A Critique of the Papacy

[@alajxandro1907]

When Peter was rebuked by Paul, he did not anathematize Paul. Peter was much more humble than his "successors".

[@Alfredo8059]

Peter was rebuked by Paul for a conduct, not a doctrine. Big difference!

[@jd3jefferson556]

Well said, Christianity is filled with nuonce, and this is one of the best examples of Pope Peter being a hypocrite and a scandal ​but he wasn't teaching with any authority, he was just acting unbecoming of a Christian. Popes are human beings but when they are teaching they have a special protection from the Holy Spirit and only when they are speaking edmx cathedra is it considered infallible @Alfredo8059

[@LorenzoPelupessy]

Cold!!!

[@regostMMA]

@@Alfredo8059 pretty sure that many of your corrupted popes would've still anathematized some calling out the conduct of those popes.

[@matthewmilam6578]

People often overlook that Antioch and Alexandria were also churches founded by Peter and for awhile also had just as much of a 'legitimate' claim as the Roman bishops.

[@Mygoalwogel]

They also always blame the protestants for splitting the church. But the authoritarianism of Rome and Constantinople have persecuted the following non-reformation churches: Old Believers, Union of Utrecht, Union of Catholic Apostolic Churches, sedevacantist conclaves, Genuine Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, Syrian Church of the East, Assyrian Church of the East, Chaldean Church of the East.

[@mario.migneault]

Works from faith Prayers are fruits or works ? How is praying fruit or works according to scripture. Fruit: you can not bear FRUIT but by Jesus, abide In Jesus. "Believe in the father, believe in me", Jesus. (book of John ). Be a model of good works.(Titus). Jesus & imager of God. 2 Cor 4.4. jesus is the image of god Roman 8:29 conform to the image of his son Colossian 3:10 renewed in knowledge in the image of its Creator. 2 Cor 3:18 And we all, who with unveiled faces contemplate the Lord's glory, are being transformed into his image. (veil off the face of Jesus in the tomb, John 20:7). We are imagers to believers and unbelievers...embassadors of christ to other imagers and non imagers or impart. 2 Cor. 5:20 Not creating images of christ, living people or beasts. Our santification through faith as imagers of christ. God works in us and through us in faith. We are the imagers of Christ. We should not need created images of living beings made with hands but show others through our love for one another and good deeds in the church first and to non believers. (Book of Acts). If the spirit of God lives in the believer, why pray to anyone else but to the most high. Why by pass the holy spirit in us and try to reach him by prayers to others ? Who santifies, God or others ? Hail, do I pray, worship or do good works to a tree, the universe, the sun, false gods, money or dead people etc? Certainly not, for this is done by non believers or partial believers and I am now in Christ. Why would I go back and keep crucifying Christ ! (Hebrews 6:6). Is praying a form of worship or a form of works through faith. At the crucifiction, The veil of the Jewish temple was torn open, (Matthew 27:51) and 40 years later the Jerusalem temple was then destroyed. Only the priests had access in the Temple. (Book of Leviticus). Well, the most high made it clear, he no longer wants these kinds of temples and priests as mediators. We have direct access to the thrown of God, no more veils and no more priests. But yet some call themsekves priest and act as mediatos : arw not these dead works of the alliance. My wedding alliance is to Christ. At the well Jesus said, "one day people will not worship on mountains but in spirit: (John 4:21-24). Notice that He does not say worship to the spirits, angels or sons of God, because we are temples individually and collectively. (1 Cor. 6:19). We can proclaim we are the new mountains (temples) in us. It may explain when Jesus said, you can move mountains ! (Matthew 17:20, Mark 11:23-24). Through out the Bible, places of worship of gods were on mountains or high places. So lets move some mountains wth the spirit of God, for the gates of hell will not withstand, this was said on a Mountain. I you want to nove mountains, you better build your house of the Lord on the rock of Christ. To serve & love one another as Christ did. Jesus said, no one comes to the father except by me.(John 14:6) Apostle Paul said Jesus is our mediator. (1 Timothy 2:5 & Hebrews 9:15 & Galatians 3:20). The spirit in us intercedes for us (Romans 8:27). Who do you think the man Jesus prayed to ? The answer is clear but if you do not know, the spirit Father and who is the creator. Scripture is clear, God says" I am a jealous God" (2 Cor. 11:2, Deut. 5:9). Understanding Imaging through faith. Genesis: Created in the image of God or in action it is epounded, created as IMAGERS of God. When I sat down to write this, I thought how can I image Christ and I wept for He was crucified while I was still a sinner and how many times I tried to work my way up. Romans 5:8. What would he say, the scriptures tell us his thoughts ! Not all but quite enough to guide me and it all starts : "The fear of God is the beginning of wisdom & knowledge" (Proverbs 9:10, Proverb 1:7). I wish us all, more wisdom and knowledge in the father, the son and holy spirit. (God the most High). Index : Glory to God only verses ! Halleluyah ! Psalm 34:3, Jeremiah 9:23-24, Luke 1:46, 1 Peter 4:11, Romans 8:26, John 7:27, Ephesians 1:13, Psalm 50:23 , Psalm 22:23, Ephesians 2:10 , John 8:12 ESV , enlgish standard version bible.

[@EcclesiastesLiker-py5ts]

Antioch was where we were first called Christians, it has better claim than Rome.

[@williamnathanael412]

Isn't Alexandria by Mark?

[@junkim5853]

@@williamnathanael412 Yes, but the Catholic Church recognize that Mark was a disciple of Peter and he wrote one of the Gospels which is why the Alexandrian Church have a genuine Petrine tradition.

[@Magnulus76]

The Papacy is a concept that developed over the centuries due to political factors unique to western Europe.

[@QuisutDeusmpc]

The papacy is an office Jesus Christ founded in His Church.

[@illyriansaint]

​@@QuisutDeusmpcNo, He didn't.

[@kazager11]

​@@QuisutDeusmpcNPC

[@QuisutDeusmpc]

@@kazager11 ABC...DEF...GHI...

[@QuisutDeusmpc]

@@FirstJohn2.12-17 What is an NPC?

[@caedmonnoeske3931]

As a Calvinist I greatly respect and love my Lutheran brethren!

[@BibleLovingLutheran]

We love you too

[@caedmonnoeske3931]

@@BibleLovingLutheran Thank you and God bless!

[@augustineonuigbo9360]

U al are same product of ones madness

[@BibleLovingLutheran]

@@augustineonuigbo9360 how so?

[@carlopiedad6429]

We love you too and I love my Reformed brethrens here in my city

[@dennistakashima2449]

Reformed, but I have looked for Lutheran KZbin channels for a long time. I like to keep up on information from all the Churches and their theologies. Thank you and God bless.👍

[@hairyrope1912]

Can't wait for the Pope to release his new video, "A critique of Jordan Cooper."

[@PInk77W1]

Ty Somers should be any day now.

[@bethanyann1060]

I think y’all feel threatened by Dr. Cooper because it challenges what you have been taught by your church.

[@PInk77W1]

Bethany the Biologist never heard of Dr Copper ? Does he say Catholics are wrong ? 2000yrs and the pope is still in Rome.

[@bethanyann1060]

@@PInk77W1 What is your point? Dr. Cooper has studied the church fathers extensively and theology in general. He knows his stuff. You are belittling him by trying to make him out to be an ignoramus who printed out his degree on his home computer.

[@PInk77W1]

Bethany the Biologist the Bible says the church is the truth. The Bible doesn’t say Dr Copper is the truth That is my point.

[@laiquende9971]

Thanks for the video! I’m taking Early Church History for my M.Div. right now so your videos have been great to listen to as commentary on what I’m studying.

[@jd3jefferson556]

6 early Church controversies. I love Church history also. These early controversies are interesting, enjoy: kzbin.info/www/bejne/rqipmqyQm8xkoLcsi=Czb6VFWjgjV-n0Yq

[@rolandovelasquez135]

Exactly. At minute 14. Why did the writer of the Greek Matthew not write, " you are Petros and upon this petros I will build my Church." ?

[@theodosios2615]

Because Petros is the Greek name for Peter. It does not mean rock. Petra does.

[@johna4387]

@@theodosios2615Petra is feminine, no? So it wouldn’t make sense to give a male a feminine name, he would be called the male form of “Petra.” Peter still means rock, it’s just the male version. This is Protestants grasping at straws to deny what is clear in the Bible

[@benjaminhawthorne1969]

I speak spanish. And in Latin languages, the difference between masculine and feminine pronunciations is even more clear a cut than in English. For example, male is "petros," pronounced "petrows." While feminine would be "petras" pronounced "petrahs."

