Because Protestants would say it's a sign of Satan! They would compare him to witche's flying on brooms. If they only knew that nuns are able to glide on the floor.

I moved out of that apartment less than year after this video came out, by the way. I can't say that I miss that refrigerator.

I believe you are correct, in Confessions I am almost certain (I can’t find my book copy right now) that it was Ambrose who baptized Alypius, Adeodatus (Augustine’s son), and Augustine. I think also in confessions Augustine calls Ambrose his spiritual father.

@@comradeobunga6524 You're both right about that fact. He was certainly living in Milan at the time. Only after his mother died did he return to Africa.

What are you on about? The Cardinalate didnt exist until centuries after the West fell and the Senate was so irrelevant that it was basically completely redundant in the Eastern Empire

​@N o you're missing their point. He's just pointing out how the Catholic Church is Roman in name, origin, and structured like the old empire itself.

​@@AethelwulfBretwalda Numa's balls!!!

He made a big fuss about that canon, refusing to accept it, which may have played a role in the widespread rejection of Chalcedonian doctrine in The Eastern Church.

Yes, I was going to say the same

This goes back to the rift between the Pope of Rome and the Patriarch's of the east, as well as the Lombard invasion and the crowning of Charlemagne as the Western Roman Emperor(which rightly miffed the Basileos in Constantinople) as the Pope needed protection from all that was happening. The future fall of Constantinople to muslim invasion cemented Rome "primus inter Pares"

@@Imiss80sn90s yep I am reading right now the book "Byzanz, das zweite Rom", by Ralph Johannes Lilie. Highly recommended.

@@blazodeolireta I will look into it, thank you! Is that German?

@@Imiss80sn90s I'm reading it in Italian so I bet everithing it is also translated into English. and yeah, it is translated as Byzantium the 2nd Rome.

Peters death in Rome makes it

He does not make any of those claims. Listen more carefully.

Threat of excommunication from the whole church does not imply total papal supremacy. The church was universal, a Pope could threaten such a thing, go through with it, and due to the universality of the church, the other bishops would not share their chalice with the excommunicated. This was true of every bishop, because it was forbidden for any church to receive anyone excommunicated by any bishop. It was part of the territory with the church being a single, massive universal communion. It's not a special authority that the Pope had that the other bishops didn't.

@@user-zt7ty1ne8h beat me to it

Most of the pre-Diocletianic persecutions were localized affairs. Nero decided to use the Christians as a scapegoat for the Great Fire in 64 so that he himself could escape blame. Trajan and Pliny the Younger both had reservations about executing Christians, but decided that the Imperial Cult stood for the authority of the Empire and had to be upheld. Pliny only implemented it in his portion of Asia Minor.

Thersites the Historian Thank you 🙏. This makes a lot of sense:)

Hippolytus is sometimes said to have had himself elected antibishop and set up a schismatic church but he may have been maligned. It depends whether he was the author of the Philosophumena, a compendium of heresies in the style of Irenaeus the authorship of which is doubtful.

A case of the Importance of authorship. If the revered Hippolytus denounces the leaders of The Roman Church he'll be taken seriously. An anonymous malcontent not so much.

I think he meant it as John's successor, Polycarp.

He is speaking English, not Greek.

if he’s such an astute historian he can learn how to accurately pronounce names, it’s quite easy, requires minimal effort actually

@@revolutioninformationburea6719 He is speaking English, not Arabic or Greek or whatever.

@@fantasia55 if he’s such an astute historian he can learn how to accurately pronounce names, it’s quite easy, requires minimal effort actually

since u needed to re read it

.... I would be sure to add John Huss, William Tyndal and 100's of thousands others who - like Huss & Tyndale, were all martyred because: A) they refused to compromise on the "Truth" And B) knew that it "was better to obey God than man" Peace to all........l

Augustine was Gnostic thus, your 'St.' is questionable. Paul recalled only few and this was not important to him. Read his letters to Corinth. They are in the Bible.

