Orthodoxy vs. Catholicism w/ Steve Ray
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 30 มิ.ย. 2020
- This video is taken from Pints with Aquinas episode 207: • Video
Matt asks why Steve didn't become Orthodox, and chose to become Catholic instead. Learn the differences between the Orthodox Church and the Roman Catholic Church.
----------------------------------------- SPONSORS -----------------------------------------
Hallow: hallow.onelink.me/Q25Y/80833e8
Covenant Eyes: www.covenanteyes.com/ (use promo code: mattfradd)
----------------------------------------- GIVING -----------------------------------------
Patreon: / mattfradd
This show (and all the plans we have in store) wouldn't be possible without you. I can't thank those of you who support me enough. Seriously! Thanks for essentially being a co-producer coproducer of the show.
------------------------------------------- LINKS -------------------------------------------
Website: pintswithaquinas.com/
Merch: teespring.com/stores/matt-fradd
FREE 21 Day Detox From Porn Course: www.strive21.com/
------------------------------------------- SOCIAL -------------------------------------------
Facebook: / mattfradd
Twitter: / mattfradd
Instagram: / pints_w_aquinas
------------------------------------------ MY BOOKS ----------------------------------------
Does God Exist: www.amazon.com/Does-God-Exist...
Marian Consecration With Aquinas: www.amazon.com/Marian-Consecr...
The Porn Myth: www.ignatius.com/The-Porn-Myt...
------------------------------------------ CONTACT ------------------------------------------
Book me to speak: www.mattfradd.com/speakerrequ...
--
Website - mattfradd.com
Facebook - mattfradd/
Twitter - mattfradd - บันเทิง
Steve Ray argues the Orthodox Church isn't one church because there are national Orthodox bodies. I will say this: I'm Greek Orthodox, and I have received the sacraments from Antiochian, Russian, and Serbian Orthodox priests. So, how are we not one Church?
Steve is also very wrong when he says Orthodoxy doesn't have a stance on abortion; it is utterly condemned.
Edit: Also, it's a bit disingenuous to accuse Orthodox specifically of being ethnic. My mom's background is Dutch Reformed Calvinist, and they're rather ethnic. Some old time Lutherans are ethnic--Danes vs Germans vs Swedes. Roman Catholic congregations made up mostly of one nationality may be ethnic. It's not just an Orthodox problem.
Agreed. I am an American mut just like most Americans and I joined the Orthodox Church at 16. It was Antiochian which generally has a lot of converts and Americans. In the Catholic Church, I have felt ousted simply because I’m not Catholic.
Please - Orthodox churches are not ethnic like most supposedly "ethnic" churches I've been in. I love going to greek orthodox masses, but being part greek myself, there's no way to refute the ethnic aspect of orthodoxy.
This guy is also very routinely wrong about the actual history of the Orthodox in the Catholics. First off the Catholics and the Orthodox used to be in Union together. They would meet, and they would discuss things together. However, there's also misconceptions for example the Orthodox believe that we should always use unleavened bread for communion while the Catholics were trying to believe that you could use leavened bread. That was one of the issues that happened in 1054. Pope Leo also wanted to have full authority over both the Catholic and the Orthodox churches. Both churches claim to be started by Jesus. I'm neither Catholic or Orthodox but I was raised Catholic and one thing I can definitely say is the Pope shouldn't have authority over anything because he is human and just as sinful is any other person on this planet. The same goes with the patriarch. But from my understanding of patriarch can be removed at any point in time based on something that they would say that would regard sinful natures. I also believe that they held the stance that the patriarchs could get married but the Catholics wanted their priests through main celibate. When you go into the book of Corinthians it will actually state that Paul wished that more people could remain celibate or unmarried. But that was his own personal view, on the other side he said if those who can't withstand sexual desires then they should be married.
It also states that Deacons should be able to have one wife and that they should be able to run their household the same way that they run the church. Again I'm paraphrasing but biblically the Orthodox has things that they're trying to keep within the biblical standards, although they have the traditions and the same sort of sacraments as the Catholic Church they also differ because they wanted to keep the traditions authentic and original to the biblical nature.
They do have opposing views on theology but if you go through the Catholic Church the Catholic Church has actually went through many different views on theology and kept changing their views. On top of that Orthodox churches are from the east and when you go through the normal Orthodox churches or the original Orthodox churches they'd be more in tune to be closer to Israel and Turkey, and obviously Egypt as the Coptic Orthodox and even Ethiopian Orthodox. Yes there's many different aspects of Orthodox as the Ethiopian Orthodox has more books in their Bible than any other church, I believe they have over 86 books in their Bible.
Over my span of time of growing and learning I've been trying to understand the Orthodox Church. I started going to read Hebrew and Greek, obviously Greek is was based on the original manuscripts next to Aramaic and Hebrew, and they tried to keep everything based in the Bible. I still disagree with the venturation of Mary or praying of the saints but aside from that I think Orthodox has a more continuous understanding to remain in the scriptures than the Catholic Church, as had many stances and influences throughout the years and were the ones that wanted to excommunicate the Orthodox Church before the Orthodox Church excommunicated the Catholic Church. It seemed to be more of a pull of power in politics that the Catholics deemed that they wished to have at that time period which led to the great schism.
I'm not going to read this guy's books because obviously he's very biased and not fully knowledgeable on the full history. And I don't claim to be fully knowledgeable either I am still reading into all the early church history and the great schism and everything but between Protestants, orthodox and Catholics, I like the idea to always remain in the Bible from Protestant with you although I really reject most of the Protestant doctrines, I respect the early church fathers of the Catholic Church before Constantine took over, and as for the Orthodox Church I respect them for trying to keep the traditions alive for the way that the apostles wanted them to be kept
The arguement is also valid in the Catholic Church, the Catholic Church in Germany is more German than American and it feels like a different church because of the different language, but that doesn’t prove Catholicism or orthodoxy wrong
Exactly. If we were to choose to start attending a Russian Orthodox church there is no ceremony that we have to attend to be accepted into their church.
I’m a cradle Catholic who fell away from the church, got into new age for a while, left that nonsense and ALMOST became Orthodox bc of the reverence. Then someone introduced me to the Traditional Latin mass and I went to confessions after 14 years. The rest is history. Deo gratias!
@Colin Sheehan Orthodoxy with its blessing of second marriages is not?
@Colin Sheehan They also allow divore and remarriage for a variety of other reasons.
You can look up their own synods for that. Annulment is also practiced by them on top of divorce and remarriage. Annulment isn´t modernist. It goes back to the early Church divorce and remarriage does not. It was introduced due to Byzantine emperors.
@Colin Sheehan Well they so, at least the traditionalists do. Annulment doesn´t contradit the early Church, divorce does.
@Colin Sheehan Not for nearly the first 1000 years. St. Theodore the Studite resisted Constantine VI when he wanted a divorce.
They believe what they do due to caesaropapism.
Again, annulments existed pre-schism. So no innovation there.
@Colin Sheehan You mean regarding annulments? The story of Pope Nicholas who refused Lothair II an annulment should suffice I think.
"The Catholic church could never be perfect, because I'm part of it and I know myself" - amazing statement Steve. You always bring new perspectives to the table. God bless.
The Catholic Church is Huge, it’s almost impossible for it to be Perfect, even though many people try their hardest, but people waver all the time in the Catholic Church, as it very difficult at times with so much losses and attacks but, I’ve seen God pull me out of the impossible and to this day I’m ver blessed to be part of the Catholic Church. God really does test you through the Catholic Church though, that because it his true Church on earth that many have abandoned. GodBless and stay faithful.🙏🙏🙏
How about you actually get some good Orthodox people on the podcast already and see what they have to say
I agree.
@@user-pl3zh8lu3i Makes sense. I always like to hear from both sides to be honest
Matt Fradd and Abbot Tryphon episode needs to happen!
Why not u have a say?
St. Cyprian says in AD 252
If you are not in unity with the chair of Peter Can u be even called as Christians?
I'd really like to see a thoughtful conversation between you and a knowledgeable Orthodox Christian such as Fr. Andrew Stephan Damick or Fr. Barnabas Powell instead of just rehashing polemics *about* Orthodox Christians with a fellow Roman Catholic.
Yeah, there's so few debates/dialectics between actual Roman Catholics vs Orthodox. The only video i've found was Jay Dyer vs Nick Fuentes and Nick was way out classed so it barely was even fair.
@@TheFeralcatz nick fuentes the hyper-racist?
@@TheFeralcatz Jay Dyer debated Erick Ybarra (Catholic apologist) as well; Erick was hardly out-classed. You can find it on TH-cam.
@@TheFeralcatz nick is an trolly conservative. He's like a silent p "catholic" allnhis beliefs are alt right American protestant
@@hayden8491 I don't know many campus conservatives who think white people being in a relationship with black people is "degenerate". I also don't know many campus conservatives who hate illegal immigrants from mexico but would welcome illegal immigrants from italy.
So you spoke about the Orthodox Church(es). Independent churches existed since the 1st Ecumenical Council and the Ecumenical Councils have the power to grant independence to a specific church. For example, the Orthodox Church of Cyprus was granted independence/autocephaly back in 418AD at the Council of Ephesus which was approved by Pope Celestine I. Being autocephalous is just a way of improving how Synods work within a particular country and how to solve internally some internal issues based on the centralised dogma of the Church.
Also, at 02:34 you said "the governments are heads of the churches". Honestly, that's misleading information at its best and a channel like you should be a bit more charitable and careful. The Church has Jesus Christ as the Head and no other human being on earth. The only thing that happens with independent churches, is that they want to have a voice for issues which are related to politics and the society, because they want to guide the leaders based on the teachings of the Church.
Also, in regards to abortion, the Orthodox Church opposes it by all means. Our teaching is based upon Biblical evidence, such as the condemnation of abortion by Saint Paul at his letter to Galatians, the Didache (which dates back to as early as 100AD) and various other condemnations by the Church Fathers. We do not need to do anything else to further condemn the obvious and to state that abortion is contrary to the teaching of our Holy Church.
You have also spoken about the fact that at the moment there are some excommunications in the Orthodox Church. We know and also you know that excommunications were happening since the early Christian era and since we were still one. If you count the number of excommunications in the RCC since 1054AD, you will realise that the Pope is not the panacea for this issue :)
PS: At the beginning you said that the Protestants feel more hostile towards Catholicism, than towards Orthodoxy. Just to remind you that the Protestants were a result of a Western divorce, rather than an ecumenical divorce as the one of 1054AD. So even though nowadays most Protestants have the same hostility for the Orthodox Church due to the spread of information, it was absolutely normal at the time to have a bolder opinion for the RCC than for the Orthodox.
