Look at what I just found…I just left an Orthobro who did an interview with Dyer and bam The Lord sends me here. Thank you, you should do a collab with VoiceOfReason and ScholasticAnswers. Thank you and Ad maiorem Dei gloriam or Ad majórem Dei glóriam
Thankyou for doing some suff on EO as a young catholic that is wrestling with the contentions of Eastern Orthodoxy against rc it is very helpful in allowing me to study and gain more understanding.
Always remind them, Arabic is spoken in the Hagia Sophia. Alexandria, Antioch, Jerusalem, and Constantinople all got taken by the muslims, Rome never fell even when it was sacked. Even when Napoleon, who converted in his last days to Catholicism, could break Rome. They got taken over by them, the Catholic Spanish beat the followers of the crescent and discovered The New World in the same year: 1492. Funny how they’re here in The New World since they failed massively in Eastern Europe. LOL. Yet, they’re separated like to rottenstants are Greek, Russian, Ukrainian…Orthos? They’re all different LOL.
I realized I couldn't go back to EO when I realized they'd rechrismate me if I did, and if I went to confession w/ a different EO priest then logically other EOs would assume I wasnt properly received by Chrismation. Thus, there's no way back from Catholicism. Thank you Jesus
@@shiningdiamond5046 Typically, the response in defense of Lukaris' canonization is that the accusations of Calvinism were false and planted by his detractors, or even by those who simply misunderstood him. He was actually Orthodox all along. I don't believe that, but that is the more standard defense. "The One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church, against whom the gates of Hell will never prevail, to whom Christ promised 'Whatsoever you bind on Earth shall be bound in Heaven', etc...that Church can just straight up be WRONG about CANONIZATIONS"...that's a new one. You should think about how that notion is a huge problem for the infallibility and indefectibility of the Church.
@@tylerk1013 Bind and loosing is on us but there's thing evidence that determines canonicity which can be in discussions at further councils according to Augustine also there's much evidence from greek manuscripts that Cyrill lukaris was not a calvinist but a liar who told any audience what he wanted they to hear but who cares because at the end of the day he's just another Theodoret or Ibas who said one thing here and another somewhere else except he was like honorius condemned while he was Alive to see it so no I don't have to recognize him as a saint.
5 years ago when converting from protestantism was attracted to "orthodoxy" because of its ambiguity in doctrine. I thought the confession of dositheus was a general standard but everyone just had different takes on doctrines that are equally valid. You know, like " I think the eucharist is more like this," or ," Mary being immaculately conceived is kinda true but here's a better and non-catholic way to understand it." Gone are those days of thinking. The profound range of contradictory and even heretical opinions of the "orthodox" is mind boggling. Some of their saints and many heirarchs are universalists. Some believe no one goes to heaven till the final judgement. Some support protestant, and woefully incorrect, understand of the eucharist, Holy scripture, and such. Some go too hard and want 90 books in the bible. Some believe bishops are all equal and others believe Constantinople is the new papacy. Catholics should be rebaptized, and on and on. With an additional problem being the chameleon like nature of the Church. You have lucaris who wants to be more protestant. Dositheus wants to be like the catholics. I remember often hearing from my local "orthodox" parish that their religion is most similar to mormonism. I thought," how horrible." It seemed they made the comparison because it was semi interesting. With some i knew actually incorporating mormonism, even the BoM, into their faith expression. It seems these easterners will change and alter according to what's popular or advantageous at the time and choose which would be more pious. The doctrinal ambiguity, initially, is interesting to westerners because it is not what they're used to. At least their liturgy is pretty consistent! However, the further you go the more horrifying it becomes and the more you wish for at least a little accountability from the heirarchy similar to the west. Catholics at least have hope of escaping this modernist limbo. Easterners are left waiting for a much needed council that will never, ever, ever come
Greetings!!! That depends on your perspective. But no matter what, you will want to read the Catholic Catechism for official church teachings, free on line…
For the life of me I can’t figure out why Sam shamoun glorifies Eastern Orthodoxy when he claims to be a “Catholic” it’s not one and the same thing though…
If we like to go back and forward who's wrong who's right it's like there is no really Cause this is how I look at church it's not what the politics but who has the best mystery of theology You can't call yourself a Catholic or an orthodox if you don't practice the faith that's the way that I'm going to say it It doesn't matter who has the right authority honestly we could be arguing about this for another 4 millennials from that but honestly it's not worth it in my opinion honestly if I'm judged by Peter alone Fine if I am going to hell or not are purgatory I really don't know who knows really even if how much you could defend it who really knows
Well, after watching/listening to this video, I can say that Eastern Orthodoxy is still a valid option. If it is a problem for the Synod of Jerusalem to appeal to a forgery in the canons of Laodicea, is it equally a problem that Nicea II appeals to forgeries? I have heard that the latter doesn't matter because it is in matters of faith, not history, in which ecumenical councils are infallible. Would that not apply to to the Synod of Jerusalem (the Synod of Jerusalem not being "ecumenical" notwithstanding)? As for other assertions in the video, such as some Orthodox rejecting Revelation, despising Augustine, etc., well, you didn't cite anyone. I'm not at all saying you are lying or mistaken, but if you are going to make the claims, which I have not seen borne out in my nearly two years of looking into Orthodoxy, I would loke to see some citations. (Regarding Augustine, I have heard and seen people rejecting some of his teachings, but not him as a saint or at least a holy figure in the faith. I also recognize that you have had much more time to look into these matters than I have.) And since you appealed simply to this video showing that EO is not a valid option, I would need to see those claims demonstrated in this video. But if you have somewhere else to point me, I am open to that. I am genuinely trying to discern. But I must say it is getting discouraging when everyone says everyone else is outside of the Church and outside salvation and I can't figure out who is right. I pray God guides me and gives me clarity.
