@@TheRealRealOK that's because bishops don't have a papal authority that's why they are not the same as the pope. but they have authority over their clergy, areas, so yes, they are in leadership positions that make decisions. if your point is that pope has authority then it's a silly argument as orthodox bishops have authority too.
@@artifexdei3671 No, my point was that the power of the Pope is very different from the power of an Orthodox bishop. There’s no point engaging you since you misrepresent what I say. Peace out, bro.
@@TheRealRealOK of course it's very different as there's a difference between a pope and a regular bishop. at the end these two positions are positions of authority which means they have power over something.
I'm a catechumen to becoming Orthodox and as a newbie to these topics, I appreciate how you break these issues down to easily understand. Videos like this only solidify my choice to covert from Protestantism to Orthodoxy ☦️
Remain strong in the faith of the Apostles. I am likewise a convert. The beauty of Orthodoxy is as a never ending stream of rejuvenating waters, flowing from the pierced side of our Lord. I will keep you in my prayers, and hope that you have found a local parish in which to commune, and a spiritual Father to help you along your journey.
Welcome! And Great choice. It's clearly the True church and if your experience is anything like mine, you can FEEL the presence of God the first time you walk through the door.
@STIGMATA Στίγματα Linda Glendenning Why would Christ need to put someone in his place when he is ever present and absolutely involved in every aspect of the Church since Pentecost. You don’t substitute for a player who never leaves the game.
@STIGMATA Linda Glendenning Why would Christ substitute himself for a pope when we know that hundreds of popes were reprobate? God is going to represent himself through men who are evil, heterodox and bent on subverting his Church according to nonsensical and blasphemous doctrines? Christ needs Francis to shepherd his flock?That makes absolutely no sense. Again, no need to substitute. Christ sits in His own chair.
@Johnny R He gave them to the apostles in the very next book. I have read the Bible, several times in fact, you presumptuous, condescending jackass. That Christ did this in no way debunks what I said. The Church is His earthly body. He is present always in it. This means that no man acts as His substitute or representative. How you fail to comprehend this is awe inspiring. You want so badly to replace God with a demonstrably fallible and corruptible man in Rome. No wonder your innovational papacy is such a complete disaster.
The Church fathers are “distant figures”? Wow, that’s quite telling. What makes the Church fathers so remarkable and potent is how germane they are regardless of year, era or issue. Any distance that exists has been wrought by ones chosen divergence from the mind of the Church. I find it difficult to believe that Barron has never thought deeply enough about the fathers to perceive that what makes them efficacious and important is their unflagging immediacy. Quite odd actually.
It contradicts the very accurate “Timelessness” arguments Chesterton made throughout his career about the Church not being “…behind the times, but is beyond the times”, only he was sadly mistaken in applying it to Roman Catholicism instead of Orthodox Catholicism. I wish he could have met Doctor Overbeck before his passing. It might have set him on a different course.
Clearly Bshp Barron means "distant figures" in a temporal sense, IE figures from 1500-1900 years ago. Obviously not in the sense in which you mean: as 'irrelevant.' This is just a bad-faith understanding of the Bishop's words. The Church Father's have always been a deep part of Catholic learning. Augustine among them, Thomas Aquinas was deeply learned of them. Peter Lombard's "Sentences" was a compilation of Church Father teachings that was the standard in Medieval Education through the 1600s. Then the Seminary Manuals of the 1700 to Vatican II. And to this day they Church Fathers still hold high prominence, even though they are distant, from just under 2000 years ago.
Indeed! When I was Catholic I never knew or learned about the early Church Fathers as I have in the Orthodox Church. They are emphasized so much more and their feasts are celebrated in Orthodoxy. We also come to know them through the hymns we chant at Vespers, Orthros and the Divine Liturgy. They seem to have been forgotten in Catholicism.
@@marieegypt7091 This is where I'm totally willing to blame the post-Vatican II chaos. While the Vatican II Council fathers were trying to increase emphasis on the Church Fathers by quoting them frequently and writing in a poetic style reminiscent of the Church Fathers, a certain cohort in the Church was only interested in political and social transformation instead of the Spiritual Conversion the Council called for.
We converted from evangelicalism over 20 years ago to Orthodoxy here in Australia . Each year that passes and by Gods grace we move deeper into His church and realise just how foreign our former faith was to the truth. As a layman I am astounded the papacy is what Bishop Barron sees as the biggest separation. I see the west’s atonement theories , Christology (& hence ecclesiology ) , original sin and Mariology driving an irrevocable wedge between us . The papacy is however what has driven the west to develop myriad little popes called protestants that is true but the rest of their theology is simply misguided. Terribly sad for those of our family and friends still caught up in it. Apologies for the verbosity and if I seem arrogant - I’m not really- just happy to have left it behind…
It always seems that there's an innate atheism in the Latin arguments for the papacy, they defend the necessity of the papacy by denying the activity of the Holy Spirit in the world. It appears they believe God to be a mere logical proposition and not an active presence in this world.
Couldn't the other oriental communions (i.e. Copts & Armenians) lay the same claim to the Byzantine Orthodox (i.e., Greeks & Slavs)? Byzantium calls them heretical. Is Byzantium denying the presence of the Holy Spirit in the world, thereby reducing Him to a mere logical proposition? (There are 2 or 3 gathered in God's name ... all must be hunky-dory)
St Ignatius of Antioch who was taught directly by the Apostles supports the primacy of the papacy. Orthodox and Protestants have two options: 1.) St Ignatius and other successors of the Apostles completely misinterpreted what the Apostles taught them. If you hold to this view, you will have to question everything that was passed down from the Apostles. 2.) There was a second pope in 65 AD. Who was the first pope if the papacy was invented centuries later? If you accept that there was a papacy and still deny it, you are denying the office established by God Himself. You are a heretic if you hold to this view.
@@yvatna76 I'm afraid I don't see the connection you're trying to make. The implicit denial of the humanity of Christ by the Monophysites demonstrates that they do not have the Holy Spirit, for as the Apostle John said: 'Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God.' This in no way suggests the Holy Spirit is not present in the world, but rather that His Spirit is not in them. The problem with the Latin position is not that they merely claim others, outside their communion, do not have the Holy Spirit; any communion that believes itself to be the True Church is going to make this claim. But, rather, they deny His presence even within their own communion, save for, perhaps, with regard to the pope alone (though even here they tend to make legalistic rather than spiritual arguments). They do not believe that the Holy Spirit will guide them and keep them, they do not believe that the faithful implicitly know the truth by virtue of their communion with God, but rather they believe this responsibility must be vested in a single man, in the Bishop of Rome. Now I would agree that the Latins do not have the Holy Spirit, I think the innate Arianism in their Aristotelean doctrine of absolute divine simplicity demonstrates that the Spirit of God is not in them and the fact that they gave birth to the mass apostacy that is Protestantism is proof of this in their fruits. What is interesting is that they felt the need to create a human institution to replace the proper and traditional role of the Holy Spirit in the Church; which is evidence that, at least on some level, the Latins themselves realize that they are no longer guided by the Holy Spirit and that they can no longer trust in the Holy Spirit protect and uphold their 'church', for the Spirit of Truth is not in them.
@@costakeith9048 I agree that monophysitism is heretical, but some other authority is usually called upon to condemn these errant philosophies (in this case, the Council of Chalcedon). So while Fr. Heers' contention doesn't necessarily exist in a vacuum, it seemed rather over-simplistic (which is the point I'm attempting to make). As an ex-seminarian who studied Aristotle and took a metaphysics course, I've never heard of an 'Aristotelean doctrine of absolute divine simplicity'. We believe God is simple in nature (ie., not composite), which is also affirmed by St. Basil (Letter 8 to the Caesareans), and Gregory of Nyssa (answer to Eunomius' 2nd book), along with a host of other Eastern Church fathers. Protestantism rejected the metaphysical assertions of the scholastics (in particular, Thomas of Aquino), which is one of the main contentions between them & us Roman Catholics. Ergo, they adopted (e.g., Karl Barth of recent memory) a subordinationist concept of Christ to the Father, because they were unwilling to differentiate His Divine & human natures in this particular regard (with some scripture passages incorporating His divine attributes ... eg., John 10:30 ... others His human attributes, John 14:28). The notion of a Papacy doesn't nullify the operation of the Holy Spirit. Ex Cathedra statements are few & far between (one was the Immaculate Conception dogma of 1854 ... another was the Assumption dogma of 1950.) You're caricature of a Roman Pontiff that functions like a divine oracle portrays a week understanding of the Western concept of the office. Bishops throughout the world in communion with the Roman See were governing their respective dioceses in the interim ... (not waiting on pins & needles for the next divine oracle to proceed from the mouth of the Roman Pontiff). Now we don't have a notion of autocephalocies in the West (1 Corinthians 10:17 we all partake of the one loaf), so strictly-speaking, yes ... we have One communion (which would logically follow if one believes in One Apostolic Church founded by Christ). The Papacy isn't a manmade institution (... The Byzantine prelates affirmed the Primacy of the Roman Papacy at the Council of Florence in the mid-15th century, although local religious and clergy under Eastern jurisdiction, as a rule, didn't accept this.) Even St. Gregory of Nazianzen affirmed this primacy in Carmen de Vita Sua (referring to Constantinople as the 'New Rome', while affirming that the 'Old Rome' is 'The President over all', venerating the divine harmony in its entirety).
Anthony 1 second ago In the 6th Century, Pope St. Gregory the Great wrote this "I say it without the least hesitation, whoever calls himself the universal bishop, or desires this title, is, by his pride, the precursor of Antichrist, because he thus attempts to raise himself above the others. The error into which he falls springs from pride equal to that of Antichrist; for as that Wicked One wished to be regarded as exalted above other men, like a god, so likewise whoever would be called sole bishop exalteth himself above others.”
The Post-Carolingian bishops have tried SO hard to bury this text. Even Calvin called him “the last good pope”, (although I think there were just a few more good ones).
I came from Catholicism and listened ardently to this bishop. My biggest hurdle in converting to orthodoxy was the primacy of the pope. As one who was born and raised in Catholicism, I found that primal papal authority was taught from a young age. Brainwashing! During my whole parochial educational experience. Delusion!!!!!! Thank you Father Peter! You know I love you!
More precisely, I have found that for most modern Romans, letting go of Vatican 1’s dogmas is like chewing off your leg to escape a gilded, comfortable prison into the mysterious wilderness of Truth. It’s not like a painful bear trap, it’s a golden cage with a golden chain and it’s pleasant to be there because there seems to be a neat little explanation for everything, few things seem truly mysterious and are therefore easier to accept. You don’t notice that your prison food is slowly poisoning you, as it is a subtle, mostly painless poison, except for this awful diarrhea it causes. You catch glimpses of the horrible truth about the poison in the toilet, (such as the pedo scandal) but most prisoners learn to just be careful not to look before flushing. So you have to both resolve to give up the false comfort, painfully chew through your own leg, then make your way, crippled, but not alone, into the Mysterious wilds of Truth, and finally Home. That’s been my experience so far.
That's exactly how I describe being raised as a RC and primal papacy...brainwashing indeed! It's a fear that is instilled at a young age that if you're not under the Pope you're going to hell. Even Catholics who don't know their faith at all will use the pope as their defense.
Brainwashing is the wrong word. I'm sorry you disagree with the teaching of the Catholic Church, but that doesn't make it brainwashing. One thing Orthodox have to wrestle with is why the Maronites of Lebanon recognized Rome especially considering they were cut off from communication with Rome for about 500 years (600 - 1100).
So many Roman Catholics "admire" Orthodoxy, while at the same time taking cheap pot shots at how "ethnic" and "disorganized" we are. Dr. Scott Hahn even referred to Orthodox theology as "stagnant" in his book "Rome, Sweet Home" just a few lines after rehashing the usual stuff about admiring us. Bless his heart. How anyone could refer to a faith which has produced the likes of St. Porphyrios or St. John of Shanghai as stagnant obviously has no clue what he's talking about.
Katholic theology understands that many are the signs of the Incarnation, and Redemption, and that they reverberate throughout all Creation, even among the pagans and infidels, for it is known that there are some who love virtue and lay down their lives among them, "outside the City walls". Like the People of the Old Aliance, which existed not only for their own Salvation, like so The Holy Church exists as a Sign, a Sacrament, for the Salvation of many, not bound by any fleshly identity. The multiplicity of Charisms in the Catholic Church serves such a purpose and are quite astounding in their diversity from one another, while sharing the same Design of Charity received from the Holy Spirit to reach every pit of the earth. We do contain elements of Eastern Orthopraxis and make use of them in what they have of Eternity, but we do not despise the Eternity also present in Creation and the Katholic History of Redemption, which manifests so greatly the Divine Mercy of God in all things. In fact I do love these particular elements of yours, which brought me here, but we catholics are not bound by it, for true Orthodoxy consists in Sharing the Love of God around the same Table in Unity. Necessarily the Eastern Orthodox Church in general are the second greatest birthgiver of Saints, which makes you particularly lovable among those whom we consider lacking, and in your case only one thing: 'selling all your righteousness, giving it to the poor, and following Jesus to the Ignominy of the Cross, between two thieves'.
except these saints were produced when the church was one, under pope. hahn is right, orthodox theology hasn't progressed past first centuries of christianity. God doesn't stop in time, God works with every generation and theology grows as a result.
@@deussacracommunioest2108 Modernist Rome mistakes Orthodox Caution for the kind of “Selfish Righteousness” you seem to be referring to here. We are too cautious in certain ways sometimes, we need to learn to be bold again, which is what Catechisis like Father Heers program is all about. Not one corner of Orthodoxy has not suffered (directly or indirectly) either under the Islamic or Communist Yoke at some point, for generations. This has made it very tempting to take caution to the erroneous level of paranoia. We must be Bold without caving in to the Spirit of The Age. GK Chesterton was absolutely right when he said “The Saint is the one who contradicts the Age he lives in most”. But it has been the Orthodox Saints who have done this consistently. An example of what NOT to do as a “Saint”: When Francis of Assisi met Innocent 3rd, the first thing he should have told him, “You MUST try to return to Constantinople all that was stolen, and demand the thieves be arrested and sent in chains to the emperor!”, yet, this never crossed his mind. To his credit, he had previously and later on, condemned his former fellow mercenaries for their excesses and had warned about something like the sacking could occur, and I believe he received a vicarious, if short term, blessing in his rebuilding of what had once been an Orthodox monastery. It is also true that mercenary recruitment dropped like an anvil for two generations thanks to so many men joining his movement (alas, had it only happened ten years sooner, the Fourth crusade would have been too undermanned to occur). But a true Saint would have been hyper aware of the Atrocity that Innocent did nothing of substance about because he feared Venetian steel more than his commitment to church unity. I don’t believe Innocent was willfully complacent with the crime, as many Orthodox have always suspected, but was merely a coward in the face of Venice, unwilling to stand up to their greedy bullying beyond a pathetic slap on the wrist, which was the proverbial “hill of beans” his official condemnation amounted to. If Francis might have been punished severely for insisting on this is irrelevant, as it needed to be done. If his doing so HAD helped the pope find his courage, yet Innocent’s worst fears came to pass in the attempt, namely Venice Sacking Rome in retaliation, what would that have accomplished? ONE CHURCH. Instead of “East 🆚West”, “Rome🆚Constantinople”, the new paradigm would have been “Christendom 🆚Apostate Venice”, the WHOLE WORLD would have United against them to eventually sink them into their soggy sands. Why did this not happen? A Saint would have tried.