Amen☦️
They dont read that much about church history
Couldn’t have said it better myself
Εύγε !!! Απορώ πως είναι δυνατόν εμείς οι άνθρωποι με το μυαλό μας να προσπαθούμε να κάνουμε το άσπρο - μαύρο . Μετά από κάποιο καιρό που κοιτάζω διαφορά βίντεο από Προτεστάντες και καθολικούς που μιλάνε για θέματα που αφορούν την Ορθοδοξία , στο μόνο πράγμα που βλέπω ότι πραγματικά κολλάνε και δεν συγκλίνουν προς την ορθοδοξία είναι ότι τους φαίνεται κάτι πολύ έξω από αυτούς σαν παράδοση . Και δεν έχουν και άδικο γιατί όντως η Δύση έχει πολύ διαφορετική παράδοση . Παρόλα αυτά όμως κολλάνε σε αυτό και δεν κολλάνε στον μονάρχη Πάπα που δογματικά έχει κατοχυρωθεί ως αντιπρόσωπος του Χριστού στη Γη … πως γίνεται να παραμένεις καθολικός έχοντας διαβάσει τις Οικουμενικές και τις Βατικάνειες Συνοδούς ; Απορώ ειλικρινά . Χαίρομαι πάντως που υπάρχει κόσμος που ψάχνεται πνευματικά . Μπορεί αυτή η αναζητήσει να τους φέρει όντως πίσω στην Εκκλησία του Χριστού κάποια στιγμή , μακάρι !
Thanks for saying this, now I don't need to.
These guys clearly know nothing of the orthodox church and about church history, it's laughable and that's why we should forget about these guys as soon as possible..
"hospital for sinners, that's why I'm here.." oh Steve ray, it's always fun listening to you. Thank you 😇
It's a confusing point, because the Orthodox church also views itself as a spiritual hospital for sinners.
@@DogandButterfly6 Glad they accepted you. Some people have had the opposite experience unfortunately. One of the big things I've noticed with converts to Catholicism that originally looked at the Orthodox but went with Catholicism was that the priest or community didn't know how to accept somebody with a different ethnicity from the community's own. But glad it worked out for you. God Bless.
It's Orthodox churches and not Orthodox Church. There is no unity, that's the main concern. Just contemplate on it with the Spirit of the Almighty within us.
This is a really bad representation of what the Orthodox Church's structure is.
This is basically like saying "There's not one Roman Catholic Church. You've got the Dominicans, the Jesuits, the Byzantines, and even Old Latin Mass practicioners. There's no unity!"
Which, of course, is stupid. Ethnicity and caesero-papism don't define the Orthodox Church, Eucharistic fellowship does.
Saying "The Russian Orthodox Church" is simply saying "The Orthodox Church in Russia". There's Jurisdictional squabbles, but you see the same kind of tension at the diocese level in Catholicism, too.
@@approachinglimits
According to many, The Orthodox Church has 9 ecumenical councils. The affirmation Palamite theology being one of them.
This is just bad arguments. Church structure difference between east and west all come down to the papacy, trying to gripe about councils and ethno-centrism are smoke and mirrors.
Not fair to compare Orders or Dioceses with Churches...
Even in the Catholic Church we have "particular Churches" which together in unity make up the Catholic Church, the Latin Church being one of them. The Eastern Catholics are not simply in an "Eastern Rite", but they belong to self-governing Churches (there are 20-something Churches in communion with Rome). All that being said, I think objectively speaking there is a lot more disunity in the East, if we're honest. For nearly every Eastern body of Christians, there is a group of those same Christians in communion with Rome (e.g. Coptic, Greek, Ukrainian, Melkite, Sryo-Malabar, Assyrian, Russian, Chaldean, Armenian, etc, etc). As a result, every single Catholic - be them Western or Eastern - are in Eucharistic communion with one another too. Hence, from East to West, for Catholics, they can go to Mass/Divine Liturgy with one another in ever single one of those Churches (a Russian can go to a Coptic Liturgy and to a Roman Mass). The Orthodox cannot do the same. But indeed, Catholicism isn't without tension or internal divisions/disputes, but there aren't formal schisms between these Churches. All in all, the greatest and only real difference of substance between Orthodoxy and Catholicism (since the theology and spirituality of Orthodoxy is found in Eastern Catholicism - even Palamism, hesychasm, etc) is that Eastern Catholics believe the Faith of the Latins is of the same essence as the Faith of the East, albeit expressed differently, and of course, the manner of governance between Catholics and Orthodox is greatly different since Catholics believe papal primacy [of universal authority] is true for many reasons (practical, historical, Scriptural, Tradition, etc). Even the filioque is not truly an issue, but an artifact of language, semantics, and misunderstanding - it's theologically compatible with the Greek teaching (the Latins do not teach the Spirit originates from both the Father and the Son). In the end the only real difference of substance is the issue of the Pope. I would agree with Vladimir Solovyov (a Russian Orthodox who believed in papal primacy) who stated that, because of its lack of central authority in the papacy, the Russian Church has essentially become subservient to the State, whereas this hasn't afflicted the Latin Church because of the papacy.
Makes no sense what this guy says.
I'm a protestant who's doubting protestantism at the moment. I would love to convert to Catholicism but an Orthodox name Jay Dyer keeps destroying Catholic apologists in debates on TH-cam which discourages me from pursuing the Catholic faith. I'm now leaning towards Orthodoxy. I would to see Trent Horn or Steve Ray debate Jay Dyer. That dude seems unstoppable!!
I feel the same way. Watching Jay Dyer makes me have doubts about Catholicism. And I really want to convert to the church. I just don't wanna convert to the wrong faith. Trent horn needs to debate him :(
I have never seen Jan Dyer but divorce 3 times?
Hello friend, and fellow explorer of truth. If you’re interested in investigating which Church is true I have some videos, books, and advice to recommend to you. Jay Dyer is indeed a great speaker, but there is someone he refuses to debate. Br. Michael Diamond from “Vatican Catholic”. They expose some of this positions on the videos they have on him. Be warned however, “Vatican Catholic” isn’t really a Catholic group, they are sedevacantists, a splinter group which rejects the current pope. Their videos on Dyer are great but their other ones are a bit off.
As for books I recommend these three free online books.
1. Giles. Documents illustrating papal authority A.D. 96-454.
2. Rev. Paul Bottalla, S.J. The Pope and the Church considered in their mutual relations.Vol.
3. Thomas William Allies M. A. The See of Peter, the Rock of the Church, the Source of Jurisdiction, and Center of Unity
Advice, don’t hurry into a decision! I know many people who make quick decisions and later regret them. Take time to read and pray about it. Also I agree Trent Horn should debate him, hope he does. We should ask Trent on Twitter or something. I’ll be praying for you friend.
@Mango Bango Read Dave Armstrong books about catholicism and orthodoxy, they are cheap and have a lot of "gold" in it. And strong case for catholicism.
Also check this , Roman Catholic Chruch proved through history that its superior and in fact saved orthodoxy (in denominational way) and is true orthodox church. Only facts:
www.patheos.com/blogs/davearmstrong/2020/02/roman-see-as-historic-standard-bearer-of-orthodoxy.html
th-cam.com/video/DtFXBDllso4/w-d-xo.html This video by Taylor Marshall does a good job explaining some of the differences between Catholicism and Orthodoxy. It also explains some of the big problems with Orthodoxy compared to the Catholic Church.
Very poor representation of Orthodoxy. Of course, to your point, so are a lot of the online forums. I wish you would do an interview with someone like Fr. Josiah Trenham to give your audience a fair understanding of Orthodoxy. I love your videos but I haven't seen one interview that touches on Orthodoxy where it fits the reality.
Because they have a narrative to spread, and highly effective, articulate Orthodox presenters like Fr. Trenham would obliterate that narrative.
The orthodox church split from the Catholic Church as they did not believe the Pope should have complete authority under the Roman Empire. It all stems from the Universal Church or “Catholic Church.”
I'll take my odds with the other four Patriarchs and their Bishops who all agreed over the one who split away. Orthodoxy has maintained the same worship, practices, and doctrines over the last 2000 years while Catholicism has swung back and forth and made many innovations to practice and doctrine and led to another split 500 years ago which has gone even further over the edge. Matt often says we can't maintain unity without a Pope but I think Orthodoxy has proven that incorrect since we've maintained a much greater continuity and unity without one. Yes, we don't have anyone to step in and fix the issue between Constantinople and Russia with a snap of the finger. We have to wait and let it play out and do our best. But I guarantee you that 500 years from now, if God gives us that long, the Orthodox Church will maintain its timeless character and who knows what the Catholic and Protestant churches will look like.
CommIncense Culture... As stated in this video, the orthodox church doesn’t have a dogma to reference to. Your church has leniency towards sinister beliefs such as same sex marriage, LGBTQ+, contraception between married couples, a priest having sexual relations, etc. That’s great that you want to take a chance. Just be aware that your church split from the Universal Church because of disagreements of tradition - as did the protestant churches.
CommIncense Culture, the Catholic Church is the first church established by St. Peter himself, who was crucified upside down in Rome. It is the only Church Christ left behind through St. Peter in Rome. It has maintained the same worship for the last +2000 years even before the orthodox branched away, we never changed even if the media may try to influence your beliefs. If your priests can be married and have sex, what’s stopping them from bringing in a women priest? The Catholic Church never changes & will never conform to society beliefs - LGBTQ+, abortion, same-sex marriage, contraception, etc.
I’m a Catholic convert to Orthodoxy though I still love much about the western church. Respectfully, Steve has some very shallow takes here, even though there is absolutely much to criticize within Orthodoxy.
“The East will tolerate endless amounts of schism but not heresy, and the West will tolerate endless amounts of heresy but no schism...it’s almost as if we needed one another.”-Charles Coulombe
I’d encourage you to have a non-sperg Orthodox priest on to have a charitable but honest conversation, Matt.
❤️☦️
In b4 cOmE bAcK tO tHe TruE ChUrcH
I’m aware of the Eastern rite. I’m also enormously well read on the East/west divide and I remain Orthodox for several reasons that go beyond mere historical analysis or popular apologetics. In advance I’ll say that I appreciate the unsolicited evangelism tho.
S W S do you mind pointing out those reasons?
😮
Has Matt ever had an Orthodox Christian on his show? Seems like the majority I see is a non-Orthodox talking about the Orthodox Faith.
TheThreatenedSwan Couldn’t have said it better. All respect to our “separated brothers”, but many Protestant converts fall to this trick: since anticatholicism is so absurdily strong in the US, they feel like they can be “catholic” protesting to something.
I will try with Saint Augustine here, although tecnically we shouldn’t call orthodox brothers “heretics”, since doctrinal problems (apart from governing the Church) are pretty much a problem of misunderstanding and stubbornness on both sides:
_“I am subject to the consensus of peoples and nations; I am subject to the authority embodied in miracles, nourished with hope, added with love and settled with antiquity. I am subject to the succession of priests from the same chair as the apostle Peter, to whom the Lord entrusted, after his resurrection, the shepherding of his sheep to the present episcopate. _*_I am subject to the name "catholic" that, not without reason, only this Church obtained, in the midst of so many heresies. Thus, in spite of all heretics wanting to call themselves Catholics, when an outsider asks where the Catholic Church meets, none of them dare to indicate their basilica or house”_* .
Réplica à Carta de Manés, chamada ‘Fundamento’, parágrafo 4, free translation from Spanish).
www.augustinus.it/spagnolo/contro_lettera_mani/index2.htm
hes had an eastern catholic priest who seemed orthodox in everything but the pope
He’s had a Byzantine Catholic who was very into Orthodoxy and knowledgeable about it.
