Just so everyone is aware, I have yet to delete any comments on this channel. In fact, I’ve actually released a few comments from the “RUclips comment jail.” If any comment has been deleted up to this point, it was due to RUclips’s content moderation settings, which I have since changed. I apologize for any inconvenience. I believe everyone should be able to be honest and say what they really think here. God bless!
Further Roman Catholic innovations involve the following: - The Filioque causes the Holy Spirit to be subordinate and leads the Trinity to no longer be coequal - Clerical celibacy as a discipline (was likely added due to clergy misusing funds of the church on their families) - Unleavened hosts (despite using leavened hosts for much of the first millennium) - Layman not taking both the bread and the wine - Communion on the had - Novus Ordo changed the Mass to be palatable to those outside Catholicism, the TLM is being phased out - Popes condemned interfaith gatherings, now they host them - Statues and paintings lost the theological and venerable purpose they once held
These are good points, thank you for mentioning them! I go into some of this in the next video to be released but those are all really good for people to know.
@@christopherpavesi7245 This isn't true, sadly. The Vatican still imposes celibacy upon Eastern Catholic priests who minister outside of their church's traditional territory. In some cases, Eastern Catholic bishops will simply ordain married men under the radar. I encourage you to look up the dispute between St. Alexis Toth and Bishop John Ireland.
@@christopherpavesi7245 Apologies, I wasn't aware that Francis lifted the ban in 2014. Nonetheless, the fact that Eastern traditions are subject to papal whims doesn't speak to any sort inter-ritual unity in Catholicism. I do agree that it is a beautiful, historic norm in the West. The Church should allow more breathing room for non-celibate clergy in the West, though, considering that the vast majority of the Catholic Church is Western Rite.
@@Metascetic - per the hypostatic union between His Human Nature and His Divine Nature the “parts” of Jesus - Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity - are worthy of Adoration. The prayer is known as “the conversion prayer” to which Our Lord, through private revelation to St Sister Faustina, promises to give the grace of conversion to whomever it is offered on behalf of. Salvation is available only through the Sacrificial Act of Jesus Christ.
@@Metascetic I don’t know if this will get to you or if watching it you would even understand what’s being talked about but I send it to you in the hope the grace of conversion granted to you will not be in vain. May God’s grace be your strength. ruclips.net/video/TYcEZuzBquE/видео.htmlsi=FgGQd6phAa3SUp0l
@@Metascetic I don’t see my earlier reply but to correct your misunderstanding of the prayer I offered: the Blood and Water of Christ which gushed from the side of Christ at His Crucifixion (for our salvation) is worthy of adoration precisely because “the parts” of Christ cannot be separated from the whole of Christ - His Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity - due to the hypostatic union of His Human Nature (composed of Body (blood and water) and Soul) with His Divine Nature.
Great video, I appreciate that you speak plainly. I also appreciate that you explain what some of the terms mean. Helps me get a greater understanding.
Mary did not have to be sinless so that Christ could be without Original sin. She had to be without sin so that she might say yes to God’s will and bear the Christ. She is without sin both original and actual so that she is both immaculately conceived and preserved in grace. The Roman Catholic Church did not make it up. The angelic salutation says hail one full of grace, one in whom Grace is complete (without sin). The title of Immaculate conception was confirmed by Mary herself when she appeared to St. Bernadette and declared her self as The Immaculate Conception. Thank you for the video. I am glad to see orthodox brothers and sisters sharing their understandings and being willing to hear that of Roman Catholics. Peace to you.
She didn’t have to be sinless to accept God’s will. That doesn’t follow at all. It’s God’s will that all be saved - taking the first step and being baptized into the Church, for example, is God’s will. And yet, one does not have to be sinless to do that. We do believe that Mary (or the Theotokos) is sinless, but not that she was BORN sinless. We believe she simply chose not to sin.
@@untoages Its a reference to Mary being without original sin, which was what allowed her to say yes to God, unlike Eve. She was obedient without thinking about it, she just did God's will inherently and without weighing the costs to herself (the ultimate death of her only child). Her faith was perfect. People like her are born, not influenced by the flawed societies they live in.
Indulgences 616. (124) What is an Indulgence? A. An Indulgence is the remission of the temporal punishment due on account of our sins which have been already pardoned as far as their guilt is concerned -- a remission accorded by the Church outside the sacrament of Penance. Your definition and that of the Catechism differ. I get that at a time, there were corrupt bishops that offered indulgences for sale, sure. But that’s not what an indulgence is. I can’t go to my bishop in the Diocese of Venice, FL, and ask him if he would sell me an indulgence.
One has to understand how he’s using the phrase “born in sin.” I would recommend two videos Bp. Irenei has done on Patristic Nectar on this topic - “are we born guilty of sin?” and “a further word on original sin.”
@@untoages I’ll put those on the “to watch” list. Separate question, whenever the “orthodox understanding” of something is mentioned, is that considered dogmatic? As in, could one hold to a western concept of original sin and still be an Orthodox Christian? The canons of the 7 councils don’t address this particularly ( I think) so the “understanding” is a general idea of some particular fathers, is it not?
@@AmillennialMillenial This is a good question, and I’ll try to answer it as best I can. In the west, dogma is very black and white, binary, either something is dogmatic or it is not. In the east, however, there are varying degrees. There are many things that are considered a part of Holy Tradition that are not “dogmatically defined,” as in its written in a creed or canon of a council somewhere. Yet, everyone who is Orthodox still believes said tradition. It’s more about acquiring the mind of the Church, the spirit or intuition of what is Orthodox and what isn’t. It’s a much more fluid and foreign concept for westerners like you and I, but Orthodoxy is also an “eastern” (or perhaps more accurately, “old world”) religion. At the end of the day though, I’d refer you to an Orthodox priest because he would be able to answer these kinds of questions more precisely. I hope this helps point you in the right direction though!
Please explain to me what the difference is between "obtaining enough merit to gain salvation" and climbing to the top of the Ladder of Divine Ascent in order to obtain salvation. Seriously, they both look the same to me.
@@hxplxss1835 That's like saying that the difference between green eggs and blue eggs is their color. They are still eggs. And anything you have to do to "obtain salvation" is a works-based salvation program rather than depending on the finished work of Christ.
@@IrishEddie317 That's because you are coming from a classically Protestant worldview. Can you not see how one is far more mathematical and cold, like an equation that needs balanced, whereas another is far more organic? Christ told us to do works. Faith without works is dead. We are to be judged of our works according to Revelations. Nobody believed in faith alone until 1500 years after the fact. The Bible doesn't teach it, an uninformed reading of it does. Luther didn't formulate this argument on truth, but rather as a protest of the Catholic system.
@@hxplxss1835 I am still trying to understand this, but in coming to believe in Universal Salvation, I believe that the way that this is presented is simply wrong. Salvation is accomplished. It is finished and done. That which Adam did to all mankind has been completely undone and reversed by the actions of the Last Adam (Romans 5: 12-19). God's will is to save all, not to take poor sinners who are sick with sin and make them jump through fiery hoops of performance so that they can "earn" what Christ has already done on the Cross. Here is the difference that I see. Catholicism and Orthodoxy both teach that you need to do certain works to obtain salvation., The Sacred Scriptures tell us that salvation is a finished work. So what then about trials, temptations, and the doing of good works? Remember when Christ spoke of "rewards" in the age to come? The choices we make here determine the rewards we shall receive in the next age. Furthermore, it is said in Revelation that believers shall reign as kings and priests. Well, who shall they reign over in the next age? Has to be someone, right? What if it is the people who did not do good works, who have no reward, who did not turn from evil? That seems like one plausible answer to me. BTW - Have you done enough good works to merit heaven? How do you know? Do you see the problem this creates? That is precisely what drove Luther out of his mind. He couldn't find rest in the mercy of God because he was always counting up his good works and hope they were enough for God not to smite him one.
@@hxplxss1835 "Can you not see how one is far more mathematical and cold, like an equation that needs balanced, whereas another is far more organic?" Western Christianity went wrong with Scholastic theology in the 12th century. They put "god" in a box not to exceed the size of the human intellect. Then the Protestants came along and said hold my beer - nothing but awful theology could ever come from that. It's the reason Western Christianity is an atheist factory today, and why moral subjectivity has taken over. I went from atheist to Protestant to Orthodox. I spent most of my life on the outside looking in. I've made and addressed all the arguments. Orthodoxy is the way. If you watch deconstruction videos, people are not walking away from Christianity, they are walking away from positions held by Reformed Theology. It's pretty much the same with the debates.