@@artifexdei3671 God is not a fashion show year by year. God is timeless and thus Theology is outside of time and "the World". God does not change - The Orthodox Church does not change. The WORLD changes as it is illusion and fallible - the West has fallen into to heresy and Jesuit horror. The smoke of Satan blows out of Rome's doors. They admit it. Not opinion. That said - I find many very good folks (Priests and laypersons) of Roman Catholic Faith to be very devout and who are very sober. They are upfront when I share this with them. Russian Church too has its challenges - such as KGB brought in by the same Western Satanists who fouled up Rome. The source is the same. I respect my sober Catholic friends, as we both can admit to how Lucifer has attacked The West and The East -THE BEAST NEVER SLEEPS. The Lion roars and wanders (think MGM's Roaring Lion - HOLLYWOOD you guessed it - they own it)
I had the same complaint on a show called Reason&Theology and I asked If we Orthodox have Christ in the Eucharist, what do we lack? And the answer from the author of the channel was the following: “There are degrees of participation and communion with God. It is not an on/off switch. In the same way there are degrees of relationships with humans, so there is the same with God. The Orthodox have a great deal of communion with Christ but still lack something vital, namely, the universal structure he instituted and wills for them”. So we lack the structure, the administrative part of Christ. This makes absolutely no sense to me. It’s like paperwork birocracy for God. They delineate between Christ and The Church; for them Christ and His Body are not one, it’s like either the body is headless or the head is body less.
This last point - they delineate between Christ and the Church - is the most interesting, most problematic, and, indeed, most indicative of the heretical mindset, for the enemy of our salvation has always been seeking to de-incarnate the Lord, to deny His divine-humanity, to undo His salvific work. The second that Christ and HIs Body are differentiated, such that the Church is NOT the continuation of the incarnation, the salvation of the world is in jeopardy, the enemy has inserted his tail into the inner sanctuary.
@@OrthodoxEthos The saddest part is that this friction exists in Rome between those who love the ancient ways and traditions, and those who embrace bubble wands and guitars during liturgy. I am discerning my way between East and West, and I am gutted by this bias each has against the other. As far as the West goes, I am happy there are groups who fight, vigorously and relentlessly(Church Militant for example), against the corruption and turn of the mainstream in the Catholic Church, and I am heartened by the reverence and brotherly love many of the true tradionalists in the West have for Orthodoxy. I've heard many of them lament the state of the west in comparison to EO. Bishop Barron.(--sigh--). A modernist, sadly. One of those who has sided with the Pope in the sentiment that traditionalists are somehow "in the way." Even more sadly, he is not in the minority. I am glad, Father, you clarified the myths Bishop Barron is perpetuating, and that you did with facts and you did it respectfully. I pray for a return to the state of the whole church to the way it was for a thousand years--before things got ugly. There has to be a way East and West can reconcile.
@@OrthodoxEthos so if a schism or separation occurred at a particular point in time…. And before that time we were ONE unified Church, just as Jesus prayed ‘that they all be one’ then prior to that point, you (Orthodox) as well were as one with RCC (the universal church) then, you also were under the Popes for all those centuries? Starting with Peter, Linus, Cletus, Clement…. I mean you were right there! With all due love and respect - who is it that has departed?. This is a traceable lineage down through the ages. Are Orthodox embarrassed of the scandals and trials in the Church? To me it just shows even more how our Divine Lord uses mere men, washes us clean through our Baptism and cooperation to seek to remain in a state of grace through the Sacraments, Esp reconciliation and the Most Holy Eucharist, and along with His Own Divinity and authority, builds a Church for which the gates of Hell will never prevail! And this He is continuing on with us for He promises to be with us always (every Tabernacle in every Catholic Church, every Altar where Holy Mass is celebrated) ….the Book of Acts says ‘and so we came to Rome’ i think of that as quite a statement! The Roman empire so wicked, and a wonder of the world, did fall and never to rise again - for Christ, the Lord Jesus did conquer and the seat of His authority on earth manifests now in Rome. How is that not glorious?! the old empire never arose again?! Listen i have the simple mind of a second grader, but His wonders never cease to amaze me!
As a Catholic, I'm not sure I understand what you mean by your last point... Catholicism views Christ as the head and the Church as the body, to have one without the other is lacking the community and unity under the same headship. Jesus desires for us to be one as He and the Father are one, and I think that is what R&T is getting at. As a convert to Catholicism 10 years ago I have never seen Catholics treat the Church proper as something separate from Christ but rather the community of His kingdom on earth.
“It seemed good to us and to the Holy Spirit.” Exactly. What more need be said? Roman Catholicism’s chickens have, after many centuries of borrowed time, come home to roost.
This is like is like a little brother telling his older brother hes a chicken. The Catholic Church is literally trying to amend all of Christendom while you guys continue to reject the gospel and blindly think we are "coming home to roost". To reject the primacy of the pope is to reject the gospel. Done. Nothing more to be said. It makes you no better than protestants.
I agree to a certain extent the pope is good for two things. 1. He is outrageously comical. 2. He helps people leave the heretical Latin church to come to the Orthodox church.
He certainly “helped” me. If the Nigerian Cardinal had become pope as I had hoped, I’d probably still be clinging to his illusory token “traditionalism”, all while still trying foolishly to gel Vatican 1&2, just into a different set of contradictions.
no Salvation outside the church, Vatican 2 council is a council of Apostate, Pope is the leader of the church, many great pope through history, eastern churches Orthodoxy" are disolving and only the Catholic church evangelized the 4 corners of the earth. you deny the Filioque and the Byzantine empire fell on the feast day of the Holy Spirit. Wake up!
@Mr Magoo's Junkmail Do you think Fatima is demonic? Just curious on your take. I would love to convert to Orthodox but I live deep in the App Mountains and there is no Orthodox Churches in this region. I do agree on the total destruction under this pope and he has been going after the traditional monasteries.
@@emilys5024 I asked an Orthodox priest about the visitation at Fatima. He said "it is a Catholic thing. The Orthodox church doesn't have a position on it". So in my opinion, as a layman, it is legitimate. Many of those prophecies have been fulfilled.
your last words father...so great. "If you have Christ, how could you lacking anything" as an ex-catholic: I would say, the catholicism has pope, but miss Christ. Many priest and monastics there, lack of the faith, and lack the experience of grace. Many priests complained to me: they lost their faith during the theology. Many of them visit psychologist. An atheist sometimes has larger faith. When first time I met with orthodoxy, face-to-face: I felt the power of Christ, and the meaning of prayer. When first time I met with orthodoxy: I arrived at home.
The defense of the papacy is like a defensive attorney defending their client. They know their client is wrong, but they have a “legal” obligation and duty to defend him. Legalism rotted my mind and I’m still recovering from it to this day.
1) Pope Sergius III (904-911) * Claimed to be the "Holy Father" * Obtained the papal office by murder 2) Pope John XII (955-964) * One of the most immoral popes, committing blasphemy, simony, perjury, murder, adultery and incest 3) Pope "Innocent" III (1024-1032) * Instituted the "Inquisition"' killing over 1,000,000 people 4) Pope Sixtus IV (1471-1484) * Had offices for sale * At least 8 cardinals were his young nephews 5) Pope Benedict IX (1033-1045) *Robbed pilgrims, adultery and murder 6) Pope Boniface VIII (1294-1303) * One of the most wicked popes; promoted (and committed) atheism, heresy, simony, immorality, idolatry and magic 7) Pope "Innocent" VIII (1484-1492) * Squandered the treasury of the papacy due to his luxurious life, and simony 8) Pope "Pius" II (1458-1464) *Fathered multiple illegitimate children, spoke openly of the methods used to seduce women 9) Pope Alexander VI (1492-1503) * Won the election of papacy by bribery, committed incest with his sister and his daughter and had offspring from both Sure seems like they were reflection of Peter and Jesus.......only if we had a TRUE mediator between us and God (*COUHG* 1 Timothy 2:5 *COUGH*)
Mila, I feel the exact same way about those defending the orthodox church! Regarding the Papacy, the jury would definitely side with the Papacy! Was Moses one of many equals? Was King David one of many equals? It was Peter the rock and sole key holder, who stood up and put an end to all the debating at the council of Jerusalem Regarding circumcision, since SCRIPTURE ALONE COULD NOT, as Peter authoritatively ruled that circumcision of the Flesh was no longer necessary, even though Holy Scripture said that it was. The office of sole key holder is one of succession Biblically! Jesus Christ built His Church on Peter the rock and Jesus promised Peter alone the keys of the Kingdom and Jesus prayed for Peter alone to strengthen his brethren and Jesus gave Peter alone the command over all the flock of God! Peace always in Jesus Christ our Great and Kind God and Savior, He whose Flesh is true food and Blood true drink
@matthewbroderick6287 wrong. Peter isn't the rock. I would suggest not looking at just that single verse. Please read the rest of that chapter ALONG with that verse. The "rock" is the answer to the question Jesus asks the disciples in the verse before the one you're taking out of context.
@@dyerseve07 I agree, you are wrong and take Holy Scripture out of context! Jesus Christ renamed Simon as Cephas, which is Aramaic for rock! Many Church Fathers attest to this, as do many Protestant scholars! Jesus Christ built His Church on Peter the rock and Jesus promised Peter alone the keys of the Kingdom! The office of sole key holder is one of succession Biblically! Jesus prayed for Peter alone to strengthen his brethren and Jesus gave Peter alone the command over all the flock of God! The same Church authority in Peter the rock and sole key holder, who stood up and put an end to all the debating at the council of Jerusalem Regarding circumcision, since SCRIPTURE ALONE COULD NOT, as Peter authoritatively ruled that circumcision of the Flesh was no longer necessary, even though Holy Scripture said that it was! You are in my prayers as you journey toward Truth! Peace always in Jesus Christ our Great and Kind God and Savior, He whose Flesh is true food and Blood true drink
*Fr. Peter, not Fr. Heers. We Christians address priests by their Christian baptismal name, not their last name as do the Pope Worshipers and the Protesters, (Papists and Protestants).
I have to be honest at times some of these theological arguments are way over my head. I truly thank God and it’s been a blessing to be simple minded. Without a doubt Gods grace granted me the ability to convert from Roman Catholic to Orthodoxy and understand this is truly The one, holy, catholic, and apostolic faith. 1:05 I just had to hear this bishop Barron say and I quote “I’m a follower of John Henry Newman” and automatically my spirit became uncomfortable. To me it’s that simple to discern that statement right there is a big 🚩 flag. Lord have mercy, help us and keep us from be deceived in these times of great delusions. ☦️
I felt that he responded to this question as if he were suddenly being put on the spot really. He seemed almost disingenuous, as if holding onto the same old arguments while tucking the truth into his back pocket.
Yeah, I don't think that's a fair judgement. In the Gospel's at the Nativity, following Christ appeals to both the learned and the simple. You have the astronomer scientists of the east, the Maiji, and the simple shepherds. (Simple meaning, the shepherds were not a part of temple governance, they most likely were not literate like the scribes, nor were they following a particular Rabbi. They did their duty with love and piety). Quite frankly, St. John-Henry Newman's writings can help us navigate the modern world especially as universities are begin converting into training facilities for activism. Christ gives us the gift of Saints to respond to their times and give us guidance on how to respond to our times. Why should Bhp Barron's mention of St John Henry Newman give you pause and Fr Peter Heers mention of St Piesius, St Yakovus and St Poferious, not?
So, the gist and subtext of Barton’s argument in light of the PLAIN as day misbehavior of the current pontiff this past decade, is “it’s better to have all the gifts, (even if we NEVER exercise them correctly anymore), then to have most (but not all) of the gifts, even if exercised almost perfectly)”. Every day this pope in particular proves himself NOT to be any sort of instrument in Christ’s hand, yet WE are ‘flawed’ for not wanting anything to do with him anymore than God does?
These "gifts, " whatever that they are, if wrongfully used, will become our own downfall !! The plummeting figures in Church attendance past 80 years is just the proof, and it is only the tip of the iceberg ... me thinks!! Do you agree .... anyone??
Historical fact is that there where two popes at one time. This video is spot on. Infallibility of the pope is an 19th Century innovation. The Acts of The Apostles lays out in detail hie the True Church is the Councils, NOT any one person.
Thank you Father for these lessons of faith. I know that I am a sinful person but the Orthodox Church is the light of my life and brings me more understanding of my quest to serve Christ our Lord. Thank you so much Father!!!!
Then follow Christ's word. Matthew 16:18-19 "And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."
Are you sure??? How do you know that you will go to heaven, and not to the lake of fire?????? Is it even possible for you to tell me??? I'll wait and find out, I guess.
Barron says that the "main difference" is the pope. The main difference is roman acceptance of the false filioque doctrine, which removes them from the one faith altogether.
And hence they have grown throughout the world and into unknown places, peoples and cultures, as Jesus has commanded. The Holy Spirit has blessed the Catholic Church very much.
@@raymondvasquez6967 the history of the past 1000 years of roman catholicism is filled to the brim with crimes against humanity, corruption, theft, rape, murder, forced conversion, ecumenism, changes in doctrine and worship, adoption of pagan practices and many other horrific atrocities. The Lord certainly never commanded any of that. For the past 1000 years, the catholic sect has done more to further nominalism and atheism than it has to further Christianity. We know rome is not the true Church by their fruit. The Holy Spirit has not been found in the catholic church since they introduced their false filioque doctrine and blasphemously attempted to reduce Him to a mere function. Do not be deceived.
@@seraphimdunn First of all, Catholicism is not a sect. It is the Church historically. Second, every institution has bad apples. However, Jesus also promised the gates of hell will never prevail against it. Look at the world and the countries that have the faith. Countries were built by those of faith - its in the landmarks, the hospitals and economic institutions. Orthodoxy is stagnant and the Protestant sects are continually breaking apart. Wonder why? It's because they are missing something - Jesus' s promise.
@@raymondvasquez6967 Roman catholicism is absolutely a sect. It is no different than any other heterodox sect, as it is not part of the Body of Christ. It has been a sect ever since it broke away from the historic Church, the ONLY Church, the Orthodox Church. The gates of hell have never and will never prevail against the Orthodox Church. Satan has claimed victory over Rome for 1000 years at this point. Again, look at the fruit of the past 1000 years of the roman sect. Just look at the fruit of your sect today. Today, you have yoga classes in your parishes. You have clown mass. You have gay pride flags hanging over your altars. You have pachamama in the Vatican. You have pagans performing rituals for your pope in the Vatican. Your tithes go to rampant sexual abuse payouts. Wonder why? It's because the Roman sect inverted the Trinity with their false filioque doctrine. They teach error regarding the Holy Spirit, and thus they do not have the Holy Spirit. Orthodoxy is not "stagnant". Narrow is the gate and difficult is the way which leads to life, and there are few who find it.
I thought Bishop Barron was smarter than this? How can he honestly think any one man is infallibly holy ? Just because he’s alive doesn’t make him perfect. Thank you Father Peter for clarifying this important point. I respect you and the absolutely unparalleled discernment, wisdom and humility of the orthodox faith . ☦️
As a catechumen converting from papism, I've always wondered how it can be that really smart men like the local bishops and priests here have not converted to Orthodoxy. I guess they are comfortable and wilful blindness does wonders. Not to mention that there's more money when you're in union with Rome in my country because of how taxes are distributed to all the religious organizations (papists are the ones with the highest percentage of people among the population). Nothing else other than Orthodoxy can withstand the test of simple research but you, of course, need to be willing to find the truth. If you already "have your truth", then you can research all you want and nothing will help you.
@@TDL-xg5nn Yeah there is, its called Matthew chapter 16 verses 18 - 19. And the man is fallible, the man is just a man (look at Peter, he was incredibly flawed). but the primacy and position of pope is infallible. "And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."
@@ratatoskr9366Primacy and Supremacy are two completely different things. Orthodox believe in Papal Primacy. They reject Papal Supremacy and Papal Infallibility as the heresies they are. Pope Benedict XVI even admitted that the Orthodox view of Papal Primacy was the norm during the first millennium.
@@SimonSlPl Well that's a blatant lie haha your reading some biased sources buddy. I mean I learned about this in public school, the Great Schism of 1054, as in equal parts tearing away from each other. And thats not even correct, the Pope excommunicated the Emperor of Constinapole, and in turn the Bishops of Constinapole excommunicated the Pope.