[@michael7144]

"Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" but also "absent evidence, isnt evidence"

[@davidw.5185]

I have yet to see why the place where Peter dies is somehow the most significant place. Why not the place he was born or even Jerusalem? Peter certainly visited hundreds of places in his travel. Why does his death, in a specific city, make that place the loci of ecclesiastical authority? Again, it seems to be just tradition made to back the Bishop of Rome's claims over the centuries. Thank you for the video.

[@donatist59]

Peter famously founded the church of Antioch. Why isn't the bishop of Antioch his successor?

[@Alfredo8059]

In the words of Protestant scholar D.A. Carson, Peter was “in Rome about 63 (the probable date of 1 Peter). Eusebius implies that Peter was in Rome during the reign of Claudius, who died in 54 (H.E. 2.14.6)” (An Introduction to the New Testament, 180). Peter may not have always been present in Rome (which would explain why Paul does not address him in his epistle to the Romans), but there is a solid tradition that Peter founded the Church in Rome and later died there. For example, Paul says the Roman Church was founded by “another man” (Rom. 15:21), and St. Ignatius of Antioch told the Christians in Rome he would not command them in the same way Peter had previously commanded them. At the end of the second century, St. Irenaeus wrote, “The blessed apostles [Peter and Paul], having founded and built up the church [of Rome], they handed over the office of the episcopate to Linus” (Against Heresies 3:3:3).

[@robertdelisle7309]

@@Alfredo8059 But Paul in his own words admits he did not found the church in Rome. So Ignatius is wrong in this regard. Ignatius’ tradition was incorrect .

[@robertdelisle7309]

@@donatist59Rome was only significant because it was the hub of secular power in the Empire. Interesting, Jerusalem was the hub of spiritual power and significance because it was where Jesus died and rose from death and was the place where the church was born during Pentecost when the Holy Spirit was given. The head of the church in Jerusalem was James, brother of Jesus.

[@donatist59]

@@robertdelisle7309 Exactly. I wrote a whole book on that many years ago!

[@carbine090909]

I get the impression that Jesus is doing wordplay in the same way we read in the OT, where a certain person or place is renamed to commemorate some watershed moment. Such an attribute is not conferred to children or travellers, but IS meant to be recalled by them, to the glory of God. Also, a year later, hope you are all feeling healthy during COVID-19. ❤️

[@dylanakers7272]

Have you heard this argument about Ignatius' letter to the Romans and if so, what do you think about it? Though Ignatius does not acknowledge a bishop in Rome, which could be expected if Rome was the undisputed leader of the Church, he does not instruct the Roman church in the same manner that he instructs the other churches he writes to in his authentic letters. In my opinion, it's important in the Roman letter that as the bishop of Antioch, which to my limited knowledge was an influential church in both the early and apostolic church and beyond, he specifically mentions that he does not command the Roman church as Peter and Paul did and doesn't instruct them in proper Eucharistic procedure, Christology, or the moral topics of his other letters. Rather, he seems to just praise them and asks them not to save him from his martyrdom. In my view, while it's certainly a stretch to conclude Rome's claims about itself from this perspective alone, it does imply some sense of submission on Ignatius' part towards Rome's authority and gives evidence of Peter's leadership there. What do you think?

[@Mygoalwogel]

Trivia: Antioch is also a see of Peter. The Bishops of Antioch and Alexandria are sometimes called Pope.

[@KennyBare]

I think the best argument against popery is the sheer corruption and wickedness of the office. Covering up pedofile scandals, issuing indulgences, etc.

[@dioscoros]

That's a non sequitur fallacy. Infallible under very limited circumstances but not impeccable.

[@KennyBare]

@@dioscoros but doesnt the bible give very strict requirements over who can be a bishop?

[@dioscoros]

@@KennyBare The Bible indeed gives strict requirements over who is to be ORDAINED a priest, bishop, or even deacon for that matter. That's why the Church forbids the ordination of homosexuals, pedophiles and other sexual deviants. Unfortunately, we see these rules being neglected in the modern era. But that has no bearing on the validity of said ordination, that would be the heresy of Donatism.

[@KennyBare]

@@dioscoros you see, that's why I dont see donatism as heretical. If a bishop or preist doesnt meet the requirements mandated by the new testament, how can we distinguish between God's church and a heretical sect?

[@cliffpyle3155]

K. Lewis . Nobody seems to have heard of Rodrigo Borgia (Alexander VI) who reigned just before Luther. He was one of vilest depraved , if not the the most evil of all times. Sex orgies, corruption, politics slander and everything else that was evil was in his resume. Hugh Hefner would have been declared a saint beside Rodrigo.

[@Hypnotoad206]

Jesus is basically telling Peter that he is a “chip off the old block” literally, lol

[@ethanhocking8229]

Haha. If you think about it, even if you could prove that the Bishop of Rome was somehow leading the Early Church because of the Roman congregation being a church that Peter planted, that wouldn't actually prove anything about the Vatican itself or negate the cause of the Reformation. Because we have to recognise that the Church was still basically a seedling movement. With all the opposition and heresy they were having to combat, it would not be surprising if they had a designated leader. And it would not be surprising if he was chosen as the leader due to him having a closer connection to the original leader than anyone else did. The Christians in Rome would have been a lot more familiar with Peter's teachings.

[@Hypnotoad206]

@@ethanhocking8229 exactly. This is why I tell people that the phrase “Catholic” existed long before “Roman Catholic”

[@henrykai777]

@@Hypnotoad206 not really. They’re exactly the same. Roman Catholics are those who use the Latin Rite, and also which also helps distinguish from the other rites such as the Byzantine Catholics who are all in communion.

[@Alfredo8059]

@@Hypnotoad206 ,,"Roman Catholic was originally a pejorative term. Following the pejorative term "papist", attested in English since 1528, the terms "Popish Catholic" and "Romish Catholic" came into use in English during the Protestant Reformation. From the 17th century, "Roman Catholic Church" has been used as a synonym for the Catholic Church by some Anglicans and other Protestants in English-speaking countries. The phrase is used by Catholics to emphasize the unique communion of the Catholic Church with the Bishop of Rome, the Pope, considered to be the successor to Saint Peter. The reality is that the Catholic Church represents the rest of historical christianity with its 24 rites.

[@Wanttoknowabout]

Excellent video. I was wondering if you would do a video on the Church Fathers on Justification by Grace alone through faith alone?

[@reformedcatholic457]

Yep, that would be great.

[@Who63]

They have no Church Fathers. They have no history. It is not through faith alone that we are saved. Read the Book of James. end of story.

[@devinmassengill9153]

Davina How about, Romans, Ephesians, Galatians, Philippians, and Titus? Oh and also saying, “they have no church fathers,” doesn’t prove anything. Provide some evidence that claim.

[@70AD-user45]

@@devinmassengill9153 All of St.Paul's teachings on "faith alone" were concerned with the works of Old Covenant Torah (works of the flesh) passing away. That doesn't exclude Christians from doing works (of the Spirit) for salvation, it happens to a different type of works to Torah. Luther got it wrong.

[@toomanymarys7355]

@@Who63 You guys need to stop trying to raid theologians who would anathemaized the modern papacy and pretend they are yours.

[@paulstephen3257]

Ireanus, another writer in the second century does clearly talk about the primacy of the bishop of rome. He urged victor( the bishop of Rome) not to excommunicate the eastern bishops in 190 A.D. , but said he had the authority to promulgate doctrine and that other churches must obey it. Obviously the eastern bishops disagreed so I think you could make a case for both sides quoting the church fathers.

[@sleepingtheologian2122]

Tuning in from the Free Methodist Church! Keep up the good work 😇

[@GustAdlph]

The RCC teaches that Saint John was the last living apostle. When Linus succeeded Saint Peter, who had the primacy, John or Linus?

[@derrickbonsell]

The other patriarchs had to deal with organized bishoprics under them that were well organized even before the pentarchy took form under the later empire. In contrast there were relatively fewer churches in the west and thus Rome had less challenge in her district. It's not until the Byzantine and Carolingian periods that the Papacy began to take form in a manner we'd recognize today.

[@arlindodossantos2305]

If the pope is infallible or in charge or head of the "true ( only) church" why are there different church reprimanded in the book of Revelation ( the different church are warned as a collective people?

