I love being Catholic. Attending daily Mass and being able to receive the Eucharist daily is so important to my walk and to becoming a Saint. The Sacrament of Penance is also incredibly healing! I’m praying that all Christians have a deep conversion and return home to the one Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church ⛪️ God bless you!
This video was made for me. I share the same culture, locale, and church tradition of Dr. East so I completely resonate with all of his questions about church history and issues of unity. Great conversation!
Thank you for this. As a COC preacher, it’s encouraging to hear there is a movement within our tradition that both rejects nuda scriptura and does not want worship to become an acapella version of rockband nondenominational churches (to admittedly unfairly and grossly pigeonhole others). Open-mindedness can be hard to come by in our tradition, and when you find it the desire is typically for more “affective/emotional sacramentalism” and less of the solid stuff.
“Wherefore though there are many apostles, yet with regard to the principality itself the See of the Prince of the apostles alone has grown strong in authority, which in three places is the See of one.” -Pope St. Gregory the Great.
@joetech12 That kind of distorts the quotation of St Pope Gregory the Great (if you take it out of context). Honestly. In that praise of Alexandria and Antioch, called in ecclesiastical/ canonical tradition the three “Petrine Sees” with Rome for different reasons, the pope of Rome was bringing the memory of the Nicene ‘taxis’ (325) and opposing the growth of authority of the Patriarch of Constantinople in favor of the Alexandrian and the Antiochene bishops of the Chalcedonian churches (greatly divided due to the Coptic and Syriac Orthodox ones), which - during that point in history - called himself “ecumenical/ universal”, since the Byzantines thought to understand the Roman/Byzantine Empire to comprise the universality (‘oikoumene’) of the limits of the Christian world. So the imperialistic stance of the See of Constantinople is delicately fought against by Pope St Gregory the Great in that quote, not assured. There are innumerable other quotes that aren’t as delicate though, yet you probably won’t give us. Just to help people find out more about Pope St Gregory the Great’s ecclesiology: _”(...) I, unworthy, succeeded to the _*_GOVERNMENT OF THE CHURCH_*_ (...)”_ . _For what are all your brethren, the bishops of the universal Church, but stars of heaven, whose life and discourse shine together amid the sins and errors of men, as if amid the shades of night? And when you desire to put yourself above them by this proud title, and to tread down their name in comparison with yours, what else do you say but I will ascend into heaven; I will exalt my throne above the stars of heaven? Are not all the bishops together clouds, who both rain in the words of preaching, and glitter in the light of good works?_ _(...) Peter, the first of the apostles,_ (...) _Was it not the case, as your Fraternity knows, that the prelates of _*_THIS APOSTOLIC SEE_*_ which by the providence of God I serve, had the honour offered them of being called _*_UNIVERSAL by the venerable COUNCIL OF CHALCEDON._*_ But yet not one of them has ever wished to be called by such a title, or seized upon this ill-advised name, lest if, in virtue of the rank of the pontificate, he took to himself the glory of singularity, he might seem to have denied it to all his brethren._ (Pope Gregory, Book 5, Letter 18) _____________ _”When our PREDECESSOR (pope) Pelagius of blessed memory became aware of this, _*_HE ANNULLED_*_ by a fully valid censure all the proceedings of that same synod (...)”_ _Furthermore, it has come to our knowledge that your Fraternity has been convened to Constantinople. And although our most pious Emperor allows nothing unlawful to be done there, yet, lest perverse men, taking occasion of your assembly, should seek opportunity of cajoling you in favouring this name of superstition, or should think of holding a synod about some other matter, with the view of introducing it therein by cunning contrivances,- though _*_WITHOUT THE AUTHORITY AND CONSENT_*_ of the _*_Apostolic See_*_ nothing that might be passed would have _*_ANY FORCE_*_ (...)_ (Pope Gregory, Book 9, Letter 58). _____________ _”Inasmuch as it is manifest that the _*_APOSTOLIC SEE IS, BY THE ORDERING OF GOD, SEER OVER ALL THE CHURCHES,_*_ there is, among our manifold cares, special demand for our attention, when our decision is awaited with a view to the consecration of a bishop. (. . .) you are to cause him to be consecrated by his own bishops, as ancient usage requires, with the assent of our authority, and the help of the Lord; to the end that through the observance of such custom both the Apostolic See may retain the power belonging to it, and at the same time may not diminish the rights which it has conceded to others_ (Pope Gregory, Book 3, Letter 30). _____________ _”For as to what they say about the _*_CHURCH OF CONSTANTINOPLE, WHO CAN DOUBT THAT IT IS SUBJECT TO THE APOSTOLIC SEE,_*_ as both the most pious lord the emperor and our brother the bishop of that city continually acknowledge_ ? (Pope Gregory, Book 9, Letter 12) _____________ _”[Y]ou must still strictly order them to _*_OBSERVE ALL THINGS AFTER THE PATTERN OF THE APOSTOLIC SEE”_* (Pope Gregory, Book 4, Letter 36) _____________ _”It was right that the _*_APOSTOLIC SEE_*_ should take heed, with the view of _*_GUARDING IN ALL RESPECTS THE UNITY_*_ of the Universal Church in the minds of priests”_ (Pope Gregory, Book 4, Letter 2). *So his ecclesiology 1) assures Roman position to be “the” Apostolic See” (a terminology that can refer only to Rome when used in singular); 2) implies a different kind of primacy in which no particular church can be said to be above but all subject to the Roman authority, inclusive the See of Constantinople, one he had in high regards and esteem; 3) states that the Roman bishop exercises by right and commission the government of the (universal) Church, which does not mean obviously the pope is a bishop whose diocesan space meant the “globe”; 4) specifically called the memory of the Ecumenical Council of Chalcedon asserting the Roman authority to be “universal” (notice the cherry-picking of a phrase in which the pope St Gregory rejected a reference to the name “universal bishop” - rightly so - as if he allegedly rejected his own cognizance of jurisdictional universality and the See of Rome’s role in it, which is an absolute falsification of the Patristics); 5) specifically affirmed that the ecumenicity on counciliar acts are entirely dependent upon the Apostolic See’s confirmation, bringing the memory of other popes who even nullified synodal acts; 6) assumes the Roman authority to order others churches after the pattern (of authoritative decisions, not on strict uniformity of customs) of the Roman See; 7) assumes the Roman church not only takes the heed but guards unity at the universal level and responds for it; 8) refuses Roman ordinary intervention on regular episcopal affairs like consecration of bishops of the Eastern churches, although he did not reject that the Apostolic See is seer over all churches of the world (‘au contrarie’, he affirms it), affirming that it is so by the order of God, not by ecclesiastical organization; 9) affirms clearly that the lack of consent of the Roman church (the Apostolic See) impedes a synod in Constantinople to produce any force (in the context, at the universal level) and the Roman act of nullification makes it to not produce any force at all.* For sure he used the “Petrine Sees” in some of his writings in general as a reference to his brothers of Alexandria and Antioch, the first two after Rome to have received patriarchal status according to canon law, and specially making it a “soft critique” on Constantinopolitan growth of importance over Alexandria and Antioch. But the ecclesiological premises are very clear to me and in line with the theology of popes St Damasus, St Celestine, St Leo the Great, St Gelasius, St Hormisdas (and many more).* Not the best names to preach for Eastern Orthodox ecclesiology. Of course St Gregory the Great humbly asserted that episcopal dignity never meant the bishops were “mere extensions” of his Petrine authority but authorities of their own. That’s 100% Catholic. And the way he addressed the Petrine authority, in line with Pope St Leo the Great, is that only the Roman See could use and exercise the Petrine authority “stricto sensu” albeit others could mean to have it “lato sensu”. The homiliary and epistolary of both Popes St Leo the Great and St Gregory the Great, above all, were widespread on the East with huge acclamation. And you will know Truth, and truth will set you free (John 8, 32). God bless!
