Why I Never Became Eastern
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 4 ต.ค. 2024
- East West Schism: en.wikipedia.o...
Last week I made a video about why I never became Eastern Orthodox and it got a lot of reaction, which is great, but that reaction was quite polarized and there seemed to be a lot of misunderstanding about what I was trying to say in that video, so I wanted to take some more time to address some of the feedback as well as the misunderstandings from the previous commentary.
The first thing I’d want to point out and re-emphasize is that the perspective I’m trying to share on this topic is more personal than anything else. Some people complained that my presentation of the history and theology of the great schism was too one sided.
And that’s completely true. It’s the same criticism or disclaimer I made about it at the beginning of the video by saying that it wasn’t supposed to be an apologetic about why Catholicism is right and Eastern Orthodoxy wrong. It was about my reasons for not being Catholic as opposed to Eastern Orthodox which is going to be inherently one sided.
Ultimately, I’d hate for people to think that I’m positioning myself in an adversarial way towards Eastern Orthodoxy because the honest fact is, I do find the peculiarities in Eastern Christianity extremely attractive. I like a lot of the simplicity of it, I like icons, I absolutely LOVE eastern architecture. I love how you’ve been so steadfast against the aberrant currents of modernism, and I could go on.
So let me try to dispel what I think is the biggest misunderstanding from the last video which is that some people thought I was criticizing ethnic or national churches which is definitely not what I was trying to say. I think it’s great that there are particular churches that express the theology, liturgy, and spirituality of a particular heritage.
The point I was trying to make about the universality of the Church, is that there needs to be a way for those national churches to express their communion and universality with one another.
So in the Eastern Orthodox Churches, from what I understand, they would say that their universality is expressed in their common theology… their orthodoxy. But the question for me has always been, how is that common theology defined? How do you make sure that as new difficulties and controversies arise the entire Church responds to address them?
Well, if there’s no one final authority, like we have with the Pope, then you’d need an ecumenical council where all the patriarchs and bishops gather to define doctrines and settle controversies. But for the Eastern Orthodox, as they are known today, there hasn’t been an ecumenical council in over 1000 years.
And meanwhile, Rome never stopped calling and hosting ecumenical councils through the centuries. So there seems to be something, to me, about the Eastern Orthodox Churches that keeps them frozen and unable to reaffirm the universal aspect of our faith because there isn’t one unifying voice to bring them together in an ecumenical way.
In evaluating the East West schism, I tried to find a similar easy to identify and understand argument. Something that made one of the positions self refuting and I felt like I found it in the Eastern position and that’s what I was trying to emphasize in my last video.
I was interested in trying to discover which Church stayed true to the very thing they were contending in the division itself. The Eastern bishops maintained that the Bishop of Rome was the first among equals but not supreme in authority. But after the schism, they excommunicated him and haven’t once shown him that kind of honor since, so they’ve betrayed their own position.
Now some people responded to that by saying, the Pope excommunicated the patriarch of Constantinople too, which is true. But in so doing, he was acting in accord with the argument that the West was making which is that he had universal authority.
The East was saying that the authority of those ancient sees ended there. Constantinople couldn’t tell Rome what to do and vice versa. But in, excommunicating the Pope, they were contradicting themselves and their own arguments.
So, I hope that provides some more clarity for what I was trying to say in my last video and again, don’t take my word as some kind of authority because I’m not. Based on my comprehension level, these are the points I found persuasive. You should go do your own research because it matters, and it’s pretty interesting. The Wikipedia article on the East West schism is actually a great resource so, I’ll link it in the description.
Please comment with your ideas about the video and if you find it interesting, please share it and subscribe.
Twitter: / briankeepsworth
Facebook: / brianholdsworthmedia
Business: www.holdsworth...
Orthodox here, I've always considered Catholics our brothers and sisters without hesitation. We are different but more things unite us than separate us.
I hope common ground will be met one day and hopefully soon. I put it more as a pride issue from both sides
We may work towards the table of the Eucharist.
@@baoduong2203 I’m ready for the Schism to end, two histories and traditions and I’m expected to pick between them and that’s not including the Oriental Orthodox too.
But catholics cant join you in the eucharist if they decide to visit
I am Catholic (of the Latin rite) in the Philippines. Various forms of Protestantism are poaching my fellow Filipino Catholics. Their numbers are growing as their converts. Sometimes they are very agressive towards Catholic that they come to a point of trolling our Catholic processions preaching with megaphones and slogans bearing Bible verses. I think this is also true in Brazil and in the rest of Latin America.
This is just one of the challenges that Catholics and Eastern Orthodox should focus. Our traditions are threatened.
Infinite Wisdom All religious groups' rights matter except Catholics'...
The protestants here in brazil arent agressive against catholics, in reality the question of theology is never put in discussion.. People, specially the poor, are converting because the "meetings" in the protestant churches are more like a spectacle or a show and they think the mass is boring... Brazil has a big catholic population but we arr not good catholics few care enough to know the doctrine and follow it, which is sad. Most here are just nominal catholics. We actually used to have a strong church but I think it was mostly due to recent immigrants from countries where catholicism was taken seriously. As of today there is a new movement of true catholics on the rise among the young, I make part of it and hope we can trive and spread the true faith in our land.
presuntomr
It’s a good start, pray, be strong in faith and the Holy Spirit will guide you. Your group of faithful can bring great changes to the Church.
We had the same issues with the growing number of Pentecostal churches. I’m a Catholic Christian from Kerala South India, years ago a small group of men including couple of Vincentian priests started praying and overtime it has become the biggest Charismatic Movement in India and ever since the Church is growing in India.
lester andes
The Charismatic Movement will be a solution- it will teach us about Church and strengthen our relationship and faith in Christ. Talking from the experience of Syro- Malabar Catholic Church in Kerala south India.
@@presuntomr Você está mentindo, isso que falou não é verdade, os protestantes aqui no Brasil são bem agressivos contra a fé católica e os fieis católicos, somos taxados de idólatras marianos sem falar que os protestantes daqui adoram fazer o que o amigo acima disse, gritar versículos bíblicos baseando-se na sola scriptura.
É só procurar vídeos no TH-cam que está cheio de protestantes nos atacando e pior ainda ofendendo nossa igreja de prostituta da babilônia. É só ver o que aquela novela ridícula da record chamada apocalipse fez.
Por favor não minta.
Regardless of east and west point of view. We should best respond by praying for CHRISTIAN UNITY!
Many find it hard to agree on many topics but yes we should pray because we all have now a common enemy. " The Antichrists"
Outside the Church there is no salvation, there is only unity if all professed so-called christians accept to be under the roman pontiff.
@@ACF1901, I have just one Lord and one God, one faith and one baptism. My Lord and Master is Christ Jesus of Nazareth who was the Word and took on Flesh, and declared his Father, the On True God (John 17:3) to us, and was sent so that we could all be saved from our sins (Citing, the bible as a whole). So I say: Never! I won't be a Catholic! My only mediator is the Lord Jesus Christ who is merciful and will not break and bruised reed, not Mary, and I don't pray to the dead patron deity-like saints all matched up like the Roman pantheon; I refuse to follow the traditions of men and be lead to disobey Christ by doing so. I refuse to sin by worshiping idols when God said clearly not to and going against my conscience. There's no need for a Roman Pontificating Pope trying to take over the world, man; There's only need to all be one in Christ, and under Christ only. We're brothers and sisters in Christ and I hope you take to heart that when Catholicism contradicts the Holy Bible, you should side with the bible before siding with traditions of men like Catholic traditions.
@@silversilk8438 Christ left a Church to teach you. Christ didn't leave you the bible. The bible says to follow tradition. Reading the bible and believing in Christ is not being in the Church. Since you need a visible church to clarify what is the true faith. Obviously your interpretation will be different than some other protestant, so you are not in the same church if you different on faith and morals and the meanings in the bible. Christ didn't leave you the holy spirit to preserve the understanding of scripture, he left that to his apostles. Your mind is corrupted by the modern world. How do you know you have the correct understanding? Being part of the eternal church of christ has preserved those teachings. You'd need prove your beliefs have been consistently supported throughout the ages, and prove your church goes back to the time of Jesus.
I'll go with the Jesus' word and the holy spirit, not someone who read the bible based on his modern mindset.
@@ACF1901 Sorry I offended you with my confession of faith. I hope you see that we both care for the scriptures and can have the Holy Ghost teach us all things. (John 14:26 if I recall) I went to scriptures myself, and you'll see that as you read Scripture. The Word is very important.
*The Word is...*
...truth, and sanctifies (John 17:17)
...renews the mind (Romans 12:2)
...faith-producing (Romans 10:17)
...Jesus (John 1, he took on flesh, sent from God for our sakes)
I'm sorry you despise me for being "modern" (hahaha, but this is the same mindset as the Boreans!! [They searched the scriptures to see if these things were so] Very ancient in that case, is my worldview then... come on man and be honest: For the Immaculate conception or ascension of Mary taught, you cannot prove it was part of the oral traditions references to the Thessalonians or any other early church. You have no proof it was taught then, no way to indicate this supposed teaching was already present, and the lateness at which it was finally asserted makes one wonder why this divine tradition wasn't upheld for so long before _by faith_ if they knew it to be true. [when I say by faith, I mean as a dogma.] After all, the truth does not change, and God does not change.
Have a nice day and goodbye; I'm not interested in fighting with strangers on the internet. Recall Matthew 5:44 and Romans 12:18 as good reminders about how we as Christians ought to conduct ourselves. I hope the best for you and I leave you now, fare well in these troubling times.
Having not read through the almost 3000 comments between part 1 and part 2 I don't know if this has already been mentioned. The Roman Catholic Church is only 1 of over 20 Rites within the Catholic Church. The Byzantine Rite of the Catholic Church is a wonderful Eastern Catholic church in communion with Rome, the Pope of Rome is the Pope of the Byzantine Catholic Church. It is very open to all people and very welcoming. It is Slavic in origin but I've never found one to be deeply ethnic. The Melkite Catholic Church is another great one to visit as it is from the Holy Land and conducts Liturgy in Arabic, Greek, and Local languages most of them with heavy emphasis on local. Again, the Pope is the Pope. These Rites are Eastern and can give a great way for a Roman Catholic to enjoy the other lung of the Catholic Church.
Eduardo Valentin-Morales
Um, no. Perhaps some Byzantines but the ones I’ve been to have been almost indistinguishable from an Orthodox mass.
Eduardo Valentin-Morales
I do not share this opinion but reasonable minds can disagree. God bless.
@@eduardovalentin9416 the fact that you insist on using the term “Uniate”, despite its widely being seen as a slur by Eastern Catholics, largely due to Orthodox Christians essentially using it as a slur, negates from whatever point you’re trying to make.
God bless our One Holy Apostolic Catholic Church.
Straight White Male What did the Eastern Orthodox 'Church' accomplish since 1054?
@ArabCatholic of Jesus...Indeed! Actually we only need humility to really see and understand the primacy of the Pope. In the gospel Jesus gathered 12 men to be His apostles, but from these men He singled out and called on Simon Peter and infront of the other apostles Jesus proclaimed that on him He will build His Church and handed him the key. That should have been a clear justification of why there is primacy, why there must be a leader that has more of an authority over the others. When Jesus told Peter...."I will give you the key", did the other apostles protested and questioned Jesus as to why He gave the key to only Peter, who could have been the least qualified among them? Did they asked...why did you gather 12 men to follow you and preach and not give us equal rights and authority? The answer is NO, they did not questioned Jesus for His action or His choice, they in their humility and meekness, respected and trusted Jesus' decision.
The idea that the Pope being the leader and have supreme authority, does not mean he makes decisions unilaterary, nor does he make rush judgements and proclamations. He collaborates with his brother bishops, he seeks them out to discuss matters. That is I can say is one saving grace that Jesus has given the RCC, He no doubt knew schism will arise after He joined His father in heaven and that He needed to assign someone the exclusivity of being the keeper of the "key".
Questioning the Pope's authority is like questioning why do we need a President or a Prime Minister when we have the congress? Can you imagine how it'll be to live in a country who each believe they all have equal authority to make a decision, pass their own laws...heck even the congress have their "speaker of the house" that leads the session. That is why there are way too many protestant denominations out there that exists because they all think leadership of a church is not just for one person.
+Marius - Did you answer my questions from the other video? Is this a good use of your time? Did you meet any of these people that so gallantly fight for? Why you are taking on their pain, all of whom are literally turned back into dust? Is nursing grudges millennia what Christ is calling you to do? Jesus warns again and again of legalism...and here are nothing but posts of mind numbing legalism. Hating Catholics does not improve you as a Christian, nor can I think that going before Our Lord with "but I fought a 1000 year old fight over legalisms" as the best plan ever. Be the best Orthodox you can be..and I guarantee that the best version of yourself is not acting like prosecuting ecclesiastical lawyer on a Catholic channel where someone calmly outlined his reasons to convert to Catholicism, rather than Orthodox.
+ArabCatholic ofJesus Besides NOT having a HUUUUUGE SEX SCANDAL and payout of millions of dollars????
it didn't stick with things like indulgences and papal infallability and purgatory all which have ZERO scriptural support for. Also, the current MARXIST POPE is utterly doing his best to ruin the church. If you look to which church is more like the early church it is without a doubt the Eastern Orthodox...but keep being wrong.
+Marius - "I thought I answered all your questions." You didn't, answer them now. How does this make you a better Christian? How does mind numbing legalism improve your relationship with Christ? Do you want to go to Our Lord with "I hated Catholics in my spare time for You."?
I was raised Catholic and left the church when I became a teenager, like so many young people often do. College is destroying the faith of our young people today. I then "got saved" in the Protestant Church when I met my future husband. He was the influence in my life who led me back to the church. However, after years of worshiping in the "Protestant World," I became disillusioned with the church altogether. My husband passed away after a six-year battle with cancer, and my faith sustained me through this great difficulty. However, I always felt like something was missing from my faith and that there was something more; I wanted to experience the "fullness" of the church. Six years ago, I moved to Virginia and returned to my Catholic roots. However, I once again began to feel like something was missing; I had a hunger and a thirst that was not being satisfied in Catholicism either. I don't trust Pope Francis at all and am concerned that the Catholic Church is going the way of the world. Just look at what has happened to the church since Vatican II. We are all on a journey, and I have been searching for the truth; I long for authentic Christianity--for authentic Christian faith. Last year, I converted to Orthodox Christianity because they HAVE resisted change, have overcome great persecution for centuries, and experience persecution even to this day. I guess we will see true, authentic Christianity when real persecution comes to America. May God have mercy on us all, for IT IS coming. Lord have mercy, Lord have mercy, Lord have mercy.
I have never changed my "religion." You totally misunderstand what I said. The more I have studied and learned about Christianity, the more I have come to understand how important learning about the history of my faith has been, and that is why I have converted to the Orthodoxy. I know in whom I have believed: Jesus Christ. I would never consider converting to a faith that denies my Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. I urge you to read the book by Timothy Ware called The Orthodox Church: An Introduction to Eastern Christianity, and you will come to understand my journey of faith.
The orthodox churches (there is not only one) are heretical and schismatic. They deny the doctrines of the primacy of the church of Rome, the procession of the Spirit from the Father and the Son, and the Immaculate Conception, all of which were taught by the Church Fathers. They allow for contraception, which is a sin, for divorce and remarriage, which Christ forbade, and communion for divorced and remarried people, which is sacreligious communion.
Terrific post. I find contemporary Catholicism absolutely lacking in spiritual depth as well and have frequently pondered Orthodoxy.
@@anthonypuccetti8779 Divorce is biblically legal when a spouse cheats.
@@deepforestfire We don't live under the bible we live under God's moral law. God said he hates divorce.
How many Orthodox councils have been since 1054?
Your answer:very few
My question: how many theological changes did the Orthodox Church suffered since the Schism?
Answer: very few. Orthodox Church does not like changes. It likes stability în faith.
There was no Orthodox Church before the schism. The Church Fathers, councils and creeds don't mention it. They speak of the Catholic Church. And there is no one Orthodox church but fourteen. They have rejected the doctrine of the primacy of the bishop of Rome, the doctrine that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, the doctrine of purgatory, and the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception, all of which were which were taught by the Church Fathers. They teach hesychasm, which was not a teaching of the Church Fathers. They have allowed for contraception, which is a sin, and divorce and remarriage, which Jesus forbade, and for communion for people who are divorced and remarried, which is sacriligious communion.
There is one Orthodox Church, not several. There are national Orthodox Churches, like the OC of Romania, of Serbia, of Greece or Russia, but in terms of belief they are the same. But because they are in different countries they are called Romanian Orthodox or Greece Orthodox Church.
Filioque is anti-sinodal. Not one of the first centuries councils mention the Filioque, nor the Immaculate conception. We belive that The Blessed Virgin Mary , our Lord's Jesus Christ mother lived on earth without sin, be she, like anyone of us was born bearing the original sin, in need for salvation from Our Lord Jesus Christ.
Orthodox Church does not allow contraception and it does not encourage it. The use of contraception it is out of the Church hand's nowdays. The Orthodox Church focuses more on saving people rather than taking interest in what they do in bed. If people sin they can confess and repent.
Orthodox Church does not encourage divorce, but there are reasons similar to adultery that end the marriage( for example one of the spouses tries tries to take the life of the other one or the children; such a marriage cannot continue because one of the spouses fell from the Grace). I know that the catholic church has similar rules.
In the matters of marriage the keyword is:spiritual father. He is the one who takes account.
I have watched the whole video and it does not present corectly the theology of St. Gregory Palama; the author did not understand the position of Gregory, and quotes out of context.
First:I find disturbing that the author of the video even compared the Jesus prayer to yoga. Only someone who lacks the habbit of prayer can say that. It is quite insulting, and it shows lack of spiritual experience. For more information about the Jesus prayer I encourage people to search answers in the fathers of the Holy mountain Athos. You will find it has nothing to do with yoga.
Same thing could be said about Rosary in CC that it is an oriental practice, but I doubt it is.
