"True Orthodoxy" Debunked
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 16 ก.ค. 2019
- UPDATE: ROCOR didn't schism from the Orthodox world and are united with the MP today (2:40-2:50). When I was talking about the Sabbath I falsely stated that the Pharisees were on the mercy seat. The Pharisees were sitting on the seat of Moses.
Sources for most of my arguments are the following:
orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenism/ant... - Anti-Patristic: The Stance of the Zealot Old Calendarists
orthochristian.com/118822.html - A Critique of Old Calendarist Ecclesiology
St. Cyril's letter to Nestorius: www.voskrese.info/spl/cyr3.html
![ภาพนี้ก็ฮาเหมือนกันนะเนี้ย #1 SS8 [ พากย์นรก MEME.EXE ] | easy boy](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/Ytc50m91QK8/mqdefault.jpg)
Well said!
You are very bright but you have missed the mark on this issue.
Jay, can you explain the 1920 Encyclical of the Patriarchate of Constantinople’s 10- step plan to implement their heretical understanding of the Church?
Specifically- can you tell me what item 1 of their 10 step plan is?
Then after telling me what that item is, can you explain to me how the implementation of that item is not an act of subservience to heresy?
@@linoazzurro Jay talks about a lot of stuff and he manages to make interesting those you mentioned. Copts are considered monophisites by the Orthodox Church, deal with that.
@@linoazzurro Nice grammar gymnastics, heretic.
Philaret Of New York,
The Greek Old Calendarists did not even leave over the encyclical. Initially, they left over the Revised Julian Calendar. The calendar issue was the catalyst for the schism.
True Orthodoxy kind of reminds me of sedevacantism in Catholicism
It's the opposite. The Genuine Orthodox claim is that True Orthodoxy needs a head. And if your head is saying things like "We all serve one God: Allah/Jesus/Yahweh/Buddha" (words of Bartholomew) you are following a MASON.
The way here is broad and convenient...
@@Skd92gWhere did he say this?
My thoughts exactly. The difference in my opinion is that it is almost exactly like sedevacantism. Just this plague of: you'll never know if you're in the one true church and everyone else is destined for Hell.
I've also had the same thought. Sedevacantism is a hell hole; Ive been there.
Old Ritualist Old Catholics
Thank you. I'm an inquirer trying to become catechumen and really struggled with this issue. This video was the most helpful treatment of it that I've found
Using the "Donatist" approach is pretty stupid because we tend to be the Donatists more than them. We accept their Saints, like Elder Hieronymos (simply because it's too obvious that they are Saints), but we deny their hierarchy. So if you are a "holy Old-Calendarist" you're okay. We need to be less aggressive towards them. Like Metropolitan Augustinos Kantiotis (and many other prominent theologians), I say they are Orthodox Christians and part of the Church.
brother, can you give any source about Bishop Agustinos Kantiotis relationship and interactions with OC?
Does anybody else think that the Georgian Orthodox is super based?
Yes! I think their geographical isolation from the West has kept them that way.
@@BecomeAnOrthodoxChristian , so then if you were a priest of the Georgian Orthodox, would you have commemorated Ilia as the "co-president of the World Council of Churches"?
@@inbetweennames4438 To my knowledge, that was a few years ago. He has since become anti-eccumenical, hasn't he?
I agree, they are extremely based.
they even protest against LGTV parades when they happen, and have stopped multiple of them from occuring, more countries should be like georgia.
@@inbetweennames4438 Georgia left the council in the 90's already.
I really needed this video. As a seeker of orthodoxy, these groups had good arguments, but they just seemed off.
@@GreekOrthodoxTV Instead of spreading your poison watch the video
therealMedWhite You’re making an assumption that we did not watch the video. We will not do the same with you but we will presume that you indeed have already watched the video that we posted and read the essay that we posted. So, please point out where in the video, and where in the essay there is poison present.
I'm trying to figure out which orthodox church in my area (United States) is in communion with the wider orthodox church. My choices are a "Greek Orthodox Church" or an "OCA" church. Which one is in communion, can someone tell me?
Both are Canonical Church
Both are canonical. Personally, I would recommend OCA over GOARCH. But you should visit both and make your own choice based on your experience.
Check also to see if there aren't an Antiochian or ROCOR (Moscow Patriarchate) parishes near you. All are canonical, and you should feel free to visit all of them to see at which one you feel more at home.
@@alexcristianginting1691 thank you
@@HickoryDickory86 I will, thank you so much!
Do the greek orthodox call themselves "GOARCH" or "GOC"? Because GOC might be schismatic
Very well explained and presented! Short adding: The Orthodox Church of Finland uses the Gregorian Paschalion.
That's interesting. The history of Orthodoxy in Finland is fascinating.
@@thereccereport1172 yep
And it is liturgical chaos!
@@thereccereport1172 Any sources you can recommend on that?
@@Jy3pr6 Unfortunately, there are very few in English. Most of the sources are in Finnish, Russian, and Estonian. Here is a link to a wiki article. en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orthodox_Church_of_Finland#:~:text=With%20its%20roots%20in%20the,the%20native%20population%20of%20Finland.
Peter the Great Wretch oppressed the Russian Church, replacing the Patriarchate with a "Holy Governing Synod". Nevertheless, the Bishops chose to accept this form of government until the Patriarchate was restored in 1917 with St. Tikhon. I wouldn't say Peter the Great or any Tsar was considered head of the Church. Christ is Head of the Church.
Can you explain “anathema” and “schism”? Thanks. A very good lesson.
Someone who is “anathema” is basically cast out and not considered part of the church as long as they hold to their heresy or whatever. A schism is a break or separation. The old calendarists are in schism from the Church. They willing have separated themselves from the Church, even though they probably don’t have any differences with the Church in doctrine or practice (though they might disagree).
Jeff Dutcher I’m no English expert, but I thought (sic) was only used in cases where some error is transcribed exactly was written. It’s doesn’t seem to apply to what you’re trying to convey, or am I misunderstanding?
Jeff Dutcher I agree with you about the calendar, I think it was changed for bad reasons. But it wasn’t forced on the Church. Each local Church made the decision to use it, though probably in many cases in an uncanonical way. Breaking off on your own and claiming to be the “true” church reeks of pride, and there doesn’t seem to be a coherent ecclesiology among these disparate groups. I’m not well versed in the history of all this or the relevant canons. It mostly seems like a bunch of people who are extremely concerned with being “right” rather than being holy, or humble, or loving.
Apostolic Canon 45- Let any Bishop, or Presbyter, or deacon that merely joins in prayer with heretics be suspended, but if he had permitted them to perform any service as Clergymen, let him be deposed." How can you sit here a tell me that Bartholomew who prays with Pope Francis the heresiarch of the world is also not a heretic and if he is a heretic why do any Orthodox have a duty to commemorate him?
David, thank you so much for this video, I was struggling with these issues and you've answered my prayers. God bless ☦
9:30 onwards - can you show me when Mt. Athos claimed this ? Did they speak in one voice ?
Esphigmenou of Mt. Athos doesn't recognize the so-called EP
@@inbetweennames4438 Watch your words. The EP has jurisdiction over Mt Athos AND that monastery (the old one) doesn’t not speak for the whole Mt Athos community.
You didn’t even address the original question.
As the world bows the knee to covid-19 it has become clear that not all those who call themselves Israel are of Israel; not everyone who claims Orthodoxy is Orthodox.
Athanasius was exiled five times because he held true to the faith whilst the multitudes followed Arianism.
Today we are faced with the heresy of ecumenism which has brought about nothing good.
?Why do we fiddle with the cut off branches and forget about the Vine?
Could you give me your instagram or Twitter? I'd like to discuss at some point about the views of "True Orthodoxy".
The Vine, the Church must be our main objective. Hope the little branches return.
Athanasius wasn't cut off from the church. Unlike the TO cult.
@@Agnosticuzumaki cult? Lol
Just a quick objection to an otherwise good video, Old Believers are for the most part back in communion now and are not anathematised
Everything Orthodox you are really ignorant. We aren’t old believers, we a are true orthodox Christians. Old believers are a sect of Russians. Just the fact that you don’t know what we are, shows that you shouldn’t be talking about us.
@@user-xc1fq2qy8y wut. Where did i ever conflate old believers with your schismatic group?
Everything Orthodox hahaha I was a bit befuddled by his comment, as well. I don’t think he is thinking clearly
Everything Orthodox Not true. The anathemas were lifted, yes, but the vast majority of them still aren’t in communion with us. In fact, as far as I know, there’s only one old believer parish in the entire world that has rejoined the canonical Church. Please don’t spread ecumenist misinformation.
FreshWholeMilk
There are two Old Rite parishes in Pa. , both are in communion with the Moscow Patriarchate. And look up “Edinoverie”; these are the Old Believers in communion with the Moscow Patriarchate.
I need help to decide which Orthodox Church to go to in TN. There is none called Eastern Orthodox. I’ll be attending the holy trinity Greek Orthodox Church today because I heard the Coptic ones weren’t the true ones. There’s a few others but I’m not sure which one is the best option.
