. You are the head of the fountain from which My teaching flows, you are the chief of My disciples. Through you I will give drink to all peoples. Yours is that life-giving sweetness which I dispense. I have chosen you to be, as it were, the first- born in My institution, and so that, as the heir, you may be executor of my treasures. I have given you the keys of my kingdom. Behold, I have given you authority over all my treasures.”
[Ray, Stephen K., Upon This Rock (Ignatius Press: San Francisco, 1999), pps. 194-95]
C. ST. JEROME, PRIESTLY BIBLICAL SCHOLAR AND TRANSLATOR (c. A.D. 342 - 420)
From Orthodox Wikipedia: "Our venerable and God-bearing father Jerome was noted as a scholar of Latin at the time when Greek was considered the language of scholarship. He was one of the most learned of the Fathers of the Western Church and is noted as the translator of the holy scriptures into Latin. This translation, the Vulgate, became the official biblical text of the Roman Catholic Church. During his early adult life he traveled extensively, learning Greek and Hebrew, while pursing his rhetorical and philosophical studies. Among the many treatises, commentaries, translations, and exegetical works that he undertook was the revision of the Latin bible using the more recent versions of the Hebrew Old Testament. An ascetic and harsh critic of secular excesses, he was a strong defender of the Orthodox faith against the heresies of his time. His feast day is commemorated on June 15."
In an appeal to Pope St. Damasus, St. Jerome requested a decision on two separate and distinct matters, that of episcopal appointments and Trinitarian theology of which he wrote the following, “My words are spoken to the successor of the Fisherman, to the disciple of the Cross. As I follow no leader save Christ, so I communicate with none but Your Blessedness, that is, with the Chair of Peter. For this I know is the rock on which the church is built. This is the house where alone the Paschal Lamb can be rightly eaten. This is the Ark of Noah, and he who is not found in it shall perish when the flood prevails."
[Rengers, Fr. Christopher, O.F.M. Cap., The 33 Doctors of the Church (Tan Books and Publishers, Inc.: Rockford, IL, 2000), pps. 97-98]
I have a question for you Dr. Ortlund: which church ot branch or denomination of Christianity do you believe is "most true?"
Hey Eric for me it is truly hard to say. I see Christ working in so many different places. Obviously In terms of doctrine I have landed as a Baptist. Thank you for your various kind comments.
@@TruthUnites Agreed. I think all three major branches of Christianity have truth and beauty in them and I learn from each tradition. May the Body of Christ be united in love one day
Dr. Ortlund, do you not have thoughts about the Orthodox Church, and it’s relation to the Scriptures and Gospel? Do you not have any thoughts as to the consistency of different traditions, and whether they are faithful to Scripture or not?
The dishonesty of the Roman institution apparent in their own writings is an open sign they are NOT a church. They do not represent Christ. The Orthodox church makes the same mistake in completely lying in their assertions about things such as icons. It is so difficult for me to see members of these institutions as Christians if they have bought the lies. They fulfill 2 Timothy 3:13 as they promulgate these lies.
If the Pope is not the final appeal then to whom shall other bishops come to consult and settle on problems of disunity.?.Since the orthodox group are excommunicating among each other.
What authority did bishops have over layity
Gavin-“Can you imagine a situation like this playing out today?”
Catholics-*looks at the German Bishops* “Yes, I think we can.”
I would like to weigh in on the Cyprian and Pope Stephen dispute and Cyprian's view on the Papal office. Throughout his letters, Cyprian affirms the primacy of the Bishop of Rome and never renounced this primacy.
"They who have not peace themselves now offer peace to others. They who have withdrawn from the Church promise to lead back and to recall the lapsed to the Church. There is one God and one Christ, and one Church, and one Chair founded on Peter by the word of the Lord. It is not possible to set up another altar or for there to be another priesthood besides that one altar and that one priesthood. Whoever has gathered elsewhere is scattering." (Cyprian, Letter 43 (40), 5, c. AD 251)
"With a false bishop appointed for themselves by heretics, they dare even to set sail and carry letters from schismatics and blasphemers to the chair of Peter and to the principal Church [at Rome], in which sacerdotal unity has its source; nor did they take thought that these are Romans, whose faith was praised by the preaching Apostle, and among whom it is not possible for perfidy to have entrance." (Cyprian, Letter 59 (55), 14 to Cornelius of Rome, c. AD 252)
But I think the historian Warren H Carroll best explains the division between Cyprian and Stephen:
“Pope Stephen ordered Bishop Cyprian of Carthage and the African episcopate which followed his lead to discontinue the practice of re-baptizing persons who had originally received baptism from heretics”. “Pope Stephen specifically called for obedience on this matter by his authority as the successor of Peter. Cyprian refused to obey, despite his earlier statements AFFIRMING and GLORIFYING the PETRINE PRIMACY (emphesis mine) and the unity of the Church. But when Pope Stephen died the next year, his successor Sixtus II decided…not to press the issue further and tolerate for a time, without explicitly approving the practice of rebaptizing….Despite this important disagreement and Cyprian’s actual disobedience, he was never excommunicated, and remained in close contact with Rome” (Carroll, “A History of Christendom”, Vol. 1, “The Founding of Christendom, 1985, pp. 494-495).