TheThreatenedSwan I 100% agree with you Threatened Swan. Most Orthodox I’ve seen seem like they’re looking for an ideal Kingdom of Christ on earth, which they’re simply never going to find, and then it becomes like a weird pseudo nationalism. Certainly not all, but man remind me of the Jews that received Jesus in Israel 2000 years ago and wanted a Messiah that would restore their kingdom on earth rather than preaching about a Kingdom beyond this world. All that aside, I love the Orthodox, and like participating in the Byzantine Catholic Church and Liturgy, but if you love Eastern Traditions, Byzantine Catholicism really is the way to go because their few errors have been tempered by the Magisterium. Maybe it’s because they don’t have a grand unified church, which is the true Kingdom, that they intuitively seek it out somewhere else and tend towards forms of nationalism and aggressive patriarchy in the bad sense? That actually makes a lot of sense now that I write it out...Anyways, the Byzantine Catholics do have a unified Church to look to and so don’t tend towards the same issues as disunited Orthodox. May God in His night and mercy unite our churches again soon, and may the Holy Theotokos cover us in her mantle and protect us. Amen.
@@TheThreatenedSwan That is probably the least charitable way you could describe the Orthodox Church. And this Steve guy doesn't understand the ecclesiology of the Orthodox Church.
In the future, have someone who is actually Orthodox discuss their faith. Almost nothing he said is representative of Eastern Orthodoxy.
Matt Fradd has a very blatant bias against the Orthodox.
ionut din chitila Eastern Catholic isn’t the same.
@@TheRealRealOK It's identical to Eastern Orthodoxy, except we believe in papal primacy. Everything else is the same.
@@iliya3110 There are more differences than papal primacy to Eastern Orthodoxy and Eastern Catholicism including teachings on the nature of grace, spirituality and asceticism, doctrines on the immaculate conception, original sin, purgatory, and the philoque, and liturgics and basic church life practices (including catholic view on the necessity of the celibacy for the priesthood, denying the eucharist and chrismation until a later age, etc.) just to name a few.
@@peterhoilman6196 What you are observing here are various Latinizations in *some* Eastern Catholic Churches, but these are slowly being phased out of these Churches. I go to a Ukrainian Catholic parish and our theology, spirituality is exactly the same ("Palamism", hesychasm, etc). Our priests get married and our infants receive Chrismation and Holy Communion. We do not recite the filioque at Divine Liturgy (but not because we believe it to be heretical because it's not and makes sense in the Latin language, but not in the Greek). Original Sin is taught accoriding to the Greek Tradition (even so, the Latin teaching is perfectly compatible with the Greek teaching - see the Catechism of the Catholic Church. Same teaching. Different terms). We do not talk about purgatory because it's not part of our tradition. The Immaculate Conception is not contrary to Eastern teaching; it was only stated in Latin terms. It's fairly simple to explain it in succinct Eastern terms (e.g. while you and I are born in the Image of God, we lack the likeness, but our Immaculate Mother was born in both the Image and Likeness of God - essentially she was born with the [Uncreated] Grace of baptism). I'm not sure what you are saying is different about asceticism. While the canon law doesn't require us to fast the traditional way we are all called to do so according to our ability. The spirituality of the Ukrainian Church is hesychasm. Like I said, it's identical except we believe in supreme papal authority, according to the early teaching of the Latin Church.
That was really edifying! Thank you!
Greeting's from indian orthodox church🇮🇳 part of oriental orthodoxy
Hey fellow oriental orthodox. Greeting from you sister Ethiopian orthodox tewahdo church
This is not correct information regarding the Orthodox Church.
No sht sherlock. If orthodox admit it then they wouldnt be still orthodox lmao. Id appreciate more the people who just talk out what makes it wrong instead of just stating the obvious feeling they have. Lol
Hey Matt, I’m a Celtic Orthodox Priest (Syriac Rite) and though my Bishop would have a cow over Papal Infallibility and Priestly Celibacy we are not an Ethnocentric Rite and I personally use the Latin Mass. We accept everyone. My Parish in Nebraska is growing slowly but significantly due to the Super Conservative Bishop in the Diocese of Lincoln. I’ve met Bishop Conley and he’s a fantastic man, but he is extremely strict. Women aren’t allowed to serve in any of their Parishes and that certainly has caused issues.
Are you personally discerning the doctrine of Papal Infallibility? As I understand this my friend, the Church is simply protected by the Holy Spirit to not teach erroneously. St Peter's successor was considered to be an authority regarding dividing matters pertaining to faith and morals. There's much evidence to point to this reality in the first century onwards. In Christ-
When you say that you use a Latin rite which one exactly? Sarum or one that is a pre Schism Latin Rite from Ireland or the British Isles? Gallic rite? Man sign me up I would absolutely love it! I'm sick to death of cringey NO Masses, I attend the TLM on Sunday afternoons, it's the only TLM that offered well there's two one in SLC and the other in Park city UT.
I am a Byzantine Catholic Priest of the Holy Protection of Mary Byzantine Catholic Eparchy of Phoenix. I am truly disappointed with this superficial treatment of our Orthodox brothers and sisters. I had come to expect much higher standards from you Matt.
i agree
How you bow to the pope when you have in the Eucharist Gregory Palamas as a saint when he call latins as πειθήνια oργανα του σατανά that they are working for satan for the filioque
With respect as a baptized Orthodox I understand these complaints. Especially the one about multiple "churches". However, I remember going to a joint service in which my Serbian Orthodox Priest, a Lebanese Orthodox Priest, a Romanian Orthodox Priest, and a Ukrainian Orthodox Priest all served the Liturgy together!
They had a few of these services and it will happen again Lord willing. I absolutely loved it! All the wonderful things about the different communities were brought together and the Liturgy was served as one Church. Again, I say this with respect for my Catholic brothers and sisters. God bless you all!
Im Christian but i wasnt baptised, my parents at the time weren't believers (they are now). I live in Poland which is very Catholic but the second largest group of Christianity is Orthodox. I want to get baptised but I can't decide between Catholicism and Orthodoxy. I want to do the right thing but I don't know which one it is.
@@xza5687 Tough choice for me as well, however after a long while I realized thanks to God that orthodoxy is the truth, pray that God guides you on the right path.
@@xza5687 where about in Poland do you live? Maybe I coud help cos I live in Poland too.
that guy has no idea about the Orthodox Church. He said the individual states are head of the churches, that is just not true. Patriarchs and metropolitons are heads of churches. what a doofus.
also, we haven't had an ecumenical council in so long because there isn't a roman emperor and the 7 ecumenical councils (accepted by catholics as dogmatic) were all called by the Roman emperor (Not the fake HRE).
I can't tell if it's gross ignorance or straight up deception whenever i hear catholic commentators discuss Orthodoxy so blatantly wrong and simultaneously water down the ridiculous dogmatic claims of the role and authority of the papacy, that is totally absent in the first millennium of the church.
Does that mean that the authority of Christ and the assistance of the Holy Spirit upon His Church is conditioned to the existence of the Roman political structure ?
Did you take a look at the sources he's talking about in his book ?
@@Iesu-Christi-Servus No it just means that an Ecumenical Council is by definition a council which is binding upon the whole ecumene, which means the bounds of the Roman Empire. Ironically it's the Roman Catholic understanding of ecumene in which the Imperial powers were supposedly transferred to the Pope (see the forged 'Donation of Constantine') where a caeseropapist understanding of Ecumenical authority persists.
>we haven't had an ecumenical council in so long because there isn't a roman emperor and the 7 ecumenical councils (accepted by catholics as dogmatic) were all called by the Roman emperor (Not the fake HRE).
Catholics love to say that we haven't had an ecumenical council since Nicaea II but we actually have. Constaninople 4 (880AD) and the Hesychast Councils (1341-1351) are both Ecumenical for us.
@@firenuckle98 The donation of Constantine is not involved here, we're discussing whether or not the successor of Peter is infallible when he makes a doctrinal definition about faith or moral.
And what makes a council ecumenical is when it is " _confirmed or at least recognized as such by Peter's successor_ "
Peter's successor... so the Bishop of Antioch should have that ability too right?
"
Also, my comment isn't even about that. I just wanted to point out this guys ridiculous level of ignorance about Orthodoxy. He shouldn't be writing books on a subject that he knows nothing about. simple as that. Unless he's just a liar.
funnily enough, the book of Romans 11:19-24, St Paul is warning Rome that they may be cut off from the church. He specifically says "Otherwise you also will be cut off." which is exactly what has happened.
How could Paul warn Rome of being cut off? it makes no sense if you also believe that communion with Rome is your assurance of being in the true Church of God.
Steve Ray is such a great apologist! God has blessed me by letting me listen to true greats in His Church!
I thought about leaving The Church to become Orthodox because of Francis until I realized I would have to give up my beliefs in the Marian Apparitions and lose the intercession of countless Saints. The thought of it alone ripped my heart out. No way.
Orthodoxy are a bunch of weirdo fruitcakes.You made the right call.
Matt, if you're open to it, please try and get a knowledgeable Orthodox priest on the podcast to discuss Orthodoxy. Fr. Josiah Trenham, Fr. Barnabas Powell, and Fr. Andrew Damick would all be great options : )
What would be the point? It's not like it's possible to defend the blasphemous Palamite heresy which denies immutability of God, a dogma defined at Nicea.
Luke Brasting Your problem is the energy/essence distinction. Far from heresy, it is actually critical and, in fact, necessary, for the doctrine of Theosis; the whole purpose of the incarnation, death and resurrection of Christ. And the sole purpose of human life.
@@lukebrasting5108 Can you elaborate on this?
This is ludicrous.. no Orthodox Church. The undivided Church composed the Nicene Creed - one, holy, catholic, apostolic Church. Many congregations make up the Church.
Michael Flowers No, Christ’s body can’t be divided. The Eastern Orthodox Church is His body.
That’s my point. He said there is no Orthodox Church but only churches.
Nothing but love for Matt and Steve, but a lot of this is just wrong, I'm sorry brothers (I'm Byzantine Catholic also) but this is just incorrect. Matt, invite Fr Josiah Trenham on.
Hello, people! I am an Orthodox Christian and I would like to give mу short responce to the words of the narrator.
First 4 minutes the narrator was telling false information:
- Orthodox Church is not ethnical - we are catholic = universal Church and you a welcome to join any our local representor. We are divided on a territorial and management grouds, not on the ground of teaching and the names like Bulgarain Orthodox Church, Russian Orthodox Church, Greek Orthodox Church are equal to Roman Catholic Church, Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church, Armenian Catholic Church. Orthodox Church is monolithic having territorial divisions for management.
- Eccumenical Patriarch has authority to summon Eccumenical Counsil - he used this authority in 2016 last time - another question " Do we have some unclear or tricky topics for the whole Universal Church to summon the Eccumenical Counsil?" - but it is another question.
- Eccumenical Patriarch is not a central Pope - he has a specific title, specific authority, but he is the first among equals. I would say it is relevant to the time of apostols and early church.
- Orthodox Church has a strong stand towards abortion - it is a sin, which nobody can committ; and towards divorce - people can divorce in case of adultery.
- At 3:44 the narrator can not understand " Why 3, not 4". I don't understand either - where did he found that info. Orthodox Christian can get married 2 times - if in the first marrige there was an adultery you can get married again (an innocent part). If in the second time there was an adultery you can divorse and after that can not enter marrige again.
From 4 -5 minutes narrator was praising Orthodoxy and from 5 till the end he was saying information about Catholic Church that in majority can be said myself about Orthodoxy.
Dear Matt, I kindly ask you, if you would like to talk about Orthodoxy please invite Orthodox narrators or check the information giving by your guests because some people can watch this video and believe the narrator for the rest of their lives withour double checking.
