I remember when I heard the news of his passing in August of '22 and I'm sorry I never got to meet him as he was a very important figure for Orthodoxy in Britain, not least because of the many books on the faith that he wrote. Memory eternal.
Sadly for him I know through scripture he is not in heaven, but in hell. Holy communion does not become the physical blood and flesh of Jesus Christ. You crucify Jesus again and again. It's demonic doctrine from Satan. The Apostle Peter would condemn this church and Roman Catholicism. Jesus Christ also condemns this church. Jesus Christ would condemn this church because He said the only way to the Father is through Him alone. No need to pray to Mary. Paul attacked thee false teachers that snuck in to being false doctrines. Paul used correct judgment in exposing false teachers. Paul would rebuke and warn true believers against this church and RC.
@@ferrosjewellers4558 I forgive you for such speculations about the eternal habitation of Met. Kallistos Ware. Lord Jesus Christ, have mercy on this commenter, and also, have mercy on me 🙏
@@ferrosjewellers4558 I shouldn't be responding to you because I know you're probably a troll or a bot, but you do know we have writings from the church fathers who lived during the same time as the apostles who confirmed the eucharist right?
Wow, what a blessing to hear! I would love to have talked with him as a cherished elder and brother in Christ, but now I feel his wisdom and insight and it strikes me deeply. No wonder I'm having a challenged time finding a church home. Thank you for sharing this treasured expression of deep truth! Christ prayed for our unity and as Christians we should take heed, repent and serve Him as one, the way He taught us to... the way He desires and deserves, lest we keep falling and breaking His heart. Lord God we turn to YOU. We ask for mercy, help and guidance to unite as one body, Your body in Jesus' name, amen
Independent Christian Church guy here [Stone/Campbell Restoration Movement for clarity](PATHØS, vocals and guitar for the band, of whose account is commenting here)...appreciate his honesty on the fact that there was even disunity and such well before 1054.....listening to him, if i didnt know he we EO, i would've said he was a member of my "protestant" church growing up. Same sentiment, same overarching concern for seeking of truth. Brothers, we aren't as far apart as perhaps we imagine....often times I consider the fighting between RCC, EO, OO and Prot to be the equivalent of young brothers fighting. Just because there might a time in their growing up where they fight and argue, doesn't make them any less brothers, and sons of same Father. I can't make my brother no longer my Father's son, any more than he can, no matter how much we bicker. Much love, The Lord bless and keep you all.
What makes us brothers is the rite of Baptism. However, when it comes to the preponderance of doctrinal and theological differences, Protestantism and Evangelicalism can only be considered as Stepbrothers to both Orthodoxy and Catholicism.
I am an Orthodox woman, who has made her journey of Faith from the Lutheran Church. I also have a degree in Religious Studies. As a student, I was charged to research Martin Luther's doctrine on the Holy Eucharist. It was then that I discovered that he did not believe that the elements of bread and wine actually become, through the consecration, Christ Jesus' very Body and Blood. Luther wrote that the significance of the bread and wine is changed, becoming in principle the Body and Blood of Jesus. He called it Transignification. Having been a Lutheran for thirty years, I can testify that Lutherans believe it is not the very Body and Blood of Jesus Christ.
I didn’t know that. I am Lutheran and I always believed from day 1 that I am consuming the body and blood of Christ. I am drawn to Orthodoxy myself as I seem to naturally practice certain things and resonate with the approach of Orthodox Church…
I do not know if its okay if to ask for prayer here but I have lost my connection with God and but my name is Hector if you guys don't mind praying for me
Even the saints can, and often do, temporarily lose their connection to God. Be steadfast! Pray more, even though you don't feel like it. That's the advice that they give. PS - I prayed for you in church this morning.
Gr8 questions and a treasure valuable information. As a Traditional Catholic SSPX order, I find so much in common with Orthodoxy than Novus Order modent Catholic religion
His statement that some Anglicans believe that communion is memorial meal only means that they are not genuinely Anglican because that is clearly contrary to the Anglican formularies.(Note: there are few in the Church of England who adhere to classical Anglicanism. The COE is apostate.) Also he said troubled by the diversity in Anglicanism. There has now been a formal split between the liberals who perverted the Anglican faith and those committed to traditional orthodoxy. 85% of Anglicans are traditional Anglicans. Gafcon and the ACNa have emerged in the last 16 years reclaiming the faith. As far as the differences between evangelicals and Anglo Catholics, this tends to be overblown. There is still a unity on the creeds and the liturgy. Even on the sacraments there is more convergence then disagreement. As an Anglican priest who has conversation with other priests, we are more unified even where we have disagreements. We have adiophora. There is wiggle room but still a room with walls and boundaries. One issue that is significant today that needs to be resolved in gafcon and the acna is the ordination of women to presbyteriate. But the continuing Anglicans clearly have rejected this. Even in gafcon the largest diocese is Nigeria, and they forbid this. But what I find interesting is he left Anglicanism over this diversity yet Eastern Orthodoxy also has diversity. You have EO who believe in universalism and others who are hardcore rigorists. There is no agreement on the baptism of converts from the RC or Protestants. This greats a huge difference that serious implications with the EO. There is also the schism betweeen Moscow and the patriarch. The issue of ecumenism is a divisive issue on the EO. There many EO’s who consider calistas ware as not being truly orthodox and still infected with western ideas. Indeed to move from Anglican to EO does not just involve moving to a fuller faith as he contends, but a change in doctrine. Sola fide is affirmed in the AC formularies and the EO rejects this. Just one example. Calistas ware has also said the the ordination of women is open question in the EO. As an Anglican I firmly believe that the scriptures and tradition clearly have settled This matter. Not an open question.
What His Eminence says at about 16 minutes into the video seems to need some further explanation from St. Paisios of Athos. He taught, "There is no need for us to tell other Christians who are not Orthodox that they are going to hell or that they are anti-christs; but we also must not tell them that they will be saved, because that is giving them false reassurance, and we will be judged for it. We have to give them a good kind of uneasiness - we have to tell them that they are in error." Of course, we do not go out seeking debates with such people, but neither should we shy away from defending the Faith when confronted with error.
I am not Orthodox. I do find this man to be a thoughtful Christian man. One I could listen to while considering his words. I like him. I do wish you guys would not incorrectly, loosely, and sometimes dishonestly over use (and misuse) the word protestantism. True historic Protestantism is a stream that runs through the mass of modern loose evangelicals. We have lost sight of what Protestantism is. It is unique and important. It must be understood to understand what happened in the important Reformation.
Protestantism was never united in one objective. The original movement that sparked the ‘Reformation’ was started by Luther and he mostly failed his original objective, which was to reform Catholicism. He then changed his objective and created his own version of Catholicism. Either way, Catholicism broke itself from the Church, so you have no ground to stand on. But St Paul says to Timothy, “the Church is the Pillar and foundation of Truth.” 1 Tim 3:15.
I love Met. Ware, yet he always leaves out the dogma of Theosis, which is of much more importance than the other differences that he brought up with Rome. (As far as we're concerned, although the filioque is certainly equivalent, although we could work around it perhaps with syntax and word play.)
@@mikedennis9531I'm curious, In catholicism how does divinization/theosis work if you are not interacting with God's uncreated energy? If grace is created how are you uniting, knowing, and becoming like God, if He isn't truly present. Cheers
@@douganceKin Catholicism God is literally transfiguring your soul to be attuned to Christ, and in that you become who you were always meant to be. The Carmelite tradition within the Church probably has the best explanation of it. God's grace is what sanctifies and divinizes the soul. This grace when cooperated with purges the soul of sin and the worldly desires. Grace being created by God in the instance you need it comes from God, it is an immediate gift, but as it is created by God its ultimate end is God. Given God's omnipotence and omnipresence I personally find the energies/essence debate to be a distinction without a real difference. If it is created by God in an eternal present and comes from God himself it is ultimately part of him that he continually gives.
@@RestingJudge Thanks for the answer, one of the best i've heard. I still don't understand how created grace can part of Him, if God is uncreated, and isn't God's essence simple, so not a part. It doesn't seem to bridge the divide. I think differences come into play when considering the entailments of the RC view upon the OT Theophanis, the Sacraments, and the incarnation. When I look at the two natures in Christ's incarnation, I see the model of theosis. Christ's Divine nature deified the human nature. It was real contact between the created and uncreated natures. I think likewise our deification follows this blueprint. I need to do more reading on energy/essence though. Cheers
Born and raised Roman Catholic, still Catholic, but hope for this greater unity of the Church. There is much that I admire in Orthodoxy, and I hope that East and West might find a greater unity in my lifetime.
Yes. I'm in a similar position. I believe what JPII said that the Church needs to breathe with both lungs. I believe that we need them and they need us. It is clear that the Orthodox believe in the Primacy of Peter. My personal difficulty with Orthodoxy is that many of them believe in up to 3 marriages. This is a serious blow to Christendom, a serious wound to society. Although the Catholic Church allows annulment, saying that it appears that the sacrament never took place and the couple are free to actually marry is different than blessing up to 3:unions. What God has joined together let no man put asunder. How can you bless something that can't be because God has already joined them to someone else? They have been joined somehow metaphysically in to one entity. Blessing a second or third union of two people that were once truly still joined together by God to others is blasphemous. Only God can join them.
@@lorimavMarriage is the least of importance. Immaculate conception is a big one. Belief in that denies the duality of Christ essence which is part Divine and part Human. Failing to acknowledge His humanity implies He never incarnated and came down to us which is what makes Christianity unique and true.
Saint Paisios of Mt. Athos...I once asked an American who came to the hut: "What feat have you done as a great nation that you are?" "We went to the moon," he replied. "How far is it?" I ask him. "Say, half a million kilometers," he tells me. "How many millions did you spend, to go to the moon?" "From 1950 until now, he tells me, we've spent rivers of dollars." "Did you go to God?" I ask him. How far away is God?' "God, he tells me, is too far away."" But we, I tell him, go to God with a nut!"
How beautifully His Grace echoed the Second Vatican Council teaching of the true Church as articulated in the councillar documents Lumen Gentium and Unitatis Redintegratio.
And yet as Gavin ortlund points out this is a novel position, a U turn for both church bodies compared to the absolute exclusivism of earlier church councils. Politics!
