The Errors of the Catholics
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 31 พ.ค. 2024
- To be deep in history is to cease to be Roman Catholic. This is a lamentable truth for so many faithful who don't know the truth behind Catholic beliefs that are radically out of step with the Scriptures and early Christian practice including:
0:00 Introduction
1:00 Papal Infallibility
6:10 The Filioque
13:26 The Immaculate Conception
16:25 Indulgences
24:07 Papal Supremacy
32:17 Doctrinal Development
This film promises to end the apologetics scene as we know it, as it condenses top tier primary and secondary research on a wide array of "defeater" topics into less than 40 minutes. The average viewer will be more informed on this topic than the long line of "professional apologists" who for $$$ answer questions on the topics covered here, but in less depth.
Watch the prequel, Who Started the Great Schism: • Who Started the Great ...
Produced and Narrated by The Other Paul: / @theotherpaul
For more discussion, check out the Charitable Apostolic Christians Discord Group: / discord
Has this film blessed you? Support the parishes in Cambodia: www.orthodoxchristiantheology.... - บันเทิง
![เกิดใหม่ทั้งทีก็เป็นสไลม์ไปซะแล้ว ซีซั่น 3 - ตอนที่ 57 [ซับไทย]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/pNhft3YZFRE/mqdefault.jpg)
![โอ้มายก๊อด! ไม่ถึงชั่วโมงหมดเป็นแสน 😅 [cc] แดนแพทตี้ SS2 | EP.42 |](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/OH2ShXfO6tA/mqdefault.jpg)
Share this video! For more on the Papacy see the book "The Rise and Fall of the Papacy" : uncutmountainpress.com/shop/product/the-rise-and-fall-of-the-papacy/
The local community Church In Houston Texas 🇺🇸 and Hollywood California 🇺🇸 Los Angeles California 🇺🇸 and Malibu California 🇺🇸 and Chicago Illinois 🇺🇸 and Brooklyn new York 🇺🇸 and Washington DC 🇺🇸 Peru Indiana 🇺🇸 and Richmond Virginia 🇺🇸 and Virginia Beach Virginia 🇺🇸 and Bristol Virginia 🇺🇸 and London Kent England 🇬🇧 and cario Egypt 🇪🇬 and Toronto Canada 🇨🇦 and Sydney Australia 🇦🇺 and Rome Italy Vatican city 🇮🇹🇻🇦
Pope Francis George Mario borgirio the Pope and Bishop of Rome Italy Vatican city 🇮🇹🇻🇦
It has archbishops and bishops and cardinals and chaplains and deacons and evangelists and friars and ministers monsignor's and nuns and Parsons Padres pastors and rabbis and rectors and reverends and sextons and vicars 🇻🇪🇻🇦🇺🇸🇹🇳🇷🇴🇲🇽🇲🇬🇯🇵🇮🇹🇮🇱🇮🇳🇩🇪🇫🇷🇬🇧🇪🇬🇨🇦🇧🇷🇦🇺🩴🩴🧸🍞🦍🦒🐘🦏🦙🦅🐊🦝🦊🐻❄️🐼🐻🐺🐯🦁
The early church also believed that sin after baptism could not be forgiven and that's why Constantine waited till his death bed before being baptized. Things change with knowledge.
Not really. Tertullian even call confession second baptism.@@chrishowell5491
As a current Roman Catholic, this video has shaken my faith in the Roman Catholic Church. Please pray for me both orthodox and Catholic alike, and please pray for me the saints so that I might be in all truth.
I prayed
@@OrthodoxChristianTheology thank you brother
@@OrthodoxChristianTheology if I become Orthodox I’ll let you know, you got a tiktok?
@@TheLoyalCatholic no, but discord link is above. May God bless you.
@@tomas6910 thank you
I'm a Catholic, but I like to hear other perspectives. Bravo, sir. This is the best challenge to the Roman Church I have yet heard. Way better than James White, and he is no slacker. God bless you and be well.
TY for being honest!
th-cam.com/video/UdnjrUQknCs/w-d-xo.html
I have no reason to believe that you are a Catholic.
James White is a horrible heretic, our little Orthodox brothers are just in schism but they are a true church with the true sacraments. Very Ethno-church though which is hard to stomach.
@@t.d6379 no its rome who is in schism.
This video is really useful for ex protestants looking into Orthodoxy and Catholicism, thank you very much!
@@tomasnunohevia6782 Que?
@@tomasnunohevia6782 Russia became Orthodox after 91, Fatima is not the real blessed virgin it is a deception
For an answer to this video, I recommend Michael Lofton and his latest book called Answering Orthodoxy
@@nealkriesterer didn't Kyle already debunk him?
I am Lutheran and I love both the Roman catholic and eastern Orthodox church. Luther was excommunicated from the Western church. He saw some issues too and brought back emphasis on scripture over traditions.
Fascinating stuff.
I am Roman Catholic and am converting to Orthodoxy. I am subscribed to your channel now! Thank you for your information and please pray for me.
May God help you
Glory to the Father, Son and Holy Spirit.
Wow, you're an easy mark.
Don’t do it, brother.
Great video. As a former Roman Catholic who is now Orthodox its entertaining to see RC’s continue to defend Roman Catholicism in light of Church history and literal forgeries.
Me too. It’s so obvious when you look.
My husband (still a sede) was fighting with me and I shot back with actual history, literally went “blah blah blah”.
Unknown forgeries were used for other doctrines of the faith, does that make them automatically false too? Even the Greeks used forgeries!
Where St Peter is there is the Church. It's interesting that you look elsewhere because someone on TH-cam told you so. Did you check his credentials.
@@JerryVasquez20321 Sts Peter and Paul established the seat of the Church is ROME where they were both martyred.
@@JerryVasquez20321 you are in schism because someone on TH-cam encouraged you. Is the origin of your name Mexican. Mexico was converted to Catholicism.
This is a LOT to unpack for me, as a Catholic. I have been researching these things (and thus found this video) for a while, but the video went into things I was not even aware of at all. I admit I have had doubts these past years, especially on matters of Papal Infallibility but when debating with fellow Catholics I would just get destroyed by their superior preparedness and familiarity with the controversy and history, whereas for me this was all new, so I'd end up bowing and acknolweding that they must be right.
What's presented here went beyond me seeking better arguments and instead actually deeply rattled me, I'm not sure what to make of all of it. I suppose I'll start with researching all of this further and not take what you say here for granted, but doubt has been sown nonetheless and these are some pretty solid sources to cite from assuming nothing is quoted out of context.
Thank you regardless for sharing this with us brother, I guess the rest is up to God to settle for me.
TY for the honest assessment!
"Two Paths: Orthodoxy & Catholicism: Rome’s Claims of Papal Supremacy in the Light of Orthodox Christian Teaching" by Michael Whelton was the final nail in the coffin, that got me to convert from Roman Catholicism to Eastern Orthodoxy.
Do not allow any man to dissuade you from the truth of the church. Jesus Christ established this church when he ordained Peter, the first Roman Catholic Pope. The gates of hell did not prevail. He didn’t say that evil would not exist. Satan was in the garden and Judas was one of the 12. The magisterium and the sacraments are what has remained intact, just as Jesus promised. Stay with the church. This dude who has this channel is another Martin Luther. No different
There are several that have answered these questions well in advance of this video. Eric Ybarra has corrected several of the issues here already, Suan Sona as well.
A good question for the Orthodox is by what right do they accept the christology of the first seven ecumenical councils but reject their ecclesiology and how are these counsels identified?
@@modernstory2023 this is quite possibly the most ridiculous appeal to popularity I've seen. It's projected that Islam will be the largest religion by 2050 does that mean it will be the right religion? If the answer is no then Roman Catholicism is not the True Church just because it's larger than Orthodoxy. Otherwise between the years 325 through 381 Nicene Christianity was false simply because it was not the majority.
We can't really see through Catholic doctrine because we have a false sense of European history. We have an image of an almighty glorious catholicism and a weak overshadowed Orthodoxy and we project that to the past. In fact reality couldn't be further from the truth. In 1000AD Constantinople had 500.000 people and Paris 20.000. There were no gothic cathedrals and the biggest church was Aya Sofya. East Rome was full of science and prosperity and the West was full of fanaticism and superstition. That's why there was a renaissance because the West finally acknowledged ancient Greek science after Orthodoxy had fallen. Papacy slowly rose to power by conquest, deceit and betrayal, and not only that, but also erased and distorted our whole view on Christian past and European history to fit its own agenda and hegemony. Everything Orthodox is silenced, appropriated, slandered and demonised, and papacy created a new religion to please their new Germanic subjects on the expense of the older Romans who lived east. It's very hard to detect jealousy and hatred in papacy since the Vatican is so powerful and Orthodoxy is much smaller, but if we read through the lines and go back to history there's nothing but jealousy and hatred for Orthodoxy, and theological differences are only demonstrations of that abysmal antagonism and egotism, we won't be taught by you and we're better.
Beyond excited to watch this. Thanks for putting so much work into this - both you and Paul.
Excellent video. We need more simple, decisive content like this with lots of strong sources.
th-cam.com/video/UdnjrUQknCs/w-d-xo.html
Simple?!? Im no dozer but the first 5 mins were a head wrecker for me. Speed designed to obscure and confuse perhaps? That was the end of it for me - the only reason all the Catholics commenting here are "rattled" is because the religion they have been presented with in the Novus Ordo church is a false one and the faith taught is very weak. The truth and fullness of the faith lies in the PRE-Vatican 2 One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic faith.