It would appear that Cyprian was more at odds with his Pope and not the Papal office.
I appreciate you weighing in. After reading a bit and listening to this video we can see Cyprian was a complex person to read about. He clearly had profound respect for the authority of the bishop of Rome.
Even in examples of dissenting voices, the Papal claim is still apparent. So it obviously goes back a very long way and wasn't purely some medieval invention, as is often asserted.
I wonder if Catholics on here even listened to Gavin because they rarely if at all engage the specific content in the video. Instead, they often double down and churn out the same old talking points to try and support Rome.
Adam. Which specific piece of content did you think was most compelling and I will try and do my best to give my perspective.
@@MrTheKing537 as a Catholic I am interested to hear your thoughts. I am only mildly versed in the sprawling history of the Church so quite a bit of this video was news to me. I'm glad that Gavin refrained from using Pope Victor because, as he admits, that's quite a bit less favorable to his position. I also think the last example of Maximus the Confessor best illustrates the obstinancy and lack of willingnesd to participate in dialogue of modern laypeople more so than an admission on Maximus' part of the errancy of the Bishop of Rome (to his credit, Gavin admits this is the weakest point).
I am unfamiliar with the other examples brought up however. What are your thoughts?
@@michaelt5030 Please see my other comment on this video for additional reference, but the basis of my argument with most of Dr. Ortlund's scholarship; and many non-Catholic's, on Church history is that they go about it in reverse. They already have a preconceived answer to their theory then cherry pick bits and pieces from thousands upon thousand of documents (most of all provided and catalogued by the Catholic Church) in an attempt to prove their theory. For example Dr. Ortlund's video "Was There a Bishop of Rome in the First Century?" (3/1/2021), well the answer is "I don't know" (historically) and "who cares" (Theologically). The fact is there was not one in 33 AD because Jesus himself appointed Peter the first Pope while he was in Jerusalem. So this entire video does not a present a valid question because the Church doesn't claim nor has it ever, that "location" is the basis for the Papacy. The successor of Peter is the one and only authoritative basis for the Papacy.
This video does only one thing, it gives thousand of ignorant (in the classical sense of the word) people the idea that the Papacy is a fallacy.
Adam I know this is going back a month but was wondering if you would still like to dialogue on this subject?
The Papacy in the 3rd to 7th Centuries: Protestant Critique
"Is the vision of papal supremacy in Vatican 1 consistent with the beliefs and practices of the early church?"
1. The First Vatican Council was abruptly adjourned by Pope Pius IX in 1870 due to the outbreak of the Franco-Prussian War and the formation of the Kingdom of Italy whose troops surrounded the Vatican, in effect, making the pope a prisoner.
2. The Second Vatican Council took up what was left unfinished at Vatican I, particularly how infallibility was Christ's gift to His entire Church. The Vatican I dogmatic constitution Pastor Aeternus defined how the Pope, the bishop of Rome, head of the Apostolic See and successor to St. Peter, possessed infallibility, but this was never intended as the complete Church teaching.
3. There are two dogmatic constitutions among the Vatican II council documents, Lumen Gentium (On The Church) and Dei Verbum (On Divine Revelation) and are infallible teaching.
4. Lumen Gentium's Chapter III, On The Hierarchical Structure Of The Church and In Particular On The Episcopate, No. 25, completes the Church's teaching on infallibility that extends to (A) the teaching office of the bishops in communion with the Pope and (B) the guarantee that the Holy Spirit will preserve the entire church in accepting their teachings, commonly referred to as Sensus Fidei or 'sense of the faith'.
