@@luciobrazil007 This is a great vid. I know it is satire, but watch to the end. ruclips.net/video/LW-re8D3mB8/видео.html This is what killed all temptations of my becoming Catholic, as well as the knowledge of the events of 1066, and Rome’s changing the entire ecclesial structure of Ecclesia Anglia to fit their innovations.
@@luciobrazil007your argument makes no sense. Assuming RC is true then Orthodoxy is true aswell. The Roman Catholic church itself recognizes the Orthodox Church as a fellow true Church. Furthermore, considering the Roman Catholic Church says Orthodoxy is true, but the Orthodox Church doesnt say the same about catholicism, isnt it obvious that Orthodoxy is the only truth?
Good work Jay, I find it hard though not to mention the Essence/Energy distinction, the false doctrine of created Grace, the augustinian-based notion of original sin, the interdiction of the ordination of married men (though partly accepted for uniates, of course!) and the dissolution of the bond between Baptism, Chrismation and the Eucharist (including the heresy of communion in only one species and the interdiction pedo-communion). That would make a fine top 10!
As to the first two differences you see, I would respond with a couple of suggestions, one is that the heretical ideas that rose in the East and West were different, secondly language, being some of the sources of the way we see the Churches in the East and West respond and define some of the doctrines we share. There has been no rejection of the Eucharist being the true body and blood of our Lord in the East, but in the West there were attacks on this truth and Latins being more the legalistic center of the old Empire responded in the manner we see. However, nuance is still key. For example, little is discussed of the Latin belief (which I think Eastern Orthodox would agree with) that the Sacraments are the actions of Christ, entrusted to the Church, not the action the priest. The Eucharist at any validly celebrated Liturgy from a Patriarch down to the newest of priests is the same Jesus and is to use the Latin term Confected by Christ through His priesthood. As to the priest who becomes a Satanist example, I would pose that as the Latin Church teaches that for a valid Sacrament one has to have the Matter, Form and intention for a valid confection of the Sacrament. Now the supposition of some theologians on this is not a matter of Faith, however the bar for intention is pretty low in Roman theology. Put simply it is not dependent of the faith or worthiness of the priest, but that he intends to do what the Church intends. I would pose that if a priest who has defected to the devil celebrated the rites with the intention of using the Consecrated elements to worship Satan, that would not fall under what the Church intends to do, so no Eucharistic elements would be present. The Sacraments are not as I think Orthodox theologians would agree is not a magical rite, with magical words. As to the Theotokos being Co-Redemptrix first while many of us use it, it is not an official title and secondarily the title is often misunderstood, In 2 Corinthians St. Paul speaks of the Apostles of being workers with Him. In 1 Corinthians St. Paul refers to God's Co-workers. He even refers to himself as a co-worker with Christ. So the title Co-Redemptrix or Co-Worker does not in the sense of our Blessed Mother or St. Paul being equal in role or stature to Christ, or in the redemptive work of Christ. While the Orthodox Church would object to the idea that the Pope can in extraordinary circumstances make an infallible definition, it is I think important remember that when Pius XII proclaimed the Assumption, he did not define is she fell asleep or died, but only referred to when her time on earth ended. Catholics are free to believe that in imitation of her Son Jesus, she died, or that she simply fell into a deep sleep before she was taken up into heaven. I'll continue to listen and see what other ideas I perceive are a matter more of mutual misunderstanding of language and approach and less of difference in belief.
@@thekingslady1 My point is not that a bishop can be in error (because, essentially, that is what popes, archbishops, and bishops are- just depending on the size of their oversight), but that Peter bowed to not his own wisdom, but of the wisdom of the whole council of bishops, and of the whole Church. It is the gestalt of wholeness of the Body that preserves Truth, and the Council is the primary method of this expression, not one leader.
This answered some questions of mine as a born and bred Irish Catholic. ;-) Pope thing I was taught: “Thou art Peter, and upon this rock, I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.” Pope is human, Pope sins, Pope ain't perfect, but he has authority....Ex Cathedra as successor to Peter. I have not practiced for a long time, so I am unfamiliar with changing dogma. Your views are helpful here. 3-Seepio ;-) (potato / potato, let's call the whole thing off) I'm fascinated by the Cosmic scope; that resonates with me. Purgatory thing is a thing Catholics argue for with scripture. The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, proceed from each other. I see the confusion here. Catholics point to: “and he saw the Spirit of God descending as a dove, and coming upon him.” could not come down Son at His baptism man... lots to learn. thanks
In the East and the West there have been Liturgical Developments we take for granted, but don't really dwell on, considering that it's what always was, even when it was not. Many if not most Liturgical developments both Eastern and Western were to address issues that came up. For example, in the East, the use of the antimension. In the Early Church we see the Apostles and their immediate successors using wooden tables. Later as stone altars developed, a wood plank similar to the Latin Altar Stone was used, as they gave way to Stone, there arose in the East the Iconoclast Heresy. Out of this the antimension developed, and now even if one has an altar which is consecrated, with relics in it a priest in the East, be they Orthodox or Catholic cannot celebrate the Divine Mysteries without an Antimension, not simply because it is consecrated and has a relic, but because it is the visible sign of communion with the bishop under who the priest is authorized to celebrate and the parish under the omophorion of the bishop. When not celebrating in the Eastern Rite, I prefer the old Latin Rite, most who attend assume that the "Mass was always in Latin." But the reality is that the original Liturgy in Rome was in Greek, as that was the most commonly spoken language in Rome. The Kyrie and in the Holy Week Rites, the Trisagion, which is chanted in Greek alternating with Latin, are what remains of the Greek Liturgical heritage of the Roman Church, So too the Amen, Alleluia, and Hosannah are Hebrew and Aramaic. The use of the 42nd Psalm at the prayers at the foot of the altar, most assume always was, but prior to the Council of Trent, they were the private prayers of the priest and altar party as they processed into celebrate the Liturgy as the choir sung the Introit. Both the Liturgies of the East and West developed from simple beginnings to the point most of us assume dates in toto to the days of the Apostles, but in reality, have developed, as has the expounding of doctrine after the Church was freed from persecution and could dwell on the great mysteries (as well as the Seven Mysteries) which Christ Jesus left us. Developments are not the enemy when they confirm the Faith. Why is it important? The charges from this presenter that the Roman Church has developed doctrines not known to the East regarding our Lady, I feel are more based on misunderstanding. Fatima, and other apparitions and messages of Mary are considered by Rome as Private Revelations, not binding in conscious. Rome and the Local bishops have said simply, the messages do not contradict the deposit of the Faith and are worthy of belief, not binding or necessary to our belief. In the East the Icons which exude oil, are proofs of our Faith in God's goodness not a requisite of Faith. I think that if we pray for what Christ Jesus prayed for, that we all be one, rather than, that those folks over there become one with us, if we humbly ask God to change our hearts to seek first after Him, and pray that we are reunited, I went to the baptism of a nephew at a Greek Church a few years back, I was dressed in suit and tie, as I did not want to cause confusion or disrupt the rites by wearing my Roman Cassock. The Orthodox priest commented when I crossed myself (in the eastern fashion) and bowed low to the Eucharist reserved on the altar of his church, "How can you a Catholic priest do that?" I replied, you an I may have specks in our eyes, but I can see that the Christ on the altar here is the same Christ as in the tabernacle at the parish I serve in. We had a long conversation and found more in common than what divided us. We both recognized that there have been many rumors and distortions on both sides. A last comment on speaking for Catholics or Orthodox. First we used both terms in East and West prior to the Schism. Secondly the Creed (with or without the Filioque) we use is not the Creed of Nicaea, but the additions to it by Nicaea II, at the first it was decreed that nobody could add or change the creed, but when the Council of Constantinople modified the creed giving us the Nicean-Contatntinoplolian creed we both use (with or without the Filioque) it was not seen as a tampering with the Creed, but a clarification. So too in the West the Filioque while used in the west was not seen as binding on the East. Many an Orthodox priest I know agrees with the authentic Western understanding of the Filioque, (not presented here) but disagree in the Pope's right to add it. But again, it was imposed by the Patriarch of the Latins on Latins, not on the East... If the Eastern episcopacy can impose liturgical rites and prayers on the East, but not the West, why is it as big an issue as it has become? I know I seem to be rambling, and as is the tradition of the West, our clergy seem to be good at ensuring that when we talk, in a sermon or elsewhere, the hearers get the best sleep they have had all week. Pointing out differences is not bad, finding solutions and submitting to Christ our King is what discussions of the differences should be. Today in the west we read in the Gospel the story of the Wedding Feast in Cana. What strikes me of this Gospel is that it shows hidden in the text the Plan of God from all eternity for our redemption. It also shows our own resistance. God knowing from eternity that man having free will would make him of secondary importance and us and our desires the primary focus. But from all eternity He had us as the priority. His spirit hovered over the water; He cleansed the world through the waters of the Flood. Jesus used the water in the cisterns used for the ritual purification of the Jews to make wine. Water was used by Him to baptize us, and wine His first miracle He made into the blood used to redeem us, the same blood He shed on the cross. Reclaiming the union with Him has always been God's first priority, we need to make it ours too. I would suggest the discussion between a Protestant and an Orthodox theologian on the Filioque, I find most balanced, ruclips.net/video/Hd2Jnrb0ASg/видео.html
Wow, thank you father for your input and I love the way you show so much respect for the eastern brothers and some how do not denigrate your own faith as many Catholics are doing currently
Leo 3 explicitly forbade making an addition to the symbol of faith . The Council of Constantinople changed the creed because the ban was on the Third Ecumenical, and Constantinople is the second. A Catholic does not know history, as is typical.
