This video literally has helped me decide to convert to Orthodoxy. I have been praying to the Holy Spirit for guidance. Thank you Fr. Heers for your clear description of what the Orthodox Church stands for, clarity from the Scriptures and Church fathers'. Not the whim of pope's and opaque teaching of Rome.
Unfortunately it’s becoming impossible to remain a Roman Catholic without serious amounts of mental gymnastics and cope. Very glad I took the decision to enter into the Orthodox Church last year; after living my entire life in Rome previously.
I find this strange. This is not like deciding to drive a Ford instead of a Toyota. You're talking about Almighty God here. This isn't something you play musical chairs with. Did Jesus not tell Peter he was the rock of the church? Did you stop needing your sins absolved? Did Mary's conception stop being immaculate? Did the Eucharist stop transubstantiating?
Great discussion, thanks. From an infant baptism into Lutheranism then spending my teenage/early adult years in an occultism new age world I have found my way home to Orthodoxy. May the Lord have mercy on us all. Glory to God.
@@jstevo1349 The Orthodox recognize neither schismatics nor de-jure heretics (so identified according to canonically binding councils or synods; otherwise, this would risk leaning into Donatism) as having The Eucharist: what they have is bread and wine at best, cursed food and drink at worst. Apparently, the Roman Catholics believe that schismatics and heretics have The Eucharist indeed - hence why Fr. Peter rightly criticizes that.
One need look no further than their own salvation. There are no exceptions to the way. None. I am an Orthodox Catechumen and even I understand this, as God has shown me. Through his Church. Glory to God.
"There are no exceptions to the way. None." Then explain how the thief on the cross got saved. Explain how Abraham was counted as righteous. Sorry, but your enthusiasm as a Catechumen has gotten out of hand. God decides who gets saved. You don't.
Great video. I converted to Orthodoxy from RCism back in 2017 and it was single handedly the best decision I’ve ever made. Orthodoxy is what I had always hoped Roman Catholicism. After reading the Early Church Fathers, the Didache, Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith and the Orthodox critiques of RCism it was pretty clear that Orthodoxy is the True Catholic Church.
@@filipradosa6062 Bro if you’re relying on Ybarra then you really don’t know about Catholicism. He’s a pop apologist that picks church father quotes like Protestants do the Bible
I had the opposite experience. The more I read the Church Fathers and studied history the more I saw Catholicism was correct. In this very discussion board I have seen that the Schismatics don’t even have clear answers on baptism. In my research I found that some jurisdictions consider the RC baptisms valid and that RC don’t need to be baptized again, while others say it is not valid and need to be baptized again. So tell me, if John converts in the jurisdiction that says it valid and isn’t baptized by that jurisdiction, is he baptized or not? Some patriarchs say no, and some say yes. He’s gambling simulating the sacrament vs never receiving the absolute necessary one. If Jurisdiction saying he isn’t is right, he is damned (as has always been taught). This seems unclear and bad.
@@Arkangilos no, they would consider him baptised because his chrismation (received in the Orthodox Church) completes what is lacking in the first baptism. ROCOR and Mount Athos are the only two jurisdictions (and monastic community) that I’m aware of that baptise all catechumens. Perhaps individual monasteries might follow this same precedent, for receiving converts.
I left RC for Orthodoxy a while back and it was the single greatest gift I was ever given. Not one iota of regret. This is Christianity, this is what I always searched for.
Greatest gift? Are you serious? You have left the Church of Christ, it is grave sin of apostasy! Consider your salvation, not just based od feelings, they deny filioque, which is orthodox, also primacy of Peter. Erick Ybarra writes on this issue.
@@filipradosa6062 Filioque is a heresy and was added in by a rogue antipope-- Ybarra is not a scholar, he is a fraud. In fact, he was instrumental in my conversion to Orthodoxy. I am a Roman Catholic scholar.
@@filipradosa6062 I used to RC, so I get your perspective, but the Florentine filioque is heretical. The Son is NOT a cause of the Holy Spirit. The Fathers expressly taught against this.
Re: Father Heer's statement that we are in the process of separating the sheep from the goats. Amen, I was wondering if this increasing national division was God's process of doing just that. Great insight
I agree and the funny thing is that when you're in it (the RCC) you can't see it. It's like you're wearing blinders and just repeating the narrative that you have been indoctrinated with.
Excellent conversation! I appreciate the spirit of friendship in which you carried yourselves. I hope you both discuss specific topics that would allow a more in depth discussion in the future.
I appreciate the host but this video has pretty much summed up the mental gymnastics of Roman Catholicism. Go to a Novus Ordo. Then go to a Orthodox Divine Liturgy Look at the modern ecumenist “saints” in Catholicism. Then compare them to the modern Orthodox ascetic saints. If Pachamama didn’t change the minds of Catholics then nothing will. Modern Roman Catholic development of doctrine is how you got to Pachamama and it won’t stop there.
Great exchange! The takeaway lesson here is that a church without a clear ecclesiology, without boundaries, is not a church anymore. That's why the Orthodox Church remains the One, Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, while Rome should rebrand itself as the Ecumenical Church.
And yet the Catholic Church we know through out the world and in history would never have spread with the eastern church? The great evangelization of the world, Education, Hospitals etc came from Rome.
@@depARTmentUhaul you forgot to mention Protestantism and Western secularization. God’s judgement probably will not be made based on the number of hospitals, schools, churches that Catholics built.
@@depARTmentUhaul Even with the fall of the Eastern Roman Empire, the Orthodox Church did plenty of evangelization and still does today. See the TH-cam channel "Ubi Petrus" for a series on the history of Orthodox evangelization. Moreover, we tend to forget that nearly half of Christendom was lost to the Muslims, due to the Arab and Turkish invasions. Partly due to the errors of the Romans and also to the crusades of the Latins which didn't ultimately retrieve what was lost to Islam by undermining (and even sacking) Constantinople's power. Setting up Roman Catholic jurisdictions instead of propping up the existing patriarchates in the Middle East proved to be a terrible mistake. Finally, I'm not Greek but I hear they're still waiting since 1453 AD for a Latin fleet to appear on the horizon in Constantinople to the rescue.
@@depARTmentUhaul I don’t bet on God, I simply leave things in his hands and accept his will. Your church has many great projects to its credit, but we are not saved by projects.
Thanks Eric, I never understood the Orthodox Church. I go to TLM like you do, and I think you're pretty brave to have this discussion with a priest. I really enjoy your channel.
Yes he is a very good host and Fr. Peter is quite opinionated so I doubt many RCs would have him on. Especially true AFTER reading "The Ecclesiological Renovation of Vatican II."
@Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus Most converts don’t. I’m an EO converted from the C of C, it’s been 25 years, I’m a choir director & Reader, and I’d never tell anyone I had an Orthodox mindset. I’m working on it, but as with sun, repentance of understanding is very difficult. Only grace, bro!
Eastern Orthodoxy is the one holy catholic and apostolic church! Ft. Heers was really patient and "kind" not to roast this guy even more. It clearly shows how the catholic church is in big turmoil. May God enlighten them to come back home.
You're joking right? I'm not going to debate about any of what you said cause it's not worth wasting my time.. Just study the 7 first ecumenical councils and you will find all you need.. The filioque is one of the main reasons why the Roman Catholics are not in communion with the other 4 original churches.. And as for the Pope.... forget about it .. Where to begin and where to end..
I am a Roman Catholic and as far as the worship and Liturgy go, l have not a had an issue because I'm there to glorify the Blessed Trinity. But on church hierarchy and there convoluted teachings l do take issue with their stances that contradict Holy Scriptures and church tradition. I'm no theologian but some of the bishops and the pope condone behavior that is sinful. Most people l that attend mass are there for Christ and the Holy Eucharist, not for what comes out of Rome these days. Orthodoxy seems to be pretty transparent and has valid Sacraments so this is definitely refreshing. The world is confusing enough without your church muddying the water. IMHO. God bless and peace be to all.
It seems to me that the confusion around the teachings of the Fathers and the unfortunate state of Christian Spirituality in the West is the fruits of the decisions of Catholicism. It seems clear that we can judge the correct path from the scope of history. Much of my family is Catholic, I'm not trying to attack. I pray that all go down the path of Theosis.
That’s interesting, because the more I read the fathers and the more I read history the more truth I found in the Roman Catholic Church (particularly as a traditionalist).
@@Arkangilos When you look at things like the filioque and the evolution of the Papacy, you truly feel as though these things flow from the teachings of the early Church Fathers? You do not feel as though you have to mine and cope to fit them in? And when you compare the depth of Eastern Revealed Theology to that of Western Natural Theology, you don't feel as though the West is missing the mark with spiritual development and fullness of faith? This is not at all meant to be offensive. Like I said, my family is Catholic and these are the subjects that I wrestled with before landing in The Orthodox Church.
@@MichaelOregonia Yes. In fact I just saw the quotes from several Church Fathers that support the filioque. From St. Augustine, St. Cyril of Alexandria, St. Epiphanius of Salamis, and St. Ambrose
@@ArkangilosI’ve studied the church fathers for years. There is no hint of a Vatican 1 idea of the papacy. Rome has so many clear and provable innovations.
RC has utterly imploded in every metric imaginable. Most trad Catholic "content creators" attribute it to V2, but Fr Heers points out, with facts and without animosity, that it set out on this path centuries ago. Well worth listening to. We have a heretic Pope, and a globohomo Vatican annihilating what's left of the Christian Faith in the RC, a Pope that intends to appoint a successor while he still lives, but trads think if we just ignore Our Bad Dad a little longer, and sift everything he says for what we approve of, and make videos about how angry he makes us, everything will be just fine.
I find youtube Catholics incomprehensible. Every last one of them that I saw said that they were the one holy apostolic church following Christ's vicar on Earth infallibly chosen by the Holy Spirit acting through the cardinals, and at the same time every single one of them hated Francis. None of them seemed able to comprehend how this was contradictory.