@@veritasquidestveritas Because we definitely want to listen to the opinions of 21st century individuals who think a historical Church didn't actually exist and/or defected (which goes against Christs' words, but let's just ignore that) and that they can know the truth of the faith outside of the pillar and ground there-of and rather take the fully ludicrous position of Calvinism in all it's various nonsensical conclusions instead. Sure, it's not like this is completely preposterous and bordering on insanity.
We must unite in Christ. All of us Christians. It is clear that the Orthodox and Roman Catholic must marry in holy wedlock to strengthen Christ's overall ministry on earth. I have an immense faith that this too shall be resolved in Christ Almighty! May the Father's will be realized now. Now.
My Brothers & Sisters, question: Does anyone know at what Church this interview took place? (Also, I don’t want anyone to think that I did not listen to the message of Metropolitan Kalistos Ware in this video. In fact, I thought it was exceptional and I have copied the link to share with my non-Orthodox friends at the right time.)
@@AncientFaithMinistries Thank you. I thought I recognized my Church … But I wanted to be sure! For those wondering, it is even more magnificent in person, especially because of our Proto-Presbyter, Father Paul.
@sanctusja no please don’t use that as an excuse. There good and bad priests and some priests are just incredibly busy. Keep messaging other priests or better yet call the parishes. What area are you located in? Also I’ve called tons of priests and never heard back from some, heard back the same day, heard back days later, weeks and even months. Priests are very busy. They all have different strengths too, some are great at socializing and managing online interaction and some aren’t. My priest is a lovely man and I can go see him in person, but I’ll never hear from him via email, text or call. He’s a bust guy and his strength isn’t in using technology.
@@sanctusja that’s a shame but I will say keep praying and learning about orthodoxy and you will find your way into the holy church. Now remember orthodoxy priests are not perfect and their are liberal ones and bad ones out there.
@@sanctusjaRespectfully, clergy receive a tidal wave of DMs and emails all the time. I paint iconography for a living and I am unable to give everyone who messages me a substantive reply due to the amount of correspondence. If I were to engage with everyone like they want, I’d do nothing but have back and forth conversations all day. Multiply that by 10 and that’s the inbox of most priests. They have a lot on their plate. Don’t take a non response personal and don’t be shy. Go to a parish irl and take proactive responsibility for your own spiritual life. You won’t regret it. God bless you ☦️
@@sanctusjaI have never had good luck with priests responding to emails. Phone calls and meeting in person are more the way to go unless they're fairly young. They do give their phone numbers out to the parish and are typically inundated with work and emergencies day and night. Don't take a lack of response personally as a sign that the priest doesn't care about you. Take it as a sign that the demons are doing everything they can to keep you away from the Church. They will do anything they can to stop you. You'll notice their activity ramp up the closer you get.
Gracious and honorable priest. I am a Roman Catholic, Traditional Roman Catholic as of recent years. The only objection is how he refers to his form of Christianity as Church, but does acknowledge the Catholic Church as Church, but only says "Rome". I get it, this is his view, but to be in keeping with respect, to say Rome and not the Catholic Church is a divergence.
I’m not sure I understand. On one hand the Orthodox Church is the true Church but on the other hand they should not engage in apologetics positively for it and against other faith systems. I don’t get it, either the Church is the actual body of Christ and the mission is to bring people into that body or it seems he is saying that there are other paths to being in union with Christ’s body that doesn’t involve the Church. I’m confused, probably misunderstanding something
It seems strange to me for there to be a notion of Christian unity at any time in history. Yes, Metr. Kallistos Ware did mention the non-Chalcedian split, but the reality of disunity goes back much further, and is far more pervasive than that. The New Testament itself speaks of disunity (e.g. "the circumcision party"; or those who spoke of following "Apollos" and others "Paul", etc. etc.). Disunity has been part and parcel of Christianity from the very beginning, right up until now. Even deeper than that, the fact is that people sitting on the very same pew (or standing next to each other during Orthodox liturgy), sometimes (often?) have very different beliefs. And yet people can have a unity of heart, even with very different beliefs. This is true of people from different religions, and people of no religion. Also true is that there can be a very severe disunity among people who actually share the same the beliefs. Quite the conundrum.
The Greek language has "language" from the Fiery Tongues of Pentecost! The doctrine of our faith no language can convey. That is why God saved and the Old Testament was translated by the Septuagint into the Greek language and the Gospel was written in the Greek language.
Just because its ancient doesn't mean it is supreme. The living God and His Spirit is moving and working today and into the future. Bringing many people back to Him.
It's not the appeal to being ancient that's important it's the unchanging nature of the faith. Retaining the same understanding that the apostles had and passed on to their successors.
@@malindsell Thank you for your directness .... That means being E.O. Emphatically is NOT a requirement ( in every since of the meaning of the word "requirement") to receive the crown of eternal life and enter into heaven. Throw the Ark Analogy out the window.
@@biblefirst5691 I nearly became Orthodox after 25 years searching and 2 years a catechumen. So I learned a lot. One reason I didn’t proceed with joining was this very issue of no salvation outside the EO church. The Roman Catholics say the same thing, as do the Oriental Orthodox and the Syrian Orthodox. So which one is right? The EO at the council of Jerusalem in 1672 pronounced anathemas on anyone who was not EO. I look at things biblically. I can’t imagine our Loving God being so narrow minded! “All who call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved”. “Whosoever believes in Him has eternal life” etc etc. It’s almost as bad as hyper Calvinism, claiming who is saved and who is not saved, etc. Although many Orthodox now are denying this aspect of their faith, their church councils do nevertheless claim exclusivism and anathematise non Orthodox. The Canons (church laws) are as infallible as Scripture, in their thinking. So no matter how much they say “we know where the Church is but we don’t know where it isn’t “, at the core of their thinking is this teaching that they alone are the path to salvation. Forgive my long response.
How can you call the orthodox church the fullness and complete church when a huge chunk of the complete church went off and did it's own thing because Rome thought they were the fullness of the church because they thought they were the head of the church? That's like saying 4/5 of a puzzle is the full puzzle even though a 5th of the puzzle is missing
Is a tree less of a tree if a branch is broken off? No. It is still a tree. Orthodoxy is still the Church, because it holds to the Fullness of the Faith.
No, my brother, the Orthodoxx fell off the tree. Therefore, they are not the true church, the Catholic apostolic church is the true church. @acekoala457
@@acekoala457It isn't. Orthodoxy isn't equivalent to Catholicism, right now as we speak there is schism between Constantinople and Russia, and certain Orthodox are now ordaining female deacons like Anglicans. So the true Church is the Catholic Church.
Here, Im afraid that Bishop Kalistos is wrong concerning the Primacy of the Pope. The Church never believed in such an Ecclesiology. Both New Rome and Old Rome, according to the canons, showed that both Patriarchal bishops shared the first position and in all the councils, the Ecumenical Patriarch was always presiding in charge. In no council do we ever have a Pope presiding. This should be very problematic for us because the self proclaimed Popes at some stage failed to follow the same traditions of the 4 other Ancient Sees of the Church. A reminder that the term Pope was used as a humbling title meaning Father in Latin, these days it means centralised Authority who is infallible and does not need anyone else to correct him when wrong. The synodal system does not work when the cardinals chosen are sycophants. So this ex-cathedra clause, therefore, is ridiculous to say the least.
If one person wants to learn and knows orthodox church should study history of ancient faith and holy fathers of desert and then will see clearly what does mean real christianity, go ahead like his grace said in the begin of the speech
1 Peter 2:5 KJV Ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ.
IT IS A SIMPLE THING. LOVE GOD THE FATHER AND FORGIE ALL THOSE WHO DO NOT UNDERSTAND THE OVEWRWHELMING LOVE AND GUIDANGE OF CHRIST. TH3N, PAY ATTENTION.
Wait, I am confused… we don’t speak up to other’s in modern churches about the falseness of their church?? Is that not what God instructs us to do in the Bible? 🧐 We don’t attack, but we are to rebuke false belief’s… how could he say we aren’t?
I believe the message there is that we should evangelize to the non religious over proselytizing to those who already profess a belief in Jesus Christ. In order to serve the greater need.
@@AncientFaithMinistriesthat doesn’t sound like the message I’ve been getting from my Orthodox studies, that sounds exclusive and contrary to life in the true church. I definitely understand the part about not attacking or debating other’s, but to let them be lost in their false faith by paying no attention to saving them…? Surely he doesn’t mean that. I always struggle to understand any conversation of his, to be honest. May God bless his soul, regardless.
I am not a Catholic, neither a nominal Orthodox. Bu I still, claim to be an Orthodox, that kind of Orthodox described by the The Most Reverend Metropolitan of England, Kalistos (Timothy) Ware, in his outstanding book called The Orthodox Church, Printed in England by Clays Ltd, 1997. Talking on the relationship of the Orthodox with the Holy Scripture of God, his eminence made this declaration: “The Christian Church is a Scriptural Church: ORTHODOXY BELIEVES THIS JUST AS FIRMLY, IF NOT MORE FIRMLY, THAN PROTESTANTISM. The Bible is the supreme expression of God’s revelation to the human race, and CHRISTIANS MUST ALWAYS BE «PEOPLE OF THE BOOK»”. Therefore, whatever and ALL the things spoken by The Most Reverend Metropolitan of England, Kalistos Ware that are lined up with the Bible which is proclaimed by his eminence as “the supreme expression of God’s revelation to the human race” he says, this IS what I believe and practice, this is what makes me an Orthodox. As far as other opinions of The Most Reverend Metropolitan of England, Kalistos (Timothy) Ware that are NOT lined up with the Bible, I leave them to him. I am following thus the teachings of the Saint Cyril of Jerusalem, warning his readers in the fourth Catechesis 17, vol. 1, to NOT believe anything from his writing that are NOT confirmed by the Holy Scripture,
No offense but what you are describing is very protestant: faith based on your personal reading of scripture alone. You're not Orthodox (capital O Orthodox) unless you're part of the Orthodox Church
Why not find a local orthodox church and become baptized into the orthodox church? God tasks us all to become members of the orthodox church. From the churches perspective, one is either inside the church or not. As an orthodox Christian, its not a loving act to say it is fine with what you are doing as you are outside the church. I urge you to consider being baptized into the faith to experience the full grace that God has to offer.