@@masterchief8179it’s not out of context. He’s giving witness to Antioch, Alexandria, and Rome being the three Petrine See founded by St Peter. God Bless.
@briandelaney9710 @joetech12 When you give a text without context, you probably have a pretext. I just tried to offer context to Pope St Gregory the Great’s ecclesiology without bringing massive texts (just enough for people to search for themselves with the references I provide and evenhandedness, I hope, if they want to search for truth). Trying to make Pope St Gregory the Great’s ecclesiology something that bears some anti-Catholic witness became a hit for Eastern Orthodox commentators, 99% of the time with decontextualized quotes, like the ones of the “Petrine Sees” being “one” (therefore, Rome being not what she is), or the condemnation of the “ecumenical bishop” as the precursor of the anti-Christ (a thing the pope said to the Patriarch of Constantinople, basically the title the defines the superior primate of EO). I really have no idea why people parrot this in the impulse to “respond” to Catholic claims: it is kind of sad at this point. Lies have short legs, my dear friends; they won’t go too far. God bless!
I have grown up in the church of Christ and find myself in a position of questioning whether this is where I need to be. This has been a four year journey so far. I wish that my local church practiced the things you are speaking of. I church of Christ is vastly different.
Roman catholic here. Loved this. I recognize two brilliant and faithful brothers in Christ. And yes, the Church is divided… but we are one, even though!
@@juancarlostownsend7013 church is not devided simple because "kingdom devided" cannot stand and cannot be "the pillar of truth". The better description of the current situation would be this: the Church, that holds the fullness of the the truth exists (because that's what Christ Himself promised to people) and the rest of the doctrines are just "partially right". The real issue here is to find this real, the only one church.
I think the best method of discerning the Church is to start with the four marks articulated in the Nicene Creed: One, holy, catholic, apostolic… Followed by St. Vincent’s rule: That which has been believed everywhere, always, and by all. That should get us pretty close
I’m not sure we can call Rome “holy” with a straight face. In all my years of research I find the Orthodox to be closest to the earliest Christian faith.
@@countryboyred That mark is just pertaining to the means by which somebody becomes holy ie the sacraments not the members themselves which are a mixed bag (weeds and wheat). That would necessarily take Protestantism out of the equation and leave us with Catholicism and the various Orthodox churches.
@@countryboyredIf we tried to emulate the early church, we’d be having mass outside of cities in risk of persecution. -- only the Latin Church could “baptize the world” because only the Latin church was prophesied to do it. “Keys to the Kingdom” it’s prophesy. Don’t fight it. :)
Just be sure to follow the rest of your brethren as they return to Peter's barque. Andrew, your ancient progenitor among the twelve, was one of the four preferred apostles (Andrew, Peter, James, John) but not one of the three privileged (Peter, James, John). This was not due to any defect on his part, but so that today, 2000 years later, you might be led to recognize the authority of Peter and the need to submit to it.
@@jimnewl1. Comments like yours aren’t helpful and won’t result in conversions 2. Peter founded the sees of Antioch and Alexandria. The Orthodox do follow Peter and have apostolic succession.
The church is the people. In the end, we are called to be with others who belong to Christ as well. If we listen to the Spirit, he will bring us to the specific local group with whom he wants us to associate and to share love and good works. Regardless of the sign that is on the front door. (Which may change over time if we move residences.)
@@stephenbailey9969 until that group splits and then what are you? St. Ignatius of Antioch 110 AD See that you all follow the bishop, even as Jesus Christ does the Father, and the presbytery as you would the apostles; and reverence the deacons, as being the institution of God. Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is administered either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there, let the multitude of the people also be; even as wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church. ((Letter to the Smyrnaeans, Chapter 8).
To find the true church one must look at their fruits. Fruits of the the church are their saints. Protestants do not have official saints, but they have outstanding people. So, compare Orthodox saints, Catholic saints, and well-known protestants to each other. Who they are, how they lived, what they did. After that it will be pretty clear which christian church holds full truth.
He mentions the Divine Liturgies of Sts. Chrysostom and Basil as an example of the Church lacking an exclusive liturgy. It should be noted that those two liturgies are almost identical, with the only difference being the longer prayers (which only the priests say) of St. Basil. They are both based on the Divine Liturgy of St. James (yes, that St. James), which is likewise almost identical.
No he didn’t use that as an example to argue that the EO was “lacking an exclusive liturgy” but rather that the EO would not argue that there is only one exclusive kind of liturgy as demonstrated by these two valid EO liturgies done across the world. Same goes for the TLM and Novus Ordo with the RCC.
This was a great interview. I was very glad to be introduced to Dr. Brad East. As part of my follow up, I read his review of Paula Frederickson's two recent books ( I had read her magnum opus on Augustine). What a terrifically fair and insightful review. ACU is lucky to have him.
Can you do a breakdown of Spencer Smith’s Third Adam Series? He makes very serious anti-catholic claims. I am currently trying to understand where he gets his thoughts according to church history. This has become a roadblock for me as I look into Catholicism as a protestant Christian. Thank you for your videos, God bless!
Perhaps I can somewhat speak to this question. From what I've seen of Spencer Smith's videos, he comes from a very radical IFB viewpoint--Independent Fundamental Baptist. I know this because I grew up in it, and he has referenced some people famous to IFB circles. Basically what a lot of people in these circles believe is that only what the Bible says is important; Spirit gifts ceased (which doesn't make sense given the first belief 😂); music with synchopatited rhythms is of the devil; dancing is evil; organizations like Samaritans purse and other organizations like them were in error because they would do just relief work and not preach that people were going to hell and also because they would partner with the Catholic Church; they also think that all other denominations are going to hell and that they're the only ones who are correct--minus the Presbyterians and maybe the Southern Baptists (they have "erred a little bit," but not so much so that they'll still consider them Christian 😂). If I am incorrect in any of this, I am willing to be corrected by a fellow believer from an IFB background. But for me, this was all my experience. Anyway all that to say, his view is most likely all of that, and once I figured that out I took all of what he was saying with a huge block of salt 😂
Oh and IFB's views of church history basically is that there was the time of the apostles and that was all good; then there was the time of the early churches right after them where they were trying to figure things out, but because they didn't have things figured out like we do today (sarcasm) error quickly crept into the church, hence the Catholic Church, but then Luther came and started everyone on the right path Again, if I'm wrong I will stand corrected, but again this was my perception coming from the background that Spencer Smith is a part of.
I went in with assumptions based on the title, but really got thrown for a loop when he mentioned he's tied to the Campbell Stone churches. I'm looking up his blogs and other interviews now. It's interesting to see a man who isn't claiming to have arrived but is in the middle of questioning so much, even though it's the complete opposite of what his group is based on
Yes, the fragmentation of the Church IS a huge problem -- perhaps the number one problem. There's a very easy solution to that, which is to return to the worship method that was practiced for a millennium and to reject novel worship practices that are less than 500 years old, and which led to tremendous splintering. The Church fathers point the way. Be like them...
Like Reagan said, "I did not leave the Democrat party, the Democrat party left me" commenting on the many changes that left the party he always was a member of unrecognizable....Protestants say the same..."We did not leave the Catholic church, the Catholic church left us." When she gradually overrides the authority of the Word of God and place herself above her groom....return to the purity of the Apostles' teachings, which is the scripture, and the simplicity of the Gospel. Shed off the extra overbearing baggage of unbiblical traditions and dogmas and demanding the rest of us to violate our conscience.