I’m a former atheist who has believed in God for 3 years. I’m not baptized yet (I know I gotta get baptized, but I still haven’t found a church I can go to and don’t even know if my parents would let me) and used to think of myself as a non denominational christian, however I realized that a lot in Protestantism doesn’t make sense. I’m still trying to figure out if I should be orthodox or catholic, Videos like this help a lot, so thank you very much! Please pray that I’ll figure out the truth 🤍🙏
May God help you!
Hi, thanks for sharing this. I was wondering, in your opinion, what are some things that don't make sense in Protestantism? I received faith in 2018 and have been following Jesus Christ from then on. I landed in a protestant church and received the protestant teaching. When covid kicked in, I started reading much more from the Bible and I've been looking into the letters of the Church fathers for the past 6 months. I've been having much questions but I'm still not convinced that Catholicism or Orthodoxy is the way to go, but neither is Protestantism. So at this point I'm kind of stuck at being a non denominational christian. Looking forward to your reply my brother and blessed is GOD for giving you eternal life!
@@nsbomb Here are some reasons why you shouldn't be a Protestant.
Protestantism is based on Sola Scripture, if that doctrine is wrong, all Protestantism falls.
My questions are simple:
1) In order to be able to use the Bible as the supreme authority, we must first have the Bible, but how can a Protestant know which books are inspired by God and which are not, if we do not accept the authority of the church, we cannot have the Bible.
2) Protestants try to prove Sola Scriptura from the Bible, but how can the Bible teach Sola Scriptura when it was written for decades and no author knew when the writing of the Bible would stop and which books would enter the canon.
3) Sola Scriptura makes you arrogant because you have to say that only your interpretation of the Bible is correct and that everyone else is wrong because they are not led by the Holy Spirit
Conclusion: Christ tells us, “every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a bad tree bringeth forth evil fruit" (Matthew 7:17)
Sola Scriptura leads to division on the most important issues and if we judge it by its fruits then we should cut down that tree.
@@kenandzafic3948 Thank you for your reply, much appreciated! I’ll give you my response here:
1) I agree, by accepting the Bible as authority, you accept the authority that the early Catholic church had. But the current Catholic church does not resemble the early Catholic church at all. A massive amount of “teachings and traditions of men” have been added to the religion. And a large amount of these teachings and traditions goes against the writings that are found in the Bible. I Agree that “scripture alone” is not necessarily the way to go, but religious teachings and traditions that go against scripture aren’t either. (These “teachings and traditions of men” are the main reason keeping me away from the Catholic and Orthodox church at this point)
2) I agree, “scripture alone” is not necessarily the way to go.
3) I agree that it’s a very complicated matter, the interpretation of the Bible, based on “scripture alone”. Sadly, it’s one of the main reasons that there is so much division in the faith, which is heartbreaking and dangerous. But the same can be said for the “teachings and traditions of men” which have been added to the Catholic and Orthodox church. That’s the other main reason there is so much division in the faith.
Your reference to Matthew 7:17 cannot really be applied to this matter because Matthew 7:17 is speaking of false prophets and not the church. None of the current day churches (Catholic, Orthodox or Protestant) are uncorrupted, you must agree with me if you want to remain honest.
You say, “Sola Scriptura leads to division on the most important issues”. The most important issue in Christianity is Jesus Christ His life, death, and resurrection. How does “scripture alone” to division in this issue? Or is there something else you consider most important?
To conclude from my side for now; the Protestant church has issues that cannot be answered without the acceptance of the authority that the early Catholic church had. This refutes the “scripture alone” case so I must conclude that “scripture alone” is not necessarily the way to go. The current Catholic and Orthodox church has issues of having added “teachings and traditions of men” over the many years which stand contrary to the scripture we hold as holy (The Bible). This Bible text comes to mind regarding this topic: “Why do Your disciples transgress the tradition of the elders?”. And Jesus Answered them; “3 He answered and said to them, “Why do you also transgress the commandment of God because of your tradition?” - Matthew 15:3. Also: 9 And in vain they worship Me, Teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.’ ” Matthew 15:7-9.
So as you can see, I’m very much conflicted between 3 incomplete worlds (Catholic, Orthodox and Protestant). Protestantism lacks in certain issues because of “scripture alone” but can substantiate all claims with scripture using exegesis. Catholicism and Orthodoxy have added teachings and traditions that are contrary to the scripture or only “substantiated” with scripture using eisegesis. Because I regard the written words from the prophets (Torah), Apostles and Jesus Christ (New Testament) as having absolute authority, I cannot accept teachings that go against these clear words from the Bible.
I’m looking forward to your reply on these things. Thank you in advance and may God bless you and your family! Amen.
@@nsbomb 1. I do not accept the Catholic Church, but the Orthodox Church has remained the same as it once was, and you cannot accept its authority at one moment and reject it at another, if you say that the Holy Spirit guided the church during the canonization of the Bible, and then throw it out the deuterocanonical books also chosen by the church, also what criteria should we use to determine when the church is led by the Holy Spirit and when not and why the Holy Spirit would suddenly decide to just reject the church and let it go in the wrong direction; you have to admit that this doesn't make much sense.
2. But if you don't accept tradition or Sola Scriptura then Christianity is a lie because those are the only options available, I would really like to see a third one.
3. There are no divisions in the Orthodox Church, there are things in which an Orthodox must believe, there is a way in which the Orthodox Church interprets the Bible and in that interpretation it is guided by the Holy Spirit; while among Protestants we have many disagreements, some do not believe in the Trinity, some believe in monolatry, some deny hell, some the sacrament, some the Eucharist, some say that Christ has only one will, some say that God is in time, some that we do not have free will and so on and so forth; and yet everyone says that the Holy Scriptures teach so, so Protestantism requires you to interpret the Bible according to your own opinion and choose arbitrarily what you will interpret literally, what you will not and so on, the Holy Spirit is not the source of divisions and Protestantism is a direct blasphemy against the Holy Spirit because it makes incompetent and stupid.
4. You see, I say that Protestantism makes you arrogant, you now reject the interpretation of these verses given by the church and think that only your interpretation of the Bible is correct, but how do you know that, so the whole Protestantism is spiritually dead.
5. Again, what is the most important question, and you are again engaging in a subjective assessment of the Christian faith, which is again the arrogance I was talking about.
And now here is the final conclusion to summarize your point of view: You believe that the Holy Spirit led the church for centuries and that we had clear teachings of the church and that the Holy Spirit suddenly decided not to lead the church anymore; why, in order for Protestantism to arise and for us to get tens of thousands of denominations that cannot agree on anything and for the average believer to have no idea what the teachings of the Bible are anymore, this seems to me like the Holy Spirit is not very smart.
Also the way you judge a holy tradition is to compare it to YOUR interpretation of the Bible which you seem to consider infallible and you wouldn't have that Bible without that tradition and do you realize that if you are not led by the Holy Spirit your interpretations are more or less irrelevant because there are too many Protestants who will disagree with you.
I am a Roman Catholic, however I truly love you, my Eastern Orthodox sisters and brothers ❤️ I hope we find strength to overcome our differences ✝️☦️
It is simple yet so individually painful - repent of your heresies, profess Orthodox Faith and we will receive you back.
@@johnnyd2383The opposite must occur my friend. May Christ reunite us whole and entire!
As a ex Roman Catholic I just say convert from the 1st protestant Roman Catholic heresy to Holy Orthodoxy. No need for false ecunumerical reunion
@@ahums16 There can't be union with the heresies. Lord's Bride Eastern Orthodox Church ought to remain "holy and without blemish" (Eph 5, 27).
@@johnnyd2383I agree with you. This is why I reject ecumenism with Rome as a Protestant. I will not shake hands with the Devil. We cannot mix spirits with them. It is like mixing oil and water. Either we are united in the Holy Spirit or we are not. Christ’s Church is a spiritual Church, and I give no quarter to the enemy that is in Rome. I truly think, as it has been made plain to me, that Orthodox and Protestant share much more the same faith than either of us do with Rome, and it’s high time we acknowledge that. I know of no heresy that either levels at the other side that doesn’t pale in comparison with those of Rome. If there is to be a putting aside of differences, let it be between the Orthodox and the Protestants and let us focus on the enemy, that antichrist who sits on Jesus’ throne
Another point worth making is the change in communion practices. The Orthodox West communed infants in the same way the Orthodox do today. This practice not only disappeared in Rome but was later *anathematized* by the Council of Trent, contradicting the norms and saints in the West and East. While Eucharist discipline and norms have stayed the same in the Orthodox Church, it should be no surprise that abandoning infant communion also led to other Eucharistic innovations, like unleavened bread, adoration, and separating the species.
Wait what!? What exactly did Trent anathamatise??
Already done here; th-cam.com/video/MqIpUmZrV8M/w-d-xo.html&
@@colmwhateveryoulike3240 they anathematized anyone who says that communing infants is necessary. This not only contradicts pre-schism Roman practice but also essentially calls popes and saints heretics. Infant communion was not something seen as a good thing to do but the norm for all baptized Christians and necessary for all to be united to Christ.
@@OrthodoxChristianTheology great stream. Infant communion was one of the issues that pushed me over the fence from my Catholic upbringing to converting to Orthodoxy so I'm passionate about an issue that is often overlooked.
@@RobertTaylor87 It's not in the video just like the Eucharistic bread issue simply because they'd cry "it's a discipline, disciplines are fallible" and I didn't feel like unpacking that can of worms.
