Watch the full video here: th-cam.com/users/liveO8OcRZJwvJ0 0:00 Intro 0:10 Scholars in Roman Catholicism regularly decontextualize dogma and history 0:56 What does “decontextualization” mean? 1:45 People naturally contextualize truth, such as how a husband and wife understand each other 2:46 Decontextualization is common in mainstream Roman Catholicism (i.e. Duffy, Kappes) 4:16 Two epistemic “linchpins”: 1) Doctrinal Development 2) Infallibly dogmatized decrees are true despite the context that produced them 5:13 The approach of popular apologists in Roman Catholicism 6:16 Trent Horn and Jimmy Akin embrace the two “linchpins” in defending icons 7:50 Michael Lofton argues that Ecumenical Councils can err on matters of doctrine 11:59 Erick Ybarra believes that dogmatic decrees can be true even if no evidence of such a belief was held for centuries prior 15:07 Post-modernist papal epistemology: appears to make concessions to Orthodox Christians AND used to make converts. It’s a “double-edged sword”. 15:57 Most “Trads” (traditional Roman Catholics) are really “post-Trads”: they defend traditional ideas with post-modern epistemology 17:43 Nicea 2025: What is happening when the Pope and EP meet? 19:02 Is an “olive branch” good enough? 20:05 Fr. Peter’s personal experience in Greece with an Orthodox member of the Orthodox-Catholic Dialogue…”We’ll figure it out after the union.” 21:42 Ecumenists in the Orthodox Church don’t care about or don’t understand the chasm that exists between Orthodoxy and Catholicism 22:25 Craig’s suspicions about Nicea 2025 and possible false union 23:21 The approach taken in the Chieti and Alexandria documents and the precedent they set for a future false union 24:57 We must maintain the context of our councils and decrees to remain faithful to “the faith once delivered to the saints.”
An 8 hour liturgy (agrypnia) in an Orthodox monastery until 4am without electric lights (only with candles) was one of the most amazing spiritual experiences of my life..
Every time me and my family goes to our Eastern Orthodox parish it takes 8 hours. Two hours in the car to go there, two hour liturgy, two hour for lunch. And two hours in the car to go home. We don't understand much if any because it is in Church Slavonic. But hey, its only been 2000 years and its the universal church and that means its for everyone! Those dumb heterodox natives who don't understand what is sung or prayed, well guess what they are still heterodox. Sweden was Eastern Orthodox 1000 years ago, yes, in fact we have the graves to prove it.
For everyone in despair: we have Christ Jesus, and He promised that the gates of Hell would never prevail against the Church. There have always been corrupt hierarchs throughout Church history, and there always will be. At one point most bishops were Arian. Take shelter in your local parish, participate in the life of the Church and the sacraments, pray fervently, and leave the rest to God.
Well, “they” can unify all they want but the Orthodox Christians will never unify. It wouldn’t be the first time or the last (unless Christ comes in Glory soon after).
I started my conversion in 2020 and will be getting baptized soon. I’m vehemently opposed to any union, I’m never going back. I’ll run into the desert first.
I’m beginning to wonder if many Orthodox really understand what is at stake, with unity with the RC. Modern Roman Catholicism is almost a completely different faith when compared to the pre Vatican II council church not bother talking about Vatican I. The best and only way I see any union is bringing in RomanCatholics one at a time on an individual basis, which is more probable now then ever. Those Romans who are seeking a genuine expression of the faith are more and more willing to listen to the truth of Orthodox y and question the claims of the RCC
A former RC who’s now an Orthodox seminarian here. You are right on point about everything. I can just say that if any unia type situation happens, the Orthodox Christians will not follow through and God will, in His infinite wisdom and love for mankind, use this as a filter to separate the wheat from chaff. We really don’t need a hierarchy in its current rotting form… But until unia happens, let’s pray so that it can be prevented and that the bishops will follow Christ again.
There will be no attempt of unity with the Latin Church. Discussions are good because it could make them reverse some of the innovations, especially the more recent ones, even if that is unlikely. Those who say there will be an attempt to unite the churches are lying to you. Now, you have to guess why.
I’m not the most “rigorist” of Orthodox (I don’t find heresies under every rock and am deeply suspicious of “the pan-heresy of ecumenism” as a very useful category). And I’d love to see a real reconciliation. But I’ve no idea what the RCC is these days. I don’t see in the average RC parish a faith I recognize as orthodox. I just can’t imagine what kind of reunion is at all appropriate. I suspect some kind of globalist enterprise with historic Christianity as a tool. That doesn’t interest me at all.
@@koppite9600We have a See of St. Peter. All of our Bishops have his authority. In the earliest of the Church, the Seat of St. Peter was Antioch, Alexandria and Rome together. No See in the 1st millennium had the rights to change the Faith and make such innovations as did Rome after its schism in its new antichurch.
@@koppite9600 The Orthodox have the Ecumenical Patriarch who is the first among equals, but his voice doesn’t ring much louder than on the stage of the other patriarchs in reality. This whole ordeal is nothing more than brothers bickering over what they think the faith should say and not participating in unity. Oddly enough both churches put the order of precedence in Rome according to the Canons of the Councils. I was listening to another podcast today in regards to unity and they were firmly against it as well. All in all you have to ask who is the schismatic when unity is being talked of and all I hear is hate. It’s not righteousness that I hear but division and the evil one working. May the power of Christ quell their hearts to peace and stop this incitement of hate and disdain for unity of Christ’s Church.
It bothers me when other Orthodox say things like "there should never be union" and "union is a terrible idea." We should pray and hope for union - ON THE RIGHT TERMS - which is Rome returning to Orthodoxy.
There cannot be a union because the true Church of Christ is not divided. It cannot be. There are no two churches of Christ, only one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church, the Orthodox Catholic Church. It will take a lot of humility, but those that have strayed away can return. I myself can affirm that as an ex cradle Roman Catholic, now Orthodox.
There can't be mass unification even if the papists accept everything we believe and promise to abandon even their own rites.The only thing that can happen is individual conversions of each and every Roman Catholic and Protestant for that matter.
When Rome returns? You are the one who are still largely regional, national and ethnic after 2000 years. First, if you wish them to listen to you, get your own house in order. In reality, not any more vain repetion of cemented textbook answers. To have a Great and Holy Council where all bishops can sit down together along a table in unity is a good start. You boast with the idea of concilliarity, then show us that it works without butchering the to-do list beforehand. Next time, do it quicker, don't spend 55 years organizing a meeting not all Orthodox agree on
Greetings from 🇷🇴 Romania. Craig, is it true that when we talk, the context can change?Context takes shape from words, as the future is shaped when we speak. Thank you for this episode father Peter.
I 100% agree with an ocean that most people who are Catholic and believe that they are traditionalists are actually modernists, they usually have a little to know knowledge or understanding of the historic tradition of Christian orthodoxy.
I'm an Orthodox catechumen, and the notion that the Church, the true Church, the *Orthodox* Church, could unify with Roman Catholicism soon after is horrifying to me. But, then, if these truly be the End Times, then it would be par for the course, so to speak.
@@jupiterinaries6150It must be and will be, in accordance with the Anonymous Prophecy of Mount Athos of 1053, on the basis of the repentance of Latins to the True Faith of Orthodoxy which will be led, at least in Europe by one True Orthodox shepherd.
Since after 2000 years, Eastern Orthodoxy is still predominantly regional, national and ethnic, beside the standard textbook answer 'Orthodoxy is the true church' that they have programmed into your mind, what can you show us validates this claim? Is regional, national and ethnic what Jesus wanted? May I suggest you go check up on St Maximos the Confessor and what he wrote about the role of Rome. The Eastern Orthodox claim that Rome does not possess universal jurisdiction is a later doctrinal development.
The pun near the end on carry-on (continuity) and carrion (dead chicken) is extremely hilarious. As a Byzantine Catholic I do agree with Craig Truglia criticism on Trent Horn and Erick Ybarra. Horn made a serious error arguing Second Nicaea as accretion developed later because the Acts of Second Nicaea claimed to condemn innovation and affirm what the fathers passed down. Take Nun Egeria diary when visiting Edessa where icon of Christ for King Abgar was found. Ybarra made dangerous claim by saying the Church could proclaim something without strong evidence. This is contradictory to St Vincent of Lerins maxim. A development of expression is possible but must be grounded based on dogma universally professed and ancient in origin not recent. Take for an example the assumption of St Joseph, both East and West held this belief very early because his tomb was empty. Rome can't impose a belief that's novel. Both immaculate conception and assumption can be shown to be consistent with Orthodox theology. St Palamas profess panagia was conceived free from sin and filled with grace. EOs to this day venerate St Jacob of Serugh a monophysite. This is not a post modern ideology deconstruct history with revisionism but rather irenic and ecumenical. Notice St Basil did similar when accepting semi Arians into communion. The key is to have dialogue. Saints made mistake and reconciled. St Paul and St Barnabas were separated. St Athanasius and St Meletius. St Theophilus and St Chrysostom. St Cyril and St Theodoret. If they can be reconciled then we too can. In 433 St Cyril and St Theodoret agreed that both one nature and two natures terminology are correct. This is not deconstruction or decontextualization but rather constructive and contextual.
@@siervodedios5952Exactly. I looked into Byzantine Catholicism after leaving RCIA and realized the same problems in that are in the Uniates, so I became Orthodox. Unia also don't understand that we believe no one has guilt or stain of original sin when they try to quote mine our Saints saying they agree with their unique dogmas. The immaculate conception was not necessary in our theology. And that is what St. Gregory Palamas would be eluding to.
@@J.R2023Russia is secular. Roman Catholicism is ethnic (it has 23 churches in it, all ethnic). It's had many wars and converting by the sword. That's not godly.
@@LadyMariaYeahhh... Considering all the slavery, conquest, genocides and whatnot throughout the Americas and the world perpetrated by Roman Catholic majority European empires and other evil crap; it's no wonder quite a lot of people are anti-Catholic.
Lol. Nice. Such a moniker, even if accurate as you bash the heretics/heresies into oblivion, would only serve to inspire more cries of ‘meanie Orthobros’ from the heterodox.
Craig, thank you for your synopsis of the problem of online apologists who know nothing in regards to real theology of the Catholic Church. There is no such thing as dogmatic contextualization in Catholic Theology, there is a tiered system of belief going from level 1 to level 3 and depending on the belief it is categorized as necessary for salvation, or not necessary for salvation. A tier 1 belief would be the Creed. Which we all know is necessary for salvation, thus why we proclaim at Liturgy every Sunday. Is praying before an Icon necessary for salvation? No, Orthodox theology doesn't even require this. In fact many of the Elders and Desert Fathers insist on movement away from images in our prayer so that we can pray more perfectly in the Nous. Is it necessary to believe in the Dormition of Mary? No, but we need to recognize that she is the mother of God, the Theotokos. So there are certain things that are necessary, and certain things that are not. Papal infallibility is a dogmatic statement but it also requires when he is speaking in unison with the whole Council of Bishops and ex cathedra. These two requirements must stand. It is not a post-modern epistemology it is a recognition that certain things are necessary for our salvation and Papal infallibility is not and thus concession can be made. If we are questioning the resurrection of the Son of God then we have more issues, if we are debating the two natures in one divine person, then we have issues, but the issues that we are referencing and that you are referring is not a part of the requirements for salvation in the Catholic Church and to my knowledge is not required for salvation in the Orthodox Church, aka Papal Infallibility, the Filioque and the Immaculate Conception. The dialogues have already come to agreement on the understanding of the Immaculate Conception and the Filioque and we understand that due to the errant issues in Roman Theology, the Immaculate Conception as it is understood in the Roman Context is somewhat necessary. Yet, online apologists who have a little understanding of true Christianity and especially Catholicism are not the ones to consult on this. If you want to understand then go to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, the Catechism of the Catholic Church and look at the Catechism of the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church to understand what the Church actually teaches. The Church has never stated that the icons had no force until doctrinal decreed, this is not a part of Catholic Theology, your source is wrong and you are putting out wrong information and thus working for the evil one in doing so. We cannot do this, we must be stronger than the evil one who seeks to create division because it is his true activity. We must stand firm in our Orthodox faith, but understand that the Catholic argument is not what you have portrayed here. True Catholic Theology states that the first 8 ecumenical councils are un-erring and are to be held to their fullest. -- Signed a Ukrainian Greek Catholic with a Masters of Arts in Theology from a Catholic University and hopeful Priest in the years to come. CIX!
TY for the comments. We have so much common ground. May God bring you to the Orthodox Catholic Church and away from the communion of schismatics and heretics.
@@theodore615 while Palamas in his "On the Procession of the Holy Spirit" argues firmly against the Filioque, and I agree one hundred percent on the fullness of the Palamas teaching, I disagree that the Filioque, Immaculate Conception and Papal Infallibility are necessary to obtain theosis. If we follow true Orthodox Hesychysm then the Jesus Prayer is the path that we enter into this activity of Theosis. It is in fact the Mystical prayer of the Heart, ascending, as Saint Gregory of Nyssa states, into the abyss of the Father. These low level dogmatic declarations are hardly enough to stop the activity of true Theosis and illumination from taking place. Mystical awareness of God is the greatest theological activity and in fact is the only true Theology. Theosis is an activity of the Heart in which the mind is enlightened and true Hesychysm begins at the point of entering into the conception of the unknown and the complete humbling of ourselves before the Father, that Monadal Trinity, he who is the wellspring of all things both of the personal procession and the natural procession of his divine energies which leads to our illumination and eventually the obtainment of the state of Theosis. I think anyone who is enlightened and approaches God in humility will see that the Filioque is wrong theologically and that Augustine clearly missed a lot of things. The doctrine of the Catholic Church as a whole is not for or against the filioque. In fact the Catechism of the Catholic Church arguement does defend the use of the Filioque in article 248, but also states that the Eastern Churches have a right to use it without. Also the Orthodox-Catholic dialogue came to an understanding on this matter sometime in the past 10 years and the Catechism was written in 1994. The Ukrainian Greek Catechism published in 2017 includes the "and the Son" in parentheses, but in fact is not used in practice in our churches. It is more of a general we understand their argument, but its not what we do type arrangements. Again, none of that should stop the process of Theosis from happening. If you are participating in the Mysteries of the Church (aka what the Roman Church calls the Sacraments) and praying the Jesus Prayer, following the Commandments and seeking God's will for your life, participating in his divine energies, then you will obtain your goal of true Theosis. I don't see many monks worries about the dogma of the Immaculate Conception and yet they still seem to illuminate a room with the divine presence.