The church canonizing a person, declares that person to be in heaven. There are four stages for sainthood: Servant of God, Venerable, Blessed, and Saint. Each with each own criteria. One of the criteria to be canonized as a Saint by the church is that at least two miracles be attributed to the Blessed..
After watching and having read and appreciated his articles, I find that Dr. East seems to be in a pretty tight spot (as Austin so tactfully identified). He is fundamentally critical of all that low church praxis entails - sacraments, worship, history, tradition; and yet he simultaneously attempts to justify his continuation in one of the lowest-practicing churches there is. The end result is that Dr. East seems to be an enormously intelligent, loving, good hearted - and confused - Christian.
Shopping churches until you find one that resonates with your own personal discernment is always the wrong way to go. One must be seeking the complete truth, and the complete truth is sometimes very uncomfortable and places many duties and burdens on a person. I love having the graces from all the sacraments. I love praying to Christ and having help from the saints. I love the grace and comfort and love rained down on us in Marian apparitions and Eucharistic miracles. Things that are a reality and cannot be disproved when examined closely. Therefore, i see this video as anticatholic. Catholicism has the complete truths we know so far. I am speaking about theology and not the human implementation of that theology.
Nobody can deny miracles in many other denominations. God is merciful. But theology needs to be fully lived. Within the Orthodox Church, I see more saints who are Christ-like compared to those in the Roman Catholic Church. It's enough to look at some saints from the past 100 years to notice the difference.
@@lessthandust Don't start counting saints, nor their religious demeanors. When was the last time the EO churches got together, as 1 church, and canonized anyone?
I took that Fantasy Football comment personally Excellent interview, really appreciate the respect for tradition and sacrament while not having the typical millennial deconstructing crisis. It was a mature and beautiful example to set for all of us who are seeking.
Unfortunately I have never seen someone on youtube to compare saints of different denominations. Would be interesting. Like "show me who your saints are and I will tell you how true and healthy your theology is". “you will know them by their fruit” (Matthew 7:16). After comparing for over two years the life of "saints" from different denominations the most Christ-like and spiritual saints I found within the Orthodox church. Just to look at the contemporary saints and theologians (like Saint Paisios, Porphyrios, Sophrony, Iakovos or St. Silouan) I recognize that the Orthodox Church is still very very active and fruitful in producing great saints. If someone really wants to become holy and struggle with his whole being for that, he will choose the best way to holiness. Also one of the reason why the former famous Roman catholic theologian and hermit Gabriel Bunge converted to Orthodox Church. He said the most spiritual person he met in Orthodox Church was dimensions (!) above the most spiritual person he ever met within the Roman Catholic church.
O common, no Catholic Saints at all!?!? How about those from just the las century? St. Faustina, St. Padre Pio, St. Theresa of Lesiux? Just to name a few.
@@atgred the point we're making is: study the saints from the different denominations yourself, and determine for yourself where the fullness of the Holy Spirit is. Just like I would tell someone to read the Quran and the Bible and judge for themselves. To the original commenter here and to me, the choice is obvious.
God continues to accomplish the unity, holiness, catholicity, and apostolicity of the Church by answering our petitions. But we should also offer thanksgiving for the ways He has already accomplished it, namely and respectively by the successors to Peter; the lives of the saints; theological, liturgical, linguistic, cultural, and experiential diversity; and apostolic succession.
Rather than deliberating over which church contains the Christian life in its fullness, another framework may be more helpful: St Ignatius' letter to the Smyrnaeans: "They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they confess not the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins, and which the Father, of His goodness, raised up again. Those, therefore, who speak against this gift of God, incur death in the midst of their disputes. But it were better for them to treat it with respect, that they also might rise again.... See that you all follow the bishop, even as Jesus Christ does the Father, and the presbytery as you would the apostles; and reverence the deacons, as being the institution of God. Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is [administered] either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude [of the people] also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church." If we do not choose to dismiss Ignatius' words because he derived his teaching and his authority directly from an apostle and was martyred for Christ, then to which Church(es) could these words lead us?
One thing I've realized is people have lost the plot lol Making "the church'' an idol is actually a thing. But you have to realize these buildings only work because people. Fellowship. Look for love and Christian charity
"The entire law and all the demands of the prophets are based on these two commandments.” It really is all about the relationship. How it changes your view of others, and your perception of the world.
@catholictruth102 With all its unbiblical practices and beliefs...she still needs reform, though she's softened through the years, she no longer anathematizes dissent. Good.
Let me take a stab at it. Have an objective standard across. The one who pass and even surpass X dimmension of time [continuity] X the one Jesus established. Then read lumen gentium 14.
There is soooo much wrong with this comment, but i appreciate you sharing your honest thoughts. To start, there is a progression in how God is understood within scripture. For example, nobody knew God's name (including Abraham) until God reveals himself further to Moses. Saying that Jesus further revealed God is not inconsistent with the general progression in the Hebrew Bible. Also, the concept of a plurality within the oneness of God is not at all foreign to Jewish thought before Jesus. Feel free to read Two Powers in Heaven by Alan Segal if you're serious about learning about the topic.
The Catholic Church and the orthodox are the one Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. Catholicism is the one true religion. Protestants are at least 50 percent home! It’s a process. We all in the end will be Catholic ❤
Protestants hold to the filioque but the Orthodox do not. We are more alike then different. The Orthodox do not extend you the same brotherhood. I have seen many videos claiming the Catholic church is a false church and that the Pope is the original protestant because of the filioque. How do you answer these claims?
47:51 EO has three main liturgies One written by Saint Basil - literally named "King." -One by Saint John Chrysostom - the "Golden Mouthed" - aligning directly with the meaning of "prophet" ("one who speaks on behalf of God.") And the oldest Divine Liturgy we know of - the eatablishment of which is clearly a priestly act - by Saint James. Our worship is truly that of prophets, priests, and kings. Fullness. A friend recently brought this to my attention
My issue with good churches, or churches that people perceive to be good. Is that often they are not sustainable over generations. Look at the Quakers they were amazing in the 1800s, and now they are borderline Unitarians. Same with the Puritans, I’m sure most of them were far better than I will ever be on my best day, but their descendants are basically atheists or at best Unitarians. My issue with a lot of protestant ism is that it burns too bright sometimes, and the flames get extinguished. Where do you have these great churches like my neighbors who are World War II generation, they were great godly people. But by the time their grandkids got to the church which made me really old millennials, most of them do not take church seriously at all. I think we’ve all seen this in different places that should be something that could be addressed.
@@Lafilledlapluie I get what you are saying. But I fear you are afraid of something that doesn’t exist. Tradition dictates how we worship. Catholics and Orthodox don’t worship tradition. That’s a stereotype. It guides believers and ensures they don’t go off the rails. Redeemed zoomer has a heresy scale. 0 to -7 for heresy. Many Protestant churches are around -1 and that should be alarming. You shouldn’t have to jump churches like a sinking ship. You should have one that your grandchildren can grow up to be believers in Christ in. Look at the Presbyterian church. It’s a hot mess. As is the Methodist church. You shouldn’t have to worry about a heretical priest or priestess teaching you sinful things. Or not knowing better and being taught falsehoods.
Without altars & no liturgical sacrificial worship, Protestantism generally, doesn’t have proper worship, so not “church”, but, truthfully, more like synagogue with prayer & teaching!