@@alondrah3687 It is not true. Simply wrong argumentation
Sorry but it's Not Just territorial. i live in Germany and if I want to go to an orthodox church, in my small town alone there is a greek orthodox church, where everybody speaks greek, there is a serbian orthodox church where everybody is serbian and a russian orthodox church, where everybody speaks russian. It's Not territorial,it's ethnic. There is no german-orthodox church anywhere near me and several ethnic (!) Orthodox churches exist in one and the same area.
I love the Catholic Church even though I am Orthodox and have gone to both Catholic and Orthodox Churches . My fathers family are Serbian Orthodox and my moms side are Irish Catholic so I have a love for both and I enjoy and listen to this podcast regularly, but this is not a good explanation of the Orthodox Church . You are on spot when you mention all the backstabbing and infighting nowadays , but the rest is off . I still attend Catholic Mass with my moms family sometimes and I truly enjoy it and am greatly appreciative of how well I’m treated by their priest and the wonderful conversations I have with him .
Heey Roy, greetings from Serbia, from Orthodox brother!
Nikola Stanić greetings Nikola !
Love your channel, I have been watching for a while now, but i noticed that you can not click on any of the videos, you have to go into the description to find it, good job, love what you talk about :)
Steve Ray you're the best 🤗🤗🤗
No they don't have a centralized pope but that is because they believe that spot is reserved for the Holy Spirit. Just as with the first councils where Bishops all came together and formed a consensus based upon what the Holy Spirit had shown them.
Invite Father Josiah Tenham to your show, he can give you a correct or orthodox view of the Orthodox Catholic Church.
Ohh! Set up a debate with the best Roman Catholic apologist with Jay Dyer
Orthodoxy vs Catholicism
The problem with Dyer's thesis is that it doesn't work. Eastern Catholicism (despite as much as he's mocked it) is identical to Orthodoxy (theology, spirituality, etc). Eastern Catholicism proves that the only real substantial difference between Orthodox and Catholics is the matter of the papacy. If the debate is to be about anything, it'd have to be about the papacy. Dyer debated Erick Ybarra about this topic and the public opinion was that Ybarra won.
The Church that’s universal is the true Church of Jesus Christ. It’s the only Church who followed Christ’s command to preach the Gospel throughout all nations.
Good discussions, eye opener!!
Eye opener? Really? I hardly see blind and dumb guy like this one. Everything he said is fucking false and wrong.
@@idontknowWhatTosay8 Did Lucifer give you that tongue?
Very interesting perspective and conversation.
Your Orthodox brother in Christ.
He's mixing up a lot of things here, and seems to be ignoring the fact that up until the early 20th century Catholic churches in America also frequently had an ethnic/national character to them: there were, for example, Irish and Italian Catholic churches. Those distinctions began to fade away as Catholicism became integrated in American society - but they're still not gone entirely, they live on primarily in the Latin community.
Most of the Orthodox churches were formed by migrant communities who arrived in America more recently than the Irish and Italian Catholic communities for example, and frequently if you attend worship at an Orthodox church you'll find that many of the attendees are first or second generation immigrants, who (understandably) want to attend the Holy Liturgy as they've always known it. But we can already see the Orthodox Church in America (OCA), which has become partially recognized as autocephalous, shift towards English language services as more people who aren't of Russian origin are joining. The same thing is happening in a lot of European countries: countries like the Netherlands and France are slowly building their own church which have no specific ties to Russia/Greece/Romania/Serbia etc.
Furthermore, it is stated in this video that these culture-based churches somehow signify that there isn't one Orthodox church, but there are many different Orthodox churches. These churches are no more different from each other than Latin Mass churches are from Novus Ordo churches, or Latin churches from Byzantine-rite Catholic churches. Do they have different rites and use different languages? Yes. Are all three of them Catholic and in communion with each other, and therefore part of the same larger church? Yes. And the same holds true for the Eastern Orthodox churches: if I'm Romanian Orthodox I can receive communion at a Serbian Orthodox church, or in the Orthodox church of America.
It feels strange to use this (apparently misunderstood) "division" as an argument for not becoming Orthodox while in a discussion with someone who attends a Byzantine-rite church. It's not division, it's diversity due to geographic location. Not unlike that which exists in the Catholic churches of the east.
Goes to a Byzantine Rite... So basically you want the fruit of Orthodoxy but not admit that it is fruitful because IT IS the vine. Get Fr Josiah Trenham on to have a discussion about ecclesiology as that seems to be the sole issue here.
I wonder what Byzantine Rite Catholics think on the second week of Great Lent when they commemorate St Gregory Palamas or when St Mark of Ephesus' feast day comes around.
@@firenuckle98 I can imagine that any compromise or lack thereof is awkward.
The vine? It can't be the vine since it adopted the blatant heresy of Palamism as dogma.
Maybe it's because he knows the Byzantine Catholics rightly recognize the reunion Council of Florence since it fulfilled every Orthodox and Catholic definition of what makes a Council binding.
The Church is a gathering of believers (laity and clergy) in the Lord Jesus Christ according to the creed and apostolic tradition. And the Head of the Church is the Lord Jesus Christ. The Pope was not the Head of the church in the first millennium.All questions were solved by the Universal Cathedrals, not personally by Pope Roman
Indeed. I have no the faintest idea why the majority don't get it.
He's wrong about the question of abortion, contraception, etc.
No, I have family that are Orthodox and they confirm that you can be married up to 3 times. Maybe your particular church teaches the opposite but that is the problem with disunity.
The Orthodox Church is united through a common faith and through the Eucharist. In regards to ceasaropapism, a good example against that is the iconoclast period where there was a series of anti-icon emporers but the Orthodox Church still resisted it. You should read Church History by Fr Thomas Hopko. All the churches pre-schism were ethnic and this only in the past few hundred years in the New World where multiple different culture groups came together. At my local Orthodox parish there are many converts who are not of Greek, Russian, Serbian, Romanian, etc origin. There have been post-schism Ecumenical Councils and also in regards to the excommunicating each other part, this happened all the time in the Early Church unfortunately and it still happens now. One of the Ecumenical Councils was overseen partly by someone not in communion with Rome. You should have an Orthodox come on so he can say what he believes and not have a Catholic come on and say what the Orthodox believe.
this
It is interesting that the UK Government has forbade singing at Mass due to Covid 19 restrictions and there is no general outrage. Presumably because the music in the vast majority of Novus Ordo parishes is awful, trite, modern, antithetical to sacred worship and thus many will welcome sacred silence.
From my understanding the differences are that Eastern Orthodoxy still holds to the historic Orthodox faith of the apostles, whereas the Roman Catholic Church (as we know it today) had given that up a long time ago.
exactly :)
@Sanctus Paulus
There is only one true historical faith, that of which apostles and of those before them believed in.
Our traditions, our theology, our very way of life in the faith, in the Church has never changed since Pentecost.
Orthodox means true faith or correct religion.
Although there is more than one Orthodox Church as in the oriental Orthodox Churches, their Christology is wrong and therefore we do not consider them truly Orthodox.
The whole Eastern Orthodox Church which includes the Antiochian Orthodox Church, the official title is the Orthodox Catholic Church.
Now we know that in the Nicene Creed the Church was described as,
One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church.
Now before the split of east and west the whole Church was referred to as catholic.
Though you had the Church in Jerusalem, the Church in Rome, the Church in Antioch, the Church in Byzantium before Emperor Constantine renamed it Constantinople, the Church in Philadelphia, the Church in Laodicea and so on.
Though some of these churches were more faithful than others.
Essentially they were all Catholic.
Catholic meaning whole or universal.
( _Now this is my belief/opinion it could be right or wrong I will have to look more into it_ ).
But after the split of AD 1054, in order to not cause confusion I believe the east decided to use the term Orthodox which essentially mean true or correct in order to distinguish themselves from the west which at that time was the Roman rite.
I understand that Roman Catholicism or Roman catholic isn't exactly the correct expression to use, but it's out of convenience I will use it.
Now before the split the churches of the east and west all held to the Orthodox faith, the word Orthodox wasn't a new word the east had pulled from thin air after the split...the whole Church was under the guidance of the Holy Spirit and kept the Orthodox faith of the Apostles, the Holy Spirit which came upon them.
And which helped preserve the faith, the teachings the, theology from the apostles till this day.
I know some Orthodox believe that the Holy Spirit departed from the Church of Rome in AD 1054, and in truth I do too, just look at the state of the Church the Papacy the sexual scandals from Italy to United Kingdom to the United states.
They say the gates of hades will never prevail against the Church and I agree, this is a testament to Orthodoxy to our faith.
Whether you agree with me or not is up to you, but most of what Roman Catholicism teaches to this day is nothing but false medieval doctrines.
@@Jordan-1999 Why does EO reject papacy?
@@johnyang1420
EO believe that no man is infallible, and that all men which include the pope are capable of error or heresy.
Therefore any error or heresy against the Church is an error and heresy against Christ Himself.
Therefore they should be held responsible for any error or heresy they commit.
Currently the Church is in a state but through God's mercy there will be a cleansing of the Church.
Wicked and deceived men will be removed in righteous anger, and righteous and God fearing men will replace those who have been desposed.
If you would like a more graceful answer friend, there are many Orthodox video's on TH-cam based on this topic.
Peace be to you☦🕊
@@Jordan-1999 Jesus made Peter the pope in Matthew 16:13-19…..EO denied that. Cool.
Matt invite jay dyer
How is that any different from 'Irish Catholicism' or Italian etc?
Honest question.
Very simple, there’s no Irish or Italian Catholicism. There’s only one holy and apostolic universal church formerly known as Christians and The Way under the guidance of the pope in Rome appointed by Christ 2000 years ago until the end of the world.
Great to hear to Steve again❤ Thanks also Matt🙌
So happy to have joined the Orthodox Church and not the church under Rome. May we be unified again someday.
Dr. Bret Powell Your church broke away from the original church under Rome.
@@SuperrBoyful I understand your viewpoint, and the Great Schism is one of the worst things to happen. But the Church has always been concilliar in nature, not relying on one individual for a top- down authority. There is no Supreme Authority in the Church outside of Christ. And the road that Rome is currently traveling under Francis isn't that great.
@JL-XrtaMayoNoCheese I will provide clear examples of Rome’s authority believed universally for 15 centuries of Christian history.
Jerome writes
“‘But,’ you [Jovinian] will say, ‘it was on Peter that the Church was founded’ [Matt. 16:18]. Well . . . one among the twelve is chosen to be their head in order to remove any occasion for division” (Against Jovinian 1:26 [A.D. 393]).
Augustine writes
“Among these [apostles] Peter alone almost everywhere deserved to represent the whole Church. Because of that representation of the Church, which only he bore, he deserved to hear ‘I will give to you the keys of the kingdom of heaven’” (Sermons 295:2 [A.D. 411]).
“Some things are said which seem to relate especially to the apostle Peter, and yet are not clear in their meaning unless referred to the Church, which he is acknowledged to have represented in a figure on account of the primacy which he bore among the disciples. Such is ‘I will give unto you the keys of the kingdom of heaven,’ and other similar passages” (Commentary on Psalm 108 1 [A.D. 415]).
“Who is ignorant that the first of the apostles is the most blessed Peter?” (Commentary on John 56:1 [A.D. 416]).
