Why Catholics are Right about the Pope! w/ Jimmy Akin

📺 Full Episode: kzbin.info1S-r-qS47r4
Jimmy AKin gives a very novel and unique argument for why he came to believe the Church was correct about the role of the Pope on Earth.
🟣 Join Us on Locals (before we get banned on YT): mattfradd.locals.com/
🖥️ Website: pintswithaquinas.com/
🟢 Rumble: rumble.com/c/pintswithaquinas
👕 Merch: shop.pintswithaquinas.com
🔵 Facebook: / mattfradd
📸 Instagram: / mattfradd
We get a small kick back from affiliate links.

[@simplydanny]

So funny that Jimmy would use this argument because that’s EXACTLY how I thought about it, another parallel is how the tribe of Judah that had the temple and the high priest was also the most numerous and prestigious tribe, same Catholics have the most numerous and prestigious rite and bishop. Think how the Levites of Korah wanted to say that they were equal to Moses and Aaron and that he was a “tyrant” and God vindicated Moses and Aaron.

[@garlottos]

Is Novus Ordo the most prestigious Rite? Seems like the Byzantine is more prestigious than that

[@user-ez1ic7ed4b]

What is the point of Christianity with works that save? The Noachide laws offer salvation without many works and it's a much easier deal than Catholicism. Fideism is the, and I stress THE only way that Christianity makes sense and isn't pointless.

[@macdan22]

Besides the many verses that prove this line of thinking as incorrect. EVEN with your example of High Priest Aaron. He was still under Moses, who spoke with God.Which shows the high priest is not supreme. New Testament high priest was sold to the highest bidder.

[@simplydanny]

@@macdan22 But Moses is a type of Christ so it is biblical because Jesus left Peter with the keys, while this is true concerning the priesthood in the New Testament you see for example Paul recognizing the office, so I don’t see a real challenge here.

[@simplydanny]

@@garlottos Roman rite, it’s more known and more widely practiced.

[@paulmualdeave5063]

The comparison I see with North and South Israel is that the North was taken over and the tribes are gone now. The same with the Orthodox, their cities are taken over and even Constantinople is gone now.

[@2anthranilicacid]

And what is happening in Rome right now?

[@paulmualdeave5063]

@@2anthranilicacid Slander against the Supreme Pontiff.

[@mattrichardson27]

Aside from this being incorrect, examine the two liturgies - which would most resemble the ancient worship? Examine the practices - which most resembles the ancient practices?

[@Carther101]

@@mattrichardson27 liturgies and practices are not how you determine the truth of a religion. Was Orthodoxy false before St. Chrysostom's liturgy existed? Liturgies and practices are not foundational to the Church, its structure is however. Christ would not form a Church with an earthly hierarchy that was a democracy. Christ would leave behind a Church that resembled the family and Heaven: a monarchy. Orthodoxy, like Protestantism, has no physical head, they only have Christ as spiritual head, like every other Christian.

[@paulmualdeave5063]

@@mattrichardson27 “But we, after we have thus washed him who has been convinced and has assented to our teaching, bring him to the place where those who are called brethren are assembled, in order that we may offer hearty prayers in common for ourselves and for the baptized person, and for all others in every place, that we may be counted worthy, now that we have learned the truth, by our works also to be found good citizens and keepers of the commandments, so that we may be saved with an everlasting salvation. Having ended the prayers, we salute one another with a kiss. There is then brought to the president (i.e. presiding Presbyter) of the brethren bread and a cup of wine mixed with water; and he taking them, gives praise and glory to the Father of the universe, through the name of the Son and of the Holy Ghost, and offers thanks at considerable length for our being counted worthy to receive these things at His hands. And when he has concluded the prayers and thanksgivings, all the people present express their assent by saying Amen. This word Amen answers in the Hebrew language to γένοιτο (so be it). And when the president has given thanks, and all the people have expressed their assent, those who are called by us deacons give to each of those present to partake of the bread and wine mixed with water over which the thanksgiving was pronounced, and to those who are absent they carry away a portion.” Catholic liturgy. - St. Justin Martyr (100-165). Incorrect? Constantinople is gone, replaced by the Muslims when they conquered it. Gone forever like the tribes of Israel in the North. Not sure why you are saying this is incorrect when it's historical reality.

[@peter_hobbs]

I soon as I heard this answer from Jimmy I immediately thought, ‘that’s got to be given its own video.!’ Brilliant!

[@drdoomer8152]

VIVA CRISTO REY!!!

[@tianamenezes7548]

The reasoning for the papacy that most resonates with me is this: We have positions such as Kings, Emperors, Presidents, Prime Ministers, CEOs, Deans, Heads of organizations etc. because we understand the value of having one person be the final decision maker for the country/company in order to be successful but somehow when in comes to the organizational structure of a Church, we're supposed to throw all of that logic out the window and rely on a committee? It just never made sense to me.

[@marcokite]

YES! Because that's how the Church operated for the first 1,000 years, including in the time of the Apostles. Oh and the Nicene Creed was given to us by two 'committees'.

[@Hope_Boat]

☦ Yes. Those are human thought. Matthew 16:23 "But Jesus turned and said to Peter, “Get behind Me, Satan! You are an offense to Me, for you are not mindful of the things of God, but the things of men.” So instead of using human logic you better follow what our Lord told us to do in Luke 22:24+ as soon as the question arose : "A dispute also arose among the disciples as to which of them would be considered the greatest. So Jesus declared, “The kings of the Nations lord it over them, and those in authority over them call themselves benefactors. But you shall not be like them. Instead, the greatest among you should be like the youngest, and the one who leads like the one who serves. For who is greater, the one who reclines at the table or the one who serves? Is it not the one who reclines? But I am among you as one who serves." That's why we orthodox don't submit to your so-called benefactor. Lord have mercy on us all sinners.

[@Mach15-20]

@@Hope_BoatYou don’t submit because you are a schismatic, simple as. Your verses are speaking about humility, it doesnt deny authority and your unbiblical ”equality”.

[@Hope_Boat]

@@Mach15-20 God Bless you and forgive you for insulting the Church of Christ. As you judge others you will be judged yourself, and speaking about humility we are not the ones who wanted and provoked the schism. We are not the ones who altered the creed against the canon law. We are not the one who arrogantly proclaimed to be universal in order to exclude our christian brothers who did nothing wrong. We are not the ones who created a temporal state within the Church which is the temptation of the mountain Jesus warned us about. We are not the ones who used violence to force people to submit to the cult of a pontiff. We are not the ones who proclaimed a new Gospel : salvation by submission to the Roman Pontiff. We are not the ones who created ex_termination camps during WW2 in Croatia to terminate the orthodox clergy. In short we are pretty sure we are not the Great Prostitute in Scarlet and Purple who put abominations in her chalice and is drunk from the blood of the Saints. Do you have the same assurance? Kyrie eleison

[@Mach15-20]

@@Hope_Boat Why should I respect schismatics like you who attack Christ’s One and Only Church? We didnt break with anyone. The Church cannot break with herself. It was your would be ’Ecumenical’ patriarchs propped up by the secular authorities who decided to not submit to the authority of Rome, like Cerularius. When did we use violence? Heretics are not innocent but it was your empererors who killed INNOCENT people including popes and others. Submission to the Pope is in scripture because Christ made Peter the leader and gave Him authority over ALL His sheep. So if you hold that you dont have to be under the Popes authority, then neccessarily you admit to not being a sheep of Christ. Your own councils and saints teach the same. May God open your eyes if you have good will.

[@CatholicGunGuy]

I was lucky to see this notification within the first 37 seconds of this posting

[@user-ez1ic7ed4b]

What is the point of Christianity with works that save? The Noachide laws offer salvation without many works and it's a much easier deal than Catholicism. Fideism is the, and I stress THE only way that Christianity makes sense and isn't pointless.

[@jeffgough]

Congrats!

[@byzantineJesusLov3R]

@@user-ez1ic7ed4b You don't know catholic soteriology. The Catholic church has never taught that one is saved through works. Rather on the contrary it was the Catholic Church that condemned the heresy of pelagianism.

[@elijahwalker7]

Hello. I was a Catholic catechumen who just dropped out of OCIA to discern Orthodoxy and Catholicism. I am so confused and tired of going back and forth, it’s exhausting. I’ve realized the most important issue is ecclesiology and I hope to stick to this to help me decide. If someone is able to help me with these questions that’d be great. Was the modern papacy there in the first century? Does the Orthodox Church or Catholic Church structure resemble the church structure of the early church? Please pray for me as continue to discern the Lord’s church. God bless everyone, and Happy Lent to both my Catholic and Orthodox friends.

[@Mach15-20]

Yes the papacy was there in the first millenium, however after reading your post this wont help you much since the other side would confuse you by obviously denying this. People like you dear brother who haven’t researched the issues need to apply simpler irrefutable proof in the comparison. So for instance that could be ”Who fullfilled Christ’s commission to evangelize the nations?” The catholics did. Or ”who fullfills the 4 marks of the Church that both communions profess” The catholics do, since eastern orthodoxy is not One, holy or Universal.

[@peter_hobbs]

In answer to your first question Elijah, watch the video with Joe Heschmeyer and Trent Horn titled “Was there a first century Bishop of Rome?” God bless you brother in your discernment.

[@FrJohnBrownSJ]

Hang in there. You won't see every aspect of the papacy in the first century that you see today because the Church was in its very earliest stages, like an acorn doesn't look like full grown oak tree. But it's there in the DNA. Let me know if I can help and we can set something up.

[@robertcampbell1343]

I'm sorry to say but no, there are no priests in Church, but we are all priests of God as the New Testament says. In addition, the two offices of the church are very clearly detailed in the New Testament: Bishop (elder, overseer, shepherd), and Deacon. However there was a mono episcopate that did install Bishops in the early church, mainly we see in Apostles like Paul, Peter, and you understand. There are no priests who are in the place of Christ, who can convey to you anything. God is the giver of everything, from faith to repentance, to spiritual gifts and His own indwelling in us. Of course everybody will disagree with me...that's ok. Look up what the Pontiff was before the Bishop of Rome took this title in 538. I'll tell you and cut straight to the answer, he took it from the Roman Emperor who was now gone, it was a title of divinity meaning that the Roman emperor was the Supreme high priest of Helios, or Jupiter, or you know SATAN. Of course the Bishop of Rome still has that title today.

