I love how the word copypasta is just a normal word now, the idea of it being used so casually in a video about church doctrines etc would just blow teenage me away.
I like how this channel is a combination of thorough research, clear presentation, and objective analysis. Notice he didn't say who is right. He encouraged those watching to think for themselves and think critically.
Truly fantastic channel. As you say he does not choose which is right, because none are. I have a Ytube video series called 'Myths in so-called Christianity' you will find interesting.
Yes, hope no one gets offended, but I think that this kind of channel could interest atheists as well, given that it just addresses many denominations quite objectively...:)
@@samppakoivula9977 My study is in the same vein, as it just attacks Myths in general, that is pieces of false doctrine so that the viewer can challenge whatever denomination or presuppositions they might hold, even Atheists, Muslims and Jews. It is the conversation that needs to be encouraged.
The answer is super simple. We have more than one denomination with cain and able. Cain was sacrifice plants, able was sacrifice lambs. There are 4 people on the planet and we already have 2 denominations. Gets worse the longer we go.
The answer is even simpler than Caleb's - get two people together, and chances are that they will disagree even on some of more basic issues (such as what to sacrifice, if anything). As you add more rules (such as whether or not there is a Sabbath , which day of the week it is (if it is), and what tasks are allowed), you add more points of division. It actually amazes me we don't have as many denominations as there are self-professed Christians in the world.
@@calebfielding6352 no it's not scientific studies shows where much diverse from you hooga booga tribalistic origin of man get a grip of natural world instead of relying on your anthrocentric mytheosis hypothesis.
@@laurendoe168 that doesn't answer the culture and people outside your tyrannical divinity, slave. Regardless this abrahamic belief you held in the desert is localized to your world it doesn't touch realistic timeline's of the Americas, Asia and India. Go back to the library instead of relying on one antique book, yes this is a ad hominems.
Great video and hopefully that encourages people to dig into the historical claims of their own and other denominations. I think a major part of the problem in the US is that a lot of churches do little or nothing to encourage their laity to learn anything about Christian history or what the faith looks like outside of their denomination. As a result, people take attitudes and things that developed within American Christianity in the past 200 years and generalize them to Christianity everywhere, and across time.
UsefulCharts just released their video beginning a series on the Christian Denominations Family Tree. So of course I was reminded of this video. I think he's done a good job, though I think it is wise to keep what you said about how charts can imply more than they should. I've always thought that these denomination charts are interesting, and have thought it strange where they put my denomination. Mine is a fringe group, so I expect that, but I thought it was really interesting what you had to say that even major protestant denominations aren't so cut and dry as the charts make it seem. This is the kind of quality content I like, thank you for your research and perspective.
I’m not a Christian, but I often play games like Crusader Kings where I can play as somewhat historical characters from various faiths. I had wondered WHY there’s so many branch of Christianity. This video gave me some context. Thanks, I would have more fun playing the game now. 😀
politics mostly, started it. you have the early schism's when doctrinal conformity was being pressed, there was texts that some churches used that others did not in early Christianity, so they felt it important to judge the "Validity" of those texts against each other and against the old testament for conformity to the Word. people talk about heretical books like the gospel of thomas as if the church got rid of some great truth, yet the gospel of thomas taught a contradictory tale. in it, jesus was not the literal son of god. he was just a person who god acted through, and if we wanted to have jesus's miracles we just needed to be like him. how does that message square with anything in the rest of the old or new testament. the gospel of thomas was an easy cut from the final books. but as they chopped away at these heretical texts they lost branches of the church who valued them. the next major schism was from interpretation of the existing texts. and this schizm would continue down to today. the problem is the new and old testament are only at the core the same message. the "good news" of the crusifiction ended the "law" of god from the old jewish texts. the origional churches understood this better then the later ones, when they were choosing what Jewish texts to include in the bible, they left out almost all the old jewish text on laws. they cut out endless jewish texts about laws and rules and stories and parables about those laws and rules, because to the jews, there was no forgiveness for sin, only atonement. this was the good news of Jesus, Christians use the phrase good news but so few grasp what the original Christians meant by it. they meant man was finally forgiven, and the law was broken. they no longer were bound by the old jewish laws of atonement, but now had a path for forgiveness. later Christian churches, lost for how to explain what god wants from a good christian would start re-adopting the old jewish laws of atonement, the baptists were famous for this, embracing laws against dancing, among other things. of course the SBC has turned away from that doctrinal fixation in the past 50 years, realizing it's mistaken interpretation and correcting it, yet they were not the only denomination who sprung up from a weird interpretation of the word of god. the catholic church created the environment for this doctrinal schism by ensnaring itself in worldly matters, politics basically. by becoming a political entity foremost they salted their own fields and boiled away their own good will with the people. they depended on the people's ignorance of latin to warp the word of god and to fall away from their faith. which is why it's not surprising within a decade or two of the invention of the printing press, and the guttenburg bible, the first translation of the bible from the dead latin language into the living german language, that the reformation under Martin Luthor was able to take root. people were able to read the bible for the first time in thier lives and realize how much their local bishop lied to them throughout their lives about what was in the bible.
@@arizona_anime_fan Quite frankly it sounds like the gospel of Tomas was the closest one to the truth of all of them. And the ideas of your post is *filled* with interpretations...
What a wonderful channel to stumble upon! Even as an atheist, I can’t help but appreciate your content deeply. Your objectivity that you bring to your discussions is very refreshing. You’re so bipartisan and unbiased in your presentation (at least as much as any one can be) that it took my at least 10 videos to figure out you were a Christian in the first place 😂Much appreciated and very interesting for understanding this very important part of the world’s history!
Now that I think about it it's awkward if a non-Christian had a channel dedicated to exploring Christian denominations but at the same time it's kind of awkward knowing that the person talking about things objectively actually has their own favorite.
@@danshakuimo Presumably, sports announcers have their favorite teams, political journalists have their favorite party, and so forth. Even atheists who discuss religion would have their viewpoint, which is that the denominations are all wrong. In the end, we can't escape this, we simply must demand fairness from people regardless.
The Schism of 1054 wasn’t quite as cut & dry as you make it sound. All that happened was the Bishop of Rome and the Patriarch of Constantinople excommunicated each other. People at that time didn’t think there was a schism until long after the fact. 1054 is just the only time where a date can be ascribed to a specific event. In reality, the East/West split was far more gradual and based on culture and, frankly, mutual prejudice and ego.
@@reintaler6355 but he still called it “The Schism in 1054,” or some equivalent to that. The patriarchs excommunicated each other, not their respective parishioners and clergy. There is no “Schism of 1054” because nothing really happened in 1054 that effected the universal church. The only thing that can be said with certitude is that the Schism definitely happened by the time of the fall of Constantinople, but that was four centuries later
@@brotherbruno1783 To me it seems less that he was unaware of the intricacies than that he wanted to make it easier for his audience, most of whom are actually unaware. I trust this guy's academic integrity, but spreading it is a whole different challenge. Also don't you mean it definitely happened by the Sack of Constantinople one-and-a-half centuries later?
I describe myself as a church nerd. This channel is so my jam. I love the level of detail and the concerted effort to present each tradition in a way they would recognize themselves in. I especially appreciate the outsider's introduction to other traditions I am not familiar with. Also the idea that there is a truth in Christianity that all denominations are accountable to, even if we disagree from our perspective. Finally, I notice that the history of Christian denominations looks messy in the same way that living as a Christian person looks messy - we don't always follow the 'pattern' of a faith journey as described and understood by our communities. God accompanies us along the way, even when we fall down, get confused, become inspired, shift our relationships... Jesus Christ is present in his Church, and does not abandon us.
"There is a truth in Christianity!" There is a truth but not in so-called Christianity, as I have found there's many Myths. I have a Ytube video series called 'Myths in so-called Christianity'.
Your observations seem to be accurate but I fear you might lean on them to justify "denominations". I left CoC's when I simply ask the Father to show me the truth and then I ***READ FOR MYSELF*** and I ***LOOKED AT THE HEBREW AND GREEK*** I discovered nuggets of gold which have been in plain sight the whole time! Like Matt 5:17-20 & Col ch2 which 99.99% of "Christians" pervert to mean the opposite of what Yeshua and Paul plainly said. 7th day Sabbath was my break through study and looking at the context (sola scriptura) were the two biggest things that makes the Word so clear. CoC's think they don't have a theology or follow traditions of man. I was CoC for 34 yrs and I tell you that's a lie. They absolutely do... anyone whos interested can look up Alexander Campbell and Barton Stone
Extremely well presented.. pertinent questions were raised and well debated in an unbiased manner...As usual, I have learnt a lot and found it very engaging. Thank you! Well done!!
For ones that are still existing today, I think that’s a great idea. (Although I think historical heresies are interesting, they are a bit different from the channel’s focus of comparing denominations).
@@WillHerrmann all three churches listed above are still in existence. The monolithic Church of the East no longer exists as a single church but does have elements that have survived to this day. Oriental orthodox have about 60 million believers and of course Eastern Orthodox has about 220 million believers.
The point that for many nothing changed in the Great Schism is interesting to think about. One day you were simply no longer in communion with a bunch of people who you were never in communication with in the first place. It really highlights the spiritual nature of communion, and raises questions about how much control any person or organization hold over true communion between believers.
While you are correct in your claim about the 1054 split, it's worth remembering that today, modern communication methods have radically altered both Church structures and centralized Church governance and doctrinal control. For instance, most bishops in the Catholic Church used to be appointed locally and Rome only notified... Today there's an office in the Vatican specifically designed to appoint bishops. Similarly, especially under Pope John Paul II and Josef Ratzinger, there was a determined effort to "standardize" doctrinal practice and thinking. In fact, the current difficulties Pope Francis is facing are JP2 loyalists who believe that Francis isn't enough of a JP2 clone... Modern communications have enabled even the largest organizations to micromanage, even when it comes to doctrinal practice.
@@michaelodonnell824 So now we know right away that we are no longer in communion with people we've never communicated with. Just because bishops can receive news directly from the Vatican immediately doesn't mean I've ever physically broken bread with the believers in the next town, never mind the rest of the world. The point was that communion binds people together who have never been together in any other sense.
@@Caderic I'm not sure that's even something we have enough power over to grant to another. If I can't cut off communion through Christ then I can't allow another to.
@@marthdaeglin I get what you are saying, but it's a bit naive. People let others control them all the time. Case in point, people let the government shutdown their churches and their christian fellowship during covid. All because of fear and weakness!!!
As a Catholic Christian, I generally just give up in tracing Protestant lineages, as it's extremely messy and, as you said, people hop denominations and come from whenever.
I view it this way: the church of Christ was built on Peter's confession from that day on. History shows it spread into the world way before the RCC came on line. The RCC did everything it could to seige power over the people & the world. I also see the RCC as an evil entity just as so many so called Christian churches. We were told & warned of this & it's Bern happening for over 2,000 years. I do not view the RCC as a Christian church. Christ's body the church was before the RCC even at all attempts to destroy it & it's true believers. A lot of dark history & a nasty stain the RCC has left. One of the worst is manipulation of history & writings. We know the intentions of the RCC & jesuits did & still do all they can to alter it, the forgeries it created leaves no room for trust in anything RCC or Orthodox. The Protest of protestants is misleading, this happened as the RCC came into being. The Protest & reformation that piss off the RCC came about from within that cult of the RCC. The only, very only truth that we have is GODS Word that HE alone inspired but the RCC tries to taint with so called church fathers & their traditions as if our traditions as men have been oh so holy & perfect. There were heritics in these church fathers & there was manipulation, alteration & forgeries of their writings. To be Solas Scripura is a badge of honor as it disgusts the RCC that we can not be the drones they'd like us to be. GOD HIS very SELF inspired the Word by chosen men, HE had it gathered by chosen men & had it canonized correctly by chosen men. I could care less of any of those men's fleshly carnal history because GOD did it all thru them. In English the KJV has not been able to be defeated & shows itself HOLYby GOD thru all the other defiled translations & attempts to distort, weaken & alter GOD'S Word. Concerning other denominations isn't an issue, they either follow the Word of GOD or they don't. We know Satan is & has been at work, our job is to read, study & stay in GOD'S Word & with that knowledge & wisdom find a church that is true to the Word. It is where we are today and we better wake up. The biggest stain on Christianity IMO Is the RCC & it's schism sister posing as Christians when it is the seat of the antiChrist. The history is plain in your face and it's current history which goes sweet under the rug or ignored. This current pope that RCC members complain about & disagree with yet bow down to & maintain loyalty to is your sign
I know, I know! One year late to the party.... However, I had to put this in print.... (BTW: Statutory Disclosure: Roman Catholic here! 70+ YOM.) Re your "...Protestant lineages ..... it's extremely messy". Right you are. But to put THIS particular video effort into some sort of perspective @Ready to Harvest says (20:30 ~): "... ppl will criticise how I've represented the origins of denominations (paraphrase) ... and if that helps you to take a second look at these denomination origin charts and view them with more scepticism then I think my job here is done." Excellent!!! So, that's it. @Ready to Harvest is doing yeoman service to Christianity (in all its shades and tints!) by trying to bring some semblance of "sense" to this Medusa-headed tangle of denominations and churches and congregations and communities and splinters and shards and what-have-you. The most egregious characteristic of @Ready to Harvest's channel is his "objective" stance in the matter. Very impartial, very tone-neutral in all his postings. It is only in this particular video that he says something definitely contra the Roman Catholic Church, otherwise he has never used a "negative" POV for the Roman Catholic Church. And that is a great relief because we RomCaths get hammered from every side in the "religion" universe... ranging from atheists to non-Christians to non-Roman Catholics! There, said my say. HC-JAIPUR (14/08/2024) .
