Constantinople IV (879-880) widely attended by representatives from all the Patriarchates approved by Pope John VIII's legates. Restored St. Photios and condemned the addition of the filioque into the creed. Rome viewed this as the 8th Ecumenical Synod for several centuries until the middle ages when they tried to do a switcheroo with the Nicolatian Robber Council of 869 due to the issues of confirming a council that condemned the filioque which had at that point been forced upon Rome by the frankish empire. At the rate that post-vatican II rome has been ceeding to the historical truths of Orthodoxy how long will it be until they go back again on this...
RC to EO many years ago. Zero regrets. Transformative beyond what I ever expected, confidence inspiring beyond what I ever expected. Gone is the fear of diving deeper in the faith and breaking my neck hitting the wall in doing so. Replaced by true faith in God. It's absolutely wonderful, my whole family benefits from it.
I agree. Orthodoxy cannot only be explained, you need to feel it. Once you enter an Orthodox Church you will feel at home. This is something that can’t be explained.
When one discovers that much of RC theology is self-serving with circular arguments, the word salads of their explanations loses its power to convince a rational mind. I love all people including Roman Catholics however it's hard to convince them of RCC's obvious errors. All we can do is pray for them.☦
Thank you for using the phrase "word salad" and "circular arguments," terms used to describe the behavior of a narcissists. As a cradle Catholic who lost her faith in her teens, then reverted to Catholicism in her mid-twenties, then discovered the universal Modernist heresy of V2, that then led me to "rad-trad" circles, which finally led me to sedevacantisim and all of it's splinter groups; I have to wildly say that being in the RCC is exactly like being in a toxic relationship with a covert narcissist. I've had enough of it damaging my faith and hope.
@@rosalba3701 absolutely not. Crystal clear that you actually never really looked into your own faith and just got emotional about it all. Get married.
Thanks for the charitable critique :) God bless you and your family! Looking forward to chatting with you soon. P.S. I got a copy of your book and I'm hoping to finish it before our chat!
@@koppite9600 Your own church says you are wrong. The official Roman Catholic teaching, according to the Lateran Council of 1215 AD, is that all Bishops have keys through Apostolic Succession and all Apostles receive their keys.
@@pero33403Same argument the protestants make why we shouldn't have priests, since the Bible says we are all priests. This is a flawed premise since both can be true, there is a general priesthood and a specific priesthood, in the same sense, there is a general sense of each Apostle having the keys over his area but in a specific sense Peter was given the church over the whole church.
The best argument against Catholic claims in my opinion is that there were 5 Petrine Seas. There were 5 bishops that could claim Peter's authority at the time of the schism. In the schism it was one of Peter's successors against 4 of Peter's successors. I like this argument because it is simple and it undercuts 95% of what most lay catholics believe.
@@doubtingthomas9117 Jerusalem and Constantanople. The Constantanople see was not founded by Peter(it didnt really exsist or matter yet), but was given equal authority due to its position in the empire after Constantine.
@@Greasy__Bear okay. I always considered Constantinople the see of Andrew, but he’s Peter’s brother so there’s that I guess 😉 Also though Peter preached first in Jerusalem on Pentecost, I tend to see Jerusalem as the see of St James. However, I do get your drift 👍🏻
the pentarchy was not recognized by rome until the ecumenical council of florence with the attendance of the byzantine emperor and the other 4 patriarchates
I'm a Catholic and I've wanted to be Orthodox for years, theres no Orthodox church anywhere near where i live in provincial New Zealand, The closest Orthodox Church is over 500KMs away in Wellington
You can write to the priest and seek unity with the Body of Christ today. God didn't incarnate for us to be hetetical by circumstance, he did so to redeem all of mankind, kings to paupers, urbanites to siberians. You can start your Orthodox life where you're at right now and be a part of the salvation of New Zealand.
As a fellow Kiwi, I'm going from Catholic to Orthodox. My nearest EO Church is a 7 hour drive away (Christchurch) so I try to go every 3 months and stay for a long weekend. The EO faith is so rich and healing and clearly the original, one, true catholic and apostolic faith that I feel bathed in love - and not racked by guilt, as I was as a Catholic. Meanwhile, the EO priest is my spiritual director and we are in touch regularly via email. I'm reading many books and listening to people like Craig. If you can get down to Wellington and attend Divine Liturgy, I think it will affect you deeply and then the Priest(s) can put a face to a name for your future dialogue. All the best and God Bless.
What an ignorant one 🤣🤣🤣🤣 Your Orthodoxy has NO AUTHORITY WHATSOEVER Biblically and historically! St. Clement and the early Church Pope knew that all the bishops from East and West should submit to the bishop f Rome which is the Pope. The Holy See has the authority to make amends and it is not the Pope's fault if the Orthodox Patriarch does not adhere to this. The moment you reject his authority then you are an anathema and a rebel to the church and must be excommunicated. Those bishops disobeyed and laughed at the Pope BUT NO ONE AMONG THEM EVER SAID THAT THE POPE IS NOT PETER"S SUCCESSOR. This is something every Orthodox Christian has to put inside their brains to remember.
@@Greasy__Bearthats honestly one of the reasons I became Orthodox. Compare the actions of the post-schism Catholic saints with the post-schism Orthodox saints.
@@joshuaparsons887 Friends, that is all water under the bridge now. His Holiness has said that all paths lead to God , so that validates the othodox church and heals the rift between Rome on Constantinople. Ahhh, isnt that nice. Three cheers for the Holy Father......hip hip hooray.
I think the problem with a lot of recent RC arguments is they simply misunderstand the EO position on the bishop of Rome. We both agree that the bishop of Rome in the ealry church had a very important role and a level of authority to appeal to. RC's seem to think EO denies that in the early church but that's just not true. The bigger more important issue are the infallability claims, the development of doctrine over time and straying from the truth with all the developments. Additionaly the bishop of rome having supreme authority no matter what, at all times, is also stretched too far on the RC end. This is where EO disagree it seems. EO do not deny the roman see or the ancient bishop (pope) of rome having autbority. But that does NOT mean further developments of doctrine, infallability, and supremacy over ALL bishops at all times. Thats where it seems to go wrong on their end. Ultimately I feel bad because for many people these matters can be too confusing to find the true church. Lord have mercy on us all. ☦️
Heres an interesting bit from someone afaik the latins consider to be a church father, Origen (185-253). The context being when he was combatting some sort of Alexandrian sect that claimed they had certain secret teachings from St. Peter. "If we also say as Peter, "thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God," not as bring revealed to us by flesh and blood, but by a light shining in our hearts from the Father in heaven, we become Peter...for every disciple of Christ is a rock...since in each of the perfect, who have the totality of the words, and deeds, and meanings, which fulfils blessedness, is the Church built by God." "If you think that the whole Church is built only upon one Peter what can you say about John the son of thunder, or about each of the Apostles? Besides, shall we then dare say that the gates of hell will not prevail against Peter specially, but that they will prevail against the rest of the Apostles and the perfect? And then, that of the keys of the kingdom of heaven are given by the Lord to Peter only, and that no other of the blessed will receive them?...All imitators of Christ are likewise named Peter...If then the gates of hell should prevail against someone, such a person can neither be a rock upon which Christ builds the Church, nor can he be the Church built by Christ upon the rock." Commentary on Matthew (Book XII) Quoted from "The Greek East and the Latin West" by Philip Sherrard
It's like athiests, muslims, protestants always arguing AGIANST the Catholic church. But never any arguments FOR their beliefs. I don't see where Jesus gave an equal number of 12 apostles equal authority. And no, Acts 15 council doesn't prove Orthodoxy or Protestantism. Councils have always been held in the Catholic church with Catholics rebuking the Pope.
Uh…did you watch the video? He says in the first couple minutes that if you want his positive case for Orthodoxy, look at the materials in the video description, including his book…
@@dbishop9992 yeah “Acts 15 case closed” not addressing how 12 men equal authority would ever work. And then their successors. Like it’s a vote count with no leader. Obviously “councils” have not been enough to keep Orthodox churches together
@@CPATuttle Um…sir I don’t think you read what I wrote. I pointed out that your categorization of Craig not making a positive case for Orthodoxy was obviously false because he addresses that literally one minute into the video. I’m not sure why you don’t understand that. Then you launched into an incoherent tirade about Acts 15 which neither I nor Craig mentioned. If you are interested in a calm and dispassionate positive case from Craig you can simply read his book or the materials in the description. Besides that, I’m not sure what Craig or myself can do for you. Take care.
@@dbishop9992 you keep saying I haven’t watched this or read that. So you can think I’m uninformed. I guarantee you his book uses Acts 15 as his principal case. Even though it says nothing to the office of Peter.
In chapter three of volume three of Adversus Haeresēs, Iranaeus does actually mention that we ought to harmonize with the Church of Rome, not because of its location / politics / geography, but rather because Peter and Paul founded it. Edit: "Ad hanc enim ecclessiam, propter potentiorem principalitatem, necesse est omnem convenīre Ecclesiam" Potentiorem principalitatem = a more potent first place / superiority
@@CASOTTINCLASHDCclashofclansita Bro, I don't like it either man, but Iranaeus accepts Petrine supremacy because Our Lord preaches it in the scriptures.
There's 2 Catholics Latin rite and eastern Byzantine rite in union with the pope. Michael lofton has all ready covered all the answer to eastern orthodoxy.
Questions roman Catholics can't answer: How can Vatican 1 be true if the council of Ephesus declares the autocephaly of Cyprus, and Rome now does not recognize the first council of Lateran as ecumenical, even if it was called by the pope? How come Cantate Dominum states non Catholics go to hell even if they shed blood for Christ and nowadays non Catholics can be saints? how do you worship the Trinity and Christ if Lumen Gentium and Nostra Aetate states you worship the same god as muslims, who deny the Trinity and the divinity of Jesus? What's the point of being roman Catholic if you canonize Orthodox, Armenian and Coptics as saints?