I've been excited for this for a while 🔥☦
I await a thoughtful, nuanced response from Lofton! :)
He will spin it as usual
Don't hold your breath!
That’s not very charitable dawg, you need to repent 😂
No errors, my friend! The Church is all of us Christians and our Church fathers are an essential part of our Church, just as Jesus wanted. They are there to help and guide us. 😊
Exactly
The main problem here is that FALLEN HUMAN NATURE is seen as SINFULL HUMAN NATURE.
The Most Holy Theotokos had FALLEN HUMAN NATURE BUT NOT SINFULL NATURE.
Sometimes the Holy Fathers use expressions for our fallen human nature that sound like there is sinbut there is not.
As a current Catholic I found this very informative. I have recognized some teachings of the Church that do not seem to comply with historical interpretation. However, I am unsure if the Orthodox Church has remained entirely consistent as well. In my eyes, it’s best to look to teachings before the Schism, but that’s just me. I’m not supper great with historical accounts and I’ve only just become Catholic so there is a lot for me to learn.
Ty for your kind words.
In the year 1054 the differences between the Orthodox and Catholics were minimal. Since then the have introduced a real problem that contradicts the clear teaching of Jesus himself, and that is divorce. I see discussions about purgatory. That was discussed at the Council of Florence. They use different words, so the teachings can be reconciled
.Comments in TH-cam are not the proper place for discussing complicated theological and historical issues.
Honestly, I don't think you'll find any church on the planet that has remained one hundred percent consistent with the teachings of Christ since the time of the Apostles. Even in the early church there was divisions and disagreements over sometimes major doctrines. But I think if your church can look at something like the Nicene Creed and accept it (as well as the writings of Scripture of course), you're in a good place spiritually.
@@TheJoeschmoe777 yes, if they are all fallible who is correct becomes immaterial
@@thomashennigan1676 what about annulments? Those are arguably worse than divorce.
I have learned so much from this video I will save this on my playlist and try to memorize all of what you have spoken off thanks for sharing the wisdom brother
It is funny how in the video they contradict their own teaching:
1.) Some protestant "Orthodox" say that there is no Original sin. In the video Fathers are quoted that clearly teach that there is Original sin. St. Nikodemos for example.
2.) The Holy Fathers (consensus patrum) clearly teach the absolute SINLESSNESS of the Most Holy Theotokos. Yes, there are some exceptions but WE USUALLY DO NOT MENTION THEM. As we also not mention that St. Eusebius was against Icons or St. Athanasios of Sinai taught the "".soulsleep
3.) St. Augustine EXCLUDED the Most Holy Theotokos when in came to sin. OUT OF HONOR FOR CHRIST
This is well done. Great job.
Really should be titled, “Errors of the Latins” though. We Orthodox Christians are the catholics.
Ha, I thought the same thing, but “Errors of the Catholics” is more shareable/memorable, allegedly.
@@j.athanasius9832 yeah, colloquially people think of the Latins when they hear the term Catholics in our time…but you’re right. It’s more shareable this way, even if it’s inaccurate naming.
>We wuz Roman's
As a FYI, there's a book called "Errors of the Latins." I didn't want to steal its name. I wanted to call it "Errors of the Roman Catholics," but its too long. Hence, "Errors of the Catholics."
ok so ur church should be universal and everywhere, U guys can't even hold a ecumenical council! what a laugh! And talking about following trends, how come u guys can divorce 3 times but not 4? and contraception is allowed? WOW and thats not modernism! WOOT!
I was raised Catholic, but on Holy Saturday 2023 baptized into the Serbian Orthodox Church. I have not watched this video yet and I don’t put emphasis on propositional things however it is the case that people geared towards propositional things (abstract minded Catholic thinkers) do so this might be a good place to send them. Thank you!
Hi Ron, can I ask what was the deciding factor for you to excommunicate yourself?
@@colin.charbeland what is your reason to be still a schismatic?
@@colin.charbelhe joined the Church. He did the exact opposite
Jesus didn't found the serbian ortodox church my friend
@@theden3162No, Christ founded the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, which, in fulfilling our Lord's command to baptize the nation's, went forth and Christianized the Serbian nation. Thus, the Serbian Orthodox Church, which is to say the Apostolic Church in Serbia, eventually formed an autocephalous ecclesiastical body to protect the faith, administer her holy and life giving mysteries and preserve the Serbian nations covenant with our Lord and thereby guiding the souls of our Serbian brethren unto salvation.
I confess myself to be baffled by Catholic Answers on this one:
'The Third Council of Constantinople was thus in error when it condemned Honorius for heresy. But a Council, of course, has no authority except insofar as its decrees are confirmed by the pope. The reigning Pontiff, Leo II, did not agree to the condemnation of his predecessor for heresy; he said Honorius should be condemned because “he permitted the immaculate faith to be subverted.”'
How is this “baffling”?
Becaus he is reading it like a normal human being without circular logic
@@vincomortembecause of the low View of the authority of the Ecumenical council. It’s a very Protestant take on it.
@@vincomortem Catholic Answers is stating a council - an ecumenical one, no less - is in error. You don't find that even just a bit remarkable??
Moreover, if it was not for heresy that Leo II condemned Honorius, but for permitting the immaculate faith to be subverted, well, then, in what did this subversion of the faith consist?
The pope, the vicar of Christ, our Sweet Jesus on earth, the one appointed by God so that the true faith is always preserved - that guy subverted the immaculate faith. You don't find that even just a bit remarkable? I don't think it's too much to want a little more explanation here.
I'm Catholic. I'm not saying there isn't a valid rebuttal to this video. But I'm sure not finding it yet.
@@TheAlias433Wow I didn't expect you to say you were Catholic after that. I commend you on not avoiding uncomfortable challenges and I pray God reveals the answer you seek.
There’s lots of papist cope in this comment section, and no positive papist arguments. You did a spectacular job with this video Craig.
Sorry, but you give a one sided view of the situation. There's plenty wrong with Orthodoxy as well. I am adding responses that I have given elsewhere for the purpose of not having to write everything all over again. But please read the other side of the story. What has happened in the past is when I have left comments on Orthodox channels they have sometimes been removed. I'm willing to have an open dialog. Please think twice before removing this response. Due to the length of the response I will have to enter it in two parts.
Have you ever read the Orthodox Saints who thought it was required to follow the Roman church? St. Maximus the Confessor, when commenting on the manner in which Pyrrhus, a former Bishop of Constantinople and heretic, should return to the unity of the Church, said this about him: "Let him [Pyrrhus] hasten before all else to to satisfy the Roman See, for if it is satisfied all will agree in calling him pious and orthodox…, That Apostolic See which has received universal and supreme dominion, authority, and power of binding and loosing over all the holy churches of God throughout the world, from the incarnate Son of God Himself and also by all holy councils” (Migne PG 91:114; taken from Eastern Orthodoxy’s Witness. Happily, seemingly in answer to your concerns about his titles Pope Francis has reacquired the title Patriarch of the West. To be honest, it's one of the few things Francis has done with which I agree.
There is plenty of liberalism and heresy creeping into Eastern Orthodoxy. Archbishop Elpidophoros in July 2022 in Greece baptised the child of a gay couple, the famous designer Peter Bousis and his Greek-American partner Evangelo Bousis. The child was born through surrogacy. Pope Francis came out against surrogacy and against the trans culture recently, and no Catholic bishop to my knowledge has authorized such acts. Following that there was indecisiveness on the part of the Orthodox churches. In a response to an Orthodox Archbishop stating the unacceptability of such actions, Metropolitan Chrysostomos of Messinia stated: "The proposal of Abp. Ieronymos of Athens regarding the non-Baptism of infants adopted by same-sex couples is his personal opinion, which does not reflect the position of the Hierarchy of the Church of Greece."
But where are the Orthodox now? There is a schism between the Russian Orthodox Church and the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople. You have no head. Therefore you have no church, you have churches. There is not an organization that has ever been conceived that does not have a head. While Christ is the head of the church he established a temporal head of the church for the purpose of preventing such problems. There is no power within the temporal church in Orthodoxy to call a council, to resolve the dispute between the ecumenical patriarch and the Russian Orthodox Patriarch, and it seems to be more like fighting children than a church. Yes we do have problems in the Catholic Church. Pope Francis is not my favorite pope, I will tell you that. I do agree that there have been a lot of abuses in the church since Vatican II, not as a result directly of Vatican II, but mainly because of the social context in the West in which it occurred. But The Pope has the power to put the German bishops in their place and to keep the church united in a much more effective manner than the Orthodox Church has been able to. The much anticipated Pan- Orthodox Council of 2016 amounted to a lot of infighting and disagreement and really resulted in nothing, except for some Orthodox claiming that the ecumenical patriarch was trying to act like a pope. Furthermore the Russian Orthodox Patriarch has declared the Russian attack on Ukraine as a holy war. He has claimed sole jurisdiction in Ukraine. I don't see anything like this happening in the Catholic Church.
The Orthodox Church or churches accepted the Filioque for use by the Western Church, as a response to heresy denying the divinity of the Holy Spirit in the seventh and eighth centuries. Sometimes it was an issue, sometimes it wasn't. Yet, one cannot read the farewell dialogs in John 15 and 16 without recognizing that it is a valid understanding, especially when the Catholic Church has acknowledged that the source of the Holy Spirit is the Father and procession, when it comes to Christ, does not mean as the source, but it would accept the understanding of proceeds through the Son. When Jesus breathed on the disciples and said, “receive the Holy Spirit" seems like a slam dunk to me. Now could it have been handled differently? Yes, that's a different argument. In fact, at the time of the schism in 1054 no one on either side thought it would be permanent. There was great cooperation during the initial crusades and the continued schism was political more than religious. Attempts at reunification happened and even when agreed to by the bishops of the entire eastern church ended up being negated by one Eastern bishop. If the pope had done that you would claim invalid primacy, yet if a single bishop does that in the east it's okay?