Brother, for the Catholic Church, “Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus” doesn’t mean (and it has never meant) that every individual outside of the formal/ full membership in the Catholic Church is necessarily damned. What damns someone in the eyes of an All-Benevolent God - who is also the Lord of Justice - is culpability in mortal sinning. What does it mean? That non-Catholics (and in some cases even formal Catholics, who can be accountable for those) are responsible either for their own deliberate acts of schism and/or heresy, either for their culpable/ vincible ignorance, whenever they put deliberate barriers to coming to the full knowledge of Truth. That’s the specific wording of “Lumen Gentium”, n. 14. _“(…) one cannot charge with the sin of the separation those who at present are born into these communities [i.e., Protestant ecclesial communities] that resulted from such separation and in them are brought up in the faith of Christ, and the Catholic Church accepts them with respect and affection as brothers. _*_All who have been justified by faith in baptism are incorporated into Christ; they therefore have a right to be called Christians, and with good reason are accepted as brothers in the Lord by the children of the Catholic Church_*_ (….)”_ (CCC, § 818). That doesn’t mean one can be saved elsewhere but being part of the Catholic Church, formally or mystically. It can mean to be united to it with different degrees of perfection in the ecclesiological expression. It won’t jeopardize the salvation of a pious Orthodox old lady in the countryside of Bulgaria or a humble Baptist mom of four children that lived their Christian life the best they could (and not to antagonize with Catholics as a way of identity), meaning that, according to our theology, they were supposedly personally guilt of the sin of division/ schism or that they were culpable of heresies for the simple fact that they were born outside of Catholic community: it is simply to flirt with the *heresy of Feeneyism.* That’s *not* Catholic dogma, my friend. Still, I’m confident to say there isn’t an actual change in the ecclesiological argument between “Unam Sanctam” and the Second Vatican Council (Ecumenical). In both cases, it is doctrinally clear that there is no salvation outside the (Catholic) Church, according to her understandings. The formulation of the dogma is different both in focus, wording or in methodology, but the theological content is identical. According to the Church, “Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus” doesn’t mean (and it has never meant) that every individual outside of the formal/ full membership in the Catholic Church is necessarily damned, as said. In “Unam Sanctam” (1302), Pope Boniface VIII was in the midst of a crucial dispute of power with Philip IV, the King of France (known for his plot against the Knights Templar). The embryo of the heresy of Gallicanism were actually drawn in this Medieval period (v. Leighton, C. D. A. (1994), "The Meaning of Gallicanism", Catholicism in a Protestant Kingdom, London: Palgrave Macmillan UK), albeit it would be a phenomenon of the full-blown Modern State. In the facet of the crisis, the arguable headship of the National Church by the monarch (like the crisis in Anglicanism) would mean dilacerating the unity of the Church according to the pope, so he advised anyone of the spiritual ‘potestas’ of the Church over all souls and the obligation of all the kingdoms to also account for her temporal power, in a sense that the spiritual sword is to be exercised by the Church, like the temporal/ material is to be be exercised on behalf of the Church. Those words are explicit in the document, by the way. Please notice that it speaks of what is necessary in God’s ordinary design of the Church and of the salvific history, despite not limiting the role of God’s mercy to disdain the extraordinary. It makes clear to speak - in an advisory manner - of the “Greeks” (=Eastern Orthodox schismatics) and all those alike who consciously tried to say they were not confided to the Roman authority of Peter (upon which the Church was built) and his successors. So it is not that Vatican II estranged from “Unam Sanctam”; it is sure that the component of culpability (the deliberate refusal) is intrinsic in the text of “Unam Sanctam”. No one is free in EO to dispute the affirmation that there is no salvation outside the church. The issue can be, just as in Catholicism, how to understand it all with dogmatic precision in the grand scheme and the correct application in the concrete cases. Yet so grave and ridiculously restrictive is Eastern Orthodoxy in relation to the way they understand “extra ecclesia nulla salus” that some even considers the sacraments ministered outside of their communion simply” graceless” and devoid of the Holy Spirit (which is never the position of Catholicism: the Spirit blows wherever He wants) and, up to this day, almost resurrecting the heresy of Donatism, they dispute the necessity of rebaptism of those received in their churches.