Interesting stuff. I was raised Protestant but have recently become fairly well convinced that Sola Scriptura is completely incorrect. I’ve been reading a lot of Catholic literature and attending a Latin Mass near me, but I also want to learn more about Orthodoxy as well. Unfortunately, there doesn’t seem to be anywhere near as much apologetic work for Orthodoxy as there is for Catholicism. (Trying to find an Orthodox equivalent to Trent Horn’s “Case for Catholicism”) Reading suggestions would definitely be appreciated as would prayers. I just want to find where God needs me to be.
As to Pope Honorius, well I'm not a professional historian and don't play one on TV, however there is a bit of controversy regarding what the Council did determine and some of the allegations, some scholars believe that the documents which charge him were forgeries as they follow the exact wording of the deposition of Theodosius, what we do know is that when Patriarch Sergius wrote asking Honorius opinion (to put it mildly) on the issues surrounding monothelitism, rather than making a firm statement of his own, he replied that he felt Sergius had not done anything wrong, and supported the Patriarch's actions. Neither a strong support or denial of Papal Infallibility or Jurisdiction. Given that there is confusion about what really happened, and if there was in fact falsified information in the charges against him, and that there were bishops and Patriarchs in the East including the controversy of Patriarch Bartholomew and a threat of Pan-0rthodox deposing of him, the recent striking of the Patriarch of Constantinople from the Diptych by the Patriarch of Russia, with a large gathering of Orthodox Patriarchs and bishops, in accord, I think we need to rather than pointing fingers take a fresh look to see if there is any validity to the charges, and try to sort out if it is of historical value to re-surface the charges, or if they are a red herring.
I was raised as a Roman Catholic; my grandparents were Greek Catholic from Galicia (Carpatho-Rusyn from the Austro-Hungarian Empire). Is there a distinct difference between Greek Catholic and Russian or Greek Orthodox?
I wanted to leave the Catholic faith as well, but im glad i stayed. Fight the fight. I still love you my Orthodox brothers though! Really dear to my heart like Bishop Marmari even though some don't recognize him.
Tremendous work, Jay. Very clear and concise! Thank you for these! Say man, couple of questions: There's a book that consistently sits over your right shoulder in these videos who's spine shows either a Christ figure or some saint (note the halo). What is the title of that book, please? Also, would you happen to have a book recommendation on the topic of anthropology from any Orthodox authors? Thanks!
Not sure you’ll get this after 2 years, but look up Fr. Damascene Christensen’s artica, “The First Created Man” for a summary of Orthodox anthropology. It was publishes in a volume of The Orthodox Word from St. Herman Press and as an appendix in the complication of Fr. Seraphim Rose's Genesis book.
Hey Jay, you should make an animated video like in a Kurzegaht yt channel-style explaining this stuff so it’s easier to follow/listen to for non-followers/religious people like me.
Your theology is a bit deep for my understanding. I really want to understand the differences. I haven't been to a RC church for many years due to many reasons too numerous to list. I feel drawn to Orthodoxy, and I've also missed a spiritual community.
I’m Catholic but very interested in learning the truth between orthodox and RC. These are THE two ancient churches in our Christian history and I just want to learn as much as I can before making a “full” decision on which I am. God bless you all, we are all brothers and sisters in Christ! Dont let sect names discourage you from loving everyone around you🙏
Jay, that was absolutely brilliant in how you broke it down with the early capadocians and the councils in regards to church liturgy in the first 1200 years of the church and literally how Roman Catholicism changed or added to the original creed; in addition the powers of the pope who again was no more than the Bishop of Rome; NOT a vicar of Christ. I believe that it wasn't canonical interpretation which caused the schism but pride on the hands of the Latin West. Historically it's evident when you observe the influence of the Frankish rule in Rome.
Quote - 13:44 - 15:41:,,In the Eastern Church Fathers and even from Irenaeus up unto Athanasius and into St.Cyril and into the Cappadocians and up into the fifth and sixth centuries you get a very clear notion that Christ assumed universal human nature and this is the basis for why all men are going to be resurrected. That doesn’t mean that all men are saved. Right? This is not a statement of universalism. It is a statement about nature being assumed, human nature being assumed by Christ in His single divine hypostasis. All of human nature is in one sense assumed, contained within His single divine hypostasis and full human nature. So, in that sense that’s how these eastern fathers all argued all of humanity will be resurrected, even the wicked. And for the Western tradition from St. Augustine on you’re going to have problems in their theology explaining how and why the reprobate are resurrected. Why would they be resurrected when they have no connection to Christ? And concomitant with this is the loss of the importance of the Descent of Christ into hades and the harrowing of hades. And this will eventually lead to difference from the time of say, Anselm, on and not just Anselm but Anselm laying the foundations of the Protestant doctrine and understanding of penal substitution. So, by the time of Anselm and by the time of Reformers the Latin Church and the Protestant offspring of its mistakes with further mistakes, is a good example of how Orthodoxy has a completely different understanding, not totally, I shouldn’t say completely but a vastly different understanding because we have a juridical term, right, and a juridical language is used. But we don’t reduce the doctrine of the atonement to strictly legal and juridical categories and that’s what eventually happens in the West with Protestantism.“ Surely the West has either neglected or rejected, or does not understand the meaning of the Incarnation which is related to God’s plan for the theosis (deification by grace) of all men, hence the omission of the idea of the recapitulation of all through the assumption of the human nature by Christ. But that does not mean that the penal substitutionary atonement in its legal sense is not Orthodox. If it was a Western deviation, it would have been condemned by the Orthodox exactly in the polemics through the centuries with either the Roman Catholics or Protestants because it was in those occasions that the false teachings of the West were described in detail by the Orthodox and condemned. But if we look at the polemics between the Orthodox and the Western Christians, we will see no where a condemnation of the legal understanding of the penal substitutionary atonement. It was started being rejected in the 20th century by the Orthodox modernistic theologians and since then began becoming unfortunately widespread. The PSA was not condemned by St.Photius in 867 his encyclic when he condemned the fallacies of Rome (which had not yet fallen from the Church but the deviations that were a reason for its fall were already embraced by Rome) - the celibacy of the priesthood, the rejection of the validity of the chrismation made by priests, the fasting on Saturdays, the heretical Filioque addition in the Creed. But he does not mention the legal penal subsitutionary atonement in its legal understanding. In his 1444 Encyclical letter St.Mark of Ephesus who opposed the establishing of an union with Rome, mentions among the fundamental heresies of the Roman Church the Filoque, the addition to the Creed, the claim for the supremacy of the pope, the celebrating of the Eucharist with an unleavened bread, the purgatory, the moment of the consecration of the Blessed Sacrament. But he does not mention among the fundamental heresies of the Roman Church the penal substitutionary atonement. In his 1570s' letters to the Lutheran theologians of Tubingen, Patriarch Jeremias of Constantinople (1572-1595) does not mention, especially in his commentaries on the Augsburg confession of faith, the legal aspect of the penal substitutionary atonement as a false teaching of the Lutherans. The Constantinopolitan Council of 1583 condemned the innovations of Rome but does not mention among them the legal understanding of the penal substitutionary atonement. The Pan-Orthodox Council of Jerusalem of 1672 which condemned Calvinism and the total depravity of the unregenerate man, and affirmed the eternal procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father alone, also does not mention as a heresy of Western Christianity the legal understanding of the penal subsitutionary atonement. The Council of Constantinople of 1838 also condemned the innovations of Rome and again did not mention the legal understanding of the penal substitutionary atonement. The Patriarchal encyclical from 1895 by the Constantinopolitan Patriarch Anthimus VII (1895-1896) from 1895 which is a reply to the Papal encyclical of Pope Leo XIII (1853-1903) Praeclara Gratulationis publicae (On the Reunion of Christendom) summarizes the heretical deviations of the Papacy but does not mention the legal understanding of the penal subsitutionary atonement. It is evident that the legal understanding of the penal substitutionary atonement was never rejected until the 20th century which shows that is is originally an Orthodox teaching.