[@reformedcatholic457]

Question for everyone, if Rome was like the eastern Orthodox, i don't think there would have been a reformation, does anyone agree with that? I think the pope was largely to blame what was going on, hence why eastern Orthodoxy is less corrupt. Thoughts? Edit: Seems like to me the Eastern Orthodox do not have a clear view on Justification if not a process works based view which is problematic.

[@jchrist4us]

Seeing as both churches split much earlier, I don't see how the East could prevent such a thing from happening. Plus these questions aren't really worth asking because there were so many factors that were involved during the Reformation.

[@colinmcnamara7999]

Biblical Christianity the east just has the patriarchs who seem to operate as mini popes over regions

[@Nnamwerd]

No, I don't think the Reformation would've taken place if not for the papacy.

[@reformedcatholic457]

@@Nnamwerd Because the papacy opened the door to heresy. Too much power for one man.

[@Nnamwerd]

@Asaph Vapor What I meant by that is, if the great schism of 1054 had never happened, I don't think the Reformation would've ever happened. Doctrines such as the Papacy, transubstantiation, purgatory, indulgences, etc, would've never come into being. Thus, no reformation.

[@cwstreeper]

I really enjoy your videos. This one in particular was helpful as I always had a lot of questions about the Papacy.

[@elizabethrene1320]

In regards to Ignatius' epistle to Rome, he *was* on his way to Rome to be martyred. The church at Rome was facing heavy persecution. It's entirely conceivable Ignatius wouldn't mention anyone at that church in order to conceal their identity and protect them.

[@stephenkneller6435]

That is entirely possible. However, why wouldn’t he acknowledge at least the office, even without naming the holder?

[@BachClarinet]

This was an awesome video! Very helpful.

[@kurtjensen1790]

Basically you said everything that came to my mind. Thanks!

[@Cowboybrian01]

The Pope has made some very unbiblical and very outlandish claims recently, I think I read he said atheist could go to heaven even if they don’t believe in God... is there no checks and balances to remove a Pope? Also Protestant but I really enjoy your videos!

[@GR65330]

Pope Francis was speaking pastorally when speaking to a seven year old boy. Read some of his writings to understand the Pope's teachings as he is not a universalist. He speaks of the reality of hell quite often.

[@paulfabys]

@@GR65330 Then wouldn't that make him inconsistent? And which version of what he says is true? Why wouldn't you "pastorally" say the same thing as what you write about to avoid confusion, contradiction, and hypocrisy? This makes it seem like anything he says is actually meaningless as he changes messaging depending on the setting? That actually sounds purposefully deceptive?

[@GR65330]

@@paulfabys Firstly, I would state that the current Pontiff isn't as good a communicator as his predecessors and I agree that some of his statements seem contradictory. However, if you look at his writings and sermons, it gives context of what he believes and teaches. I believe that history will see him as one of the most misunderstood Popes.

[@hjc1402]

I thought this comment was recent but it’s from three years ago. Guess it’s still happening, nothings changed

[@jamessheffield4173]

Matthew 16:23 But he turned, and said unto Peter, Get thee behind me, Satan: thou art an offence unto me: for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but those that be of men.

[@doubtingthomas9117]

I know, right? It would seem the papacy didn’t get off to a good start 😉

[@donatist59]

And in Galatians, Paul chews Peter out for teaching false doctrine. Peter later changed his mind, but in Acts 15 it is James, not Peter, who is issuing official pronouncements in the name of the church. The only sources we have from the first century have no idea that Peter was the infallible head of all Christians.

[@jamessheffield4173]

@@donatist59 Good point. By the way, Acts 15 verse 19 also has something peculiar. James says "I have reached a decision..." This does seem to me to favor the authority of James more than the Roman Catholic argument. Can any cardinal dare say after listening to the Pope of Rome, "I have reached a decision"? found on internet

[@donatist59]

@jamessheffield4173 In Greek it is ego krinô, "I rule." Far stronger than just making "a decision."

[@jamessheffield4173]

@@donatist59 Thanks. Blessings.

[@jeffreyjourdonais298]

My experience with RC apologists is when trying to make the case that their doctrines are Biblical, they quote one scripture, out of context, they'd do better to cite tradition .

[@ronaldkulas5748]

I am a 67 year-old Catholic, and I am worn out by the "inner ring" within our church where you either "get it" about the Eucharist or "you don't". If you believe that the Eucharist is not the center of our faith, you risk being shunned by the "inner ring". I, myself, have been scolded by a 27 year-old choir director at our church because I and other older men "do not understand that the Eucharist is the center of faith." O really? I thought Jesus, and him crucified, is the center of our faith. Thank you, Jordan, for a tremendously balanced and thorough explanation of your views. Very refreshing.

[@dershogun6396]

is this "inner ring" some kind of secret organisation within your church or not?

[@jzak5723]

What do you think the Eucharist is, if it's not Jesus crucified?

[@amo6396]

@@jzak5723 Jesus is seated at the right hand of the Father and He does not return in the Eucharist each time a priest conducts a mass.

[@jzak5723]

@@amo6396 Jesus said, "This is my body and this is my blood". You want to call Jesus a liar, that's your problem.

[@amo6396]

@@jzak5723 According to the council of Chalcedon Jesus by nature can only be in one place at a time and yet you have many Jesus’s present at numerous masses at the same time and in different places and this is not possible.

[@sophiabergner7191]

Can’t forget when Peter says himself “and i am a fellow aspostle” 😂

[@CCiPencil]

I thought he said I the victor of a Christ, head of the universal church, head and infallible leader of the universal Church, etc. etc. am a fellow aspostle. 😂😂😂

[@soteriology400]

Not one person in the Bible ever claimed to be infallible, nor did anyone point to another as infallible that I know of.

[@JDiggity12]

Great research and sources!

[@Darth_Vader258]

As a cradle Catholic I don't get the Papacy.

[@mariasoniamoreno3433]

There are several verses in the Bible that support the Papacy. But, you might be a weak Catholic as am I. I'm studying my Catholic faith right now to strengthen my belief in God, and so should you so you don't fall prey to the lies Protestants will use to try to lead you away from the church Jesus founded. Here are some of the verses that support the Papacy. 1. Jesus, as the Kings did in the Old Testament, chose a second in command to lead His Church when he left us. In the following example, King David names Eliakim his vicar, gives him the keys to the Kingdom, gives him authority over his people, and says that Elaikim will be a father (Pope) to his people, and will have the power to open and shut in the Kingdom. You can see the example of this here: Isaiah 22:20-22 21st Century King James Version (KJ21) 20 “And it shall come to pass in that day that I will call My servant Eliakim the son of Hilkiah. 21 And I will clothe him with thy robe and strengthen him with thy girdle, and I will commit thy government into his hand; and he shall be a father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem and to the house of Judah. 22 And the key of the house of David will I lay upon his shoulder; so he shall open and none shall shut, and he shall shut and none shall open. And here is where Jesus chose Peter as his vicar (second in command): Matthew 16:18-19 21st Century King James Version (KJ21) 18 And I say also unto thee, that thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build My church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. 19 And I will give unto thee the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in Heaven, and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in Heaven.” There are several more verses that support the Papacy, but it would be too much to post here. I hope this helped you get an idea of why we have a Pope in the Catholic Church. Please watch some debates between Catholic apologists versus Protestant apologists. That will teach you the basis of the Catholic beliefs and the Protestant responses. God Bless you.

[@kudjo24]

@@mariasoniamoreno3433 did you even watch the video? Lol, petra is a debunked argument he directly addresses, why spread lies just down in the comments when anyone can see it's not true?

[@thelonelysponge5029]

@@kudjo24debunked? Not really. Why would Christ rename Peter?

[@seminariobibliaencontexto1404]

Any place where we can download the script of this video or the references you gave?

[@peterw1177]

I don’t find Dr. Jordan’s second and third person argument of Mt. 16 convincing. I find it hard to believe that Jesus was using word play here when He was speaking directly and specifically to Peter. Jesus begins by saying “And so I say to you.” Arguing that the rock refers to Peter’s confession is farfetched since you are adding your own meaning to the text. It is clear from other Bible texts like John 1:42 that Peter means rock, and since Jesus is speaking directly and specifically to Peter, why would “rock” here mean something else? We also know that rock can refer to Jesus, but that is not indicated in this text. “Upon this rock I will build my church.” Jesus is the builder not the rock. It just does not fit the context to have Jesus building the Church upon himself. I am also interested in what Dr. Jordan thinks about the significance of the location (Caesarea Phillippi) where this event took place and how it contributes to the understanding of this text?

