Filioque: How Eastern Orthodoxy Anathematizes the Church Fathers
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 2 ต.ค. 2024
- Eastern Orthodoxy claims to be the church established by Jesus Christ, but they anathematize the faith of the early church. The reality is that it's Protestants who stand with the church fathers in professing the historic and Biblical faith of the church. This is a presentation of Christ Presbyterian Church, a congregation of the Orthodox Presbyterian denomination in Magna, Utah (www.gospelutah.org).
I've been asked to clarify that Mark of Ephesus was not simply a bishop, but legate for the Patriarch of Antioch. A subsequent synod there concurred with his refusal to accept the Council of Ferrara-Florence as ecumenical.
I know what I'll be watching today. Thank you so much!
Yo what's up redeemzoomer
I see you too are a man of culture.
Based Zoomer
@@infidelhardcore7881 well I spoke to this guy and he says he does these kinda documentaries in his free time but he is extremely knowledgeable. I don't think he has ever done a irl 1 on 2 debate but Idk. Ether way his documentaries are amazing and stops Catholics and orthodox in there tracks
Zoomer how’s married life?
anyone find it really weird and cultlike how the Eastern "Orthodox" sing about anathematizing other Christians?
yup!
not really
I find it cringe😂😂😂
It’s the most polite sounding cursing I’ve ever received. That’s ok though; He bore my curse on a tree.
No wonder they gas light, torment and harass people in their parishes and monasteries to the point that they end their lives like Zachariah Schirmer did in 2022 after he was rejected for baptism at Saint Anthony’s Monastery in Arizona and also the monk Scott Nevins who also ended his life at the monastery in 2011 after the psychological and spiritual torment he received from the monastery.
I didn't know they sung anathema anathema. Meanwhile I'm singing pass me not o gentle savior.
This is unironically The Pharisee and the Tax Collector playing out in real life…
@@NotChemnitzno it's not
They sing other hymns and psalms as well...jeez
They are sociopaths.
@@MrKappaKappaPsi meanwhile us Orthodox are singing O Gladsome Light
“The church will decide your fate.”
“I AM the church!”
@@thebishopoftherailway4719 this but unironically is how Rome treats the Pope.
L’eglise c’est moi. 😅
Do it.
😂I see what u did there.
The first galactic empire. Lol
@@r.a.panimefan2109 The first, CATHOLIC, EMPIRE!
Researching how crazy some of the bishops and patriarchs and popes really made me realize how dark and not uniform church history is.
That’s why I laugh at EO who dogmatically declare that history is on their side.
@@xshadowisepic1563 reformation is same way honestly...forged with blood.
Yeah 100% no one is innocent including me. I never insinuated that I just pointed out what caused me to leave Rome.
@@Thebeautifuleyeit is.
@@OrthodoxChristianTheologybecause of the papists
it's always a good day when Ancient Paths TV posts 👍👍
Thank you for the extensive time and serious labor that you have put into the subject of EO. While there are ample responses to Rome for Protestants to turn to, there are too few on EO, no doubt due to the lessor presence of EO in the past. It must be exhaustive to deal with this subject as you have and I am personally grateful for what you have done as my church has been rocked by this topic.
Thank you for the kind encouragement.
@@ancientpathstv If you investigate carefully, you will recognize that the Catholic church did not forsake its teaching per se. None of the current papal pronouncements are infallible. The last on of such statements was in 1950, promulgating the dogma of the Assumption.
There do exist holdouts of traditional Catholic Teaching, mainly those communities that celebrate the Tridentine Mass.
The synod of Elvira was by no means ecumenical. It only pertained to Spain , as was its declared goal. It is ahistorical to attribute to it something it never claimed or wanted to be.
Canon 36 states, "It has seemed good that images should not be in churches so that what is venerated and worshiped not be painted on the walls."[15][16][b] It allegedly forbids pictures in churches (compare the Iconoclastic Controversy in the East); according to Philip Schaff this canon "has often been quoted by Protestants as an argument against image worship as idolatrous; while Roman Catholic writers explain it either as a prohibition of representations of the deity only, or as a prudential measure against heathen desecration of holy things".[17] Canon 36 was the first official statement on art by the Christian Church and so of special interest in the history of Early Christian and medieval art, even if it represents Church policy only within the limits of the synod's jurisdiction of Spain.
@@voxpopuli8132 I have investigated carefully. Second Nicaea anathematizes anyone who refuses to venerate an icon. That effectively anathematizes the first four ecumenical councils, because Fr. Richard Price admits, ". . .the iconoclast claim that reverence towards images did not go back to the golden age of the fathers [i.e., 325-451], still less to the apostles, would be judged by impartial historians today to be simply correct." Please watch. th-cam.com/video/utIAnY5I8CU/w-d-xo.html
Every video of yours I watch reminds me just how arrogant and prideful we are. It is a testament to God's lovingkindness that he doesn't destroy us for our presumption.
I've been asked to clarify that Mark of Ephesus was not simply a bishop, but legate for the Patriarch of Antioch. A subsequent synod there concurred with his refusal to accept the Council of Ferrara-Florence as ecumenical.
This should be stickied! :)
@@ancientpathstv It wasn't St. Mark of Ephesus that refused the acceptance of the Ecumenical council. He was for it, but Pope Eugen was the one who denounced it because he lost the battle to the Orthodox. That is why he was deposed by the Vatican after demanding the synod to be Ecumenical and lost the outcome. Even the Catholic order of monastics agreed that the Greeks were right in their debates and therefore Pope Eugene never allowed Catholic monasticism to ever participate in such theological debates again. Historical fact
@@arthurtsiakopoulos2051 There was a great deal of confusion surrounding the council with the attempted deposition of Pope Eugene and the establishment of an "antipope." I think you've misread the history, but I don't have time to debate you.
@@arthurtsiakopoulos2051What paralel universe do you live in?
Pope Eugene never denounced Florence as ecumenical. Pope Eugene never lost to Orthodox since it was not he who debated Orthodox delegation. But John of Montenero, Cardinal Cesarini etc. The pope was never deposed.
@@namapalsu2364 you are brain dead. You obviously don't know your history. You don't even know your facts. LOL. What a beautiful taste of valuable time you are.
Jay Dyer been real quiet since this dropped.
He got destroyed by Christian b Wagner lol
@@Joshua12w2o Yeah, big W for Wagner, all dyer does is talk over people. Gues his Character represents the EO.
@@Joshua12w2o So true
Good, he’s got one of the most nauseating voices. And he’s jumped in and out from one belief to another so many times who’s to say he won’t be a black Muslim tomorrow? 😆
I think Brian Holdworth said it best that Eastern Orthodoxy defines itself as a specifically anti-Western phenomenon which ironically means that its identity is contingent upon the Western Church and thus is not really a unique church and misses the criteria necessary to be the ONE holy and apostolic church.
Great video. I love all of the videos on this channel, but the ones on Eastern Orthodoxy are the best.
Thank you for the thoughtful and well-made video.
Thank you!
There are two issues.
1) Is the filioque correct?
2) Did the Pope have the right to change the creed?