Go to the Greek Church. Whenever you see a church with Coptic or Armenian or Eritrean it means they are not Orthodox
Is the OCA part of these movements or is it in communion with the rest of the orthodox church? What about the Greek Orthodox church?
“Genuine Orthodox” despise GOARCH And OCA more than anyone lol so no they’re not part of their little circle
Partial judgments inevitably oppose to Christian discernment.
Been waiting 3 years for Dyer or Erhan to debate Dcn. Joseph Suaiden.
It won’t ever happen. You’ll get excuse after excuse.
They shouldn't platform him since it benefits no one but him. Let him rot in his irrelevant and hyper niche donatist group.
Why would they? Maybe David would, but why should Jay, just not their focus.
@@ryrocks9487 Because as Orthodox Christians they should care about the truth. If their position is wrong then they are leading many converts who are exposed to them astray. To my mind the WO ecclesiological position has not been tried in the fire against the TO position. The best example of this is that I simply have not been able to find a refutation of the article "why the true orthodox are truly orthodox" on the hotca website which is a response to the article that David used as his main source in this video.
@@attempteddialectic2382 I don’t know if there’s been a thorough refutation of that particular article or not.
However I do know that it’s not enough of an issue that we typically find it necessary to deal with it. That’s why this is one of the few videos that bothers…
Why give Old Calendarists the publicity?
How may different factions are there besides ‘True Orthodoxy’?
Tons of them.
@@joseonwalking8666 don't even get started. They will condemn eachother over anything. We had one of their parishes run a scam-"weeping" icon scandal that alone caused divisions in a single city. That's not to bad-mouth them. I'm sure the lay people are lovely. But the unity is a mess
@@GeorgeLiavas There is no unity when there is no agreement on the need for unity. They've purity spiraled themselves out of the church. Not because they didn't have valid reasons or concerns but historically, you don't resolve issues in the church outside the church
Can we have reference on "monk in Mt. Athos believing pope is the supreme pontiff for all christians?" as what u said
I assume that this is directed to an exclusive audience. You tossed around a whole bunch of words that mean nothing to me.
Thanks man I was confused. My reaction was “oh great Orthodox Sedevacantists” lol
I was a traditional Roman catholic but want to become Orthodox but this is confusing me. I imagine because of the teachings of roman Catholism, it's going to.takr.alot of studying and prayer for me to understand especially since I have been in contact with the Genuine Orthodox Church of America
I’d suggest trying to get in contact with a local canonical priest.
They are schismatics go to a canonical parish.
Those Old Calendarists here who seek to refute this video, tell Elder Joseph the Hesychast that the outpouring of grace on one of his disciples during a liturgy where they commemorated the Patriarch of Constantinople, that this experience was false and they were deluded to be thus encouraged to enter communion with the New Calendarists. Also, why do you rebuke us for one rude comment, when the comments section of Panagiotis' article which is linked in the description here, is full of your people hurling abuse and murder against us? First take out the log in your eye, then you will see clearly to be able to judge. Also, the literature of the schismatic Old Calendarists tends to be tedious and long, and alike to the writing of Roman Catholics in their long-winded attempts to justify their wrong teachings, which half-way through reading, causes one to fall asleep.
Ι Χ Θ Υ Σ I say to elder Joseph-
Geronda the first sign of Plani and delusion is following dreams.
Why are you allowing yourself to make theological decisions guided by dreams? Moreover, why do you desire to cast out elder Arsenios when he asked you this question? Why did you not display humility and consult with others regarding the truth of your dream?
Have you forgotten Geronda that, until now YOU have been a zealot and an Old Calendarist? Have you never tasted of the grace of God until now? Have you never been guided in Hesychia until now? Have you never known other hesychasts until now? But all those who taught you were themselves zealots! Elder Daniel of Katanoukia who is canonized by Constantinople said the Baptism of New Calendarists is just a bath. Arsenios the Barrel maker was a hesychast- yet he was a zealot. Geronda Moses of Athikia gifted with clairvoyance was a zealot!
Geronda, what are you doing and who are you to subject the brotherhood to your dreams? Come to your senses and embrace the wisdom of the fathers who despised dreams and visions and said to pay no attention to them. Geronda, if this vision can turn your heart to bitterness against your brethren to where you are willing to simply cast off Gero-Arsenios who has been your co-struggler for so many years, how can you possibly imagine it is from God?
Ι Χ Θ Υ Σ why don’t you go tell Elder Saint Ieronymos of Aegina that he was wrong for breaking communion with New Calendarists. What about St. John the New Almsgiver who performed miracles and was a Old Calendarist?
Elder Joseph was an “Old Calendarist” for the majority of his monastic life, all but the last 7 years actually. So what about all those divine visions and revelations he received during his time as an “Old Calendarist”? You would have to say that they were delusions if you are going to say the GOC is schismatic
@@maxdl1034 Instead of formulating false dialectics, how about you ask those questions to St Joseph the Hesychast yourself? Are you going to say he joined schism and lost salvation?
@@dikaioskyrios I do not make that claim. And how is that "false dialectics" since everyone in the New Calendar Greek church says that "Old Calendarists" are without doubt in schism and in delusion? And I don't understand how anyone could make that claim since what is the GOC today received their ordinations from ROCOR
What about ecumenical patriarch athenagoras lifting the anathema against the papist in the 1960s without the aproval of the rocor bishops? That is a pretty big point to miss. Doesn't that mean all those churches are in communion with the papacy?
Also I have to say there was extremely ridiculous argument being made about Simony not being a reason to not commemorate a bishop. Canon law is one of your weaknesses David. Apostolic Canon#29, If any bishop, presbyter, or deacon, shall obtain possession of that dignity by money, let both him and the person who ordained him be deposed, and also altogether cut off from all communion, as Simon Magus was by Peter.
I see David has deleted the comments that refute his "refutation" of True Orthodoxy. As long as the censor is on long enough to hear the following know this: The Orthodox Church and True Orthodoxy cannot be overcome as it is said in the Gospels not even the gates of Hell can overcome the Holy Orthodox Church. As long as there is even one confessing Orthodox Christian in a church a liturgy can be held, the flame of True Orthodoxy can never be extinguished. While the New Calender Schismatics and Ecumenists pray with the heretics of the world and are members of the World Council of Churches which propagate branch theory that all churches of the world are equally valid, denying implicitly what we say during the Nicene Creed( that the Orthodox Church is the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church) depriving themselves of grace and becoming themselves heretics having accepted the intermediate step of the Papal Calender before a Union with the heresiarch of the world the Pope can take place . This vicious slander against True Orthodoxy is devoid of import. As Christ himself said in the Gospel of Luke, Fear not little flock; for it is your Father's good pleasure to give you the Kingdom” (Luke 12:32). It is immaterial that the faithful are few in number but adamantine in soul and spirit. What matters is not earthly glory but the purity of our faith.and this we will hold until death. Would love to have a discussion with you David because you are clearly an educated man with sincere faith but I would argue with this video you are like Paul before his trip on the road to Damascus, and God would rightly ask you why in this video you persecute the righteous (the True Orthodox).
Wow. Just like he deletes this one.
@@ryrocks9487 exactly he hasn't deleted this supposed refutation
Fr. Seraphim Rose wrote: ""Then, the Soviets having failed to gain their end, they sought a Judas to betray the Church from within by a kiss: a hierarch who would be “Orthodox,” who would “violate neither dogmas nor canons,” who would draw to himself the whole Church people and stand at their head - solely in order “to blow the Church up from within,” as Metropolitan (Saint) Cyril of Kazan has expressed it, by making the Church the servant of atheists who were conducting warfare against God.
After many attempts, the Soviets finally found such a Judas in Metropolitan Sergius, whose “Declaration” in 1927 bound the Church to the atheist State and destroyed its power to confess the Truth. Then indeed did the winnowing of the chaff and the wheat begin in the Russian Church.
Those who accepted the “Declaration” fell into a subtle trap from which it is scarcely possible to escape, sinning against the very dogma of the Church by identifying the Church with the church organization, binding the Church of Him Who is Truth to the Soviet lie. Thus they perpetrated a schism in the Russian Church, for the True Church of Christ cannot be so bound. The heroes of this second period of martyrdom are those who rightly distinguished between True Orthodoxy and its “outwardly correct” counterfeit, the Sergianist church organization, which is so brazen as to deny the very existence of the New Martyrs of Russia; they (those who battled against Sergianism) are greater than the confessors and martyrs of the first period of the Communist Yoke, for the temptation was greater.
This battle is still being waged today [this was written in 1974] in Russia. On a “secular” level this battle has been described by A. Solzhenitsyn as “not living by lies” - but few are they who are capable of discerning the very subtle lie upon which the Sergianist church organization (the “Moscow Patriarchate”) rests."