But why would the Synod of Jerusalem (1672) lack the ecumenical status, according to Orthodox ecclesiology? It seems post-hoc to make this argument, I’ve always thought. Still, I understand it touches only the surface of the (arguable) Pan-Orthodox Synod of Jerusalem (1672) problem. You are right that we don’t believe in “conciliar fundamentalism”, so that an “error de facto” can happen but never an “error de fide et moralia”, if we are talking about Ecumenical Councils. So if an Ecumenical Council makes a proclamation of faith based on a theological argument, and to support that argument it cites one or two forged texts, it doesn’t contaminate the theological conclusion for the reasons above; but if one needs to search history to define a canon of Scripture and it cites as a source from antiquity a Biblical canon that doesn’t exist and nothing more, that historical error is not an “error de facto” despite the appearance, but an “error de fide” because it does come from importing a false fact from history as evidence of historicity for the adherence of a non-historical data - and nothing more substantial, since it doesn’t rely on a theological argumentation. So the position of Eastern Orthodoxy concerning it became pretty much a relativist stance, akin to Protestantism, so long anti-Catholicism is in need (“it is not ecumenical because it isn’t” or “it is not ecumenical because it erred”, or, as Fr Ramsey says, “it is too Latin to be received fully”). For example, the current “state of the art” among EO theologians is to deny the dogma of transubstantiation as a symptom of “Aristotelian philosophy” or “Latin Scholasticism”. Yet, following the Synod of Jerusalem (1672), if someone goes on looking for the “Longer Catechism of St. Philaret of Moscow” (1830) to search for the position of Russian Orthodoxy, for example, it is possible to even find EXACTLY the same Catholic dogma exposed there (albeit assuming - wrongly - that Latins may try to explain “HOW” the changing goes, which is inaccurate, since “transubstantiation” only means “WHAT” happens): *_“340. How are we to understand the word transubstantiation?_* _In the exposition of the faith by the Eastern Patriarchs, it is said that the word transubstantiation is not to be taken to define the manner in which the bread and wine are changed into the Body and Blood of the Lord; for this none can understand but God; _*_but only thus much is signified, that the bread TRULY, REALLY, and SUBSTANTIALLY BECOMES the very true Body of the Lord, and the wine the very Blood of the Lord._*_ In like manner John Damascene, treating of the Holy and Immaculate Mysteries of the Lord, writes thus: “It is truly that Body, united with Godhead, which had its origin from the Holy Virgin; not as though that Body which ascended came down from heaven, _*_but because the bread and wine themselves are changed into the Body and Blood of God._*_ But if thou seekest after the manner how this is, let it suffice thee to be told that it is by the Holy Ghost; in like manner as, by the same Holy Ghost, the Lord formed flesh to himself, and in himself, from the Mother of God; nor know I aught more than this, that the Word of God is true, powerful, and almighty, but its manner of operation unsearchable.” (J. Damasc. Theol. lib. iv. cap. 13, § 7.)_ The very formula of the Divine Liturgy of St Basil uses the word “change" (μεταβολή) (metavolí) to describe the modification of the bread and wine into the actual body and blood of Jesus, knowing for a fact that those are not changed in the perceptible/ material form in any possible Neoplatonic sense, more fitting to the Cappadocian Fathers. As said, the Pan-Orthodox Synod of Jerusalem (1672) uses the EXACT same explanation of the Most Holy Sacrament, even the synonymous Greek word “Metousiosis” (μετουσίωσις), which is found in the Chapter VI of Acts and Decrees of the Synod of Jerusalem. Literally, it is the very Greek word for “transubstantiation”: “meta” (trans) + “ousia” (substance)! In synthesis: 100% Orthobros dissent on their own Catechism and even a Pan-Orthodox Council for the anti-Catholic ideology. If anything, Greeks interpreted differently only the moment of the transubstantiation, making it more adapted to the reality of the canon of their liturgy. In the Divine Liturgy of St Basil and the one of St John Chrysostom, it is assumed that the change happens not at the proclamation of the Words of Institution said “in persona Christi” by the priest (as Latin Catholics understand it, in the canon of the Holy Mass) but at the ἐπίκλησις (epíklesis). There is nothing strange to Catholic dogmatics like it is indeed with Byzantine, Ruthenian, Melkite, Ukrainian, Russian (etc) Catholics of Greek liturgical descent, by the way.
