Because Protestants would say it's a sign of Satan! They would compare him to witche's flying on brooms. If they only knew that nuns are able to glide on the floor.
Thank you so much for putting this video up. I watched it months ago, but forgot some of the details. I searched for it, but couldn't find it till now. I feel like I've found a lost treasure! I will write down on a piece of paper the name of your YT site so I never lose it again. There is such a wealth of historical detail to your video that one can't digest and remember all of it from one watching. I will keep re-watching to finally process and maintain wealth of info. Thank you again!!
I’m a huge fan of yours and really value the hard work you put into your content. Your lectures are very professional, highly detailed, have a bit of humor and can teach your viewers things, for free, things a lot of people have to pay money to go to college to learn. With that being said, I hope you page blows up and you can make some cash to get a new fridge my friend 🤣 I’ll deal with the humming sound in every video if it means I can hear your lectures!
Everything I've ever read about Augustine (and I studied Catholic Theology) says that he was living in Milan at the time of his conversion and was baptised by Ambrose - NOT Jerome as this video states...
I believe you are correct, in Confessions I am almost certain (I can’t find my book copy right now) that it was Ambrose who baptized Alypius, Adeodatus (Augustine’s son), and Augustine. I think also in confessions Augustine calls Ambrose his spiritual father.
@@comradeobunga6524 You're both right about that fact. He was certainly living in Milan at the time. Only after his mother died did he return to Africa.
You do a great job with these videos. They're clear, accurate, and well-paced and organized. You seem like a good dude, too. Thanks for the excellent content.
ok who decided Rome to be THE "primus inter pares" among all other cities? i mean, since the capital was no longer Rome for quite a while. why was Rome picked? why not Constantinople? or Jerusalem? what was the aim here?
This goes back to the rift between the Pope of Rome and the Patriarch's of the east, as well as the Lombard invasion and the crowning of Charlemagne as the Western Roman Emperor(which rightly miffed the Basileos in Constantinople) as the Pope needed protection from all that was happening. The future fall of Constantinople to muslim invasion cemented Rome "primus inter Pares"
He made a big fuss about that canon, refusing to accept it, which may have played a role in the widespread rejection of Chalcedonian doctrine in The Eastern Church.
Some errors in this video: -Ignatius of Antioch wasn't the first to state the claim of apostolic succession. 1. letter of Clement says it clearly in chapter 44 (read also chapter 42) in first century. Some date the letter to AD 96. Some date it as early as before AD 70. -even if bishop was at the top of each parish according to Ignatius of Antioch, according to him the Church of Rome presided and therefore implies the presiding of its bishop over others. -Pope Leo I wasn't the first one who claimed being a successor of Peter. Pope Stephen did this also in third century. -The claim of Pope's authority was implicitly so also when Pope Victor I in second century threatened asia minor churches with excommunication from the whole Church. This claim of authority is clear also from the letter of Clement in the first century.
Threat of excommunication from the whole church does not imply total papal supremacy. The church was universal, a Pope could threaten such a thing, go through with it, and due to the universality of the church, the other bishops would not share their chalice with the excommunicated. This was true of every bishop, because it was forbidden for any church to receive anyone excommunicated by any bishop. It was part of the territory with the church being a single, massive universal communion. It's not a special authority that the Pope had that the other bishops didn't.
The ROMAN Catholic Church in the West was transparently organized using the the best template available to them, namely the Roman Empire . A "spiritual" global empire with an elected emperor (Pope), a senate (College of Cardinals/Curia), provincial governors,(bishops/dioceses), a dedicated professional army (the clergy and the religious orders), and even an impressive capital city-state (the Vatican inside Rome itself).
What are you on about? The Cardinalate didnt exist until centuries after the West fell and the Senate was so irrelevant that it was basically completely redundant in the Eastern Empire
I’ve heard you mention several times that Trajan officially began the persecution of Christians and I’m curious of your view towards Nero’s persecutions and consecutive ones until Trajan. I was under the impression that Nero began widespread persecution and it wasn’t ended until Constantine. I know most Emperors didn’t pursue it to the max until Diocletian (unless I’m mixed on names). Anywho, respond or don’t, you’re clearly busy;)
Most of the pre-Diocletianic persecutions were localized affairs. Nero decided to use the Christians as a scapegoat for the Great Fire in 64 so that he himself could escape blame. Trajan and Pliny the Younger both had reservations about executing Christians, but decided that the Imperial Cult stood for the authority of the Empire and had to be upheld. Pliny only implemented it in his portion of Asia Minor.
There was a kind of doctrinal dispute in early Third Century Rome when the aristocratic Hippolytus repudiated the bishop partly for having dubious views about The Trinity and partly for being a former slave (and general muppet if we want to believe Hippolytus).
Hippolytus is sometimes said to have had himself elected antibishop and set up a schismatic church but he may have been maligned. It depends whether he was the author of the Philosophumena, a compendium of heresies in the style of Irenaeus the authorship of which is doubtful.