Did an online search of the word 'saint' of the online KJV, narrowed the search to the New Testament, in nearly every reference, the Saints are alive at the time, showing that every born again believer is a saint. The word 'saint' is olde English for 'Sent' or "Sent Ones", Jesus had instructed us to "Go out into all the world and preach the Gospel to every creature", so every believer considers themselves "sent".
This is difficult to listen to since the instruction and belief in Christ is so based on the individual. Accepting christ as one’s savior is automatically for all. It can’t be for one’s own salvation. Such individualized and distorted idea of Christ’s salvation leads to actions to trash the Holy Eucharist because the Body and blood of Christ is obviously a unity of all faithful.
Matthew 18:16-18 - "If your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault, between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have gained your brother. But if he does not listen, take one or two others along with you, that every word may be confirmed by the evidence of two or three witnesses. If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector." If the Church just means saved Christians, how could a group of Christians bring their dispute before the Church? Aren't they already the Church?
@@bradyhayes7911 individual believers are a part of the Church and not the sum total of the Church. In fact, the individual can’t be the sum total of the Church as it’s the community of those who are lead by the Spirit of Christ that materializes the reality of the Church. Thus, the Church is made up of individual believers who are able to go before the Church
@@briandelaney9710 lol, I agree that Christ established a visible church. Last time I checked, humans are visible. At least the living ones are. The Church Triumphant however is invisible, which is odd as the two traditions you named say we ought to pray to these invisible members of the Church. Don’t take what I’m saying to seriously. I’m merely pointing out that the Church is obviously visible and that there are elements of the Church which are obviously invisible. You need to chill out man. One last point about visibility, every single communion that exist is visible all the way from the nondenominational churches all the way up to the Oriental Orthodox level of churches are visible…. Here is something that you and I can probably agree on. The church is God’s temple. Or to put it another way the church is where God resides. In the old covenant era, God revealed His presence amongst his people through the glory cloud that sat over top of temple, when the old covenant was being instituted at Mount Sinai. When the new covenant was being instituted, God revealed his presence with little glory clouds on the day of Pentecost that sat on top of his people. This is significant because in the old covenant the Lord resided among his people, but in the new covenant, he resides in his people.This theme of believers being the temple is all through the New Testament. Language that we are a building of living stones, that our body is the temple of God, etc. So, definitionally the church is founded by Christ Jesus, and He has made His apostles and his prophets (per the scriptures) the the foundation. But the essence of what the church is, is a community individuals who are indwelt by the Holy Spirit and submit to the apostles teachings and witness. There is obviously more topics like baptism grafting us into Christ, but the essence is believing in Christ through the apostles witness. We are in a terrible time in the church. W are torn apart, and there are many who are scripturally illiterate and have a low view of the church. And there others who have such a high view at church that they exclude others who love our Lord (which simply put is perverse), but our Lord is gracious and He willwill and He will heal, and He will bring his church back together when it is time
Or, a Bible-believing Christian church if you wanna stay free of idolatry or any church community that emphasizes its institution above the shared love of Christ.
@angru_arches there are about 26,000 Protestant "Bible only" churches that are not agree with each other (though they read and interpret the same text). So, which one of them holds the truth?
@@SunnyFly100 First, it's more like 300...And they all adhere to the basic fundamentals of Christian belief and understand that they can vary in things of secondary importance...that's why they don't anathematize each other...or presume kick each other out of the Kingdom of Heaven as only the King can do and not Rome.
@@SunnyFly100 @SunnyFly100 First, it's more like 300...And they all adhere to the basic fundamentals of Christian belief and understand that they can vary in things of secondary importance...that's why they don't anathematize each other...or presume exclude each other out of the Kingdom of Heaven as only the King can do and not Rome.
Okay let me ask you something if the trinity is so dame important then why is the concept so alien to the jews and jesus and his apostles were jewish right ? And they taught from the Tanakh\hebrew bible ( old testament ) and we all know jews in all times taught that God is one not triune in fact that would go against their shama which is hear O israel the Lord our God is one Plus don't you find it strange that both jews and christians read the same text and come up with entirely different meaning and understanding Given that fact that there are three major abrahamic monotheistic religions\faiths and one of them claims to be polytheistic and given the fact that it's in the middle there are two conclusions to this either one of them is wrong or the other two are wrong but you can't have it both ways but let's put it this way since both christianity and islam are derived from judaism then what ever alien to it or contradicts it in a certain way then it can't be true but think about it if let's it was judaism that claim polytheism and both islam and christianity claimed monotheism then they both would be wrong and if islam claimed otherwise and judaism and christian were both are one God believers then islam would be wrong because islam came after but if both judaism & islam are one God believers and christian is triune then christian automatically christian is wrong and islam is right even a 7 year old kid figure that out That trinity is one of the reasons people are leaving christianity the trinity has been a big damage to the christian faith and i'm not saying that to attack you but in order to help you
In Jewish scripture there is a concept of the trinity. The trinity is never mentioned in the bible but it is alluded to. One God. Three persons. Like Vapor, liquid, and solid. Of the same nature (God)
I love being Catholic. Attending daily Mass and being able to receive the Eucharist daily is so important to my walk and to becoming a Saint. The Sacrament of Penance is also incredibly healing! I’m praying that all Christians have a deep conversion and return home to the one Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church ⛪️ God bless you!
This video was made for me. I share the same culture, locale, and church tradition of Dr. East so I completely resonate with all of his questions about church history and issues of unity. Great conversation!
Thank you for this. As a COC preacher, it’s encouraging to hear there is a movement within our tradition that both rejects nuda scriptura and does not want worship to become an acapella version of rockband nondenominational churches (to admittedly unfairly and grossly pigeonhole others). Open-mindedness can be hard to come by in our tradition, and when you find it the desire is typically for more “affective/emotional sacramentalism” and less of the solid stuff.
"get over the desire to be radical"
Best advice that I would not have accepted in my 20s and 30s. I'm in my 40s now and finally figuring this out.
Yess
"Where Peter is, there is the Church". St Ambrose of Milan.
“Wherefore though there are many apostles, yet with regard to the principality itself the See of the Prince of the apostles alone has grown strong in authority, which in three places is the See of one.” -Pope St. Gregory the Great.
@joetech12 That kind of distorts the quotation of St Pope Gregory the Great (if you take it out of context). Honestly. In that praise of Alexandria and Antioch, called in ecclesiastical/ canonical tradition the three “Petrine Sees” with Rome for different reasons, the pope of Rome was bringing the memory of the Nicene ‘taxis’ (325) and opposing the growth of authority of the Patriarch of Constantinople in favor of the Alexandrian and the Antiochene bishops of the Chalcedonian churches (greatly divided due to the Coptic and Syriac Orthodox ones), which - during that point in history - called himself “ecumenical/ universal”, since the Byzantines thought to understand the Roman/Byzantine Empire to comprise the universality (‘oikoumene’) of the limits of the Christian world. So the imperialistic stance of the See of Constantinople is delicately fought against by Pope St Gregory the Great in that quote, not assured. There are innumerable other quotes that aren’t as delicate though, yet you probably won’t give us. Just to help people find out more about Pope St Gregory the Great’s ecclesiology:
_”(...) I, unworthy, succeeded to the _*_GOVERNMENT OF THE CHURCH_*_ (...)”_ .
_For what are all your brethren, the bishops of the universal Church, but stars of heaven, whose life and discourse shine together amid the sins and errors of men, as if amid the shades of night? And when you desire to put yourself above them by this proud title, and to tread down their name in comparison with yours, what else do you say but I will ascend into heaven; I will exalt my throne above the stars of heaven? Are not all the bishops together clouds, who both rain in the words of preaching, and glitter in the light of good works?_
_(...) Peter, the first of the apostles,_ (...)