Riecker's Catholic apologetics are ill-fated at best. I've often refuted his arguments quite easily in the comments. Interesting to see that he is gaining recognition, even in the online Orthodox world. Maybe we can team up against him sometime? Haha just joking. Interesting to see an Orthodox perspective on these things, thank you.
He’s only being mentioned in the Orthodox world at all because he made a video titled; “All Orthodox would he Catholic if they knew this,” and then proceeded to make a video based on a lot of foolishness.
I just saw you on Barrel Age Faith. I see he is to you what Gavin Ortlund is to me, lol. But these fads pass, eventually people will see if it holds water or not. If it does, those arguments will stick around. If not, they’ll die out.
Nice job! Hello everyone, I am a theology student who has to improve his fluency in speaking English. So if there is anyone with the same issue I would aprreciate like ft 1 time weekly, maybe talking about some actual theological problems or something like that 😊
I remember watching a video of an RC claiming that it was easy to defend the catholic faith. He claimed that he only had to read church history and the fathers, as if history was on their side. But actually, it is easy to defend orthodoxy, not catholicism. we just need to agree with the scholarly consensus that claims that there wasn't the papacy defined in vatican i in the first millenium.
Ok, here we go 1. "Corinth is under Roman jurisdiction (Corinth was founded by Paul)." Well, Antioch was founded by Peter and Alexandria by Peter's disciple. That doesn't make them under Rome. True, Julius Caesar populated Corinth with Italian freedman (Giles said it in "Document Illustrating Papal Authority AD 96-454"). Still the fact is John was way closer and he was an apostle. While Clement is a disicple of an apostle. Corinthians should've refer to John. But they didn't. 2. "For Irenaeus people convene at Rome because it's the capital. And tradition is preserved in all Churches, not just Rome." Quite a stretch, Craig. Irenaeus nowhere talk about any political aspect in the passages. Second, it's true that Irenaeus believes that other Churches preserved tradition. But Irenaeus only said that all Church should convenire with Rome. He doesn't say that for all the other Churches. 3. "Every bishops are auccessor of Peter therefore they all share Peter's prerogatives" No, Craig. The keys was given to Peter alone. The verb and pronouns in Mat 16:19 are singulars. Same with Luke 22:32-33. These are all for Peter alone WHILE THE APOSTLES ARE WITH THEM (thus of Christ wanted all of them to have the same things He would've give them to all and used plural pronouns and verbs). Now Mat 18:18 used plural pronouns and verbs. But no "keys" are mwntioned here. Just the power of those keys. Which means that this is the whole episcopacy working in communion with its head who was given the keys earlier. Ie. Peter. 4. "Pope Martin didn't have power to ordain new bishop" It's not "new bishops," Craig. But "Patriarch." We both read the letter. Notice that Martin said that he doesn't have POWER to ordain patriarch, not that he doesn't have AUTHORITY to ordain patriarch. Martin doesn't have POWER because he qould be vetoed by the muslim ruler. But he does jave authority. He gave John of Philadelphia power to ordain deacons, priests and bishops in other jurisdiction in virtue of his apostolic power. Surely you know where to read this in "Conflict and Negotiation..." book. 5. "Pope were excommunicate. Called heretic" Jesus was said to work miracles by the power of Satan. He was crucified by religious leader. The fact that some dissent from the pope (or Jesus) doesn't mean he doesn't have power and authority. 6. "What's the point of ex cathedra teaching if we can't know what is ex cathedra?" Well we have magisterium. We ask them which is ex cathedra. Just like how an Orthodox as their bishop which is the true Tradition.
1. Agus, not to be mean, but you're ad hocing. It is basic fact Corinth was under Rome. We have letters pertaining to vicarites and such to this effect. I am not sure how to say this without causing offense, but your reply here shows historical ignorance. This is not some novel theory of mine. Subject matter experts are well aware of this. 2. Ad hoc again, the translation is perfectly possible and fits contextually, as the footnote points out, it can be found in a Roman Catholic translation. 3. Is this the same Agus I know? He would not so easily contradict the claims of Popes and RC General councils, quoted in the video. 4. Ad hocing again. The point at issue at context is that Stephen of Dora, the locums tenens, cannot be replaced. This is why a new Patriarch cannot be consecrated, because the Pope cannot theoreticall replace Stephen--that is the point. 5. You are not understanding the response here. 6. So, what is your point? Asking your bishop where is the true ex cathedra statements is as nebulous as asking the Orthodox bishop his own magisterium? I am going to ask if you reply, you more seriously engage. Otherwise, you are just writing disagreeable things from the seat of your pants which I think is useless. We shouldn't be disagreeing with one another as if it were a childhood sport.
It’s crazy to me that people believe that an Italian man in Rome is required for their salvation.😂 the pope of Rome thinks that all religions are true anyways.
@@YourStylesGeneric321 yeah I agree that’s why I’m orthodox. But traditionally the Roman church taught that the pope is needed for salvation but now they teach that all religions are true. Rome is a soulless and dead church that doesn’t have Christ or the holy spirt and it is centered around one man.
@@YourStylesGeneric321 ok prove me wrong. I am former Roman Catholic and according to pope Francis all religions lead to God but according to pope Boniface 1302 all must be under the pope.
@@YourStylesGeneric321 your church is a church of hubris and contradiction. And it focuses on the things of this world such as climate change religious “unity” ecumenism etc but it should really be focussing on God .
Sorry for any hostility in the previous vid I left comments on. Anyway, yeah. I do hope Rome and the East reconcile, especially in the wake of the Western Rite Vicariate of the Antiochian church here in the US. Now, if only there was a Western Rite parish in my home State. Oh, well. Anglican orders might not be perfect, but they'll do for now. Good news is, the ACNA in particular is looking towards communion with Rome, so if that goes through and Rome submits to the Eastern church, that'll make three branches in communion with each other. Here's to hoping.
Are you saying you have a perfectly good Eastern Rite Orthodox parish you could go to, but you choose to be a Protestant? The Papal church and the Orthodox will not be uniting in any century soon. Constantinople might forge some Union with Rome which would only result in every Orthodox Bishop in the world excommunicating Constantinople. The Vatican Papal church is incompatible with Orthodox Christianity by a large margin of error though. With God, all things are possible. Without extreme divine intervention though, that ain’t likely to happen.
@@joachimjustinmorgan4851 Keep in mind, I have yet to agree with everything the Eastern Orthodox say. Plus, an expansion of Western Rite would be a positive proof of catholicity. Part of the reason why I'm an Anglican in particular is because of Via Media allowing enough room to adopt more biblical doctrines as needed without the constraints of an "all or nothing" attitude along denominational lines. Inb4 "But, Zachary! Weez nawt a denomination!!!!!" You know what I mean, so don't even go there. Also, it's not entirely accurate to say Anglicans are protestant. We are our own thing due to not fitting g neatly in any one branch. In4b "Aw, bawt weez nawt a branch!!!!" Again, focus on the main point.
@@joachimjustinmorgan4851 Okay, that did not come out right. Still sounds too aggressive on my end. Let me rephrase that. Basically, I am not entirely there theologically yet, is what I am saying.
@XiHamORTHOCN What, you expect me to jot down an entire academic paper? What specific points of contention between Anglicanism and Eastern Orthodoxy do you expect me to cover in these comments? And, don't say "gay marriage and women's ordination." You're not better by much with GOARCH and Constantinople. -.-
I shocked a Greek Orthodox monk with a passage from the Historical Introduction to the Council of Ephesus because that council said it taught infallibly. That council's fathers also believed that Pope Celestine taught with St. Peter's authority. So, if they were right, does that show that Celestine had primacy of Jurisdiction? If you read the quotation below and the document I'm quoting it from, it may help you see why my conscience won't let me be Eastern Orthodox. "Finally, Celestine himself, after the conclusion of the whole matter, sends a letter to the holy Council of Ephesus, which he thus begins: “At length we must rejoice at the conclusion of evils.” The learned reader understands where he recognizes the conclusion; that is, after the condemnation of Nestorius by the infallible authority of an Ecumenical Council, viz., of the whole Catholic Church. He proceeds: “We see, that you, with us, have executed this matter so faithfully transacted.” All decree, and all execute, that is, by giving a common judgment. Whence Celestine adds, “We have been informed of a just deposition, and a still juster exaltation:” the deposition of Nestorius, begun, indeed, by the Roman See, but brought to a conclusion by the sentence of the Council; to a full and complete settlement, as we have seen above: the exaltation of Maximianus, who was substituted in place of Nestorius immediately after the Ephesine decrees; this is the conclusion of the question. Even Celestine himself recognises this conclusion to lie not in his own examination and judgment, but in that of an Ecumenical Council. And this was done in that Council in which it is admitted that the authority of the Apostolic See was most clearly set forth, not only by words, but by deeds, of any since the birth of Christ. At least the Holy Council gives credence to Philip uttering these true and magnificent encomiums, concerning the dignity of the Apostolic See, and “Peter the head and pillar of the Faith, and foundation of the Catholic Church, and by Christ’s authority administering the keys, who to this very time lives ever, and exercises judgment, in his successors.” This, he says, after having seen all the Acts of the Council itself, which we have mentioned, so that we may indeed understand, that all these privileges of Peter and the Apostolic See entirely agree with the decrees of the Council, and the judgment entered into afresh, and deliberation upon matters of Faith held after the Apostolic See." ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf214/npnf214.x.ii.html
I cited The Historical Introduction to the Council of Ephesus because I'm curious about why the Eastern Orthodox Churches rejected council infallibility when at least one council accepted it before the schism between East and West in about 1054. Those Churches also insist that the Pope has no primacy of jurisdiction. If he doesn't, then please explain why the Council Fathers believed that Pope Celestine taught with St. Peter's authority at the Council of Ephesus. If the council didn't treat the excommunication as final, the Council Fathers may have waited for Celestine to approve it. I'm sure you know Catholics believe that for a council to teach anything infallibly, the Pope must sign off on what it intends to teach. I'd love to know why my Greek Orthodox monk acquaintance didn't know that the fathers in Ephesus thought their council taught infallibly. Meanwhile, you may want to review some Catholic beliefs about ecumenical councils and infallibility. If an ecumenical council teaches infallibly, infallibility protects only dogmatic definitions and anathemas. An excommunication isn't either a dogmatic definition or an anathema. Here's the Catholic Encyclopedia's article about infallibility published in about 1913. www.newadvent.org/cathen/07790a.htm#IIIA
I would love to watch a debate between you guys. I’m not going to lie- the Roman Catholic position seems more coherent to me, whereas the Orthodox view seems to have to do a little more mental gymnastics to reach their conclusions. However that perspective may come from a deficiency of understanding that I have on Church history. I would love to see you two really get down and dirty in the details, and see who’s position prevails.