You cannot call yourself an Orthodox without the Fullness of the church, in all its experiences, tradition’s, and sacrament’s… which happens only after baptism and regular confessions.
Rome has its absolute claims. Orthodoxy has its absolute claims. Both sides have historically argued that their specific group is the only group that can "be saved." I simply do not understand why these two groups and even some other denominations always seek to sit on Christ's Bema Seat and constantly cast anathemas against other Trinitarians. Trinitarians outside your specific group ought least to be viewed as not being "against Christ". How can any fallen and sinful human being possibly know, who specifically is going to hell and who is not, when it is Christ alone who sits on the Judgment Seat. Love from a member of historic Wittenberg. ❤ God speed. ❤
Catholics dont claim only Catholics can be saved , when it comes to those not in communion the church our answer and i imagine the answer of Orthodoxy is "its in Gods hands" Now both Churches have used the language of the Church fathers in saying "No salvation outside the Church" which us Catholics still stand to those words as the Church is the body of Christ and only in the mystical body of Christ can a man be saved , that body is like Noahs ark. Us catholics accept baptism from other Churches (as long as it is done in correct formular) and those people are Christians not in full communion with the Church but still non the less Christians (in error and schism) We pray for our separated brethren and hope that reconciliation can happen in the future.
The Orthodox Church has never said who will go to hell and who will not. It has always said that is up to God and God alone - he is the only one that truly knows an individuals heart.
It's the same old thing: recognizing certain churches to be Christian. The term Christian has been used & abused. The term church has been abused as well. I really good give a rats behind on councils, writing of men to be termed church fathers. The only thing g that matters to me is the Word of GOD, period. Therecwill always be baboons who will claim their church wrote it, gathered it & canonized it denying the great Powe of GOD who did it all by using certain men as tools & WHO maintains it true today. Anyone who steps outside that and adds to it or takes away from it is not a church in my opinion. Man likes to justify things that ain't scriptural just like man likes to justify his sins. If one thinks a so called church is Christian because they believe in certain sins such as homosexuality & have homosexuality is nut job. This guy even addresses such as Protestant, Christian or a church. I greatly enjoy a bible believing independant Baptist church that practices intolerance to sin, unscriptural doctrines, doctrines of men, vicar of Christ other than the Holy Spirit & especially priests.
Here in England the Orthodox Church is practically unknown and I only know about her from what I see online. They are full of talk about papists and heretics, and they have weird versions of history. I’ll just say that nobody in England was a participant in events in Constantinople of 879, 1054, 1182 or 1204 and those events are therefore all irrelevant. It would have been interesting to hear Kallistos Ware’s comments on this.
@@Mark-tz6ieExcept perhaps for a few Englishmen in the Varangian Guard, there were no English bishops at the Council of 879, no English witnesses at the supposed Great Schism of 1054, and nobody from England present at the Massacre of the Latins 1182 or the Sack of Constantinople 1204. The same could be said about a Spanish or Portuguese presence.
@@david_porthouse England was represented by the RCC in those times. You claim the East has "weird versions of history" yet your understanding of the histories involved is specious at best. The nationalism that you employed didn't coalesce until the spring of nations in 1848 so the huff and puff over representation comes from nothing but vitriol.
If a Christian prays a lot, and I mean with humillity prays ands asks our Lord to reveal himself to him or her, and he lives a life by our Lords commandments, our Lord will guide him. Then he should try to "meet"the Chrustian churches, the different denominations. The spiritual center of Orthodoxy is in the Holly Mountain in Greece. Its not easy to go and only men are allowed but it is the center and unless one visits there they will not have a "feeling" of orthodoxy.
Nice words BUT what about anathemas sang each year in orthodox churches like bellow. By many Ortho he is considered ecumenist. "To the blasphemers of the Christian Faith, the ecumenists who say that they do not confess the Orthodox Eastern Church to be One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic, but madly say that the true Church seems to be a combination of various heresies, ANATHEMA" Or this, changed just in year 2000: "‘To those who attack the Church of Christ by teaching that Christ’s Church is divided into so-called “branches” which differ in doctrine and way of life, or that the Church does not exist visibly, but will be formed in the future when all “branches” or sects or denominations, and even religions will be united into one body; and who do not distinguish the priesthood and mysteries of the Church from those of the heretics, but say that the baptism and eucharist of heretics is effectual for salvation; therefore, to those who knowingly have communion with these aforementioned heretics or who advocate, disseminate, or defend their new heresy of Ecumenism under the pretext of brotherly love or the supposed unification of separated Christians: Anathema"
My struggle with accepting Orthodoxy is that if you took away the fruit of Catholicism and Protestantism away and just judged Christianity by Orthodoxy then you would not see the church I think Jesus intended to leave. Jesus said the church would be the pillar and foundation of truth, to make disciples of all nations, and that the gates of hades will not prevail against the church. But Orthodoxy has not had that type of impact on the world or on Christianity that you would expect the one true, holy, catholic and apostolic church to have. Also orthodoxy claims to maintain the faith but they can’t have ecumenical councils anymore because they don’t have an emperor or the bishop of Rome so the Orthodox Church also doesn’t have the ability to define doctrine that the first century church had and that it looked like Jesus promise his church to have. Then Orthodoxy called things like the Immaculate Conception and Purgatory clear accretions but then you see Eastern fathers believing in these doctrines. These are my current issues with Orthodoxy that hold me back from an other wise beautiful, apostolic, and holy faith that I have so much respect for and hold near in my mind and heart.
The Orthodox Church can have ecumenical councils. In fact the pan orthodox council of Crete in 2016 was intended to be one. There are some well respected clergy in the Orthodox Church that claim there are 10 or more ecumenical councils. We certainly treat the Photian council as the eighth ecumenical council and the palamite councils just as universally binding as the ecumenical councils. We don’t need Rome or a Roman emperor to declare or call an ecumenical council. That’s a post hoc rationalization. Seeing as we can still have ecumenical councils, your objection to the pronouncements against the immaculate conception and purgatory as accretions loses its teeth. However, it’s kind of irrelevant because the RCC itself acknowledges that they are theological developments and not original teachings of the church. The Latin claim is that these new doctrines are the full growth of the seeds of earlier teachings. There are no early church fathers that teach them and neither Rome nor the East claims that they do. Perhaps you have been listening to bad apologists for the RCC, because this is not what the papacy claims.
You’re a Catholic, clearly. Everything you express here is backwards. The Orthodox church IS the original and only true church, and the only one to maintain what Jesus gave to the Apostles.
This is my struggle as well. Christ asked us to judge by fruit, and while no church has impeccably good fruit, the Orthodox church doesn't seem to have distinctly excellent fruit in any country or region where it exists. In every community I've lived in, both in the USA and in a majority-Orthodox country, it's the theologically conservative evangelicals who have been distinctly prayerful, pious, devoted to good works, committed to repentance, pursuing deeper knowledge of their faith, etc. I have seen numerous people convert out of the Orthodox church into my own churches (or convert into Orthodoxy and then out again) because the contrast in fruit with their own communities was so stark. Yet nevertheless, I believe that the Orthodox tradition, if properly taught by faithful shepherds and lived out by communities, actually offers a better grounding in the gospel, the Christian story, and the life of holiness. It's a real dilemma-especially when it comes to converting with impressionable young kids who need BOTH a grounded tradition AND the shaping of a holy and virtuous community.
@ the reality is that the orthodox life is hard, very hard. And most people don’t want to put in the effort. But it’s important for us not to judge others based on our own belief about how much effort they are putting in. Perhaps their struggle to even get up and pray in the morning is much greater than my struggle to talk to somebody about my faith. Only God really knows the heart, but we’re too quick to judge the externals without knowing a person’s heart. The only thing I know is that before I was orthodox there was nothing you could find about true spiritual life and spiritual warfare like you can find in the teachings of the Orthodox Church. And I read tons of the great classics from different Protestants. I had Bible commentaries and went to Bible college and went on missionary trips. I taught Bible studies and was in church several days a week. But ultimately, it was all shallow. The depths and riches and incredible nuances of the teachings of orthodoxy is so deep you can go back again and again to the same guidance and continually find new meaning and inspiration. The puddle of Protestant spirituality was nothing compared to the ocean you find in orthodoxy. She has beneficial instruction for the spiritual babe as well as the holiest of holy elders who regularly see visions of heaven and work countless miracles. Christ told us to make disciples and not merely converts; and in discipleship making, no church is more rich than the Orthodox Church. I wish I could explain it more, but until you try it for yourself it’s impossible to understand. I didn’t convert to orthodoxy because I felt I was lacking in spiritual life in my former church. Instead, I found the pearl of great price and left everything else behind. Like Met Kallistos Ware, Orthodoxy had everything I loved and more from my previous faith.
@ brother I’m not worried about the Orthodox life being hard. Every Christian that believes in the Bible must believe that if you want to be a disciple of Jesus “you must deny yourself, take up your cross, and follow Jesus”. Orthodox aren’t the only ones that believe that or that believe that you need to continue to become more united to God. I’m glad that you found a a deepening in your faith, your spiritual life and your unity with God and I believe that Orthodoxy produces those things and the holy saints and elders you are talking about. But so does Catholicism and in some ways so does Protestantism. My problem is that if the Orthodox faith is so holy , so beautiful, so enriching then why does it hide itself, why hasn’t it impacted the world, why isn’t it doing its best to spread this faith to the rest of the world who needs it. The apostles spread the faith under persecution to most of the known world but Orthodoxy has failed to do that the last 1000 years since the schism
It may be one of the 2 or 3 triumphant and prevailing church bodies of the Roman Empire, but it is definitely not the Church of Jesus Christ and of the earliest persecuted Jewish and later Gentile Christians. Greek replaced Hebrew. Later church fathers put their spin on a Bible they could only read the last part of without translations.
Orthodoxy is not “ancient”. You may be able to say it is of the “very” distant past but it in no means is no longer in existence. This makes Metropolitan Ware’s comment that you can’t and shouldn’t attempt to understand it through some academic archeological exercise or historical scholarship distinctive.
The three stooges....Each one telling the world the other is destined to "hell". Nonsense. "In the beginning God created the Heavens and Earth "....Not these stooges !!!