5. From Lumen Gentium No. 25: "Although the individual bishops do not enjoy the prerogative of infallibility, they nevertheless proclaim Christ's doctrine infallibly whenever, even though dispersed through the world, but still maintaining the bond of communion among themselves and with the successor of Peter, and authentically teaching matters of faith and morals, they are in agreement on one position as definitively to be held. This is even more clearly verified when, gathered together in an ecumenical council, they are teachers and judges of faith and morals for the universal Church, whose definitions must be adhered to with the submission of faith... The infallibility promised to the Church resides also in the body of Bishops, when that body exercises the supreme magisterium with the successor of Peter. To these definitions the assent of the Church can never be wanting, on account of the activity of that same Holy Spirit, by which the whole flock of Christ is preserved and progresses in unity of faith."
Gavin, you’ve done a lot of works telling us things about Catholicism that you believe are untrue. Could you do some videos explaining why you believe your Baptist faith is true?
Being consistent with the pattern of your though,...why for the "reform' the protestant movement does not come to the early church mode,..namely eukomenical sinode of 7 church, but somehow keep building a new church movement as a 3. Alternative. And therefore still/breaking up with the eastern church,...
It is just for (theological) truth only?...or for the new power (political) structure in western europe, whom power (political) structure did protected the elite leader of this kind reform movement...???..
Should the history of this kind re written accordingly,..??🤔
The Papacy in the 3rd to 7th Centuries: Protestant Critique
Response:
One 9th century example from the lives and writings of first millenium Church Fathers that are (A) venerated by the Orthodox Church and (B) designated as such by Dr. Constantine N. Tsirpanlis in his book Introduction to Eastern Patristic Thought and Orthodox Theology:
PHOTIUS THE GREAT
Orthodox Wikipedia: " Our father among the saints Photius the Great (also Photios; Greek Φώτιoς), Patriarch of Constantinople, is considered one of the greatest patriarchs of Constantinople. His feast day is celebrated on February 6."
"St. Photius was condemned as patriarch by the Robber Council of 869-870, but the Eighth Ecumenical Council (879-880) affirmed his restoration to his see. Although he was accused of causing the "Photian" Schism, he was recognized as a major peacemaker of that time. He reconciled with Patriarch Ignatius, who named him as his successor (for a second time) upon Ignatius' death in 877."
In the General Introduction of his book, Constantine Tsirpanlis argues that, in determining who shall receive Fatherly designation, “chronological limits are quite arbitrary and meaningless, since they exclude important Fathers of the Church, Eastern and Western…”
[Tsirpanlis, Constantine N., Introduction to Eastern Patristic Thought and Orthodox Theology, Theology and Life Series, 30 (The Liturgical Press: Collegeville, MN, 1991), p. 22]
The cut-off point would appear to be sometime just before the ninth century and this writer suggests it for the following reason: It was during the ninth century that Photius, Patriarch of Constantinople, objected to the ‘Filioque’ clause that had been added to the Nicean-Constantinopolitan Creed by the Latin Church, and which set into motion a dispute over Trinitarian doctrine that would persist until the present day in the break of communion between the Eastern and Western Churches. However, as research by the twentieth century Czech scholar Fr. Francis Dvornik revealed, Photius never at any time rejected the pope’s primacy in having universal jurisdiction over the entire Church, and he died in full communion with the See of Rome.
In a letter to the Pope John VIII, Photius wrote: “We may well ask you who is the Master who has taught you to act in this fashion? - Surely, above all, it is Peter, the leader of the Apostles whom the Lord has placed at the head of all the churches, when He said to him: ‘Feed my sheep’ [John 21:17]. Nor is it only Peter, but also the holy Synods and constitutions. And besides, it was the holy and orthodox decrees established by the Fathers, as is clear from your divine and holy letters.”
[Dvornik, Francis, Byzantium and the Roman Primacy. (Fordham University Press: New York, 1966), p. 113]
I think you should study the role of the pope today. It’s really not a big deal. It’s not like the pope is exercising authority over the Congress of bishops or anything. His role is merely as a servant of servants. It’s also such an important role to ensure unity and to look towards. There’s bishops that get out of line with the magisterium all the time and try to do their own thing. Having a pope makes the handling of these things much easier than having to call a whole conference of bishops together all the time to settle matters like this.
You're ignoring the fact that the Pope can define dogma whenever he wants.
@@TheEpicProOfMinecraf yeah name one time that has ever happened in history.