Yes, the Holy Fathers speak about the recapitulation (of course not in the sense of an universalism) but they have not rejected the idea that the resurrected will be resurrected for judgement. For example, St.Irenaeus mentions the recapitulation in ,,Against heresies“, Book 5, 25.1: ,,He has therefore, in His work of recapitulation, summed up all things, both waging war against our enemy, and crushing him who had at the beginning led us away captives in Adam, and trampled upon his head…“ But nevertheless he rejects the teaching of the gnostic dualistic Marcionites who saw contradiction between retributive justice in God and His love and so divided God into two gods - one who punishes and one who loves. St. Irenaeus of Lyon says (Book III, Chapter 25): … 2. Again, that they might remove the rebuking and judicial power from the Father, reckoning that as unworthy of God, and thinking that they had found out a God both without anger and [merely] good, they have alleged that one [God] judges, but that another saves, unconsciously taking away the intelligence and justice of both deities. For if the judicial one is not also good, to bestow favours upon the deserving, and to direct reproofs against those requiring them, he will appear neither a just nor a wise judge. On the other hand, the good God, if he is merely good, and not one who tests those upon whom he shall send his goodness, will be out of the range of justice and goodness; and his goodness will seem imperfect, as not saving all; [for it should do so,] if it be not accompanied with judgment. 3. Marcion, therefore, himself, by dividing God into two, maintaining one to be good and the other judicial, does in fact, on both sides, put an end to deity. For he that is the judicial one, if he be not good, is not God, because he from whom goodness is absent is no God at all; and again, he who is good, if he has no judicial power, suffers the same [loss] as the former, by being deprived of his character of deity. And how can they call the Father of all wise, if they do not assign to Him a judicial faculty? For if He is wise, He is also one who tests [others]; but the judicial power belongs to him who tests, and justice follows the judicial faculty, that it may reach a just conclusion; justice calls forth judgment, and judgment, when it is executed with justice, will pass on to wisdom. Therefore the Father will excel in wisdom all human and angelic wisdom, because He is Lord, and Judge, and the Just One, and Ruler over all. For He is good, and merciful, and patient, and saves whom He ought: nor does goodness desert Him in the exercise of justice, nor is His wisdom lessened; for He saves those whom He should save, and judges those worthy of judgment. Neither does He show Himself unmercifully just; for His goodness, no doubt, goes on before, and takes precedency.‘‘ St.Basil the Great says in his first canon that Marcionites are heretics:,,Heresies, on the other hand, are such as those of the Manichees and Valentinians and Marcionists, and that of these Pepuzeni themselves, for the question is one involving a difference of faith in God itself.“ The Qunisext Ecumenical Council of Trullo (692), says in its Canon 95 that Marcionism is a heresy:,,…And the Manichaeans, and Valentinians and Marcionites and all of similar heresies must give certificates and anathematize each his own heresy, and also Nestorius, Eutyches, Dioscorus, Severus, and the other chiefs of such heresies, and those who think with them, and all the aforesaid heresies; and so they become partakers of the holy Communion.“
Pope Francis, well here not a big fan. However, I would be remiss in not pointing out that the Roman position on indefectibility, Infallibility and all things grandiose relate to the Office of the Pope when he teaches as Pastor and makes a statement authoritatively, So far his statements that trouble me, or that get a spin from the press which sounds heterodox have been private opinions, and not binding to Catholics. Despite his office, he is a human, with all the faults of any other human. As I stated, not a big fan, I do pray for him and all bishops, (Orthodox and Catholic) as sometimes translations from the original language, and cultural context can be a bit difficult, I know this personally as I come from a family background that is multi-lingual and mutli-cultural, and what one person takes for granted, other misconstrue not knowing the language and cultural meaning of some terms and phrases. I think that applies to many of the misunderstandings between the East and West. One example would be the "Documentary" a few years back, in it there was video of Pope Francis, endorsing homosexual behavior. It hit all the major news agencies and contradicted some of the other statements that the Pope had made, in which he called such sexual behavior sinful, but also called for compassion and love of the sinner and hate for the sin. Almost a year later the makers of the documentary came out publicly and admitted that as homosexuals they had a goal of getting the Pope's approval for the lifestyle and had manipulated the video editing it to have Pope Francis appear to say something he did not. I know I tend to be long winded but grant me this as an example that I use in discussing the language of the Sacred Scriptures. I tell people that my grandfather (born in Salonika Greece) and my father both had jet black curly hair until they were 40 years old, at which point they were completely bald. I now at 65 am mostly bald. Then I ask them to describe the hair on their head at age 50. Most will answer that they had no hair on their heads. But the reality is their hair was just as full as in their youth, what changed is that their hair went from jet black to grey or white. Bald is an antiquated English word that still means to have white or grey hair, it is still a valid definition, even if only used to describe Bald Eagles or persons in history who had the title X the bald, having white hair. It is for this reason that I try to read and learn from both sides where the opinions and objections for the other come from, before making a final determination.
I’m curious, if the sacraments aren’t valid outside of Orthodoxy, what is the Orthodox view on, say Catholic Eucharistic Miracles? My gut is that if the Roman Catholics were willing to fake things like the donation of Constantine, pretend the whole three Pope thing was okay, then they’d be willing to make up some other goodies to appear to be legitimate. Jay do you have any works related to these alleged miracles?
@@thekingslady1 he mentioned how Orthodoxy doesn’t view sacraments outside the Orthodox Church as valid, so I’d imagine Jay has thoughts on the topic I mentioned.
@@thekingslady1 that wasn’t the main thrust of Jay’s video, no, but he said this: “The Orthodox Church traditionally does not believe that the Eucharist, for example, is a key example, exists outside the visible institutional church”. Jay is a pretty faithful guy to the Orthodox Church so I’d be shocked if he disagreed with that sentiment.
Orthodox Churches do not agree among themselves about the validity of my Roman Catholic baptism and confirmation. I cannot receive either sacrament a second time. It's a fairly obvious barrier to me joining Jay Dyer in the Orthodox Church. I would also need to abandon my belief in the sainthood of John Fisher, Thomas More and others which looks to me like an abandonment of orthodoxy in the usual sense of the word. I'll concede the point that King Henry VIII would probably have received a pat on the head from this Pope, but heading for the Orthodox Church does not look like much of a solution. I trust that I am not calumnifying the Pope, but cannot help but notice that the bishops of Malta and the bishops of Kazakhstan appear to have different interpretations of Amoris Laetitia, and I had been hoping that the Pope would co-ordinate their teachings.
Point # 1 - does orthodoxy accept the Eucharist of the Catholic church? If i understood you correctly, a heretic cannot "confect" (pardon the Latin expression....) the Eucharist. But Catholics hold to the filioque. Which i think the orthodox woukd consider very firmly a dangerous heresy. Phoning a friend here...
The evolution of the doctrine of the Papacy feels like a hyper emphasis on six degrees of separation. My priest is affiliated with the right bishop, arch bishop, cardinal and pope; who is then affiliated with Peter who is to Christ and the Father. The key linchpin pin in that chain being the Vicar of Christ in Rome. It is their focus above all things for without the Pope, the entire manufacturered structure topples.
So what makes you "right"? Proof? I would love to see an Orthodox priest debate a Catholic. And before anyone starts casting aspersions, I am neither but I am curious as to why each group thinks that THEY are right.
@@Charlie5225 God lives outside of time. He simply applied the merits of His Son from the cross - which from God's Eternal Perspective happened from the beginning of time, you can look at it that way - to Mary at her Conception in St. Anne's womb. There is nothing impossible for God to do! Mary is called "The Mystery og Mary" in The Catholic Church. We are not called to understand everything. We are called to believe what has been revealed and continue to submit to Mystery.
Is the Orthodoz priesthood of Levi? I'm decompressing from Protestantism...we had Melchizedek and Levi, Jesus came in the Melchizedek line as his superior, but by no means did this destroy the Lecitical line, correct? They did serve and still serve to separate functions? Any good articles or talks on this would be hugely appreciated.
It seems the implication of Mary as the Co-Redemptrix presented mirrors the objection of the Protestants. Neither are anywhere near what those in the Roman Communion would mean or imply by the title. The assertion is that Romans would elevate Mary to the equal of Jesus. But all we need do is look at St. Paul where he likens himself to being the Co-worker of Christ, 2 Corinthians 6:1. We would never interpret the passage to read, I Paul am equal to Christ. No, we see co-worker as meaning a worker who works under the authority of Christ, inferior to Christ. So too the title of Mary as Co-redemptrix cannot refer to an equal to Her Son. When a priest baptizes, he is a co-worker of Christ because of his cooperation with Christ in salvation. How much more than us is Mary a Co-Worker and Co-redemptrix than any of us? There are many an orthodox teaching of the Church which was debated, not because they were not true, but because of fear that others would imply something they did not mean, but they were defined because to not do so would be a greater crime by not teaching truth over error, than the few who would wrongly attack the orthodox teaching out of their ignorance of it's meaning.
I have a question, why can orthodox christian remarry when their ex’s are alive or widowed ? why alive, isn’t that anti biblical ? (please help, new convert)
@Boris Rovcanin Is that Christian Orthodoxy or Catholic Orthodoxy? I ask this way because Catholicism is not Christianity in the sense of it's origin. The original Christians were, according to scripture, Jewish disciples of Christ Jesus. To me and I speak not for everyone, but, I see so many features of Catholicism in many branches of the religious world of Christianity.
@@andythompson6622 First it's good to realise that what is conventionally known as Catholicism today is a deformed version of Christianity. So if they keep some practises or teachings from the early church which they broke off from, it doesn't mean those practises and teachings are wrong. You're right that the first disciples were Jews. But as the scripture teaches, the coming of the Messiah would bring the conversion of people of many different nations, which is what happened after the earthly life of Christ.