The answers are
1) Probably
2) No
1) Probably not.
1. If God is One and made up of 3 Persons, does it matter? 1000 year quibbling about human words. The Creed was a human creation so imperfect, imperfect beings like us humans have no words to describe perfection.
2. Did the Pope change the Creed or did he just authorize or approve an old custom of western Christians especially those of Hispania, who had to counter the Arian heresy installed by the Suevi, Vandal and Visigoths on the Hispano- Romans
@@antoniodesousa9723 Of course it mattered. Of course he changed it.
I believe the eastern church would have accepted the filioque if it had been instated via an ecumenical council of all the churches coming together in agreement and an understanding of it. that never took place thus why they don't accept it. councils have the weight of the whole church and God speaks through them. one man cannot, one bishop cannot lest God himself confirms it. the eastern churches even went as far as to accept the pope as 'first among equals' but he abused a power he never had or was ever given.
The chronically-online ortho-bros aren’t going to like this one
And it's good! 😂
Even ethnic Greek or Russian orthodox don’t even like those westerners acting like know it all in their parishes 😂
As we all know, the Church fathers all believed precisely the same things, and were in no way irascibly at odds or disagreeable about small details, which, if I recall correctly St. Basil said, "its no big deal, all chill with me"
Lol
EO shenanigans must be brought to light, too many people are seduced by their claims these days!
Our three videos on the subject are easily accessible at www.orthodox.video.
Wow Irenaeus really calling out EO and Catholics 🤯
anathema!
Thank you so much! I waited this video!
Oh nice! Another deep video full of quotes, research, and church history.
Yes!!! I've been looking forward to this one.
Eastern „Orthodoxy“ is the Reddit version of Christianity
The Word birthed the sacraments and the sacraments the church. EOs are low key gnostics.
The Filioque helped end the Arianism heresy in Visigothic Spain.
Therefore it's true?
@@tymon1928the Filioque is orthodox
@@Agrabah-yd8yg which orthodox creed has Filioque clause?
@@tymon1928 Filioque has power and it’s biblical so therefore it’s true.
@@YourBoyJohnny94 verses?
Your statement at 35:09 sums up the video: “Behind all the East rationalizations is the simple fact that in the 9th Century Patriarch Photius invented a heresy to justify anathematizing the West that had opposed him, and it was exactly what his emperor wanted.”
As I read through J. N. D. Kelly’s book "Oxford Dictionary of Popes," it’s painfully obvious that so many of the decisions of church leaders throughout history were politically motivated rather than being directed by the Holy Spirit.
eastern patriach was emperor's puppet
and jealousy of emperor to western europe
Yay!!!
Make Hieria Orthodox Again!
Amen!
Frankfurt > Hieria
@@GabrielWithoutWings Franks were duplicitous. 14 Frankish bishops anathematized those who don't venerate icons in Rome 769.
Nicaea 2 is cringe, Craig.
@@OrthodoxChristianTheologythe comment I am going to make doesn’t have anything to do with this thread
Wat is ur position on St Augustines view of icons and relics
The more and more I learn the history explained so well in these videos, the more and more I can't help seeing the Orthodox (and to a lesser extent the Catholics) as the literal Pharisees of our day.
Classical Protestantism is the way
So because flawed people exist, Christianity is false. Makes sense.
@@atanas-nikolovsad that you made that conclusion🤦🏻♀️gees
@@danib712 That's where the argument leads, idk what to tell you.
@@scottleslie5880 t they literally "anathema" anyone who doesn't follow there false doctrine that they also Just like the Pharisees claim are from Jesus, just like how the Pharisees did to Moses.
Thank you for this.
Thank you for doing this leg work. It is very much so needed. Many of us western Christians are unaware of the history behind the Filoque though we do indeed hear the loud screaming over it from our Greek Orthodox brothers and sisters.
It's funny how the Ortho bros manipulate church history, then claim church history is on their side and they are just following the apostolic tradition. Particularly funny to me is the statement that laymen should not read the bible, then they come out with a study bible for the laymen. This is the kind of thing that leaves us with no choice but Sola Scriptura.
Great work on debunking the East's false narrative!
Thank you!
Sola Scriptura > Sola Ecclesia
I have never known an Orthodox Priest who would instruct a layman to not read the Holy Scriptures. In fact, every priest I know would advise them to read it every day.
@@nathanaelbelt1306 The Synod of Jerusalem said otherwise.
Fantastic documentary. Really needed in the body of Christ right now, when many young men are abandoning the true faith to go east or to Rome for the sake of feeling like they are part of a tradition.
Thank you! Soli Deo Gloria.
It's funny to see how first one dude with a beard accuses reformers of "judging councils," and then another dude with a beard judges for himself which councils are right and which are not. pathetic sight.
The younger guy is a bit of an ass.
@@Phill0old And Calvinists are good willed...
Oh wait -_-
@@Phill0old I think so😂
@@willtheperson7224 I didn't say "All Orthodox" just that one guy. I have seen a bit of him and he is, in my humble opinion, a bit of an ass. There are Calvinists I don't like. Catholics I don't like. I don't think everyone is a good guy. Clearly you are a snowflake and easily triggered by any criticism. Get over it.
Look another "I Hate Calvin" bot 🥱🦾🤖.@@willtheperson7224
Thank you for another fantastic video! The intricacies of the historical context of these councils and decisions is so interesting, especially the political motivations. What resources would you recommend to people wanting to study further? I've read Nick Needham's series 2000 Years of Christ's Power and would like to take my knowledge of church history a step further.
Thank you for the kind encouragement. If you ignore his rant against Reformed folks at the end, Heresies by Harold O.J. Brown is a very good history. The Courage To Be Protestant by David Wells is also very good. The Patristic Roots of Reformed Worship by Hughes Old is another great resource. It seems Reformed have lost the sense that we're the historic, as well as Biblical faith.
@@ancientpathstv Thanks, I'll have to check those out! If I remember correctly you told James White you have one more EO video in the works, do you have any plans for videos on other groups following that?
@@Matthew-nu8wf I have short one on Pentecostalism with the editor and I'm working on one on Alcoholics Anonymous and another on Mormonism.
@@ancientpathstvlooking forward to watching these!
People jump ship to new denominations without even knowing what they are taking in. Thank you for posting resources that caution people from jumping to EO without considering it
Thank You
Excellent video sir, this is well made, your work is very much appreciated.
Thank you!
Love these videos.
Sola scriptura reigns again
Who decides what is scripture? Certainly not scripture, therefore the idea of sola scriptura is a fallacy.
= 30k churchs bro
@@gades_gabrieldid u look into the number of Eastern denominations from the same source?
@@tonyoliver2750that’s not what scripture alone is no Protestant thinks of scripture that way.
@@danib712 "...no Protestant thinks of scripture that way." That's some claim you're making. How do you know what a billion Protestants think?
I find it funny how many online apologetics gloss over St. John Damascene's Exposition of the Orthodox Faith as an "invention" or "Nestorianism", but no one dares to actually go deeper and attempt to refute his vision on the Filioque and the relationship between the Spirit and the Son. Some go on theological tangents like the essence-energy distinction (a totally unrelated topic), but you're innovating in tangents by arguing against the very notion catholicism instead of refuting the orthodox position of the Filioque.