@@hiltonchapman4844it is messy if you consider each new church & denomination valid as Christian. I personally do not view the RCC valid as Christian & run away as far as possible from any hint or stain of it. We know there is false religion, we've been warned of it since its begginings. Paul's letters were being forged & many writing have been especially since the start of the RCC in order to uphold & support it. The Jesuits were well known for this. From the didache to Vaticanus. The Gnostics & other groups that tried to taint the catholic (universal church) which includes Rome. Just as phoney TV evangelists in it for the money the RCC has done this same thing: have you ever seen a beautiful protestant church that came close to a RCC church? Run the people thru continually, daily with a mass, more if indulgences were still practiced. The wealth & pomp of the vatican say much of the Roman religion. The little cult Robert Schuller had going with the Crystal Cathedral was bought by the RCC. We will always have and have always had groups posing as Christians which started many so called denominations or cults. This iscwhy it is important for true believers to find a bible believing church, there are many out there. Yes, it is hard & takes prayer & wisdom because some have doctrines that have been perverted from the Word. We live in the hour right now, apostasy & a great falling away is happening, Satan is on rampage of deciet, deception & division. Man made traditions, rituals & doctrines have to go & staying in the living Word of God is all we have. Read it, study it, pray over it but above all let the Holy Spirit whom Christ sent to us for wisdom & leading into knowledge. To put our trust in anyone man, pastor, preacher, teacher, priest or pope is ludicrous & dangerous. To doubt God's Holy & Perfect Word as many do over church or institution will kill you
There are just so many Catholic/Orthodox denominations and sub-denominations that I feel like all of them as well as all non-cult protestant denominations are just kind of like families in the bigger church family.
I truly respect your channel. Your honesty and matter of factness is very impressive. I have been interested in this topic for a very long time but the rabbit hole is infinitely complex. Thank you for this vid.
The better way is to follow the rabbit trail back to the New Testament, and from Paul in Romans he takes us back to the religions start with Abraham. I did just that and as I found many myths in my own denomination of Anglican, I started a Ytube video series called 'Myths in so-called Christianity', you are welcome to watch as there are now 23.
One of your best videos so far on the issue of Church history. This isn't to argue or correct, but to follow up on some of the history, and maybe to encourage people of all traditions to read more: Note that because the "change" was so subtle (as if it had never happened) that many scholars today do not point to 1054 being the split, but the Council of Ferrara-Florence in 1445 as being the official split, as the delegates from all of the Patriarchs had attended and ratified differences and disagreements on clear theological grounds. Even then, Venetian Bishops in Aegean Islands had authority over various orthodox priests and parishes, frequently participating in intercommunion with them, and having them recognize the Pope of Rome until many years later. Up until that point Catholics and Orthodox still enthusiastically had intercommunion, which wouldn't make sense if there was an official general schism. As for the change to the creed (The Filioque), it was held prior to 1054 by various Orthodox saints including Popes, so the claim that caused the schism raises some eyebrows. The reality is that the "split" in 1054 was caused by a rogue papal delegate meeting with the Patriarch of Constantinople (a cardinal) who had been given the right by the Pope to issue a letter of excommunication to him in the event he espoused heretical doctrines. The problem was, the Pope died while the Cardinal was in transit, and the Cardinal had issued that decree on behalf of a dead Pope on dubious grounds (I don't recall why, I just remember the delegate being incorrect). Moreover, the letter of excommunication was served *only* to the Patriarch of Constantinople, not the other patriarchs, so it would be weird to say there was an official or formal schism with the entirety of the East if the declaration was valid. In the mid-1900s, that dubious letter of excommunication was declared officially to be, since the point of its establishment, null and void, and the Patriarch of Constantinople lifted his excommunication of Rome in response. Not officially mending the schism, but at least drawing them closer by making the schism less "formal" and more "material".
Usually, I like to revel in the complexities of church history as found when reading primary sources as whole works (particularly in Syriac), but I find your simple communication style to be uniquely unbiased and articulate. Keep it up! Perhaps write a book someday. I have been searching for a church history survey to recommend to friends, but so far I have found the simple books are just propaganda pieces. Other times, the simple church history surveys simplify theological issues to the point that the controversies seem mere sophistry. I think your unique voice could fill a niche. With all that said, I think this video brings a much needed nuance to some of your earlier videos. good work.
I remember a chart from many years ago when I taught PSR at my Catholic Church, that was based on modern numbers of people in each denomination. The vertical axis was years and the horizontal was numbers of people in denominations. So it would show the Churches of Christ as starting in 1810 or whatever and going out it would show the number as about 2 million in present day...same with many denominations. What you ended up with of course was a chart showing the sheer size and age of the Roman Catholic Church as dwarfing the other Christian denominations.
@@VladikVP I may be mistaken, but I am pretty sure they were about the same size at the time of the schism. In Turkey, Islam was already taking over by the 9th century, so at the very least, the Orthodox Church shrank relatively soon after the schism.
Your century is wrong but the point that the Seljuks saw the effective end to Byzantine and therefore Orthodox rule in Anatolia is correct and so the Orthodox church was pushed to the Balkans and Russia
@@LeGolfClub The majority of the Anatolian population actually remained majority Christian well into the 15th century and only really started to turn with the fall of Constantinople. Also the Komnenian Restoration and reconquest of Anatolia happened in the 12th century, so it’s not like Roman control ceased permanently following the Battle of Manzikert.
@@LeGolfClub Moreover, I’ve read an account that the population of the Eastern Mediterranean was 5 times greater than that of the former Western Roman Empire, but I’d have to go digging up my sources.
I love this analysis because it discusses some of my issues with how we organize denominations. Baptists in particular have always been hard to track down because there's so much variety in them. For what it's worth, I grew up in an independent fundamental Baptist church that taught Baptist successionist theology from "The Trail of Blood" (that the Baptist church originated with Jesus Christ). However, I went to a Christian college associated with the Church of the Nazarene, and the religion professor I had there lumped Baptists in with the Reformed churches. It's worth noting that he organized denominations based on theological tradition, not church splits, so what they believed and taught was more important in his organizational chart than what denomination they originated from.
Maybe you would consider a collaboration with the “UsefulCharts” TH-cam channel to make something more clear than other references. I, for one, would be willing to pay for such a chart. You may even consider making it annual considering how much things change
Growing up in the early 1960's we enjoyed listening to the chairman of Deacons, the Boss, tell us that as Southern Baptist we traced our origins to John the Baptist ! When I got a few years of school under my belt and asked about 1845 and Slavery I was told I could leave.
I grew up in an Independent Fundamental Baptist church and I remember hearing the same thing. "We trace our roots back to John the Baptist!" That sounds really nice. Just one problem: the Church started at Pentecost, not with John the Baptist. (BTW, no longer Baptist here, converted to Lutheran in the mid-90s.)
i remember being told that, too. meanwhile, no mention of that genealogy passing through the Anglicans, the Puritans, the Separatists… just John the Baptist and no dancing.
It's funny that some Baptists claim to trace back to John the Baptist and forget that Paul rebaptized believers who were baptized under John's Acts19:2-7.
I was told the same along with many other silly lies from baptist/Christian’s. All these denominations are silly. When mere Christianity is based on human sacrifice and blood redemption for immortality, why would I care about what branch someone is part of?
As a Baptist, I genuinely started laughing out loud when our history showed up in this video! I don't know a single Baptist minister who would agree on any particular historical origin! But, came to say, this video was very well done & I enjoyed the conversation!
This is so important, and doesn't even just apply to Christian denominations. Just because a split is officially recognized doesn't mean there's a change in doctrine and conversely just because a single group pretends not to have doctrinal disagreements doesn't mean they don't exist. People tend to like having nice clean dates and boundaries, when most boundaries are very porous and unclear. "Official" dates are very deceiving.
I thank you for being able to break all this down so systematically and in a succinct manner. In my studies over the last forty years regarding church history I have come to a similar understanding but being able to explain it to someone in twenty minutes has eluded me.
Another fantastic video. The way you manage to take very sensitive and tangled concepts like this, and unwind them from such a nutral perspective is astounding. You are truely a skilled teacher. Bravo.
Thank you for all the work you've done to help us think more clearly about church history and to give us a more logical way to ask questions about the origins of a particular church or denomination. It seems so much confusion is created by simply an overriding desire of a denomination or church to trace itself back to the first church when being part of the universal, catholic, church is so much more important.
I’m no longer a Christian but I still LOVE denominational history. Wish more people knows about it. Would also me interesting to map how denominations have aligned/branched with political climate
Who's apostolic succession? Eastern Orthodox, Roman Papal church, Anglican, and some Lutherans all claim to have apostolic succession. How do we know which has the "right' apostolic succession?
@Nick Aarsvold Old Catholics (conservative), Eastern Orthodox, Catholic, Oriental Orthodox, and the Assyrians all have Apostolic Succession. All Protestant sects do not even if they claim it, so your point is moot.
@@Tsalagi978 So you list even more with different theologies as well. And why do Christians that are protestant not have it? What is your justification for this claim. The Orthodox claim that anyone outside their communion cannot be saved, while others believe others can. Which is right? They can't both be Why conservative Old Catholics but not liberal? If you go back, they were both ordained and had hands laid on them by the same bishops
@@Nick.T.A No they don't. Only the most radical Eastern Orthodox claim that Catholics are not saved. Btw just gotta say, we love your refusal to call the Catholic Church-and only the Catholic Church-by its official name. It's like refusing to call your grandfather by his proper name and calling him "old man" instead lol. At least with "Roman Catholic Church," in spite of it being technically incorrect and not addressing the Byzantine and other rites, there's the excuse that it's more familiar to some people. But "Roman Papal church"? Hilarious. Very original. Anyway, the Catholic Church has an official magisterial definition of whose apostolic successions are valid. Aside from the Catholic lines, the Church recognizes the successions of all the churches that can trace their origins to bishops of known lineage and who have maintained the practice of apostolic succession (laying of hands). That's why it calls them churches in the first place. Thanks to a century of ecumenical dialogue, that standard is mutual between most of the apostolic churches, though some churches have different theological views about what it means to be a validly consecrated bishop out of communion with their church. That includes the Eastern and Oriental Orthodox churches, the Syriac churches, and just one of the original schismatic Old Catholic churches. The reason the Anglican and Lutheran bishops are not recognized as validly consecrated by default is because these churches have had disruptions in their apostolic lines, in the Lutheran case very extended ones. So you can't trust that all their bishops have a valid lineage. When an Anglican or Lutheran bishop converts and seeks holy orders in the Catholic Church, they do research on that individual's lineage, the same way they research any layperson's baptism to ensure they were validly baptized.
I do like and appreciate your videos, but man do they make my head spin haha. I’ve only watched a few of them so far. I’ve always been curious about how my former and current denominations came to be. I attended a baptist church as a child, and that is fascinating to hear about how there were two separate groups who identified as such. I don’t believe my Baptist church taught Calvinism, as I didn’t really learn about TULIP until a few years ago from listening to different Christian podcasts. Thanks for all of that work it must take to represent the schisms and splits among the churches.
As a mennonite/Anabaptist, I've always been confused about how Baptists relate to us, and the charts certainly have not helped. Good to know there's a bit of a link in being inspired by Anabaptist theology, but they certainly didn't split from us. (I currently attend an inter-denominational baptist/Anglican/menno church so it's fun to think of the history behind how our theology works together now)
Anabaptist/Mennonite churches tended to (and still do) separate themselves ethnically. This is a part of the origins of the “English/Amish” dichotomy in the Amish groups etc. The distinctions between Baptist and Anabaptist originally was not primarily theological in the Reformation era, but Ethnic, Anabaptists were German and Dutch, whilst those that came to call themselves Baptists were mostly of British origin.
The only uniting will be when Christ returns. That will be of the faithful true believers in Christ (likely few "Catholics"). THAT is the only Church of Jesus Christ.