_Was it not the case, as your Fraternity knows, that the prelates of _*_THIS APOSTOLIC SEE_*_ which by the providence of God I serve, had the honour offered them of being called _*_UNIVERSAL by the venerable COUNCIL OF CHALCEDON._*_ But yet not one of them has ever wished to be called by such a title, or seized upon this ill-advised name, lest if, in virtue of the rank of the pontificate, he took to himself the glory of singularity, he might seem to have denied it to all his brethren._ (Pope Gregory, Book 5, Letter 18)
_____________
_”When our PREDECESSOR (pope) Pelagius of blessed memory became aware of this, _*_HE ANNULLED_*_ by a fully valid censure all the proceedings of that same synod (...)”_
_Furthermore, it has come to our knowledge that your Fraternity has been convened to Constantinople. And although our most pious Emperor allows nothing unlawful to be done there, yet, lest perverse men, taking occasion of your assembly, should seek opportunity of cajoling you in favouring this name of superstition, or should think of holding a synod about some other matter, with the view of introducing it therein by cunning contrivances,- though _*_WITHOUT THE AUTHORITY AND CONSENT_*_ of the _*_Apostolic See_*_ nothing that might be passed would have _*_ANY FORCE_*_ (...)_ (Pope Gregory, Book 9, Letter 58).
_____________
_”Inasmuch as it is manifest that the _*_APOSTOLIC SEE IS, BY THE ORDERING OF GOD, SEER OVER ALL THE CHURCHES,_*_ there is, among our manifold cares, special demand for our attention, when our decision is awaited with a view to the consecration of a bishop. (. . .) you are to cause him to be consecrated by his own bishops, as ancient usage requires, with the assent of our authority, and the help of the Lord; to the end that through the observance of such custom both the Apostolic See may retain the power belonging to it, and at the same time may not diminish the rights which it has conceded to others_ (Pope Gregory, Book 3, Letter 30).
_____________
_”For as to what they say about the _*_CHURCH OF CONSTANTINOPLE, WHO CAN DOUBT THAT IT IS SUBJECT TO THE APOSTOLIC SEE,_*_ as both the most pious lord the emperor and our brother the bishop of that city continually acknowledge_ ? (Pope Gregory, Book 9, Letter 12)
_____________
_”[Y]ou must still strictly order them to _*_OBSERVE ALL THINGS AFTER THE PATTERN OF THE APOSTOLIC SEE”_* (Pope Gregory, Book 4, Letter 36)
_____________
_”It was right that the _*_APOSTOLIC SEE_*_ should take heed, with the view of _*_GUARDING IN ALL RESPECTS THE UNITY_*_ of the Universal Church in the minds of priests”_ (Pope Gregory, Book 4, Letter 2).
*So his ecclesiology 1) assures Roman position to be “the” Apostolic See” (a terminology that can refer only to Rome when used in singular); 2) implies a different kind of primacy in which no particular church can be said to be above but all subject to the Roman authority, inclusive the See of Constantinople, one he had in high regards and esteem; 3) states that the Roman bishop exercises by right and commission the government of the (universal) Church, which does not mean obviously the pope is a bishop whose diocesan space meant the “globe”; 4) specifically called the memory of the Ecumenical Council of Chalcedon asserting the Roman authority to be “universal” (notice the cherry-picking of a phrase in which the pope St Gregory rejected a reference to the name “universal bishop” - rightly so - as if he allegedly rejected his own cognizance of jurisdictional universality and the See of Rome’s role in it, which is an absolute falsification of the Patristics); 5) specifically affirmed that the ecumenicity on counciliar acts are entirely dependent upon the Apostolic See’s confirmation, bringing the memory of other popes who even nullified synodal acts; 6) assumes the Roman authority to order others churches after the pattern (of authoritative decisions, not on strict uniformity of customs) of the Roman See; 7) assumes the Roman church not only takes the heed but guards unity at the universal level and responds for it; 8) refuses Roman ordinary intervention on regular episcopal affairs like consecration of bishops of the Eastern churches, although he did not reject that the Apostolic See is seer over all churches of the world (‘au contrarie’, he affirms it), affirming that it is so by the order of God, not by ecclesiastical organization; 9) affirms clearly that the lack of consent of the Roman church (the Apostolic See) impedes a synod in Constantinople to produce any force (in the context, at the universal level) and the Roman act of nullification makes it to not produce any force at all.*
For sure he used the “Petrine Sees” in some of his writings in general as a reference to his brothers of Alexandria and Antioch, the first two after Rome to have received patriarchal status according to canon law, and specially making it a “soft critique” on Constantinopolitan growth of importance over Alexandria and Antioch. But the ecclesiological premises are very clear to me and in line with the theology of popes St Damasus, St Celestine, St Leo the Great, St Gelasius, St Hormisdas (and many more).* Not the best names to preach for Eastern Orthodox ecclesiology.
Of course St Gregory the Great humbly asserted that episcopal dignity never meant the bishops were “mere extensions” of his Petrine authority but authorities of their own. That’s 100% Catholic. And the way he addressed the Petrine authority, in line with Pope St Leo the Great, is that only the Roman See could use and exercise the Petrine authority “stricto sensu” albeit others could mean to have it “lato sensu”. The homiliary and epistolary of both Popes St Leo the Great and St Gregory the Great, above all, were widespread on the East with huge acclamation.
And you will know Truth, and truth will set you free (John 8, 32).
God bless!
@@masterchief8179oh dear. It’s like a biblical prooftexting
@@masterchief8179it’s not out of context. He’s giving witness to Antioch, Alexandria, and Rome being the three Petrine See founded by St Peter. God Bless.
@briandelaney9710 @joetech12 When you give a text without context, you probably have a pretext. I just tried to offer context to Pope St Gregory the Great’s ecclesiology without bringing massive texts (just enough for people to search for themselves with the references I provide and evenhandedness, I hope, if they want to search for truth). Trying to make Pope St Gregory the Great’s ecclesiology something that bears some anti-Catholic witness became a hit for Eastern Orthodox commentators, 99% of the time with decontextualized quotes, like the ones of the “Petrine Sees” being “one” (therefore, Rome being not what she is), or the condemnation of the “ecumenical bishop” as the precursor of the anti-Christ (a thing the pope said to the Patriarch of Constantinople, basically the title the defines the superior primate of EO). I really have no idea why people parrot this in the impulse to “respond” to Catholic claims: it is kind of sad at this point. Lies have short legs, my dear friends; they won’t go too far. God bless!
Totally love his one liners! So powerful!
Looking forward to hearing Dr. Brad East! He holds a PhD from Yale and has a fantastic blog named after him. He is extremely knowledgeable and wise.
This was a really fun one
I have grown up in the church of Christ and find myself in a position of questioning whether this is where I need to be. This has been a four year journey so far. I wish that my local church practiced the things you are speaking of. I church of Christ is vastly different.
Roman catholic here. Loved this. I recognize two brilliant and faithful brothers in Christ. And yes, the Church is divided… but we are one, even though!
Glad you enjoyed it, and thanks for the kind words!
@@juancarlostownsend7013 church is not devided simple because "kingdom devided" cannot stand and cannot be "the pillar of truth". The better description of the current situation would be this: the Church, that holds the fullness of the the truth exists (because that's what Christ Himself promised to people) and the rest of the doctrines are just "partially right".