I find it funny that anyone takes John Damascene seriously. His defense of icons was completely discredited in The Failure of Eastern Orthodoxy. Even Catholic scholar Fr. Richard Price admits, ". . .the iconoclast claim that reverence towards images did not go back to the golden age of the fathers [i.e., 325-451], still less to the apostles, would be judged by impartial historians today to be simply correct."
This combined with Dwong’s videos basically destroys any anti-filioque position.
Yeah, dwong is great. 👌
They are hard hearted like the Orthodox Jews 😢
There will be a response, in a few hours actually. I thought the other films were argued well and researched decently. This documentary is not researched well and this is why it can be very quickly responded to.
Cope
Rest in peace Zachariah Schirmer and the monk Scott Nevins.
@@GregorasProject What spirit motivates such animus?
@@OrthodoxChristianTheology that spirit is probably birthed from the vitriol spewed at Protestant Christians from the Orthodox Christians.
@@OrthodoxChristianTheology Spirit of God that prevails against idolaters like you who declare others damned for not worshipping lifeless images.
I feel like I'm watching the Sanhedrin at 0:57
Pharisees the whole lot of em.
babe wake up, ancientpaths uploaded
Irene of Athens sounds like a straight up Jezebel same with Theodora.
You know I would be more offend about being continously anathematized if only the chants weren't all such bangers
As an Anglican, I'd say that no council is infallible, but councils can be known to be without error if they are universally accepted by the Church and have been for a long time. This is true for the first 6, with only the anathemas against Origen in the 5th being called into question.
Gonna watch it now lol
One thing that bugs me. Is that practically all the fathers use timothy to teach that they must aprove baptism from a elder and teaching from a elder... no this of course does not emply apostolic succession as they unserstand.
It seems to be a guard against heretics...
But something doesnt sit right with me.
Christ also bans Sectarianism
When the apostles tey to stop someone casting demons out.
They claim they had to give there authority
Basiccally saying they were the true discipleship
Christ tells them in no simple terms they were wrong.
To let him alone
Who ever does work in christs name cant then do evil...
Now obviously there are caveats.
Lord lord did we not do mughty works in your name.
Granted this is to say they were doing works using christs name to puff themselves up. Basically being pharasee
Where as what christ was saying about Sectarianism was based to be a genuine follower
But how do we square what christ says with what the fathers say.
Timothy seems to be about simple finding good teachers. But not nessesarily authority...
Could it be the church fathers like ignatius(who was the biggest proponent of authority has either a flaw or we are misunderstanding him...
Heck i cant even surmise even a general protestant episcopate that doesnt throw anathema around. With christs admonishkent....
This is really hard to sqaure in my head.
Cuase it seems to me that if you were one of the 1000s that heard christ. And new of the reserecrion.
They would have been sharing the good news like crazy.
It wouldnt simply be the apostles and other elders.
But anyone and everyone
Going by wat christ said this is definitely the implication.
Id have no doubt the people in the 1000s that received bread that was multiplied. Could have easily told people about him.
1000s seen him rise not just the 12...
I just cant sqaure the elders comment.
With the understanding of authoritative episcopacy
You have to take scripture together and not read single verses... this is easily the most overlooked verse in the bible.
"through the Son" and "and the Son" mean the same thing
The Eastern Orthodox do accept the Filioque in a roundabout way.
Im a huge fan of your work! Thank you! I have a question. Is it a heresy to deny the filioque clause?
I believe it would be an error to deny it, but not heresy. I would be much more comfortable with someone who doesn't see it as a necessary inference. We need to be very careful with speculative theology.
The filioque literally goes AGAINST the words of Jesus in John 14:26 (I think thats the verse). It was an overreaction, it wasn't done in an ecumenical Council and it is confusing the trinity. No I won't recite my niceene creed with a medieval papist addition thanks
@@Dilley_G45 You really should watch a video before ranting against it.
@@ancientpathstv I'm not ranting. I just defend biblical truth. Thats not ranting
@@Dilley_G45 You commented on a video without engaging any of its content, indicating you never bothered to watch it or paid no attention, if you did. That's ranting.
Not gonna lie, it is super dorky they actually have a song for condemning something as anathema 😂
While i disagree with some of augustines position.
I respect him because he was so clear about sola scriptura.
He even said his own words
Councils.
Church father writing
Any and all of them could be in error as the were not divine or inspired but prone to human error.
He was a proponent of science.
And in reading the old testament and new.
Aka just war theory. Abandonment of pure pacifism
These were wonderful things.
And he had modesty about him.
Do i agree with tulip theology calvinism or seminal headship
No
But thats whats wonderful with being protestant we measure mans ideas according to scripture....
Trent horn loves to say sola
Always goes to nuda scriptura
But its the opposite.
We start with nuda... (naked)
Simply reading bible no presuming
Then sola (adding traditions and creeds meekly and carefully)
And the smart man considers actual historical context to the receiver of the writing.
With out history and knowledge of the areas where the writing took place the picture is incomplete
The e.o.and r.c.
Use a barstool.
Scripture tradition council as three equal supports. But thats not it.
Its actually more of a pyramid scheme.
Scriptures and of course christ the word made flesh is the chief pillers
Christ being the corner stone.
Prophets and apostles the foundation built around him
Then fellow believers building it up.
Then councils creeds and traditions are the paint and plaster.
They help identify the building. But its not the building itself.
We the people the real ecclesia are the temple.
Its amazing the ingnore such clearness.
I'd just like to say not all eastern orthodox are so hard pressed on the filioque some have actually lighted themselves to it but they by no means accept it. take that as you will.
When their church formally anathematizes it, they're being dishonest if they don't as well.
I think the 7th argument works but "to be Christan" is defined by doctrine (i.e. the faith of the Apostles). This gives us 4 ecumenical councils since the OO accepted it and rebelled only 6 years afterwards, and the Assyrians accepted Chalcedon (and with that all 4) at Mar Aba 1 as well.
Golden Rule: Never use a short word if a long word will do. Especially one which no one knows how to pronounce.
You have always the best videos about church history! Thank you for your amazing work and service!
Great Video will have to add more timestamps for this wealth of information.
17:17 Athanasius on his basis challenging Arianism
Amen
Rest in peace Zachariah Schirmer who killed himself after he was rejected for baptism at Saint Anthony’s Monastery in Arizona in 2022 and also the monk Scott Nevins that killed himself after years of spiritual and psychological abuse at the monastery in 2011.
so many horror stories from western converts who, seeing online posts, go to an orthodox church. they’re either turned away/ignored by the priest or simply feel alienated as the only non greek/georgian/russian there. theological debates aside, the biggest issue in the (un)orthodox church is its nationalistic view towards the west. these priests and their congregations simply don’t want westerners in their church for no other reason besides that they’re not easterners.