@@OrthodoxChristianTheology Yes I pray for the same things, especially the heretical German bishops! Luckily we have enough going on in Ukraine for me not to have much time to worry about all the messes the Roman Church is dealing with right now. Sometimes its best to just stay in your niche of the Church and let God handle the problems of the other particular churches. If we worried about everything we really wouldn't be good Christians!
The title of Pontifex Maximus is actually an old Roman Custom, from pre-imperial times. It started when the Romans were still under the domination of the Etruscans, and referred to the highest religious authority. The title itself means something like "bridge builder." During the era of the Roman Republic, the Pontifex Maximus was the highest priest in the pagan system. During the early imperial period, the emperor also assumed the title of Pontifex Maximus, with Octavius Augustus being the first to do so. This also tied in with emperor worship, which was mandatory from time to time, and the chief mechanism that was used to persecute the early Christians. Eventually, the RC Pope also assumed the title of Pontifex Maximus. Why is this? I'm not exactly sure when it happened, or why, but perhaps it was always like that for them? This is probably the real reason why they claim primacy over all the other early church centers (all of which became Orthodox denominations, with the exception of Carthage which was wiped out completely), because prior to the legalization of Christianity they did have primacy in religious matters for the whole empire.
We don't have denominations. There's the Orthodox Catholic Church and the Oriental communion which came out of the Orthodox Catholic Church just like the Roman church did later and then created its own body with the Pope as Head.
@@LadyMaria I get what you're saying. I'm used the term "denomination" to refer to different church groups/organizations with their own independent heirarchies.
@@LadyMariaThere’s no such thing as the Orthodox Catholic Church. Your official name is the Orthodox Church. We Catholics have retained the official title of Catholic b/c unlike you, we’re actually the one, true, catholic and apostolic church. The rest of you are imposters. As St. Augustine said: “And so, lastly, does the name itself of Catholic, which, not without reason, amid so many heresies, the Church has thus retained; so that, though all heretics wish to be called Catholics, yet when a stranger asks where the Catholic Church meets, no heretic will venture to point to his own chapel or house.”
The video is not intended to be polemical. Its about the differences in approaches to the faith. If you want to be a happy post-modernist, or at least in communion with such, you are entitled to that.
"No one can persuade another to change. Each of us guards a gate of change that can only be opened from the inside. We cannot open the gate of another, either by argument or emotional appeal." Marilyn Ferguson
The Church is already whole (cannot be divided) even though Rome departed from her. Pat. Bartholomew can unite his jurisdiction to the Papal institution, sure, though he will only take several million with him, not the rest. He will cease to be Orthodox at that time as well, having departed from the Orthodox Catholic Church. So, there will be no unity in the way RCs think. It will just be another Uniate added to the RCC.
@@LadyMaria I don't believe this to be the case tbh. The original schism was only between Constantinople and Rome, the other churches sided with Constantinople and broke relations. The Eastern Catholic Churches were formed from the dioceses in respective places of Christianity that disagreed with the break and maintained a relationship with Rome instead of following the excommunications of Constantinople. If the other Churches were to continue outside of union, that is actually on them and they would be considered schismatics since they fail to recognize that the two brothers, Peter and Andrew, have finally made up their differences. The unity of the Church would be actually considered whole because according to the Ecumenical Councils the four cities in prominence were Rome, Constantinople, Antioch and Alexandria. Since those four churches, by the ancient ruling of the Ecumenical Councils, are the four epicenters of Christianity and thus constitute the Church when in union, then the Church would be whole, regardless of if the other bishops of the other greek churches follow suit or not.
@@christourhopepodcastYour logic falls apart when the truth of the faith doesn't depend on places like Rome and Constantinopole, but on maintaining the doctrine. The two lungs of the church idea demeans both since neither of them can be catholic/universal without being united, so at this point you're saying either of the two isn't complete or actually united.
@@stefanspinu434 It is true that the truth of the faith does not rely on the metropolitan place in which it was born. Yet, the two lungs expression is more so meaning to show the unity of the western and eastern expressions of faith than it is to represent a given metropolitan area. When we speak of west and east we are pertaining to the Patriarchal system. Rome was called the the Patriarch of the West and that means that anything not of Rome would be east (simple process of elimination here). When we speak of East it respectively means anything but Roman Christianity and its expression. I believe that Orthodoxy is not complete. The Keys to the kingdom were given to Peter and his successors, the Andrian line does not have the Keys, nor do any of the others. The Church declared in an Ecumenical Council, which we Christians deem to be the Holy Spirit working and speaking in the modern time, that Rome was first in honors due to the place of Peter and Paul. The Church's precedent for this places the lineage of the Keys therefore in Rome, not Constantinople and not in Moscow. Union with the leader of the Roman Church therefore is necessary, yet the over reach of Papal power in the past has been an issue. The Roman church and the Orthodox Church need to determine the overall structure of the means of governance. The Roman church has already stated that it agrees that the Pope does not have a juridical right in the governance of the other churches sui juris, but what does that look like and how is it to be implemented, these are questions that will take time and holy spirit. Basically, the Apostles need to organize themselves so we can get back to evangelizing the world, because as long as we're divided, the house will not stand.
Interesting perspective to have a channel that refutes some of these apologists arguments that I follow. Personally, I almost converted to Orthodoxy. It was discovering the Apparitions of the Blessed Virgin Mary (specifically Fatima and the alleged ones in Medjugorje) that made me be in communion with Rome. The messages in Medjugorje and other apparitions spoke directly to my heart and caused my conversion. The Theotokos feels like a very real mother to me, and I felt called into her army and to pray the rosary every day. I guess St. Seraphim of Sarov (who had an apparition of Mary with St. Peter and St. John) prayed "The Rule of the Theotokos" daily. I pray this too every day. It's basically an Eastern version of the Rosary. In Fatima, Mary has said "Russia will convert and a period of peace will be granted to the world." In Medjugorje she said, "Russia will come to glorify God the most; the west has made civilization progress, but without God and act as if they are their own creators." I've been to Russia (House of Mary), and it felt like Old World Europe. They have a devotion that is unparallel to the West. The West is a total mess, and I hope the Orthodox Church can unite with their western brothers to help us out. Satan has infiltrated every aspect of our culture. We need real unity to defeat the enemies of Christ both inside and outside of the church. We need to get both lungs of the church breathing again. The Latin church doesn't need to Latinize the eastern churches and vice versa. We just need unity under the Mother of God to defeat this Woke agenda destroying civilization.
To Craig's point about conceding all things and renegging over time: Rome agreed that synodality was correct; they have since REMOVED that statement from the Vatican website, and released additional statements on synodality in the first millennium which wash that away into a position of "the east thought they were equal, but Rome always knew it was superior and was just being nice."
@@koppite9600 Through faith and being open to becoming harmonious with God's truth. And the superiority (not even equality) of the Eastern Churches has only became more and more apparent over the centuries, while the Papist churches have marched from heresy to heresy and from one fall into the darkness to another
@@koppite9600 And I never will, for the Papist Church is a heretical one and is increasingly getting even more heretical Any serious analysis of theology and history confirms it, the Orthodox Church is worthy of it's name and has kept the true faith through the generations, making it the one true Church
As a former RC I can definitely say they manage to twist every single theology into error. It’s hard not to think it’s demonic and without grace. Only Orthodox who don’t actually know RC would think the churches have anything in common except in the most superficial surface appearance.
The paschalion is overdue for an update because the tables are no longer accurate and don’t do what they purport to do. Pascha is on the first Sunday on after the first full moon after the vernal equinox according to nicea. The tables are off both on the date of the vernal equinox and the date of the full moon, so we’re in violation of nicea. Insisting upon using these inaccurate tables instead observing the light of heaven which God created for signs and seasons is almost gnostic. My problem is that why are we coordinating with heretics and schismatics to fix the paschalion instead of doing it internally? Why do we care what the papists are doing?
The Patriarchate of Antioch did attempt to find a "Middle Road" regarding the Paschalion in the 20's but unless everyone begins from the same point it's hard.
@@mariorizkallah5383Not really. The ancient church did care about astronomic accuracy. The only problem with calendar revisions is that the wrong people want them for the wrong reasons. That said, it’s a shame how the revised julian calendar came to be. It’s vastly superior to both the julian and gregorian calendars.
Thank you for the exposition, I have though one observation: it is difficult to follow for the non native American speakers because of the accent (especially for Craig). If you observe the automatic CC, that will give an idea about how comprehensible the pronunciation is. Please forgive me!
As a person who is fixing to be a catechumen... What do i do? Which jurisdiction do i choose? Can i always change jurisdictions later if one tries to go to the pope?
If a bishop or two or 10 or even a whole synod compromises and unites with heresy - without any repentance, - you absolutely must not follow such bishops, but remain with those who remain faithful.
I think in a sense one could say there is development in the veneration of Icons, but not what Catholics or Protestants mean by development. Specific types of icons are "developed" new saints are added over the course of history, new "versions" of Christ and the Theotokos emerge, Someone was the first person to paint Christ Panto-creator for example. You even have a standardization in the way we depict and venerate icons. There is a clarification and standarization in how these things should be done that does happen over time. It's likely some, many, or most early christian communities didn't own any complex icons. Most individual Christians certainly didn't. Art is expensive and the church was poor. They might have just had a cross to kiss because thats all they could afford, or all they dared risk having under persecution.The types of images, icons that early Christians owned and venerated were inevitably tied with what was possible for them, but they are still icons. That isn't to say portrait icons didn't exist since apostolic times. I think they did. They would have been rare, though, for the same reason original hand painted icons are relatively rare today in your average Orthodox Christian Home: They are expensive. The image of a cross is an icon. Bowing to it, kissing it is veneration of an icon. It isn't the prototype of the cross but an image of the cross. Artificially cutting that off and saying its ok to venerate an icon of the cross but not an icon of Christ is a silly distinction. The whole Ortland distition between "Cultic" and "non-Cultic" use of christian art is a ridiculous distinction. If you hang a cross on your wall, it is a type of Icon and that is a type of veneration. Pure and simple. Even if one wanted to be skeptical of the tradition of St Luke Painting an icon, ok fine, but it is indisputable that early Christians used physical symbolic art that depicted Crosses, Fish etc. They are more primitive, not in the essence of what they are but more primitive in the sense of what is possible for expressing it. There is a development of icons in the same sense that you might also have an individual iconographer who develops throughout a lifetime of creating icons. As a child their iconography might be drawing crosses with crayons and by the end of their career they are doing an entire church. That person didn't start out as a Child with the idea that only abstract symbols were acceptable and over their life they decided that depicting people was ok. Yes, over their lifetime with experience they will develop a more sophisticated understanding of art in general, and a deeper appreciation of Iconography as a lifetime of experiences of creating icons build on one another. You would hope that would be the case for them and the church as a whole. So yeah, icons developed in the sense that they were built on over time and got better and more beautiful and more rich and Saints and theologians got better at explaining them. They were nourished and grew, they didn't "evolve" from something they were not into something they are. Anyway that's how I think about it at least.
a faithful son of rome here. i'm all for union - but not as a foul compromise. all questions have to be settled, the union has to come from beauty, goodness and truth. the Lord only can give union. decontextualisation leads to placelessness and dissolves history, matter... seems to be gnostic to me. no, true union can only be rooted in tradition, in history. somehow it all has to be recollected, the whole tragedy - 4th crusade, massacres before against the latins, the disintegratuon of the byzantine empire in the years before 1204, florence and the last years before the fall of the city, to just name s few episodes. it is strange - i really long for union, as a traditional latin mass goer and friend of orthodoxy. but this prospect of a coming union somehow fills me with duspicion and disgust. we shouldn't try to just do the union, we shouldn't tempt god. we should submit to the will of god and align our will to his will. then true union can come, as a gift.
5:20 It is interesting that Iain McGilchrist has written about this very phenomenon in his work from a psychological perspective. He considers the ensuing psychology to be one of a newly emerging kind of schizophrenia. What it looks like is a human that when reading a written directive, will believe it true because it is written. Such as 'a raccoon lives in water' (the example is something like this.) And the reader believes it because it is written. Not because they know it is true or false in context. They actually did studies on this. The problem being a loss of being in touch with living world reality. Forget about anything beyond that. So one becomes lost from not only God, but even the world. How can this person be saved? Twice fallen? This kind of delusion has perhaps entered or wants to enter the Church?! Will Anathema (yet missing) fit the occasion or do we need something stronger!? And yet, our Lord in truth gave His Fathers and His Children what we need....all we need for this. Thank God.
To call Ybarra's argument post modern is to "decontextualize" it. His argument for defending the truth of the assumption of Virgin Mary is essentially the same as that of the Orthodox. Orthodox Ethos again grasping at straws to deligitimize Catholicism.
22:37 - If Rome saying (and all agree this is highly unlikely), "We'll accept everything the Orthodox have taught and re-interpret all of our councils to align with all Orthodox teaching" is not an acceptable option, it would seem the answer is then that reunion is simply impossible, no?
If councils can simply be reinterpreted to suit any belief, what's the point of believing them? It's unacceptable. Anyone willing to do such a thing with catholic doctrine would be willing to do it with Orthodox doctrine, too.
Thank you for this video. How would you suggest that we go about praying for Bartholomew of Constantinople and even the Pope of Rome? Will it differ if we are apart of the Russian Orthodox Church? Thank you.