The real issue here is to find this real, the only one church.
🙄
I loved this conversation (podcast was dropped an hour or so before this video premiered.) Thanks for your insights!
Glad you enjoyed it!
I think the best method of discerning the Church is to start with the four marks articulated in the Nicene Creed:
One, holy, catholic, apostolic…
Followed by St. Vincent’s rule:
That which has been believed everywhere, always, and by all.
That should get us pretty close
We talk about that!
I think all three, Protestant, Catholic and Orthodox Churches would fail with the second one.
I’m not sure we can call Rome “holy” with a straight face. In all my years of research I find the Orthodox to be closest to the earliest Christian faith.
@@countryboyred
That mark is just pertaining to the means by which somebody becomes holy ie the sacraments not the members themselves which are a mixed bag (weeds and wheat). That would necessarily take Protestantism out of the equation and leave us with Catholicism and the various Orthodox churches.
@@countryboyredIf we tried to emulate the early church, we’d be having mass outside of cities in risk of persecution. -- only the Latin Church could “baptize the world” because only the Latin church was prophesied to do it. “Keys to the Kingdom” it’s prophesy. Don’t fight it. :)
I taste, see, and smell the church every Sunday. Orthodoxy for life yo.
Just be sure to follow the rest of your brethren as they return to Peter's barque. Andrew, your ancient progenitor among the twelve, was one of the four preferred apostles (Andrew, Peter, James, John) but not one of the three privileged (Peter, James, John). This was not due to any defect on his part, but so that today, 2000 years later, you might be led to recognize the authority of Peter and the need to submit to it.
Is Christ divided? Peter’s successors are those who keep faith.
@@jimnewl1. Comments like yours aren’t helpful and won’t result in conversions
2. Peter founded the sees of Antioch and Alexandria. The Orthodox do follow Peter and have apostolic succession.
The church is the people. In the end, we are called to be with others who belong to Christ as well.
If we listen to the Spirit, he will bring us to the specific local group with whom he wants us to associate and to share love and good works.
Regardless of the sign that is on the front door. (Which may change over time if we move residences.)
Amen!
@@stephenbailey9969 until that group splits and then what are you?
St. Ignatius of Antioch 110 AD
See that you all follow the bishop, even as Jesus Christ does the Father, and the presbytery as you would the apostles; and reverence the deacons, as being the institution of God. Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is administered either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there, let the multitude of the people also be; even as wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church. ((Letter to the Smyrnaeans, Chapter 8).
To find the true church one must look at their fruits. Fruits of the the church are their saints. Protestants do not have official saints, but they have outstanding people. So, compare Orthodox saints, Catholic saints, and well-known protestants to each other.
Who they are, how they lived, what they did. After that it will be pretty clear which christian church holds full truth.
He mentions the Divine Liturgies of Sts. Chrysostom and Basil as an example of the Church lacking an exclusive liturgy. It should be noted that those two liturgies are almost identical, with the only difference being the longer prayers (which only the priests say) of St. Basil. They are both based on the Divine Liturgy of St. James (yes, that St. James), which is likewise almost identical.
No he didn’t use that as an example to argue that the EO was “lacking an exclusive liturgy” but rather that the EO would not argue that there is only one exclusive kind of liturgy as demonstrated by these two valid EO liturgies done across the world. Same goes for the TLM and Novus Ordo with the RCC.
This was a great interview. I was very glad to be introduced to Dr. Brad East. As part of my follow up, I read his review of Paula Frederickson's two recent books ( I had read her magnum opus on Augustine). What a terrifically fair and insightful review. ACU is lucky to have him.
Glad you enjoyed it! I am very glad to have met him. And what a great follow-up! Reviewing her work is no easy task
This is gonna be great. Love Brad East
Can we get a super cut of all the answers from interviewees to your final question about what is the gospel?
Perhaps one day! Maybe with AI that could be sped up. Otherwise, it would be a crazy amount of work
I agree!!
Dr. East was one of my professors. He was one of the greatest contributors in the building up of my faith.
I'm glad to hear that!
The Church Triumphant is unified. ❤
What a great guest! Thanks for a wonderful discussion, Austin.
Can you do a breakdown of Spencer Smith’s Third Adam Series? He makes very serious anti-catholic claims. I am currently trying to understand where he gets his thoughts according to church history. This has become a roadblock for me as I look into Catholicism as a protestant Christian. Thank you for your videos, God bless!
I'm not familiar with it, but I can try to check it out some time in the future.
Perhaps I can somewhat speak to this question. From what I've seen of Spencer Smith's videos, he comes from a very radical IFB viewpoint--Independent Fundamental Baptist. I know this because I grew up in it, and he has referenced some people famous to IFB circles.
Basically what a lot of people in these circles believe is that only what the Bible says is important; Spirit gifts ceased (which doesn't make sense given the first belief 😂); music with synchopatited rhythms is of the devil; dancing is evil; organizations like Samaritans purse and other organizations like them were in error because they would do just relief work and not preach that people were going to hell and also because they would partner with the Catholic Church; they also think that all other denominations are going to hell and that they're the only ones who are correct--minus the Presbyterians and maybe the Southern Baptists (they have "erred a little bit," but not so much so that they'll still consider them Christian 😂). If I am incorrect in any of this, I am willing to be corrected by a fellow believer from an IFB background. But for me, this was all my experience.
Anyway all that to say, his view is most likely all of that, and once I figured that out I took all of what he was saying with a huge block of salt 😂
Oh and IFB's views of church history basically is that there was the time of the apostles and that was all good; then there was the time of the early churches right after them where they were trying to figure things out, but because they didn't have things figured out like we do today (sarcasm) error quickly crept into the church, hence the Catholic Church, but then Luther came and started everyone on the right path
Again, if I'm wrong I will stand corrected, but again this was my perception coming from the background that Spencer Smith is a part of.
I went in with assumptions based on the title, but really got thrown for a loop when he mentioned he's tied to the Campbell Stone churches.
I'm looking up his blogs and other interviews now. It's interesting to see a man who isn't claiming to have arrived but is in the middle of questioning so much, even though it's the complete opposite of what his group is based on
Yes, the fragmentation of the Church IS a huge problem -- perhaps the number one problem. There's a very easy solution to that, which is to return to the worship method that was practiced for a millennium and to reject novel worship practices that are less than 500 years old, and which led to tremendous splintering. The Church fathers point the way. Be like them...
Like Reagan said, "I did not leave the Democrat party, the Democrat party left me" commenting on the many changes that left the party he always was a member of unrecognizable....Protestants say the same..."We did not leave the Catholic church, the Catholic church left us." When she gradually overrides the authority of the Word of God and place herself above her groom....return to the purity of the Apostles' teachings, which is the scripture, and the simplicity of the Gospel. Shed off the extra overbearing baggage of unbiblical traditions and dogmas and demanding the rest of us to violate our conscience.
Judge a tree by its fruit, judge a church by its saints...
or judge a church by its normal members?
@@pigetstuckThe saints are the normal members, aren’t they?
@@pigetstuck I would judge a University by its success stories, not its failures
@@hmkzosimaskrampis3185 by the average student....
The church canonizing a person, declares that person to be in heaven.
There are four stages for sainthood: Servant of God, Venerable, Blessed, and Saint.
Each with each own criteria. One of the criteria to be canonized as a Saint by the church is that at least two miracles be attributed to the Blessed..