I’ve read a number of the comments and back and forth. Firstly, this is a great comments section. I appreciate the dialogue. Disclosure: I’m a Byzantine Catholic I think some of the talking past each other when it comes to the Theotokos is that I think orthodox attribute to Catholics a belief that Mary’s will is divine in nature due to the immaculate conception. Perhaps this is my own eastern influence in being Byzantine, but I’ve not known the doctrine to be this. She has a human will. She has to make the choice still to accept her pure role. She could only align her own will so fully to God’s as the spotless one. In an analogous way Jesus, becoming fully man and fully divine, still had a human will that was always aligned with the divine. He still had to face temptation as being fully man, and to overcome it, so that we may also see salvation in our likeness. Interested if this aligns with both my Roman and Eastern Orthodox brothers, or if because of the nature of eastern spirituality in the Catholic Church I don’t fit in either understanding. Mind, I’m a revert to the faith under a year, so my theology may not be spot on above.
I had a friend who ended up going the Byzantine Catholic route. From what I understand, there’s quite a bit of leeway that Rome offers those churches. To the point where it seems a bit contradictory to me, like venerating St. Mark of Ephesus, who condemned the Latins and called them heretics. That makes no sense to me. I elaborate a bit more on this in my previous video on the schism, but I’m glad you tuned in to this one!
@@untoages There is a goodly amount of leeway from what I’ve observed. To this effect, the papacy is perhaps not as monolithic as many EO might think it is in the doctrinal realm. There are doctrines we accept as a duty of the faith of being Catholic, as there are for the EO churches such as not endorsing Monophysitism for one simply example. We all have things within our faith that we accept on tradition and development of the understanding of how god has revealed himself to us. We see the justification for these as inheritors of this development, and accept their explanation. I have yet to find something within the C/EO differences that is so substantial in its difference as to drive me towards EO as being more certainly correct. To this effect, I believe Christ instituted his church on this earth, and my intent is to follow him as best as I can, wretched though I may be.
I’ve never encountered any orthodox that think Catholics believe Mary’s will is divine. I certainly don’t think that and I was born and raised Catholic. Was chrismated into God’s original apostolic Orthodox Church when I was 25.
Disclaimer: I hope these rebuttals did not come off as rude, I am merely trying to show you that we are not so different after all. I will be praying for you, please pray for me. These are not inventions by the Catholics. - Orthodox have purgatory by another name. We both agree there is likely a purgation after death for some souls before they enter heaven. This is all purgatory means. - The Immaculate Conception is just saying that Mary undid the sins of Eve through her obedience and that she was able to do so unhindered. Saying she is not without sin or is in any way sinful is great blasphemy against the Theotokos, and so to say she was born without original sin (which I believe the Orthodox have different interpretations of whether original sin exists) is no big stretch but a logical conclusion. - Indulgences, also, are not an innovation. They are exhortations by the Church for the faithful to pray and have repentance for sins, and as we all know penance brings you closer to God. Giving the faithful certain penances is not changing teaching in any way. Again, if St. Peter was given the power to loose or to bind here on Earth, then the Successor of Peter can also, as has been taught since the beginning of the Church. Christus Vincit / IC XC NIKA
This is why the Catholics are thought to not be Christians. JESUS is the one that paid for the sins of the world. No one else. Look into the litany of verses that say that. And look into the verses that say you can't earn your way to salvation. Jesus also told the disciples, when they couldn't cast out a demon, that they lost that ability because of their lack of faith. This tells us you can lose authority. Kinda like how yall say you can lose salvation. READ THE BIBLE!! All the info is in there.
I appreciate your charity here and covet your prayers. Unfortunately, these issues aren’t without their consequences. As I mentioned in another comment here, yes we Orthodox believe in a purgative process, but we do not believe in purgatory as-such. That doctrine is unique to the western church. We do believe Mary is sinless. As I said in the video, we believe she CHOSE not to sin, not that she was born unable to sin. It is a greater offense to say that the holiest saint in the Church was acted upon by something akin to the Reformed doctrine of the “irresistible grace” of God. If she couldn’t resist that grace of being immaculately conceived, why is she considered a saint? Under that view, she didn’t do anything. Indulgences WERE used to get people out of purgatory. That’s theological extortion so unfortunately, I can’t take it seriously. I appreciate your kindness (and actually offering a comment of substance), but there are many things that divide East and West. I went into some of them in this video, I addressed the issues of the schism in the previous video, and I have a few more things to address in the one coming out next week. Though I’m sure it will be difficult to listen to, I do hope you’ll tune in. God bless!
@@ethanmiller5487 yeah bud, I’m definitely not a Catholic apologist or anything, but if you know your history you should know your sect wouldn’t exist without Catholicism. By the way, you misquoted Jesus when referring to the demoniac - He said this kind only comes out by fasting and prayer. Perhaps that’s a good suggestion.
@untoages Read Matthew 17: 19-20 and Romans 3:23 In Matthew 28, Jesus commands us to follow all HIS teachings, nothing else. Jesus didn't teach on purgatory or Mary, so I can confidently conclude it's not important to salvation or what God wants us to focus on. This also means that if bringing it up (or any topic outside the Gospel) makes someone move further from Jesus, that's a sin. Something to ponder on.
@@hxplxss1835 There is nothing in the text that necessitates it being a simile. You can use the same construction in English to communicate something literal. I.e. “I arrived to work on time, but only as through speeding.”
@@christsavesreadromans1096 That sentence sounds stupid. Formulate me a sentence using as that necessitates the word after as and doesn't use it as mere comparison.
just out of curiosity, does the Orthodox or any other catholic church besides roman, have Eucaristic miracles?? Would love an answer and maybe point me to documentation! Thanks! :)
@@lukanikolovski5429 A Eucharistic miracle is an outward manifestation of Christs body, for example: the host starts to bleed. it happens sometime in the Roman Church, I was just curious.
@@lukanikolovski5429 Sorry, I mean the Eucharist starts to be bleed, also called the host for lack of a better term. It's an interesting phenomenon. In some cases, there's a physical change you can see, where the "host" transforms into bleeding flesh. For more on that, please check out Catholic Paranormal Podcast. :) I hope this clears things up. :)
@@connormacleod1490 Yes, but the seat of Peter is in three places, Antioch, Rome and Alexandria. And one of the three cities defected from the seat of Peter, Rome.
Orthodox believe in a purgative process, they just don’t make an official statement on it. As for indulgences, it was always a traditional teaching of both religions - but at one point Catholic priests and bishops were abusing the practice by asking for money for indulgences, but indulgences were mostly non-financial up to that point and after that point. Immaculate Mary as a dogma probably wasn’t the best time to dogmatize the idea since there are no tangible evidences for her sinlessness, but through typology of the Old Testament in light of the New gives the proper foundation needed to affirm the state of her soul. But unlike the Orthodox, they can’t officially recognize or affirm any authoritative teaching on their own - whereas the Catholic Church have the capacity and right provided by the Holy Spirit to teach and develop church teaching.
1. Yes, we believe in a purgative process but it’s not quite the same thing as what’s been proposed by the RC doctrine of purgatory. It’s also theological speculation and isn’t dogmatic in the way it is for Rome. 2. Yes there were indulgences for a time in the East, but my point in bringing it up in this video was A. The theological significance of an indulgence and B. The connection of that significance with the newly developed doctrine of Purgatory. 3. As I mentioned in the video, we believe Mary was sinless, but not immaculately conceived. This has to do with the difference in views between East and West regarding original sin. 4. Yes we can. We refer to the ecumenical councils and Church Fathers all the time. The Church in the first millennium functioned in a synodal manner, rather than the single-jurisdiction rule that evolved after the schism (see my last video on that). And we don’t need to invent new dogma to be the True Church or preserve the faith under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, that’s a complete non-sequitur.