Thank you for your answer but I don't think a union is what we should be praying for. The Papal Church (aka "Catholic") has deviated from the truth, so of course I will pray for those people that they rejoin the Holy, Catholic, Apostolic Church (of which there is only one) aka the Orthodox Church. I pray that they repent. My question is more about where to place these people in our prayer rules and any specific prayers that we can say for them, so that they don't lead others into deception@@OrthodoxChristianTheology
@@andrewkain7518orthodox have people living in adulterous second and third marriages with no annulment - no Moses in the house to discern and judge these situations!!!! An orthodox i know was allowed phone confessions for convenience sake… and a dear one utterly miserable, so far from any precise rite of Orthodoxy she can go to. None of this is what Jesus had in mind when He was to build His church… of course Orthodox are gonna want it on their terms… not possible because Rock of Peter is bedrock when it comes to Sacramental Marriage - This is an essential element not a matter of leniency, whim or personal decision made for this or that couple…
@@Hopeternal316Annulment is legalistic divorce in all actuality. It uses loopholes to claim a marriage never happened, even though it did. It created these rules itself just to be able to claim what happened never happened so one isn't "remarrying". That's still adultery if these people get remarried (and yes it's remarriage no matter what the RCC says), using your own logic. Annulments are just divorce by another name with denial thrown in. Nothing more, nothing less. And there's no limit to how many one can acquire as long as they have money and a loophole. One can never know if one is married or fornicating in RCism. THIS is what Christ never had in mind. Divorce rates by percentage are much higher in RCism. And unlike the RCC we are only allowed one Sacramental marriage even if a spouse dies. If by economia one can remarry, it's a penitential marriage that is not celebrated. Three marriages applies to the widowed too. One might never divorce (most don't) but have two marriages (the original Sacramental, the other penitential) due to a spouse passing on. In RCism you can have as many Sacramental marriages as you want if the spouses keep dying. So yeah, we don't believe in loopholes to get out of marriage. We take marriage more seriously than the RCC does. So yeah, that would be on our terms, after all that was what it was like in the 1st millennium and even in the Uniates to last century. Not that it's your business (it's not), the person was allowed economia to confess over the phone, but must receive absolution under the omophorion in person. We don't do anonymous confession unlike the RCs.
I think it would be terrible because he would no longer have the freedom to speak the truth especially about the powers of bishops when his boss (bishop) has total control over him I think. The church admin can be a very toxic environment - I’d rather he keep his independence
Really impossible to understand what Craig is talking about ... Is this just designed to make him sound smarter than anyone else ? Sometimes I wonder about the motives of this kind of thing ... I'm far from slow, but I have NO idea what he is even talking about ...
Correct me if I’m wrong TH-cam, but Craig is making the point that Roman Catholics employ post modern theory when analyzing history and dogma, and if Orthodox hierarchs make moves for unity with them, they risk integrating post modern theory into the minds of naive modern day Orthodox believers. I thought he made very good points, for what it’s worth.
Bearing false witness is a sin. So you assign the false narrative of pachamama to Rome and then say that can't unite under it. Pachamama is false invented by enemies of the church perpetuated by people like you. I hope not knowingly. Because you made the entire point on false argument. As Catholic I heard and believed Pachamama dumb story for a day, it took about 1 hour of research to figure out that there was no Pachama or whatsoever. I repented and confessed quickly. I hope you just repeat what you heard, and I also hope you will look closer and see the truth.
@annabanana2623 Clearly if you accuse the Pope of being wrong, especially with "Pachamama", you better know Spanish or I will call you a scoundrel like Andre there.
I just became a baptized member of the Orthodox Church at 65 yrs. old this year. I was supposedly baptized in the Roman sect as an infant but was raised as a Protestant sectarian and attended various sects. I left going to church for a number of years then became a catechumen as I was convinced the Orthodox church is the church of the Apostles. The Roman sect has one leader who claims to be the voice of God for all Christendom. That is something the Orthodox Church has never accepted (and Christ warned about), and I think would be one of many major points that Rome would have to repent of, not concede. The other sin to be repented of is the widely known trafficking of pedo priests to children and its attempted coverup by the Vatican. The Roman sect seems to be involved in continuous sexual scandal (e.g., The murder and cover-up of whistleblower Priest Fr. Joe Moreno of Buffalo, NY). The current Pope appeared via satellite at a Kenneth Copeland event and gave a greeting and speech. Copeland is an ultra-wealthy charismatic heretic. Not very discerning of the Pope who appears to want unity at all costs. No thanks. My salvation is too important to be a part of that system. I can only hope this event never happens and will pray fervently to that end. I welcome true unity directed and forged by the Holy Spirit, but not by human effort, means, and for purposes other than the glory of God. True Godly unity will probably only come through persecution which is a more effective way to unity by separating the sheep from the goats. God help this sinner to be among the sheep.
I think you’ll find that St Peter in Acts 15:7-10 claims to be the one voice chosen by God for all Christendom, so it certainly has precedent, and in the fathers, it is clear that Rome is the Apostolic See who’s Bishop is the unique successor of St Peter - so I think you need to do a bit more reading on this issue and not exclusively listen to Orthobro apologetics.
Rome was first among equals and disobeyed Christ by not being a servant to others, but by becoming a political dictator, persecutor, lover of mammon, and subsequent innovator. Reread Christs words to his disciples on who the greatest is. Rome as it is now appears to have fallen from grace. One proof is the Popes acceptance of heretics such as Kenneth Copeland who leads people away from salvation and truth. The other is the continued cover up/murder of Father Joe Moreno of Buffalo. Another, it has become a sanctuary for active homosexual and pedophile priests. These are but a few examples that come to mind.
@@lukewilliams448St. Peter was rebuked. James ran the council as it was in Jerusalem. All Bishops were seen as descending from St. Peter in the early Church times. The Seat of St. Peter was Antioch, Alexandria and Rome together with Rome having primacy of honor being the Seat of the Emperor of the Ecumene too at the time. That's all. The 2nd Ecumenical Council was held and accepted for the whole Church when Rome was in schism with the Church. Bishops of Rome were deposed, one was excommunicated in the 1st millennium. There was no Papal Supremacy or even a Papacy (Pope was not a title used for the Bishop of Rome alone until the 11th century). This isn't "Orthobro" apologetics. This is a Priest and layman who have studied this intensely and present only the facts and the Saints.
I know Copeland's heresies well. The Pope is happy because Copeland was saying it was time to re-unite with Rome (not that he has a clue about anything to do with actual Christianity). The Pope is happy with that as anything that may lead the Papacy to have have more power is good (its not to do with truth). The end justifies the means. Think of it as a geopolitical powerplay & you'd be closer to the mark.
If we are willing to make compromises, is there any room in your heart to receive them!? You said it yourself--if we said you were right about everything, you would reject! This is why I am not Orthodox! We cannot have an Orthodox ETHos... we have a western ethos and that's not a bad thing!
Not sure what you are referring to here... All who repent can become disciples of Christ. Every member of the Body is constantly repenting/returning/being purified. Humility is a pre-requisite for ALL. The Orthodox Ethos is the Christian Ethos. One and the same. Having a "western ethos" is problematic insofar as it has another identity besides Christ.
We pray for the unity of the church in every liturgical service. Once the dates of Easter are united then the Lord will unite His churches. The Holy Spirit will bend them togethe with humilty and love we will worship God around one altar. The Holy Roman Catholic and Orthodox church's.are the lungs of the body.
Part two: 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. This was completely predictable what is going on in the Orthodox Church today. You all know the truth. Like petulant children you simply refuse to accept what is Plain to see. You have no head and without a head you have no church, you have churches. You refuse to see what is before you. St Irenaeus regarding the Bishop at Rome “But since it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the succession of all the churches, we shall confound all those who, in whatever manner, whether through self-satisfaction or vainglory, or through blindness and wicked opinion, assemble other than where it is proper, by pointing out here the successions of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul, that church which has the tradition and the faith which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the apostles. With that church, because of its superior origin, all the churches must agree, that is, all the faithful in the whole world, and it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the apostolic tradition” (Against Heresies 3:3:2 [A.D. 189]).
The departure from the church of the pope in the 11th century is very clear for any objective researcher into Church history, who is looking at the sources. Thus, the "returning to the fold" belongs to the Latin-Frankish papacy not to the One Church. Simply study the Eighth Oecumenical Council under St. Photios and the subsequent history and it is clear that the popes walked away from both the Faith of Nicea and the Oecumenical Councils and condemned themselves.
Is this like how Orthodox try to decontextualize St. Augustine from the 2nd canon of the 418 Carthage council (accepted by Ecumenical Councils) and try to reinterpret it with a postmodernist epistemology in order to hold to their a priori idea that the Orthodox Church rejects Original Sin? Lol
So, what do we do when/if this goes through? This is the Great Apstasy in front of our eyes. Do we stand by and watch? I suppose we continue on with an underground church as was done in Russia. Glory to God!
All Christians should desire union, as Jesus makes explicit in John's gospel, and while this unity shouldn't come at the expense of compromising truth, I am genuinely concerned when I look at the comments on videos like this from Orthodox brothers and sisters. The starting point should be desiring unity. My worry is that even pre-1054 unity wouldn't even be acceptable to many Orthodox today, who would rather leave their patriarchs and bishops than humble themselves to a genuine unity. Before the schism there was unity in theological diversity: churches in unity having leavened or unleavened bread, various reception practices, disparate cannons of scripture, and even communion with the Latin churches from the 6th century onward that had the Filioque. I ask that you carefully guard that you aren't bringing the individualist Protestant phronema into Orthodoxy.
I would have liked to have had "postmodernism" defined in this discussion, because while I agree very much with the critique of RC apologists, I'm not sure that "postmodernism" is the correct term to deploy in describing their decontextualization of doctrine.
theres a few facts you cannot deny… Its a fact that peter and paul evangelized rome, their remains are in the vatican. st linus was the continuation of the papacy which it is a fact his teacher was peter. There is a direct lineage of bishops of rome(popes) documented for everyone to look up leading up to current pope. It is a Fact that the Roman Catholic Church is apostolic and it has done more then orthodoxy to evangelize the world. All of the east was lost to islam jihad and orthodoxy are to busy complaining about the papacy. BUT only about the roman papacy because they seem to be okay with the coptic pope
Not really. Orthodoxy was maintained majority in Ireland until the anglo norman invasion in 1169, the distance doesn't make the difference, just if you let heresy run wild(Synod of Toledo for example)
Rome is given the highest honors by having both Sts. Peter and Paul martyred there. Rome doesn’t claim to be the “original” church but the church that has the greatest honor and authority over the universal church as it’s shephard. Peter as prince, mouthpiece, and indefinite leader of the apostles received the keys from Christ himself and appointed an unbroken chain of descendants specifically in Rome. Before his martyrdom he passed the episcopate to Linus. Jerusalem is surely a mother church in some extent, but obviously doesn’t receive the same honorifics as Rome.
@@awake3083 Given the highest honor by who? Anyone can honor themselves. Jesus was crucified in Jerusalem, and that's where the original church started, and Christianity. If the RC Papacy were legitimate they wouldn't be putting themselves above scripture.
@@frederickanderson1860We believe in ancestral sin. That is the inclination to sin passed generation to generation. It has no stain or guilt of the original sin which was between Adam and Eve alone.
@@LadyMaria nonsense the ground was cursed not Adam and eve would conceive in pain and sorrow, and God covered their nakedness with animal skins,. Book of Ezekiel says that the sins of the fathers will not be passed to their sons or offspring.
@@OrthodoxEthos As said Saint John Chrysostom if two horses called "Knowledge" and "humility" do a race, obviously humility will win... Think about it.
The deficient, even if well meaning, ecclesiology of arch-uniate Lofton aside, if "decontextualization" means what you claim Craig, then the hyperdox in the modern Orthodox CommunionS regularly decontextualize the ancient Canons. Look at the jurisdictions in the U.S. for example. All are in an uncanonical situation - you have more than one bishop over each city. Look at Fr Heers's canonical situation. To justify continued preaching or teaching as a priest, one must "decontextualize" the Canons and the authority of the heirarchs. What was the Schism about? 1. Filioque 2. Papal Supremacy Therefore, if the Roman Church amends her position on these matters - and she has in the various joint declarations - then to remain seperated any longer cannot be justified. The mark of Orthodoxy lacking on all sides in my opinion, is Unity. And the fact that modern (mostly Rocor) internet-orthodoxy in the U.S. is dominated by protestant converts and RC defectors who actually preach or tolerate the actual heresy of DONATISM, while claiming One Church despite the glaring BEAM of hypocrisy that is the rival Orthodox Communions in schism with each other, speaks volumes about the heterodox phronema I've personally found in it. They brought all their "decontextualized" history, presuppositions and assumptions into their "orthodoxy". Division serves the Enemy, not Christ. He who causes schism, or rejoices in it sins greatly imo.
This is a peculiar critique. 1. Competing jurisdictions IS non canonical and wrong. It has some precedent in history in temporary circumstances (ie meletian schism) but it was mainstreamed by the Roman Catholic Church with the Uniates. It's wrong, but it's ironic you're the one making the criticism. The situation in the USA and Ukraine is creating a schism because of it's obvious noncanonical nature. 2. Fr Peter DOES have a canonical bishop. There is no debate over it. If his canonical release was defective, it's Metropolitan Seraphim. Being that there is no such thing as a canonical "unreception", the reality is that canonically Vladika Luke would be his bishop. This is a bureaucratic mess, feeding into point 1 (with the competing jurisdictions which should not exist to begin with). So I don't see where I or fr Peter are decontextualizing anything ....not that saying "you decontextualize things too" is really a counterargument.
@OrthodoxChristianTheology @OrthodoxChristianTheology we're all "uncanonical" in the sense that Sister Vassa discusses in her video here: hereth-cam.com/video/LMY47-Pq2X8/w-d-xo.html Also, in 1672 and in 1724 we had UNcanonical interference in our Canonical Patriarchical elections of native Arabs (who happened to be in favor or restoring Communion with the Latin Church in line with Patriarch Peter of Antioch in 1054. The EP had no jurisdiction, unless he held to a heterodox Supreme Jurisdiction for himself, to APOINT a rival (Greek) claimant to our Patriarchical See. So who can truly be called the Parasynogueists in our case, the Melkite Catholics, or the Melkite Orthodox? We're all "schismatics" and what is needed is Metanoia on both sides, since there can only be One side; that is the side of Christ, and His One, Holy, and Apostolic Church. The scandal and confusion in our political Communions is at least evidence that our understanding of the complex theological branch of Ecclesiology is only partial until we approach it with a hermeneutic of Unity, rather than a hermeneutic of schism. The Church is a Sacrament - a Great Mystery - in the end, and the definition of Orthodoxy must limited to that defined infallibly by the Ecumenical Councils, the Canons, and the consensus of the Fathers. In short, the Melkites are Orthodox, and our Theologumena is a legitimate of the Magisterium and dialogue toward Holy Unia. The contextualized Canonical situation of Fr Heers is summed up by the Council of Canonical Orthodox Bishops, and the Apostolic Canons (confirmed by the 6th Ecumenical Council) dealing with clergy who act apart from their Bishops. Also, "you decontextualize too" is counterargument if one is using it themselves to discredit and propose that the Latin apologists are in error as a result of your theory of "decontextualization"
@@Ortho_pilgrimthe melkites had a non canonical election and their patriarch was not received by the other patriarchs, which is traditionally necessary. And in any event, being that there was a Latin patriarch and melkite patriarch there still was a jurisdictional issue in any event.