@@patrickbarnes9874 If you find the positions that would to this "incomprehensible," as you say, it can only be because you are not aware of the theological positions people who reject the current Vatican, which are several. It is disturbing that you react to a comment from a Catholic seeker with such animosity, after I have praised Fr Heers for not only his detailed information, but his charity towards us. The arrogance & vitriol of many "online Orthodox" towards Catholics keeps a lot of people away from looking into Orthodoxy. You did your part today!! Congratulations. Didn't even get the theology right. It is not magisterial that "the Holy Spirit infallibly chooses the Pope." That's a "spirit of Vatican ii" idea held mainly by lay Novus Ordo Boomers that gets regurgitated. Pax tecum.
If somebody wants to see inside himself, humbles himself and crucifies himself for Christ, he will find the teachings of the holy fathers from the EOC and study them. Thank God because we have holy people in the Church, and through their example we can see where Christ is. When someone sees those people with an open heart, there is no way that he will not recognize Christ in them. Orthodoxy has so much to give. People can disagree, but nobody can give a better alternative to the teachings of the EOC on how to reach theosis.
Reasons to what? To leave the true church based on feeling, because there is a crisis? The EO are denying orthodox dogma of filioque, Primacy of Peter and are benevolent in question of marriage and contraception, whole greek orthodox church is liberal.
No reason exists to leave the RC. That’s like saying the Jews should have stopped being Jews because they had bad priests and lost the law in the temple, covered by wealth, until Josiah cleaned the wealth out. Abandoning the true faith because of bad clergy is cowardice, not “being faithful.” Might as well become a Lutheran.
@@Arkangilos there are a lot of reasons tho i urge you to at least listen to what the Orthodox have to say and what former Catholics now Orthodox Christians have said were the reasons. Will it comvert you and give you an awakening? No, but to suggest no reason exists is just plainly wrong here
@@mariorizkallah5383 I do listen. I have friends that are former RC’s and are now schismatic. But because I know that the RCC is the Church, then I know there is no reason to leave.
@@Arkangilos There may be some grace left in the RCC, but it’s waning quickly. Once you start asking the basic questions, the whole system crumbles in a heap. I understand why you stay, family, country, identity- me too. If you’re young, strap in - i shutter to think of what’s coming down the pipes for you. You’ll prolly leave like I did if you don’t become atheist or alcoholic first.
In this discussion I see, on the one hand, one person freely articulating the fullness of the gospel with ease because of its coherence and consistency and, on the other, someone attempting to twist and turn their position so as to make it fit some man-made system that is, in the end, not tenable. Eric, you are to be commended for your great charity in this conversation with Fr. Peter but it is clear that you are constantly on the defensive. May you find within yourself, with the help of God, the strength to admit that you are defending a man-made theological system that lacks the aroma of true patristic theology. Come home to Holy Orthodoxy!
I was Catholic and my Catholic friend said that most Baptisms are done by Deacons!!! That makes a mockery of the Sacrament. Just like they let lay people give communion.
I really like this guy. I think he’s wrong and a lot of what he was saying seemed self-contradictory, and he reflects exactly why I left Rome for Orthodoxy…but I do like him. I felt bad at times because I felt he couldn’t really come back at Fr Peter very well. I hope he finds his way to Orthodoxy. But I don’t think there’s a lot of opportunities to see such debates between people of opposing views who treat each other with respect and come at each other with such humility. This was great. More conversations like this need to happen, agreeing to disagree but working in a spirit of friendship, understanding, and the pursuit of Truth.
I think there was a lot of talking passed each other and not quite enough getting to the root differences that were necessary for this conversation - but I’m not sure this could be done in this time limit. Regardless! I really enjoyed the conversation. Overall, my main takeaway, and probably the best point in the whole video, was Fr. Heers’ question of how could you have the totality of the Eucharist and not the totality of the Church? The Church is Christ and so if you have the totality of Christ in the Eucharist, it would seem you would have the totality of the Church. Consequently, how could the Orthodox be lacking anything of any importance if they have the fullness of the Eucharist, as this would seem to imply they have the fullness of the Church - since the Church is Christ? Moreover, how could they have this fullness if they deny the dogmas of Vatican I?
There is a traditional answer to this. Historically (and in truth still), the Schismatics of the East is *not* in any sort of communion and is not part of the Church. They do not have the fullness of the faith. They do have apostolic succession, which allows them to have the power of the Sacraments, but it does them no good as they aren’t part of the Church. I can name off canons in councils the East accept that say that certain schismatic and heretical groups do not need to be baptized or ordained again, while others do. So that shows that even the East recognized validity in sacraments done by people outside the Church.
@@Arkangilos but my question is how can you not have the fullness of the Church yet have the fullness of the Eucharist? The Eucharist makes the Church, and if you are consuming the full Eucharist, I don’t see how that doesn’t make you the full Church. I know Rome has a theory about how apostolic succession works but I’m not asking how they explain the logistics. I’m saying it seems to be incoherent to say a Church has the fullness of the Eucharist but not the fullness of the Church - regardless of the licit or illicit issue.
@@Gruenders I don’t know, ask the Church Fathers that said that sacraments could exist even with heretics. The Schismatics accepted that the non-Chalcedonians had the Eucharist, the Schismatics agreed Rome has the Eucharist in the 1300’s despite Rome not having changed their position on what you guys say are heresies, and the Schismatics still tend to believe we have the Eucharist (depending on which Bishop and Patriarch you ask).
@@Gruenders not exactly what you asked for (yet) but here: “THE OFFICE OF RECEIVING A PRIEST OF THE ROMAN CHURCH INTO COMMUNION WITH THE ORTHODOX CATHOLIC CHURCH [1] Such cases of uniting to the Orthodox Church are done according to the general office as outlined here. The sponsor that is customary in this is chosen from among the Clergy. There is no female sponsor. Recognition of the person thus conjoined in the office of Priest requires a decision of the Holy Synod. Before his admittance to service as a Priest, his conscience must be examined before a spiritual father, as in the case of one preparing for Ordination. If examination reveals there is no canonical impediment for a blessing to serve, then, when the Hierarch arrives at the Church to celebrate the Divine Liturgy, the candidate comes with the rest of the clergy dressed according to the custom of Orthodox clergy and receives with them the Hierarch's blessing, after which he goes to the Diaconicon and stays there, not vested, until the Cherubicon. After the Cherubicon and the placing of the holy gifts on the Holy Table, he is led by Subdeacons, but not through the Holy Doors, rather within the Altar to the Holy Throne (Altar Table) and to the Hierarch, and he reverences him in the manner of one being brought to Ordination. And the Priestly vestments are brought and put on the one being received into the community of the Priesthood. The Hierarch blesses each piece of the vestments, and the one being vested kisses the Hierarch's hand. And the Deacon says the verses for Priestly vestments, not as exclamations, but so that the one being vested can hear him. After this the one received into the community of the Priesthood receives the kiss of peace from the Hierarch and the rest, in the manner of one just ordained, and he stands with the rest of the Priests and takes part in the Liturgy and in the Communion of the Holy Mysteries. And from thence he has the same power to liturgize as an Orthodox Priest. [2] (Collection of the Opinions and Judgments of Metropolitan Philaret, volume V, pp. 952 953.) -------------------------------------------- 1 This office was formulated by Metropolitan Philaret because of the case of the reputed incorrect bringing into Orthodox Communion of the Abbot Maundreli. See "Letters of Philaret, Metropolitan of Moscow to A.P.M. 1832-1867. 2 In the periodical "Readings of the Imperial Society of History and Antiquities" (1892, book 4) the basis for this is set out that clergy coming from among the heretics being united to the Orthodox Church, about whom there is no doubt of their having been baptized and ordained, must be received by only presenting a written confession of faith and condemnation of their heresy as was practiced by the Seventh Ecumenical Council with regard to the conversion of the Iconoclastic bishops and other clergy, etc., and they must be received, each in his priestly rank, according to the 8th canon of the First Ecumenical Council, i.e., vested.” www.holy-trinity.org/liturgics/tikhon.lit10.html So we see that they recognize the sacramental validity of the priesthood, which means they recognize the sacramental power.
I do believe that Father Heers regards John Fisher and Thomas More as never having been validly baptised. Not sure why we should waste time asking him about Vatican II.
The Pope provides certainty in doctrine? And yet past popes contradict more recent popes and no one agrees on what is and isn't authoritative and dogmatic from the pope. The whole idea that you get dogmatic certainty from the papacy is like a used car salesman pitch.
@@Arkangilos there is so much disagreement amongst Roman Catholics as to what is and isn't authoritative from the Pope. It really seems to ultimately become a kind of Protestantism where the Pope is authoritative when I like what he is and isn't authoritative when I don't like what he says.
@@paisios2541 It’s only contentious to people who don’t know or follow tradition. Those who know tradition know when what he says is binding and when it isn’t. Like I said, Vatican I explained it. Anyhow, every thing I’ve heard from Schismatic Greeks are no better. I’ve heard far more diversity of belief from them even on things like the Eucharist, Ecumenicalism, and the Mysteries of the Faith.
@@Arkangilos if there is a tradition one must be living within in order to correctly interpret what is and isn't authoritative from the Pope, then how is this any different than doing the same with the consensus of the Saints? It seems that it puts you in no better position than what Roman Catholics will criticize about Orthodoxy. And yet this is the entire elevator pitch for the Papacy, that only something like the Papacy can guarantee doctrinal certainty.
@@paisios2541 Uh, the consensus of the saints generally are one of the things that defines dogmas. Dogmatic proclamations that follow a formula- Dogma. Consensus of the Fathers- Dogma. Consensus of the Theologians (not modern theologians, specifically the theologians around the 1000’s to 1300’s)- Dogma Ecumenical Councils ratified *as dogmatic* - Dogma Individual Pope when not using the formula- Not dogma Council not ratified as Dogmatic (Vatican II)- Not dogma. I recommend reading or listening to Fr. Ripperger on the subject of the Authority of Tradition. He has a few small booklet things and some videos on it. You can also find it in traditional catholic sources, such as Ott’s Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma.
May we be one as Jesus Christ and the Father are One, as our Lord prayed for on His last night before giving Himself over as the perfect sacrifice to save us.