@@bhhfcsjdjdhwhf Yep, and they will gas light and harass you with weaponized psychology to push you out covertly. There are some genuine and kind ones but most are just sociopaths who want you gone. I’m convinced that some are even Satan worshippers that are there to curse potential converts and drive them away.
Nothing like using 2 tragic deaths as polemical fodder on the internet
@@nathanmagnuson2589 It's to highlight how sociopathic you people Really are, Especially The Greeks.
@@nathanmagnuson2589 Where the Polemic though?
I really would love some help on this.
What you mean?
clip of the orthodox priests singing about how every other christian denomination is anathema is so bizarre and creepy. how can western orthodox converts seriously go to a church that sings about how their family, ancestors, and neighbours are all going to hell or are in hell?
@@bhhfcsjdjdhwhf this is the main thing that perturbs me about Orthodoxy
@@FireSquad101 the EO is in desperate need of change. they act like a borderline anti west hate group at times. western converts are mistreated constantly and overseas the bishops encourage wars against the west. look up zachariah schirmer if you haven’t yet; he was a western convert who unfortunately decided to end his life because he was denied from an EO church.
Galatians 1:8-12
"But even if we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel to you than what we have preached to you, let him be ACCURSED (anathema). As we have said before, so now I say again, if anyone preaches any other gospel to you than what you have received, let him be accursed (ANATHEMA). For do I now persuade men, or God? Or do I seek to please men? For if I still pleased men, I would not be a bondservant of Christ. But I make known to you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached by me is not according to man. For I neither received it from man, nor was I taught it, but it came through the revelation of Jesus Christ."
The word "Accursed" is ANATHEMA in Greek. You don't like it and think it's too harsh, your issue is with Paul and the Bible. It is a fundamental fact that we preach different Gospels, and that Protestant denominations preach a "gospel other than what [we] have received," for one by basically omitting several sacraments and Apostolic practices. But by going against the Church's teachings, you become Anathematized as Paul says.
The service is once a year (or just a few times, it is not a frequent thing), and is a celebration of the triumph of Orthodox faith over heresies of the past. And the thing about Anathema: as far as I'm aware, you can recant your heresies at any time and be reconciled with the Church.
@@KoiDotJpeg even if they use words from the Bible it’s still weird and cultish. we don’t sing about how non Christians will be sent to hell when they die or how those baptists down the road are so going to fry for what they think. your little song about how every other Christian who isn’t a part of the hyper niche eastern church is just another instance of the unorthodox church being extremely bigoted and ignorant towards the west.
If that disturbs you that much good luck getting through the Bible
please do more on infant ba[tism from n early church perspective
I've done two large videos.
th-cam.com/video/SyP0yas9tAs/w-d-xo.html
th-cam.com/video/68x6p-x4hKA/w-d-xo.html
Vayikra Rabbah 14:1
For the opinion of Reish Lakish, there is the verse: [Genesis 1:2] "And the spirit of God wavered upon the water" - that is the spirit of the king messiah.
So you stand with the council of Heiria?
(15) If anyone shall not confess the holy ever-virgin Mary, truly and properly the Mother of God, to be higher than every creature whether visible or invisible, and does not with sincere faith seek her intercessions as of one having confidence in her access to our God, since she bare him, etc.
(17) If anyone denies the profit of the invocation of Saints, etc.
(19) If anyone does not accept this our Holy and Ecumenical Seventh Synod, let him be anathema from the Father and the Son and the Holy Ghost, and from the seven holy Ecumenical Synods!
Nice try, but I never said we stand with them on everything. We stand with them on the issue of the veneration of icons.
@ancientpathstv Except it's not just veneration. You portray that council like it is the real true council with the proper declarations unlike Nicea II. You should be honest to talk about all that the council held to because the reality is that it would have led to the anathema of the vast majority of Protestants, including yourself.
(8) If anyone ventures to represent the divine image ( karakthr ) of the Word after the Incarnation with material colours, let him be anathema!
(9) If anyone ventures to represent in human figures, by means of material colours, by reason of the incarnation, the substance or person (ousia or hypostasis) of the Word, which cannot be depicted, and does not rather confess that even after the Incarnation he [i.e., the Word] cannot be depicted, let him be anathema!
@@TheologyNerd777 You should be honest that you have no clue about what I believe. The Westminster Larger Catechism asks,
Q. 109. What sins are forbidden in the second commandment?
A. The sins forbidden in the second commandment are, all devising, counseling, commanding, using, and any wise approving, any religious worship not instituted by God himself; the making any representation of God, of all or of any of the three persons, either inwardly in our mind, or outwardly in any kind of image or likeness of any creature whatsoever; all worshiping of it, or God in it or by it; the making of any representation of feigned deities, and all worship of them, or service belonging to them; all superstitious devices, corrupting the worship of God, adding to it, or taking from it, whether invented and taken up of ourselves, or received by tradition from others, though under the title of antiquity, custom, devotion, good intent, or any other pretense whatsoever; simony; sacrilege; all neglect, contempt, hindering, and opposing the worship and ordinances which God hath appointed.
@ancientpathstv Sorry, but everybody knows what you believe, and the Presbyterian exodus is flooding our churches. My point has been made about the council and not dealt with. The vast majority of Protestants would be anathematized there- for images, for the perpetual virginity of Mary and asking for her intercession as well as the intercession of Saints. That's the truth. I just think it's important that people have all of the information to make the most informed decisions.
@@ancientpathstvwat do u think of the Lutherans?
The Catholic Church does not allow the blessing of homosexual unions
That's not what I said. They are blessing homosexual couples, and with a simple Google search, you can easily find images of Fr. James Martin and others proudly doing so.
Yes they do now
@@vrock913 Lying about it does not make it true. The pope has already clarified what was meant.
@@Peter-tr7gg even if the pope clarified it they are still doing it. There is theory and then praxis. The roman catholic church says christ is truly present in the Eucharist, but only 30 percent of US catholics really believe this. so yeah.
You are probably best Protestant apologist, besides Gavin Ortlund. Thank you for your great work!
Soli Deo Gloria!
In my second lecture on the Filioque, I explore Dr. Joshua Sijuwade and Dr. Mark Makin’s work to philosophically analyze the Filioque.
Sounds like a cult
The Athanasius Creed is pseud-Athanasius. Since the First Ecumenical Synod fixed the Creed, and the Whole Church signed it, both East and West, exactly as it was stated, there is a clear violation from the Latin Church. The teachings of all of Apostolic Fathers and the rest of them till thr 4th century are all included in the dogma of the Eastern Orthodox Church. Before there was even a discussion about Filioque, some of them used the terms interchangeably (proceeds/sends), but we as Eastern Orthodox hold, that the first Cause of both Son and Holy Spirit is the Father. It is really upsetting though for Protestants (with a life of 500 years) to criticize the Church of 2000 years. How many thousand litres of blood martyrs and Saints have shed in the East all these centuries? Who validated and confirmed the holy scriptures and Canon before the Protestants? What kind of spiritual life and works can the Protestants exhibit? Please.