@melkite: How can a priest in good standing (not suspended or defrocked or in any way even disciplined) who has not been informed by *his bishop* of any canonical infractions (the assembly is not a synod or a canonically responsible body here, especially since ROCOR and the Church of Greece are not a part of the AoBs) be considered to be acting “apart from his bishop”, especially since he is not serving without the blessing of local bishops? You evidently are not fully informed about the matter.
It's kinda like there is error and bad will on all sides, and we need to submit ourselves to Christ's wish to be one. As evidenced by the constant hysterics of the trad Caths, the post Vatican II Roman Church has obviously changed its tune on a lot, and is willing to actually admit past error (but not necessarily present ones, funnily enough).
As we know, Jesus said to Peter “You are Peter and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell will never prevail against it”. Maybe it’s just a coincidence (as some think), but it’s intriguing that St Peter’s basilica is built right where the bones of St Peter have always been since his martyrdom. It’s also intriguing that it lasted 20 centuries for the bones to be found, little before the II Vatican Council. Besides, the power of binding and loosing given to Peter by Jesus in first place added to the previous data is also intriguing.
The "notion of the Pope" goes back to the NT and the Early Church. The Orthodox frequently acknowledge the honorific position of the Pope as Primo Inter Pares. I understand that they don't see it as an argument for the Pope's position as the head of the visible Church, but it at least recognizes that the position of the Bishop of Rome is a special one. "Dumping" Vatican II, totally or partially, seeing as it is an Ecumenical Council, is not even possible (or desirable), though phasing out some of the reforms that took place *after* Vatican II (not necessarily because of it) could be possible, especially in the areas of pastoral and liturgical discipline (like allowing guitar masses - Vatican II doesn't order guitar masses).
Hmm. Maybe, could be. Problem is that Agent Bergoglio is not even a real Pope. Nor "Patriarch" Bartholomew for that matter. Both have their hands full with their role as not-so-covert WEF/NATO operatives, so naturally, tending to a flock is not their main concern.
@@AluminiumT6 I think what is needed is a Vatican III that would clarify Vatican II and would reverse some of the reforms that occurred after the council.
lots of value statements from Mr. Truglia - "human nature is good!".... this goes against "Only God is good" and against a lot of other Saintly homilies... same with the PhD statement - so academia trumps spirituality? Maybe this is why we're in this position? Every bishop should be a Doctorate holder, a business man, an administrator, a beaurecrat......versus letting the Holy Spirit and years of monastic struggle, proof of faith.... I don't know man....
In first part I think there's misunderstanding what Craig and Church says: Everything God created is good (God says this) This universe is fallen so we are far from original (which everything will be fixed by Messiah in His second coming), but nevertheless everything created is still good just damaged, plus God restores Humans godly being by Him being Jesus Christ... (As much as those follow Him, they're Good) God is Good = He's the eternal Good, he's what we mean Good. Just like Love, Truth. Human cannot be loving or truthful? As much as one can be, can human be as loving as Christ? Never, but that's the goal, that's the standard by which we judge, that's the goalpost, that's the icon, etalon, etc But human nature is good statement from that God created everything Good, God didn't create anything bad or evil; bad and evil are depravation of good, further you're from God more evil. Human is are created by God, is good, what we as humans choose to do... Is up to us, that makes us evil, what we personally choose to do, not God's intention for us
About second part - Craig and Fr Peter (as do Saints) often talk against academia and things you talk against, I think they talk about having proper education in this field, imagine not even knowing Bible properly, in fact that's issue with heresies - taking not entirety of Gospel and Christ's teaching, but having partly proper teaching and partly inventing stuff by themselves ("Another gospel" I think Peter says this, either these words exactly or meaning is this) In other words - this talk is about having "Zeal without knowledge" (as Paul the apostle tells judaizers) What's knowledge? Following faith. Imagine calling yourself Christian and not caring to learn and follow what Christ taught
Human *nature* is good, because God created it. It is fallen and damaged, but still fundamentally good. Humans are not inherently evil or else we couldn't be saved.
DON T AFRAID NICEA 2025 NOTHING HAPPENS THE PEOPLE OF GOD SAID AS THE PAST BELOVED ORTHODOXY NEVER WE QUIT YOU.ORTHODOXY ISN T CATHOLICISM THE LAST WORD IS AT THE ORTHODOX PEOPLE EVEN IF ARE APOSTATS CLERGYMEN.ORTHODOXY WINS EVER.
@@shawnpatrick1877 I am not talking about "false unions". I am talking about the Eastern Orthodox splitting from the one true church without any reason. There was a pope for about 1.000 years and the Eastern Orthodox had no problem with this. Suddenly they did?
That could totally work if the RC church repents and becomes Orthodox and fully changes most of its doctrine and practice, Since Orthodoxy is the original faith of the apostles handed down. To unite contradictory churches is not of the Holy Spirit, thats actually more in line with the ecumenist AntiChrist movement of a one world religion. John 17 is referring to the original church, not the Episcopal modernist understanding.
If and when it is God's will, it will happen; and both Churches will be speaking, teaching, and practicing the truth as it was handed down from Christ.
So, how do you justify your seperation from the Roman Catholic Church? Hint, your seperation! When one seperates from the parent institute doesn't that indicate who existed prior to your seperation? Talk about a violation of the 4th Commandment on the highest of spiritual levels! Nice try but not one single Catholic apologist speaks for the Churches authentic Tradition esp. Lofton. Matter of fact he probably learned the technique from his Orthodox Church days. The Tradition stands on it's own. Time to grow up boys and return home before it's too late. You have no right to determine orthodoxy or heterodoxy without recourse to the authentic Magisterium of the Catholis Church so please for the sake of your salvation stop doing it.
So, what counts as "the authentic magisterium"? Is there a list of documents? Was it infallibly established? We both know that there isn't a list of "ex cathedra" statements. You don't and can't possibly know what those actually are, and every papist has his own list of "infallible pronouncements" with no actual way to prove himself to be correct. You see, the papists by the virtue of their separation from the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Orthodox Church, have left themselves in a perpetual state of sophistry - with each new papal document there's as many ways to read it as there are latins out there. But how do you determine which reading of said document is correct? The only possible answer in this man-made false religion is "oh, we must wait for papal clarification"... but then this clarification has to be interpreted as well, and so on ad infinitum. That's why the lack of unity in the heretical latin world is readily apparent - the 'old catholics', the 'sedevacantists', the 'sspx', the 'novus ordo' - all claim to interpret the papal decrees correctly, yet there's no unity of faith between all of them. Repent and join the only Church Which was established by our Lord Jesus Christ - the Orthodox Church.
The Orthodox Church has always been clear that the Pope was removed from the Church in the 11th century due to his heresies. We have several books on this topic available at Uncut Mountain Press.
@@OrthodoxEthos but that doesn’t make entire sense. So it clear that the Orthodox Church accepted the Pope all the way up to that point. So you can’t deny that The Orthodox doesn’t believe in the authority of the Pope
@@vman9347 Again, of course there were faithful popes, saints who were popes, etc. That is irrelevant. The popes of the 11th century, under the influence of the Franks and those who were ignorant of, or indifferent to, the Oecumenical Councils and their repeated decisions with regard to the Faith of Nicea and the Symbol of Faith held dear since the 4th century, walked away from the Eighth Oecumenical Council and decisions that previous popes had embraced. They apostatized from Orthodoxy. They then proceeded to assume power and authority that had never been granted to them in order to defend their new innovations. Please consider watching the videos on this channel dedicated to the Eighth Oecumenical Council under St. Photios.
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. 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 departure from the church of the pope in the 11th century is very clear for any objective researcher into Church history, who is looking at the sources. Thus, the "returning to the fold" belongs to the Latin-Frankish papacy not to the One Church. Simply study the Eighth Oecumenical Council under St. Photios and the subsequent history and it is clear that the popes walked away from both the Faith of Nicea and the Oecumenical Councils and condemned themselves.
Almost a baptist? Don't forsake what Christ has given us for the false doctrines of men. Some of the clergy are corrupt, just as they've always been and will always be. Our Lord and Savior told us to expect as much. There were times throughout Church history when large portions of the Church hierarchy espoused heresy. We have Christ, and He promised us that the Church would never fall. No need for doom and gloom. Go to your local parish, partake in the life and sacraments of the Church, pray, and leave the rest to God.
Read St Symeon the New Theologian and it will keep you from going that way. He gives a real picture of how the church admin is which is NOT how it was when the clergy were illumined at the beginning. But the spiritual priesthood and fatherhood remains largely in monasteries. Also read Orthodox psychotherapy Ch 1-2 by Metropolitan Hierotheos Vlachos for a good summary . The loss of respect goes back centuries and yet the church still remains despite the bad clergy
Watch the full video here: th-cam.com/users/liveO8OcRZJwvJ0
0:00 Intro
0:10 Scholars in Roman Catholicism regularly decontextualize dogma and history
0:56 What does “decontextualization” mean?
1:45 People naturally contextualize truth, such as how a husband and wife understand each other
2:46 Decontextualization is common in mainstream Roman Catholicism (i.e. Duffy, Kappes)
4:16 Two epistemic “linchpins”: 1) Doctrinal Development 2) Infallibly dogmatized decrees are true despite the context that produced them
5:13 The approach of popular apologists in Roman Catholicism
6:16 Trent Horn and Jimmy Akin embrace the two “linchpins” in defending icons
7:50 Michael Lofton argues that Ecumenical Councils can err on matters of doctrine
11:59 Erick Ybarra believes that dogmatic decrees can be true even if no evidence of such a belief was held for centuries prior
15:07 Post-modernist papal epistemology: appears to make concessions to Orthodox Christians AND used to make converts. It’s a “double-edged sword”.
15:57 Most “Trads” (traditional Roman Catholics) are really “post-Trads”: they defend traditional ideas with post-modern epistemology
17:43 Nicea 2025: What is happening when the Pope and EP meet?
19:02 Is an “olive branch” good enough?
20:05 Fr. Peter’s personal experience in Greece with an Orthodox member of the Orthodox-Catholic Dialogue…”We’ll figure it out after the union.”
21:42 Ecumenists in the Orthodox Church don’t care about or don’t understand the chasm that exists between Orthodoxy and Catholicism
22:25 Craig’s suspicions about Nicea 2025 and possible false union
23:21 The approach taken in the Chieti and Alexandria documents and the precedent they set for a future false union
24:57 We must maintain the context of our councils and decrees to remain faithful to “the faith once delivered to the saints.”
@OrthodoxEthos: AXIOS ☦️‼️
An 8 hour liturgy (agrypnia) in an Orthodox monastery until 4am without electric lights (only with candles) was one of the most amazing spiritual experiences of my life..
Did it make you want to bring Jesus into every aspect of society?
@@jupiterinaries6150 I already wanted that ☕
You should try 8 hours with Jesus.
@@jimnewl that's what the liturgy is for
Every time me and my family goes to our Eastern Orthodox parish it takes 8 hours. Two hours in the car to go there, two hour liturgy, two hour for lunch. And two hours in the car to go home. We don't understand much if any because it is in Church Slavonic. But hey, its only been 2000 years and its the universal church and that means its for everyone! Those dumb heterodox natives who don't understand what is sung or prayed, well guess what they are still heterodox. Sweden was Eastern Orthodox 1000 years ago, yes, in fact we have the graves to prove it.
The gates of Hades will not prevail against the Church, but the demons sure are on the march!
For everyone in despair: we have Christ Jesus, and He promised that the gates of Hell would never prevail against the Church. There have always been corrupt hierarchs throughout Church history, and there always will be. At one point most bishops were Arian.
Take shelter in your local parish, participate in the life of the Church and the sacraments, pray fervently, and leave the rest to God.
Yes the Church will survive but that doesnt eliminate the possibility of schism
Being a former RC (now Orthodox for 3 years) it would be a great tragedy to unify with RC especially at this moment in history.
Well, “they” can unify all they want but the Orthodox Christians will never unify. It wouldn’t be the first time or the last (unless Christ comes in Glory soon after).
As a previous RC, I completely agree.
As a former RC now Orthodox, I completely agree.
Would be a false union. But black bart and elephantitis are going to go ot come hell or high water.
I started my conversion in 2020 and will be getting baptized soon.
I’m vehemently opposed to any union, I’m never going back. I’ll run into the desert first.
I’m beginning to wonder if many Orthodox really understand what is at stake, with unity with the RC. Modern Roman Catholicism is almost a completely different faith when compared to the pre Vatican II council church not bother talking about Vatican I. The best and only way I see any union is bringing in RomanCatholics one at a time on an individual basis, which is more probable now then ever. Those Romans who are seeking a genuine expression of the faith are more and more willing to listen to the truth of Orthodox y and question the claims of the RCC
A former RC who’s now an Orthodox seminarian here. You are right on point about everything. I can just say that if any unia type situation happens, the Orthodox Christians will not follow through and God will, in His infinite wisdom and love for mankind, use this as a filter to separate the wheat from chaff. We really don’t need a hierarchy in its current rotting form…
But until unia happens, let’s pray so that it can be prevented and that the bishops will follow Christ again.
True. I am among them. 🙏
There will be no attempt of unity with the Latin Church. Discussions are good because it could make them reverse some of the innovations, especially the more recent ones, even if that is unlikely. Those who say there will be an attempt to unite the churches are lying to you. Now, you have to guess why.
You can't have "unity" with an anathema church. Catholics should become Orthodox. Nothing else to it.