@brunot2481 Hi, I'm not going to read all that right now. Maybe later. But if I am correct in assuming you are characterizing me as saying that everyone says that everyone else is "necessarily damned," then you started off by misrepresenting what I said. What I said was that everyone says that everyone else is outside of the Church and outside of salvation. Those are not the same things, as you went on to explain, and I did not assume that they were the same.
@ I don’t actually think Catholics would say that people who are not formally in the Church, like Protestants, are “outside of salvation” either. It’s up to God. But the opt-out of the Catholic Church is sure the irrational take on the salvific matter. Some Internet guys can maybe make this wacky argument but it contradicts Catholic dogma.
Is defending the true church against a schismatic one important? There is either 1 true church or there isn't. If there isn't then lets be Prots or not Christians at all
If a Christian church is promoting wrong teaching that goes against Christ, or is teaching against itself, it's a charitable act to point it out. ("Dude! You took the wrong turn! Turn around before you get lost!") People can choose for themselves what they do with the information, or whether they think it's significant. It's pretty significant for some Orthodox to reject several normal books of the Bible, especially since they're part of their liturgies and readings for the Divine Liturgy. If they want to do it, they should admit that they are breaking with their own history and tradition, and not try to pretend that they are doing like Chrysostom.
@@revelation20232 I think the popes are clear of why the schism happened. The ecumenism being pushed in most churches also speak of the heart of the church.
@@davidperez6120 how's that? people who are not in the catholic church have the possibility of salvation by invincible ignorance. did every native american miss out in salvation because they were born on the wrong continent? that is an extreme example but a real one. not ever orthodox is a superstar theologian who knows all of church history and chooses not to become catholic. i imagine most don't know much in the same way most catholics don't know much. those people who were living out the christian life as they knew it not knowing any better have that possibility. if i didn't articulate it well read lumen gentium. if you reject what lumen gentium teaches then you are rejecting the ordinary and universal magisterium that you are bound to accept with divine and catholic faith.
Really? Is it even relevant? I did a simple checking on the Internet. Since the census of the ABS (Australian Bureau of Statistics), in 2021, Roman Catholics surpassed Anglicans - a tradition tied to the very history of the British Empire - and now represent the largest Christian denomination in the country. It represents 20% of all this population, including important numbers of Ukrainian Greek Catholics (mostly Ukrainian migrants) and Syro-Malabar Catholics (mostly Indian migrants), for example. Eastern Orthodoxy is around 2%, most strictly related to Greek and Russian migrants. I didn’t find the data about growing and declining though.
@@starcityoldy Liar? Don’t you think Google has different algorithms for different searchers, terms and - obviously- different regions? I’m from Brazil, not from USA or Australia. Besides, relative growth is irrelevant if without context. If a country has one follower of the wicca (pagan) religion and then it gets to have two, that religion had a growth of 100%. Is it relevant? Catholicism has 20% of the population of Australia according to the official census of 2021 (of Australian Bureau of Statistics). Just search “Catholic Church in Australia” in Wikipedia and get the official link there of the ABS. “Converthodoxy” is so trapped into this kind of prideful delusion that they don’t want to escape out of the cave and see. Vade retro Satana.
Look at what I just found…I just left an Orthobro who did an interview with Dyer and bam The Lord sends me here. Thank you, you should do a collab with VoiceOfReason and ScholasticAnswers. Thank you and
Ad maiorem Dei gloriam or Ad majórem Dei glóriam
Please, I cannot stand jay dyer, he’s very anti Catholic!!!
Thankyou for doing some suff on EO as a young catholic that is wrestling with the contentions of Eastern Orthodoxy against rc it is very helpful in allowing me to study and gain more understanding.
Always remind them, Arabic is spoken in the Hagia Sophia. Alexandria, Antioch, Jerusalem, and Constantinople all got taken by the muslims, Rome never fell even when it was sacked. Even when Napoleon, who converted in his last days to Catholicism, could break Rome.
They got taken over by them, the Catholic Spanish beat the followers of the crescent and discovered The New World in the same year: 1492.
Funny how they’re here in The New World since they failed massively in Eastern Europe. LOL. Yet, they’re separated like to rottenstants are Greek, Russian, Ukrainian…Orthos? They’re all different LOL.
TY For Covering EO. I don’t know anything about it! GBY
William.