Similarly, the Orthodox constantly claim heresy when the Western Church defines anything. Purgatory is a heresy. Yet the Orthodox Church maintains that there is a place or state of purification where the soul will benefit from prayer. Original sin the way Catholics explain it is heresy to them. The Orthodox maintain that original sin brought death and separated man from God. Catholics of course would not disagree. Simply a different understanding based upon culture but with the same result. Now, if the Catholic Church had stated that Jesus was the source of the Trinity or abrogated the order of the Trinity, that would be a different story. If the Catholic Church denied the divinity of any members of the Holy Trinity, denied baptism, denied holy orders, denied the requirement of faith and works for Salvation, or denied any number of dogmatic principles that are agreed upon by the East and the West then I would understand. The Orthodox will resort to “it's a mystery” When they want to refute a Catholic definition.
But the Orthodox argue about terminology, or the attempt to use a word to define something. For instance, the Orthodox believe that the bread and wine are transformed into the body and blood of Jesus. The Catholics believe the same. Yet, add the word transubstantiation and the Orthodox cry heresy. It is simply a word that the West used to define a transformation that was taking place. Such is the difference I guess between the East and the West culturally. But it is not a cause for schism. Especially not when considered in the light of the paragraphs below.
I would like to reference the Jerusalem Synod of the Orthodox Church of 1672. The beliefs as stated are identical to those of the Catholic Church. In terms of the Eucharist: "Further, that in every part, or the smallest division of the transmuted bread and wine there is not a part of the Body and Blood of the Lord - for to say so were blasphemous and wicked - but the entire whole Lord Christ substantially, that is, with His Soul and Divinity, or perfect God and perfect man. This is just an example., transmuted, not transubstantiated, so one is okay and the other is Heresy. But wait, it gets better. A little later in the paragraph it reads: "the bread of the Prothesis* set forth in all the several Churches, being changed and transubstantiated, becomes, and is, after consecration, one and the same with That in the Heavens." Oh my goodness, the word transubstantiated. The difference in the word is only a difference in the tense. So how is it now a heresy if the Orthodox church never changes its teaching?
Now let's get to that pesky purgatory. That same council said the following: "And the souls of those involved in mortal sins, who have not departed in despair but while still living in the body, though without bringing forth any fruits of repentance, have repented - by pouring forth tears, by kneeling while watching in prayers, by afflicting themselves, by relieving the poor, and finally by showing forth by their works their love towards God and their neighbor, and which the Catholic Church has from the beginning rightly called satisfaction - [their souls] depart into Hades, and there endure the punishment due to the sins they have committed. But they are aware of their future release from there, and are delivered by the Supreme Goodness, through the prayers of the Priests, and the good works which the relatives of each do for their Departed" Ok, so they don't call it purgatory. And a descripcion of exactly what the Catholic Church teaches is called heresy because it is called purgatory. The fact is the hypocrisy of the Orthodox Church is glaring.
Your Video helped me to decide between Catholism and Orthodoxy,I leaf after 8 or 9 Months Catholism and convert to Orthodoxy,God bless you
@@JerryVasquez20321 Amin
@@Gabriel-bm5pe
Don't. They are just putting on a show, Eric Ybarra and other Catholics already refuted this. Orthodox talk a lot but there is no action, their evangelism is mediocre at best, ethnocentric, and they have such a historically immature understanding of ecclesiology that until this day they don't know what makes a council infallible as OrthodoxWiki admits.
It goes to show they cannot account for the first 7 ecumenical councils as they do not know what made them in the first place nor how to reproduce them.
Moreover, they're in schisms between each other. I don't know if you've noticed but Constantinople is no longer in communion with Russia. They have much worse problems, and no way to fix them without us. Stay in Christ's Church, the Catholic Church, that of the Apostle's Creed.
As St. Irenaeus said, all churches must agree with Rome, as Rome has the highest apostolic authority.
@@workinpromo wonder what Catholics did when they first entered Constantinople. Very Christian of them.
@@ChristTheKing_Crusader We already apologized for that. You have to move on. Keeping a grudge is contrary to the divine will.
@@workinpromo when did the Catholic Church apologize for it?
Great compilation! Very well put together. Will share!
These is what we Catholics believe:
Apostles Creed / Nicene Creed
👇
I believe in One God, the Father Almighty
Creator of heaven and earth, of all things visible and invisible
I believe in One Lord Jesus Christ, the only begotten Son of God whose born of the Father of all ages
God from God, Light from Light, True God from True God;
Begotten NOT made, consubstantial with the Father
Through Him all things were made
For our salvation He came down from heaven
And by the power of the Holy Spirit was conceived of the Virgin Mary and became Man
For our salvation He was crucified under Pontius Pilate
He suffered, died, and was buried, and arose again on the third day
He ascended to heaven and is sitting at the right hand of the Father
He will come again in Glory to judge the living and the dead, and His kingdom will have no end
I believe in the Holy Spirit, the Giver of life who proceeds from the Father and Son
Who is together with the Father and Son is adored, worshiped, and glorified; Who has spoken through the prophets
I believe in One, Holy, Catholic (means universal), and Apostolic Church (started from the Apostles)
I confess one baptism for the forgiveness of sins
And I look forward to the resurrection of the dead and the life of the world to come.
Amen.
Can someone please tell me if the Vatican admitted to these forgeries because I've heard Jay Dyer state this. If this is true PLEASE provide citations, thank you.
This was a gut punch for me, a Catholic who has been struggling with these matters. May the Lord forgive me for my errors. Pray for me
Can’t wait!
I note that you have promoted and attributed the following words to St John of Kronstadt: “Hell is a democracy. Heaven is a kingdom.” Having been unable to trace the origin of the words, would you be able to cite a source and reference. The quotation in the Russian language goes as follows: «Демократия - в аду, а на небе - Царство» (Св. Иоанн Кронштадтский). Any assistance to my enquiry would be most appreciated.
@@shaunmulligan8717Also interested.
Well done video! Lets see which RCC apologist tries to jump on this 1st!! ☦️🔥🔥
Subbed!! I went from not understanding what Orthodoxy even was, to having my Priest and a half dozen Orthodox TH-cam channels explain it all to me almost everyday!
You all have blessed me so much. Thank you!
🤦🏽♂️
@@zealousideal your faith in your very fallible emperor pontiff is as weak as your church's legitimacy if youre out here under every comment. Repent and turn to orthodoxy, your church did not operate as it does for 1000 years, yet here you are.
Thanks for this video, it raised some very interesting points. I'm very interested in reading more about it, especially on the issue of papal infallibility. Do you have links or a list of sources used in the video?
Sources are cited in the video as it goes. I will have a book out on the papacy in the fall.
@@OrthodoxChristianTheology Is that book still happening? I'm interested.
Yes. Check out Uncut Mountain Press sometime this or next week. An announcement will be made. A release is imminent.@@thomasshunuk3070
Many thanks.@@OrthodoxChristianTheology
This video doesn’t display any new arguments Catholics or the Church haven’t already responded too.
I would respond, but this isn’t treading new ground.
I'm just calling shenanigans on this one. You never seen the quote from Pope Martin denying direct jurisidiction. You know it, I know it. You've never seen Pope Adrian II asserting Honorius' heresy in an official Papal Letter to your own 8th ecumenical council. You know it, I know it. No one has covered indulgences or doctrinal development in the depth I have done here. You know it, I know it.
Let your yes be yes and your no be no.
@@OrthodoxChristianTheology What does "you haven't seen _____," Have to do with me pointing out your video doesn't bring anything new to the table?
@@pokenaut7803 ... everything?
@@OrthodoxChristianTheology 🤦♂
@@pokenaut7803 You just say "this video has been answered" and then you don't say how and leave. Can't I now call bs on you?
And I say "arianism is true". Boom. And I leave. How's that sound?
Great arguments bro.
PS : What's the Catholic response then to the Letter to Marinus?
10:56
Part of Michael Lofton's current Filioque argument is at issue right here wirh Pope Adrian; Where can I find this evidence that shows Pope Adrian was defending the Creedal affirmation of Tarasius at Nicea II of the Holy Spirit being "from the Father through the Son" as Orthodox, that is, proclaiming the consubstantiality of the Holy Spirit with the Son, instead of making the Son a Co-Cause of the Spirit?
Footnote gives the page numbers
@@OrthodoxChristianTheology
10:57
Excepting i don't see text or a footnote for this part, but it references Pope Adrian making further reference to the Fathers.
Its the very next page in Mendham. Read Mendham's Nicea II p. 92-93. You can google it. It's in the footnote.@@nicodemuseam
You should be honest of the historical events involving the “heretical” Popes, Vigilius and Honorius. You’re leaving out incredibly important details.
Pope Vigilius was forcibly taken from Rome to Constantinople against his will(kidnapped) by a military force sent by Emperor Justinian, and was under house arrest for NINE years. The pope was under distress while writing those letters. The emperor knew, without the Pope’s approval for his doctrinal scheme, he couldn’t enact his policy with the Miaphysites(Coptic Orthodox) to unite them with the Catholic Church. Part of that was clearing up the confusion of the council of Chalcedon. Rome wasn’t on board with the Emperor’s plan, but because of this enforcement, IMPERIAL AGGRESSION Justinian took the Pope and held him there until he gave way. That’s why they contradict!