I’m not the most “rigorist” of Orthodox (I don’t find heresies under every rock and am deeply suspicious of “the pan-heresy of ecumenism” as a very useful category). And I’d love to see a real reconciliation. But I’ve no idea what the RCC is these days. I don’t see in the average RC parish a faith I recognize as orthodox. I just can’t imagine what kind of reunion is at all appropriate. I suspect some kind of globalist enterprise with historic Christianity as a tool. That doesn’t interest me at all.
That's a great combination, Craig and Ethos!
4:03 - "For years, the Roman Catholic Church has made concessions."
Quite the understatement, lol.
Becuase they have the See of St Peter.
I don't expect orthodox to do the same because they don't have The Pope
@@koppite9600We have a See of St. Peter. All of our Bishops have his authority. In the earliest of the Church, the Seat of St. Peter was Antioch, Alexandria and Rome together.
No See in the 1st millennium had the rights to change the Faith and make such innovations as did Rome after its schism in its new antichurch.
@@LadyMaria all your bishops? Where is the chief bishop of all bishops of Christ's church? We know Peter was the chief disciple, he spoke for them.
@@koppite9600 The Orthodox have the Ecumenical Patriarch who is the first among equals, but his voice doesn’t ring much louder than on the stage of the other patriarchs in reality. This whole ordeal is nothing more than brothers bickering over what they think the faith should say and not participating in unity. Oddly enough both churches put the order of precedence in Rome according to the Canons of the Councils. I was listening to another podcast today in regards to unity and they were firmly against it as well. All in all you have to ask who is the schismatic when unity is being talked of and all I hear is hate. It’s not righteousness that I hear but division and the evil one working. May the power of Christ quell their hearts to peace and stop this incitement of hate and disdain for unity of Christ’s Church.
@@christourhopepodcast I don't expect an ecumenical patriarch to defy the Pope because The Pope stems from Peter's sole authority given from God.
Excellent video, Father. Craig Truglia sure knows his stuff!
Clearly and simply put.
It bothers me when other Orthodox say things like "there should never be union" and "union is a terrible idea." We should pray and hope for union - ON THE RIGHT TERMS - which is Rome returning to Orthodoxy.
Rome has shown it is not in the least interested in RETURNING to the Faith and Church. No return … only “reconciliation “
There cannot be a union because the true Church of Christ is not divided. It cannot be. There are no two churches of Christ, only one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church, the Orthodox Catholic Church. It will take a lot of humility, but those that have strayed away can return. I myself can affirm that as an ex cradle Roman Catholic, now Orthodox.
There can't be mass unification even if the papists accept everything we believe and promise to abandon even their own rites.The only thing that can happen is individual conversions of each and every Roman Catholic and Protestant for that matter.
@@pero33403 what makes you certain that orthodoxy is correct over catholocism out of interest?
When Rome returns? You are the one who are still largely regional, national and ethnic after 2000 years. First, if you wish them to listen to you, get your own house in order. In reality, not any more vain repetion of cemented textbook answers. To have a Great and Holy Council where all bishops can sit down together along a table in unity is a good start. You boast with the idea of concilliarity, then show us that it works without butchering the to-do list beforehand. Next time, do it quicker, don't spend 55 years organizing a meeting not all Orthodox agree on
Greetings from 🇷🇴 Romania. Craig, is it true that when we talk, the context can change?Context takes shape from words, as the future is shaped when we speak. Thank you for this episode father Peter.
I 100% agree with an ocean that most people who are Catholic and believe that they are traditionalists are actually modernists, they usually have a little to know knowledge or understanding of the historic tradition of Christian orthodoxy.
I'm an Orthodox catechumen, and the notion that the Church, the true Church, the *Orthodox* Church, could unify with Roman Catholicism soon after is horrifying to me. But, then, if these truly be the End Times, then it would be par for the course, so to speak.
Why would it be horrifying? Unity is what Jesus prayed for right before his Passion and Death.
@@jupiterinaries6150It must be and will be, in accordance with the Anonymous Prophecy of Mount Athos of 1053, on the basis of the repentance of Latins to the True Faith of Orthodoxy which will be led, at least in Europe by one True Orthodox shepherd.
Since after 2000 years, Eastern Orthodoxy is still predominantly regional, national and ethnic, beside the standard textbook answer 'Orthodoxy is the true church' that they have programmed into your mind, what can you show us validates this claim? Is regional, national and ethnic what Jesus wanted? May I suggest you go check up on St Maximos the Confessor and what he wrote about the role of Rome. The Eastern Orthodox claim that Rome does not possess universal jurisdiction is a later doctrinal development.
@@locksmith9498garbage comment, no responses, fitting.
make more text walls
@@user-vv1do1wg1j Being outright uncharitably dismissive to another person, a brother in Christ, is not in line with Jesus' teachings.
Let's hope Craig Truglia goes to the Nicea 2025 counsel.
To do what? The faithful chose Paul and Barnabas to go to the Apostles for direction, and Peter gave the direction.
@@koppite9600Peter was also sent by the Apostles to Samaria
This is too difficult for me :(
No false union with Rome
The pun near the end on carry-on (continuity) and carrion (dead chicken) is extremely hilarious. As a Byzantine Catholic I do agree with Craig Truglia criticism on Trent Horn and Erick Ybarra. Horn made a serious error arguing Second Nicaea as accretion developed later because the Acts of Second Nicaea claimed to condemn innovation and affirm what the fathers passed down. Take Nun Egeria diary when visiting Edessa where icon of Christ for King Abgar was found. Ybarra made dangerous claim by saying the Church could proclaim something without strong evidence. This is contradictory to St Vincent of Lerins maxim. A development of expression is possible but must be grounded based on dogma universally professed and ancient in origin not recent. Take for an example the assumption of St Joseph, both East and West held this belief very early because his tomb was empty. Rome can't impose a belief that's novel. Both immaculate conception and assumption can be shown to be consistent with Orthodox theology. St Palamas profess panagia was conceived free from sin and filled with grace. EOs to this day venerate St Jacob of Serugh a monophysite. This is not a post modern ideology deconstruct history with revisionism but rather irenic and ecumenical. Notice St Basil did similar when accepting semi Arians into communion. The key is to have dialogue. Saints made mistake and reconciled. St Paul and St Barnabas were separated. St Athanasius and St Meletius. St Theophilus and St Chrysostom. St Cyril and St Theodoret. If they can be reconciled then we too can. In 433 St Cyril and St Theodoret agreed that both one nature and two natures terminology are correct. This is not deconstruction or decontextualization but rather constructive and contextual.
@Adithiakusno
Very well said ☦️✝️🙏
I'm genuinely curious. Why be Eastern Catholic? Why not just go all the way and be Eastern Orthodox?
@@siervodedios5952Exactly. I looked into Byzantine Catholicism after leaving RCIA and realized the same problems in that are in the Uniates, so I became Orthodox.
Unia also don't understand that we believe no one has guilt or stain of original sin when they try to quote mine our Saints saying they agree with their unique dogmas. The immaculate conception was not necessary in our theology. And that is what St. Gregory Palamas would be eluding to.
@@siervodedios5952because oryhodoxy is false and catholicism is true
Become Orthodox ☦️
The Lord wouldnt allow His Holy Church to be overcomed by those who hold heresies
Correct. He didn’t. It Catholicism is not the Church. The Orthodox Church is.
Orthodox is ethnic, catholicism is universal, reflecting the true nature of God. Just take a look at the war on Russia
@@J.R2023Russia is secular. Roman Catholicism is ethnic (it has 23 churches in it, all ethnic). It's had many wars and converting by the sword. That's not godly.
@@LadyMariaYeahhh... Considering all the slavery, conquest, genocides and whatnot throughout the Americas and the world perpetrated by Roman Catholic majority European empires and other evil crap; it's no wonder quite a lot of people are anti-Catholic.
@@siervodedios5952Agreed.
awesome. two heavy hitters, knocking it out of the park.
The Bash Brothers?
Lol. Nice. Such a moniker, even if accurate as you bash the heretics/heresies into oblivion, would only serve to inspire more cries of ‘meanie Orthobros’ from the heterodox.
Craig, thank you for your synopsis of the problem of online apologists who know nothing in regards to real theology of the Catholic Church. There is no such thing as dogmatic contextualization in Catholic Theology, there is a tiered system of belief going from level 1 to level 3 and depending on the belief it is categorized as necessary for salvation, or not necessary for salvation. A tier 1 belief would be the Creed. Which we all know is necessary for salvation, thus why we proclaim at Liturgy every Sunday. Is praying before an Icon necessary for salvation? No, Orthodox theology doesn't even require this. In fact many of the Elders and Desert Fathers insist on movement away from images in our prayer so that we can pray more perfectly in the Nous. Is it necessary to believe in the Dormition of Mary? No, but we need to recognize that she is the mother of God, the Theotokos. So there are certain things that are necessary, and certain things that are not. Papal infallibility is a dogmatic statement but it also requires when he is speaking in unison with the whole Council of Bishops and ex cathedra. These two requirements must stand. It is not a post-modern epistemology it is a recognition that certain things are necessary for our salvation and Papal infallibility is not and thus concession can be made. If we are questioning the resurrection of the Son of God then we have more issues, if we are debating the two natures in one divine person, then we have issues, but the issues that we are referencing and that you are referring is not a part of the requirements for salvation in the Catholic Church and to my knowledge is not required for salvation in the Orthodox Church, aka Papal Infallibility, the Filioque and the Immaculate Conception. The dialogues have already come to agreement on the understanding of the Immaculate Conception and the Filioque and we understand that due to the errant issues in Roman Theology, the Immaculate Conception as it is understood in the Roman Context is somewhat necessary. Yet, online apologists who have a little understanding of true Christianity and especially Catholicism are not the ones to consult on this. If you want to understand then go to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, the Catechism of the Catholic Church and look at the Catechism of the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church to understand what the Church actually teaches. The Church has never stated that the icons had no force until doctrinal decreed, this is not a part of Catholic Theology, your source is wrong and you are putting out wrong information and thus working for the evil one in doing so. We cannot do this, we must be stronger than the evil one who seeks to create division because it is his true activity. We must stand firm in our Orthodox faith, but understand that the Catholic argument is not what you have portrayed here. True Catholic Theology states that the first 8 ecumenical councils are un-erring and are to be held to their fullest. -- Signed a Ukrainian Greek Catholic with a Masters of Arts in Theology from a Catholic University and hopeful Priest in the years to come. CIX!
TY for the comments. We have so much common ground. May God bring you to the Orthodox Catholic Church and away from the communion of schismatics and heretics.
I agree that those things are not necessary for salvation, but they are for Theosis. We as Orthodox must keep this path to Theosis undefiled.
@@theodore615 while Palamas in his "On the Procession of the Holy Spirit" argues firmly against the Filioque, and I agree one hundred percent on the fullness of the Palamas teaching, I disagree that the Filioque, Immaculate Conception and Papal Infallibility are necessary to obtain theosis. If we follow true Orthodox Hesychysm then the Jesus Prayer is the path that we enter into this activity of Theosis. It is in fact the Mystical prayer of the Heart, ascending, as Saint Gregory of Nyssa states, into the abyss of the Father. These low level dogmatic declarations are hardly enough to stop the activity of true Theosis and illumination from taking place. Mystical awareness of God is the greatest theological activity and in fact is the only true Theology. Theosis is an activity of the Heart in which the mind is enlightened and true Hesychysm begins at the point of entering into the conception of the unknown and the complete humbling of ourselves before the Father, that Monadal Trinity, he who is the wellspring of all things both of the personal procession and the natural procession of his divine energies which leads to our illumination and eventually the obtainment of the state of Theosis. I think anyone who is enlightened and approaches God in humility will see that the Filioque is wrong theologically and that Augustine clearly missed a lot of things. The doctrine of the Catholic Church as a whole is not for or against the filioque. In fact the Catechism of the Catholic Church arguement does defend the use of the Filioque in article 248, but also states that the Eastern Churches have a right to use it without. Also the Orthodox-Catholic dialogue came to an understanding on this matter sometime in the past 10 years and the Catechism was written in 1994. The Ukrainian Greek Catechism published in 2017 includes the "and the Son" in parentheses, but in fact is not used in practice in our churches. It is more of a general we understand their argument, but its not what we do type arrangements. Again, none of that should stop the process of Theosis from happening. If you are participating in the Mysteries of the Church (aka what the Roman Church calls the Sacraments) and praying the Jesus Prayer, following the Commandments and seeking God's will for your life, participating in his divine energies, then you will obtain your goal of true Theosis. I don't see many monks worries about the dogma of the Immaculate Conception and yet they still seem to illuminate a room with the divine presence.
@@OrthodoxChristianTheology Yes I pray for the same things, especially the heretical German bishops! Luckily we have enough going on in Ukraine for me not to have much time to worry about all the messes the Roman Church is dealing with right now. Sometimes its best to just stay in your niche of the Church and let God handle the problems of the other particular churches. If we worried about everything we really wouldn't be good Christians!
The title of Pontifex Maximus is actually an old Roman Custom, from pre-imperial times. It started when the Romans were still under the domination of the Etruscans, and referred to the highest religious authority. The title itself means something like "bridge builder." During the era of the Roman Republic, the Pontifex Maximus was the highest priest in the pagan system. During the early imperial period, the emperor also assumed the title of Pontifex Maximus, with Octavius Augustus being the first to do so. This also tied in with emperor worship, which was mandatory from time to time, and the chief mechanism that was used to persecute the early Christians. Eventually, the RC Pope also assumed the title of Pontifex Maximus. Why is this? I'm not exactly sure when it happened, or why, but perhaps it was always like that for them? This is probably the real reason why they claim primacy over all the other early church centers (all of which became Orthodox denominations, with the exception of Carthage which was wiped out completely), because prior to the legalization of Christianity they did have primacy in religious matters for the whole empire.
We don't have denominations. There's the Orthodox Catholic Church and the Oriental communion which came out of the Orthodox Catholic Church just like the Roman church did later and then created its own body with the Pope as Head.
@@LadyMaria I get what you're saying. I'm used the term "denomination" to refer to different church groups/organizations with their own independent heirarchies.
the title El Shaddai was originally the name of a canaanite deity
@@LadyMariaThere’s no such thing as the Orthodox Catholic Church. Your official name is the Orthodox Church. We Catholics have retained the official title of Catholic b/c unlike you, we’re actually the one, true, catholic and apostolic church. The rest of you are imposters.