I recommend reading Vatican 1, it's very short. If you have the time you can also read the first 7 Ecumenical Councils to see with which church they fit best. A simple example of contradiction with Rome is the fact that the council of Ephesus granted autocephaly to Cyprus. That shouldn't be possible under RC ecclesiology
@@778FraxK I’ll definitely look into it. I only want to be in truth, whether that is orthodoxy or Catholicism. However from my view it seems like the orthodox threw away the original structure of the church by excommunicating the Pope. I know that orthodox say that all bishops are the successors of Peter- but this doesn’t seem very convincing to me. Not to mention they haven’t been able to have an ecumenical council since the schism, where as Rome has. I also find that orthodox are guilty of similar strawman arguments while arguing against Catholics, much like the Protestants do. However God bless you brother. Pray for me please.
These words are used to distinguish the churches since the Schism of 1054. Since the schism rome took the name Roman Catholic then the other 4 patriarchates had to take a name also,,,,,,,,,,,🥲🥲🥲
The Orthodox rather because they're the ones who break ties with Rome and so the Pope excommunicated those rebel bishops! The REAL ORTHODOX is the Catholic Church both the Bible and history support that! Go back to CHURCH History 101 to learn this. For the first thousand years of existence of the church, both east and west churches knows and adheres to the authority and power of the Pope as Peter's successor 💯✔
As St. Justin Popovic put it: the first radical protest in the name of humanism against the God-Man Christ, and his God-Man organism-the Church-should be looked for in papism, not in Lutheranism. Papism is actually the first and the oldest Protestantism. The Church of the East split off first, but they didn't have "God-Man" protesting the Church @@kwing6017
@@koppite9600 lol, "the keys" 🤣. The Patriarch for Antioch was founded by Peter as well, yet he doesn't make ahistorical and outrageous claims like Rome
I personally think the history of the last thousand years of Roman Catholicism disprove Papal claims sufficiently : if a dogma is true, it should be verified in the facts of history and in the fruits, both ethical and dogmatic. Where is the honest and serious RC who will tell me without blushing that the Vatican magisterium teaches the faith and the mindset of the Apostles ? And if it doesn't, what's the use of debating papal indefectibility and infallibility ? "Judge the tree by its fruits".
This is so great, that Catholic video is so low tier and the comments section is filled with coping Catholics hilariously trying to convert the Orthodox to be united to the papacy but not to actually listen to the papacy or the Pope ("iTS nOT eXCATHEDRA")
@@petros-petra so you pick and choose what you would like to believe, contradicting Vatican 1. Catholics should read Vatican 1, it isn't long. By the way, why would you try to convert Orthodox, going against your pope? Your church canonizes Orthodox, Armenians and Coptics, what's the advantage for being RC?
@@petros-petra yes, Vatican 2 is also binding for you, and it states you have the same god as muslims: Nostra Aetate: "The Church regards with esteem also the Moslems. They adore the one God, living and subsisting in Himself" Lumen Gentium: "But the plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator. In the first place amongst these there are the Muslims, who, professing to hold the faith of Abraham, along with us adore the one and merciful God" I can go on and on, like Cantate Dominum that says non Catholics go to hell even if they verse blood for Christ, and nowadays your church canonizse non Catholics
I think you are misunderstanding a lot of what you quote. Jesus gives the keys specifically to Peter, but gives all of the Apostles collectively essentially the same power of binding and loosing.
I don't say this to be mean, but I got booted from Reason and Theology due to him ducking a debate. He regularly name calls me and at this juncture I'm past that and don't want to deal with the personal frustration of a debater who won't act professionally.
Mmmm, but Papal Infallibility and Primacy was not defined till the Vatican Council I, so till then other authorities could act over the bishop of Rome without detriment of what was declared later. Same way any faithful could deny the Immaculate Conception till it was proclaimed later. I know you put that title as an answer to other, but you gave no arguments for wherever you put the ultimate authority in the Church.
The RC position is that the doctrines articulated by Vatican I were known and followed by the whole church at all times, which is of course false. This revisionism undercuts RC dogmatics.
First of all, I don't recognize the unquestionable infallible authority of any minister, bishop, or pope because of Romans 3:23 "for all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God." As far as which apostle was preeminent (none of them claimed to be preeminent), Gal 2:9-12 records Paul confronting Peter over his hypocrisy because Peter was afraid of those who came from James, as if Peter was under James' authority. Arguing over who has political authority is a waste of time and a distraction from following Christ, IMO.
@@YourStylesGeneric321 Thanks for your reply. You misunderstand my statement; I'm not claiming infallibility I'm claiming that God's Word is infallible hence the quotes from Romans and Galatians. As Romans 3:4 says "let God be true, but every man a liar..." Blessings.
@@uthyrgreywick5702 Im not claiming anything, you are. Your claim is that your decision to treat the Bible as the sole infallible rule, is infallible, because if it it wasnt then in may be true that you are wrong, which of course you are, but not only that you're determining interpretation of said scriptures by your own "infallible" rule as well, even if it is anothers, youre claiming to be the arbiter of truth, which is of course false. These are your claims and the entailments of them.
Sorry what you said is not convincing at all. The primacy of bishop of Rome is stated in Scripture when Christ gave the keys of the kingdom of heaven to Peter (The Greek "you" is second person singular). Granted that the papacy did not appear overnight in the history of the Church but gradually developed with opposing views. This is something we expect because Scripture refers the Church as the Bride (singular) of Christ. The wedding between the Groom (Christ) and the Bride (the Church) will take place at the end of age depicted in the book of Revelation. Any married man had bride who is now his wife. She did not come into this world fully grown as on the day he married her. She was born as baby and grew up - on the wedding day there are parts of her that did not exist when she was a baby (or not developed yet).
Yes, there are many, check out Truglia, Dyer, Ubi Petrus on topics that involve infallibility, indefectibility, both of which were enumerated by Vatican I.
Not Roman Catholic, just Catholic. All Eastern Churches United with Peter's Successor in The One Church Founded by Christ on Peter are considered the Catholic Church. The Roman, Western Rite's Church is oftentimes seen to be the Only Catholic Church, but in fact, it is just the biggest one that makes the most noise.
Also the one that you must submit to in matters of faith. If Vatican 2 is ever annulled, which I doubt will happen in the way the Trads want, the Uniates are on the chopping block.
Your comment demonstrates a misunderstanding of the word “Catholic”. It is commonly defined or used as a synonym for “universal”. This is not a correct understanding as it was applied by the Church Fathers and expressed in the Nicaea/Constantinople Creed were it defined the One Church United and made universal by having one order, Structure and belief in compliance with the commands of Scripture to be of one mind and Judgement. Today Roman Catholicism is the antithesis of “catholicity” as you can be in communion with Rome but believe and worship differently than the Pope believes and worships.
@@SaltShack the substance of worship and belief is that same but practice varies because of valid tradition that was received in the east and the west. the west ended up with the liturgy of ambrose the byzantines with john chrysostom's etc. the west had theologians with certain views the east had others with different view points but compatible with each other
@@kwing6017 Compatible, that’s extraordinarily generous at best considering the Filioque redefines the nature of God himself and other theologies tamper with, death, salvation, heaven and who the mother of Christ was, none of which are on the margins but rather are the core of religious belief not just Christianity. Compatibility is not commanded by Scripture, being of one mind and judgment and to refrain from schism is.
@@SaltShack they are of one mind just the expression of doctrine is different. like purgatory the orthodox believe in it just don't call it that and don't describe it the same way. the oriental orthodox maintain miaphysitism but catholics and some orthodox have joint declarations with them saying that what they believe is the same as us but with different emphasis.
Evading the whole contention by saying everyone has Keys is just not working. Catholics become more orthodox by claiming The Prime successor of Peter and they win by that. Wherever Peter is can be relied upon forever just as Jesus said.
Craig, you could not even answer my biblical arguments about the primacy of Peter, how are you going to make a case for orthodoxy if you do not have any roots in scripture??