As for Pope Honorius, that’s simple to defend for Catholics. A lot of people don’t realize, maybe including you, that he was actually dead for 20 years when they dug up his letters to Sergius of Constantinople. The council of Constantinople never thought the pope would be subject to examination, until Macarius of Antioch(Bishop of Antioch) when accused of heresy for one will of Christ, he retaliated by saying, “that’s what Pope Honorius said.” Then the council dug up Honorius’ letter and read it and claim “he believes in one will” and added him to list of heretics. This took place 20 years after Honorius’ death, and he couldn’t even defend what he meant. In fact, if you actually read what he wrote, it’s VERY forgivable. It doesn’t sound unorthodox at all. He wasn’t a formal heretic, you have to formalize your matter and form.
We all know Popes can materialize error without the form. And at that council, they state Pope’s apostolic seat is infallible, accepted by both the Latins and Greeks.
So many errors here. For example, It wasn't 20 years later until they found Honorius was a heretic, they were defending him a mere 5 years later. I've read what he wrote and dealt with it in detail.
As for Vigilius and duress, this hurts your case. He had to be tortured to sign an Orthodox confession....so wouldn't that mean he was heretical of his own free will and orthodox only by compulsion?
@@OrthodoxChristianTheology
Church historian William H. Carroll, in the 2nd volume of his Christendom series, writes the following:
“Writing in Latin to the Spanish bishops he declared that Honorius was condemned for not at once extinguishing the flames of heresy, but rather fanning them by his negligence. To King Erwig he wrote that Honorius was condemned for negligence in not denouncing the heresy, and for using an expression which the heretics were able to employ to advance their cause, thereby allowing the faith to be stained (taking his material from Hefele). By these careful redefinitions, Pope St. Leo II substantially modified the sense of the Council’s decrees on Honorius…Pope Honorius, therefore, was never condemned for heresy by the supreme Church authority, but only for negligence allowing a heresy to spread and grow, when he should have denounced it..” (p. 254)
Questions: what year did you find they found the letters and deemed Horonius a “heretic”? And why weren’t you honest in your video about the Pope being dead, and why didn’t you show everyone the parts of the letter claiming him heretic?
How can Vigilius being under martial house arrest hurt my case instead of showing your lack of transparency in your own video, trying to syphon off Catholics into another church? No. That situation was extraordinary(dramatic/exciting history to read, absolutely) but what he contradicted himself in those two letters wasn’t about faith or dogma, therefor, not a heretic.
@@OrthodoxChristianTheology
I’m not going to edit my last post, for authenticity, but I’d like to apologize for myself when I said you’re “syphoning off Catholics into another Church”. That was uncalled for by me because I honestly do LOVE the Eastern Orthodox. It just breaks my heart when we beat each other up because it only makes each other worse, and gives more reasons for other Christians to not leave Protestantism or people of other religions to not seek the one true faith and church.
Vatican II, from what I’ve read and heard, a part of it was for our brothers and sisters in the Eastern Orthodox to come back formally. We look at you as our sister church, which to me, you’re absolutely a part of the “One True Church Family” even though very few extreme Catholics (wrongly)disagree.
My father and his family are Greek and Orthodox, mother is Italian and Catholic. I grew up Catholic. I know both EO and Catholic make excellent arguments for the claim of the One True Church, and whoever the “winner” would be, the victor would win by millimeters in a race.
You’re the only church we recognize your sacraments as being legitimate by our Lord. And for good reason. It does make me sad the same isn’t reciprocated, but that’s family squabble.
@@OrthodoxChristianTheologyDang, that does bite Vigilius even harder, LoL.
Excited to watch! The marketing of "This film promises *to end* the apologetics scene as we know it...into less than 40 minutes" is ambitious, though.
You'll see for yourself. Each mini documentary which makes up the whole thing has beater arguments not found in apologetics I've found anywhere else. So, it's ambitious but true.
What's your evaluation after watching?
@@OrthodoxChristianTheology interesting. I saw some citations I had not seen before. However I don't understand the Collab. If your position is that those outside of Eastern Orthodoxy are not Christians, it doesn't make sense to me. How do you justify this? I don't understand why the Other Paul collabs with you either. How do you understand his position on why he is willing to Collab with you? I certainly have no problem working in an office with an atheist or Muslim. I would even oppose abortion with non-Christians as long as my right to speak truth was allowed. But I don't understand collabs on what the true religion is on those who do not agree on what true religion is. Where is the Biblical example of this?
@@TheOtherPaulnteresting. I saw some citations I had not seen before. I was aware of the errors of the IC the most before the video. The video was brief and didn't respond to every objection, but most videos do not. If you ever watched the 9 hour youtubr documentary against Rome from Keith Thompson many years ago I can see why brevity can be good. As a former Roman Catholic, I can imagine some of the quotes being surprising to current members, esp to those who think that what Rome teaches today is what has always been taught (likely the vast majority of members) and those who think the church fathers taught exactly what Rome teaches (a smaller number of members) but less time was spent on those who apply to development of doctrine to resolve all doubts (a smaller group still). I'm glad there was a section on it. I wish it was longer. I take the video in style and most of the content as an argument for Eastern Orthodoxy of some sort. I felt if I squinted my eyes I could make the video consistent with a *very* high church Anglicanism of some sort. I could make lots of other minor criticisms. The best part was the citations carefully grouped together. It also was uneven that some Roman doctrines seemed to receive long definitions while others were only briefly defined. The section on indulgences was visually different then the rest and was more complicated. The video reminded me of William Webster's Church of Rome at the Bar of History, although that book had a more Protestant viewpoint, and these video covered slightly more topics and left out others. Also the video referenced purgatory negatively but didn't appear to make an argument against it. And I don't think the counter argument of Albrecht against the Easterners staying in communion was adequately addressed or it was addressed too briefly. It contained probably the strongest historical argument against 'double procession' but it still was unclear to me if the video was opposing the Flioque or just a certain interpretation of it. Of course I believe the Flioque.
You can read my other comment to Mr. Truglia and respond if you like.
@@truthisbeautiful7492 What is the conflict of interest of writing a script and even choosing the pictures, and having TOP narrate and edit the video? I don't understand your objection.
As for your critiques, the filioque is not wrong has a matter of verbiage, its (practical) double procession interpretation dogmatized by Rome is. Indulgences is an issue never covered in apologetics hence the more detailed approach to covering what the development of this is. As for doctrinal development, if the view is "no one venerated mary and then they did," it clearly indicates it is not an excuse to handwave away the lack of historicity of Roman doctrines--because it shows that Rome embraces its own innovative character, which invalidates them.
Thank you for your response.
Great synthesis, thanks a lot! (From the French orthobros)
I was in my catholic church and it was time to give the eucharest. The priest was giving the eucharest, but at the same time a woman, who wasn't the priest, was giving the eucharest in the middle of the church. I find it not ok with the word of God, am I wrong? Before the mass they also repeat the same prayers to Mary, like Ave Maria, over and over again. And it is unbiblical. Also, during September, they take a large picture of Mary holding baby Jesus and they walk through the city repeating the same prayers over and over again. Is that unbiblical?
Women have no business around the Holy Eucharist. They have other roles in the Church. Handling of the Holy Eucharist is strictly given to the ordained clergy.
Brief, yet clear and straight to the point! Former RC, now Orthodox.
Wow just wow.. this is a K.O for me and I will definitely continue studying the councils and fathers. In fact in the council of Constantinople I believe it literally says that no bishop should involve himself in another see. The Alexandrian Bishop should deal with Egyptian affairs alone and the Asian Bishop should only deal with Asian affairs. I read this on a Catholic website and now I don't know what to think anymore.
I am a Catholic and I did watch the whole video. I would have liked it if you would have focused on the difference in teaching between the Catholic and Orthodox Churches about original sin and what baptism does to the person who is baptized. As I understand it, the Catholic understanding of original sin comes from an error from St. Augustine.
Fantastic and Straight to the Point love it keep up the Awesome work
I'm not Roman Catholic or Orthodox. I'd like to say i don't subscribe to protestantism, but I'm stuck between a rock and a hard place. I read my Bible, and study a lot. But to be completely honest everybody has really good arguments so it's hard to know what to believe, and everybody is biased. If i can't find the true church before i die, rest assured it was not my fault. I search for God, and pray for the holy Spirit to guide me on the path of truth. Jesus says "my people are devoured for lack of knowledge" i can only pray that God may forgive my failure. I have tried wholeheartedly. Please show me the path! I am concerned!
Have you read any G.K. Chesterton?
This is an extremely good video. Thank you. i needed something like this to show some of our Catholic brothers the faults of the Catholic church. I would really like to see a video dedicated to what all the early church fathers and Saints say about these topics. A lot of Catholics use Saint Augustine as an example of "how he believed" in the filioque which this video explains otherwise.
God Bless you all. May the Lord have mercy.
There are also indulgences! If you make a pilgrimage to Jerusalem and visit the Patriarch of Jerusalem you will get a "letter" where it states that you made a pilgrimage to the Holy Land and that sins are forgiven.
I just started watching this video it looks quite interesting. What would be a Enormously helpful to people of my ilk would be to put dates down everywhere. I have absolutely no idea what century you’re talking or about how it relates to European/eastern history as it was going on in time. Inserting dates would be much more helpful than footnotes which people are much less likely to follow through on. I’m looking forward to the rest of the video.