@@joycegreer9391 We Catholics TOTALLY believe in Christ, and follow only Him, as He has set forth the church for our salvation. I look forward to seeing you there when He comes back. Also, ignore those trolls in the comments below, they know not what they say.
Wow - thanks. I really never really thought about how denominational charts can be somewhat misleading; I always understood different bias in church history. Thanks for doing the Presbyterian break down - I had been raised Presbyterian, but I stopped regularly going to church in the mid-70s right before the merger happened.
Great video as always! Definitely a lot of food for thought. Some may consider it unsettling to see certain denominations not stemming from any one particular denomination specifically, but coming to existence spontaneously, as it were, but I find it pretty inspiring to see the hand of God at work throughout the centuries, influencing people to go back to the basic teachings of Scripture. Of course there have been many hiccups along the way, but I believe the next phase of God's plan is to begin to reconcile some of these denominations back into one true Church. No matter where you look in history, it is comforting to know that there was always a witness of the true Gospel. God never allowed it to just die off with the corruptions which dominated the Church from about the 4th Century onward. As a Oneness Pentecostal, I appreciated what you discussed in the beginning of the video about the "beginnings" of denominations as legal entities. The United Pentecostal Church was legally founded in 1945 through another merger, but we find many in history who held similar beliefs, and, of course, we believe ours to be the original beliefs of the largely Jewish Christian believers in the New Testament. More recently, however, we find in history how many (of course not all) Anabaptists during the Radical Reformation, professed similar beliefs in that they preached believers' baptism in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and many received the gift of the Holy Ghost evidenced by speaking in tongues (glossolalia), even as we believe today. There is historical evidence which points to the miraculous taking place during that time and the Gifts of the Spirit being in operation as well. At any rate, great job! I always appreciate your videos and polls. :)
Love your work, brother. I am a bit, disappointed, however, at the seemingly flippant attitude about tracing the roots of a denomination to Jesus. As a Roman Catholic, this is deeply important to me, and I think it should be to any Christian looking to follow the teachings of Jesus. I think even serious Protestants should feel the need to trace their beliefs historically to Jesus and the Apostles, and this shouldn't be something lightly shrugged off as "some weirdos think this is important." Hope this can produce fruitful dialogue. Much love from your extended family in Rome.
No Protestant can actually trace their beliefs back to Christ because too many of their doctrines and traditions contradict Jesus' customs and teachings. Jesus said "don't even think that I came to oppose the authority of Moses' writings", but Protestants believe in a Christ that came to do the exact opposite. As it is, they don't even believe in the resurrection of the dead, even though Jesus frequently preached about it!
@@theeternalsbeliever1779 Well, only some Protestants believe as you say. But yes, both their distinctive beliefs and churches are innovations not from Christ.
One of the unique factors of the East/West Schism in 1054 was each group had their own Liturgical customs. The Eastern Orthodox (and today the Eastern Rite Catholic Churches who returned to or maintained union with Rome) had the Byzantine Liturgy usually that of St. John Chrysostom/St. Basil. The Coptic, Armenian, Chaldean, Syriac/Malabar had their own liturgies, and the Latin West had a number of uses, more similar to the Roman Liturgy. Most places had one or the other Liturgy, the exceptions being some places in Poland and Bohemia where there were a mix. There are also Oriental, Coptic and Armenian Catholics who maintain their Liturgical traditions while in communion with the Roman See. There are two Eastern Catholic Churches that never severed ties with Rome, the Maronite, and the Italio-Greeks. The Malabar Christians, who claim to have been Evangelized by the Apostle Thomas, were separated from Rome by default when the Orthodox and Oriental Churches and geography separated them. When the Portuguese first went to India, the Roman Catholic priests who went with the colonial armies approached these churches, many had in spirit retained communion with Rome, and the communion was restored, others remained attached to the Syrian Church not in communion with Rome, later others split and were in communion with Anglicans after the English colonized India. There is an odd duck, which are the Kristianu in Japan. Originally converts to the Roman Catholic Church, when Japan outlawed the Catholic Church (no other Christians had evangelized Japan) and all non-Japanese were executed, exiled and banned from entry into Japan, those who were not martyred went underground. They would have Buddhist altars erected in their homes, and carved out on the backs of the Buddhist statues or on the Buddhist scrolls would be Christian iconography, such as Crucifixes, depictions of Mary and Saints, on the scrolls they were made to look Buddhist but to the untrained, the Chrisitan symbolism would be lost in the Japanese style. When Admiral Perry's navy came into Yokohama Harbor, the secret Kristianu approached the ships, inquired among the chaplains which accepted the Faith of Christ, and the Pope in Rome, and for the first time in centuries were able to worship in a Catholic manner with a priest. A minority of these Kristianu were convinced that the religion needed to remain underground and did not join the rest in re-unification with the Roman Catholic Church and practice their own religion in secret to this day.
Great video. It would be interesting to see the origins of para-church ministries and their relationship to denominations through history. From hospitals and prison ministries and schools and universities, to modern university evangelistic ministries, and the like.
This guy is really pretty good at being neutral. Sometimes I see the titles of videos and think how is this guy gonna talk about this topic from a neutral standpoint. Like the cults video for example, but somehow he does it every time.
I found this video interesting too. I have a chart showing the origins of the one religion in the Holy Bible, it is shown in 'Having obtained eternal redemption for us? #22 Myths in so-called Christianity', you are welcome to watch it.
This was a very educational video. I have seen many of these charts before and found them to be a bit skewed. Perhaps you could make a more accurate chart and make it available to your readers?
I think he's arguing against making such a chart entirely, at least for neutrality's sake, since his premise is that it's hard to argue that any denomination split from any other because of what each "founder" did personally. I understand wanting to neutrally represent everyone because everyone is coming from somewhere, and this kind of family tree doesn't do that exactly. What such trees can do well is give an overview of the historical and political perspectives. Despite St. Paul's wise and project counsels against factionalism, Christianity is to some degree a political religion, no matter what branch you are in. And understanding where splits occurred, even if we do miss the details of who caused the split or why, can help us to understand how Christian doctrine has developed, the role that secular events played in the changing of Christian doctrine, what beliefs are common to all Christians across the centuries, among other things.
I am thinking of something not connected with wiki. There were many places where corrections could be made including the great schism. Clearly it is hard to handle denominations that appear from multiple places on one summary chart but timewise it is possible.
A fascinating presentation, from an academic perspective, but one that is directed to a fundamental point that 'religious belief' is simply a form of philosophy.
Great video this is well done! Presbyterian and Reformed are the same tradition. As far as the Puritans (congregationalists) are involved it's still the same tradition but different polity
@@slamdancer1720 yes but very few are and congregationalist especially nowadays if that's what you meant? I was referring to Reformed (in the USA) being continental reformed and Presbyterian being Reformed in UK and USA. As in being derived from the Reformers in Geneva.
This video is information dense, yet very welcome. One thing I hope many of us can agree on, is that much of modern Christianity has shifted to being more experiential based, rather than promoting deep study. Or, deeply held traditions don't encourage people to question the status quo. Either way, you end up with people who are primed to follow other men, rather than Christ. I think this is why celebrity culture has blossomed within proposed Christianity. "Who's your favorite pastor?" A question that sends shivers down my spine.
I think you are right in many ways. A lack of truely in depth study is missing from most churches today. And a call to return to that is highly needed. However, I think we walk a dangerous path if we pretend that what we see in celebrity pastor worship is intirely rooted in modernity. As much of it can simply be traced back to the nature of humanity. Look at the church in Corinth. They would divide themselves over who the individule was that helped them to convert. One group was of Paul and the other of Appalos. (A young believer that started out as a deciple of John the Baptist. ) And as a resault, Paul strongly scolded them for this, in his first epistle to them. Pointing them instead, back to scripture by saying not to go beyond what is written. How incredible is it, that we see the same problems in humans today. We all want to know truth. And be grounded in somthing larger than us. But humans as a species, tend to be lazy on the process of seeking that truth. Knowing who it is we place our faith in, and what it is that has been written. This seems to be why Luke called the Bereans "more noble" than other cities. Because they searched the scriptures to verify what Paul was teaching. The big difference in today's megachurch is that these celebrity pastors aren't really teaching their congregations to look in the scriptures for right understanding the way Paul did. Instead, many of them seem to operate more like the false apostles that came in after Paul, and tried to use their influence to make money off the people. I think we can learn some lessons from those ancient churches. In order to do just as you said, and engage in deep study, to know what the truth is. God bless. Have a wonderful day.
It is regrettable that The Way has splintered into so many denominations. This was an outstanding introduction to the schisms - or lack thereof - that have occurred since the Gospel was first proclaimed. I look at your young face and hear such sincerity representing such consideration and research that - well, I'm subscribing now after only two viewings. I have not detected any bias in your expositions - and I'd like to think that your aim is ultimately to draw all these factions together on the shared principles of the Word that we hold - as C.S. Lewis attempted in his broadcast compilation that became, "Mere Christianity." Thank you for digging at the roots of our division and presenting straightforward discussions: I'd like us as believers in Christ to be united and conduits of His love; however, I'd rather we stand on the Truth foremost. Thank you.
A fair presentation on the subject. I grew up in the Churches of Christ and they loved these charts. But they also had the audacity to make little tracts defining everything that was wrong with _____ church and point 1 was always: this church was founded by _____ in the year _____ .
The Adventist beginning is spot on. Great job. 👌 The vocal leaders of the Adventist movement after William Miller were James White, Ellen White, and Joseph Bates. The core of Adventism was set in 1845 by Joseph Bates.
I read that it was Rachel Oakes Preston who was a Seventh-day Baptist who persuaded the congregation of Adventist who Joseph Bates was a part of to keep the 7th day Saturday as Sabbath. Joseph Bates later convinced James and Ellen White to keep the 7th day also.
Thank you so much for the explanation. This (kinda) answers my long lost question about "who is the original church?" I think this debats comes from the idea that "the older your church is, the more credible you are" which is now i see as dependant on the perspective
CoC's use Rom 16:16 as iron clad "proof" they are the original church that Yeshua built. Yet they don't do as He did and walk as He walked.... and as His disciples did after the cross (Keeping Torah). It's an effort of belief reification rather than conforming to the instructions of our Lord, high priest, King, and Savior.
There was no one original church. There were many independent gatherings of believers that formed churches. As the churches grew larger more defined leadership was needed, but there was no central authority over all the churches. The only authority, the only foundation, was Jesus.
A very good video on the topic of churches/denominations. In Sweden the Lutheran reformation was more like the Church of England. The same priests and bishops, the same parishes and churches. Some new books and changed language. Doctrinal changes, yes, but not sure how much lay people noticed that early on.
Nah... partly true, but: Catholics were banned, sometime with death threats. Monasteries were forbidden. Catholic properties were confiscated by the crown. Churches were rebuilt and repainted on the inside. Only the priests who declined Catholicism could remain priests.
@@HolyKhaaaaan I doubt that is correct 🤔, since ordination is a sacrament in the Catholic Church. Also the Augsburg Confession is the primary confession of faith within the Lutheran church... But I do know that the Finnish Lutheran church (earlier part of Sweden), considers its ordinations to be part of the Apostolic Succession, since the converted bishops (16th century)had been ordained as Catholics.
@@mikkis668 Yes, but all didn't happen overnight. We celebrated/commemorated 500 years from the start of the reformation 2017, but the Swedish Lutheran Church 400 years 1993.
I grew up in the Christian & Missionary Alliance. When I got to college I found a book on the history churches in America. Curious about how my denomination compared to others, I read that the CMA came out of the holiness movement. Based on my own experience growing up in the CMA I found that hard to believe. Like many of these denominations... it’s complicated.
Many holiness movements start making more rules than the Bible has. They also tend to become onerously legalistic and people go, "Hell! This ain't right!" and they split.
I'd really be interested to learn more about the Orthodox/ Catholic split. I would love if you made a video about it, explaining more details. For example, is it true that there were five patriarchs, with the one in Rome holding the title "the first among equals? What is wrong with that picture if anything? Thank you!
While a Protestant may be able to offer a more neutral view of the Schism, he may be unable to fully embody the cultural, religious and spiritual conflicts that led up to the big event. Here's a Catholic view, albeit very unbiased, from one of the best-known Franciscan priests on TH-cam. th-cam.com/video/EWOpn8tRBME/w-d-xo.html PS: His videos are top-notch, but this came out five years back, when Fr Casey was just starting to make an impact. Compared to what he produces today, this video looks God-awfully primitive, but the content is still top of the line.