I realized I couldn't go back to EO when I realized they'd rechrismate me if I did, and if I went to confession w/ a different EO priest then logically other EOs would assume I wasnt properly received by Chrismation. Thus, there's no way back from Catholicism. Thank you Jesus
By the way, Cyril Lukaris was canonized by the Greek Church of Alexandria
@@tylerk1013 Invalid canonization can and have happened and this one sticks because he's condemned in 1638
@@shiningdiamond5046 Typically, the response in defense of Lukaris' canonization is that the accusations of Calvinism were false and planted by his detractors, or even by those who simply misunderstood him. He was actually Orthodox all along. I don't believe that, but that is the more standard defense.
"The One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church, against whom the gates of Hell will never prevail, to whom Christ promised 'Whatsoever you bind on Earth shall be bound in Heaven', etc...that Church can just straight up be WRONG about CANONIZATIONS"...that's a new one.
You should think about how that notion is a huge problem for the infallibility and indefectibility of the Church.
@@tylerk1013 Bind and loosing is on us but there's thing evidence that determines canonicity which can be in discussions at further councils according to Augustine also there's much evidence from greek manuscripts that Cyrill lukaris was not a calvinist but a liar who told any audience what he wanted they to hear but who cares because at the end of the day he's just another Theodoret or Ibas who said one thing here and another somewhere else except he was like honorius condemned while he was Alive to see it so no I don't have to recognize him as a saint.
Great stuff as always William, GBY for all your hard work defending the Faith.
Thank you William God bless you❤
Amazing video 🔥👌 🙏
That was epic. Thank you so much for all that you do, William!
5 years ago when converting from protestantism was attracted to "orthodoxy" because of its ambiguity in doctrine. I thought the confession of dositheus was a general standard but everyone just had different takes on doctrines that are equally valid. You know, like " I think the eucharist is more like this," or ," Mary being immaculately conceived is kinda true but here's a better and non-catholic way to understand it."
Gone are those days of thinking. The profound range of contradictory and even heretical opinions of the "orthodox" is mind boggling. Some of their saints and many heirarchs are universalists. Some believe no one goes to heaven till the final judgement. Some support protestant, and woefully incorrect, understand of the eucharist, Holy scripture, and such. Some go too hard and want 90 books in the bible. Some believe bishops are all equal and others believe Constantinople is the new papacy. Catholics should be rebaptized, and on and on.
With an additional problem being the chameleon like nature of the Church. You have lucaris who wants to be more protestant. Dositheus wants to be like the catholics. I remember often hearing from my local "orthodox" parish that their religion is most similar to mormonism. I thought," how horrible." It seemed they made the comparison because it was semi interesting. With some i knew actually incorporating mormonism, even the BoM, into their faith expression. It seems these easterners will change and alter according to what's popular or advantageous at the time and choose which would be more pious.
The doctrinal ambiguity, initially, is interesting to westerners because it is not what they're used to. At least their liturgy is pretty consistent! However, the further you go the more horrifying it becomes and the more you wish for at least a little accountability from the heirarchy similar to the west.
Catholics at least have hope of escaping this modernist limbo. Easterners are left waiting for a much needed council that will never, ever, ever come
Another banger. Glory to God. Thanks Big Will.
Can anyone please recommend me books to get a good understanding of Catholicism and also books that can convince me of Catholicism? PLEASE. Thanks
Greetings!!! That depends on your perspective. But no matter what, you will want to read the Catholic Catechism for official church teachings, free on line…
This was great. I'm a Catholic who was considering Eastern Orthodoxy.
No, you don’t leave the church because of Judas…
@davidperez6120 Amen
God Bless you. Thank you for your hard work!
Wonderful video Brother ❤️
The whole intro song was muted for some reason not sure if there was some kind of an error
Hey brother, where can I find pope Leo full letter 65?
@@JD-eb7ek I’m not sure it’s available online, so likely a translation in a scholarly volume
@@WilliamAlbrecht thanks brother
Need part 2
give us the meat and potatoes William! God Bless you!
Always good! Gby & your ministry William!🙏🏼
The music at the beginning is muted.
Good stuff
Could you turn Chat relay back on please?
@@KeithOlbermannn I never turned it off
Video starts 4:20
🙏
For the life of me I can’t figure out why Sam shamoun glorifies Eastern Orthodoxy when he claims to be a “Catholic” it’s not one and the same thing though…
If we like to go back and forward who's wrong who's right it's like there is no really Cause this is how I look at church it's not what the politics but who has the best mystery of theology You can't call yourself a Catholic or an orthodox if you don't practice the faith that's the way that I'm going to say it It doesn't matter who has the right authority honestly we could be arguing about this for another 4 millennials from that but honestly it's not worth it in my opinion honestly if I'm judged by Peter alone Fine if I am going to hell or not are purgatory I really don't know who knows really even if how much you could defend it who really knows
👍
Well, after watching/listening to this video, I can say that Eastern Orthodoxy is still a valid option.