A case of the Importance of authorship. If the revered Hippolytus denounces the leaders of The Roman Church he'll be taken seriously. An anonymous malcontent not so much.
Vulgate Latin is the 4th century Latin. The church originally used Aramaic around Jerusalem, but spoke the vernacular language of Greek as it spread around the Mediterranean Sea. The gospels and epistles were written in Greek. There were classical Latin of the Republic of Rome, colloquial or Vulgate Latin of the people of Rome, and medieval Latin spoken after the fall of the WESTERN Roman Empire. The EASTERN Romman Empire switched to Greek since that was the language of business and education.
The Church of Rome was already given an arbitrating role in the affair of Paul of Samosata (268 - 72) but since the Bishop of Rome was too insignificant a a figure to bear the weight Aurelian associated the other Italian bishops. Carthage was not consulted, despite its importance in The Western Church.
Overall I liked the presentation. But there are a few particulars that I think you should've added. When the subject of the "origins"/development of thought on the papacy is in question, why didn't you feel it right to mention St Irenaeus' work in regard to the end of his statement in III, 3, ii? That statement is much more intense than the mere succession he lists. I could make a very strong argument that he taught papal infallibility, if we take that passage in conjunction with others from Book 4. It would've been nice if you went over disputes on papal authority from Sts Victor and Celestine, since those are the earliest ones... Again though, nice presentation as a whole.
Augustine was Gnostic thus, your 'St.' is questionable. Paul recalled only few and this was not important to him. Read his letters to Corinth. They are in the Bible.
I think you meant that Ireneaus traced his lineage back to the apostle John through his PREDECESSOR Polycarp. You said his SUCCESSOR Polycarp. Polycarp came first....
The first pope was suposed to be Flavius Clemens, but he blew it as he became sympathetic to the Jews and didn't follow Domitian's plan to establish a universal slave religion, through Domitian's extensions (Paul, Revelation, etc) to Titus' original false messiah for the jewish rebels.
The way you pronounced Chalcedon was horrific. It's kal-se-don, the "ch" is pronounced the Greek way, like in "Christ", "chemistry", "architecture". But apart from that, awesome video, interesting topic :) Keep it up!
Linus - son of caradoc was the first bishop of Rome. A celtic britain, in other words a cymro. When do you think the gospel came to britain? Y gwir yn erbyn y byd
Diocletian was the best emperor of the third century by far. Aurelian is second, but what he did was the equivalent of gluing a broken bowl back together, yes it’s now whole but it’s still unusable, Diocletian built a new bowl.
"If you want to be remember, make sure you get martyred" It really is amazing how many great men throughout history were marytyrs to their belief: Gandhi, MLK Jr, etc. Despite their lives being cut short, their actions and words have achieved immortality.
.... I would be sure to add John Huss, William Tyndal and 100's of thousands others who - like Huss & Tyndale, were all martyred because: A) they refused to compromise on the "Truth" And B) knew that it "was better to obey God than man" Peace to all........l
i dont think the NT ever says Peter is the leader after Jesus is crucified. James is the one that stands and gives final judgment in acts 15, not Peter. you also have book of Thomas that straight up says James is the leader after Jesus, now we know why the church banned that book.
Berber are not Arabs... They are Muslim yes but they are indigenous to North Africa... They have distinct languages and culture... Some have face tattoos.
Seems odd to me that Rome defends its authority because they killed Peter and Paul. Seems like it is the best initial argument against their having any authority.
I'm not a Catholic but this is a bad argument. God does not condemn a city because of its mistakes when it becomes penitent. And God would not hold the crimes of a church's persecutors against that church just because they lived in the same city, that would be cruel and unjust and generally make no sense, it'd be like blaming the Russian Orthodox for being murdered en masse by communists.
@@CHURCHISAWESUM the rome that killed Peter and Paul was the same rome that founded the church. think of rome as you would any politician, dont believe what they write or say, let their actions define who they were, pre Christian rome was an empire built on slavery, oppressing the poor, the rich held the power, they wealth, the influence, common people had nothing, they conquered free people, and all the rest, after Christianity rome was an empire built on slavery, oppressing the poor, the rich held the power, they wealth, the influence, common people had nothing, they conquered free people, and all the rest, same ole rome, nothing changed except they added burning people alive, torture inquisitions, and you were not allowed to question the church which was quite the opposite of what Jesus and Jews taught when they instructed students to question everything. it would be like blaming Russian Orthodox for killing Russian Orthodox, i mean who else would you blame.
I’d like y’all’s opinion on this, I heard someone say(I forget who) that the bubonic plague ruined the church, pre plague, the bishops and rest of the church where highly educated and HAD to be. The plague came and a huge majority of the church leaders died giving the last rights to those with the disease. So, the church had to lower its standards of recruitment drastically to fill those gaps since so many fathers, bishops etc died. With all of that, the church started to decline. Think that is far fetched or a good point?