@@ratatoskr9366 Again you say that I'm lying when you yourself dont know what happened at the schism. Pope sent delegation from Rome and they excommunicated the patriarch of constantinople, while the patriarch didn't excommunicate the pope himself but the papal legates that were sent as delegation, so Rome is technically in schism.
@@ratatoskr9366They didn’t. Rome is the one that left. Research it and don’t just believe everything that the Catholic Church teaches! Look at all the things that were added since 1054! It will shock you. It is no where close to the First Century! However the Orthodox Church still is. The Early Church they were all Orthodox. They received the name Roman Catholic Church after THEY left Orthodox. The Orthodox Church still has the same Creed as originally, and many other practices. Catholic Church keeps getting further and further away from the First Century. The true Church would not do that!
i AGREE 100% , i born in roman catholic country and i always thought if you weren´t roman catholic you were protestant, Thanks the Lord showed me the way to the REAL ANCIENT CHURCH not the italian westernized one, all Glory to our lord JesusChrist ☦
The issue of the pope comes right to the front- because even as a catechumen of the Byzantine Catholic Church I would NEVER ask the current pope for advice on frankly anything. It has made me realize I must again search out a church home. Never did I think accepting Christ a year ago, by myself after reading the New Testament, would it be so excruciating to find my way. It is tragedy- I have made so many friends in so many denominations- please Jesus son of God have mercy on us sinners 😭
The one thing needful: to sit at the foot of Christ and pray ceaselessly. This can be done with fruit and profit when we are in the Church, communing, struggling, fasting, praying - under the direction of a spiritual guide. . . Leave the friendship of the world, leave the sentimental connections, and seek out the Truth with all your heart.
@@OrthodoxEthos amen 🙏 I strive towards this(fasting and prayer- the Jesus prayer and “not my will but Yours”- and am going to Divine Liturgy this Sunday At a Russian orthodox parish I found relatively nearby. Please pray for me that God grant me discernment and strength
Hey father I’m a eastern catholic and I have been having doubts about papal primacy I attended a Orthodox Church on Sunday and it was great. If you wondering Specifically I’m Chaldean Catholic
Thank you for being here, for reaching out and for seeking to go deeper. We are here for you and all those on the path of salvation and desiring their true spiritual home, the only place that we can call our home, the Church, His Body. God bless you! Let us know how we can help.
I converted from evangelicalesque Protestant to Eastern Catholic, logistically became EO but now realize I would be forced into sedevacantism as the RC organization is so apologetic to the socialist world order.
So he loves and pours over Orthodox theologians but has everything he needs in full without them. That makes no sense. It’s akin to an Orthodox Christian reading and loving the extant works of some of the more famed, early Muslim clerics in order to improve or enhance his faith.
As a Catholic (who views the orthodox are our twin brother), this is a pretty difficult arguments. I by all means respect the Orthodox church. I do believe that she too has 7 valid sacraments. But when it comes to this debate, I still stick firm in the need of a pope. Yes, I am open to the idea where councils are presented for making decisions, but I still believe in the need of one leader. I believe that is how Christ himself made it. From an orthodox perspective, they do not believe that Christ gave a higher authority to Peter. This leads me to wonder how the Orthodox than understand Matthew 16:17-19. What is the symbiology of Christ giving Peter specifically the key of heaven "to bound and unbound". I also am curious on what my Orthodox friends think about God giving authority to singular men previously (Like Moses etc.). Yes, one can bring up how there were others who helped make decisions with these specific men, but it seems clear to me that God chose one man to lead his people, in the old testament, and new. I find Pope Damasus I to be a prime of example of a Pope leading over men to all agree on something. The orthodox accept the same books that a catholic bible has. That would be implying that they accept the authority of the bishop who called upon the creation of the bible. Which the church teaches was a pope. The question isnt "why the orthodox don't support a one man pope authority, rather, have the orthodox before, ever submit to a pope? Have they ever used (still present or not), things thanks to a pope? Because if so, that would be implying the orthodox at some degree have/do acknowledge authority of the catholic pope. It is somewhat like an protestant religion, whom has things that can be traced back to Catholicism (such as the bible). I also want to emphasize that God again did chose men to lead his people. Very similarly to a pope. Keep in mind that a church needs a leader. One can see what protestantism has caused due to a lack of authority. Heck, there are multiple different orthodox churches out there. The desire to not have one earthly leader leads to councils who form new councils. Hence why I believe the church does need one rally point. That being the pope. That being the same reason why God chooses one man at a time to lead His people in the old test. Again. I greatly respect the Orthodox. I hope this comes off not as insulting.
@@FirstActuality "The keys that Christ gave to Peter were the keys to bind and loose sins, which are bestowed to every bishop" Where in scripture or history did the Early Christian Church ever say that lol that honestly sounds like protestant BS to make up for the fact you guys are literally rejecting the gospel.
@@ratatoskr9366 You have to read Matthew 18 in conjunction with Matthew 16, the phrasing of binding and loosing is repeated but addressed to all the apostles. Orthodox have apostolic succession so I'm not sure how that is Protestant? If Bishops had no authority to bind and loose (delegated to their priests) then confession would be invalid without the Pope's ratification, don't you think?
@@FirstActuality Yes forgive my ignorance. Early Church history, Eastern vs Latin Rite traditions, and the history of the schism are immense topics I am beginning to research. As a layman I am finding that the truth is not so simple, and have come to the conclusion it takes years of study to even come close to fully understanding this topic. Yes, the Orthodox Church has Apostolic sucession. No doubt about that. Can you please cite which verse in Chapter 18? I don't see any connection that ch 18 has to be read with ch 16. Matthew 16:18-19 clearly defines Peter's primacy for the Church. And it was Peter himself who founded the Bishopric in Rome. So the succession is clear as day to me. But I'd like to hear the Orthodox interpretation.
@@ratatoskr9366 no problem, these are difficult issues for sure. I think the main issue is that we have no problem with affirming the primacy of Rome as a historical see, but we don't accept its supremacy. These tend to get conflated in Vatican I and later RC teachings. We also reject the idea that the Roman see is indefectible, because in the view of our saints it has defected on dogmatic issues like the filioque. The particular verse is Matthew 18:18 which repeats the terms of binding and loosing.
A “living voice of authority” has always been the Holy Spirit moving in history through the saints.. Jesus as the head of the church promised the Holy Spirit to guide it into all truth, not Peter or any apostle or any one bishop. It’s very telling that when Rome dogmatically subordinated the Holy Spirit they filled His spot with papal authority and hyper-Marian spirituality.
@@LadyMaria As far as I can tell, part of it seems to come from the way we phrase "outside the church there is no salvation", which he takes to mean that unless one joins the eo, they are going to hell 100% and without any doubt, regardless of their disposition or God's discernement. Now that is an issue that needs to be dealt with.
Born a Catholic turned Protestant, currently hooked on the Orthodox Church's Theology and Doctrine. I feel it has all the pieces I've always felt missing during all my years searching the real path.
lol this dude tried to act like he's buddy buddy with the Orthodox church, but if theres one thing Catholics and Orthodox can agree on, is their distaste for protestantism.
There are some great points presented here. The Pope has been a political figure down through the ages and it remains that way today. That is and always has been the issue. The Catholic Church is modeled after the Roman Empire in its political structure. I keep thinking about the social influence of Constantine's reign in Rome.
Personally as an Orthodox I consider bishop Barron a very well educated man with a great love for Christ, as well as openness to dialogues with Orthodoxy. But of course when it comes to these topics wouldn’t expect another answer from him. Unfortunately he and many other brilliant men of the Catholic Church can not see this issue!!! May God bless and enlighten them!!! 🙏🏻
This is really interesting and something to ponder. The papacy is one of the things I'm struggling with when it comes to Catholic vs Orthodox. Because I absolutely love them both.
"I'm a follower of John Henry Newman." I thought we were supposed to follow Jesus Christ. The man sounds rational, educated. But he is spouting heresy and lies.
@@rosehavenfarm2969 Newman’s primary Orthodox rival was Doctor Julian Joseph Overbeck, an underrated voice in the Tractarian controversy and a key figure in my own journey to Orthodoxy.
Church Fathers as distant figures? No wonder their Patristic heritage was ended in around 8th (or some say 12th) century. They view the fathers as outdated! This alone testify that we Orthodox don't share same appreciation, love and obedience with the Latins. They don't even recognize contemporary fathers. While it is true that we consistently cite ancient sources, but at the same time we also never forget that Holy Spirit works in this very day until the end of time and beyond it to the eternity.
I considered becoming a Roman Catholic once, but thanks to Pope Francis, I didn't. I became a catechumen last year and was received into the Orthodox Church on May 4th.
I have returned to the Catholic Church having discarded it for most of my life. It was the ultimate truth of the bible and of Christ’s life that called me back . I am a poor catholic in so many ways, I despair at how far church tries to adapt to modern life and values. It is the traditions that I want. I would love to go to an Orthodox Church and see whats what. The nearest one to me in UK seems a fair old distance though so is not realistic
Too far for the truth? 1 hr...? 2hrs? I mean if my salvation was in question perhaps the distance is worth it! But of course there are limitations and we must always do our best with what we have 😇
You should see how far some people in other countries WALK to get to the nearest Orthodox Church, passing other non-Orthodox churches along the way. My wife witnessed this in Africa back in the 90's.
I am Catholic from Spain. Most of Catholics feel a kind of attraction to Orthodoxy, specially lately , cause of this Pope and his tendency to be cool and modern against even the Bible. We the Catholics feel Orthodox as brothers in faith, even knowing that it’s not the same other way around. It’s a tragedy see the weakness of faith in western countries, it’s a tragedy too, not to have enough Orthodox Church in western countries, cause all of us, who believe in same God, who follow the Bible and are followers of Christ , we would go to Orthodoxy.
I’m rediscovering Catholicism after being away from the church for a while. I love this priest here. He seems to be a lot more straightforward than others. I also love my orthodox brothers and sisters out there! If the issue of the pope is the only thing we disagree about, that’s quite interesting. I view the pope as a figure head. Like I said, I’m still learning more, so my views might not be as in line with the church as I’d like them to be, but the pope seems like the final arbiter for issues regarding dogma. I don’t see any issues with this idea
It is not the only thing. The West has gone so deep into heresy through rationalism and humanism that I doubt they will ever be saved, but I pray for them nonetheless.
@@FinskijPravoslavnyj I did not see anything about being saved in the TEN COMMANDMENTS. What if I should die before I learn how to be saved, am I gong to Hell??? Are you saved??? How do you know for a fact that you are saved???? What if you are headed for hell and don't know it??
@@Ambassador-For-Christ I do not know if I will be saved or not, neither do I know if you're unsaved, but one can make an assumption on the rules that have been given us. Ones works also give an indication of the level of their spiritual life.
Scriptures are not a living voice The church fathers are not a living voice I actually have huge respect for Bishop Barron, but that’s basically everything you need to know about his stance to be bothered by it. The Holy Spirit speaks through scriptures, liturgy, prayer, early church fathers, through modern saints, and in daily life.
Fr Heers, you are a gift. I too am GO, RC tell their flock and to all Christians that there is no salvation outside the RC faith. It’s remarkable how they believe that and preach this fallacy. Only one needs to look up all the Popes and see the misery they lead. (Only a handful where good) there is the broken so called chain (broken) of Popes. Love the videos. God bless you!
I am a catechumen and still learning myself. Some of the things I noticed but may need to be corrected on…. 1. Palpal infallibility- Why would Christ have many apostles to begin with if this was true? 2. Follower of John Henery or Christ? 3. Appealing to the bible comment…. The Word! Is this not putting man above God himself since he is the Word? And is God not final authority? Does the Word ever change or is it the same no then and forever? 4. Church fathers distant? “ we are surrounded by a cloud of witnesses “ Are the Saints not alive in Christ? All the gifts are given? “To one is given the gift of…”
Wow, that is literally blaspheming the word of God. And the liturgy in Catholic masses are also all from scripture as well, so to say its a "clown mass" is to also blaspheme. lol so its official, Orthodox Christians are just as heretical as protestants. Have fun continuing to reject the gospel!
Bishop Barron is an incredibly erudite and intelligent gentleman, it is very sad to hear such weak arguments from his side against Orthodoxy. This just goes to show how the Roman Catholic Church is astray, being focused on servitude to their Pope rather than servitude to God. Bishops in the Orthodox Church are also living voices of authority, the difference is that we don't believe them to be infallable, as they are still mortal men with the same fallen nature like everyone else.
Infallibility is the gift of the Holy Spirit to the church vested in bishop of Rome to teach the church. Jesus is the ultimate head of the church, but Holy Spirit, who has spoken through the prophets, guides the church and speaks through the holy father. Jesus explicitly said to Peter that he is infallible (Mathew 16). Peter and all the prophets are all mortal men.Also papal infallibility doesn’t denies the importance of the holy synod rather it completes the synod. Even today, with 100s and 1000s of bishop from all over the world, we need a person (chosen by the Holy Spirit) who can be the protector of faith considering that bishops can be heretics. That is the universal nature of the church. I don’t see Orthodox Church as a universal church, they are regional or national churches with distinct theology(especially christology) and having their own so called ‘apostolic synod’.🤷♂️ So the question to orthodox is ; which Orthodox Church is the true church?
@@OrthodoxEthos Then serve his word: Matthew 16: 18-19 "And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."
@@ratatoskr9366 well that for all the apostles just below when it was only for peter the say the text in verse 16. 23 Says in greek o δε στραφείς είπε τω Πετρω... Clear there in greek we see a distinction that is a say specific to peter if it wanted to be only for peter it would have said the same say in 16:17 that is an answer to the 16:15 λέγει αυτοις. As i said in greek all your theory collapse with the word in 16:23 to peter as___ στραφείς .
@@ΓραικοςΕλληνας Well 1. It's not a "theory", it's scripture. 2. Don't you guys have a "First among equals"? aka the Patriarch. 3. Would you mind translating the Greek? I am genuinely curious, and I assume you are trying to educate and not just showboat your linguistic knowledge. If that's the case, I'll start quoting scripture in Latin.
I used to be roman catholic. I converted to the orthodox faith over a year ago. This is one of the main reasons why I changed. I'm happy and proud to call myself an orthodox christian ☦️
Thank you Father. Have Bishop Barron and you reached out to one another? It would make for an important dialogue, IMHO. Thank you and may God continue to bless your ministry and community.
Basically, the Church fathers and Christ words don't hold the same weight as the current Pope's. So do Christ and the Holy spirit not transcend time? Are they're words not eternal? What a very post modernist take the Roman Catholics have adopted. Clearly this catholic priest hasn't thought through what he is appealing too.
St Francis sought the approval of the Holy Father, as did St Clare, for their particular way and rule of life and poverty. That is a beautiful obedience, surrender and humility. Look at the blessings as a result. So many Franciscans around the world and Custodians of the Holy Land for 800 years!
Please consider further examination of the points made in the longer video about Francis of Assisi. That is entitled After 1,000 Years and it is on our Orthodox Ethos You Tube Channel
Orthodox Christians arguing against the papacy is akin to shooting your self in the foot. If you refute the need for the papacy, what arguments will you give to a protestant to explain the need for a priest? As an orthodox Christian, you have sacraments where the priest stands in the office of christ. Take for example during confessions, it is not the priest that forgives sins, it is Jesus Christ, but the priest stands in the office of Christ to forgive sins. Also, during the Holy Eucharist, the priest stands in for the people, to perform the miracle of changing bread and wine into the body and blood of christ. If you believe in this, why do you have problem in accepting that there is a vicar of Christ on earth? That being said, if you reject the office of the papacy because you say that Christ is ever present with us, and that he has poured out his spirit on all men, then you can go on to be full protestant. Why do you need priests? Protestants reject all authority, and believe in the priest hood of all believers. Going by this a protestant believes that he can consecrate holy communion by himself even in his own house. He believes there is no need to confess to anyone, and that he can confess to God privately. So what is stopping you from being one?