@@dikaioskyrios Then you would agree that the early believers could in no way transition their beliefs into what God was doing, especially during Pentecost. My thing is that what is at the front for "Christianity" is not what the Jews were practicing; i.e sainthood by working miracles, praying to the deceased especially to help transition them into a better afterlife. "It's appointed unto man once to die, and then the judgement". Some other sects have those things that was not even a part of what the Apostles admonished the Gentiles abstain from. Do you see what I'm saying?
@@andythompson6622 Just because that group known today as the 'catholic church' practises something, it doesn't mean it is necessarily wrong. They *broke* *off* from the original Church (body of believers sanctified by the Spirit) which means that whatever correct things they hold to, they *retained* from that original Church they broke off from
Now to the Papacy and the Universal Jurisdiction of the Pope in Rome. First there is a clear development of most every doctrine that we see in both East and West, the main reason Councils were called and continue to be needed is to address heretical teachings and give definitions of what orthodoxy is. So too there are many opinions to be found among the Fathers, one cited in the video is St. Irenaeus, but the Fathers statements and the letters to the Roman Patriarch from the East to settle issues are not limited to the few cited by our presenter or by scholars who write textbooks we read. I would also opine that after the Last Supper, when the Apostles are trying to determine who would sit at the right hand of our Lord in His heavenly kingdom, our Lord tells us that there will be twelve thrones, showing the significance of the position of the Apostles, then He singles out Peter, telling us, "Satan hath desired to have you, that he may sift you as wheat: But I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not: and when thou art converted, strengthen thy brethren." Not a direct appointment to Universal Jurisdiction, however it does show a special role of Peter toward the other 11. Logic would lead us to believe that as one Apostle, Peter was singled out here, so too of all the Sees which Peter founded, Alexandria, Antioch and Rome, as well as any other local Churches founded by him, as there is only one Peter, and one Christ Jesus, there is only one See that speaks with that same authority Christ Jesus seems here to be speaking of with regard to Peter's role of strengthening his brethren.
John 14:28 (KJV) 28 Ye have heard how I said unto you, I go away, and come again unto you. If ye loved me, ye would rejoice, because I said, I go unto the Father: for my Father is greater than I. The Father is greater than the Son.
John 14:26 (KJV) 26 But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you. Looks like the Father and the Son here.
I thought that there is neither male nor female in heaven other than Christ and his church. At least with respect to those who are born of Adam. So how is Mary a woman in heaven?
Yes, but aren't we all to have the mind of Christ, whether male or female? Aren't woman to lose their tendency to vanity, as men would lose the same towards self-satisfaction - such that we meet in the spirit as equals? Why would one remain with the instincts of motherhood? Aren't we all to be like children?
@Boris Rovcanin the bible as we know it is a collection of books that were written over centuries (about 500 years for the Old Testament and another 200 or so years for the New Testament). The bible was compiled by men who picked and chose among the manuscripts available to them (probably several hundred) and selected the ones that they thought should be included in the bible. And that agreement was hardly unanimous. Looking to the Old Testament even the major religions can’t agree on how many books should be included. The Jews have 24 books, the Protestants 39, the Catholics 46, and the Eastern Orthodox have 51. Which one is correct? But it’s important to recognize that you don’t have the original texts. You don’t even have copies of the originals. What you have are copies of copies of copies of copies of …. you get the idea. And every time a copy was made there was an opportunity for copyist errors to creep in - especially since in many cases the copyist didn’t speak the language they were copying. (Originally in Hebrew with Aramiac in some parts to Latin to Greek then to English & others language). Worse yet it provided the copyist with an opportunity to amend the text to agree with their own personal orthodoxy. And then come to translation errors. There are plenty.
@Boris Rovcanin the Bible references cited might not be exactly as the Bible you are using. There are MANY Bibles on the market that are used by different Christian sects and all of these sects say that their book, though different, is the word of God. Such Bibles are: The Revised Standard Version 1952 & 1971, New American Standard Bible, The Holy Bible; New International Version, the Living Bible, New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures used by Jehovah Witnesses, RCV and the KJV. I have not found in any of these Bibles where the "New Testament" calls itself the "New Testament," and nowhere does the "Old Testament" call itself the "Old? Testament." Also, the word "Bible" is unknown within the pages of the Bible. In addition to the many different Christian sects and Bibles, I have learned that there are also different men, not Prophets, who founded these sects and are using various interpretations of the Bible and/or man-made doctrines as their creed. I would like to share with you some thoughts that you may not have read or known about the Bible being the word of God. Briefly, let me mention that on September 8, 1957, the Jehovah's witnesses in their "Awake" magazine carried this startling headline - 50,000 Errors in the Bible. If you ask a Jehovah's witness about this headline, it may be said that today most of those errors have been eliminated. How many have been eliminated, 5,000? Even if 50 remain, would one attribute those errors to God? Let me pose another question: if a "Holy" book contained conflicting verses would you still consider it to be Holy?
@Boris Rovcanin There has never been in the history of the Torah (Old Testament) the religion of God to be named after a Prophet (i.e. Adaminity, Abrahamity, Mosanity, etc.) Jesus did not preach the religion of Christianity or claim he is God, but a religion that gives all Praise and Worship to The One God. Where did the word Christianity come from and was the word ever mentioned to Jesus? Well, I did not find the word Christianity in the Bible, not even in a Bible dictionary. Specifically, I did not find in the Bible where Jesus called himself a Christian or God. The word Christian was first mentioned by a pagan to describe those who followed Jesus. It is mentioned one of three times in the New Testament by a pagan and Jew in Antioch about 43 AD, (Acts 11:26, Acts 26:38 and 1 Peter 4:16) long after Jesus left this earth. To accept the words of pagans as having any value or association with divinity, Jesus & God is contrary to the teachings of all Prophets.
For 2000 years Christians have been debating over the concept of God since their doctrine is a MODIFICATION of some teachings: 1. A sprinkle of monotheism 2. Hinduism: Gods incarnate become human 3. Pagan Egyptian: God Osiris died and rose. 4. Pagan Near East: Sin purification with animals' blood. One's sins could be removed by transferring his/her sins to a goat. Then the goat was killed. That's why Christians are always confused about - Why God prayed to God - Why God didn't know when the doomsday - Why God cried out loud on the cross for something that he had planned. - Why sin atonement was accomplished through killing and with the help of evil deeds (Judas' betrayal &false accusations of Jewish priests) This is AGAINST the holiness of true God and ethics. If God's teaching is MIXED with others' teachings, then it's called SYNCRETISM RELIGION.
Its been said elsewhere but I'll say it again, loving the shorter clips.
I don't always have 3 hours for a debate. 10-30 minute videos are brilliant.
You don’t like four and half hour jay dyer videos? Lol. Some videos are so long its like a college course
Agreed
I need an alien to twerk for me
@@bstring3967I like them too.
As a Protestant follower definitely interested in Orthodoxy I love your videos. Keep doing these this is great
IF YOUR CHRISTIAN, YOUR INTERESTED IN TRUTH OF THE CHRISTIAN FAITH. Stay away from all the false prophets since Martin Lutheran !
@Zechariah Ahlthe “scripture” you refer to was compiled be man, more specifically orthodox Christian’s after the death of Christ
@david-468 You have no understanding of Christianity. Keep trolling turd.
As a former RC for 36 years and now Orthodox, you nailed it. Great explanation, Jay.
Apostate, you will regret that
@@natashski9866 the Ethiopians are non chalcedonians and thus heretics
@@luciobrazil007 This is a great vid. I know it is satire, but watch to the end.
ruclips.net/video/LW-re8D3mB8/видео.html
This is what killed all temptations of my becoming Catholic, as well as the knowledge of the events of 1066, and Rome’s changing the entire ecclesial structure of Ecclesia Anglia to fit their innovations.
@@M1911zz orthodox is gigacope
@@luciobrazil007your argument makes no sense.
Assuming RC is true then Orthodoxy is true aswell.
The Roman Catholic church itself recognizes the Orthodox Church as a fellow true Church.
Furthermore, considering the Roman Catholic Church says Orthodoxy is true, but the Orthodox Church doesnt say the same about catholicism, isnt it obvious that Orthodoxy is the only truth?
I love these shorter clips. Would watch many more.
Thank you for addressing this! Will be sure to send this to my friends.
I feel like this was made for me. Thanks Jay, thinking hard on this
Good work Jay, I find it hard though not to mention the Essence/Energy distinction, the false doctrine of created Grace, the augustinian-based notion of original sin, the interdiction of the ordination of married men (though partly accepted for uniates, of course!) and the dissolution of the bond between Baptism, Chrismation and the Eucharist (including the heresy of communion in only one species and the interdiction pedo-communion). That would make a fine top 10!
Love your debates Jay, been trying to learn your arguments. Keep it up king.