[@jchrist4us]

Hello Jordan, great video. This may be off topic but I have wanted to ask you this. It's my observation that a lot of conservative and reformed Christian leaders (pastors, teachers,etc.) in their sermons and podcasts sound a lot like a repackaged version of Ben Shapiro. They all seem to be getting their views on a lot of things from the same (very) small group of popular conservative commentators and just regurgitating them with a Christian spin. Do you notice this, and if so, do you think it is a problem? What should Christians do? (I am a conservative, btw.)

[@dennistakashima2449]

Sry, but what Reformed theologians are just regurgitating Ben Shapiro with a Christian facade?

[@KamalaKackles]

Darnell W. Please specify. Who are you referring to

[@Justin-yn5py]

They definitely should stop doing this since Ben Shapiro hates Jesus and the traditional Christian American nation

[@HiggaionSelah_EWFMG]

Read all about the Roman Papacy in Revelation 17 & 18 & 13 (sea beast) ❗️✝️🙏🙏

[@HiggaionSelah_EWFMG]

The King of the North , the Little Horn , the Man of Sin , the Son of Perdition, the primary Antichrist power and the First Beast power of Revelation 13 are all one and the same power _ and represents the Roman Papacy ❗️ The King of the South (also symbolically called 'Egypt and Sodom and Gomorrah' in the Revelation) represents Secular Humanism , and Atheism , and are all one and the same power _ NOT necessarily a threat to God's people ; but the King of the North will overthrow the King of the South for all intents and purposes at the Civil Government level , at the End of Time , and at that time the King of the North will become a terminal threat to God's people , and rule dogmatic Church and State in all Christian Lands and implement the Mark of the Beast world-wide _an Enforcement of Sunday worship , the Mark of Authority of the Roman Papacy , which will cause the Abomination of Desolation spoken of by Daniel the Prophet ‼️ The Second Beast of Rev.13 with the two Lamb like horns that speaks like a Dragon represents the rising power of the USA 🇺🇸 , in particular when the Protestant Churches (also represented by the False Prophet) shall so control the Civil power in the USA at the End of Time , that it shall become or make an image to the First Beast power of Rev.13 _the Roman Papacy _so that Church and State will rule dogmatic and shall 'Speak (enforce via civil legislation) as a Dragon' ; and this Second Beast power will enforce the Mark of the First Beast power world-wide , an Enforcement of Sunday , which will cause the Abomination of Desolation spoken of by Daniel the Prophet ‼️ "Through the two great errors, the immortality of the soul and Sunday sacredness, Satan will bring the people under his deceptions. While the former lays the foundation of spiritualism, the latter creates a bond of sympathy with Rome. The Protestants of the United States will be foremost in stretching their hands across the gulf to grasp the hand of spiritualism; they will reach over the abyss to clasp hands with the Roman power; and under the influence of this threefold union, this country will follow in the steps of Rome in trampling on the rights of conscience." GC 588.1 National Apostasy Will Be Followed by National Ruin When our nation, in its legislative councils, shall enact laws to bind the consciences of men in regard to their religious privileges, enforcing Sunday observance, and bringing oppressive power to bear against those who keep the seventh-day Sabbath, the law of God will, to all intents and purposes, be made void in our land, and national apostasy will be followed by national ruin.-The S.D.A. Bible Commentary 7:977 (1888). LDE 133.5 It is at the time of the national apostasy when, acting on the policy of Satan, the rulers of the land will rank themselves on the side of the man of sin.It is then the measure of guilt is full. The national apostasy is the signal for national ruin.-Selected Messages 2:373 (1891). LDE 134.1 Roman Catholic principles will be taken under the care and protection of the state. This national apostasy will speedily be followed by national ruin.-The Review and Herald, June 15, 1897. LDE 134.2 When Protestant churches shall unite with the secular power to sustain a false religion, for opposing that which their ancestors endured the fiercest persecution, then will the papal sabbath be enforced by the combined authority of church and state. There will be a national apostasy, which will end only in national ruin.-Evangelism, 235 (1899).LDE 134.3 When the state shall use its power to enforce the decrees and sustain the institutions of the church-then will Protestant America have formed an image to the papacy, and there will be a national apostasy which will end only in national ruin.-The S.D.A. Bible Commentary 7:976 (1910). LDE 134.4 I highly recommend 'Conflict of the Ages' series of five books by Christian Author Ellen G. White (Authentic Seer/Prophet of God)..... "Patriarchs and Prophets" "Prophets and Kings" "The Desire of Ages" " The Acts of the Apostles" "The Great Controversy between Christ and Satan" Ellen G.White, 1888, rev.1911 ⏳🌎🌍🌏⌛

[@Urosaurus]

By grace, through faith*

[@maxreisinger9782]

But one thing still concerns me: At the Council of Nicaea, the Christian world was divided into 5 patriarchs. The Patriarchate of the West (Rome), the Patriarchate of Constantinople, Patriarchate of Alexandria, the Patriarchate of Antioch and the Patriarchate of Jerusalem. If we accepted the order of Nicea, we would have to admit that we belong to Rome. What do you think about that?

[@Episcopalianacolyte]

Nicea was called by Constantine the Emporer of the Roman Empire. The Council doesn't say there is an order. It was called to combat the heresy of Aryanism and developed the Creed. In fact, no pope called any of the Ecumenical Councils. All were called by the Emporers.

[@thelonelysponge5029]

@@Episcopalianacolyte all 21 ecumenical councils were called by emperors? Including Vatican II?

[@thelonelysponge5029]

@Episcopalianacolyte in the Catholic Church, only 21 ecumenical councils have been held. Plus, do you really need all the patriarchs to attend to have an ecumenical council? Im pretty sure the patriarch of rome didn’t attend the first one. The eastern churches can no longer call an ecumenical council, since, they no longer hold that authority anymore, they lost it when they split from the church.

[@countryboyred]

@@thelonelysponge5029of course you need the patriarchs to attend a council. Your example about the pope not always being present at councils proves Orthodoxy to be correct- we don’t need the Pope to decide matters for the Church.

[@countryboyred]

@@thelonelysponge5029also Catholics cannot truly have a true ecumenical council because they schismed from the Church in 1054. The Orthodox continue to have councils to this day.

[@SweejitOfficial]

Judge a tree by it's fruits.

[@augustineonuigbo9360]

He called peter three times..... Pls what is happening in the mind of good .....

[@justusmorton6555]

A reversal and reappointment to apostolic functions after Peter's 3 denials.

[@kinorynn]

Whats the song that is played on guitar at the beginning?

[@andreasalbers6198]

A Mighty Fortress is Our God

[@palermotrapani9067]

The seeds of the Church Fathers with respect to the Bishop of Rome are very clear. They do not reflect a Vatican I definition in 1870 because that was years later. It is the same thing as Trinitarian or Christological writings of the early Fathers that are not fully defined until Nicea in 325, Chalcedon in 451 AD.

[@tinamotley5123]

So you believe that Marcionite and Valentinian baptisms are valid, as Pope Stephen did? Interestingly, in modern Roman Catholicism a Mormon baptism is not counted as valid. I agree with that. I don't agree with Stephen though. Cyprian had it right.

[@Michael-wm8un]

I have a RC philosophy teacher and he says that Protestants always misinterpret.

[@hughmccann919]

A super-good hair (& beard) day! 😁

[@AlbanianChristianity]

What do the keys represent? Read the Old Testament and you’ll find out.

[@AlbanianChristianity]

This symbolism for authority is used elsewhere in the Bible (Isa. 22:22, Rev. 1:18).

[@AlbanianChristianity]

And the changing of the name it wasn’t an incident, his name was Simon. Why bother to change his name? Name changing always meant something in Biblical narrative.

[@howdy2496]

Good stuff

[@Theophilus-p1k]

What do you say to the idea that the papacy is just a continuation of the church structure the Jews had at the time? This is something Brant Pitre talks about

[@earlj1956]

Dr. Cooper; the doctrine of papal infallibility has to with him speaking on matters of faith and morals. The Pope has only spoken "infallibly" twice: regarding the infallibility of him and his successors speaking on matters of faith and morals, and later regarding the immaculate conception of Mary. Anything else that the pope says is not infallible.

[@doubtingthomas9117]

So it took the Pope over 1900 years to pronounce something infallibly, and that just happened to be his own infallibility? 🤔

[@iagoofdraiggwyn98]

@@doubtingthomas9117 it really is ironic, isnt it? Lol

[@Gladdig]

No, infallibility has been used much more than twice.

[@thelonelysponge5029]

@@doubtingthomas9117did it take the church 300 years to recognize the trinity?