Now, when it comes to the distinction of essence and energy:
-The essence of God is noncommunicabile to men; this means that men can’t understand God by His essence. We cannot say what God is and we do not become God by essence.
-although we cannot, we still can communicate with God and can experience Him.
-through God’s “energy” like St. Gregory says, or “works” , like the Capadocians Fathers use, we men communicate with God, and God communicates with created beings.
These works or energies are for example: God's mercy, God's imortality, God's Goodness. God's essence is beyong Mercy, beyong imortality , beyond goodness, and all other names we attribute to God.
-these energies, or works are uncreated because they spring out God’s essence. Grace is uncreated, because it springs out God’s uncreated essence. But, one thing is the essence, another is the Grace, but God is in both.
-if the Grace is created how do we men partake in God, as Peter assures us:” Through these He has given us His very great and precious promises, so that through them you may participate in the divine nature, having escaped the corruption in the world caused by evil desires.”2nd Peter 1”.
-How can we say “You are gods; you are all sons of the Most High” if the grace is created? Can something created transfigure our bodies and our souls?
-St. Gregory’s Palama theology is the theology of experiencing God, not something rational. It is something empirical and practical. We can think about God all we want but what is most important is to go beyond simply knowledge.
This is the main difference between East and West; The west has a more rational and non-relational approach towords God, while in the East it is more important to live with God than to understand Him theoretically.
The theology of St. Gregory Palamas represents also a solid wall against pantheism and politheism.
The orthodox teaching is that we partake in God's energies or attributes by Grace. We become like God, but not by essence but by Grace.
Thank you for redirecting me to this video. It is very usefull. I recommend it.
th-cam.com/video/lMWmhw-skb0/w-d-xo.html
No changes after they broke off and ex communicated the Bishop of Rome. Lol. Makes perfect sense.
It could just be that there has been a lack of councils because:
1) There is no consensus on how to organize one, nor on how to give it binding authority (like the recently failed one in Crete). Whether you like the Pope or not, it allows the Catholic Church to organize councils and to give them authority. Aside the lack of the Pope, the Orthodox also no longer have the Byzantine emperor in Constantinople who had the authority to convoke councils.
2) The Orthodox Church has suffered such intense persecution under Muslim Turkish domination until the early 1900s and then Communist rule until the 1990s. Not much time or opportunity to argue about doctrinal specifics when you are fighting for your lives.
Brian, I've seen some of your videos. This channel is great. I respect your journey towards Catholicism - not an easy choice you made there, my friend. I know because I have been raised Catholic, so I am familiar with the obligations that you assumed (and that you did out of your free will, which is even more admirable than my own experience, in which I did not have a choice). As many pointed out, your videos are sincere and I think it is great that you are not afraid to share your position.
However (of course there would be a however, this is the comment section of TH-cam), I do have some criticism for you. I feel that you tend to misrepresent non-Catholic positions, and that in the end is bad apologetics. Eastern Orthodoxy has a great and rich tradition and really good arguments. I'll try to do my best to gather what I learned when I was in Catholic school.
Regarding papal supremacy, the main issue is defined along the lines of apostolic succession. Both Catholic and Orthodox Churches were founded (according to tradition) by the apostles, all of whom received the Holy Spirit and were witnesses of Christ. All of them received the same mission and the same authority to forgive sins, to preach the Gospel, etc. In time, new bishops succeded the apostles, all of them inheriting, again, the same mission and the same authority. When the church left behind the times of persecution, Ecumenical Councils were called to define some disagreements on matters of faith. The Creed was defined in those instances. Now, although all bishops had the same authority, some had greater honour for presiding important communities - the Pentarchy. The Bishop of Rome was given precedence as the first among equals. But honour and precedence does not mean the same as authority - Catholics do not make the distinction, but the Eastern Orthodox do.
The filioque controversy is, for the common lay person, something distant, even unimportant. But when the church in the West began to add it to the Creed, imagine the uproar in the East. The Creed is defined in Ecumenical Councils: no bishop, not even the one in Rome, has the authority to alter it. When differences between East and West became bitter and greater, it is logical that the Pope and the Patriarch of Constantinople excommunicated each other. By the way, any bishop has the power to excommunicate an apostate. So, according to the story so far, who was really the apostate? The Pope or the Patriarch?
When the threat of Muslim invasion was unbearable to the Eastern Roman Empire, the emperor sought the help of the Catholic Church. A Council was convened and many Eastern bishops attended. Now, even if some of them accepted the resolutions of the council, many did them under political pressure. As you say, there was one bishop that did not compromise their beliefs, no matter what - would you renounce your faith and compromise your beliefs just to get some crusaders to get the invaders out of your backyard?
Even as a Catholic, I think you would find in Mark of Ephesus an impressive example.
The Orthodox Church, because of its own history and structure, tends to division to the point of being practically a meme. I would concede that. But they stand fast in their beliefs, and do not put unity before their faith, no matter how desirable and practical that unity would be. It is true that Catholicism tends to ecumenical dialogue, but unity with Rome means submission to Rome.
Should unity be held no matter what? what are you willing to concede for the sake of unity? Is submission true unity? I had these questions when I was in Catholic high school, and every now and then, now as historian, return to them.
Why giving out your freedom is great?
The Orthodox Church still confesses the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed without changes, still baptizes by triple immersion, still keeps Wednesdays and Fridays as fasting days, still observes rather strict fasting rules for Lent and Advent, and still celebrates the Holy Liturgy in forms that are much the same as they were in the sixth century. The One Holy Apostolic Catholic Church is evidenced by apostolic succession, valid sacraments, true presence of Christ in the Eucharist, and the unchanging symbol of faith (Creed). See also: orthodoxinfo.com/inquirers/tca_carltonrome.aspx
Robert Hammond Couldn’t agree more. The ascetic way of life encouraged in the Orthodox Church is one of the major distinguishing factors that identify it as the true body of Christ.
....but isn't united with Peter......
That's a lot of words in your link to deny reality...
That's the fault of Rome (the West). They have been poor stewards of Christ's Church.
This is all one very sad joke.
There is only one church- the body of Christ Himself. We as humans have failed to honour the unity by our stupid sectarianism. Yet it remains. It remains in Him by His authority alone. Only He knows who is truly His church.
Thanks for this. Greek Orthodox here. I appreciate your efforts and just want to touch on a few points. To begin, historical details indicate that the representatives from Rome began the 'mutual excommunications', indeed the Pope died and a new Pope had not been selected, leaving him with technically no power whatsoever. It's my understanding that, regardless, the Orthodox didn't excommunicate all of the Roman church, but just the Roman representatives, who delivered their attempt at excommunication on the altar, in the middle of a service. All of this business was put to rest much later, of course, and recognized as a sort of 'human error'. Nevertheless, from our perspective, the Roman church 'walked away'--and the consistency of its position is not an indication of its merit.
The Orthodox have continued to meet, in various forums, over the years, but the consistency of our doctrine has somewhat obviated the necessity for lots of formal meetings--still, it is a failing, of sorts, which we need to address, but you should be aware Eastern Orthodoxy is suffering from its own troubles (e.g. Russia). It is arguable that Rome's departure broke the system that had been in place since the beginning.
Also, for the record, we figuratively had a gun to our heads at Lyon. Don't forget Catholic Crusader armies had sacked Constantinople 70 years earlier and the city suffered two other attempted invasions in the intervening years. Soon afterwards, the Ottomans inherited the mantle of leadership from the Seljuks, who had been pressuring Constantinople for 250 years at that point. The Ottomans, emerging 25 years later, then began the end of that phase of our history.
There are a lot of details to these stories, but for the rest let it suffice to say that, from the Orthodox perspective, 'providence' hasn''t been kind to Catholicism either: the consistency of its theological innovations (e.g. original sin, versus ancestral sin)--again taken without consultation, which was the standard practice, and probably based on a error in translation from the original Greek to Latin taken up by St Augustine--has arguably led to the true fractioning of Christianity.
Hermes- I don’t share some of your perspective but have no criticism of your charity. Peace to you, brother.
@@mikelopez8564 Thank you, Mike. That is very kind. No doubt there is much to regret, and to forgive, between "east" and "west". I respect and admire the Catholic Church and the Pope (Ever watch "Upon Friar Review"? Lovely fellows...), and my heart breaks over what the Orthodox have done to themselves and others. I cried at least five times yesterday over this. May peace be with you and may you and yours go with love and be surrounded by kindness.
@@HermesSonofZeus I’ll check it out!
Just a reminder.
The 4th crusade is a big mistake and something and the crusaders them selves been excommunicated for said act.
I went to almost exactly the same process you went through, and, like you I admire and I respect deeply the Eastern Orthodox Church, but like you I return as prodigal daughter to Our Holy Catholic Church
Lets not forget that even though there are three armies marching, we're supposed to be marching under the same banner, marching in lockstep with our Lord.
"The Eastern Orthodox have suffered severe persecution, therefore they're wrong." is a really, really bad argument.
I agree which is why I didn't make that argument if that's the insinuation.
@@BrianHoldsworth, did you not make it, at least in your first part? You pointed to the intense persecution of the Muslims against the East, while showing the West's physical "prosperity" (ignoring their sacking of Constantinople and other rampant violence and corruption throughout the Middle Ages), and including that in your arguments of why you're Roman and not Eastern, did you not?
@@barelyprotestant5365 No, that's not the point I was making. I was referring to the fact that the autocephalies of the East, in many cases, no longer exist. They were utterly destroyed (Antioch, Alexandria, Constantinople, etc.). It's not that they were persecuted (Rome has faced its trials) but that they are now gone altogether.
@@BrianHoldsworth how...is that even an argument against the East in the least bit? I think you're imposing Roman views onto the East. Because otherwise you just look like you're arguing, "we're not persecuted, therefore we're right." The East has never claimed that any of their autocephalous groups are eternal, only that the Church is. It makes no sense to demand they have a Roman understanding, and then show that they fail the Roman understanding as evidence that they aren't the true Church. That's arguing with the presumption that you're right, to begin with. It's not as bad an argument as what I first understood it to be, but it's still pretty bad.
This is a constant problem I see with Roman theology: they enforce their own unique theilogy onto others, then declare that those others fail because they are inconsistent with said theology when that has never been the theology of the others in the first place. I recommend reading Meyendorff's The Orthodox Church (and I'm not even Eastern Orthodox; I'm Anglo-Catholic).
@@BrianHoldsworth as an Anglo-Catholic, I sincerely appreciate a LOT of what you do. I just think that this comes across as an incredibly offensive argument, and the clarification you gave makes it less offensive but does not redeem it as an argument otherwise.
Many problems persist in this video, so I'll try and detail a few of the major problems I see. Sorry for the length in advance. The TL;DR will be at the end
Bishops have been constantly deposed from their episcopal chairs in the East, for better or worse. It was a matter of course, that if the bishop fell into heresy he could no longer serve as bishop. This was common practice. There is plenty of historical evidence to suggest this occured in the first 1000 years of the Church, and Orthodoxy has stayed true to this. Catholics, however, say the Pope can never be deposed, unless he resigns or dies. This concept was foreign to the early Christians.
Furthermore, beyond the scope of authority and jurisdiction which seems to be historically pretty clear to see that Rome infringed on what had historically been the case for 1000 years, we see the infallibility on matters of faith and morals when statements are made "ex cathedra" to be pretty clearly never taught by anyone until much later in the West's history. Interestingly enough, however, Vatican 1 made a point saying that "We teach and define that it is a dogma divinely revealed that the Roman pontiff when he speaks ex cathedra...in defining doctrine regarding faith or morals, and that therefore such definitions of the Roman pontiff are of themselves, and not from the consent of the Church, irreformable".
Dogma, as we understand, is something that is part of the essential deposit of the faith, which means that it has always been held by the Church and defended. And this is where the rubber hits the road. Anyone knowing anything knows that papal infallibility was unheard of for the first thousand years of the Church's life. Therefore, there arises a contradiction, on the one hand, Vatican 1 saying papal infallibility has always been believed and taught as it details, and on the other hand historical fact which clearly proves this to be untrue. The doctrine of papal infallibility as promulgated by Vatican 1 contradicts the facts of the early Church as it is clear that it has not been part of the deposit of faith, and for me demonstrates that Rome is in error regarding this point, meaning that it has dogmatically declared a heretical teaching, which in my view demonstrates that it cannot be the True Church since the Holy Spirit will never abandon His children and will lead the Church only into deeper understanding of the Truth while never leading her astray.
TL;DR
Rome devised and promulgated new dogmas not seen in the early Church meaning it is not longer guided by the Holy Spirit and as such cannot truly be the fullness of the Catholic faith, whereas Orthodoxy has remained steadfast and *IS* the True Church Christ established.
well said
If it has remained steadfast how do you explain the existence of The Most Holy Governing Synod (Святѣйшій Правительствующій Сѵнодъ, Святейший Правительствующий Синод) between 1721 and 1917. Election and Inthronization of patriarch Tichon of 1917 using new made up procedures. How do you explain the appointment of the Ecumenical Patriarchs of Constantinople (Οικουμενικός Πατριάρχης) by a muslim-Ottoman Sultan. There are more examples but all that contradicts orthodoxy. In my opnion the reason why orthodox churches couldn't stay "steadfast/orthodox" was the lack of Investiture Controversy and that resulted with interferring of Kings, Tsars and Sultans in Orthodox Churches.
@@r0ko899 if you would like some examples of investiture within the west I recommend looking up both the byzantine papacy, and the avignon papacy. To argue that this problem is uniquely eastern ignores this occurring in the west many times by different emperors.
@@r0ko899 Despite these changes in personnel/bishops, Orthodox dogma, practices, and church traditions have not changed in 2000 years!
@@helenkamenos8563 Well, you can make the point that in reference to traditions and practices those were changed. How do you otherwise explain the existence of The Most Holy Governing Synod inspired by the reformation in the west. It was governed by an Ober-Procurator. Only lay people had the right to be assigned as an Ober-Procurator among whom Konstantin Petrovich Pobedonostsev is most known. Untill 1917 only the holy synod had the right to canonise saints. Furthermore if practices and traditions haven't changed why does the present inthronisation ritual of the patriarch of moscow differ from the one used in the middleages. And if the traditions haven't changed as you mentoned doesn't the osman Sultan still appoint the patriarch of constantinople?
So sorry you don't get it. God bless you. Fifty years ago I was in the same situation. Met an Orthodox Deacon; he told me , "when you just don't understand something,go and kneel in front of the Icon of the Most Holy Mother of God and ask her to explain and don;'t leave until she does.
How long did you knee, down for 😅🤔🙂
That’s idolatry. A Christian should never kneel down before any icon or representation of someone in heaven. Especially not the Virgin Mary who is a normal human and not god. She doesn’t have the authority to answer prayers or provide intercession. This goes against the first and second commandments of the lord.
@@mythologicalbeast5926 I am tired of you Protestants taking 1 verse and twisting it to suit your own needs. The church is the pillar of truth (Timothy) NOT your own interpretation. And the Church decreed at the 7th Ecumenical council that icons should be used.
Go to the catacombs of Rome or to the caves of Cappadocia and you will see how the first Christians worshipped - with icons all around the walls !!!!!!!
God Himself commands many holy images to be placed inside the Holy of Holies. 1 Kings 6 describes how ornate the inside of the Holy of Holies was, replete with images of Cherubim and Seraphim, and of course the Ark itself had two huge, golden Cherubim over its lid. When the Israelites were in the wilderness and were bitten by the serpents, God commanded Moses to make an image of a bronze serpent and put it on a pole and all the Israelites are to look in faith to this image. This is recounted in Numbers 21. Once again, this is clearly a religious image because Jesus explains it as a mystical type of His crucifixion in John 3:14-15.
St. Paul, in Colossians 1:15, says that Christ is the image (Greek is “ikon”) of the invisible God Joseph, as a ruler in Egypt, deserves the homage of his brothers and sisters, and thus they “bowed themselves before him with their faces to the ground” (Gen. 42:7).
The company of the Lord’s prophets also bow down before Elijah in reverence in 2 Kings 2:15. Surely, if it were inherently wrong to bow before a created thing (and Joseph and Elijah were created), they would have rebuked others for so doing. There are numerous such examples of this in Scripture. St. Paul says to give “honor to whom honor is due” (Romans 13:7), and if anyone is due honor, it is the Saints and their relics.
The patristic view is also very clear: “We do not worship, we do not adore [non colimus, non adoramus], for fear that we should bow down to the creature rather than to the Creator, but we venerate [honoramus] the relics of the martyrs in order the better to adore Him whose martyrs they are.” Against Riparium -St. Jerome
“We by no means consider the holy martyrs to be gods, nor are we wont to bow down before them adoringly, but only relatively and reverentially [ou latreutikos alla schetikos kai timetikos].” Against Julian -St. Cyril of Alexandria
And Bl. Augustine Against Faustus the Manichaean: “We, the Christian community, assemble to celebrate the memory of the martyrs with ritual solemnity because we want to be inspired to follow their example, share in their merits, and be helped by their prayers. Yet we erect no altars to any of the martyrs, even in the martyrs’ burial chapels themselves.” “No bishop, when celebrating at an altar where these holy bodies rest, has ever said, “Peter, we make this offering to you”, or “Paul, to you”, or “Cyprian, to you”. No, what is offered is offered always to God, who crowned the martyrs.
Finally, the Angel Gabriel venerated Mary (Luke 1:29) Hail, Full of Grace and Daniel 2:46 King Nebuchadnezzar bowed down before Daniel.
In Job 1-2 we can see the host of angels presenting themselves before God and 'advising' him, this is even more evident in Kings 22:18-23.
You clearly lost the translation: idolon means idol (ie. false god, golden calf etc) and NOT image....or even graven image.You attest to sola scriptura yet your scriptura is WRONG !!!! (it never even said "graven image" in the first instance, it says idol and an icon is NOT an idol)
Amen
Bin Sam
I’m not a Protestant
Michael heart
1.) I am not a Protestant.