Clement of Alexandria writes
“[T]he blessed Peter, the chosen, the preeminent, the first among the disciples, for whom alone with himself the Savior paid the tribute [Matt. 17:27], quickly grasped and understood their meaning. And what does he say? ‘Behold, we have left all and have followed you’ [Matt. 19:27; Mark 10:28]” (Who Is the Rich Man That Is Saved? 21:3-5 [A.D. 200]).
St. Augustine was very clear in his writings.
In his earliest accounts St. Augustine writes,
*Augustine*
“There are many other things which rightly keep me in the bosom of the Catholic Church. The consent of the people and nations keeps me, her authority keeps me, inaugurated by miracles, nourished in hope, enlarged by love, and established by age. The succession of priests keep me, from the very seat of the apostle Peter (to whom the Lord after his resurrection gave charge to feed his sheep) down to the present episcopate [of Pope Siricius]” (Against the Letter of Mani Called “The Foundation” 5 [A.D. 397]).
An even earlier account was written in the 2nd century by St. Ignatius.
Ignatius of Antioch writes
“Ignatius . . . to the church also which holds the presidency, in the location of the country of the Romans, worthy of God, worthy of honor, worthy of blessing, worthy of praise, worthy of success, worthy of sanctification, and, because you hold the presidency in love, named after Christ and named after the Father” (Letter to the Romans 1:1 [A.D. 110]).
@@bpowell7999
There is ample evidence in the New Testament that Peter was first in authority among the apostles. Whenever they were named, Peter headed the list (Matt. 10:1-4, Mark 3:16-19, Luke 6:14-16, Acts 1:13); sometimes the apostles were referred to as “Peter and those who were with him” (Luke 9:32). Peter was the one who generally spoke for the apostles (Matt. 18:21, Mark 8:29, Luke 12:41, John 6:68-69), and he figured in many of the most dramatic scenes (Matt. 14:28-32, 17:24-27; Mark 10:23-28). On Pentecost it was Peter who first preached to the crowds (Acts 2:14-40), and he worked the first healing in the Church age (Acts 3:6-7).
It is Peter’s faith that will strengthen his brethren (Luke 22:32) and Peter is given Christ’s flock to shepherd (John 21:17). An angel was sent to announce the resurrection to Peter (Mark 16:7), and the risen Christ appeared first to Peter (Luke 24:34). He headed the meeting that elected Matthias to replace Judas (Acts 1:13-26), and he received the first converts (Acts 2:41). He inflicted the first punishment (Acts 5:1-11) and excommunicated the first heretic (Acts 8:18-23). He led the first council in Jerusalem (Acts 15) and announced the first dogmatic decision (Acts 15:7-11). It was to Peter that the revelation came that Gentiles were to be baptized and accepted as Christians (Acts 10:46-48).
Peter the Rock
Peter’s preeminent position among the apostles was symbolized at the very beginning of his relationship with Christ. At their first meeting, Christ told Simon that his name would thereafter be Peter, which translates as “Rock” (John 1:42). The startling thing was that-aside from the single time that Abraham is called a “rock” (Hebrew: Tsur; Aramaic: Kepha) in Isaiah 51:1-2-in the Old Testament only God was called a rock. The word rock was not used as a proper name in the ancient world. If you were to turn to a companion and say, “From now on your name is Asparagus,” people would wonder: Why Asparagus? What is the meaning of it? What does it signify? Indeed, why call Simon the fisherman “Rock”?
Christ was not given to meaningless gestures, and neither were the Jews when it came to names. Giving a new name meant that the status of the person was changed, as when Abram’s name was changed to Abraham (Gen.17:5), Jacob’s to Israel (Gen. 32:28), Eliakim’s to Joakim (2 Kgs. 23:34), or the names of the four Hebrew youths-Daniel, Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah to Belteshazzar, Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego (Dan. 1:6-7). But no Jew had ever been called “Rock.” The Jews would give other names taken from nature, such as Deborah (“bee,” Gen. 35:8), and Rachel (“ewe,” Gen. 29:16), but never “Rock.” In the New Testament James and John were nicknamed Boanerges, meaning “Sons of Thunder,” by Christ, but that was never regularly used in place of their original names, and it certainly was not given as a new name. But in the case of Simon-bar-Jonah, his new name Kephas (Greek: Petros) definitely replaced the old.
Promises to Peter
When he first saw Simon, “Jesus looked at him, and said, ‘So you are Simon the son of John? You shall be called Cephas (which means Peter)’” (John 1:42). The word Cephas is merely the transliteration of the Aramaic Kepha into Greek. Later, after Peter and the other disciples had been with Christ for some time, they went to Caesarea Philippi, where Peter made his profession of faith: “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God” (Matt. 16:16). Jesus told him that this truth was specially revealed to him, and then he solemnly reiterated: “And I tell you, you are Peter” (Matt. 16:18). To this was added the promise that the Church would be founded, in some way, on Peter (Matt. 16:18).
Then two important things were told the apostle. “Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven” (Matt. 16:19). Here Peter was singled out for the authority that provides for the forgiveness of sins and the making of disciplinary rules. Later the apostles as a whole would be given similar power [Matt.18:18], but here Peter received it in a special sense.
Peter alone was promised something else also: “I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven” (Matt. 16:19). In ancient times, keys were the hallmark of authority. A walled city might have one great gate; and that gate had one great lock, worked by one great key. To be given the key to the city-an honor that exists even today, though its import is lost-meant to be given free access to and authority over the city. The city to which Peter was given the keys was the heavenly city itself. This symbolism for authority is used elsewhere in the Bible (Isa. 22:22, Rev. 1:18).
Finally, after the Resurrection, Jesus appeared to his disciples and asked Peter three times, “Do you love me?” (John 21:15-17). In repentance for his threefold denial, Peter gave a threefold affirmation of love. Then Christ, the Good Shepherd (John 10:11, 14), gave Peter the authority he earlier had promised: “Feed my sheep” (John 21:17). This specifically included the other apostles, since Jesus asked Peter, “Do you love me more than these?” (John 21:15), the word “these” referring to the other apostles who were present (John 21:2). Thus was completed the prediction made just before Jesus and his followers went for the last time to the Mount of Olives.
Immediately before his denials were predicted, Peter was told, “Simon, Simon, behold, Satan demanded to have you, that he might sift you like wheat, but I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail; and when you have turned again [after the denials], strengthen your brethren” (Luke 22:31-32). It was Peter who Christ prayed would have faith that would not fail and that would be a guide for the others; and his prayer, being perfectly efficacious, was sure to be fulfilled.
Who is the rock?
Now take a closer look at the key verse: “You are Peter, and on this rock I will build my Church” (Matt. 16:18). Disputes about this passage have always been related to the meaning of the term “rock.” To whom, or to what, does it refer? Since Simon’s new name of Peter itself means rock, the sentence could be rewritten as: “You are Rock and upon this rock I will build my Church.” The play on words seems obvious, but commentators wishing to avoid what follows from this-namely the establishment of the papacy-have suggested that the word rock could not refer to Peter but must refer to his profession of faith or to Christ.
From the grammatical point of view, the phrase “this rock” must relate back to the closest noun. Peter’s profession of faith (“You are the Christ, the Son of the living God”) is two verses earlier, while his name, a proper noun, is in the immediately preceding clause.
@JL-XrtaMayoNoCheese ?
As someone who is an EO Christian and also a pleb, that does not sound right. Abortion is condemned in Orthodoxy, I have never heard about three times remarrying thing. I don't see how a single figure authority is required. If my friends and I respect some rules we all agreed upon, then we could all be independent of each other and still be in unity. So, I don't really understand his point about authority stuff.
Ed Yes, but these people imply we allow divorce like it’s an ok thing.
@@TheRealRealOK You do. Marriage is supposed to be a one time thing, never to be repeated again.
Would like to watch the full show but TH-cam is saying you've got it set to private.
You don’t understand at all the Orthodox Church!
Why do you say that? And why are you angry?
@@SheikhMuhnughts If I say you don’t understand the Orthodox Church for this is angry? That is a fact. They talk only heretical thinks there. Nobody is angry but dogmatic and theologic Catholic “church” is the biggest heresy ever! God bless you all and I hope one day you will return from where you left!
@@boldcut5163 I said angry because of the exclamation point.
How do you know they only talk heretical things here?
Why is Church in quotations?
How do you know the Catholic Church is "the biggest heresy ever!"
I hope you will return from where *you* left.
God bless you my friend, cheers :)
@@SheikhMuhnughts it is only one Apostolic Church: Orthodox ! I give you only proof: from Orthodox Church doesn’t appear any other heretic church’s. From Catholic “church”...you know Luther and all this Protestant.
@@SheikhMuhnughts we don’t leave we stay. Proof? You change the Creed from 3 century, innovation in the faith like: Nicene Creed innovation, Immaculate conception, Pope stuff, purgatory etc
I use to listen to Matt Fradd all the time love his work and his heart for Our Lord . Lately I haven listened to Search the Scriptures a lot lately and after hearing this knowing more about Orthodoxy I can see most converts to Catholicism over Orthodoxy is because there are looking for structure and hiarchy when Orthodox Church is not about that . The Orthodox Church is about the mind of the early Church .
There is one major problem. That is, it’s not united Catholic.
Unfortunately they both can’t be right.
Where I see the difference, is there is no bishop without Orthodoxy.
It’s not about the mind, it’s about faith that was established by the Holy Apostles.
On the other hand, there is no Rcc without the pope. I understand the emotional attachment but what happens when the pope kisses the quran and calls it holy, if you disagree, you are out of alignment with the head of your church.
Pray for him, YES. Follow him, NO. For we put no man above Christ ☦
Return back to Rome’s former self and you become Orthodox. God Bless.
I love "Gather Us In", mostly because I can sing it.
That may be long, but I will try my best.
THE CATHOLIC CHURCH IS THE ONE AND ONLY TRUE:
*1)* Paul stated that, “Instead, speaking the truth in love, we will grow to become in every respect the mature body of him who is the head, that is, Christ. From him the whole body, joined and held together by every supporting ligament, grows and builds itself up in love, as each part does its work”(Eph 4, 15-16). If Saint Paul were to defend only an abstract, invisible and bodyless Church, that is, an entity without any government (as for Protestantism), or even the set of private churches (dioceses) governed by apostolic succession in a chain from the origins of Tradition , but without any episcopal primacy arising from an Apostolic Primacy revealed and described in the Gospels (as for schismatic Greek-Constantinopolitans), he would be teaching against all the elementary evangelical truths and, nevertheless, a lesson contrary to the vehemence with which he himself taught those of Ephesus, because it explained to them that the way to the Head, following the truth put in love, takes place in the entirety of a Body joined together harmoniously.
*2)* Supported by the doctrine of the Church fathers, we know Christ and His Church form the “total Christ” (“christus totus”, CCC, § 795), since the Church is one with Christ. This means a lot. When innumerable formats of truth are instituted, relativizations make the point where the Truth does not actually exist objectively outside of a principle of unity, but the concept that pragmatists and relativists make of it. In this, the bodily tearing of Christ is a strictly inevitable consequence. The legitimate church could never be the anarchized union of multiple disconnected Christian communities (like protestants) or a kind of “confederation” of similar and equivalent ecclesiastical governments (like orthodox) without any primacy of jurisdiction, because each one will advocate its idiosyncratic truth, but it must be a “real” unity, in the whole and according to the whole: a ligature of parts that will be identified, despite those identity traits that plurality preserves, through a strict subordination to a single everlasting truth. There is no other ecclesiological reason for the charism of the Church's authority than to avoid all dispersion and maintaining its Catholic note (‘KATA’, which means “together” + ‘HOLOS’, which means “whole” or universality) and the unity, confirming, through St. Peter (Lk 22, 31-32), the (Catholic Christian) faith of the apostles. This is the foundation of the relationship between the See of Peter and the other Apostolic See.
