Everything that the Orthodox can say about their Church can be said about the Catholic Church. However most Orthodox probably agree with the Catholic interpretation of Mathew 16, Eastern church councils even affirmed that Rome is indefectible.

My objection to your point is that the church is not a building its a body, its a bride, it's living and breathing through people working by the Grace Jesus provides through the Holy Spirit. Because of this, the location of Jerusalem or Rome has little to do with identifying the one true church, rather, to identify the seat of Peter makes more sense confirming for me the catholic position over the orthodox based off of your logic.

@TJMcCarty

19 күн бұрын

I think Catholics do have to base it on the thought that Rome is the official seat of Peter. However, it IS a purely doctrinal argument. Catholics, like Protestants, have to argue for their existence based on doctrine. We can’t say we were the first visible church. We both came after the first visible church, which was founded in Jerusalem. Currently, the Jerusalem church is in communion with the EO church.

@Brother_Piner

19 күн бұрын

@@TJMcCartyIt’s based on Peter being given the keys to the Kingdom of Heaven, and the power to bind and loose in Heaven what is bound and loosed on earth. Peter is known to have gone to Rome, and his successors continued there as Bishop of Rome, aka the Pope.

@ericleon9000

18 күн бұрын

​@@TJMcCarty I think there may be a misunderstanding about how the papacy works and or how someone becomes the successor of Peter. As you said in your video Peter is from Galilee and Peter's first church was in Jerusalem. However, many historian's and the Catholic Church believe that Peter was martyred in Rome, crucified upside down in Rome during the persecution of Christians under Emperor Nero around 64 AD. This has many implications of the location. For instance, Catholic's traditionally build their churches on the graves or relics of saints. As you know Catholic's also interpret the Biblical quote "And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it." - Matthew 16:18 (NIV), as Jesus establishing the office of the Papacy with Peter as the first Pope. The Vatican is built on the grave of Peter. Which is one of the reasons why traditionally when someone becomes Pope they stand on the rock, yes Jesus is the Rock, but as you know, we can't build a church on Jesus's grave because it is empty, but as Christians we are supposed to represent Christ to the world. You have heard Jesus did not leave us with a Bible, He left us with a Church, (which put together the Bible) this also explores part of that. That being said, the current Pope is not italian, he is not from Rome, when he was a Bishop his church wasn't in Rome, and likewise throughout history there have been many popes from different part's of the world and it never mattered where their diocese or church was previously. It is a very practical and Biblically based tradition that supports the Papacy to be located in Rome (via Peters grave site), but since the Pope can be from anywhere, they go to Rome to honor Christ's assignment to Peter (obviously from a Catholic point of view). Additionally, while Jesus did not physically conquer Rome, the spread of Christianity within the Roman Empire, culminating in the conversion of Emperor Constantine in the early 4th century, can be seen as a form of spiritual conquest. Establishing the Christian leadership in Rome symbolically placed the heart of the new Christian faith in the heart of the old pagan empire. Depending on where you live, you may feel like you are living your faith in a "Roman Empire," where Christianity is deemed intolerable and or criminal. If we can through Christ, take root in and transform the most powerful anti-Christian city in the history of the ancient world, for Christ, we can definitely share the Gospel to the people around us in our lives. Christ conquered Rome. Christ used the once pegan city as a Christian stronghold to spread Christianity throughout the world. Sorry for rambling on about this but in my eyes, there are significant reasons why Rome should be considered a stronghold for the papacy, and the Pope although not given authority by the location but rather by the Holy Spirit, through the Papal Conclave process. Hopefully I am getting this right and not misrepresenting the faith, but thanks for reading if you did!

@andrewthomastaylor

14 күн бұрын

@@TJMcCartythere are multiple churches in Jerusalem. So I would not say there is only one Church in Jerusalem, it has multiple patriarchs. Some of which converted to the Catholic faith at some point in time, which is why there are multiple patriarchs. I would also say, no patriarch in the history of east or west would say the original church was founded in Jerusalem, rather it was Matthew 16:18 that the reference too.