1. What arguments? 2. I cannot guarantee that I have the time to reply to every commenter online, my apologies. 3. This may help: orthodoxchristiantheology.com/2022/11/17/does-the-bible-teach-papal-primacy-or-supremacy/
Who are you? Just a TH-cam commenter? Catholics mistaking Peter for Christ in OT Typology is hilariously crazy. Suan Sonna lost an entire debate (he admitted) making a case for the papacy from OT typology which is found nowhere in the fathers or church history. The fact that the RC Church admits the Orthodox position of synodality for the first thousand years and not papal supremacy puts the entire issue to bed, play coping Catholics will continue fighting against our own faith
@@OrthodoxChristianTheology here are some of the arguments, but there is much more to say: the councils are in accord with what we see in this model in Act 15. But the council doesn’t exclude the possibility of a final chief to guide the church. It is interesting to note that even at the first council of Jerusalem it was Peter who acted as a chief and made the final proclamation to the assembly to conclude the meeting. James only reaffirms what Peter said at the council. James was not even an apostle; he couldn’t decide something without the consent of the apostles. While the words “pope of Rome” are not there, the papacy model is already in scripture through the Petrine principle. Only Peter's name was changed to the rock, not the other apostles. Showing he was going to be the rock of something (the church of course!). By the way, why is God change the name of Abram to Abraham? is this related to his purpose and mission? Concerning The apostle Paul, he was also an important apostle for the Gentiles but never received the power of the key. And only Peter got the key of the kingdom, not the others. We see Peter acting as the chief of the apostles everywhere in the book of Acts after the Pentecost, and Peter being the one sent to open the door to the holy spirit for the Gentiles and the Samaritans (showing he is the rock of the church on earth), to deny that is to be obstinate. Isaiah 22 is very relevant because it is the only precedent in the Old Testament to understand Matthew 16. It is also interesting that 400 years ago St-Francis of Sale(one of the most learned Catholic theologians of that time) was using Matthew 16 about Isaiah 22 to defend the papacy against the protestant’s rebellion. You can read his arguments in his book of apologetic “the catholic controversy” So this argument was also used long before Suan Sonna! The relation between Matthew 16 and Isaih 22 is not merely typology, it is the way a jew would understand these verses in a first-century Jewish context... The one who received the key of the kingdom was considered second to the king. Catholics do not confuse Christ with Peter(or popes)… Christ is the king of kings and lord of lords, showing that there will be other kings and lords because Christ is willing to share his kingship and lordship with humans, The Same principle with Peter as the rock of the church on earth, no confusion here. Finally, what is important is the initial intent and desire of Christ for the ecclesial structure of his church. If the later church of the first millennium fails to comprehend or fully implement the Petrine principle like it was supposed to be then it is a secondary concern. The church could reform itself on the way and re-align her ecclesial model according to the one we see in scripture which is the roman catholic model intended by Christ and not the Eastern Orthodox one.
You said Catholic dogma is that apostles hold the keys as well, you conveniently ignored the full teaching of the Church: "In virtue of his office, that is, as Vicar of Christ and pastor of the whole Church, the Roman Pontiff has full, supreme, and universal power over the Church, and he is always free to exercise this power. The order of Bishops, which succeeds to the College of Apostles and gives this Apostolic body continued existence, is also the subject of supreme and full power over the universal Church, provided we understand this body together with its head, the Roman Pontiff, and never without its head. This power can be exercised only with the consent of the Roman Pontiff." Vatican Council II, Lumen Gentium § 22
☦️Great refutation, brother. The Bishop of Rome, up until St. Emperor Constantinus the Great's foundation of Constantinopolis, had supremacy but never absolute rule, and cetainly not infallibility which is ridiculous, and once the most holy Emperor declared the holy city as the New Rome & capital of the Roman empire, it became *equal in privileges* - which is canonized at Chalcedon, so let "catholics" try to explain on who's authority they reject canons of *Ecumenical councils* & the Holy Spirit, picking & choosing which ones they want to obey. People like this Cameron guy (as most on youtube) are just liberal grifters who hijacked the Christian identity anyway, so...God Bless🙏
The Orthodox Church teach that: 1. Contraception is ok 2. Divorce (max 2) is ok 3. Confessing to a priest via phone is ok 4. Recently their patriarch excommunicated each other. Lack of unity is palpable.
Contraception is not allowed, divorce is a very complicated process and only allowed in extreme examples, you don't usually get absolution from a phone confession, just advice but economy can be made depending on extreme cases and the deal with the patriarchs, they did not excommunicate eachother they just seased clerical communion, the laity is not affected.
your church teaches you have the same god as muslims (Lumen Gentium and Nostra Aetate), and you canonize Orthodox, Coptics and Armenians, there's no point for being RC over Orthodox. All questions were already answered by corneliu
I would add as well that roman Catholic annulment doesn't make sense, it states that when an annulment is made, that would mean that the marriage actually never took place. How can a RC knows he is really married if there's always a possibility of annulment? The problem with that as well is that it doesn't allow to recognize the sin of divorce
@@alexpanagiotis4706 "God often has shown himself" I disagree. If he actually had why doesn't everyone in the world believe in him? Good luck my friend.
Why the constant bashing, Orthodox have major issues also. The current state of the Orthodox church is a disaster. Schism, disobedience, pride and a severe superiority complex which is extremely distasteful. Where Peter is, is where the church is.
@@RPlavo "coming from bishops east and west, something happens when they assume power" i agree. They try to cover up heinous crimes committed by clergymen against miners.
Yup, as it has always been but the gates of hell will not prevail. But important of all, orthodoxs have kept the tradition alive. Catholics have toned it down to the point where they don’t know the real meaning behind all the traditions…
@@OrthodoxChristianTheology The orthodox call the catholics wrong and the catholics call the orthodox wrong. Well, the catholics call everybody wrong. But just a few hrs ago, the Holy Father(the catholic one) said that all religions are a path to god. So that validates me and my prot sects and it validates the orthodox. Well, that problem is solved. Orthodox dont have to make vids explaining why they right anymore. Isnt that wonderful? I want to thank The Vicar of Christ for allowing me and my prot brothers into heaven. And i thank him from the bottom of my heart.
@@OrthodoxChristianTheology Neither is the attitude of any of your lackeys in this comment section. Always arguing in bad faith, mockery and jeering, and deciding for us what we believe in. Where is the charity in these discussions?
@@OrthodoxChristianTheology You might not be mean, but I was referring to your viewers. Just take a look at their responses to the Catholics in this comment section. Where is the charity? Where is the love? I only see the same usual bad blood. Was any of this supposed to change anything? Because it all looks the same to me.
@@OrthodoxChristianTheology I'm a Protestant, by the way. Let's take an example of why I find issue with your reply: Mogila's confession was received "with consensus," was it not? But he taught inherited guilt, something by and large rejected by the current EO "consensus." So which is infallible?
@@rhedrich3 similar to the Protestant Canon, there is firmness on canonical questions because of consensus. We discern this consensus as a matter of historical fact. As a matter of your other questions about the contents of these documents, that's all that can of worms which is worth discussing, but I really don't want to pack it here and so few words in a comment.
@@OrthodoxChristianTheology I'll leave other considerations aside, but Protestantism actually lists what it considers infallible. Does Eastern Orthodoxy do this? Where?
Constantinople IV (879-880) widely attended by representatives from all the Patriarchates approved by Pope John VIII's legates. Restored St. Photios and condemned the addition of the filioque into the creed. Rome viewed this as the 8th Ecumenical Synod for several centuries until the middle ages when they tried to do a switcheroo with the Nicolatian Robber Council of 869 due to the issues of confirming a council that condemned the filioque which had at that point been forced upon Rome by the frankish empire.
At the rate that post-vatican II rome has been ceeding to the historical truths of Orthodoxy how long will it be until they go back again on this...
Nicolatian Robber Council? Craig was this in “The rise and fall of the papacy”?
@@Marcus-sk2xf yes, but Nicholas was dead
@@OrthodoxChristianTheology yes that was something of a polemic on my part it sounded much spicier than the Constantinople Robber Council of 869.
What is the evidence that Constantinople 879-80 is considered ecumenical by Catholic?
@@aguspare1992 I want to know this as well, wikipedia says it's a debated claim.
RC to EO many years ago. Zero regrets. Transformative beyond what I ever expected, confidence inspiring beyond what I ever expected. Gone is the fear of diving deeper in the faith and breaking my neck hitting the wall in doing so. Replaced by true faith in God. It's absolutely wonderful, my whole family benefits from it.
Roman Catholic here seriously looking at Orthodoxy.
Been there. Please visit an Orthodox church! It is a lifesaver, and I cannot imagine a day without the Holy Orthodox Church.
I agree. Orthodoxy cannot only be explained, you need to feel it. Once you enter an Orthodox Church you will feel at home. This is something that can’t be explained.
When one discovers that much of RC theology is self-serving with circular arguments, the word salads of their explanations loses its power to convince a rational mind.
I love all people including Roman Catholics however it's hard to convince them of RCC's obvious errors. All we can do is pray for them.☦
Which aspects of RC theology would you consider to be self-serving and examples of circular argumentation?
@@doubtingthomas9117 I'm interested as well.
Here we go again😂
Thank you for using the phrase "word salad" and "circular arguments," terms used to describe the behavior of a narcissists. As a cradle Catholic who lost her faith in her teens, then reverted to Catholicism in her mid-twenties, then discovered the universal Modernist heresy of V2, that then led me to "rad-trad" circles, which finally led me to sedevacantisim and all of it's splinter groups; I have to wildly say that being in the RCC is exactly like being in a toxic relationship with a covert narcissist. I've had enough of it damaging my faith and hope.
@@rosalba3701 absolutely not. Crystal clear that you actually never really looked into your own faith and just got emotional about it all. Get married.
Thanks for the charitable critique :) God bless you and your family!
Looking forward to chatting with you soon.
P.S. I got a copy of your book and I'm hoping to finish it before our chat!
The Keys are in the Pope's possession, we are always safe.
@@koppite9600 Your own church says you are wrong. The official Roman Catholic teaching, according to the Lateran Council of 1215 AD, is that all Bishops have keys through Apostolic Succession and all Apostles receive their keys.
@@pero33403
They have Keys when in unity.
Yes, I'll email you a link God willing tomorrow morning for Sunday afternoon's video.
@@pero33403Same argument the protestants make why we shouldn't have priests, since the Bible says we are all priests. This is a flawed premise since both can be true, there is a general priesthood and a specific priesthood, in the same sense, there is a general sense of each Apostle having the keys over his area but in a specific sense Peter was given the church over the whole church.
I'm Roman Catholic but I hope one day we will be reunited with our Orthodox brethren. We have the same sacraments and the same valid priesthood
No, the Vatican does not have sacraments or the priesthood. One needs the faith for those. Spellcasting is demonic, not Christian.
Dude, you are an absolute gift to Catholic apologists everywhere. Keep it up!
The best argument against Catholic claims in my opinion is that there were 5 Petrine Seas. There were 5 bishops that could claim Peter's authority at the time of the schism.