[@mitch0990]

The filioque is a bigger issue since it has to do with christology which is prior to eccleisiology

[@DominicMazoch]

The Bishop of Rome has TWO OFFICES: 1. Patriarch of the Latin Rite. Official watches out for those things proper to the LR. 2. Petrine, that is, of St. Peter. These are the doctinal basis for the Universal Church, beyond a particular Rite. Theological Issues.. Power of the Keys stuff.

[@igorlopes7589]

Actually there are other offices, Bishop of Rome, Metropolitan Archbishop of the Roman Province and Primate of Italy

[@Hope_Boat]

1) Rome has dropped the title of Patriarch recently (I think it's Benedict XVI who did that) 2) Saint Peter established the Eastern Church in Antioch before he even set foot in Italy.

[@igorlopes7589]

@@Hope_Boat The Antioch argument doesn't make sense because he died as Bishop of Rome. St Peter died with his ministry tied to the Rome. And besides that of the three Petrine Sees Rome was the most prestigious one, being blessed with his blood and the blood of St Paul and being the capital of the Empire. So the facts that Peter died with his ministry tied to Rome and that Rome was the most prestigious See connected to him mean that Rome inherited his Universal Primacy. Indeed, Rome being the First See is the consensus of the Fathers, no See ever put itself above Rome during the fitst millenium, so it truly occupied Peter's place in the Church

[@Hope_Boat]

@@igorlopes7589 Your argument is both false and arrogant. Apostolic succession is not linked to the circumstances of the death of the apostle but on his works when he was alive and more precisely to the apostolic chairs he founded. Do you pretend that saint Peter was not the first bishop of Antioch and the Eastern Church? You Roman Catholics are not motivated by love and generosity as you should but by stinginess and a, unholy sens of superiority. You change the rules as it suits you to better exclude others and pretend Christ, Peter, the Universality of the Church belongs to you and only to you. You just exclude yourselves from the true one saint catholic and apostolic Church. Your can hold on your imperial prestige we don't envy you. Jesus was not born in a palace in Rome but in a stable in Bethlehem. We don't worship Caesar Pontifex Maximus but Jesus Christ and the trine God.

[@DominicMazoch]

​@@Hope_BoatMentioned Antioch in another post

[@MrEgyPete]

Jimmy, I love you but I got to disagree with this analogy. All the Orthodox church have the institutional structure, we have the Pope of Alexandria who oversee all bishops of Egypt. The problem the Orthodox have with Rome is the Supremacy of Rome over all the other patriarchs. If your analogy is true, the orthodox church never had God’s guidance from the beginning because we don’t see this supremacy of Rome in the book of Acts or the first councils.

[@smoothcriminal53184]

Doesn’t St. Peter rise up and speak for the whole in the Council of Jerusalem in Acts of the Apostles? I don’t know if it is considered an ecumenical council, but I refer to it as such. 😛

[@smoothcriminal53184]

And as for God’s guidance, the ten tribes that broke away did have it at one point when it was a unified kingdom, and I imagine that they still retained some of it since they were still his people.

[@MrEgyPete]

@@smoothcriminal53184 you are correct, that is the first council. Peter didn’t have any special role, other than he spoke his opinion. All the early councils had someone who guided or had strong arguments to refute a heresy. If anything, James had the last word and concludes the council.

[@Ekim1740]

@@MrEgyPeteBishop of Alexandria authority was given to Him by the Pope. Bishop of Alexandria trace itself from Mark the disciple of Peter. Bishops of Alexandria does not hold the keys to the kingdom.

[@MrEgyPete]

@@Ekim1740 that’s not the tradition of all his church that he founded. From the book of Acts, he was disciple of Paul. Nothing in the first councils including Jerusalem from book of Acts, where bishops/apostles had Peter or his seat as supremacy

[@user-ez1ic7ed4b]

I am a Christian man that tries to be open about religious teachings from any sound Christian denomination. I was in a comment section on one of these comments that apparently was deleted, but to recap: I prayed to Mary in 2018, with two full five-decade rosaries, and she sent something to my mind, namely that if there energy is in infinite regress or cyclical then there would have been at some point, since we know this universe can create minds like ours, a mind capable of controlling the entire universe. Something we could call a God. If it isn't in infinite regress or cyclical then the universe was created by a being that can control an entire universe. Something we could call a God. If neither are true then cause and effect (and therefore logic) and energy are distinct and were joined at a specific point in time by something capable of controlling two universes at once. Something we could call a God. I asked God for my vocation, as in whether I should be a Catholic man or married. I landed on Proverbs 27:16. I then ran into two Catholics in this comment section a few hours ago. One said James 2 something disagrees with you. I was at that moment reading James 2. Something else happened to, but I can't remember what it was.

[@garybridgham31]

real Christians do not pray to Mary.

[@MDP673NJ1]

I feel your pain. I grew up Catholic through years of research I've come to a conclusion...Unfortunately men have corrupted the teachings of Christ, the early Church of Christ. They have all at one point and still do give it they're own spin. The Roman Catholic, Orthodox, Baptist, Evangelical, Lutheran ect ect ect. Men began to set themselves up as Lord's over God people in place of the Holy Spirit. Instead of converting by spiritual mean and truths...men started to substitute their own ideas and methods in place of the teachings that Christ gave us. The inquisition, the crusades came from these people not from Christ. Attempts to merge paganism into Christianity even in the days the new testament was being written. Paul mentions the mystery of iniquity was already at work and he warned there would be a falling away. 2 Thessalonians 2:3 1 Timothy 4:2 Jude 1: 3-4 Christianity came across to face with Babylons paganismand various forms that had been established in the Roman empire. The early Christians refused to have anything to do with its customs and beliefs. We all now what happened. They were persecuted...many Christians falsely accused thrown to the lions burned at the stakes, tortured. For their own safety they went underground in the catacombs and caves formed their own secret society which was known then as the open and friendly secret society and their symbol was a fish. Nonetheless Christianity kept on growing. Constantine had no choice but to convert to Christianity cause the movement was so powerful. I question Constantine ever had a vision or a dream of a Cross. He never accepted Christ in his life he was a pagan sun worshiper. He never followed the teachings of Christ. He practiced the mystery religion of Babylon. He was the Emperor of Rome. Rome very quickly became the Catholic Church and the Roman Emperor became the Pope. The only way for Constantine to save the Empire. The symbol of Roman empire is the double headed eagle symbolizing the Emperor ruled over both the east and the west, that the Sun did not set on Roman Empire. This symbol still displayed in the Vatican other countries also use a form of it. It's also the symbol of the 33rd degree in freemasonry. Do you get the point? Imperial orders were put forth that persecutions shall cease. Bishops were created and given high honors the Church began receiving worldwide recognition and power Jeremiah 10: 2-4...but for all of this came at a great price...many comprises were made with paganism. Instead of the church being separate from the world it became part of this world system. The Emperor showing favor demanded a place of leadership in the Church, for in paganism Emperors were believed to be Gods. So we had a mixture of paganism and Christianity. The Roman Catholic church today is nothing less than the old Roman empire transformed...the old pantheon of God's become the pantheon of Saints. When Jesus spoke to a crowd and someone walked away he didn't go chase him and try to stuff his teachings down their throat. Neither did he build great wealthy cathedrals build of shiny glass. Were a homeless person with dirty clothes would be turned away from the doors. Jesus Christ would've been and would be the first person to welcome that soul into the church. If you look at the people Jesus habitually associated with whose homes he slept in, who became his disciples, you will understand that many people who call themselves today Christians do not know the meaning of the word. The most important teachings in the Bible the words in red...Jesus's teachings. Peace be with you

[@alessandronicoletto9595]

Thank you for this well explained response. Immediately reveals the answer in biblical clarity.

[@matildeosorio8257]

Wow! Brilliant!! Thank you and May God bless you

[@nancylucas7897]

The Orthodox are getting a lot more converts because of this present pope.

[@russianbot2630]

This is probably true. The arguments for Orthodoxy stand by themselves, but the Pope encouraged me to take my first steps into researching the Orthodox Church. Now I’m a happy convert to Orthodoxy. My community didn’t even have an Orthodox Church. Plenty of Catholic ones. I’m not the only convert that feels this way.

[@vtomc]

You’re leaving Jesus because of Judas?

[@vivacristorey4363]

Let's call a spade a spade. Those who leave the Church because they dislike the current reigning pontiff are not really Catholic at heart. Someone has to be poorly catechized to leave the Church. In addition, Pope Francis has actually drawn many into the Church - including converts from Orthodoxy. It always goes both ways in perception. Protestants brag about converts from Catholicism. Catholics brag about their own converts, etc... That is why we need to not base decisions on emotion, but to truly and prayerfully discern and study.

[@startraveler3157]

@@vtomc You're saying Judas is the pope of the Catholic Church?

[@essencealex1727]

​​@@vtomc brother the problem over here is that the pope is supposed to be infallible So when he does and says think that make him look like Judas you got a "situation"

[@bryanpeters5034]

I mean, the princeps senatus was literally the first among equals, so they would have heard the term absolutely everywhere. Also, the idea that a non-imperial pope necessarily means a figurehead is a straw man - the real question is whether he, acting alone, has the ability to change Church teaching. It seems obvious that he does not have that ability.

[@thegoatofyoutube1787]

Jesus gave Peter extraordinary authority as earthly leader of the church and Christians affirmed this through the centuries (long before the schism). Bishops are going to disagree too so the buck has to stop somewhere.

[@meina0614]

@@thegoatofyoutube1787was paul correct about Peter when he was siding with the Judaizers? If we are operating under Papal supremacy, then no, Paul would be incorrect. Primus inter pares is the only sound interpretation for the church of christ.

[@mildroar]

Good points. And also the idea that a Christian institution would necessarily look like it’s surrounding culture seems like a very weak argument on its face, considering in how many other ways Christianity was counter cultural to the existing order.

[@igorlopes7589]

​@@RuthenianCatholic333All Bishops exercise the Keys but stil the Keys are Peter's. Christ gave the Keys to Peter and their use to Peter and the Apostles

[@igorlopes7589]

​@@meina0614You know that criticizing the Pope is possible in catholicism, right? We just aren't able to make authoritative judgements on the Holy Father, but we can rebuke him if the situation truly calls for it

[@uchihaitachi5726]

0:18 Thought it was a cat at first 😂

[@jeffgough]

If it were true that God is more likely to guide his institutional followers (Catholic) than non-institutional (Eastern orthodox and Protestants), and that aligns with the Bible as you say, then why did Jesus come and handpick common citizens to initiate his ministry instead of leading the Pharisees or taking a seat at the Sanhedrin?