*3)* “Simon, Simon”, as said by Jesus (Lk 22, 31-32), is a vocational call that carries an intense warning sign. Satan, when he decides to invest against the apostles, understood that, sifting them like wheat, he would cause the disintegration of the Church in the apostolic coexistence, thus undermining the Mystical Body of Christ . This word "σινιάζω" (siniάzo), in original Greek, means "sieve"; σῖτος (syton) is a generic term for grains, usually used for wheat (Lk 22, 31). Since the task of harvesting wheat in ancient times was painful, some Christians interpret the passage as if it contained the simple demonic desire to subject Peter to temptations of extreme difficulty. Only Satan did indeed go much further. Notwithstanding the cunning nature of the diabolic attack, made by the ‘modus’ of temptation, the sieve is a mechanism whose sole purpose is the separation between materials of different types, sizes, widths or bodies, and which some retain through it, while others pass on to the other side of the essential mechanism. As we know, the history of Old testament Israel represents and embodies the entire struggle for unification against the forces of division and dispersion of the people allied with God: in the New, Jesus Christ states that whoever is not in His favor is against it; and whoever does not gather with Him, "scattered" (Mt 12, 30). Now, the Greek expression διαβάλλειν (dia-ballein), from where the Latin word “diablo” came from - and therefore the one we know as “devil” -, literally means “to shoot” (-ballein) “to the other side” (dia-), that is, to separate what was united before.
*4)* In this biblical passage, Jesus says that he prayed for Saint Peter so that his faith would NOT FAIL, but it was not just that: the foreshadowing of Peter's denial of Jesus was done in the exact context in which He assured the apostle, however, the indubity of his conversion after his tragic fall and the threefold denial, of which he would repent ( _”But I have prayed for you, Simon, that your faith may not fail. And when you have turned back, strengthen your brothers”_ , Lk 22:32). With his conversion, the task of confirming his brother apostles in faith remained determined, which is not only one of the strongest scriptural evidences of the primacy of Saint Peter in the apostolic college, but also points out the same scriptural formula for the adhesion of each of the local churches (“dióikessis” or dioceses) to the decisions taken by the single ecclesiastical authority, under sanction and for its fulfillment. Thus, when the Church decides, it sanctions a decision and makes it a binding observance for each particular church to comply with and enforce (Acts 16: 4-5: _“So the churches were strengthened in the faith and grew daily in numbers”_ ). They are, therefore, “strengthened in the faith” as something that gives a sense of union and sharing of ecclesiological catholicity. This passage brings the striking parallelism between the apostolic mission and the ministry of the Church in the Sacred Scriptures: it is one of the most vehement evidence of its apostolicity, so Petrine authority does not fulfill a sense of authoritarianism or usurpation, so as for Protestants or even for schismatic, but exactly the evangelical principle of unity against fragmentation and dispersion.
*5)* The authority of the apostles is documented in the Bible: "Truly I tell you, whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven" (Matthew 18, 18). However, that same passage was assured by Jesus specifically to Saint Peter, said in particular before saying it to the assembled apostolic college: “I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven. ” (Mt 16, 19). Here two significant differences are noted here: i) first, Jesus invests Saint Peter in the power to open and close access to the Kingdom of Heaven through the Church, something he decided to do not only before, but individually and prominently; ii) second, even when he conferred on the totality of the apostles a similar authority, he did not say that the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven fit in them, which bequeathed only to Peter. And there is an unmistakable sense in this, deliberately neglected by “orthodox”: although the divine authority of the Holy Church was uniformly disposed in the apostles (Lk 22, 29), Jesus wanted the government of the Church to make Peter, over whom the Church would be built (Mt 16, 18), as a sign of their unity and visible expression in apostolic collegiate.
*6)* Jesus Christ built HIS Church on one (“Simon”), calling him KEPHA or “Peter” (which means “ROCK”). We must never forget a parable told by Our Lord Jesus Christ, in which he says that the prudent man BUILDS his house on the “ROCK”, or has it house on the ROCK foundation, that can resist to extreme weather, explaining that the foolish man is the one who built his house on sand, so he will have it destroyed (Matthew 7, 24-29). Do you really think it is a coincidence that Jesus chose the name “ROCK” (Peter), actually the Aramaic word is “KEPHA” (rock), for Simon? And do you really think it is a coincidence that Our Lord says “And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church” (Matthew 16, 18), and the word for “build” is ‘oikodomeó’ (οἰκοδομή), which means “OIKO” (“house” or “home”) and “DOMUS” (“to build”)?
*7)* The so-called Orthodox believe in equivalence in Apostolic government of the Church with no unifying authority in universal pasturing. To say we believe in a kind of superiority doesn’t mean we claim that the Bishop of Rome is more than a Bishop: it is that only the Successor of Saint Peter’s OFFICE have the mission that Jesus gave to Peter. Infallibility has nothing to do with IMPECABILITY. The Pope is not impeccable (nor any Bishop), which is why any Pope must confess (and do confesses). Jesus Himself said that the scribes and Pharisees were hypocrites, but He told us to obey what they taught when “ex cathedra”, that is, when they were in the context of the Old Covenant proclaiming truths from the “chair of Moses” (Mt 23, 1-3 ). Precisely the same way occurs with “ex cathedra” pronunciation that guarantees infallible (no fail) in faith and moral in the New Covenant, since Jesus told us so. Besides, Saint Peter is not infallible in a personalistic character, but the Church built under the authority of his commission (Mt 16,18-19) and by some very strict conditions. That is why our schismatic brothers are somewhat in doctrinal risk, even though there are in some sense a “confederation” of Apostolic Churches and bound to Apostolic Tradition. After all, in the same passage, i) Jesus says that he will build the Church explicitly on one of the apostles, precisely the one who had his name changed to “stone” or “rock”, ii) defines that THIS Church would be infallible, because the doors of Hades will not prevail against it/her, and iii) gives the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven to this Apostle, which means that he makes Peter his vicar and leader of the visible Church, since the passage is a reference to Isaiah 22, 22, strictly related to a Davidic kingdom.
*8)* The two genealogies of Jesus recorded in the New Testament make it clear that he was a representative of the “house of David” (Matthew 1: 1-17; Luke 3: 23-38). Saint Gabriel Archangel declared that Jesus would receive the “throne of David”, his father, and his kingdom would never end (Luke 2: 32,33). Therefore, when in Revelations the Sacred Scripture says “These are the words of him who are holy and true, _who holds the key of David. What he opens in one can shut, and what he shuts in one can open_ ” (Rev 3:7), we know, by the parallel with a certain passage from Isaiah, that we are not only dealing with the key of David, but the key of the house of David, that is, a symbol from authority in a Davidic kingdom: _“I will place on his shoulder the key to the house of David; what he opens in one can shut, and what he shuts in one can open”_ (Isaiah 22:22). The owner of the key to the Davidic kingdom here is King Ezekias, and the one who takes over the key is the server Eliakim: holding the key to the house of David meant that in the absence of the King, all the powers he exercised were delegated to his vicar or steward until the King returns. Therefore, when Jesus Christ gives the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven (they are in pair because they point to the connection of heaven and earth: it is not a coincidence that the coat of arms of the Holy See and the Vatican have two keys) to St. Peter (and HIM ONLY), Our Lord gives him the authority to lead the Church until His eschatological return in the end of times. That`s precisely what the KEY means in a Davidic kingdom.
*9)* There are some difficulties on so-called orthodox brothers’ doctrines. On conciliarism, although not proclaimed to be officially true, they tend to make arguments in order to preserve this while searching for universality, but this is a very dangerous heresy condemned in Council of Constance (1414-1418). For example, Gregory Palamas created a doctrine of the “energies” of God (look for ‘hesycasm” or the doctrine of “the Light”), which the Holy Catholic Church did not recognize as orthodox, yet there are some catholic theologians maybe considering it not heretical, although problematic. I think there is room for ecumenical effort here, but as cautious movements. However, the 5th Council of Constantinople ("orthodox" in quotation marks; non-Catholic) defined, between 1341-1351, that "Palamism" was a doctrine of true faith. Since then, our schismatic Greek-Constantinopolitan brothers have been making huge theological efforts for 700 years only to say that this “energy” of God theology is not in any sense some kind of ‘esotericism’ but they lack the capacity to close matters and affirm with assertiveness, which does not bring any novelty since any council without being in full communion with the Successor of Peter does not hold the charismatic guarantee of doctrinal infallibility. The Holy Council, yes, is infallible, as long as it is 1) an ecumenical council, 2) deals with doctrines of faith and morals and, 3) is in full communion with the See (“sedis episcopalis”) of Saint Peter.
*10)* This is the ONLY evidence of the Council's infallibility for us, that is, that it is in full communion with the See of Peter and is universal; for the "orthodox", there is no criterion of intrinsic doctrinal validity of a Council under reasonable theological explanation, apart from the comparison with the doctrine of the Apostolic Tradition, so the criterion is extrinsic and someone will always need to define that this or that council was not true, which does not, in fact, provide a validation criterion, because this statement that it was / wasn’t true cannot be guaranteed as infallible unless extrinsically, and so on and on "ad aeternum". This is an absolutely flawed and unsolvable question for the "orthodox". Read everything you can, with an open heart, about what the “orthodox” theologians say in the conciliar theme and sincerely point out if they are convincing.
*11)* An example with heresy in council without Petrine See participation, but this time before the great Schism and with formal condemnation: the Council of Hiera (754) was an alleged ecumenical council manipulated by the Byzantine emperors, who were iconoclasts at that time, a kind of “proto-Protestants”, and destroyed the sacred and devotional icons. In that Council the iconoclastic thesis won, but there is a great detail: the 388 (almost 400) Eastern bishops who participated in it did NOT allow the Bishop of Rome to participate or even to send a legacy, nor did it count on the participation of the Western Churches. For us Catholics, therefore, it does not have the charisma of infallibility. The charism of infallibility is essentially ecclesial and PETRINE (Matthew 16, 16-19) because it was to Saint Peter that Our Lord himself entrusted the shepherding and feeding of His flock (Jn 21, 15-17), and ONLY to him this commissioning took place, and the mission of CONFIRMING his brothers IN (Catholic) FAITH, strengthening it and making the case for the authenticity of the Apostolic faith that the apostle brothers held (Lk 22, 31-32), as well as the principle of construction and edification (“oikodomeo”) of the Holy Church, against which the doors of Hades do not prevail (Mt 16 -18), our famous “non praevalebunt”. So much so that it was the papal legacies that condemned the iconoclastic heresy when the “eastern world” had just confirmed a heresy in council, with almost four hundred Eastern bishops. And it was only in the 2nd Council of Nicea in 787, with the participation of Pope Hadrian I, who defined the true Catholic faith, which the East calls - just check it - the “Triumph of Orthodoxy”.