@@3joez3 "In 1950, Pope Pius XII declared the Assumption of Mary official dogma of the Roman Catholic Church. The Catholic Church teaches that the Virgin Mary 'having completed the course of her earthly life, was assumed body and soul into heavenly glory.'"
@@TheEpicProOfMinecraf this was believed throughout the whole church and throughout history. Not defined by the pope. Even check the original writings from Martin Luther
@@3joez3 It wasn't a dogma before. Now it is. My point stands.
Also, Church history started much longer ago than Luther. This dogma is nowhere found in the earliest writings of church fathers
Cyprian is a complex subject to talk about. He had profound respect for the office of Saint Peter. Also as far as his view that bishops do not have authority over other bishops, he does not seem to follow that view completely when he reaches out to the Pope to help settle a dispute with other bishops.
Also when you mentioned the idea of transubstantiation in another video as being too philisophical or something, you should study what transubstatiation is. It’s also not a big deal. It’s pretty obvious too. We know it’s appearance doesn’t change, but something about it does that we cannot see. That’s all that this concept holds.
In my mind, why would Jesus speak about the continuation of the “church’s powers” in riddle form?
Wouldn’t he have specifically said “Peter, you now have my powers of being Jesus”
I think I’d look at how people felt when WE killed Jesus, it’s not like they didn’t believe per say but that they didn’t want to relinquish their power at the time. Those same people “after” Jesus passed, saw opportunity to keep their power but be justified in it by it being of “Religious means”
Then the rewriting started
Copying, translating and “embellishing”
recommended books? Papalism?
Gavin, it is enough that some Christians in the first and second centuries saw Rome as the Petrine head of the Church - with authority even to excommunicate entire swaths of other Bishops.
@JD Apologetics Please quote the passage you are citing and then we can discuss it's meaning and whether the evidence from the early centuries is consistent.
@JD Apologetics Can we agree that before we can understand such statements we must first understand how such language is used within the Church by Catholics?
@JD Apologetics Then we are in agreement. So what do you know about the Church's meaning behind statements like "unanimous consent"? Are you under the impression that this means you cannot find any exceptions?
@JD Apologetics I am glad. Now, you dispute that a majority of Fathers saw Rome as having a unique Petrine headship over the Church universal?
"we must first understand how such language is used within the Church by Catholics?" This is part of the problem. This is circular logic in that you want everyone to accept Rome definition/meaning of the terminology "unanimous consent" etc. Anyone honestly and rigorously studying church history will not find anything like"unanimous consent" of the Fathers. Of course this is one reason why we presumably will never agree with each other because of differing presuppostions/assertions.
Didn't Athanasius appeal to Pope Julius after his local matter kicked him out of Alexandria? Wasn't Athanasius a participant in the council of Nicea itself? Seems strange a man present at the council would get it so wrong about jurisdiction ..
It seems to me problematic to interpret an appeal to Julius as entailing Roman supremacy, since other prominent bishops receive similar appeals.
@@TruthUnites Do you now know that this has been the custom, first to write to us, and thus for what is just to be defined from hence?
@@TruthUnites Seems like a wasted trip then to run to Rome where the bishop had no more authority than the bishops he just left in the East. Just look at the language of anathema invoked by Clement to Corinth. He understood he had jurisdiction.
@@MrPeach1 It's not wasted. Its effectual. I'm just saying it falls short of proving universal jurisdiction in the terms of Vatican 1. Again, other prominent bishops field similar appeals.
@@TruthUnites can you give me some examples of this just so I can know what appeals you are talking about? I want to see if we are talking apples and oranges here.
Idk but the disunity of the church, overall, seems to undermine apostolic succession but I still haven't even read the entire bible
That the supremacy of the Pope was "known in every age" cannot be proven false by pointing to several scattered examples of instances where certain bishops and theologians may have voiced disagreement with it. Vatican I did not claim that the supremacy of the Roman Pontiff was known by everyone or even necessarily a majority at every point in time. To prove the "known in every age" statement false would require a demonstration that no one (or at least almost no one) believed in papal supremacy at some point in history, making this claim from Vatican I actually much more modest than one might initially think.