[@thegoatofyoutube1787]

God always elevates common people but once he moves you respect the offices he puts in place (see Moses, David, etc.) This is why Israel’s leaders had real authority until God himself established new leaders in the new covenant. Besides, the Orthodox follow bishops and the Reformers were not common folks; they were rebellious scholars. The comparison falls flat.

[@Hope_Boat]

☦ Laughable.. Just look at the situation in the "guided" Roman Catholic Church. Everything has been changed. Rites, languages, dogmas, sacraments, religious art, architecture, creed., blessings of same-sx couples... We orthodox didn't go through all those contradictions and changes, we don't have to apologize for misconduct, preaching violence and persecuting people and yet you pretend we are lacking of guidance? How so?

[@jeffgough]

@@Hope_Boat who is your comment directed at? Who is “pretending you are lacking guidance”?

[@Hope_Boat]

@@jeffgough To you. Our Lord Jesus did not create the institution of the Roman Papacy. He told us to do the opposite in Luke 22:24+ He established the orthodox Church.

[@jeffgough]

@@Hope_Boat I didn’t say he created the Roman papacy. I was actually offering a critique saying if God guides established institutions (which is the argument in this video clip for why Catholicism is more likely the true church than orthodox), then why did he start with fishermen as opposed to the Sanhedren?

[@jperez7893]

I find it puzzling that Jesus would spend a lot of time and effort and spit talking up and say and do all the extra things for peter only to ditch him? That would be lunacy. The plain language of the gospels tells you plainly without resorting to mental gymnastics that peter was singled out by God the Father and Jesus to lead the church. If someone can’t accept that, then that person has a lot of explaining to do in the end

[@garybridgham31]

Peter died.

[@jperez7893]

@@garybridgham31 of course he did. Dont be stupid

[@gideondavid30]

There is nothing in scripture that gives Peter papal supremacy or papal infallbility. You are just reading into the text what you want to be there. You have references to the rock and examples of Peter leading in some capacity, but that doesn't logically follow what Catholics interpret that to mean.

[@jperez7893]

@@gideondavid30 a plain reading of the text will lead any reasonable person without prior bias to conclude that jesus singled out peter. Mental gymnastics are required to deny the obvious

[@sherwindsouza6599]

​@@jperez7893lol the other guy thought he made a point 😅😂

[@dannisivoccia2712]

God gave the early church the five-fold ministries: Apostles, prophets, pastors, teachers, and evangelists. There was no office given by God to the church for fathers of the faith. The Apostle Paul was considered a father, in the context of literally fathering the younger brethren in the faith. In addition, there were no official titles outside of the five-fold ministries within the church. Within the early churches, no one father of the faith was considered the Holy Father of the churches.

[@PeterbFree]

This is accurate. The early church and the Catholic Church are not the same thing at all

[@robertkimble8385]

At 2:55, wouldn't king Herod have been an example of a figurehead? Not purely ceremonial, as Jimmy phrased it, but he ruled a Roman client state, had his kingship granted to him by the Roman senate, and obviously wouldn't be able to do anything that went against his superpower benefactor's will. It's not a first-among-equals situation but the idea of a limited ruler who had no ability to dictate foreign relations wouldn't have been a foreign concept to the apostles.

[@Hope_Boat]

Orthodox here. Our figurehead is Jesus. A dispute also arose among the disciples as to which of them would be considered the greatest. So Jesus declared, “The kings of the Nations lord it over them, and those in authority over them call themselves benefactors. But you shall not be like them. Instead, the greatest among you should be like the youngest, and the one who leads like the one who serves. For who is greater, the one who reclines at the table or the one who serves? Is it not the one who reclines? But I am among you as one who serves. Luke 22:24 +

[@dynamic9016]

Thanks much for this video.

[@TheDragonsofVictory]

Doublespeak. "All men are equal but some are more equal than others"

[@anthonym.7653]

Where I got off the ride.

[@id744]

I came across a first century document that talks about this... Matthew 19:28 Jesus said to them, “Truly, I say to you, in the new world, when the Son of Man will sit on his glorious throne, you who have followed me will also sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel. Seems pretty equal among the 12 apostles

[@angelaa3305]

Thank you!

[@edmato9297]

First amongst equals is defined by apostolic canon 34 - so yes it is apostolic and it is how ancient christians understood the matter

[@HeraclonosKonstantinos]

First among equals was the title used by early roman emperors. Eastern orthodoxy seem to remember their roman roots a lot. The eastern orthodox had a roman emperor for a much longer time(up until 1453) than our papacy had and the emperor(or empress) could do the roles in addition to what the patriarch of Constantinople could (like holding the ecumenical councils and so on) and probably had a big role in shaping their church into what we see today. I think they just need an emperor, the first among equals. They had one for the big bulk of their history and it was not their voluntary decision to not have an emperor either (since their last emperor was lost during the fall of the city of constantine to the turks). (First among equals was not just a ceremonial title for the romans either. Augustus Caesar used that title and he was the most powerful mortal man in the world at that time.)

[@jeffrhyne8788]

Wasn't James the Apostle that presided over the council of Jerusalem? Wasn't Peter there?

[@dougy6237]

James? Yes, according to your Protestant diviners with their conflict of interest! They invented this to undermine the authoritative and unifying office of Peter. James spoke in support of Peters ruling. Peter, and not James, made the infallible doctrinal decision that was binding on the faithful.

[@thisis_chavez]

I prayed that I will be a successful Catholic content creator here in KZbin and other social media platforms like you ❤ Our Lady of Mystical Rose, pray for us

[@rogerioporto9623]

Pelo conjunto de informaçoes e forma como a imagem está impressa, quem pode afirmar que tenha sido criado por mãos humanas na idade média se até hoje faltam respostas para o Sudário?

[@Skarlet-ju8sr]

"Rome has Spoken"

[@bobjenkins3rd]

I’m only at the beginning of this video and Akin is only demonstrating he can’t understand the EO as a modern westerner. To be fair, he’s mostly engaging with western EO converts who have the same blinders. Honor is actually more important in many premodern civilizations than legal authority. A sole legal authority like a king had less authority because polycentric law was still alive and well. The king had less authority over his people than governments today. Catholics are actually turning Peter into a lesser, weaker position that we understand and the apostles wouldn’t have, the opposite of his claim. There’s way more to it than could be addressed here, but EO shouldn’t deny a primacy of authority, but you have to dig in to what that means and why.

[@77agape]

interesting!

[@christopherwiles543]

I think Jimmy may be misunderstanding the Orthodox teaching. We Orthodox understand the Bishop (every Bishop) to be the successor of St. Peter in a theological sense. Even while at the same time acknowledging Rome’s special connection to him historically. Therefore it is wrong to say in Orthodoxy that the successors of Peter don’t have substantive authority. The Episcopate (Successor of St. Peter) has real and direct authority over the Presbytery (Successors of the Apostles). Now the Bishop of Rome was granted a primacy of love, not because he is the sole successor of St. Peter theologically (all Bishops are), but because he has a special connection to Sts. Peter & Paul historically.

[@thegoatofyoutube1787]

This is interesting and helpful. From a Catholic perspective, if we both agree that Jesus has guided the church and bishops through the centuries, it seems strange that he would allow the “first among equals” to fall so far that a split would be needed.

[@CesarArturoCastaneda]

All bishops are successors to Peter? How was Polycarp not a successor to John?

[@ptcrusa]

Bishops can trace their lineage either to one of the 12 apostles or to the 70 disciples that were sent in Luke chapter 10. They dont all trace their lineage to Peter. However, their authority is only meaningful in reference to keys handed directly to Peter who is prince of the Apostles, and his successors. They didn't all get their own sets of little keys from Jesus to share with Peter. Jesus gave them to Peter, that's it.

[@christopherwiles543]

@@CesarArturoCastaneda, read my original comment. Every Bishop is a successor of St. Peter in a theological sense, while being the successor of other various Apostles historically.

[@christopherwiles543]

@@ptcrusa read my original comment. Every Bishop is a successor of St. Peter theologically, while being the successor of other various Apostles historically.

[@michaelman957]

Time and time again, the early church went to Peter for the final say, because he's basically the prime minister. He's not above the King. He's there for those times a final decision is needed.

[@A-gor]

Leave him to be settled as a Christian first before stumping him with all the issues we have to deal with. Maybe after a year as a Christian or two? But I'm probably not in the best position to know what's best

[@chrismodlin6262]

great explanation!

[@HoradrimBR]

The problem persists, but between Popes, not Patriarchs/Bishops.... The solution of the "infalible doctrine and morals" is not that good when we remember the ordinary magisterium that has real authority and should be followed...

[@aterrt8523]

Interesting analogy when you consider that the Samaritans were the ones who added things to the faith and changed traditions, they were the more progressive and alien to the ancient Israelite faith that was preserved in Judah. The reality is that in this regard, the Orthodox Church more closely resembles Judah. Also, the papacy being by regarded as an analogy for the Temple isnt very good when you consider that the temple in Judah was also destroyed.

[@richardredmond1463]

When you read the New Testament just as consecutive books, it's pretty clear that Peter had no authoritative role among the gentile churches. So whatever case Catholics want to make that's fine, but it isn't supported by the very early history of the church or by new testament injunction.

[@estebanmoreno8019]

There are self governed Churches whithin the Catholic church

[@richardredmond1463]

@@estebanmoreno8019 Peter had no authoritative role among ANY of the gentile churches. Apostolic succession was broken before it began. As a concept, it is simply a rewriting of early church history to suit a later argument during what became a fairly crude power grab.

[@Mach15-20]

@@richardredmond1463That’s a lie. An argument completely from silence. And Christ gave all of his sheep to Peter so you are refuted.

[@richardredmond1463]

@@Mach15-20 When Jesus asked Peter to Shepherd his sheep, where did He say "all"? Or are you arguing from silence?