@@untoages between the two attitudes of the universal church, our differences aren’t terribly significant. I still love my Orthodox brothers and sisters regardless because I would rather they hold fast to the apostolic teachings and traditions of Christ’s church than go Protestant. Catholics still utilize the orthodox approach of referring to ecumenical councils and church fathers only with a papal head to speak infallibly. The Pope can’t wake up one day and deny Christ’s divinity and have that statement be binding on the faithful no different than a rebelling sect of Orthodoxy.
"The Catholic Church runs on the power of the Holy Spirit to come up with new teachings" Yeah, because literally nobody else claims the same thing at all.
@@jackross5698 The last statement here is contrary to Catholic Teachings that the Pope is Infallible in Matters of Faith and Morals. So your example is contrary to RC Canons and Laws.
Isn't Joseph worthy of veneration/ worship too, for having abstained from ever consumating his marriage to Mary. If that's not 100% proof of supernatural power, I don't know what is
As a Protestant I have to wonder why it is so essential to believe that Mary never engaged in sexual relations with Joseph after Jesus was born. Is it because sex is such a vile and sinful thing that someone as pure as Mary would never stoop so low? If sex is so terrible why were Adam and Eve told to be fruitful and multiply?
@@sarco64 It’s because that’s the tradition that has been handed down and what the Fathers taught, that she was ever-virgin. We even see this in the passion narratives - Jesus tells St. John to take care of his mother. If she had other children, he wouldn’t do that. Sex isn’t a bad thing, but chastity and purity is a higher way of life - if one can live that way, as St. Paul says.
@@sarco64 It also would be blasphemous in a sense, to try and have children with the mother of God. No one would dare try that because the God-man came forth from her womb. How can that be topped? There are also prophecies about her in Isaiah about her perpetual virginity.
@@untoages But, Matthew 1:25 says that Joseph didn't have any union with Mary UNTIL after she gave birth to Jesus, and Luke in 2:7 refers to Jesus as Mary's firstborn, implying that others came after him. When you say that purity is a higher way of life aren't you implying that there is something inherently impure and shameful about sex even between a married man and woman? There does seem to be an attitude among many that it's fine for a man to want to engage in sex with his wife, but for the wife it should only be about fulfilling her duty to her husband, not something that she should find pleasurable because that would make her impure.
@@sarco64 Yes, but the word “until” doesn’t necessarily imply that they did. Jesus says “I will be with you until the end of the age.” Does that mean He’s going to cease being with us after? Again, this has to be put into historical context and understood the way Christians throughout history have understood and interpreted these passages. With regard to purity, the Orthodox Church blesses two paths - marriage and monasticism (celibacy). Both are good. Just because one good is better, doesn’t mean that the other is bad.
Mary was born without original sin, not sinless. Why is it so hard for you to believe that God can do anything, even preserving Mary from original sin.? You probably don't know this .But in the beginning, God had elected Mary and her Son in the scheme of salvation. Even the angel who appeared to Mary saluted her "Hail full of grace". To be filled with grace is to be in the opposite position from that of original sin.
I don’t think you listened to what I said in the video. I addressed the difference in the way East & West understand “original sin,” and that difference plays out in doctrines like the immaculate conception. God CAN do anything, but as I mentioned in the video, making Mary sinless by default robs her of her sainthood. THAT’S why it’s wrong.
@@untoagesThere is nothing in the Roman Catholic doctrine that says that Mary was incapable of sinning, or that she didn't have to make a choice not to sin. You have simply made that up. On the other hand, if the immaculate conception of Mary "robs her of her virtues", then what about Jesus? Is he also "robbed of all his virtues", because he was born without sin, and as being God, there is no realistic sense in which he could sin?
@@the4gospelscommentary If you think it was impossible for Jesus to sin, then you think He wasn’t fully human, which is heretical. After all, what is not assumed is not healed. Jesus, like Mary, had the capacity to sin, but chose not to.
@@untoages It is essential to the human nature that it is capable of sinning, and it is essential to the divine nature that it is not capable of sinning. In the case of Jesus Christ, his human nature is hypostatically united to the divine nature, and is thus deified. It is because of this, that Christ is not capable of sinning, although he is fully human. He is not capable of sinning, not inasmuch as he is human, but inasmuch as his humanity is united to the divinity.
The differences could and should be easily resolved. They have little to do with theology. They have to do with politics, power, and ego, on both sides.
This tends to be the RC disposition on the matter, and as much as I wish it were that simple, it’s clearly not. Rome has a lot of issues which stem from theological error.
@@erikriza7165 Those are a lot of words but they mean little. I’m Protestant, and I’ve benefitted deeply from talking and learning from Roman Catholics. I appreciate much of your work. Yet the theology between the Orthodox and Catholic is clearly distinct. There are differences not just ideologically, but in approach, in formulation, in paradigm, and, ultimately, in consequence. I think the Orthodox sometimes overemphasize differences where perhaps the differences aren’t quite as extreme but nontheless, that there are differences is immediately clear to anyone who’s spent time in the different buildings or monasteries.
@@josiahalexander5697 i think i agree with you. The differences are not insignificant, but Rome and Constantinople should have worked real hard and fast to figure out something. I really do not think the theology was the problem. It was geography, politics, and BIG egos, on both sides. There can always be different theological understandings, different pieties, different forms of liturgy, etc, without breaking communion. just like in Catholic Church there are different religious orders, like jesuits or benedictines who are very different, but not in essentials.
@@josiahalexander5697 i just take offense when someone says Rome has a "lot of issues which stem from theological error." By the way, i have some good friends who are Protestant.
The Catholic Church is not a "system". It is not necessary for you to distort or lie about the Catholic Church. If you are not willing to be honest, perhaps you should be silent.
@@hxplxss1835 The Catholic Church is not a "system". Catholic bashers like to use that word. I have heard it used that way before. And i am not being rude. What would you call it when someone talks falsely about someone's religion? Slander, calumny, lies, distortions? Is is out of ignorance? Culpable or invincible? Or is it out of malice? "Thou shalt not bear false witness"
@@erikriza7165 What did he say was false? He spoke truth, if your religion can't stand up to truth then it is false. Every religious sect is a 'system'. You're just grasping at straws to be offended.
@@hxplxss1835 pretty much everything he said about the Catholic Church was a lie. He did not speak truth at all. The Catholic Church stands up with Truth just fine. And you just like to antagonize and be hostile.
Seems like you just dont enjoy the prospect of someone nullifying Catholicisms theological arguments because they simply dont line up with the Bible. He never spoke a lie @erikriza7165
No, indulgences were not initially monetary, nor are they monetary now, and they were never meant to be strictly monetary. They could be monetary providing very specific criteria were met, but they were, an are, supposed to include things like pilgrimages, etc. A little bit of reading from the Catholic Catechism (Baltimore, Trent, and others) clears this misunderstanding right up, but naturally people can't be bothered. Judging this aspect of the RCC because of the actions of a few corrupt individuals is like judging middle America because of Brandon. "But we're not done (taking down Catholicism) yet!" Yeah, I'm sure you're not, lol. Get in line, because in case you haven't noticed we're everyone's primary target for our entire existence. We've been around for 2,000 years and we'll be around another 2,000 years, and all of the wet-behind-the-ears content creators who recently converted to whatever flavor of the month religion that isn't the one that built the western world can't change that - they don't call it the Universal Church for nothing. All due respect to my EO brethren (I grew up in a Greek neighborhood) but your Church is too fragmented to survive. You all need to come together, but you won't and its tragic. Yeah, the Catholic Church is far from perfect. Yes, we have a heretical Pope and Magisterium at the moment, all who oppress us trads and the Latin Mass. No, things are not good right now. But at least I'm not leaving Jesus because of Judas. 🙄 Meh, whatever. Somebody will probably delete this anyway.
Does it not concern you how rapidly the RCC is changing? I mean, you admit yourself that your pope and magisterium is heretical. Shouldn’t that be an indicator that the pope shouldn’t have the authority and power that has been ascribed to him over the years? I’m not saying this to dunk on you - when I was a Protestant, I felt bad for Catholics because of how much hate they got. But as I started looking into Catholicism, I began to understand the problems with how things played out in the west. These handful of videos are addressing my findings and why I personally couldn’t become Catholic. And I do feel bad for Catholics who have to jump through hoops to try and explain these issues to others. But why NOT consider the Orthodox Church? We all have to admit that it’s at least theoretically possible that we could be wrong in our judgements. All I’d say is to consider it. God bless.