Seraphim Rose was much more balanced than the Old Calendarists:
“When our bishops in 1971 condemned the decision of the Moscow Patriarchate to give communion to Roman Catholics, they used strong language, calling it a “heretical” act; but they did not proclaim the Moscow Patriarchate to be deprived of grace, or to be totally fallen away from the Church. The bishops, on various occasions, have specifically refused to make such a proclamation; and in their statement at the 1976 Sobor they specifically addressed the sincere and struggling priests of the Moscow Patriarchate in terms reserved only for priests who possess and dispense the grace of God (as noted in our article on Fr. Dimitry)” [Letter 304; Dec. 28/Jan. 10, 1981]
“Evidently you [Dr. Johnstone] agree with Fr. Michael Azkoul who recently stated (Orthodox Christian Witness, Aug, 10/23) that “heresy has negated these ancient Sees. There is no ‘church,’ hence no Mysteries ” in the Churches of Moscow and Constantinople. I hope you are aware that our Russian Church Outside of Russia has never taught and does not now teach this; this is an opinion which has been introduced into our midst by some converts who think themselves wiser than our bishops. I am sorry that you seem not to see the obvious meaning of our Church’s not having communion with the Soviet Church: that way we stay free of politics and do not bind ourselves to bishops who are not free and who are often forced to betray the truth. But to state that this Church has no grace is a presumption our bishops have never dared to make. This view, in my opinion, is not at all the result of a sound or strict ecclesiology, but is the result of a too-strict logic (a typical disease of our Western mentality) being applied where it does not fit.” [Letter 311; August 13/26, 1981]
“Even today our bishops refuse to “define” in this manner and make everything “black and white”; and I am sure that, perhaps without exception, our bishops not only refuse to declare them [Moscow and Constantinople] without grace, but positively believe (at least by giving the benefit of any doubt) that they do have grace.” [Letter 207; May 22/June 4, 1976]
“Recently some wished to see such a “rebaptism” performed in our Western American diocese, but our Archbishop Anthony wisely refused to allow it, in which we gave him our full support-for indeed, it would have been tantamount to an open declaration of the absence of Grace in the Greek Archdiocese. Our bishops, by the way (whether at the 1974 Sobor or later, I don’t know) explicitly refused to make such a declaration when asked to do so by one of the Greek Old Calendar jurisdictions.” [Letter 216; [April 18/May 1, 1976]
“… our Church has open communion with the Serbian Church, Jerusalem, and probably others, and leaves separate hierarchs free to serve even with Constantinople if they wish.” [Letter 227; June 30/July 13, 1976]
@@Peter-do2rs Both of these quotes are in the 70's before the anathema against ecumenism. Fr. Seraphim was certainly not infallible. This was also before horrors like the fall of Antioch in 1991 into (partial) communion with the Monophysites (Not sure what the big difference between partial and full is, but...). But the grace question is the wrong question to ask anyway. The question is where is the Church? That is easier to answer. How could you possibly assert that the Church is with public heretics? Unthinkable! Think of what side you are defending, man!
@@inbetweennames4438
In Between, check out the view of ROCOR Metropolitan Vitaly Ustinov AFTER the 1983 Anathema:
At the present time, most other Orthodox Churches have been shaken to the core of their being by two successive blows: the new ecclesiastical calendar and ecumenism. Despite their impoverished state, however, we do not declare and may the Lord save us from ever having to declare them as having lost God’s grace. (1986 Nativity Epistle Pravoslavnaia Rus’ 1 [1987]: 1)
Fr. Steven Allen (True Orthodox) comments:
“The one synodal act of ROCOR which came close to stating a clear position was the Anathema of 1983, but its use as a canonical basis for formally breaking communion with the World Orthodox hierarchies was publicly rejected by the 1986 Nativity Encyclical of Met. Vitaly, which clearly states that the Anathema applies to no one, a position which the other members of his synod did not dispute. From that point on, the Anathema was a dead letter; there were cathedrals where the ruling bishops disdained even to proclaim it pro forma on the Sunday of Orthodoxy. The 1994 decision regarding Cyprianism finally destroyed any remaining possibility that the ROCOR would formally assert that a local council could anathematize heretics, much less that a heretic is outside the Church even prior to a conciliar judgment.” (The Demise of ROCOR, the Synod of Metropolitan Agathangel, and the Ecclesiology of the Cyprianite “Synod in Resistance”)
nftu.net/fr-seraphim-rose-on-ecumenism-mysteriological-grace-the-moscow-patriarchate-and-breaking-communion/
@@marlonscott8605 The problem here is obvious. First, the question arises as to whether a hierarch can unilaterally rescind an anathema of a dogmatic nature. The great Bp. Gregory Grabbe sure seemed to think the anathema was in force.
The quote you give from Met. Vitaly is with regard to whether grace had been lost in an ENTIRE SYNOD. This is a separate question to whether one can confidently and without doubt assert the reverse (i.e. grace has NOT been lost). The grace question is the wrong question. Have you read Prof. Andreev's book on Grace in the Soviet Church published by Jordanville. It is not strange to see Met. Vitaly speak thus if he believed that the loss of grace could be a process known to God alone in some cases. But he doesn't say "I can't declare x", but rather "may the Lord save us from ever having to declare them as having lost God's grace." And remember that this is before the entrance into (partial) communion with Monophysites in 1991.
Once you said that ROCOR returned to the Orthodox Church, I shut it off. Disqualified.
Be carefull in criticising the orthodos church, because its the church of Jesus Christ and Jesus Christ will punish those who cristicise the true church. True othodos church is attaked from the inside by the masonery because masons knows the truth is at the real orthodoxs
You could not be more wrong. You know neither the Scriptures nor Church history itself. The Apostle Paul wrote to the Corinthians,
"I wrote to you in my letter to have no fellowship with those who are immoral; yet I did not mean with the immoral people of this world, or with those who are greedy, dishonest, or idolaters; or else you would have to leave the world! But as it is, I wrote to you not to associate with anyone who is called a brother who is a sexual sinner, or greedy, or an idolater, or a slanderer, or a drunkard, or someone dishonest. In fact, do not even eat with such a person! Indeed, what do I have to do with judging those also who are outside? Do you not judge those who are within? But those who are outside, God judges. 'Therefore, put away the wicked man from among yourselves!'" (1 Corinthians 5:9-13)
We are told explicitly to judge not those outside of the Church but those inside of it. It is the Church's apostolic prerogative and responsibility to judge itself and to hold its individual members responsible when they remain in unrepentant sin. In fact, this is a great deal of Church history, what with the condemnations of heresies, judging how heretics should be received back into the fold, removing hierachs from the diptychs, the depositions of bishops, priests, deacons, and monastics, etc.
You are simply in abject error saying it is a sin to be critical of the Church. Friend, it is the Church's divine mandate to be self-critical. Please go learn a thing or two.
The 'genuine' Orthodox, and the Rocor branch that refuses to recognize the re-unification of the MP are the ones in schism, and therefore not the Church.
The heterodox movement better get it together, time is running out.
A greek and orthodox theologian once said to me: The new calendarian orthodox christians prefer to pray together with protestant and roman-catholics than with their orthodox brothers. ICXC NIKA
Yikes!
Not true
I've never seen this happen... Maybe some Bishops have, themselves, but I've never seen a parish do this.
Thanks for this! I liked your point about how Auto-excommunication = (basically) Donatism
David Erhan- "Its not even wrong"...
But...
David so what makes ROCOR different than the GOC?
Modern ROCOR is in communion and not fake orthodox. But some ROCOR break-offs called "Autonomous Russia Orthodox Church" are fake orthodox, and do not commune with anyone else.
The ROCOR is still in communion with the Orthodox Church at large, and recognizes the sacraments of other jurisdictions.
Even at the most cut off time, the ROCOR still was in communion with Serbia and some say Jerusalem, as well as recognizing the validity of the larger Churches sacraments.
How does this not make a strong case for the Latin/Catholic Church, though?
Lord's Church was always under attack in the past 2000 years. This, apparent "mess" is a normal state of the Lord's Church constantly battling against the devils attacking it. If it is not under attack, like Latin church is not, then you know they belong to the master of this world. He is not attacking his proper.
You do realize Roman Catholics also have multiple sectarian groups right?? Sedes, CMRI, SSPX, FSSP, Palmarians, and more...
What to do with Moscow - Constantinople schism??
From an outsider view, it looks like everyone is just ignoring it.
Wait, so being loyal and subject to the soviets is a good thing?
Don't let them wiggle out of that question!
@@inbetweennames4438 they will, they are lying to themselves to justify this position
Exactly, Erhan,Dyer and their followers would have signed Sergius' declaration in the 1920's
And nobody ever said that!
That's putting words in their mouth.
God bless the Apostolic Fathers and Fathers of the Church for their works and teachings.
So, the critical things are:
1. Which Orthodox jurisdiction is the true church? Which patiarchate? Which parrish?
2. If the RC's sacraments/communion is valid, then how about baptism and eucharist of the thousands of Protestant denominations, are they valid and have grace also?
3. Is the Neo-Ecumenism truth or not?
4. How about the 1983 ROCOR anathema letter?
5. How about the witness of the miraculous appearance of the Holy Cross in the heavens over Mount Hymettus near Athens on the eve of the Exaltation of the Cross in 1925?
6. If the mainstream Orthodox admit the "neo"-ecumenism, they should admit that the communion of the schismatics or the "fake" (the Genuine, Old-Calendarist, True Orthodox, Old Believers, etc.) may also be valid and have grace, is that right? Or do they not want to admit just because of political or other problems?