The first Christians understood that Peter and his successors held a place of primacy in the Church and exercised authority over it. They believed that a rejection of Peter’s authority was a rejection of Christ’s authority. As the Scriptures tell us, Peter and Peter alone received the keys of the kingdom with the power to bind and loose (Matthew 16:18-19). It is true that Peter and his successors are sinful human beings. But it is also true that all of the biblical authors were sinful human beings. And yet God was able to keep them from teaching error. That same God keeps Peter and his successors from teaching error.

Irenaeus … the greatest and most ancient church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles. Peter and Paul, that church which has the tradition and the faith which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the apostles. With that church, because of its superior origin, all the churches must agree, that is, all the faithful in the whole world, and it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the apostolic tradition (Against Heresies 3:3:2 [inter A.D. 189]).

I’m praying that we all come back to one Catholic apostolic church. Let’s all be united again catholic orthodox Protestant and evangelical. We’re all brethren and United through baptism.

@milomask8456

19 күн бұрын

Catholic is the reason why Christians are divided.

Very simple: both Catholic and Orthodox churches have valid apostolic succession The rest are man made

@gunshotlagoon922

19 күн бұрын

What about the Assyrian churches?

@javierduenasjimenez7930

19 күн бұрын

@@gunshotlagoon922 They have valid apostolic succesion too

Kingdom Restoration Acts 15 The apostles and elders convened a council in Jerusalem to rule on the status of Gentiles in the Church. After much debate, Peter insisted that Gentile believers need not be circumcised for salvation (Acts 15:11). Then James, to lend scriptural support to this decision, made a startling announcement that the vision of Amos 9:11-12 was taking shape before their eyes: In gathering the Gentiles into the Church, the Lord was rebuilding "the dwelling of David, which has fallen" (Acts 15:16). For many modern readers, the meaning of this prophecy is not immediately clear. What is the dwelling of David? How and when did it fall? In what way is God rebuilding it? These questions lead us back several millennia to the days of David and Solomon in the Old Testament. Once the questions are answered, we will see the unfolding drama of Acts in a whole new light. The Dwelling of David The dwelling (tent) of David refers to the kingdom of David pitched in the land of Israel around 1000 B.C. It began with King David himself, whose achievements surpassed that of every other judge and king before him: he unified the family of Israel after years of intertribal fighting; he silenced the threats of Israel's enemies; and he transferred the Ark of the Covenant to Jerusalem, making it the spiritual and political capital of his growing empire (2 Sam 1-6). Even more importantly, God swore a solemn covenant oath to make David's family a royal dynasty and to establish his throne for all time (2 Sam 7.8-17; Ps 89:3-4). This was provisionally played out in the life of David's son, Solomon, who succeeded him on the throne and built a glorious Temple for the Lord (1 Kings 1-8). What is striking about the Davidic empire inherited by Solomon is that, for the first time in history, the covenant family of Yahweh stretched to international dimensions. Following the lead of his father (2 Sam 8), Solomon extended his rule not only over the twelve tribes of Israel, but even over neighboring nations in the region (1 Kings 4:20- 24). With this unprecedented development, Gentiles such as the Queen of Sheba traveled great distances to learn the wisdom of God from the king of Israel (1 Kings 10:1-13). Space was made in the Temple so that pious Gentiles could come and give praise to Yahweh (1 Kings 8:41-43). It is even possible that the Wisdom literature of the Old Testament, much of which is traditionally attributed to Solomon, was written to instruct these Gentile nations in the ways of righteousness (Prov 1:1; Eccles 1:1; Songs 1:1). Yet for all its greatness, this golden age was not to last. Over time Solomon allowed