In my 4 year journey of learning about historical Christianity and trying to discern the right path, there is much I've come to love about Orthodoxy, but I still struggle greatly with a few things. The first is the fact that you Orthodox do not believe that a person can be truly saved in Christ outside of your church, and yet I have met many genuine Christians whose lives and hearts are changed by Christ. I was told in order to become orthodox, I must agree to the statement that there is no salvation outside of the Orthodox church. Yet your message to western catholics is to say that Christ is enough. As a Protestant I believe that, but perhaps He is only enough if you're Orthodox and nothing else?
Mush R. - Your points and questions beg further clarification as to meanings and whether you’re interested in receiving the Holy Tradition and submitting to it as opposed to standing and analyzing it and ultimately being a judge of it. 1. What is salvation? Is salvation Theosis? Can one be saved outside of Christ? Is Christ identified with his Body? To say there is no salvation outside the church, is a tautology: the church is salvation because the church is Christ. 2. Is there “your church” and “my church,” or simply the church? Your reference to “your church“ may imply a protestant ecclesiology. So, essentially you would be trying to fit a round peg in a square hole. You have to come and understand the church on the basis of the 2000 year history and experience and tradition. You have to throw off your protestant conceptions to understand truly what the church is and has been understood to be for 2000 years. 3. Christ of course is enough. He’s all in all. He is the church and the head of it. Any idea of a pope over it or in place of him is indeed of this world and a forerunner to antichrist. But when we say Christ is enough, this is not a minimalization or a reduction! God forbid! Far from it, or rather the opposite: it is a maximalist and exclusivist reality. Only in Christ which means only in the church which means only with the Eucharist. We said in the video Christ in the Eucharist is enough. The Eucharist, however, presupposes orthodox faith and the continuation of Pentecost. There are no “partial Christ”, no “incomplete church”, no incremental levels of communion IN AND WITH the person of Christ. He is all in all and therefore it is all or nothing. (Here we’re talking about Truth as the Person of Christ who is present in the church totally through and in the Eucharistic synaxis and ALL of the mysteries - which are all expressions of the ONE Mystery of the incarnation which continues in the Body of Christ.) People outside of this experience certainly are led by God, by the Holy Spirit, in to whatever truth they have experienced and known. The action of the Holy Spirit, the grace of God, outside of the body, is very real, however it is not the same action, not the same energy and operation, as that which happens in the body, which presupposes initiation. So to say that one is being led by and inspired by the grace of God outside of the church is not to then do away with the exclusivity of the church with regard to purification, illumination, and theosis. One can obtain to great levels of knowledge of the truth, in the realm of ideas, and never be initiated into the Mystery of the incarnation. But that knowledge, that understanding and belief in Christ, is not transfiguration of the whole man, not deification of the whole man. Therefore, strictly speaking, not salvation. If one wants to abandon this and talk about salvation as knowledge about or love for Christ alone, he departs from the Orthodox soteriology coming down from the Holy Fathers, such as from Saint Athanasius the great.
@The Orthodox Ethos Thank you for your thorough response. You might be surprised at how little protestanism I have left to throw off, and how very open I am to receiving something once I understand it and the teaching doesn't contradict scripture, though I am not even in the camp of strictly sola scriptura anymore. There is so much beauty and richness to Orthodoxy that doesn't seem to be found elsewhere, especially when it comes to being transformed into the image of Christ. But when a non orthodox muslim comes to truly believe in Christ and is changed, or a drug user is freed from addiction through repentance, faith in Christ, and the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, and he isn't Orthodox, would you say that at least, their initial salvation is real, even if you believe that salvation is a process in the Orthodox church?
But Father,, you say the pope at the head of the church on earth is heretical but you have patriarchs ruling your church. Is it because the pope can make infallible statements? What makes him the Antichrist to you? Why are your patriarchs not the antichrist as well? We Catholics agree that Jesus is the church and his head of the church. We believe he appointed a line of succession from Peter to today to oversee and manage the church. We believe in councils as well, which are called by the Bishop of Rome. There are several things you just did not address and it felt like you misrepresented our position. As a Christian surely you can agree that this is extremely dangerous to do. If you did miss represent Catholics I trust you will take the necessary steps to correct that.
@@Phantom-xp2co well it shows your ignorance the Constantinople emporor held the ecumenical councils. No pope ever held any ecumenical council the first 1000 years
@@ΓραικοςΕλληνας and 1000 years have passed since the split. The western church have found a solution to the issue, can't you guys be reasonable have an orthodox echumenical council?
It was Jesus Christ who chose Peter and Peter denied him three times. The Pope and Pope's are sinners like you and me yet they are chosen to be the Head of the church. May the Holy Spirit guide and bless him with his grace and blessings. 🙏
The head of the Church is Jesus Christ and Him alone. Neither Popes nor Bishops are heads of the church. How can fallible, sinful men be heads of the church? It makes no sense.
@@artifexdei3671 Peter was never a leader of "the flock." Peter was not treated as the chief of the apostles. When the church in Jerusalem appointed a pastor, they did not pick Peter. Jesus told Peter that He, Jesus, was the rock on which the church must be built. And today the Christian Church is still built upon Jesus not a pope.
@@johnbrowne3950 obviously you have serious gaps in an understanding of what happened. Peter ran universal (catholic) church, not a local church in Jerusalem that was under James and James was in communion with Peter. When Jesus said the words upon this rock I will build my church, who were these words directed at? Himself? or Peter. over the centuries, many catholics have left the church to set up their own churches. why, b/c they didn't agree with something that the popes have been saying. end result: protestants being popes unto themselves, orthodox rejecting a notion of a leader, which is quite interesting as at the local level they have bishops.
@@artifexdei3671 Show me in the Bible where it says Peter ran the universial church. Chapter and verse please. There are two different words used for rock in that verse. Thou art Peter ( Greek petros, small stone) and upon this rock, Jesus, (Greek Petra, large stone or rock) "I will build me church." He's telling Peter to build the church on the one, true God. Further proof: "For they drank from the spiritual rock that accompanied them and the rock was Christ." - 1Corinthians 10:4 Also, the earliest church wasn't a Catholic church. It never existed then. Only God can forgive sins. There is no such thing as an unbroken line of popes. A bishop must be the husband of one wife. There were no priesthood. No sacraments. No veneration of saints and there was a warning of making and kneeling to graven images. The Catholic church removed that warning from the Second Commandment for obvious reasons. The early church may have evolved into the Catholic church along with three other variatians which remain today. It may have been Christian for a time but when it became the Roman Catholic Church it had become corrupted and political and many of its popes were vile people. The church added lies about Mary to take away Jesus' power. The Vatican was Satan's den and things that have gone on - and continue to go on today prove the church is devoid of the Holy Spirit.
@@johnbrowne3950 Peter was the last voice in the first Council of Jerusalem when questions came up in regards to Jewish ritual laws and new gentile Christians. this points to the fact that He was viewed as having last word on the matters of doctrine. same goes for the pope today. now, not everything is in the Bible and what you don't realize that what you believe in today is a result of papal pronouncements over the centuries e.g. Holy Trinity - where is that in the Bible? provide a reference to words 'Holy Trinity' if you believe in Holy Trinity how is that the case? are you relying on popes rulings on this topic? waiting.
If you really think you need a living voice to settle disputes, then you have your own bishop, or (nearly local equivalent) Patriarch. Every kind of Orthodox Church has its own Patriarch, and if we have to define a universal / catholic answer to a difficult question, then we call an ecumenical council to discuss the issue in detail. Having a single arbiter to pick one side in a dispute leaves us open to being led off track by one man's limits and problems. And elevating one Pope to be the final word lends itself to pride and arrogance, no matter how humble he may try to be. We already have enough "clericalism" to worry about. Jesus chose twelve disciples, not just Peter. The problem with western Catholicism is the demand for obedience to authority. We should recognize deep spirituality as being compelling through our own conscience, not as authority based on position. The Pope should stand down and accept equality with the other Patriarchs of the Church, and let his voice speak wisdom, not declare his authority.
Essentially, the problem with the Roman Catholic Church is that they treat St. Peter like a Western Re-Incarnating Buddha figure. Which is ridiculous. This was never the agreed upon belief in the first 400 years of Christianity. THAT is the problem.
Acts 15:28 is a perfectly Scriptural reason for why the Pope is unnecessary, since we have the Spirit of the living Christ to guide us across all truth, and disputes. /geo ex machina
If I remember correctly it was James the Apostle who was presiding over the council of Jerusalem in Acts 15. There were several Ecumenical Councils where the Western Church wasn't even present. Interesting indeed.
Honestly, as a Catholic convert, I have developed an affection for the local Catholic Church. However, if a Pope speaks confusion and not clear Truth from the ages, the seat has the possibility of becoming a nightmare and burden. I love learning about Church history, thank you for sharing.
You believe & follow the one who is in accordance with Holy Tradition, of course. There is no novelty in Orthodoxy. We don't follow the teachings and opinions of individuals, we follow the teaching of the Church.
Roman Catholicism is in no better position when it comes to this. Synods are there for a reason, and have arbitrated many issues that later get received by all Churches.
@Firstname Lastname Okay so yes, he is in that sense. I was making a joke about the Churches foundation They do say he is "the" rock and ignore everything else
Please don’t take this as being mean, I’m not trying to be rude: if you want to truly argue against papal supremacy, Bishop Barron isn’t the one to go up against. It’s an unfair fight is what I’m saying. Bishop Barron isn’t the worst spokesman but he sure isn’t the best either. Most traditional Catholics would point you towards a more worthy opponent such as Timothy Flanders, Dr Peter Kwansnewski, or Bishop Schneider.
They are very deceived that their conception of Mary is equal to their salvation. I too was trapped there for a time, seeking salvation. It simply cannot be and is not. But a clear mark of the times we are in. Glory to our Savior Jesus Christ. Glory to our Father. Glory to his Church.
Mary has an important role and has been given the "Full of Grace" title by an angel - it is well deserved and she spreads it to her children in the Church. Hell is afraid of her....
How sad the Roman church is still in denial of the true church. Mother church of Greece is the one and only true church. Along with the Russian church that came after. Maybe one day the Roman church will finally understand and admit the truth. My guess is that because of pride, they never will.
First John: "These things I have written to you concerning those who are trying to deveive you. As for you, the annointing which you received from Him abides in you, and you need no-one to teach you."
@@benedict7345 It is Truth, bold truth that people cannot take in this fragile climate. You're not making Roman Catholicism look good with that kind of attitude. I could say some things about RC clergy but I won't. I used to be on the RC side of the fence. I'm glad I'm not anymore.
@@LadyMaria I can say the same thing about orthodox priest raping kids and it’s worse because most of them are married or about the orthodox monks thank rape kids and goats. I’m glad I’m not orthodox anymore thank God but really all I said was my orthodox priest told me not to watch him and you had to bring up something so irrelevant. Glad I’m staying at fence where God is and not the schismatic church
I follow Jesus and his word. I’m not part of a denomination but I do study the history of the word and the context of the Old Testament and how it lines up with the prophets to the messiah and his coming. As being someone who uses the word as a foundation and trusting in Christs work on the cross it’s interesting to hear these denominational differences within these churches. I don’t plan on coming to either one of these churches since I am saved by Christ alone BUT I love my brothers and sisters in Christ and regard orthodox Christian’s as very interesting! I really like their views and stances on this topic. It’s very reasonable
The Papacy and its institution by Our Lord is a blessing. Christ not only gave his Body and Blood, his very life for the church that He builds, but he also gave the Church a share in his own infallibility in the Bishops in Union with the Papal Office. It is supernatural of which the Natural Man cannot know. Jesus is the head of the Body which is his church.
Saint Chrysostom said 'the desire to rule is the mother of heresies'
why are there bishops in orthodox church? don't they rule over the clergy, faithful? what a silly argument.
@@artifexdei3671 Not even close to being the same as the Pope.
@@TheRealRealOK that's because bishops don't have a papal authority that's why they are not the same as the pope. but they have authority over their clergy, areas, so yes, they are in leadership positions that make decisions. if your point is that pope has authority then it's a silly argument as orthodox bishops have authority too.
@@artifexdei3671 No, my point was that the power of the Pope is very different from the power of an Orthodox bishop. There’s no point engaging you since you misrepresent what I say. Peace out, bro.
@@TheRealRealOK of course it's very different as there's a difference between a pope and a regular bishop. at the end these two positions are positions of authority which means they have power over something.
I'm a catechumen to becoming Orthodox and as a newbie to these topics, I appreciate how you break these issues down to easily understand. Videos like this only solidify my choice to covert from Protestantism to Orthodoxy ☦️
Remain strong in the faith of the Apostles. I am likewise a convert. The beauty of Orthodoxy is as a never ending stream of rejuvenating waters, flowing from the pierced side of our Lord. I will keep you in my prayers, and hope that you have found a local parish in which to commune, and a spiritual Father to help you along your journey.
I was baptized 1 month ago. You’re on the right track! ❤️
You are truly blessed and lucky!
Welcome home !
Welcome! And Great choice. It's clearly the True church and if your experience is anything like mine, you can FEEL the presence of God the first time you walk through the door.
Jesus Christ is the ultimate authority.
@STIGMATA Linda Glendenning I don't think Christ put him there
@STIGMATA Στίγματα Linda Glendenning
Why would Christ need to put someone in his place when he is ever present and absolutely involved in every aspect of the Church since Pentecost. You don’t substitute for a player who never leaves the game.
@STIGMATA Linda Glendenning
Why would Christ substitute himself for a pope when we know that hundreds of popes were reprobate? God is going to represent himself through men who are evil, heterodox and bent on subverting his Church according to nonsensical and blasphemous doctrines? Christ needs Francis to shepherd his flock?That makes absolutely no sense. Again, no need to substitute. Christ sits in His own chair.
@@MaximusWolfe because Jesus himself gave the keys to the church to st Peter. If you read the Bible it'll tell you everything
@Johnny R
He gave them to the apostles in the very next book. I have read the Bible, several times in fact, you presumptuous, condescending jackass. That Christ did this in no way debunks what I said. The Church is His earthly body. He is present always in it. This means that no man acts as His substitute or representative. How you fail to comprehend this is awe inspiring. You want so badly to replace God with a demonstrably fallible and corruptible man in Rome. No wonder your innovational papacy is such a complete disaster.
The Church fathers are “distant figures”? Wow, that’s quite telling. What makes the Church fathers so remarkable and potent is how germane they are regardless of year, era or issue. Any distance that exists has been wrought by ones chosen divergence from the mind of the Church. I find it difficult to believe that Barron has never thought deeply enough about the fathers to perceive that what makes them efficacious and important is their unflagging immediacy. Quite odd actually.
It contradicts the very accurate “Timelessness” arguments Chesterton made throughout his career about the Church not being “…behind the times, but is beyond the times”, only he was sadly mistaken in applying it to Roman Catholicism instead of Orthodox Catholicism. I wish he could have met Doctor Overbeck before his passing. It might have set him on a different course.
@@eldermillennial8330
Good point
Clearly Bshp Barron means "distant figures" in a temporal sense, IE figures from 1500-1900 years ago. Obviously not in the sense in which you mean: as 'irrelevant.' This is just a bad-faith understanding of the Bishop's words.
The Church Father's have always been a deep part of Catholic learning. Augustine among them, Thomas Aquinas was deeply learned of them. Peter Lombard's "Sentences" was a compilation of Church Father teachings that was the standard in Medieval Education through the 1600s. Then the Seminary Manuals of the 1700 to Vatican II. And to this day they Church Fathers still hold high prominence, even though they are distant, from just under 2000 years ago.
Indeed! When I was Catholic I never knew or learned about the early Church Fathers as I have in the Orthodox Church. They are emphasized so much more and their feasts are celebrated in Orthodoxy. We also come to know them through the hymns we chant at Vespers, Orthros and the Divine Liturgy. They seem to have been forgotten in Catholicism.
@@marieegypt7091 This is where I'm totally willing to blame the post-Vatican II chaos. While the Vatican II Council fathers were trying to increase emphasis on the Church Fathers by quoting them frequently and writing in a poetic style reminiscent of the Church Fathers, a certain cohort in the Church was only interested in political and social transformation instead of the Spiritual Conversion the Council called for.