[@Mach15-20]

@@richardredmond1463 There are arguments from silence and then you have simple conclusions FROM THE TEXT. Jesus didn’t specify these or those, i.e he gave ALL to Him [Peter]. And it is also written there shall be one Shepherd and One Fold, not two or three like a monster or tens of thousands of denominations like in the protesting religion. So the protesters and eastern schismatics must admit to not being the sheep of Christ. Catholicism always wins, because Catholicism is actually true.

[@crushtheserpent]

A good question to ask Protestants re. the papacy is how they think the multitude of heresies would have been overruled and defeated within the first few centuries without the papacy. I've gotten a couple of Protestants to concede it wouldn't have been possible.

[@JW_______]

The way it was done in history, with ecumenical councils. It wasn't done through the papacy. The pope wasn't even more instrumental than other bishops in calling most early counsels from my understanding.

[@TheBlinkyImp]

Yeah this is easy to answer as the previous guy said. The Roman bishop doesn't appear to have any special role for the first few hundred years of the church. It's only when the Roman Empire becomes officially Christian that the seat in Rome is elevated, as it is the capital of the Empire. Before that the most powerful were more likely the ones in Jerusalem and Antioch, though it's not entirely clear from the records we have.

[@MrPeach1]

@@JW_______ the examples in the gospels ACTS specifically is that Peter was the one God leads into knowledge of the end of kosher food restrictions and the bringing it of Gentiles was revealed to Peter through Cornelius. The fact that they all mull it over in a council and agree then decree is great but we can clearly see the Holy Spirit working uniquely with Peter.

[@JW_______]

@@MrPeach1 There's a giant chasm between being a leader among the apostles to the modern doctrine of papal supremacy, which includes infallibility and succession.

[@c2s2942]

@@MrPeach1the Holy Spirit also spoke through a Donkey in the Old Testament. That doesn’t mean that Peter was granted some throne over all the others. Scripture says there is ONE mediator: Christ. He is the ONLY way to the father.

[@kainech]

I had a similar reason for choosing Orthodoxy as the video but opposite, but it wasn't the deciding reason. I saw, and see, it is analogous to the northern and southern tribes. However, the parallel I found was in the golden bull. Jeroboam sought to construct a new system under his direct control so that the people would be loyal to him. When the papacy separated, each time it was an attempt to centralize control that was previously not centralized. Neither the one in the video nor this are strong arguments. The argument from "they didn't have a view of a first among equals" fares worse. It's anachronistic. Antiquity certainly had a view of limited authority and shared authority. Herod himself is an example; he was a tetrarch. Rome had already used a triumvirate, and it's around the same time that Augustus was Princeps Maximus. The Judges had a distributed form of government with a charismatic leader that people would rally behind. The idea he says couldn't culturally exist existed as a matter of fact, and it's one of the most rudimentary facts. They certainly also had a concept of universal authority. There's lots of examples of that, too. I classify this argument as the "enlightened modern" argument where people in the past just didn't have our subtle grasp of ideas, not just with science or technology, but across the board. This can only really be safely done with technology and science. I can safely say they had no concept of quantum mechanics or of distributed digital processing. Almost every time someone says "They didn't have..." about the basics of the human condition (including authority), the argument is going to be weak. On the papacy, Orthodoxy doesn't have a clear definition of "First among equals" for the Ecumenical Patriarch, much less the papacy in the first millennium. The reason is that things are governed locally, so disputes that involve hierarchical order arise rarely. We settle things when the problem arises. So now there's quite a bit of confusion and a rather nasty fight. I suspect this was far worse in the first millennium: no digital communication, language barriers were harsher, and as bad as Russia and the US are in meddling in religious organizations, it was worse then. Constantinople was the capital of the Roman Empire, after all, and Rome itself went into schism almost every time it became a Frankish house church. They probably had no clear conception themselves how the churches should relate, and that leaves the discussion now at a loss.

[@Hope_Boat]

☦ We have a clear enough definition of first among us in Luke 22:24+ A dispute also arose among the disciples as to which of them would be considered the greatest. So Jesus declared, “The kings of the Nations lord it over them, and those in authority over them call themselves benefactors. But you shall not be like them. Instead, the greatest among you should be like the youngest, and the one who leads like the one who serves. For who is greater, the one who reclines at the table or the one who serves? Is it not the one who reclines? But I am among you as one who serves. And tha't nor a benefactor monarch to whom we shall submit for salvation.

[@darinbracy8433]

Francis and go!

[@FromAcrossTheDesert]

Jimmy, our brother in Christ, you are the bomb!

[@SavagePatriot-ri7px]

Which canonical Bible? The one with the heretical apocrypha in it like in so many of my Catholic friends' Bibles, which they don't read anyway, because their priests tell them all they need to know? Sheeple.

[@markjoslin9912]

First among equals. That means he has no more authority than any other bishop.

[@marcokite]

Exactly! Which is how the Church operated for the first 1,000 years.

[@Hope_Boat]

No it means he presides the ecumenical councils.

[@drjanitor3747]

⁠@@marcokite sure if you rewrite history. Peter alone was given the keys, you can’t bind or loose without the keys. Therefore the authority of the Apostles is restricted to Peters distribution of the keys.

[@user-dx9nr1jm9c]

Love Jimmy Akin and Pints but what he misses is that the authority of ecclesial headship is always in Christ alone and remains in Christ alone for the Orthodox, not in Peter or Roman papacy. Jesus Christ is Lord. The Pope of Rome was never meant to substitute for Christ as the Head of the Church. Pope Benedict understood this. Pope Francis understands this. Many wise RC theologians have understood and acknowledged this. The Orthodox have preserved the original true understanding. As far as who is in communion with the institution and who is in separation from the institution, the Orthodox see the Orthodox as being in continuity with the original institution as it was Rome who split off from the 4 other ancient patriarchates after a 1000 years of unity. Do 4 separate from 1 or does 1 separate from 4?

[@dougy6237]

The Eastern Early Fathers, prior to the schism, accepted Council deliberations pertaining to the authoritative and unifying office of the successors of Peter. Then there are the 22 eastern Churches that have returned to the Catholic Church over the centuries!

[@jakeney7174]

I've not heard a satisfactory explanation from the Eastern Orthodox to the statement by Jesus: Peter feed my sheep. And I'm actually mainly Pro Orthodox but still have doubts.

[@2anthranilicacid]

Read St. Augustine's commentary on the "Peter you are the rock" statement... this should clear some things up

[@mattrichardson27]

Who presided over the first council at Jerusalem?

[@thegoatofyoutube1787]

@@flintlock17 the successor at Rome took Peter’s place in the church after he died; the bishop of Antioch simply replaced him after he left. This is why the early church traced the list of Roman bishops back to Peter and emphasized that line.

[@kais.1684]

​@@mattrichardson27the bishop of Jerusalem did. The papacy doesn't require all councils to have the Pope as president. See what Chrysostom said about this. He calls James the local authority but Peter the teacher of the world.

[@kais.1684]

​@@flintlock17Antioch was considered a Petrine see in the early Church but not in the same way as Rome where he established his final ministry. Same with Alexandria where his disciple Mark went.

[@zenybiscuit]

Never heard of Orthodox till 2 years ago. I'm good with Catholicism.

[@thegoatofyoutube1787]

That’s because the Orthodox are rubbing their beards and muttering about Rome as Catholicism fights the culture wars and carries the faith worldwide.

[@rosiegirl2485]

Having the Pope and the Magisterium just makes sense. If we didn't have a Pope, everyone would be saying "Jesus should have put someone in charge to make important decisions" Thankfully Jesus knew what He was doing when He built His Church! 🙏

[@PeterbFree]

Jesus did put someone in charge, it’s Himself. Christians are supposed to be lead by the Holy Spirit

[@jemperdiller]

He did. He is the head of church. Church itself governed by EC, not the absolute infalliable god emperor monarch.

[@willbarrett6248]

@@PeterbFreeYup, working thru his ordained ministers!

[@marcokite]

Yes and that's why He never appointed a 'high priest' or Apostle with authority over the others.

[@alepine1986]

An Orthodox would respond to this point by saying two things: a.) the head of the church is Christ, and that all appointed priests, bishops, etc. are his 'vicars,' and b.) having someone 'in charge' doesn't necessarily mean that a church is going to be run well or that decisions will be made effectively. Catholicism, for all of its focus on top-down decision-making, has far more chaos in its ranks than Orthodoxy had ever had. What should unite us is common belief in the Nicene Creed, not an administrative head.

[@tylerbruso25]

But isn’t the culture of the disciples a Jewish culture that was very rigid and rule based. Where the whole point of the New Testament is to evolve the covenant to a direct relationship with God? That culture is very different than the ones the disciples lived in.

[@theeasternjourney]

Why can't it be other way around? P.S Wanna know which church is the true church? Read Church history and ignore quote mines from apologetics from both sides. Then and only then by the grace of God you will be convinced of the true church.

[@thomasthellamas9886]

This turned me into a Landmarkest

[@victorlitteral5969]

Orthodox Christian here: The first argument that Jimmy makes is better than the second. I would like to see substantive support from scripture and/or Apostolic tradition which supports the notion of the supremacy of the See of Rome, or of St. Peter. One can be the ‘chief’ Apostle, but what I as an Orthodox Christian am left asking myself is: what power does that entail? Where do we see that authority explicated or exercised in Scripture or Apostolic Tradition? Do those examples demonstrate primacy of honor or supremacy of office? Also, It seems arbitrary to me that Rome would be the See with the supremacy, if the claim is that the supremacy comes primarily from the apostolic lineage of Peter. Why isn’t Antioch the See with Supremacy in that case? This argument fails to explain that. The second argument he makes is one built entirely upon a couple of presuppositions: 1. That the north/south split in ancient Israel is analogous to the East/West split in 1054, 2. That the institution of Kingship is analogous to the supremacy or primacy of the chief Apostle Kingship and chief priesthood both belong to Christ in the Church today, therefore in my opinion that example does not serve as a valid analogy to the Church split in 1054.

[@dougy6237]

The Eastern Early Fathers, prior to the schism, accepted Council deliberations pertaining to the authoritative and unifying office of the successors of Peter. Then there are the 22 eastern Churches that have returned to the Catholic Church over the centuries!

[@victorlitteral5969]

@@dougy6237 This comment doesn’t really address my questions, since it doesn’t specify what that office functionally was, or what supposed councils explicitly affirmed it. Also, again, why not Antioch?