St Charbel Makhlouf you are a living proof that the one apostolic Catholic church consists of both eastern and western rite. Pray for us, may our brothers and sisters in schism never slander us unnecessarily, but pay heed to the Holy Spirit to recognize not only the authority but God's protection to His people under St Peter seat. The magisterium of the Church has countless times held council with the East, even beyond schism ie the council of Florence with the intention to save souls as our brothers and sisters in the east are under the Byzantine empire, which idolize the state as supreme judge and authority. Even so, some have refused to be under one Shepherd one flock with the church, due to unforgiveness and hardened hearts,which results in the East's total subjugation under Islamic rule. We pray St Charbel that all of us will look beyond our sins and weaknesses, look beyond unforgiveness and to always seek God's face, to dwell in His house forever
Thank God!!!
Truglia with a heavy-hitter. Latins in suspense
I came across an interesting article you wrote about Pope Adrian's letter in Greek compared to the Latin (which added many words about the Pope). A Catholic friend brought up the Latin version as definitive proof the early church believed the authority of the Pope above all sees. I shared your research, but he would like a copy of JE 2448. Do you know where one might find this?
Differences start on p. 49 books.google.com/books/about/The_seventh_general_council_the_second_o.html?id=PcQHAAAAQAAJ
I have new upcoming research on this coming out soon.
@@OrthodoxChristianTheology Thank you for this! Can you clarify some things for me... Pope Hadrian's letter that was read is not included in this book, right? Also, it mentions "papal" a number of times. Do we just infer that is what they called the Bishop of Rome, but not necessarily speaking to how RC view "papal" as a position of authority?
The Greek translation omitted and changed the original text after some time when they needed to reference Pope Hadrian’s letters.
The Latin didn’t add anything.
No, the Greek represents what was originally stated at the council. I will have published work that covers this in extreme detail.@@ByzantiumArchon
@@OrthodoxChristianTheology
Pope Hadrian sent two legates to represent the Apostolic See at the Council of Nicaea (787) with 2 letters that were to be read aloud in Greek and Latin to all the bishops there, under Patriarch Tarasios.
Dr. Erich Lamberz, world renowned scholar in text criticism, Greek codicology, and the Patristic Councils, and who is responsible for procuring the first critical edition of the text of of these Acts of the Council in the Acta Conciliorum Oecumenicorum Series (ACO), has contributed irrefutable arguments that prove that both Hadrian’s letters were read in their full original Latin at the Council, and were only changed at a later date after the Council was completed.
Great video Craig!
Only thing is I would’ve changed the title to the ‘Errors of the Latins (or Papists)’ since we Orthodox are the real Catholics. Awesome work though. I’ll definitely be sharing!
I always refer to them as "the Latins" 😉
“Papists” is very offensive and used by mass murderers like Oliver Cromwell and by recent anti Catholics like Ian Paisley whipped up pogroms against impoverished Catholics in Northern Ireland.
One thing is theological and historical debate and the statements here seem fair in pointing out certain errors but it should be civilized and never devolve into name calling
It just goes to show who God chose to give the name to. And as St. Irenaeus says, all churches must submit to Rome because of its superior apostolic authority.
Anything else is schismatic rationalisation and that's the sadness of your current state.
Orthodoxy is like a body in decomposition with a few members still giving off life. Why do I say this ? Because when you complain that we innovate, you do not see the irony hidden in your complaint.
The irony is that the Church which created the infallible creeds and dogmas, created them, they didn't previously exist formally.
Yet today, Orthodoxy is literally incapable of this because as OrthodoxWiki admits there is no agreed upon theory on what makes a council infallible in Orthodoxy and all propositions ultimately fail to account for the councils.
In other words, you do not have the organ of tradition. And when you see us use it, you think that we innovate because precisely you are struck in the past incapable of moving forward. You have no organ for tradition. You cannot produce infallible councils, so you are not the Church of the 1st millenium.
*We are not "the Latins" we are the Catholics, Latin and Eastern rite Catholics.* You are the schismatics so stuck in the past you can't see the irony of the whole situation.
@@tomas6910 You certainly did have Pan-orthodox councils but they were not infallible, and until this day are accepted by almost no one because they make no sense, and in fact the last one resulted in a schism between Russia and Constantinople, congratulations.
You speak of using two creeds, we already used different creeds in the 1st mellenium including that of St. Athanasius, the Apostle's Creed, etc. And I haven't investigated yet but I am sure we accepted saints that were made outside of communion with us but through no fault of their own even if exceptionally.
You're just complaining about us being Catholic really, sorry but we're about reuniting the Church, that's our mission that God gave us.
@@tomas6910 Reception is part of what makes an ecumenical council, but it isn't all of it. Papal intervention is also necessary to impose the reception by divine law.
You cannot do that.
As for the robber council I'm pretty sure it disproves your position since by all Orthodox metrics it was a valid council with a lot more bishops than some of the ecumenical ones. What ultimately broke its back was the Pope.
Saints can be invincibly ignorant of a Catholic truth, in this case the sin is not imputed to them. And therefore they can be canonized.
" For by one offering He hath perfected forever them that are sanctified."-Heb. 10:14. That's far better than any "indulgence" or "purgatory"!
Nice selection, but my main issue is that the video does not sufficiently address potential pro-arguments. E.g., just to start with what I am currently reading, Price' Nicaea II acts, you have a blog-post that may take up to two hours to read replying to Erick Ybarra on Hadrian's letters, but I don't quite get the main points from skimming through it. On p. 172, it says "will hold for all time primacy", which the council accepts on p. 181ff.
There is a trilemma between the apologetic arguments for Christianity itself, the pro/counter arguments for EO/RC, and the pro/counter arguments for RC/EO. If what belongs to the second category is deemed irrefutable while one has not addressed the major issues in the third category, one has a logical inconsistency which must either be resolved by finding the mistake, or assuming that such a mistake is less likely to exist than a mistake to exist in our foundations for Christianity (perish the thought).
While you say elsewhere that you cannot see that there is anything to debate, you are obviously aware of arguments from potential interlocutors. Those arguments are necessary parts of the thought process of someone discerning between Eastern Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism, including the above-mentioned quote from Hadrian's letter to Nicaea II.
The reality is that debate in the 8th century is irrelevant to the fact of what we see in earlier centuries as covered here. As for je 2448 and 2449 Ybarra has admittedly not read my work and so he has not responded to it. My work is vis a vis scholarship. I will be published on this topic soon. I understand that fine points of manuscript authenticity of 8th century documents are beyond most normal people. This does not invalidate the clear, undebatable things.
@@OrthodoxChristianTheology My point is that until one has actually investigated it oneself, one cannot exclude that some of the arguments in favour of Roman Catholicism are actually valid. From a probabilistic viewpoint, the existence of, say, the Hadrian argument, means that either there must be something wrong with that, there must be something wrong with the arguments presented in the video, or e.g. the descriptions in OT of historically uncontroversial matters regarding Christ’s death are mere coincidences.
From a cursory look at the back-and-forth between you and Ybarra, it would be helpful with an approach signifying that one attempts to address every point made, e.g. like in Ybarra’s pdf-final-exchange-on-2nd-nicaea, or the Refutation of the Hiereia Horos at Nicaea II, which attempt to quote the counterparty in full.
Superficially, this is a matter of analysis of mere information and inferences. If one assumes that artificial intelligence were capable of doing that and making deep inferences, one would at least demand that it would try to give a reply to every single point made.
When writing texts myself to which I have wanted replies to specific points, I have often been tempted to insert a “(n)” after every such point, where n is a natural number, although there is a danger that it would appear presumptuous and non-standard. Still, in a world where debates where conducted in such a way, a potential answer would then be able to keep track of having all points addressed by easily referring to those numerical points in question. It would also be much easier to find the back-and-forth singular points which one deems critical.
@@vilorwaa this documentary doesn't put an end to people's ignorance or even dishonest portrayals of the subject. To me, it makes available everything that is important one needs to know, all the proofs uncommon amongst the apologists, hence making the viewer more informed then the apologists. On top of this, by focusing on sources without disputed manuscripts I avoid the sort of pedantic back and forth you are referring to-at least here. I am not against such a back and forth in good faith.
I’m curious about the comment of layity performing the Eucharist. What was the context of that?
So, yes there is ORIGINAL SIN in Holy Orthodoxy. And yes, some Fathers have taught that the Most Holy Theotokos was cleansed from Original sin at the Annunciation: St. Nikodemos Hagiorites, St. Kallinikos...
BUT THERE ARE EVEN MORE WHO TAUGHT THAT SHE WAS CLEANSED AT THE CONCEPTION OR AT HER BIRTH, OR IN THE WOMB OF ST. ANNA.
SOME FATHERS HAVE TAUGHT THAT SHE WAS CLEANSED AT THE CROSS.
So here we see 2 facts:
1.) Original son exists and the Holy Fathers thought about when She was freed of.
2.) There are different opinions WHEN the Most Holy Theotokos was cleansed. So it is ABSOLUTE ORTHODOX TO SAY SHE WAS CLEANSED AT HER CONCEPTION. THERE IS NOTHING WRONG WIT IT.
It even is procclaimed in orthodox prayers, hymns, sermons,...
Thank you and God bless.
It should be noted, to the degree that it is relevant, that St. Thomas Aquinas was not the one who titled his work “On the Errors of the Greeks”. It was supposed to be a defense of Roman Catholic theology to be used at Lyons II more so than an attack on Eastern Orthodoxy.
The ever changing never changed church.