We converted from evangelicalism over 20 years ago to Orthodoxy here in Australia . Each year that passes and by Gods grace we move deeper into His church and realise just how foreign our former faith was to the truth. As a layman I am astounded the papacy is what Bishop Barron sees as the biggest separation. I see the west’s atonement theories , Christology (& hence ecclesiology ) , original sin and Mariology driving an irrevocable wedge between us . The papacy is however what has driven the west to develop myriad little popes called protestants that is true but the rest of their theology is simply misguided. Terribly sad for those of our family and friends still caught up in it. Apologies for the verbosity and if I seem arrogant - I’m not really- just happy to have left it behind…
@Buddy Eastern Orthodox Christian
@Buddy sure, we worship in the Greek archdiocese
@@shovelleator4738 Bulgarian Orthodox Church in America.
It always seems that there's an innate atheism in the Latin arguments for the papacy, they defend the necessity of the papacy by denying the activity of the Holy Spirit in the world. It appears they believe God to be a mere logical proposition and not an active presence in this world.
Well said
Couldn't the other oriental communions (i.e. Copts & Armenians) lay the same claim to the Byzantine Orthodox (i.e., Greeks & Slavs)? Byzantium calls them heretical. Is Byzantium denying the presence of the Holy Spirit in the world, thereby reducing Him to a mere logical proposition? (There are 2 or 3 gathered in God's name ... all must be hunky-dory)
St Ignatius of Antioch who was taught directly by the Apostles supports the primacy of the papacy. Orthodox and Protestants have two options: 1.) St Ignatius and other successors of the Apostles completely misinterpreted what the Apostles taught them. If you hold to this view, you will have to question everything that was passed down from the Apostles. 2.) There was a second pope in 65 AD. Who was the first pope if the papacy was invented centuries later? If you accept that there was a papacy and still deny it, you are denying the office established by God Himself. You are a heretic if you hold to this view.
@@yvatna76 I'm afraid I don't see the connection you're trying to make. The implicit denial of the humanity of Christ by the Monophysites demonstrates that they do not have the Holy Spirit, for as the Apostle John said: 'Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God.' This in no way suggests the Holy Spirit is not present in the world, but rather that His Spirit is not in them.
The problem with the Latin position is not that they merely claim others, outside their communion, do not have the Holy Spirit; any communion that believes itself to be the True Church is going to make this claim. But, rather, they deny His presence even within their own communion, save for, perhaps, with regard to the pope alone (though even here they tend to make legalistic rather than spiritual arguments). They do not believe that the Holy Spirit will guide them and keep them, they do not believe that the faithful implicitly know the truth by virtue of their communion with God, but rather they believe this responsibility must be vested in a single man, in the Bishop of Rome.
Now I would agree that the Latins do not have the Holy Spirit, I think the innate Arianism in their Aristotelean doctrine of absolute divine simplicity demonstrates that the Spirit of God is not in them and the fact that they gave birth to the mass apostacy that is Protestantism is proof of this in their fruits. What is interesting is that they felt the need to create a human institution to replace the proper and traditional role of the Holy Spirit in the Church; which is evidence that, at least on some level, the Latins themselves realize that they are no longer guided by the Holy Spirit and that they can no longer trust in the Holy Spirit protect and uphold their 'church', for the Spirit of Truth is not in them.
@@costakeith9048 I agree that monophysitism is heretical, but some other authority is usually called upon to condemn these errant philosophies (in this case, the Council of Chalcedon). So while Fr. Heers' contention doesn't necessarily exist in a vacuum, it seemed rather over-simplistic (which is the point I'm attempting to make).
As an ex-seminarian who studied Aristotle and took a metaphysics course, I've never heard of an 'Aristotelean doctrine of absolute divine simplicity'. We believe God is simple in nature (ie., not composite), which is also affirmed by St. Basil (Letter 8 to the Caesareans), and Gregory of Nyssa (answer to Eunomius' 2nd book), along with a host of other Eastern Church fathers. Protestantism rejected the metaphysical assertions of the scholastics (in particular, Thomas of Aquino), which is one of the main contentions between them & us Roman Catholics. Ergo, they adopted (e.g., Karl Barth of recent memory) a subordinationist concept of Christ to the Father, because they were unwilling to differentiate His Divine & human natures in this particular regard (with some scripture passages incorporating His divine attributes ... eg., John 10:30 ... others His human attributes, John 14:28).
The notion of a Papacy doesn't nullify the operation of the Holy Spirit. Ex Cathedra statements are few & far between (one was the Immaculate Conception dogma of 1854 ... another was the Assumption dogma of 1950.) You're caricature of a Roman Pontiff that functions like a divine oracle portrays a week understanding of the Western concept of the office. Bishops throughout the world in communion with the Roman See were governing their respective dioceses in the interim ... (not waiting on pins & needles for the next divine oracle to proceed from the mouth of the Roman Pontiff).
Now we don't have a notion of autocephalocies in the West (1 Corinthians 10:17 we all partake of the one loaf), so strictly-speaking, yes ... we have One communion (which would logically follow if one believes in One Apostolic Church founded by Christ). The Papacy isn't a manmade institution (... The Byzantine prelates affirmed the Primacy of the Roman Papacy at the Council of Florence in the mid-15th century, although local religious and clergy under Eastern jurisdiction, as a rule, didn't accept this.) Even St. Gregory of Nazianzen affirmed this primacy in Carmen de Vita Sua (referring to Constantinople as the 'New Rome', while affirming that the 'Old Rome' is 'The President over all', venerating the divine harmony in its entirety).
Anthony
1 second ago
In the 6th Century, Pope St. Gregory the Great wrote this
"I say it without the least hesitation, whoever calls himself the universal bishop, or desires this title, is, by his pride, the precursor of Antichrist, because he thus attempts to raise himself above the others. The error into which he falls springs from pride equal to that of Antichrist; for as that Wicked One wished to be regarded as exalted above other men, like a god, so likewise whoever would be called sole bishop exalteth himself above others.”
The Post-Carolingian bishops have tried SO hard to bury this text. Even Calvin called him “the last good pope”, (although I think there were just a few more good ones).
very nice thank u for sharing this , may God bless u !
Also, Vicar of Christ means "in the place of Christ" and so does AntiChrist. Very telling.
@@LadyMaria
To be fair, it can also mean “prime minister of Christ”, not that Christ actually needs one.
@@eldermillennial8330 With them, we know what they mean.
I came from Catholicism and listened ardently to this bishop. My biggest hurdle in converting to orthodoxy was the primacy of the pope. As one who was born and raised in Catholicism, I found that primal papal authority was taught from a young age. Brainwashing! During my whole parochial educational experience. Delusion!!!!!!
Thank you Father Peter! You know I love you!
GLORY BE TO GOD.
@@OrthodoxEthos AMEN AND AMEN ☦️
More precisely, I have found that for most modern Romans, letting go of Vatican 1’s dogmas is like chewing off your leg to escape a gilded, comfortable prison into the mysterious wilderness of Truth. It’s not like a painful bear trap, it’s a golden cage with a golden chain and it’s pleasant to be there because there seems to be a neat little explanation for everything, few things seem truly mysterious and are therefore easier to accept. You don’t notice that your prison food is slowly poisoning you, as it is a subtle, mostly painless poison, except for this awful diarrhea it causes. You catch glimpses of the horrible truth about the poison in the toilet, (such as the pedo scandal) but most prisoners learn to just be careful not to look before flushing. So you have to both resolve to give up the false comfort, painfully chew through your own leg, then make your way, crippled, but not alone, into the Mysterious wilds of Truth, and finally Home. That’s been my experience so far.
That's exactly how I describe being raised as a RC and primal papacy...brainwashing indeed! It's a fear that is instilled at a young age that if you're not under the Pope you're going to hell. Even Catholics who don't know their faith at all will use the pope as their defense.
Brainwashing is the wrong word. I'm sorry you disagree with the teaching of the Catholic Church, but that doesn't make it brainwashing. One thing Orthodox have to wrestle with is why the Maronites of Lebanon recognized Rome especially considering they were cut off from communication with Rome for about 500 years (600 - 1100).
So many Roman Catholics "admire" Orthodoxy, while at the same time taking cheap pot shots at how "ethnic" and "disorganized" we are. Dr. Scott Hahn even referred to Orthodox theology as "stagnant" in his book "Rome, Sweet Home" just a few lines after rehashing the usual stuff about admiring us. Bless his heart. How anyone could refer to a faith which has produced the likes of St. Porphyrios or St. John of Shanghai as stagnant obviously has no clue what he's talking about.
Katholic theology understands that many are the signs of the Incarnation, and Redemption, and that they reverberate throughout all Creation, even among the pagans and infidels, for it is known that there are some who love virtue and lay down their lives among them, "outside the City walls". Like the People of the Old Aliance, which existed not only for their own Salvation, like so The Holy Church exists as a Sign, a Sacrament, for the Salvation of many, not bound by any fleshly identity. The multiplicity of Charisms in the Catholic Church serves such a purpose and are quite astounding in their diversity from one another, while sharing the same Design of Charity received from the Holy Spirit to reach every pit of the earth. We do contain elements of Eastern Orthopraxis and make use of them in what they have of Eternity, but we do not despise the Eternity also present in Creation and the Katholic History of Redemption, which manifests so greatly the Divine Mercy of God in all things. In fact I do love these particular elements of yours, which brought me here, but we catholics are not bound by it, for true Orthodoxy consists in Sharing the Love of God around the same Table in Unity. Necessarily the Eastern Orthodox Church in general are the second greatest birthgiver of Saints, which makes you particularly lovable among those whom we consider lacking, and in your case only one thing: 'selling all your righteousness, giving it to the poor, and following Jesus to the Ignominy of the Cross, between two thieves'.
except these saints were produced when the church was one, under pope. hahn is right, orthodox theology hasn't progressed past first centuries of christianity. God doesn't stop in time, God works with every generation and theology grows as a result.
@@artifexdei3671 Sounds like Mormonism. Ever evolving and changing.
@@deussacracommunioest2108
Modernist Rome mistakes Orthodox Caution for the kind of “Selfish Righteousness” you seem to be referring to here. We are too cautious in certain ways sometimes, we need to learn to be bold again, which is what Catechisis like Father Heers program is all about. Not one corner of Orthodoxy has not suffered (directly or indirectly) either under the Islamic or Communist Yoke at some point, for generations. This has made it very tempting to take caution to the erroneous level of paranoia.
We must be Bold without caving in to the Spirit of The Age.
GK Chesterton was absolutely right when he said “The Saint is the one who contradicts the Age he lives in most”. But it has been the Orthodox Saints who have done this consistently.
An example of what NOT to do as a “Saint”:
When Francis of Assisi met Innocent 3rd, the first thing he should have told him, “You MUST try to return to Constantinople all that was stolen, and demand the thieves be arrested and sent in chains to the emperor!”, yet, this never crossed his mind. To his credit, he had previously and later on, condemned his former fellow mercenaries for their excesses and had warned about something like the sacking could occur, and I believe he received a vicarious, if short term, blessing in his rebuilding of what had once been an Orthodox monastery. It is also true that mercenary recruitment dropped like an anvil for two generations thanks to so many men joining his movement (alas, had it only happened ten years sooner, the Fourth crusade would have been too undermanned to occur).
But a true Saint would have been hyper aware of the Atrocity that Innocent did nothing of substance about because he feared Venetian steel more than his commitment to church unity. I don’t believe Innocent was willfully complacent with the crime, as many Orthodox have always suspected, but was merely a coward in the face of Venice, unwilling to stand up to their greedy bullying beyond a pathetic slap on the wrist, which was the proverbial “hill of beans” his official condemnation amounted to. If Francis might have been punished severely for insisting on this is irrelevant, as it needed to be done. If his doing so HAD helped the pope find his courage, yet Innocent’s worst fears came to pass in the attempt, namely Venice Sacking Rome in retaliation, what would that have accomplished?
ONE CHURCH.
Instead of “East 🆚West”, “Rome🆚Constantinople”, the new paradigm would have been “Christendom 🆚Apostate Venice”, the WHOLE WORLD would have United against them to eventually sink them into their soggy sands.
Why did this not happen? A Saint would have tried.
@@artifexdei3671 God is not a fashion show year by year. God is timeless and thus Theology is outside of time and "the World". God does not change - The Orthodox Church does not change. The WORLD changes as it is illusion and fallible - the West has fallen into to heresy and Jesuit horror. The smoke of Satan blows out of Rome's doors. They admit it. Not opinion. That said - I find many very good folks (Priests and laypersons) of Roman Catholic Faith to be very devout and who are very sober. They are upfront when I share this with them. Russian Church too has its challenges - such as KGB brought in by the same Western Satanists who fouled up Rome. The source is the same. I respect my sober Catholic friends, as we both can admit to how Lucifer has attacked The West and The East -THE BEAST NEVER SLEEPS. The Lion roars and wanders (think MGM's Roaring Lion - HOLLYWOOD you guessed it - they own it)
I had the same complaint on a show called Reason&Theology and I asked If we Orthodox have Christ in the Eucharist, what do we lack?
And the answer from the author of the channel was the following:
“There are degrees of participation and communion with God. It is not an on/off switch. In the same way there are degrees of relationships with humans, so there is the same with God. The Orthodox have a great deal of communion with Christ but still lack something vital, namely, the universal structure he instituted and wills for them”.
So we lack the structure, the administrative part of Christ. This makes absolutely no sense to me. It’s like paperwork birocracy for God.
They delineate between Christ and The Church; for them Christ and His Body are not one, it’s like either the body is headless or the head is body less.
This last point - they delineate between Christ and the Church - is the most interesting, most problematic, and, indeed, most indicative of the heretical mindset, for the enemy of our salvation has always been seeking to de-incarnate the Lord, to deny His divine-humanity, to undo His salvific work. The second that Christ and HIs Body are differentiated, such that the Church is NOT the continuation of the incarnation, the salvation of the world is in jeopardy, the enemy has inserted his tail into the inner sanctuary.
@@OrthodoxEthos The saddest part is that this friction exists in Rome between those who love the ancient ways and traditions, and those who embrace bubble wands and guitars during liturgy. I am discerning my way between East and West, and I am gutted by this bias each has against the other. As far as the West goes, I am happy there are groups who fight, vigorously and relentlessly(Church Militant for example), against the corruption and turn of the mainstream in the Catholic Church, and I am heartened by the reverence and brotherly love many of the true tradionalists in the West have for Orthodoxy. I've heard many of them lament the state of the west in comparison to EO.
Bishop Barron.(--sigh--). A modernist, sadly. One of those who has sided with the Pope in the sentiment that traditionalists are somehow "in the way." Even more sadly, he is not in the minority.
I am glad, Father, you clarified the myths Bishop Barron is perpetuating, and that you did with facts and you did it respectfully.
I pray for a return to the state of the whole church to the way it was for a thousand years--before things got ugly. There has to be a way East and West can reconcile.
@@OrthodoxEthos so if a schism or separation occurred at a particular point in time…. And before that time we were ONE unified Church, just as Jesus prayed ‘that they all be one’ then prior to that point, you (Orthodox) as well were as one with RCC (the universal church) then, you also were under the Popes for all those centuries?
Starting with Peter, Linus, Cletus, Clement…. I mean you were right there!
With all due love and respect - who is it that has departed?. This is a traceable lineage down through the ages. Are Orthodox embarrassed of the scandals and trials in the Church?
To me it just shows even more how our Divine Lord uses mere men, washes us clean through our Baptism and cooperation to seek to remain in a state of grace through the Sacraments, Esp reconciliation and the Most Holy Eucharist, and along with His Own Divinity and authority, builds a Church for which the gates of Hell will never prevail! And this He is continuing on with us for He promises to be with us always (every Tabernacle in every Catholic Church, every Altar where Holy Mass is celebrated) ….the Book of Acts says ‘and so we came to Rome’ i think of that as quite a statement! The Roman empire so wicked, and a wonder of the world, did fall and never to rise again - for Christ, the Lord Jesus did conquer and the seat of His authority on earth manifests now in Rome. How is that not glorious?! the old empire never arose again?! Listen i have the simple mind of a second grader, but His wonders never cease to amaze me!