Just some questions from an Orthodox observer/inquirer 🙂
@David
Your question #6 does indeed seem to expose a hypocrisy in those who attack the True Orthodox but defend those who WO and think Pope Francis has grace (doesn't the EP have him written in the diptychs?).
2. The protestants are missing the sacraments, they only have two, but the orthodox church has all of them
“Fake” Orthodox is probably a judgment you are not authorized to make. Stick to the facts at hand as you understand them. Also, it may be well for Orthodox lay podcasters to refer to their “subscribers” rather than “followers.” If there’s one thing we can be sure of from canonical history, it’s that words mean things. Btw, I’m not old calendarist.
They are schismatics that say the rest of the church is anathema. They are fake Orthodox by their own actions. Of course we should fear unjust judgement but also fear not making the right judgements.
But the "true" orthodox would also say the other side of this is "fake."
@@OrthoLou ok, and then nothing gets done. But that approach just feeds the passion of pride even when true.
I like how most New Calendarists I have met, say we must follow our New Calendar Bishops, and at the same time continually to declare many of their own bishops and Patriarchs heretical with their ecumenism. You cannot have it both ways, either obey your bishops and shut up, or leave. Any other way is just slander towards your own Bishops. But I am sure someone will make an excuse again to follow their bishops.
How we mark the passage of time has nothing to do with Orthodoxy.
We don't view bishops as infallible, your argument is invalid.
@@Agnosticuzumaki You just said "Whether we obey the Holy Canons of the Church has nothing to do with Orthodoxy"
@@AhemLd The new calendar is not against the canons.
In 1583, 1587 and 1593, the Eastern Patriarchs had anathematized the new calendar; in 1904 all of the Local Churches had condemned it; and in February, 1918 the Local Council of the Russian Church in Moscow had again condemned it.
The voice of sanity
I am open to correction if I am wrong as I am still learning about this subject, but I was under the impression that these anathemas were specifically concerning the New Calendar’s alteration of the calculation of Pascha, not the calendar as a whole, and that the alteration of the Paschalion was still rejected by the bishops who implemented the New Calendar in the early 20th century. If I am correct in this, then the New Calendar is inconsistent (i.e. using Gregorian methods for calculating most of the year but keeping the Julian calculation of Pascha) and a dangerous, ecumenical, unnecessary change to Holy Tradition, but it is not something under anathema in and of itself.
@@zachtrix8428 If you familiarize yourself with the history of Poland and Ukraine will you will learn that Polish Jesuits attempted to force a Unia between Catholics and Orthodox in the territory of Ukraine, Moldova (Polish vassal) Belarus and the Polish controlled Smolensk Oblast in modern day Russia. One of the principal goals of the Unia of Brest in 1595 for the Polish authorities was to force the Orthodox to use the Gregorian calender. If you read the life of St.Nikiforos Kantakouzenos the Archdeacon who travelled to Moldova and Ukraine during this time you will learn that he fought tirelessly against both the false Unia of Brest and the implementation of the Gregorian calender. For his efforts the Polish authorities had him killed and he is a martyr of the Orthodox Church. Furthermore the Gregorian calender doesnt only mess up the celebration of Pascha but all movable feasts and fasts. For example in certain years according to the Gregorian calender the Apostles Fast following Pentecost is not observed at all and it is one of the major 4 fasting periods of the Orthodox Church(Along with Pascha, Dormition of Theotokos and Nativity)!!!
Source?
"Consider the third temptation that Satan presented to Christ in the desert. Satan took Christ atop a high mountain and showed Him all the kingdoms of the earth in all their glory. And Satan said to Christ, "all this I will give to you if you bow down before me". What did Satan want from Christ? Only one thing: that Christ recognize Satan's authority and submit to it. What did Satan promise Christ in return? Permission to operate freely in the world, subject only to Satan's approval, of course. What would have occurred if Christ had agreed to Satan's proposal? There would have been many glorious churches built but they would all have been subject to Satan and would therefore be incapable of providing salvation. That church would have been founded and built not on the Spirit of Truth but on falsehood and belong to the father of lies, Satan.
When the Bolshevik government realized it cannot annihilate the Church they decided to make it theirs, to own it. In corporate business it's a well known principle that if you can't beat your competition, you buy it, so that it works for you. The God-fighting Satanic Bolsheviks demanded then that the Russian Church recognize their authority and totally submit to them, just as Satan had done with Christ in the desert. In exchange they also promised to grant the Church permission to operate, entirely subject to their approval and direction. What would have occurred if the Church had agreed to the satanic government's proposal? Exactly what would have occurred with Christ in the desert: some churches would be permitted to operate on a limited basis but they would be headed by Satan, not by Christ, and would therefore be incapable of providing salvation.
This point is so crucial that it cannot be over emphasized: If a church receives its authority from Satan or through Satan's servants, then that church is Satan's church and not Christ's. It may look like Christ's Church, even try to act like Christ's Church in order to deceive, but the real, living person of Jesus Christ has nothing to do with it. Such a church is totally the church of Antichrist and subject only to Satan.
Naturally the Russian Church could not possibly accept any such offer from the godless authority. Not only did the Russian Church flatly reject this proposal from the Bolsheviks but, in the person of Patriarch Tikhon, who had that authority, it anathematized the Bolshevik government and all those who collaborate with it in their attempt to destroy the Church of Christ. Anathematized means they were declared to be outside the Church and no longer members of it.
But Tuchkov found one bishop in the Russian Church who was quite ready, on his own, to accept just such a proposal. That was, of course, Met. Sergius Stragorodsky. What Met. Sergius agreed to and signed was the document that he produced during those days in collaboration with Tuchkov in 1927, and this is what became known as the "Declaration of Met. Sergius".
In that declaration Met. Sergius claims that he not only recognizes the godless authority as legitimate and God given and totally submits to it, he joins it in essence and in spirit to the point of completely identifying with it. He then proceeds in the spirit of Satan, the father of lies, to declare that there is no, and never had been, any persecution of the Church by the Bolsheviks, and that the Bolshevik government is only exterminating the enemies of the state. To further demonstrate his oneness with the godless authority he then proceeded to fully collaborate with them in identifying and condemning to death all the bishops, clergy and faithful that had not submitted to him and to the godless government.
Now, if Met. Sergius had made such a declaration on his own behalf, it would have been bad enough, but it would have been useless to the God-fighting Bolsheviks, who were intent on destroying the whole Church. As such, it would have been of no further consequence.
But although he had no right and no authority to do so, Met. Sergius tried to make that declaration on behalf of the entire Russian Church. And this was the crux of it. The Bolsheviks thought that if they could have that declaration signed by the highest-ranking bishop in the Church, they could insist that it was binding for the entire Church. But they were mistaken on both counts. First, Met. Sergius was not the highest-ranking bishop in the Church. Met. Kyril, who had just been released, and Met. Peter, who was in jail at the time, were superior to him. And second, even the highest ranking bishop in the Church does not have the authority, on his own, to commit the Church to any new course, especially one that is completely unacceptable to the Church as a whole.
And so, Met. Peter of Krutitsk, who was the locum tenens of Patriarch Tikhon, and definitely the superior authority of Met. Sergius, distinctly forbade the latter to sign any such declaration on behalf of the Church. This fully legitimate order was sent to Met. Sergius in a letter, which he did not respond to. Then Met. Peter sent a second letter to Met. Sergius, which was delivered to him by hand courier. Met. Sergius also ignored that letter and did not respond to it. This was because he saw an opportunity to seize power in the Church and, with the help of the ruthless Bolshevik government, to extend and consolidate that power over the entire Russian Church.
When the Bolsheviks realized that Met. Peter was a superior of their Met. Sergius, they kept him in jail and eventually shot Met. Peter. Then they proceeded to vigorously support Met. Sergius by ruthlessly liquidating any and all who refused to sign the Declaration of Met. Sergius.
Some of the bishops did join Met. Sergius and signed his Declaration of oneness with the God-fighting government. They formed their own synod, that by no coincidence consisted of many of the old “living church” group, and declared themselves to be the supreme authority of the Russian Church.
But here's the very crux of the whole thing. The Russian Church, as headed by its legitimate leader, Met. Peter of Krutitsk, Met Kyril of Khazan, Met Joseph of Petrograd and scores of other high ranking bishops rejected the Declaration of Met. Sergius and emphatically did not join itself to the God-fighting Bolshevik government. The Russian Church, represented by its leader Met. Peter, strictly forbade Met. Sergius to sign the declaration that joined him and his followers to the godless authority. When Met. Sergius ignored this directive from his legitimate Church authority and did join himself and his followers to the godless authority, the Church broke communion with him. Met. Sergius and his followers then fell under the anathema of Patriarch Tikhon that applied to all those who collaborate with the God-fighting Bolsheviks. They became an entity outside the Church and no longer part of the Church. In other words, they were then in schism from the Church.