One issue with the development of doctrine in terms of “deepening” understanding is that we couldn’t have defended doctrines we didn’t understand or were latent in other doctrines. We were not discovering deeper doctrines hidden in less developed articulations of those doctrines. We were readily defending and articulating doctrines that were already fully understood even if they were not propagated through synodal decree. There is no development of doctrine or deepening. Also, Rome kinda has a problem with councils when, like Vatican II it’s declared ecumenical and infallible simultaneous to its happening. Most of what Church history calls infallible councils were put forward as authoritative, but were confirmed after the fact. Vatican II would have been more readily dealt with if you hadn’t already put it forward as infallible and not simply authoritative by virtue of it being the decisions of bishops.
Also, your doctrine of the real distinction between God’s essences and energies is a pique example of development of doctrine in Eastern Orthodoxy. You can find certain expressions in the fathers somewhat leaning in that direction but the doctrine would not crystallize til Gregory Palamas. And when it did crystalize, many of his contemporaries (not just Latin sympathizers like Barlaam) accused him of polytheism for his beliefs.
@@IpCrackle I’m pretty sure that the understanding that humans actually encounter God directly is not a development. Don’t get confused, it’s the philosophers getting stuck in Neoplatonism that drifted away from the understanding of God’s immanence and his unknowability and not the palamists developing doctrine. The idea that the uncreated and the created cannot come into direct contact in the physical world is pagan and not the testament of any era of the church.
@Silouan Lane I wasn’t referring to God coming “directly into contact” with the created world - of course he does! But by what mode does he do that? It wasn’t the philosophical hang ups of Neoplatonism that found opposition to Palamas (sorry Pharrell), but just traditional Christian doctrine on Divine simplicity. Palamas so stressed the transcendence of the Essence against the immanence of the Energies that he also denied the traditional doctrine that the Holy Spirit personally indwells within the hearts of the faithful.
Lord have mercy! God help us! A cradle RCC, thanks God I saw His Church and came to Christ! Lord have mercy! Our purpose is Theosis! We are all called to become like Christ to become little gods! The Church is the Body of Christ! The Church is salvation! ICXC NIKA Dr. Paisios
To be fair Fr gave a great account of the Orthodox church here, I need to he careful how I word this because I don't want to be a part of changing someone's mind to the "wrong" church, but most of the videos I see (I'm trad Catholic) I always see orthodox explanations like this on various channels as making more logical sense.... Then there will be a thought In my head saying "what about Rome"... Rome tugs on my heart but orthodoxy intellectually makes more sense
As a Trad Catholic I understand that. But it only makes logical sense when you listen one at a time, and generally they are all from the same jurisdictions that happen to agree. Some jurisdictions hold that baptisms by Catholics are valid and so only chrismate them. Some hold they are invalid and so rebaptize them. Which one is right? Each will use the Church Fathers to justify their view, but both make salvation a game of Russian Roullete. Are you baptized or not? They also, in my experience, say they don’t believe what we have declared as dogmas, and yet when you can get them to explain what they believe it is the actual definition of our dogmas. For example, Purgatory. Mark of Ephesus, the one that restarted the schism, condemned as heretical purgatory. He then went on to explain what the truth was. Guess what? It was exactly what we defined as purgatory. What he disagreed with was some theologians’ interpretations of purgatory, not the actual dogma, but he was too prideful to admit that the Church was right. You see the same thing with Original Sin and the Immaculate Conception. They think the theologians interpretations are the dogmas, despite the diversity of those interpretationsx
@@Arkangilos From an Orthodox view, we cannot say for certain (and never have) if non-Orthodox have "valid" sacraments. We've had varying opinions over the centuries (even in the first millennium), but the intention is always the same. Never to re-baptize anybody. My priest told me that effectively it is a conditional baptism. Rome does these too. Even though the priest giving the baptism might hold the private opinion (which he is permitted to) that they are not baptized, it does not mean he is correct. For other priests that might baptize a Latin convert they might say "maybe they are...maybe they aren't" and so the intention is conditional as well. So, I get your concern, because I felt the same way at first, the reality is that it's only speculation as to whether or not non-Orthodox sacraments are "valid". We just don't know. Hence, technically a conditional baptism is the safest route, but before Vatican II the Russian Orthodox praxis was to receive Latins by confession of faith. Vatican II has caused a bit of doubt since things like "We" baptisms exist and their ecclesiology has changed even more so there is uncertainty and debates around this. I was received by the Russian Orthodox Church via chrismation. TL;Dr - We do not truly give second baptisms. That's never the intention, and, as you know, the intention of the Church is part and parcel of what makes a sacrament "valid" in Latin terms.
"what about Rome" Liberation Theology was the solution that communist revolutionaries came up with for how to advance their cause in South America where Marx's "religion is the opiate of the masses" conflicted with the immense cultural hegemony of Catholicism. Francis is a champion of that theology. Francis is trying to stamp out people who want to hear the mass in the language it was written in. Francis tolerates bishops who support transgender ideology and homosexual relationships. Francis was a member of the Jesuits, famous for being atheists in all but name. Rome is nothing but a memory now. There is no holy vicar of Christ anymore.
@@erikriza7165 I do encourage you doing it, especially for the fact that next year the Easters dates are quite far apart. But by then, just try out an Orthodox Liturgy and please let me know how it felt.
@@pavelcrestin1 Thank you. I wish i had an Orthodox friend to go with, and he could maybe explain to me. But I really do want to experience the Orthodox Divine Liturgy. And i wish for the day that the Orthodox and Catholic Churches restore Communion with each other.
@@erikriza7165 first of all, you already have a friend to go with. He is called Jesus. Secondly, I recommend you going because you will make friends there anyway. Thirdly, it is not totally foreign from a Latin Mass structure, so you would recognize a lot of moments within the Liturgy. As Nike says it, Just do it :-)
Fr. O seems to forget that the Council in Trullo provided a whole taxonomy about how various heretics & schismatics were to be received into the Orthodox Church. It wasn’t all or nothing. Our host seems to forget that for centuries a main defense of the oaks y was that the popes had always maintained the catholic faith. Yet, he & other trads these days have rather lessened what we are to expect of a pope.
My Bishop has first Confession in 2nd grade, and First Communion and Confirmation/First Communion in Third Grade. Isn't that closer to the Eastern Churches? All Confirmations are at the Cathedral.
There is something to be said about communion. Unity. I cannot think of any reason why the Catholics and the Eastern Churches of Orthodoxy cannot be in communion. I believe they could sit down and work it out. I wish they would.
Well I wish for union too but the Orthodox and Catholics have vastly different ideas on theology, ecclesiology, etc. For Roman Catholics, unity comes in the form of being in communion with the Papacy, which the Orthodox fundamentally disagree with. For the Orthodox, union comes in the form of Rome rejecting its heresies and returning to the Orthodox faith. I don’t see either side budging- at least not in my lifetime.
Both sides struggled at times to explain their side. The Catholic speaker missed some necessary clarifications such as formal versus informal heresy or schism, and also Pope St Stephen's condemnation of rebaptizing heretics.
Thank you for this. As Bishop Luke of Syracuse said “if you want unity with the Roman Catholics and Protestants, Baptize them!” There is no generic baptism that unites all so called christians around the world to one church as vatican 2 would like to have us believe
@@mariorizkallah5383 Vatican II did not invent that position, it has been held since the 200s after Pope Saint Stephen declared it so. He is venerated in both East and West.
Father says "Vatican II fully recognizes the Eastern Orthodox Church. For us that is so shocking to here. How can we be missing something when we have the Eucharist, when we have Christ?" Legalism. Father's point stands strong. Vatican II (and post VII) says we can attend Divine Liturgy and fulfill our Sunday obligation, but only under certain conditions ... why is this so similar to the treatment of the SSPX? Is the schismatic accusing the schismatic, or is the cannon lawyer defining salvation by way of invention? The mental gymnastics one must undergo either produces athletes for Christ, or cannon fodder for ecclesiastical punitive puppets truncating traditionalists via apostolic visits. Should we consider the development of doctrine through the lens of either divine revelation or Aristotelian scholasticism? Is collegiality more important than continuity? Father continues with "You should say at the end the Vatican II is a false Council." Oh the irony ..
Vatican II has been "misinterpreted," VII's problem is "ambiguous language," etc , etc. Maybe just admit that it openly contradicts previous solemn Magisterial teachings on Religious Liberty and Ecumenism. Hard to go from RC to OD after so many years but this push helped.
How can an Atheist or a Heathen Baptize someone and intendeds to do what the Church intendeds when she Baptizes an individual? How can someone who doesn't believe in the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost Baptize?
Development is just a misleading way to say “change of doctrine”. I think this is also a fundamental difference between Orthodox and Catholic theology. Doctrine doesn’t develop- the Faith is for once handed down.
That is what post-schism scholastics maintain - not what St. Basil the Great, for example (canon 47), taught, or the Second Oecumenical Council (see canon 7). They rejected certain heretics’ baptism. But, moreover, the patristic teaching is clear: there are no mysteries outside the One Mystery. “Validity” pertains to form; even St. Augustine taught that the schismatics do not have the Holy Spirit (i.e. Grace in the Mysteries).