You should actually watch the video before ranting. All of it is dealt with in this video and this one: th-cam.com/video/3AplWYXFiCA/w-d-xo.html
@@ancientpathstv and you should study the Fathers and not single out specific sentences out of their context. Anyway, good day to you.
@@konstantinoszeimpekis9874 I've studied the Fathers, and you've yet to demonstrate one mischaracterization. Fathers contradict, and even ecumenical councils contradict. The Scriptures don't contradict.
@@ancientpathstv the Gospel says that the Spirit proceeds from the Father.
@@ancientpathstv and the Ecumenical Synods do not contradict. The Church is led by the Holy Spirit, the Church cannot err.
Why does trentham put on an accent with certain words?
26:45 but he said his statement was blasphemous and impious, not that he was a heretic
ΧStraight bolden lies.
The Church Fathers were not anathematized by the Church Fathers of Orthodoxy!
The Pope is the one who decided to add the Filioque to the Creed.
Historical record.
Second Nicaea anathematized the historic and Biblical faith of the church on images, just as the East did on the filioque. I've offered evidence. You've offered nothing but gratuitous assertions.
Do you really think Elpidophorous represents the faith of the Apostles?
Bull crap assertions by Ecumenical and heretics.
@@arthurtsiakopoulos2051 Baseless insults make for poor argumentation against documented facts.
@@ancientpathstv minikin brain is difficult to accept history facts.
21:13 bookmark
52:08
Unfortunately this is not a perfect method in that it sounds nice to say “the popes contradict so the Catholics are wrong, the fathers contradict so the Orthodox are wrong, but the scriptures don’t contradict so we’re in the right”
But many could say that the Bible contradicts itself as well. There are many examples of this and we all have answers for them, sometimes simple and other times elaborate. (Mike Licona wrote a book on just the contradictions in the gospels which is an interesting read. )
As such it seems to me disingenuous for the protestant to claim the high ground here. We would simply do what you do to reconcile the gospels and apply that to the popes and fathers
First, if Rome and Eastern Orthodoxy try to attack the Bible, they lose all credibility for maintaining oral tradition, as well.
Second, I sincerely doubt Mike Licona would even claim to be a confessional Protestant. His background is Independent and Southern Baptist. His errors have been refuted multiple times, and he definitely does not represent confessional Protestantism.
God has spoken and has providentially preserved His Word. That has been defended against all critics (The Bible vs. Bart Ehrman is on this channel.)
Protestants are the ones who stand with the early church in our understanding the Bible and against the medieval errors of Rome (www.romancatholic.video) and Eastern Orthodoxy (www.orthodox.video). You're the one being disingenuous.
@@ancientpathstv good evening,
That doesn’t dispel my point, however, that there are “contradictions” in the Bible which have to be resolved through a deep dive into things like narrative style, context, nuances and genre. This is because on its face there are different accounts in the gospels and the historic books of the ot. Did the centurion come to Christ himself or did he send someone? What day was Christ crucified? Who went to see him at the tomb? Why are the genealogies different? Things which of course have answers but they aren’t straightforward in the sense that you can just read the passages side by side and come away without any questions. There is a reason that books are written on the subject.
In the same way, we should have the right to contextualize and harmonize the popes and fathers even if they seem to contradict (in spite of the fact that their supposed contradictions are in almost all cases allowable as they doesn’t destroy the outline of the faith, just as manuscript errors don’t change the essence of the gospel)
@@Vinsanity997 Apparently you didn't take the time to watch the videos to which I pointed you before responding. The Scriptures can be harmonized. Popes and councils can't.
@@ancientpathstv I actually have, more so the Orthodox one
It seems to me much more subjective to say that someone couldn’t reconcile the Church fathers but they can reconcile biblical discrepancies which are enough to make people lose their faith. If a Protestant would urge others to be charitable with the Bible and be open to dozens of explanations to harmonize the text then maybe we should be allowed the same charity with the fathers
I just say what is good for you is good for us as well. But I don’t know you personally so I’m not sure how you would reconcile biblical discrepancies or if you would be fine with having competing traditions on the Bible as long as the core remains in tact
@@Vinsanity997 You're mischaracterizing the nature of harmonization. Matthew may summarize events more than Luke, but church fathers and councils take mutually exclusive positions. They contradict; the Scriptures don't.
It really should be obvious that if the Holy Trinity is truly consubstantial then of course the Holy Ghost should proceed from the Father and the Son since if the Holy Ghost did not also proceed from the Son as well as the Father then this clearly implies that the Father has a function and attribute that the Son does not share in which would make the Son inequal to the Father and thus the Father and the Son are not consubstantial which makes the Ghost likewise inconsubstantial since He would proceed only from the Father without the Son. This would also mean that the Son does not have the same relationship with the Ghost as the Father which would mean there is some barrier between the Son and the Ghost. This divides the Trinity and leads unnaturally towards some form of subordinative relationship between Father and Son as well as heretical doctrines in respect to the Ghost such as His lack of personage and His being more of an ethereal force.
With that said, I will offer this as a defense of the Eastern Orthodox although not in this regard but in something else that the West does need to reorientate herself on the mystery of Christ rather than rely solely on scholasticism which has made the Faith feel dry and more akin to some academic enterprise. I am not denouncing scholasticism here nor am I disregarding Sts. Anselm or Thomas Aquinas or anyone else who were well-formed in the mysticism of the Faith, but I do believe that compared to the way a lot of Eastern Orthodox priests and professors preach compared to many Latin priests and academics today there is a certain energy that resonates from the East that the West appears to lack and that the West does need to relearn.
This does not mean the Eastern Orthodox ecclesiological stances are correct because they are well-disproven but ultimately people are not going to be won over by intellectual propositions and sophisticated arguments even if they are necessary but by the transcendence of God and His mysterious nature.
We can never truly KNOW God. Even what we know about Him doesn't come anywhere close to Who He truly is. The Eastern Catholics and the Orthodox I do feel understand this better and the West needs to rediscover this.
Gloria Jesu Christe. Gloria in aeternum. Amen.
Rome and the East have confused mysticism with real reverence. What they (and sadly many nominal Protestants) need to recover is the Biblical Jesus.
EO is just cinematography.
Cosplay
@@ancientpathstv exactly!
Matthew 23:1-39 Then spake Jesus to the multitude, and to his disciples,
Saying, The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat:
All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do; but do not ye after their works: for they say, and do not.
For they bind heavy burdens and grievous to be borne, and lay them on men's shoulders; but they themselves will not move them with one of their fingers.
But all their works they do for to be seen of men: they make broad their phylacteries, and enlarge the borders of their garments,
And love the uppermost rooms at feasts, and the chief seats in the synagogues,
And greetings in the markets, and to be called of men, Rabbi, Rabbi.
But be not ye called Rabbi: for one is your Master, even Christ; and all ye are brethren.
And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven.
Neither be ye called masters: for one is your Master, even Christ.
But he that is greatest among you shall be your servant.
And whosoever shall exalt himself shall be abased; and he that shall humble himself shall be exalted.
But woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye shut up the kingdom of heaven against men: for ye neither go in yourselves, neither suffer ye them that are entering to go in.
Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye devour widows' houses, and for a pretence make long prayer: therefore ye shall receive the greater damnation.
Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye compass sea and land to make one proselyte, and when he is made, ye make him twofold more the child of hell than yourselves.
Woe unto you, ye blind guides, which say, Whosoever shall swear by the temple, it is nothing; but whosoever shall swear by the gold of the temple, he is a debtor!
Ye fools and blind: for whether is greater, the gold, or the temple that sanctifieth the gold?
And, Whosoever shall swear by the altar, it is nothing; but whosoever sweareth by the gift that is upon it, he is guilty.
Ye fools and blind: for whether is greater, the gift, or the altar that sanctifieth the gift?
Whoso therefore shall swear by the altar, sweareth by it, and by all things thereon.
And whoso shall swear by the temple, sweareth by it, and by him that dwelleth therein.
And he that shall swear by heaven, sweareth by the throne of God, and by him that sitteth thereon.
Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye pay tithe of mint and anise and cummin, and have omitted the weightier matters of the law, judgment, mercy, and faith: these ought ye to have done, and not to leave the other undone.
Ye blind guides, which strain at a gnat, and swallow a camel.
Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye make clean the outside of the cup and of the platter, but within they are full of extortion and excess.
Thou blind Pharisee, cleanse first that which is within the cup and platter, that the outside of them may be clean also.
Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye are like unto whited sepulchres, which indeed appear beautiful outward, but are within full of dead men's bones, and of all uncleanness.
Even so ye also outwardly appear righteous unto men, but within ye are full of hypocrisy and iniquity.
Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! because ye build the tombs of the prophets, and garnish the sepulchres of the righteous,
And say, If we had been in the days of our fathers, we would not have been partakers with them in the blood of the prophets.
Wherefore ye be witnesses unto yourselves, that ye are the children of them which killed the prophets.
Fill ye up then the measure of your fathers.
Ye serpents, ye generation of vipers, how can ye escape the damnation of hell?
Wherefore, behold, I send unto you prophets, and wise men, and scribes: and some of them ye shall kill and crucify; and some of them shall ye scourge in your synagogues, and persecute them from city to city:
That upon you may come all the righteous blood shed upon the earth, from the blood of righteous Abel unto the blood of Zacharias son of Barachias, whom ye slew between the temple and the altar.
Verily I say unto you, All these things shall come upon this generation.
O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets, and stonest them which are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not!
Behold, your house is left unto you desolate.
For I say unto you, Ye shall not see me henceforth, till ye shall say, Blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord.
why does every reply i post get automatically deleted?
I haven't deleted any of your posts.
@@ancientpathstv I thought at first it might've been you lol, but I think it was a TH-cam issue the whole time. My comments were just not showing up on my end.
@@skipetar5432 I only delete the worst of the ranters. 🙂
@@ancientpathstv Haha. Btw, just curious, have you seen OrthodoxChristianTheology (Craig Trulia's) response video to yours?
@@skipetar5432 I saw the response to my first video. I was unimpressed with Whiteford's arguments. I don't think that questioning evolving stories of a monk living a year on 1/6 of a date means I have to throw out Biblical miracles. His accusations of "quote-mining" and "cherry-picking" were also just name-calling, since he didn't demonstrate a single misrepresentation. Contrary to his speculation, I actually fast.
Craig actually had me on a later show, and I was impressed with his respect. ( I had a lot of technical issues - - my regular Internet was down.)
On the filioque, I haven't seen anything, but I've interacted enough with Craig, that I think I know his objections. I think he brings unwarranted assumptions to the evidence. I'm sure he probably believes the same about me, but I've appreciated his tone.
6 minutes in and youre already twisting the facts to suit you. You cite 2 post schism councils as proof we have been represented, and then Ferrara Florence which was accepted under torture from the eastern delegates who then recanted their affirmations when they returned home. Is this what you need to affirm your position? Then you claim that one is inconsistient to oppose a robber council because one affirms true councils? This is absurd.
No, you're being absurd to ignore that representatives from the East were present and agreed to the filioque. If you keep watching you'll see those "recantations" were often years later, to suit the changing political climate. As demonstrated in the video, Eastern Orthodoxy arbitrarily defines ecumenical councils to suit itself.
“Under torture” 😂 c’mon man
@@achilles4242yes they locked them in their chambers and denied them food. Councils always need to be recieved by the laity and so when the bishops return and over time the laity deny it and the bishops recant their choices it becomes clear to be a robber council. All churches believe in robber councils, some rejected years later. Certainly one whos protestant thinks most councils are robber councils so i find this argument ironic
@@ancientpathstvCouncils always need to be recieved by the laity and examined with time, this is nothing new. Even nicea was hotly contested and rejected by most bishops and most emperors immediately following, but St Athanasius and the reception and acceptance of the council would show its authenticity. so when the bishops return and over time the laity deny its results and the bishops recant their choices it becomes clear to be a robber council, which St Mark saw from the beginning. All churches with any apostolocity believe in robber councils, some rejected years and years later. Certainly one whos protestant thinks many many councils are robber councils so i find this argument a little ironic and arbitrary
@@JoeyBonasso The East has been shown to rewrite such histories over and over to serve themselves.
How do you respond to the claim by Orthodox that the Biblical canon which Protestants use is based on the Church and the Holy Spirit guided the Church to decipher and keep true texts and delete false ones? The assert that without the Church you couldn't have even had a correct Bible in your hands and that there is no ultimate authority making every man his own interpreter of Scripture, "his own Church."
There was no great mystery about most of the canon. About 180 A.D., long before any council on the canon, Irenaeus knew the four gospels and quoted from each. He said the others were too late and generally recognized as frauds. Even the heretic Marcion had most of the Pauline corpus in 144 A.D. If someone in the early church had questions about Revelation, Rome and the East tell us we're supposed to believe the church defines the Scriptures, rather than the other way around. That's not the testimony of the early church.
@@ancientpathstv But wasn't there crises of Scripture after, especially with the Gnostics? How else were these heretical texts rejected by other than the Church itself? And what about the OT canon and even more specifically the Deuterocanonical books that Ortho/Cats accept but Prots reject?
@@skipetar5432 Protestants stand with Athanasius, Jerome, and a host of others in rejecting the Apocrypha.
No church council was needed to reject the Book of Mormon in the 19th century, and no church council was needed to reject the Gospel of Thomas in the 2nd century. Anyone who honestly reads them recognizes them both as Gnostic. The Gnostic works were too late and too obviously heretical to be confused with the work of the apostles. Read Dr. Michael Kruger's works on the canon.
@@ancientpathstv Ok. I'll have to look into what you're saying further. I think from an Orthodox perspective there is an attraction to the mysticism, the "Holy Mysteries" as they call it. I've even heard Orthodox priests reject this hyper-rationalization of the faith that is attributed to Protestants (Fr. Peter Heers) comes to mind. They assume because life is a mystery itself and a hyper-rationalist focus on life's questions is like atheism. A lot will say, God has not revealed everything and he is always ever a mystery which allows you to want Him more and more and forever dive into His mysteries. I think they even link this mysticism with why you need the Church (iirc the two are inseparable).