2.) I don’t care what the Ecumenical Councils decreed. I don’t consider the decisions of uninspired bishops to be authoritative. You know the table at the center of the alter in Orthodox Churches where they have the image of Christ being crucified? Why don’t you do some research and see where that originated from. My authority is the Holy Scriptures, which you falsely put alongside your man made church traditions. I have no issue with Christians worshiping with icons throughout the walls. Just as long as they’re not worshiping the icons on the walls, which I’ve seen many, MANY Orthodox Christians do.
2.) You are right that God commanded images to be placed inside the Holy of Holies. My issue is not with the images. I love the images and think they’re beautiful. My issue is worshipping the images. God never told the Jews to bow down and kiss the cherubim that were placed in that sacred space. Because He wants all worship to be directed to Him alone. He is the creator and any worship to anything or anyone else is an unspeakable act of idolatry that insults God. The bronze serpent used by Moses was not worshipped by anyone. They were to look at it because of what it represented within the greater context of the Biblical Story. It represented God’s willingness to save them. However they didn’t worship it. Jesus sent the Apostles out into the world to preach the Gospel. He wanted them to be the ones who brought forth this great change in the world. However, when people tried to worship the Apostles, they told them not to.
3.) I agree that Jesus is the image of the invisible God. This is because Jesus is God incarnate. He’s not a material object. And while people did bow to Joseph, there are times in the Bible where people bow down to kings (like King David). There’s nothing wrong with that. But they weren’t praying to Joseph, and they didn’t use him as an intermediary to God. Whereas the Orthodox pray to Mary and the other saints, because they want them to intercede with God. This completely contradicts scripture, where it says we have one intercessor the man - Christ Jesus.
4.) Again, I know that Elijah was bowed down to. But this isn’t the issue. It’s perfectly fine to bow down to someone I reverence. Here’s the thing, Elijah was physically there, and he was a living being. They weren’t praying to him and asking him to provide intercession.
5.) My friend, here’s what you and the church fathers fail to realize. If you have an image of a Saint (whether it be Mary, an angel, or whoever), and you bow down to it, kiss it, and pray to that Saint, that presupposes that they can hear you. If someone (who’s dead) can hear your prayers when they’re in another plane of existence, they would have to be omniscient. Omniscience is an attribute of God, not a human or an angel. By asking for the saints to provide intercession, you are spitting in the face of the God who provided His holy, eternal, and beloved Son to intercede for you. I will never give that type of glory to a human being, where I actually pray to them. This takes you out of the fold of monotheism. If the apostles saw the Orthodox Christians do this, they would be horrified. A lot of this stuff you are talking about, I wasn’t even arguing.
6.) I do believe in sola scripture. Rightfully so. You should too. Instead of placing the scriptures right alongside your heretical Church traditions, you should look to them as your authority. They are what God provided for you to spread his Holy Gospel. An icon is an idol. If you send your prayers to someone who’s not God and physically bow down and kiss an icon, then you’ve made it into an idol.
7.) I’m actually impressed that you quoted from the Bible directly. Most Orthodox Christians I’ve known haven’t even read the Bible. They tend to quote the church fathers more than they quote the scriptures.
That's the exact thing that drew me to the Orthodox Church. The fact that there is no central figure and it seems very disorganized, which is exactly how the early church was. I do not mean disorganized in the protestant sense (which is the result of multiple opinions on scripture) , but rather multiple communities united by one way of life, one baptism and one creed, not merely by a single figure.The idea of a central (Catholic; universal) church became apart of Christianity as result of its close identification with the emperor. One God, one Empire and one Emperor. In both east and western traditions the pope and patriarchs all wear imperial clothing during liturgical service. these aren't merely aesthetic but are symbolic. the bishop stands as a representation of Christ who is king of kings and lord of lords, and the first among equals (the first citizen) all of which are titles of the roman emperor. I get that not having a central figure makes the church less effective in the world and in gaining converts, but perhaps that's a good thing. As modernity has shown too much action in the world is not always a good thing. Christ called us to be the light of the world. People are drawn to the light when they are in the dark and the world is getting increasingly dark. The Orthodox church is an unchanging light, at least that is how I view it.
Please excuse my simplistic historical summary: After the fall of Rome in 476, western Europe fell into near chaos. western Europe was being attacked and conquered by "barbarians" like the goths for example. in short among this chaos, was the western church whose central authority was the Pope in Rome. Because of this, the Pope would gain a lot of influence, both religious and political. The whole structure of feudal Europe was formed around the Papacy, which brought western Europe out of the "dark ages". And so, from a historical perspective it is understandable as to why the Pope would be the central figure in the west. It also makes sense that the schism would not occur until almost 500 years after the fall of Rome, right at the height of the Popes influence in Europe. I've heard from many scholars and theologians, that the main reason for the schism was the result of the stark disconnect between the east and west at the time. They not only differed in theology, but spoke completely different liturgical languages. On top of that throughout the "dark ages"/ middle ages, the Pope had little to no contact with the east. It was only a matter of time that the schism would take place.
When it comes to topics such as this I think it all eventually boils down to convictions. I personally was not raised Orthodox. I am a convert to orthodoxy from a protestant back ground. that might have something to do with my disagreement with the role of the Papacy in the Roman catholic tradition. But I don't think that is the only reason. As for my historical analysis most historians would agree that the fall of Rome had a influence in the great schism. And the fact the Pope had gained considerable influence in western Europe during the middle ages, marking him as the head of the western church.
Although it is true that the early Church was in some way "synodal", as you have described it, the Pope (or better the bishop of Rome) has always had a special role. Already the very first Church Fathers attest that, whenever there were doctrinal or disciplinary difficulties, they would call to the bishop of Rome, since everyone acknowledged that Rome had the pure faith and could never err. The Pope thus always had this role, which made him the quasi "primate" of all other bishops; also among the Patriarchs, he was the first. Before any such thing as the Papal Primacy was established, the Pope was the supreme judge in many questions. Even the Emperor of the East (Byzantium) was interested in having the Pope on his side in doctrinal matters.
The late Vladika Metropolitan Vitaly told me that the Church's disorganization was "oour secret weapon to prevent the rapid spread of false ideas."
" since everyone acknowledged that Rome had the pure faith and could never err." Could you backup this statement with proof? Who said this?
Irenaeus. To wit:
But since it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the succession of all the churches, we shall confound all those who, in whatever manner, whether through self-satisfaction or vainglory, or through blindness and wicked opinion, assemble other than where it is proper, by pointing out here the successions of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles. Peter and Paul, that church which has the tradition and the faith which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the apostles. With that church, because of its superior origin, all the churches must agree, that is, all the faithful in the whole world, and it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the apostolic tradition (Against Heresies 3:3:2 [A.D. 189]).
I am Eastern Orthodox and enjoyed your 2 videos on why you did not become Eastern Orthodox.
I was raised in the Southern Baptist Church in the southern USA. At some point during high school I began to question 2 points of Baptist theology, namely the rejection of the Real Presence in the Eucharist (The Lord's Supper) and the doctrine of once saved always saved. I began to attend a local Roman Catholic church and while in college I entered into communion with Catholicism.
I thought my search for fulfillment and a closer relationship with God was complete . But for years something nagged at me. To this day I cannot identify when it started or exactly why I felt the need to continue my search or even exactly for what I was searching. At some point I investigated Eastern Orthodoxy. This was many years ago and at that time I was unable to locate an Orthodox congregation that served Divine Liturgy in English. And though I attended several Orthodox churches I fortunately, did not have to endure the "why are you here" questions as you. But even though the parishioners were very friendly the service was quite literally "all Greek"( and in one case Arabic) to me.
I eventually moved to Atlanta, GA for a job opportunity and after a number of inquiries I located an OCA (Orthodox Church in America) parish that used English (there are a few OCA parishes in the northeast and other areas that use church Slavonic but most is English). The first service I attended I knew my journey was over or so I thought. I was home and that part of the journey was over. But any new home must be explored. I have been exploring it for 41 years now and I am still exploring. As Christ Himself has said "...in my Father's House are many mansions..."
I suppose we have had a similar journey even though on different paths. And from your videos I get the impression your exploration of the many mansions to be found in Catholicism is as wondrous and fulfilling as I find those in Orthodoxy.
Now, finally, the reason for this lengthy
foundation is not to refute any of your positions-some of which I agree, some of which I disagree (some very vigorously) but to let a Brother in Christ - you - know how happy I am to hear of your journey from agnosticism to Christianity. And, further, to express my sadness and chagrin at the absence of love and charity of many of the responses of my Orthodox brethren.
For over a thousand years Rome, Constantinople, Jerusalem, Antioch and Alexandria were part of One Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church.
We still are...we just don't realize it.
Oh, and by the way, as regards those who have not charity in their hearts towards you a good old Latin instruction comes to mind, Non carborundum est!
During Paschaltide the greeting between Orthodox is:
Christ is Risen!
Indeed He is Risen!
Phil (Tikhon)
Great text Phil. Hristos Anesti!
@@beskow1500 Thanks!!!
I went to an Orthodox service last week for the first time; I'm not Greek but the priest and members of the congregation were very welcoming. If you are curious I would advise finding a church that has services in English.
Brian - I followed a similar path for similar reasons , and I was very attracted to EO - really more "attracted" than I was to RC. But it can't be all about "attraction". Enjoyed your take on all this - I think you were quite fair and transparent.
EXACTLY !! it IS NOT all about "attraction" (even though E Orthodox Church IS attractive ) : It's all about what Christ wanted and wants : He often wants his followers on a path that is not attractive at all !!
@@theresemartin3920 Does Christ want a Vatican that honors heretics and oagan idols (re: Pachamama paganism)?
Well said said. Attraction is a form of seduction in a sense...
On October 4, Pope Francis attended an act of idolatrous worship of the pagan goddess Pachamama. He allowed this worship to take place in the Vatican Gardens, thus desecrating the vicinity of the graves of the martyrs and of the church of the Apostle Peter. He participated in this act of idolatrous worship by blessing a wooden image of Pachamama. On October 7, the idol of Pachamama was placed in front of the main altar at St. Peter’s and then carried in procession to the Synod Hall. Pope Francis said prayers in a ceremony involving this image and then joined in this procession. When wooden images of this pagan deity were removed from the church of Santa Maria in Traspontina, where they had been sacrilegiously placed, and thrown into the Tiber by Catholics outraged by this profanation of the church, Pope Francis, on October 25, apologized for their removal and another wooden image of Pachamama was returned to the church. Thus, a new profanation was initiated. On October 27, in the closing Mass for the synod, he accepted a bowl used in the idolatrous worship of Pachamama and placed it on the altar.
Brian, your video is very respectful, and I appreciate that. You are so right to analyze consistency of practice pre/post schism. To counter your points, however, the Church always operated in a conciliar manner. You say the pope had the authority to excommunicate other bishops, but that’s not true because it’s been attempted and failed before. By Eusebius’s historical record, the Bishop of Rome, Victor, “ENDEAVORED” to excommunicate all the churches of Asia and neighboring churches of an issue regarding Easter. Pope Victor published abroad letters proclaiming that “all the brethren were wholly excommunicated.” Those who “endeavor” don’t have the authority to do such a thing, otherwise the act would simply follow their will. His attempt at excommunication failed, and the Bishops excoriated him.
Having watched both your videos on the matter, i got the impression that you were sincere in your testimony. At the same time, you weren't as sincere in your search.
For example, you claimed to have studied Church history. So, as you know, the Nicene Creed, was written in 325 and completed in 381AD, to protect the Church from heretic teachings. The One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church has been using it unchanged, as a confession and as the means to tell correct from false doctrines. 7 centuries later...
"In 1009 Pope Sergius of Rome wrote a confession of faith which included the filioque in the Nicene Creed. Because of this, the Church of Constantinople removed his name and that of the Roman Church from the diptychs (the official list of sister churches and bishops who are liturgically commemorated by a given church). Then in 1014, the Roman Church, after resisting for over 200 years Germanic pressure to adopt the filioque, finally used this addition to the Creed in public worship for the first time-at the coronation of Henry II as Holy Roman Emperor. Ironically, forty years later the Latin Christians would accuse the Greek Christians of being heretical for not using the filioque."
Source: oca.org/orthodoxy/the-orthodox-faith/church-history/eleventh-century/the-great-schism
More reasons...
- Calling Divine Grace a creation, thus making Salvation impossible!!!
- Changes to how the Sacrament of Baptism is performed.
- Immaculate conception of Mary.
- Pope's Infallibility.
- Pope's supremacy.
- Pope being also the political leader the Vatican, a state that has ministers, diplomacy, economy, police and it even used to have an army.
- The crusades.
- Purgatory.
- ...
Short mentions on other points you've made:
Ecumenism: is a heresy.
Olive branch by the pope: Like the one in 1204?
Eastern Patriarchates falling to muslims: Patriarchates didn't fall anywhere because they're not a state. Even so, Rome fell much earlier, in 476. But under pagan rule in the 1st centuries, under Ottoman rule later on, under atheistic rule (USSR) more recently, Christianity still thrives and spreads.
Peace!
You should've received excellent comments on this post. Excellent post! Well done. 👍 👍
How to consolidate power in 3 easy steps.
1. Claim to be infallible
2. Excommunicates those who challenge said infallibility
3. Repeat steps 1 and 2 until a challenger appears in Avignon.
🤦♂️
Too many trolls who just don't listen...
@Dave: My point exactly!
Dave Wygonowski
Well this is Just classic RCC apologetical litterature. This is nothing new. So of course that kind of video start again the classic eternal debat with the classic over used arguments from each sides.
I'm reading the comments.
It's sad to see Christians who claim to love Christ argue among each other.
God have mercy.
Peter and Paul were the first ones that started arguing... And even before Paul, the twelve apostles, the issue having been who was the greatest... They haven’t yet decided :)
So Christians aren't allowed to argue? What a moronic sentiment
Accuracy matters
I'm a Protestant convert to Eastern Orthodoxy, who considered Catholicism during that journey. I could make my comment about my disagreements with you on points of history or theology, which do exist, but I don't think that would add anything.
Instead, I'll thank you for your deep respect and appreciation for Eastern Christianity, and say that you've leveled some fair criticisms. Orthodoxy does still remain quite ethnic, and that can be a stumbling block for some. We're working on that, as Orthodoxy spreads to new lands and enculturates there. The centuries of persecution we've been under means we're just now, in the last few centuries, been able to come out of survival mode and evangelize in these new places. Remember that it wasn't that long ago that, even here in the US, there would be an Irish, Italian, Polish, Spanish and German Catholic Church all in one town, and they didn't much like each other or get along...and that was even before Vatican II when the Mass was more structured and all in Latin. That's not the case for Catholicism here anymore, and it won't be in Orthodoxy in a generation or two.
I also understand how questions of authority can be difficult for Orthodox inquirers. For Catholics, it can be kind of uneasy. We don't have a figure like the Bishop of Rome who wields immediate and universal jurisdiction, and so we proclaim an ecclessiology that is more synodal (conciliar) and de-centralized than can be comfortable for folks looking for an obvious answer like what Catholicism provides. This is a cultural divide that has long existed between us. The Christian East has always been a bit messier in this regard. We've always been a bit more gritty on these kinds of issues. It's part of the more dynamic, mystical emphasis in Eastern spirituality than the more catagorized, systematized and static definitions of the West. Coming from a Calvinist (Presbyterian) tradition, I was more used to that than what the East offered, but I've found it instead to be freeing and personal. That palpable experience of Christ through the mystical union of God with the Church and the Church together as His Body.
The truth is, there's more truth to the Papal claims than many Orthodox care to admit. There's also more truth to the Synodality of Orthodoxy than Rome cares to admit, although that may be changing. Neither today, it seems, is entirely reflective of the ecclessiology of the pre-schism Church. Both have over-reacted in their respective predilections, and both will need to come to a compromise if the Schism is to be healed. The Ravenna Document from the formal Catholic-Orthodox dialogue began to lay out what that may look like. If you're unfamiliar, I recommend taking a look.
I believe it was our Metropolitan John of Pergamon who said, "the wall of our schism does not reach to heaven." At the end of the day, we have to realize that and recognize one another as brothers in Christ. It will take much dialogue, clarification and repentance from both communions, but at the end of the day I believe it will be possible.
Hello. Unfortuneately modernistic theology attacks the original Orthodox theology. Orthodox modernism understands the PSA only in the sense of Christ dying instead of us and that way saving us from death. But there is a tendency of Orthodox modernism to reject the penal subsitutionary atonement in the aspect that refers to Christ fulfilling God's justice, saving us from God's wrath and the second death - the eternal punishment for the sinners through substituting it with the penalty of the Cross. That aspect is considered by modernism to be a supposed late Western legal error and claims that where it is met in the Orthodox theology, this is a result of a Western influence. Yes, God’s wrath is not a passion because the divine nature is passionless. But the wrath must be understood as a fulfillment of God's justice.
If we go through the history of the Orthodox polemics with the West regarding the Western deviations of the ancient faith, we will see nowhere a rejection by the Orthodox theologians of the penal subsitutionary atonement in its legal aspect, nor of leagal understanding of the consequences of the original sin as a Western error. If the penal substitutionary atonement in its legal aspect was a Western heresy, it would have been condemned as such exactly in the polemics of the Orthodox with the West, for example during the attempts for a union between Rome and the Eastern Orthodox Church because during those attempts there clearly arose the dogmatic differences between the East and the West. So the theory about the Latin captivity of Orthodox theology is a myth.
In the Encyclical letter of St.Photius (867) to the Eastern patriarchs (when Rome had not yet fallen into a schism but had already embraced heresies), St.Photious mentions the heresies of Rome. (churchmotherofgod.org/salvation-history/new-life-church-history/6257-encyclical-letter-of-saint-photius-867.html). He mentions the heresies of Rome - the celibacy of the priesthood, the rejection of the validity of the chrismation made by priests, the fasting on Saturdays, the heretical Filioque addition in the Creed. But he does not mention the penal subsitutionary atonement.