The teaching that the infamous Declaration of Met. Sergius was a tragedy because it created a schism in the Russian Church is right. But who was the Church and who was in schism from The Church? Clearly, the group that was led by Met. Sergius were the ones that left the Church to unite themselves with the godless Bolshevik government, in direct disobedience to their superior, Met. Peter and many other bishops and in complete contradiction to all Church principles." - Fr. Nikita Grigoriev, "The Beacon of Light"
Kevin Walker Nailed it. Awesome:
And now:
th-cam.com/video/wmcGzFNVpDk/w-d-xo.html
@@sufferingorthodoxy352 It's Patriarch Kirill blessing a statue of "Patriarch" Sergius afaik.
@@sufferingorthodoxy352 Yes. GOC in America under his eminence, Met. Demetrius of America.
@@kevinwalker4124 God bless Met. Demetrius! There's a man of God worth following. ☦️
This mentality stick with the Church and unity is above all is the spirit of ecumenism in the first place. If unity is above all, then the schism was a mistake and we should have been in communion with the pope all along. What if the pope changed the creed of faith? Just keep united and he'll be corrected in time. Orthodoxy means true faith not united church. When our bishops preach heresy we should condemn it and depart, because we should be faithful to Jesus Christ first and the church second. Just extend your logic to the time when the antichrist comes. Then our church will say bow down to the real Christ because the other one was fake. What will we say then? Let's all unite and keep away from division? The devil has a way to deceive people into thinking they're pious when they're the most blasphemous.
Agreed. You cannot change a thing from the outside.
Lol ROCOR didn’t enter schism, and the initial OC bishops in Greece were simply following the 15th canon of the 1st/2nd council of Constantinople under St. Photios that allowed for cessation of commemoration. It was only later that the groups became more schismatic.
Did I say they entered schism? I think I just said some Russian Churches abroad did, not ROCCOR. After all they got their succession from ROCCOR bishops, some of whom OCs consider graceless (which they hate to admit).
If I did that must've been a mistake on my part but I don't remember explicitly stating that ROCCOR entered schism
@@therealMedWhite We'll have you on our show friend
@@therealMedWhite Our continuing ROCOR continues to hold the GOC as the true Church of Greece as usual, while not making an official judgement about the grace question in WO'y
This video was GREAT!
Thank you.
As early fathers agreed: “the church is where the bishop is.” Then if the bishop is in error and unrepentant, we are obliged to depart from him. This certainly allows us to submit to another bishop who upholds the truth. World Orthodoxy overall has fallen into error and is unrepentant except for bishops likely scattered about from and among the established national churches. The patriarchs and key bishops are given over to Masonry, Sergianism, the new calendar over the old, and the so-called ecumenical movement of the WCC and Vatican Ii. Marxism and secularism are also impacting on it via the World Counsel of Churches and Vatican Ii. Mainline world Orthodox is showing no signs of separating from and repenting of these heretical and apostate embodiments.
You do not understand the Orthodox mind - phronema. Orthodoxy waited for centuries before tossing away Roman church waiting for their repentance. Time in Church flow slowly.
Your ecclesiology is completely messed up. From your position St. Maximus the Confessor is a heretic (broke communion with “whole church”, got his arm and tongue cut out for that). When in reality it was all the rest bishops who stepped outside the church by excommunicating St. Maximus, because church is there where true faith is, not where the “officials” are.
Антон Бирюков ......Amen bro
St. Maximos did not leave the Church to join a bishop who set up his own altar. You are grasping.
Jonathan Companik ...... you are right, he waited for the bishops to repent and come back to the Church, just like we are now. You are the one reaching my friend. God Bless
The Classic 619,
No, not just like you are now. You set up your own altars. Don’t get my patron saint mixed up in your perversions.
Jonathan Companik ...... your patron Saint does not agree with your ignorant, baseless rant. And you are the pervert of the perversion of the Faith with your boldface satan backed lies.
Those who attack the Church of Christ by teaching that Christ’s Church is divided into so-called “branches” which differ in doctrine and way of life, or that the Church does not exist visibly, but will be formed in the future when all “branches” or sects or denominations, and even religions will be united into one body; and who do not distinguish the priesthood and mysteries of the Church from those of the heretics, but say that the baptism and eucharist of heretics is effectual for salvation; therefore, to those who knowingly have communion with these aforementioned heretics or who advocate, disseminate, or defend their new heresy of Ecumenism under the pretext of brotherly love or the supposed unification of separated Christians, Anathema!
Metropolitan Philaret of New York.
Sounds like Cyprian of fili falls under that anathema
then, why did you break communion with Rome ?
Roman Catholicism is a new age world religion started in 1054, sad but true
Thanks ☦️
Congratulations for this great work against fake orthodox, but ther is a problem. I knew that the orthodox position is that Saint Constantine the Great was baptised by Saint Pope Silvester, not Eusebius of Nicomidia, as we see in the Holy Tradition.
I am True Orthodox and I can confidently say this video is fallacious and you are slandering the Church of Christ.
I pray too many are not swayed by these lies.
Amen
Nah it is not.
@@joseonwalking8666 keep kvetching
@@jonathanbritt6418 Incoherent babbling from you.
It's just a question of link... Spiritual Link.... Saint Andrew gave his ministery to his successor to continue the mission of the Lord Jesus Christ on earth. All the members of the clergy who are bond to Saint Andrew are in the real Orthodox Church... The Apostolic succession....
Same way/thing for Saint Marcus...
"With Moscow there is an official break, and that for reasons which do not involve a question of heresy (it is rather the “dead rat” in Blessed Xenia’s barrel)" -Fr. Seraphim Rose, from a letter written before his death
That's not valid anymore, now they are in communion
@@magisterUK I know they are in communion. What remains is the true church.
After my death our beloved Church abroad will break three ways ... first the Greeks will leave us as they were never a part of us, then those who live for this world and its glory will go to Moscow ... what will remain will be those souls faithful to Christ and His Church. -St. Philaret of NY
@@jonathanbritt6418 this quote seems fake. The Old Calendarist ROCOR are in communion with the Greek Old Calendarist. So no, the “Greeks” didn’t “leave”.
@@wp7896 I don't feel like wasting my time with you people, since it's like talking to brick wall, but if you must know, St. Philaret was referring to HOCNA (modern day Holy Transfiguration Monastery)
I like the videos you make but i'm sorry you are just plain wrong in your description and depiction of ROCA.
Can you substantiate that at all?
@@Agnosticuzumaki Saint John of Shanghai... read his life, in particular the early years. A truly awesome saint of modern times, ROCA to his core. And countless others. It is wrong to judge the ROCA, there's just too much judging going on, we could all do without it. Let's focus instead on the example set by these Orthodox saints, seeking God's loving mercy and committing ourselves wholeheartedly to our own repentance and spiritual struggle.
@@jandl7343 how was he ROCA to the core? ROCA didn't even exist as an organization when he was alive.
@@Agnosticuzumaki I'm sure you can do your own research into what was happening in Russia in the early 20th century. A good place to start with rocor/roca might be the ever memorable Metropolitan Antony Khrapovitsky :-)
@@jandl7343 ROCOR was established as the ROC was corrupted, it was fixed, they reunited. Schismatics in their pride and perhaps fear did not want to reunite with the MP. Dont appeal to people who weren't even alive when ROCA was established.
I usually respect your work, but this was a low level information video concerning the TOC. For instance name one ROCOR priest before its union in 2007 with MP that called the Genuine Orthodox of Greece schismatic. Why do you go against Saint John Maximovich, Archbishop Averky, and Saint Philaret of New York who signed official papers recognizing Metropolitan Petros of the GOC as a Bishop?? Why did Fr. Seraphim Rose commune our people? Why did Jordanville commune GOC, and why did Metropolitan Hilarian (ROCOR) attend the funeral of our Bishop Petros if we are such schismatics? The only thing that changed was ROCOR joined the Sergianist Moscow Patriarchate in 2007, and like soviets did to the catacomb saints, now declare us Schismatic. I will follow the likes of St. John Maximovitch, Saint Philaret of New York, Archbishop Averky, Fr. Seraphim Rose and not the Sergianist Patriarch who dedicated a statue to Metropolitan Sergius in 2017.
There is a sitting ROCOR MP bishop today who was ordained by 2 TO bishops along with Met Vitaly. The whole “they’re schismatic” isn’t even an argument because they’re using a definition of schismatic that the saints never used. So all they’re doing is suppressing the Truth. People will eventually find out if they just simply look into ROCOR MP history.
@@T_Wozna Yes the schismatic argument is simply a scare tactic of World Orthodoxy, i have had several friends almost join GOC-K but backed off because of the schismatic label. They use schismatic meaning, "You do not participate in Ecumenism, like the rest of us do, so you must be schismatic." If we are schismatics then so was Saint John Maximovitch, Archbishop Averky and others who accepted us inluding Fr. Seraphim Rose. Most World Orthodox do not even care that EP and MP have labeled each other schismatics, but when it comes to the GOC who truly do not participate in anti-christ system as the WCC and ecumenism( as the EP and MP does) then we are labeled schismatics, then it is an issue to them. They will make all kinds of justifications for being under heretical heierarchs, but condemn the GOC for truly following Orthodoxy, even when they discover our hierarchs are legitamently canonical. It is all very frustrating and yet one can see the strong delusion many walk in. By the way for GOC-K Metropolitian Vitaly is Saint Vitaly.