*12)* In a way, the very same thing happened with the so-called “Aryan councils” (the most dangerous heresy in the history of the Church), such as the Philippine Council of 343, 344 or 347 AD, or the Ancira Council of 358 AD, for example, the first in present-day Bulgaria and the other in present-day Turkey. It should be noted that they were not heretics because they were “oriental” and wrong at the same time, but because they were not in communion with the See of Peter and were wrong. And there was also a so-called western one, called the Council of Rimini (in present-day Italy), in AD 358-359, who was also Aryan. What do the three have in common, besides being Aryan and therefore heretical? ALL were not in communion with the Bishop of the See (“sedis episcopalis”) of Peter. This approach can make a good case not only against conciliarism, but on papal primacy the we can trace back to Sacred Scriptures and even to pre-nicene patristics.
I will try with Saint Augustine here, although tecnically we shouldn’t call orthodox brothers “heretics”, since doctrinal problems (apart from governing the Church) are pretty much a problem of misunderstanding and stubbornness on both sides:
_“I am subject to the consensus of peoples and nations; I am subject to the authority embodied in miracles, nourished with hope, added with love and settled with antiquity. I am subject to the succession of priests from the same chair as the apostle Peter, to whom the Lord entrusted, after his resurrection, the shepherding of his sheep to the present episcopate. _*_I am subject to the name "catholic" that, not without reason, only this Church obtained, in the midst of so many heresies. Thus, in spite of all heretics wanting to call themselves Catholics, when an outsider asks where the Catholic Church meets, none of them dare to indicate their basilica or house”_* .
Réplica à Carta de Manés, chamada ‘Fundamento’, parágrafo 4, free translation from Spanish).
www.augustinus.it/spagnolo/contro_lettera_mani/index2.htm
Catholic churches are more beautiful hands down, as long as they wasn't built in the last 50 years, find me a better church than S.peter, Milan Duomo, Notre Dame, S.Mark in Venice, Florence cathedral, S.Francis basilica, la Sagrada familia, Prague cathedral. I can go forever.
Just want to point out the Basilica if the Immaculate Conception in D.C. is captivating my beautiful. Also St. Patrick’s in NYC. We have plenty of beautiful Catholic Churches in the U.S. too!
Both chuches are beautiful. I don't think this needs to be a point of contention.
🎯 Key Takeaways for quick navigation:
00:01 🌍 There's a tendency to overlook human imperfections present in all churches, leading some to consider switching between Orthodoxy and Catholicism.
00:28 🤝 The desire for tradition without perceived "baggage" drives interest in Orthodoxy, yet similar divisions and conflicts exist within that realm.
01:09 🏛️ Exploring the narrator's journey considering Orthodoxy due to familial familiarity and misconceptions about Catholicism and the papacy.
02:05 🏛️ Orthodox Church complexity: It comprises separate churches based on ethnic origins rather than a unified entity, unlike the Catholic Church.
03:00 🌍 Lack of central authority in Orthodoxy complicates the convening of ecumenical councils and the resolution of disagreements.
03:41 💒 Doctrinal differences include divorce, remarriage, abortion, and contraception, with varying levels of dogmatic teaching compared to Catholicism.
05:17 🏥 Acknowledging the Church as a haven for sinners, highlighting its imperfections while emphasizing its role as a place of sacraments and tradition.
05:44 🕊️ The main distinction lies in the Orthodox refusal of the Pope's authority, despite shared theological and liturgical aspects.
I'm currently considering Orthodoxy, but fasting sounds hard...
Fasting is essentiak brother
Check out Jay Dyer's Debate with Erick Ybarra and although Vatican Catholic are sedevacantist, they have a good video on Eastern Orthodoxy.
Kikik it is hard but worth it. Also I suggest u start from a simple fast then go from there
It's not supposed to be easy xd
So does carrying your cross
This is an interesting conversation to me because I've found Jesus in a radical way in the orthodox church. For me, it was important to see how beautiful worship could be, and that I could participate. But nothing could prepare me for the moment the clergy took the Eucharist and brought it around the congregation.
I'm still a catechumine, but I will say this: to be near the communion of Christ.. to even observe the mystery of Christ. To be in the Narthex, with a longing heart that knows I'm close to the Lord, is better than anything this world could try to tempt me with.
Matt, I enjoy your content. However, as a Orthodox inquirer, it seems you miss the very thing that attracts one to Orthodoxy. The Orthodox sacramentality and worldview.
I apologise if I'm wrong to say, but you have a shallow view of Orthodoxy from what I can gather in interviews. You are misleading. I suggest reading introductory books or having an Orthodox person on your show. To say any western denomination is similar to Orthodoxy is naive and only looking to the external. Internally the theology is at play.
I'd suggest to address St Gregory Palamas' assertion Created Grace laid the egg for faithlessness in the West.
Edit: grammar
Edit 2: While I was writing this I frustrated at the misrepresention. I've retracted my last assertion as rightly pointed out in a reply, there many reasons for western atheism.
Eh, I'd say that's going a little too far on that last statement. Haha.. actually, St. Thomas Aquinas' logical proof for God's existence based on contingency was the chink in my armor when I was an atheist 10 years ago! No, rather a false and extreme view of scholasticism (which is basically just arid rationalism) can result in atheism, but even St. Thomas Aquinas rejected this kind of scholastic expression. Indeed, such an expression is not compatible with Catholicism. Created grace is something that St. Thomas Aquinas introduced in his theology to help explain the mystery of partaking of the divine nature in a Latin theological framework. The notion of "created grace" makes no sense in Byzantine theology, but it makes sense in Latin theology. In the end, both Palamas and Aquinas are explaining the same mystery, albeit using different terminology, expressed in a different theological framework. I am an Eastern Catholic who accepts St. Gregory Palamas' teaching as merely being a comprehensive synthesis of the Greek Tradition. That being said, I have no problem with Aquinas' scholasticism whatsoever, but it's just not t he theological perspective through which I prefer to understand my Faith primarily. That isn't to say I haven't greatly benefited from Thomism, because I have. As I stated, Aquinas helped bring me to Faith in the beginning when I was a secularist/atheist.
It should be very suspicious that he has made numerous videos about the Orthodox church, but none of them have ever actually involved an Orthodox priest or even an Orthodox Christian. The worst is a video called, "How do the Orthodox view Pope Francis," where he takes an Eastern Rite Catholic Priest and you think from the title that your are actually going to hear from an Orthodox Priest, but instead you just get an Eastern Catholic spouting Catholic rhetoric with no Orthodox within a 1000 miles. Its deceptive and manipulative and shares nothing resembling an Orthodox view of Pope Francis, the Pope more generally, nor the relationship between the Orthodox and the church of Rome. Even in this video the attempt to represent the Orthodox church as an ethnic group of different churches is false. I go to an OCA (Orthodox Church In America) church typically, but when I go to the Greek OC I am still able to accept the Eucharist and am able to do the same with all the Orthodox churches because the Bishops are in communion. Even when I tell the Russian orthodox church which is about an hour from my house near Cincinnati that I am from the OCA, I am able to accept the Eucharist. This was a relationship that the Roman Church also shared with the Orthodox Church when there was simply The Church during the first 1000 years.
I don't like hippy masses and rock music in mass at all, but I love "Gather Us In". When done with an organ and a choir, it makes me think of the Army of God marching to victory. Maybe the instrumentation makes all the difference.
Steve Ray's Crossing the Tiber helped me on the journey out of Protestantism but his take on Orthodoxy is extremely shallow.
The Coptic Orthodox church has a pope. H.H. Pope Tawadros II is the 118th pope of the See of St. Mark.
NJ 777 Besides, Rome was the see of Saint Peter, where he died and where he was active as bishop. That’s actually the reason of the primacy.
I am Christian Orthodox. Anyone else here the proper Christian? 😅
This guy has no idea what he's talking about on Orthodoxy. Definately had some good things to say but otherwise no clue. How come this channel has never actually had anyone Orthodox on?
Steve hasn't lost his touch 1 bit. Still funny but really effective.
Their churches are more beautiful than our churches? We have beautiful cathedrals which are more beautiful than any building anywhere.
That was a shallow treatment of orthodox jurisdictions. Very shallow. Also, I would like to point out that you have a king-pope who called for a Vatican II council which has led to the millions of Catholics falling away and many “Catholics” who might as well be Episcopalians that attend a catholic mass. So the ability to call for an ecumenical council isn’t all it’s cracked up to be...
Vatican II and the time period thereafter is certainly worthy of much criticism, but human error and mistakes doesn't invalidate a divine truth, namely, that Christ made Peter the Rock and upon that Rock [Peter] He would build His Church. My personal sin doesn't mean God's Grace isn't powerful, for example. It just means I'm sinful. A Pope's personal sin or mistakes in governance doesn't mean he lacks the authority we claim he has. It just means he's human.
So what was Matt’s response to Steve Rey’s points? How does the Orthodox Church prove Apostolic succession if they have no hierarchy in place? How can you have the sacraments if no apostolic succession is in place?
The Eastern Orthodox churches do have Apostolic succession... the point that Steven Ray makes is that those individual lines of Patriarchs and Bishops have no way of calling an organized, unified Council.
They have apostolic succession and valid sacraments, but cannot call an Ecumenical Council.
Annnd as per usual we get a completely ignorant view of what Orthodoxy is, from a RCC apologist. Consider the strawman thoroughly slain.
Would you consider it intellectually honest for me to go to the Calvinists for an understanding of the RC faith? Of course not. Why not bring an actual orthodox on, to discuss the orthodox position?
@Sanctus Paulus Literally everything.
1. He claims there is no Orthodox Church, but "churches". This is an utterly absurd notion. If he was willing to take his position to its logical conclusion he would have to admit that there was never "one" Christian Church, as the ancient Church had Patriarchates in Antioch, Rome, Constantinople, Alexandria and Jerusalem. Does this mean there were 5 Churches? No, because they were all in communion with each other and together formed the universal body of the Church. We can see this clearly laid in the canons of Nicaea, (Canons 4 and 6). So is Moscow a different Church than Serbia? No more than Rome was from Jerusalem.
2. He then makes the claim that Caesar became the head of the Orthodox Church and that all Orthodox Churches are still run by their state. Literally what? This is either a blatant lie or this man has absolutely no idea what he is talking about - either way, his opinion is irrelevant. First, Christ is the head of our Church. Second, we still hold to Symphonia. This is what the two headed eagle represents. Two heads, the Church and State, under the Crown, our Lord Jesus Christ. The state has authority in the secular realm, while the Church has authority in the spiritual realm. The Patriarch and Monarch work in harmony for the spiritual and physical well-being of the nation.
3. He then brings up the council, which is what I suppose he means by "Caesar as head of the Church". Finally, he gets something right. The emperor did call the councils, not the Roman See. This was the case for the 7 ecumenical councils which Rome claims to adhere to! So he refutes his own position. Having one Bishop wield authority over the entire Church was clearly not what was practiced in the first millennium of the undivided Church. Ironically, he also admits that councils were called in which the universal Church would come together to decide theological matters - not papal decrees. Thank you Steve, for proving Orthodoxy ecclesiology.
4. "Orthodox can't call another ecumenical council." Correct, because the empire no longer exists. We do, however, have the means to hold local synods or councils which, if they are in line with ancient tradition, will be accepted by the universal Church and thus become dogmatized. For example, the Palamite councils in the 15th century. The entire Church celebrates St Palamas' defense of Orthodoxy every second sunday of Great Lent - this includes Matt and the Eastern Catholics, btw. Yes, Matt celebrates Palamas's defense of Orthodox theology over the Barlaamite Latin theology every year. This is what happens when political unity takes precedent over theological unity.