In the schism it was one of Peter's successors against 4 of Peter's successors.
I like this argument because it is simple and it undercuts 95% of what most lay catholics believe.
Hmm… I always read that there were THREE Petrine sees-Rome, Antioch, and Alexandria. What would be the other two?
@@doubtingthomas9117 Jerusalem and Constantanople.
The Constantanople see was not founded by Peter(it didnt really exsist or matter yet), but was given equal authority due to its position in the empire after Constantine.
@@Greasy__Bear okay. I always considered Constantinople the see of Andrew, but he’s Peter’s brother so there’s that I guess 😉
Also though Peter preached first in Jerusalem on Pentecost, I tend to see Jerusalem as the see of St James. However, I do get your drift 👍🏻
the pentarchy was not recognized by rome until the ecumenical council of florence with the attendance of the byzantine emperor and the other 4 patriarchates
a very simple argument is: how the council of Ephesus granted autocephaly to Cyprus? That shouldn't be possible under RC ecclesiology
I'm a Catholic and I've wanted to be Orthodox for years, theres no Orthodox church anywhere near where i live in provincial New Zealand, The closest Orthodox Church is over 500KMs away in Wellington
May the Lord offer you ways to be an orthodox Christian. May the Lord bless you 🙏
You can write to the priest and seek unity with the Body of Christ today. God didn't incarnate for us to be hetetical by circumstance, he did so to redeem all of mankind, kings to paupers, urbanites to siberians. You can start your Orthodox life where you're at right now and be a part of the salvation of New Zealand.
As a fellow Kiwi, I'm going from Catholic to Orthodox. My nearest EO Church is a 7 hour drive away (Christchurch) so I try to go every 3 months and stay for a long weekend. The EO faith is so rich and healing and clearly the original, one, true catholic and apostolic faith that I feel bathed in love - and not racked by guilt, as I was as a Catholic. Meanwhile, the EO priest is my spiritual director and we are in touch regularly via email. I'm reading many books and listening to people like Craig. If you can get down to Wellington and attend Divine Liturgy, I think it will affect you deeply and then the Priest(s) can put a face to a name for your future dialogue. All the best and God Bless.
Thanks God I'm Roman Catholic
You almost don't need the history, just look at all the craziness coming from the Magisterium since the schism. The pope is orthodoxy's best apologist
Exactly, by thier fruit ye shall know them. That was the standard of discernment given by Christ and the apostles directly.
Pope is wrong therefore EO is right? How does that follow? Why not Oriental Orthodox ?
What an ignorant one 🤣🤣🤣🤣 Your Orthodoxy has NO AUTHORITY WHATSOEVER Biblically and historically!
St. Clement and the early Church Pope knew that all the bishops from East and West should submit to the bishop f Rome which is the Pope. The Holy See has the authority to make amends and it is not the Pope's fault if the Orthodox Patriarch does not adhere to this. The moment you reject his authority then you are an anathema and a rebel to the church and must be excommunicated. Those bishops disobeyed and laughed at the Pope BUT NO ONE AMONG THEM EVER SAID THAT THE POPE IS NOT PETER"S SUCCESSOR. This is something every Orthodox Christian has to put inside their brains to remember.
@@Greasy__Bearthats honestly one of the reasons I became Orthodox. Compare the actions of the post-schism Catholic saints with the post-schism Orthodox saints.
@@joshuaparsons887 Friends, that is all water under the bridge now. His Holiness has said that all paths lead to God , so that validates the othodox church and heals the rift between Rome on Constantinople. Ahhh, isnt that nice. Three cheers for the Holy Father......hip hip hooray.
Great vid!
I think the problem with a lot of recent RC arguments is they simply misunderstand the EO position on the bishop of Rome. We both agree that the bishop of Rome in the ealry church had a very important role and a level of authority to appeal to. RC's seem to think EO denies that in the early church but that's just not true.
The bigger more important issue are the infallability claims, the development of doctrine over time and straying from the truth with all the developments. Additionaly the bishop of rome having supreme authority no matter what, at all times, is also stretched too far on the RC end. This is where EO disagree it seems.
EO do not deny the roman see or the ancient bishop (pope) of rome having autbority. But that does NOT mean further developments of doctrine, infallability, and supremacy over ALL bishops at all times. Thats where it seems to go wrong on their end.
Ultimately I feel bad because for many people these matters can be too confusing to find the true church. Lord have mercy on us all. ☦️
Heres an interesting bit from someone afaik the latins consider to be a church father, Origen (185-253). The context being when he was combatting some sort of Alexandrian sect that claimed they had certain secret teachings from St. Peter.
"If we also say as Peter, "thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God," not as bring revealed to us by flesh and blood, but by a light shining in our hearts from the Father in heaven, we become Peter...for every disciple of Christ is a rock...since in each of the perfect, who have the totality of the words, and deeds, and meanings, which fulfils blessedness, is the Church built by God."
"If you think that the whole Church is built only upon one Peter what can you say about John the son of thunder, or about each of the Apostles? Besides, shall we then dare say that the gates of hell will not prevail against Peter specially, but that they will prevail against the rest of the Apostles and the perfect? And then, that of the keys of the kingdom of heaven are given by the Lord to Peter only, and that no other of the blessed will receive them?...All imitators of Christ are likewise named Peter...If then the gates of hell should prevail against someone, such a person can neither be a rock upon which Christ builds the Church, nor can he be the Church built by Christ upon the rock."
Commentary on Matthew (Book XII)
Quoted from "The Greek East and the Latin West" by Philip Sherrard
It's like athiests, muslims, protestants always arguing AGIANST the Catholic church. But never any arguments FOR their beliefs. I don't see where Jesus gave an equal number of 12 apostles equal authority. And no, Acts 15 council doesn't prove Orthodoxy or Protestantism. Councils have always been held in the Catholic church with Catholics rebuking the Pope.
Uh…did you watch the video? He says in the first couple minutes that if you want his positive case for Orthodoxy, look at the materials in the video description, including his book…
@@dbishop9992 yeah “Acts 15 case closed” not addressing how 12 men equal authority would ever work. And then their successors. Like it’s a vote count with no leader. Obviously “councils” have not been enough to keep Orthodox churches together
@@CPATuttle Um…sir I don’t think you read what I wrote. I pointed out that your categorization of Craig not making a positive case for Orthodoxy was obviously false because he addresses that literally one minute into the video. I’m not sure why you don’t understand that. Then you launched into an incoherent tirade about Acts 15 which neither I nor Craig mentioned. If you are interested in a calm and dispassionate positive case from Craig you can simply read his book or the materials in the description. Besides that, I’m not sure what Craig or myself can do for you. Take care.
@@dbishop9992 you keep saying I haven’t watched this or read that. So you can think I’m uninformed. I guarantee you his book uses Acts 15 as his principal case. Even though it says nothing to the office of Peter.
In chapter three of volume three of Adversus Haeresēs, Iranaeus does actually mention that we ought to harmonize with the Church of Rome, not because of its location / politics / geography, but rather because Peter and Paul founded it.
Edit: "Ad hanc enim ecclessiam, propter potentiorem principalitatem, necesse est omnem convenīre Ecclesiam"
Potentiorem principalitatem = a more potent first place / superiority
So if Rome makes a mistake, we need to harmonize?
@@CASOTTINCLASHDCclashofclansita Bro, I don't like it either man, but Iranaeus accepts Petrine supremacy because Our Lord preaches it in the scriptures.
There's 2 Catholics Latin rite and eastern Byzantine rite in union with the pope. Michael lofton has all ready covered all the answer to eastern orthodoxy.
Questions roman Catholics can't answer:
How can Vatican 1 be true if the council of Ephesus declares the autocephaly of Cyprus, and Rome now does not recognize the first council of Lateran as ecumenical, even if it was called by the pope?
How come Cantate Dominum states non Catholics go to hell even if they shed blood for Christ and nowadays non Catholics can be saints?
how do you worship the Trinity and Christ if Lumen Gentium and Nostra Aetate states you worship the same god as muslims, who deny the Trinity and the divinity of Jesus?
What's the point of being roman Catholic if you canonize Orthodox, Armenian and Coptics as saints?
We are with Peter who has the Keys. It's whatever he does, as Jesus said.
@@koppite9600agree, and if certain marriages can be annulled due to spurious circumstances, so can be decrees
@@renomtv
The only requirement is underlying good faith, with it anything can be done.
On the Lumen Gentium and Nostrae Aetate point, in the same way that the Theotokos is the mother of God despite not birthing the Trinity.
@@Malygosblues how does one thing has anything to do with the other? Muslims literally say Jesus isn't God and they deny the Trinity
Thank you for doing this
Another excellent video with extremely important information.
May the Lord Jesus Christ bring Roman Catholics back to the Orthodox Church!
Riecker's Catholic apologetics are ill-fated at best. I've often refuted his arguments quite easily in the comments. Interesting to see that he is gaining recognition, even in the online Orthodox world. Maybe we can team up against him sometime? Haha just joking. Interesting to see an Orthodox perspective on these things, thank you.
He’s only being mentioned in the Orthodox world at all because he made a video titled; “All Orthodox would he Catholic if they knew this,” and then proceeded to make a video based on a lot of foolishness.
@@joachimjustinmorgan4851 I am a Protestant so I kinda needed a formal Orthodox view on this to better understand the issues brought up by Cameron.
I just saw you on Barrel Age Faith. I see he is to you what Gavin Ortlund is to me, lol. But these fads pass, eventually people will see if it holds water or not. If it does, those arguments will stick around. If not, they’ll die out.
Excited to watch this later. But Craig I have to tell you that the thumbnail gave me a good chuckle. Where is that picture from?