It sounds a bit far-fetched, but then again, the loss of population was severe and we also have to remember that prosperity increased notably after the disease cleared up, which gave people other opportunities outside of the church. So, maybe? That being said, the Renaissance was now in full-swing and so there were more educated people than ever and a number of them were associated, directly or indirectly, with the Church. I am leaning "no", but it isn't the worst hypothesis I've heard.
Interesting that Jerome was named a saint specifically because he fought vigorously to keep the Apocrypha out of his Latin Vulgate translation because those books were considered uninspired.
That's not true at all. Both the Catholic and Orthodox churches, which are the apostolic churches and were a single united church in Jerome's day, uphold the deuterocanon as scripture and always have. The whole church was using the 3rd Century BC Septuagint, which had the books. This is the Bible that Jerome translated into the Latin Vulgate. Even the 1611 KJV Authorized Version has the full canon. It doesn't start falling out of usage until the 19th century and there's no legitimate reason as to why.
@@CHURCHISAWESUM Jerome did not want to include the apocrypha p, but was overruled. If you read Tobit and Maccabees, you will see clearly that statements made in there directly contradicts the message of Christ and his disciples. They were never quoted by them, and Beverly declares themselves inspired. The RCC gets some of its twisted theology from these books like purgatory, giving alms to get to heaven, indulgences to forgive sin, etc.
It’s so disturbing that your pronunciation is so flawed. Who says Augustine like that? It has an e on the end. I’m disturbed because you work in world history and teach others how to say things the wrong way. It’s pedagogically irresponsible . But I guess good enough for UA-cam… sigh
I don't think Peter was the bishop of anything. He was an evangelist to the Jews. He may have had a hand in starting the church in Jerusalem, but it was James, the half brother of our Lord, who was the elder of it. Even Paul wasn't a bishop. He was the evangelist to the Gentiles; leaving men like Timothy to oversee the church at Ephesus. They both started churches in the various cities/regions and left qualified men to pastor/oversee those churches.
@@elainemoreland3908 Elaine, the RCC will claim he was proclaimed "vicar of Christ" via Matthew 16. Just another passage they use to confirm their belief but reading something into it that never was.
@@davidhall2197 Bishop and Overseer is essentially the same thing, the episkopos. This is how the word has been used in Greek since the beginning. When Paul founded a church, he taught them and communed them as their priest and overseer. When he left, he would appoint a successor overseer and several priests. This is where the bishopric comes from, he and the other figures we see at the Council of Jerusalem are a network of Episkopoi that has already been established in the first generation.
Thersites, you clearly have not studied either Scriptures or Church documents which verify the primacy of the Bishop of Rome, the "Pontiff" or "Pope," over all the other bishops. Every apostle held an office that needed to be refilled when Judas betrayed Our Lord and committed suicide: "May another take his place of leadership." [Acts 1:20] "You are Peter, and on this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not prevail against it" [Matt 16:18] & "I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven." [Matt 16:19] Plus many more Scripture verses in both Old and New Testaments. A few of the early New Testament persons who documented the primacy of the Chair of Peter include Ignatius of Antioch b. 96 AD, Pope Clement's letter written between 92-102 AD, Irenaeus c. 180 AD, Tatian the Syrian c. 170 AD, Clement of Alexandria b. 150 AD, Tertulian c. 200 AD, Eusebius c. 314 AD, etc, etc, etc. Other than this error, your work is interesting!
What you just laid out is a very Catholic reading of the Bible and the development of a tradition which reaffirms itself across successive generations. The passages from Matthew certainly seem to support this reading, but had ancient and medieval church power struggles gone differently, I am sure that another city's bishopric could have advanced a claim to supremacy that would have had a decent chance of sticking.
@@ThersitestheHistorian Who cares about your hypothetical? The point is that when scripture and apostolic tradition is taken into account, there is absolutely no way to avoid the fact that St. Peter and his successors rule the Roman Church, even though St. Peter was in Antioch beforehand, secondly that this Roman Church presides over all of the Churches of the world, and they are subject to that authority. Feel free to try to prove me wrong on that btw.
@@tomthetominatorftw4106 The Orthodox churches don't subject themselves to Rome rule, so you can't say that the Roman Church presides over all the churches in the world. The Catholic Church in western countries is moribund and on the decline, few young men joining the priesthood , or young girls joining convents . The recent generations who were born into the Church but no longer practice or identify as Catholics is largely because of the Churches intrusive edicts against birth control, divorce, gays, etc.. which is very out of touch with contemporary cultural norms such as couples deciding for themselves how many children to have (and can afford to have). The expected submissiveness and unquestioning acquiescing to Church authority is more attuned to Third World countries, where the populace lacks the tradition of personal autonomy and the right to question authority - not to mention the great many Catholics in the West who are disgusted by the child molestations and rapes which have been covered-up by Church authorities for centuries till now due largely to public disclosure through the media, though the Church still obstructs criminal prosecution of child rapist priests. "Defrocking" is not the same as doing hard time as a pedophile in a penitentiary where child sexual predators are treated by other inmates as the scum they are - stiff collar or not.