If it is a problem for the Synod of Jerusalem to appeal to a forgery in the canons of Laodicea, is it equally a problem that Nicea II appeals to forgeries? I have heard that the latter doesn't matter because it is in matters of faith, not history, in which ecumenical councils are infallible. Would that not apply to to the Synod of Jerusalem (the Synod of Jerusalem not being "ecumenical" notwithstanding)?
As for other assertions in the video, such as some Orthodox rejecting Revelation, despising Augustine, etc., well, you didn't cite anyone. I'm not at all saying you are lying or mistaken, but if you are going to make the claims, which I have not seen borne out in my nearly two years of looking into Orthodoxy, I would loke to see some citations. (Regarding Augustine, I have heard and seen people rejecting some of his teachings, but not him as a saint or at least a holy figure in the faith. I also recognize that you have had much more time to look into these matters than I have.) And since you appealed simply to this video showing that EO is not a valid option, I would need to see those claims demonstrated in this video.
But if you have somewhere else to point me, I am open to that. I am genuinely trying to discern. But I must say it is getting discouraging when everyone says everyone else is outside of the Church and outside salvation and I can't figure out who is right. I pray God guides me and gives me clarity.
Brother, for the Catholic Church, “Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus” doesn’t mean (and it has never meant) that every individual outside of the formal/ full membership in the Catholic Church is necessarily damned. What damns someone in the eyes of an All-Benevolent God - who is also the Lord of Justice - is culpability in mortal sinning.
What does it mean? That non-Catholics (and in some cases even formal Catholics, who can be accountable for those) are responsible either for their own deliberate acts of schism and/or heresy, either for their culpable/ vincible ignorance, whenever they put deliberate barriers to coming to the full knowledge of Truth. That’s the specific wording of “Lumen Gentium”, n. 14.
_“(…) one cannot charge with the sin of the separation those who at present are born into these communities [i.e., Protestant ecclesial communities] that resulted from such separation and in them are brought up in the faith of Christ, and the Catholic Church accepts them with respect and affection as brothers. _*_All who have been justified by faith in baptism are incorporated into Christ; they therefore have a right to be called Christians, and with good reason are accepted as brothers in the Lord by the children of the Catholic Church_*_ (….)”_ (CCC, § 818).
That doesn’t mean one can be saved elsewhere but being part of the Catholic Church, formally or mystically. It can mean to be united to it with different degrees of perfection in the ecclesiological expression. It won’t jeopardize the salvation of a pious Orthodox old lady in the countryside of Bulgaria or a humble Baptist mom of four children that lived their Christian life the best they could (and not to antagonize with Catholics as a way of identity), meaning that, according to our theology, they were supposedly personally guilt of the sin of division/ schism or that they were culpable of heresies for the simple fact that they were born outside of Catholic community: it is simply to flirt with the *heresy of Feeneyism.* That’s *not* Catholic dogma, my friend.
Still, I’m confident to say there isn’t an actual change in the ecclesiological argument between “Unam Sanctam” and the Second Vatican Council (Ecumenical). In both cases, it is doctrinally clear that there is no salvation outside the (Catholic) Church, according to her understandings. The formulation of the dogma is different both in focus, wording or in methodology, but the theological content is identical. According to the Church, “Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus” doesn’t mean (and it has never meant) that every individual outside of the formal/ full membership in the Catholic Church is necessarily damned, as said.
In “Unam Sanctam” (1302), Pope Boniface VIII was in the midst of a crucial dispute of power with Philip IV, the King of France (known for his plot against the Knights Templar). The embryo of the heresy of Gallicanism were actually drawn in this Medieval period (v. Leighton, C. D. A. (1994), "The Meaning of Gallicanism", Catholicism in a Protestant Kingdom, London: Palgrave Macmillan UK), albeit it would be a phenomenon of the full-blown Modern State. In the facet of the crisis, the arguable headship of the National Church by the monarch (like the crisis in Anglicanism) would mean dilacerating the unity of the Church according to the pope, so he advised anyone of the spiritual ‘potestas’ of the Church over all souls and the obligation of all the kingdoms to also account for her temporal power, in a sense that the spiritual sword is to be exercised by the Church, like the temporal/ material is to be be exercised on behalf of the Church. Those words are explicit in the document, by the way.