the attractions of power, pleasure, and prestige to drag him away from the Lord. By 930 B.C., only decades after Yahweh first pitched the Davidic kingdom in Israel, it all came crashing down-the tribes of Israel split apart; the Gentiles broke away; the glory departed. Though descendants from David's line continued to rule the southern kingdom of Judah until its demise in the sixth century B.C., the tent of David had already fallen. Rebuilding the Kingdom of David For the prophet Amos, however, whose words were taken up by James in Acts 15, the tent of David would not lie collapsed on the ground forever. Yahweh gave his promise to repair, restore, and repitch it in the messianic age (Amos 9:11-12). This is precisely the vision of the Book of Acts as it builds to the full acceptance of the Gentiles at the Jerusalem Council. We see this throughout the book, where the good news of the "kingdom" is central to the preaching of Jesus (Acts 1:3), Philip (Acts 8:12), and Paul (Acts 14:22; 19:8; 20:25; 28:23, 31). We see this in the disciples' final question to Jesus before his departure, where they ask him point-blank when the kingdom of Israel will be restored (Acts 1:6). We see this in Peter's inaugural sermon on Pentecost, where he draws from Psalm 16 and Psalm 110 to argue that Jesus, the risen and enthroned Messiah, has fulfilled the covenant of eternal kingship that God swore to David (Acts 2:22-36). We see this in Paul's inaugural sermon to Israel, where he assembles passages from Psalm 2, Psalm 16, and Isaiah 55 to make the same point as Peter-that in rising to everlasting life, Jesus is the messianic heir who sits on the throne of David and rules over his restored Kingdom (Acts 13:22-37), Lastly, we see this in the missionary progress of the book, where the gospel first descendants of the first Israelite tribes that split away from David's empire (Acts 8), and, from the raises Judah and Jerusalem to new life (Acts 1-7), then spreads north to restore the Samaritans, who were conversion of Cornelius onward, radiates out to the nations beyond Israel (Acts 10-28). This vision of an international kingdom gathered around the Davidic Messiah is the same vision set forth in Luke's Gospel (Lk 1:31-33, 2:29-32; 12:32; 22:29-30) and, indeed, in the biblical prophets before him (Ps 72; Is 11:10-13; 16:5; 55:3-5; 66:18-23; Jer 3:17-18; Ezek 37:1-26; Hos 3:5; Zech 2:11; 8:22). Lest the point be missed or misunderstood, Acts shows us that the restored dwelling of David looks a Davidic kingship, and the throne from which he rules is indeed a Davidic throne (Lk 1:32). Yet the royal quite different from the original tent propped up in the tenth century B.C. The kingship of Christ is indeed and Solomon. The focal point of this new kingdom is no longer a palace in Jerusalem but a throne standing empire he establishes in the Church far outshines in glory and grandeur anything accomplished under David next to the Father, high above in the heavenly Jerusalem. The unity of this kingdom is no longer held together by citizenship and taxes but by the Holy Spirit, who draws believers into one body through the and prophets. The borders of this kingdom are no longer extended by military campaigns but by missionary sacraments. The royal ministers of this kingdom are no longer administrators and politicians but apostles outreach. For readers with eyes to see, the multinational empire of David, uniting Israel and the Gentiles together into a single covenant family, was only a scale model of the worldwide kingdom of David's royal heir, Jesus Christ (Rom 1:1-5; 15:7-12).

Clement of Alexandria [T]he blessed Peter, the chosen, the preeminent, the first among the disciples, for whom alone with himself the Savior paid the tribute [Matt. 17:27], quickly grasped and understood their meaning. And what does he say? “Behold, we have left all and have followed you” [Matt. 19:2 7, Mark 10:28] (Who is the Rich Man that is Saved? 21:3-5 [A.D. 200]).

The main flaw of your logic is that Jesus did not have any blood brothers but spiritual brothers

@TJMcCarty

19 күн бұрын

“3 Isn’t this the carpenter? Isn’t this Mary’s son and the brother of James, Joseph, Judas and Simon? Aren’t his sisters here with us?” - Mark 6:3 Jesus had blood brothers and sisters by His mother Mary.