@@untoages Dude, I lived in a Greek neighborhood with a growing Italian population (my family background is Lutheran/Calvinist, but my parents couldn't be bothered to bring me to church or have me baptized). I've seen both types of Christians and known them personally, and they've all told me about their churches. My husband happens to be a cradle Catholic and I converted because he had been a seminarian and is very devout and his faith inspired me. Perhaps if he had been Orthodox I'd have gone that way, but I certainly don't go around talking smack about the EOC because... *why?* _Who cares?_ You just sound like youre trying to convince yourself that you made the right decision, oh and by the way, here's why everyone else should make the same decision you did. Look, the Pope doesn't matter to me - I mean, he does, he's the Pope, right? But most of us just kind of ignore him. He's just a man who is full of sin (we're all sinners... maybe some more than other, not gonna lie), and while he governs the Church, he doesn't change Scripture and Tradition. He's just an 80+ year old man who's time on this earth is limited, he's not going to live forever and change will come. You know? Perhaps that change will be worse, okay, and maybe it will be better. We don't know. But again, Scripture and Tradition doesn't change, ever, and thats what I follow. I'm also an American with ancestry going back to the 17th century, but Brandon doesn't define my country for me - same thing! Some idiot sitting on a seat of power doesn't define that power, you see? The power defines him - or it should. Don't feel bad for us Catholics, please. I mean, I appreciate the thought, but its actually okay. We're going through our Passion just as Jesus did. We're carrying our cross right now, and when its all over we'll be holy. The saints up in Heaven are watching us, maybe even thinking to themselves that there isn't a better time to be Catholic than right now. Those of us who remain faithful in such an historic time when it may never have been worse will be saints one day too. Don't feel bad for us, be happy for us. So, I don't know, maybe continue making take-down videos of our religion, you're only helping us attain sainthood because we are doing literally nothing to deserve it, but we'll bear up under it with Grace every time.
@@untoages 🙄Good thing I copy/paste my comments. Let's try this again... Dude, I lived in a Greek neighborhood with a growing Italian population (my family background is Lutheran/Calvinist, but my parents couldn't be bothered to bring me to church or have me baptized). I've seen both types of Christians and known them personally, and they've all told me about their churches. My husband happens to be a cradle Catholic and I converted because he had been a seminarian and is very devout and his faith inspired me. Perhaps if he had been Orthodox I'd have gone that way, but I certainly don't go around talking smack about the EOC because... why? Who cares? You just sound like youre trying to convince yourself that you made the right decision, oh and by the way, here's why everyone else should make the same decision you did. Look, the Pope doesn't matter to me - I mean, he does, he's the Pope, right? But most of us just kind of ignore him. He's just a man who is full of sin (we're all sinners... maybe some more than other, not gonna lie), and while he governs the Church, he doesn't change Scripture and Tradition. He's just an 80+ year old man who's time on this earth is limited, he's not going to live forever and change will come. You know? Perhaps that change will be worse, okay, and maybe it will be better. We don't know. But again, Scripture and Tradition doesn't change, ever, and thats what I follow. I'm also an American with ancestry going back to the 17th century, but Brandon doesn't define my country for me - same thing! Some idiot sitting on a seat of power doesn't define that power, you see? The power defines him - or it should. Don't feel bad for us Catholics, please. I mean, I appreciate the thought, but its actually okay. We're going through our Passion just as Jesus did. We're carrying our cross right now, and when its all over we'll be holy. The saints up in Heaven are watching us, maybe even thinking to themselves that there isn't a better time to be Catholic than right now. Those of us who remain faithful in such an historic time when it may never have been worse will be saints one day too. Don't feel bad for us, be happy for us. So, I don't know, maybe continue making take-down videos of our religion, you're only helping us attain sainthood because we are doing literally nothing to deserve it, but we'll bear up under it with Grace every time. Hope this doesn't get deleted. Again.
“We’re going through our Passion just as Jesus did. We’re carrying our cross right now, and when it’s over we’ll be holy” I really liked this statement.
@@jmanuel722 Well thank you darlin'! I get so much hate for standing up for my religion (from other Christians too, which is shocking), that I braced myself before reading your reply. But that was really surprising, and sweet! I'll include you in my prayers tonight 💗
Unfortunately after a few minutes u have framed the entire subject wrong and you objectively need to do more research. Very disappointing since u made time to make the video and clearly haven't done enough work. Peace be to u.
@@hxplxss1835 "banal assertions," u have a death skull with a bishop mitre as ur thumb nail and alledge statements in ur video that are just plain wrong. Perhaps an Eastern Orthodox perspective would be valuable if genuine, but ur outclassed by ur own ignorance, and it's not out job to point these things out. However for example, ur summary on indulgences is a classic protestant summary and classically in error in not only understanding the subject but how it actually worked. It's the 21st Century, study harder.
@@captainmarvel76927 Dude, I'm not the account owner. The burden of proof was on you. Thank you for explaining, but initially doing nothing but stating with no explanation was pointless rhetoric. Explain what is wrong with the view on indulgences, you said it is wrong but now how. What is the correct view? Don't call me ignorant, I just find your comment so useless if you can't provide context.
@@hxplxss1835 if ur not the account owner then the comment isn't addressed to u. Actually the burden of proof is on the account owner since they are the one making the overall claims. We don't have to explain anything to you. If the account owner sees the comment they'll respond. And we know the likelihood of his answer, since how he described the matter has already been historically debunked. He knows better and if not, he is doing it on purpose.
Rome needs to acknowledge and repent of all its developed doctrine and heresy, dissolve the papacy, reinstate the liturgy of St John Chrysostom, and return to being a normal bishop amongst the patriarchates of the church of the first millennium- Holy Orthodoxy
Summit to Rome? St Augustine On “this stone” [petra], is on that which thou sayest: “Thou art the Christ, the Son of the Living God” it is on this thy confession I build My Church. Wherefore the “thou art Peter”: it is from the “stone” [petra] that Peter [Petrus] is, and not from Peter [Petrus] that the “stone” [petra] is, just as the Christian is from Christ, and not Christ from the Christian…Therefore it was not one man, but rather the One Universal Church, that received these “keys” and the right “to bind and loosen.” And that it was actually the Church that received this right, and not exclusively a single person (Sermon on Saints Peter and Paul, Paragraphs 1 and 2).St Augustine Matt 18: 15-20. This is one of many of what St Augustine said and one of many what the early church father's said. You need to listen to the Holy Father's of the church not one single man that is a heretic.
Puerile reasoning! You are determined to oppose Christ and His Church. Your obduracy is an obstacle to your salvation and redemption. Repent of your arrogance. Don't be disobedient to Christ. HC-JAIPUR (23/04/2024) .
Just so everyone is aware, I have yet to delete any comments on this channel. In fact, I’ve actually released a few comments from the “RUclips comment jail.” If any comment has been deleted up to this point, it was due to RUclips’s content moderation settings, which I have since changed. I apologize for any inconvenience. I believe everyone should be able to be honest and say what they really think here. God bless!
Further Roman Catholic innovations involve the following:
- The Filioque causes the Holy Spirit to be subordinate and leads the Trinity to no longer be coequal
- Clerical celibacy as a discipline (was likely added due to clergy misusing funds of the church on their families)
- Unleavened hosts (despite using leavened hosts for much of the first millennium)
- Layman not taking both the bread and the wine
- Communion on the had
- Novus Ordo changed the Mass to be palatable to those outside Catholicism, the TLM is being phased out
- Popes condemned interfaith gatherings, now they host them
- Statues and paintings lost the theological and venerable purpose they once held
These are good points, thank you for mentioning them! I go into some of this in the next video to be released but those are all really good for people to know.
Clerical celibacy is an ancient norm in the west and isn't imposed upon in any of the other 23 churches that are in union with the Roman Church.
@@christopherpavesi7245 This isn't true, sadly. The Vatican still imposes celibacy upon Eastern Catholic priests who minister outside of their church's traditional territory. In some cases, Eastern Catholic bishops will simply ordain married men under the radar.
I encourage you to look up the dispute between St. Alexis Toth and Bishop John Ireland.
@@ironogeist That was unfortunately true for a period of time in America alone but it is no longer the case.