@@sunnyboy4553 As for the Orthodox, you make a grave mistake in ignoring the fact that the Eastern schismatics split around 1054. There are plenty of Eastern patristic sources that clearly say that the Roman bishop by divine authority presides/rules over all the Churches in the world. Even Photius and St. Maximos the Confessor have said those things. If you like I can give you some of those quotes. The point is that autocephelosy as the schismatics have it is an invention of the 11th century. Now, Constantinople and Russia have split, not to mention the Old Believers and True Orthodox splitting far before them. Also, the Eastern Orthodox have little to no arguments against the Oriental Orthodox, who split in the fifth century over Chalcedon. As for your critique of the West, I find those arguments dishonest (I'm not saying you are dishonest btw). For instance, you talk of the Church commanding an unquestioned assent to Church teaching. What does this mean? That we don't provide reason to our doctrines, and refutations of heresies? Of course not! A lot of the works of the saints were r efutations of heresies. When the Jesuits before the suppression, for instance, converted pagans and heretics, they showed them with peace why the Catholic faith is true. Many of them were martyred by barbarians for doing such. As for the modern-day scandals, the rate of pedophilia among priests is actually quite less than that of the average population. The big problem is homosexual pederasty. These priests ect. Are defying Church teaching when they ordain a known homosexual, or let a known homosexual stay in office. Those who leave the Church over it forget that the heresies of ancient were such that the majority of priests fell for them, and the modern heresy of clericalism is a very real thing. Most, if not all, of the Latin rite problems in the liturgy can be traced back to the homosexual infiltration of the priesthood. Doctrines against abortion, contraceptives, divorce and remarriage come from scripture and sacred Tradition, so if people want to leave the Church so that they can be comfortable having unmoderated orgasms then so be it, that's on them.
@@sunnyboy4553 By the way, I totally agree with regards of punishing these priests. Defrocking is the spiritually necessary punishment, while the secular might range in the time served in prison etc..
It's an attested event held to by both the Orthodox and Catholic churches. We also still have the chains he wore and have preserved them as holy relics.
Unfortunately we'll never know ( or is it fortunately) what the global situation would exist today if the so called Holy Roman Church had not been established, had the Popes never existed. One thing for sure is it could not have been any worse.
The Christ AKA Christo's isn't a human being it's a title to achieve meaning anointed too ones higher self in flesh the barbaric west made it literal...
One fact that is not commonly known is: all Popes from Peter to current have the ability to fly. This power was granted by the Holy Spirit.
Because Protestants would say it's a sign of Satan! They would compare him to witche's flying on brooms. If they only knew that nuns are able to glide on the floor.
Thank you so much for putting this video up. I watched it months ago, but forgot some of the details. I searched for it, but couldn't find it till now. I feel like I've found a lost treasure! I will write down on a piece of paper the name of your YT site so I never lose it again. There is such a wealth of historical detail to your video that one can't digest and remember all of it from one watching. I will keep re-watching to finally process and maintain wealth of info. Thank you again!!
The Catholic Church adopted a classical Latin translation called _Nova_ _Vulgata_ in 1979. So Jerome's version is no longer official. (11:27)
I’m a huge fan of yours and really value the hard work you put into your content. Your lectures are very professional, highly detailed, have a bit of humor and can teach your viewers things, for free, things a lot of people have to pay money to go to college to learn. With that being said, I hope you page blows up and you can make some cash to get a new fridge my friend 🤣 I’ll deal with the humming sound in every video if it means I can hear your lectures!
I moved out of that apartment less than year after this video came out, by the way. I can't say that I miss that refrigerator.
Everything I've ever read about Augustine (and I studied Catholic Theology) says that he was living in Milan at the time of his conversion and was baptised by Ambrose - NOT Jerome as this video states...
I believe you are correct, in Confessions I am almost certain (I can’t find my book copy right now) that it was Ambrose who baptized Alypius, Adeodatus (Augustine’s son), and Augustine. I think also in confessions Augustine calls Ambrose his spiritual father.
@@comradeobunga6524 You're both right about that fact. He was certainly living in Milan at the time. Only after his mother died did he return to Africa.
Thanks!
You do a great job with these videos. They're clear, accurate, and well-paced and organized. You seem like a good dude, too. Thanks for the excellent content.
Thank you for the lecture.
ok who decided Rome to be THE "primus inter pares" among all other cities? i mean, since the capital was no longer Rome for quite a while. why was Rome picked? why not Constantinople? or Jerusalem? what was the aim here?