@@jeremytuholski3557Digging into hyper nuances of this isn't the point you are missing forest for the trees.
@@OrthodoxyinLinguaFranca "hyper nuances"? Again David calls us schismatic, when Saints of those days did not. I need justification why he goes against the Saints. Also wasn't it the new calendarists who killed, imprisoned, and tortured the old calendarists over what you call, "hyper nuances." Also, what I wrote before isn't a nuance, it is simply historical fact that the Old Calendarists under Metropolitan Petros where not considered schismatic by ROCOR until ROCOR joined the Sergianist Church the MP. Read Saint Philaret of New York's Sorrowful Epistles to gain a view of how many in ROCOR viewed the MP. If these are nuances then it is the new calendarists who should be shamed for killing us and condemning us 1st without even a Council being called.
The whole "ROCOR recognized us, therefore we are forever Orthodox" is a terrible argument that assumes communion can never be cut in the future. You do realize there were many groups that ROCOR broke off from BEFORE 2007?- the "western rite" group in France, Mathewites in the early 70s, Synod in Resistence in the 90s, HTM in Boston, and others. Also Petros is a deluded schismatic that rejected St Joseph the Hesychast
Good stuff
Wow, just when I had come to the conclusion that the Orthodox Church was the true one... it seems to be incredibly over-complicated?
I thought it was about God, Jesus, Holy Spirit, Communion, being good people?
It isn’t over-complicated, friend. The truth is plain and simple, but the “True” Orthodox have gone against the mind of the Church and have complicated things by unnecessarily introducing confusion. Pursue Christ’s Holy Orthodox Church, and He will be there. Those who sew confusion are the ones who are to be avoided; our Lord is not the author of confusion.
Here’s how I look at the Extreme Old Calendarists:
They are like passengers on the Titanic, who upon seeing the first signs of an ice field, all scrambled into a life boat and rowed away certain that a crash and sinking are inevitable, and are condemning everyone who didn’t join them as irresponsible. But the crash wasn’t inevitable, at that time, it was still possible to avoid a crash or to crash in such a way to avoid a breech. The ship is Constantinople and the Captain is Bart. We will get in the life boats when the ship’s sinking is inevitable and it seems now that it will. But we’re we’re not wrong to Hope otherwise.
You should educate yourself before making such an inaccurate video. Were you aware that St. John Maximovitch was a True Orthodox bishop? Were you aware that ROCOR Synodally confirmed the holy orders of the GOC? Were you aware that the ROCOR Synodally denied the canonicity of the Stalinist "Patriarchate" of Moscow? And can you speak with a straight face about Synods like the Antiochians (who are in partial communion with the Syrian Monophysites)?
Indeed, ROCOR was in communion with OC groups for a period of time. Then, it no longer was. The burden is on OCs to explain why exactly they would even want to be in communion with ROCOR, as ROCOR itself was in communion with "World Orthodoxy" via Serbia and Jerusalem at a minimum. St John Maximovitch was certainly not a "True Orthodox" bishop , as he explicitly affirmed that the MP has grace. ROCOR did state that the MP performed uncanonical actions (it did), but it never synodally declared that it was graceless or was not the Church, and did not hold a synodal condemnation expelling anyone from the Church - on the contrary, Fr Seraphim Rose, Met Anastassy, St John Maximovitch etc. opposed the OC view, and the many concelebrations between ROCOR and World Orthodox jurisdictions (even after 1983) is evidence of this. Even Met Philaret of ROCOR, who as a personal opinion seemed to teach that the MP lacked grace, taught that the rest of World Orthodoxy *does* have grace and is part of the Church. This is obviously inconsistent, but it is not the OC view and OCs are inconsistent in trying to use him as an authority. In fact, in 1974 ROCOR declared itself to be in the same Church with St. Hilarion of Verey and Solovki confessors, the bulk of which maintained communion with Met Sergius of the MP.
@@user-xc1fq2qy8y You haven't read his letters then
@@Peter-do2rs It is fascinating how easily you gloss over or ignore the facts that are devastating to your argument. Let's review some of these facts, shall we? First of all, the ROCOR Synod condemned the Stalinist "Moscow Patriarchs" as uncanonical and this SYNODALLY: “All of the elections of Patriarchs in Moscow, beginning in 1943, are without effect on the basis of the 30th Canon of the Holy Apostles and the 3rd Canon of the 7th Ecumenical Council” - ROCOR, “Resolution Concerning the Election of Pimen Izvekov as Patriarch of Moscow” concerning “the gathering which, calling itself an All-Russian Church Council, met in Moscow from May 30 to June 2 of this year for the purpose of electing a Patriarch of Moscow and all Russias”, September 1/14, 1971
Next, there is a letter on file at the ROCOR Synod in New York written by St. John Maximovitch imploring the other ROCOR bishops to consecrate a bishop for the Greek Orthodox who have remained faithful to the Old Calendar and who refuse to live their lives under the New Calendar.
Next, in a "Synodal and Patriarchal Letter", the Antiochian Patriarch jointly with the Monophysites contradicted all the fathers on this topic and said "we belong to One Faith" - sor.cua.edu/Ecumenism/19911112socrumorthstmt.html - This document calls for concelebration and intercommunion at times. Did you want me to share with you a similar document from the Alexandrian Patriarch concerning the Monophysites? Or do you already know about it and are keeping quiet about that too?
Next, of course ROCOR did not break communion with every single World Orthodox synod right away. Each Synod had a different situation and had to be judged separately. After the great schism, the Alexandrian Patriarchate took longer than the others in breaking from Rome. Did this mean Rome was not in heresy and that the other Patriarchates were wrong to break with Rome earlier? Who are you to judge that? But ROCOR was already separate from the Sergianists and later went into communion with them. This is different. And the MP has now called Pope Francis brother and has in the Havanna Statement stated that they together with the Pope have the mission to preach the gospel and both men jointly exhorted one another's young people. And where was the outrage from you? Perhaps you agree with him.
Next, SAINT Philaret of New York didn't just "seem" to think there was no grace in the MP. He even said that priests coming from the MP received grace in how they were received into the ROCOR. Would you like me to quote you his letter?
I think this is enough for now. I invite you to come back to Orthodoxy and stop misinforming sincere seekers.
@@Peter-do2rs O...and my understanding is that it was the ROCOR policy to NOT concelebrate with those other Synods (except Jerusalem and Serbia) and that the bishops who violated it did it on their own accord
@@Peter-do2rs So many things to debunk here. Fr. Seraphim Rose was a True Orthodox priest who was in communion with the Greek Old Calendrists. Not only this but the ROCOR was in communion with the Greeks you call "schismatics" up until their fall in 2007. This is not to say that all of ROCOR fell. Those who remained faithful are still here with us. But there was a takeover at the top and the buildings were confiscated from the faithful.
Now there is a new generation of ROCOR-MP parishioners who are largely ignorant of the bastion of Orthodoxy which those buildings used to serve. Hopefully some of them will come across this thread.
I didn't realize you had a channel, glad Jay sent me here -Chandler
You’re Orthodox and a fan of NF? Pretty epic
LAME
Is true orthodoxy the same as "genuine orthodoxy"?
Generally yes
Not everything that calls itself "True Orthodoxy" is truly Orthodoxy as Vl. Averky taught. But it will be important to find out who has true apostolic succession and who truly teaches the faith. Beware of those claiming to be "canonical" when they are clearly not.
not very informed
Brother, I don't doubt your sincerity, but this constant fixation on authority within the Church is not biblical. When Jesus said, "Call no man teacher and call no man Father, for you are all brothers," he was instructing his Apostles to establish communal Churches, not a Papacy and not a priesthood. Not a single Apostle was once called priest or Father in the New Testament.
I know Orthodoxy has addressed this particular objection to death. Just curious, have you heard the Orthodox rebuttal to your objection?
That is a protestant position
Thank you for filling me in. Was thinking about this. I hope the "True" Orthodox can return home.
Please look into it a little more, and may our Lord guide you into all truth!
Home to ecumenism, the mandatory va666ine and the new calendar? No thanks.
@@trinitarianchampion Nice strawmen. You're glowing pretty bright.
@@Cobruh_Commander he is right tho.
@@Herr_Flick_of_ze_Gestapo No, he's not. Nobody is forcing him to get stabbed, not everyone is ecumenist, and the calendar issue is nothing new in Church history. Did Rome and Antioch have no grace for having differing calendars in the Early Church period? There's no pleasing these schismatics anyways, they would rather stay in their five-man-jurisdictions than realize everything is not black and white.
A good video? Not so much.
good videoooo
Great work!!
Thank you so much for making this video 🙏🏼
As an Old Believer, I am very offended by how you glibly lump us in with comparitvely petty 'True' Orthodox movement. There is almost no similarity between our fateful tragedy and Old Calendarist or anti-Sergianist travesties.
Truly saddening and offensive for you to reduce the murder, massacre, 300 years of oppression & genocide of first a Bishop who refused a crypto-Uniate heresy, then the faithful who also refused that heresy, then those who refused the disestablishment of Patriarchate, and then the Communists... as ' petty fake Orthodox '.