@@christopherpavesi7245 Apologies, I wasn't aware that Francis lifted the ban in 2014. Nonetheless, the fact that Eastern traditions are subject to papal whims doesn't speak to any sort inter-ritual unity in Catholicism.
I do agree that it is a beautiful, historic norm in the West. The Church should allow more breathing room for non-celibate clergy in the West, though, considering that the vast majority of the Catholic Church is Western Rite.
You are doing God's work, thank you for that!
Very good points brother! 😊🔥
O Blood and Water which gushed forth from the Heart of Jesus as a fountain of mercy for us, I trust in you 🌹🙏
You cannot worship parts of Jesus or split Him into pieces and imaginatively pray to them
@@Metascetic - per the hypostatic union between His Human Nature and His Divine Nature the “parts” of Jesus - Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity - are worthy of Adoration.
The prayer is known as “the conversion prayer” to which Our Lord, through private revelation to St Sister Faustina, promises to give the grace of conversion to whomever it is offered on behalf of.
Salvation is available only through the Sacrificial Act of Jesus Christ.
@@Metascetic
I don’t know if this will get to you or if watching it you would even understand what’s being talked about but I send it to you in the hope the grace of conversion granted to you will not be in vain. May God’s grace be your strength. ruclips.net/video/TYcEZuzBquE/видео.htmlsi=FgGQd6phAa3SUp0l
@@Metascetic I don’t see my earlier reply but to correct your misunderstanding of the prayer I offered: the Blood and Water of Christ which gushed from the side of Christ at His Crucifixion (for our salvation) is worthy of adoration precisely because “the parts” of Christ cannot be separated from the whole of Christ - His Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity - due to the hypostatic union of His Human Nature (composed of Body (blood and water) and Soul) with His Divine Nature.
@@Metascetic it is Nestorian in nature
Great video, I appreciate that you speak plainly. I also appreciate that you explain what some of the terms mean. Helps me get a greater understanding.
Mary did not have to be sinless so that Christ could be without Original sin. She had to be without sin so that she might say yes to God’s will and bear the Christ. She is without sin both original and actual so that she is both immaculately conceived and preserved in grace. The Roman Catholic Church did not make it up. The angelic salutation says hail one full of grace, one in whom Grace is complete (without sin).
The title of Immaculate conception was confirmed by Mary herself when she appeared to St. Bernadette and declared her self as The Immaculate Conception.
Thank you for the video. I am glad to see orthodox brothers and sisters sharing their understandings and being willing to hear that of Roman Catholics. Peace to you.
She didn’t have to be sinless to accept God’s will. That doesn’t follow at all. It’s God’s will that all be saved - taking the first step and being baptized into the Church, for example, is God’s will. And yet, one does not have to be sinless to do that. We do believe that Mary (or the Theotokos) is sinless, but not that she was BORN sinless. We believe she simply chose not to sin.
@@untoages Its a reference to Mary being without original sin, which was what allowed her to say yes to God, unlike Eve. She was obedient without thinking about it, she just did God's will inherently and without weighing the costs to herself (the ultimate death of her only child). Her faith was perfect. People like her are born, not influenced by the flawed societies they live in.
@@untoagesshe was born sinless✅
We all have to follow God's will but that doesnt make us immaculately sinless since we need to repent.
Indulgences
616. (124) What is an Indulgence?
A. An Indulgence is the remission of the temporal punishment due on account of our sins which have been already pardoned as far as their guilt is concerned -- a remission accorded by the Church outside the sacrament of Penance.
Your definition and that of the Catechism differ. I get that at a time, there were corrupt bishops that offered indulgences for sale, sure. But that’s not what an indulgence is. I can’t go to my bishop in the Diocese of Venice, FL, and ask him if he would sell me an indulgence.
If the sins are forgiven, why souls are still being punished.? Preposterous.!
1. Never ask a Protestant to say the Lord's prayer
2. Never ask an Orthodox about the amount of Orthodox Churches
Doesn’t the St Ambrose quote give credence to the western idea that one is born with the guilt of original sin?
One has to understand how he’s using the phrase “born in sin.” I would recommend two videos Bp. Irenei has done on Patristic Nectar on this topic - “are we born guilty of sin?” and “a further word on original sin.”
@@untoages I’ll put those on the “to watch” list.
Separate question, whenever the “orthodox understanding” of something is mentioned, is that considered dogmatic? As in, could one hold to a western concept of original sin and still be an Orthodox Christian? The canons of the 7 councils don’t address this particularly ( I think) so the “understanding” is a general idea of some particular fathers, is it not?
@@AmillennialMillenial This is a good question, and I’ll try to answer it as best I can. In the west, dogma is very black and white, binary, either something is dogmatic or it is not. In the east, however, there are varying degrees. There are many things that are considered a part of Holy Tradition that are not “dogmatically defined,” as in its written in a creed or canon of a council somewhere. Yet, everyone who is Orthodox still believes said tradition. It’s more about acquiring the mind of the Church, the spirit or intuition of what is Orthodox and what isn’t. It’s a much more fluid and foreign concept for westerners like you and I, but Orthodoxy is also an “eastern” (or perhaps more accurately, “old world”) religion. At the end of the day though, I’d refer you to an Orthodox priest because he would be able to answer these kinds of questions more precisely. I hope this helps point you in the right direction though!
Great intro - do you have a contact email?
Thank you! And I do, I’ve been meaning to add it. Should be there now, check my channel about page.
But everything he said is wrong. It's the fake version of Catholicism protesters are taught
Please explain to me what the difference is between "obtaining enough merit to gain salvation" and climbing to the top of the Ladder of Divine Ascent in order to obtain salvation. Seriously, they both look the same to me.
Merit is a far more currency and material conception
@@hxplxss1835 That's like saying that the difference between green eggs and blue eggs is their color. They are still eggs. And anything you have to do to "obtain salvation" is a works-based salvation program rather than depending on the finished work of Christ.
@@IrishEddie317 That's because you are coming from a classically Protestant worldview. Can you not see how one is far more mathematical and cold, like an equation that needs balanced, whereas another is far more organic?
Christ told us to do works. Faith without works is dead. We are to be judged of our works according to Revelations. Nobody believed in faith alone until 1500 years after the fact. The Bible doesn't teach it, an uninformed reading of it does. Luther didn't formulate this argument on truth, but rather as a protest of the Catholic system.
@@hxplxss1835 I am still trying to understand this, but in coming to believe in Universal Salvation, I believe that the way that this is presented is simply wrong. Salvation is accomplished. It is finished and done. That which Adam did to all mankind has been completely undone and reversed by the actions of the Last Adam (Romans 5: 12-19). God's will is to save all, not to take poor sinners who are sick with sin and make them jump through fiery hoops of performance so that they can "earn" what Christ has already done on the Cross.
Here is the difference that I see. Catholicism and Orthodoxy both teach that you need to do certain works to obtain salvation., The Sacred Scriptures tell us that salvation is a finished work. So what then about trials, temptations, and the doing of good works? Remember when Christ spoke of "rewards" in the age to come? The choices we make here determine the rewards we shall receive in the next age.
Furthermore, it is said in Revelation that believers shall reign as kings and priests. Well, who shall they reign over in the next age? Has to be someone, right? What if it is the people who did not do good works, who have no reward, who did not turn from evil? That seems like one plausible answer to me.
BTW - Have you done enough good works to merit heaven? How do you know? Do you see the problem this creates? That is precisely what drove Luther out of his mind. He couldn't find rest in the mercy of God because he was always counting up his good works and hope they were enough for God not to smite him one.
@@hxplxss1835 "Can you not see how one is far more mathematical and cold, like an equation that needs balanced, whereas another is far more organic?" Western Christianity went wrong with Scholastic theology in the 12th century. They put "god" in a box not to exceed the size of the human intellect. Then the Protestants came along and said hold my beer - nothing but awful theology could ever come from that. It's the reason Western Christianity is an atheist factory today, and why moral subjectivity has taken over. I went from atheist to Protestant to Orthodox. I spent most of my life on the outside looking in. I've made and addressed all the arguments. Orthodoxy is the way. If you watch deconstruction videos, people are not walking away from Christianity, they are walking away from positions held by Reformed Theology. It's pretty much the same with the debates.
Copethlic.
I’ve read a number of the comments and back and forth.
Firstly, this is a great comments section. I appreciate the dialogue.