This goes back to the rift between the Pope of Rome and the Patriarch's of the east, as well as the Lombard invasion and the crowning of Charlemagne as the Western Roman Emperor(which rightly miffed the Basileos in Constantinople) as the Pope needed protection from all that was happening. The future fall of Constantinople to muslim invasion cemented Rome "primus inter Pares"
@@Imiss80sn90s yep I am reading right now the book "Byzanz, das zweite Rom", by Ralph Johannes Lilie. Highly recommended.
@@blazodeolireta I will look into it, thank you! Is that German?
@@Imiss80sn90s I'm reading it in Italian so I bet everithing it is also translated into English. and yeah, it is translated as Byzantium the 2nd Rome.
Peters death in Rome makes it
Ambrose baptised Augustine, not Jerome.
Yes, I was going to say the same
What was the Papal intervention after the setback at a Chalcedon? Did Leo I not ratify the decision of the Council? Thank you~
He made a big fuss about that canon, refusing to accept it, which may have played a role in the widespread rejection of Chalcedonian doctrine in The Eastern Church.
Your videos are fantastic my friend - keep it up!
Some errors in this video:
-Ignatius of Antioch wasn't the first to state the claim of apostolic succession. 1. letter of Clement says it clearly in chapter 44 (read also chapter 42) in first century. Some date the letter to AD 96. Some date it as early as before AD 70.
-even if bishop was at the top of each parish according to Ignatius of Antioch, according to him the Church of Rome presided and therefore implies the presiding of its bishop over others.
-Pope Leo I wasn't the first one who claimed being a successor of Peter. Pope Stephen did this also in third century.
-The claim of Pope's authority was implicitly so also when Pope Victor I in second century threatened asia minor churches with excommunication from the whole Church. This claim of authority is clear also from the letter of Clement in the first century.
He does not make any of those claims. Listen more carefully.
Threat of excommunication from the whole church does not imply total papal supremacy. The church was universal, a Pope could threaten such a thing, go through with it, and due to the universality of the church, the other bishops would not share their chalice with the excommunicated. This was true of every bishop, because it was forbidden for any church to receive anyone excommunicated by any bishop. It was part of the territory with the church being a single, massive universal communion. It's not a special authority that the Pope had that the other bishops didn't.
@@user-zt7ty1ne8h beat me to it
Very interesting topic, thank you
The ROMAN Catholic Church in the West was transparently organized using the the best template available to them, namely the Roman Empire . A "spiritual" global empire with an elected emperor (Pope), a senate (College of Cardinals/Curia), provincial governors,(bishops/dioceses), a dedicated professional army (the clergy and the religious orders), and even an impressive capital city-state (the Vatican inside Rome itself).
What are you on about? The Cardinalate didnt exist until centuries after the West fell and the Senate was so irrelevant that it was basically completely redundant in the Eastern Empire
@N o you're missing their point. He's just pointing out how the Catholic Church is Roman in name, origin, and structured like the old empire itself.
@@JonBrownSherman Numa's balls!!!
That's based
Is no one going to say anything about his pronunciation of Chalcedon???
Thank you, clear and informative.
I’ve heard you mention several times that Trajan officially began the persecution of Christians and I’m curious of your view towards Nero’s persecutions and consecutive ones until Trajan. I was under the impression that Nero began widespread persecution and it wasn’t ended until Constantine. I know most Emperors didn’t pursue it to the max until Diocletian (unless I’m mixed on names). Anywho, respond or don’t, you’re clearly busy;)
Most of the pre-Diocletianic persecutions were localized affairs. Nero decided to use the Christians as a scapegoat for the Great Fire in 64 so that he himself could escape blame. Trajan and Pliny the Younger both had reservations about executing Christians, but decided that the Imperial Cult stood for the authority of the Empire and had to be upheld. Pliny only implemented it in his portion of Asia Minor.
Thersites the Historian
Thank you 🙏. This makes a lot of sense:)
There was a kind of doctrinal dispute in early Third Century Rome when the aristocratic Hippolytus repudiated the bishop partly for having dubious views about The Trinity and partly for being a former slave (and general muppet if we want to believe Hippolytus).
Hippolytus is sometimes said to have had himself elected antibishop and set up a schismatic church but he may have been maligned.
It depends whether he was the author of the Philosophumena, a compendium of heresies in the style of Irenaeus the authorship of which is doubtful.
A case of the Importance of authorship.
If the revered Hippolytus denounces the leaders of The Roman Church he'll be taken seriously.
An anonymous malcontent not so much.
Vulgate Latin is the 4th century Latin. The church originally used Aramaic around Jerusalem, but spoke the vernacular language of Greek as it spread around the Mediterranean Sea. The gospels and epistles were written in Greek. There were classical Latin of the Republic of Rome, colloquial or Vulgate Latin of the people of Rome, and medieval Latin spoken after the fall of the WESTERN Roman Empire. The EASTERN Romman Empire switched to Greek since that was the language of business and education.