[@AlbanianChristianity]

Where did Luther get his papacy? Where is that in the Bible?

[@Mygoalwogel]

Lateran Council 1 Canon 21: We absolutely forbid priests, deacons, subdeacons, and monks to have concubines or to contract marriage. Lateran Council 2 Canon 6: For since they should be and be called the temple of God, the vessel of the Lord, the abode of the Holy Spirit, it is *unbecoming* that they *indulge in marriage* and in *impurities.* 1 Timothy 4:1-3 Now the Spirit expressly says that in later times some will depart from the faith by devoting themselves to deceitful spirits and *teachings of demons,* through the insincerity of liars whose consciences are seared, who *forbid marriage* 1 Corinthians 9:5 *Do we not have the right* to take along a believing wife, as do the other apostles and the brothers of the Lord and Cephas? Canon 21 continued: We decree in accordance with the definitions of the sacred canons, that *marriages already contracted by such persons must be dissolved,* and that the persons be condemned to do penance. Matthew 19:6 So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate. Lateran Council 4 Canon 3: Secular authorities, whatever office they may hold, shall be admonished and induced and if necessary compelled by ecclesiastical censure, that as they wish to be esteemed and numbered among the faithful, so for the defense of the faith they ought publicly to take an oath that they will strive in good faith and to the best of their ability to *exterminate* in the territories subject to their jurisdiction all heretics pointed out by the Church. _Ad extirpanda_ of Pope Innocent IV: We decree that the head of state [...] shall observe, both what is written herein, and other regulations and laws both ecclesiastical and civil, that are published against heretical wickedness. [...] No heretical man or woman may dwell, sojourn, or maintain a bare subsistence in the country, or any kind of jurisdiction or district belonging to it, whoever shall find the heretical man or woman shall boldly seize, with impunity, all his or their goods, and freely carry them off. [...] The head of state, or whatever ruler stands foremost in the public esteem, must cause the heretics who have been arrested in this manner to be taken to whatever jurisdiction the Diocesan, or his surrogate, is in, or whatever district, or city, or place the Diocesan bishop wishes to take them to. [...] *The head of state or ruler **_must force_** all the heretics whom he has in custody, provided he does so without killing them or breaking their arms or legs* to confess their errors and accuse other heretics whom they know

[@AlbanianChristianity]

@@Mygoalwogel What year was that “Lateran Council “? Please do not throw verses of the Bible because I can throw it back to you and it never ends. Just want to find where Luther got his papacy.

[@Mygoalwogel]

@@AlbanianChristianity Lateran councils happened from 1179-1517 sporadically.

[@fchoi1]

Good talk, my only critique is for you to state your main points more quickly and clearly (you give too much unnecessary contextual and peripheral info and tend to sidetrack as well). Would be much easier to listen to and follow. Maybe have some written points displayed.

[@robertdelisle7309]

Moments after Jesus praised Peter for his confession, Jesus denounces Peter for having the spirit of Satan; “Get behind me Satan!”

[@ericrachut4207]

Excellent. Jesus could very well have used Greek and not Aramaic in Matthew 16. He almost certainly did so in the exchange with Peter in John 21:15ff - only in Greek with its different means of expressing "love" - does the full import of this passage come through. Greek was the lingua franca of the time - there were whole villages of Greek colonists in Palestine at the time. Jesus would also have used Greek with the Roman centurions he met and Hebrew with the teachers of the law. Of course we know he used Aramaic from the several quotations in Scripture. Regardless, of course, the Greek we have is the expression God intended for ensuing centuries to read and learn.

[@QuisutDeusmpc]

The problem with this thinking is at John 1: 39-42, chronologically prior to this incident recorded at Matthew 16, Jesus uses the Aramaic male name (Kephas / Cephas) which is derived from the Aramaic word for 'rock' - 'kepha'. Matthew Gospel was originally written in Hebrew and translated into Greek in order to evangelize the Greek speaking Gentile world.

[@kkdoc7864]

Petros is a little stone. Read where that word is written elsewhere. I only wish Jesus had said “Upon this Rock, the truth of Who I am, I will build my church” I absolutely disagree that Peter was the leader at all. He calls himself a fellow elder, was wrong in doctrine, and was only the apostle to the Jews. He never even lead the first council. Paul was more of the leader, and even though the apostles voted to replace Judas, Jesus Christ, chose Paul instead who reached out to all non Jews. Why are YOU calling these early religious characters as “church fathers’ when Christ specifically asks us never to do that ?

[@palermotrapani9067]

Did Christ say that? I don't think he said that, in fact Saint Paul said numerous times he was a Father to the Churches he founded, etc.

[@billyhw5492]

"Blessed are you Simon Bar Jonah, for flesh and blood did not reveal this to you, but My Father in heaven. And I say to you that you are a worthless tiny pebble, and upon this giant rock of truth from two sentences ago, I will build my church. And boy are people going to be confused and wish I didn't rename you, you worthless tiny pebble."

[@GR65330]

"In the city of Rome the Episcopal chair was given first to Peter, the chair in which Peter sat, the same who was head - that is why he is also called Cephas [Rock] - of all the Apostles, the one chair in which unity is maintained by all. Neither do the Apostles proceed individually on their own, and anyone who would presume to set up another chair in opposition to that single chair would, by that very fact, be a schismatic and a sinner.... Recall then the origins of your chair, those of you who wish to claim for yourselves the title of holy Church." - Optatus, The Schism of the Donatists, 2:2, 367AD

[@user-vw6xp5nl6t]

My criticism of you is to be less critical and more focussed on living these truths than explaining them. It moves people too far into a ‘heady space’ and cuts you off from relatability.

[@rolandovelasquez135]

Exactly

[@ReformedR]

MY KEEEEYZ

[@charlesjoyce982]

The magisterium of jordan cooper has spoken.

[@judithtaylor6713]

You build a strong case.

[@danfalcone5358]

What does it mean to have faith? Is it strictly an intellectual affirmation? or should faith exhibit its authenticity in behavior? Must one possess the orthodoxy of a certain sectarian school to be saved? Christianity is a mystery faith. I think God care more about our behavior than belief.

[@livingwater7580]

@Ναζωραῖος you just added another condition to salvation. this is backloading works into the gospel of grace through faith. The root not the fruit is the proof. 1 JOHN 5 9 If we receive the witness of men, the witness of God is greater: for this is the witness of GOD WHICH HE HATH TESTIFIED OF HIS SON. 10 He that BELIEVETH ON THE SON OF GOD HATH THE WITNESS IN HIMSELF: he that believeth not God hath made him a liar; because he BELIEVETH NOT THE RECORD THAT GOD GAVE OF HIS SON. 11 AND THIS IS THE RECORD, THAT GOD HATH GIVEN TO US ETERNAL LIFE, and this life is in his Son. 12 HE THAT HATH THE SON HATH LIFE; and he that hath not the Son of God hath not life. 13 These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God; that YE MAY KNOW THAT YE HAVE ETERNAL LIFE, and that ye may believe on the name of the Son of God. SATAN WILL ALWAYS TRY TO ADD WORKS TO THE GOSPEL, " BENOT DECEIVED"

[@EricAlHarb]

It would be absurd to call Simon bar Jonah, Petra. A girls name.

[@medzuslovjansky3075]

Django Ferreira-Hmong The argument goes that Matthew originally wrote that gospel in Hebrew, and in Hebrew, Kepha (idk how to spell it) is masculine

[@EricAlHarb]

MedžuSlovjansky I’ve heard that Jesus said Kepha thus using the same word. Either way Protestants are wrong.

[@medzuslovjansky3075]

Django Ferreira-Hmong Either way, you can’t exegete an entire doctrine of papal infallibility and divine church governance from that one verse

[@bradenglass4753]

@@EricAlHarb if Catholics are correct, than the spirit should protect them from error, yet RCC teaches heresy such as infant baptism, whereas Acts says that it is the change of heart and the indwelling of the holy spirit, not the erasing of original sin. You have no idea what you're talking about

[@EricAlHarb]

MedžuSlovjansky why ? Because one verse in scripture is insufficient for the human mind? Moreover it isn’t one verse.

[@PInk77W1]

The central doctrine of Rome is the Eucharist.

[@GeorgePenton-np9rh]

"O Sacrament most holy, o Sacrament divine, all praise and all thanksgiving, be every moment thine." If only Protestants understood the Great Spiritual Treasure they pass up when they pass up Jesus Christ in the Holy Eucharist.