[@dougy6237]

@@victorlitteral5969 It is the way it is. Deal with it. The papacy is a unifying and authoritative office: the various Orthodox churches are aware they broke from the Pope by virtue of the fact they keep attacking the unity and authority of the Catholic Church. It's the same as the Protestants. Antioch? Peter ordained men in Antioch and Jerusalem. So what? Just because an initial bishop of a diocese confers ordination on a second man man does not mean that second man becomes that first bishops successor when he dies. If that were so many bishops around the world would have multiple men claiming to be their "successor" when they die! The bishops of Antioch and Jerusalem cannot claim to have succeeded St. Peter, because after leaving those cities St. Peter was still active, ALIVE, not dead. St Peter died in Rome and that is where he was succeeded by Pope St. Linus. LINUS IS THE "SUCCESSOR" OF PETER. The bishops of Rome were seen as the high authority in the early Church, evidenced by Pope Clements letter to Corinth in which he has no doubts that he has the authority to intervene in the local Church dispute. And by the 3rd century, St. Cyprian made no hesitation to refer to Rome as the chair of Peter and the principle Church. At one time in Church history, valid popes were stationed in Avignon, France. The successor of St. Peter is where the primacy subsists, not the location.

[@dougy6237]

@@victorlitteral5969 It is the way it is. Deal with it. The papacy is a unifying and authoritative office: the various Orthodox churches are aware they broke from the Pope by virtue of the fact they keep attacking the unity and authority of the Catholic Church. It's the same as the Protestants. Antioch? Peter ordained men in Antioch and Jerusalem. So what? Just because an initial bishop of a diocese confers ordination on a second man man does not mean that second man becomes that first bishops successor when he dies. If that were so many bishops around the world would have multiple men claiming to be their "successor" when they die! The bishops of Antioch and Jerusalem cannot claim to have succeeded St. Peter, because after leaving those cities St. Peter was still active, ALIVE, not dead. St Peter died in Rome and that is where he was succeeded by Pope St. Linus. LINUS IS THE "SUCCESSOR" OF PETER. The bishops of Rome were seen as the high authority in the early Church, evidenced by Pope Clements letter to Corinth in which he has no doubts that he has the authority to intervene in the local Church dispute. And by the 3rd century, St. Cyprian made no hesitation to refer to Rome as the chair of Peter and the principle Church. At one time in Church history, valid popes were stationed in Avignon, France. The successor of St. Peter is where the primacy subsists, not the location.

[@dougy6237]

@@victorlitteral5969 It is the way it is. The papacy is a unifying and authoritative office: the various Orthodox churches are aware they broke from the Pope by virtue of the fact they keep attacking the unity and authority of the Catholic Church. It's the same as the Protestants.

[@carlpeterson8182]

The early church treated the pope as one among equals. They had some major patriarchs from important churches but those were much more than Rome. Also the pope did not preside over the earliest ecumenical councils. So Akin seems wrong there unless he is saying the early undivided church was wrong. The two communities is just something imposed on to the subject from the outside. Again there were major churches with patriarchs before any division at all. Thus his argument makes no sense there. That second argument really is bad.

[@marcokite]

There are NO arguments for a new Christian to go RCC instead of Holy Orthodoxy. For the first 1,000 years of the Church the Bishop of Rome was NOT supreme but 'first among equals'. BTW the Patriarch of Antioch is ALSO the successor of Peter. The Disciples TOTALLY understood the concept of 'first among equals' they would NOT have understood and would have REJECTED the idea that Peter was 'supreme' or had 'authority' over them. Poor Jimmy does get very muddled, to say the least. No one in the early Church thought of Peter as being like a king or high priest, poor Akin goes from bad to worse.

[@Hope_Boat]

Amen

[@forthosewithearstohear6219]

Akin is not a Christian and is snared into a 100% false manmade Godless cult. Both catholicism and orthodoxy are manmade abominations. Neither has anything whatsoever to do with the God, the gospel, nor the Christianity of the Bible.

[@Mach15-20]

You don’t know your own tradition. This is an innovation amongst E.Orthodox.

[@beheadedforthewitnesofjesu3445]

Akin is not a Christian and is snared into a 100% false manmade Godless cult. Both catholicism and orthodoxy are manmade abominations. Neither has anything whatsoever to do with the God, the gospel, nor the Christianity of the Bible.

[@Hope_Boat]

@@Mach15-20 Thank you brother for looking at the speck in you eye.

[@mickroe8798]

What about the female pope? YR 855. So does not go Peter to pope unbroken.

[@GN-z11150]

Jimmy, at the Great Commission in Matthew 28:16-20 Jesus authorizes eleven disciples, not only one. Also, the 'Eastern Orthodox' have the First Petrine See at Antioch, well before Rome was established. Eastern Orthodoxy aka the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church, has preserved the "institution", as you call it. Rome instituted doctrinal development.

[@drdoomer8152]

Thin argument

[@GN-z11150]

@@drdoomer8152 Hi dr. Jimmy's argument is thin, since he hypothesized. I just listed facts. Also, I'm Catholic.

[@Hope_Boat]

☦ First point : Do the apostle understand limited authority? Answer : Wether they understood or not, our Lord explained it to them in Luke 22:24+ as soon as they learned about his imminent departure : "A dispute also arose among the disciples as to which of them would be considered the greatest. So Jesus declared, “The kings of the Nations lord it over them, and those in authority over them call themselves benefactors. But you shall not be like them. Instead, the greatest among you should be like the youngest, and the one who leads like the one who serves. For who is greater, the one who reclines at the table or the one who serves? Is it not the one who reclines? But I am among you as one who serves." Then he washed the feet as a servant does and told them to do the same for all Christians otherwise they have not part with Him. So here you have it. The first thing Jesus told them was that they must not try to lord over the Christians as kings but to serve them as servants.

[@forthosewithearstohear6219]

And this is exactly the opposite of everything the two Godless abominations of catholicism and orthodoxy are based on. They are both so easily seen to be Godless, manmade frauds that it is absolutely mind boggling that anyone could be ignorant enough to ever become snared into them. The same applies to the abomination of mormonism.

[@TedSeeber]

Better yet, what are the good arguments *given Fidducia Supplens* for a heterosexual to be for the Pope?

[@TedSeeber]

​@CatholicDefender-bp7my exactly why I am opposed to Militant homosexuality. The entire culture is about harassment and bullying inspired by pride.

[@SevereFamine]

There’s plenty of time to spew hatred of the Church in hell (with good company, too!) Also a lot of time to learn how to spell.

[@ScreamingReel500]

Did you find any errors, heresy or self-contradiction in the current Catechism? Who guided the Church and safeguard the Deposit of the Faith since the time of the Apostle until now (2000 years), so that the Faith passed down stay True and authentic? Not the Pope but the Holy Spirit working thru the Popes and the college of Bishops of Rome (also thru other Bishops in the world in the example of the synod that led by Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger on the commission to formulate the Catechism, the current Catechism that we have). The Holy See has the guaranty of the Holy Spirit that She will not make errors in her mission passing down the Faith. You and I received the Sacrament of the Confirmation, but we do not have the guaranty of the Holy Spirit as it was granted to the Holy See (the Magisterium). We as laity cannot interpret any Scripture and our view is in contrary to that of the Holy See, then say we have the Holy Spirit that guided us, and your truth is true, and my truth is true (heresy of relativism). The Holy See has the final say. Jesus asked Peter 3 times if he love the Lord, and then tell Peter to feed the sheep, shepherd the flock and gather them into one. Then He prayed to the Father that they can be one and love each other as "You and I are one". Infallible is defined as when speaking from the pulpit about faith and moral, the Pope don't make mistake. "Speaking from the pulpit" means the Pope passing on the faith that handed down and not putting anything in or taken anything out. That limits the Pope to obedience. God say do one thing and you do one thing not two things. That is "speaking from the pulpit", you just passing down the message, the Gospel, the Truth. Definition of words is very important. All Catholic you go thru Fr. Corapi's Catechism of the Catholic Church. Did you sign up for the 9-month of Novena lead by Cardinal Burke? May God bless you.

[@Hope_Boat]

Yes. Plenty. take extortion of confession by violence and persecution of alleged heretics. In the 9th century pope Nicholas I wrote to the king of the Bulgars. He condamned the use of violence to extirpate confession and explained that faith must come from conviction, not persecution. After the schism, the encyclical Ad extirpanda promulgated in 1252 by Pope Innocent IV authorized the use of tort_ure by the Inquisition as a tool for interrogation. Last year pope Francis called for a global ban of tort_ure. Where you the good guidance ? Laughable.

[@ScreamingReel500]

@@Hope_Boat You missed the whole point. Read my post again and see if I've ever claimed that all Popes and all Catholic were saints. I said the Church is guided and the Deposit of the Faith is safeguard by the Holy Spirit. So, there is no errors, heresy or self-contradict in Her teachings.

[@Hope_Boat]

@@ScreamingReel500 You missed the point. How you treat you neighborhood is pretty much at the heart of the christian faith. “Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?” Jesus replied: “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’ This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.” St Matthew 22:36+ It's not that post schism Pontiff were no saints. No one is perfect. It's that they were nullified the two commandments of Christ.

[@ScreamingReel500]

@@Hope_Boat I am not here to debate you, Yes, faith is believe in God that he is the Creator, and all his words are True. And, Faith is the relationship with God and with your neighbor/each other. I am obedience the Holy See teachings. You can submit to whatever belief you want. God respects your freewill, so do I. May God Bless you.

[@ScreamingReel500]

@@Hope_Boat The police broke the laws doesn't make the law no good. The Christians or Catholics broke the laws doesn't make the 10 commandments obsolete or no good, or the Bible no good or obsolete. May God bless you.

[@fivevs1]

first among equals, might make sense in small groups like nine or 12. But when you’re talking several hundred or several thousand no that’s not gonna work. That’s my reasoning and argument for why the pope is not the first among equals, but is "the boss" as we understand him to be as Catholics

[@oatmealtruck7811]

You’re saying in the EO dream world, where patriarchates just keep popping up through history I suppose, then you’re wondering at what point how many is too many? I’m sincerely asking for clarification. I’m neither Catholic nor EO, so I have no dog in this fight.