Please notice that it speaks of what is necessary in God’s ordinary design of the Church and of the salvific history, despite not limiting the role of God’s mercy to disdain the extraordinary. It makes clear to speak - in an advisory manner - of the “Greeks” (=Eastern Orthodox schismatics) and all those alike who consciously tried to say they were not confided to the Roman authority of Peter (upon which the Church was built) and his successors. So it is not that Vatican II estranged from “Unam Sanctam”; it is sure that the component of culpability (the deliberate refusal) is intrinsic in the text of “Unam Sanctam”.
No one is free in EO to dispute the affirmation that there is no salvation outside the church. The issue can be, just as in Catholicism, how to understand it all with dogmatic precision in the grand scheme and the correct application in the concrete cases. Yet so grave and ridiculously restrictive is Eastern Orthodoxy in relation to the way they understand “extra ecclesia nulla salus” that some even considers the sacraments ministered outside of their communion simply” graceless” and devoid of the Holy Spirit (which is never the position of Catholicism: the Spirit blows wherever He wants) and, up to this day, almost resurrecting the heresy of Donatism, they dispute the necessity of rebaptism of those received in their churches.
But why would the Synod of Jerusalem (1672) lack the ecumenical status, according to Orthodox ecclesiology? It seems post-hoc to make this argument, I’ve always thought. Still, I understand it touches only the surface of the (arguable) Pan-Orthodox Synod of Jerusalem (1672) problem. You are right that we don’t believe in “conciliar fundamentalism”, so that an “error de facto” can happen but never an “error de fide et moralia”, if we are talking about Ecumenical Councils. So if an Ecumenical Council makes a proclamation of faith based on a theological argument, and to support that argument it cites one or two forged texts, it doesn’t contaminate the theological conclusion for the reasons above; but if one needs to search history to define a canon of Scripture and it cites as a source from antiquity a Biblical canon that doesn’t exist and nothing more, that historical error is not an “error de facto” despite the appearance, but an “error de fide” because it does come from importing a false fact from history as evidence of historicity for the adherence of a non-historical data - and nothing more substantial, since it doesn’t rely on a theological argumentation.
So the position of Eastern Orthodoxy concerning it became pretty much a relativist stance, akin to Protestantism, so long anti-Catholicism is in need (“it is not ecumenical because it isn’t” or “it is not ecumenical because it erred”, or, as Fr Ramsey says, “it is too Latin to be received fully”). For example, the current “state of the art” among EO theologians is to deny the dogma of transubstantiation as a symptom of “Aristotelian philosophy” or “Latin Scholasticism”. Yet, following the Synod of Jerusalem (1672), if someone goes on looking for the “Longer Catechism of St. Philaret of Moscow” (1830) to search for the position of Russian Orthodoxy, for example, it is possible to even find EXACTLY the same Catholic dogma exposed there (albeit assuming - wrongly - that Latins may try to explain “HOW” the changing goes, which is inaccurate, since “transubstantiation” only means “WHAT” happens):
*_“340. How are we to understand the word transubstantiation?_*
_In the exposition of the faith by the Eastern Patriarchs, it is said that the word transubstantiation is not to be taken to define the manner in which the bread and wine are changed into the Body and Blood of the Lord; for this none can understand but God; _*_but only thus much is signified, that the bread TRULY, REALLY, and SUBSTANTIALLY BECOMES the very true Body of the Lord, and the wine the very Blood of the Lord._*_ In like manner John Damascene, treating of the Holy and Immaculate Mysteries of the Lord, writes thus: “It is truly that Body, united with Godhead, which had its origin from the Holy Virgin; not as though that Body which ascended came down from heaven, _*_but because the bread and wine themselves are changed into the Body and Blood of God._*_ But if thou seekest after the manner how this is, let it suffice thee to be told that it is by the Holy Ghost; in like manner as, by the same Holy Ghost, the Lord formed flesh to himself, and in himself, from the Mother of God; nor know I aught more than this, that the Word of God is true, powerful, and almighty, but its manner of operation unsearchable.” (J. Damasc. Theol. lib. iv. cap. 13, § 7.)_
The very formula of the Divine Liturgy of St Basil uses the word “change" (μεταβολή) (metavolí) to describe the modification of the bread and wine into the actual body and blood of Jesus, knowing for a fact that those are not changed in the perceptible/ material form in any possible Neoplatonic sense, more fitting to the Cappadocian Fathers.
As said, the Pan-Orthodox Synod of Jerusalem (1672) uses the EXACT same explanation of the Most Holy Sacrament, even the synonymous Greek word “Metousiosis” (μετουσίωσις), which is found in the Chapter VI of Acts and Decrees of the Synod of Jerusalem. Literally, it is the very Greek word for “transubstantiation”: “meta” (trans) + “ousia” (substance)!