@@satyannair4837 Thank you again! Video seems fairly unbiased. So I'm still puzzled. I'm coming from an Orthodox bias, but honestly seeking truth and clarity, as best as I can. Fr Casey appears to uphold the Pentarchy- the original Church with five apostolic sees in five major cities of the old Roman empire. Yet he concludes that the pope has the proper Biblical understanding. That makes me very confused. Here is how things look to me, and please feel free to correct me. Both Orthodox and Catholics agree on the apostolic succession. That the patriarch of a church is direct heir from the original apostle who established that church. They both agree that Jesus gave keys and the power to bind and loose to Peter first, and then to the rest of the apostles. Now given that all of that is true- how is the patriarch of Rome, the heir to apostolic see of Peter- not _a first among equals?_ Peter was the first among apostles to gain keys and the power. That makes hims first among apostles- the first among equals. How is the successor to Peter - a super apostle/ patriarch? How can a successor to Peter have more power and authority over other apostolic successors? Where does he get the authority above others from? How does one reach that conclusion reading the Bible or looking at the original, undivided Church? Thank you again and have a nice day :)
@@PetarStamenkovic almost all protestants believe in regional rule which is how we justified the reformation split whether by bishop (Anglican, Lutheran etc) and how certain dioceses moved into Presbyterian/Reformed polity as done by elders in ancient Israel plus deacons. Some Reformed churches kept their bishops like the Church of Hungary. Worship style most like Orthodox would be traditional Reformed/Presbyterian as far as simple worship without band and historically Acapella. The big band worship started from Roman Catholicism where the members would simply sit and listen rather than be involved in worship as in the Orthodox Church.
Confessioal Lutherans would argue it is them. Obviously so would the Roman Catholics and the Orthodox. I believe that's the whole point; finding error in the current form and a desire to "return" to the truth. There is doctrine, (the true teaching) and there is adiaphora. (things neither commanded, nor forbidden.) It should be understandable for a split on doctrine and false teaching. To split over adiaphora would be silly. (IMO)
@@johnhouchins3156 And we have the Ethiopian and Coptic Church. And Armenian... But still, it would be interesting to hear a neutral overview of the oldest liturgical practices we know of, and who still uphold them. Of course we have the Creeds and the Ecumenical Counsils as a guideline, but beyond that...?
Well the gospels give us the standard. Christ was very litergical. That is why everything he did stood on pomp and ceremony.. oh wait, with the exception of the Lord's supper which was a Passover Seder and the riding into town on a donkey which was fulfillment of messianic prophecy. We don't see litergical worship in his life. I suppose you could argue for the Lord's prayer except he said, Don't use "vain repetitions" which would include just parroting the Lord's prayer. The book of Acts is also pretty light on such matters. Anything added after the apostles is pagan fluff. Simple as that. The issue with all these denominations is everyone is taking away or adding to the Bible. Sola Scriptura works if people follow it. But few do. Because as soon as the Truth is inconvenient (worship on Sabbath for example. Christ never argued against the Sabbath, but against the rules of the Pharisees, which were traditions.) Or unclear (who are the 144,000 anyway?) People remove or add whatever fits their world view. Do this for a couple generations and boom now traditions have become the standard. Which is as about as Anti-Christ as you can get, given most of his arguments with the Sanhedrin was over their use of traditions instead of scripture.
@@philipwheeler7317 Thank you for your input, though I do disagree. Jesus and the first followers were Jews and so deeply liturgical in their worship. We also have plenty of historical texts already from the first century, that describe the early Church and its believes, worship, structure and challenges. Many of these written by the disciples of the Apostles, some of them mentioned in the NT. God bless.
I would agree the Jews were deeply litergical yes. That was a big sticking point with them vs Christ besides the obvious "blasphemy" of claiming to be God, & forgive sins. (Clarification: it wasn't because he is God and can forgive sins, but otherwise it would be.) As for any statements after the book of Revelation/Apocalypse, we have the clear warning anyone that adds to these scriptures is cursed. Meaning the Canon of Scripture is closed. That makes any statements by those who came after merely commentaries not Canon. As such they are to be considered carefully. Especially when the apostles warned that as soon as they died wolves would start scattering the flock and that antichrist's (yes plural) were already among them. We are to test even Angels according to scripture. I'm not saying some of the early father's were not true believers but we can't use them as the standard. Not even for style of worship. If scriptures are silent on an issue that means we have no set standards. If they are clear on an issue, it is heretical to disobey it, regardless of how "orthodox" (theologically not "denominationally") a doctrine it has become.
The hilarious thing about that Catholic / Orthodox copypasta is that I was taught - raised by Catholic parents and went to Catholic primary & secondary schools - that St Peter founded the Church, not Jesus Christ.
You were taught incorrectly. The Catechism of the Catholic Church does not say that Peter built the Catholic Church, but that the Church was built on Peter, by Jesus Christ.
If the Catholic Church is not the church founded by Jesus on Peter, why are Saint Peter's remains preserved under the high altar of St Peter’s Basilica?
@@stevenjames6830 No, that is only tradition, not proven fact, about Peter being in Rome. The first part, Jesus founding His Church on Peter, is totally wrong belief.
I would have liked to also see about churches that "became in communion with Rome", as this was significant for my mother. Her side of the family were Ruthenian Byzantine/Greek Catholic, meaning they followed the eastern rite of the Divine Liturgy (St. John Chrysostom and St. Basil the Great) but were in communion with Rome. When the closest Byzantine Catholic Church shut down near their house, her family split between Russian Orthodox and Roman Catholic (that is why I am Roman Catholic today), with the RO side stating that the RC side were traitors as they did not respect tradition, and the RC side stating that the RO side were traitors as the BCC was already in communion with Rome
Very Good Presentation!!!! Thanks so much for your studies. BTW, I've heard the "Churches of Christ" (and other Restoration churches) called the "Campbellite sect of the Presbyterian Church" (Mostly by older Presbyterians...)
(Many in the Christian Church/Church of Christ find the term "Campbellite sect" to be derogatory and mildly offensive. For example, what if the Presbyterian Church was referred to as the "John Knox sect of the Anglican Church"? Or perhaps "the John Knox sect of Henry Tudor's divorce project schism"? The Restoration Movement specifically sought to tone down this sort of petty interdenominational conflict.)
@@rwpintx I wasn’t speaking to the offensiveness of this statement (I don’t find it offensive in the least)… I was simply stating that there are some who recognize our Presbyterian roots as stronger than our Baptist roots. My comment was about the origins content of the video…
I find this interesting. As a Presbyterian, I don't see much in the terms of similarity between us. Maybe because I am OPC and the fathers of Church of Christ were of the more liberal sect?
@@slamdancer1720 I don't think they brought a lot of their Presbyterianism with them... that was their whole point of leaving denominational trappings and divisions behind. BUT they did have Presbyterian upbringings...
The Restoration Movement in America began in the late 1700's. The Campbells didn't come to America until the first decade of the 1800's. This is one reason why the term "Campbellite" is a redundant term to begin with. The Campbells came to America and became leaders of an already existing movement. The American Restoration Movement actually was a continuation of earlier efforts in the UK, going back to the Protestant Reformation, and would have continued in America either with or without the efforts of the Campbells.
"Heresy is like a tree. It's roots lie in darkness while it's leaves wave in the sun. You can prune away its branches, even cut the tree to the ground but it will grow again, ever stronger."
What I find fascinating is that there are Eastern Christian Churches (about 23, I think) currently in full communion with the Western Church and the Pope in Rome. These Eastern Christian Churches seem to have some distinct theological and liturgical attributes, yet chose to be in full communion with the Western Church (and each other). They could have remained separated. I would like to know more about the timing and circumstances that resulted in their reunification. Are there some good books on the subject?
I know there were several tries to reunite eastern and western rites over the centuries (efforts are ongoing!). I know some rites "never left" while others did and partially came back. The split between "Catholic" and "Orthodox" was very messy and as stated in the video, it really wasn't a division of people and really wasn't a division of belief, so much as an argument between prelates. As an ordinary Catholic, I personally don't consider the Orthodox to be "different". I think your best bet for good books on the topic would be to wander on over to Catholic Answers.
What’s even more interesting is the fact that uniates say the creed without the filioque and venerate post schism eastern saints like St Gregory Palamas. If you look at the history you will find quite a few reasons as to why some of these churches went into union with the west oftentimes for political and economic reasons.
@@fornost64 They don't say the filioque clause because they keep the original redaction in their languages (greek) of the Creed in the First Council of Constantinopla (381). They believe (contrary orthodox churches) that the filioque is a legitimate understanding of the Trinity, particular to the Latin tradition. The political and economical reasons also can be used for the independence of the easter patriarchy when the power of Rome See declined in the third and fourth centuries. Constantinople for example
It was the robber council of Florence, in which the Latins tried to coerce the Orthodox into communion, but was natural rejected completely by the Orthodox, because of this, and other reasons like Josaphat Kuntsevych, the uniates have an even worse reputation among the Orthodox than Latins to a degree.
![[TH] 2024 PMGC League | Survival Stage วันที่ 1 | PUBG MOBILE Global Championship](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/FVFT-PFwU80/mqdefault.jpg)
I love how the word copypasta is just a normal word now, the idea of it being used so casually in a video about church doctrines etc would just blow teenage me away.
Ha
It's still not a normal word, though. Its use still feels like a conscious choice, made according to the medium and the intended audience.
I'd never heard it, but I looked it up.
@@willschryver i certainly think it could become a normal word sometime this century
Teenage you should have visisted the Vatican if your goal was to get blown.
I like how this channel is a combination of thorough research, clear presentation, and objective analysis. Notice he didn't say who is right. He encouraged those watching to think for themselves and think critically.
Truly fantastic channel. As you say he does not choose which is right, because none are. I have a Ytube video series called 'Myths in so-called Christianity' you will find interesting.
Yes, hope no one gets offended, but I think that this kind of channel could interest atheists as well, given that it just addresses many denominations quite objectively...:)
@@samppakoivula9977 My study is in the same vein, as it just attacks Myths in general, that is pieces of false doctrine so that the viewer can challenge whatever denomination or presuppositions they might hold, even Atheists, Muslims and Jews.
It is the conversation that needs to be encouraged.
@@simonskinner1450 Agreed🙂
Yes, he did not say who is right, and fortunately, our Lord _did_ say who is in charge until He returns.
I am teaching through a Sunday morning class, "why we have so many denominations" and your channel has been very very helpful. Praise God, thank you
Glad to be a help, thank you Richard!
The answer is super simple. We have more than one denomination with cain and able. Cain was sacrifice plants, able was sacrifice lambs. There are 4 people on the planet and we already have 2 denominations. Gets worse the longer we go.
The answer is even simpler than Caleb's - get two people together, and chances are that they will disagree even on some of more basic issues (such as what to sacrifice, if anything). As you add more rules (such as whether or not there is a Sabbath , which day of the week it is (if it is), and what tasks are allowed), you add more points of division. It actually amazes me we don't have as many denominations as there are self-professed Christians in the world.
@@calebfielding6352 no it's not scientific studies shows where much diverse from you hooga booga tribalistic origin of man get a grip of natural world instead of relying on your anthrocentric mytheosis hypothesis.
@@laurendoe168 that doesn't answer the culture and people outside your tyrannical divinity, slave.
Regardless this abrahamic belief you held in the desert is localized to your world it doesn't touch realistic timeline's of the Americas, Asia and India. Go back to the library instead of relying on one antique book, yes this is a ad hominems.
Great video and hopefully that encourages people to dig into the historical claims of their own and other denominations. I think a major part of the problem in the US is that a lot of churches do little or nothing to encourage their laity to learn anything about Christian history or what the faith looks like outside of their denomination. As a result, people take attitudes and things that developed within American Christianity in the past 200 years and generalize them to Christianity everywhere, and across time.
Well said
UsefulCharts just released their video beginning a series on the Christian Denominations Family Tree. So of course I was reminded of this video. I think he's done a good job, though I think it is wise to keep what you said about how charts can imply more than they should.
I've always thought that these denomination charts are interesting, and have thought it strange where they put my denomination. Mine is a fringe group, so I expect that, but I thought it was really interesting what you had to say that even major protestant denominations aren't so cut and dry as the charts make it seem. This is the kind of quality content I like, thank you for your research and perspective.
Link to the UsefulCharts video I mentioned: th-cam.com/video/uzuYZi749CM/w-d-xo.html
I’m not a Christian, but I often play games like Crusader Kings where I can play as somewhat historical characters from various faiths. I had wondered WHY there’s so many branch of Christianity. This video gave me some context. Thanks, I would have more fun playing the game now. 😀
Try out the CK2+ mod for CK2 some day.