I don’t think you are right , but for shits and giggles Let’s say that you are, that’s a beef between the East and west to sort out. One thing we all know for sure is that the early church was not Protestant. We have had a few heretical fathers that you can point to that may had sounded like they would agree with some of your thoughts. But the overall theme of the church is extremely catholic / orthodox not Baptist. your assumption or thoughts on the papacy leans you towards the orthodox side so why not join them ? I think you are a brilliant man and you’re very charitable when you speak about the church, this is why as I catholic I still watch your videos. But one thing is for certain the early church was not Baptist. Peace be with you.
I’ll take my prize now 😂.
Dear Dr. Ortland, I watched the whole video and was very sad that you’re not giving out prizes. You know what could be a prize for me? If you listen to my most recent release called, “Faith Of Least Resistance”. The second half of it is a concept calling out the progressive church. Note: Enneagram bad.
God bless you in the work you do good sir!
As a protestant, I look to Rome as a source of unity. I do think the church will always revolve somewhat around Rome. I find it very understandable that people, especially intellectuals, are drawn to be in union with Rome. Regardless of certain errors, the Bishop there plays an important role by just existing, though it can and has been misused. I also think there will always be confusion and disagreement in the church, and to pretend there isn't going to be, is not a good idea, and undermines unity more than most things. Btw. unity is not primarily about propositional agreement and being and doing the same, it is about loving one another, which I think is on the rise within the church in all her forms, and has been since the reformation.
Up until the bible was widely available, how much of the new testament would have been available to all the people providing their opinion (tradition) that the catholic churches doctrine are based on? I can see how people in the dark ages would blindly accept papal claims, given the complete lack of information available to the so called laity, but today blindly accepting papal claims seems, well blind!
If you want to discredit a doctrine, just point out how its followers cannot agree among themselves about various matters. We have a Pope to co-ordinate Catholic teaching so nobody can do that to us. I won’t pretend that Popes always do the job properly. Obviously the bishops of Malta and the bishops of Kazakhstan disagree over the interpretation of Amoris Laetitia.
All this talk is really great and interesting, it also can be helpful. But when does common sense come in! So from one verse in Matthew u get this whole system of a man supposedly, representing God on earth, carried around on a throne, at least in the past, priest with powers to make a wafer into flesh...just think about it a minute!
The papacy was established on St. Peter as the first leader of the Church that Christ establishes using Peter and the other Apostles as the first bishops of the Church. This is clear in Matt. 16:18-19 and
John 21:15-17 was the moment that Jesus actually gave to St. Peter the keys and the authority over His Church, the Catholic Church and gave Peter His sheep/followers. Peter has the primacy over the Church which includes a primacy of jurisdiction to rule and govern the flock and this is shown by His use of the Greek word, poimaine, which can mean to rule as in Rev. 2:27- “And he shall rule [poimanei] them with a rod of iron...”
Peter is mentioned more than any other Apostle in the Gospel.
Peter is mentioned 190 times in the New Testament. The next closest apostle in prominence in the Gospel, John, is just 29 times. Every list of the twelve Apostles has Peter's name first and Judas name last. In Mathew's list, he actually calls Peter the first, the chief or principle.
Mathew 10:2- “Now the names of the twelve apostles are these. The first [Greek word, protos], Simon, who is called Peter...”
Jesus talks about the chief among them in the following: Mathew 20:27- “And whosoever will be chief [protos] among you , let him be your servant.”
Acts Shows the Primacy of St. Peter:
Peter takes the primacy in Acts, by standing up in the midst of the disciples, directing the course of action to replace Judas, and telling them what they need to do to follow Christ.
Acts 1:15-20- “..Peter stood up in the midst of the disciples, and said, Men and brethren, this scripture must needs have been fulfilled, which the Holy Ghost by the mouth of David spake before concerning Judas, which was guide to them that took Jesus. For he was numbered with us, and had obtained part of this ministry...For it is written in the book of Psalms, Let his habitation be desolate, and let no man dwell therein: and his bishoprick let another take.”
Acts 2:14- “But Peter, standing up with the eleven, lifted up his voice, and said unto them, Ye men of Judea, and all ye that dwell at Jerusalem, be this known unto you, and hearken to my words:”
Peter takes the lead in answering the high priest in Acts 4:6-10,12 and Acts 5:29.
Peter meets out the punishment for the Church to Ananias and Sapphira in Acts 5:3-11.
Acts 10 tells of the first gentile convert, Cornelius and that he is told by the angel of God to go to St. Peter who will tell him what he must do to become part of the Church.
The vision that the old law's restriction against unclean food is ended is given to St. Peter and no one else in Acts 10:9-13.