The Definition of faith of the Local Council of Blachernae, in Constantinople ( 1157 CE) says that God was offended when His commandment was violated by the first man: ,,…The God-man Word during the Lord's Sufferings, brought the Salvific Sacrifice to the Father, to Himself and to the Spirit, from Whom (plural - the Three Persons) man was summoned from nothingness to being, Whom (pl.) he offended, violating the commandment, and with Whom (pl.) the reconciliation was made through the sufferings of Christ. ...‘‘
After the acceptance by emperor Michael VIII Paleologos of an union with Rome which was, however, short-lived, the Athonite monks of the Bulgarian Zographou monastery sent a letter to the emperor in which they pointed out the major heretical teachings of the Roman Catholic Church and the penal subsitutionry atonement in the aspect of Christ taking the penalty of the Cross as a replacement of the everlasting punishement of the hell fire that we would otherwise undergo, thus saving us from that everlasting punishment, was not among them:
''26 Monkmartyrs of the Zographou Monastery on Mount Athos In the year 1274 at the Council of Lyons (in France), the Byzantine emperor Michael VIII Paleologos decided to buttress his waning power by forming a union with Catholic Rome. This step evoked universal discontent. In 1278, the emperor issued a decree to introduce the Union at Constantinople by forceful measures, if necessary. Mt. Athos stood in firm opposition to the Union. The Athonite monks sent a letter to Michael pointing out that the primacy of the Pope, his commemoration in the churches, celebrating the Eucharist with unleavened bread, the insertion of the “filioque” [“and from the Son”] into the Creed, could not be accepted by Orthodox, and they asked the emperor to change his mind. “We clearly see,” the letter said, “that you are becoming a heretic, but we implore you to forsake all this and abide in the teachings that were handed down to you.... Reject the unholy and novel teachings of a false knowledge, speculations, and additions to the Faith. (www.oca.org/saints/lives/2016/10/10/108024-26-martyrs-of-the-zographou-monastery-on-mount-athos-at-the-hand).
They mention celebrating the claim for the primacy of the pope, celebrating the Eucharist with unleavened bread, the Filioque. But they do not mention the penal substitutionary atonement and the satisfaction of God’s wrath as a Roman heresy. But they do not mention the penal substitutionary atonement as a Roman Catholic heresy.
The differences between the East and West were discussed also during the negotiations at the Councils of Ferrara 1438-1439) and Florence (1439-1449) that led to the setting of the Ferraro-Florentine union of Rome and the Patriarchate of Constantinople in 1452. In his 1444 Encyclical letter (orthodoxethos.com/post/the-encyclical-letter-of-saint-mark-of-ephesus) St.Mark of Ephesus who opposed the establishing of the union, mentions among the fundamental heresies of the Roman Church the Filoque, the addition to the Creed, the claim for the supremacy of the pope, the celebrating of the Eucharist with an unleavened bread, the purgatory, the moment of the consecration of the Blessed Sacrament. But he does not mention among the fundamental heresies of the Roman Church the penal substitutionary atonement.
In his 1570s' letters to the Lutheran theologians of Tubingen, Patriarch Jeremias of Constantinople (1572-1595) does not mention, especially in his commentaries on the Augsburg confession of faith, the mentioned aspect of the penal substitutionary atonement as a false teaching of the Lutherans.
The Pan-Orthodox Council of Constantinople of 1672 which condemned Calvinism and the total depravity of the unregenerate man, and affirmed the eternal procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father alone, also does not mention as a heresy of Western Christianity the penal subsitutionary atonement in the aspect that was referred to above.
The Encyclical of the Eastern Patriarchs of 1848 to Pope Pius IX summarizes the main heretical deviations of the Papacy - the Filioque, the papal claim of supremacy over the Church by jurisdiction but does not mention the penal subsitutionary atonement among the biggest heretical deviations of Rome.
The Patriarchal encyclical from 1895 by the Constantinopolitan Patriarch Anthimus VII (1895-1896) from 1895 which is a reply to the Papal encyclical of Pope Leo XIII (1853-1903) Praeclara Gratulationis publicae (On the Reunion of Christendom) summarizes the heretical deviations of the Papacy but does not mention the penal subsitutionary atonement: ,
,VI. And indeed for the holy purpose of union, the Eastern orthodox and catholic Church of Christ is ready heartily to accept all that which both the Eastern and Western Churches unanimously professed before the ninth century, if she has perchance perverted or does not hold it. And if the Westerns prove from the teaching of the holy Fathers and the divinely assembled Ecumenical Councils that the then orthodox Roman Church, which was throughout the West, even before the ninth century read the Creed with the addition, or used unleavened bread, or accepted the doctrine of a purgatorial fire, or sprinkling instead of baptism, or the immaculate conception of the ever-Virgin, or the temporal power, or the infallibility and absolutism of the Bishop of Rome, we have no more to say. But if, on the contrary, it is plainly demonstrated, as those of the Latins themselves, who love the truth, also acknowledge, that the Eastern and orthodox catholic Church of Christ holds fast the anciently transmitted doctrines which were at that time professed in common both in the East and the West, and that the Western Church perverted them by divers innovations, then it is clear, even to children, that the more natural way to union is the return of the Western Church to the ancient doctrinal and administrative condition of things; for the faith does not change in any way with time or circumstances, but remains the same always and everywhere, for 'there is one body and one Spirit,' it is said, 'even as ye are called in one hope of your calling; one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all." (orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenism/encyc_1895.aspx).
The Patriarch mentions the biggest heretical deviations of Rome - the Filioque addition to the Creed, the use of unleavened bread in the Eucharist, the purgatory, the practice of sprinkling instead of immersion in baptism, immaculate conception of the Most Holy Virgin Mary, the teaching of the created grace, the infallibility and the claim for supremacy of the Pope. But he does not mention among them the penal subsitutionary atonement in the above-mentioned aspect.
It is evident that throughout the whole history of the Orthodox Church the leagal aspect of the penal subsitutionary atonment was never refuted and so was not considered an non-Orthodox teaching which is a Western influence. So the theory that it is a Western influence on Orthodox theology is a 20th century modernistic myth.
There is something important that must be added in relation with the rejection of the PSA. The matter of the rejection of the PSA is directly related to the ongoing crisis within the Orthodox Church regarding the internal schism that occurred in 2018.
The schism within Orthodoxy today is rooted exactly in the ongoing modernistic anti-PSA theology (at least that is one of the major reasons for the schism) because the Churches that fell inito schism had been gradually embracing it since the late 1950s. But significant Orthodox theologians (some of them saints) have clearly defined the anti-PSA understanding of the Redemption as a heresy. St.Theophan of Poltava (1875-1940) calls it a ,,cross-fighting heresy'' because it fight against the Cross as a tool of the Redemtion of our sins. It is also refuted by St.Seraphim Sobolev (1881-1950).
The first major source of the cross-fighting heresy is Metpolitan Anthony Khrapovitsky (1863-1936) with his work ''The dogma of Redemption'' (1917) which rejects the patristic Orthodox understanding of Redemption. Metropolitan Anthony gave the name ,,moral monism‘‘ to his anti-legalistic teaching. What characterizes moral monism is the rejection of the traditional Patristic teaching of the Redemption, Retribution and Judgment. Metropolitan Anthony expressed his anti-legalistic teaching also in his Cathehism (1926). He explicitly rejected the penal substitutionary atonement on the Cross and claimed that Christ redeemed humanity with His tears in the Garden of Gethsemane and not through His Suffering and Death on the Cross. A follower of his ideas and another major modernist of the 20th century is Protopresbyter John Romanides (1927-2001) with his fundamental modernistic work ,,The Ancestral Sin'' (1957). Another fundamental modernistic work is ,,The River of Fire'' (1980) by Alexandre Kalomiros (1931-1990).
There are four significant moments that refer to the events in Orthodoxy in the recent few years and that must be mentioned.
First, it is the conducting, most notably by the Constantinopolitan Patriarchate of a policy of ecumenism which attempts to unify all Christian denominations.
Second, the decade-lengthy process (starting more severely in the late 1950s) of spreading anti-PSA modernistic theology by some modernistic Orthodox theologians, unfortunately gave bitter fruits to the point that the Constantinopolitan Patriarchate embraced the modernistic claim that the teaching of the penal subsitutionary atonement which is an Orthodox teaching and a teaching of the ancient Church, is a late Western teaching like the modernists claim and today rejects it. (www.goarch.org/-/btb-173?inheritRedirect=true). (As it was said, the Orthodox modernistic theologians recognize the term PSA only in the sense of Christ saving us from death by subsitututing it with His Death on the Cross but reject the term in the legal aspect of Christ fulfilling God's justice and saving us from God's wrath and the eternal punishment by substituting with the penalty of the Cross the the penalty awaiting the unrepented sinners.)
Third, the Constantinopolitan Patriarchate has embraced an eastern form of papism. Here is what Patriarch Bartholomew says:,,The beginning of the Orthodox Church is the Ecumenical Patriarchate; “in this is life, and the life is the light of the Churches.” The late Metropolitan Kyrillos of Gortyna and Arcadia, a beloved Hierarch of the Mother Church and personal friend, was right to underline that “Orthodoxy cannot exist without the Ecumenical Patriarchate.” (www.uocofusa.org/news_180901_1). This is a indirect claim for infallibility.
Fourth, there are the non-canonical actions of Constantinople in Ukraine. These actions caused an arising internal schism within the Eastern Orthodox Church. This is an English translation of the 2019 letter of the Bulgarian Metropolitan Daniil of Vidin to and eparchial metropolitan bishops of the Patriarchate of Alexandria, Patriarchate of Jerusalem, Church of Cyprus, Church of Greece, Albanian Orthodox Church and the Romanian Orthodox Church: new.sliven.net/res/news/292888/___________________.pdf. He explains the issue of the 2018 Moscow-Constantinopolitan schism entirely from a canonical perspective.
This is a link to a famous 1995 Letter from Patriarch Bartholomew to Patriarch Alexey of the Moscow Patriarchate on the Ukrainian Diaspora: orthodoxsynaxis.org/2018/10/10/1995-letter-bartholomew-alexey/. In the letter the Patriarch clearly refers to the groups that were later included by the Patriarchate of Constantinople in the recently formed Orthodox Church of Ukraine (2018) by issuing of a Tomos of autocephaly, as schismatic groups. The Patriarchate of Constantinople openly entered communion with the newly formed church of Ukraine that consists of those schismatic groups. But the communion with excommunicated persons, leads to excommunication of those who have communed with them:,,And, if any one of the bishops, presbyters, or deacons, or any one in the Canon shall be found communicating with excommunicated persons, let him also be excommunicated, as one who brings confusion on the order of the Church.'' (canon 2, Council of Antioch, 341). That is why it is argued by some Orthodox theologians and priests that the Patriarchate of Constaninople is no longer a part of the Eastern Orthodox Church since 2018. In other words it fell from the Church like the non-Chalcedonians in 451 and Rome in 1054. Unfortunately there is a danger that the internal schism could grow bigger. The Alexandrian Patriarchate supported the schismatic OCU in 2019 and as a result the Moscow Patriarchate ceased Eucharistic Communion with it like with the Constantinopolitan Patriarchate in 2018.
That way the Alexandrian Patriarchate also fell from the Body of the Church. Nowadays the Constantinopolitan Patriarchate and the Alexandrian Patriarchate and the Churches which took the side of the schismatics and recognized them are not part of the Eastern Orthodox Church. Those other Churches are partially the Churches of Greece and Cyprus - partially because some of the bishops of their holy Synods did not and still do not recognize the new OCU. Things can change if they can become again part of the Orthodox Church but right now they are in a schism, thus being out of the divine grace.
There are modernists within all Orthodox Churches but the Constantinopolitan Patriarchate and the other Local Churches that supported Constantinople and fell into schism, too, have embraced the anti-PSA modernistic theology as a doctrine, whence they fell into schism. Schism is a result of embracing a heresy. That has always been the case in the history of the Church. That was the case with the non-Chalcedonians in 451 and with Rome in 1054. In that sense the statement that it is the Constantinopolitan Patriarchate and respectively the other Churches that recognized the actions of Constantinople, that fell into schism, is not political but refers to dogma.
Unfortunately there are traces of anti-legalism in the explanatory notes in the Orthodox Study Bible - p.3555:,,...Rather than justification as a legal acquittal before God, Orthodox believers see justification by faith as a covenant relationship with Him, centered in union with Christ (Rom 6:1-6)...''; p.3558:...Our relationship with God is not something static, a legal fiction given to us by a Divine Judge...''
I prefer the Western European style architecture compared to the round, almost Islamic architecture of Eastern Orthodoxy.
St. Matthew 16:18-19!
St. John 21:15-17!
Jesus asked St. Peter to lead His Church and the other apostles to help him govern it.
We are ONE, HOLY, CATHOLIC, and APOSTOLIC CHURCH!
Not many, not national or regional!
Acts 15 proves the Orthodox case.
Matthew 18:18
Every Bishop is Peter
Squid Nig No! Just like there is only ONE Rome. Not “a new Rome” or the “the New Rome” just as the Patriarch of Constantinople and the one of Moscow state now.
All the apostles were not Peter. There is only ONE St. Peter. There is only ONE Rome and there is only ONE Church founded by Jesus Christ Himself and entrusted to St. Peter.
ONE---not many national or ethnic churches with their own leaders.
HOLY--founded by Jesus Christ Himself-God the Son.
CATHOLIC--Universal, found in all corners of the World, not it a single region. With One hierarchy, not many bishops in one city representing different ethnic groups, doing different things.
APOSTOLIC--based on the Holy tradition of the Apostles and Church Fathers. Traced back to the Apostles, with St. Peter leading it with the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. He has the seat and the keys, our Pope.
CHURCH
Roca005
Third Canon of the second Ecumenical council: “The Bishop of Constantinople, however, shall have the prerogative of honour after the Bishop of Rome because Constantinople is New Rome.”
The Roman Catholic Church accepts this council so you’re bound to its teaching that Constantinople is new Rome. Your fundamental lack of understanding of how jurisdictions function in the Catholic Church is why you reject Orthodoxy. Separate, autocephalous churches does NOT mean we are separated or belong to a different Church. We affirm the same teachings, we worship the same way, and are all in communion with one another. Not like in Roman Catholicism. You guys have quite the theological mess on your hands. 23 different rites of the church and almost none of you can agree on anything. The Uniates don’t accept the doctrine of Absolute divine simplicity, the filioque, or purgatory. How is that being in communion with one another?
I liked the video not for itself but because I like you.
As I said in part 1, without sounding condescending, you've been making progress and somehow and for some unknown reason I feel happiness.
i am a member of a traditionally ortodox ethnic group, so i was baptized ortodox, but don't really practice it so my opinion might be wrong. my biggest problem with ortodoxy is actually this strong ethnic/national component in its churches. in catholicism, the pope had power over kings (which someone might view as a problem), while in ortodoxy, the kings had power over the ortodox clergy (which in my view is an even bigger problem that might invalidate the whole point). so i kind of feel like ethnic ortodox churches were oftentimes misused for promoting their rulers' political goals, regardless of whether they were or weren't in accord with the principles of the church. so while in catholicism you had issues with the church being too centralized and powerful, in ortodoxy the church was decentralized and therefore weak and prone to getting pushed around. in my view (probably very uninformed), protestants did a good job of putting emphasis on the scripture, rather than on some man made institution prone to pursuing a political agenda on the side. at least in principle, you know, since afterwards, people found a million different ways of interpreting the scripture and you ended up having a million different protestant denominations. so i don't know...
Also, it's a lie that the decisions from Lyon and Ferrara-Florence felt down because of the political pressure on the Orthodox bishops who signed the unions. It's exactly viceversa. The Emperor from Constantinople pushed some of the bishops under the Patriarch of Constantinople to go and sign the heretical unions, but when they came back the Orthodox population strongly opposed to the unions, even if the Emperor and de unionist Patriach harshly persecuted the popular opposition. And the other Orthodox Patriarchates opposed to Constantinople.
+Dusan Grujicic Hello. You said: 'in my view (probably very uninformed), protestants did a good job of putting emphasis on the scripture, rather than on some man made institution prone to pursuing a political agenda on the side.''
But the sola fide concept contradicts Scripture and so contradicts the Holy Spirit because He is the Spirit of Truth (John 15:26). That shows the grace of the Holy Spirit is not received by believers just by faith but is received only through the prayer of the priesthood with apostolic succession, after baptism: (Now when the apostles which were at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent unto them Peter and John: 15 Who, when they were come down, prayed for them, that they might receive the Holy Ghost: 16 (For as yet he was fallen upon none of them: only they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.)'' 17 Then laid they their hands on them, and they received the Holy Ghost.“ Acts 8:14-17, KJV). The sola fide concept contradicts the Holy Scripture because, for example, it rejects the necessity of the baptism for salvation, together with faith. Baptism is for the remission of sins:,,Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.’’ (Acts 2:38, KJV). That baptism is in the Name of Jesus Christ (2:38) does not mean that it is only in the Name of Jesus Christ but this is a short way to refer to the the Three Person of the Holy Trinity because otherwise the commandment of Jesus that baptism should be done in the Three Persons, would be violated:,,Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:’’ (Matthew 28:19, KJV). Baptism is for the true remision of sins:''And now why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord.'' (Acts 22:16). That does not mean that baptism substitutes faith or the Sacrifice of our Lord Jesus Christ by which we are redeeemed of our sins but means that the Redemption of our sins on the Cross comes into effect in the baptism in the Name of the Father and of the Son, and the Holy Spirit( Matthew 28:19, KJV). Baptism is for the true remission of sins (Acts 22:16) for all members of the Church without exception:,,Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it; 26That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word, 27 That he might present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish.’’ (Ephesians 5:25-27, KJV). The cleansing here refers to the cleansing of sins and not to cleansing of the heart because the heart of the believers is cleansed before baptism - when they have come to believe:''And put no difference between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith.'' (Acts 15:9, KJV). Since the remission of sins occurs in baptism regarding all members of the Church without exception, baptism for the remission of sins is necessary for salvation for all members of the Church. Therefore the salvation through faith only concept is not true. There was the one case of the Gentiles (in the case Romans) who received the Holy Spirit before being baptized:,,Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we? 48 And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord. Then prayed they him to tarry certain days.’’ (Acts 10:47-48, KJV). But it was a sign for the Jewish Christians that the Gentiles could receive the Holy Spirit, too. After that case the Holy Spirit continued to be received through the laying on of hands of the priesthood, after baptism:,,And it came to pass, that, while Apollos was at Corinth, Paul having passed through the upper coasts came to Ephesus: and finding certain disciples, 2 He said unto them, Have ye received the Holy Ghost since ye believed? And they said unto him, We have not so much as heard whether there be any Holy Ghost. 3And he said unto them, Unto what then were ye baptized? And they said, Unto John's baptism. 4Then said Paul, John verily baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people, that they should believe on him which should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus. 5 When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. 6 And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Ghost came on them; and they spake with tongues, and prophesied.’’ (Acts 19:1-6, KJV).