As a Roman Catholic , I pray we can put differences and past conflicts aside - reunite the churches as 1 Holy Church under God. We are not enemies , we must reunite and strengthen our faith, I am married to an Orthodox and every week we alternate church. Let’s come together let’s become one - love to all my orthodox brothers and sisters.
If you mix a good wine with the poisoned one, as a result, do you get more good wine or more poisoned wine.? Yes, if you are ready to repent and denounce heresies you acquired in past time, and you profess Orthodox Faith, we will gladly receive you back.
Devastating deconstruction. 10/10.
Great video! Well done guys. I hope God uses this video to save many souls from Rome.
Feel free to share!
Thank you king!
And hopefully to save souls from the errors of Protestantism as well. The subject matter focuses on Rome’s errors, but also indirectly introduces a whole world of historical Orthodox Christianity they may not be familiar with. Many Protestants think of us as Roman Catholics of the East assuming they’ve heard of Orthodoxy at all, but this is incorrect of course and this video demonstrates that.
So I was on a video where they just kept talking about Palamas and his energies in essence distinction, and how the rem monks that would gaze at their navel, and do these breathing exercises similar to yoga, and somehow that made them heretical, and not a true traditional Vatican one Catholic. What are your thoughts on this take?
Some kind of claim on how they’re just polytheistic heretics.
Nowadays there are kind of Roman catholic schools which teach the Jesus prayer in the same way the orthodox monks pray it.
Those practices aren't the essence or required of the monk. Further, even St Gregory Palamas warned against a physical use of the body like this. Even if they look similar, that doesn't mean they function the same, since protestsnts make the same argument regarding icon veneration.
I hope you aren't viewing vaticancatholic since they completely misunderstand orthodoxy.
When I read the title of this video, I assumed it would be several hundred hours long.
Does The Other Paul believe in the Filioque or not? I thought he was Anglican?
He's just reading a script, but I think he holds to the original Augustinian view, not the Frankish view.
Please pause long enough for people to read the quote before slapping Error over it or at the end whipping through or add a PDF with all quotes. I’m a Patristic Orthodox and appreciate your intent!
What would you say are the errors of The Orthodox Church and could you maybe do a video on the aforementioned?
What can you say about the miracles in the Catholic church like the DIVINE MERCY, GUADALOUPE, FATIMA, LOURDES, EUCHARISTIC MIRACLES, INCORRUPT BODIES OF SAINTS LIKE JACINTA OF FATIMA, BERNADETTE OF LOURDES?
Could not help but reflect on the famous quote "Power tends to corrupt; absolute power corrupts absolutely"
I'm not sure about this quote. It couldn't be said in an absolute sense.
One of Gods qualities is Power, after-all. Therefore Power in & of itself isn't evil, but a Good.
Do you think you could do a video on divorce and contraceptives? I find myself more convinced by the RC doctrine on those issues.
Orthodox don't "believe" in divorce.
There's allowed of divorce only if one of the spouses enacts adulterous actions. That originates from Christ allowing divorce for this very crime alone.
Catholics also allow this but name it an "annulment".
Both are wrong, though canonically the Church has allowed for divorce with cause (such as adultery) and remarriage is a penitential act. There is no question that divorce existed both west and east. It wouldn't be an interesting documentary . Regrettably too many Orthodox think we contraception is allowable where normally it's not.
@@OrthodoxChristianTheology I guess then my only question is, what problem(s) can only be resolved through divorce that physical separation or therapy couldn't? I just feel like the Church should not, in any capacity, participate in sin. If im missing something, please correct me.
Ubi Petrus did a detailed video on this a while back.
@@cyprianperkins I'll take a look, thanks.
I dont care what this video says!
Brothers and sisters are orthodoxy and catholics!
Im a roman catholic franciscan and i respect everyone! Except for the ones who dont believe in the true god Christ
✝️♥️☦️
Thank you for including the references.
Instead if accusing one another or errors in TH-cam proper study and understanding of each tradition is what is needed.
Can the Orthodox Church tell us definitively how many Oecumenical Councils there have been?
Yes. 8. Source: Constantinople 1848.
Thank you for a swift and clear reply. Could you please name the Spanish, Portuguese and English delegates to the Eighth Oecumenical Council, held in Constantinople in 879. How did they speak and vote on the motion alluding to the Filioque? How did they report back?
@@david_porthouse Why would I have to? Can you name any such legates to the 6th council?
The fact that these synods received the canons of the council, something I infer from what we know about medieval canon law, leads me to believe their synods accepted what the Roman synod did, likely on similar grounds.
As for the Filioque, the canons (and how they would have been taken in the West), and etcetera I am not going to detail in a YT comment why the West accepted such a council and appeared to ignore large sections of it. It will suffice to say that western canon law at this juncture allowed for this (unlike the east) and that the actual minutes of the council may have not made their way past Rome, so the synodical receptions north and west of Rome were likely just of the decree and canons.
@@david_porthouse and just to be clear, you asked for the definitive Orthodox view of how many councils. Whether or not this would meet your criteria is sort of irrelevant. The answer to the question is what our criteria is and what we accept.
@@OrthodoxChristianTheology You obviously have a fake "Oecumenical Council" there.
What I see in the comment sections of perhaps ALL videos done by Orthodox which (that is, the videos) present the view, not of one or a few people, but THE CHURCH, is a plethora and intensitity and reign of subjectivity within people. To say it briefly, the objective view of the Church is often responded to with subjectivity, like it means anything..
This is the eternal problem with "Orthodoxy". Mistrusting men refusing to acknowledge doctrine or the clergy pretending to believe things "the original way". Orthodoxy has already fallen apart, but it using the Papacy as a punching bag to distract from their obvious theological and linguistic errors, many of which are presented as fact in this video
During the council of Constantinople, the Pope was living in Constantinople for safety reasons and refused to attend or affirm it's legitimacy. He was put in prison for not attending. The findings of the council are rubric and dogma in the Roman Catholic Church today.
It would be great to debate this points with intellectual Catholicism Suan Sonna
I don't see what there is to debate, nothing here is represented the least bit inaccurately.
Which point is up for debate?
Suan Sonna lol. Dude spends hours talking about typology that doesn’t exist. So much effort to deny the sufficiency of Christ.
@@OrthodoxChristianTheology Are you joking? Almost every single sentence in this video is a misrepresentation. I don't intend to spend much more of my time trying to help you see the truth, because you are clearly of bad will, but just to quickly point out some of your biggest and most obvious errors
- St Hippolytus didn't believe that Callixtus and Zephyrinus were true Popes
- You completely misrepresent the letter of St Columbanus. He is troubled by the accusation that the Pope supported heretics, PRECISELY BECAUSE he has such a high view of the Papacy, and considers it to be the bastion of orthodoxy. St Columbanus is evidence for, not against papal infallibility.
- St Augustine explicitly say in De Trinitate, that the Father begat the Son in such a way, that the Spirit proceeds also from the Son. So, if he begat him in such a way, it obviosly refers to eternal relations in the Godhead. Augustine was a filioquist (as were other Fathers) and stop denying reality.
@@the4gospelscommentary I dispute your readings in all points. Where does hippolytus say callistus is not Pope for example? You're imposing rationales above the texts, not only what they see but even what the writing was trying to accomplish. This is all because you are ad hocing inconvenient patristic evidence to somehow be interpreted in any other way than it's plain meaning.
@TheOtherPaul The section on the filioque would have been greatly bolstered by a discussion on Patriarch Paulinus II of Aquileia, a member of the intellectual court of Charlemagne, and his use of double procession in the attempt to combat spanish adoptionism. He might be in fact the inventor of the concept all together by reinterpreting/misunderstanding the latin fathers, especially Augustine, when trying to fight the heretics in Spain. Your thoughts on that?
The interpretation given by Charelmagne's court in official correspondence to Adrian I is covered in whole in the film.
It is also the official interpretation of Charlemagne's court given by Patriarch Paulinus II of Aquileia is his work "Libellus Sacrosyllabus Contra Elipandum" at the Council of Frankfort-on-the-Main (794) against Spanish Adoptionism. It's a shame it wasn't included.
It should also be noted that he argued at length at the Synod of Friuli (796) why it does not go against the canons of the ecumenical councils forbidding any addition or deletion from the creed to add the filioque. Paraphrasing his reasoning he argues that the filioque is a legitimate clarification of doctrine in line with the intention of the holy council fathers so is not forbidden as he argued the canons on this matter are actually only against heresies being added or allowed by deletion. This is the first time in history that I know of this reason is given defending the filioque which is used constantly today.
Roman 8:9
@@planteruines5619 Yes, Orthodox Christians do believe what St. Paul taught, that the Holy Spirit is properly called the Spirit of Christ in the economy of salvation.
Though i had no prior knowledge of the schisms, i had figured that matters concerning faith could not proceed from just one man given there were 12 Apostles so i never really adhered to the idea of papal or any religious authorities infallabilty. A council of Bishops to me is more reliable. but then i have a question, How was the church called before the great schism?
It has been referred as the Catholic church since the very early Fathers.
Orthodoxy is what christ taught, the disciples preached and the fathers kept- St.Athanasius 4th century. It was called both Catholic: meaning universal teaching, and Orthodox: correct belief.
Phenomenal video this really shows how the Eastern Orthodox Church is the one holy Catholic and apostolic church
Notification set. Time to shuck off the sunk cost fallacy, Rome; don’t skip over Matt 18 this time and come home, my dudes and dudettes.
This may be the most well done short video on the topic I’ve ever seen.
Very well done.