As St. Augustine said:
“And so, lastly, does the name itself of Catholic, which, not without reason, amid so many heresies, the Church has thus retained; so that, though all heretics wish to be called Catholics, yet when a stranger asks where the Catholic Church meets, no heretic will venture to point to his own chapel or house.”
I'm Roman Catholic. And after watching this video. I'm still Roman Catholic. 😀
I'm Orthodox and after watching this video, I'm still Orthodox.
But are you still in the dark about the post-modernist theologians in your midst? No.
The video is not intended to be polemical. Its about the differences in approaches to the faith. If you want to be a happy post-modernist, or at least in communion with such, you are entitled to that.
They listen to Lofton, that explains everything 😂 Us Catholics don’t even listen to him
"No one can persuade another to change. Each of us guards a gate of change that can only be opened from the inside. We cannot open the gate of another, either by argument or emotional appeal." Marilyn Ferguson
“Reunification is inevitable.” Christ’s Church will be whole again.
The Church is already whole (cannot be divided) even though Rome departed from her.
Pat. Bartholomew can unite his jurisdiction to the Papal institution, sure, though he will only take several million with him, not the rest. He will cease to be Orthodox at that time as well, having departed from the Orthodox Catholic Church. So, there will be no unity in the way RCs think. It will just be another Uniate added to the RCC.
@@LadyMariayou can have the "others" orthodox, russian assassins etc
@@LadyMaria I don't believe this to be the case tbh. The original schism was only between Constantinople and Rome, the other churches sided with Constantinople and broke relations. The Eastern Catholic Churches were formed from the dioceses in respective places of Christianity that disagreed with the break and maintained a relationship with Rome instead of following the excommunications of Constantinople. If the other Churches were to continue outside of union, that is actually on them and they would be considered schismatics since they fail to recognize that the two brothers, Peter and Andrew, have finally made up their differences. The unity of the Church would be actually considered whole because according to the Ecumenical Councils the four cities in prominence were Rome, Constantinople, Antioch and Alexandria. Since those four churches, by the ancient ruling of the Ecumenical Councils, are the four epicenters of Christianity and thus constitute the Church when in union, then the Church would be whole, regardless of if the other bishops of the other greek churches follow suit or not.
@@christourhopepodcastYour logic falls apart when the truth of the faith doesn't depend on places like Rome and Constantinopole, but on maintaining the doctrine. The two lungs of the church idea demeans both since neither of them can be catholic/universal without being united, so at this point you're saying either of the two isn't complete or actually united.
@@stefanspinu434 It is true that the truth of the faith does not rely on the metropolitan place in which it was born. Yet, the two lungs expression is more so meaning to show the unity of the western and eastern expressions of faith than it is to represent a given metropolitan area. When we speak of west and east we are pertaining to the Patriarchal system. Rome was called the the Patriarch of the West and that means that anything not of Rome would be east (simple process of elimination here). When we speak of East it respectively means anything but Roman Christianity and its expression. I believe that Orthodoxy is not complete. The Keys to the kingdom were given to Peter and his successors, the Andrian line does not have the Keys, nor do any of the others. The Church declared in an Ecumenical Council, which we Christians deem to be the Holy Spirit working and speaking in the modern time, that Rome was first in honors due to the place of Peter and Paul. The Church's precedent for this places the lineage of the Keys therefore in Rome, not Constantinople and not in Moscow. Union with the leader of the Roman Church therefore is necessary, yet the over reach of Papal power in the past has been an issue. The Roman church and the Orthodox Church need to determine the overall structure of the means of governance. The Roman church has already stated that it agrees that the Pope does not have a juridical right in the governance of the other churches sui juris, but what does that look like and how is it to be implemented, these are questions that will take time and holy spirit. Basically, the Apostles need to organize themselves so we can get back to evangelizing the world, because as long as we're divided, the house will not stand.
Interesting perspective to have a channel that refutes some of these apologists arguments that I follow. Personally, I almost converted to Orthodoxy. It was discovering the Apparitions of the Blessed Virgin Mary (specifically Fatima and the alleged ones in Medjugorje) that made me be in communion with Rome. The messages in Medjugorje and other apparitions spoke directly to my heart and caused my conversion. The Theotokos feels like a very real mother to me, and I felt called into her army and to pray the rosary every day. I guess St. Seraphim of Sarov (who had an apparition of Mary with St. Peter and St. John) prayed "The Rule of the Theotokos" daily. I pray this too every day. It's basically an Eastern version of the Rosary. In Fatima, Mary has said "Russia will convert and a period of peace will be granted to the world." In Medjugorje she said, "Russia will come to glorify God the most; the west has made civilization progress, but without God and act as if they are their own creators." I've been to Russia (House of Mary), and it felt like Old World Europe. They have a devotion that is unparallel to the West. The West is a total mess, and I hope the Orthodox Church can unite with their western brothers to help us out. Satan has infiltrated every aspect of our culture. We need real unity to defeat the enemies of Christ both inside and outside of the church. We need to get both lungs of the church breathing again. The Latin church doesn't need to Latinize the eastern churches and vice versa. We just need unity under the Mother of God to defeat this Woke agenda destroying civilization.
Those apparitions are either fake or complete demonic delusion.
Unity under Christ???
Good man 😊
Once we have exhausted the Christ of the Scriptures we can attend to private revelations…St Jerome
I like this guy.
Thank God for Trent, Michael, Erick, and Jimmy
We Thank God for everything, including those who are His creations and sons of Adam, but we do not Thank God for delusion, heresy or error.
@@OrthodoxEthosThen lets be glad Trent, Micheal, Erick and Jimmy don't fall into error or delusion.
@@silentknight7078But sadly they do by teaching the unique beliefs and dogmas/doctrines of Papalism.
@@LadyMaria Those are not errors or delusions though. A universal church needs a universal Bishop.
@@silentknight7078that was literally condemned by St. Gregory the Great
To Craig's point about conceding all things and renegging over time: Rome agreed that synodality was correct; they have since REMOVED that statement from the Vatican website, and released additional statements on synodality in the first millennium which wash that away into a position of "the east thought they were equal, but Rome always knew it was superior and was just being nice."
Peter was the head of the Apostles. How did the eastern churches think they were equal with Rome?
@@koppite9600 Through faith and being open to becoming harmonious with God's truth. And the superiority (not even equality) of the Eastern Churches has only became more and more apparent over the centuries, while the Papist churches have marched from heresy to heresy and from one fall into the darkness to another
@@serbanandreimarin you don't submit to the Pope still
@@koppite9600 And I never will, for the Papist Church is a heretical one and is increasingly getting even more heretical
Any serious analysis of theology and history confirms it, the Orthodox Church is worthy of it's name and has kept the true faith through the generations, making it the one true Church
@@serbanandreimarin the church built on Peter vs one built on all apostles
As a former RC I can definitely say they manage to twist every single theology into error. It’s hard not to think it’s demonic and without grace. Only Orthodox who don’t actually know RC would think the churches have anything in common except in the most superficial surface appearance.
Am I demonic for being cradle EO in an EO country but preferring going to a Roman Catholic church because it is very spiritually satisfying?
@@prometheus5770 you were blessed enough to be born EO and live in an EO majority country, yet you choose to go to a heretical church? Wow
@@basilmakedon Are you Greek?
@@prometheus5770 no, why?
I gotta get Truglia's book.
The paschalion is overdue for an update because the tables are no longer accurate and don’t do what they purport to do.
Pascha is on the first Sunday on after the first full moon after the vernal equinox according to nicea. The tables are off both on the date of the vernal equinox and the date of the full moon, so we’re in violation of nicea.
Insisting upon using these inaccurate tables instead observing the light of heaven which God created for signs and seasons is almost gnostic.
My problem is that why are we coordinating with heretics and schismatics to fix the paschalion instead of doing it internally? Why do we care what the papists are doing?
The Patriarchate of Antioch did attempt to find a "Middle Road" regarding the Paschalion in the 20's but unless everyone begins from the same point it's hard.
So are we implying the quartodecimans in Asia Minor and in the British isles may have been right all along with pascha dating?
We shouldn’t care to be hyper correct/accurate. This is the over correctness disease
@@mariorizkallah5383Not really. The ancient church did care about astronomic accuracy. The only problem with calendar revisions is that the wrong people want them for the wrong reasons.
That said, it’s a shame how the revised julian calendar came to be. It’s vastly superior to both the julian and gregorian calendars.
@@mariorizkallah5383 I think we should care about being hyper incorrect which we are according to the current paschalion.
The RC is too full of pride to renounce their errors and come back into the truth of the Church.
Perfect example of projection.
@@AndreLeBlonde1😂 yeah okay
Amen
We will not go with them.
Makes me sad as a Roman Cathlic.😢
I hope Orthidoxy keeps up the fight. There are people in the Roman Cathic church fighting back....
Way past time to jump ship. Visit an Orthodox church!
Thank you for the exposition, I have though one observation: it is difficult to follow for the non native American speakers because of the accent (especially for Craig). If you observe the automatic CC, that will give an idea about how comprehensible the pronunciation is. Please forgive me!
As a person who is fixing to be a catechumen... What do i do? Which jurisdiction do i choose? Can i always change jurisdictions later if one tries to go to the pope?
If a bishop or two or 10 or even a whole synod compromises and unites with heresy - without any repentance, - you absolutely must not follow such bishops, but remain with those who remain faithful.
Once you are a member of the Church you can attend any of them.
mother Russia obviously
I will not follow heretical bishops into a false union.
I think in a sense one could say there is development in the veneration of Icons, but not what Catholics or Protestants mean by development.
Specific types of icons are "developed" new saints are added over the course of history, new "versions" of Christ and the Theotokos emerge, Someone was the first person to paint Christ Panto-creator for example. You even have a standardization in the way we depict and venerate icons. There is a clarification and standarization in how these things should be done that does happen over time.
It's likely some, many, or most early christian communities didn't own any complex icons. Most individual Christians certainly didn't. Art is expensive and the church was poor. They might have just had a cross to kiss because thats all they could afford, or all they dared risk having under persecution.The types of images, icons that early Christians owned and venerated were inevitably tied with what was possible for them, but they are still icons.
That isn't to say portrait icons didn't exist since apostolic times. I think they did. They would have been rare, though, for the same reason original hand painted icons are relatively rare today in your average Orthodox Christian Home: They are expensive.
The image of a cross is an icon. Bowing to it, kissing it is veneration of an icon. It isn't the prototype of the cross but an image of the cross. Artificially cutting that off and saying its ok to venerate an icon of the cross but not an icon of Christ is a silly distinction. The whole Ortland distition between "Cultic" and "non-Cultic" use of christian art is a ridiculous distinction.
If you hang a cross on your wall, it is a type of Icon and that is a type of veneration. Pure and simple. Even if one wanted to be skeptical of the tradition of St Luke Painting an icon, ok fine, but it is indisputable that early Christians used physical symbolic art that depicted Crosses, Fish etc. They are more primitive, not in the essence of what they are but more primitive in the sense of what is possible for expressing it.
There is a development of icons in the same sense that you might also have an individual iconographer who develops throughout a lifetime of creating icons.
As a child their iconography might be drawing crosses with crayons and by the end of their career they are doing an entire church.
That person didn't start out as a Child with the idea that only abstract symbols were acceptable and over their life they decided that depicting people was ok. Yes, over their lifetime with experience they will develop a more sophisticated understanding of art in general, and a deeper appreciation of Iconography as a lifetime of experiences of creating icons build on one another. You would hope that would be the case for them and the church as a whole.
So yeah, icons developed in the sense that they were built on over time and got better and more beautiful and more rich and Saints and theologians got better at explaining them. They were nourished and grew, they didn't "evolve" from something they were not into something they are.
Anyway that's how I think about it at least.
a faithful son of rome here. i'm all for union - but not as a foul compromise. all questions have to be settled, the union has to come from beauty, goodness and truth. the Lord only can give union.
decontextualisation leads to placelessness and dissolves history, matter... seems to be gnostic to me.
no, true union can only be rooted in tradition, in history. somehow it all has to be recollected, the whole tragedy - 4th crusade, massacres before against the latins, the disintegratuon of the byzantine empire in the years before 1204, florence and the last years before the fall of the city, to just name s few episodes.
it is strange - i really long for union, as a traditional latin mass goer and friend of orthodoxy. but this prospect of a coming union somehow fills me with duspicion and disgust.
we shouldn't try to just do the union, we shouldn't tempt god. we should submit to the will of god and align our will to his will. then true union can come, as a gift.
5:20 It is interesting that Iain McGilchrist has written about this very phenomenon in his work from a psychological perspective. He considers the ensuing psychology to be one of a newly emerging kind of schizophrenia. What it looks like is a human that when reading a written directive, will believe it true because it is written. Such as 'a raccoon lives in water' (the example is something like this.) And the reader believes it because it is written. Not because they know it is true or false in context. They actually did studies on this. The problem being a loss of being in touch with living world reality. Forget about anything beyond that. So one becomes lost from not only God, but even the world. How can this person be saved? Twice fallen? This kind of delusion has perhaps entered or wants to enter the Church?!
Will Anathema (yet missing) fit the occasion or do we need something stronger!?
And yet, our Lord in truth gave His Fathers and His Children what we need....all we need for this.
Thank God.
This seems to be the West's new disease. A detachment from the realities of living in this world. It looks like a curse to me.
To call Ybarra's argument post modern is to "decontextualize" it. His argument for defending the truth of the assumption of Virgin Mary is essentially the same as that of the Orthodox. Orthodox Ethos again grasping at straws to deligitimize Catholicism.
Show this please.
Not enough to just state it.
22:37 - If Rome saying (and all agree this is highly unlikely), "We'll accept everything the Orthodox have taught and re-interpret all of our councils to align with all Orthodox teaching" is not an acceptable option, it would seem the answer is then that reunion is simply impossible, no?
Technically they can ask their flocks to become EO catechumens. This would be acceptable.
They'd still have to renounce their saints, which I doubt will ever happen
It'd be like the Unia. Everyone keeps their own saints@@jesusbreamusic9831
If councils can simply be reinterpreted to suit any belief, what's the point of believing them? It's unacceptable. Anyone willing to do such a thing with catholic doctrine would be willing to do it with Orthodox doctrine, too.