In synthesis: 100% Orthobros dissent on their own Catechism and even a Pan-Orthodox Council for the anti-Catholic ideology. If anything, Greeks interpreted differently only the moment of the transubstantiation, making it more adapted to the reality of the canon of their liturgy. In the Divine Liturgy of St Basil and the one of St John Chrysostom, it is assumed that the change happens not at the proclamation of the Words of Institution said “in persona Christi” by the priest (as Latin Catholics understand it, in the canon of the Holy Mass) but at the ἐπίκλησις (epíklesis). There is nothing strange to Catholic dogmatics like it is indeed with Byzantine, Ruthenian, Melkite, Ukrainian, Russian (etc) Catholics of Greek liturgical descent, by the way.
@@brunot2481wow, I’m gonna have read this one a couple of times. 😀
@brunot2481 Hi, I'm not going to read all that right now. Maybe later. But if I am correct in assuming you are characterizing me as saying that everyone says that everyone else is "necessarily damned," then you started off by misrepresenting what I said. What I said was that everyone says that everyone else is outside of the Church and outside of salvation. Those are not the same things, as you went on to explain, and I did not assume that they were the same.
@ I don’t actually think Catholics would say that people who are not formally in the Church, like Protestants, are “outside of salvation” either. It’s up to God. But the opt-out of the Catholic Church is sure the irrational take on the salvific matter. Some Internet guys can maybe make this wacky argument but it contradicts Catholic dogma.
Here we go again. Why do we have to fight over this 😢
Is defending the true church against a schismatic one important? There is either 1 true church or there isn't. If there isn't then lets be Prots or not Christians at all
@@revelation20232 the pope is what caused the scism. The pope is an ecumenist what more evidence do you need?
If a Christian church is promoting wrong teaching that goes against Christ, or is teaching against itself, it's a charitable act to point it out. ("Dude! You took the wrong turn! Turn around before you get lost!")
People can choose for themselves what they do with the information, or whether they think it's significant.
It's pretty significant for some Orthodox to reject several normal books of the Bible, especially since they're part of their liturgies and readings for the Divine Liturgy. If they want to do it, they should admit that they are breaking with their own history and tradition, and not try to pretend that they are doing like Chrysostom.
@@revelation20232 I think the popes are clear of why the schism happened. The ecumenism being pushed in most churches also speak of the heart of the church.
There’s no salvation in side the Eastern Orthodox Church sorry…
well people in orthodoxy have the possibility of salvation but orthodoxy itself is not the one church.
That’s not what the Catholic Church teaches!!:)
I was asking Orthodox priests about this. In summary, they don't believe there are no streams of light outside the walls of the Church.
@@davidperez6120 how's that? people who are not in the catholic church have the possibility of salvation by invincible ignorance. did every native american miss out in salvation because they were born on the wrong continent? that is an extreme example but a real one. not ever orthodox is a superstar theologian who knows all of church history and chooses not to become catholic. i imagine most don't know much in the same way most catholics don't know much. those people who were living out the christian life as they knew it not knowing any better have that possibility. if i didn't articulate it well read lumen gentium. if you reject what lumen gentium teaches then you are rejecting the ordinary and universal magisterium that you are bound to accept with divine and catholic faith.
“in the real world it’s not growing rapidly” LoL
It’s the fastest growing denomination in Australia, whilst every other sect is declining.
Really? Is it even relevant? I did a simple checking on the Internet. Since the census of the ABS (Australian Bureau of Statistics), in 2021, Roman Catholics surpassed Anglicans - a tradition tied to the very history of the British Empire - and now represent the largest Christian denomination in the country. It represents 20% of all this population, including important numbers of Ukrainian Greek Catholics (mostly Ukrainian migrants) and Syro-Malabar Catholics (mostly Indian migrants), for example. Eastern Orthodoxy is around 2%, most strictly related to Greek and Russian migrants. I didn’t find the data about growing and declining though.
@@masterchief8179 you either don’t know how to use google or you’re a straight out liar? it’s the first thing that pops up once you type it in.
@@starcityoldy Liar? Don’t you think Google has different algorithms for different searchers, terms and - obviously- different regions? I’m from Brazil, not from USA or Australia. Besides, relative growth is irrelevant if without context. If a country has one follower of the wicca (pagan) religion and then it gets to have two, that religion had a growth of 100%. Is it relevant? Catholicism has 20% of the population of Australia according to the official census of 2021 (of Australian Bureau of Statistics). Just search “Catholic Church in Australia” in Wikipedia and get the official link there of the ABS. “Converthodoxy” is so trapped into this kind of prideful delusion that they don’t want to escape out of the cave and see. Vade retro Satana.
@@starcityoldyEastern heterodoxy never grows. Learn what ”growth” by immigration means. It’s not conversions.
@@masterchief8179 You either don’t know how to use google or you’re a liar?