As to the first two differences you see, I would respond with a couple of suggestions, one is that the heretical ideas that rose in the East and West were different, secondly language, being some of the sources of the way we see the Churches in the East and West respond and define some of the doctrines we share. There has been no rejection of the Eucharist being the true body and blood of our Lord in the East, but in the West there were attacks on this truth and Latins being more the legalistic center of the old Empire responded in the manner we see. However, nuance is still key. For example, little is discussed of the Latin belief (which I think Eastern Orthodox would agree with) that the Sacraments are the actions of Christ, entrusted to the Church, not the action the priest. The Eucharist at any validly celebrated Liturgy from a Patriarch down to the newest of priests is the same Jesus and is to use the Latin term Confected by Christ through His priesthood. As to the priest who becomes a Satanist example, I would pose that as the Latin Church teaches that for a valid Sacrament one has to have the Matter, Form and intention for a valid confection of the Sacrament. Now the supposition of some theologians on this is not a matter of Faith, however the bar for intention is pretty low in Roman theology. Put simply it is not dependent of the faith or worthiness of the priest, but that he intends to do what the Church intends. I would pose that if a priest who has defected to the devil celebrated the rites with the intention of using the Consecrated elements to worship Satan, that would not fall under what the Church intends to do, so no Eucharistic elements would be present. The Sacraments are not as I think Orthodox theologians would agree is not a magical rite, with magical words.
As to the Theotokos being Co-Redemptrix first while many of us use it, it is not an official title and secondarily the title is often misunderstood, In 2 Corinthians St. Paul speaks of the Apostles of being workers with Him. In 1 Corinthians St. Paul refers to God's Co-workers. He even refers to himself as a co-worker with Christ. So the title Co-Redemptrix or Co-Worker does not in the sense of our Blessed Mother or St. Paul being equal in role or stature to Christ, or in the redemptive work of Christ. While the Orthodox Church would object to the idea that the Pope can in extraordinary circumstances make an infallible definition, it is I think important remember that when Pius XII proclaimed the Assumption, he did not define is she fell asleep or died, but only referred to when her time on earth ended. Catholics are free to believe that in imitation of her Son Jesus, she died, or that she simply fell into a deep sleep before she was taken up into heaven.
I'll continue to listen and see what other ideas I perceive are a matter more of mutual misunderstanding of language and approach and less of difference in belief.
Great Video Jay! Love the explanations of our Orthodox Faith!
Another succinct video. It made the differences more succinct and easier to remember
Keep doing more videos like these, short and on point.
I love how the creed that you posted as you started talking about the Creed is upside down.
Did not know that St. Peter established the Church at Antioch. Thanks Jay!
Plus, in ACTS, Peter was shown to be in error in the Judiazing debate. He graciously acknowledged his error and submitted to the council’s decision.
@@maryaigler7651 yes, a Pope can be in error..... he is infallible only in a very small, tiny fraction of cases.
@@thekingslady1 My point is not that a bishop can be in error (because, essentially, that is what popes, archbishops, and bishops are- just depending on the size of their oversight), but that Peter bowed to not his own wisdom, but of the wisdom of the whole council of bishops, and of the whole Church. It is the gestalt of wholeness of the Body that preserves Truth, and the Council is the primary method of this expression, not one leader.
@@maryaigler7651 the office of the Papacy is infallible.
@@Smackyjack440not if it allows degenerates like Borgia to occupy it.
Orthodoxy forever!!! God bless🙏🏻🙏🏻
Thanks for your videos Jay, very educational, please keep up the great work it's much appreciated 👍
This answered some questions of mine as a born and bred Irish Catholic. ;-) Pope thing I was taught: “Thou art Peter, and upon this rock, I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.” Pope is human, Pope sins, Pope ain't perfect, but he has authority....Ex Cathedra as successor to Peter. I have not practiced for a long time, so I am unfamiliar with changing dogma. Your views are helpful here. 3-Seepio ;-) (potato / potato, let's call the whole thing off) I'm fascinated by the Cosmic scope; that resonates with me. Purgatory thing is a thing Catholics argue for with scripture. The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, proceed from each other. I see the confusion here. Catholics point to: “and he saw the Spirit of God descending as a dove, and coming upon him.” could not come down Son at His baptism man... lots to learn. thanks
In the East and the West there have been Liturgical Developments we take for granted, but don't really dwell on, considering that it's what always was, even when it was not. Many if not most Liturgical developments both Eastern and Western were to address issues that came up. For example, in the East, the use of the antimension. In the Early Church we see the Apostles and their immediate successors using wooden tables. Later as stone altars developed, a wood plank similar to the Latin Altar Stone was used, as they gave way to Stone, there arose in the East the Iconoclast Heresy. Out of this the antimension developed, and now even if one has an altar which is consecrated, with relics in it a priest in the East, be they Orthodox or Catholic cannot celebrate the Divine Mysteries without an Antimension, not simply because it is consecrated and has a relic, but because it is the visible sign of communion with the bishop under who the priest is authorized to celebrate and the parish under the omophorion of the bishop. When not celebrating in the Eastern Rite, I prefer the old Latin Rite, most who attend assume that the "Mass was always in Latin." But the reality is that the original Liturgy in Rome was in Greek, as that was the most commonly spoken language in Rome. The Kyrie and in the Holy Week Rites, the Trisagion, which is chanted in Greek alternating with Latin, are what remains of the Greek Liturgical heritage of the Roman Church, So too the Amen, Alleluia, and Hosannah are Hebrew and Aramaic. The use of the 42nd Psalm at the prayers at the foot of the altar, most assume always was, but prior to the Council of Trent, they were the private prayers of the priest and altar party as they processed into celebrate the Liturgy as the choir sung the Introit. Both the Liturgies of the East and West developed from simple beginnings to the point most of us assume dates in toto to the days of the Apostles, but in reality, have developed, as has the expounding of doctrine after the Church was freed from persecution and could dwell on the great mysteries (as well as the Seven Mysteries) which Christ Jesus left us. Developments are not the enemy when they confirm the Faith.
Why is it important? The charges from this presenter that the Roman Church has developed doctrines not known to the East regarding our Lady, I feel are more based on misunderstanding. Fatima, and other apparitions and messages of Mary are considered by Rome as Private Revelations, not binding in conscious. Rome and the Local bishops have said simply, the messages do not contradict the deposit of the Faith and are worthy of belief, not binding or necessary to our belief. In the East the Icons which exude oil, are proofs of our Faith in God's goodness not a requisite of Faith. I think that if we pray for what Christ Jesus prayed for, that we all be one, rather than, that those folks over there become one with us, if we humbly ask God to change our hearts to seek first after Him, and pray that we are reunited,
I went to the baptism of a nephew at a Greek Church a few years back, I was dressed in suit and tie, as I did not want to cause confusion or disrupt the rites by wearing my Roman Cassock. The Orthodox priest commented when I crossed myself (in the eastern fashion) and bowed low to the Eucharist reserved on the altar of his church, "How can you a Catholic priest do that?" I replied, you an I may have specks in our eyes, but I can see that the Christ on the altar here is the same Christ as in the tabernacle at the parish I serve in. We had a long conversation and found more in common than what divided us. We both recognized that there have been many rumors and distortions on both sides.
A last comment on speaking for Catholics or Orthodox. First we used both terms in East and West prior to the Schism. Secondly the Creed (with or without the Filioque) we use is not the Creed of Nicaea, but the additions to it by Nicaea II, at the first it was decreed that nobody could add or change the creed, but when the Council of Constantinople modified the creed giving us the Nicean-Contatntinoplolian creed we both use (with or without the Filioque) it was not seen as a tampering with the Creed, but a clarification. So too in the West the Filioque while used in the west was not seen as binding on the East. Many an Orthodox priest I know agrees with the authentic Western understanding of the Filioque, (not presented here) but disagree in the Pope's right to add it. But again, it was imposed by the Patriarch of the Latins on Latins, not on the East... If the Eastern episcopacy can impose liturgical rites and prayers on the East, but not the West, why is it as big an issue as it has become? I know I seem to be rambling, and as is the tradition of the West, our clergy seem to be good at ensuring that when we talk, in a sermon or elsewhere, the hearers get the best sleep they have had all week. Pointing out differences is not bad, finding solutions and submitting to Christ our King is what discussions of the differences should be.
Today in the west we read in the Gospel the story of the Wedding Feast in Cana. What strikes me of this Gospel is that it shows hidden in the text the Plan of God from all eternity for our redemption. It also shows our own resistance. God knowing from eternity that man having free will would make him of secondary importance and us and our desires the primary focus. But from all eternity He had us as the priority. His spirit hovered over the water; He cleansed the world through the waters of the Flood. Jesus used the water in the cisterns used for the ritual purification of the Jews to make wine. Water was used by Him to baptize us, and wine His first miracle He made into the blood used to redeem us, the same blood He shed on the cross. Reclaiming the union with Him has always been God's first priority, we need to make it ours too.
I would suggest the discussion between a Protestant and an Orthodox theologian on the Filioque, I find most balanced, ruclips.net/video/Hd2Jnrb0ASg/видео.html
Wow, thank you father for your input and I love the way you show so much respect for the eastern brothers and some how do not denigrate your own faith as many Catholics are doing currently
Leo 3 explicitly forbade making an addition to the symbol of faith . The Council of Constantinople changed the creed because the ban was on the Third Ecumenical, and Constantinople is the second. A Catholic does not know history, as is typical.
А так - одна вода.
Need more content like this
'Two Paths' by Michael Whelton is a great read for those enquiring of Romanism v Orthodoxy 🤓
Hello Jay, try to do short videos with a maximum of ten minutes. I think it would grant you more views.