That includes that split between Catholic and Orthodox churches in the first start date.
politics mostly, started it. you have the early schism's when doctrinal conformity was being pressed, there was texts that some churches used that others did not in early Christianity, so they felt it important to judge the "Validity" of those texts against each other and against the old testament for conformity to the Word. people talk about heretical books like the gospel of thomas as if the church got rid of some great truth, yet the gospel of thomas taught a contradictory tale. in it, jesus was not the literal son of god. he was just a person who god acted through, and if we wanted to have jesus's miracles we just needed to be like him. how does that message square with anything in the rest of the old or new testament. the gospel of thomas was an easy cut from the final books. but as they chopped away at these heretical texts they lost branches of the church who valued them.
the next major schism was from interpretation of the existing texts. and this schizm would continue down to today. the problem is the new and old testament are only at the core the same message. the "good news" of the crusifiction ended the "law" of god from the old jewish texts. the origional churches understood this better then the later ones, when they were choosing what Jewish texts to include in the bible, they left out almost all the old jewish text on laws. they cut out endless jewish texts about laws and rules and stories and parables about those laws and rules, because to the jews, there was no forgiveness for sin, only atonement. this was the good news of Jesus, Christians use the phrase good news but so few grasp what the original Christians meant by it. they meant man was finally forgiven, and the law was broken. they no longer were bound by the old jewish laws of atonement, but now had a path for forgiveness.
later Christian churches, lost for how to explain what god wants from a good christian would start re-adopting the old jewish laws of atonement, the baptists were famous for this, embracing laws against dancing, among other things. of course the SBC has turned away from that doctrinal fixation in the past 50 years, realizing it's mistaken interpretation and correcting it, yet they were not the only denomination who sprung up from a weird interpretation of the word of god.
the catholic church created the environment for this doctrinal schism by ensnaring itself in worldly matters, politics basically. by becoming a political entity foremost they salted their own fields and boiled away their own good will with the people. they depended on the people's ignorance of latin to warp the word of god and to fall away from their faith. which is why it's not surprising within a decade or two of the invention of the printing press, and the guttenburg bible, the first translation of the bible from the dead latin language into the living german language, that the reformation under Martin Luthor was able to take root. people were able to read the bible for the first time in thier lives and realize how much their local bishop lied to them throughout their lives about what was in the bible.
The same reason their are different political ideologies.
@@arizona_anime_fan Quite frankly it sounds like the gospel of Tomas was the closest one to the truth of all of them.
And the ideas of your post is *filled* with interpretations...
@@kerwinbrown4180 To some degree.
What a wonderful channel to stumble upon! Even as an atheist, I can’t help but appreciate your content deeply. Your objectivity that you bring to your discussions is very refreshing. You’re so bipartisan and unbiased in your presentation (at least as much as any one can be) that it took my at least 10 videos to figure out you were a Christian in the first place 😂Much appreciated and very interesting for understanding this very important part of the world’s history!
Thanks, I appreciate it!
Now that I think about it it's awkward if a non-Christian had a channel dedicated to exploring Christian denominations but at the same time it's kind of awkward knowing that the person talking about things objectively actually has their own favorite.
@@danshakuimo Presumably, sports announcers have their favorite teams, political journalists have their favorite party, and so forth. Even atheists who discuss religion would have their viewpoint, which is that the denominations are all wrong. In the end, we can't escape this, we simply must demand fairness from people regardless.
The Schism of 1054 wasn’t quite as cut & dry as you make it sound. All that happened was the Bishop of Rome and the Patriarch of Constantinople excommunicated each other. People at that time didn’t think there was a schism until long after the fact. 1054 is just the only time where a date can be ascribed to a specific event. In reality, the East/West split was far more gradual and based on culture and, frankly, mutual prejudice and ego.
Correct. People from a Protestant/reformed context don’t really get how apostolic churches work.
I'm pretty sure that's exactly what he meant by "common folks were not aware of change, same old structure, etc..."
@@reintaler6355 but he still called it “The Schism in 1054,” or some equivalent to that. The patriarchs excommunicated each other, not their respective parishioners and clergy. There is no “Schism of 1054” because nothing really happened in 1054 that effected the universal church. The only thing that can be said with certitude is that the Schism definitely happened by the time of the fall of Constantinople, but that was four centuries later
@@brotherbruno1783 To me it seems less that he was unaware of the intricacies than that he wanted to make it easier for his audience, most of whom are actually unaware. I trust this guy's academic integrity, but spreading it is a whole different challenge.
Also don't you mean it definitely happened by the Sack of Constantinople one-and-a-half centuries later?
@@reintaler6355 I think he's confusing the Sack of Constantinople with the Fall of Constantinople.
I describe myself as a church nerd. This channel is so my jam. I love the level of detail and the concerted effort to present each tradition in a way they would recognize themselves in. I especially appreciate the outsider's introduction to other traditions I am not familiar with. Also the idea that there is a truth in Christianity that all denominations are accountable to, even if we disagree from our perspective. Finally, I notice that the history of Christian denominations looks messy in the same way that living as a Christian person looks messy - we don't always follow the 'pattern' of a faith journey as described and understood by our communities. God accompanies us along the way, even when we fall down, get confused, become inspired, shift our relationships... Jesus Christ is present in his Church, and does not abandon us.
"There is a truth in Christianity!" There is a truth but not in so-called Christianity, as I have found there's many Myths. I have a Ytube video series called 'Myths in so-called Christianity'.
Greek Catholics gave up church politics and schisms
God is dead. Keep worshipping your idols.
@@LSOP- what is your evidence that God is dead? When did He die? How did He die?
Your observations seem to be accurate but I fear you might lean on them to justify "denominations".
I left CoC's when I simply ask the Father to show me the truth and then I ***READ FOR MYSELF*** and I ***LOOKED AT THE HEBREW AND GREEK***
I discovered nuggets of gold which have been in plain sight the whole time! Like Matt 5:17-20 & Col ch2 which 99.99% of "Christians" pervert to mean the opposite of what Yeshua and Paul plainly said.
7th day Sabbath was my break through study and looking at the context (sola scriptura) were the two biggest things that makes the Word so clear.
CoC's think they don't have a theology or follow traditions of man. I was CoC for 34 yrs and I tell you that's a lie. They absolutely do... anyone whos interested can look up Alexander Campbell and Barton Stone
Extremely well presented.. pertinent questions were raised and well debated in an unbiased manner...As usual, I have learnt a lot and found it very engaging. Thank you! Well done!!
Glad it was helpful!
Great video. This is really a great example of why I find the history of religions so fascinating, despite not being a member of any one of them.
SO much culture come from religion. Not just directly from the believers but even indirectly.
Please make more videos about older churches like Church of the East, Oriental Orthodox, and East Orthodox😭😭😭
For ones that are still existing today, I think that’s a great idea. (Although I think historical heresies are interesting, they are a bit different from the channel’s focus of comparing denominations).
I'd like to hear more about a Romanian reform movement within the Romanian orthodox church: Army of the Lord(Oastea Domnului)
@@WillHerrmann all three churches listed above are still in existence. The monolithic Church of the East no longer exists as a single church but does have elements that have survived to this day. Oriental orthodox have about 60 million believers and of course Eastern Orthodox has about 220 million believers.
@@ChristopherWentlingI'm sure Oriental orthodox has more, Ethiopian and Eritrean Orthodox alone is more than 60
The point that for many nothing changed in the Great Schism is interesting to think about. One day you were simply no longer in communion with a bunch of people who you were never in communication with in the first place. It really highlights the spiritual nature of communion, and raises questions about how much control any person or organization hold over true communion between believers.
While you are correct in your claim about the 1054 split, it's worth remembering that today, modern communication methods have radically altered both Church structures and centralized Church governance and doctrinal control.
For instance, most bishops in the Catholic Church used to be appointed locally and Rome only notified...
Today there's an office in the Vatican specifically designed to appoint bishops.
Similarly, especially under Pope John Paul II and Josef Ratzinger, there was a determined effort to "standardize" doctrinal practice and thinking. In fact, the current difficulties Pope Francis is facing are JP2 loyalists who believe that Francis isn't enough of a JP2 clone...
Modern communications have enabled even the largest organizations to micromanage, even when it comes to doctrinal practice.
@@michaelodonnell824 So now we know right away that we are no longer in communion with people we've never communicated with. Just because bishops can receive news directly from the Vatican immediately doesn't mean I've ever physically broken bread with the believers in the next town, never mind the rest of the world. The point was that communion binds people together who have never been together in any other sense.
"...how much control any person or organization hold over true communion between believers." Only as much as one allows it.
@@Caderic I'm not sure that's even something we have enough power over to grant to another. If I can't cut off communion through Christ then I can't allow another to.
@@marthdaeglin I get what you are saying, but it's a bit naive. People let others control them all the time.
Case in point, people let the government shutdown their churches and their christian fellowship during covid. All because of fear and weakness!!!
As a Catholic Christian, I generally just give up in tracing Protestant lineages, as it's extremely messy and, as you said, people hop denominations and come from whenever.
I view it this way: the church of Christ was built on Peter's confession from that day on. History shows it spread into the world way before the RCC came on line. The RCC did everything it could to seige power over the people & the world. I also see the RCC as an evil entity just as so many so called Christian churches. We were told & warned of this & it's Bern happening for over 2,000 years. I do not view the RCC as a Christian church. Christ's body the church was before the RCC even at all attempts to destroy it & it's true believers. A lot of dark history & a nasty stain the RCC has left. One of the worst is manipulation of history & writings. We know the intentions of the RCC & jesuits did & still do all they can to alter it, the forgeries it created leaves no room for trust in anything RCC or Orthodox. The Protest of protestants is misleading, this happened as the RCC came into being. The Protest & reformation that piss off the RCC came about from within that cult of the RCC. The only, very only truth that we have is GODS Word that HE alone inspired but the RCC tries to taint with so called church fathers & their traditions as if our traditions as men have been oh so holy & perfect. There were heritics in these church fathers & there was manipulation, alteration & forgeries of their writings. To be Solas Scripura is a badge of honor as it disgusts the RCC that we can not be the drones they'd like us to be. GOD HIS very SELF inspired the Word by chosen men, HE had it gathered by chosen men & had it canonized correctly by chosen men. I could care less of any of those men's fleshly carnal history because GOD did it all thru them. In English the KJV has not been able to be defeated & shows itself HOLYby GOD thru all the other defiled translations & attempts to distort, weaken & alter GOD'S Word.
Concerning other denominations isn't an issue, they either follow the Word of GOD or they don't. We know Satan is & has been at work, our job is to read, study & stay in GOD'S Word & with that knowledge & wisdom find a church that is true to the Word. It is where we are today and we better wake up. The biggest stain on Christianity IMO Is the RCC & it's schism sister posing as Christians when it is the seat of the antiChrist. The history is plain in your face and it's current history which goes sweet under the rug or ignored. This current pope that RCC members complain about & disagree with yet bow down to & maintain loyalty to is your sign
I know, I know! One year late to the party....
However, I had to put this in print.... (BTW: Statutory Disclosure: Roman Catholic here! 70+ YOM.)
Re your "...Protestant lineages ..... it's extremely messy".
Right you are. But to put THIS particular video effort into some sort of perspective @Ready to Harvest says (20:30 ~): "... ppl will criticise how I've represented the origins of denominations (paraphrase) ... and if that helps you to take a second look at these denomination origin charts and view them with more scepticism then I think my job here is done." Excellent!!!
So, that's it. @Ready to Harvest is doing yeoman service to Christianity (in all its shades and tints!) by trying to bring some semblance of "sense" to this Medusa-headed tangle of denominations and churches and congregations and communities and splinters and shards and what-have-you.
The most egregious characteristic of @Ready to Harvest's channel is his "objective" stance in the matter. Very impartial, very tone-neutral in all his postings. It is only in this particular video that he says something definitely contra the Roman Catholic Church, otherwise he has never used a "negative" POV for the Roman Catholic Church. And that is a great relief because we RomCaths get hammered from every side in the "religion" universe... ranging from atheists to non-Christians to non-Roman Catholics!
There, said my say.
HC-JAIPUR (14/08/2024)
.
@@hiltonchapman4844it is messy if you consider each new church & denomination valid as Christian. I personally do not view the RCC valid as Christian & run away as far as possible from any hint or stain of it. We know there is false religion, we've been warned of it since its begginings. Paul's letters were being forged & many writing have been especially since the start of the RCC in order to uphold & support it. The Jesuits were well known for this. From the didache to Vaticanus. The Gnostics & other groups that tried to taint the catholic (universal church) which includes Rome. Just as phoney TV evangelists in it for the money the RCC has done this same thing: have you ever seen a beautiful protestant church that came close to a RCC church? Run the people thru continually, daily with a mass, more if indulgences were still practiced. The wealth & pomp of the vatican say much of the Roman religion. The little cult Robert Schuller had going with the Crystal Cathedral was bought by the RCC. We will always have and have always had groups posing as Christians which started many so called denominations or cults. This iscwhy it is important for true believers to find a bible believing church, there are many out there. Yes, it is hard & takes prayer & wisdom because some have doctrines that have been perverted from the Word. We live in the hour right now, apostasy & a great falling away is happening, Satan is on rampage of deciet, deception & division. Man made traditions, rituals & doctrines have to go & staying in the living Word of God is all we have. Read it, study it, pray over it but above all let the Holy Spirit whom Christ sent to us for wisdom & leading into knowledge. To put our trust in anyone man, pastor, preacher, teacher, priest or pope is ludicrous & dangerous. To doubt God's Holy & Perfect Word as many do over church or institution will kill you
@@hiltonchapman4844You should get hammered. Your doctrines concerning Infallibility are incoherent
There are just so many Catholic/Orthodox denominations and sub-denominations that I feel like all of them as well as all non-cult protestant denominations are just kind of like families in the bigger church family.