[@fivevs1]

@@oatmealtruck7811 I mean for me it’s more of a management question. there is a limit to how many direct reports someone can effectively manage and it's around around 15. So an organization like the Catholic Church for the Eastern Orthodox is going to have thousands and thousands of bishops in some sort of hierarchy. How many bishops would it be reasonable for a patriarch to effectively manage? At some point that level would have to scale out, but then you have all of those patriarch with the same amount of authority because they’re equal. How does the overall group maintain shared vision and direction if there’s no one in charge? if you’ve got 100 patriarchs, how the hell are you going to get them to all go in the same direction if there’s no one with the authority to lead the group?

[@micahmcgowan8007]

With all respect, the Samaritans end up repenting and accepting Christ, the Jews do not.

[@soteriology400]

Peter never stepped foot in Rome. That was a rewrite of history by Eusebius to centralize power around Rome.

[@reverendcoffinsotherson5807]

Lol

[@soteriology400]

@@reverendcoffinsotherson5807Peter didn’t even speak the languages of Rome, was an apostle to the Jews, not Gentiles, was assigned to feed the house of Israel, and referred to the stick of Joseph as scattered, which suggests Peter was not scattered at the time he wrote 1 Peter 1:1, and was referring to Babylon Egypt in 1 Peter 5:13, not code for anything. Neronic persecution was full blown at the time Peter wrote his epistles. Why would he leave his family in the most dangerous part of the world knowing he was going to die soon? You have been fooled by Eusebius.

[@reverendcoffinsotherson5807]

@@soteriology400 ok, buddy. You, someone who lived 2,000 years later, know better. Got it. Lol

[@soteriology400]

@@reverendcoffinsotherson5807 Exercised sound hermeneutics to obtain authors intent of the scriptures, as well as discerned written history and noticed many discrepancies. There was definitely a rewrite of history. The topography, also does not support the logistics for the gathering of the house of Israel at Rome, over a thousand miles away from the temple they fled from by foot, all the while the Roman army was on the ground. There are too many problems with the idea of Peter being in Rome. If one believes in false information first, and believes it to be true, one accidentally performs eisegesis to the scriptures without realizing it. People such as yourself, have not studied enough to purge out what is false and what is true. Jimmy Akin has bought into a lot of false information written in history, and has not exercised much discernment. Partly because he also is not using sound hermeneutics to be able to discern the written history. He is probably the best Catholic Apologist on Catholic Answers when it comes to hermeneutics, but yet he falls terribly short with obtaining the authors intent. Sharp guy, but he has a lot of purging out to do when it comes to determining what is false and what is not in written history.

[@TruLuan]

@@soteriology400 The Greek language was spoken in Rome buddy. And Babylon is not Egypt, it's a symbolic reference to Rome

[@joshuakimbril1705]

A decent argument, but not a home run. As an Anglican Catholic (Continuing Anglican, APA), I hold the papacy in high regard and see the position of the Petrine seat in Rome as more than just a "primacy of honor". However, I don't think that translates into the Supremacy and Infallibility of Vatican I. According to Vatican I the Pope can act unilaterally to establish dogma. Furthermore, the doctrine of supremacy seems to make the role of the Bishop in the RCC irrelevant. The Bishops are just the emissaries of the Pope because of the Pope's power of immediate jurisdiction. That might not be the actual doctrine, but practically speaking that is what has occurred. Furthermore, the Francis papacy is really stretching the understanding of infallibility. With the Fiducia Supplicans the magisterium has literally said that sin can be blessed. For all the talk that it changes "nothing", the blessing of homosexual "couples" does indeed implicitly bless sodomy, Jesuit sophistry notwithstanding. Regardless, I pray for my brothers and sisters in the RCC and hope that they get a great pope next time that will fix the Francis mess.

[@CesarArturoCastaneda]

The sinner may be blessed but not the sin, though I understand that the confusing wording is less than ideal.

[@LeonG24-si8wd]

The pope is head of the church - he has the symbolic keys to the kingdom given by Christ Himself. However, he cannot reinvent The Faith or change its meaning.

[@DominicMazoch]

Odd. Of the 5: Patriarchal see, 4:are closely related to St. Peter: Antioch: St. Peter Rome. St. Peter Alexandria: St. Mark (Student) Byzantine: St. Andrew, First Valled, Brother. Word to the wise. We should give, particularlynthose Rites in Communion due tespect. If you lock them out, St Peter could lock you out of Heaven....

[@steveempire4625]

First, I'll fully admit this is an appeal to consequences fallacy. However, if it ends up being the case that the papacy was as the RCC says it is in all regards, the Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox committed the sin of schism and papal disobedience on day 1. They swear up and down they never considered the pope to be as the RCC says he is and the historical record indicates they gave lip service to Rome or used Rome whenever it suited them, Eastern Emperors installed popes as their puppets, and all of these councils existing so far away from Rome that the pope, himself, never attended is a big red flag. If the RCC is correct, wouldn't that make Eastern Orthodox Christians in mortal sin from the very beginning?

[@kais.1684]

Their lip service also made it into the acts of the Ecumenical councils, several times declaring Rome to be the head of the church by the commission of Christ to Peter and his successors.

[@steveempire4625]

@@kais.1684 Yeah, that's the problem with thinking macro events have much to do with micro on-the-ground events. How many times did the Pope discipline or dismiss an Eastern priest or bishop? How many times did the Pope write a letter to the East only to have it ignored? How many times did the Pope appoint an Eastern bishop? Take all the powers and expectations of the Pope today and you realize it had little to no authority over the East on an administrative basis in a timely manner.

[@Mach15-20]

Bullcrap. The nestorians split 430, the orientals 450, and the eastern schismatics 1054. Not day 1 as you said. Also your caricature of ”Rambo” Pope is believed by nobody. And the ”lip setvice” is an eastern orthodox polemic, it’s highly exaggerated. The pope sent legates to those councils. It’s not like he was smoking a cigar drinking whiskey.

[@kais.1684]

@@steveempire4625 it isn't necessary for RC to prove that it was normative for popes to have appointed or disciplined hierarchs in the early church to prove the papacy, even though these things did happen, such as in the case of Photius. This supremacy of the Pope was even acknowledged in the 4th(Orthodox )Constantinople council which even pro Photian scholarship admits was corrupted with forgery of its documents. And it was on the basis of appeals to this divinely ordained for all time primacy in the councils and letters of the Pope to the East that the reunion after times of schism occured. see formula of Hormisdas, letter of Agatho, Hadrian to II Nicaea. Leo the Great was acknowledged by the East to have the authority to annul canons of Chalcedon by the authority of Peter. Ecumenical councils weren't authoritative as such without papal approval and even the Code of Justinian acknowledged Rome as the head of all the churches without whose approval nothing ought to be done. If you accept the authority of the ecumenical councils on the grounds they were guided by the Spirit of God you have to take these facts into account and not dismiss them on the fact that the Pope wasn't universally obeyed, as if this fact precludes the legitimacy of papal supremacy. Even post schism there was resistance to papal acts.

[@zackattack366]

This was an incredibly thin argument for the papacy.

[@SevereFamine]

I prefer the argument from miracles. The Catholic Church indisputably has far more miracles than the denominations, including Eastern Orthodox.

[@SevereFamine]

The only orthodox response I’ve heard was “the Catholics need more miracles because they are further from the truth” which is silly and would mean the Mormons would have the most miracles if that argument held.

[@drdoomer8152]

If you want more arguments that have over 2.000 years go to the bible. Start on Matthew 16:18

[@graysonguinn1943]

@@SevereFamineI would not take that too strongly, since in the Pentateuch it’s taught not to follow teachers even when they have signs, if they lead people astray. Paul also teaching to not follow another Gospel even if from an angel. There is also the tentative nature of miracles as evidence as it’s never known for sure if they were genuine

[@zackattack366]

@@drdoomer8152 That is certainly a better than a typology argument, but falls incredibly short of the modern concept of the papacy.

[@user-wk1li2cm5o]

2 Thessalonians 2:4 KJV Bible - The popes are not the vicars of Christ. “Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God.”

[@TruLuan]

Thank God the Pope never claimed to be God or put himself equal to God, ever. You're cherry picking scriptures

[@GGME7777]

1- This is completely destroing the tradition of the early church fathers ... so sad So when then we have 318 Bishops in Nicaea ? and they wrote the Creed that we recite every day today. 150 in Constantinople ? 200 in Ephesus ? They were doing everything TOGETHER 2- the Lord rebuked the Israelite for asking Samuel for a King, he told Samuel don't be sad Samuel, this is against me personally, unfortunately that's exactly what the Roman Catholic church is doing ... you're completely missing the point and arguing against yourself basically. 3- in the book of revelation the Lord wrote to the 7 churches, he never asked them to unite but rather he ask them to turn to HIM or else and as long as they have him as a King; they're already united. The Lord is King and Lord of his church

[@dougy6237]

The Protestant heretics had to get rid of the authority of the pope to bring in their traditions of men. The Early Church, centuries before, clearly held that Peter was the Rock of Matthews Gospel, with real authoritative and unifying power. May our separated Protestant brethren return to the Rock of Peter. Praised be Jesus Christ.

[@gorion70]

Instead of using “what would they have thought” as logic, it would have been better to look at how the current ecumenical patriarch functions and leads the other patriarchs. You could have used an actual person vs. your imagination.

[@drydizzle2954]

I'm a Catholic, but resonate with the Orthodox view of things, Papacy included. I just don't find the Petrine arguments for the Papacy as the institution stands today to be particularly compelling, or necessary. The bolstering of the Papacy in the high and late middle ages appears to be more contrived than anything else. The Orthodox are fine with everything not being spelled out and leaving it up to mystery, while the West loses its mind in an attempt to define everything to the nth degree. I should also add that the holder of the office is of no real interest to me in terms of my feelings on the matter. Whether it be a Pius X, JP2, or Francis, the sentiment is the same, the Papacy appears to have twisted into something that God did not intend and giving the Pope the level of ecclesiastical power that he has now, such as infallibility, declaring dogmas and repressing or mandating certain practices in the Church seems way out of line.

[@hunterburney1257]

In Against Heresies 3:3:2, St. Irenaeus states that because it would be too tedious to list the Apostolic Succession of all the churches, one must merely cite the Apostolic Succession of the Church in Rome, since all churches must be in union with that church. This was written in 189 AD. What are your thoughts on this? I think the problems you mentioned above are valid, but don't necessarily mean the Catholic Church is not the one true Church, only that it needs to possibly be refocused in some regards.