Interesting stuff. I was raised Protestant but have recently become fairly well convinced that Sola Scriptura is completely incorrect. I’ve been reading a lot of Catholic literature and attending a Latin Mass near me, but I also want to learn more about Orthodoxy as well. Unfortunately, there doesn’t seem to be anywhere near as much apologetic work for Orthodoxy as there is for Catholicism. (Trying to find an Orthodox equivalent to Trent Horn’s “Case for Catholicism”) Reading suggestions would definitely be appreciated as would prayers. I just want to find where God needs me to be.
As to Pope Honorius, well I'm not a professional historian and don't play one on TV, however there is a bit of controversy regarding what the Council did determine and some of the allegations, some scholars believe that the documents which charge him were forgeries as they follow the exact wording of the deposition of Theodosius, what we do know is that when Patriarch Sergius wrote asking Honorius opinion (to put it mildly) on the issues surrounding monothelitism, rather than making a firm statement of his own, he replied that he felt Sergius had not done anything wrong, and supported the Patriarch's actions. Neither a strong support or denial of Papal Infallibility or Jurisdiction. Given that there is confusion about what really happened, and if there was in fact falsified information in the charges against him, and that there were bishops and Patriarchs in the East including the controversy of Patriarch Bartholomew and a threat of Pan-0rthodox deposing of him, the recent striking of the Patriarch of Constantinople from the Diptych by the Patriarch of Russia, with a large gathering of Orthodox Patriarchs and bishops, in accord, I think we need to rather than pointing fingers take a fresh look to see if there is any validity to the charges, and try to sort out if it is of historical value to re-surface the charges, or if they are a red herring.
I Didn't understand much. But it is just that the terminology still is to advanced for me. So l like it anyway and move on through the list of videos.
I needed this cheers buddy xx
I was raised as a Roman Catholic; my grandparents were Greek Catholic from Galicia (Carpatho-Rusyn from the Austro-Hungarian Empire). Is there a distinct difference between Greek Catholic and Russian or Greek Orthodox?
I wanted to leave the Catholic faith as well, but im glad i stayed. Fight the fight. I still love you my Orthodox brothers though! Really dear to my heart like Bishop Marmari even though some don't recognize him.
Great video ☦️
Tremendous work, Jay. Very clear and concise! Thank you for these! Say man, couple of questions: There's a book that consistently sits over your right shoulder in these videos who's spine shows either a Christ figure or some saint (note the halo). What is the title of that book, please? Also, would you happen to have a book recommendation on the topic of anthropology from any Orthodox authors? Thanks!
Looks like Jean-Claude Larchet's " Therapy of Spiritual Illnesses"
Not sure you’ll get this after 2 years, but look up Fr. Damascene Christensen’s artica, “The First Created Man” for a summary of Orthodox anthropology. It was publishes in a volume of The Orthodox Word from St. Herman Press and as an appendix in the complication of Fr. Seraphim Rose's Genesis book.
The sacraments work because God is doing it
Hey Jay, you should make an animated video like in a Kurzegaht yt channel-style explaining this stuff so it’s easier to follow/listen to for non-followers/religious people like me.
Your theology is a bit deep for my understanding. I really want to understand the differences. I haven't been to a RC church for many years due to many reasons too numerous to list. I feel drawn to Orthodoxy, and I've also missed a spiritual community.
I’m Catholic but very interested in learning the truth between orthodox and RC. These are THE two ancient churches in our Christian history and I just want to learn as much as I can before making a “full” decision on which I am. God bless you all, we are all brothers and sisters in Christ! Dont let sect names discourage you from loving everyone around you🙏
Hey brother where r u at now
@@sammytalluri1019 still with the Catholic church! Honestly haven’t done much research since I typed this. Not sure where to look really!
Blessings to Everyone !!!
Jay, that was absolutely brilliant in how you broke it down with the early capadocians and the councils in regards to church liturgy in the first 1200 years of the church and literally how Roman Catholicism changed or added to the original creed; in addition the powers of the pope who again was no more than the Bishop of Rome; NOT a vicar of Christ. I believe that it wasn't canonical interpretation which caused the schism but pride on the hands of the Latin West. Historically it's evident when you observe the influence of the Frankish rule in Rome.
Quote - 13:44 - 15:41:,,In the Eastern Church Fathers and even from Irenaeus up unto Athanasius and into St.Cyril and into the Cappadocians and up into the fifth and sixth centuries you get a very clear notion that Christ assumed universal human nature and this is the basis for why all men are going to be resurrected. That doesn’t mean that all men are saved. Right? This is not a statement of universalism. It is a statement about nature being assumed, human nature being assumed by Christ in His single divine hypostasis. All of human nature is in one sense assumed, contained within His single divine hypostasis and full human nature.
So, in that sense that’s how these eastern fathers all argued all of humanity will be resurrected, even the wicked. And for the Western tradition from St. Augustine on you’re going to have problems in their theology explaining how and why the reprobate are resurrected. Why would they be resurrected when they have no connection to Christ? And concomitant with this is the loss of the importance of the Descent of Christ into hades and the harrowing of hades. And this will eventually lead to difference from the time of say, Anselm, on and not just Anselm but Anselm laying the foundations of the Protestant doctrine and understanding of penal substitution.
So, by the time of Anselm and by the time of Reformers the Latin Church and the Protestant offspring of its mistakes with further mistakes, is a good example of how Orthodoxy has a completely different understanding, not totally, I shouldn’t say completely but a vastly different understanding because we have a juridical term, right, and a juridical language is used. But we don’t reduce the doctrine of the atonement to strictly legal and juridical categories and that’s what eventually happens in the West with Protestantism.“
Surely the West has either neglected or rejected, or does not understand the meaning of the Incarnation which is related to God’s plan for the theosis (deification by grace) of all men, hence the omission of the idea of the recapitulation of all through the assumption of the human nature by Christ. But that does not mean that the penal substitutionary atonement in its legal sense is not Orthodox.
If it was a Western deviation, it would have been condemned by the Orthodox exactly in the polemics through the centuries with either the Roman Catholics or Protestants because it was in those occasions that the false teachings of the West were described in detail by the Orthodox and condemned.
But if we look at the polemics between the Orthodox and the Western Christians, we will see no where a condemnation of the legal understanding of the penal substitutionary atonement. It was started being rejected in the 20th century by the Orthodox modernistic theologians and since then began becoming unfortunately widespread.
The PSA was not condemned by St.Photius in 867 his encyclic when he condemned the fallacies of Rome (which had not yet fallen from the Church but the deviations that were a reason for its fall were already embraced by Rome) - the celibacy of the priesthood, the rejection of the validity of the chrismation made by priests, the fasting on Saturdays, the heretical Filioque addition in the Creed. But he does not mention the legal penal subsitutionary atonement in its legal understanding.
In his 1444 Encyclical letter St.Mark of Ephesus who opposed the establishing of an union with Rome, mentions among the fundamental heresies of the Roman Church the Filoque, the addition to the Creed, the claim for the supremacy of the pope, the celebrating of the Eucharist with an unleavened bread, the purgatory, the moment of the consecration of the Blessed Sacrament. But he does not mention among the fundamental heresies of the Roman Church the penal substitutionary atonement.
In his 1570s' letters to the Lutheran theologians of Tubingen, Patriarch Jeremias of Constantinople (1572-1595) does not mention, especially in his commentaries on the Augsburg confession of faith, the legal aspect of the penal substitutionary atonement as a false teaching of the Lutherans.
The Constantinopolitan Council of 1583 condemned the innovations of Rome but does not mention among them the legal understanding of the penal substitutionary atonement.
The Pan-Orthodox Council of Jerusalem of 1672 which condemned Calvinism and the total depravity of the unregenerate man, and affirmed the eternal procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father alone, also does not mention as a heresy of Western Christianity the legal understanding of the penal subsitutionary atonement.
The Council of Constantinople of 1838 also condemned the innovations of Rome and again did not mention the legal understanding of the penal substitutionary atonement.
The Patriarchal encyclical from 1895 by the Constantinopolitan Patriarch Anthimus VII (1895-1896) from 1895 which is a reply to the Papal encyclical of Pope Leo XIII (1853-1903) Praeclara Gratulationis publicae (On the Reunion of Christendom) summarizes the heretical deviations of the Papacy but does not mention the legal understanding of the penal subsitutionary atonement.
It is evident that the legal understanding of the penal substitutionary atonement was never rejected until the 20th century which shows that is is originally an Orthodox teaching.
Yes, the Holy Fathers speak about the recapitulation (of course not in the sense of an universalism) but they have not rejected the idea that the resurrected will be resurrected for judgement. For example, St.Irenaeus mentions the recapitulation in ,,Against heresies“, Book 5, 25.1:
,,He has therefore, in His work of recapitulation, summed up all things, both waging war against our enemy, and crushing him who had at the beginning led us away captives in Adam, and trampled upon his head…“
But nevertheless he rejects the teaching of the gnostic dualistic Marcionites who saw contradiction between retributive justice in God and His love and so divided God into two gods - one who punishes and one who loves.