After watching and having read and appreciated his articles, I find that Dr. East seems to be in a pretty tight spot (as Austin so tactfully identified). He is fundamentally critical of all that low church praxis entails - sacraments, worship, history, tradition; and yet he simultaneously attempts to justify his continuation in one of the lowest-practicing churches there is. The end result is that Dr. East seems to be an enormously intelligent, loving, good hearted - and confused - Christian.
I'm glad you found my pushback tactful. Always a hard line to toe!
Shopping churches until you find one that resonates with your own personal discernment is always the wrong way to go. One must be seeking the complete truth, and the complete truth is sometimes very uncomfortable and places many duties and burdens on a person. I love having the graces from all the sacraments. I love praying to Christ and having help from the saints. I love the grace and comfort and love rained down on us in Marian apparitions and Eucharistic miracles. Things that are a reality and cannot be disproved when examined closely. Therefore, i see this video as anticatholic. Catholicism has the complete truths we know so far. I am speaking about theology and not the human implementation of that theology.
Nobody can deny miracles in many other denominations. God is merciful. But theology needs to be fully lived. Within the Orthodox Church, I see more saints who are Christ-like compared to those in the Roman Catholic Church. It's enough to look at some saints from the past 100 years to notice the difference.
i wouldnt go around saint counting. When was the last time all, all the EO churches got together and canonized anyone?
@@lessthandust Don't start counting saints, nor their religious demeanors. When was the last time the EO churches got together, as 1 church, and canonized anyone?
I took that Fantasy Football comment personally
Excellent interview, really appreciate the respect for tradition and sacrament while not having the typical millennial deconstructing crisis. It was a mature and beautiful example to set for all of us who are seeking.
Glad you enjoyed it!
Unfortunately I have never seen someone on youtube to compare saints of different denominations. Would be interesting. Like "show me who your saints are and I will tell you how true and healthy your theology is".
“you will know them by their fruit” (Matthew 7:16). After comparing for over two years the life of "saints" from different denominations the most Christ-like and spiritual saints I found within the Orthodox church. Just to look at the contemporary saints and theologians (like Saint Paisios, Porphyrios, Sophrony, Iakovos or St. Silouan) I recognize that the Orthodox Church is still very very active and fruitful in producing great saints. If someone really wants to become holy and struggle with his whole being for that, he will choose the best way to holiness. Also one of the reason why the former famous Roman catholic theologian and hermit Gabriel Bunge converted to Orthodox Church. He said the most spiritual person he met in Orthodox Church was dimensions (!) above the most spiritual person he ever met within the Roman Catholic church.
Who are some of the most Christ-like saints you found in the Protestant world? I would like to learn about them too....
@@lessthandust exactly
Have you checked out Oriental Orthodox Saints? I feel like there's a gap. Copts to this day are dying for the faith.
O common, no Catholic Saints at all!?!? How about those from just the las century? St. Faustina, St. Padre Pio, St. Theresa of Lesiux? Just to name a few.
@@atgred the point we're making is: study the saints from the different denominations yourself, and determine for yourself where the fullness of the Holy Spirit is. Just like I would tell someone to read the Quran and the Bible and judge for themselves. To the original commenter here and to me, the choice is obvious.
One of the best!
Could you clip all your guests' answers to the final four into four compilation videos? Maybe annually? 🙏🏻
Perhaps! It would be quite a bit of work though, and with working full-time and doing grad school, time is a bit hard to come by
God continues to accomplish the unity, holiness, catholicity, and apostolicity of the Church by answering our petitions. But we should also offer thanksgiving for the ways He has already accomplished it, namely and respectively by the successors to Peter; the lives of the saints; theological, liturgical, linguistic, cultural, and experiential diversity; and apostolic succession.
I'd like to know more about Dr East's understanding of the scandal of disunity. What would a more unified Church actually look like, in his view?
Rather than deliberating over which church contains the Christian life in its fullness, another framework may be more helpful: St Ignatius' letter to the Smyrnaeans:
"They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they confess not the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins, and which the Father, of His goodness, raised up again. Those, therefore, who speak against this gift of God, incur death in the midst of their disputes. But it were better for them to treat it with respect, that they also might rise again.... See that you all follow the bishop, even as Jesus Christ does the Father, and the presbytery as you would the apostles; and reverence the deacons, as being the institution of God. Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is [administered] either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude [of the people] also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church."
If we do not choose to dismiss Ignatius' words because he derived his teaching and his authority directly from an apostle and was martyred for Christ, then to which Church(es) could these words lead us?
20:12 - sorry I have to disagree - Christ's Body is NOT divided - those who are not a part of Christ's body have NO part in it! (John 13:8)
One thing I've realized is people have lost the plot lol
Making "the church'' an idol is actually a thing.
But you have to realize these buildings only work because people. Fellowship. Look for love and Christian charity
I have found someone who follows my thought, “Just one more book.”
Don't overthink it. Love Jesus and your neighbor
"The entire law and all the demands of the prophets are based on these two commandments.” It really is all about the relationship. How it changes your view of others, and your perception of the world.
4:45 Does the book include any lives of Saints as examples of what being Holy looks like?
Pick any saint and you will find holiness in them.
Like Carlo Acutis, who is to become first millennial Catholic saint. Check him out.
@@joekey8464 yes, I’m aware. I’m curious if this book ties being holy to actual Saints.
Step 1: Read the apostolic writings (the NT) Step 2: Search for a church that teaches, lives, and loves the same way with the same emphases
Step 2 is the hard part for me.
@@rachellehasslen1933 Same. So few churches exude supernatural love that looks like a family... like one body...
@catholictruth102 With all its unbiblical practices and beliefs...she still needs reform, though she's softened through the years, she no longer anathematizes dissent. Good.
Catholicism 😊❤❤❤
Let me take a stab at it. Have an objective standard across. The one who pass and even surpass X dimmension of time [continuity] X the one Jesus established.
Then read lumen gentium 14.
43:36 the Abbott will not have you do something that would cut you off from the Church
☦☦☦☦☦☦
There is soooo much wrong with this comment, but i appreciate you sharing your honest thoughts.
To start, there is a progression in how God is understood within scripture. For example, nobody knew God's name (including Abraham) until God reveals himself further to Moses. Saying that Jesus further revealed God is not inconsistent with the general progression in the Hebrew Bible.
Also, the concept of a plurality within the oneness of God is not at all foreign to Jewish thought before Jesus. Feel free to read Two Powers in Heaven by Alan Segal if you're serious about learning about the topic.
The Catholic Church and the orthodox are the one Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. Catholicism is the one true religion. Protestants are at least 50 percent home! It’s a process. We all in the end will be Catholic ❤
Protestants hold to the filioque but the Orthodox do not. We are more alike then different. The Orthodox do not extend you the same brotherhood. I have seen many videos claiming the Catholic church is a false church and that the Pope is the original protestant because of the filioque. How do you answer these claims?
47:51 EO has three main liturgies
One written by Saint Basil - literally named "King."
-One by Saint John Chrysostom - the "Golden Mouthed" - aligning directly with the meaning of "prophet" ("one who speaks on behalf of God.")
And the oldest Divine Liturgy we know of - the eatablishment of which is clearly a priestly act - by Saint James.
Our worship is truly that of prophets, priests, and kings.
Fullness.
A friend recently brought this to my attention
@15:36 the church is one and is always united … if you don’t think it is you might just not be in it.
😮
Read Gavin Ortlund's book "What it means to be Protestant"....then you don't need to live in fantacy land with churches.
We must seek Jesus and not a church. Don't look to a church for fulfillment.
If Jesus started a church, it would quickly become an idol.
Dr. East looks a lot like Ezra Klein.