Excellent discussion of the evolution of the papacy!
This has, somewhat, a parallel to Israel in 1 Samuel 8.
"Oh, what a wicked web we weave when we practice to deceive."
The Church of Rome was already given an arbitrating role in the affair of Paul of Samosata (268 - 72) but since the Bishop of Rome was too insignificant a a figure to bear the weight Aurelian associated the other Italian bishops.
Carthage was not consulted, despite its importance in The Western Church.
Overall I liked the presentation. But there are a few particulars that I think you should've added.
When the subject of the "origins"/development of thought on the papacy is in question, why didn't you feel it right to mention St Irenaeus' work in regard to the end of his statement in III, 3, ii? That statement is much more intense than the mere succession he lists. I could make a very strong argument that he taught papal infallibility, if we take that passage in conjunction with others from Book 4.
It would've been nice if you went over disputes on papal authority from Sts Victor and Celestine, since those are the earliest ones...
Again though, nice presentation as a whole.
berbers are the original inhabitants of north Africa namely morocco Algeria and Tunisia BEFORE the arab Islamic invasion .
Wrong! St. Augustine was baptized by St. Ambrose. Read his Confession.
Augustine was Gnostic thus, your 'St.' is questionable. Paul recalled only few and this was not important to him. Read his letters to Corinth. They are in the Bible.
@@claydoyle5377 Former Gnostic honey, he repented after 9 years time
Seems odd he hadn't been baptized as an infant.
But I suppose late baptism was still usual in The Fourth Century.
Ambrose himself had not been baptised when he was elected bishop of Milan.
@Nationalist Doomer a very heretical one.
Augustinus was baptised by Ambrosius, not by Hieronymus
I think you meant that Ireneaus traced his lineage back to the apostle John through his PREDECESSOR Polycarp. You said his SUCCESSOR Polycarp. Polycarp came first....
I think he meant it as John's successor, Polycarp.
Berbers are not like Arabs
Yeah they resisted the initial Arab invasion and harassed the Muslim invading armies for centuries.
Who was the first Pope?
When was his Papacy established?
Who/when was the 2nd Pope?
The first pope was suposed to be Flavius Clemens, but he blew it as he became sympathetic to the Jews and didn't follow Domitian's plan to establish a universal slave religion, through Domitian's extensions (Paul, Revelation, etc) to Titus' original false messiah for the jewish rebels.
The way you pronounced Chalcedon was horrific. It's kal-se-don, the "ch" is pronounced the Greek way, like in "Christ", "chemistry", "architecture". But apart from that, awesome video, interesting topic :) Keep it up!
He is speaking English, not Greek.
if he’s such an astute historian he can learn how to accurately pronounce names, it’s quite easy, requires minimal effort actually
@@revolutioninformationburea6719 He is speaking English, not Arabic or Greek or whatever.
@@fantasia55 if he’s such an astute historian he can learn how to accurately pronounce names, it’s quite easy, requires minimal effort actually
since u needed to re read it
Linus - son of caradoc was the first bishop of Rome. A celtic britain, in other words a cymro. When do you think the gospel came to britain? Y gwir yn erbyn y byd
Diocletian was the best emperor of the third century by far. Aurelian is second, but what he did was the equivalent of gluing a broken bowl back together, yes it’s now whole but it’s still unusable, Diocletian built a new bowl.
"If you want to be remember, make sure you get martyred"
It really is amazing how many great men throughout history were marytyrs to their belief: Gandhi, MLK Jr, etc. Despite their lives being cut short, their actions and words have achieved immortality.
.... I would be sure to add John Huss, William Tyndal and 100's of thousands others who - like Huss & Tyndale, were all martyred because:
A) they refused to compromise on the "Truth"
And
B) knew that it "was better to obey God than man"
Peace to all........l
Where they really Roman or that's the question?
i dont think the NT ever says Peter is the leader after Jesus is crucified. James is the one that stands and gives final judgment in acts 15, not Peter. you also have book of Thomas that straight up says James is the leader after Jesus, now we know why the church banned that book.
What about St Hilary and St martin of tour
Berber are not Arabs... They are Muslim yes but they are indigenous to North Africa... They have distinct languages and culture... Some have face tattoos.
The massacre was at Thessalonica
Berbers are not "like Arabs". The process of colonization happened centuries after
They would be considered by us "like Arabs" if speaking to a mostly American audience.
Seems odd to me that Rome defends its authority because they killed Peter and Paul. Seems like it is the best initial argument against their having any authority.
RCC is the Roman empire. It has no authority from God.