5. "Muh divorce" meme. The Church has taken a stance on divorce nearly 2000 years ago. Why would we need a council to tell us what we already know? The Orthodox Church blesses the first, accepts the second and tolerates the third. Each marriage comes with increased penitence instead of celebration. Would it be better to force them towards adultery and fornication? Or lead them into apostasy? No, man is fallen and that means some people aren't ready for the responsibilities of marriage. It's tragic, but is unfortunately the case. We give them another chance because that's better than forcing them to live a life of sin the rest of their life. Divorce is a sin and a grievous one at that, but so are adultery, fornication and apostasy.
6. "Muh abortion" meme. The Orthodox Church condemns abortion; and once again, this is nothing new. Are we going to sit here and pretend Rome or other ancient societies didn't have abortions? The Church took its stance on this crime nearly 2000 years ago as well. We don't need a new council to tell us what we already know.
7. "We (catholics) may have lost some of our tradition" Yes Steve, you have. Thank you for admitting that it is the Orthodox Church that has preserved the fullness of the faith.
In conclusion, he was wrong about everything and this is why you don't go to a Catholic to get the Orthodox position and vice versa.
@@J..P..
Absolutely brutal annihilation there, mate! A phenomenal display of properly defending the faith! ☦️
@@J..P.. 1. False. The modern orthodox organization is more akin to a loose confederacy held together like a house of cards, you can see it with the conflict over Ukraine autocephaly and the ongoing war, the orthodox churches divide among ethnic lines, any observation of these churches can see this fact.
2. "The state has authority in the secular realm, while the Church has authority in the spiritual realm." not so during most of the history after the Schism, examples, Ottoman rule over Constantinople, the Most Holy Governing Synod created by Tsar Peter that put the Russian Patriarchate in the hands of laity not clergymen, your Symphonia is more like "do what the secular government says"
3. Just because the Emperor called 7 councils doesnt mean its not in the Apostolic See authority to call them, examples the Council of Ferrara-Florence which the eastern churches did attend in a very sizable number
4. Honoring Palamas as a Saint is not equal to saying that his whole basis of theology for defending Hesychasm was right, there is a big problem in the "essence-energy" distinction that has never been explained and can lead to the energies becoming a sort of demi-urge "all the energies are uncreated, not all are without beginning." this is non-sensical, anything that has a beginning is created, this imputes change to go which doesnt change.
5,6 - steve ray is right here there hasnt been a clear stance taken by the orthodox. ". Divorce is a sin and a grievous one at that, but so are adultery, fornication and apostasy. "And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery." they are committing adultery by default from divorcing illicitly so i dont see what youre trying to get here, Jesus gives us the licit way to divorce.
I’m Orthodox with a deep respect for Catholicism. The traditional churches are leaps and bounds closer to the church that Christ left us. I’d say the biggest things for me are yes, the Pope and the Filioque, but people forget that we disagree on Original Sin, too. It seems like St. Augustine just made an argument for it, and it was adopted. The Orthodox perspective is that we inherit a corrupt nature, but we don’t inherit guilt. To me, this intuitively makes sense, is consistent with scripture, and is way more moral.
@GeorgeK1410
Thank you for your respectful and thoughtful comment. I have a genuine follow-up question regarding the Orthodox understanding of Baptism. See this recent twitter post from Dr. Taylor Marshall, who is a well known TLM Catholic apologist:
“The Old Roman Rite baptism is about getting the devil out of the baby and remitting original sin. The Novus Ordo baptism is more about ‘entering the community.’ I’ll take the old version.” Would the Orthodox position align with this view or dissent? I’m curious to know because the Roman Rite view as expressed by Marshall has some very concerning implications.
@Ed What do you mean exorcisms? When I attend baptisms (for babies) I don't see that taking place. At least, if its happening Im not aware lol. But why would babies need to be exorcised?
Also, what resources would you recommend to understand orthodoxy better?
Just FYI - The Catholic understanding is identical to the Eastern understanding of Original Sin. The word "guilt" doesn't mean the same thing here in the theological sense of Original Sin (it's more allegorical). We aren't born with the personal guilt of Adam's sin. That isn't possible. Rather, we are born with a fallen nature on account of Adam's sin. Actually the Catechism of the Catholic Church clears up the confusion of the terms used in this Augustinian school. St. Augustine may have meant literal guilt (I do not know), but the Church didn't actually end up teaching that.
Hey I went to the full video and it’s no longer available
I was a 15 yr Protestant eyeballing a Orthodox Church around the time of Covid. God swooped in & was like, “NOPE!” & I started having a very Catholic year & finally, after ONE Latin Mass, my journey to Catholicism began. Plus, Economia is gay & allows for sinful concessions.
There are not a lot of orthodox churches. There is only one orthodox church which is divided to different locations and languages. Serbian orthodox church, for example, has jurisdiction in 5 different independed countries, but who speak serbian language. Russian and greek simmilar. Also, russian people for example, can participate in divine liturgy in greek orthodox church without being baptized in greek church, and so on. So it is one church, who's head is Jesus Christ, not pope, and who builded it upon his apostles.
Amazing words brother
Ya gotta love Steve Ray: The Church is a hospital for sinners! Amen!
The whole post is marked private for me. Help Matt please
I'm a protestant who is disgusted with the nonsense that's going on with our liberral churches and those TV "preachers" who give Christianity a bad name
I attend the Coptic Orthodox Church and the church actually does not allow divorce other than in very seldom situations usually instigated by infidelity. However, the request to dissolve the marriage must first be investigated by a clergical committee. Other than that, the church can grant annulments of marriage for various reasons which also undergo extensive intervention from the church. In any case though, they ensure that they have done everything they can possibly do to keep the family unit intact.
Yeah! Clear explanation of mr. steven ray. :)
Not simply National Churches, there are divisions within the National Churches. Which depending on which one you belong to consider the see of the other group as non-canonical, and lacking in authority. I knew an Episcopal clergyman who had for a while been Ukrainian Orthodox, while there are two main divisions, one which looks to the Moscow Patriarch, and another which is in communion with the Ecumenical Patriarch, there are several smaller groups, including now a group which claims to be Catholic and has consecrated a bishop. splintering into a couple different groups after aligning themselves with the SSPX. One group known as the "Eparchy of the hand". The last remaining bishop of that group had died, so they kept his vested body propped up on a throne in the sanctuary, and when they needed a new deacon or priest ordained, would impose his lifeless hand on them. Another in the USA is the Autonomous Ukrainian Orthodox Church in America. So even among National Orthodox Churches there is no unity.
Christ told us that we will know a tree by it's fruits. The reason that Orthodox churches look more traditional is because we kept tradition, and because we are the good tree.
This confirmed my decision to be Orthodox
Jesus condemned divorce and remarriage. How can the Orthodox Church teach that it is okay?
@@user-ks3qr5fk6m Apocalypse and Tradition - DBH
@@jdcole82 I do not understand your comment. Can you provide the scripture verse or church Father explanation?
They are our brothers and sisters, let us pray for them for reunification someday. Prayer so powerful. Amen!
Byzantine rite holds contradictory theology against rome lol
and they say the roman catholic church is one church. What a hypocrisy !!!
Excellent work! I just did a video on Catholic-Orthodox regarding the Local and Universal Church myself. It was based on my S.T.L. Thesis and the subsequent article in Nova et Vetera.
Am so proud to be a Roman Catholic. Thank you Lord for making me a Catholic Christian.
Byzantine Catholic here.... we have divisions just like the orthodox.
Didn't Constantine call the nicean council? If so, isn't it possible for the orthodox to call a council without the pope through other forms of authority?
The difference between orthodoxy and Catholicism :
Catholicism : different beliefs (churches), same authority.
Orthodoxy : same beliefs (churches), different authority.
Get a prominent Catholic apologist to debate an actual Orthodox apologist like a Jay Dyer, etc. Or get Fathers from both faiths and debate, something official. I'm sure Matt has the resources to pull some strings and get this off the ground.
Are the differences among Orthodox churches known to common people while they attend a different type of Orthodox Church?Seems to me it isn’t by the comments written in this thread.
There could be cosmetic differences in appearance but all Eastern Orthodox jurisdictions profess the same Faith.
So we’re all still under chair of Peter yet they don’t accept his successor’s authority? I don’t get how that works…
I like your degas shirt
Read the early churxh fathers these guys wont debate any serious orthodx theoligians
What is the point he made about abortion not being strongly opposed in Orthodoxy? That doesn't make any sense.
Still not convinced. After 2 years spent in Roman Catholic RCIA, I am about to start it all again to join the true Catholic Orthodox Church. I believe that you will too Matt, it's only a matter of time.
Jesus condemned divorce and remarriage. Why would he join a church that allows the destruction of the family?
Everyone, listen to Jay Dyer's criticism of Taylor Marshall. Everything stated in this video is rebutted.
Yeah it was easier for me too. My dad said “at least you aren’t Catholic.” However, it pissed him off enough that had I felt that Rome was the way to go, I would have gone. But..I love my Roman brothers and sisters.
This unity you speak of in the Roman Church doesn’t exist. The Orthodox Church does lack unity. But no more than the Roman Church. Look at the archdiocese of Chicago.
Not teaching what the Church teaches is different from not having an official teaching at all. Biden taking communion doesn’t mean that the Church allows people who are pro-abortion to receive communion. If a particular bishop in Chicago is being disobedient it doesn’t mean that he is “following” church teachings.
I considered becoming Orthodox when Francis did the heretical Amazonian Synod. I was very unimpressed with the Greek Orthodox when I met the priest. He was similar to a Jesuit in his mindset. I also tried the Russian Orthodox but I felt it was too ethnic. I also didn't like their compromise with Islam and Communism. I just go Eastern Catholic
@Based Byzantine I am Middle Eastern. I go to the SSPX right now because they don't force masks. I am the only brown skinned man there too. They don't say anything.
Antiochian orthodox is fairly centered and tends to have a good foundation in the US
@@tulip5210 Maybe
I go to a Russian church and we have more than 15 different ethnicities in our parish.
Compromise with islam?!?! As an orthodox that comes from a country with Muslim majority and an ex-communist country, I believe you’re misinformed at best. Churches were bulldozed under communism. There was no compromise in Albania at least. In Russia they did what they had in order to be let to exist. So easy to type from your luxurious couch of religious freedom and pass judgement on countries that produced martyrs people that were persecuted about their faith.
I see two Catholics talking about Orthodoxy and it's divisionb, let's not act as if sedevacantism isn't on the rise, that the current pope hasn't caused much division throughout Catholic churches. With all due respect I want a civil debate between a Catholic and Orthodox very knowledgeable in their own religion.
Make The Mass Latin Again. 🇻🇦
I’m a Catholic and I feel that this whole segment was an abomination. With respect to Matt and Steve, if you want to have an honest conversation about the differences between Western Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy, please interview a well versed and practicing Orthodox. This video is unfair to our Orthodox brothers and sisters.
No it was not. It was Rays take on it. Get over yourself.
Is the Byzantine rite in communion with the pope.
@JL-XrtaMayoNoCheese cool thanks for the reply
This man looks just like George Costanza! Uncanny Resemblance
I thought the same LoL