Nice job! Hello everyone, I am a theology student who has to improve his fluency in speaking English. So if there is anyone with the same issue I would aprreciate like ft 1 time weekly, maybe talking about some actual theological problems or something like that 😊
I showed this to 20 people in my parish and all 20 converted... 😅😅😅😅😅
I remember watching a video of an RC claiming that it was easy to defend the catholic faith. He claimed that he only had to read church history and the fathers, as if history was on their side. But actually, it is easy to defend orthodoxy, not catholicism. we just need to agree with the scholarly consensus that claims that there wasn't the papacy defined in vatican i in the first millenium.
Ok, here we go
1. "Corinth is under Roman jurisdiction (Corinth was founded by Paul)."
Well, Antioch was founded by Peter and Alexandria by Peter's disciple. That doesn't make them under Rome. True, Julius Caesar populated Corinth with Italian freedman (Giles said it in "Document Illustrating Papal Authority AD 96-454"). Still the fact is John was way closer and he was an apostle. While Clement is a disicple of an apostle. Corinthians should've refer to John. But they didn't.
2. "For Irenaeus people convene at Rome because it's the capital. And tradition is preserved in all Churches, not just Rome."
Quite a stretch, Craig. Irenaeus nowhere talk about any political aspect in the passages. Second, it's true that Irenaeus believes that other Churches preserved tradition. But Irenaeus only said that all Church should convenire with Rome. He doesn't say that for all the other Churches.
3. "Every bishops are auccessor of Peter therefore they all share Peter's prerogatives"
No, Craig. The keys was given to Peter alone. The verb and pronouns in Mat 16:19 are singulars. Same with Luke 22:32-33. These are all for Peter alone WHILE THE APOSTLES ARE WITH THEM (thus of Christ wanted all of them to have the same things He would've give them to all and used plural pronouns and verbs).
Now Mat 18:18 used plural pronouns and verbs. But no "keys" are mwntioned here. Just the power of those keys. Which means that this is the whole episcopacy working in communion with its head who was given the keys earlier. Ie. Peter.
4. "Pope Martin didn't have power to ordain new bishop"
It's not "new bishops," Craig. But "Patriarch." We both read the letter.
Notice that Martin said that he doesn't have POWER to ordain patriarch, not that he doesn't have AUTHORITY to ordain patriarch. Martin doesn't have POWER because he qould be vetoed by the muslim ruler. But he does jave authority. He gave John of Philadelphia power to ordain deacons, priests and bishops in other jurisdiction in virtue of his apostolic power. Surely you know where to read this in "Conflict and Negotiation..." book.
5. "Pope were excommunicate. Called heretic"
Jesus was said to work miracles by the power of Satan. He was crucified by religious leader. The fact that some dissent from the pope (or Jesus) doesn't mean he doesn't have power and authority.
6. "What's the point of ex cathedra teaching if we can't know what is ex cathedra?"
Well we have magisterium. We ask them which is ex cathedra. Just like how an Orthodox as their bishop which is the true Tradition.
1. Agus, not to be mean, but you're ad hocing. It is basic fact Corinth was under Rome. We have letters pertaining to vicarites and such to this effect. I am not sure how to say this without causing offense, but your reply here shows historical ignorance. This is not some novel theory of mine. Subject matter experts are well aware of this.
2. Ad hoc again, the translation is perfectly possible and fits contextually, as the footnote points out, it can be found in a Roman Catholic translation.
3. Is this the same Agus I know? He would not so easily contradict the claims of Popes and RC General councils, quoted in the video.
4. Ad hocing again. The point at issue at context is that Stephen of Dora, the locums tenens, cannot be replaced. This is why a new Patriarch cannot be consecrated, because the Pope cannot theoreticall replace Stephen--that is the point.
5. You are not understanding the response here.
6. So, what is your point? Asking your bishop where is the true ex cathedra statements is as nebulous as asking the Orthodox bishop his own magisterium?
I am going to ask if you reply, you more seriously engage. Otherwise, you are just writing disagreeable things from the seat of your pants which I think is useless. We shouldn't be disagreeing with one another as if it were a childhood sport.
It’s crazy to me that people believe that an Italian man in Rome is required for their salvation.😂 the pope of Rome thinks that all religions are true anyways.
The Pope has nothing to do with salvation.
@@YourStylesGeneric321 yeah I agree that’s why I’m orthodox. But traditionally the Roman church taught that the pope is needed for salvation but now they teach that all religions are true. Rome is a soulless and dead church that doesn’t have Christ or the holy spirt and it is centered around one man.
@@Joe27160 Yeah except youre wrong on everything you just said.
@@YourStylesGeneric321 ok prove me wrong. I am former Roman Catholic and according to pope Francis all religions lead to God but according to pope Boniface 1302 all must be under the pope.
@@YourStylesGeneric321 your church is a church of hubris and contradiction. And it focuses on the things of this world such as climate change religious “unity” ecumenism etc but it should really be focussing on God .
Sorry for any hostility in the previous vid I left comments on. Anyway, yeah. I do hope Rome and the East reconcile, especially in the wake of the Western Rite Vicariate of the Antiochian church here in the US. Now, if only there was a Western Rite parish in my home State. Oh, well. Anglican orders might not be perfect, but they'll do for now. Good news is, the ACNA in particular is looking towards communion with Rome, so if that goes through and Rome submits to the Eastern church, that'll make three branches in communion with each other. Here's to hoping.
Are you saying you have a perfectly good Eastern Rite Orthodox parish you could go to, but you choose to be a Protestant? The Papal church and the Orthodox will not be uniting in any century soon. Constantinople might forge some Union with Rome which would only result in every Orthodox Bishop in the world excommunicating Constantinople. The Vatican Papal church is incompatible with Orthodox Christianity by a large margin of error though. With God, all things are possible. Without extreme divine intervention though, that ain’t likely to happen.
@@joachimjustinmorgan4851 Keep in mind, I have yet to agree with everything the Eastern Orthodox say. Plus, an expansion of Western Rite would be a positive proof of catholicity. Part of the reason why I'm an Anglican in particular is because of Via Media allowing enough room to adopt more biblical doctrines as needed without the constraints of an "all or nothing" attitude along denominational lines. Inb4 "But, Zachary! Weez nawt a denomination!!!!!" You know what I mean, so don't even go there. Also, it's not entirely accurate to say Anglicans are protestant. We are our own thing due to not fitting g neatly in any one branch. In4b "Aw, bawt weez nawt a branch!!!!" Again, focus on the main point.
@@joachimjustinmorgan4851 Okay, that did not come out right. Still sounds too aggressive on my end. Let me rephrase that. Basically, I am not entirely there theologically yet, is what I am saying.
@@coffeehousedialoguehow is "I have yet to agree with" an adequate defense? Who asked? We need to look to the church.
@XiHamORTHOCN What, you expect me to jot down an entire academic paper? What specific points of contention between Anglicanism and Eastern Orthodoxy do you expect me to cover in these comments? And, don't say "gay marriage and women's ordination." You're not better by much with GOARCH and Constantinople. -.-
I shocked a Greek Orthodox monk with a passage from the Historical Introduction to the Council of Ephesus because that council said it taught infallibly. That council's fathers also believed that Pope Celestine taught with St. Peter's authority. So, if they were right, does that show that Celestine had primacy of Jurisdiction? If you read the quotation below and the document I'm quoting it from, it may help you see why my conscience won't let me be Eastern Orthodox.
"Finally, Celestine himself, after the conclusion of the whole matter, sends a letter to the holy Council of Ephesus, which he thus begins: “At length we must rejoice at the conclusion of evils.” The learned reader understands where he recognizes the conclusion; that is, after the condemnation of Nestorius by the infallible authority of an Ecumenical Council, viz., of the whole Catholic Church. He proceeds: “We see, that you, with us, have executed this matter so faithfully transacted.” All decree, and all execute, that is, by giving a common judgment. Whence Celestine adds, “We have been informed of a just deposition, and a still juster exaltation:” the deposition of Nestorius, begun, indeed, by the Roman See, but brought to a conclusion by the sentence of the Council; to a full and complete settlement, as we have seen above: the exaltation of Maximianus, who was substituted in place of Nestorius immediately after the Ephesine decrees; this is the conclusion of the question. Even Celestine himself recognises this conclusion to lie not in his own examination and judgment, but in that of an Ecumenical Council. And this was done in that Council in which it is admitted that the authority of the Apostolic See was most clearly set forth, not only by words, but by deeds, of any since the birth of Christ. At least the Holy Council gives credence to Philip uttering these true and magnificent encomiums, concerning the dignity of the Apostolic See, and “Peter the head and pillar of the Faith, and foundation of the Catholic Church, and by Christ’s authority administering the keys, who to this very time lives ever, and exercises judgment, in his successors.” This, he says, after having seen all the Acts of the Council itself, which we have mentioned, so that we may indeed understand, that all these privileges of Peter and the Apostolic See entirely agree with the decrees of the Council, and the judgment entered into afresh, and deliberation upon matters of Faith held after the Apostolic See."
ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf214/npnf214.x.ii.html
I've read all the minutes of Ephesus. If the Pope had primacy, why did the council not treat his excommunication as final?
I cited The Historical Introduction to the Council of Ephesus because I'm curious about why the Eastern Orthodox Churches rejected council infallibility when at least one council accepted it before the schism between East and West in about 1054. Those Churches also insist that the Pope has no primacy of jurisdiction. If he doesn't, then please explain why the Council Fathers believed that Pope Celestine taught with St. Peter's authority at the Council of Ephesus.
If the council didn't treat the excommunication as final, the Council Fathers may have waited for Celestine to approve it. I'm sure you know Catholics believe that for a council to teach anything infallibly, the Pope must sign off on what it intends to teach.
I'd love to know why my Greek Orthodox monk acquaintance didn't know that the fathers in Ephesus thought their council taught infallibly.
Meanwhile, you may want to review some Catholic beliefs about ecumenical councils and infallibility. If an ecumenical council teaches infallibly, infallibility protects only dogmatic definitions and anathemas. An excommunication isn't either a dogmatic definition or an anathema.