Praying to Mary and the saints in such a way is unbiblical. Even in cases in which Mary or a saint is simply being asked to pray on one’s behalf, the practice has no biblical basis. The Bible nowhere instructs believers in Christ to pray to anyone other than God. The Bible nowhere encourages, or even mentions, believers asking individuals in heaven for their prayers. Why, then, do many Catholics pray to Mary and/or saints such as Gertrude, Rita, Sylvester, Vincent, Agnes, etc.? Why do they petition the dead and request their prayers? Catholics view Mary and the saints as “intercessors” before God. They believe that a saint, who is glorified in heaven, has been perfected in love (including love for us) and has more “direct access” to God than do earthbound sinners. In Catholic thinking, prayers delivered by a saint are more effective than our praying to God directly. This concept is blatantly unbiblical. Hebrews 4:16 tells us that believers here on earth have direct access to God and can “approach the throne of grace with confidence.” No saint can take Jesus’ place: “There is one God and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus” (1 Timothy 2:5). There is no one else who can mediate with God for us. Since Jesus is the only mediator, Mary and the saints cannot be mediators. Further, the Bible tells us that Jesus Christ Himself is interceding for us before the Father: “He is able to save completely those who come to God through Him, because He always lives to intercede for them” (Hebrews 7:25). With Jesus Himself interceding for us, why would we need Mary or the saints to intercede for us? Whom would God listen to more readily than His only begotten Son? Romans 8:26-27 says the Holy Spirit is also interceding for us. With the second and third Persons of the Trinity already interceding for us before the Father, why would we need to have Mary or the saints interceding for us? Let us examine the claim that praying to Mary and the saints is no different than asking someone here on earth to pray for us: 1) Asking other believers (on earth) to pray for us is certainly biblical (2 Corinthians 1:11; Ephesians 1:16; Philippians 1:19; 2 Timothy 1:3). The apostle Paul asks other Christians to pray for him in Ephesians 6:19. 2) The Bible nowhere mentions anyone asking someone in heaven to pray for him or her. The Bible nowhere describes anyone in heaven praying for anyone on earth. 3) The Bible gives absolutely no indication that Mary or the saints can hear our prayers. Mary and the saints are not omniscient. Even glorified in heaven, they are still finite beings with limitations. How could they possibly hear the prayers of millions of people? 4) Whenever the Bible mentions praying to or speaking with the dead, it is in a negative context involving activities the Bible strongly condemns (Leviticus 20:27; Deuteronomy 18:10-13; 1 Samuel 28:7-19). Praying to Mary or the saints is completely different from asking a friend here on earth to pray for us. Asking people on earth to pray for us has a strong biblical basis; asking the heavenly saints or Mary to pray has no biblical basis whatsoever. It is wrong to think that God will hear and answer the prayers of St. Jude, for example, over ours. Scripture teaches that prayer offered to God in faith, according to God’s will, from a redeemed heart will be heard. As an example, “Elijah was a human being, even as we are. He prayed earnestly that it would not rain, and it did not rain on the land for three and a half years. Again he prayed, and the heavens gave rain, and the earth produced its crops” (James 5:17-18). There is absolutely no scriptural basis to pray to anyone other than God alone. There is no need to, either. Jesus, our Intercessor, has it covered. No one in heaven can mediate on our behalf except for Jesus Christ. Only God can hear and answer prayer. The temple veil was torn in two (Hebrews 10:19-20); the child of God on earth has just as much access to God’s throne of grace, in Jesus’ name, as anyone in heaven (Hebrews 4:16).
In the Lazarus parable, prayers are addressed to Abraham, so the intercession of a holy dead man is been sought. (Matthew 22:32) The distinction between dead and living is demolished by Jesus who tells the saducees that God is the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob of the living for whom all are alive. (cf. Luke 16:19-31) In apocalypse, we explicitly read that the prayers of the saints being offered in heaven. [In Macabees Judas Maccabeus has a vision of already deceased Jeremiah the Prophet and Oniah the priest interceding and says "This is a man who loves the family of Israel and prays much for the people and the holy city." Maccabees 15:12-14 .] (In square brackets since it is part of the Catholic canonon but not Protestant canon which sees thebtext as apocypheral). Romans 8:34 says Jesus also intercedes for us implying there is another intercessor - probably the Holy Spirit in this case but it could also be other holy people or angels in heaven. Check out: James 5:16, Revelations or Apocolypse 5:8 and 8:2-4.
If we start from the premise that everything we do as Christians must have biblical basis, there will never be agreement between catholics and orthodox on the one hand and protestants on the other hand.
Umm, did he know he was holding his hands in a very traditional occult manner, that is a hand position used to show membership in Freemasonry. 😢😮. I pray not. Lord have Mercy.
@ true, but many do it t that do know also. Like I said, I pray not. FM has member’s inside every organization, and I have read even our Holy Apostolic church. Once you know these sign’s, they’re hard to ignore, even when totally benign.
My struggle with accepting Orthodoxy is that if you took away the fruit of Catholicism and Protestantism away and just judged Christianity by Orthodoxy then you would not see the church I think Jesus intended to leave. Jesus said the church would be the pillar and foundation of truth, to make disciples of all nations, and that the gates of hades will not prevail against the church. But Orthodoxy has not had that type of impact on the world or on Christianity that you would expect the one true, holy, catholic and apostolic church to have. Also orthodoxy claims to maintain the faith but they can’t have ecumenical councils anymore because they don’t have an emperor or the bishop of Rome so the Orthodox Church also doesn’t have the ability to define doctrine that the first century church had and that it looked like Jesus promise his church to have. Then Orthodoxy called things like the Immaculate Conception and Purgatory clear accretions but then you see Eastern fathers believing in these doctrines. These are my current issues with Orthodoxy that hold me back from an other wise beautiful, apostolic, and holy faith that I have so much respect for and hold near in my mind and heart.
Massive numbers don't equal true faith. The Roman church spread by force, whereas the eastern church has a "come and see" attitude. We don't have a current need for ecumenical councils because we hold so dearly to the early roots of the way. Romans have to have them because of all of the massive shift in their doctrine throughout the ages. And there are church fathers who say the Roman church is satanic. Why not take them into account?
This is an argument from incredulity. "If Orthodoxy true, why small?" Fairly standard false polemic towards Orthodoxy. If size was the standard for Truth then we would all be Arians.
And in the case of Orthodoxy "Not having Ecumenical Councils" 1. The Synodal Model predates the Ecumenical Councils, and prior to the 1st Ecumenical Council you find Councils with universal recognition, and especially after the Ecumene is gone the Orthodox Church still had Councils that have received universal recognition. 2. The Pope never called any Ecumenical Councils, and never attended any personally. The Pope is not required for a Council to be universal.
@@acekoala457 I’m not saying it’s false because of its size. I’m saying it’s hard to believe it’s the one true church if the Bible says that the church will be the pillar and foundation of truth, that the gates of hades will not prevail against it (that means the church is on the offensive), and Jesus’s command to make disciples of many nations and that before he comes the gospel will spread to all nations. I’ll grant that Orthodoxy has done a great job of preserving the faith but it’s missing all those other attributes that God promises the church will have. If you subtract every other Christian denomination and you judge Orthodoxy by that standard can you honestly say that orthodox has been the pillar and foundation of truth for the world, is making disciples of many nations, is defeating the gates of hades? Thats what makes it hard to accept because the apostles spread the faith to most of the known world while they were being persecuted but orthodoxy has failed to do that since the schism but they claim that outside the church that barely evangelizes or impacts the world there is no salvation.
A gracious man. Old school Anglican who made his way into Orthodoxy with joy and without rancour.
It was this wonderful man's book that brought me to the Orthodox Church. RIP and God Bless.
I remember when I heard the news of his passing in August of '22 and I'm sorry I never got to meet him as he was a very important figure for Orthodoxy in Britain, not least because of the many books on the faith that he wrote. Memory eternal.
I met him when he came to St. Herman's Seminary in Kodiak, Alaska in 1998. He was a very approachable and likeable gentleman.
Sadly for him I know through scripture he is not in heaven, but in hell.
Holy communion does not become the physical blood and flesh of Jesus Christ. You crucify Jesus again and again. It's demonic doctrine from Satan.
The Apostle Peter would condemn this church and Roman Catholicism. Jesus Christ also condemns this church.
Jesus Christ would condemn this church because He said the only way to the Father is through Him alone. No need to pray to Mary.
Paul attacked thee false teachers that snuck in to being false doctrines. Paul used correct judgment in exposing false teachers. Paul would rebuke and warn true believers against this church and RC.
@@ferrosjewellers4558 I forgive you for such speculations about the eternal habitation of Met. Kallistos Ware. Lord Jesus Christ, have mercy on this commenter, and also, have mercy on me 🙏
@@ferrosjewellers4558 I shouldn't be responding to you because I know you're probably a troll or a bot, but you do know we have writings from the church fathers who lived during the same time as the apostles who confirmed the eucharist right?
Wow, what a blessing to hear! I would love to have talked with him as a cherished elder and brother in Christ, but now I feel his wisdom and insight and it strikes me deeply. No wonder I'm having a challenged time finding a church home. Thank you for sharing this treasured expression of deep truth! Christ prayed for our unity and as Christians we should take heed, repent and serve Him as one, the way He taught us to... the way He desires and deserves, lest we keep falling and breaking His heart.
Lord God we turn to YOU. We ask for mercy, help and guidance to unite as one body, Your body in Jesus' name, amen
I was there and heard him live!! It was a wonderful event!! May his memory be eternal.
How sweet! What a blessing to listen to Metr. K. Ware. I've never seen him before, but only read him. ☦Memory eternal.
Watched it all, thanks for sharing Ancient Faith!
Thanks for watching!
Blessed memory Kallistos ware brought me to my chrismation.
I have one of his books a priest gave me to read. Very helpful. A scholar and a gentleman.
I cannot express my gratitude for this! Love his Eminence. Let God give rest his soul!