@@pah9730 Clearly it isn’t. Here is what the Wikipedia says about the schismatic view (which I know from personal experience is true: “There are reports of instances where Orthodox Churches re-baptize converts from Protestant and Catholic Churches, though this varies from diocese to diocese. Within the OCA (Orthodox Church in America), converts are chrismated rather than rebaptized.[6] In ROCOR (the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia) and others, rebaptism does sometimes occur.[7] Greek Orthodox practice changed in 1755, when Patriarch Cyril V of Constantinople issued the Definition of the Holy Church of Christ Defending the Holy Baptism Given from God, and Spitting upon the Baptisms of the Heretics Which Are Otherwise Administered; however, the Greek Orthodox does not now insist on re-baptizing Catholics.[8]” So your own Church doesn’t agree with you. As for quotes from the Fathers, here is a canon from the Holy Council Ephesus: “7 Those who embrace orthodoxy and join the number of those who are being saved from the heretics, we receive in the following regular and customary manner: Arians, Macedonians, Sabbatians, Novatians, those who call themselves Cathars and Aristae, Quartodeciman or Tetradites, Apollinarians-these we receive when they hand in statements and anathematise every heresy which is not of the same mind as the holy, catholic and apostolic church of God. They are first sealed or anointed with holy chrism on the forehead, eyes, nostrils, mouth and ears. As we seal them we say: “Seal of the gift of the holy Spirit”. But Eunomians, who are baptised in a single immersion, Montanists (called Phrygians here), Sabellians, who teach the identity of Father and Son and make certain other difficulties, and all other sects -- since there are many here, not least those who originate in the country of the Galatians -- we receive all who wish to leave them and embrace orthodoxy as we do Greeks. On the first day we make Christians of them, on the second catechumens, on the third we exorcise them by breathing three times into their faces and their ears, and thus we catechise them and make them spend time in the church and listen to the scriptures; and then we baptise them.” As you can see, it specifically says most are confirmed, but only names three that are to be baptized on reception.
They are chrismated because they kept the correct form. However, it doesn’t mention a valid baptism in the sense that they recognize the baptism of heretics. It’s simply stating that as long as they held the correct form (three immersions in the name of the Holy Trinity) they could be received by Chrismation. The Kollyvades father also addressed this issue. The Orthodox Church has never taught that Baptism outside the Church is “valid” as if it’s a true baptism. Also this pertains to receiving them into the Church. They are being received because they are outside the Church. No canons and no consensus of the Holy Fathers exist that states otherwise.
@@matthewodonnell1856 that doesn’t make sense. If it isn’t a true and valid baptism then they would need to be baptized, because they weren’t baptized. “Not valid” means it didn’t happen. “Didn’t happen” means they weren’t baptized. “Not baptized” means they *must* be baptized. By the way, the Schismatics don’t universally rebaptize non Schismatics, it depends on the “Jurisdiction”, and Catholics aren’t typically rebaptized by the Greek or Serbian Schismatics, or the Schismatic OCA, and Catholics don’t follow your “correct” form. (No immersion). So all I am hearing from you is *some* priests say one thing, while your “Church” does and says something entirely different.
@@matthewodonnell1856 Baptism is not the Sacrament of Chrismation, they are *two* sacraments, and so for Chrismation to happen it necessitates that Baptism already *really* happened.
I find the Orthodox/Eastern Catholic view of sacramental initiation to be more intellectually coherent, and I think Latins need to go back to it. The full/partial communion thing, especially from the perspective of children is something we really need to have discussion over. However, the vast difference in how Orthodox interpret moral issues is highly confusing "on the ground" so to speak. I personally know folks who went Orthodox *specifically* bc they allow contraception as long as you can make a case for it to your priest. 🧐 Which is just mind boggling to me. Either something is sinful or not. Same for divorce. His answer regarding divorce just sounds a lot like "people are going to divorce so we just figured out a way to word this so our members can do it". I also have very mixed feelings on married priesthood, having grown up around "preachers kids" as a protestant. I have never met a well balanced preacher's kid in my life, and the marriages tended to be very strained bc there were two vocations being served at once.
Well those are your views and your misunderstanding. You cannot base orthodoxy simply on this video as Fr. Peter would need an entire 10 lessons course to explain these topics to you. Also, Fr. Josiah Trenham explains these topics very well at Patristic Nector Films on TH-cam. Married priests is the way it used to be both in east and west until one day, the pope decided to ban it with many other innovations and restorations. Especially, when west decided to cease infant communion which is absolutely absurd. Can you imagine withholding the most holy mystery from your child? Here's a perfect MUST WATCH link that discusses this from former protestants/Catholics: th-cam.com/video/MqIpUmZrV8M/w-d-xo.html Anyways, if you're truly attempting to find the actual truth, you must read and dive into some eastern orthodox books. I highly suggest Fr. Seraphim Rose, St. John of Kronstad, St. John Maximovitch aka of Shanghai and San Francisco and many others.
@@paulpeter2869 1/ I agreed with you and the orthodox/eastern view of when to give sacraments. I don't need attitude and convincing of that. 2/ don't really need the tone in general. This is not my first look at Orthodox teaching and I simply don't agree with several aspects that are integral to me, and I'm convinced of the primacy of Peter. I came as an adult to the church, I'm well educated on the tenets of my faith. God bless.
@@Mrs_Homemaker I wish you all the best. I suggest you read the primacy of Peter by John Meyendorff and The Church and the Pope by Robert Spencer . God bless
"I have never met a well balanced preacher's kid" Does this include Orthodox priests, or is this just what you've seen from your Protestant background?
@@nr7701 protestant background, yes. And while the theology is vastly different I can't imagine the priesthood is *less* taxing for Orthodox/Eastern Rite than it is for protestant pastors. Orthodox and Catholic priests both have even more work and responsibility compared to basically any protestant sect, wouldn't you agree? Protestant churches are designed for married pastors as a rule basically, so it's not a particular lack of support causing the issue there. What percentage of Orthodox priests are married, if you had a guess? Is it more common than celibate and are parishes automatically set up to support that as a rule, or is it more case by case? (I'm genuinely asking)
in order to represent an Eastern Orthodox perspective, Peter Heers would need to be canonical. Nobody knows who his bishop is, including the various bishops he has claimed to be under
Talking to people with different perspectives is a bad idea? You must not have many friends then if you believe you can only associate with people who think 100 percent like yourself.
@@CrisisMagit’s curious to me that so many Internet Catholic personalities go to either Byzantine rite or TLM. You rarely see people parading around about how much they love the NO. Why is that?
Council of Florence: It firmly believes, professes and preaches that all those who are outside the catholic church, not only pagans but also Jews or heretics and schismatics, cannot share in eternal life and will go into the everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless they are joined to the catholic church before the end of their lives; that the unity of the ecclesiastical body is of such importance that only for those who abide in it do the church’s sacraments contribute to salvation and do fasts, almsgiving and other works of piety and practices of the christian militia produce eternal rewards; and that nobody can be saved, no matter how much he has given away in alms and even if he has shed his blood in the name of Christ, unless he has persevered in the bosom and the unity of the catholic church.
@@Arkangilos In practice there is no real difference or separation between dogma and ethos and this is proven in the results of Vatican II. These differences are “kata epinoia” - in the mind - not in real life. Hence, your “peace” is false for the results of heretical doctrine are catastrophic in terms of salvation. And in this end this is all that matters - not theoretical distinctions in our head.
@@pah9730 What? Vatican II did not abandon the Council of Florence. It was ambiguous and people abuse the ambiguity, but it in no way defined anything I am required as a Catholic to believe. and by the way, Florence was accepted by the Schismatic Greeks. And if you guys believed what you just said about there being no difference between Dogma and how people fallibly teach it, you wouldn’t believe or practice some of the nonsense you do. For those of you that don’t know, PA H is wrong about the distinction he tried making. Dogmatic: what we must believe in order to be saved. (Outside the Church there is no salvation). Non-Dogmatic: What we do not have to believe to be saved (the stuff said by Vatican II, which was declared by the council fathers themselves to be non-dogmatic).
But the Church isn't just Christ? It's obedience to the apostolic succession and the Church that Jesus started so he's wrong on that point at least in my view. There are degrees of sin and degrees of initiation to the Church, the Orthodox church is one such degree as are protestants.
@@depARTmentUhaul all bishops have apostolic authority. Now Catholic and Orthodox may restrict how they use that authority, but they have it none the less.
Thanks for hosting Fr Peter Heers. Become Orthodox
Fr. Peter has reinforced my decision to leave Rome a couple of months ago. Happy to be an Orthodox catechumen.
Welcome home, brother. Many years!
Cameron and Derek. Glory to God, Many years!
Glory to God!
Glory to God🙏☦️ welcome in the Family and Body of Christ. Many years 🙏
Thank God ☦️
This video literally has helped me decide to convert to Orthodoxy. I have been praying to the Holy Spirit for guidance. Thank you Fr. Heers for your clear description of what the Orthodox Church stands for, clarity from the Scriptures and Church fathers'. Not the whim of pope's and opaque teaching of Rome.
Respectfully, it’s Father Peter.
Do you want to risk your salvation to escape problems to go to schismatic church of Russia? They deny orthodox teachings.
Well this backfired
@@robertcarlin4876I could say the same for you
Unfortunately it’s becoming impossible to remain a Roman Catholic without serious amounts of mental gymnastics and cope.
Very glad I took the decision to enter into the Orthodox Church last year; after living my entire life in Rome previously.
I find this strange. This is not like deciding to drive a Ford instead of a Toyota. You're talking about Almighty God here. This isn't something you play musical chairs with. Did Jesus not tell Peter he was the rock of the church? Did you stop needing your sins absolved? Did Mary's conception stop being immaculate? Did the Eucharist stop transubstantiating?
@@patrickbarnes9874 Orthodox can hold all of those views. It just isn’t dogma. Catholics say orthodox sacraments are valid.
Fr Peter does a fantastic job here. These exchanges need to happen more.☦️❤️
Truly grateful to be Orthodox, come home Rome! The True Faith is preserved from antiquity and the fullness of Grace and Truth!
Great discussion, thanks. From an infant baptism into Lutheranism then spending my teenage/early adult years in an occultism new age world I have found my way home to Orthodoxy. May the Lord have mercy on us all. Glory to God.
Welcome home, brother! 🙏🏽
"How can you be missing something if you have the eucharist?"
Exactly.
Fr. Heers nailed it, on that point. Mic drop.
Because the Eucharist is a poison for those who partake it while in the state of Schism.
even schismatics have the eucharist. even heretics have the eucharist. are they not missing something?
@@jstevo1349 The Orthodox recognize neither schismatics nor de-jure heretics (so identified according to canonically binding councils or synods; otherwise, this would risk leaning into Donatism) as having The Eucharist: what they have is bread and wine at best, cursed food and drink at worst.