In Acts 15, Peter clearly has the primacy in the first council of Jerusalem.
Acts 15:7- “And when there had been much disputing, Peter rose up, and said unto them, Men and brethren, ye know how that a good while ago God made choice among us, that the Gentiles by my mouth should hear the word of the gospel, and believe.”
After much discussion, Peter stands up and gives the decision.
www.mostholyfamilymonastery.com/catholicchurch/st-peter-acts-15-bible-papacy/ for more information.
James gives the decision In that everyone even Roman Catholic's accept James to be bishop in Jerusalem and he says I judge on the matter in acts Jerusalem council, secondly, the keys(whatever the keys mean is a seperate discussion) were given to all disciples not just Peter and this is supported by some Father's admitting as much...also just because someone is listed first doesn't mean they have infallibility and the whole 9 yards of authoritative claims Rome asserts for Peter (besides the fact later in the new testament in list Peter isn't named first)
lol yet James closes the council on his authority
MY KEEEEEEYZ
Just look at this logically, from a human perspective. Ask yourself....all of a sudden at Vatican I, after 1800 plus years of Church history, and 300 years after Trent, the magisterium of the Church is just going to invent the primacy of the Bishop of Rome? Every other man who was a bishop at that time is just going to roll over and give up their authority? Do you personally know any leader of any organization that would do that? If you don’t which I don’t either, that means the factors of our scholarship must be mistaken. We either don’t know the true historical facts of the Papacy and/or we don’t know the actual dogmatic platform of the Papacy.
If the bishops were not over the presbyters, how did they distinguish between the terms? I know that scripturally and according to your other video the early fathers used the terms interchangeably, but it sounds to me more like the apostolic fathers used ‘bishop’ almost for the ‘first amongst equals’ or the leader amongst the presbuters.
If not catholicism then what? Who has the autorithy to say what scripture means.. Can I pick the bible up and know for certain what it means? How do I know I am not fooling myself... Baptist vs. Pentecostal, who is the one being spirit led?
Thousands of denominatioms, who has it right? This is a serious issue within christianity who claims to follow THE RISEN LORD, which told us he would GUIDE his church into all truth...
And now, with people like Matthew Bates/NT Wright talking about the new perspective on Paul, (which is just really the old one btw) has evangelicals going crazy because it means Rome had it right at Trent....
even Paul said we know in part and prophecy in part. Non Roman Catholics don't feel the pscyhological need to have someone infallible ability to interpret all scripture and yet Rome hasn't even infallibly interpreted scripture and has only infallibly claimed 3 dogmas (marian) ironically the doctrines that many see to be the most in question and the least supported by scripture. So you say there's this need and Rome has authority to fill that need yet they don't.
Name 1 salvationAL doctrine that those denominations disagree on...the disagreements are secondary theological questions...all agree on Trinity, Death and Resurrection of Christ, ...if they don't then they can't rightly be called Christians.
@@Adam-ue2ig Are you joking ?
@@Adam-ue2ig the role of baptism; what constitutes a Christian; view of the bread and wine in the liturgy (even if they disagree with transubstantiation, they have varied opinions on it and its importance).
The early Church never taught the man made traditions of faith alone, or Scripture alone. Peace always in Jesus Christ our Great and Kind God and Savior, He whose Flesh is True food and Blood True drink
are you aware how notoriously off topic your comments often are?
@@TruthUnites I was going to say the exact same to you! Do you realize the early Church never taught faith alone, or Scripture alone?
Do you realize the office of sole key holder is one of succession biblically? You claim you do not see a leader among the 12 Apostles. Yet, Peter is mentioned 195 times, and the next of the 12 Apostles is John at 35 times. The Apostle Matthew acknowledges the primacy of Peter as he lists Peter as FIRST,, ( Protos, chief, leader, Matthew 10:1,2), when naming the Apostles! 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 and
@@matthewbroderick8756 new rule: you get one comment per video (plus responses to others). I'm happy to engage, but don't want my videos cluttered with random pro-Catholic assertions that are utterly extraneous to the topic of the video. It's counterproductive for genuine ecumenical dialogue.
@@TruthUnites new rule! Every time you post one of your anti Catholic videos, I will refute your errors and misrepresentations! No, you are not happy to engage at all with anyone who disagrees with you, as you falsely assert! 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 you are welcome to do so, friend. It will be a happy and welcome turn of events if the comments address the topic of the video. :)