Independent Christian Church guy here [Stone/Campbell Restoration Movement for clarity](PATHØS, vocals and guitar for the band, of whose account is commenting here)...appreciate his honesty on the fact that there was even disunity and such well before 1054.....listening to him, if i didnt know he we EO, i would've said he was a member of my "protestant" church growing up. Same sentiment, same overarching concern for seeking of truth. Brothers, we aren't as far apart as perhaps we imagine....often times I consider the fighting between RCC, EO, OO and Prot to be the equivalent of young brothers fighting. Just because there might a time in their growing up where they fight and argue, doesn't make them any less brothers, and sons of same Father. I can't make my brother no longer my Father's son, any more than he can, no matter how much we bicker. Much love, The Lord bless and keep you all.
What makes us
brothers is the rite of Baptism. However, when it comes to the preponderance of doctrinal and theological differences, Protestantism and Evangelicalism can only be considered as Stepbrothers to both Orthodoxy and Catholicism.
I am an Orthodox woman, who has made her journey of Faith from the Lutheran Church. I also have a degree in Religious Studies. As a student, I was charged to research Martin Luther's doctrine on the Holy Eucharist. It was then that I discovered that he did not believe that the elements of bread and wine actually become, through the consecration, Christ Jesus' very Body and Blood. Luther wrote that the significance of the bread and wine is changed, becoming in principle the Body and Blood of Jesus. He called it Transignification. Having been a Lutheran for thirty years, I can testify that Lutherans believe it is not the very Body and Blood of Jesus Christ.
I didn’t know that. I am Lutheran and I always believed from day 1 that I am consuming the body and blood of Christ. I am drawn to Orthodoxy myself as I seem to naturally practice certain things and resonate with the approach of Orthodox Church…
The Lutheran position is that body and blood are sacramental united with bread and wine.
THANK You Kallistos Ware.
As an Anglican I find the Orthodox Church interesting.
You should read more into it, the faith the apostles themselves taught 🙏
Extraordinary detail !
Super helpful !!
I learned lots !!!
Thanks gentlemen .
👊🏼 🔥 🔑 🕊
Great conversation!
I do not know if its okay if to ask for prayer here but I have lost my connection with God and but my name is Hector if you guys don't mind praying for me
Even the saints can, and often do, temporarily lose their connection to God. Be steadfast! Pray more, even though you don't feel like it. That's the advice that they give. PS - I prayed for you in church this morning.
You got it, brother. Keep getting back up, never stay down. ☦️
You still have connection Hector, just pick up.
@@ajbarton5228 thank you
@@veronicaofthedesert thank you very much
Gr8 questions and a treasure valuable information. As a Traditional Catholic SSPX order, I find so much in common with Orthodoxy than Novus Order modent Catholic religion
I loved listening to this.
THANK YOU.
He loves us. Love Him.
THANK YOU FATHER.
Glory to Jesus Christ!
LORD Jesus Christ...guard us and protect us from the multiplicity of opinion that is unaligned with your will.
Love Him.
LOVE
Beautiful. ❤
Memory eternal.
His statement that some Anglicans believe that communion is memorial meal only means that they are not genuinely Anglican because that is clearly contrary to the Anglican formularies.(Note: there are few in the Church of England who adhere to classical Anglicanism. The COE is apostate.)
Also he said troubled by the diversity in Anglicanism. There has now been a formal split between the liberals who perverted the Anglican faith and those committed to traditional orthodoxy. 85% of Anglicans are traditional Anglicans. Gafcon and the ACNa have emerged in the last 16 years reclaiming the faith.
As far as the differences between evangelicals and Anglo Catholics, this tends to be overblown. There is still a unity on the creeds and the liturgy. Even on the sacraments there is more convergence then disagreement. As an Anglican priest who has conversation with other priests, we are more unified even where we have disagreements. We have adiophora. There is wiggle room but still a room with walls and boundaries. One issue that is significant today that needs to be resolved in gafcon and the acna is the ordination of women to presbyteriate. But the continuing Anglicans clearly have rejected this. Even in gafcon the largest diocese is Nigeria, and they forbid this.
But what I find interesting is he left Anglicanism over this diversity yet Eastern Orthodoxy also has diversity. You have EO who believe in universalism and others who are hardcore rigorists. There is no agreement on the baptism of converts from the RC or Protestants. This greats a huge difference that serious implications with the EO. There is also the schism betweeen Moscow and the patriarch. The issue of ecumenism is a divisive issue on the EO. There many EO’s who consider calistas ware as not being truly orthodox and still infected with western ideas. Indeed to move from Anglican to EO does not just involve moving to a fuller faith as he contends, but a change in doctrine. Sola fide is affirmed in the AC formularies and the EO rejects this. Just one example.
Calistas ware has also said the the ordination of women is open question in the EO. As an Anglican I firmly believe that the scriptures and tradition clearly have settled
This matter. Not an open question.
Some good information that a tripod and stationary filming would have made it watchable.
I LIOVE THE LORD JESUS CHRIST.
LOVE MUST BE CENTRAL.
What His Eminence says at about 16 minutes into the video seems to need some further explanation from St. Paisios of Athos. He taught, "There is no need for us to tell other Christians who are not Orthodox that they are going to hell or that they are anti-christs; but we also must not tell them that they will be saved, because that is giving them false reassurance, and we will be judged for it. We have to give them a good kind of uneasiness - we have to tell them that they are in error." Of course, we do not go out seeking debates with such people, but neither should we shy away from defending the Faith when confronted with error.
We wait.
Love Christ regardless of 1054. We must be of the same mind.
HIS life more important that our lives.
I am not Orthodox.
I do find this man to be a thoughtful Christian man. One I could listen to while considering his words. I like him.
I do wish you guys would not incorrectly, loosely, and sometimes dishonestly over use (and misuse) the word protestantism.
True historic Protestantism is a stream that runs through the mass of modern loose evangelicals.
We have lost sight of what Protestantism is.
It is unique and important.
It must be understood to understand what happened in the important Reformation.
Protestantism was never united in one objective. The original movement that sparked the ‘Reformation’ was started by Luther and he mostly failed his original objective, which was to reform Catholicism. He then changed his objective and created his own version of Catholicism. Either way, Catholicism broke itself from the Church, so you have no ground to stand on. But St Paul says to Timothy, “the Church is the Pillar and foundation of Truth.” 1 Tim 3:15.
I love Met. Ware, yet he always leaves out the dogma of Theosis, which is of much more importance than the other differences that he brought up with Rome. (As far as we're concerned, although the filioque is certainly equivalent, although we could work around it perhaps with syntax and word play.)
With Filioque you can't possibly get to Theosis.
Divinization is the latinized term for theosis and is absolutely present in Catholic theology…
@@mikedennis9531I'm curious, In catholicism how does divinization/theosis work if you are not interacting with God's uncreated energy? If grace is created how are you uniting, knowing, and becoming like God, if He isn't truly present. Cheers
@@douganceKin Catholicism God is literally transfiguring your soul to be attuned to Christ, and in that you become who you were always meant to be. The Carmelite tradition within the Church probably has the best explanation of it. God's grace is what sanctifies and divinizes the soul. This grace when cooperated with purges the soul of sin and the worldly desires. Grace being created by God in the instance you need it comes from God, it is an immediate gift, but as it is created by God its ultimate end is God. Given God's omnipotence and omnipresence I personally find the energies/essence debate to be a distinction without a real difference. If it is created by God in an eternal present and comes from God himself it is ultimately part of him that he continually gives.
@@RestingJudge Thanks for the answer, one of the best i've heard. I still don't understand how created grace can part of Him, if God is uncreated, and isn't God's essence simple, so not a part. It doesn't seem to bridge the divide. I think differences come into play when considering the entailments of the RC view upon the OT Theophanis, the Sacraments, and the incarnation.
When I look at the two natures in Christ's incarnation, I see the model of theosis. Christ's Divine nature deified the human nature. It was real contact between the created and uncreated natures. I think likewise our deification follows this blueprint. I need to do more reading on energy/essence though. Cheers
What God wants is what we want.
Born and raised Roman Catholic, still Catholic, but hope for this greater unity of the Church. There is much that I admire in Orthodoxy, and I hope that East and West might find a greater unity in my lifetime.
Yes. I'm in a similar position. I believe what JPII said that the Church needs to breathe with both lungs. I believe that we need them and they need us. It is clear that the Orthodox believe in the Primacy of Peter. My personal difficulty with Orthodoxy is that many of them believe in up to 3 marriages. This is a serious blow to Christendom, a serious wound to society. Although the Catholic Church allows annulment, saying that it appears that the sacrament never took place and the couple are free to actually marry is different than blessing up to 3:unions. What God has joined together let no man put asunder. How can you bless something that can't be because God has already joined them to someone else? They have been joined somehow metaphysically in to one entity. Blessing a second or third union of two people that were once truly still joined together by God to others is blasphemous. Only God can join them.
@@lorimavMarriage is the least of importance. Immaculate conception is a big one. Belief in that denies the duality of Christ essence which is part Divine and part Human. Failing to acknowledge His humanity implies He never incarnated and came down to us which is what makes Christianity unique and true.
His life over our opinions.
Saint Paisios of Mt. Athos...I once asked an American who came to the hut:
"What feat have you done as a great nation that you are?"
"We went to the moon," he replied.
"How far is it?" I ask him.
"Say, half a million kilometers," he tells me.
"How many millions did you spend, to go to the moon?"
"From 1950 until now, he tells me, we've spent rivers of dollars."
"Did you go to God?" I ask him. How far away is God?'
"God, he tells me, is too far away.""
But we, I tell him, go to God with a nut!"
I BELIEVE THAT ALL SERVANTS OF CHRIST WILL INSIST ON TRUE CHRISTIAN BROTHERHOOD.
Erana Okran thee, Treista Neek thee, Laterak Spuk thee.
How beautifully His Grace echoed the Second Vatican Council teaching of the true Church as articulated in the councillar documents Lumen Gentium and Unitatis Redintegratio.
And yet as Gavin ortlund points out this is a novel position, a U turn for both church bodies compared to the absolute exclusivism of earlier church councils. Politics!
@@veritasquidestveritas Because we definitely want to listen to the opinions of 21st century individuals who think a historical Church didn't actually exist and/or defected (which goes against Christs' words, but let's just ignore that) and that they can know the truth of the faith outside of the pillar and ground there-of and rather take the fully ludicrous position of Calvinism in all it's various nonsensical conclusions instead. Sure, it's not like this is completely preposterous and bordering on insanity.