You got it!@@SquidShield
Thank you for this video. How would you suggest that we go about praying for Bartholomew of Constantinople and even the Pope of Rome? Will it differ if we are apart of the Russian Orthodox Church? Thank you.
Just pray. Pray for union even. Just pray that it'd be done right.
Thank you for your answer but I don't think a union is what we should be praying for. The Papal Church (aka "Catholic") has deviated from the truth, so of course I will pray for those people that they rejoin the Holy, Catholic, Apostolic Church (of which there is only one) aka the Orthodox Church. I pray that they repent.
My question is more about where to place these people in our prayer rules and any specific prayers that we can say for them, so that they don't lead others into deception@@OrthodoxChristianTheology
@@andrewkain7518orthodox have people living in adulterous second and third marriages with no annulment - no Moses in the house to discern and judge these situations!!!! An orthodox i know was allowed phone confessions for convenience sake… and a dear one utterly miserable, so far from any precise rite of Orthodoxy she can go to. None of this is what Jesus had in mind when He was to build His church… of course Orthodox are gonna want it on their terms… not possible because Rock of Peter is bedrock when it comes to Sacramental Marriage - This is an essential element not a matter of leniency, whim or personal decision made for this or that couple…
@@Hopeternal316Annulment is legalistic divorce in all actuality. It uses loopholes to claim a marriage never happened, even though it did. It created these rules itself just to be able to claim what happened never happened so one isn't "remarrying". That's still adultery if these people get remarried (and yes it's remarriage no matter what the RCC says), using your own logic. Annulments are just divorce by another name with denial thrown in. Nothing more, nothing less. And there's no limit to how many one can acquire as long as they have money and a loophole. One can never know if one is married or fornicating in RCism. THIS is what Christ never had in mind. Divorce rates by percentage are much higher in RCism. And unlike the RCC we are only allowed one Sacramental marriage even if a spouse dies. If by economia one can remarry, it's a penitential marriage that is not celebrated. Three marriages applies to the widowed too. One might never divorce (most don't) but have two marriages (the original Sacramental, the other penitential) due to a spouse passing on. In RCism you can have as many Sacramental marriages as you want if the spouses keep dying. So yeah, we don't believe in loopholes to get out of marriage. We take marriage more seriously than the RCC does. So yeah, that would be on our terms, after all that was what it was like in the 1st millennium and even in the Uniates to last century.
Not that it's your business (it's not), the person was allowed economia to confess over the phone, but must receive absolution under the omophorion in person. We don't do anonymous confession unlike the RCs.
@@OrthodoxChristianTheologyAt least you're open to reunion.
Craig has a vast amount of knowledge. He should be a priest.
I think it’s amazong when laypeople have this amount of knowledge! God calls us in different ways to serve the Church.
I think it would be terrible because he would no longer have the freedom to speak the truth especially about the powers of bishops when his boss (bishop) has total control over him I think. The church admin can be a very toxic environment - I’d rather he keep his independence
Bartholomew I of Constantinople has become a wolf within the Orthodox church!
Really impossible to understand what Craig is talking about ...
Is this just designed to make him sound smarter than anyone else ?
Sometimes I wonder about the motives of this kind of thing ...
I'm far from slow, but I have NO idea what he is even talking about ...
I once took a class where the teacher had us grade our own tests
Correct me if I’m wrong TH-cam, but Craig is making the point that Roman Catholics employ post modern theory when analyzing history and dogma, and if Orthodox hierarchs make moves for unity with them, they risk integrating post modern theory into the minds of naive modern day Orthodox believers. I thought he made very good points, for what it’s worth.
@@Anthony-vm9gzMe too. He did explain it pretty clearly, it's not a subject I was familiar with before.
Saint Gregory Palamas ! The answer.
Ο Θεός να βάλει το χέρι του και να τους δώσει φώτιση. Ι agree with you both but I don't trust those who are making the decision
There's no reason to reunite especially after what pachamama francis blessed.
Bearing false witness is a sin. So you assign the false narrative of pachamama to Rome and then say that can't unite under it.
Pachamama is false invented by enemies of the church perpetuated by people like you. I hope not knowingly. Because you made the entire point on false argument.
As Catholic I heard and believed Pachamama dumb story for a day, it took about 1 hour of research to figure out that there was no Pachama or whatsoever.
I repented and confessed quickly.
I hope you just repeat what you heard, and I also hope you will look closer and see the truth.
@AndreLeBlonde1 that is the biggest load of crap I've read this week. Stop lying. Lying is a SIN.
@annabanana2623 Clearly if you accuse the Pope of being wrong, especially with "Pachamama", you better know Spanish or I will call you a scoundrel like Andre there.
A communion with Rome isn't fitting without the Non-Chalcedonians unifying first with repentance, final formal agreements etc.
I just became a baptized member of the Orthodox Church at 65 yrs. old this year. I was supposedly baptized in the Roman sect as an infant but was raised as a Protestant sectarian and attended various sects. I left going to church for a number of years then became a catechumen as I was convinced the Orthodox church is the church of the Apostles.
The Roman sect has one leader who claims to be the voice of God for all Christendom. That is something the Orthodox Church has never accepted (and Christ warned about), and I think would be one of many major points that Rome would have to repent of, not concede.
The other sin to be repented of is the widely known trafficking of pedo priests to children and its attempted coverup by the Vatican. The Roman sect seems to be involved in continuous sexual scandal (e.g., The murder and cover-up of whistleblower Priest Fr. Joe Moreno of Buffalo, NY).
The current Pope appeared via satellite at a Kenneth Copeland event and gave a greeting and speech. Copeland is an ultra-wealthy charismatic heretic. Not very discerning of the Pope who appears to want unity at all costs. No thanks. My salvation is too important to be a part of that system.
I can only hope this event never happens and will pray fervently to that end. I welcome true unity directed and forged by the Holy Spirit, but not by human effort, means, and for purposes other than the glory of God. True Godly unity will probably only come through persecution which is a more effective way to unity by separating the sheep from the goats. God help this sinner to be among the sheep.
I think you’ll find that St Peter in Acts 15:7-10 claims to be the one voice chosen by God for all Christendom, so it certainly has precedent, and in the fathers, it is clear that Rome is the Apostolic See who’s Bishop is the unique successor of St Peter - so I think you need to do a bit more reading on this issue and not exclusively listen to Orthobro apologetics.
Rome was first among equals and disobeyed Christ by not being a servant to others, but by becoming a political dictator, persecutor, lover of mammon, and subsequent innovator.
Reread Christs words to his disciples on who the greatest is. Rome as it is now appears to have fallen from grace.
One proof is the Popes acceptance of heretics such as Kenneth Copeland who leads people away from salvation and truth.
The other is the continued cover up/murder of Father Joe Moreno of Buffalo.
Another, it has become a sanctuary for active homosexual and pedophile priests.
These are but a few examples that come to mind.
@@lukewilliams448St. Peter was rebuked. James ran the council as it was in Jerusalem.
All Bishops were seen as descending from St. Peter in the early Church times. The Seat of St. Peter was Antioch, Alexandria and Rome together with Rome having primacy of honor being the Seat of the Emperor of the Ecumene too at the time. That's all.
The 2nd Ecumenical Council was held and accepted for the whole Church when Rome was in schism with the Church.
Bishops of Rome were deposed, one was excommunicated in the 1st millennium. There was no Papal Supremacy or even a Papacy (Pope was not a title used for the Bishop of Rome alone until the 11th century).
This isn't "Orthobro" apologetics. This is a Priest and layman who have studied this intensely and present only the facts and the Saints.
@@lukewilliams448Brilliant mis-application of scripture there. Perhaps you need to re-examine the meaning of eisegesis
I know Copeland's heresies well. The Pope is happy because Copeland was saying it was time to re-unite with Rome (not that he has a clue about anything to do with actual Christianity).
The Pope is happy with that as anything that may lead the Papacy to have have more power is good (its not to do with truth). The end justifies the means. Think of it as a geopolitical powerplay & you'd be closer to the mark.
If we are willing to make compromises, is there any room in your heart to receive them!? You said it yourself--if we said you were right about everything, you would reject! This is why I am not Orthodox! We cannot have an Orthodox ETHos... we have a western ethos and that's not a bad thing!
Not sure what you are referring to here...
All who repent can become disciples of Christ. Every member of the Body is constantly repenting/returning/being purified.
Humility is a pre-requisite for ALL.
The Orthodox Ethos is the Christian Ethos. One and the same.
Having a "western ethos" is problematic insofar as it has another identity besides Christ.
We pray for the unity of the church in every liturgical service. Once the dates of Easter are united then the Lord will unite His churches. The Holy Spirit will bend them togethe with humilty and love we will worship God around one altar.
The Holy Roman Catholic and Orthodox church's.are the lungs of the body.
Part two: 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.
This was completely predictable what is going on in the Orthodox Church today. You all know the truth. Like petulant children you simply refuse to accept what is Plain to see. You have no head and without a head you have no church, you have churches. You refuse to see what is before you.
St Irenaeus regarding the Bishop at Rome
“But since it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the succession of all the churches, we shall confound all those who, in whatever manner, whether through self-satisfaction or vainglory, or through blindness and wicked opinion, assemble other than where it is proper, by pointing out here the successions of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul, that church which has the tradition and the faith which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the apostles. With that church, because of its superior origin, all the churches must agree, that is, all the faithful in the whole world, and it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the apostolic tradition” (Against Heresies 3:3:2 [A.D. 189]).
The departure from the church of the pope in the 11th century is very clear for any objective researcher into Church history, who is looking at the sources.
Thus, the "returning to the fold" belongs to the Latin-Frankish papacy not to the One Church.
Simply study the Eighth Oecumenical Council under St. Photios and the subsequent history and it is clear that the popes walked away from both the Faith of Nicea and the Oecumenical Councils and condemned themselves.
Amen
I don't accept that the entire church will be lead by one man. So if this will occur i leave every church
Is this like how Orthodox try to decontextualize St. Augustine from the 2nd canon of the 418 Carthage council (accepted by Ecumenical Councils) and try to reinterpret it with a postmodernist epistemology in order to hold to their a priori idea that the Orthodox Church rejects Original Sin? Lol
So, what do we do when/if this goes through? This is the Great Apstasy in front of our eyes. Do we stand by and watch? I suppose we continue on with an underground church as was done in Russia. Glory to God!
It won't go through. Even if an entire jurisdiction went into communion with Rome, the Church will always remain.
All Christians should desire union, as Jesus makes explicit in John's gospel, and while this unity shouldn't come at the expense of compromising truth, I am genuinely concerned when I look at the comments on videos like this from Orthodox brothers and sisters. The starting point should be desiring unity.
My worry is that even pre-1054 unity wouldn't even be acceptable to many Orthodox today, who would rather leave their patriarchs and bishops than humble themselves to a genuine unity. Before the schism there was unity in theological diversity: churches in unity having leavened or unleavened bread, various reception practices, disparate cannons of scripture, and even communion with the Latin churches from the 6th century onward that had the Filioque. I ask that you carefully guard that you aren't bringing the individualist Protestant phronema into Orthodoxy.
I would have liked to have had "postmodernism" defined in this discussion, because while I agree very much with the critique of RC apologists, I'm not sure that "postmodernism" is the correct term to deploy in describing their decontextualization of doctrine.
Postmodernism was defined in the original video, it's not in this edit.
@@OrthodoxChristianTheology thanks
theres a few facts you cannot deny… Its a fact that peter and paul evangelized rome, their remains are in the vatican. st linus was the continuation of the papacy which it is a fact his teacher was peter. There is a direct lineage of bishops of rome(popes) documented for everyone to look up leading up to current pope. It is a Fact that the Roman Catholic Church is apostolic and it has done more then orthodoxy to evangelize the world. All of the east was lost to islam jihad and orthodoxy are to busy complaining about the papacy. BUT only about the roman papacy because they seem to be okay with the coptic pope
Qué miserable, unos ingleses inmigrantes hablando en nombre de algo que causa tanto dolor a los europeos
Just to Europeans?
Separation and heresy brings pain to everyone.
Rome is a long way from Jerusalem, which makes their claims of being the direct descendant of the original church a bit sketchy.
Not really. Orthodoxy was maintained majority in Ireland until the anglo norman invasion in 1169, the distance doesn't make the difference, just if you let heresy run wild(Synod of Toledo for example)
You dont think they made it as far as Rome? Book of Acts does say ‘…and so we came to Rome’
@@Hopeternal316 I don't think it's the original church as they claim.
Rome is given the highest honors by having both Sts. Peter and Paul martyred there. Rome doesn’t claim to be the “original” church but the church that has the greatest honor and authority over the universal church as it’s shephard. Peter as prince, mouthpiece, and indefinite leader of the apostles received the keys from Christ himself and appointed an unbroken chain of descendants specifically in Rome. Before his martyrdom he passed the episcopate to Linus. Jerusalem is surely a mother church in some extent, but obviously doesn’t receive the same honorifics as Rome.
@@awake3083 Given the highest honor by who? Anyone can honor themselves. Jesus was crucified in Jerusalem, and that's where the original church started, and Christianity. If the RC Papacy were legitimate they wouldn't be putting themselves above scripture.
So... Was Chalcedon Nestorianizing or not?
No
How you define sin from the Jewish old testament to the gentile churches centuries after ad 70.
It's missing the mark.
@@LadyMaria different interpretation from the Jewish perspective, us gentiles don't see same, regarding original sin dogma.
@@frederickanderson1860We believe in ancestral sin. That is the inclination to sin passed generation to generation. It has no stain or guilt of the original sin which was between Adam and Eve alone.
@@LadyMaria nonsense the ground was cursed not Adam and eve would conceive in pain and sorrow, and God covered their nakedness with animal skins,. Book of Ezekiel says that the sins of the fathers will not be passed to their sons or offspring.
As usual, Truglia does not represent the position of his opponents.
@ErickYbarra nor does he, nor this uncanonical channel, actually represent Orthodoxy. The history and meaning of which, they clearly "decontextualize"
You’re the one that’s scared to have dialogues with him, always excuses why you won’t.