I must admit that this mysticism Orthodoxy teaches is appealing. But the asceticism that Orthodoxy prescribes, to me as a lurker, it seems like so hard, I feel like I could never do it, anxiety-inducing even (given the potential for eternal hell).
@@markus-ks9sf You're simply spouting a litany of baseless and wrong claims. Your claim that Christ was crucified in Europe and Christianity was born in Europe contradicts the Apostles, the church fathers, and all secular history. You assert but don't prove that the Jews considered the Apocrypha to be canonical, based on little besides the fact there were copies of three apocryphal works at Qumran. Not only is that not "much of the Apocrypha", but you ignore that there were copies of a host of other extrabiblical writings there. Did they consider them Scripture, as well? How do you know?
Instead of making up our own facts, Protestants try to stick with ones that can be objectively proven.
I’m not even baptized orthodox, but I just dont get what protestants want. What do you gain from all this debunking?
If you'd watch the video to the end, it's explained.
@@ancientpathstv ok I've watched it. I was thinking going to divine liturgy, but according to this the Orthodox church is carrying heresies which only serve to distance themselves from the west. So many churches and they're all bad! I haven't been to church in 6 months. Lord have mercy! By what criteria does the Presbyterian church accept doctrines? Surely it will be more satisfying.
@@lighturpl3Please go to Divine Liturgy this sunday. I'm not saying it'll change everything, but you'll witness the ancient worship of the Church. The Divine Liturgy is the eternal worship of God. It is at the centre of the life of the Church.
@@lighturpl3Any argument that depends on "I don't like those ppl, those ppl bad" is a bad argument for the position.
I resisted Orthodoxy on much the same grounds - corruption in the Church, bad clergy, cultural differences, my own bad understanding of ecclesiology. Yet I always returned to its theology. In fact, unknowingly I'd adopted many Orthodox positions.
Finally, I figured that if I have so much resistance, maybe that is actually a point FOR Orthodoxy. So one Sunday I went to liturgy. Haven't looked back since.
@@siddharthabanerjee6155just because a church service is pretty or evokes emotion doesn't mean the theology isn't horrific
Nothing new. This is stupid. This dude literally even don’t know the issue.
I guess documented evidence can't hold up to gratuitous assertions and bad grammar. 🙂
My brain is smooth so I might be missing something.
I don't understand why there is a need for filioque?
If all persons of the Trinity are one essence the Spirit comes from the Father. The son is begotten by the Father. I don't see how it would work if the son was now begetting the spirit. The spirit that was present hovering over the waters of creation at the very beginning
You are just slam dunking on the east though 😂
Filioque had big social importance. Many researchers claims that Filioque created Western civilization
@@АлексейИванов-с8и that's a pretty bold claim
@@АлексейИванов-с8иwhat are there arguments for this?
I have this question, too, man. I don’t get the protestant position at all… but the orthodox position is simply stated….
@lighturpl3 I agree with the Eastern Orthodox position on the issue.
I think bro in the video was demonstrating that the Church Fathers had a mixed bag of positions on the issue.
That's fine. But it doesn't change the logical issues with saying the spirit emanates from the Father and son.
The Trinity, in my experience, has always been a triangular visual. Christ being the cornerstone makes more sense in this context at every level of allegory.
Otherwise it's just confusing and incoherent as far as I'm concerned.
The Trinity has always been co eternal. Filioque alludes to the spirit being something that came later.
That's what I see
Min 0:37 "To those who affirm that the Holy Spirit which is from the Father, proceeds also from the Son that He has His existence and subsists through the Son and from the Son. And hath the Son as His cause and source, Anathema!"
This is invalid anathema because Florence specifically dogmatized the Father alone as sole source. The Son has no Aseity. Causa in Latin has different meaning than aitia in Greek. Principia/causa in Latin has no dependency of existence or hypostatic origination implication. Hence eternal manifestation from the Father and the Son as taught by Second Blachernae and Fourth Palamite council are compatible with Florence. Jared Goff at Reason and Theology when interviewed stated that Second Blachernae is compatible with Second Lyon.
The misunderstanding is similar to Chalcedonians versus OOs Christology. No one would dispute that OOs condemned Eutychius one simple nature because OOs profess after union one can in theoria contemplate the two natures. That's why OOs argue after union Christ is both God and man in one composite nature analogous to soul and body united after conception.
This anathema is not valid because no one who profess Filioque, profess the Son as co-source. Florence explicitly distinguish the Father as source and principle while the Son only as principle not source. This is consistent with St Damascene analogy of root, trunk, and branch or fount, river, and lake. Where neither trunk nor river is source but merely principle from which branch and lake manifest. St Aquinas and St Palamas views are compatible. Nowhere Aquinas profess that the Son is source but the Father alone.
22:47 "The reality is that it hadn't been added in the West, but deleted in the East."
Me: *surprised Pikachu face*
Remember, the context is the Athanasian Creed.
But none of this refutes the oriental orthodoxy.....come back to miaphysitism
Oriental Orthodoxy is refuted here. th-cam.com/video/3AplWYXFiCA/w-d-xo.html
And yet all of the heresies cited here are no longer held by the East. I guess when you can admit your errors, things go better downstream.
Eastern Orthodoxy hasn't admitted to any errors. It insists it is the same as it has always been.
@@ancientpathstv In your opinion. Orthodoxy knows that Nestorius was Patriarch of Constantinople and was an open heretic. We know and admit this. The point was he was installed by the Emperor and a cabal of bishops likewise heretics. What they preached was never accepted by the whole Orthodox Church.
ABSOLUTELY A FALSE STATEMENT ON THIS HEADING. Orthodoxy is the continuation of The Church that Jesus Built. Not a Church that was built by human beings 1500 years after and with 600 different bibles and more that 45,000 different denominations that are growing every week.
We've answered all your lies with documented evidence here: th-cam.com/video/3AplWYXFiCA/w-d-xo.html
@@ancientpathstv Anyone who has deviated from the Church that Jesus Built and makes up its own stories of course will be Anathematized.
@@kyriakosaronis4872 We document that this is exactly what Eastern Orthodoxy has done.
@@kyriakosaronis4872 You haven't even watched the whole video and your already ranting, that says something about the EO, watch first, and then leave the EO!
It's the opposite - the Church Fathers anathematized the Western Christianity, which ceased to be christianity after that
Did you watch the whole video? We have Athanasius, Augustine, Jerome, and a host of others supporting the filioque. Just as with Second Nicaea anathematizing those who refused to venerate icons, the East has anathematized the Biblical and historical faith.
Filioque : the intellectual barbarism , the cause of today's Western Europe spiritual fall .
.... In the 8th century the king of the Franks Charlemagne (Charlemagne, 768-814) with the force of arms unites almost all the peoples of Western Europe and aspires to raise a new empire, claiming the name and the glory of the Roman Empire of the East.
For this purpose, he methodically organizes the East-West conflict with a strategy that includes the following two strands:
1) Rejection of Orthodoxy and *creation of a different Christianity,* which will emphasize the cultural specificity of the new empire.