We must unite in Christ. All of us Christians. It is clear that the Orthodox and Roman Catholic must marry in holy wedlock to strengthen Christ's overall ministry on earth. I have an immense faith that this too shall be resolved in Christ Almighty! May the Father's will be realized now. Now.
My Brothers & Sisters, question: Does anyone know at what Church this interview took place? (Also, I don’t want anyone to think that I did not listen to the message of Metropolitan Kalistos Ware in this video. In fact, I thought it was exceptional and I have copied the link to share with my non-Orthodox friends at the right time.)
This interview was recorded at St. Barbara Greek Orthodox Church in Toms River, NJ
@@AncientFaithMinistries
Thank you. I thought I recognized my Church …
But I wanted to be sure! For those wondering, it is even more magnificent in person, especially because of our Proto-Presbyter, Father Paul.
❤❤❤
While we wait, align your will with His will.
HIS life.
2:16 "in the past, the group the Orthodox felt closest was the Anglican church, the Episcopalians"
☦️orthodoxy is the one true church ☦️ I converted from Roman Catholicism to orthodoxy.
Amazing! God bless
@sanctusja no please don’t use that as an excuse. There good and bad priests and some priests are just incredibly busy. Keep messaging other priests or better yet call the parishes. What area are you located in? Also I’ve called tons of priests and never heard back from some, heard back the same day, heard back days later, weeks and even months. Priests are very busy. They all have different strengths too, some are great at socializing and managing online interaction and some aren’t. My priest is a lovely man and I can go see him in person, but I’ll never hear from him via email, text or call. He’s a bust guy and his strength isn’t in using technology.
@@sanctusja that’s a shame but I will say keep praying and learning about orthodoxy and you will find your way into the holy church. Now remember orthodoxy priests are not perfect and their are liberal ones and bad ones out there.
@@sanctusjaRespectfully, clergy receive a tidal wave of DMs and emails all the time. I paint iconography for a living and I am unable to give everyone who messages me a substantive reply due to the amount of correspondence. If I were to engage with everyone like they want, I’d do nothing but have back and forth conversations all day. Multiply that by 10 and that’s the inbox of most priests. They have a lot on their plate. Don’t take a non response personal and don’t be shy. Go to a parish irl and take proactive responsibility for your own spiritual life. You won’t regret it.
God bless you ☦️
@@sanctusjaI have never had good luck with priests responding to emails. Phone calls and meeting in person are more the way to go unless they're fairly young.
They do give their phone numbers out to the parish and are typically inundated with work and emergencies day and night.
Don't take a lack of response personally as a sign that the priest doesn't care about you. Take it as a sign that the demons are doing everything they can to keep you away from the Church.
They will do anything they can to stop you. You'll notice their activity ramp up the closer you get.
Gracious and honorable priest. I am a Roman Catholic, Traditional Roman Catholic as of recent years. The only objection is how he refers to his form of Christianity as Church, but does acknowledge the Catholic Church as Church, but only says "Rome". I get it, this is his view, but to be in keeping with respect, to say Rome and not the Catholic Church is a divergence.
I’m not sure I understand. On one hand the Orthodox Church is the true Church but on the other hand they should not engage in apologetics positively for it and against other faith systems. I don’t get it, either the Church is the actual body of Christ and the mission is to bring people into that body or it seems he is saying that there are other paths to being in union with Christ’s body that doesn’t involve the Church. I’m confused, probably misunderstanding something
I wait.
HE saves.
☦️☦️☦️
Paul the Saul of Sammael was not an Apostle, but an imposter. INRIX
It seems strange to me for there to be a notion of Christian unity at any time in history. Yes, Metr. Kallistos Ware did mention the non-Chalcedian split, but the reality of disunity goes back much further, and is far more pervasive than that. The New Testament itself speaks of disunity (e.g. "the circumcision party"; or those who spoke of following "Apollos" and others "Paul", etc. etc.). Disunity has been part and parcel of Christianity from the very beginning, right up until now. Even deeper than that, the fact is that people sitting on the very same pew (or standing next to each other during Orthodox liturgy), sometimes (often?) have very different beliefs. And yet people can have a unity of heart, even with very different beliefs. This is true of people from different religions, and people of no religion. Also true is that there can be a very severe disunity among people who actually share the same the beliefs. Quite the conundrum.
All by God's will.
We wait on God's direction.
Cling to the Lord Almighty.
The Greek language has "language" from the Fiery Tongues of Pentecost! The doctrine of our faith no language can convey. That is why God saved and the Old Testament was translated by the Septuagint into the Greek language and the Gospel was written in the Greek language.
Just because its ancient doesn't mean it is supreme. The living God and His Spirit is moving and working today and into the future. Bringing many people back to Him.
It's not the appeal to being ancient that's important it's the unchanging nature of the faith. Retaining the same understanding that the apostles had and passed on to their successors.
@ Not dismissing the apostolic significance. But the work of the Spirit can go beyond human tradition.
@@cmnhl1329it’s not human tradition. It comes from Christ
@@CCiPencilAnd what exactly is from Christ? On what basis do you distinguish and demarcate divine imperatives from human concepts?
@@cmnhl1329 I don’t, the Church is the one the authority
Cling to Him.
Is there any salvation outside the Easter Orthodox Church?
Emphatically “Yes.”
@@malindsell Thank you for your directness .... That means being E.O. Emphatically is NOT a requirement ( in every since of the meaning of the word "requirement") to receive the crown of eternal life and enter into heaven.
Throw the Ark Analogy out the window.
@@biblefirst5691 I nearly became Orthodox after 25 years searching and 2 years a catechumen. So I learned a lot. One reason I didn’t proceed with joining was this very issue of no salvation outside the EO church. The Roman Catholics say the same thing, as do the Oriental Orthodox and the Syrian Orthodox. So which one is right? The EO at the council of Jerusalem in 1672 pronounced anathemas on anyone who was not EO. I look at things biblically. I can’t imagine our Loving God being so narrow minded! “All who call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved”. “Whosoever believes in Him has eternal life” etc etc. It’s almost as bad as hyper Calvinism, claiming who is saved and who is not saved, etc.
Although many Orthodox now are denying this aspect of their faith, their church councils do nevertheless claim exclusivism and anathematise non Orthodox. The Canons (church laws) are as infallible as Scripture, in their thinking. So no matter how much they say “we know where the Church is but we don’t know where it isn’t “, at the core of their thinking is this teaching that they alone are the path to salvation.
Forgive my long response.
@@malindsell No forgiveness needed I appreciate the clarification in detail.
Was Jesus and the 12 Apostles EO?? Come on man. They were Jewish.
How can you call the orthodox church the fullness and complete church when a huge chunk of the complete church went off and did it's own thing because Rome thought they were the fullness of the church because they thought they were the head of the church? That's like saying 4/5 of a puzzle is the full puzzle even though a 5th of the puzzle is missing
Is a tree less of a tree if a branch is broken off? No. It is still a tree. Orthodoxy is still the Church, because it holds to the Fullness of the Faith.
No, my brother, the Orthodoxx fell off the tree. Therefore, they are not the true church, the Catholic apostolic church is the true church. @acekoala457
@@acekoala457It isn't. Orthodoxy isn't equivalent to Catholicism, right now as we speak there is schism between Constantinople and Russia, and certain Orthodox are now ordaining female deacons like Anglicans.
So the true Church is the Catholic Church.
Here, Im afraid that Bishop Kalistos is wrong concerning the Primacy of the Pope. The Church never believed in such an Ecclesiology. Both New Rome and Old Rome, according to the canons, showed that both Patriarchal bishops shared the first position and in all the councils, the Ecumenical Patriarch was always presiding in charge. In no council do we ever have a Pope presiding. This should be very problematic for us because the self proclaimed Popes at some stage failed to follow the same traditions of the 4 other Ancient Sees of the Church.
A reminder that the term Pope was used as a humbling title meaning Father in Latin, these days it means centralised Authority who is infallible and does not need anyone else to correct him when wrong. The synodal system does not work when the cardinals chosen are sycophants. So this ex-cathedra clause, therefore, is ridiculous to say the least.
If one person wants to learn and knows orthodox church should study history of ancient faith and holy fathers of desert and then will see clearly what does mean real christianity, go ahead like his grace said in the begin of the speech
How can you NOT love God?
1 Peter 2:5 KJV Ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ.
IT IS A SIMPLE THING. LOVE GOD THE FATHER AND FORGIE ALL THOSE WHO DO NOT UNDERSTAND THE OVEWRWHELMING LOVE AND GUIDANGE OF CHRIST. TH3N, PAY ATTENTION.
Wait, I am confused… we don’t speak up to other’s in modern churches about the falseness of their church?? Is that not what God instructs us to do in the Bible? 🧐 We don’t attack, but we are to rebuke false belief’s… how could he say we aren’t?
I believe the message there is that we should evangelize to the non religious over proselytizing to those who already profess a belief in Jesus Christ. In order to serve the greater need.
@@AncientFaithMinistriesthat doesn’t sound like the message I’ve been getting from my Orthodox studies, that sounds exclusive and contrary to life in the true church. I definitely understand the part about not attacking or debating other’s, but to let them be lost in their false faith by paying no attention to saving them…? Surely he doesn’t mean that. I always struggle to understand any conversation of his, to be honest. May God bless his soul, regardless.
Now if it is God's will now.
Now if it is God's will.
There is nothing else save the Lord.
Matthew 23, many false prophets if you have eyes to see
wow. I can see why people don't go to church
Why's that?
Kallistos Ware wasn't Orthodox. He was a modernist that rejected several aspects of Orthodox tradition.
The chosen people of Israel are the orthodox if you can define that description. God chose them not the other way around.
And all., yea, nay, maybe.
I am not a Catholic, neither a nominal Orthodox. Bu I still, claim to be an Orthodox, that kind of Orthodox described by the The Most Reverend Metropolitan of England, Kalistos (Timothy) Ware, in his outstanding book called The Orthodox Church, Printed in England by Clays Ltd, 1997. Talking on the relationship of the Orthodox with the Holy Scripture of God, his eminence made this declaration:
“The Christian Church is a Scriptural Church: ORTHODOXY BELIEVES THIS JUST AS FIRMLY, IF NOT MORE FIRMLY, THAN PROTESTANTISM. The Bible is the supreme expression of God’s revelation to the human race, and CHRISTIANS MUST ALWAYS BE «PEOPLE OF THE BOOK»”.