[@PInk77W1]

George Penton I remember going to daily mass 30yrs ago at a church and during communion a lady in the congregation all by herself use to sing that song. Gave me goose bumps

[@bethanyann1060]

George Penton Lutherans believe in the bodily presence of Christ in the Supper. I suggest researching the different views of the reformation before assuming it was all one monolithic movement.

[@GeorgePenton-np9rh]

@@bethanyann1060 Lutherans believe in the Real Presence to their credit, as do Anglicans, but neither actually have the Holy Eucharist. Only a validly ordained priest who has been ordained with a bishop with apostolic succession has tge supernatural power to change bread and wine into Jesus' Body and Blood. Eastern Orthodox priests and bishops, though separated from the True Church, at least do have valid apostolic succession so they do have a valid Eucharist. Question (not an argumentive question, I really would like to know): what do Lutherans do with leftover hosts and wine after a religious service?

[@bethanyann1060]

@@GeorgePenton-np9rh First of all, don't Anglicans believe their priests have apostolic succession? Why don't they have true apostolic succession in your view? Also, I would love to see scriptural support for the idea that the Eucharist is not the true body and blood for all who believe that it is, apostolic succession or not. As to your question as to what we do with the elements after the service, I'm the wrong person to ask, as I'm obviously not a pastor, since I'm female lol.

[@augustineonuigbo9360]

Why is this bearded guy struggling to impose his feelings on Jesus .... What is difficult with .... Peter on u I will build my church ....

[@geordiewishart1683]

Jesus didn't say that though

[@FosterDuncan1]

Read the fathers. There are different ways they understand“on this rock I will build my church”

[@toddvoss52]

I would recommend engaging with "An Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine" by the recently "sainted" Cardinal Newman.

[@Kitiwake]

You will find out that he is s saint, soon.

[@amo6396]

There are questions on whether Newman was a homosexual.

[@williamavitt8264]

@@amo6396 who cares? Urges aren't sinful, actions are sinful. If a priest is celibate, what does sexual orientation matter?

[@jessebartunek3195]

I am Protestant and this really seems like taking something as plain as day and trying to distract from the real meaning. The more I watch the anti-Catholic videos the closer I get to becoming Catholic.

[@illyriansaint]

Remain Protestant.

[@mariasoniamoreno3433]

Would Protestants love it if ALL their denominations believe the same at LEAST regarding important aspects of the Christian faith? Eucharist, baptism, tithe, prosperity gospel, etc.

[@bethanyann1060]

MariaSonia Moreno Of course we would love to be united. But we’re not, and that’s why we refuse to commune with each other. Doctrine matters to us conservative Protestants.

[@thatguys4341]

Protestants aren’t unified, ergo big Pope man correct.

[@franciscor.m.8003]

I also would like all humanity to accept Christ, but thats not going to happen willingly. So why should protestants force protestants to stay together if they dont want.

[@mariasoniamoreno3433]

@@franciscor.m.8003 They would be interested in knowing and following JESUS'S TRUE DOCTRINE if they were sincere when they profess to be Christians. Jesus preaches ONE FAITH.

[@mariasoniamoreno3433]

@@thatguys4341 Do you believe there is ONE TRUE DOCTRINE?

[@augustineonuigbo9360]

Lots lots contradictions...... Lol , 90% of the church fathers were obedient to the pope .....

[@countryboyred]

Yeah back when the Pope was Orthodox before the schism.

[@GeorgePenton-np9rh]

Obedience to the pope, and belief in the papal office, does not mean blind obedience to the person who is tge current pope. Paul publicly criticized Pope Peter. Good orthodox Catholics of today do not hesitate to criticize the train wreck of a pope we have in Pope Francis. We must distinguish between the office and the man. See Matthew 23:3.

[@GeorgePenton-np9rh]

@David Ortiz True, David. No matter how bad we think someone is, no matter how much we disagree with him, we should pray for him. Who knows, maybe Pope Francis could undergo an interior conversion and become a great saint.

[@bethanyann1060]

I’m glad that some Catholics like yourself still act responsibly by examining what is being taught by the pope. Not talking about Francis necessarily, but just in general.

[@GeorgePenton-np9rh]

@@bethanyann1060 I converted to Catholicism at age 18. The priest who instructed me said "the Cathokic religion is a common sense religion". I have always tried to kerp that in mind.

[@robertjarman4261]

Pope Francis will consecrate Russia 🇷🇺 25th March. Glory to God.

[@Who63]

How many times have you heard from well meaning totally ignorant people that the Pope is just a man and can't be infallible because he is a sinner just like the rest of us? In other words, no man can be infallible because "all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God". Being a sinner, which indeed the Pope is(he goes to confession just like the rest of us), has absolutely nothing to do with the biblical doctrine of infallibility. The doctrine of infallibility, officially defined at the Vatican I council of 1870, says that when the Pope is officially defining church dogma, the Holy Spirit is also. There are three requirements for infallibility to be invoked: 1. The pronouncement must be made by the official successor to Peter. 2. The subject matter must be in the area of faith and morals. 3. The Pope must be speaking ex cathedra (from the chair) of Peter, and must be intending to proclaim a doctine that binds the entire Church to assent. If any one of the above 3 requirements is missing, the papal declaration is not considered to be an infallible doctrine. Not everything the Pope says is infallible. So what are some of the biblical roots of the doctrine of infallibility? Well, for starters, Jesus Christ Himself, who created the Catholic Church in Matthew 16:18, also promised the gift of the Holy Spirit to guide it in truth always. John 14: 16-17, 26: "I will ask the Father and he will give you another Paraclete-to be with you always; the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot accept, since it neither sees him nor recognizes him because he remains with you and will be within you . . . . the Paraclete, the Holy Spirit whom the Father will send will remind you of all that I have told you" John 16:14: "When the Spirit of truth comes He will guide you to all truth" Luke 10:16: "He who hears you, hears me" Mt. 16:19: I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven Matthew 23:1-3: Then said Jesus to the crowds and to his disciples, "The scribes and the Pharisees sit on Moses' seat; so practice and observe whatever they tell you, but not what they do; for they preach, but do not practice. (**NOTE - Just as the scribes and the Pharisees sit on Moses' seat, the Pope sits on the chair of Peter. And notice how Jesus told everyone to obey the scribes and the Pharisees, even though they were sinners. Just so, we have to obey the Pope in matters of faith and morals in the Church, even if the Pope is a sinner). Then there was the Council of Jerusalem, in Acts 15. This Church council was held to determine whether or not Gentiles had to first be circumcised before becoming Christians. In the closing document, Peter says the following, from Acts 15:28: "For it has seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things". The Holy Spirit was invoked, so therefore, it has to be an infallible decision. There have been 3 instances of an officially declared Papal Infallible doctrine. The first was in 1854, when Pope Pius IX declared the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception (The blessed Virgin Mary was conceived in St. Anne's womb free from original sin), then in 1870 at the first Vatican Council when the doctrine of Papal Infalliblity was officially declared to be true, and then in 1950 by Pope Pius XII when he declared the doctrine of the Assumption (the blessed Virgin Mary was assumed body and soul into Heaven). So even if the Pope is a sinner, when it comes to officially defining dogmas concerning faith and morals, the Pope has the biblical protection of the Holy Spirit promised by Jesus Christ Himself to protect the Church from moral error. To ignore these scripture verses is to ignore one of the central tenets of the entire Bible. Even Protestants believe in the infallibility of scripture, because it's inspired by the Holy Spirit. This is no different. And some Protestants seem to make infallible statements all of the time about themselves being "saved", in spite of Phillipians 2:12.

[@KamalaKackles]

Davina That’s a horribly inadequate and baseless statement. For one, ALL Biblical authors were either Prophets or Apostles. The pope is neither. Secondly, there is zero proof that the pope has any Apostolic succession. Did you even listen to the video? I would take it a step farther and say Peter wasn’t even over the Apostles. He was under James in Jerusalem and Paul in Galatians

[@Who63]

@@KamalaKackles I gave you biblical Scriptural references. The bible was not in existence when Christ left the earth. You Protestants make us laugh at how you know so little of history actually it's sad. Jesus said "Not everything that happened is in this Book." That is why the EARLY CHURCH FATHERS, you know, the people who walked and talked with Christ wrote letters and wrote things down...this is called SACRED TRADITION, which by the way is the Bible written down. As 1.6 BILLION CATHOLICS 2/3 of people on the earth, and growing....for a reason. WE know the truth, WE know our bible, WE know when Christ told Saint Peter to start His church. But your ignorant of Scripture is still ignorant of Christ. WE have proof of Apostolic succession, and WE also have an UNBROKEN LINEAGE from 2,000 years which NONE can claim. WE have the Body and Blood, Soul, and divinity of Jesus Christ. you don't. But by saying your ridiculous child like statement up above speaks volumes......wonder how you must feel when you recite the Creed with the 'Holy Catholic Church mentioned for 2,000 years. Put it this way, by the time the New Testament was written around 300 AD, the Catholic Church was already on it's FIFTH SUCCESSOR TO SAINT PETER. Love my Beautiful Holy Catholic Church...outliving every major Empire for 2,000 years. Lord remember me.