As a Catholic, I'm not sure I understand what you mean by your last point... Catholicism views Christ as the head and the Church as the body, to have one without the other is lacking the community and unity under the same headship. Jesus desires for us to be one as He and the Father are one, and I think that is what R&T is getting at. As a convert to Catholicism 10 years ago I have never seen Catholics treat the Church proper as something separate from Christ but rather the community of His kingdom on earth.
Bandaid theology. I'm currently RC. There is Orthodoxy and Cacodoxy. We all need the True Beleif to enter the kingdom of heaven.
“It seemed good to us and to the Holy Spirit.” Exactly. What more need be said? Roman Catholicism’s chickens have, after many centuries of borrowed time, come home to roost.
This is like is like a little brother telling his older brother hes a chicken. The Catholic Church is literally trying to amend all of Christendom while you guys continue to reject the gospel and blindly think we are "coming home to roost".
To reject the primacy of the pope is to reject the gospel. Done. Nothing more to be said. It makes you no better than protestants.
I agree to a certain extent the pope is good for two things.
1. He is outrageously comical.
2. He helps people leave the heretical Latin church to come to the Orthodox church.
He certainly “helped” me. If the Nigerian Cardinal had become pope as I had hoped, I’d probably still be clinging to his illusory token “traditionalism”, all while still trying foolishly to gel Vatican 1&2, just into a different set of contradictions.
lol so true
no Salvation outside the church, Vatican 2 council is a council of Apostate, Pope is the leader of the church, many great pope through history, eastern churches Orthodoxy" are disolving and only the Catholic church evangelized the 4 corners of the earth. you deny the Filioque and the Byzantine empire fell on the feast day of the Holy Spirit. Wake up!
@Mr Magoo's Junkmail the East is full of heresey, your church even venerates communists, please wake up.
@Mr Magoo's Junkmail that's not accurate at all
Pope Francis has been one of the best evangelizers for Orthodoxy we could have asked for
So true!
@@emilys5024 Yep! I’m one of them
@Mr Magoo's Junkmail Agreed. A lot of the trads think there will be a “based pope,” not gonna happen
@Mr Magoo's Junkmail Do you think Fatima is demonic? Just curious on your take. I would love to convert to Orthodox but I live deep in the App Mountains and there is no Orthodox Churches in this region. I do agree on the total destruction under this pope and he has been going after the traditional monasteries.
@@emilys5024 I asked an Orthodox priest about the visitation at Fatima. He said "it is a Catholic thing. The Orthodox church doesn't have a position on it".
So in my opinion, as a layman, it is legitimate. Many of those prophecies have been fulfilled.
your last words father...so great. "If you have Christ, how could you lacking anything"
as an ex-catholic: I would say, the catholicism has pope, but miss Christ.
Many priest and monastics there, lack of the faith, and lack the experience of grace.
Many priests complained to me: they lost their faith during the theology. Many of them visit psychologist.
An atheist sometimes has larger faith.
When first time I met with orthodoxy, face-to-face: I felt the power of Christ, and the meaning of prayer.
When first time I met with orthodoxy: I arrived at home.
The defense of the papacy is like a defensive attorney defending their client. They know their client is wrong, but they have a “legal” obligation and duty to defend him. Legalism rotted my mind and I’m still recovering from it to this day.
1) Pope Sergius III (904-911)
* Claimed to be the "Holy Father"
* Obtained the papal office by murder
2) Pope John XII (955-964)
* One of the most immoral popes, committing blasphemy, simony, perjury, murder, adultery and incest
3) Pope "Innocent" III (1024-1032)
* Instituted the "Inquisition"' killing over 1,000,000 people
4) Pope Sixtus IV (1471-1484)
* Had offices for sale
* At least 8 cardinals were his young nephews
5) Pope Benedict IX (1033-1045)
*Robbed pilgrims, adultery and murder
6) Pope Boniface VIII (1294-1303)
* One of the most wicked popes; promoted (and committed) atheism, heresy, simony, immorality, idolatry and magic
7) Pope "Innocent" VIII (1484-1492)
* Squandered the treasury of the papacy due to his luxurious life, and simony
8) Pope "Pius" II (1458-1464)
*Fathered multiple illegitimate children, spoke openly of the methods used to seduce women
9) Pope Alexander VI (1492-1503)
* Won the election of papacy by bribery, committed incest with his sister and his daughter and had offspring from both
Sure seems like they were reflection of Peter and Jesus.......only if we had a TRUE mediator between us and God (*COUHG* 1 Timothy 2:5 *COUGH*)
At least our bishops don't anathemize each other over politics
Mila, I feel the exact same way about those defending the orthodox church! Regarding the Papacy, the jury would definitely side with the Papacy! Was Moses one of many equals? Was King David one of many equals? It was Peter the rock and sole key holder, who stood up and put an end to all the debating at the council of Jerusalem Regarding circumcision, since SCRIPTURE ALONE COULD NOT, as Peter authoritatively ruled that circumcision of the Flesh was no longer necessary, even though Holy Scripture said that it was. The office of sole key holder is one of succession Biblically! Jesus Christ built His Church on Peter the rock and Jesus promised Peter alone the keys of the Kingdom and Jesus prayed for Peter alone to strengthen his brethren and Jesus gave Peter alone the command over all the flock of God! Peace always in Jesus Christ our Great and Kind God and Savior, He whose Flesh is true food and Blood true drink
@matthewbroderick6287 wrong. Peter isn't the rock. I would suggest not looking at just that single verse. Please read the rest of that chapter ALONG with that verse.
The "rock" is the answer to the question Jesus asks the disciples in the verse before the one you're taking out of context.
@@dyerseve07 I agree, you are wrong and take Holy Scripture out of context! Jesus Christ renamed Simon as Cephas, which is Aramaic for rock! Many Church Fathers attest to this, as do many Protestant scholars! Jesus Christ built His Church on Peter the rock and Jesus promised Peter alone the keys of the Kingdom! The office of sole key holder is one of succession Biblically! Jesus prayed for Peter alone to strengthen his brethren and Jesus gave Peter alone the command over all the flock of God! The same Church authority in Peter the rock and sole key holder, who stood up and put an end to all the debating at the council of Jerusalem Regarding circumcision, since SCRIPTURE ALONE COULD NOT, as Peter authoritatively ruled that circumcision of the Flesh was no longer necessary, even though Holy Scripture said that it was! You are in my prayers as you journey toward Truth! Peace always in Jesus Christ our Great and Kind God and Savior, He whose Flesh is true food and Blood true drink
Excellent explanation!!, Thank You Fr. Heers
*Fr. Peter, not Fr. Heers. We Christians address priests by their Christian baptismal name, not their last name as do the Pope Worshipers and the Protesters, (Papists and Protestants).
I have to be honest at times some of these theological arguments are way over my head. I truly thank God and it’s been a blessing to be simple minded. Without a doubt Gods grace granted me the ability to convert from Roman Catholic to Orthodoxy and understand this is truly The one, holy, catholic, and apostolic faith.
1:05 I just had to hear this bishop Barron say and I quote “I’m a follower of John Henry Newman” and automatically my spirit became uncomfortable. To me it’s that simple to discern that statement right there is a big 🚩 flag.
Lord have mercy, help us and keep us from be deceived in these times of great delusions. ☦️
Well said! I agree! ☦
I felt that he responded to this question as if he were suddenly being put on the spot really. He seemed almost disingenuous, as if holding onto the same old arguments while tucking the truth into his back pocket.
Yeah, I don't think that's a fair judgement. In the Gospel's at the Nativity, following Christ appeals to both the learned and the simple. You have the astronomer scientists of the east, the Maiji, and the simple shepherds. (Simple meaning, the shepherds were not a part of temple governance, they most likely were not literate like the scribes, nor were they following a particular Rabbi. They did their duty with love and piety). Quite frankly, St. John-Henry Newman's writings can help us navigate the modern world especially as universities are begin converting into training facilities for activism. Christ gives us the gift of Saints to respond to their times and give us guidance on how to respond to our times.
Why should Bhp Barron's mention of St John Henry Newman give you pause and Fr Peter Heers mention of St Piesius, St Yakovus and St Poferious, not?
What lead you to leave the RCC and become Orthodox?
The beauty of Christ's church is that anyone within it can be saved and attain holiness, from the simplest person to the smartest theologian.
Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me a sinner.
"A living voice of authority" VS the voice of the Holy Spirit in Orthodoxy. Is he even listening to himself?😀
I have just as much "authority" as the Pope. I just don't have as many people who believe it.
So, the gist and subtext of Barton’s argument in light of the PLAIN as day misbehavior of the current pontiff this past decade, is “it’s better to have all the gifts, (even if we NEVER exercise them correctly anymore), then to have most (but not all) of the gifts, even if exercised almost perfectly)”.
Every day this pope in particular proves himself NOT to be any sort of instrument in Christ’s hand, yet WE are ‘flawed’ for not wanting anything to do with him anymore than God does?
These "gifts, " whatever that they are, if wrongfully used, will become our own downfall !! The plummeting figures in Church attendance past 80 years is just the proof, and it is only the tip of the iceberg ... me thinks!! Do you agree .... anyone??
Woof. You're cooking with gas, my dude. Couldn't have put it better.
Historical fact is that there where two popes at one time. This video is spot on. Infallibility of the pope is an 19th Century innovation. The Acts of The Apostles lays out in detail hie the True Church is the Councils, NOT any one person.
There was 2 popes? Please share how I can find this information I’m struggling with this issue between orthodox and Catholic
This is sooo valuable to us to understand! Thank the Lord and the Holy Spirit for guiding me to this channel!!
Thank you Father for these lessons of faith. I know that I am a sinful person but the Orthodox Church is the light of my life and brings me more understanding of my quest to serve Christ our Lord. Thank you so much Father!!!!
Thank you Father Heers☦️
It’s Father Peter not Father Heers
Nope, we don't need the Pope! Christ is enough! ☦
Then follow Christ's word.
Matthew 16:18-19
"And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."
Are you sure??? How do you know that you will go to heaven, and not to the lake of fire?????? Is it even possible for you to tell me??? I'll wait and find out, I guess.
@@ratatoskr9366 Are you saying that Peter is the only one going to heaven??
@@Ambassador-For-Christ what? No. Mt 16:18 has nothing to do with salvation. It's Christ establishing His Church.
@@ratatoskr9366 OH. I see now, Jesus is the rock that his church is built on. COOL !!! Does that mean Peter is on his way to the lake of fire?
Barron says that the "main difference" is the pope. The main difference is roman acceptance of the false filioque doctrine, which removes them from the one faith altogether.
And hence they have grown throughout the world and into unknown places, peoples and cultures, as Jesus has commanded. The Holy Spirit has blessed the Catholic Church very much.
@@raymondvasquez6967 the history of the past 1000 years of roman catholicism is filled to the brim with crimes against humanity, corruption, theft, rape, murder, forced conversion, ecumenism, changes in doctrine and worship, adoption of pagan practices and many other horrific atrocities. The Lord certainly never commanded any of that. For the past 1000 years, the catholic sect has done more to further nominalism and atheism than it has to further Christianity. We know rome is not the true Church by their fruit. The Holy Spirit has not been found in the catholic church since they introduced their false filioque doctrine and blasphemously attempted to reduce Him to a mere function. Do not be deceived.
@@seraphimdunn First of all, Catholicism is not a sect. It is the Church historically. Second, every institution has bad apples. However, Jesus also promised the gates of hell will never prevail against it. Look at the world and the countries that have the faith. Countries were built by those of faith - its in the landmarks, the hospitals and economic institutions. Orthodoxy is stagnant and the Protestant sects are continually breaking apart. Wonder why? It's because they are missing something - Jesus' s promise.
@@raymondvasquez6967 Roman catholicism is absolutely a sect. It is no different than any other heterodox sect, as it is not part of the Body of Christ. It has been a sect ever since it broke away from the historic Church, the ONLY Church, the Orthodox Church. The gates of hell have never and will never prevail against the Orthodox Church. Satan has claimed victory over Rome for 1000 years at this point. Again, look at the fruit of the past 1000 years of the roman sect. Just look at the fruit of your sect today. Today, you have yoga classes in your parishes. You have clown mass. You have gay pride flags hanging over your altars. You have pachamama in the Vatican. You have pagans performing rituals for your pope in the Vatican. Your tithes go to rampant sexual abuse payouts. Wonder why? It's because the Roman sect inverted the Trinity with their false filioque doctrine. They teach error regarding the Holy Spirit, and thus they do not have the Holy Spirit.
Orthodoxy is not "stagnant". Narrow is the gate and difficult is the way which leads to life, and there are few who find it.
@@raymondvasquez6967 Invisible and visible church
I thought Bishop Barron was smarter than this? How can he honestly think any one man is infallibly holy ? Just because he’s alive doesn’t make him perfect. Thank you Father Peter for clarifying this important point. I respect you and the absolutely unparalleled discernment, wisdom and humility of the orthodox faith . ☦️
As a catechumen converting from papism, I've always wondered how it can be that really smart men like the local bishops and priests here have not converted to Orthodoxy. I guess they are comfortable and wilful blindness does wonders. Not to mention that there's more money when you're in union with Rome in my country because of how taxes are distributed to all the religious organizations (papists are the ones with the highest percentage of people among the population).
Nothing else other than Orthodoxy can withstand the test of simple research but you, of course, need to be willing to find the truth. If you already "have your truth", then you can research all you want and nothing will help you.
There is no doctrine that states the pope is infallibly holy.
@@TDL-xg5nn Canon law 1404 should suffice 😉. In Orthodoxy, any bishop can be judged by the Holy Synod.
@@TDL-xg5nn Yeah there is, its called Matthew chapter 16 verses 18 - 19.
And the man is fallible, the man is just a man (look at Peter, he was incredibly flawed). but the primacy and position of pope is infallible.
"And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."
@@ratatoskr9366Primacy and Supremacy are two completely different things. Orthodox believe in Papal Primacy. They reject Papal Supremacy and Papal Infallibility as the heresies they are. Pope Benedict XVI even admitted that the Orthodox view of Papal Primacy was the norm during the first millennium.
Thank you Pater. Great explanation. I am Greek Orthodox (born and raised) and this is exactly what I believe deep in my heart and soul.
Converting to Orthodox church soon the true catholic church
How can Orthodox Church be the true catholic church when they left the Catholic Church XD
thats like protestants saying their the true church of God.
@@ratatoskr9366 all non-catholic historians agree that rome left the orthodox faith and they excommunicated the patriarch of constantinople.
@@SimonSlPl Well that's a blatant lie haha your reading some biased sources buddy. I mean I learned about this in public school, the Great Schism of 1054, as in equal parts tearing away from each other.
And thats not even correct, the Pope excommunicated the Emperor of Constinapole, and in turn the Bishops of Constinapole excommunicated the Pope.
@@ratatoskr9366 Again you say that I'm lying when you yourself dont know what happened at the schism. Pope sent delegation from Rome and they excommunicated the patriarch of constantinople, while the patriarch didn't excommunicate the pope himself but the papal legates that were sent as delegation, so Rome is technically in schism.
@@ratatoskr9366They didn’t. Rome is the one that left. Research it and don’t just believe everything that the Catholic Church teaches! Look at all the things that were added since 1054! It will shock you. It is no where close to the First Century! However the Orthodox Church still is. The Early Church they were all Orthodox. They received the name Roman Catholic Church after THEY left Orthodox. The Orthodox Church still has the same Creed as originally, and many other practices. Catholic Church keeps getting further and further away from the First Century. The true Church would not do that!
i AGREE 100% , i born in roman catholic country and i always thought if you weren´t roman catholic you were protestant, Thanks the Lord showed me the way to the REAL ANCIENT CHURCH not the italian westernized one, all Glory to our lord JesusChrist ☦
You went to the dimmis of islam that the catholic church saved from.extention
You can judge a tree by its fruits.