Please stay in the Orthodox Church which is the True Church of Christ.
This is an old comment, but, well, it's only now that I see it :P
So: you are right but also wrong :) I mean, the role of the Church is not to have power over kings, but to teach what Christ taught us. It's like saying BMW is a good car, but it doesn't cut grass - it doesn't, but it's not supposed to. The first duty of the Church is to keep the teachings of Christ intact. And while kings could "push" the clergy, they could never change the teachings, because of the fact that the Church was not centralized - you can't make changes in the Orthodox Church unless all churches agree, and no king had influence over all the Patriarchs and clergy from all of the Orthodox countries. It is why the Orthodox Church didn't make that many changes so, as far as we know, it remains closest to how Christianity was taught and practiced in the early centuries.
It's also what the Protestants get completely wrong, as you notice yourself: if you rely only on the text, anybody can interpret anything in any way they like. I mean, first of all, they got rid of parts of the Bible - so, ok, emphasis on Scripture, but it's not exactly the same Scripture. And, on one hand, there were protestants who were using interpretations of the Bible to justify ill treatment of African people, who were supposed to be morally and intellectually inferior, ignoring the fact that the Church had African saints (so, no, no moral inferiority). On the other hand, I recently saw a guy who has some popularity, who says literally that Satan was telling the truth and God was lying in the Adam and Eve story, that Jesus was kind of racist but made to apologize by a person of color He had insulted etc. I mean .... you can literally interpret things any way you want. Which is what the Orthodox and Catholic Churches manage to avoid by emphasis on not only Scripture, but also tradition - and I would say the Orthodox Church is better at it, because of it's decentralized organization.
@@Yasen.Dobrev I agree with you, my understanding back when I wrote that comment was very superficial (much more than today, hopefully). Thanks for taking the time to outline everything so nicely :)
@@cristinac196 thanks for the comment, i was probably closer to being completely wrong than right. It has been a long time since I wrote that, and today I have a different opinion and kindof cringe at what I used to think back then.
I agree that the papal power and centralized nature of the roman catholic church has probably been much more damaging to the core teachings than the political weakness and disunity of the eastern orthodox churches. and I definitely agree about the protestants and how they neglected or even denounced the church tradition in favor of focusing on the scripture. I feel like if you asked the protestants about the origin of the scripture, by reflex, many would say that it was sent to us directly from the heavens, kindof the same way the muslims believe the quran was never created by humans (as opposed to coming from the church, under the guidance of the holy spirit, but not by direct divine intervention).
today i feel like a lot of the hardships and political problems that the orthodox church had to go through might have actually been blessings in disguise
I think this is a brilliant explanation. Thanks Brian. God bless you and your family
1. The East did not "excommunicate" The bishop of Rome ( the Pope)...that was a Latin rite thing.
2. The East didn't throw out the Pope, The Pope threw away the East.
Popes Benedict and Francis had went to meet with the Ecumenical Patriarch of the Orthodox East.
The local Greek Orthodox priest said the Schism was a tragedy for All involved...not just 1 side.
I like that "frozen" ethic about the OE...that they have not given in to Modernism.
exactly as I said before, THE EAST WAS EXCOMMUNICATED FROM THE POPE BUT THE WEST WAS EXCOMMUNICATED FROM THE TRUTH!!!!!
@@1985LISS WEST WAS EXCOMMUNICATED FROM THE TRUTH of photius the usurper whom cerularios followed
1- In fact no, after being excommunicate the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople excommunicate the Pope, 2- Who excommunicated the Patriarch was a cardinal not the Pope, so was the East that threw away the Pope, not the Pope who threw away the East
+cabellero1120 But there are attemts of modernistic theologians in the orthodox countries to usurp Orthodox truth. There is a more frightening tendency going on nowadays and it is the rejection of the penal substitutionary atonement as a supposedly Romans Catholic and Protestant invntion that supposedly entered the Orthodox theology in the 18th century. This movement is called anti-legalism in the writings of the conseravtive Orthodox writers from the 20th century who have refuted it. But the one who began the anti-legalistic teaching teaching was Metropolitan Anthony Khrapovitsky (1861 - 1936) with his fundamental work ''The Dogma of Redemption'' (1917). He calls his own teaching ''moral monism''. Ethical monism rejects the original patristic teaching of the Redemption, Retribution and Judgment. Metropolitan Anthony rejected the penal substitutionary atonement. Metropolitan Anthony thought that Christ redeemed humankind with His tears shed in the Garden of Gethsemane. The rejection of the penal substitutionary atonement is a heresy. It is known as the cross-fighting heresy among anti-modernists because it rejects the act of Redemption of our sins on the Cross. It is refuted by Bishop St.Viktor Ostrovidov (1875-1927), Archbishop St.Theophan of Poltava (1875-1940) and by St.Seraphim Sobolev (1881-1950). The cross-fighting heresy has many variations. There are also many variontions of anti-legalism nowadays. The term ''anti-legalism'' is used to note the main characteristic of anti-legalism which is the undermining and rejection of all term that have a legal character - Judgment, reconciliation, propitiation, condemnation, justification, punishment (referring to the eternal punishment in hell) etc. As I mentioned eternal punishment, that is the rejection of the eternal punishment in the hellfire is very important ascpect of anti-legalism because the humanistic and liberal theology cannot stand the thought of a eternal punishment. Actually, the idea that the PSA is not Orthodox ascribes the teaching to Anselm of Canterbury (1033-1109). The attacks against Anselm go together with attacks against St.Augustine who was an influence to Anselm. The attacks of the Orthodox modernists blaim St.Augustine for the supposed deviations of the Roman Church that supposedly influenced the Eastern Orthodox Churches at a later point. I say ''supposed deviations'' because there are real deviations on the West that St.Augustine has nothing to do with. He is a venerated saint in the Orthodox Church and a great Holy Father. He is accused by the Orthodox modernists and anti-legalists for supposedly having introduced the teaching of the original sin according to which when Adam fell, all humankind fell with him because it was contained in Adam, wherefore we all inherit the guilt of his sin and that original sin is cleansed in baptism. This has been the understanding of the original sin before Augustine. St. Irenaeus of Lyon (130-202) writes in ,,Against Heresies‘‘ (c.180): ,,...Indeed, through the first Adam, we offended God by not observing His command. Through the second Adam, however, we are reconciled, and are made obedient even unto death. For we were debtors to none other except to Him, whose commandment we transgressed at the beginning.‘‘ (Against Heresies, Book 5, Chapter 16, 3); St.Cyprian of Carthage (200-256) says "If, in the case of the worst sinners and those who formerly sinned much against God, when afterwards they believe, the remission of their sins is granted and no one is held back from baptism and grace, how much more, then, should an infant not be held back, who, having but recently been born, has done no sin, except that, born of the flesh according to Adam, he has contracted the contagion of that old death from his first being born. For this very reason does he [an infant] approach more easily to receive the remission of sins: because the sins forgiven him are not his own but those of another" (Letters, 64:5, c.253 CE); St.Macarius the Great (300-391) of Egypt, Homily 5:,,… The word spoken to Cain by the Creator, that sentence pronounced upon him with an outward meaning, Groaning and trembling and tossed shall thou be upon the earth (Genesis 4:12) is a type and likeness of what all sinners undergo in secret. After falling from the commandment and entering the sinful state, the race of Adam has acquired that likeness in secret;…‘‘ ; St.Ambrose of Milan(c.340-397), On the Mysteries, Chapter 6:''Why they who come forth from the laver of baptism are anointed on the head; why, too, after baptism, their feet are washed, and what sins are remitted in each case. … 32. Peter was clean, but he must wash his feet, for he had sin by succession from the first man, when the serpent overthrew him and persuaded him to sin. His feet were therefore washed, that hereditary sins might be done away, for our own sins are remitted through baptism. ''; St. Jerome of Stridon (347-420), says about Christ:,,He hung on a tree so that by means of a tree He might erase the sin we had committed through the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.‘‘ (cf. Genesis 2:9,17; 3:11).‘‘ (Commentary on Galatians). The rejection of the inheritance by all humans of Adam's guilt for his sin, is a revival of the Pelagian heresy, condemned at the Council of Carthage (419). Anti-legalism, mostly in the form of the cross-fihghting heresy, is dangerously spread among people on the West who who who would like to turn to Orthodoxy.
Another significant aspect of anti-legalism is the so-called recapitulation theory of atonement which is another form of rejection of the penal substituionary atonement. According to that theory, the main purpose of Christ’s Incarnation was not to die instead of us as an act of redemption of our sins and reconciliation with the Father, but was the unification of His Divinity and Humanity, the theosis of His human nature as a foundation for our reaching of theosis (deification), i.e. the reaching of our human nature of the likeness of God by God’s grace. Significant proponents of that theory were Protopresbyter John Meyendorff (1926-1992) and Protopresbyter Georges Florovsky (1893-1979). A radical form of that theory is found in the Official Documents of the Holy and Great Council of the Orthodox Church (which was held in Crete in June 2016), issued on the 28th of January 2016 (www.holycouncil.org/-/mission-orthodox-church-todays-world), The Mission of the Orthodox Church in Today’s world, A.The Dignity of the Human Person: ,,The human person’s unique dignity, which stems from being created in the image and likeness of God and from our role in God’s plan for humanity and the world, was the source of inspiration for the Church Fathers, who entered deeply into the mystery of divine oikonomia. Regarding the human being, St. Gregory the Theologian characteristically emphasizes that:,,The Creator sets a sort of second world upon the earth, great in its smallness, another angel, a worshipper of composite nature, contemplator of visible creation, and initiate of intelligible creation, a king over all that is on earth… a living being, prepared here and transported elsewhere and (which is the culmination of the mystery) deified through attraction towards God‘‘ (Homily 45, On Holy Pascha, 7. PG 36, 632AB). The purpose of the incarnation of the Word of God is the deification of the human being. Christ, having renewed within himself the old Adam (cf. Eph 2:15), made the human person divine like himself, the beginning of our hope (Eusebius of Caesarea, Demonstrations on the Gospel, Book 4, 14. PG 22, 289A). For just as the entire human race was contained in the old Adam, so too, the entire human race is now gathered in the new Adam:,,The Only-begotten One became man in order to gather into one and return to its original condition the fallen human race‘‘ (Cyril of Alexandria, Commentary on the Gospel of John, Book 9, PG 74, 273D-275A). This teaching of the Church is the endless source of all Christian efforts to safeguard the dignity and majesty of the human person.‘‘ Here the idea is revealed in way that differs from the way it is revealed in the works of Protopresbyter John Meyendorff and Protopresbyter Georges Florovsky. Here it is developed as it goes further to state that with the deification of the human nature of Christ due the Incarnation, there was completed the theosis of the human nature as a whole, of the human nature of all humans, since the whole human race is gathered in Christ like it was gathered in Adam. But the gathering of all in Christ is not something that was made complete with the Incarnation of Christ but it is a purpose of Christ’s Incarnation and that purpose is fulfilled in the Holy Eucharist and is preceded by joining the Church of those who become one with and in Christ in the Holy Eucharist. And St.Cyril clearly says that:,,...For how could it be disputed, or what right-minded man could deny, that Christ is the Vine in this relation? And we, as being branches after a figure, receive into ourselves life out of and proceeding from Him, as Paul says: For we are all one body in Christ, seeing that we who are many are one bread: for we all partake of the one bread. And let any one account for this and give us an interpretation of it without reference to the power of the blessed mystery. Why do we receive it within us? Is it not that it may make Christ to dwell in us corporeally also by participation and communion of His Holy Flesh? Rightly would he answer, I deem. For Paul writes, that the Gentiles have become fellow-members of the body, and fellow-partakers, and fellow-heirs of Christ. How are they shown to be "embodied"? Because, being admitted to share the Holy Eucharist, they become one body with Him, just as each one of the holy Apostles. For why did he (S. Paul) call his own, yea, the members of all as well as his own, the members of Christ? For he writes thus: Know ye not that your members are members of Christ? Shall I then take away the members of Christ, and make them members of a harlot? God forbid. And the Saviour Himself says: He that eateth My Flesh and drinketh My Blood, abideth in Me, and I in him. For here it is especially to be observed that Christ saith that He shall be in us, not by a certain relation only, as entertained through the affections, but also by a natural participation. For as, if one entwineth wax with other wax and melteth them by the fire there resulteth of both one, so THROUGH THE PARTICIPATION OF THE BODY OF CHRIST AND HIS PRECIOUS BLOOD, HE IN US, AND WE AGAIN IN HIM, ARE CO-UNITED. For in no other way could that which is by nature corruptible be made alive, unless it were bodily entwined with the Body of That Which is by nature Life, the Only-begotten. And if any be not persuaded by my words, give credence to Christ Himself, crying aloud: Verily, verily, I say unto you, except ye eat the Flesh of the Son of Man and drink His Blood, ye have not life in yourselves. He that eateth My Flesh and drinketh My Blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up in the last day. Thou nearest now Himself plainly declaring that, unless we "eat His Flesh, and drink His Blood," we "have not in ourselves," that is, in our flesh, "Eternal Life." But Eternal Life may be conceived to be, and most justly, the Flesh of that which is Life, that is, the Only-begotten. ...‘‘ (St. Cyril, Archbishop of Alexandria, On the Gospel according to John, Book 10, Chapter II. That the Son is Consubstantial with God the Father, and not of an alien or foreign nature, as some of the perverse assert, XV. 1 I am the true Vine, and My Father is the Husbandman.). Also, idea that Christ has become the Head of all humanity with His Incarnation, contradicts the Holy Scripture where it is said that He is the Head of the Church and not of all humanity:,,For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the Head of the church: and he is the Savior of the body.‘‘ (Ephesians 5:23, KJV). If He was a Head of the whole humanity, He would be a Savior of all humanity and not only of the Church, i.e. of the members of the Church.
Judge a tree by its fruit, judge a church by its saints
Catholics claim saints in Orthodox as Catholic saints as well
This is really just a doubling-down on the theological, historical misstatements made in the first video. :(
His position is based on error... sincere error... but still error.
Are you going to share what those errors are for the benefit of the rest of us who aren't Eastern Orthodox?
@@levisando, sure, if you wish.
Here's one to start with: Holdsworth presumes that there exists "one final authority like we have in the Pope." This idea is a fabrication of the Roman Patriarchate, and was part of what CAUSED the schism which Holdsworth blames on the Orthodox. He then says that the Catholic Church has continued to have "ecumenical councils." That is impossible, since a truly ecumenical council is one which involves the ENTIRE Church. Catholic councils after the Great Schism (and really all councils going back to Chalcedon) have not been ecumenical, no matter what label is applied to them.
Holdsworth simply presumes that the Bishop of Rome is beyond criticism, but the early (and actual) ecumenical councils are clear that a patriarch's authority is limited to the geography of that patriarchate. It was the very invention of Papal Supremacy and attempts to impose this upon the rest of the Church which has caused and perpetuated multiple schisms for centuries.
The irony and error, of course, is blaming the rest of the Church for schisms which the Bishop of Rome basically caused, himself, by attempting to impose authority that he didn't really have upon the rest of the Church.
The apostles often argued among themselves about who was the greatest. Jesus chastised them for this, but the "tradition" continues to this day, and has caused great distress and division in the Church.
@@philoalethia your argument against Rome's Ecumenical Councils is very weak....and you used it to kind of kill two birds with one stone.
To explain away why the CC's ECs have not been valid for 1,000 years; and to explain away why....there have been no ECs among the Orthodox Patriarchates for the same 1,000 years...??
Both birds are still well and alive....
@@thekingslady1, you can call it whatever you want, but it happens to be true. By definition an ecumenical council includes all of the existing church. No such council has occurred for centuries. You may not like these facts, you might call them weak or opine about birds, but they are still the facts.
When Pope Eugene IV realized that St. Mark of Ephesus did not sign Ferrara-Florence union document he responded: "And so we have accomplished nothing.
" But... it wasn't that only St. Mark did not sign the document. Bishops from Serbia were not present as Despot of Serbia George Brankovich refused to send them to the gathering. He responded to the Roman church with the following words: "I have lived my entire life in the (Orthodox) faith of my ancestors; If I were to change it now, my subjects will think that I am out of my mind, even though they were considering me a wise man up until now."
I was taking your position seriously until you contradicted your own method for determination. You said in your previous video you chose the catholic church because it stayed steadfast to its doctrines. Now in this video you disparage the orthodox church for not changing with the times. A house divided against it self cannot stand. The true assembly is in the hearts of every true believer. It cannot be located in historical records or by secular means of extrapolation. No one on earth has the right to say one person is or is not. You missed the boat my brother. The division happens as soon as you say you are with anyone other than Christ, be it catholic. orthodox, or protestant they are all false. God is coming to baptize with fire. Everything made by man will be burnt up. All that will remain will be the truth. Stop fighting among yourselves over things that don't matter. Paul said not to let these things get in the way. If one person thinks one day is holy let it be holy to God. If another man disagrees let him count it un-holy but also do it unto God. Don't you get it?
Catholicism changed through centuries so much.
Sometimes, especially with history, the truth isn't simple, sometimes you have to do some mental legwork to understand the reality in front of you. Not wanting to do that, to look deeper and really understand, and instead making sweeping judgments about who's right and who's wrong based on a surface level of understanding of something that is so deep and complex that there are whole books on it or even just parts of it, is nothing but lazy thinking and intellectual complacency.