Here's the Catholic Encyclopedia's article about infallibility published in about 1913.
www.newadvent.org/cathen/07790a.htm#IIIA
@@williammcenaney1331 The council never accepted any papal doctrines, which is why you have to read the real council.
Great video
Jesus also gave the keys to all of his 12 apostles Catholics do know that.
That's protestant
@@notsparctacus protestants isn't apostolic
Where did Jesus keys to all his Apostles?
@@mmutadonn4241matthew 16:18-19. St. Pope Leo the Great writes that its in plural
@@Divinecter Why did you appeal to Pope Leo? The text is clear, It is about Peter Bro! There is no way around it.
I would love to watch a debate between you guys. I’m not going to lie- the Roman Catholic position seems more coherent to me, whereas the Orthodox view seems to have to do a little more mental gymnastics to reach their conclusions. However that perspective may come from a deficiency of understanding that I have on Church history. I would love to see you two really get down and dirty in the details, and see who’s position prevails.
I recommend reading Vatican 1, it's very short. If you have the time you can also read the first 7 Ecumenical Councils to see with which church they fit best. A simple example of contradiction with Rome is the fact that the council of Ephesus granted autocephaly to Cyprus. That shouldn't be possible under RC ecclesiology
@@778FraxK I’ll definitely look into it. I only want to be in truth, whether that is orthodoxy or Catholicism. However from my view it seems like the orthodox threw away the original structure of the church by excommunicating the Pope. I know that orthodox say that all bishops are the successors of Peter- but this doesn’t seem very convincing to me. Not to mention they haven’t been able to have an ecumenical council since the schism, where as Rome has. I also find that orthodox are guilty of similar strawman arguments while arguing against Catholics, much like the Protestants do.
However God bless you brother. Pray for me please.
No, it's hidden behind that red thing.
These words are used to distinguish the churches since the Schism of 1054. Since the schism rome took the name Roman Catholic then the other 4 patriarchates had to take a name also,,,,,,,,,,,🥲🥲🥲
Roman Catholicism is the first protestant church.
what about church of the east?
The Orthodox rather because they're the ones who break ties with Rome and so the Pope excommunicated those rebel bishops! The REAL ORTHODOX is the Catholic Church both the Bible and history support that! Go back to CHURCH History 101 to learn this. For the first thousand years of existence of the church, both east and west churches knows and adheres to the authority and power of the Pope as Peter's successor 💯✔
As St. Justin Popovic put it: the first radical protest in the name of humanism against the God-Man Christ, and his God-Man organism-the Church-should be looked for in papism, not in Lutheranism. Papism is actually the first and the oldest Protestantism.
The Church of the East split off first, but they didn't have "God-Man" protesting the Church
@@kwing6017
We have the Keys, how are we protestant?
@@koppite9600 lol, "the keys" 🤣. The Patriarch for Antioch was founded by Peter as well, yet he doesn't make ahistorical and outrageous claims like Rome
it's sad that the words "Orthodox" and "RC Catholic" have superseded the word Christian in many adherents' minds, just sayin.
Mr. Trulia, please forgive me because I wrote to frankly. I'm usually tactful, but I'm sometimes too passionate about theological subjects.
I personally think the history of the last thousand years of Roman Catholicism disprove
Papal claims sufficiently : if a dogma is true, it should be verified in the facts of history and in the fruits, both ethical and dogmatic. Where is the honest and serious RC who will tell me without blushing that the Vatican magisterium teaches the faith and the mindset of the Apostles ? And if it doesn't, what's the use of debating papal indefectibility and infallibility ? "Judge the tree by its fruits".
What would you say is the Best Book available on the Filioque from the Orthodox Position?
I'm not sure about books, but I recommend this: th-cam.com/video/o-satDNIXr4/w-d-xo.html
@@OrthodoxChristianTheology okay thank u
@@Alm__14_3Siecienski's Filioque book is great.
why did you guys have to become two churches in 1054? now i am confused and don't know which way to go. Orthodoxy or Roman Catholicism?
Sadly, the RCC went into schism: th-cam.com/video/r73ixUECwHs/w-d-xo.html
Love the video again. It's another great video. Keep it up, ps, I was watching live!!! Won't. Woot.
This is so great, that Catholic video is so low tier and the comments section is filled with coping Catholics hilariously trying to convert the Orthodox to be united to the papacy but not to actually listen to the papacy or the Pope ("iTS nOT eXCATHEDRA")
Not everything proclaimed at councils is binding, neither is everything the Pope proclaims. Not hard to understand
@@petros-petra right, all the parts that are contradictions are not binding and all the other parts are 😂, we know how it goes lol. 🤡
@@petros-petra so you pick and choose what you would like to believe, contradicting Vatican 1. Catholics should read Vatican 1, it isn't long.
By the way, why would you try to convert Orthodox, going against your pope? Your church canonizes Orthodox, Armenians and Coptics, what's the advantage for being RC?
@@778FraxK no I do not pick and choose, just as you shouldn't pick and choose which Councils are binding and which aren't
@@petros-petra yes, Vatican 2 is also binding for you, and it states you have the same god as muslims: Nostra Aetate: "The Church regards with esteem also the Moslems. They adore the one God, living and subsisting in Himself"
Lumen Gentium: "But the plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator. In the first place amongst these there are the Muslims, who, professing to hold the faith of Abraham, along with us adore the one and merciful God"
I can go on and on, like Cantate Dominum that says non Catholics go to hell even if they verse blood for Christ, and nowadays your church canonizse non Catholics
I think you are misunderstanding a lot of what you quote. Jesus gives the keys specifically to Peter, but gives all of the Apostles collectively essentially the same power of binding and loosing.
Looool i saw thay catholic dudes video 😂. He honestly shouldve just turned off his comments
Would you be willing to engage in a moderated debate with William Albrecht of Patristic Pillars?
I don't say this to be mean, but I got booted from Reason and Theology due to him ducking a debate. He regularly name calls me and at this juncture I'm past that and don't want to deal with the personal frustration of a debater who won't act professionally.
Mmmm, but Papal Infallibility and Primacy was not defined till the Vatican Council I, so till then other authorities could act over the bishop of Rome without detriment of what was declared later. Same way any faithful could deny the Immaculate Conception till it was proclaimed later.
I know you put that title as an answer to other, but you gave no arguments for wherever you put the ultimate authority in the Church.
The RC position is that the doctrines articulated by Vatican I were known and followed by the whole church at all times, which is of course false. This revisionism undercuts RC dogmatics.
First of all, I don't recognize the unquestionable infallible authority of any minister, bishop, or pope because of Romans 3:23 "for all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God." As far as which apostle was preeminent (none of them claimed to be preeminent), Gal 2:9-12 records Paul confronting Peter over his hypocrisy because Peter was afraid of those who came from James, as if Peter was under James' authority. Arguing over who has political authority is a waste of time and a distraction from following Christ, IMO.
Yeah but you assume the infallible authority of yourself by making that very statement.
@@YourStylesGeneric321 Thanks for your reply. You misunderstand my statement; I'm not claiming infallibility I'm claiming that God's Word is infallible hence the quotes from Romans and Galatians. As Romans 3:4 says "let God be true, but every man a liar..." Blessings.
@@uthyrgreywick5702 You are claiming infalibilty, by saying the Bible is all that is infallible, which its not.
@@YourStylesGeneric321 So your claim is that the Bible is fallible? Are you saying that it can be contradicted and by whose authority?
@@uthyrgreywick5702 Im not claiming anything, you are. Your claim is that your decision to treat the Bible as the sole infallible rule, is infallible, because if it it wasnt then in may be true that you are wrong, which of course you are, but not only that you're determining interpretation of said scriptures by your own "infallible" rule as well, even if it is anothers, youre claiming to be the arbiter of truth, which is of course false. These are your claims and the entailments of them.
Sorry what you said is not convincing at all. The primacy of bishop of Rome is stated in Scripture when Christ gave the keys of the kingdom of heaven to Peter (The Greek "you" is second person singular). Granted that the papacy did not appear overnight in the history of the Church but gradually developed with opposing views. This is something we expect because Scripture refers the Church as the Bride (singular) of Christ. The wedding between the Groom (Christ) and the Bride (the Church) will take place at the end of age depicted in the book of Revelation. Any married man had bride who is now his wife. She did not come into this world fully grown as on the day he married her. She was born as baby and grew up - on the wedding day there are parts of her that did not exist when she was a baby (or not developed yet).
what must I do to go to heaven? according to the Bible the whole Bible not just this gospel or this letter
Is there a good vid that explains the Orthodox criticisms of Vatican 1?
Yes, there are many, check out Truglia, Dyer, Ubi Petrus on topics that involve infallibility, indefectibility, both of which were enumerated by Vatican I.
Not Roman Catholic, just Catholic. All Eastern Churches United with Peter's Successor in The One Church Founded by Christ on Peter are considered the Catholic Church. The Roman, Western Rite's Church is oftentimes seen to be the Only Catholic Church, but in fact, it is just the biggest one that makes the most noise.
Also the one that you must submit to in matters of faith.
If Vatican 2 is ever annulled, which I doubt will happen in the way the Trads want, the Uniates are on the chopping block.
Your comment demonstrates a misunderstanding of the word “Catholic”. It is commonly defined or used as a synonym for “universal”. This is not a correct understanding as it was applied by the Church Fathers and expressed in the Nicaea/Constantinople Creed were it defined the One Church United and made universal by having one order, Structure and belief in compliance with the commands of Scripture to be of one mind and Judgement. Today Roman Catholicism is the antithesis of “catholicity” as you can be in communion with Rome but believe and worship differently than the Pope believes and worships.
@@SaltShack the substance of worship and belief is that same but practice varies because of valid tradition that was received in the east and the west. the west ended up with the liturgy of ambrose the byzantines with john chrysostom's etc. the west had theologians with certain views the east had others with different view points but compatible with each other
@@kwing6017 Compatible, that’s extraordinarily generous at best considering the Filioque redefines the nature of God himself and other theologies tamper with, death, salvation, heaven and who the mother of Christ was, none of which are on the margins but rather are the core of religious belief not just Christianity. Compatibility is not commanded by Scripture, being of one mind and judgment and to refrain from schism is.