I'm not a Catholic but this is a bad argument. God does not condemn a city because of its mistakes when it becomes penitent. And God would not hold the crimes of a church's persecutors against that church just because they lived in the same city, that would be cruel and unjust and generally make no sense, it'd be like blaming the Russian Orthodox for being murdered en masse by communists.
rome also killed Jesus
@@CHURCHISAWESUM the rome that killed Peter and Paul was the same rome that founded the church. think of rome as you would any politician, dont believe what they write or say, let their actions define who they were, pre Christian rome was an empire built on slavery, oppressing the poor, the rich held the power, they wealth, the influence, common people had nothing, they conquered free people, and all the rest, after Christianity rome was an empire built on slavery, oppressing the poor, the rich held the power, they wealth, the influence, common people had nothing, they conquered free people, and all the rest, same ole rome, nothing changed except they added burning people alive, torture inquisitions, and you were not allowed to question the church which was quite the opposite of what Jesus and Jews taught when they instructed students to question everything.
it would be like blaming Russian Orthodox for killing Russian Orthodox, i mean who else would you blame.
Cyprian insulted the Bishop of Rome with the pagan title “Pontifex Maximus”
I’d like y’all’s opinion on this, I heard someone say(I forget who) that the bubonic plague ruined the church, pre plague, the bishops and rest of the church where highly educated and HAD to be. The plague came and a huge majority of the church leaders died giving the last rights to those with the disease. So, the church had to lower its standards of recruitment drastically to fill those gaps since so many fathers, bishops etc died. With all of that, the church started to decline. Think that is far fetched or a good point?
It sounds a bit far-fetched, but then again, the loss of population was severe and we also have to remember that prosperity increased notably after the disease cleared up, which gave people other opportunities outside of the church. So, maybe? That being said, the Renaissance was now in full-swing and so there were more educated people than ever and a number of them were associated, directly or indirectly, with the Church. I am leaning "no", but it isn't the worst hypothesis I've heard.
Interesting that Jerome was named a saint specifically because he fought vigorously to keep the Apocrypha out of his Latin Vulgate translation because those books were considered uninspired.
That's not true at all. Both the Catholic and Orthodox churches, which are the apostolic churches and were a single united church in Jerome's day, uphold the deuterocanon as scripture and always have. The whole church was using the 3rd Century BC Septuagint, which had the books. This is the Bible that Jerome translated into the Latin Vulgate. Even the 1611 KJV Authorized Version has the full canon. It doesn't start falling out of usage until the 19th century and there's no legitimate reason as to why.
@@CHURCHISAWESUM Jerome did not want to include the apocrypha p, but was overruled. If you read Tobit and Maccabees, you will see clearly that statements made in there directly contradicts the message of Christ and his disciples. They were never quoted by them, and Beverly declares themselves inspired. The RCC gets some of its twisted theology from these books like purgatory, giving alms to get to heaven, indulgences to forgive sin, etc.
Comments make me think this video is full of errors
It’s so disturbing that your pronunciation is so flawed. Who says Augustine like that? It has an e on the end. I’m disturbed because you work in world history and teach others how to say things the wrong way. It’s pedagogically irresponsible . But I guess good enough for UA-cam… sigh
Berners.are.not.like.Arabs. different people.
"The berbère were kinda like Arabs" Stopped the video right there...
Free World Sensus
90.000000000
I find it hilarious that the Pope’s lineage begins with Peter yet he was the Bishop of Antioch. As leader of the Church? Fine. Don’t lie... *Rome*
I don't think Peter was the bishop of anything. He was an evangelist to the Jews. He may have had a hand in starting the church in Jerusalem, but it was James, the half brother of our Lord, who was the elder of it. Even Paul wasn't a bishop. He was the evangelist to the Gentiles; leaving men like Timothy to oversee the church at Ephesus. They both started churches in the various cities/regions and left qualified men to pastor/oversee those churches.
Peter was not a Pope. The NT would have mentioned that. Also RCC did not come until pagans (Greek and Roman empires) the hijacked the true faith.
I may have to stand corrected, wyatt. You may be right about him being bishop of Antioch.
@@elainemoreland3908 Elaine, the RCC will claim he was proclaimed "vicar of Christ" via Matthew 16. Just another passage they use to confirm their belief but reading something into it that never was.
@@davidhall2197 Bishop and Overseer is essentially the same thing, the episkopos. This is how the word has been used in Greek since the beginning.
When Paul founded a church, he taught them and communed them as their priest and overseer. When he left, he would appoint a successor overseer and several priests. This is where the bishopric comes from, he and the other figures we see at the Council of Jerusalem are a network of Episkopoi that has already been established in the first generation.
Thersites, you clearly have not studied either Scriptures or Church documents which verify the primacy of the Bishop of Rome, the "Pontiff" or "Pope," over all the other bishops. Every apostle held an office that needed to be refilled when Judas betrayed Our Lord and committed suicide: "May another take his place of leadership." [Acts 1:20]
"You are Peter, and on this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not prevail against it" [Matt 16:18] & "I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven." [Matt 16:19] Plus many more Scripture verses in both Old and New Testaments.