Please share
Papal Universal Jurisdiction was taken as a matter of fact in the early Church as the case of Pope St. Victor in the second century demonstrates. He tried to force the bishops of Asia Minor to follow the Roman custom of the date of Easter; even threatening them with excommunication. The Eastern bishops refused NOT by denying his authority but they were simply following the tradition they received from St. John the Apostle. St. Irenaeus and others interceded with Pope Victor not to create division and allow them to continue their custom. No One told Pope St. Victor he did not have authority over these bishops. This is all recounted in Eusebius' History of the Church.
Rome as holding the first place in authority and honor, did have authority over other jurisdictions, specially that of schismatics and heretics. But it doesn't, by any means, mean universal jurisdiction, supremacy and papal infallibility.
@@matheusmotta1132boring argument, just say you’re wrong and get on with the program. 😮🎉
Can you make a video of so called genuine or true orthodox church
Nice job Craig, using clips Rome's own e-apologists was a good move.
Please do one protestantism as well... might have to get a different narrator though... haha
....and there are HUNDREDS of their ERRORS that can no longer be CORRECTED or ERASED or REPLACED with the WRITTEN Word of YAHWEH!
Part two of my response.
Now, you are concerned about heresy regarding the above issues, which I have shown are really non-issues. Let's look at another issue. I believe you at some point in this video or another discuss Hesychasm. Let's look at the writings of St Gregory Palamus. We are not talking about the procession of the Holy Spirit here. We are talking about the very nature of God. He separates God's Essence from his Energies in a way that goes against the Council of Nicaea. Against opposition he also describes the Essence of God lying above and a divinity or Godhead that is lower. If this is not absolute heresy I don't know what is. He also stated that those who have obtained spiritual and supernatural grace have become entirely God. He went so far as to say that those who attain it become uncreated. This even caused the chief opponent of his, who wrote against papal primacy, to convert to Roman Catholicism and become a Catholic Bishop. Yet despite this obvious heresy the Roman church has not condemned Orthodoxy for it. Why? Because despite differences in understanding these are teachings which although heterodox will not affect the salvation of the souls of the faithful. Neither will the filioque. And that is a lot more in keeping with traditional Catholic Orthodox thought than St Gregory.
The Orthodox to me seem like children having a temper tantrum who have decided to take their ball and leave the game. Nitpicky and aggressively cantankerous, arguing about issues that seem to have been understood slightly differently but maintained within the one church for a millennium, with nearly complete assent of the Eastern bishops in the attemt at reunification at the council of Florence, which fell apart afterward Due to what seems to me opposition by an Orthodox Pope. It's as if they are looking for reasons not to reunite. And judging by how the current situation is, that impression is borne out by fact. The Russian Orthodox Patriarch excommunicated the patriarch of Constantinople in a temper tantrum over authority. Does that sound familiar? Maybe a bit of introspection is required here.
Lastly, there has been plenty of heresy in the Orthodox Church. Many different Orthodox Patriarchs have been called to task by the United Church for heresy. The patriarch of Constantinople Cyrill was the reason for calling the Synod of Jerusalem After he "came out” as a Calvinist and began teaching Protestantism. While the Orthodox Church did the right thing in condemning him, this was a very close call.
There is plenty to criticize about the Orthodox Church or churches. It does not make them invalid. Your criticisms do not make the Catholic Church invalid either. God bless.
Short but powerful documentary. Has anyone even made a response video yet? Im suprised if not given this was released weeks ago
No. And they won't. Because they will lose money. It's all about money for people.
I am catholic and staying catholic, prayers for unity.
Really these disagreements are the least of our problems right now. Our bigger problem is the rise of secular humanism and the failed reformation which now does not even affirm baptism washes away sins. Am I right my distant orthodox brothers in Christ? We got lots of problems now. 😅😊
I personally believe modernism is a bigger problem than even the Filioque, and it has infected all of us deeper. Nevertheless, the errors here have been historically treated. Modernism is a new problem and we are still in the midst of it.
The problem is the autism and ego of clergymen that have been dead for centuries, and the ones alive today too.
Excellent video
Please share
Excellent job.
for all my catholic bretheren, if you have doubts, please read the primary sources, i used to think that roman catholiscism was impossible to defend until i read chalcedon
I would love to see you in a debate againts a Catholic apologist and see if your arguments still stand :)
They are too scared to
Don't worry Catholic Craig will respond
@@diegobarragan4904 I doubt it
According to Orthodox are the OE and Assyrian church of the east also outside the true church? Do Catholics have grace?
Yes, so called Orientals including Assyrians are outside of the True Church. Grace is matter of God and we do not command to God where and whom He will provide it. What we know definitely is, based on His promise, where Grace is for sure - in His Church... meaning - Eastern Orthodox Church.
Im not a professional catholic apologist but i am curious and would like to watch a Catholic Apologist like Trent Horn make a rebuttal of this
What's it mean when they don't?
Trent believes in death before the fall.
@@aeternusromanus Death was in the world, animals died, but as Matt Fradd in his article in Catholic answers points out. The death that was mentioned by Paul in Romans that entered was not ordinary death but human death because Adam and Eve was intended to live forever via eating from the tree of life.
"Therefore as sin came into the world through one man and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all men sinned-sin indeed was in the world before the law was given, but sin is not counted where there is no law. Yet death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those whose sins were not like the transgression of Adam, who was a type of the one who was to come (emphases added).
As you can see, Paul’s focus here is on death spreading to men. He’s not talking about the death of animals or plants. Before we look at each of those."
Matt also points out that the animal's nature weren't changed by the Fall, hence animals were still the same prior to it including ones that were carnivorous. Further he also talks about plant death, specifically the seeds of the plants which eating fruits does cause it to die.
Heres the article I looked at:
www.catholic.com/magazine/online-edition/was-there-death-before-the-fall
Lol at the end credits.
Produced by: 🕵️♂️
Don't let your left hand know what your right hand is doing.
"Disunity among Jesus’ disciples besides being completely contrary to Christ’s will is also a scandal to the world and undermines the cause of the proclamation of the Gospel to every creature."
The rad trads and the "true" Orthodox are doing spiritual work, just not necessarily for whom they think.
I’m converting to Roman Catholicism, but this video seems interesting. I’m still learning about the faith, so I would need a lot of time to digest everything. I have a few concerns about Orthodoxy.
Feel free to voice them I had my own documented concerns going in
*R Catholicism has nothing to do with God and His Words. R Catholic Church contradicts Scriptures in every possible ways!*
1. Catholics say Mary was sinless. But BIBLE says Mary offered a sinner's offering. She was a sinner. Bible says Mary needed a Saviour. Lk 2:23-24, Lev 12:6-8, Rom 3:10.
2. Catholics say clergies must be celibate. Yet BIBLE says Peter (supposed R Church first leader) had mother in law. Bible says celibacy is not a qualification for clergies. Mat 8:14-15, Mar 1:30-31, Luk 4:38-39.
3. Catholics say Mary was forever virgin. Yet BIBLE says Jesus had brothers and sisters. Mary was not perpetually virgin. Mk 6:3, Mat 13:55, Mat 27:56, Mar 6:3, Mar 15:40, Mar 15:47.
4. Catholics say confess to R priests in a box. BIBLE says nothing about confessing to priests in a box. Bible says confess to GOD only. 1 John 1:9, Mat 6, Romans 10:9-10.
5. Catholics say drink of the physical blood of Jesus. Yet OT and NT both say do not drink blood. Acts 15, Lev 7:26.
6. Catholics say pray to passed on Mary and "saints". Yet BIBLE says do not contact the dead. NT Church did not record a single case of NT believers asking passed on saints to pray for them. Deut 18:11, Isaiah 8:19.
7. Catholics make and bow down to statues. BIBLE says do not bow down to graven images (statues). Deut 4, Exo 20:4-5.
8. Catholics sprinkles “holy water”. But NT Church of the Bible mentioned nothing about “holy water”. There was no record of any Apostles sprinkling “holy water” on believers. Catholics claimed “holy water” came from OT. Yet Num 5:17 says “holy water” was water used to test adulterous women in OT temple. Hardly the same. Those were for Old Covenant Jews. Not New Testament Christians.
9. Catholics say Peter was pope - bishop of all bishops. Yet BIBLE says Peter was just a leader of the Jerusalem Church. Bible says nothing of the office of bishop of bishops. Gal 2:9, Mat 16:18.
10. Catholics say there is a seat of Peter. Yet BIBLE says nothing about it. Jesus said “not to lord over others”.
11. Catholics has clergy priesthood. Bible says clergy priesthood was done away with in New Testament. There is no clergy priesthood in NT. Heb 7:27, 9:12, 10:10.
12. Catholics preaches Works Salvation (faith + good works + partake R sacraments + submit to R pontiff + be in R Church + devote to Mary = to be saved). Yet Bible says “believe in Jesus to be saved”. Bible says Works Salvation is cursed. Gal 1:8-9. Acts 16:30-31, John 3:16, Romans 10:9-10.
13. Catholics says they must do Penance to atone for their sins. Yet Bible says repent, confess and sins will be forgiven. Catholic Bible changes the word “repentance” in NT into “penance”. Original Greek NT does not use or mean the word penance. Penance = work to atone for sins. Repentance = change of heart. 1 John 1:9, Mat 6.
14. Catholics say Mary went straight to heaven without dying. Yet Bible says nothing about it.
15. Catholics say Islam and Christianity have the same GOD. Yet Islam doesn't believe in death and resurrection of Jesus and Trinity.