St. Irenaeus of Lyon says (Book III, Chapter 25):
… 2. Again, that they might remove the rebuking and judicial power from the Father, reckoning that as unworthy of God, and thinking that they had found out a God both without anger and [merely] good, they have alleged that one [God] judges, but that another saves, unconsciously taking away the intelligence and justice of both deities. For if the judicial one is not also good, to bestow favours upon the deserving, and to direct reproofs against those requiring them, he will appear neither a just nor a wise judge. On the other hand, the good God, if he is merely good, and not one who tests those upon whom he shall send his goodness, will be out of the range of justice and goodness; and his goodness will seem imperfect, as not saving all; [for it should do so,] if it be not accompanied with judgment.
3. Marcion, therefore, himself, by dividing God into two, maintaining one to be good and the other judicial, does in fact, on both sides, put an end to deity. For he that is the judicial one, if he be not good, is not God, because he from whom goodness is absent is no God at all; and again, he who is good, if he has no judicial power, suffers the same [loss] as the former, by being deprived of his character of deity. And how can they call the Father of all wise, if they do not assign to Him a judicial faculty? For if He is wise, He is also one who tests [others]; but the judicial power belongs to him who tests, and justice follows the judicial faculty, that it may reach a just conclusion; justice calls forth judgment, and judgment, when it is executed with justice, will pass on to wisdom. Therefore the Father will excel in wisdom all human and angelic wisdom, because He is Lord, and Judge, and the Just One, and Ruler over all. For He is good, and merciful, and patient, and saves whom He ought: nor does goodness desert Him in the exercise of justice, nor is His wisdom lessened; for He saves those whom He should save, and judges those worthy of judgment. Neither does He show Himself unmercifully just; for His goodness, no doubt, goes on before, and takes precedency.‘‘
St.Basil the Great says in his first canon that Marcionites are heretics:,,Heresies, on the other hand, are such as those of the Manichees and Valentinians and Marcionists, and that of these Pepuzeni themselves, for the question is one involving a difference of faith in God itself.“
The Qunisext Ecumenical Council of Trullo (692), says in its Canon 95 that Marcionism is a heresy:,,…And the Manichaeans, and Valentinians and Marcionites and all of similar heresies must give certificates and anathematize each his own heresy, and also Nestorius, Eutyches, Dioscorus, Severus, and the other chiefs of such heresies, and those who think with them, and all the aforesaid heresies; and so they become partakers of the holy Communion.“
Pope Francis, well here not a big fan. However, I would be remiss in not pointing out that the Roman position on indefectibility, Infallibility and all things grandiose relate to the Office of the Pope when he teaches as Pastor and makes a statement authoritatively, So far his statements that trouble me, or that get a spin from the press which sounds heterodox have been private opinions, and not binding to Catholics. Despite his office, he is a human, with all the faults of any other human. As I stated, not a big fan, I do pray for him and all bishops, (Orthodox and Catholic) as sometimes translations from the original language, and cultural context can be a bit difficult, I know this personally as I come from a family background that is multi-lingual and mutli-cultural, and what one person takes for granted, other misconstrue not knowing the language and cultural meaning of some terms and phrases. I think that applies to many of the misunderstandings between the East and West.
One example would be the "Documentary" a few years back, in it there was video of Pope Francis, endorsing homosexual behavior. It hit all the major news agencies and contradicted some of the other statements that the Pope had made, in which he called such sexual behavior sinful, but also called for compassion and love of the sinner and hate for the sin. Almost a year later the makers of the documentary came out publicly and admitted that as homosexuals they had a goal of getting the Pope's approval for the lifestyle and had manipulated the video editing it to have Pope Francis appear to say something he did not.
I know I tend to be long winded but grant me this as an example that I use in discussing the language of the Sacred Scriptures. I tell people that my grandfather (born in Salonika Greece) and my father both had jet black curly hair until they were 40 years old, at which point they were completely bald. I now at 65 am mostly bald. Then I ask them to describe the hair on their head at age 50. Most will answer that they had no hair on their heads. But the reality is their hair was just as full as in their youth, what changed is that their hair went from jet black to grey or white. Bald is an antiquated English word that still means to have white or grey hair, it is still a valid definition, even if only used to describe Bald Eagles or persons in history who had the title X the bald, having white hair. It is for this reason that I try to read and learn from both sides where the opinions and objections for the other come from, before making a final determination.
True, and Well said...
What is your opinion of the Shroud of Turin? This is a Relic that was taken in the Crusades from Constantinople back to Rome.
What does it mean that Mary fell asleep? That she didn’t die and was instead taken up into heaven alive?
She did die
I’m curious, if the sacraments aren’t valid outside of Orthodoxy, what is the Orthodox view on, say Catholic Eucharistic Miracles? My gut is that if the Roman Catholics were willing to fake things like the donation of Constantine, pretend the whole three Pope thing was okay, then they’d be willing to make up some other goodies to appear to be legitimate. Jay do you have any works related to these alleged miracles?
I doubt he is making the argument in this video that the Sacraments are not valid in Roman Catholicism.
@@thekingslady1 he mentioned how Orthodoxy doesn’t view sacraments outside the Orthodox Church as valid, so I’d imagine Jay has thoughts on the topic I mentioned.
@@thekingslady1 at about the 2:50 mark is when Jay mentions the sacraments not being valid outside Orthodox communion
@@christianf5131 ....I just re-watched that portion and he didn't imply that. Now he may have implied it in other videos...but not in this one!
@@thekingslady1 that wasn’t the main thrust of Jay’s video, no, but he said this: “The Orthodox Church traditionally does not believe that the Eucharist, for example, is a key example, exists outside the visible institutional church”. Jay is a pretty faithful guy to the Orthodox Church so I’d be shocked if he disagreed with that sentiment.
Orthodox Churches do not agree among themselves about the validity of my Roman Catholic baptism and confirmation. I cannot receive either sacrament a second time. It's a fairly obvious barrier to me joining Jay Dyer in the Orthodox Church. I would also need to abandon my belief in the sainthood of John Fisher, Thomas More and others which looks to me like an abandonment of orthodoxy in the usual sense of the word. I'll concede the point that King Henry VIII would probably have received a pat on the head from this Pope, but heading for the Orthodox Church does not look like much of a solution. I trust that I am not calumnifying the Pope, but cannot help but notice that the bishops of Malta and the bishops of Kazakhstan appear to have different interpretations of Amoris Laetitia, and I had been hoping that the Pope would co-ordinate their teachings.
Point # 1 - does orthodoxy accept the Eucharist of the Catholic church? If i understood you correctly, a heretic cannot "confect" (pardon the Latin expression....) the Eucharist. But Catholics hold to the filioque. Which i think the orthodox woukd consider very firmly a dangerous heresy.
Phoning a friend here...
The evolution of the doctrine of the Papacy feels like a hyper emphasis on six degrees of separation. My priest is affiliated with the right bishop, arch bishop, cardinal and pope; who is then affiliated with Peter who is to Christ and the Father. The key linchpin pin in that chain being the Vicar of Christ in Rome. It is their focus above all things for without the Pope, the entire manufacturered structure topples.
So what makes you "right"? Proof? I would love to see an Orthodox priest debate a Catholic. And before anyone starts casting aspersions, I am neither but I am curious as to why each group thinks that THEY are right.
There have been plenty of Orthodox Vs Catholic debates lol
@@JayDyer Lol nice Jay
Why do you assume Mary remained sinless? Haven’t all sinned?
yes, I agree
@Laudetur Jesus Christus - So how was Mary sinless? Didn’t she get her lifeblood from her mother? Was Mary’s mother sinless too?
@@Charlie5225 look up The Immaculate Conception.
@@thekingslady1 - I’m familiar with it. It just doesn’t make any sense. It only kicks the can down the road. How was Mary born without sin?
@@Charlie5225 God lives outside of time. He simply applied the merits of His Son from the cross - which from God's Eternal Perspective happened from the beginning of time, you can look at it that way - to Mary at her Conception in St. Anne's womb.
There is nothing impossible for God to do!
Mary is called "The Mystery og Mary" in The Catholic Church. We are not called to understand everything. We are called to believe what has been revealed and continue to submit to Mystery.
Is the Orthodoz priesthood of Levi? I'm decompressing from Protestantism...we had Melchizedek and Levi, Jesus came in the Melchizedek line as his superior, but by no means did this destroy the Lecitical line, correct? They did serve and still serve to separate functions? Any good articles or talks on this would be hugely appreciated.
Protestants - especially Evangelical Protestants - need to STEP AWAY from the OT!!!!
It's what unites us that matters since Jesus says we shall be known by the love we have for one another.
Papistry is kinda cringe ngl.
Almost every single patriarch from the 7 ecumenical councils disagree with you.
@@MichaelMichael-fs8ufproof?