@javierduenasjimenez7930

19 күн бұрын

​@@TJMcCarty This is basic Bible. The original word that is used there, is Adelphoi which in greek means brother in a very broad sense. It is used many times in the Bible mentioning people that obviously are not Jesus brothers, such as cousins of His and many more. Start using the original texts for desambiguations. Brother in english can also mean "brother in Christ", not literal blood brother

@Wadiyatalkinabeet_

18 күн бұрын

@@TJMcCartyJewish law would’ve commanded Mary to live with Jesus’s brothers then after his death. But Jesus appointed her to John.

@andrewthomastaylor

14 күн бұрын

@@TJMcCartycommon misinterpretation. Most Bible scholars do not hold to this.

@andrewthomastaylor

14 күн бұрын

None of the reformers held to this either, was a much later Protestant interpretation

The orthodox and catholics both have valid Sacraments, they can both receive each other's Sacraments. Because the line of bishops is traceable to the apostles, which means when they lay hands and ordain priests, then those priests are "valid" yet may not been seen as "licit". SO confession, communion, baptism (born again) are all valid in orthodox and catholic alike. Protestants follow a false gospel that is actually not found in the bible anywhere. All of Protestantism is paraphrasing scripture and twisting and distorting it far from what it actually says if you just read it, without "follow up" personal interpretations.

"Now the same beloved deacon, Dorotheus, has requested a more distinct statement on these subjects, and I am therefore constrained to point out that it is the prayer of the whole East, and the earnest desire of one who, like myself, is so wholly united to him, to see him in authority over the Churches of the Lord. He is a man of unimpeachable faith; his manner of life is incomparably excellent, he stands at the head, so to say, of the whole body of the Church, and all else are mere disjointed members. On every ground, then, it is necessary as well as advantageous, that the rest should be united with him, just as smaller streams with great ones." -St. Basil the Great on the bishop of Antioch Rome's double apostolic succession made it a seat of honour as a first among equals. But it was not the ruling head of the Church as the papacy would go on to claim in the 11th century. And as you pointed out, Pope was just a title for the head bishops of Antioch, Rome and Alexandria, it is not a title exclusively held by Rome. Pope Honorius I was anathematized in the Third Council of Constantinople for teaching Monothelitism. This sinks the notion of Roman Papal infallibility. To wrap things up, the schism that happened in 1054 is a very long history, with papal forgeries that even the Vatican admitted to recently.

@andrewthomastaylor

14 күн бұрын

It was affirmed at multiple ecumenical councils prior to that and after that, agreed on by the East that Rome was indefictible and had primacy not just of honor but of jurisdiction. We can see that power being exercised by pope victor in the 180s

Ignatius of Antioch You [the See of Rome] have envied no one, but others have you taught. I desire only that what you have enjoined in your instructions may remain in force (Epistle to the Romans 3:1 [A.D. 110]).

@milomask8456

19 күн бұрын

Not the word of God. Even Catholic Church didn’t include those epistles in the Bible.

@figurefour633

19 күн бұрын

@@milomask8456 doesn’t matter if it’s included in the canon of scripture the fact is the early church both east and west accepted the Peter as a Pope and head of the church.

@milomask8456

19 күн бұрын

It doesn’t matter if you believe men be the word of God??? Amazing

@figurefour633

19 күн бұрын

@@milomask8456 You are only interested in try to win a debate instead of seeking the truth.

What makes you sure there is an invisible church?