[@drjanitor3747]

“Or necessary”. The splintered Orthodox sects can’t agree on basics like where jurisdiction begins, ends or what makes a council binding or not.

[@hunterburney1257]

@@drjanitor3747 Can you reference what you're talking about? Catholic speaking here, genuinely asking.

[@JohnnyNada]

Muh Keez

[@GTMGunTotinMinnesotan]

Tried to give this a solid listening. Unconvincing arguments. Clearly attempted and thought out, clearly spoken, just very weak arguments. I'll be fascinated to see what happens in the next 2-3 Popes with the direction things are going now already. That being said, I'm curious where all churches will be at in 10-15 years. Thanks for the video and content.

[@SaintlySaavy]

Jimmy Akin for the win!

[@forthosewithearstohear6219]

jimmy akin for a one way permanent trip to the lake of fire. Repent!

[@SaintlySaavy]

@@forthosewithearstohear6219 😂😂 May you find your way to the Fullness of Truth. All else except for EO are tickets to Jesus is just a “cool guy” and Sunday concerts instead of worship.

[@forthosewithearstohear6219]

@@SaintlySaavy ,...My way has already been found by Jesus. He found me and set me on the path to life. Your false manmade abomination of catholicism is a one way ticket to the lake of fire as I stated for your edification. You are completely steeped in deception. Catholicism has nothing whatsoever to do with the God, the Jesus, the gospel, nor the Christianity of the Bible. It is all a manmade fraud and is everything the Bible warns you not to be deceived by. Repent!

[@MiguelGonzalez-js3pv]

The problem with that is that the pope is not the pope, the way Christ Jesus is. Nice strawman argument, though 👌 😅💯🙏

[@dwightschrute900]

I’m not convinced Precisly Because of how poorly the liturgy is used in the Latin Churches in Europe, America and Canada… ESPECIALLY in South America.

[@ilonkastille2993]

Jesus also gave the Keys of His Kingdom to Peter. The keys can only be given to one.

[@forthosewithearstohear6219]

Jesus gave nothing to Peter except a rebuke. The truth is, the whole entire Godless abominations of catholicism and orthodoxy are an offence to Jesus/God. They are the manmade religions of the accursed of God. Repent! "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." Matthew 16:23 KJV

[@drjanitor3747]

@@forthosewithearstohear6219 Protestants. Lol.

[@AVoiceCryingInTheWildern-vt6ed]

@@drjanitor3747 ,...You will not be laughing on judgement day. Your laughing will turn to weeping and gnashing of teeth when Jesus returns, and you all find out you were completely deceived, and snared into everything the Bible warned you not to be deceived by. Repent!

[@AVoiceCryingInTheWildern-vt6ed]

@ilonkastille2993,...You have spoken absolute unbiblical nonsense. Repent!

[@drjanitor3747]

@@AVoiceCryingInTheWildern-vt6ed protestants. Lol

[@tjg2582]

That and Peter onced served as Bishop of Antioch.....but not Rome.

[@Mach15-20]

Historically false. He was in both cities.

[@brunot2481]

As far as Antioch goes, it is true that St Peter himself was the first bishop there. Still the Petrine nature of the Antiochene See is honorific (not jurisdictional) because he ordained St Evodius as the Bishop of Antioch in 53 AD when he left it for Rome. So when St Peter died (in 64 AD), he was NOT holding two/three/four simultaneous episcopal offices. That would be simply a gross historic mistake. Peter was holding authority in the Roman See just as he holds it in the apostolic collegiate to confirm his brothers on the faith, as God commissioned him to a faith that fails not (Lk 22, 32). That’s why, even Peter being their founder, nowhere in history we can see registers of an Antiochene bishop calling himself “the” successor of St Peter to exercise prerogatives of ecclesiastical authority. Only the Roman bishop holds that title strictly. And only American Protestant wackos from the 19th century (special time for the founding of all cults and sects) started to deny Peter was the first bishop in Rome. Let me give you two examples of the Petrine ministry in the Church universal as said by two great Church Fathers (two Eastern monks that lived in the West): they CLEARLY meant Peter/Rome as the leading discernible doctrinal authority among all the Churches and the leading principle of unity apart from which the very Catholicity of the Church is put out: *St. John Cassian, Eastern monk who lived in the West (c. 430)* _“That great man, the disciple of disciples, that master among masters, _*_who wielding the government of the ROMAN CHURCH POSSESSED THE PRINCIPLE AUTHORITY IN FAITH AND IN PRIESTHOOD. Tell us, therefore, WE BEG OF YOU, PETER, prince of Apostles, TELL US HOW THE CHURCHES MUST BELIEVE_*_ in God”_ (Cassian, Contra Nestorium, III, 12, CSEL, vol. 17, p. 276) ___________________ *St Jerome of Stridon, Eastern monk who lived in the West (347 AD - 420 AD)* _”Yet, though your greatness terrifies me, your kindness attracts me. From the priest I demand the safe-keeping of the victim, from the shepherd the protection due to the sheep. Away with all that is overweening; _*_let the state of ROMAN MAJESTY withdraw. My words are spoken to the SUCCESSOR OF THE FISHERMAN, to the disciple of the cross. As I follow no leader save Christ, so I communicate with none but your blessedness, THAT IS WITH THE CHAIR (“cathedra”) OF PETER. For this, I know, is the ROCK ON WHICH THE CHURCH is built (Matthew 16:18)! This is the house where ALONE the paschal lamb can be rightly eaten (Exodus 12:22). This is the Ark of Noah, and he who is not found in it shall perish when the flood prevails_*_ (Genesis 7:23). But since by reason of my sins I have betaken myself to this desert which lies between Syria and the uncivilized waste, _*_I cannot, owing to the great distance between us, always ask of your sanctity the holy thing of the Lord. Consequently I here FOLLOW the Egyptian confessors WHO SHARE YOUR FAITH_*_ , and anchor my frail craft under the shadow of their great argosies. I know nothing of Vitalis; I reject Meletius; I have nothing to do with Paulinus. He that gathers not with you scatters; Matthew 12:30 he that is not of Christ is of Antichrist”_ (St Jerome, Letter 15 [to Pope St Damasus], par. 2). God bless your journey, my friend!

[@essencealex1727]

My brother in Christ If it's so why didn't the pope have supreme authority in the council of Nicaea Are you suggesting that the patriarchs intentionally ignored Christ choice of peter as superior to the rest ? I do not understand your position here nontheless God bless you Christ is king 👑 ☦️ 💖 Amen

[@lizmonard]

God has always chosen ‘one’ person to be leader… Abraham, Moses, Jeremiah, Samuel, David, Solomon..

[@Vagabond824]

Those are multiple people.

[@Unknown-hb3id]

Jesus happens to be a person - eternally so.

[@thomasthellamas9886]

@@Unknown-hb3idthey can’t comprehend this response

[@ProjectMysticApostolate]

Those keys were definitely legit. Thank God for Catholicism and the Papacy. ⚔️✝️DEUS VULT✝️⚔️

[@Hope_Boat]

A dispute also arose among the disciples as to which of them would be considered the greatest. So Jesus declared, “The kings of the Gentiles lord it over them, and those in authority over them call themselves benefactors. But you shall not be like them. Instead, the greatest among you should be like the youngest, and the one who leads like the one who serves. For who is greater, the one who reclines at the table or the one who serves? Is it not the one who reclines? But I am among you as one who serves. Luke 22:24+ ☦Kyrie eleison ☦ IC XC NI KA

[@gz67]

I was raised in the Orthodox church. I came to America at a young age and we attended an Orthodox church in our city. I was in awe of the liturgy and singing and incense in the service. It was a mystery to me. I knew God existed but did not know God. Fast forward to my late teen years and some bad experiences and a life of outright sin, a man shared the message of the gospel. I ended up converting to Christ in faith after reading the Bible for a few months especially the gospel of John. My life completely changed and I discovered the love of God through Jesus. I had several dreams that really helped me on my path to living for Jesus. The one that really spoke to me and even awakened from sleep with tears and sadness was of Mary the mother of Jesus. I was walking in a beautiful green park like setting. I approached a clearing of grass and noticed a towering white pedestal into the skies. I laid down under the pedestal which looked like it was a type of marble but white. As I stared up along its length into the sky, it suddenly started shrinking down rapidly until it was Mary at the top and once it reached the ground she sat there in white weeping. I went to hug her and ask her why she was weeping. She said because all the people were praying to her and worshiping her. As she said that with tears streaming down her cheeks I felt the intense sadness and also started to cry with her in my dream. I woke up crying. I will never forget that dream. Although I believe in Orthodoxy as far as doctrine and even some of the liturgy and other aspects of Orthodoxy as well as Catholicism, I never pray to Mary or the saints that have passed. I only pray to God and to Jesus and of course through the Holy Spirit who helps us pray. The Holy Spirit is the Comforter, the Helper, and the intermediary for us to God the Father through Jesus. In reading the New Testament over and over many times, I have never seen the need to pray to saints or Mary. Blessed are all those who live and die in Christ, but to venerate them in prayer and or adoration through prayer to them was never something the early church practiced. I am perfectly fine trusting in Jesus and thanking God for all the saints and for preserving the scriptures through the ages for us to know and understand as simple lay people. God is known to us individually and corporately in our various assemblies and church services. I can not pray to Mary because she is not the mediator nor the Helper, but the Holy Spirit is and God alone provides salvation in Christ.

[@user-ez1ic7ed4b]

What is the point of Christianity with works that save? The Noachide laws offer salvation without many works and it's a much easier deal than Catholicism. Fideism is the, and I stress THE only way that Christianity makes sense and isn't pointless.

[@delvingeorge2807]

Your so called Doctrine of Faith Alone and others Solas by Luther came to Luther when he was taking a Dump in Toilet/Latrine. Read more Scholarship works how the Saved by Faith Alone argument came to Luther. Lloyd de Jong has a YT channel who is currently doing a Series on Luther. Get to know the Real Luther not the Caricature of what is being presented currently in the World today. He got Some Solid Scholarly works being Mentioned in his Series. Luther and his Protestant theology and his fellow companions influenced the Anti-Jewish rhetoric, Secularisation of West Atheism rise of Nazism and Holocaust.