Is it really self-contradicting? If I'm a first among equals, then I grab one of my equals and put him in a jail cell because I think I should be the boss, doesn't that make me a tyrant and a danger to the church in the eyes of my equals who acknowledged me as an equal?
Exactly. Sounds extreme but actually a great analogy if you know the history
I appreciate both of these videos. I believe the East and West have much to learn from their perspective experiences.
Respectfully, your Orthodox brother in Christ.
I'm sorry you had a poor experience with the Orthodox parish. My guess is that they are not used to people asking to be part of the church so they didn't respond in the best way. Unfortunately it would appear though that you haven't fully explored church history.
You're very concerned with the excommunication instead of the reasons for the schism and that's the part that should have more baring on your choice of who continued and who changed. The Catholics changed their belief and understanding of the Trinity! #1 reason for the schism then the comes the papal infallibility issue.
The Roman Catholic Church has become so watered down. No rule of prayer hardly. No rule of fasting anymore. Monastics don't have to act like monastics outside of the monastery. The Liturgy has changed drastically. It's trying to change with the world instead of bringing the world to change.
I highly encourage you to look up the Holy fire in Jerusalem. Holy happens for the Orthodox. The Catholics celebrate Pascha with the Orthodox to partake in such a holy event.
What do you think of this argument that proves the papacy ? Are you convinced ? What would be your opinion ? Thank you
th-cam.com/video/6KV6PXSODgE/w-d-xo.html
#Alissa Gates Couldn't have been explained better
@@chamberlainsexquisiteobjec2541 I actually found it surprisingly convincing. I was not aware of the paralells in Chronicles and Isaiah that he explained. I left a comment on the video you might like to respond to some or all of.
@Prasanth Thomas I find the Orthodox pray to the trinity and invoke the holy spirit more than other denominations, not less.
@Prasanth Thomas lol Saint Peter canot have authority over other apostols
Orthodoxy May look simple but it goes insanely in depth
On the contrary, it doesn’t look simple at all.
So you decided to go for a second round. Very brave. :) I agree you with on the Filoque. That people get really worked up about, I can see. It's something I have hard time creating a big issue on a personal level either way.
I can relate to this, what helped me understand its importance was reading David Bentley hart and Laurent cleenewerck. Basically you are changing the nature of the trinity, from its true definition to something different. Which is problematic.
Thank you for this. My family is Byzantine and Orthodox on my mother’s side. We attended Byzantine (and occasional Orthodox) mass during my childhood but have since assimilated into Roman Catholicism. Honestly, the practices aren’t that different (or at least I never thought so) - not like the differences between Protestants and Catholics, at least.
Brian, if I may, I would recommend you this reading which would certainly help you understanding the path of the Orthodox Church : The Historical Road of Eastern Orthodoxy (1963), Alexandre Schmemann
I heard it said second hand from an Orthodox person: "Rome needs to de-centralize and the Orthodox need to centralize". We need each other to breath healthy and strongly against modernism and globalization!
De-centralization breeds national churches who excommunicate each others over local disputes
@@Phantom-xp2co there has to be a balance and WE need to look at The Church as how it was before 1054, East and West both need each other which is why I am a Melkite Greek Catholic...
I think you also need to know that you can only do your best in explaining yourself, but not everyone would agree with you and not everyone would get your point. Secondly you need to remember that it is okay if people don't agree with you and it is okay if you are misunderstood too. Just pray, keep your peace and stay sincere. Remain in Christ
They weren’t “contradicting themselves or their own arguments “ because the eastern view depended on consensus , which Rome violated
I’m reading Upon this Rock by Steve Ray. Based on the writings of the church fathers and your reasoning, is why I reverted back into catholicism as a former atheist then Protestant. Without no central authority it seems that the Eastern Church has magisterial paralysis. Which concerns me if the church were to face potential issues in the future.
Edit: I would recommend: Papacy: Revisiting the Debate between Catholics and Orthodox by Erick Ybarra. Probably the best Papacy book. Also the TH-cam channel Reason and Theology.
Straight White Male Hmmm. Happy Pascha to you. Please pray for us. May God grant you more of his grace each single day. I hope you’re enjoying bright week and The Sunday of Thomas.
Straight White Male Your 'Church' was "changing" before the Great Schism. But when they broke off, they stopped "changing". Where did you get the doctrine of Mary Mother of God? This belief was announced at some point during the Church's history. Same thing with Catholic doctrines. But you're stopped its activity when it broke off and you remained the same, because you left the Church and the Work of the Spirit stopped within you. You're a dead chruch with no fruits.
Brett, just because you copy paste quotes of the fathers without context, that does not make it true. That way you can "prove" almost any theological point. You must look in to the history, the life of the Church and see if the Pope of Rome had the role it has today. Vatican it-self admitted in a theological dialogue with the Orthodox Church in 2016 that there was no papal supremacy in the first millenium, in other words Orthodox Church is right all along.
You can keep your stupid olive branch as long as you don't give up your innovations, and as long as you don't break up your twisted centralized church structure.
Keep waving with that branch, we are not buying it. We remember when you were powerful and were bullying us, now that you are dying, you are all nice and slimy and are willing to admit you were wrong, but still not willing to correct your wrongs.
Brett Yes, I’ve read parts of the Fathers Know Best from Jimmy Akin. I was torn between Orthodoxy and Catholicism for a long time. Figured I would read Catholic and orthodox resources. Jimmy addressed many concerns on so many topics in that book. Loved it.
Many of the Eastern Catholic Churches in the US are very nationalist centered also. I attended a Ukrainian Catholic Church and they were much more concerned with being Ukrainian than Catholic. The church was dying, the older folks were leaving us, and they still refused to have the liturgy in English to attract English speakers. So many Latin Catholics would attend Eastern liturgy if it were in English, but not understanding the language really diminishes the Religious experience of the liturgy. In this day and age we need to attract as many people to Christianity as possible and having the liturgy in the common language would help recruitment.
Yeah, but even your “one-sided” explanation used wrong historical information such as the order of the excommunications
It wasn't about the order about the excommunications. It was about the fact that the Orthodox bishops claimed to not have any authority over the bishop of Rome, but then excommunicated him. It is a contradiction to say that and then change it based on what the bishop of Rome does to you. The pope, however, claimed from the start to have that authority, so it wasn't a contradiction to excommunicate the other bishops.
@@maxrice6990 Bishop of rome excommunicated himself by falling into heresy.
PS - he never claimed from the start to have that authority, the false tradition developed later.
@@maxrice6990 TL;DR: Brian sadly reduces complex historical events to suit a narrative that favors a Roman history, but is in fact pretty wrong on a number of things. Plus the issue of Papal authority has less to do with his jurisdiction (an issue that only arises further as the west continues its innovations [sorry, not sure what else to call them]) and more to do with its insistence that the filioque clause is necessary to be in the creed
I will preface this absolute wall of text with my personal bias. I am an Orthodox Christian who converted from protestantism. However, I was in the process of converting to Roman Catholicism for a long time (about a year and I was enrolled in RCIA for several months totally anticipating becoming Catholic) only to be totally disillusioned by the doctrines of Rome. Throughout the process I struggled super hard over becoming RC or EO, so I dug deep into history and theology to try and get to the bottom of it, and this is some of what I came up with.
I think you and brian both misunderstand exactly how excommunications actually work. An excommunication is something that in the Roman Church now is thought of as a Bishop saying that a specific parishioner can no longer receive the Eucharist until he or she repents of whatever serious public sin they have committed, i.e. out of communion which is effectively out of the Church. Which is definitely true for Orthodoxy in modernity as well, but excommunications between Bishops is something quite different than that and it deals in the rather tricky business of diptychs and commemoration.
For starters the diptychs are a set of the names of the canonical sees that a certain patriarchate recognizes as being part of the Church Catholic. These names are then sung and prayed for during any Liturgy which involves a Hierarch, whether it be a simple diocesan bishop, or the Patriarch himself. It is an important part of the Liturgy as it reinforces the visible unity that is seen within the Church and reminds the faithful what sees are part of the Church Catholic and are canonical sees with which they are in communion with. The excommunication that occurred during 1054 bears a resemblance to this form of excommunication. It was the Bishop of Rome saying that the Constantinopolitan patriarchate was doing something wrong and that they would henceforth be in an ecclesiastical schism (something which had happened many times before 1054 and were often remedied when the bishops themselves died). The Patriarch of Constantinople then returned by blotting out the name of the Roman Patriarch's name. It is important to remember, that at this time post the council of Chalcedon, all of the patriarchs of jerusalem, antioch, and alexandria were greeks living in constantinople (which is a very nasty business and more complicated and deserves its very own post). Needless to say, the state of affairs in constantinople was that if the CP removed someone from the diptychs pretty much the other patriarchs of the remaining pentarchy would also do it.
So this led to an ecclesiastical schism, which while it sounds bad actually ended up not really affecting anyone, and most Christians in the east didn't really care or know much about it. And this was how things went down. In reality it should have been resolved, but Rome persisted in its delusion that the filioque clause was actually part of the original creed, an idea that came not from Rome but rather from frankish theologians seeking to discredit the east. Moreover, the real date of official communion being broken with the East and West is at a date 200 years after the supposed "Great Schism" in 1204 during the fourth crusade aka the sacking of Constantinople. This, was the final straw for the Eastern Patriarchs and made permanent what was still fixable from some 200 years up until this point. For eastern christians it was an absolute betrayal from the west, and to add insult to injury, the reigning Patriarch was forcibly removed and a Latin Bishop set up in his stead. Furthermore, the emperor of byzantium (which at this point was mostly just constantinople and some surrounding lands because the Ottomans were savages) was also deposed and in his stead a venician doge was placed as "emperor". So the great city of christendom was raped and pillaged by westerners and the two most important offices for the people of the region were forcibely vacated to make room for people who cared little for the cultural, theological, or liturgical practices of those who lived there. It was the West, in 1204 that made permanent what it had begun in 1054. And if you made it this far, thanks so much for reading.
I really appreciated both of these videos. Thank you for taking the time to share your personal research and opinion.
It may have been mentioned somewhere, and if so I apologize, but did you know there is now an American branch of orthodoxy?
We were interested in exploring orthodoxy, but were honestly intimidated by waltzing into the Greek space nearby (as very obviously Scotch-Irish Americans 😂).
This American branch was recommended to us and it was a really welcoming experience. The priest even performed a “prayer for the sick service” for me shortly after I met with him to discuss the faith, as I was dealing with health problems at the time.
At the main service there were first generation Eastern Europeans from various countries, but also lots of multi-gen Americans.
Something I particularly liked is that they all shared a meal with each other after every Sunday service and hung out for a couple of hours.
I would be curious to know your take on this sect!
To me the thing that really damages the credibility of the Eastern Orthodox Church is that they have no official teaching on birth control. As far as I understand it, the stance on this issue is talk to your local priest and he can help you decide whether to use it or not. While the Catholic church always has and always will say no to birth control.
That CAN'T be a legitimate reason.
@@blade7506 I see broken communion as an issue in Orthodoxy though I do admire it. I’ve considered conversion but hold off until I research more.
……seriously?
…….that’s the reason?
*deep sigh*
*shakes head*
This was interesting. Thank you for making both of your videos.
Just a couple of things I want to say, without arguing with you.
In the East, the Empire still existed and bishops were sanctioned by and approved by the Emperor. In the West, until 800 AD, the Bishop of Rome was still approved by the Emperor even though he was in Constantinople and even though by then the Emperor’s hegemony was largely reduced to more eastern realms.
So in the East it was unthinkable that a bishop would adopt an attitude of temporal suzerainty. In the East, religion was subordinated to the interests of the state.
In the West, the Church became the only remaining rump of imperial authority and I honestly believe that this was a big part of how the Pope became so important notwithstanding claims of dates of foundation, Apostolic foundation or anything else.
It was a natural evolution IMHO, not a real dogmatic issue.
About your comments about the atmosphere you encountered in the Ukrainian church, it seems to me that it is the Greek churches in America that have become more universal and more accepting to Anglophones and others because of (1)their ongoing titular allegiance to the Ecumenical Patriarchate instead of a national church and (2)a very strong position of an Archbishop of North and South America makes it easy for them to accept Anglophones, Francophone and Hispanics.
They will also appear to be more socially liberal than their brothers because of this.
That’s all I really wanted to say because if I go on, I will appear to be arguing.
E.g., I believe the filioque is theologically incorrect, and I believe that requiring celibacy is an error.
:-)
But I don’t want to argue and I do not want to pretend that even if you believe slightly differently that you are especially condemned.
You’re wrong but not condemned. :-)
Open dialogue is always important. I would encourage you Brian to take a look at my book His Broken Body to have balanced perspective on these complex issues, mostly ecclesiology and no-so-good apologetics. Blessings, Fr Laurent
I agree! That book is amazing
Brian, I going thru a similar search right now. I've viewed a couple of your videos and find them helpful. Thanks for making them.
Hello. The Filioque is important because it is related to the understanding of papal claim primacy for a primacy by jurisdiction over the Church. If the Pope had a primacy in the Church by jurisdiction, i.e. if he is an earthly Head of the Church, then he cannot be fallible on the matters of faith because if he was, that would make the whole Church fall into a heresy. The Cathechism of the Roman Catholic Church says:,,248.At the outset the Eastern tradition expresses the Father's character as first origin of the Spirit. By confessing the Spirit as he "who proceeds from the Father", it affirms that he comes from the Father through the Son.77 The Western tradition expresses first the consubstantial communion between Father and Son, by saying that the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son (filioque). It says this, "legitimately and with good reason",78 for the eternal order of the divine persons in their consubstantial communion implies that the Father, as "the principle without principle",79 is the first origin of the Spirit, but also that as Father of the only Son, he is, with the Son, the single principle from which the Holy Spirit proceeds.80 This legitimate complementarity, provided it does not become rigid, does not affect the identity of faith in the reality of the same mystery confessed. … 77 Jn 15:26; cf. AG 2.; 78 Council of Florence (1439): DS 1302; 79 Council of Florence (1442): DS 1331; 80 Cf. Council of Lyons II (1274): DS 850. (www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p1s2c1p2.htm)‘‘. It must be noted that in Greek the verb that is used to define the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father, is ἐκπορευόμενον. Anthony C. Thiselton says:,,The Greek word ἐκπορευόμενον (ekporeuomenon) refers to the ultimate source from which the proceeding occurs, but the Latin verb procedere (and the corresponding terms used to translate it into other languages) can apply also to proceeding through a mediate channel.‘‘(Anthony C. Thiselton, The Holy Spirit: in biblical teaching, through the centuries and today, 2013, p.400). So, technically it is possible that ,,procedere‘‘ in Latin can apply through a mediate channel. But there is another issue. The suggestion that the Holy Spirit proceeds eternally directly from the Father as from an ultimate source and from the Father through the Son, i.e. from the Son but not as from an ultimate source, introduces the category time in the procession of the Holy Spirit through the Son in comparison both with the eternal generation of the Son from the Father and the Spirit’s eternal direct procession from the Father, thus leading to two Spirits. This is because the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father through the mediation of the Son is possible only if the procession of the Spirit through the Son follows the generation of the Son through Whom the Spirit proceeds because otherwise the Son cannot be a mediator of the indeirect procession of the Spirit from the Father. Therefore, in the hyposthesis of the procession of the Spirit from the Father through the mediation of the Son, the procession of the Spirit has a beginning in time in comparison with the eternal generation of the Son from the Father and with the eternal procession of the Spirit from the Father, wherefore by His procession through the Son the Holy Spirit would be a creation. So the suggestion of a procession of the Spirit from the Father through the Son, except the direct procesion of the Holy Spirit from the Father, would mean that the procession of the Spirit through the Son has a beginning in time and is not eternal which would introduce a fourth Person in the Holy Trinity - a second Spirit Whose procession through the Son has a beginning in time, i.e. a second Spirit Who is a creation. The conclusion of the introduction a fourth person in the Holy Trinity is inevitable because the Holy Spirit cannot be uncreated and created at the same time. The Cathechism says about the Eastern tradition:,,By confessing the Spirit as he "who proceeds from the Father", it affirms that he comes from the Father through the Son.‘‘, i.e. according to the Catechism the ancient Eastern established belief was that the Holy Spirit proceeds only from the Father but through the Son. But that would mean that the East has come to believe at some point in time that the Holy Spirit is created because, as it was said, the suggestion of a procession of the Holy Spirit through the Son introduces the category ,,time‘‘ regarding the procession of the Spirit through the Son in comparison with the eternal generation of the Son from the Father. In other words, the suggestion of a procession of the Spirit only directly from the Father but through the Son, makes the Spirit created which means a rejection of His divinity. The rejection of His divinity is the heresy of the bishop of Constantinople Macedonius I (342-346; 351-360) who rejected the Godhead of the Holy Spirit. It was condemned at the Second Ecumenical Council (381 CE). It was condemned at the Second Ecumenical Council (381 CE). In the hypothesis of the Holy Spirit proceeding only from the Father but through the Son, since the procession of the Holy Spirit follows the eternal generation of the Son from the Father because of the Son being a mediator of the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father, the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father through the Son would have a beginning in time in comparison with the Son’s eternal generation from the Father, thus making the Holy Spirit a creation which is a monstrous heresy. So both suggestions - first, that the Holy Spirit proceeds directly from the Father and indirectly through the Son, and second - that He proceeds directly only from the Father but through the Son, are untrue. Therefore, as the Papacy has fallen into a heresy, the Popes are fallable regarding the faith. Since the Papacy is fallible regarding the faith and has fallen into a heresy, the Popes do not have primacy by jurisdiction over the Church.
www.journeytoorthodoxy.com
Catholicism are the way to the truth....