I always think about the faith that Saint Peter had to go deep into enemy territory and evangelize in Rome. Like this is the land that authorized the killing of the messiah and all Jews and the destruction of the Jewish temple. God was really like “Peter I want you to go build a church in Rome”. Peter must of been like “really God” 😳 lol. After everything he witnessed from Jesus im sure he had confidence to go be obedient to that call but it was all faith! And look, through much persecution and martyrdom we overtook the Roman Empire. But it was that single act of St Peter under the power of the Holy Spirit to go into enemy territory and build a church that would eventually govern all the churches until the great schism obviously but no doubt the Roman church was the apostlic center of leadership. Right even to today the patriarchs of the Orthodox Church recognize Pope Francis as the apostolic successor of St. Peter. To me that holds weight! There is a current schism right now in the Catholic Church but schisms are bound to happen but the Catholic Church will continue to hold the chair of St. Peter until Jesus returns. Satan wants division. May all Christian’s come back home to Rome and be United again under one bread and cup!

We have one Savior and He established one Church (Matthew 16:18). He also promised to guard it against error (John 16:13). And He did. It was never His intent to create thousands of churches with contradictory teachings. Rather, He prayed that we would be one as He and the Father are one so that the world would know that He sent us (John 17:21). It would be hard to deny that the Protestant Reformation created and continues to create many divisions in the Body of Christ. In the words of Scott Hahn; “The world now has reason to doubt.” The Early Church was the Catholic Church. It taught and practiced in the same manner as the Catholic Church of today. And oddly enough, it was even called the “Catholic Church.”

To say that all you need is faith also implies you don't need a church is false.

Ignatius of Antioch. Letter to the Smyrnaeans.

There is only One ☝️ Holy, Catholic☝️and Apostolic Church, what part of that Protestants can’t understand 😂

@milomask8456

19 күн бұрын

Because it’s not biblical.

@figurefour633

19 күн бұрын

@@milomask8456 To the spiritually blind everything sacred is unbiblical.

@milomask8456

19 күн бұрын

@@figurefour633 it doesn’t prove your point.

@figurefour633

19 күн бұрын

@@milomask8456 it doesn’t have to prove a point it is the truth. Because you lack both faith and discernment, you cannot accept the truth.

@milomask8456

19 күн бұрын

The truth is the gospel and it’s all written. Catholic is not from God. 2 Tim 3:16. All scripture, inspired of God, is profitable to teach, to reprove, to correct, to instruct in justice:

Clement of Rome Accept our counsel and you will have nothing to regret. . . . If anyone disobeys the things which have been said by him [Jesus] through us, let them know that they will involve themselves in no small danger. We, however, shall be innocent of this sin and will pray with entreaty and supplication that the Creator of all may keep unharmed the number of his elect (Letter to the Corinthians 58:2, 59:1 [A.D. 95]).

When the Catholic church says it "the first church, established by Christ", we aren't saying it was founded in Rome. WHERE it was founded is not in dispute, nor does it matter. WHAT was founded is what matters. And What was founded by our Lord Jesus Christ is what we today call the Catholic church. The fact that it was in Antioch before Rome is irrelevant. Thats a foolish, nationalistic argument that has nothing to do with what was actually taught. The teachings of Catholicism go directly back to Christ. There is direct succession from His chosen key bearer. The same cannot be said of the nationalistic orthodox, who are more concerned with the WHERE and not the WHAT. No one argues that the church was in the east before it was in the west. The argument is that the original teachings are preserved within the Catholic church. As I always say, the orthodox are the first protestants. This is why it's the Apostolic church that protestants feel more comfortable with. The writings of St. Ignatius of ANTIOCH quite clearly show that the Apostolic fathers were, in fact, Catholic. He referred to the Roman Church as the one that teaches other churches and “presides in love” over them. It's always refusal to submit to the will of God that leads to schism. The sin of pride, which brought down lucifer is what causes schism. The refusal to submit, and the desire to be sovereign.

@milomask8456

19 күн бұрын

Scripture says otherwise.

@chukulan

19 күн бұрын

@@milomask8456 The Catholic Church gave you scripture. 300+ years of church tradition gave you the Bible. Led by The Holy Spirit, the church told you what was and what was not the word of God.