[@KamalaKackles]

As a Roman Catholic, you’re faith and salvation are placed in the Church. It’s beyond comprehension that you yourself have a direct line to God through Jesus. You nor the Church need the traditions of men, corrupted by greed over hundreds of years. Jesus died for you. Your belief and trust is only to be put in Him. I came out of Catholicism after decades when I felt God guiding me to Scripture. The more I understood Church dogma and lined it with Scripture, the more I realized I’d been lied to. I began reading the early Church Fathers and studying Church history. It became painfully obvious that Rome has created its own false story in order to claim its power. About the Scriptures you sited, Matthew 16:18 Yes, The Holy Spirit resides in every Believer. He’s there to guide us and give us discernment. You are simply adding the pope into Scripture where he’s not mentioned. Jesus did create the Catholic Church, NOT the Roman Catholic Church. Catholic means universal. Catholic Church and Universal Church are interchangeable. John 14. Again, yes, He sent us The Holy Spirit. John 16. You’re becoming Redundant. YES Holy Spirit, No Roman pope. Read the Scripture in its entirety. There is no mention of Apostolic succession. Mark 16:19. Give the keys to is future tense. He later gave the keys to all His disciples at once, NOT JUST PETER. Please read the entire Book. Matthew 23. He is referring to the Law and the failure of Jewish leaders to follow it. If anything, He preaches against the pope and his bishops.

[@KamalaKackles]

Davina And I’m not even sure what you meant by listing Phillipians.

[@Who63]

Truth in th Word an oft quoted verse used against the Catholic Church is the one saying " do not follow traditions of men " or words to that effect. I can't remember, it might be in the first or second letter to timothy. In the case where this is used against catholicism, its done so in a hypocritical way. All christian churches have some traditions of men(humans) that they keep observing. Sing christmas carols in December? you're observing a tradition of men, since the bible doesn't command, or give examples of, people singing christmas carols. This is but one example among many.( and in fact this one is fascetious, because christmas carols aren't evil, unless the words are changed somehow) I am certainly no less a sinner than other people. But I expect when one uses sacred scripture they should at least try to appear as if they are being consistent. Rejecting catholicism because of "traditions of men " while still following other "traditions of men " seems extremely disingenuous, and in fact, is both biblically and logically unsound. Matt 15:2-9 v6 “…and you have made void the commandment of God for your tradition.” Verses 8 & 9 also are quotes from Is 29:13. Jesus condemns traditions of men but upholds proper tradition as shown in Matt 23:1-3. Jesus and the apostles acknowledge this O.T. authority in John 11:47-51. Verse 51 says Caiphas prophecies that Jesus should die for the nation. He said this without knowing what he was saying. Why? Because he had the Urim & Thummin. (Ex 28:30- Douay version says “Doctrine & Truth”) There was an O.T. Magisterium which can be seen in Deut 17:8-12. Especially look at verses 9 & 12 about solving problems and what happens if you didn’t obey. Gal 1:9 “ …If any one preach to you a gospel, besides that which you have received, let him be anathema.” Sola Scriptura is a protestant tradition invented by Martin Luther in the 16th century. Col 2:8 “ Beware lest any man cheat you by philosophy, and vain deceit; according to the tradition of men….and not according to Christ.” We use Apostolic Tradition as shown in 2 Thess 2:15.

[@Redheadedsteppeson]

9:30 St. Peter had a clear line of succession through St. Linus, St. Cletus, St. Clement I, St. Aristus, St. Alexander I, etc. all as Bishops of Rome. Peter's Primacy over the other Apostles is shown all through out the New Testament but one passage that I want to focus on in particular is Luke 22:24-34 24 A dispute also arose among them, as to which of them was to be regarded as the greatest. 25 And he (Jesus) said among them, "The kings of the Gentiles excerise lordship over them, and those in authority over them are called benefactors. Over them are called benefactors. 26 But not so with you. Rather, let the greatest among you become as the youngest, and the leader as one who serves. 27 For who is the greater, one who reclines at table or one who serves? Is it not the one who reclines at table? But I am among you as the one who serves. 28 "You are those who have stayed with me in my trials, 29 and I assign to you, as my Father assigned to me, a kingdom, 30 that you may eat and drink at my table in my kingdom and sit on the thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel. 31 "Simon, Simon, behold, Satan demanded to have you, (plural) that he might sift you (plural) like what, 32 but I have prayed for you (you singular) that your faith may not fail. And when you have turned again, strengthen your brothers." 33 Peter said to him, "Lord, I am ready to go with you both to prison and to death." 34 Jesus said, "I tell you, Peter, the rooster will not crow this day, until you deny three times that you know me." Shortly after Jesus institutes the Eucharist, the Disciples broke into a dispute as to which of them would be regarded as the greatest. Notice in the Passage that Jesus doesnt deny that one of them would indeed be the greatest and He doesnt rebuke them for asking such a question. In fact, He pretty much directly answers the question when He immediately refers to Simon as soon as He references that the Leader will serve the other Apostles. The Apostles are called servants but will also be judging the 12 tribes of Israel, This authority is assigned by Christ. (v.29-30). In the verse directly after Jesus tells Peter that Satan has desired them (them plural) like wheat but Jesus says that He has specifically prayed for Peter (alone, singular) so that his faith wont fail. Jesus in verse 26 says the greatest among them and the leader will be the one who serves the others. In verse 32 Jesus says that when Peter returns he will strengthen or serve his brethren, making him a servant of servants and a source of stability for others. One of the titles that Catholics have for the Pope is Servus Servorum Dei, meaning servant of servants of God. the Pope exists not just to serve the people of God, but also the other Bishops as well. (Read Joe Heschmeyers book, "Pope Peter" for more Biblical proof for the Papacy)

[@Redheadedsteppeson]

It is safe to say that when you objectively look at the Church Fathers and the various Church councils you will see that the office of the Papacy was recognized and looked to for Unity and Authority. The following Patristic quotes are, what I believe, to be the strongest supporting evidence for Papal Primacy and Supremacy over the whole Church: St. Cyprian of Carthage - ([Matt. 16:18-19]) … On him [Peter] he builds the Church, and to him he gives the command to feed the sheep [John 21:17], and although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single chair [Cathedra], and he established by his own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity. Indeed, the others were also what Peter was [i.e. apostles], but a primacy is given to Peter, whereby it is made clear that there is but one Church and one chair. So too, all [the apostles] are shepherds, and the flock is shown to be one, fed by all the apostles in a single-minded accord. If someone does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? if he [should] desert the chair of Peter upon whom the chair was built, can he still be confident that he is in the Church?” (The Unity of the Catholic Church 4; 1st edition [A.D. 251]). Pope St. Damascus I - “Likewise it is decreed . . . that it is ought to be announced that . . . the holy Roman Church has been placed at the forefront not by the conciliar decisions of other churches, but has received the primacy by the evangelic voice of our Lord and Saviour, who says: ‘You are Peter and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not prevail against it; and I will give to you the keys to the kingdom of heaven . . .’ [Matt. 16:18-19]. The first see, therefore is that of Peter the apostle, that of the Roman Church, which has neither stain or blemish nor anything like it” (Decree of Damascus 3 [A.D. 382]). Council of Chalcedon - “Wherefore the most holy and blessed [Pope] Leo, archbishop of the great and elder Rome, through us, and through this present most holy synod, together with the thrice blessed and all-glorious Peter the apostle, who is the rock and foundation of the Catholic Church, and the foundation of the Orthodox faith, has stripped him [Dioscorus] of the episcopate” (Acts of the Council, session 3 [A.D. 451]).