There is a book, by Saint Nectarios of Aegina, that explains everything about the so-called schism, which is called like that only from the papal viewpoint, but the Orthodox stand always was that it was the fall of the Church of Rome, not a schism. One of the essential things that would have been needed in order for this historic moment to have been a schism an not a fall to heresy is that the Church of Rome wouldn't have changed its teachings, but it did. The translation of the book in romanian language is "Why did the pope and his disciples left the Church of Christ?", but I didn't find it in English. This book plays the role of a conclusive discourse for why you should always pick Orthodoxy rather than papal teachings, bcs if you get the so-called schism right, you get the Church right. You, unfortunately, seem to have got the so-called schism wrong, siding with the papal arguments (if we can call them like that). The Orthodox Church is Christ centered, whereas pope's church is Pope centered. There is no Christ teaching that says that any man in His time or afterwards would be infallible, but still this is one of the pope's teaching to this day. Now, how do you respect your own reasoning when you say that, after a split, you pick the Church that stayed loyal to the initial Church teachings, before the split? It's erroneous, I'm sorry.
"In my own mind." Goodness man. Can you hear yourself talk. At least you go as far as your teacher, the Pope, "in your own mind." You are a child of the beautiful heresy of humanism. God bless Merica, bro. You make the perfect modern Christian. When your nous opens and logic dies in you, I will be there.
Metanoia! The radical recasting of your "nous" ...soul level knowledge.
Dude, you forgot a question mark. You are a child of the dumbed down educational system. Quit nitpicking over a simple phrase.
Let's hope the East and West reunite finally. The West is willing. The ball is in the hands of the East. Jesus prayed "that they may be one."
Jay Dyer needs to get in here.
Brian, I know that this might seem like a trite comment to you from your perspective, but I am really surprised by how much your personal theology and views of the Church resonate with my own. I am speaking from my heart when I say this,, that the Lord is using your videos to help me break the guilt and condemnation that I sometimes feel for having these same views and convictions that you have. I am praising our Lord and thanking Him for blessing you with this ministry!
Brian, keep (re)searching. I have been on a similar journey. I have read many books from both the Eastern and Western perspectives over 3 decades. My most helpful experiences were my visits to Orthodox monasteries.
No disrespect, but Charlemagne is the reason why the bishop of Rome wanted supremacy over everyone. Imagine having a group of friends and then all of a sudden one of them goes crazy and says: well I’m king now so kneel before me! You’d stop talking to that friend too... not to mention Rome back then wasn’t really Rome, it was an invaded city taken up by the barbarians while Constantinople was still the Roman Empire (the word Byzantine didn’t appear until 100 years after the fall of Constantinople, and was far more advanced then the fallen west). And also: the ecumenical patriarchy to this day does not grant superiority of any bishop, they are all equals. But hey man, I love Catholics: my best friend is catholic and we talk about prayer and god all the time. So many blessing your way! Let’s hopefully be one church again like it is supposed to be!
The Church in the first 1,000 years was always synodal and reached decisions on fundamental doctrinal issues with ecumenical councils. The East did not contradict itself at all on the ex-communication of the bishop of Rome, because there was nothing to contradict in the first place. The Pope's claim was not only on matters of jurisdiction but infallibility on matters of belief which is the straw that broke the camel's back.
This led to heretical innovations like the virgin Mary's immaculate conceptions etc. These are important issues not to be taken lightly.
Of course, I will not take your word for it because you do not know what you are talking about on this particular matter. I honestly wish all the best for the Roman Catholic brothers and sisters, as for the Protestants, and hope for unity, but cannot accept what you said. God bless.
As an Orthodox, that's the only thing I agree with you on this subject: the authority question.
You are right, there must be a single authority that unites either as a Patriarch or Council. The lack of it now has accrued as a result of the lost of Constantinople and the lack of leadership in today's greek church. It must change, yes.
Could you agree that each diocese must be whole complete Body of Christ? And that each Eucharist must be whole complete Body of Christ? Because, each Eastern Orthodox Church is the Church, the whole complete Body of Christ, and when we taste Eucharist, we taste whole complete Body of Christ, and not just some part of his Body. That is the view of the Eastern Orthodox Church, that each part of the Church is whole and complete Church, and that was what originally meant to be Catholic. And therefore, all Bishops must be fundamentally equal, and the only supreme authority over the Church has Jesus Christ himself, the founder of the Church, True God, True Man, and the only High Priest. If the Bishop of Rome wants to have the supreme authority over the Church, then he is challenging Jesus on that position. That is why the Eastern Orthodox Churches have excommunicated the Bishop of Rome.
Get your news up to date:
In 1964 Paul VI met with the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople, Athenagoras I, in Jerusalem. There, both leaders lifted the mutual Bulls of Excommunication that resulted in the Great Schism of 1054.
The Eastern Orthodox can't agree on the canon of the O.T. Bible (but we love you anyway... you're brilliant in so many different ways... although you do seem to need a central authority... which you did look up to before the lamentable filioque translation debacle).
th-cam.com/video/zdt_p_0OxTo/w-d-xo.html
That is the farce of the "Ecumenical dialogue". Eastern Orthodox Churches can't lift the Bull of Excommunication, until the Bishop of Rome fully accepts the Eastern Orthodox Church doctrine. The Patriarch of Constantinople can't decide alone for the entire Eastern Orthodox Church, and that is the beauty of our Church, that we can't have a dictator. He is also seen as a traitor to Eastern Orthodoxy by most of the believers. Our only central authority are God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit. A Bishop is just a Bishop, equal to all other Bishops. What Jesus said to Peter were his personal remarks to him, it has nothing to do with the Bishop of Rome.
That was a very authoritative of you to say. I'm honored to be in such distinguished presence. Milos, you would be the bishop or patriarch of what diocese, to speak with such authority above the patriarch of Constantinople no less?
I belong to the Serbian Orthodox Church, so the Patriarch of Constantinople doesn't have much authority over me. But speaking of that, even our current Serbian Patriarch is seen as a traitor, because of being controlled by the Jesuits, as most of the Serbian Bishops anyway. But Jesus will preserve Orthodoxy.
Also, as an Eastern Orthodox believer, I am not allowed to pray together with the people who don't share exactly the same faith with me, and you know that fact very well.
Well done again, Brian. You hit the nail on the head.
Brian, I believe you have it wrong. The Pope excommunicated the Eastern church.
Lee Saenz do you have a reference you can offer to support your comment?
@@amejaremy History??
I mean from that moment u can see the change in roman catholic church wheres in othrodoxy there is no..i mainly think of pope and his title
I don't get this video. "There needs to be a way for those particular ethnic or national churches to express their communion and universality with each other." You just said it, Brian: COMMUNION. You don't need a Pope for that, because each local church is Catholic (in the original sense of "whole", not the Roman Catholic sense of "found everywhere" or "in union with Rome") by virtue of the bishop's blessing of what it does. Check the writings of HH St. Ignatius, bishop of Antioch for this from long before the Roman Papal claims began to develop centuries later.
You make some very good points on these videos. It truly saddens me that we, as Eastern Orthodox Christian, are often reluctant to embrace others within our admittedly ethnic communities. Inclusivity is a matter that many parishes are working on, though many others have chosen to minister to their pre-existing flock. This, as you indicated is due to the way these communities were founded.
I must, however, impress upon you the importance of fact-checking your history, and to ask you to take a closer look at some very serious subjects, including the origin of the Filioque, the issue of episcopal supremacy (a good book to read would be the Papacy by Pope St. Gregory the Great), and the theology of Grace, which is one of the underlying causes of our theological dispute with our Roman Catholic brothers.
If I may, I should also like to state that the reason that the Orthodox Church has not called for an Ecumenical Council in 1,000 years, is that all Churches must be represented. We can thus not convene without the presence of our co-Primate, the Bishop of Rome, or of his fellow bishops in the West. We pray that our theological disputes will one day be resolved, so that this unity may once again become a reality.
Lastly, I would like to offer you an invitation to come and visit us here, at Annunciation Orthodox Church in Lancaster, PA.
I understand that this is quite far from you, so if you should like to discuss any of the issues, which you had touched upon in your videos, please let me know, and I would be happy to get in touch with you.
In our Resurrected Lord,
-Pavlos (Paul) Sotirelis
Cantor, Annunciation G.O. Church
Excellent point on why we have not convened an Ecumenical Council in a thousand years. It's a mournful reality. The next one hopefully will be inclusive of the Bishop of Rome with the acknowledgment that a unity that did exist in the first millennium indeed is our model and that because it did exist we are without excuse to be accountable to this minimal and simultaneously difficult standard. Reconciliation with the Patriarch of Alexandria should occur as well. Since the gospel is comprised of repentance and reconciliation, without substitute, it's striking to see the resistance this message receives. Instead, we all pick a position and defend it.
So, that would be 22nd Ecumenical council. Looking forward to it 😊✝️☦️
For me it boils down to two things one is that the orthodox are constantly excommunicating one another a.k.a. in schism whatever you wanna call it. The other point is that in the Bible even though similar authority is given to all the apostles the keys to the kingdom were only ever given to Peter
My comment for your previous video still stands:
I watched the explanations the US orthodox priest gave to you about the orthodoxy, wich kind of shaked me, being myself an orthodox.
The issue isn´t if there´s a foreign earthly authority but if that particular church is preaching the Gospel as it was left to us by the apostels and the early church priests. Wich sadly the catholic church hasn´t kept. The infailibility of the Pope is one point, then the Filioque is another, then the purgatory along with other isues, let alone the crusades whereas their newest act against God is accepting homosexuality.
But if the catholic church, the Pope, is so eager to reunite with the orthodox church, why don´t they abandon the parts they added to the scripure, like the ones just mentioned..? They would accomplish two things at once, they´d reunite and they´d correct the mistakes their ancestors did regarding those issues. But no, it seems that they´re to arrogant and pretend that they fix the conditions, holding themselves as a kind of the leader church...
Thus the catholic church doesn´t seek for unity and keeping the Gospel unaltered but rather to hold a priviledged position.
Another question one might ask is how comes that the Holy Light comes only to the orthodox priest in Jerusalem at the tomb of Christ at the celebration of His resurection..?
And finaly one can´t judge the material flourishment as a measure of the faith but if we´d be to earthly judge, let´s judge it by arguments, the reason why the eastern fell into muslim´s hands is the geographical position, being in the east where the muslims dwelled. So the orthodox eastern countries played a buffer role for the western, wouldn´t be those there to fight the muslims, the western would most probably fall in their hands, as it partialy was the case with Spain and Portugal.
You seem to be honest and in search of the truth but you´re still a bit green in order to answer some questions.
I don't think it's self-refuting. I'm Catholic but I have great respect for the Orthodox churches. The argument they were making, with regard to the papacy, is that the Pope is equal in authority to the peripheral bishops of the Church. He is only above them in, as you say in the video, an honorific way. They believe the Pope is committing a grievous heresy by positing himself as the universal authority over all the Church, including the bishops. By a sort of democratic authority, then, they see themselves as excommunicating a member of their fold who is sinning against the Church with an heretical practice.
I believe Jesus through Catholicism...
Again, I can only hope that you watch the videos of Father Josiah Trenham of St. Andrews Orthodox Church in Riverside, California. I wish you had seen these videos prior to making this video. Sadly, I have seen Catholics openly criticize Orthodox Priest's to their faces. As a Roman Catholic, this was one of the saddest events in my life.
Truth is in history, not in personal experience.
thank you for sharing your knowledge. i learned something abt the east orthodox. greatly explain! kudos!
Eh... I'd recommend you speak with an Orthodox priest or monk about these things. I appreciate your respect. These are all misconceptions, but I am certain you will pleasantly surprised to hear what Orthodox people truly believe.
Orthodoxy is by no means so ethnocentric.
The various ethnic groups are not disunited. I've gone to OCA, ROCOR, Greek, Chinese, and Japanese churches and felt right at home in all of those places.
I'm sad you had that experience with the Ukrainian Church. In all my experiences and most other accounts I've heard, Orthodox people are delighted to have anyone visit. Give it another shot, maybe try a smaller church.
Regarding authority. Yes it is important (and the politics can be eyerolling; but whose politics aren't?). But authority is not as important as beliefs. It doesn't matter who broke up with whom first, it matters why it happened. The Church of Rome had been changing practices and beliefs too much, and the other Churches realized Rome wasn't listening, so they had to split. Nominal unity < true belief. I pray for unity, but not for compromised beliefs.
Also it's a little funny that you would feel weirded out by submitting to an authority in Antioch, but not to that of the Pope in the Vatican. (In my experience, I've interacted mostly with authorities in my locality and state, not from Europe, and have met in-person the hierarchs of my area several times, and I'm not unique in that aspect. Again, not ethnocentric).
Well, the main difference between Catholic vs Orthodox teaching is not firstly the importance of the pope, but the Trinitarian doctrine. Because your concept of salvation and the whole anthropology will change, depending on how you believe the Holy Trinity to be. Man is made in the image of God, so it is that image that matters, if we want to get to know ourselves really.
Another point: you don’t have to be Eastern, in order to be Orthodox. There are actually Orthodox churches with a Western Roman rite. However, because of historical circumstances, Orthodoxy is regrettably represented mostly in its Eastern rendition.
God bless!
When I was converting back to Christianity after my long secular stint, I also tried to come up with a simple, accessible answer to myself when I narrowed down the choice between Catholicism and Orthodoxy. What drew me to the RCC is that I think it embodies the 4 qualities of the True Church more than Orthodox: One, Holy, Apostolic, and Catholic. Let's grant both sides the equal amount of Apostolic and Holy, so we're left with One and Catholic. Well, I think we know which side is more "One" in its unity and centralization, and even more so when it comes to the "Catholic" or the universal quality. The Catholic Church is basically almost in every country.. Whereas the Orthodox church is barely present in most places outside of Europe and its historical lands of influence. Are you telling me that 2000 years after Christ's coming, majority of the world still cannot access the True Faith? It's true, the RCC is in a dire situation right now with the smokes of Satan in the form of modernism infesting a huge chunk of the hierarchy.. But there were, and are, many pockets within the Church that is holding steadfast to the RCC tradition, and they are growing by the day. That has been the history of the RCC- even with all the bad clergy and Popes throughout the centuries, it always revives and gets stronger than before, and chugs on. The Seat of Rome has endured since the time of Christ, whereas the Seat of Orthodoxy was lost. Think that tells you something.
Holy smokes! You’re one smart cookie. As a cradle catholic I never had to contend with all these intellectual concepts. We were taught the Baltimore catechism and that was the end of it. I’m impressed.
The Patriarch of Constantinople’s excommunication of the Pope in 1054 need not have been inconsistent. The Patriarch stated that his church (within the Apostolic line of St. Andrew) was no longer in communion with that of Rome. Other Patriarchates, wishing to stay in communion with Constantinople, and holding to a more conciliar outlook, followed suit, and either expressly or by operation rejected claims of papal supremacy. In other words, it was a decision, by Patriarchate, as to what each church would do.
Importantly, I don’t think the geo-political circumstances can be ignored in this. The Umayyad Caliphate had conquered much of the East, including the territories of ancient Judea, Syria, and Egypt. The Abbasid and Fatimid Caliphates consolidated those gains considerably in terms of religion, culture, and language, including during the 1050s. Much of the Eastern Church has been on the defensive ever since. It’s difficult to have dialogue about supremacy in far distant Rome when one’s own survival is on the line. (I believe this explains a good deal of profound stubbornness, intractability, and retrenchment coming from the Eastern churches. It’s how they survived against horrendous odds. But it makes dialogue difficult when inoffensive differences like leaven versus unleavened bread, or the filioque clause and theology of Mary, blow up into major chasms when in reality, they are mere expressions of the richness and variety of orthodox belief.)
But the Filioque clause and the papal claim for supremacy by jurisdiction over the Church, are theologically not true and are not just inoffensive differences. If the Pope had a primacy in the Church by jurisdiction and not just by honour , i.e. if he is an earthly Head of the Church, then he cannot be fallible on the matters of faith because if he was, that would make the whole Church fall into a heresy. The Cathechism of the Roman Catholic Church says:,,248.At the outset the Eastern tradition expresses the Father's character as first origin of the Spirit. By confessing the Spirit as he "who proceeds from the Father", it affirms that he comes from the Father through the Son.77 The Western tradition expresses first the consubstantial communion between Father and Son, by saying that the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son (filioque). It says this, "legitimately and with good reason",78 for the eternal order of the divine persons in their consubstantial communion implies that the Father, as "the principle without principle",79 is the first origin of the Spirit, but also that as Father of the only Son, he is, with the Son, the single principle from which the Holy Spirit proceeds.80 This legitimate complementarity, provided it does not become rigid, does not affect the identity of faith in the reality of the same mystery confessed. … 77 Jn 15:26; cf. AG 2.; 78 Council of Florence (1439): DS 1302; 79 Council of Florence (1442): DS 1331; 80 Cf. Council of Lyons II (1274): DS 850. (www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p1s2c1p2.htm)‘‘. It must be noted that in Greek the verb that is used to define the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father, is ἐκπορευόμενον. Anthony C. Thiselton says:,,The Greek word ἐκπορευόμενον (ekporeuomenon) refers to the ultimate source from which the proceeding occurs, but the Latin verb procedere (and the corresponding terms used to translate it into other languages) can apply also to proceeding through a mediate channel.‘‘(Anthony C. Thiselton, The Holy Spirit: in biblical teaching, through the centuries and today, 2013, p.400). So, technically it is possible that ,,procedere‘‘ in Latin can apply through a mediate channel. But there is another issue. The suggestion that the Holy Spirit proceeds eternally directly from the Father as from an ultimate source and from the Father through the Son, i.e. from the Son but not as from an ultimate source, introduces the category time in the procession of the Holy Spirit through the Son in comparison both with the eternal generation of the Son from the Father and the Spirit’s eternal direct procession from the Father, thus introducing to two Spirits. This is because the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father through the mediation of the Son is possible only if the procession of the Spirit through the Son follows the generation of the Son through Whom the Spirit proceeds because otherwise the Son cannot be a mediator of the indeirect procession of the Spirit from the Father. Therefore, in the hypothesis of the procession of the Spirit from the Father through the mediation of the Son, the procession of the Spirit has a beginning in time in comparison with the eternal generation of the Son from the Father and with the eternal procession of the Spirit from the Father, wherefore by His procession through the Son the Holy Spirit would be a creation. So the suggestion of a procession of the Spirit from the Father through the Son, except the direct procesion of the Holy Spirit from the Father, would mean that the procession of the Spirit through the Son has a beginning in time and is not eternal which would introduce a fourth Person in the Holy Trinity - a second Spirit Whose procession through the Son has a beginning in time, i.e. a second Spirit Who is a creation. The conclusion of the introduction a fourth person in the Holy Trinity is inevitable because the Holy Spirit cannot be uncreated and created at the same time. The Cathechism says about the Eastern tradition:,,By confessing the Spirit as he "who proceeds from the Father", it affirms that he comes from the Father through the Son.‘‘, i.e. according to the Catechism the ancient Eastern established belief was that the Holy Spirit proceeds only from the Father but through the Son. But that would mean that the East has come to believe at some point in time that the Holy Spirit is created because, as it was said, the suggestion of a procession of the Holy Spirit through the Son introduces the category ,,time‘‘ regarding the procession of the Spirit through the Son in comparison with the eternal generation of the Son from the Father. In other words, the suggestion of a procession of the Spirit only directly from the Father but through the Son, makes the Spirit created which means a rejection of His divinity. The rejection of His divinity is the heresy of the bishop of Constantinople Macedonius I (342-346; 351-360) who rejected the Godhead of the Holy Spirit. It was condemned at the Second Ecumenical Council (381 CE). It was condemned at the Second Ecumenical Council (381 CE). In the hypothesis of the Holy Spirit proceeding only from the Father but through the Son, since the procession of the Holy Spirit follows the eternal generation of the Son from the Father because of the Son being a mediator of the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father, the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father through the Son would have a beginning in time in comparison with the Son’s eternal generation from the Father, thus making the Holy Spirit a creation which is a monstrous heresy. So both suggestions - first, that the Holy Spirit proceeds directly from the Father and indirectly through the Son, and second - that He proceeds directly only from the Father but through the Son, are untrue. Therefore, as the Papacy has fallen into a heresy, the Popes are fallable regarding the faith. Since the Papacy is fallible regarding the faith and has fallen into a heresy, the Popes do not have primacy by jurisdiction over the Church.