Apparently, the Roman Catholics believe that schismatics and heretics have The Eucharist indeed - hence why Fr. Peter rightly criticizes that.
@@jstevo1349 Saint Cyprian would like to speak with you
One need look no further than their own salvation. There are no exceptions to the way. None.
I am an Orthodox Catechumen and even I understand this, as God has shown me. Through his Church.
Glory to God.
"There are no exceptions to the way. None." Then explain how the thief on the cross got saved. Explain how Abraham was counted as righteous. Sorry, but your enthusiasm as a Catechumen has gotten out of hand. God decides who gets saved. You don't.
Pray for me, brother (or sister) in Christ. I'm a convert and need prayers to keep the faith now more than ever!
@@gigachad2221-g4nyes of course. Please pray for me as well!
Great video. I converted to Orthodoxy from RCism back in 2017 and it was single handedly the best decision I’ve ever made. Orthodoxy is what I had always hoped Roman Catholicism.
After reading the Early Church Fathers, the Didache, Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith and the Orthodox critiques of RCism it was pretty clear that Orthodoxy is the True Catholic Church.
Orthodoxy is not true Church, look at history, perhaps Erick Ybarra, he engage these questions. Think about your salvation, not feelings.
@@filipradosa6062 Bro if you’re relying on Ybarra then you really don’t know about Catholicism. He’s a pop apologist that picks church father quotes like Protestants do the Bible
I had the opposite experience. The more I read the Church Fathers and studied history the more I saw Catholicism was correct.
In this very discussion board I have seen that the Schismatics don’t even have clear answers on baptism. In my research I found that some jurisdictions consider the RC baptisms valid and that RC don’t need to be baptized again, while others say it is not valid and need to be baptized again.
So tell me, if John converts in the jurisdiction that says it valid and isn’t baptized by that jurisdiction, is he baptized or not? Some patriarchs say no, and some say yes. He’s gambling simulating the sacrament vs never receiving the absolute necessary one. If Jurisdiction saying he isn’t is right, he is damned (as has always been taught).
This seems unclear and bad.
@@Arkangilos no, they would consider him baptised because his chrismation (received in the Orthodox Church) completes what is lacking in the first baptism. ROCOR and Mount Athos are the only two jurisdictions (and monastic community) that I’m aware of that baptise all catechumens. Perhaps individual monasteries might follow this same precedent, for receiving converts.
@Filip Radosa Our Saints prove otherwise.
I left RC for Orthodoxy a while back and it was the single greatest gift I was ever given. Not one iota of regret. This is Christianity, this is what I always searched for.
Greatest gift? Are you serious? You have left the Church of Christ, it is grave sin of apostasy! Consider your salvation, not just based od feelings, they deny filioque, which is orthodox, also primacy of Peter. Erick Ybarra writes on this issue.
@@filipradosa6062 Filioque is a heresy and was added in by a rogue antipope-- Ybarra is not a scholar, he is a fraud. In fact, he was instrumental in my conversion to Orthodoxy. I am a Roman Catholic scholar.
@@filipradosa6062 I used to RC, so I get your perspective, but the Florentine filioque is heretical. The Son is NOT a cause of the Holy Spirit. The Fathers expressly taught against this.
@@filipradosa6062 apostasy is to deny the incarnation and reject one’s own baptism. Let’s come up for air & sunlight now & again.
@@filipradosa6062 To be frank, Eric Ybarra is a joke - watch Ubi Petrus.
Fr. Peter Heers made his point straight. The RCC is the schismatic church of Orthodoxy.
Re: Father Heer's statement that we are in the process of separating the sheep from the goats. Amen, I was wondering if this increasing national division was God's process of doing just that. Great insight
The mental gymnastics required to remain a Latin is astounding.
gymnastics are only successful if your strong, ask a gymnast.
I agree and the funny thing is that when you're in it (the RCC) you can't see it. It's like you're wearing blinders and just repeating the narrative that you have been indoctrinated with.
The expected statement of a former Catholic.
Look on the bright side. If you convert them, you'll have Orthodox with a strong core😎🤣
Excellent conversation! I appreciate the spirit of friendship in which you carried yourselves. I hope you both discuss specific topics that would allow a more in depth discussion in the future.
I am grateful on a daily basis I converted to Orthodoxy (from Protestantism)
I appreciate the host but this video has pretty much summed up the mental gymnastics of Roman Catholicism.
Go to a Novus Ordo. Then go to a Orthodox Divine Liturgy
Look at the modern ecumenist “saints” in Catholicism. Then compare them to the modern Orthodox ascetic saints.
If Pachamama didn’t change the minds of Catholics then nothing will. Modern Roman Catholic development of doctrine is how you got to Pachamama and it won’t stop there.
Great exchange! The takeaway lesson here is that a church without a clear ecclesiology, without boundaries, is not a church anymore. That's why the Orthodox Church remains the One, Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, while Rome should rebrand itself as the Ecumenical Church.
And yet the Catholic Church we know through out the world and in history would never have spread with the eastern church? The great evangelization of the world, Education, Hospitals etc came from Rome.
@@depARTmentUhaul you forgot to mention Protestantism and Western secularization. God’s judgement probably will not be made based on the number of hospitals, schools, churches that Catholics built.
@@depARTmentUhaul Even with the fall of the Eastern Roman Empire, the Orthodox Church did plenty of evangelization and still does today. See the TH-cam channel "Ubi Petrus" for a series on the history of Orthodox evangelization.
Moreover, we tend to forget that nearly half of Christendom was lost to the Muslims, due to the Arab and Turkish invasions. Partly due to the errors of the Romans and also to the crusades of the Latins which didn't ultimately retrieve what was lost to Islam by undermining (and even sacking) Constantinople's power. Setting up Roman Catholic jurisdictions instead of propping up the existing patriarchates in the Middle East proved to be a terrible mistake.
Finally, I'm not Greek but I hear they're still waiting since 1453 AD for a Latin fleet to appear on the horizon in Constantinople to the rescue.
@@flisom wanna bet
@@depARTmentUhaul I don’t bet on God, I simply leave things in his hands and accept his will. Your church has many great projects to its credit, but we are not saved by projects.
Thanks Eric, I never understood the Orthodox Church. I go to TLM like you do, and I think you're pretty brave to have this discussion with a priest. I really enjoy your channel.
Yes he is a very good host and Fr. Peter is quite opinionated so I doubt many RCs would have him on. Especially true AFTER reading "The Ecclesiological Renovation of Vatican II."
Excellent discussion. My conclusion is, the RC keeps going around in circles and Ftr Peter only proved this.
@Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus Most converts don’t. I’m an EO converted from the C of C, it’s been 25 years, I’m a choir director & Reader, and I’d never tell anyone I had an Orthodox mindset. I’m working on it, but as with sun, repentance of understanding is very difficult. Only grace, bro!
Eastern Orthodoxy is the one holy catholic and apostolic church! Ft. Heers was really patient and "kind" not to roast this guy even more. It clearly shows how the catholic church is in big turmoil. May God enlighten them to come back home.
Eastern "orthodoxy" is in schism, and denying filioque which is orthodox dogma, also denying primacy of Peter!
You're joking right? I'm not going to debate about any of what you said cause it's not worth wasting my time.. Just study the 7 first ecumenical councils and you will find all you need.. The filioque is one of the main reasons why the Roman Catholics are not in communion with the other 4 original churches.. And as for the Pope.... forget about it .. Where to begin and where to end..
I am a Roman Catholic and as far as the worship and Liturgy go, l have not a had an issue because I'm there to glorify the Blessed Trinity. But on church hierarchy and there convoluted teachings l do take issue with their stances that contradict Holy Scriptures and church tradition. I'm no theologian but some of the bishops and the pope condone behavior that is sinful. Most people l that attend mass are there for Christ and the Holy Eucharist, not for what comes out of Rome these days. Orthodoxy seems to be pretty transparent and has valid Sacraments so this is definitely refreshing. The world is confusing enough without your church muddying the water. IMHO. God bless and peace be to all.
It seems to me that the confusion around the teachings of the Fathers and the unfortunate state of Christian Spirituality in the West is the fruits of the decisions of Catholicism. It seems clear that we can judge the correct path from the scope of history. Much of my family is Catholic, I'm not trying to attack. I pray that all go down the path of Theosis.
That’s interesting, because the more I read the fathers and the more I read history the more truth I found in the Roman Catholic Church (particularly as a traditionalist).
i have found the confusion around authority and the unfortunate state of the eastern patriarchs are the fruits of the schism with the catholic church
@@Arkangilos When you look at things like the filioque and the evolution of the Papacy, you truly feel as though these things flow from the teachings of the early Church Fathers? You do not feel as though you have to mine and cope to fit them in? And when you compare the depth of Eastern Revealed Theology to that of Western Natural Theology, you don't feel as though the West is missing the mark with spiritual development and fullness of faith? This is not at all meant to be offensive. Like I said, my family is Catholic and these are the subjects that I wrestled with before landing in The Orthodox Church.
@@MichaelOregonia Yes. In fact I just saw the quotes from several Church Fathers that support the filioque. From St. Augustine, St. Cyril of Alexandria, St. Epiphanius of Salamis, and St. Ambrose
@@ArkangilosI’ve studied the church fathers for years. There is no hint of a Vatican 1 idea of the papacy. Rome has so many clear and provable innovations.
RC has utterly imploded in every metric imaginable. Most trad Catholic "content creators" attribute it to V2, but Fr Heers points out, with facts and without animosity, that it set out on this path centuries ago. Well worth listening to.
We have a heretic Pope, and a globohomo Vatican annihilating what's left of the Christian Faith in the RC, a Pope that intends to appoint a successor while he still lives, but trads think if we just ignore Our Bad Dad a little longer, and sift everything he says for what we approve of, and make videos about how angry he makes us, everything will be just fine.
I find youtube Catholics incomprehensible. Every last one of them that I saw said that they were the one holy apostolic church following Christ's vicar on Earth infallibly chosen by the Holy Spirit acting through the cardinals, and at the same time every single one of them hated Francis. None of them seemed able to comprehend how this was contradictory.