I truly respect your channel. Your honesty and matter of factness is very impressive. I have been interested in this topic for a very long time but the rabbit hole is infinitely complex. Thank you for this vid.
The better way is to follow the rabbit trail back to the New Testament, and from Paul in Romans he takes us back to the religions start with Abraham.
I did just that and as I found many myths in my own denomination of Anglican, I started a Ytube video series called 'Myths in so-called Christianity', you are welcome to watch as there are now 23.
Probably one of the best videos done thus far. All stats, no conjecture, and not dealing with theology issues while ignoring theology. Kudos!
One of your best videos so far on the issue of Church history.
This isn't to argue or correct, but to follow up on some of the history, and maybe to encourage people of all traditions to read more:
Note that because the "change" was so subtle (as if it had never happened) that many scholars today do not point to 1054 being the split, but the Council of Ferrara-Florence in 1445 as being the official split, as the delegates from all of the Patriarchs had attended and ratified differences and disagreements on clear theological grounds. Even then, Venetian Bishops in Aegean Islands had authority over various orthodox priests and parishes, frequently participating in intercommunion with them, and having them recognize the Pope of Rome until many years later.
Up until that point Catholics and Orthodox still enthusiastically had intercommunion, which wouldn't make sense if there was an official general schism. As for the change to the creed (The Filioque), it was held prior to 1054 by various Orthodox saints including Popes, so the claim that caused the schism raises some eyebrows.
The reality is that the "split" in 1054 was caused by a rogue papal delegate meeting with the Patriarch of Constantinople (a cardinal) who had been given the right by the Pope to issue a letter of excommunication to him in the event he espoused heretical doctrines. The problem was, the Pope died while the Cardinal was in transit, and the Cardinal had issued that decree on behalf of a dead Pope on dubious grounds (I don't recall why, I just remember the delegate being incorrect). Moreover, the letter of excommunication was served *only* to the Patriarch of Constantinople, not the other patriarchs, so it would be weird to say there was an official or formal schism with the entirety of the East if the declaration was valid.
In the mid-1900s, that dubious letter of excommunication was declared officially to be, since the point of its establishment, null and void, and the Patriarch of Constantinople lifted his excommunication of Rome in response. Not officially mending the schism, but at least drawing them closer by making the schism less "formal" and more "material".
Usually, I like to revel in the complexities of church history as found when reading primary sources as whole works (particularly in Syriac), but I find your simple communication style to be uniquely unbiased and articulate. Keep it up! Perhaps write a book someday. I have been searching for a church history survey to recommend to friends, but so far I have found the simple books are just propaganda pieces. Other times, the simple church history surveys simplify theological issues to the point that the controversies seem mere sophistry. I think your unique voice could fill a niche.
With all that said, I think this video brings a much needed nuance to some of your earlier videos. good work.
I highly agree. This is one of the few. Christian channels that I truly feel that I could share with anyone
Really appreciate the ending which focused on the "Particular" Baptists, which I am one of.
Thank you for your thoroughness, God bless!
This episode should be required viewing for every student of History, and of Religion!
You are a superb youtube content creator. Very informative, straight to the point, awesome.
Excellent, clear presentation of how life is more complicated than the people who make charts wish it were.
This video will perhaps turn out to be the most important clip you have yet put out about Church history.
I remember a chart from many years ago when I taught PSR at my Catholic Church, that was based on modern numbers of people in each denomination. The vertical axis was years and the horizontal was numbers of people in denominations. So it would show the Churches of Christ as starting in 1810 or whatever and going out it would show the number as about 2 million in present day...same with many denominations. What you ended up with of course was a chart showing the sheer size and age of the Roman Catholic Church as dwarfing the other Christian denominations.
Shouldn't the Orthodox churches initially be several times larger than the Catholic then? (I.e. around the time of the schism)
@@VladikVP I may be mistaken, but I am pretty sure they were about the same size at the time of the schism. In Turkey, Islam was already taking over by the 9th century, so at the very least, the Orthodox Church shrank relatively soon after the schism.
Your century is wrong but the point that the Seljuks saw the effective end to Byzantine and therefore Orthodox rule in Anatolia is correct and so the Orthodox church was pushed to the Balkans and Russia
@@LeGolfClub The majority of the Anatolian population actually remained majority Christian well into the 15th century and only really started to turn with the fall of Constantinople.
Also the Komnenian Restoration and reconquest of Anatolia happened in the 12th century, so it’s not like Roman control ceased permanently following the Battle of Manzikert.
@@LeGolfClub Moreover, I’ve read an account that the population of the Eastern Mediterranean was 5 times greater than that of the former Western Roman Empire, but I’d have to go digging up my sources.
I love this analysis because it discusses some of my issues with how we organize denominations. Baptists in particular have always been hard to track down because there's so much variety in them.
For what it's worth, I grew up in an independent fundamental Baptist church that taught Baptist successionist theology from "The Trail of Blood" (that the Baptist church originated with Jesus Christ). However, I went to a Christian college associated with the Church of the Nazarene, and the religion professor I had there lumped Baptists in with the Reformed churches. It's worth noting that he organized denominations based on theological tradition, not church splits, so what they believed and taught was more important in his organizational chart than what denomination they originated from.
Thanks Joshua for bringing this stuff to our attention!
A fine presentation. A healthy level of skepticism is a good thing in any intellectual pursuit.
Maybe you would consider a collaboration with the “UsefulCharts” TH-cam channel to make something more clear than other references. I, for one, would be willing to pay for such a chart. You may even consider making it annual considering how much things change
Excellent idea!
Yes!!!!!!!
UsefulCharts is an awesome channel, they should definitely collab!
I believe Useful Charts is working on a christian denominations poster at the very moment! Though it probably wont be done for a while
One of your best videos yet! Keep up the great work!
Growing up in the early 1960's we enjoyed listening to the chairman of Deacons, the Boss, tell us that as Southern Baptist we traced our origins to John the Baptist !
When I got a few years of school under my belt and asked about 1845 and Slavery I was told I could leave.
I grew up in an Independent Fundamental Baptist church and I remember hearing the same thing. "We trace our roots back to John the Baptist!" That sounds really nice. Just one problem: the Church started at Pentecost, not with John the Baptist. (BTW, no longer Baptist here, converted to Lutheran in the mid-90s.)
i remember being told that, too. meanwhile, no mention of that genealogy passing through the Anglicans, the Puritans, the Separatists… just John the Baptist and no dancing.
That reminds me of that song "John was a Baptist, and I'm a Baptist toooooooo!"
It's funny that some Baptists claim to trace back to John the Baptist and forget that Paul rebaptized believers who were baptized under John's Acts19:2-7.
I was told the same along with many other silly lies from baptist/Christian’s. All these denominations are silly. When mere Christianity is based on human sacrifice and blood redemption for immortality, why would I care about what branch someone is part of?
"We're not the Judean People's Front, we're the People's Front of Judea!"
Splitters!!!
As a Baptist, I genuinely started laughing out loud when our history showed up in this video! I don't know a single Baptist minister who would agree on any particular historical origin!
But, came to say, this video was very well done & I enjoyed the conversation!
This is so important, and doesn't even just apply to Christian denominations. Just because a split is officially recognized doesn't mean there's a change in doctrine and conversely just because a single group pretends not to have doctrinal disagreements doesn't mean they don't exist. People tend to like having nice clean dates and boundaries, when most boundaries are very porous and unclear. "Official" dates are very deceiving.
This is one of your best quality videos. I appreciate your work.
I thank you for being able to break all this down so systematically and in a succinct manner. In my studies over the last forty years regarding church history I have come to a similar understanding but being able to explain it to someone in twenty minutes has eluded me.
Another fantastic video. The way you manage to take very sensitive and tangled concepts like this, and unwind them from such a nutral perspective is astounding. You are truely a skilled teacher. Bravo.
Thank you for all the work you've done to help us think more clearly about church history and to give us a more logical way to ask questions about the origins of a particular church or denomination. It seems so much confusion is created by simply an overriding desire of a denomination or church to trace itself back to the first church when being part of the universal, catholic, church is so much more important.
The church is described as a woman and women aren't known to be easily understood, so this summery makes sense to me.
Jesus referred to His followers as sheep, sheep are known to find any hole in a fence and escape through it.
Summary*
@@POTATOSOOPS yes, I saw that. Thank you. Auto correct is the devil
Heh
😅
As usual, thank you very much for posting.
Thank you for your work in producing these clips. I look forward to seeing each and every one. My money is on you are a great professor.
I’m no longer a Christian but I still LOVE denominational history. Wish more people knows about it. Would also me interesting to map how denominations have aligned/branched with political climate
I go by apostolic succession
Who's apostolic succession? Eastern Orthodox, Roman Papal church, Anglican, and some Lutherans all claim to have apostolic succession. How do we know which has the "right' apostolic succession?
@Nick Aarsvold Old Catholics (conservative), Eastern Orthodox, Catholic, Oriental Orthodox, and the Assyrians all have Apostolic Succession. All Protestant sects do not even if they claim it, so your point is moot.
@@Tsalagi978 So you list even more with different theologies as well. And why do Christians that are protestant not have it? What is your justification for this claim.
The Orthodox claim that anyone outside their communion cannot be saved, while others believe others can. Which is right? They can't both be
Why conservative Old Catholics but not liberal? If you go back, they were both ordained and had hands laid on them by the same bishops
Such a weak statement. Do you even understand what that means?
@@Nick.T.A No they don't. Only the most radical Eastern Orthodox claim that Catholics are not saved. Btw just gotta say, we love your refusal to call the Catholic Church-and only the Catholic Church-by its official name. It's like refusing to call your grandfather by his proper name and calling him "old man" instead lol. At least with "Roman Catholic Church," in spite of it being technically incorrect and not addressing the Byzantine and other rites, there's the excuse that it's more familiar to some people. But "Roman Papal church"? Hilarious. Very original. Anyway, the Catholic Church has an official magisterial definition of whose apostolic successions are valid. Aside from the Catholic lines, the Church recognizes the successions of all the churches that can trace their origins to bishops of known lineage and who have maintained the practice of apostolic succession (laying of hands). That's why it calls them churches in the first place. Thanks to a century of ecumenical dialogue, that standard is mutual between most of the apostolic churches, though some churches have different theological views about what it means to be a validly consecrated bishop out of communion with their church. That includes the Eastern and Oriental Orthodox churches, the Syriac churches, and just one of the original schismatic Old Catholic churches. The reason the Anglican and Lutheran bishops are not recognized as validly consecrated by default is because these churches have had disruptions in their apostolic lines, in the Lutheran case very extended ones. So you can't trust that all their bishops have a valid lineage. When an Anglican or Lutheran bishop converts and seeks holy orders in the Catholic Church, they do research on that individual's lineage, the same way they research any layperson's baptism to ensure they were validly baptized.
I do like and appreciate your videos, but man do they make my head spin haha. I’ve only watched a few of them so far. I’ve always been curious about how my former and current denominations came to be. I attended a baptist church as a child, and that is fascinating to hear about how there were two separate groups who identified as such. I don’t believe my Baptist church taught Calvinism, as I didn’t really learn about TULIP until a few years ago from listening to different Christian podcasts. Thanks for all of that work it must take to represent the schisms and splits among the churches.
Yeah, the upshot of each video is usually "think more and read more" rather than an easy answer. Difficult but very valuable!
As a mennonite/Anabaptist, I've always been confused about how Baptists relate to us, and the charts certainly have not helped. Good to know there's a bit of a link in being inspired by Anabaptist theology, but they certainly didn't split from us. (I currently attend an inter-denominational baptist/Anglican/menno church so it's fun to think of the history behind how our theology works together now)
Sounds works based
Anabaptist/Mennonite churches tended to (and still do) separate themselves ethnically. This is a part of the origins of the “English/Amish” dichotomy in the Amish groups etc. The distinctions between Baptist and Anabaptist originally was not primarily theological in the Reformation era, but Ethnic, Anabaptists were German and Dutch, whilst those that came to call themselves Baptists were mostly of British origin.