Very good thank you father your blessing
The issue of the pope comes right to the front- because even as a catechumen of the Byzantine Catholic Church I would NEVER ask the current pope for advice on frankly anything. It has made me realize I must again search out a church home. Never did I think accepting Christ a year ago, by myself after reading the New Testament, would it be so excruciating to find my way. It is tragedy- I have made so many friends in so many denominations- please Jesus son of God have mercy on us sinners 😭
The one thing needful: to sit at the foot of Christ and pray ceaselessly. This can be done with fruit and profit when we are in the Church, communing, struggling, fasting, praying - under the direction of a spiritual guide. . . Leave the friendship of the world, leave the sentimental connections, and seek out the Truth with all your heart.
@@OrthodoxEthos amen 🙏 I strive towards this(fasting and prayer- the Jesus prayer and “not my will but Yours”- and am going to Divine Liturgy this Sunday At a Russian orthodox parish I found relatively nearby. Please pray for me that God grant me discernment and strength
Hey father I’m a eastern catholic and I have been having doubts about papal primacy I attended a Orthodox Church on Sunday and it was great. If you wondering Specifically I’m Chaldean Catholic
Thank you for being here, for reaching out and for seeking to go deeper.
We are here for you and all those on the path of salvation and desiring their true spiritual home, the only place that we can call our home, the Church, His Body.
God bless you! Let us know how we can help.
I converted from evangelicalesque Protestant to Eastern Catholic, logistically became EO but now realize I would be forced into sedevacantism as the RC organization is so apologetic to the socialist world order.
So he loves and pours over Orthodox theologians but has everything he needs in full without them. That makes no sense. It’s akin to an Orthodox Christian reading and loving the extant works of some of the more famed, early Muslim clerics in order to improve or enhance his faith.
The Pope in Italy is a far more "distant figure" than my spiritual father down the road.
Sounds like the "Pope" is equal with any Baptist "preacher".
As a Catholic (who views the orthodox are our twin brother), this is a pretty difficult arguments. I by all means respect the Orthodox church. I do believe that she too has 7 valid sacraments. But when it comes to this debate, I still stick firm in the need of a pope. Yes, I am open to the idea where councils are presented for making decisions, but I still believe in the need of one leader. I believe that is how Christ himself made it. From an orthodox perspective, they do not believe that Christ gave a higher authority to Peter. This leads me to wonder how the Orthodox than understand Matthew 16:17-19. What is the symbiology of Christ giving Peter specifically the key of heaven "to bound and unbound". I also am curious on what my Orthodox friends think about God giving authority to singular men previously (Like Moses etc.). Yes, one can bring up how there were others who helped make decisions with these specific men, but it seems clear to me that God chose one man to lead his people, in the old testament, and new. I find Pope Damasus I to be a prime of example of a Pope leading over men to all agree on something. The orthodox accept the same books that a catholic bible has. That would be implying that they accept the authority of the bishop who called upon the creation of the bible. Which the church teaches was a pope. The question isnt "why the orthodox don't support a one man pope authority, rather, have the orthodox before, ever submit to a pope? Have they ever used (still present or not), things thanks to a pope? Because if so, that would be implying the orthodox at some degree have/do acknowledge authority of the catholic pope. It is somewhat like an protestant religion, whom has things that can be traced back to Catholicism (such as the bible). I also want to emphasize that God again did chose men to lead his people. Very similarly to a pope. Keep in mind that a church needs a leader. One can see what protestantism has caused due to a lack of authority. Heck, there are multiple different orthodox churches out there. The desire to not have one earthly leader leads to councils who form new councils. Hence why I believe the church does need one rally point. That being the pope. That being the same reason why God chooses one man at a time to lead His people in the old test. Again. I greatly respect the Orthodox. I hope this comes off not as insulting.
@@FirstActuality "The keys that Christ gave to Peter were the keys to bind and loose sins, which are bestowed to every bishop"
Where in scripture or history did the Early Christian Church ever say that lol that honestly sounds like protestant BS to make up for the fact you guys are literally rejecting the gospel.
@@ratatoskr9366 You have to read Matthew 18 in conjunction with Matthew 16, the phrasing of binding and loosing is repeated but addressed to all the apostles. Orthodox have apostolic succession so I'm not sure how that is Protestant? If Bishops had no authority to bind and loose (delegated to their priests) then confession would be invalid without the Pope's ratification, don't you think?
@@FirstActuality Yes forgive my ignorance. Early Church history, Eastern vs Latin Rite traditions, and the history of the schism are immense topics I am beginning to research. As a layman I am finding that the truth is not so simple, and have come to the conclusion it takes years of study to even come close to fully understanding this topic.
Yes, the Orthodox Church has Apostolic sucession. No doubt about that.
Can you please cite which verse in Chapter 18? I don't see any connection that ch 18 has to be read with ch 16.
Matthew 16:18-19 clearly defines Peter's primacy for the Church. And it was Peter himself who founded the Bishopric in Rome. So the succession is clear as day to me. But I'd like to hear the Orthodox interpretation.
@@ratatoskr9366 no problem, these are difficult issues for sure. I think the main issue is that we have no problem with affirming the primacy of Rome as a historical see, but we don't accept its supremacy. These tend to get conflated in Vatican I and later RC teachings. We also reject the idea that the Roman see is indefectible, because in the view of our saints it has defected on dogmatic issues like the filioque. The particular verse is Matthew 18:18 which repeats the terms of binding and loosing.
I mean if all we need is a successor of Peter then we have the patriarch of Antioch, soooo we're good right?
That couldve totally been the case if you guys didnt leave God's church... oh well.
A “living voice of authority” has always been the Holy Spirit moving in history through the saints.. Jesus as the head of the church promised the Holy Spirit to guide it into all truth, not Peter or any apostle or any one bishop. It’s very telling that when Rome dogmatically subordinated the Holy Spirit they filled His spot with papal authority and hyper-Marian spirituality.
Please do a talk with Gospel Simplicity, he's kind ans really searching for God - Lord Have Mercy ☦️
They had a talk a year ago.
His channel has changed. It has taken on an anti-Orthodox bent lately.
@@LadyMaria political I expect
@@joer9156 Which should not be.
@@LadyMaria As far as I can tell, part of it seems to come from the way we phrase "outside the church there is no salvation", which he takes to mean that unless one joins the eo, they are going to hell 100% and without any doubt, regardless of their disposition or God's discernement. Now that is an issue that needs to be dealt with.
Very well said, Father; and much needed today!
Thank you Fr. Heers for this informative video. ☦️
God bless you all Christians. Catholic here. Our love for Jesus, God is primal. Peace be with you!
Born a Catholic turned Protestant, currently hooked on the Orthodox Church's Theology and Doctrine. I feel it has all the pieces I've always felt missing during all my years searching the real path.
Did you mean Orthodox Church theology?
lol this dude tried to act like he's buddy buddy with the Orthodox church, but if theres one thing Catholics and Orthodox can agree on, is their distaste for protestantism.
Become Confessional Lutheran.
@@OrthodoxEthos haha i did mean Orthodox Theology! 😅
@@dave1370 i miss wrote, bro, sorry. And no thank you. ❤
Amen! Thank you so much for this video!
There are some great points presented here. The Pope has been a political figure down through the ages and it remains that way today. That is and always has been the issue. The Catholic Church is modeled after the Roman Empire in its political structure. I keep thinking about the social influence of Constantine's reign in Rome.
Very well said. Orthodoxy remained true
Personally as an Orthodox I consider bishop Barron a very well educated man with a great love for Christ, as well as openness to dialogues with Orthodoxy. But of course when it comes to these topics wouldn’t expect another answer from him. Unfortunately he and many other brilliant men of the Catholic Church can not see this issue!!! May God bless and enlighten them!!! 🙏🏻
as a former Roman Catholic who is now a Biblical Christion - THANK YOU Fr Peter for your 'sound' doctrinal input
St. Paul to Timothy: “ the Church is the pillar and ground of the truth.” The CHURCH. Not Peter, not the Pope, the Church.
Thanks to pope francis I converted to Orthodoxy and find the truth ☦️
This is really interesting and something to ponder. The papacy is one of the things I'm struggling with when it comes to Catholic vs Orthodox. Because I absolutely love them both.
Listen to our lecture on the eighth Oecumenical Council. It’s in the series on ecclesiology.
I love your answer Father
"I'm a follower of John Henry Newman."
I thought we were supposed to follow Jesus Christ.
The man sounds rational, educated. But he is spouting heresy and lies.
Paul says follow me "as I follow Christ. We also follow Holy Saints as our trail blazers.
@@Dlee-eo5vv yes, of course. But that wasn't my point. JH Newman is not an Apostle, or one of the Fathers of the true Church.
@@rosehavenfarm2969 well said.
@@rosehavenfarm2969 Newman’s primary Orthodox rival was Doctor Julian Joseph Overbeck, an underrated voice in the Tractarian controversy and a key figure in my own journey to Orthodoxy.
Do not put Peter aside
"he who rejects you rejects Me and rejects the One who sent Me"
Church Fathers as distant figures? No wonder their Patristic heritage was ended in around 8th (or some say 12th) century. They view the fathers as outdated! This alone testify that we Orthodox don't share same appreciation, love and obedience with the Latins.
They don't even recognize contemporary fathers. While it is true that we consistently cite ancient sources, but at the same time we also never forget that Holy Spirit works in this very day until the end of time and beyond it to the eternity.
I considered becoming a Roman Catholic once, but thanks to Pope Francis, I didn't. I became a catechumen last year and was received into the Orthodox Church on May 4th.
I have returned to the Catholic Church having discarded it for most of my life. It was the ultimate truth of the bible and of Christ’s life that called me back .
I am a poor catholic in so many ways, I despair at how far church tries to adapt to modern life and values. It is the traditions that I want. I would love to go to an Orthodox Church and see whats what. The nearest one to me in UK seems a fair old distance though so is not realistic
Too far for the truth? 1 hr...? 2hrs? I mean if my salvation was in question perhaps the distance is worth it! But of course there are limitations and we must always do our best with what we have 😇
You should see how far some people in other countries WALK to get to the nearest Orthodox Church, passing other non-Orthodox churches along the way. My wife witnessed this in Africa back in the 90's.
I am Catholic from Spain. Most of Catholics feel a kind of attraction to Orthodoxy, specially lately , cause of this Pope and his tendency to be cool and modern against even the Bible. We the Catholics feel Orthodox as brothers in faith, even knowing that it’s not the same other way around. It’s a tragedy see the weakness of faith in western countries, it’s a tragedy too, not to have enough Orthodox Church in western countries, cause all of us, who believe in same God, who follow the Bible and are followers of Christ , we would go to Orthodoxy.
I’m rediscovering Catholicism after being away from the church for a while. I love this priest here. He seems to be a lot more straightforward than others. I also love my orthodox brothers and sisters out there! If the issue of the pope is the only thing we disagree about, that’s quite interesting. I view the pope as a figure head. Like I said, I’m still learning more, so my views might not be as in line with the church as I’d like them to be, but the pope seems like the final arbiter for issues regarding dogma. I don’t see any issues with this idea
It is not the only thing. The West has gone so deep into heresy through rationalism and humanism that I doubt they will ever be saved, but I pray for them nonetheless.
@@FinskijPravoslavnyj And where in the KJV Bible does it tell me how to be saved?
@@Ambassador-For-Christ 10 Commandments in the Book of Moses are a good start
@@FinskijPravoslavnyj I did not see anything about being saved in the TEN COMMANDMENTS. What if I should die before I learn how to be saved, am I gong to Hell??? Are you saved??? How do you know for a fact that you are saved???? What if you are headed for hell and don't know it??
@@Ambassador-For-Christ I do not know if I will be saved or not, neither do I know if you're unsaved, but one can make an assumption on the rules that have been given us. Ones works also give an indication of the level of their spiritual life.
Scriptures are not a living voice
The church fathers are not a living voice
I actually have huge respect for Bishop Barron, but that’s basically everything you need to know about his stance to be bothered by it.
The Holy Spirit speaks through scriptures, liturgy, prayer, early church fathers, through modern saints, and in daily life.
Fr Heers, you are a gift. I too am GO, RC tell their flock and to all Christians that there is no salvation outside the RC faith. It’s remarkable how they believe that and preach this fallacy. Only one needs to look up all the Popes and see the misery they lead. (Only a handful where good) there is the broken so called chain (broken) of Popes.
Love the videos. God bless you!
I am a catechumen and still learning myself. Some of the things I noticed but may need to be corrected on….
1. Palpal infallibility- Why would Christ have many apostles to begin with if this was true?
2. Follower of John Henery or Christ?
3. Appealing to the bible comment….
The Word! Is this not putting man above God himself since he is the Word? And is God not final authority? Does the Word ever change or is it the same no then and forever?
4. Church fathers distant? “ we are surrounded by a cloud of witnesses “
Are the Saints not alive in Christ?
All the gifts are given? “To one is given the gift of…”
MUHH KEYS! we are missing out on Clown Mass & Pachamama )::;;;;
Wow, that is literally blaspheming the word of God. And the liturgy in Catholic masses are also all from scripture as well, so to say its a "clown mass" is to also blaspheme.
lol so its official, Orthodox Christians are just as heretical as protestants. Have fun continuing to reject the gospel!
Thank you for a beautiful explanation
Bishop Barron is an incredibly erudite and intelligent gentleman, it is very sad to hear such weak arguments from his side against Orthodoxy. This just goes to show how the Roman Catholic Church is astray, being focused on servitude to their Pope rather than servitude to God. Bishops in the Orthodox Church are also living voices of authority, the difference is that we don't believe them to be infallable, as they are still mortal men with the same fallen nature like everyone else.
Infallibility is the gift of the Holy Spirit to the church vested in bishop of Rome to teach the church. Jesus is the ultimate head of the church, but Holy Spirit, who has spoken through the prophets, guides the church and speaks through the holy father.
Jesus explicitly said to Peter that he is infallible (Mathew 16). Peter and all the prophets are all mortal men.Also papal infallibility doesn’t denies the importance of the holy synod rather it completes the synod.
Even today, with 100s and 1000s of bishop from all over the world, we need a person (chosen by the Holy Spirit) who can be the protector of faith considering that bishops can be heretics. That is the universal nature of the church.
I don’t see Orthodox Church as a universal church, they are regional or national churches with distinct theology(especially christology) and having their own so called ‘apostolic synod’.🤷♂️ So the question to orthodox is ; which Orthodox Church is the true church?
Thank you..wonderful explanation and very important to distinguish
The only man I serve is the Jesus Christ, the Son of God, may he have mercy on us! ☦
For exactitude: it would be the divine-human bean, or the Theanthropos
@@OrthodoxEthos Then serve his word: Matthew 16: 18-19
"And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."
@@ratatoskr9366 well that for all the apostles just below when it was only for peter the say the text in verse 16. 23 Says in greek o δε στραφείς είπε τω Πετρω... Clear there in greek we see a distinction that is a say specific to peter if it wanted to be only for peter it would have said the same say in 16:17 that is an answer to the 16:15 λέγει αυτοις. As i said in greek all your theory collapse with the word in 16:23 to peter as___ στραφείς .
@@ΓραικοςΕλληνας Well 1. It's not a "theory", it's scripture.
2. Don't you guys have a "First among equals"? aka the Patriarch.
3. Would you mind translating the Greek? I am genuinely curious, and I assume you are trying to educate and not just showboat your linguistic knowledge. If that's the case, I'll start quoting scripture in Latin.
@@ratatoskr9366 first between equal is just a honor title he has no ruling authority on others
thank you fr peter for this video
With or without a Pope which church has slowly departed further & further from the original Way? Ask the Trad Roman Catholics...