My issue with good churches, or churches that people perceive to be good. Is that often they are not sustainable over generations. Look at the Quakers they were amazing in the 1800s, and now they are borderline Unitarians. Same with the Puritans, I’m sure most of them were far better than I will ever be on my best day, but their descendants are basically atheists or at best Unitarians. My issue with a lot of protestant ism is that it burns too bright sometimes, and the flames get extinguished. Where do you have these great churches like my neighbors who are World War II generation, they were great godly people. But by the time their grandkids got to the church which made me really old millennials, most of them do not take church seriously at all. I think we’ve all seen this in different places that should be something that could be addressed.
Imperfect churches are the Grace of God so that we don't lose focus and worship our traditions
@@Lafilledlapluie I get what you are saying. But I fear you are afraid of something that doesn’t exist. Tradition dictates how we worship. Catholics and Orthodox don’t worship tradition. That’s a stereotype. It guides believers and ensures they don’t go off the rails. Redeemed zoomer has a heresy scale. 0 to -7 for heresy. Many Protestant churches are around -1 and that should be alarming. You shouldn’t have to jump churches like a sinking ship. You should have one that your grandchildren can grow up to be believers in Christ in.
Look at the Presbyterian church. It’s a hot mess. As is the Methodist church. You shouldn’t have to worry about a heretical priest or priestess teaching you sinful things. Or not knowing better and being taught falsehoods.
Without altars & no liturgical sacrificial worship, Protestantism generally, doesn’t have proper worship, so not “church”, but, truthfully, more like synagogue with prayer & teaching!
Dr. East looks really young, like he's 25 years old or so. Or it might be that I'm just old.
He looks just about 30 to me.
I thought this was Ezra Klein
Did an online search of the word 'saint' of the online KJV, narrowed the search to the New Testament, in nearly every reference, the Saints are alive at the time, showing that every born again believer is a saint. The word 'saint' is olde English for 'Sent' or "Sent Ones", Jesus had instructed us to "Go out into all the world and preach the Gospel to every creature", so every believer considers themselves "sent".
How do we find the true Jesus?
Look for him where he lives, in the Catholic Mass.
In His word...the Scripture.
He is in every tabernacle in every church around the world.
You don't
There is no solution to this problem
This is difficult to listen to since the instruction and belief in Christ is so based on the individual. Accepting christ as one’s savior is automatically for all. It can’t be for one’s own salvation. Such individualized and distorted idea of Christ’s salvation leads to actions to trash the Holy Eucharist because the Body and blood of Christ is obviously a unity of all faithful.
The beast from the east!
Father Paul Trubenbauch has a video with the same title and subject
Wait really? Here I was thinking I was clever for combining two books this guy just wrote, lol
@@GospelSimplicity Forgive me. He actually made a video that is the same title of what you chose on the thumbnail.
The true church is just saved Christians.
Matthew 18:16-18 - "If your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault, between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have gained your brother. But if he does not listen, take one or two others along with you, that every word may be confirmed by the evidence of two or three witnesses. If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector."
If the Church just means saved Christians, how could a group of Christians bring their dispute before the Church? Aren't they already the Church?
@@bradyhayes7911Good point.
@@bradyhayes7911 individual believers are a part of the Church and not the sum total of the Church. In fact, the individual can’t be the sum total of the Church as it’s the community of those who are lead by the Spirit of Christ that materializes the reality of the Church. Thus, the Church is made up of individual believers who are able to go before the Church
No. Christ established a visible Church on earth. The apostolic Church. Orthodox and Catholic
@@briandelaney9710 lol, I agree that Christ established a visible church. Last time I checked, humans are visible. At least the living ones are. The Church Triumphant however is invisible, which is odd as the two traditions you named say we ought to pray to these invisible members of the Church. Don’t take what I’m saying to seriously. I’m merely pointing out that the Church is obviously visible and that there are elements of the Church which are obviously invisible. You need to chill out man. One last point about visibility, every single communion that exist is visible all the way from the nondenominational churches all the way up to the Oriental Orthodox level of churches are visible….
Here is something that you and I can probably agree on. The church is God’s temple. Or to put it another way the church is where God resides. In the old covenant era, God revealed His presence amongst his people through the glory cloud that sat over top of temple, when the old covenant was being instituted at Mount Sinai. When the new covenant was being instituted, God revealed his presence with little glory clouds on the day of Pentecost that sat on top of his people. This is significant because in the old covenant the Lord resided among his people, but in the new covenant, he resides in his people.This theme of believers being the temple is all through the New Testament. Language that we are a building of living stones, that our body is the temple of God, etc.
So, definitionally the church is founded by Christ Jesus, and He has made His apostles and his prophets (per the scriptures) the the foundation. But the essence of what the church is, is a community individuals who are indwelt by the Holy Spirit and submit to the apostles teachings and witness. There is obviously more topics like baptism grafting us into Christ, but the essence is believing in Christ through the apostles witness.
We are in a terrible time in the church. W are torn apart, and there are many who are scripturally illiterate and have a low view of the church. And there others who have such a high view at church that they exclude others who love our Lord (which simply put is perverse), but our Lord is gracious and He willwill and He will heal, and He will bring his church back together when it is time
Orthodox or Catholic, the only two intellectually honest choices. If you're not comfortable joining one or the other then the problem is you.
Or, a Bible-believing Christian church if you wanna stay free of idolatry or any church community that emphasizes its institution above the shared love of Christ.
@angru_arches there are about 26,000 Protestant "Bible only" churches that are not agree with each other (though they read and interpret the same text). So, which one of them holds the truth?
@@SunnyFly100 First, it's more like 300...And they all adhere to the basic fundamentals of Christian belief and understand that they can vary in things of secondary importance...that's why they don't anathematize each other...or presume kick each other out of the Kingdom of Heaven as only the King can do and not Rome.
@@SunnyFly100 @SunnyFly100 First, it's more like 300...And they all adhere to the basic fundamentals of Christian belief and understand that they can vary in things of secondary importance...that's why they don't anathematize each other...or presume exclude each other out of the Kingdom of Heaven as only the King can do and not Rome.
Who are you and what authority do you hold over all Christian’s?
Okay let me ask you something if the trinity is so dame important then why is the concept so alien to the jews and jesus and his apostles were jewish right ? And they taught from the Tanakh\hebrew bible ( old testament ) and we all know jews in all times taught that God is one not triune in fact that would go against their shama which is hear O israel the Lord our God is one
Plus don't you find it strange that both jews and christians read the same text and come up with entirely different meaning and understanding
Given that fact that there are three major abrahamic monotheistic religions\faiths and one of them claims to be polytheistic and given the fact that it's in the middle there are two conclusions to this either one of them is wrong or the other two are wrong but you can't have it both ways but let's put it this way since both christianity and islam are derived from judaism then what ever alien to it or contradicts it in a certain way then it can't be true but think about it if let's it was judaism that claim polytheism and both islam and christianity claimed monotheism then they both would be wrong and if islam claimed otherwise and judaism and christian were both are one God believers then islam would be wrong because islam came after but if both judaism & islam are one God believers and christian is triune then christian automatically christian is wrong and islam is right even a 7 year old kid figure that out
That trinity is one of the reasons people are leaving christianity the trinity has been a big damage to the christian faith and i'm not saying that to attack you but in order to help you
@@theguyver4934 I think you need to go back and read up on the Council of Nicaea. Trinitarian Christianity isn’t polytheistic for one
In Jewish scripture there is a concept of the trinity. The trinity is never mentioned in the bible but it is alluded to. One God. Three persons. Like Vapor, liquid, and solid. Of the same nature (God)