@milomask8456

19 күн бұрын

@@chukulan nope, the apostles wrote the word of God. It’s not Catholic. The apostles are not Catholics.

@javierduenasjimenez7930

19 күн бұрын

@@milomask8456 Neither Luke or Mark were apostles of Jesus

@chukulan

19 күн бұрын

@@milomask8456 🤣🤣 you only know who wrote the gospels because the Catholic Church told you who wrote them 🤣. They aren't exactly signed. That's the point. You sadly know nothing about the scriptures you claim to follow.

Oh, the Church is about to fall apart and die, we know that cause the Church said so a long time ago. It's to happen before Jesus comes. Then He'll resurrect the Church.

Antioch was where Christians were first called Catholic!

@milomask8456

19 күн бұрын

How come no one wrote “Catholic” in scripture??

@figurefour633

19 күн бұрын

@@milomask8456 Ignatius of Antioch “Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude [of the people] also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church” (Epistle to the Smyrnaeans 8 [A.D. 110]).

@robertdelisle7309

19 күн бұрын

*Anachronism alert* Ignatius didn’t have the idea of Catholic as in Roman Catholic because that distinction had not happened in his time. Capitalizing Catholic as a proper noun is anachronistic. He just was describing the church as being universal or catholic.

@figurefour633

19 күн бұрын

@@robertdelisle7309You are trying to argue a point when you have no clue of church history. It may be good enough for you or anyone who is willing to list to ignorance. And that the problem with You people. You fight hard to remain in darkness.

@milomask8456

19 күн бұрын

Epistles of Ignatius is not the word of God. Even Catholics know that.

Roman Catholics are misunderstanding Matthew 16:18. The confession that "Jesus is the Christ the Son of God" is the only foundational truth that Christ builds His church on. Peter’s confession is the rock. And therefore each member of the congregation must begin their own personal transformation journey (born again) with their own personal confession of faith that Jesus the Son of God is the Christ.

@tabandken8562

20 күн бұрын

Jesus gave Peter the Keys, by doing so, He put Peter in charge while He's away.

@Gospel_of_John_3.16

20 күн бұрын

@@tabandken8562 Isaiah 22:22 verse indicates Eliakam was promised a single symbolic key. Jesus was talking to all the disciples in Matthew 16:19 that is why plural noun was used to indicate more than one key. It is within this context that Jesus makes his promise of thrones to all the disciples. See Luke 22:28-30: You are those who have stayed with me in my trials, and I assign to you, as my Father assigned to me, a king- dom, that you may eat and drink at my table in my king- dom and sit on thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel. Also, in Matthew 18:18 Jesus gave all the disciples the same bind loose saying so of course that is why plural noun was used because they each received a key.

@tabandken8562

20 күн бұрын

​@@Gospel_of_John_3.16Nope. Jesus used plural in Matthew cause He gave him the keys of heaven and earth. Jesus gave them all the power to bind and loose. Eliakam was made steward of the house (single place, single key) for the King, just as Peter was made steward for for THE King. This was sealed when Jesus asked Peter if He loved Him 3 times and each time Jesus responded to take care of and feed His sheep 3 times. Sorry, but you are the one misunderstanding and I believe it's deliberate because you can't stand the idea of the Catholic Church being right. It is right. Unless you swallow your pride, you're going to be in a false Church when Jesus comes. That means, you won't be ready.

@milomask8456

19 күн бұрын

Would you dispute if I say that the keys to heaven is Jesus and the gospel??? Is Peter the only one who have Jesus and the gospel???

@tabandken8562

19 күн бұрын

@@milomask8456 The keys are Jesus's Authority, which Jesus gave to Peter. Peter was put in charge to represent Jesus while He's away. If I go away and give someone my house keys, they are in charge of my house while I'm away. They represent me in everything regarding my house till my return.