And he wasn’t representing a specific position, but rather, the post modernist approach by which you all defend your positions.
Lying is not a compelling apologetic.
@@diegobarragan4904
Craig has no choice but to agree with me
I hope for a next Council to unite Catholic and Orthodox and the other Churches !!!
It will be a false council without REPENTANCE and RETURN to the ONE FAITH.
@@OrthodoxEthos
As said Saint John Chrysostom if two horses called "Knowledge" and "humility" do a race, obviously humility will win... Think about it.
The deficient, even if well meaning, ecclesiology of arch-uniate Lofton aside, if "decontextualization" means what you claim Craig, then the hyperdox in the modern Orthodox CommunionS regularly decontextualize the ancient Canons.
Look at the jurisdictions in the U.S. for example. All are in an uncanonical situation - you have more than one bishop over each city.
Look at Fr Heers's canonical situation. To justify continued preaching or teaching as a priest, one must "decontextualize" the Canons and the authority of the heirarchs.
What was the Schism about?
1. Filioque
2. Papal Supremacy
Therefore, if the Roman Church amends her position on these matters - and she has in the various joint declarations - then to remain seperated any longer cannot be justified. The mark of Orthodoxy lacking on all sides in my opinion, is Unity. And the fact that modern (mostly Rocor) internet-orthodoxy in the U.S. is dominated by protestant converts and RC defectors who actually preach or tolerate the actual heresy of DONATISM, while claiming One Church despite the glaring BEAM of hypocrisy that is the rival Orthodox Communions in schism with each other, speaks volumes about the heterodox phronema I've personally found in it. They brought all their "decontextualized" history, presuppositions and assumptions into their "orthodoxy". Division serves the Enemy, not Christ. He who causes schism, or rejoices in it sins greatly imo.
This is a peculiar critique. 1. Competing jurisdictions IS non canonical and wrong. It has some precedent in history in temporary circumstances (ie meletian schism) but it was mainstreamed by the Roman Catholic Church with the Uniates. It's wrong, but it's ironic you're the one making the criticism. The situation in the USA and Ukraine is creating a schism because of it's obvious noncanonical nature.
2. Fr Peter DOES have a canonical bishop. There is no debate over it. If his canonical release was defective, it's Metropolitan Seraphim. Being that there is no such thing as a canonical "unreception", the reality is that canonically Vladika Luke would be his bishop. This is a bureaucratic mess, feeding into point 1 (with the competing jurisdictions which should not exist to begin with). So I don't see where I or fr Peter are decontextualizing anything
....not that saying "you decontextualize things too" is really a counterargument.
@OrthodoxChristianTheology
@OrthodoxChristianTheology we're all "uncanonical" in the sense that Sister Vassa discusses in her video here: hereth-cam.com/video/LMY47-Pq2X8/w-d-xo.html
Also, in 1672 and in 1724 we had UNcanonical interference in our Canonical Patriarchical elections of native Arabs (who happened to be in favor or restoring Communion with the Latin Church in line with Patriarch Peter of Antioch in 1054. The EP had no jurisdiction, unless he held to a heterodox Supreme Jurisdiction for himself, to APOINT a rival (Greek) claimant to our Patriarchical See. So who can truly be called the Parasynogueists in our case, the Melkite Catholics, or the Melkite Orthodox? We're all "schismatics" and what is needed is Metanoia on both sides, since there can only be One side; that is the side of Christ, and His One, Holy, and Apostolic Church. The scandal and confusion in our political Communions is at least evidence that our understanding of the complex theological branch of Ecclesiology is only partial until we approach it with a hermeneutic of Unity, rather than a hermeneutic of schism. The Church is a Sacrament - a Great Mystery - in the end, and the definition of Orthodoxy must limited to that defined infallibly by the Ecumenical Councils, the Canons, and the consensus of the Fathers. In short, the Melkites are Orthodox, and our Theologumena is a legitimate of the Magisterium and dialogue toward Holy Unia.
The contextualized Canonical situation of Fr Heers is summed up by the Council of Canonical Orthodox Bishops, and the Apostolic Canons (confirmed by the 6th Ecumenical Council) dealing with clergy who act apart from their Bishops.
Also, "you decontextualize too" is counterargument if one is using it themselves to discredit and propose that the Latin apologists are in error as a result of your theory of "decontextualization"
@@Ortho_pilgrimthe melkites had a non canonical election and their patriarch was not received by the other patriarchs, which is traditionally necessary.
And in any event, being that there was a Latin patriarch and melkite patriarch there still was a jurisdictional issue in any event.
@melkite:
How can a priest in good standing (not suspended or defrocked or in any way even disciplined) who has not been informed by *his bishop* of any canonical infractions (the assembly is not a synod or a canonically responsible body here, especially since ROCOR and the Church of Greece are not a part of the AoBs) be considered to be acting “apart from his bishop”, especially since he is not serving without the blessing of local bishops?
You evidently are not fully informed about the matter.
It's kinda like there is error and bad will on all sides, and we need to submit ourselves to Christ's wish to be one. As evidenced by the constant hysterics of the trad Caths, the post Vatican II Roman Church has obviously changed its tune on a lot, and is willing to actually admit past error (but not necessarily present ones, funnily enough).
As we know, Jesus said to Peter “You are Peter and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell will never prevail against it”. Maybe it’s just a coincidence (as some think), but it’s intriguing that St Peter’s basilica is built right where the bones of St Peter have always been since his martyrdom. It’s also intriguing that it lasted 20 centuries for the bones to be found, little before the II Vatican Council. Besides, the power of binding and loosing given to Peter by Jesus in first place added to the previous data is also intriguing.
And all the other Apostles.
@@bradleyperry1735 And all the other saints, even if only Peter received the keys.
@@cleberferreiradejoao1306They all received the keys though.
Let's start with totally dumping Vatican 2 and the notion of a pope and catholic charismatic ism.
The "notion of the Pope" goes back to the NT and the Early Church. The Orthodox frequently acknowledge the honorific position of the Pope as Primo Inter Pares. I understand that they don't see it as an argument for the Pope's position as the head of the visible Church, but it at least recognizes that the position of the Bishop of Rome is a special one. "Dumping" Vatican II, totally or partially, seeing as it is an Ecumenical Council, is not even possible (or desirable), though phasing out some of the reforms that took place *after* Vatican II (not necessarily because of it) could be possible, especially in the areas of pastoral and liturgical discipline (like allowing guitar masses - Vatican II doesn't order guitar masses).
Hmm. Maybe, could be. Problem is that Agent Bergoglio is not even a real Pope. Nor "Patriarch" Bartholomew for that matter. Both have their hands full with their role as not-so-covert WEF/NATO operatives, so naturally, tending to a flock is not their main concern.
@@AluminiumT6 I think what is needed is a Vatican III that would clarify Vatican II and would reverse some of the reforms that occurred after the council.
lots of value statements from Mr. Truglia - "human nature is good!".... this goes against "Only God is good" and against a lot of other Saintly homilies...
same with the PhD statement - so academia trumps spirituality? Maybe this is why we're in this position? Every bishop should be a Doctorate holder, a business man, an administrator, a beaurecrat......versus letting the Holy Spirit and years of monastic struggle, proof of faith....
I don't know man....
In first part I think there's misunderstanding what Craig and Church says: Everything God created is good (God says this)
This universe is fallen so we are far from original (which everything will be fixed by Messiah in His second coming), but nevertheless everything created is still good just damaged, plus God restores Humans godly being by Him being Jesus Christ... (As much as those follow Him, they're Good)
God is Good = He's the eternal Good, he's what we mean Good. Just like Love, Truth. Human cannot be loving or truthful? As much as one can be, can human be as loving as Christ? Never, but that's the goal, that's the standard by which we judge, that's the goalpost, that's the icon, etalon, etc
But human nature is good statement from that God created everything Good, God didn't create anything bad or evil; bad and evil are depravation of good, further you're from God more evil. Human is are created by God, is good, what we as humans choose to do... Is up to us, that makes us evil, what we personally choose to do, not God's intention for us
About second part - Craig and Fr Peter (as do Saints) often talk against academia and things you talk against, I think they talk about having proper education in this field, imagine not even knowing Bible properly, in fact that's issue with heresies - taking not entirety of Gospel and Christ's teaching, but having partly proper teaching and partly inventing stuff by themselves ("Another gospel" I think Peter says this, either these words exactly or meaning is this)
In other words - this talk is about having "Zeal without knowledge" (as Paul the apostle tells judaizers)
What's knowledge? Following faith. Imagine calling yourself Christian and not caring to learn and follow what Christ taught
Human *nature* is good, because God created it. It is fallen and damaged, but still fundamentally good. Humans are not inherently evil or else we couldn't be saved.
Sheesh
DON T AFRAID NICEA 2025 NOTHING HAPPENS THE PEOPLE OF GOD SAID AS THE PAST BELOVED ORTHODOXY NEVER WE QUIT YOU.ORTHODOXY ISN T CATHOLICISM THE LAST WORD IS AT THE ORTHODOX PEOPLE EVEN IF ARE APOSTATS CLERGYMEN.ORTHODOXY WINS EVER.
A reunion between Catholics and Eastern Orthodox would be a very good thing. It is God´s will.
A reunion which subverts doctrine is actually what Satan wants.
Union with heretics is not a good thing.
@@shawnpatrick1877 I am not talking about "false unions". I am talking about the Eastern Orthodox splitting from the one true church without any reason. There was a pope for about 1.000 years and the Eastern Orthodox had no problem with this. Suddenly they did?
That could totally work if the RC church repents and becomes Orthodox and fully changes most of its doctrine and practice, Since Orthodoxy is the original faith of the apostles handed down. To unite contradictory churches is not of the Holy Spirit, thats actually more in line with the ecumenist AntiChrist movement of a one world religion. John 17 is referring to the original church, not the Episcopal modernist understanding.
If and when it is God's will, it will happen; and both Churches will be speaking, teaching, and practicing the truth as it was handed down from Christ.
So, how do you justify your seperation from the Roman Catholic Church? Hint, your seperation! When one seperates from the parent institute doesn't that indicate who existed prior to your seperation? Talk about a violation of the 4th Commandment on the highest of spiritual levels! Nice try but not one single Catholic apologist speaks for the Churches authentic Tradition esp. Lofton. Matter of fact he probably learned the technique from his Orthodox Church days. The Tradition stands on it's own. Time to grow up boys and return home before it's too late. You have no right to determine orthodoxy or heterodoxy without recourse to the authentic Magisterium of the Catholis Church so please for the sake of your salvation stop doing it.
So, what counts as "the authentic magisterium"? Is there a list of documents? Was it infallibly established? We both know that there isn't a list of "ex cathedra" statements. You don't and can't possibly know what those actually are, and every papist has his own list of "infallible pronouncements" with no actual way to prove himself to be correct.
You see, the papists by the virtue of their separation from the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Orthodox Church, have left themselves in a perpetual state of sophistry - with each new papal document there's as many ways to read it as there are latins out there. But how do you determine which reading of said document is correct? The only possible answer in this man-made false religion is "oh, we must wait for papal clarification"... but then this clarification has to be interpreted as well, and so on ad infinitum.
That's why the lack of unity in the heretical latin world is readily apparent - the 'old catholics', the 'sedevacantists', the 'sspx', the 'novus ordo' - all claim to interpret the papal decrees correctly, yet there's no unity of faith between all of them.
Repent and join the only Church Which was established by our Lord Jesus Christ - the Orthodox Church.
I’m just confused. Seems like both sides are to damn stubborn to just come together are reunite.
The Orthodox Church has always been clear that the Pope was removed from the Church in the 11th century due to his heresies. We have several books on this topic available at Uncut Mountain Press.
@@OrthodoxEthos but that doesn’t make entire sense. So it clear that the Orthodox Church accepted the Pope all the way up to that point. So you can’t deny that The Orthodox doesn’t believe in the authority of the Pope
@@vman9347 Again, of course there were faithful popes, saints who were popes, etc. That is irrelevant. The popes of the 11th century, under the influence of the Franks and those who were ignorant of, or indifferent to, the Oecumenical Councils and their repeated decisions with regard to the Faith of Nicea and the Symbol of Faith held dear since the 4th century, walked away from the Eighth Oecumenical Council and decisions that previous popes had embraced. They apostatized from Orthodoxy. They then proceeded to assume power and authority that had never been granted to them in order to defend their new innovations.
Please consider watching the videos on this channel dedicated to the Eighth Oecumenical Council under St. Photios.
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.
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.
Golden reply!
The departure from the church of the pope in the 11th century is very clear for any objective researcher into Church history, who is looking at the sources.
Thus, the "returning to the fold" belongs to the Latin-Frankish papacy not to the One Church.
Simply study the Eighth Oecumenical Council under St. Photios and the subsequent history and it is clear that the popes walked away from both the Faith of Nicea and the Oecumenical Councils and condemned themselves.
Kenny Lofton is one of the greatest theogians of our time.
Sorry...? Please stop being sarcastic and mocking.
No, he was one of the best CFers of our time
Who’s Kenny Lofton? It’s Michael Lofton 🤣🤣
I've lost so much respect for the hierarchy and clergy I'm almost a baptist.
Almost a baptist? Don't forsake what Christ has given us for the false doctrines of men. Some of the clergy are corrupt, just as they've always been and will always be. Our Lord and Savior told us to expect as much. There were times throughout Church history when large portions of the Church hierarchy espoused heresy. We have Christ, and He promised us that the Church would never fall. No need for doom and gloom.
Go to your local parish, partake in the life and sacraments of the Church, pray, and leave the rest to God.
Read St Symeon the New Theologian and it will keep you from going that way. He gives a real picture of how the church admin is which is NOT how it was when the clergy were illumined at the beginning. But the spiritual priesthood and fatherhood remains largely in monasteries. Also read Orthodox psychotherapy Ch 1-2 by Metropolitan Hierotheos Vlachos for a good summary . The loss of respect goes back centuries and yet the church still remains despite the bad clergy
Because you only focus on a few ecumenists, neglecting the rest. The Orthodox Church is not only EP or MP
By becoming a Baptist you'd be embracing many heresies. So your comment doesn't make any sense.
You can understand why the Reformers wanted to go back to Scripture alone (if only they could have agreed on its meaning!)