1:45 Orthodox church adapted with the times, not changing the Faith doesn't mean we don't adapt to the social confines we work in.
2:46 Jesus Christ is the final authority and there are meetings where all the Patriarchs are discussing important matters, as equals.
Too much Protestantism in Brian's heart - i.e., trying to justify things by his *own* reason, making things conform to his own satisfaction of things.
Do you think there could be radical compatibility?
Thanks god he lets me serve and praise him in my native language.
Jesus Peter and the Keys by Scott Hann
All perspectives are personal. My own perspective is of course personal, and so the response I posted on your other video is based upon my historical and theological research carried out over the course of my life.
With that out of the way, let me address the idea that the calling of ecumenical councils is necessary in the life of the Church, because - of course - it is not at all necessary, but the calling of ecumenical councils can be held to be useful if a heresy arises that disrupts the life of the Church as a whole. That said, an ecumenical council is only helpful when the doctrines of orthodoxy are under attack or are denied by a segment of the Church, but in the Eastern Churches there has only been one major challenge to the doctrine of the faith since the bishop of Rome left the Church in AD 1054, and that challenge occurred in the 13th and 14th centuries. Now, in response to that challenge the Palamite Councils were called and the doctrine of grace as uncreated was reaffirmed. Since that time there have been no major heresies impacting the life of the whole of the Orthodox oecumene. Nevertheless - in addition to the Palamite ecumenical councils - there is also a document called the "Synodikon of Orthodoxy," which itself has been updated periodically by the proper Church authorities in order to exclude new minor heresies that have arisen since the 14th century, and the "Synodikon" is recited on the Sunday of Orthodoxy by all the Eastern Churches during Great Lent. Because the "Synodikon" is recited liturgically it is held to be an ecumenical expression of the faith, and has unquestioned authority in the East. Thus there has been no ossification of orthodox doctrine or life in the Eastern Churches since the pope left the Church in the 11th century.
Finally, the notion that there must be new ecumenical councils or doctrinal changes, which is a common Western attack against Orthodoxy, is itself founded upon the false idea that if tradition is to be a living thing it must be constantly changing. Nothing could be further from the truth, of course, because tradition is a living thing, not because it has to change and morph into something different over the course of the centuries; but it is living because the Holy Spirit, Who is the Lord and Giver of Life, is present within it. In the ancient Church innovation itself was seen as a form of heresy. So, for example, if a bishop were to form a committee that would re-write the liturgy of a particular patriarchal Church, and would then promulgate that new liturgy as a replacement for what was used for uncounted centuries beforehand, that innovation would be seen as a form of heresy. The moment you can "date" the liturgy (like saying, for example, that it was issued in 1968/1969) is the moment that you have replaced the ancient apostolic practice of the Church with something modern and novel. Such a change would entail an alteration to the faith itself.
Postscript: the term "catholic" has been used in the two videos I've responded to several times, and has been translated as "universal," but that is not an accurate translation of that Greek word. In actual fact the word "catholic" means "according to the whole," and so the term really involves the idea that a thing that is "catholic" lacks nothing, i.e., that it is complete in itself. Now, bearing the proper definition of the Greek word "catholic" in mind, it becomes possible to grasp that the ancient patristic ecclesiology of communion, which sees each local Church as the full realization of the one Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church through the profession of the Orthodox faith during the celebration of the eucharistic liturgy, is incompatible with the late medieval scholastic Roman universalist ecclesiology, which divides the Church into pieces that are only later juridically united through a concept of hierarchical subservience to the bishop of Rome. Thus, the innovative ecclesiology of the Roman Church bears no resemblance to the teaching of the Church of the first millennium.
When I visited Jerusalem I saw two predominant Christian denominations preserving the site of Jesus tomb, but one had more authority over the site and it was the Eastern Orthodox Church. Is that a coincidence?
no, What happened is the holy light never lit for any one else but the Greek Orthodox and not even for other Orthodox. IT was GOD'S way in showing the world that these people " The Greeks" were his chosen because he had said this when he was alive and saw the Greeks coming towards him/ " now came the hour that my name will be glorified to man through these people" This is why the world demons hates Orthodoxy and is the first one in their list to be destroyed. Look at what Soros is doing to Greece, trying to destroy our history giving it to those slaves there who came down in the 9th centruy Ad , that is why they are trying to rip our faith out of schools in Greece and they feel that if they can do that, then to rip out corrupted churches the rest are easy a joke to them. Don't matter if your fanatic, Eventually they will accomplish it, but they fear Orthodox although its a minority because Christ lives in it!!!!!!! So just as the devil fears Christ that is how they see Orthodoxy..
On a POSITIVE note - - 23 of the Eastern & Oriental Christian churches RETURNED to communion with Rome;
They are known as Eastern Catholic Churches: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastern_Catholic_Churches
They maintain their specific cultural liturgies - - yet are still members of the Catholic Church.
God bless!
Brian, given the mess Rome is in now, it's hard to accept the argument from authority angle. Unless you like the current pope and his heresies. Not to mention the ongoing scandals. As far as theological consistency, Vatican II in particular threw that out of the window. As an orthodox myself, I was attracted to Rome but the more I read about the church history, the less attractive it became. Then came pope Francis, who embodies Vatican II to a tee and frankly, I'd rather remain faithful to Christian orthodoxy rather than compromise. I hope the church weathers the storm but honestly, it's looking doubtful. God bless.
@Shahan Garabet
I'm sure the C Church will weather this huge storm ; she has overcome many others in the past ; this one is particularly painful for all catholics ; and in this storm we can see who are friendly (and support us) and who are not ; CC will raise again more splendid and regenerated than ever (moreover there are many prophetcies about these trials and the regeneration to come)
Francis has done more to discredit Catholicism than any anti-Catholic opponent could ever hope to accomplish.
And now I've watched the 2nd part too. :) I understood you the first time. Brother makes a good point. :D
You are awesome !
I dont understand how you people see unity in such a way.Lets start with what we all know.God is truth.Truth and lie has nothing incommom.That said there can be only one truth, not two or more (1+1=2 and only 2 and who ever says its ALSO 3 is lying you and himself)If God says that there is only One church of Him he meant that there is one and no more.By his Church he meant all his teaching such as dogmas etc.If someone changes them but still claim they are correct how can u as a resonable being agree with it
Its such a simple thing..
.Love is crown of everything only possible through truth and ofc (smirenje calmness i guess in eng)
I hope you continue to be happy with your faith.
Unfortunately, your desire to have the entire church respond to and address issues, being led by one final authority (like the Pope), caused you to miss the most significant and meaningful difference between Eastern Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism. There is no need for some ultimate authority, because the authority always resides in the individual. It is the responsibility of the individual to make the final determination as to how respond and address these issues in the most Christ-like manner. While the various Patriarchies provide guidance, this is ultimately only their opinion. We don't rely on the "infallibility" of a single human, regardless of how saintly they might be, to TELL us how to act. We are charged with ACTING in the manner that is most Christ-like. This requires the Eastern Orthodox individual to actually THINK about how they are going to act, requiring them to understand WHY they act the way they do. Doing what one is told is right is easy. Doing what YOU believe is right based on your personal study, introspection and prayer engages you much more into the religion. You see, there is no HUMAN that is infallible. We are only as infallible as we are close to GOD, and that's only achieved on an individual basis.
Understanding that, you can see why the Eastern Orthodox Church has had no need for Ecumenical counsels for 1,000 years. They've set what they believe is the proper basis for worship and haven't deviated.
At least, that's my take on it.
Your argument that the Eastern Church excommunicated a first among equals doesn't treat him as equal is not accurate. If the Bishop of Rome refuses to agree to that and contends that he has ultimate authority, it is he who is excommunicating himself from the group. The official vote is simply the confirmation of his breaking with the others and in no way represents a deviation from doctrine. And....let's not forget that the schism was really motivated by geopolitical rather than ecumenical issues.
Good explanation.. btw, the ultimate authorithy in Orthodoxy is Jesus Christ and the Lord Himself, so there is no need to have any other supreme head of the Church.. orthodox Patriarchs are just servants to Him...
Hi.
I am an Serbian Ortodox.
So, a few comments...
Starting at 5:06...
Yes, bishop of Rome should be First among equals. He would be. Tomorrow. But he cannot consider himself "the First", and expect others to treat him like "First among equals". It can be one, or the other. Ortodoxy cannot possible permit having ONE, First, absolute authority.
From that side, look at Ortodox church as a much more democratic (although democracy itself is irrelevant in Church affairs).
Then again you point out the Excommunication of Bishop of Rome. Bishop of Rome, excommunicated Ortodox Patriarch first. Both excommunications were withdrawn after (thank God).
Who is contradicting whom is... well, relative. Bishop of Rome, considering himself with complete authority, had a right to excommunicate, from His own perspective.
The Ortodox Patriarch, not recognizing Bishops of Rome absolute authority, had the same right. As far as He could consider, that could be even treated as heresy...
So, both were right (not in excommunications, that was very wrong, on both sides), but only from their own perspectives.
Nevertheless, good video. Good to start discussions and interest people in it. We must be Christians above anything else. We should be at least.
Pro's of Ortodoxy, (this time from my point of view :) ):
- being "democratic". Pope is a Bishop. Not a God. No single person should have complete authority.
- attending liturgy in a language you actually understand. Nothing against Latin, I am just not to keen on learning it now.
- being much more like original Christianity. Yes, it is true that Ortodox councils are held very rare. But, thing that are discussed are the essence of religion, not "should we have Bible on both Android and IOS, or should we stick to Android only". Essence should not have changed from the very beginnings.
Con:
- well, I know from my own Church, that Catholicism is considered even a heresy. I am no theologian, but, that is a bit too hard for my taste. Or point of view. Christianity above all. I am personally not against Muslims or Jews (from religious perspective (or any other)) either. After all, we are worshiping the God of Abraham. The same God. In very different ways, but still.. the same God. Some of us are wrong. Not evil. Some of us just didn't understand as we should have. Can that be that bad? I don't think so.
Suggestion to some of the people commenting.
Discuss. In a Christian way. Don't judge. And don't try to force your opinions by being rude or aggressive.
Christ didn't. And He could.
Question:
I noticed that some Catholics wrote a few quite negative lines against current Pope. But I don't understand why. This is the first Pope that Ortodox church have an open positive and friendly opinion about (that couldn't be the reason, right?). Things He does also quite impress me. So, why comments that he is anti-Catholic, or things like that?
Could someone explain?
God Bless you all.
0:40 IF it wasn't an apologetic for Roman Catholicism and against Eastern Orthodoxy, then why did you suggest that the reason that the Eastern Churches had suffered under the Yoke of Islam for centuries while Rome was left unharmed as a possible reason for suggesting that Roman Catholicism was right and Eastern Orthodoxy was wrong? That is not a personal statement of belief, that's a suggestion that God was angry with the East so he smote them with Islam. Nothing said about The Crusades and their effect on the state of the Eastern Churches. Nothing said about how even though they had lived for so long under the heel of Islam and still exist by The Grace of God. Just, you know, my personal opinion, bro.
Why can't the power and flourishing of the Roman Catholic Church be attributed to it's iron-fisted rule of all of Europe during the Middle Ages? Or it's plundering of Constantinople, Antioch, and Jerusalem during The Crusades? Just more personal opinions, bro.
Seriously, sort it out.
So I am converting to the Roman Catholic Church and a brother of mine is converting to the Eastern Orthodox Church! We both encourage one another instead of bringing each other down. We both recognize, too, that both Churches have sinned and made mistakes. Especially when power and governments were intertwined with the Churches. Personally, I believe why God has us going slightly different ways is that I live in Latin America where there are more Catholics than Orthodox. I love and respect both Churches with all my heart. I love both the Marian Rosary and Jesus Prayer. I explore traditions in both the West and East so I can deepen my relationship in God. I pray for all of us to unified. I only walk in love and forgiveness and nothing else! May God Bless all of us Catholic, Orthodox, and Protestant!
Regarding the Eastern Orthodox resisting modernity, I am curious to hear From some orthodox about artificial contraception and divorce and remarriage. The Antiochan Orthodox have a parish in my town. They allow both artificial contraception and remarriage, in the church, after a divorce.
Eastern Church always allowed divorce and remarriage, it is in the Bible too. Contraception is not allowed, the parish, if true what you say, probably went rogue on that issue.
The Eastern Orthodox position on divorce is that they do not encourage it, but they admit that there is a break in the couple, in the family unity, while the catholic Church believes it is more important for the family to stay together even with this lack of harmony. The Orthodox Church left the matter of the divorce more on the society. But one rule they do have, the second time one remarries in the Church they do not get a full wedding ceremony from the priest, but just a blessing.
They also allow communion for people who are divorced and remarried, which is sacreligious communion.
My Dear Friends. The Greeks offered Orthodoxy, Mathematics, Philosophy, Theater
and Olympics among all the other.
I believe that at all of you already like Theater(Movies) or Sports or Mathematics or Philosophy.
So yes Orthodoxy is also for you.
There is a Greek Word which remains the same from the beginning of the Greeks
on the Earth until now.
It is the word "Αλήθεια".
Lets look its etymology:
Αλήθεια
Α-Λήθη
Not- Erase from the memory.
It is translated as "True" in English but the word "True" is too weak in order to express
the power of "Αλήθεια".
Αλήθεια is over anything. The Greeks decided to serve the Αλήθεια and they choose
that Αλήθεια is not their property but their duty.
So you have already joined us with or without Orthodoxy and it is your honor.
The true church of Jesus Christ is one, holy, catholic, and apostolic. The third mark, Catholic means universal. The true church must be literally universal in time and space. Always and everywhere. Only the Catholic Church, and not the Orthodox church, is found everywhere in the entire world. Only the Catholic Church is found in almost every single country of the Earth.
The Catholic Church is in crisis as predicted by Our Lady of Fatima. However, the Catholic Church is the church founded by Jesus Christ. The Orthodox split off from the Catholic Church of Jesus Christ. Jesus made Peter the first Pope of his church. Matthew chapter 16 verse 18: "And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. "
asburyfox Sorry, the Orthodox Church is found on almost every country in the world.
That is a result of western colonization though. The Catholic religion was spread to the New World and the Indies because history helped them.
Before the Catholics decided to conquer Constantinople in 1204, both religions were strong in different parts of Europe. After the geopolitical changes that occured due to the Ottoman conquests, only Russia remained as as strong Orthodox country in Europe. When the era of colonization started, it was primarily the Western Countries who had the chance to spread their culture and religion.
@Clerical Orthodox Fascist Your penname says it all
I was raised protestant and do lean towards Orthodoxy now. My wife is RC and I do respect them a lot. My perspective is that the schism represents a great wound in the Church that needs to be healed. Both sides need each other. The East needs Rome for unity. And I get that point you are making. Like you, the hardest part about me accepting Orthodoxy is the fact that they seem so fractured and parochial. Having said that, I really think the West needs Orthodox spirituality. This is why I lean towards the East. In many ways Roman Catholic theology and spirituality has more in common with Protestantism than it does with the East and this is a major problem. Catholicism embraced medieval scholasticism, rationalism, the philosophical trends of Dons Scotus, William of Occam as well as Islamic philosophy in the middle ages from the likes of Averroes. All this eventually led to the Reformation and eventually to the Enlightenment and secularism. The great mysteries of the faith were clumsily explained using extremely inadequate analogies like incidents and accidents and so on. You had St Augustine of Canterbury trying to explain the atonement through the lens of the feudal system, which was certainly novel. So even if I commend the Catholic unity in organisation, I can't say that their theology and spirituality is totally what is was as taught and practised by the Apostles and Fathers. Brian talks about which Church looks like the true Church after the Great Schism. He was referring to the polity of the Church. How about if he looked at the worship and the liturgy of the church? Which would look more true? Without a doubt it would be the liturgical life of the East. I go to Mass with my wife. She is a Filipina. They now have protestant songs in Church, they have a truncated liturgy and so on. So which church looks like the ancient Church? Both do in their own way. And none of them do on their own. The Schism needs to be healed.