This Frankish Christianity, designed by Charlemagne's advisers, is founded on the theological formulations of St. Augustine and expressed in new forms and types of church practice: Baptism by sprinkling, compulsory celibacy of the clergy, deprivation of the laity from the communion of the Chalice, *shaving of the clergy* etc. In the context of anti-orthodox tactics, the Frankish bishops, in 794 (Synod of Frankfurt), condemn the decisions of the 7th Ecumenical Synod (787) on the veneration of icons and in 809 (Synod of Aachen), they add to the sacred Creed the Filioque.
These two events constitute the first stage of the schism between the Frankish conquerors and the orthodox Romans.
2) Anti-Hellenic policy, since Hellenism was the historical flesh of Orthodoxy and a constituent element of the Roman Empire. The culturally disadvantaged Franks, therefore, begin to slander the Hellenic culture as a delusional culture and call the Έλληνες , Greeks, giving this ancient name a derisive meaning (Greek = heretic, impostor).
The Eighth Ecumenical Synod
With the Frankfurt Synod in 794 AD but even with the coronation of Charlemagne as Emperor of the Romans, there will be an upheaval in the Orthodox Church, but also in the entire Eastern Roman Empire.
Charlemagne's divisive visions between East and West had not stopped.
The year 809 AD Charles convened another Synod in Aachen, Germany, where he presided. In this Synod it was decided to add the Filioque , i.e. the teaching that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, they considered it necessary for the salvation of people and thus added it to the Creed.
*Photius the Great, Patriarch of Constantinople, seeing this religious destruction of Western Christianity, convened in the year 879-880 AD. the Eighth Ecumenical Council in Constantinople.*
Present were the representatives of the Pope of Rome, John VIII, but also of the other embattled Patriarchates. This Synod is very important because it is the last Synod between the Orthodox Eastern Church and the Orthodox Western Church, because after it the Western Christians moved away from the Orthodox Church.
In this Synod they faced various Church issues, but the main one was the differences between the Eastern and Western Orthodox Churches. The topics raised at the Synod were the following: the Proteius of the Pope, the collective ordination of lay people as bishops in the West, and most importantly the addition of the Filioque to the Creed.
The Eighth Ecumenical Synod condemned and exonerated those who added the Filioque to the Creed. In other words, the Synod condemned the Council of Aachen and the Franks, without naming them because they were afraid of reprisals and the brutality of the Franks.
*This Synod was one of the most important, because it tried to bring about a unity between East and West. However, Western Europe was finally detached from the Politics and Theology of the Roman Empire, as well as the Orthodoxy of the Church Fathers.*
Eastern Orthodoxy is not only unbiblical and ahistorical, but has proven itself largely impotent against Communism.
Protestantism and Roman Catholicism are largely impotent against secularism.
@@ancientpathstv .... aaaa ok .... you had to say something , better was to admit the Truth .
@@georgiosgerontas760 Look in the mirror. You're projecting.
@@ancientpathstv .... you should be aware that Charlemagne state was called : *the First Reich* by Hitler , Caizer was the Second , Hitler's the third and now Europe is under occupation by the Forth Reich , that is the Babylon ....
I'm Anglican and i'm noticing that you're making the same mistake the Catholics and Orthodox make, you're saying Protestantism is the faith of the Early Church and then the Catholics and Orthodox make the same statement. Let's just agree that the Early Church was neither Catholic, nor Orthodox, nor Protestant because the ideas of each of these denominations appear in the Early Church fathers, examples are Prayer to the Saints (1 Clement 56:1, Shepherd of Hermas 3:5:4), Sinlessness of Mary (Against Heresies 3:22:24, Dialogue with Trypho the Jew 100), the Apostolic Traditions (Irenaeus Ibid., 3:3:1-2).
You need to reread your sources. 1 Clement 56:1 reads, "56:1 Let us, therefore, pray for those who have fallen into any transgression, that moderation and humility may be given unto them, to the end that they should submit themselves, I do not say unto us, but unto the will of God; for so shall they obtain a fruitful and perfect remembrance and compassion before God and his saints. " This isn't prayer to dead saints.
The early church is a mixed bag. Protestants test everything from God's Word and demonstrate that their faith isn't new or novel. Rome and Eastern Orthodoxy test everything by later tradition, projecting onto the early church things that weren't there and ignoring things that contradict them.
The classic example is icon veneration. Second Nicaea not only anathematizes the iconoclasts, but the first four ecumenical councils. Fr. Richard Price admits, ". . .the iconoclast claim that reverence towards images did not go back to the golden age of the fathers [i.e., 325-451], still less to the apostles, would be judged by impartial historians today to be simply correct."
@@ancientpathstv My view of tradition and the church as an institution is that they are infallible when they don't contradict the bible
@@jaredtheelite1466 So they're infallible unless they aren't? That's a very poor standard. Extrabiblical tradition carries authority, but never infallibly so. Our congregation recites the Nicene Creed every week, but there's a qualitative difference between what is God-breathed and what's not.
@@ancientpathstv I also attend an Anglican Church. After reading some of church history I came to the conclusion that a considerable portion of Protestantism appears to be devoid of the historical continuity one would expect from Christianity, especially in light of Jesus’ assertion that He would establish His church and the gates of hell would not overcome it. This raises the question: Where was the true Church during those intervening centuries? Were there any devout bishops or clergy who remained faithful amidst the prevalent doctrines that were later deemed erroneous, such as salvation through works, the sacrificial nature of the Mass, superstition, the veneration of saints through relics, and the intercessory prayers to Mary and the saints? If the Church had indeed succumbed to such profound sin and heresy that it necessitated the departure of Protestants to establish a new reformed ecclesiastical body, would this not signify a contravention of Christ’s pronouncement? Moreover, from my perspective, the remedy proffered by the Reformation seems to have been more detrimental than the original afflictions of the Church.
@@vinceplanetta8415 Church history isn't as monolithic as you portray it. There were battles throughout over images, not just in the East, but the West. The Reformation was simply one more battle.
There were opponents to many of the innovations in the fourth century, as documented in The Failure of Eastern Orthodoxy on this channel. There continued to be proponents of the historic faith throughout the Middle Ages, like Berengar and Gottschalk. The Reformation came out of a hardening of Rome on its errors. It's only by ignoring that and dishonestly calling Benny Hinn and Andy Stanley "Protestants" that you could ever consider the Reformation detrimental.
This video will be very useful to demonstrate the modern Protestants misunderstanding of the concept of Holy Tradition and their misguided attempts to apply sola scriptura to councils and church fathers.
We've offered documented evidence that "modern Protestants" stand with the Apostles and the early church against the medieval counterfeits of the East and West. All you've offered is sneering.
@@ancientpathstv okay 👍
It wasn't sneering, though. Just an observation. It's a legalistic approach that relies on literal interpretation of texts. It's not a dig to say that you misunderstand the concept of Holy Tradition. Traditional means something different to you--that's fine. This video is a good demonstration of your approach to tradition.
Thank you for your work! love how God is using you!🩷✝️
Thank you!