Thank you, Brother Joshua🌹🌹🌹🌹
Catholic here: i think your vids are really awesome and enlightening. I pray we can reunite one day.
The only uniting will be when Christ returns. That will be of the faithful true believers in Christ (likely few "Catholics"). THAT is the only Church of Jesus Christ.
@@drjanitor3747 You are damning yourself.
@@joycegreer9391 We Catholics TOTALLY believe in Christ, and follow only Him, as He has set forth the church for our salvation. I look forward to seeing you there when He comes back. Also, ignore those trolls in the comments below, they know not what they say.
Wow - thanks. I really never really thought about how denominational charts can be somewhat misleading; I always understood different bias in church history. Thanks for doing the Presbyterian break down - I had been raised Presbyterian, but I stopped regularly going to church in the mid-70s right before the merger happened.
What a knowledgeable young man. So much respect.
So excellent I’ve watched it twice. Thank you.
ur hardwork is much appreciated
Great video as always! Definitely a lot of food for thought. Some may consider it unsettling to see certain denominations not stemming from any one particular denomination specifically, but coming to existence spontaneously, as it were, but I find it pretty inspiring to see the hand of God at work throughout the centuries, influencing people to go back to the basic teachings of Scripture. Of course there have been many hiccups along the way, but I believe the next phase of God's plan is to begin to reconcile some of these denominations back into one true Church. No matter where you look in history, it is comforting to know that there was always a witness of the true Gospel. God never allowed it to just die off with the corruptions which dominated the Church from about the 4th Century onward. As a Oneness Pentecostal, I appreciated what you discussed in the beginning of the video about the "beginnings" of denominations as legal entities. The United Pentecostal Church was legally founded in 1945 through another merger, but we find many in history who held similar beliefs, and, of course, we believe ours to be the original beliefs of the largely Jewish Christian believers in the New Testament. More recently, however, we find in history how many (of course not all) Anabaptists during the Radical Reformation, professed similar beliefs in that they preached believers' baptism in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and many received the gift of the Holy Ghost evidenced by speaking in tongues (glossolalia), even as we believe today. There is historical evidence which points to the miraculous taking place during that time and the Gifts of the Spirit being in operation as well. At any rate, great job! I always appreciate your videos and polls. :)
So well done and informative, and yet so confusing at the same time. Exquisite! Keep the good work.
Love your work, brother. I am a bit, disappointed, however, at the seemingly flippant attitude about tracing the roots of a denomination to Jesus. As a Roman Catholic, this is deeply important to me, and I think it should be to any Christian looking to follow the teachings of Jesus. I think even serious Protestants should feel the need to trace their beliefs historically to Jesus and the Apostles, and this shouldn't be something lightly shrugged off as "some weirdos think this is important." Hope this can produce fruitful dialogue. Much love from your extended family in Rome.
Roman Catholics and Protestants were not around at the time of Jesus christ, those churches were baptistic in doctrine.
@@oshea2300 Okay, that is a wildly ahistoric view even baptist scholars don't take.
No Protestant can actually trace their beliefs back to Christ because too many of their doctrines and traditions contradict Jesus' customs and teachings. Jesus said "don't even think that I came to oppose the authority of Moses' writings", but Protestants believe in a Christ that came to do the exact opposite. As it is, they don't even believe in the resurrection of the dead, even though Jesus frequently preached about it!
@@theeternalsbeliever1779 Well, only some Protestants believe as you say. But yes, both their distinctive beliefs and churches are innovations not from Christ.
That was why there was a Reformation. To restore correct doctrine to the Gospel, to the teachings of Jesus and the apostles.
Man I was holding onto the edge of my seat waiting for you to talk about upci Pentecostals.
I’m waiting for the book😀😀 Would love some history on John Knox/Early Presbyterianism!
Thank you Gabe!
Knox Blocks
One of the unique factors of the East/West Schism in 1054 was each group had their own Liturgical customs. The Eastern Orthodox (and today the Eastern Rite Catholic Churches who returned to or maintained union with Rome) had the Byzantine Liturgy usually that of St. John Chrysostom/St. Basil. The Coptic, Armenian, Chaldean, Syriac/Malabar had their own liturgies, and the Latin West had a number of uses, more similar to the Roman Liturgy. Most places had one or the other Liturgy, the exceptions being some places in Poland and Bohemia where there were a mix. There are also Oriental, Coptic and Armenian Catholics who maintain their Liturgical traditions while in communion with the Roman See. There are two Eastern Catholic Churches that never severed ties with Rome, the Maronite, and the Italio-Greeks. The Malabar Christians, who claim to have been Evangelized by the Apostle Thomas, were separated from Rome by default when the Orthodox and Oriental Churches and geography separated them. When the Portuguese first went to India, the Roman Catholic priests who went with the colonial armies approached these churches, many had in spirit retained communion with Rome, and the communion was restored, others remained attached to the Syrian Church not in communion with Rome, later others split and were in communion with Anglicans after the English colonized India. There is an odd duck, which are the Kristianu in Japan. Originally converts to the Roman Catholic Church, when Japan outlawed the Catholic Church (no other Christians had evangelized Japan) and all non-Japanese were executed, exiled and banned from entry into Japan, those who were not martyred went underground. They would have Buddhist altars erected in their homes, and carved out on the backs of the Buddhist statues or on the Buddhist scrolls would be Christian iconography, such as Crucifixes, depictions of Mary and Saints, on the scrolls they were made to look Buddhist but to the untrained, the Chrisitan symbolism would be lost in the Japanese style. When Admiral Perry's navy came into Yokohama Harbor, the secret Kristianu approached the ships, inquired among the chaplains which accepted the Faith of Christ, and the Pope in Rome, and for the first time in centuries were able to worship in a Catholic manner with a priest. A minority of these Kristianu were convinced that the religion needed to remain underground and did not join the rest in re-unification with the Roman Catholic Church and practice their own religion in secret to this day.
Great video.
It would be interesting to see the origins of para-church ministries and their relationship to denominations through history. From hospitals and prison ministries and schools and universities, to modern university evangelistic ministries, and the like.
Oh my! Can you even imagine the research necessary for such a series?
Thanks man. Great video. I use this video to fall asleep. Never have gotten to the halfway mark
This guy is really pretty good at being neutral. Sometimes I see the titles of videos and think how is this guy gonna talk about this topic from a neutral standpoint. Like the cults video for example, but somehow he does it every time.
Your editing is fantastic in this video!
Thank you! Very interesting. Would you be willing to design your own chart?
I found this video interesting too. I have a chart showing the origins of the one religion in the Holy Bible, it is shown in 'Having obtained eternal redemption for us? #22 Myths in so-called Christianity', you are welcome to watch it.
You're doing great, Josh.
Another very interesting video. Good job
Data visualization is a topic all on its own. This was a fascinating video!
This was a very educational video. I have seen many of these charts before and found them to be a bit skewed. Perhaps you could make a more accurate chart and make it available to your readers?
Wikipedia only allows a select few to edit anymore.
I think he's arguing against making such a chart entirely, at least for neutrality's sake, since his premise is that it's hard to argue that any denomination split from any other because of what each "founder" did personally.
I understand wanting to neutrally represent everyone because everyone is coming from somewhere, and this kind of family tree doesn't do that exactly.
What such trees can do well is give an overview of the historical and political perspectives. Despite St. Paul's wise and project counsels against factionalism, Christianity is to some degree a political religion, no matter what branch you are in. And understanding where splits occurred, even if we do miss the details of who caused the split or why, can help us to understand how Christian doctrine has developed, the role that secular events played in the changing of Christian doctrine, what beliefs are common to all Christians across the centuries, among other things.
I am thinking of something not connected with wiki. There were many places where corrections could be made including the great schism. Clearly it is hard to handle denominations that appear from multiple places on one summary chart but timewise it is possible.
A fascinating presentation, from an academic perspective, but one that is directed to a fundamental point that 'religious belief' is simply a form of philosophy.
Good scholarship always finds there are more questions than there are answers.
Great video this is well done!
Presbyterian and Reformed are the same tradition. As far as the Puritans (congregationalists) are involved it's still the same tradition but different polity
Presbyterian and reformed are not the same thing. one can be reformed, and NOT at all Presbyterian.
@@slamdancer1720 yes but very few are and congregationalist especially nowadays if that's what you meant?
I was referring to Reformed (in the USA) being continental reformed and Presbyterian being Reformed in UK and USA.
As in being derived from the Reformers in Geneva.
This video is information dense, yet very welcome. One thing I hope many of us can agree on, is that much of modern Christianity has shifted to being more experiential based, rather than promoting deep study. Or, deeply held traditions don't encourage people to question the status quo. Either way, you end up with people who are primed to follow other men, rather than Christ. I think this is why celebrity culture has blossomed within proposed Christianity. "Who's your favorite pastor?" A question that sends shivers down my spine.
I think you are right in many ways. A lack of truely in depth study is missing from most churches today. And a call to return to that is highly needed.
However, I think we walk a dangerous path if we pretend that what we see in celebrity pastor worship is intirely rooted in modernity. As much of it can simply be traced back to the nature of humanity.
Look at the church in Corinth. They would divide themselves over who the individule was that helped them to convert. One group was of Paul and the other of Appalos. (A young believer that started out as a deciple of John the Baptist. ) And as a resault, Paul strongly scolded them for this, in his first epistle to them. Pointing them instead, back to scripture by saying not to go beyond what is written.
How incredible is it, that we see the same problems in humans today. We all want to know truth. And be grounded in somthing larger than us. But humans as a species, tend to be lazy on the process of seeking that truth. Knowing who it is we place our faith in, and what it is that has been written. This seems to be why Luke called the Bereans "more noble" than other cities. Because they searched the scriptures to verify what Paul was teaching.
The big difference in today's megachurch is that these celebrity pastors aren't really teaching their congregations to look in the scriptures for right understanding the way Paul did. Instead, many of them seem to operate more like the false apostles that came in after Paul, and tried to use their influence to make money off the people. I think we can learn some lessons from those ancient churches. In order to do just as you said, and engage in deep study, to know what the truth is.
God bless. Have a wonderful day.
It is regrettable that The Way has splintered into so many denominations.
This was an outstanding introduction to the schisms - or lack thereof - that have occurred since the Gospel was first proclaimed. I look at your young face and hear such sincerity representing such consideration and research that - well, I'm subscribing now after only two viewings.
I have not detected any bias in your expositions - and I'd like to think that your aim is ultimately to draw all these factions together on the shared principles of the Word that we hold - as C.S. Lewis attempted in his broadcast compilation that became, "Mere Christianity."
Thank you for digging at the roots of our division and presenting straightforward discussions: I'd like us as believers in Christ to be united and conduits of His love; however, I'd rather we stand on the Truth foremost. Thank you.
A fair presentation on the subject. I grew up in the Churches of Christ and they loved these charts. But they also had the audacity to make little tracts defining everything that was wrong with _____ church and point 1 was always: this church was founded by _____ in the year _____ .
They also STEER CLEAR of Alexander Campbell and Barton Stone and the census of 1906! Hum.... 😆
You make a fantastic point about the coptic/oriental split on the wikipedia chart
The Adventist beginning is spot on. Great job. 👌
The vocal leaders of the Adventist movement after William Miller were James White, Ellen White, and Joseph Bates.
The core of Adventism was set in 1845 by Joseph Bates.
I read that it was Rachel Oakes Preston who was a Seventh-day Baptist who persuaded the congregation of Adventist who Joseph Bates was a part of to keep the 7th day Saturday as Sabbath. Joseph Bates later convinced James and Ellen White to keep the 7th day also.
Scoundrels all for sure. Remember it's all about control, control, and control.
@@dereklogan9097
Something like that.
EGW had a vision which confirmed Bates.
@@jedidiahsojourner1917 If so, they're doing a horrible job of it.
Thank you so much for the explanation. This (kinda) answers my long lost question about "who is the original church?" I think this debats comes from the idea that "the older your church is, the more credible you are" which is now i see as dependant on the perspective
CoC's use Rom 16:16 as iron clad "proof" they are the original church that Yeshua built. Yet they don't do as He did and walk as He walked.... and as His disciples did after the cross (Keeping Torah).
It's an effort of belief reification rather than conforming to the instructions of our Lord, high priest, King, and Savior.
There was no one original church. There were many independent gatherings of believers that formed churches. As the churches grew larger more defined leadership was needed, but there was no central authority over all the churches. The only authority, the only foundation, was Jesus.
A very good video on the topic of churches/denominations. In Sweden the Lutheran reformation was more like the Church of England. The same priests and bishops, the same parishes and churches. Some new books and changed language. Doctrinal changes, yes, but not sure how much lay people noticed that early on.