@@patrickbarnes9874 If you find the positions that would to this "incomprehensible," as you say, it can only be because you are not aware of the theological positions people who reject the current Vatican, which are several.
It is disturbing that you react to a comment from a Catholic seeker with such animosity, after I have praised Fr Heers for not only his detailed information, but his charity towards us.
The arrogance & vitriol of many "online Orthodox" towards Catholics keeps a lot of people away from looking into Orthodoxy. You did your part today!! Congratulations.
Didn't even get the theology right. It is not magisterial that "the Holy Spirit infallibly chooses the Pope." That's a "spirit of Vatican ii" idea held mainly by lay Novus Ordo Boomers that gets regurgitated. Pax tecum.
If somebody wants to see inside himself, humbles himself and crucifies himself for Christ, he will find the teachings of the holy fathers from the EOC and study them. Thank God because we have holy people in the Church, and through their example we can see where Christ is. When someone sees those people with an open heart, there is no way that he will not recognize Christ in them. Orthodoxy has so much to give. People can disagree, but nobody can give a better alternative to the teachings of the EOC on how to reach theosis.
The tittle of this video should have been “how the RC has watered down its teachings over time” or “ reasons to leave the RC church “
Reasons to what? To leave the true church based on feeling, because there is a crisis? The EO are denying orthodox dogma of filioque, Primacy of Peter and are benevolent in question of marriage and contraception, whole greek orthodox church is liberal.
No reason exists to leave the RC. That’s like saying the Jews should have stopped being Jews because they had bad priests and lost the law in the temple, covered by wealth, until Josiah cleaned the wealth out.
Abandoning the true faith because of bad clergy is cowardice, not “being faithful.” Might as well become a Lutheran.
@@Arkangilos there are a lot of reasons tho i urge you to at least listen to what the Orthodox have to say and what former Catholics now Orthodox Christians have said were the reasons. Will it comvert you and give you an awakening? No, but to suggest no reason exists is just plainly wrong here
@@mariorizkallah5383 I do listen. I have friends that are former RC’s and are now schismatic.
But because I know that the RCC is the Church, then I know there is no reason to leave.
@@Arkangilos There may be some grace left in the RCC, but it’s waning quickly. Once you start asking the basic questions, the whole system crumbles in a heap. I understand why you stay, family, country, identity- me too. If you’re young, strap in - i shutter to think of what’s coming down the pipes for you.
You’ll prolly leave like I did if you don’t become atheist or alcoholic first.
In this discussion I see, on the one hand, one person freely articulating the fullness of the gospel with ease because of its coherence and consistency and, on the other, someone attempting to twist and turn their position so as to make it fit some man-made system that is, in the end, not tenable. Eric, you are to be commended for your great charity in this conversation with Fr. Peter but it is clear that you are constantly on the defensive. May you find within yourself, with the help of God, the strength to admit that you are defending a man-made theological system that lacks the aroma of true patristic theology. Come home to Holy Orthodoxy!
My thoughts exactly. You just nailed it!
Thank you, that was so informative.
15:00 - Lord have mercy, I didnt know RCC strayed this far from their standards for baptism.
I was Catholic and my Catholic friend said that most Baptisms are done by Deacons!!! That makes a mockery of the Sacrament. Just like they let lay people give communion.
I really like this guy. I think he’s wrong and a lot of what he was saying seemed self-contradictory, and he reflects exactly why I left Rome for Orthodoxy…but I do like him. I felt bad at times because I felt he couldn’t really come back at Fr Peter very well. I hope he finds his way to Orthodoxy.
But I don’t think there’s a lot of opportunities to see such debates between people of opposing views who treat each other with respect and come at each other with such humility. This was great. More conversations like this need to happen, agreeing to disagree but working in a spirit of friendship, understanding, and the pursuit of Truth.
I think there was a lot of talking passed each other and not quite enough getting to the root differences that were necessary for this conversation - but I’m not sure this could be done in this time limit. Regardless! I really enjoyed the conversation.
Overall, my main takeaway, and probably the best point in the whole video, was Fr. Heers’ question of how could you have the totality of the Eucharist and not the totality of the Church? The Church is Christ and so if you have the totality of Christ in the Eucharist, it would seem you would have the totality of the Church. Consequently, how could the Orthodox be lacking anything of any importance if they have the fullness of the Eucharist, as this would seem to imply they have the fullness of the Church - since the Church is Christ? Moreover, how could they have this fullness if they deny the dogmas of Vatican I?
There is a traditional answer to this. Historically (and in truth still), the Schismatics of the East is *not* in any sort of communion and is not part of the Church. They do not have the fullness of the faith.
They do have apostolic succession, which allows them to have the power of the Sacraments, but it does them no good as they aren’t part of the Church.
I can name off canons in councils the East accept that say that certain schismatic and heretical groups do not need to be baptized or ordained again, while others do. So that shows that even the East recognized validity in sacraments done by people outside the Church.
@@Arkangilos but my question is how can you not have the fullness of the Church yet have the fullness of the Eucharist? The Eucharist makes the Church, and if you are consuming the full Eucharist, I don’t see how that doesn’t make you the full Church.
I know Rome has a theory about how apostolic succession works but I’m not asking how they explain the logistics. I’m saying it seems to be incoherent to say a Church has the fullness of the Eucharist but not the fullness of the Church - regardless of the licit or illicit issue.
@@Gruenders I don’t know, ask the Church Fathers that said that sacraments could exist even with heretics.
The Schismatics accepted that the non-Chalcedonians had the Eucharist, the Schismatics agreed Rome has the Eucharist in the 1300’s despite Rome not having changed their position on what you guys say are heresies, and the Schismatics still tend to believe we have the Eucharist (depending on which Bishop and Patriarch you ask).
@@Arkangilos do you have any quotes from the fathers saying the non-chalcedonians have the Eucharist?
@@Gruenders not exactly what you asked for (yet) but here:
“THE OFFICE OF RECEIVING A PRIEST OF THE ROMAN CHURCH INTO COMMUNION WITH THE ORTHODOX CATHOLIC CHURCH [1]
Such cases of uniting to the Orthodox Church are done according to the general office as outlined here.
The sponsor that is customary in this is chosen from among the Clergy.
There is no female sponsor.
Recognition of the person thus conjoined in the office of Priest requires a decision of the Holy Synod.
Before his admittance to service as a Priest, his conscience must be examined before a spiritual father, as in the case of one preparing for Ordination.
If examination reveals there is no canonical impediment for a blessing to serve, then, when the Hierarch arrives at the Church to celebrate the Divine Liturgy, the candidate comes with the rest of the clergy dressed according to the custom of Orthodox clergy and receives with them the Hierarch's blessing, after which he goes to the Diaconicon and stays there, not vested, until the Cherubicon.
After the Cherubicon and the placing of the holy gifts on the Holy Table, he is led by Subdeacons, but not through the Holy Doors, rather within the Altar to the Holy Throne (Altar Table) and to the Hierarch, and he reverences him in the manner of one being brought to Ordination. And the Priestly vestments are brought and put on the one being received into the community of the Priesthood. The Hierarch blesses each piece of the vestments, and the one being vested kisses the Hierarch's hand. And the Deacon says the verses for Priestly vestments, not as exclamations, but so that the one being vested can hear him. After this the one received into the community of the Priesthood receives the kiss of peace from the Hierarch and the rest, in the manner of one just ordained, and he stands with the rest of the Priests and takes part in the Liturgy and in the Communion of the Holy Mysteries. And from thence he has the same power to liturgize as an Orthodox Priest. [2] (Collection of the Opinions and Judgments of Metropolitan Philaret, volume V, pp. 952 953.)
--------------------------------------------
1 This office was formulated by Metropolitan Philaret because of the case of the reputed incorrect bringing into Orthodox Communion of the Abbot Maundreli. See "Letters of Philaret, Metropolitan of Moscow to A.P.M. 1832-1867.
2 In the periodical "Readings of the Imperial Society of History and Antiquities" (1892, book 4) the basis for this is set out that clergy coming from among the heretics being united to the Orthodox Church, about whom there is no doubt of their having been baptized and ordained, must be received by only presenting a written confession of faith and condemnation of their heresy as was practiced by the Seventh Ecumenical Council with regard to the conversion of the Iconoclastic bishops and other clergy, etc., and they must be received, each in his priestly rank, according to the 8th canon of the First Ecumenical Council, i.e., vested.”
www.holy-trinity.org/liturgics/tikhon.lit10.html
So we see that they recognize the sacramental validity of the priesthood, which means they recognize the sacramental power.
I'm not sure why what the RC does, teach, or claims if the pope is the identity as who and where the church is.
I do believe that Father Heers regards John Fisher and Thomas More as never having been validly baptised. Not sure why we should waste time asking him about Vatican II.
Yeah seems very silly.
Father P.H. is based.
The Pope provides certainty in doctrine? And yet past popes contradict more recent popes and no one agrees on what is and isn't authoritative and dogmatic from the pope. The whole idea that you get dogmatic certainty from the papacy is like a used car salesman pitch.
No clue what you are talking about. We know when the pope speaks authoritatively. It has a formula.
@@Arkangilos there is so much disagreement amongst Roman Catholics as to what is and isn't authoritative from the Pope. It really seems to ultimately become a kind of Protestantism where the Pope is authoritative when I like what he is and isn't authoritative when I don't like what he says.
@@paisios2541 It’s only contentious to people who don’t know or follow tradition. Those who know tradition know when what he says is binding and when it isn’t. Like I said, Vatican I explained it.
Anyhow, every thing I’ve heard from Schismatic Greeks are no better. I’ve heard far more diversity of belief from them even on things like the Eucharist, Ecumenicalism, and the Mysteries of the Faith.
@@Arkangilos if there is a tradition one must be living within in order to correctly interpret what is and isn't authoritative from the Pope, then how is this any different than doing the same with the consensus of the Saints? It seems that it puts you in no better position than what Roman Catholics will criticize about Orthodoxy. And yet this is the entire elevator pitch for the Papacy, that only something like the Papacy can guarantee doctrinal certainty.