It seems the implication of Mary as the Co-Redemptrix presented mirrors the objection of the Protestants. Neither are anywhere near what those in the Roman Communion would mean or imply by the title. The assertion is that Romans would elevate Mary to the equal of Jesus. But all we need do is look at St. Paul where he likens himself to being the Co-worker of Christ, 2 Corinthians 6:1. We would never interpret the passage to read, I Paul am equal to Christ. No, we see co-worker as meaning a worker who works under the authority of Christ, inferior to Christ. So too the title of Mary as Co-redemptrix cannot refer to an equal to Her Son. When a priest baptizes, he is a co-worker of Christ because of his cooperation with Christ in salvation. How much more than us is Mary a Co-Worker and Co-redemptrix than any of us? There are many an orthodox teaching of the Church which was debated, not because they were not true, but because of fear that others would imply something they did not mean, but they were defined because to not do so would be a greater crime by not teaching truth over error, than the few who would wrongly attack the orthodox teaching out of their ignorance of it's meaning.
I have a question, why can orthodox christian remarry when their ex’s are alive or widowed ? why alive, isn’t that anti biblical ? (please help, new convert)
Thanks! What about the differences on St. Joseph? #Josephology
Hey Jay, Is your belief more strongly in the Orthodoxy of Catholicism or of Christianity? Is there a difference in the two, in your view?
@Boris Rovcanin sure
@Boris Rovcanin Is that Christian Orthodoxy or Catholic Orthodoxy?
I ask this way because Catholicism is not Christianity in the sense of it's origin. The original Christians were, according to scripture, Jewish disciples of Christ Jesus. To me and I speak not for everyone, but, I see so many features of Catholicism in many branches of the religious world of Christianity.
@@andythompson6622 First it's good to realise that what is conventionally known as Catholicism today is a deformed version of Christianity. So if they keep some practises or teachings from the early church which they broke off from, it doesn't mean those practises and teachings are wrong. You're right that the first disciples were Jews. But as the scripture teaches, the coming of the Messiah would bring the conversion of people of many different nations, which is what happened after the earthly life of Christ.
@@dikaioskyrios Then you would agree that the early believers could in no way transition their beliefs into what God was doing, especially during Pentecost. My thing is that what is at the front for "Christianity" is not what the Jews were practicing; i.e sainthood by working miracles, praying to the deceased especially to help transition them into a better afterlife. "It's appointed unto man once to die, and then the judgement". Some other sects have those things that was not even a part of what the Apostles admonished the Gentiles
abstain from. Do you see what I'm saying?
@@andythompson6622 Just because that group known today as the 'catholic church' practises something, it doesn't mean it is necessarily wrong. They *broke* *off* from the original Church (body of believers sanctified by the Spirit) which means that whatever correct things they hold to, they *retained* from that original Church they broke off from
Fatima is not new revelation
That picture at 7:27 though
Orthodoxy feels like christianity on acid, just from compating classical catholic and orthodox art
Now to the Papacy and the Universal Jurisdiction of the Pope in Rome. First there is a clear development of most every doctrine that we see in both East and West, the main reason Councils were called and continue to be needed is to address heretical teachings and give definitions of what orthodoxy is. So too there are many opinions to be found among the Fathers, one cited in the video is St. Irenaeus, but the Fathers statements and the letters to the Roman Patriarch from the East to settle issues are not limited to the few cited by our presenter or by scholars who write textbooks we read. I would also opine that after the Last Supper, when the Apostles are trying to determine who would sit at the right hand of our Lord in His heavenly kingdom, our Lord tells us that there will be twelve thrones, showing the significance of the position of the Apostles, then He singles out Peter, telling us, "Satan hath desired to have you, that he may sift you as wheat: But I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not: and when thou art converted, strengthen thy brethren." Not a direct appointment to Universal Jurisdiction, however it does show a special role of Peter toward the other 11. Logic would lead us to believe that as one Apostle, Peter was singled out here, so too of all the Sees which Peter founded, Alexandria, Antioch and Rome, as well as any other local Churches founded by him, as there is only one Peter, and one Christ Jesus, there is only one See that speaks with that same authority Christ Jesus seems here to be speaking of with regard to Peter's role of strengthening his brethren.
Jay what is that chant during the intro?
You look like the actor Andrew McCarthey!!
John 14:28 (KJV)
28 Ye have heard how I said unto you, I go away, and come again unto you. If ye loved me, ye would rejoice, because I said, I go unto the Father: for my Father is greater than I.
The Father is greater than the Son.
Most of this video is good but the part about resurrection makes no sense and I've watched it several times
what makes no sense?
@@JayDyer Not as in it's wrong, as in I literally don't understand. I mean the entire number 2 point
OK can we have this in plain English?
What did u mean with: a priest who become a satanist?
I meant what I said
@@JayDyer maybe you can elaborate more in another youtube video :)
What is difference between genuine orthodox church and orthodox church?
Genuine Orthodox separated from the OC, they don’t live up to their namesake.
@@nickys3225 can you elaborate brother
It's the Catholic Church.
Don’t forget the fish hats
John 14:26 (KJV)
26 But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.
Looks like the Father and the Son here.
I thought that there is neither male nor female in heaven other than Christ and his church. At least with respect to those who are born of Adam. So how is Mary a woman in heaven?
We keep the same bodies we have now in the resurrection Nt theyre deified.
Yes, but aren't we all to have the mind of Christ, whether male or female? Aren't woman to lose their tendency to vanity, as men would lose the same towards self-satisfaction - such that we meet in the spirit as equals? Why would one remain with the instincts of motherhood? Aren't we all to be like children?
I think you are taking what Paul said waaayyy too literally.
I am still going to be a woman and feminine in Heaven.
why do people even take notice of a bible written thousands of years ago, that has been translated numerous times? It’s all utter nonsense
@Boris Rovcanin the bible as we know it is a collection of books that were written over centuries (about 500 years for the Old Testament and another 200 or so years for the New Testament).
The bible was compiled by men who picked and chose among the manuscripts available to them (probably several hundred) and selected the ones that they thought should be included in the bible. And that agreement was hardly unanimous. Looking to the Old Testament even the major religions can’t agree on how many books should be included. The Jews have 24 books, the Protestants 39, the Catholics 46, and the Eastern Orthodox have 51. Which one is correct?
But it’s important to recognize that you don’t have the original texts. You don’t even have copies of the originals. What you have are copies of copies of copies of copies of …. you get the idea. And every time a copy was made there was an opportunity for copyist errors to creep in - especially since in many cases the copyist didn’t speak the language they were copying. (Originally in Hebrew with Aramiac in some parts to Latin to Greek then to English & others language). Worse yet it provided the copyist with an opportunity to amend the text to agree with their own personal orthodoxy. And then come to translation errors. There are plenty.
@Boris Rovcanin the Bible references cited might not be exactly as the Bible you are using. There are MANY Bibles on the market that are used by different Christian sects and all of these sects say that their book, though different, is the word of God. Such Bibles are: The Revised Standard Version 1952 & 1971, New American Standard Bible, The Holy Bible; New International Version, the Living Bible, New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures used by Jehovah Witnesses, RCV and the KJV. I have not found in any of these Bibles where the "New Testament" calls itself the "New Testament," and nowhere does the "Old Testament" call itself the "Old? Testament." Also, the word "Bible" is unknown within the pages of the Bible.
In addition to the many different Christian sects and Bibles, I have learned that there are also different men, not Prophets, who founded these sects and are using various interpretations of the Bible and/or man-made doctrines as their creed.
I would like to share with you some thoughts that you may not have read or known about the Bible being the word of God. Briefly, let me mention that on September 8, 1957, the Jehovah's witnesses in their "Awake" magazine carried this startling headline - 50,000 Errors in the Bible. If you ask a Jehovah's witness about this headline, it may be said that today most of those errors have been eliminated. How many have been eliminated, 5,000? Even if 50 remain, would one attribute those errors to God?
Let me pose another question: if a "Holy" book contained conflicting verses would you still consider it to be Holy?
@Boris Rovcanin There has never been in the history of the Torah (Old Testament) the religion of God to be named after a Prophet (i.e. Adaminity, Abrahamity, Mosanity, etc.) Jesus did not preach the religion of Christianity or claim he is God, but a religion that gives all Praise and Worship to The One God.
Where did the word Christianity come from and was the word ever mentioned to Jesus? Well, I did not find the word Christianity in the Bible, not even in a Bible dictionary. Specifically, I did not find in the Bible where Jesus called himself a Christian or God.
The word Christian was first mentioned by a pagan to describe those who followed Jesus. It is mentioned one of three times in the New Testament by a pagan and Jew in Antioch about 43 AD, (Acts 11:26, Acts 26:38 and 1 Peter 4:16) long after Jesus left this earth. To accept the words of pagans as having any value or association with divinity, Jesus & God is contrary to the teachings of all Prophets.
For 2000 years Christians have been debating over the concept of God since their doctrine is a MODIFICATION of some teachings:
1. A sprinkle of monotheism
2. Hinduism: Gods incarnate become human
3. Pagan Egyptian: God Osiris died and rose.
4. Pagan Near East: Sin purification with animals' blood. One's sins could be removed by transferring his/her sins to a goat. Then the goat was killed.
That's why Christians are always confused about
- Why God prayed to God
- Why God didn't know when the doomsday
- Why God cried out loud on the cross for something that he had planned.
- Why sin atonement was accomplished through killing and with the help of evil deeds (Judas' betrayal &false accusations of Jewish priests)
This is AGAINST the holiness of true God and ethics. If God's teaching is MIXED with others' teachings, then it's called SYNCRETISM RELIGION.