Disclosure: I’m a Byzantine Catholic
I think some of the talking past each other when it comes to the Theotokos is that I think orthodox attribute to Catholics a belief that Mary’s will is divine in nature due to the immaculate conception.
Perhaps this is my own eastern influence in being Byzantine, but I’ve not known the doctrine to be this. She has a human will. She has to make the choice still to accept her pure role. She could only align her own will so fully to God’s as the spotless one.
In an analogous way Jesus, becoming fully man and fully divine, still had a human will that was always aligned with the divine. He still had to face temptation as being fully man, and to overcome it, so that we may also see salvation in our likeness.
Interested if this aligns with both my Roman and Eastern Orthodox brothers, or if because of the nature of eastern spirituality in the Catholic Church I don’t fit in either understanding. Mind, I’m a revert to the faith under a year, so my theology may not be spot on above.
I had a friend who ended up going the Byzantine Catholic route. From what I understand, there’s quite a bit of leeway that Rome offers those churches. To the point where it seems a bit contradictory to me, like venerating St. Mark of Ephesus, who condemned the Latins and called them heretics. That makes no sense to me. I elaborate a bit more on this in my previous video on the schism, but I’m glad you tuned in to this one!
@@untoages There is a goodly amount of leeway from what I’ve observed. To this effect, the papacy is perhaps not as monolithic as many EO might think it is in the doctrinal realm. There are doctrines we accept as a duty of the faith of being Catholic, as there are for the EO churches such as not endorsing Monophysitism for one simply example. We all have things within our faith that we accept on tradition and development of the understanding of how god has revealed himself to us. We see the justification for these as inheritors of this development, and accept their explanation. I have yet to find something within the C/EO differences that is so substantial in its difference as to drive me towards EO as being more certainly correct. To this effect, I believe Christ instituted his church on this earth, and my intent is to follow him as best as I can, wretched though I may be.
@@untoages Byzantine Catholic largely follows the Eastern Orthodox tradition, only in communion with Rome. It makes up about 5% of the Latin church.
I’ve never encountered any orthodox that think Catholics believe Mary’s will is divine.
I certainly don’t think that and I was born and raised Catholic. Was chrismated into God’s original apostolic Orthodox Church when I was 25.
Disclaimer: I hope these rebuttals did not come off as rude, I am merely trying to show you that we are not so different after all. I will be praying for you, please pray for me.
These are not inventions by the Catholics.
- Orthodox have purgatory by another name. We both agree there is likely a purgation after death for some souls before they enter heaven. This is all purgatory means.
- The Immaculate Conception is just saying that Mary undid the sins of Eve through her obedience and that she was able to do so unhindered. Saying she is not without sin or is in any way sinful is great blasphemy against the Theotokos, and so to say she was born without original sin (which I believe the Orthodox have different interpretations of whether original sin exists) is no big stretch but a logical conclusion.
- Indulgences, also, are not an innovation. They are exhortations by the Church for the faithful to pray and have repentance for sins, and as we all know penance brings you closer to God. Giving the faithful certain penances is not changing teaching in any way. Again, if St. Peter was given the power to loose or to bind here on Earth, then the Successor of Peter can also, as has been taught since the beginning of the Church.
Christus Vincit / IC XC NIKA
This is why the Catholics are thought to not be Christians. JESUS is the one that paid for the sins of the world. No one else. Look into the litany of verses that say that. And look into the verses that say you can't earn your way to salvation.
Jesus also told the disciples, when they couldn't cast out a demon, that they lost that ability because of their lack of faith. This tells us you can lose authority. Kinda like how yall say you can lose salvation.
READ THE BIBLE!! All the info is in there.
I appreciate your charity here and covet your prayers. Unfortunately, these issues aren’t without their consequences.
As I mentioned in another comment here, yes we Orthodox believe in a purgative process, but we do not believe in purgatory as-such. That doctrine is unique to the western church.
We do believe Mary is sinless. As I said in the video, we believe she CHOSE not to sin, not that she was born unable to sin. It is a greater offense to say that the holiest saint in the Church was acted upon by something akin to the Reformed doctrine of the “irresistible grace” of God. If she couldn’t resist that grace of being immaculately conceived, why is she considered a saint? Under that view, she didn’t do anything.
Indulgences WERE used to get people out of purgatory. That’s theological extortion so unfortunately, I can’t take it seriously.
I appreciate your kindness (and actually offering a comment of substance), but there are many things that divide East and West. I went into some of them in this video, I addressed the issues of the schism in the previous video, and I have a few more things to address in the one coming out next week. Though I’m sure it will be difficult to listen to, I do hope you’ll tune in. God bless!
@@ethanmiller5487 yeah bud, I’m definitely not a Catholic apologist or anything, but if you know your history you should know your sect wouldn’t exist without Catholicism. By the way, you misquoted Jesus when referring to the demoniac - He said this kind only comes out by fasting and prayer. Perhaps that’s a good suggestion.
@untoages Read Matthew 17: 19-20 and Romans 3:23
In Matthew 28, Jesus commands us to follow all HIS teachings, nothing else. Jesus didn't teach on purgatory or Mary, so I can confidently conclude it's not important to salvation or what God wants us to focus on. This also means that if bringing it up (or any topic outside the Gospel) makes someone move further from Jesus, that's a sin. Something to ponder on.
@@ethanmiller5487”Read the Bible, all the info is in there.” I’m sure has been said by every heretic.
1 Corinthians 3:15 “..he himself will be saved, but only *as through fire”*
As is a simile, the church taught literal fire for many years
@@hxplxss1835 There is nothing in the text that necessitates it being a simile. You can use the same construction in English to communicate something literal. I.e. “I arrived to work on time, but only as through speeding.”
@@christsavesreadromans1096 That sentence sounds stupid. Formulate me a sentence using as that necessitates the word after as and doesn't use it as mere comparison.
@@hxplxss1835 Even if it “sounds stupid” you’d still understand exactly what it means. And the early church clearly believed in purgatory.
@@christsavesreadromans1096 The plain reading of the text yields nothing similar to what you said.
just out of curiosity, does the Orthodox or any other catholic church besides roman, have Eucaristic miracles?? Would love an answer and maybe point me to documentation! Thanks! :)
I dont think they believe the private revelations part since the way they believe in the eucharist doesnt formally include Transubstantiation
What do you mean by eucharistic miracles, we Orthodox believe in the real presence of The Body and Blood of Christ.
@@lukanikolovski5429 A Eucharistic miracle is an outward manifestation of Christs body, for example: the host starts to bleed. it happens sometime in the Roman Church, I was just curious.
@@richgehan2679 wdym the host? The priest starts to bleed? Do you mean the chalice?
@@lukanikolovski5429 Sorry, I mean the Eucharist starts to be bleed, also called the host for lack of a better term. It's an interesting phenomenon. In some cases, there's a physical change you can see, where the "host" transforms into bleeding flesh. For more on that, please check out Catholic Paranormal Podcast. :) I hope this clears things up. :)
Catholics got it right.
Proof? Trust me bro
@@pero33403 It is biblical bro. Where the seat of Peter resides, that is the one true church.
@@connormacleod1490 Yes, but the seat of Peter is in three places, Antioch, Rome and Alexandria. And one of the three cities defected from the seat of Peter, Rome.
@@pero33403 Alexandria and Antioch fell a long time ago when the muslims invaded. Rome still stands.
@@pero33403 and where were his direct successors seated...in rome of course.
Orthodox believe in a purgative process, they just don’t make an official statement on it.
As for indulgences, it was always a traditional teaching of both religions - but at one point Catholic priests and bishops were abusing the practice by asking for money for indulgences, but indulgences were mostly non-financial up to that point and after that point.
Immaculate Mary as a dogma probably wasn’t the best time to dogmatize the idea since there are no tangible evidences for her sinlessness, but through typology of the Old Testament in light of the New gives the proper foundation needed to affirm the state of her soul.
But unlike the Orthodox, they can’t officially recognize or affirm any authoritative teaching on their own - whereas the Catholic Church have the capacity and right provided by the Holy Spirit to teach and develop church teaching.
1. Yes, we believe in a purgative process but it’s not quite the same thing as what’s been proposed by the RC doctrine of purgatory. It’s also theological speculation and isn’t dogmatic in the way it is for Rome.