@@paisios2541 Uh, the consensus of the saints generally are one of the things that defines dogmas.
Dogmatic proclamations that follow a formula- Dogma.
Consensus of the Fathers- Dogma.
Consensus of the Theologians (not modern theologians, specifically the theologians around the 1000’s to 1300’s)- Dogma
Ecumenical Councils ratified *as dogmatic* - Dogma
Individual Pope when not using the formula- Not dogma
Council not ratified as Dogmatic (Vatican II)- Not dogma.
I recommend reading or listening to Fr. Ripperger on the subject of the Authority of Tradition. He has a few small booklet things and some videos on it.
You can also find it in traditional catholic sources, such as Ott’s Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma.
May we be one as Jesus Christ and the Father are One, as our Lord prayed for on His last night before giving Himself over as the perfect sacrifice to save us.
One issue with the development of doctrine in terms of “deepening” understanding is that we couldn’t have defended doctrines we didn’t understand or were latent in other doctrines. We were not discovering deeper doctrines hidden in less developed articulations of those doctrines. We were readily defending and articulating doctrines that were already fully understood even if they were not propagated through synodal decree. There is no development of doctrine or deepening.
Also, Rome kinda has a problem with councils when, like Vatican II it’s declared ecumenical and infallible simultaneous to its happening. Most of what Church history calls infallible councils were put forward as authoritative, but were confirmed after the fact. Vatican II would have been more readily dealt with if you hadn’t already put it forward as infallible and not simply authoritative by virtue of it being the decisions of bishops.
Vatican II wasn’t put forward as infallible. It explicitly stated that it was not promulgating any doctrinal definitions.
Yes I meant dogma. But the charism of infallibility was not utilized.
Also, your doctrine of the real distinction between God’s essences and energies is a pique example of development of doctrine in Eastern Orthodoxy. You can find certain expressions in the fathers somewhat leaning in that direction but the doctrine would not crystallize til Gregory Palamas. And when it did crystalize, many of his contemporaries (not just Latin sympathizers like Barlaam) accused him of polytheism for his beliefs.
@@IpCrackle I’m pretty sure that the understanding that humans actually encounter God directly is not a development. Don’t get confused, it’s the philosophers getting stuck in Neoplatonism that drifted away from the understanding of God’s immanence and his unknowability and not the palamists developing doctrine. The idea that the uncreated and the created cannot come into direct contact in the physical world is pagan and not the testament of any era of the church.
@Silouan Lane
I wasn’t referring to God coming “directly into contact” with the created world - of course he does! But by what mode does he do that?
It wasn’t the philosophical hang ups of Neoplatonism that found opposition to Palamas (sorry Pharrell), but just traditional Christian doctrine on Divine simplicity.
Palamas so stressed the transcendence of the Essence against the immanence of the Energies that he also denied the traditional doctrine that the Holy Spirit personally indwells within the hearts of the faithful.
Lord have mercy! God help us! A cradle RCC, thanks God I saw His Church and came to Christ! Lord have mercy! Our purpose is Theosis! We are all called to become like Christ to become little gods! The Church is the Body of Christ! The Church is salvation!
ICXC NIKA
Dr. Paisios
To be fair Fr gave a great account of the Orthodox church here, I need to he careful how I word this because I don't want to be a part of changing someone's mind to the "wrong" church, but most of the videos I see (I'm trad Catholic) I always see orthodox explanations like this on various channels as making more logical sense.... Then there will be a thought In my head saying "what about Rome"... Rome tugs on my heart but orthodoxy intellectually makes more sense
As a Trad Catholic I understand that. But it only makes logical sense when you listen one at a time, and generally they are all from the same jurisdictions that happen to agree.
Some jurisdictions hold that baptisms by Catholics are valid and so only chrismate them. Some hold they are invalid and so rebaptize them. Which one is right? Each will use the Church Fathers to justify their view, but both make salvation a game of Russian Roullete. Are you baptized or not?
They also, in my experience, say they don’t believe what we have declared as dogmas, and yet when you can get them to explain what they believe it is the actual definition of our dogmas.
For example, Purgatory. Mark of Ephesus, the one that restarted the schism, condemned as heretical purgatory. He then went on to explain what the truth was. Guess what? It was exactly what we defined as purgatory. What he disagreed with was some theologians’ interpretations of purgatory, not the actual dogma, but he was too prideful to admit that the Church was right.
You see the same thing with Original Sin and the Immaculate Conception.
They think the theologians interpretations are the dogmas, despite the diversity of those interpretationsx
@@Arkangilos From an Orthodox view, we cannot say for certain (and never have) if non-Orthodox have "valid" sacraments. We've had varying opinions over the centuries (even in the first millennium), but the intention is always the same. Never to re-baptize anybody. My priest told me that effectively it is a conditional baptism. Rome does these too. Even though the priest giving the baptism might hold the private opinion (which he is permitted to) that they are not baptized, it does not mean he is correct. For other priests that might baptize a Latin convert they might say "maybe they are...maybe they aren't" and so the intention is conditional as well. So, I get your concern, because I felt the same way at first, the reality is that it's only speculation as to whether or not non-Orthodox sacraments are "valid". We just don't know. Hence, technically a conditional baptism is the safest route, but before Vatican II the Russian Orthodox praxis was to receive Latins by confession of faith. Vatican II has caused a bit of doubt since things like "We" baptisms exist and their ecclesiology has changed even more so there is uncertainty and debates around this. I was received by the Russian Orthodox Church via chrismation. TL;Dr - We do not truly give second baptisms. That's never the intention, and, as you know, the intention of the Church is part and parcel of what makes a sacrament "valid" in Latin terms.
"what about Rome"
Liberation Theology was the solution that communist revolutionaries came up with for how to advance their cause in South America where Marx's "religion is the opiate of the masses" conflicted with the immense cultural hegemony of Catholicism. Francis is a champion of that theology. Francis is trying to stamp out people who want to hear the mass in the language it was written in. Francis tolerates bishops who support transgender ideology and homosexual relationships. Francis was a member of the Jesuits, famous for being atheists in all but name.
Rome is nothing but a memory now. There is no holy vicar of Christ anymore.
i am a Catholic, and i will never be anything else. But i will say that being a Latin Rite Catholic in the last 60 years is like Lent all year long.
This shows that you haven't been to an Orthodox Church in the Holy Week
@@pavelcrestin1 I haven't. But I would like to some day.
@@erikriza7165 I do encourage you doing it, especially for the fact that next year the Easters dates are quite far apart.
But by then, just try out an Orthodox Liturgy and please let me know how it felt.
@@pavelcrestin1 Thank you. I wish i had an Orthodox friend to go with, and he could maybe explain to me. But I really do want to experience the Orthodox Divine Liturgy. And i wish for the day that the Orthodox and Catholic Churches restore Communion with each other.
@@erikriza7165 first of all, you already have a friend to go with. He is called Jesus. Secondly, I recommend you going because you will make friends there anyway.
Thirdly, it is not totally foreign from a Latin Mass structure, so you would recognize a lot of moments within the Liturgy.
As Nike says it, Just do it :-)
Fr. O seems to forget that the Council in Trullo provided a whole taxonomy about how various heretics & schismatics were to be received into the Orthodox Church. It wasn’t all or nothing.
Our host seems to forget that for centuries a main defense of the oaks y was that the popes had always maintained the catholic faith. Yet, he & other trads these days have rather lessened what we are to expect of a pope.
My Bishop has first Confession in 2nd grade, and First Communion and Confirmation/First Communion in Third Grade. Isn't that closer to the Eastern Churches? All Confirmations are at the Cathedral.
There is something to be said about communion. Unity. I cannot think of any reason why the Catholics and the Eastern Churches of Orthodoxy cannot be in communion. I believe they could sit down and work it out. I wish they would.
The EC and Pope are trying. It may happen in 2025.
Well I wish for union too but the Orthodox and Catholics have vastly different ideas on theology, ecclesiology, etc. For Roman Catholics, unity comes in the form of being in communion with the Papacy, which the Orthodox fundamentally disagree with. For the Orthodox, union comes in the form of Rome rejecting its heresies and returning to the Orthodox faith. I don’t see either side budging- at least not in my lifetime.
Both sides struggled at times to explain their side. The Catholic speaker missed some necessary clarifications such as formal versus informal heresy or schism, and also Pope St Stephen's condemnation of rebaptizing heretics.
That's just made up to cope with tremendous lot of heresies Papists had for centuries
"For as many as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ: Alleluia."
Thank you for this. As Bishop Luke of Syracuse said “if you want unity with the Roman Catholics and Protestants, Baptize them!” There is no generic baptism that unites all so called christians around the world to one church as vatican 2 would like to have us believe
@@mariorizkallah5383 Vatican II did not invent that position, it has been held since the 200s after Pope Saint Stephen declared it so. He is venerated in both East and West.
Father says "Vatican II fully recognizes the Eastern Orthodox Church. For us that is so shocking to here. How can we be missing something when we have the Eucharist, when we have Christ?" Legalism. Father's point stands strong. Vatican II (and post VII) says we can attend Divine Liturgy and fulfill our Sunday obligation, but only under certain conditions ... why is this so similar to the treatment of the SSPX? Is the schismatic accusing the schismatic, or is the cannon lawyer defining salvation by way of invention? The mental gymnastics one must undergo either produces athletes for Christ, or cannon fodder for ecclesiastical punitive puppets truncating traditionalists via apostolic visits. Should we consider the development of doctrine through the lens of either divine revelation or Aristotelian scholasticism? Is collegiality more important than continuity? Father continues with "You should say at the end the Vatican II is a false Council." Oh the irony ..
Vatican II has been "misinterpreted," VII's problem is "ambiguous language," etc , etc. Maybe just admit that it openly contradicts previous solemn Magisterial teachings on Religious Liberty and Ecumenism. Hard to go from RC to OD after so many years but this push helped.
How can an Atheist or a Heathen Baptize someone and intendeds to do what the Church intendeds when she Baptizes an individual? How can someone who doesn't believe in the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost Baptize?