Therefore, whatever and ALL the things spoken by The Most Reverend Metropolitan of England, Kalistos Ware that are lined up with the Bible which is proclaimed by his eminence as “the supreme expression of God’s revelation to the human race” he says, this IS what I believe and practice, this is what makes me an Orthodox.
As far as other opinions of The Most Reverend Metropolitan of England, Kalistos (Timothy) Ware that are NOT lined up with the Bible, I leave them to him. I am following thus the teachings of the Saint Cyril of Jerusalem, warning his readers in the fourth Catechesis 17, vol. 1, to NOT believe anything from his writing that are NOT confirmed by the Holy Scripture,
You are not Orthodox unless you have been baptized into the church
No offense but what you are describing is very protestant: faith based on your personal reading of scripture alone.
You're not Orthodox (capital O Orthodox) unless you're part of the Orthodox Church
Why not find a local orthodox church and become baptized into the orthodox church? God tasks us all to become members of the orthodox church. From the churches perspective, one is either inside the church or not. As an orthodox Christian, its not a loving act to say it is fine with what you are doing as you are outside the church. I urge you to consider being baptized into the faith to experience the full grace that God has to offer.
@@melonyrobinson9944exactly
You cannot call yourself an Orthodox without the Fullness of the church, in all its experiences, tradition’s, and sacrament’s… which happens only after baptism and regular confessions.
Rome has its absolute claims. Orthodoxy has its absolute claims. Both sides have historically argued that their specific group is the only group that can "be saved."
I simply do not understand why these two groups and even some other denominations always seek to sit on Christ's Bema Seat and constantly cast anathemas against other Trinitarians.
Trinitarians outside your specific group ought least to be viewed as not being "against Christ". How can any fallen and sinful human being possibly know, who specifically is going to hell and who is not, when it is Christ alone who sits on the Judgment Seat.
Love from a member of historic Wittenberg. ❤ God speed. ❤
Catholics dont claim only Catholics can be saved , when it comes to those not in communion the church our answer and i imagine the answer of Orthodoxy is "its in Gods hands" Now both Churches have used the language of the Church fathers in saying "No salvation outside the Church" which us Catholics still stand to those words as the Church is the body of Christ and only in the mystical body of Christ can a man be saved , that body is like Noahs ark. Us catholics accept baptism from other Churches (as long as it is done in correct formular) and those people are Christians not in full communion with the Church but still non the less Christians (in error and schism) We pray for our separated brethren and hope that reconciliation can happen in the future.
The Orthodox Church has never said who will go to hell and who will not. It has always said that is up to God and God alone - he is the only one that truly knows an individuals heart.
It's the same old thing: recognizing certain churches to be Christian. The term Christian has been used & abused. The term church has been abused as well. I really good give a rats behind on councils, writing of men to be termed church fathers. The only thing g that matters to me is the Word of GOD, period. Therecwill always be baboons who will claim their church wrote it, gathered it & canonized it denying the great Powe of GOD who did it all by using certain men as tools & WHO maintains it true today. Anyone who steps outside that and adds to it or takes away from it is not a church in my opinion. Man likes to justify things that ain't scriptural just like man likes to justify his sins. If one thinks a so called church is Christian because they believe in certain sins such as homosexuality & have homosexuality is nut job. This guy even addresses such as Protestant, Christian or a church. I greatly enjoy a bible believing independant Baptist church that practices intolerance to sin, unscriptural doctrines, doctrines of men, vicar of Christ other than the Holy Spirit & especially priests.
Here in England the Orthodox Church is practically unknown and I only know about her from what I see online. They are full of talk about papists and heretics, and they have weird versions of history. I’ll just say that nobody in England was a participant in events in Constantinople of 879, 1054, 1182 or 1204 and those events are therefore all irrelevant. It would have been interesting to hear Kallistos Ware’s comments on this.
I don't see the reasoning of "irrelevant ". Would you elaborate?
@@Mark-tz6ieExcept perhaps for a few Englishmen in the Varangian Guard, there were no English bishops at the Council of 879, no English witnesses at the supposed Great Schism of 1054, and nobody from England present at the Massacre of the Latins 1182 or the Sack of Constantinople 1204. The same could be said about a Spanish or Portuguese presence.
@@david_porthouse England was represented by the RCC in those times.
You claim the East has "weird versions of history" yet your understanding of the histories involved is specious at best.
The nationalism that you employed didn't coalesce until the spring of nations in 1848 so the huff and puff over representation comes from nothing but vitriol.
England, Spain and Portugal had their own bishops, none of whom were present in 879. It’s just a fake Oecumenical Council.
If a Christian prays a lot, and I mean with humillity prays ands asks our Lord to reveal himself to him or her, and he lives a life by our Lords commandments, our Lord will guide him. Then he should try to "meet"the Chrustian churches, the different denominations. The spiritual center of Orthodoxy is in the Holly Mountain in Greece. Its not easy to go and only men are allowed but it is the center and unless one visits there they will not have a "feeling" of orthodoxy.
The centre in the Bible is Israel and Jerusalem. The Greek and Roman churches couldn't have that! Many still can't. Hebrew is the key!
And yet he still went to masses with the Pope. 💀
What's that thing about removing the plank from your own eye...
Visiting is not concelebrating.
Nice words BUT what about anathemas sang each year in orthodox churches like bellow. By many Ortho he is considered ecumenist.
"To the blasphemers of the Christian Faith, the ecumenists who say that they do not
confess the Orthodox Eastern Church to be One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic, but
madly say that the true Church seems to be a combination of various heresies,
ANATHEMA"
Or this, changed just in year 2000:
"‘To those who attack the Church of Christ by teaching that Christ’s Church is divided into so-called
“branches” which differ in doctrine and way of life, or that the Church does not exist visibly, but will be
formed in the future when all “branches” or sects or denominations, and even religions will be united into
one body; and who do not distinguish the priesthood and mysteries of the Church from those of the
heretics, but say that the baptism and eucharist of heretics is effectual for salvation; therefore, to those
who knowingly have communion with these aforementioned heretics or who advocate, disseminate, or
defend their new heresy of Ecumenism under the pretext of brotherly love or the supposed unification of
separated Christians: Anathema"
So, what you see is the blathering of a FOOL FOR CHRIST. I LOVE JESUS MORE THAN YOU KNOW. OR MAYBE YOU DO KNOW. LET'S SHARe our thoughts on that.
My struggle with accepting Orthodoxy is that if you took away the fruit of Catholicism and Protestantism away and just judged Christianity by Orthodoxy then you would not see the church I think Jesus intended to leave. Jesus said the church would be the pillar and foundation of truth, to make disciples of all nations, and that the gates of hades will not prevail against the church. But Orthodoxy has not had that type of impact on the world or on Christianity that you would expect the one true, holy, catholic and apostolic church to have. Also orthodoxy claims to maintain the faith but they can’t have ecumenical councils anymore because they don’t have an emperor or the bishop of Rome so the Orthodox Church also doesn’t have the ability to define doctrine that the first century church had and that it looked like Jesus promise his church to have. Then Orthodoxy called things like the Immaculate Conception and Purgatory clear accretions but then you see Eastern fathers believing in these doctrines. These are my current issues with Orthodoxy that hold me back from an other wise beautiful, apostolic, and holy faith that I have so much respect for and hold near in my mind and heart.
The Orthodox Church can have ecumenical councils. In fact the pan orthodox council of Crete in 2016 was intended to be one. There are some well respected clergy in the Orthodox Church that claim there are 10 or more ecumenical councils. We certainly treat the Photian council as the eighth ecumenical council and the palamite councils just as universally binding as the ecumenical councils. We don’t need Rome or a Roman emperor to declare or call an ecumenical council. That’s a post hoc rationalization.
Seeing as we can still have ecumenical councils, your objection to the pronouncements against the immaculate conception and purgatory as accretions loses its teeth. However, it’s kind of irrelevant because the RCC itself acknowledges that they are theological developments and not original teachings of the church. The Latin claim is that these new doctrines are the full growth of the seeds of earlier teachings. There are no early church fathers that teach them and neither Rome nor the East claims that they do. Perhaps you have been listening to bad apologists for the RCC, because this is not what the papacy claims.
You’re a Catholic, clearly. Everything you express here is backwards. The Orthodox church IS the original and only true church, and the only one to maintain what Jesus gave to the Apostles.
This is my struggle as well. Christ asked us to judge by fruit, and while no church has impeccably good fruit, the Orthodox church doesn't seem to have distinctly excellent fruit in any country or region where it exists. In every community I've lived in, both in the USA and in a majority-Orthodox country, it's the theologically conservative evangelicals who have been distinctly prayerful, pious, devoted to good works, committed to repentance, pursuing deeper knowledge of their faith, etc. I have seen numerous people convert out of the Orthodox church into my own churches (or convert into Orthodoxy and then out again) because the contrast in fruit with their own communities was so stark.
Yet nevertheless, I believe that the Orthodox tradition, if properly taught by faithful shepherds and lived out by communities, actually offers a better grounding in the gospel, the Christian story, and the life of holiness.
It's a real dilemma-especially when it comes to converting with impressionable young kids who need BOTH a grounded tradition AND the shaping of a holy and virtuous community.
@ the reality is that the orthodox life is hard, very hard. And most people don’t want to put in the effort. But it’s important for us not to judge others based on our own belief about how much effort they are putting in. Perhaps their struggle to even get up and pray in the morning is much greater than my struggle to talk to somebody about my faith. Only God really knows the heart, but we’re too quick to judge the externals without knowing a person’s heart. The only thing I know is that before I was orthodox there was nothing you could find about true spiritual life and spiritual warfare like you can find in the teachings of the Orthodox Church. And I read tons of the great classics from different Protestants. I had Bible commentaries and went to Bible college and went on missionary trips. I taught Bible studies and was in church several days a week. But ultimately, it was all shallow. The depths and riches and incredible nuances of the teachings of orthodoxy is so deep you can go back again and again to the same guidance and continually find new meaning and inspiration. The puddle of Protestant spirituality was nothing compared to the ocean you find in orthodoxy. She has beneficial instruction for the spiritual babe as well as the holiest of holy elders who regularly see visions of heaven and work countless miracles. Christ told us to make disciples and not merely converts; and in discipleship making, no church is more rich than the Orthodox Church. I wish I could explain it more, but until you try it for yourself it’s impossible to understand. I didn’t convert to orthodoxy because I felt I was lacking in spiritual life in my former church. Instead, I found the pearl of great price and left everything else behind. Like Met Kallistos Ware, Orthodoxy had everything I loved and more from my previous faith.