2. Yes there were indulgences for a time in the East, but my point in bringing it up in this video was A. The theological significance of an indulgence and B. The connection of that significance with the newly developed doctrine of Purgatory.
3. As I mentioned in the video, we believe Mary was sinless, but not immaculately conceived. This has to do with the difference in views between East and West regarding original sin.
4. Yes we can. We refer to the ecumenical councils and Church Fathers all the time. The Church in the first millennium functioned in a synodal manner, rather than the single-jurisdiction rule that evolved after the schism (see my last video on that). And we don’t need to invent new dogma to be the True Church or preserve the faith under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, that’s a complete non-sequitur.
@@untoages between the two attitudes of the universal church, our differences aren’t terribly significant. I still love my Orthodox brothers and sisters regardless because I would rather they hold fast to the apostolic teachings and traditions of Christ’s church than go Protestant.
Catholics still utilize the orthodox approach of referring to ecumenical councils and church fathers only with a papal head to speak infallibly. The Pope can’t wake up one day and deny Christ’s divinity and have that statement be binding on the faithful no different than a rebelling sect of Orthodoxy.
@@untoages Please not that indulgences in the East are different in nature and universality.
"The Catholic Church runs on the power of the Holy Spirit to come up with new teachings"
Yeah, because literally nobody else claims the same thing at all.
@@jackross5698
The last statement here is contrary to Catholic Teachings that the Pope is Infallible in Matters of Faith and Morals. So your example is contrary to RC Canons and Laws.
Isn't Joseph worthy of veneration/ worship too, for having abstained from ever consumating his marriage to Mary. If that's not 100% proof of supernatural power, I don't know what is
As a Protestant I have to wonder why it is so essential to believe that Mary never engaged in sexual relations with Joseph after Jesus was born. Is it because sex is such a vile and sinful thing that someone as pure as Mary would never stoop so low? If sex is so terrible why were Adam and Eve told to be fruitful and multiply?
@@sarco64 It’s because that’s the tradition that has been handed down and what the Fathers taught, that she was ever-virgin. We even see this in the passion narratives - Jesus tells St. John to take care of his mother. If she had other children, he wouldn’t do that. Sex isn’t a bad thing, but chastity and purity is a higher way of life - if one can live that way, as St. Paul says.
@@sarco64 It also would be blasphemous in a sense, to try and have children with the mother of God. No one would dare try that because the God-man came forth from her womb. How can that be topped? There are also prophecies about her in Isaiah about her perpetual virginity.
@@untoages But, Matthew 1:25 says that Joseph didn't have any union with Mary UNTIL after she gave birth to Jesus, and Luke in 2:7 refers to Jesus as Mary's firstborn, implying that others came after him. When you say that purity is a higher way of life aren't you implying that there is something inherently impure and shameful about sex even between a married man and woman? There does seem to be an attitude among many that it's fine for a man to want to engage in sex with his wife, but for the wife it should only be about fulfilling her duty to her husband, not something that she should find pleasurable because that would make her impure.
@@sarco64 Yes, but the word “until” doesn’t necessarily imply that they did. Jesus says “I will be with you until the end of the age.” Does that mean He’s going to cease being with us after? Again, this has to be put into historical context and understood the way Christians throughout history have understood and interpreted these passages. With regard to purity, the Orthodox Church blesses two paths - marriage and monasticism (celibacy). Both are good. Just because one good is better, doesn’t mean that the other is bad.
Mary was born without original sin, not sinless. Why is it so hard for you to believe that God can do anything, even preserving Mary from original sin.? You probably don't know this .But in the beginning, God had elected Mary and her Son in the scheme of salvation. Even the angel who appeared to Mary saluted her "Hail full of grace". To be filled with grace is to be in the opposite position from that of original sin.
I don’t think you listened to what I said in the video. I addressed the difference in the way East & West understand “original sin,” and that difference plays out in doctrines like the immaculate conception. God CAN do anything, but as I mentioned in the video, making Mary sinless by default robs her of her sainthood. THAT’S why it’s wrong.
@@untoages Why don't you guys actually read what a person says ? Please read my first sentence slowly looking at every word.
@@untoagesThere is nothing in the Roman Catholic doctrine that says that Mary was incapable of sinning, or that she didn't have to make a choice not to sin. You have simply made that up.
On the other hand, if the immaculate conception of Mary "robs her of her virtues", then what about Jesus? Is he also "robbed of all his virtues", because he was born without sin, and as being God, there is no realistic sense in which he could sin?
@@the4gospelscommentary If you think it was impossible for Jesus to sin, then you think He wasn’t fully human, which is heretical. After all, what is not assumed is not healed. Jesus, like Mary, had the capacity to sin, but chose not to.
@@untoages It is essential to the human nature that it is capable of sinning, and it is essential to the divine nature that it is not capable of sinning. In the case of Jesus Christ, his human nature is hypostatically united to the divine nature, and is thus deified. It is because of this, that Christ is not capable of sinning, although he is fully human. He is not capable of sinning, not inasmuch as he is human, but inasmuch as his humanity is united to the divinity.
The differences could and should be easily resolved. They have little to do with theology. They have to do with politics, power, and ego, on both sides.
This tends to be the RC disposition on the matter, and as much as I wish it were that simple, it’s clearly not. Rome has a lot of issues which stem from theological error.
@@untoages That seems to be an oft-heard position--anti-intellectual, non-historical, polemical, personal and inimical.
@@erikriza7165
Those are a lot of words but they mean little.
I’m Protestant, and I’ve benefitted deeply from talking and learning from Roman Catholics. I appreciate much of your work. Yet the theology between the Orthodox and Catholic is clearly distinct. There are differences not just ideologically, but in approach, in formulation, in paradigm, and, ultimately, in consequence. I think the Orthodox sometimes overemphasize differences where perhaps the differences aren’t quite as extreme but nontheless, that there are differences is immediately clear to anyone who’s spent time in the different buildings or monasteries.
@@josiahalexander5697 i think i agree with you. The differences are not insignificant, but Rome and Constantinople should have worked real hard and fast to figure out something. I really do not think the theology was the problem. It was geography, politics, and BIG egos, on both sides. There can always be different theological understandings, different pieties, different forms of liturgy, etc, without breaking communion. just like in Catholic Church there are different religious orders, like jesuits or benedictines who are very different, but not in essentials.
@@josiahalexander5697 i just take offense when someone says Rome has a "lot of issues which stem from theological error." By the way, i have some good friends who are Protestant.
The Catholic Church is not a "system". It is not necessary for you to distort or lie about the Catholic Church. If you are not willing to be honest, perhaps you should be silent.
It operates on a theological system, as do all churches and worldviews. You are being rude when he did nothing wrong in that regard.
@@hxplxss1835 The Catholic Church is not a "system". Catholic bashers like to use that word. I have heard it used that way before. And i am not being rude. What would you call it when someone talks falsely about someone's religion? Slander, calumny, lies, distortions? Is is out of ignorance? Culpable or invincible? Or is it out of malice?
"Thou shalt not bear false witness"
@@erikriza7165 What did he say was false? He spoke truth, if your religion can't stand up to truth then it is false.
Every religious sect is a 'system'. You're just grasping at straws to be offended.
@@hxplxss1835 pretty much everything he said about the Catholic Church was a lie. He did not speak truth at all. The Catholic Church stands up with Truth just fine. And you just like to antagonize and be hostile.
Seems like you just dont enjoy the prospect of someone nullifying Catholicisms theological arguments because they simply dont line up with the Bible. He never spoke a lie @erikriza7165
No, indulgences were not initially monetary, nor are they monetary now, and they were never meant to be strictly monetary. They could be monetary providing very specific criteria were met, but they were, an are, supposed to include things like pilgrimages, etc. A little bit of reading from the Catholic Catechism (Baltimore, Trent, and others) clears this misunderstanding right up, but naturally people can't be bothered. Judging this aspect of the RCC because of the actions of a few corrupt individuals is like judging middle America because of Brandon.
"But we're not done (taking down Catholicism) yet!" Yeah, I'm sure you're not, lol. Get in line, because in case you haven't noticed we're everyone's primary target for our entire existence. We've been around for 2,000 years and we'll be around another 2,000 years, and all of the wet-behind-the-ears content creators who recently converted to whatever flavor of the month religion that isn't the one that built the western world can't change that - they don't call it the Universal Church for nothing.