Typical RC's always want to be right
Development is just a misleading way to say “change of doctrine”. I think this is also a fundamental difference between Orthodox and Catholic theology. Doctrine doesn’t develop- the Faith is for once handed down.
The truth was set early and that's the standard which the orthodox have veered the least.
For the baptism thing, even the patristics and early EC’s taught that baptism by certain heretics is valid.
That is what post-schism scholastics maintain - not what St. Basil the Great, for example (canon 47), taught, or the Second Oecumenical Council (see canon 7). They rejected certain heretics’ baptism. But, moreover, the patristic teaching is clear: there are no mysteries outside the One Mystery. “Validity” pertains to form; even St. Augustine taught that the schismatics do not have the Holy Spirit (i.e. Grace in the Mysteries).
@@pah9730 Clearly it isn’t. Here is what the Wikipedia says about the schismatic view (which I know from personal experience is true:
“There are reports of instances where Orthodox Churches re-baptize converts from Protestant and Catholic Churches, though this varies from diocese to diocese. Within the OCA (Orthodox Church in America), converts are chrismated rather than rebaptized.[6] In ROCOR (the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia) and others, rebaptism does sometimes occur.[7] Greek Orthodox practice changed in 1755, when Patriarch Cyril V of Constantinople issued the Definition of the Holy Church of Christ Defending the Holy Baptism Given from God, and Spitting upon the Baptisms of the Heretics Which Are Otherwise Administered; however, the Greek Orthodox does not now insist on re-baptizing Catholics.[8]”
So your own Church doesn’t agree with you.
As for quotes from the Fathers, here is a canon from the Holy Council Ephesus:
“7
Those who embrace orthodoxy and join the number of those who are being saved from the heretics, we receive in the following regular and customary manner: Arians, Macedonians, Sabbatians, Novatians, those who call themselves Cathars and Aristae, Quartodeciman or Tetradites, Apollinarians-these we receive when they hand in statements and anathematise every heresy which is not of the same mind as the holy, catholic and apostolic church of God. They are first sealed or anointed with holy chrism on the forehead, eyes, nostrils, mouth and ears. As we seal them we say: “Seal of the gift of the holy Spirit”. But Eunomians, who are baptised in a single immersion, Montanists (called Phrygians here), Sabellians, who teach the identity of Father and Son and make certain other difficulties, and all other sects -- since there are many here, not least those who originate in the country of the Galatians -- we receive all who wish to leave them and embrace orthodoxy as we do Greeks. On the first day we make Christians of them, on the second catechumens, on the third we exorcise them by breathing three times into their faces and their ears, and thus we catechise them and make them spend time in the church and listen to the scriptures; and then we baptise them.”
As you can see, it specifically says most are confirmed, but only names three that are to be baptized on reception.
They are chrismated because they kept the correct form. However, it doesn’t mention a valid baptism in the sense that they recognize the baptism of heretics. It’s simply stating that as long as they held the correct form (three immersions in the name of the Holy Trinity) they could be received by Chrismation. The Kollyvades father also addressed this issue. The Orthodox Church has never taught that Baptism outside the Church is “valid” as if it’s a true baptism. Also this pertains to receiving them into the Church. They are being received because they are outside the Church. No canons and no consensus of the Holy Fathers exist that states otherwise.
@@matthewodonnell1856 that doesn’t make sense. If it isn’t a true and valid baptism then they would need to be baptized, because they weren’t baptized.
“Not valid” means it didn’t happen.
“Didn’t happen” means they weren’t baptized.
“Not baptized” means they *must* be baptized.
By the way, the Schismatics don’t universally rebaptize non Schismatics, it depends on the “Jurisdiction”, and Catholics aren’t typically rebaptized by the Greek or Serbian Schismatics, or the Schismatic OCA, and Catholics don’t follow your “correct” form. (No immersion).
So all I am hearing from you is *some* priests say one thing, while your “Church” does and says something entirely different.
@@matthewodonnell1856 Baptism is not the Sacrament of Chrismation, they are *two* sacraments, and so for Chrismation to happen it necessitates that Baptism already *really* happened.
I find the Orthodox/Eastern Catholic view of sacramental initiation to be more intellectually coherent, and I think Latins need to go back to it. The full/partial communion thing, especially from the perspective of children is something we really need to have discussion over.
However, the vast difference in how Orthodox interpret moral issues is highly confusing "on the ground" so to speak. I personally know folks who went Orthodox *specifically* bc they allow contraception as long as you can make a case for it to your priest. 🧐 Which is just mind boggling to me. Either something is sinful or not. Same for divorce. His answer regarding divorce just sounds a lot like "people are going to divorce so we just figured out a way to word this so our members can do it".
I also have very mixed feelings on married priesthood, having grown up around "preachers kids" as a protestant. I have never met a well balanced preacher's kid in my life, and the marriages tended to be very strained bc there were two vocations being served at once.
Well those are your views and your misunderstanding. You cannot base orthodoxy simply on this video as Fr. Peter would need an entire 10 lessons course to explain these topics to you.
Also, Fr. Josiah Trenham explains these topics very well at Patristic Nector Films on TH-cam.
Married priests is the way it used to be both in east and west until one day, the pope decided to ban it with many other innovations and restorations. Especially, when west decided to cease infant communion which is absolutely absurd. Can you imagine withholding the most holy mystery from your child? Here's a perfect MUST WATCH link that discusses this from former protestants/Catholics:
th-cam.com/video/MqIpUmZrV8M/w-d-xo.html
Anyways, if you're truly attempting to find the actual truth, you must read and dive into some eastern orthodox books. I highly suggest Fr. Seraphim Rose, St. John of Kronstad, St. John Maximovitch aka of Shanghai and San Francisco and many others.
@@paulpeter2869 1/ I agreed with you and the orthodox/eastern view of when to give sacraments. I don't need attitude and convincing of that. 2/ don't really need the tone in general. This is not my first look at Orthodox teaching and I simply don't agree with several aspects that are integral to me, and I'm convinced of the primacy of Peter. I came as an adult to the church, I'm well educated on the tenets of my faith. God bless.
@@Mrs_Homemaker I wish you all the best. I suggest you read the primacy of Peter by John Meyendorff and The Church and the Pope by Robert Spencer . God bless
"I have never met a well balanced preacher's kid"
Does this include Orthodox priests, or is this just what you've seen from your Protestant background?
@@nr7701 protestant background, yes. And while the theology is vastly different I can't imagine the priesthood is *less* taxing for Orthodox/Eastern Rite than it is for protestant pastors. Orthodox and Catholic priests both have even more work and responsibility compared to basically any protestant sect, wouldn't you agree?
Protestant churches are designed for married pastors as a rule basically, so it's not a particular lack of support causing the issue there. What percentage of Orthodox priests are married, if you had a guess? Is it more common than celibate and are parishes automatically set up to support that as a rule, or is it more case by case?
(I'm genuinely asking)
in order to represent an Eastern Orthodox perspective, Peter Heers would need to be canonical. Nobody knows who his bishop is, including the various bishops he has claimed to be under
Such is condemned even in the Roman Church.
I'm not sure why you thought this was a good idea.
Talking to people with different perspectives is a bad idea? You must not have many friends then if you believe you can only associate with people who think 100 percent like yourself.
If you guys don’t know, Sammons is E Catholic
Actually, I'm not Eastern Catholic. I'm a member of the Latin rite, and attend the TLM. -ES
@@CrisisMagit’s curious to me that so many Internet Catholic personalities go to either Byzantine rite or TLM. You rarely see people parading around about how much they love the NO. Why is that?
Council of Florence:
It firmly believes, professes and preaches that all those who are outside the catholic church, not only pagans but also Jews or heretics and schismatics, cannot share in eternal life and will go into the everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless they are joined to the catholic church before the end of their lives; that the unity of the ecclesiastical body is of such importance that only for those who abide in it do the church’s sacraments contribute to salvation and do fasts, almsgiving and other works of piety and practices of the christian militia produce eternal rewards; and that nobody can be saved, no matter how much he has given away in alms and even if he has shed his blood in the name of Christ, unless he has persevered in the bosom and the unity of the catholic church.
Indeed, has not Vatican II abandoned this declaration of the false council [for the Orthodox] of Florence?
@@pah9730 Vatican II wasn’t dogmatic, so I’m not as concerned about it.
@@Arkangilos In practice there is no real difference or separation between dogma and ethos and this is proven in the results of Vatican II. These differences are “kata epinoia” - in the mind - not in real life. Hence, your “peace” is false for the results of heretical doctrine are catastrophic in terms of salvation. And in this end this is all that matters - not theoretical distinctions in our head.
@@pah9730 What?
Vatican II did not abandon the Council of Florence. It was ambiguous and people abuse the ambiguity, but it in no way defined anything I am required as a Catholic to believe. and by the way, Florence was accepted by the Schismatic Greeks.
And if you guys believed what you just said about there being no difference between Dogma and how people fallibly teach it, you wouldn’t believe or practice some of the nonsense you do.
For those of you that don’t know, PA H is wrong about the distinction he tried making. Dogmatic: what we must believe in order to be saved. (Outside the Church there is no salvation). Non-Dogmatic: What we do not have to believe to be saved (the stuff said by Vatican II, which was declared by the council fathers themselves to be non-dogmatic).
The Council of Florence also heretically teaches that the Son is a cause of the Spirit's hypostasis (subsistent being).
But the Church isn't just Christ? It's obedience to the apostolic succession and the Church that Jesus started so he's wrong on that point at least in my view. There are degrees of sin and degrees of initiation to the Church, the Orthodox church is one such degree as are protestants.
All bishops have apostolic succession. Catholic have chosen to focus on the bishop of Rome which has led you astray.
@@flisom wrong Freddy boy, some bishops have authority, not ones written down on a napkin, nice try though.
@@depARTmentUhaul all bishops have apostolic authority. Now Catholic and Orthodox may restrict how they use that authority, but they have it none the less.
@@flisom I don't agree of course but believe what you want
@@depARTmentUhaul are you Protestant? It’s a basic catechetical teaching that bishops are successors to the apostles.