@ brother I’m not worried about the Orthodox life being hard. Every Christian that believes in the Bible must believe that if you want to be a disciple of Jesus “you must deny yourself, take up your cross, and follow Jesus”. Orthodox aren’t the only ones that believe that or that believe that you need to continue to become more united to God. I’m glad that you found a a deepening in your faith, your spiritual life and your unity with God and I believe that Orthodoxy produces those things and the holy saints and elders you are talking about. But so does Catholicism and in some ways so does Protestantism. My problem is that if the Orthodox faith is so holy , so beautiful, so enriching then why does it hide itself, why hasn’t it impacted the world, why isn’t it doing its best to spread this faith to the rest of the world who needs it. The apostles spread the faith under persecution to most of the known world but Orthodoxy has failed to do that the last 1000 years since the schism
It may be one of the 2 or 3 triumphant and prevailing church bodies of the Roman Empire, but it is definitely not the Church of Jesus Christ and of the earliest persecuted Jewish and later Gentile Christians. Greek replaced Hebrew. Later church fathers put their spin on a Bible they could only read the last part of without translations.
How can you rven think that the Orthodox Church would be united with the Catholic Church also blesses same marriage.
Are you a hederodox?
Hi Joy, this interview was recorded in 2010. Things were different at that time than they are now.
@@AncientFaithMinistriesperhaps in order to ensure context, you could put the date in the title of the video as well as inside the start of the video.
@@AncientFaithMinistriesI see it is in the description but people tend to not look at that.
Orthodoxy is not “ancient”. You may be able to say it is of the “very” distant past but it in no means is no longer in existence. This makes Metropolitan Ware’s comment that you can’t and shouldn’t attempt to understand it through some academic archeological exercise or historical scholarship distinctive.
The three stooges....Each one telling the world the other is destined to "hell". Nonsense.
"In the beginning God created the Heavens and Earth "....Not these stooges !!!
Praying to Mary and the saints in such a way is unbiblical. Even in cases in which Mary or a saint is simply being asked to pray on one’s behalf, the practice has no biblical basis.
The Bible nowhere instructs believers in Christ to pray to anyone other than God. The Bible nowhere encourages, or even mentions, believers asking individuals in heaven for their prayers. Why, then, do many Catholics pray to Mary and/or saints such as Gertrude, Rita, Sylvester, Vincent, Agnes, etc.? Why do they petition the dead and request their prayers?
Catholics view Mary and the saints as “intercessors” before God. They believe that a saint, who is glorified in heaven, has been perfected in love (including love for us) and has more “direct access” to God than do earthbound sinners. In Catholic thinking, prayers delivered by a saint are more effective than our praying to God directly. This concept is blatantly unbiblical. Hebrews 4:16 tells us that believers here on earth have direct access to God and can “approach the throne of grace with confidence.”
No saint can take Jesus’ place: “There is one God and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus” (1 Timothy 2:5). There is no one else who can mediate with God for us. Since Jesus is the only mediator, Mary and the saints cannot be mediators. Further, the Bible tells us that Jesus Christ Himself is interceding for us before the Father: “He is able to save completely those who come to God through Him, because He always lives to intercede for them” (Hebrews 7:25). With Jesus Himself interceding for us, why would we need Mary or the saints to intercede for us? Whom would God listen to more readily than His only begotten Son? Romans 8:26-27 says the Holy Spirit is also interceding for us. With the second and third Persons of the Trinity already interceding for us before the Father, why would we need to have Mary or the saints interceding for us?
Let us examine the claim that praying to Mary and the saints is no different than asking someone here on earth to pray for us:
1) Asking other believers (on earth) to pray for us is certainly biblical (2 Corinthians 1:11; Ephesians 1:16; Philippians 1:19; 2 Timothy 1:3). The apostle Paul asks other Christians to pray for him in Ephesians 6:19.
2) The Bible nowhere mentions anyone asking someone in heaven to pray for him or her. The Bible nowhere describes anyone in heaven praying for anyone on earth.
3) The Bible gives absolutely no indication that Mary or the saints can hear our prayers. Mary and the saints are not omniscient. Even glorified in heaven, they are still finite beings with limitations. How could they possibly hear the prayers of millions of people?
4) Whenever the Bible mentions praying to or speaking with the dead, it is in a negative context involving activities the Bible strongly condemns (Leviticus 20:27; Deuteronomy 18:10-13; 1 Samuel 28:7-19).
Praying to Mary or the saints is completely different from asking a friend here on earth to pray for us. Asking people on earth to pray for us has a strong biblical basis; asking the heavenly saints or Mary to pray has no biblical basis whatsoever.
It is wrong to think that God will hear and answer the prayers of St. Jude, for example, over ours. Scripture teaches that prayer offered to God in faith, according to God’s will, from a redeemed heart will be heard. As an example, “Elijah was a human being, even as we are. He prayed earnestly that it would not rain, and it did not rain on the land for three and a half years. Again he prayed, and the heavens gave rain, and the earth produced its crops” (James 5:17-18).
There is absolutely no scriptural basis to pray to anyone other than God alone. There is no need to, either. Jesus, our Intercessor, has it covered. No one in heaven can mediate on our behalf except for Jesus Christ. Only God can hear and answer prayer. The temple veil was torn in two (Hebrews 10:19-20); the child of God on earth has just as much access to God’s throne of grace, in Jesus’ name, as anyone in heaven (Hebrews 4:16).
In the Lazarus parable, prayers are addressed to Abraham, so the intercession of a holy dead man is been sought. (Matthew 22:32) The distinction between dead and living is demolished by Jesus who tells the saducees that God is the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob of the living for whom all are alive. (cf. Luke 16:19-31) In apocalypse, we explicitly read that the prayers of the saints being offered in heaven. [In Macabees Judas Maccabeus has a vision of already deceased Jeremiah the Prophet and Oniah the priest interceding and says "This is a man who loves the family of Israel and prays much for the people and the holy city." Maccabees 15:12-14 .] (In square brackets since it is part of the Catholic canonon but not Protestant canon which sees thebtext as apocypheral). Romans 8:34 says Jesus also intercedes for us implying there is another intercessor - probably the Holy Spirit in this case but it could also be other holy people or angels in heaven. Check out: James 5:16, Revelations or Apocolypse 5:8 and 8:2-4.
If we start from the premise that everything we do as Christians must have biblical basis, there will never be agreement between catholics and orthodox on the one hand and protestants on the other hand.
Umm, did he know he was holding his hands in a very traditional occult manner, that is a hand position used to show membership in Freemasonry. 😢😮. I pray not. Lord have Mercy.
Oh good grief. Many people, including myself, hold their hands like that that have nothing to do with freemasonry 🙄
@ true, but many do it t that do know also. Like I said, I pray not. FM has member’s inside every organization, and I have read even our Holy Apostolic church. Once you know these sign’s, they’re hard to ignore, even when totally benign.
I used to be greek orthodox, then i read my Bible and discovered the truth.
I was lied to by the Greek priest. He was deceiving me.
You are actually still deceived mate
He is a false teacher. Mark and avoid.
My struggle with accepting Orthodoxy is that if you took away the fruit of Catholicism and Protestantism away and just judged Christianity by Orthodoxy then you would not see the church I think Jesus intended to leave. Jesus said the church would be the pillar and foundation of truth, to make disciples of all nations, and that the gates of hades will not prevail against the church. But Orthodoxy has not had that type of impact on the world or on Christianity that you would expect the one true, holy, catholic and apostolic church to have. Also orthodoxy claims to maintain the faith but they can’t have ecumenical councils anymore because they don’t have an emperor or the bishop of Rome so the Orthodox Church also doesn’t have the ability to define doctrine that the first century church had and that it looked like Jesus promise his church to have. Then Orthodoxy called things like the Immaculate Conception and Purgatory clear accretions but then you see Eastern fathers believing in these doctrines. These are my current issues with Orthodoxy that hold me back from an other wise beautiful, apostolic, and holy faith that I have so much respect for and hold near in my mind and heart.
Massive numbers don't equal true faith. The Roman church spread by force, whereas the eastern church has a "come and see" attitude.
We don't have a current need for ecumenical councils because we hold so dearly to the early roots of the way. Romans have to have them because of all of the massive shift in their doctrine throughout the ages.
And there are church fathers who say the Roman church is satanic. Why not take them into account?
The eastern church has had less impact in the west bc we were busy being persecuted by Muslims and communists
This is an argument from incredulity.
"If Orthodoxy true, why small?"
Fairly standard false polemic towards Orthodoxy.
If size was the standard for Truth then we would all be Arians.
And in the case of Orthodoxy "Not having Ecumenical Councils" 1. The Synodal Model predates the Ecumenical Councils, and prior to the 1st Ecumenical Council you find Councils with universal recognition, and especially after the Ecumene is gone the Orthodox Church still had Councils that have received universal recognition. 2. The Pope never called any Ecumenical Councils, and never attended any personally. The Pope is not required for a Council to be universal.
@@acekoala457 I’m not saying it’s false because of its size. I’m saying it’s hard to believe it’s the one true church if the Bible says that the church will be the pillar and foundation of truth, that the gates of hades will not prevail against it (that means the church is on the offensive), and Jesus’s command to make disciples of many nations and that before he comes the gospel will spread to all nations. I’ll grant that Orthodoxy has done a great job of preserving the faith but it’s missing all those other attributes that God promises the church will have. If you subtract every other Christian denomination and you judge Orthodoxy by that standard can you honestly say that orthodox has been the pillar and foundation of truth for the world, is making disciples of many nations, is defeating the gates of hades? Thats what makes it hard to accept because the apostles spread the faith to most of the known world while they were being persecuted but orthodoxy has failed to do that since the schism but they claim that outside the church that barely evangelizes or impacts the world there is no salvation.