All due respect to my EO brethren (I grew up in a Greek neighborhood) but your Church is too fragmented to survive. You all need to come together, but you won't and its tragic. Yeah, the Catholic Church is far from perfect. Yes, we have a heretical Pope and Magisterium at the moment, all who oppress us trads and the Latin Mass. No, things are not good right now. But at least I'm not leaving Jesus because of Judas. 🙄
Meh, whatever. Somebody will probably delete this anyway.
Does it not concern you how rapidly the RCC is changing? I mean, you admit yourself that your pope and magisterium is heretical. Shouldn’t that be an indicator that the pope shouldn’t have the authority and power that has been ascribed to him over the years? I’m not saying this to dunk on you - when I was a Protestant, I felt bad for Catholics because of how much hate they got. But as I started looking into Catholicism, I began to understand the problems with how things played out in the west. These handful of videos are addressing my findings and why I personally couldn’t become Catholic. And I do feel bad for Catholics who have to jump through hoops to try and explain these issues to others. But why NOT consider the Orthodox Church? We all have to admit that it’s at least theoretically possible that we could be wrong in our judgements. All I’d say is to consider it. God bless.
@@untoages Dude, I lived in a Greek neighborhood with a growing Italian population (my family background is Lutheran/Calvinist, but my parents couldn't be bothered to bring me to church or have me baptized). I've seen both types of Christians and known them personally, and they've all told me about their churches. My husband happens to be a cradle Catholic and I converted because he had been a seminarian and is very devout and his faith inspired me. Perhaps if he had been Orthodox I'd have gone that way, but I certainly don't go around talking smack about the EOC because... *why?* _Who cares?_ You just sound like youre trying to convince yourself that you made the right decision, oh and by the way, here's why everyone else should make the same decision you did.
Look, the Pope doesn't matter to me - I mean, he does, he's the Pope, right? But most of us just kind of ignore him. He's just a man who is full of sin (we're all sinners... maybe some more than other, not gonna lie), and while he governs the Church, he doesn't change Scripture and Tradition. He's just an 80+ year old man who's time on this earth is limited, he's not going to live forever and change will come. You know? Perhaps that change will be worse, okay, and maybe it will be better. We don't know. But again, Scripture and Tradition doesn't change, ever, and thats what I follow. I'm also an American with ancestry going back to the 17th century, but Brandon doesn't define my country for me - same thing! Some idiot sitting on a seat of power doesn't define that power, you see? The power defines him - or it should.
Don't feel bad for us Catholics, please. I mean, I appreciate the thought, but its actually okay. We're going through our Passion just as Jesus did. We're carrying our cross right now, and when its all over we'll be holy. The saints up in Heaven are watching us, maybe even thinking to themselves that there isn't a better time to be Catholic than right now. Those of us who remain faithful in such an historic time when it may never have been worse will be saints one day too. Don't feel bad for us, be happy for us.
So, I don't know, maybe continue making take-down videos of our religion, you're only helping us attain sainthood because we are doing literally nothing to deserve it, but we'll bear up under it with Grace every time.
@@untoages 🙄Good thing I copy/paste my comments. Let's try this again...
Dude, I lived in a Greek neighborhood with a growing Italian population (my family background is Lutheran/Calvinist, but my parents couldn't be bothered to bring me to church or have me baptized). I've seen both types of Christians and known them personally, and they've all told me about their churches. My husband happens to be a cradle Catholic and I converted because he had been a seminarian and is very devout and his faith inspired me. Perhaps if he had been Orthodox I'd have gone that way, but I certainly don't go around talking smack about the EOC because... why? Who cares? You just sound like youre trying to convince yourself that you made the right decision, oh and by the way, here's why everyone else should make the same decision you did.
Look, the Pope doesn't matter to me - I mean, he does, he's the Pope, right? But most of us just kind of ignore him. He's just a man who is full of sin (we're all sinners... maybe some more than other, not gonna lie), and while he governs the Church, he doesn't change Scripture and Tradition. He's just an 80+ year old man who's time on this earth is limited, he's not going to live forever and change will come. You know? Perhaps that change will be worse, okay, and maybe it will be better. We don't know. But again, Scripture and Tradition doesn't change, ever, and thats what I follow. I'm also an American with ancestry going back to the 17th century, but Brandon doesn't define my country for me - same thing! Some idiot sitting on a seat of power doesn't define that power, you see? The power defines him - or it should.
Don't feel bad for us Catholics, please. I mean, I appreciate the thought, but its actually okay. We're going through our Passion just as Jesus did. We're carrying our cross right now, and when its all over we'll be holy. The saints up in Heaven are watching us, maybe even thinking to themselves that there isn't a better time to be Catholic than right now. Those of us who remain faithful in such an historic time when it may never have been worse will be saints one day too. Don't feel bad for us, be happy for us.
So, I don't know, maybe continue making take-down videos of our religion, you're only helping us attain sainthood because we are doing literally nothing to deserve it, but we'll bear up under it with Grace every time.
Hope this doesn't get deleted. Again.
“We’re going through our Passion just as Jesus did. We’re carrying our cross right now, and when it’s over we’ll be holy”
I really liked this statement.
@@jmanuel722 Well thank you darlin'! I get so much hate for standing up for my religion (from other Christians too, which is shocking), that I braced myself before reading your reply. But that was really surprising, and sweet! I'll include you in my prayers tonight 💗
Unfortunately after a few minutes u have framed the entire subject wrong and you objectively need to do more research. Very disappointing since u made time to make the video and clearly haven't done enough work. Peace be to u.
Instead of banal assertion, please explain how this is so.
@@hxplxss1835 "banal assertions," u have a death skull with a bishop mitre as ur thumb nail and alledge statements in ur video that are just plain wrong. Perhaps an Eastern Orthodox perspective would be valuable if genuine, but ur outclassed by ur own ignorance, and it's not out job to point these things out. However for example, ur summary on indulgences is a classic protestant summary and classically in error in not only understanding the subject but how it actually worked. It's the 21st Century, study harder.
@@captainmarvel76927 Dude, I'm not the account owner.
The burden of proof was on you. Thank you for explaining, but initially doing nothing but stating with no explanation was pointless rhetoric.
Explain what is wrong with the view on indulgences, you said it is wrong but now how. What is the correct view? Don't call me ignorant, I just find your comment so useless if you can't provide context.
@@hxplxss1835 if ur not the account owner then the comment isn't addressed to u. Actually the burden of proof is on the account owner since they are the one making the overall claims. We don't have to explain anything to you. If the account owner sees the comment they'll respond. And we know the likelihood of his answer, since how he described the matter has already been historically debunked. He knows better and if not, he is doing it on purpose.
The cross on top of the skull teaches theology. It means Christ’s Victory over death by the cross.
Submit to Rome!!!
Rome needs to acknowledge and repent of all its developed doctrine and heresy, dissolve the papacy, reinstate the liturgy of St John Chrysostom, and return to being a normal bishop amongst the patriarchates of the church of the first millennium- Holy Orthodoxy
Summit to Rome?
St Augustine
On “this stone” [petra], is on that which thou sayest: “Thou art the Christ, the Son of the Living God” it is on this thy confession I build My Church. Wherefore the “thou art Peter”: it is from the “stone” [petra] that Peter [Petrus] is, and not from Peter [Petrus] that the “stone” [petra] is, just as the Christian is from Christ, and not Christ from the Christian…Therefore it was not one man, but rather the One Universal Church, that received these “keys” and the right “to bind and loosen.” And that it was actually the Church that received this right, and not exclusively a single person (Sermon on Saints Peter and Paul, Paragraphs 1 and 2).St Augustine Matt 18: 15-20.
This is one of many of what St Augustine said and one of many what the early church father's said.
You need to listen to the Holy Father's of the church not one single man that is a heretic.
>submitting to a city in Italy
lol. Lmao, even
Puerile reasoning!
You are determined to oppose Christ and His Church. Your obduracy is an obstacle to your salvation and redemption.
Repent of your arrogance. Don't be disobedient to Christ.
HC-JAIPUR (23/04/2024)
.
I didn’t hear a rebuttal in that. I don’t oppose Christ or His Church because I’m in it.
@@untoages Says the schismatic!
Like I said, puerile.