Our people were tortured & murdered by the Vatican-directed Nikonians, the Atheist Masonic Patriatchate -usurping Peter the 'great' ( antichrist), and then the Communists.
Did you know we had to commit mass suicide to avoid the torturous wheel of Peter and the gulags of the Communist when they found us? Especially for our children?
You probably don't know they literally used to torture us in monasteries during the empire.
Shameful, brother.
We are the most martyred people in the Orthodox Church for refusing to partake in one heresy & schism after another.
Educate yourself, I am here if you wish.
I will pray for you.
Was the Old Believer movement driven by the laity, clergy, or bishop/s. And if bishops did they hold a council? A canonical/conciliar declaration is necessary for the Sacramental life of the Church to continue uncontaminated and the infected limb cut off.
Did you mean to write that you had to commit MASS SUICIDE?
@@fiona9088 the so called council you are awaiting will never take place because then world "orthodoxy" would have to condemn itself.
@@trinitarianchampionThe gates of hell will not prevail against the Church. It does not matter what you say, if we have not the authority we must go into exile not error by schismatising.
The Catacomb Saints/ Christian’s are not fake orthodox, they are the True orthodox Christian’s. They still exist to this day with canonical bishops.
Bla bla... follow the saints not youtubers.
Excellent video.
Wow, extremely disappointed. A very superficial assessment!
How so?
Good 👍🏼
Orthodoxy is as divided as protestant churches are
So are Catholics lol. You all believe different things and in-fight constantly. The only thing you really ALL have in common is you bend the knee to the Pope, who creates this illusion of unity. But even that isn't fully true since you have Sedevacantists lol.
Yes and no. Depends whether you a a bee and see lots of flowers on the field or a fly and see lots of poo on the field. If we exclude Orientals as an ancient Monophysite heretics and look at the modern days Eastern Orthodoxy, main problems come from the pan-heresy of ecumenism. It is precisely that pan-heresy that caused introduction of the Gregorian calendar into the EOC thus creating "old calendarists" and "genuine orthodox" groups who are minor in size but nevertheless do exist. Late problem between Greeks and Russians is caused by the same pan-heresy of ecumenism where Greeks, for whatever reason, want to re-unite with the Latins at all cost and ASAP while Russians are holding Orthodoxy back from such an insane move.
But, it is all foretold that wolves will come and devour the Lord's sheep and that we ought to be watchful to make sure we are not led astray.
You do realize Roman Catholics also have multiple sectarian groups right?? Sedes, CMRI, SSPX, FSSP, Palmarians, and more...
No. When random people use the pop-argument of "Christianity has 40,000 denoms how do you know which one is right???", they don't realize that 99% of said denoms are protestant evangelicals, mostly western. Cut out protestantism and 99% of supposed conflicting denoms would dissapear.
t. Former cradle-born Protestantish agnostic investigating whether Orthodoxy or Catholicism are the One True Holy Apostolic Church.
And personal interpretation is nowhere near used even a percent as much in Orthodoxy than in Protestantism. Even the higher church Prots are so much more loose. Truly there is a torrent of babbling in protestantism like Babylon
AKA orthosedes
Im glad I stumbled upon this video of yours. It finally convinced me to unsubscribe from your channel, which is riddled with bias and half-truths.
May the prayers of our most Holy Theotokos be with you and may God lead you onto the right path.
💪🏻☦️👍🏼
orthodoxy or death
Православие или смерть
ορθοδοξία ή θάνατος❤
الأرثوذكسية أو الموت
אורתודוקסיה או מוות❤
Thanks, I was close to falling for their lies.
Which ones in particular?
'Orthodoxia' means the right path or the path that has no twists nor turns for it the same path the ancient Church walked and that it and only it leads in a straight and uncompromising manner to the narrow gate that leads to salvation (which indeed few people find as Prophesied our Saviour Jesus Christ). For a person who converted to Christianity only a few years ago (has it been even 3 years since you converted?) you sure have a healthy dose of chutzpah to brand groups of believers who refused to veer off a path trodden by millions of Orthodox Saints from 32 AD to 1924 as 'fake orthodox'. But then again if 'guru' Jay Dyer approves it it must be correct. Or is it?! I personally am not yet qualified to make a judgement on this hefty issue despite but what I do know with 100% certainty is that the arguments you provided to back up your opinion are pure nonsense.
The Donatists did not require that clergy be pristine and sinless in order to administer the Holy Mysteries (no matter what your main source of information which I suspect is Wikipedia says). The Donatists regarded those who committed what is rightly considered spiritual prostitution and apostasy (the worship of pagan idols as a way to escape death by Martyrdom during the Diocletian Persecution) as individuals who are not fit to serve of the Holy Altar no matter how sincere their repentance and renunciation of their formal idolatry may be.
Setting all matters aside I think it is always wise to examine the tree by its fruits. What has become of the 'Church' since the introduction of the New Calendar innovation almost a hundred years ago (which you yourself admit is a heresy and was imposed on the faithful by freemason inter-religious ecumenists and wolves in sheep's clothing)?
What is the spiritual state of Orthodox majority countries such as Greece, Bulgaria, Serbia, Romania, Ukraine, Georgia and Russia?
The answer: abysmal. The Churches are polluted with non-orthodox 'paintings' that supposedly depict Christ and the Saints.
The traditional prostration in front of the Holy Icons is replaced with a 3 to 4 centimeter 'bending' of the knees in a physical manifestation of spiritual apathy.
The formal and informal persecution of the Orthodox Faithful continues in full blast in Muslim majority countries such as Syria where an estimated half a million Orthodox left and 40,000 Orthodox Civilians were brutally killed between 2011 - 2015 before even that beacon of Orthodox Piety Russia entered the arena and was able to provide some protection and stability to a multi confessional state that endured an invasion by 1.5.million Jihadists.
What ever happened to the Orthodox in Egypt and the 'shining lighthouse' that was Alexandria not only a thousand years ago but as recently as 80 years ago? It ceased to exist in practice with the Orthodox inhabitants of Alexandria falling from around 400,000 a century ago to less than 30,000 today.
The 'Church' excepts the pseudo baptism of the heterodox and administers the Holy Mysteries to the monophusites, papists and certain sects which it insists on branding as 'Christian' though many of these 'protestant' sects themselves don't even identify as such..
@@eternityonedayatatime
I didn't bother to read even 10% of the nonsense you wrote. Not all men were created equal. And yes, Christ Loves all but to some He didn't give the tools to comprehend matters of the Spirit and the Philosophy of Religion. Sad but this is your reality (it also comes with much less responsibility so you are fortunate in some way).
@@theclassic6198
You are welcome. I realised that not only the modernist new calendar 'Eastern orthodox' are in error but also that the so called 'old calendarist traditionalist Eastern orthodox' are a bunch of lunatics. Let's face it:*The 'Eastern Orthodox' religion was invented by a handful of corrupt, deprived and mentally disturbed neo platonists with strong gnostic leanings who wished to upgrade the plethora of pagan beliefs and cults in the Roman sphere to one institutional 'imperial' religion. I refer specifically to the insane Athanasius of Alexandria, Cyril of Alexandria and the ex Manichean wizard Augustine of Hippo. These three ambitious and violent individuals laid the foundations to the vast majority of Trinitarian sects that masquerade as 'Christian' for the past 1,700 years.
Their ideas had little to nothing to do with the doctrines of the anti nicean Father's (ie Clement of Rome who was a contemporary and companion companion of Saint Paul, Justin Martyr, Ignatius of Antioch and a few more though I prefer to only name the three I mentioned because they are considered 'Orthodox' despite that their dogma entirely contradicts that of post nicean 'orthodoxy'...
The fact remains that only a truly insane person in cahoots with the spirit of anti-christ could come up with the incredibly cruel and anti-christ concept of ETERNAL suffering and torture in hell. This is basically what not only the Eastern 'orthodox' Church claims awaits 90%+ of humanity but also the so called 'catholics', the monophysites and protestants... For me it is ample proof that the cult of pseudo-orthodoxy concocted in Nicea in 325 AD (de facto imposed on the Bishops to please the Emperor.. Oh that 'saint' Constantine that never even bothered to get baptised and who supported pagan practices and cults in the Empire until late in the 4th century...) is false and heretic. I recommend you read the book 'the bazaar of Hereclaides' authored by Saint Nestorius. I humbly argue that you will find the truth there. The Church became dominated by madmen since Nicea and the insanity was made official during the council of Ephesus. Saint Nestorius was correct which is why he was so hated. Thankfully there are still people who didn't lose their minds and do not prostrate in worship in front of graven images and statues in defiance of the first commandment... They are the Ancient Church of the East. I hope to get Baptised in their Church before I die.
George Savva ...... whoa. Maybe I misread your post. You are speaking in circles trying to deceive people. You obviously are a Protestant or atheist or even worse a heretic of Nestorius degree, trying to create havoc, but cannot for you are wrong and have no foundation to stand on. Good day friend.
