When it comes to the papacy, none do it better than Erick.

Beautiful Chieti Document and 'Bishop of Rome' document. Beautiful Donation of Constantine

I could listen to Erick all day, wealth of knowledge. Also sound advice, not afraid of opposition.

@TheCordialCatholic

Жыл бұрын

I agree!

Erick is the best

@TheCordialCatholic

Жыл бұрын

Correct.

Erick is simply incredible

@fantasia55

4 ай бұрын

No, he is very credible

First time to your channel. Great job man! Lets get together and promote both of our podcasts.

@TheCordialCatholic

Жыл бұрын

Thanks. Sounds Great!

You got the people I like to listen to. Gonna binge on your channel for awhile. :)

@TheCordialCatholic

Жыл бұрын

Welcome aboard! Much appreciated.

I listened a long time and heard a lot of nice words without any substantiation

Thanks a lot 👍

I would love to see a discussion between him and Gavin

Great discussion!

@TheCordialCatholic

Жыл бұрын

Thanks for watching!

St Anne Line • pray for us

St Peter • janitor of heaven • pray for us

What does Eric Ybarra think of the Arabic canons, genuine, pseudo Nicene or what status does he confer upon them?

👍

Why can’t I watch this video for any more than 5 minutes without there being an advertisement interrupting?

@TheCordialCatholic

Жыл бұрын

That's strange, Jonathan because I set the ads at least 10 minutes apart, usually further. They help to pay for my video equipment and podcast hosting fees plus allow me to earn a very small income every month. Unfortunately, I can't afford to do this otherwise.

@jonathansmith4712

Жыл бұрын

My phone might have just been being glitchy. It seemed to improve after refreshing the page. I love your content! Keep up the good work. I should’ve just “offered it up” instead of posting my whiny comment. Mea culpa.

History of Papacy is history of desire for power, so typical for fallen human nature... yet.. to safeguard themselves, heretical Popes imposed "infallibility" on themselves. I would like to hear from Latins as to how come St. Peter was fallible, but his alleged successors aren't.?

@spikenikz

2 ай бұрын

Where do you see that in a doctrinal sense that Peters teaching was falliable.

@johnnyd2383

2 ай бұрын

@@spikenikz St. Peter's falls are all over the Gospel. He was called "Satan", he denied Lord three times and had to repent for each one separately, and only after that he was reinstated to the Apostle calling, He had a problem accepting Gentiles into the Church, etc. Why are you not reading Gospel.? These are elementary events everyone with normal reasoning can see. Are you mentally blind.?

@spikenikz

2 ай бұрын

@@johnnyd2383 You are the one who is not reading. He falls short as he is human. But was he the same after the Pentecost. No. He was called Satan not because he was a devil but because Jesus thinks of him so highly that he was scolded like a Father scolding an eldest Son. Yet Jesus did not gave up on him and always encourages him. You Prots really think of him as the devil? What an idiotic way of thinking. Evertime it was always Peter that Jesus thinks highly and motivates him. No other Apostle was done like that. John 21:15-17 [15]Then, when they had dined, Jesus said to Simon Peter, "Simon, son of John, do you love me more than these?" He said to him, "Yes, Lord, you know that I love you." He said to him, "Feed my lambs." [16]He said to him again: "Simon, son of John, do you love me?" He said to him, "Yes, Lord, you know that I love you." He said to him, "Feed my lambs." [17]He said to him a third time, "Simon, son of John, do you love me?" Peter was very grieved that he had asked him a third time, "Do you love me?" And so he said to him: "Lord, you know all things. You know that I love you." He said to him, "Feed my sheep. Luke 22:24-32 [24]Now there was also a contention among them, as to which of them seemed to be the greater. [25]And he said to them: "The kings of the Gentiles dominate them; and those who hold authority over them are called beneficent. [26]But it must not be so with you. Instead, whoever is greater among you, let him become the lesser. And whoever is the leader, let him become the server. [27]For who is greater: he who sits at table, or he who serves? Is not he who sits at table? Yet I am in your midst as one who serves. [28]But you are those who have remained with me during my trials. [29]And I dispose to you, just as my Father has disposed to me, a kingdom, [30]so that you may eat and drink at my table in my kingdom, and so that you may sit upon thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel." [31]And the Lord said: "Simon, Simon! Behold, Satan has asked for you, so that he may sift you like wheat. [32]But I have prayed for you, so that your faith may not fail, and so that you, once converted, may confirm your brothers."

@johnnyd2383

2 ай бұрын

@@spikenikz Nice try to explain away obvious falls of St. Peter. You think if you submit more text it would somehow come out to be true.? And I am not a Protestant. I am Eastern Orthodox Christian who vomits on Latin heretics who insult intelligence of the people thinking they are as stupid as they are to believe in some old fart sitting in Rome and pretending to be "infallible".

"Whoever wants to be great among you must be your servant." I would say Peter did start the parish in Rome. And in Antioch and in many places. But he did not stay there to be a person to be looked at as something elevated. He stayed in the work, among the hard and dirty work. He and Paul ordained the ministers and elders, sent preachers and stayed themselves on the field. The problem with later popes is that they make themselves church emperor, they don't stay on the field. The Great leaders are leading the troops to the battle field, not watching the battle from the tower. And I don't think Peter would deny other apostles to have say to things. Synodality is the key to true papacy.

Problems with a papacy: 1- Peter never claimed to be the chief shepherd-vicar of the entire church. 2- The apostles never claimed he was the chief shepherd-vicar of the church. 3- The office of a papacy (supreme bishop leader, chief shepherd of the entire church) is never mentioned as a church office in any of the offices of the church described in the New Testament. See I Corinthians 12:28-29; Ephesians 2:20-21, 3:11; I Timothy 3:1-13 and Titus 1:5-9 4- ..."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. 5- 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). 6-no bishop in the 1st century claimed to be the chief shepherd of the church.

@LJT1981

Жыл бұрын

Do you believe in the Trinity?

@Justas399

Жыл бұрын

@@LJT1981 yes. There is support for it in Scripture. None for an office of a papacy.

@LJT1981

Жыл бұрын

@@Justas399 Not trying to push anything but I found this video interesting kzread.info/dash/bejne/gXiMqqt6p6yzl7A.html

@jlouis4407

Жыл бұрын

Please explain why Clement of Rome is writing from Rome to the Corinthians intervening in their disputes in 1 Clement while the apostle John was still alive.

@Justas399

Жыл бұрын

@@jlouis4407 We should expect to see this happening. Christians helping out others. That does not mean those that help others that makes them an authority over them. BTW Clement never claims to be the chief shepherd of the church. Never hints at it in his letters.