@@claydoyle5377 Former Gnostic honey, he repented after 9 years time

Seems odd he hadn't been baptized as an infant. But I suppose late baptism was still usual in The Fourth Century.

Ambrose himself had not been baptised when he was elected bishop of Milan.

@Nationalist Doomer a very heretical one.

Yeah they resisted the initial Arab invasion and harassed the Muslim invading armies for centuries.

That's not true at all. Both the Catholic and Orthodox churches, which are the apostolic churches and were a single united church in Jerome's day, uphold the deuterocanon as scripture and always have. The whole church was using the 3rd Century BC Septuagint, which had the books. This is the Bible that Jerome translated into the Latin Vulgate. Even the 1611 KJV Authorized Version has the full canon. It doesn't start falling out of usage until the 19th century and there's no legitimate reason as to why.

@@CHURCHISAWESUM Jerome did not want to include the apocrypha p, but was overruled. If you read Tobit and Maccabees, you will see clearly that statements made in there directly contradicts the message of Christ and his disciples. They were never quoted by them, and Beverly declares themselves inspired. The RCC gets some of its twisted theology from these books like purgatory, giving alms to get to heaven, indulgences to forgive sin, etc.

It sounds a bit far-fetched, but then again, the loss of population was severe and we also have to remember that prosperity increased notably after the disease cleared up, which gave people other opportunities outside of the church. So, maybe? That being said, the Renaissance was now in full-swing and so there were more educated people than ever and a number of them were associated, directly or indirectly, with the Church. I am leaning "no", but it isn't the worst hypothesis I've heard.

RCC is the Roman empire. It has no authority from God.

I'm not a Catholic but this is a bad argument. God does not condemn a city because of its mistakes when it becomes penitent. And God would not hold the crimes of a church's persecutors against that church just because they lived in the same city, that would be cruel and unjust and generally make no sense, it'd be like blaming the Russian Orthodox for being murdered en masse by communists.

rome also killed Jesus

​@@CHURCHISAWESUM the rome that killed Peter and Paul was the same rome that founded the church. think of rome as you would any politician, dont believe what they write or say, let their actions define who they were, pre Christian rome was an empire built on slavery, oppressing the poor, the rich held the power, they wealth, the influence, common people had nothing, they conquered free people, and all the rest, after Christianity rome was an empire built on slavery, oppressing the poor, the rich held the power, they wealth, the influence, common people had nothing, they conquered free people, and all the rest, same ole rome, nothing changed except they added burning people alive, torture inquisitions, and you were not allowed to question the church which was quite the opposite of what Jesus and Jews taught when they instructed students to question everything. it would be like blaming Russian Orthodox for killing Russian Orthodox, i mean who else would you blame.

They would be considered by us "like Arabs" if speaking to a mostly American audience.

It's an attested event held to by both the Orthodox and Catholic churches. We also still have the chains he wore and have preserved them as holy relics.

I don't think Peter was the bishop of anything. He was an evangelist to the Jews. He may have had a hand in starting the church in Jerusalem, but it was James, the half brother of our Lord, who was the elder of it. Even Paul wasn't a bishop. He was the evangelist to the Gentiles; leaving men like Timothy to oversee the church at Ephesus. They both started churches in the various cities/regions and left qualified men to pastor/oversee those churches.

Peter was not a Pope. The NT would have mentioned that. Also RCC did not come until pagans (Greek and Roman empires) the hijacked the true faith.

I may have to stand corrected, wyatt. You may be right about him being bishop of Antioch.

@@elainemoreland3908 Elaine, the RCC will claim he was proclaimed "vicar of Christ" via Matthew 16. Just another passage they use to confirm their belief but reading something into it that never was.

@@davidhall2197 Bishop and Overseer is essentially the same thing, the episkopos. This is how the word has been used in Greek since the beginning. When Paul founded a church, he taught them and communed them as their priest and overseer. When he left, he would appoint a successor overseer and several priests. This is where the bishopric comes from, he and the other figures we see at the Council of Jerusalem are a network of Episkopoi that has already been established in the first generation.