@@SaltShack they are of one mind just the expression of doctrine is different. like purgatory the orthodox believe in it just don't call it that and don't describe it the same way. the oriental orthodox maintain miaphysitism but catholics and some orthodox have joint declarations with them saying that what they believe is the same as us but with different emphasis.
Evading the whole contention by saying everyone has Keys is just not working. Catholics become more orthodox by claiming The Prime successor of Peter and they win by that. Wherever Peter is can be relied upon forever just as Jesus said.
@@alexpanagiotis4706
What has that got to do with anything?
😂😂😂 love this
I scolded him awhile too , check my comment on his video 🤣
If the Pope has the Keys your presentation is rendered useless. The Keys can allow many things and assures our safety.
Every bishop has keys, listen to that section again.
@@OrthodoxChristianTheology
That has to be interpreted. Jesus gave Peter alone the keys.
As a Catholic whose family emigrated from the Balkans I can tell you that I would never join a sect founded by the Ottomans.
Craig, you could not even answer my biblical arguments about the primacy of Peter, how are you going to make a case for orthodoxy if you do not have any roots in scripture??
1. What arguments?
2. I cannot guarantee that I have the time to reply to every commenter online, my apologies.
3. This may help: orthodoxchristiantheology.com/2022/11/17/does-the-bible-teach-papal-primacy-or-supremacy/
Who are you? Just a TH-cam commenter?
Catholics mistaking Peter for Christ in OT Typology is hilariously crazy. Suan Sonna lost an entire debate (he admitted) making a case for the papacy from OT typology which is found nowhere in the fathers or church history. The fact that the RC Church admits the Orthodox position of synodality for the first thousand years and not papal supremacy puts the entire issue to bed, play coping Catholics will continue fighting against our own faith
@@OrthodoxChristianTheology here are some of the arguments, but there is much more to say: the councils are in accord with what we see in this model in Act 15. But the council doesn’t exclude the possibility of a final chief to guide the church. It is interesting to note that even at the first council of Jerusalem it was Peter who acted as a chief and made the final proclamation to the assembly to conclude the meeting. James only reaffirms what Peter said at the council. James was not even an apostle; he couldn’t decide something without the consent of the apostles. While the words “pope of Rome” are not there, the papacy model is already in scripture through the Petrine principle. Only Peter's name was changed to the rock, not the other apostles. Showing he was going to be the rock of something (the church of course!). By the way, why is God change the name of Abram to Abraham? is this related to his purpose and mission? Concerning The apostle Paul, he was also an important apostle for the Gentiles but never received the power of the key. And only Peter got the key of the kingdom, not the others. We see Peter acting as the chief of the apostles everywhere in the book of Acts after the Pentecost, and Peter being the one sent to open the door to the holy spirit for the Gentiles and the Samaritans (showing he is the rock of the church on earth), to deny that is to be obstinate. Isaiah 22 is very relevant because it is the only precedent in the Old Testament to understand Matthew 16. It is also interesting that 400 years ago St-Francis of Sale(one of the most learned Catholic theologians of that time) was using Matthew 16 about Isaiah 22 to defend the papacy against the protestant’s rebellion. You can read his arguments in his book of apologetic “the catholic controversy” So this argument was also used long before Suan Sonna! The relation between Matthew 16 and Isaih 22 is not merely typology, it is the way a jew would understand these verses in a first-century Jewish context... The one who received the key of the kingdom was considered second to the king.
Catholics do not confuse Christ with Peter(or popes)… Christ is the king of kings and lord of lords, showing that there will be other kings and lords because Christ is willing to share his kingship and lordship with humans, The Same principle with Peter as the rock of the church on earth, no confusion here.
Finally, what is important is the initial intent and desire of Christ for the ecclesial structure of his church. If the later church of the first millennium fails to comprehend or fully implement the Petrine principle like it was supposed to be then it is a secondary concern. The church could reform itself on the way and re-align her ecclesial model according to the one we see in scripture which is the roman catholic model intended by Christ and not the Eastern Orthodox one.
@@TommyGunzzz you can read my answer below
@@thefaiththatenduresThe last word was from the Apostle James. So...
You said Catholic dogma is that apostles hold the keys as well, you conveniently ignored the full teaching of the Church:
"In virtue of his office, that is, as Vicar of Christ and pastor of the whole Church, the Roman Pontiff has full, supreme, and universal power over the Church, and he is always free to exercise this power. The order of Bishops, which succeeds to the College of Apostles and gives this Apostolic body continued existence, is also the subject of supreme and full power over the universal Church, provided we understand this body together with its head, the Roman Pontiff, and never without its head. This power can be exercised only with the consent of the Roman Pontiff." Vatican Council II, Lumen Gentium § 22
@@CroElectroStile that is so long after the schism using it as a point of analysis between you and i doesn't work
The Heresy of heresy is what that nonsense is. St Justin Popovich pray for us and enlighten the papist to the error of their ways
☦️Great refutation, brother. The Bishop of Rome, up until St. Emperor Constantinus the Great's foundation of Constantinopolis, had supremacy but never absolute rule, and cetainly not infallibility which is ridiculous, and once the most holy Emperor declared the holy city as the New Rome & capital of the Roman empire, it became *equal in privileges* - which is canonized at Chalcedon, so let "catholics" try to explain on who's authority they reject canons of *Ecumenical councils* & the Holy Spirit, picking & choosing which ones they want to obey. People like this Cameron guy (as most on youtube) are just liberal grifters who hijacked the Christian identity anyway, so...God Bless🙏
The Orthodox Church teach that:
1. Contraception is ok
2. Divorce (max 2) is ok
3. Confessing to a priest via phone is ok
4. Recently their patriarch excommunicated each other. Lack of unity is palpable.
Contraception is not allowed, divorce is a very complicated process and only allowed in extreme examples, you don't usually get absolution from a phone confession, just advice but economy can be made depending on extreme cases and the deal with the patriarchs, they did not excommunicate eachother they just seased clerical communion, the laity is not affected.
your church teaches you have the same god as muslims (Lumen Gentium and Nostra Aetate), and you canonize Orthodox, Coptics and Armenians, there's no point for being RC over Orthodox. All questions were already answered by corneliu
@@778FraxK thanks brother for the clarification, God bless and many years!
@@corneliu-mihaimagureanu6626 God bless!
I would add as well that roman Catholic annulment doesn't make sense, it states that when an annulment is made, that would mean that the marriage actually never took place. How can a RC knows he is really married if there's always a possibility of annulment? The problem with that as well is that it doesn't allow to recognize the sin of divorce
You look like my older brother
Where can I get that profile?
Pray for the repentance of the Photians
I’ll do so for the Nicholatians.
I say if believers realized that god has never been shown to be real they wouldn't worship him!
@@alexpanagiotis4706 "God often has shown himself" I disagree. If he actually had why doesn't everyone in the world believe in him? Good luck my friend.
Lol
Why the constant bashing, Orthodox have major issues also. The current state of the Orthodox church is a disaster. Schism, disobedience, pride and a severe superiority complex which is extremely distasteful. Where Peter is, is where the church is.
"The current state of the Orthodox church is a disaster." This is true for ALL Christian-based religions.
Yes, but we, ie hierarchy, are our worst enemies, coming from bishops east and west, something happens when they assume power
@@RPlavo "coming from bishops east and west, something happens when they assume power" i agree. They try to cover up heinous crimes committed by clergymen against miners.
Yup, as it has always been but the gates of hell will not prevail.
But important of all, orthodoxs have kept the tradition alive. Catholics have toned it down to the point where they don’t know the real meaning behind all the traditions…
Let's not forget Ortho church-approved genocide.
Two false religions fighting each other. Time for me to grab some popcorn and jujubees.
Such an attitude is not spiritually edifying for anyone.
@@OrthodoxChristianTheology The orthodox call the catholics wrong and the catholics call the orthodox wrong. Well, the catholics call everybody wrong. But just a few hrs ago, the Holy Father(the catholic one) said that all religions are a path to god. So that validates me and my prot sects and it validates the orthodox. Well, that problem is solved. Orthodox dont have to make vids explaining why they right anymore. Isnt that wonderful? I want to thank The Vicar of Christ for allowing me and my prot brothers into heaven. And i thank him from the bottom of my heart.
@@OrthodoxChristianTheology Neither is the attitude of any of your lackeys in this comment section. Always arguing in bad faith, mockery and jeering, and deciding for us what we believe in. Where is the charity in these discussions?
@@thaddian9430 This comment is not charitable, I'm not being mean.
@@OrthodoxChristianTheology You might not be mean, but I was referring to your viewers. Just take a look at their responses to the Catholics in this comment section. Where is the charity? Where is the love? I only see the same usual bad blood. Was any of this supposed to change anything? Because it all looks the same to me.
16:05 - but is there any infallible list of infallible EO dogma?
Is there any infallible list of RC dogma?
Everything received with consensus is the infallible in EOy.
@@OrthodoxChristianTheology That doesn't really answer my question: is there an infallible list of "everything received with consensus"?
@@OrthodoxChristianTheology I'm a Protestant, by the way.
Let's take an example of why I find issue with your reply: Mogila's confession was received "with consensus," was it not? But he taught inherited guilt, something by and large rejected by the current EO "consensus." So which is infallible?
@@rhedrich3 similar to the Protestant Canon, there is firmness on canonical questions because of consensus. We discern this consensus as a matter of historical fact.
As a matter of your other questions about the contents of these documents, that's all that can of worms which is worth discussing, but I really don't want to pack it here and so few words in a comment.
@@OrthodoxChristianTheology I'll leave other considerations aside, but Protestantism actually lists what it considers infallible. Does Eastern Orthodoxy do this? Where?