@@theclassic6198
Kindly leave aside the speculation on what I am and just tell me how the Loving God of the Bible can be the same God that supposedly condemns people who happen to not be baptised into his 'death and resurrection' or are baptised into the Byzantine imperial 'Church' but fail to believe He exists to an ETERNITY of agony and misery, unspeakable pain and suffering? What on God's green earth could such a scenario for tens of billions of souls achieve? This is the invention of Augustine of Hippo, the ex. Manichean wizard which your 'church' considers a Saint holds to (eternal torment). This alone proves Eastern Orthodoxy is a fallacy, a man made innovation not inspired by God rather by the devil (hence its fruits are rotten and why the post Nicean Byzantine version of 'Christianity' is basically a joke, a spectacle of folklore pagentry and ridicule at best). I am not an atheist. I am a seeker of Christ's Church and I think I found it in the Church established BY Saint Nestorius (The Ancient Church of the East).
George Savva ...... yo are right. Let me re-phrase this...... I am not calling you a heretic, you are calling yourself one. Nestorius was either deceived by satan, or for satan. Either way he was evil my friend. And he blasphemies the Holy Spirit with doctrine against Theotokos and Christ himself. And one must be Baptized as Christ Himself said in the Scriptures. God Bless you and may He open both of our eyes to the Truth.
Amazing video, we need more like you
Author King James Bible is all one needs for the word of God
There is stuff the bible does not cover.
@@cameron4339 such as?
@@cruiznjoe4031 for example The Bible says nothing about 'homosexuality' as an innate dimension of personality. Sexual orientation was not understood in biblical times.
@@cameron4339 sodomy is an abomination....it is sin..God created man and woman..look what God did to Sodom and Gomorrah..
What does an English version of the Bible (which doesn't have the right OT: The Masoretic vs the accurate LXX) made by Anglicans (who believed in Baptismal Regeneration btw)
Have to do with Calendar issues affecting the True Church?
Great video, love the videos
All it takes is John 21:15:17 to debunk the orthodox claim of true orthodoxy. In the Church of Jesus Christ there is ONLY ONE SHEPHERD. One man who has the authority to LEAD the sheep and lambs of Jesus Christ, and that man is SIMON CEPHAS!
Therefore the successor of SIMON CEPHAS will have to fill in the shoes and LEAD the church. Christ himself promised us that his church will never be destroyed. Roman Catholicism is the TRUE Christianity! Orthodox Catholics did not accept Simon Cephas and his successors as the leaders of the church here on earth.
How ignorant are you? There is one head of the Church, one shepherd JESUS CHRIST; not St Peter nor any mortal regardless of if they're a saint or apostle. First off we do not reject St Peter in general but see him as first among equals; as the leader of the Apostles and one of the most important pillars of the Church (have you even seen the Orthodox icons of Sts Peter and Paul as the pillars of the church who preached to the Jews and Gentiles respectively???), but as equal to all other apostles and not as the head of the Church. Regarding papal supremacy, infallibility etc , have you even read Acts about the Council of Jerusalem and what transpired there? Aka how St Peter acknowledged he was in error and obeyed the collective ECUMENICAL decision of that council? And keep in mind that this was AFTER PENTECOST..!!!
In the same vain of lies about Rome's papal supremacy as the successors of St Peter - well what about the Church of Jerusalem which St Peter also founded?
Finally the Church is eternal and catholic - CHRIST ALONE is the Head since it's His Body on Earth. Do you realize that what Christ was referring to when calling him Peter was not Simon/Peter himself (since he subsequently denounced Christ three times), but that the foundation of the Church would be FAITH IN CHRIST?! The original Greek is not the masculine "petros" but the feminine "petra" since faith is feminine in the Greek - faith IN CHRIST. The reason why Christ firmly reminded St Peter x3 to guide the sheep was as a gentle chastisement/reminder that he cannot let his faith waver again and betray the flock as he had betrayed Christ. St Peter had to grow from that experience and be a true unwavering guide - just like all the other apostles would have to, and their successors the early bishops
The church of Rome has long fallen into apostasy. They have been busted again and again of lying, using forgeries and being in violation of multiple Ecumenical Council edicts. Their theology is heretical and, other than following in some of the errors of Blessed Augustine, entirely divorced from the theology of the Church Fathers (the vast majority of whom were in the East).
The true "catholic" church is actually the Eastern Orthodox Church since we alone have maintained consistent theology, liturgy, and church structure throughout the millenia, and thus its catholicity is the fact that it possesses the tools to help anyone be active participants in their salvation through Grace. The church of Rome adopted that as their title and corrupted themselves into an earthly authority striving for power and domination. To use the language of Revelation, their lamp has long fallen. Don't come here spouting nonsense about Rome when you clearly have no idea about the history and theological issues involved, and definitely don't you dare insult the Eastern Orthodox Church.
@@AlexT-sy6nm That is the error that the catholic orthodox church makes by stating that all apostles were equal! Jesus himself left Peter in charged of the church as it is stated in John 21:15-17 Jesus prayed ONLY FOR HIM in Luke 22:31-32 "‘Simon, Simon, listen! Satan has demanded to sift all of you like wheat, 32 but I have prayed for you that your own faith may not fail; and you, when once you have turned back, strengthen your brothers."
Jesus prayed ONLY for Simon Peter and gave him a MISSION! And this mission Jesus gave it only to Peter, to strengthen the other apostles. That is what the leader of the church does! Jesus named him the head of the church, Peter is not like the rest, he is THE LEADER of the apostles, but Jesus is the head of the church.
@@Scientist_Albert_Einstein Christ did not single St Peter out nor did St Peter have a special mission compared to the other apostles - it was about his 3x denial of Christ. If you cannot understand that it's blasphemous to misunderstand the actual rock which Christ was speaking about that would sustain the Church and against which the gates of hell would not prevail ( = faith in Him, the eternal Christ the Living God) and instead believe in error that it was about a mortal man, then what more do we have to talk about (plus please show me an Ecumenical Council of the first millenium that affirmed anything about Peter's papal supremacy. Show me also whether St John of Damascus mentions anything on this issue, who wrote the first systematic theology around the 700s and whom the RC call a "Doctor of the Church" [hypocritically, since they deny his theology] ).
Listen you didn't address any of my other points nor can you, since RC is full of heresies and are yet to repent of their errors. Nor do you seem well-read on the issue, I wonder how old you might be since you sound like a teenager... But still, to illustrate the importance of the original Greek language used in these passages [which you also did not address] and for the benefit of anyone else who may take an interest in these comments, let me also quote from the Orthodox Study Bible's notes on the passage in the Gospel of John which you mentioned, John 21:15-17:
"That Christ singles out Simon Peter has a two-fold significance: 1) Peter was the leader among the disciples and thus had to be the first to confess his LOVE for the risen Lord. 2) Peter had denied Christ three times (18:17, 25-27) and here Christ restores Him with a threefold confession of love.
It is important to note that the first two times Christ inquires of Peter, "Do you love Me?" He uses a form of the word 'agape' which denotes the highest form of sacrificial and self-emptying love, the kind of love God has for man and that man can develop only through maturing in God's grace. Each time, however, Peter is unable to claim such a lofty love. When Peter answers "You know that I love You" he uses the term 'philo' which is a lesser form of love, akin to brotherly affection. When the Lord asks the third time, 'Do you love Me?' He has changed to the term 'philo', condescending to Peter's weakness and accepting whatever love Peter is able to offer. Nevertheless, Christ knows that Peter will develop agape love for Him, as Peter will eventually accept martyrdom for His sake (vv. 18, 19). Peter was grieved both that the Lord had to condescend to his level of love and that this was a clear, though gentle, reference to [Peter's] three denials".
@@AlexT-sy6nm THREE TIMES JESUS SAID: "Take care of my sheep"; you guys are so blinded that you can't see that Jesus is telling Simon Peter TO TAKE CARE OF HIS SHEEP AND LAMBS.
How blind can you be? Do you want Jesus to comedown from heaven and say: "yes I said Peter take care of my sheep and lambs?"
For this reason the bible says, they have eyes and see not!
Join jay dyers discord and debate jay
David, I need your help, I think you should also do some research to Orthodoxy in my country Indonesia, while the Archimandrite: Father Daniel Byantoro, who was the first Indonesian orthodox believers since 1988, were ever accused and slandered of being schismatic by the main orthodox church without any clear reason (I don't know the detail of the story, but maybe by a metropolitant of either ROCOR or EP) which led him being officially defrocked in 2019 and cause his parishes are now join the Genuine Orthodox Church (GGOC).
To conclude, because that thing happened in my country, I hesitate for your statement that they who claimed themselves "True" or "Genuine" Orthodox and stated "fake" by you, auto-excommunicate the main church, ironically what really happened is the opposite.
I know and I have also done my own research that there are several GOC or TOC who claims that their own parish is the right one and declare the other GOCs/TOCs are schismatic.
I'm struggling myself because I'm now still Protestant and for the recent 2 years I find truth in Orthodox teaching and doctrine, but still hesitate to join which parish because I think the validity of sacraments/mysterion/communion of the true apostolic succesion is strictly important for the grace of the Holy Spirit to us as laities.
Please help me 🙂