Nah... partly true, but: Catholics were banned, sometime with death threats. Monasteries were forbidden. Catholic properties were confiscated by the crown. Churches were rebuilt and repainted on the inside. Only the priests who declined Catholicism could remain priests.
I think the Catholic Church recognized the ordinations of the Church of Sweden up until they started ordaining women as priestesses.
@@HolyKhaaaaan I doubt that is correct 🤔, since ordination is a sacrament in the Catholic Church. Also the Augsburg Confession is the primary confession of faith within the Lutheran church...
But I do know that the Finnish Lutheran church (earlier part of Sweden), considers its ordinations to be part of the Apostolic Succession, since the converted bishops (16th century)had been ordained as Catholics.
@@mikkis668 Yes, like the Anglican Church and unlike the Danish Lutheran Church that lost that succession.
@@mikkis668 Yes, but all didn't happen overnight. We celebrated/commemorated 500 years from the start of the reformation 2017, but the Swedish Lutheran Church 400 years 1993.
As usual, this was reasonable and thoughtful. Well done again.
Very thought provoking. But when do we get the ready to harvest chart? 😀
Good points on the distinctions between institutions, traditions, and names.
I grew up in the Christian & Missionary Alliance. When I got to college I found a book on the history churches in America. Curious about how my denomination compared to others, I read that the CMA came out of the holiness movement. Based on my own experience growing up in the CMA I found that hard to believe. Like many of these denominations... it’s complicated.
Many holiness movements start making more rules than the Bible has. They also tend to become onerously legalistic and people go, "Hell! This ain't right!" and they split.
@@MountainFisher Does that NOT sound exactly like Pharisee-ism?
@@truthnottradition7 Indeed yes, but I thought the process should be laid out.
Best church history content on youtube
Very interesting and educative video. Thanks, brother. God bless.
I love your videos, I'm just amazed of how bright you really are. Very few of you younglings can I say that. 😉
I'd really be interested to learn more about the Orthodox/ Catholic split. I would love if you made a video about it, explaining more details. For example, is it true that there were five patriarchs, with the one in Rome holding the title "the first among equals? What is wrong with that picture if anything?
Thank you!
While a Protestant may be able to offer a more neutral view of the Schism, he may be unable to fully embody the cultural, religious and spiritual conflicts that led up to the big event.
Here's a Catholic view, albeit very unbiased, from one of the best-known Franciscan priests on TH-cam.
th-cam.com/video/EWOpn8tRBME/w-d-xo.html
PS: His videos are top-notch, but this came out five years back, when Fr Casey was just starting to make an impact. Compared to what he produces today, this video looks God-awfully primitive, but the content is still top of the line.
@@satyannair4837 Thank you, I will check it out :)
@@satyannair4837 Thank you again! Video seems fairly unbiased. So I'm still puzzled. I'm coming from an Orthodox bias, but honestly seeking truth and clarity, as best as I can.
Fr Casey appears to uphold the Pentarchy- the original Church with five apostolic sees in five major cities of the old Roman empire. Yet he concludes that the pope has the proper Biblical understanding. That makes me very confused.
Here is how things look to me, and please feel free to correct me. Both Orthodox and Catholics agree on the apostolic succession. That the patriarch of a church is direct heir from the original apostle who established that church. They both agree that Jesus gave keys and the power to bind and loose to Peter first, and then to the rest of the apostles.
Now given that all of that is true- how is the patriarch of Rome, the heir to apostolic see of Peter- not _a first among equals?_ Peter was the first among apostles to gain keys and the power. That makes hims first among apostles- the first among equals. How is the successor to Peter - a super apostle/ patriarch? How can a successor to Peter have more power and authority over other apostolic successors? Where does he get the authority above others from? How does one reach that conclusion reading the Bible or looking at the original, undivided Church?
Thank you again and have a nice day :)
@@PetarStamenkovic my exact thoughts
@@PetarStamenkovic almost all protestants believe in regional rule which is how we justified the reformation split whether by bishop (Anglican, Lutheran etc) and how certain dioceses moved into Presbyterian/Reformed polity as done by elders in ancient Israel plus deacons. Some Reformed churches kept their bishops like the Church of Hungary.
Worship style most like Orthodox would be traditional Reformed/Presbyterian as far as simple worship without band and historically Acapella.
The big band worship started from Roman Catholicism where the members would simply sit and listen rather than be involved in worship as in the Orthodox Church.
Amazing analysis. I appreciate your objectivity.
A very good presentation!
A part 2? Which church or liturgical form is most like the Early Church...😮
Confessioal Lutherans would argue it is them. Obviously so would the Roman Catholics and the Orthodox. I believe that's the whole point; finding error in the current form and a desire to "return" to the truth. There is doctrine, (the true teaching) and there is adiaphora. (things neither commanded, nor forbidden.) It should be understandable for a split on doctrine and false teaching. To split over adiaphora would be silly. (IMO)
@@johnhouchins3156 And we have the Ethiopian and Coptic Church. And Armenian...
But still, it would be interesting to hear a neutral overview of the oldest liturgical practices we know of, and who still uphold them. Of course we have the Creeds and the Ecumenical Counsils as a guideline, but beyond that...?
Well the gospels give us the standard.
Christ was very litergical. That is why everything he did stood on pomp and ceremony.. oh wait, with the exception of the Lord's supper which was a Passover Seder and the riding into town on a donkey which was fulfillment of messianic prophecy. We don't see litergical worship in his life. I suppose you could argue for the Lord's prayer except he said, Don't use "vain repetitions" which would include just parroting the Lord's prayer.
The book of Acts is also pretty light on such matters. Anything added after the apostles is pagan fluff. Simple as that.
The issue with all these denominations is everyone is taking away or adding to the Bible. Sola Scriptura works if people follow it. But few do. Because as soon as the Truth is inconvenient (worship on Sabbath for example. Christ never argued against the Sabbath, but against the rules of the Pharisees, which were traditions.) Or unclear (who are the 144,000 anyway?) People remove or add whatever fits their world view.
Do this for a couple generations and boom now traditions have become the standard. Which is as about as Anti-Christ as you can get, given most of his arguments with the Sanhedrin was over their use of traditions instead of scripture.
@@philipwheeler7317 Thank you for your input, though I do disagree. Jesus and the first followers were Jews and so deeply liturgical in their worship.
We also have plenty of historical texts already from the first century, that describe the early Church and its believes, worship, structure and challenges. Many of these written by the disciples of the Apostles, some of them mentioned in the NT.
God bless.
I would agree the Jews were deeply litergical yes. That was a big sticking point with them vs Christ besides the obvious "blasphemy" of claiming to be God, & forgive sins. (Clarification: it wasn't because he is God and can forgive sins, but otherwise it would be.)
As for any statements after the book of Revelation/Apocalypse, we have the clear warning anyone that adds to these scriptures is cursed. Meaning the Canon of Scripture is closed. That makes any statements by those who came after merely commentaries not Canon.
As such they are to be considered carefully. Especially when the apostles warned that as soon as they died wolves would start scattering the flock and that antichrist's (yes plural) were already among them.
We are to test even Angels according to scripture. I'm not saying some of the early father's were not true believers but we can't use them as the standard. Not even for style of worship.
If scriptures are silent on an issue that means we have no set standards. If they are clear on an issue, it is heretical to disobey it, regardless of how "orthodox" (theologically not "denominationally") a doctrine it has become.
Such a good and careful research paper. Well done.
The hilarious thing about that Catholic / Orthodox copypasta is that I was taught - raised by Catholic parents and went to Catholic primary & secondary schools - that St Peter founded the Church, not Jesus Christ.
You were taught incorrectly. The Catechism of the Catholic Church does not say that Peter built the Catholic Church, but that the Church was built on Peter, by Jesus Christ.
Can you make a chart that you agree with?
If the Catholic Church is not the church founded by Jesus on Peter, why are Saint Peter's remains preserved under the high altar of St Peter’s Basilica?
Because that is what the RCC wrongly believes.
@@joycegreer9391or maybe you wrongly disbelieve that
@@stevenjames6830 No, that is only tradition, not proven fact, about Peter being in Rome.
The first part, Jesus founding His Church on Peter, is totally wrong belief.
@@joycegreer9391 So Jesus just accidentally changed Peter’s name to a word that means rock. Nope, the Catholic Church is the Church founded by Jesus.
OK, well done. A scholarly approach, what a novel concept! Subscribed.
not religious, but this was a great topic, and you make many excellent points.
Any plan to attempt your own chart to better depict this factors?
I would have liked to also see about churches that "became in communion with Rome", as this was significant for my mother. Her side of the family were Ruthenian Byzantine/Greek Catholic, meaning they followed the eastern rite of the Divine Liturgy (St. John Chrysostom and St. Basil the Great) but were in communion with Rome. When the closest Byzantine Catholic Church shut down near their house, her family split between Russian Orthodox and Roman Catholic (that is why I am Roman Catholic today), with the RO side stating that the RC side were traitors as they did not respect tradition, and the RC side stating that the RO side were traitors as the BCC was already in communion with Rome
Very Good Presentation!!!! Thanks so much for your studies. BTW, I've heard the "Churches of Christ" (and other Restoration churches) called the "Campbellite sect of the Presbyterian Church" (Mostly by older Presbyterians...)
(Many in the Christian Church/Church of Christ find the term "Campbellite sect" to be derogatory and mildly offensive. For example, what if the Presbyterian Church was referred to as the "John Knox sect of the Anglican Church"? Or perhaps "the John Knox sect of Henry Tudor's divorce project schism"? The Restoration Movement specifically sought to tone down this sort of petty interdenominational conflict.)
@@rwpintx I wasn’t speaking to the offensiveness of this statement (I don’t find it offensive in the least)… I was simply stating that there are some who recognize our Presbyterian roots as stronger than our Baptist roots. My comment was about the origins content of the video…
I find this interesting. As a Presbyterian, I don't see much in the terms of similarity between us. Maybe because I am OPC and the fathers of Church of Christ were of the more liberal sect?
@@slamdancer1720 I don't think they brought a lot of their Presbyterianism with them... that was their whole point of leaving denominational trappings and divisions behind. BUT they did have Presbyterian upbringings...
The Restoration Movement in America began in the late 1700's. The Campbells didn't come to America until the first decade of the 1800's. This is one reason why the term "Campbellite" is a redundant term to begin with. The Campbells came to America and became leaders of an already existing movement. The American Restoration Movement actually was a continuation of earlier efforts in the UK, going back to the Protestant Reformation, and would have continued in America either with or without the efforts of the Campbells.
I would LOVE to see you develop an origin chart using this information - 😃
“I’m a baptist. Our church goes back to Jesus’ cousin John, who was also a baptist”
-old denominational joke
"Heresy is like a tree. It's roots lie in darkness while it's leaves wave in the sun. You can prune away its branches, even cut the tree to the ground but it will grow again, ever stronger."
I would like more videos on those older church topics if possible
Great work! I look forward to your videos very much. I'd love to see one on ligonier ministries.
What I find fascinating is that there are Eastern Christian Churches (about 23, I think) currently in full communion with the Western Church and the Pope in Rome. These Eastern Christian Churches seem to have some distinct theological and liturgical attributes, yet chose to be in full communion with the Western Church (and each other). They could have remained separated. I would like to know more about the timing and circumstances that resulted in their reunification. Are there some good books on the subject?
I know there were several tries to reunite eastern and western rites over the centuries (efforts are ongoing!). I know some rites "never left" while others did and partially came back. The split between "Catholic" and "Orthodox" was very messy and as stated in the video, it really wasn't a division of people and really wasn't a division of belief, so much as an argument between prelates. As an ordinary Catholic, I personally don't consider the Orthodox to be "different".
I think your best bet for good books on the topic would be to wander on over to Catholic Answers.
What’s even more interesting is the fact that uniates say the creed without the filioque and venerate post schism eastern saints like St Gregory Palamas. If you look at the history you will find quite a few reasons as to why some of these churches went into union with the west oftentimes for political and economic reasons.
@@fornost64 They don't say the filioque clause because they keep the original redaction in their languages (greek) of the Creed in the First Council of Constantinopla (381). They believe (contrary orthodox churches) that the filioque is a legitimate understanding of the Trinity, particular to the Latin tradition. The political and economical reasons also can be used for the independence of the easter patriarchy when the power of Rome See declined in the third and fourth centuries. Constantinople for example
It was the robber council of Florence, in which the Latins tried to coerce the Orthodox into communion, but was natural rejected completely by the Orthodox, because of this, and other reasons like Josaphat Kuntsevych, the uniates have an even worse reputation among the Orthodox than Latins to a degree.
@@Uthwita Can you explain why they were coerced and why that council was not legitimate? Other than saying it was heretical
Great piece - keep up the good work!