I used to be roman catholic. I converted to the orthodox faith over a year ago. This is one of the main reasons why I changed. I'm happy and proud to call myself an orthodox christian ☦️
Vatican City. London. Washington, DC.
Beast System.
yeah, where did you find that?
At this point I'd put Davos in there as well. The WEF are openly the secular seat of Satan.
Thank you Father. Have Bishop Barron and you reached out to one another? It would make for an important dialogue, IMHO. Thank you and may God continue to bless your ministry and community.
Basically, the Church fathers and Christ words don't hold the same weight as the current Pope's. So do Christ and the Holy spirit not transcend time? Are they're words not eternal? What a very post modernist take the Roman Catholics have adopted. Clearly this catholic priest hasn't thought through what he is appealing too.
St Francis sought the approval of the Holy Father, as did St Clare, for their particular way and rule of life and poverty. That is a beautiful obedience, surrender and humility. Look at the blessings as a result. So many Franciscans around the world and Custodians of the Holy Land for 800 years!
Please consider further examination of the points made in the longer video about Francis of Assisi. That is entitled After 1,000 Years and it is on our Orthodox Ethos You Tube Channel
Should I copy and paste all the church fathers writings on the Papacy, within the first 300 years of Christianity?
@truly blessed 6 months later..
Orthodox Christians arguing against the papacy is akin to shooting your self in the foot. If you refute the need for the papacy, what arguments will you give to a protestant to explain the need for a priest?
As an orthodox Christian, you have sacraments where the priest stands in the office of christ. Take for example during confessions, it is not the priest that forgives sins, it is Jesus Christ, but the priest stands in the office of Christ to forgive sins. Also, during the Holy Eucharist, the priest stands in for the people, to perform the miracle of changing bread and wine into the body and blood of christ. If you believe in this, why do you have problem in accepting that there is a vicar of Christ on earth?
That being said, if you reject the office of the papacy because you say that Christ is ever present with us, and that he has poured out his spirit on all men, then you can go on to be full protestant. Why do you need priests?
Protestants reject all authority, and believe in the priest hood of all believers. Going by this a protestant believes that he can consecrate holy communion by himself even in his own house. He believes there is no need to confess to anyone, and that he can confess to God privately. So what is stopping you from being one?
In my 4 year journey of learning about historical Christianity and trying to discern the right path, there is much I've come to love about Orthodoxy, but I still struggle greatly with a few things.
The first is the fact that you Orthodox do not believe that a person can be truly saved in Christ outside of your church, and yet I have met many genuine Christians whose lives and hearts are changed by Christ.
I was told in order to become orthodox, I must agree to the statement that there is no salvation outside of the Orthodox church.
Yet your message to western catholics is to say that Christ is enough. As a Protestant I believe that, but perhaps He is only enough if you're Orthodox and nothing else?
Mush R. - Your points and questions beg further clarification as to meanings and whether you’re interested in receiving the Holy Tradition and submitting to it as opposed to standing and analyzing it and ultimately being a judge of it.
1. What is salvation? Is salvation Theosis?
Can one be saved outside of Christ? Is Christ identified with his Body?
To say there is no salvation outside the church, is a tautology: the church is salvation because the church is Christ.
2. Is there “your church” and “my church,” or simply the church?
Your reference to “your church“ may imply a protestant ecclesiology. So, essentially you would be trying to fit a round peg in a square hole. You have to come and understand the church on the basis of the 2000 year history and experience and tradition. You have to throw off your protestant conceptions to understand truly what the church is and has been understood to be for 2000 years.
3. Christ of course is enough. He’s all in all. He is the church and the head of it. Any idea of a pope over it or in place of him is indeed of this world and a forerunner to antichrist.
But when we say Christ is enough, this is not a minimalization or a reduction! God forbid! Far from it, or rather the opposite: it is a maximalist and exclusivist reality. Only in Christ which means only in the church which means only with the Eucharist.
We said in the video Christ in the Eucharist is enough. The Eucharist, however, presupposes orthodox faith and the continuation of Pentecost.
There are no “partial Christ”, no “incomplete church”, no incremental levels of communion IN AND WITH the person of Christ. He is all in all and therefore it is all or nothing. (Here we’re talking about Truth as the Person of Christ who is present in the church totally through and in the Eucharistic synaxis and ALL of the mysteries - which are all expressions of the ONE Mystery of the incarnation which continues in the Body of Christ.)
People outside of this experience certainly are led by God, by the Holy Spirit, in to whatever truth they have experienced and known. The action of the Holy Spirit, the grace of God, outside of the body, is very real, however it is not the same action, not the same energy and operation, as that which happens in the body, which presupposes initiation.
So to say that one is being led by and inspired by the grace of God outside of the church is not to then do away with the exclusivity of the church with regard to purification, illumination, and theosis.
One can obtain to great levels of knowledge of the truth, in the realm of ideas, and never be initiated into the Mystery of the incarnation. But that knowledge, that understanding and belief in Christ, is not transfiguration of the whole man, not deification of the whole man. Therefore, strictly speaking, not salvation.
If one wants to abandon this and talk about salvation as knowledge about or love for Christ alone, he departs from the Orthodox soteriology coming down from the Holy Fathers, such as from Saint Athanasius the great.
@The Orthodox Ethos
Thank you for your thorough response.
You might be surprised at how little protestanism I have left to throw off, and how very open I am to receiving something once I understand it and the teaching doesn't contradict scripture, though I am not even in the camp of strictly sola scriptura anymore.
There is so much beauty and richness to Orthodoxy that doesn't seem to be found elsewhere, especially when it comes to being transformed into the image of Christ.
But when a non orthodox muslim comes to truly believe in Christ and is changed, or a drug user is freed from addiction through repentance, faith in Christ, and the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, and he isn't Orthodox, would you say that at least, their initial salvation is real, even if you believe that salvation is a process in the Orthodox church?
But Father,, you say the pope at the head of the church on earth is heretical but you have patriarchs ruling your church. Is it because the pope can make infallible statements? What makes him the Antichrist to you? Why are your patriarchs not the antichrist as well? We Catholics agree that Jesus is the church and his head of the church. We believe he appointed a line of succession from Peter to today to oversee and manage the church. We believe in councils as well, which are called by the Bishop of Rome. There are several things you just did not address and it felt like you misrepresented our position. As a Christian surely you can agree that this is extremely dangerous to do. If you did miss represent Catholics I trust you will take the necessary steps to correct that.
Long Live Christ the King and Holy Mother Church! --Latin-Rite Catholic from Jalisco, Mexico
Fallen church .The orthodox church is the real ecclesia of Lord Jesus Christ
@@ΓραικοςΕλληναςa church so true it can't even set up an echumenical council... 😑
@@Phantom-xp2co well it shows your ignorance the Constantinople emporor held the ecumenical councils. No pope ever held any ecumenical council the first 1000 years
@@ΓραικοςΕλληνας and 1000 years have passed since the split.
The western church have found a solution to the issue, can't you guys be reasonable have an orthodox echumenical council?
It was Jesus Christ who chose Peter and Peter denied him three times. The Pope and Pope's are sinners like you and me yet they are chosen to be the Head of the church. May the Holy Spirit guide and bless him with his grace and blessings. 🙏
The head of the Church is Jesus Christ and Him alone. Neither Popes nor Bishops are heads of the church. How can fallible, sinful men be heads of the church? It makes no sense.
We don't need a pope. The Holy Spirit, the Comforter, is our representative on earth, accoring to Jesus.
yeah, then why did Jesus select Peter to lead the flock? what was the point of that?
@@artifexdei3671 Peter was never a leader of "the flock."
Peter was not treated as the chief of the apostles. When the church in Jerusalem appointed a pastor, they did not pick Peter.
Jesus told Peter that He, Jesus, was the rock on which the church must be built. And today the Christian Church is still built upon Jesus not a pope.
@@johnbrowne3950 obviously you have serious gaps in an understanding of what happened. Peter ran universal (catholic) church, not a local church in Jerusalem that was under James and James was in communion with Peter. When Jesus said the words upon this rock I will build my church, who were these words directed at? Himself? or Peter. over the centuries, many catholics have left the church to set up their own churches. why, b/c they didn't agree with something that the popes have been saying. end result: protestants being popes unto themselves, orthodox rejecting a notion of a leader, which is quite interesting as at the local level they have bishops.
@@artifexdei3671 Show me in the Bible where it says Peter ran the universial church. Chapter and verse please.
There are two different words used for rock in that verse. Thou art Peter ( Greek petros, small stone) and upon this rock, Jesus, (Greek Petra, large stone or rock) "I will build me church." He's telling Peter to build the church on the one, true God.
Further proof: "For they drank from the spiritual rock that accompanied them and the rock was Christ." - 1Corinthians 10:4
Also, the earliest church wasn't a Catholic church. It never existed then.
Only God can forgive sins.
There is no such thing as an unbroken line of popes.
A bishop must be the husband of one wife.
There were no priesthood.
No sacraments.
No veneration of saints and there was a warning of making and kneeling to graven images. The Catholic church removed that warning from the Second Commandment for obvious reasons.
The early church may have evolved into the Catholic church along with three other variatians which remain today.
It may have been Christian for a time but when it became the Roman Catholic Church it had become corrupted and political and many of its popes were vile people. The church added lies about Mary to take away Jesus' power.
The Vatican was Satan's den and things that have gone on - and continue to go on today prove the church is devoid of the Holy Spirit.
@@johnbrowne3950 Peter was the last voice in the first Council of Jerusalem when questions came up in regards to Jewish ritual laws and new gentile Christians. this points to the fact that He was viewed as having last word on the matters of doctrine. same goes for the pope today. now, not everything is in the Bible and what you don't realize that what you believe in today is a result of papal pronouncements over the centuries e.g. Holy Trinity - where is that in the Bible? provide a reference to words 'Holy Trinity' if you believe in Holy Trinity how is that the case? are you relying on popes rulings on this topic? waiting.
If you really think you need a living voice to settle disputes, then you have your own bishop, or (nearly local equivalent) Patriarch. Every kind of Orthodox Church has its own Patriarch, and if we have to define a universal / catholic answer to a difficult question, then we call an ecumenical council to discuss the issue in detail.
Having a single arbiter to pick one side in a dispute leaves us open to being led off track by one man's limits and problems. And elevating one Pope to be the final word lends itself to pride and arrogance, no matter how humble he may try to be. We already have enough "clericalism" to worry about. Jesus chose twelve disciples, not just Peter.
The problem with western Catholicism is the demand for obedience to authority. We should recognize deep spirituality as being compelling through our own conscience, not as authority based on position. The Pope should stand down and accept equality with the other Patriarchs of the Church, and let his voice speak wisdom, not declare his authority.
Why hasn't the current RC POPE reprimand the German Catholic church for LQBTXYZ blessings and allowing LQBTXYZ liturgies with rainbow flags?
Essentially, the problem with the Roman Catholic Church is that they treat St. Peter like a Western Re-Incarnating Buddha figure. Which is ridiculous. This was never the agreed upon belief in the first 400 years of Christianity. THAT is the problem.
Acts 15:28 is a perfectly Scriptural reason for why the Pope is unnecessary, since we have the Spirit of the living Christ to guide us across all truth, and disputes.
/geo ex machina
Yes, Acts 15 is the model for Church governance, synodal.
If I remember correctly it was James the Apostle who was presiding over the council of Jerusalem in Acts 15. There were several Ecumenical Councils where the Western Church wasn't even present. Interesting indeed.
Honestly, as a Catholic convert, I have developed an affection for the local Catholic Church. However, if a Pope speaks confusion and not clear Truth from the ages, the seat has the possibility of becoming a nightmare and burden. I love learning about Church history, thank you for sharing.
If there is a disagreement between the "saints of this day" in the Orthodox Church, how do you decide which one to believe and follow?
In dogma there is not or ever was.
After 1054 papist put in doctrine that was not in the church the first 1000 years
You believe & follow the one who is in accordance with Holy Tradition, of course. There is no novelty in Orthodoxy. We don't follow the teachings and opinions of individuals, we follow the teaching of the Church.
Roman Catholicism is in no better position when it comes to this. Synods are there for a reason, and have arbitrated many issues that later get received by all Churches.
That's why we have synods.
St. Peter: Christ is the cornerstone of the Church
Catholics: St. Peter is "the" Rock
One of these things is not like the other
St Peter is rock, just as other Apostles and bishops...
@Firstname Lastname Okay so yes, he is in that sense. I was making a joke about the Churches foundation
They do say he is "the" rock and ignore everything else
Please don’t take this as being mean, I’m not trying to be rude: if you want to truly argue against papal supremacy, Bishop Barron isn’t the one to go up against. It’s an unfair fight is what I’m saying. Bishop Barron isn’t the worst spokesman but he sure isn’t the best either. Most traditional Catholics would point you towards a more worthy opponent such as Timothy Flanders, Dr Peter Kwansnewski, or Bishop Schneider.
They are very deceived that their conception of Mary is equal to their salvation. I too was trapped there for a time, seeking salvation. It simply cannot be and is not. But a clear mark of the times we are in.
Glory to our Savior Jesus Christ.
Glory to our Father.
Glory to his Church.
Mary has an important role and has been given the "Full of Grace" title by an angel - it is well deserved and she spreads it to her children in the Church. Hell is afraid of her....
@@raymondvasquez6967 indeed.
How sad the Roman church is still in denial of the true church. Mother church of Greece is the one and only true church. Along with the Russian church that came after. Maybe one day the Roman church will finally understand and admit the truth. My guess is that because of pride, they never will.
No, the entire Orthodox Church is the true Church.
before greece, the first christian communities were in ancient Israel, Jesrusalem.
First John: "These things I have written to you concerning those who are trying to deveive you. As for you, the annointing which you received from Him abides in you, and you need no-one to teach you."
And this is in immediate context of John talking about those who are the anti-christ.
Monks like fr peter is why I left orthodoxy for Catholicism
He isn't a monk and why would Truth make you leave?
@@LadyMaria because it isn’t truth he’s just a mark of Ephesus larper even my orthodox priest told me not to listen to him lol glad im catholic
@@benedict7345 It is Truth, bold truth that people cannot take in this fragile climate.
You're not making Roman Catholicism look good with that kind of attitude. I could say some things about RC clergy but I won't. I used to be on the RC side of the fence. I'm glad I'm not anymore.
@@LadyMaria I can say the same thing about orthodox priest raping kids and it’s worse because most of them are married or about the orthodox monks thank rape kids and goats. I’m glad I’m not orthodox anymore thank God but really all I said was my orthodox priest told me not to watch him and you had to bring up something so irrelevant. Glad I’m staying at fence where God is and not the schismatic church
@@benedict7345 Did your priest also tell you to become RC? 🤡
I follow Jesus and his word. I’m not part of a denomination but I do study the history of the word and the context of the Old Testament and how it lines up with the prophets to the messiah and his coming. As being someone who uses the word as a foundation and trusting in Christs work on the cross it’s interesting to hear these denominational differences within these churches. I don’t plan on coming to either one of these churches since I am saved by Christ alone BUT I love my brothers and sisters in Christ and regard orthodox Christian’s as very interesting! I really like their views and stances on this topic. It’s very reasonable
Join the BODY of Christ. If you don’t have your mother the church, you don’t have God as your father
I was just speaking to my Deacon about this, I'm Eastern orthodox, the papists claim they follow the councils but ignore the 4th
The Papacy and its institution by Our Lord is a blessing. Christ not only gave his Body and Blood, his very life for the church that He builds, but he also gave the Church a share in his own infallibility in the Bishops in Union with the Papal Office. It is supernatural of which the Natural Man cannot know. Jesus is the head of the Body which is his church.
The Latin Church needs to return to the ancient traditions of true ecumenical councils. The pope needs to humble himself
One shepherd, One fold, One unity, One Universal (Catholic ) church with one Pope for all, and that's a MIRACLE. Good night
Praying for you and your Pope. May God have mercy on us.
@@nicodemuseam thanks
After reading Gospels the one thing should be clear.
Jesus Christ is Alive.