A few of the early New Testament persons who documented the primacy of the Chair of Peter include Ignatius of Antioch b. 96 AD, Pope Clement's letter written between 92-102 AD, Irenaeus c. 180 AD, Tatian the Syrian c. 170 AD, Clement of Alexandria b. 150 AD, Tertulian c. 200 AD, Eusebius c. 314 AD, etc, etc, etc.
Other than this error, your work is interesting!
What you just laid out is a very Catholic reading of the Bible and the development of a tradition which reaffirms itself across successive generations. The passages from Matthew certainly seem to support this reading, but had ancient and medieval church power struggles gone differently, I am sure that another city's bishopric could have advanced a claim to supremacy that would have had a decent chance of sticking.
@@ThersitestheHistorian
Who cares about your hypothetical? The point is that when scripture and apostolic tradition is taken into account, there is absolutely no way to avoid the fact that St. Peter and his successors rule the Roman Church, even though St. Peter was in Antioch beforehand, secondly that this Roman Church presides over all of the Churches of the world, and they are subject to that authority. Feel free to try to prove me wrong on that btw.
@@tomthetominatorftw4106 The Orthodox churches don't subject themselves to Rome rule, so you can't say that the Roman Church presides over all the churches in the world. The Catholic Church in western countries is moribund and on the decline, few young men joining the priesthood , or young girls joining convents . The recent generations who were born into the Church but no longer practice or identify as Catholics is largely because of the Churches intrusive edicts against birth control, divorce, gays, etc.. which is very out of touch with contemporary cultural norms such as couples deciding for themselves how many children to have (and can afford to have). The expected submissiveness and unquestioning acquiescing to Church authority is more attuned to Third World countries, where the populace lacks the tradition of personal autonomy and the right to question authority - not to mention the great many Catholics in the West who are disgusted by the child molestations and rapes which have been covered-up by Church authorities for centuries till now due largely to public disclosure through the media, though the Church still obstructs criminal prosecution of child rapist priests. "Defrocking" is not the same as doing hard time as a pedophile in a penitentiary where child sexual predators are treated by other inmates as the scum they are - stiff collar or not.
@@sunnyboy4553
As for the Orthodox, you make a grave mistake in ignoring the fact that the Eastern schismatics split around 1054. There are plenty of Eastern patristic sources that clearly say that the Roman bishop by divine authority presides/rules over all the Churches in the world. Even Photius and St. Maximos the Confessor have said those things. If you like I can give you some of those quotes. The point is that autocephelosy as the schismatics have it is an invention of the 11th century. Now, Constantinople and Russia have split, not to mention the Old Believers and True Orthodox splitting far before them. Also, the Eastern Orthodox have little to no arguments against the Oriental Orthodox, who split in the fifth century over Chalcedon.
As for your critique of the West, I find those arguments dishonest (I'm not saying you are dishonest btw).
For instance, you talk of the Church commanding an unquestioned assent to Church teaching. What does this mean? That we don't provide reason to our doctrines, and refutations of heresies? Of course not! A lot of the works of the saints were r efutations of heresies. When the Jesuits before the suppression, for instance, converted pagans and heretics, they showed them with peace why the Catholic faith is true. Many of them were martyred by barbarians for doing such.
As for the modern-day scandals, the rate of pedophilia among priests is actually quite less than that of the average population. The big problem is homosexual pederasty. These priests ect. Are defying Church teaching when they ordain a known homosexual, or let a known homosexual stay in office. Those who leave the Church over it forget that the heresies of ancient were such that the majority of priests fell for them, and the modern heresy of clericalism is a very real thing.
Most, if not all, of the Latin rite problems in the liturgy can be traced back to the homosexual infiltration of the priesthood.
Doctrines against abortion, contraceptives, divorce and remarriage come from scripture and sacred Tradition, so if people want to leave the Church so that they can be comfortable having unmoderated orgasms then so be it, that's on them.
@@sunnyboy4553
By the way, I totally agree with regards of punishing these priests.
Defrocking is the spiritually necessary punishment, while the secular might range in the time served in prison etc..
Uh, yeah. Funny since Peter's alleged crucifixion in Rome is just an unattested claim, that isn't really plausible.
It's an attested event held to by both the Orthodox and Catholic churches. We also still have the chains he wore and have preserved them as holy relics.
Monophysitism ...
Unfortunately we'll never know ( or is it fortunately) what the global situation would exist today if the so called Holy Roman Church had not been established, had the Popes never existed. One thing for sure is it could not have been any worse.
The modern world today is the way it is because history happened the exact way it happened, particularly the western world.
Serapis Christos and Christ is one and the same created deity created for the Macedonians by the malachite Coptic Egyptian priest...
The Christ AKA Christo's isn't a human being it's a title to achieve meaning anointed too ones higher self in flesh the barbaric west made it literal...
I concur🙏🏻
Gnostic much?