[@Ng-zg4dq]

Fascinating

[@xxFairestxx]

Christ is the head of the church. There is no vicar needed because Christ is alive: not dead. ☦️ Lord have mercy on us.

[@philoalethia]

"Orthodox and [Roman] Catholics agree that the Pope follows in the role of Peter." Well, okay, but precisely where do we see that Peter has unilateral authority over all of the apostles and the entire Church? Nowhere. That is read back into Scripture by people centuries after-the-fact. Precisely where do we see that Peter is infallible? Nowhere. That is read back into Scripture by people centuries after-the-fact. Precisely where do we see that Peter could pass on these charisms (that he didn't have) to other (who he didn't meet or appoint)? Again nowhere. That is read back into Scripture by people centuries after-the-fact. In other words, the various powers that Roman apologists impute to the Bishop of Rome are nowhere seen of Peter... who they say is the source of their church's unique powers. Jimmy Akin's argument for Rome is a complete, absolute nonsequitur. Papal Supremacy is the key doctrine that distinguishes the Church of Rome from the other authentic, apostolic Churches. Even Rome admits today that Papal Supremacy was never accepted by the rest of the Church. Papal Supremacy is clearly an error and the cause of tremendous schism in the Church of Christ.

[@Dee-nonamnamrson8718]

Don't get how you can come to Catholicism from an honest look at scripture.

[@julianegillan6994]

How so?

[@Dee-nonamnamrson8718]

@julianegillan6994 Just so many things done by the catholics that are extra-biblical or outright against scripture.

[@forthosewithearstohear6219]

@@Dee-nonamnamrson8718,...It is not "so many things" it is everything. The whole false manmade abomination of catholicism is an ungodly manmade fraud. One has to be completely spiritually dead and blind to not understand this. And this is exactly what catholicism is, the religion of the spiritually dead and blind, of the accursed of God, and of the brute beasts made to be destroyed. The book of Jude describes the catholics, the orthodox, and the mormons.

[@drjanitor3747]

@@Dee-nonamnamrson8718 “an honest look at scripture”. Try an educated look.

[@seeker3599]

"Now I confidently say that whosoever calls himself, or desires to be called, Universal bishop, is in his elation the precursor of antichrist, because he proudly puts himself above all others." -Pope of Rome St. Gregory the Dialogist

[@Hope_Boat]

☦ Second point : The supremacy of the Roman Pontiff does not come Jerusalem being the temple but from Rome being the capital city of the Roman Empire. The very title Pontifex Maximus if the religious title of Cesar during the times of the imperial cult. When pope Leo IX claimed universal jurisdiction in a letter he send to the Patriarch Michel of Constantinople around 1050 his argument was that Rome has inherited the imperial insignias due to the Donation of Constantine, a forged Roman imperial decree by which the emperor Constantine the Great supposedly transferred authority over Rome and the western part of the Roman Empire to the Pope This is obvious when you read the encyclicals after the schism with orthodoxy in 1054. 1075 Dictatus Papae : That the Roman pontiff alone is called universal by right. That he alone can use the imperial insignia. That all princes are to kiss the feet of the pope alone. That the name of him alone is to be recited in the churches. That this is the only name in the world. That for him it is licit to depose emperors. That his sentence ought to be retracted by no one and that he alone can retract that of all. That he himself must be judged by no one. That one is not to be held to be catholic, who does not concord with the Roman church. That right is similar to the imperial cult and has nothing to do with the teaching of Christ : - Do not lord it over Christians as kings do. - Wash the feet, rather that ask others to kiss yours. - Render to Cesar what belongs to Cesar. - There is no other name under heaven given to men (but Jesus) by which we must be saved. There was no such thing as a pontifical monarchy with the Church during the entire first millennium. Rome was orthodox.

[@drjanitor3747]

Nah. You guys are heretics

[@tjg2582]

The only flaw is one of perspective. The Roman Catholic See is the ine who left the institution.

[@forthosewithearstohear6219]

The only flaw is the whole entire abomination of catholicism/orthodoxy is a complete and total manmade fraud.

[@ImTiredOfThisChurch]

Really???of all the schisms that happened in Christian history can you tell me how many of those dissident churches ended up with more oecumenical councils and spread all over the world like the Catholic Church?unless you’re willing to consider that maybe that’s actually the one True church! Honestly I would be pissed if the Nestorian Church grew to over 1 billion faithful while the supposedly One true Church was still at 250 million of faithful ! You’re out of shame young lady

[@gold3084]

Peter was given the keys to the kingdom which have been transferred from Pope to Pope for last 2000 years.

[@gsausage]

Not the case....

[@GGME7777]

The Bible clearly affirm that Paul is the one who established the church of Rome not Peter. Can you provide one verse that connects Peter to the church of Rome ?

[@drjanitor3747]

Notice how the greatest miracles in history involved Catholics and the Catholic church, not Orthodox.

[@victorlitteral5969]

Blessed are those who believe without seeing. Not discounting all miracles that occur within the boundaries of the latin church, but we have miracles just as often. The publicity of an event doesn’t make it less or more miraculous. We have weeping icons, saint apparitions (including mary), clairvoyant ascetics, prophetic visions, etc., you name it. We just don’t put them on full display, because we evangelize with the Gospel and a a daily, lived repentance in accordance with it. Miracles are gifts that we cherish, the Gospel is the meat and potatoes that we pursue.

[@gsausage]

The papacy is heretical...

[@julianegillan6994]

Why?

[@forthosewithearstohear6219]

@@julianegillan6994 ,...If you have to ask why then you have only exposed your spiritually dead, blind, Biblically illiterate, lost, ignorant, and deceived state. Repent and read the Bible and learn what the truth of God actually is.

[@gsausage]

@@julianegillan6994 The pope is happy to receive titles that belong to God, as Holy Father. Pope history proves a very evil institution. I think it strange to have a religious institution so historically evil. Look up historical papacy "blunders".... Hard to venerate or associate that institution with God..... The church is built on Christ, not a pope. The formal priestly institution is no longer needed because Christ was the final Lamb slain for sin. No one can forgive sin except Christ and God. Etc...

[@gsausage]

@@julianegillan6994 I responded but it seems my comment got removed or wasn't uploaded for some reason. Pope takes titles only God should hold (eg Holy Father). The earthly priesthood, in the way the Roman Catholic church practices, was done away with after Christ's death and resurrection. The papal history is abysmal and undefendable (many actions done by popes).... That is just a few.

[@drjanitor3747]

@@gsausageorthodox are Protestant.

[@Justas399]

Roman Catholic scholar Richard P. McBrien concedes, “from the New Testament record alone, we have no basis for positing a line of succession from Peter through subsequent bishops of Rome” (Richard P. McBrien, Catholicism: Completely Revised& Updated, [HarperCollins, 1994], p. 753).

[@FrJohnBrownSJ]

McBrien isn't a very reliable theologian. He was super popular for a little while following the Second Vatican Council, but no one pays much attention now.

[@Justas399]

@@FrJohnBrownSJ was he lying with what he wrote -"“from the New Testament record alone, we have no basis for positing a line of succession from Peter through subsequent bishops of Rome” ?

[@FrJohnBrownSJ]

@@Justas399 How in the world do you get a line of succession "from the New Testament record alone" when the NT was written so early in the life of the Church? No, McBrien isn't saying something technically untrue. But because of his writing style, with its veiled attempts to unravel sound doctrine, he isn't a scholar anyone goes to these days.

[@Justas399]

@@FrJohnBrownSJ He is not the only one who denies the office of the papacy on historical and Scriptural grounds: ..."Was there a Bishop of Rome in the First Century?"...the available evidence indicates that the church in Rome was led by a college of presbyters, rather than by a single bishop, for at least several decades of the second century (Sullivan F.A. From Apostles to Bishops: the development of the episcopacy in the early church. Newman Press, Mahwah (NJ), 2001, p. 80,221-222). -Catholic scholar

[@FrJohnBrownSJ]

@@Justas399 I knew Fr. Francis Sullivan. I'm not convinced it isn't a similar situation as McBrien. Of course there are theologians and historians who don't like the idea of the pope as we understand it today. It just seems like all of those arguments are anachronistic strawmen. Respectfully.

[@alexanderfultz339]

They aren’t right about the pope

[@shred4Him]

This is a false equivalency.

[@Thedisciplemike]

Explain

[@whohitya]

Cope

[@sandstorm7768]

Who? Where? Why?

[@SevereFamine]

Your comment is, ironically, a cope itself!

[@coolcatbaron]

No, the video was about the pope.

[@ucancountontmoney]

Not really great arguments…

[@Vagabond824]

There is no argument. Orthodoxy is the only true church.

[@FideiDefensatrix]

@vagabond824 It’s cute how you Orthodox have deluded yourselves into thinking you’re one church “On the day on which the Russian and Greek Churches formally break with one another the whole world will see that the Ecumenical Eastern Church is a mere fiction and that there exists in the East nothing but isolated national Churches.” Vladimir Soloviev Russia And The Universal Church

[@drjanitor3747]

There is no argument “orthodoxy” is Protestant.

[@victorlitteral5969]

@@FideiDefensatrixJust like how the German church holds synods separately, right? In all seriousness, the issue of jurisdictions from the way you see it is because of the lack of a centralized administrative head. We administrative autocephalously, as one Church with Christ as the one true spiritual head. No need to use ad hominems and devalue our position, calling it ‘cute’. Could say the same about the contradicting dogmatic pronouncements from the papacy over history regarding the filioque. Is the filioque on the copy of the creed that Pope Leo III posted on the doors of st. Peter’s Basilica in 810 A.D.? There’s a reason why not. Hint: it’s because he opposed the filioque.

[@victorlitteral5969]

@@FideiDefensatrixOpposed its addition to the creed, technically. He supported it with the understanding of procession not being eternal origination, i.e. not the dogma of dual spiration for the eternal generation of the Holy Spirit which Rome later adopted.

[@FideiDefensatrix]

@@victorlitteral5969 How does a local council like the German synod contradict Catholicism? It’s not like its findings has any binding power over the rest of the Church. “Contradicting dogmatic pronouncements.” Nope, plenty of evidence has been presented by our theologians that the early Church believed in the Filioque but the Orthodox conveniently ignore it.