[@Redheadedsteppeson]

Peter shortly after writing his second letter was crucified under Emperor Nero in 64 AD. The Patristics show us that Peter appointed St. Linus as the Bishop of Rome and the second Pope of the Catholic Church. This refutes the objection that there wasn't a monarchial episcopate in Rome in the 1st century. St. Irenaeus - "The blessed Apostles [Peter and Paul], having founded and built up the Church [of Rome] . . . handed over the office of the episcopate to Linus" (Against Heresies 3:3:3 [A.D. 189]). Eusebius of Caesarea - "Paul testifies that Crescens was sent to Gaul [2 Tim. 4:10], but Linus, whom he mentions in the Second Epistle to Timothy [2 Tim. 4:21] as his companion at Rome, was Peter's successor in the episcopate of the Church there, as has already been shown. Clement also, who was appointed third Bishop of the church of Rome, was as Paul testifies, his co-laborer and fellow-soldier [Phil. 4:3]" (Church History 3:4:9-10 [A.D. 312]).

[@mario.migneault]

2. Cullmann notes that when Irenaeus “speaks of the Roman church as the ‘very ancient and universally known church founded and organized by Peter and Paul’” there is at least one error: we know from Romans that the Roman church was not founded by Paul. “This at once calls in question the historical trustworthiness of the statement (“Peter”, pg 116).”triablogue.blogspot.com/2017/01/debunking-over-used-irenaeus-quote-on.html?m=1

[@mario.migneault]

Is Catholicism faithfull ? The 10 Commandments 1. You shall have no other gods before Me. ...gods is elohim in hebrew which is the spirit world 2. You shall not make idols. ...in heaven or on earth 3. You shall not take the name of the LORD your God in vain....(being imagers of God). . I really do not understand this idealogy of praying to dead saints as if they are omnipotent and can read minds like God. And there billions of souls in heaven,, so billions of omnipotent spirits whohrar everything ? And who decides who is in Heaven, a man or the Lord ? They supposedly have the spirit of Christ but need to by pass him and go to someone else that will come back to Christ. This is POLYTHEISM. . Lord Lord have we not prophecised in your name..., Jesus answers I never knew you who practice lawlessness. (3 cmmands not obeyed).

[@Redheadedsteppeson]

@@mario.migneault en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intercession_of_saints

[@jibinbabu3756]

Only about 1% to 5% of the people during the time of Jesus were literate. Plus the churches of the 5th century decided upon the canons of the Bible. These churches include the modern day Eastern Orthodox Church, Catholic Church, Oriental Orthodox churches and the Assyrian Church of the East. When you consider this historical context, it is evident to say that traditions should be given as much importance as Scripture. Also the fact is Jesus never personally wrote any of the New Testament. And he never gave any books to his disciples. Thinking as a historian on this context of that time should itself invalidate Sola Scriptura.

[@billyhw5492]

No, you can't be a married priest. I'm very sorry.

[@iagoofdraiggwyn98]

Only in the Roman Rite lol

[@GeorgePenton-np9rh]

The papacy is the glue that Jesus gave the Church to keep her united.

[@novadawg6913]

George Penton And yet somehow the claims of the Bishop in Rome has caused more division in Christendom than any other issue in the history of the Church...

[@GeorgePenton-np9rh]

@@novadawg6913 The papacy has not caused division. Rebellion against the papacy has caused division. This does not mean that the pole is above criticism.

[@novadawg6913]

George Penton quite the opposite. It’s the Church in Rome’s attempts to enforce their particular interpretation of church authority upon the rest of Christendom that has caused so much division.

[@GeorgePenton-np9rh]

@@novadawg6913 It is not the man who exercises his authority that causes division. It is those who rebel against that authority who cause division.

[@Mar-wt3di]

@@novadawg6913 The Church is not there for a popularity contest. God does not have to change he doesn't have to bend to suit what sinners want. Jesus turned the world upside down , that is what the Pope's job is too, to call a spade a spade, and tell sinners what they need to hear, and not what they want to hear.

[@matthewbroderick8756]

"It is By WORKS and NOT BY FAITH ALONE that we are JUSTIFIED ", ( James 2:24), "Give alms and all shall be clean within ", ( Luke 11:41). Jesus Christ our Great and Kind God and Savior, built His Church on Peter the rock, way before the new testament was even written or its canon later determined. Jesus Christ renamed Simon alone as rock, as Cephas is Aramaic for rock. ( John 1:42). Peter alone received the keys of the Kingdom from Jesus Christ. The office of sole key holder is one of succession. ( Isaiah 22). The same Church authority in Peter the rock and sole key holder, who stood up and put an end to all the debating at the council in Jerusalem, since Scripture alone could not. In Matthew 16, "Upon THIS", has to refer to the nearest preceding noun, which is Peter. Peace always in Jesus Christ our Great and Kind God and Savior, He whose Flesh is True food and Blood True drink. You are in my prayers as you journey toward Truth!

[@j.sethfrazer]

Read Matthew 18. It was NOT Peter alone that received the keys of the kingdom from Jesus. That’s a Roman Catholic falsehood.

[@matthewbroderick8756]

@@j.sethfrazer Actually, you read Matthew 18, for keys of the Kingdom are never mentioned there. You made that up!. Only in Matthew 16 are keys of the Kingdom mentioned and given to Peter alone, the same Simon alone renamed rock by Jesus Christ, as Jesus prayed for Peter alone to strengthen his brethren. Matthew acknowledges the primacy of Peter as he lists Peter as FIRST,, ( Protos, chief, leader, Matthew 10:1,2), when naming the Apostles. The same Church authority in Peter the rock and sole key holder, who stood up and put an end to all the debating at the council in Jerusalem, since Scripture alone could not, as Peter authoritatively ruled circumcision of the Flesh was no longer necessary, even though Holy Scripture said that it was. You are in my prayers as you journey toward Truth! Peace always in Jesus Christ our Great and Kind God and Savior, He whose Flesh is True food and Blood True drink

[@j.sethfrazer]

Matthew Broderick The “keys” to the kingdom are directly connected to the apostolic practice of binding and loosing. That’s what Jesus said directly to Peter (16:19) and to the rest of the apostles (18:18). The keys are NOT some separated and higher rank of authority. Just because the word for “keys” (κλεῖδας) are not used in Matthew 18 does NOT mean it isn’t talking about the same thing. Thats a catholic assumption. Show me one place in the entire New Testament where the office of Papacy is even mention or alluded to. Show me 1 apostolic father that recognized the supremacy of the Roman Pontiff. It doesn’t exist. You have to cram Rome’s theological assumptions into history to make that work.

[@matthewbroderick8756]

@@j.sethfrazer Again, in Matthew 16, the keys of the Kingdom are given to Peter alone in Matthew 16. Keys of the Kingdom are never mentioned in Matthew 18. You made that up! Just as in the old testament, one of the King's 12 officers, was alone given the keys of the Kingdom denoting primacy. The office of sole key holder is one of succession biblically. Matthew acknowledges the primacy of Peter as he lists Peter as FIRST,, ( Protos, chief, leader, Matthew 10:1,2), when naming the Apostles as Jesus Christ renamed Simon alone as rock and Jesus prayed for Peter alone to strengthen his brethren. Even many Protestant scholars attest that Peter is the rock and was given primacy over the Apostles. The same Church authority in Peter the rock and sole key holder, who stood up and put an end to all the debating at the council in Jerusalem, since Scripture alone could not, as Peter authoritatively ruled circumcision of the Flesh was no longer necessary, even though Holy Scripture said that it was. You are in my prayers as you journey toward Truth! Peace always in Jesus Christ our Great and Kind God and Savior, He whose Flesh is True food and Blood True drink

[@bradenglass4753]

James's context is a living faith with works to show for it, vs dead faith, "faith" which is empty and pretend, with no works to show for it. James is saying not to take paul out of context and having "faith" as an excuse for not doing good. Protestants beleive good works flow from True LIVING faith, not the same thing bud. Also systematic theology definitions did not exist in apostolic era, set textbook definitions for justification, election etc was developed later to aid analysis. James literally quoted Paul in James 2:23, (quoted Romans 4:3), he quoted a FAITH ALONE VERSE- Abraham was counted as righteous via faith, this is the context of James 2:24- faith alone, but don't take paul out of context to abuse sola fide.

[@mariasoniamoreno3433]

The one thing that distinguishes Lutheranism is that it is based on the worldview of Martin Luther, a man who, in his rebellion against the Church, had to contrast his own church with the Catholic Church.

[@blkjet117]

Incorrect. Not world view, but biblical view. He believed that scripture came before man's traditions (which were filled with paganism). The RCC's position that the infallibility of the Pope (incredibly stupid position, just look what the current Jesuit Pope says), and the churches traditions came before scripture.

[@charlesjoyce982]

Fake pastor. Not validly appointed by a Bishop with apostolic succession.