The modern world today is the way it is because history happened the exact way it happened, particularly the western world.

What you just laid out is a very Catholic reading of the Bible and the development of a tradition which reaffirms itself across successive generations. The passages from Matthew certainly seem to support this reading, but had ancient and medieval church power struggles gone differently, I am sure that another city's bishopric could have advanced a claim to supremacy that would have had a decent chance of sticking.

@@ThersitestheHistorian Who cares about your hypothetical? The point is that when scripture and apostolic tradition is taken into account, there is absolutely no way to avoid the fact that St. Peter and his successors rule the Roman Church, even though St. Peter was in Antioch beforehand, secondly that this Roman Church presides over all of the Churches of the world, and they are subject to that authority. Feel free to try to prove me wrong on that btw.

@@tomthetominatorftw4106 The Orthodox churches don't subject themselves to Rome rule, so you can't say that the Roman Church presides over all the churches in the world. The Catholic Church in western countries is moribund and on the decline, few young men joining the priesthood , or young girls joining convents . The recent generations who were born into the Church but no longer practice or identify as Catholics is largely because of the Churches intrusive edicts against birth control, divorce, gays, etc.. which is very out of touch with contemporary cultural norms such as couples deciding for themselves how many children to have (and can afford to have). The expected submissiveness and unquestioning acquiescing to Church authority is more attuned to Third World countries, where the populace lacks the tradition of personal autonomy and the right to question authority - not to mention the great many Catholics in the West who are disgusted by the child molestations and rapes which have been covered-up by Church authorities for centuries till now due largely to public disclosure through the media, though the Church still obstructs criminal prosecution of child rapist priests. "Defrocking" is not the same as doing hard time as a pedophile in a penitentiary where child sexual predators are treated by other inmates as the scum they are - stiff collar or not.

@@sunnyboy4553 As for the Orthodox, you make a grave mistake in ignoring the fact that the Eastern schismatics split around 1054. There are plenty of Eastern patristic sources that clearly say that the Roman bishop by divine authority presides/rules over all the Churches in the world. Even Photius and St. Maximos the Confessor have said those things. If you like I can give you some of those quotes. The point is that autocephelosy as the schismatics have it is an invention of the 11th century. Now, Constantinople and Russia have split, not to mention the Old Believers and True Orthodox splitting far before them. Also, the Eastern Orthodox have little to no arguments against the Oriental Orthodox, who split in the fifth century over Chalcedon. As for your critique of the West, I find those arguments dishonest (I'm not saying you are dishonest btw). For instance, you talk of the Church commanding an unquestioned assent to Church teaching. What does this mean? That we don't provide reason to our doctrines, and refutations of heresies? Of course not! A lot of the works of the saints were r efutations of heresies. When the Jesuits before the suppression, for instance, converted pagans and heretics, they showed them with peace why the Catholic faith is true. Many of them were martyred by barbarians for doing such. As for the modern-day scandals, the rate of pedophilia among priests is actually quite less than that of the average population. The big problem is homosexual pederasty. These priests ect. Are defying Church teaching when they ordain a known homosexual, or let a known homosexual stay in office. Those who leave the Church over it forget that the heresies of ancient were such that the majority of priests fell for them, and the modern heresy of clericalism is a very real thing. Most, if not all, of the Latin rite problems in the liturgy can be traced back to the homosexual infiltration of the priesthood. Doctrines against abortion, contraceptives, divorce and remarriage come from scripture and sacred Tradition, so if people want to leave the Church so that they can be comfortable having unmoderated orgasms then so be it, that's on them.

@@sunnyboy4553 By the way, I totally agree with regards of punishing these priests. Defrocking is the spiritually necessary punishment, while the secular might range in the time served in prison etc..

I concur🙏🏻

Gnostic much?