@@marcuswilliams7448 Read Mt 18:15-18 more carefully if you can find them given keys. They're given authority, but not keys. They only have authority insofar as they're united to him to whom the keys were given.
God didn’t want there to be a king but the people begged for one so they could look like the world. To me the argument isn’t the most compelling, not to say Papal authority is wrong because it could be right, I’m on a journey right now. However that specific argument was ill stated, but he’s a clever guy!
The Eastern Orthodox (officially the Orthodox Catholics) do not outright reject the Papacy. The Orthodox believe that the Pope had a historical role as the primus inter pares among the patriarchs and believe this proper role should be restored to the Pope of Rome. However, they reject innovative teachings that have come from Rome with regard to the Papacy, most notably the dogma of Papal Infallibility (from Vatican I) and universal and supreme jurisdiction of the Pope. Both of these have no basis in the teachings of the Fathers, Greek or Latin. Hence, these are the main reasons the Orthodox cannot come into union with Rome.
Wrong. We also have theological differences like the teaching on the immaculate conception, purgatory, indulgences, etc which are ALL FOREIGN to Orthodoxy and on and on
Wrong. We also have theological differences like the teaching on the immaculate conception, purgatory, indulgences, etc which are ALL FOREIGN to Orthodoxy and on and on
@@degamas1 yes those teachings you mentioned are also differences but minor compared to the papacy. Most of what you mentioned have to do with Eastern vs. Latin theology. For instance, the Latin view of original sin necessitates the dogma of the immaculate conception so the Theotokos didn’t inherit Adam’s guilt, but the Orthodox still believe she was all immaculate and sinless. Same with Purgatory. The Latins view of temporal punishment of venial sin after death necessitates a state of purging fire. The Orthodox do view a state of purification after death but do not define it and dogmatise it like the Latins. Often theologians call this the ‘toll houses’ but it’s not official teaching.
Both Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholics should pray, in true fidelity, that our two Churches can once again become one. Christ’s last prayer to his father is that “they do not fight among each other”.We all give to the evil one when we do not heed Christ’s prayer. May we all get beyond our pride of wanting to say we are right to we are one in Christ. Amen.
@@novusrex9809Yeah sure it was basically an ultimatum, either the Orthodox nations accept the Pope and the Western nations help them against the Ottoman Empire or else. Not really 'whole hearted'.
Here’s food for thought. Let’s say Peter is indeed the rock upon which Christ built his church. BUT.... before Peter established the church in Rome, he was the first bishop of Antioch, and the Antiochian church is now a part of the Eastern Orthodox Communion. So why should peter being the rock give the Roman church legitimacy if the Orthodox have the first church Peter founded .
@@belyen6330 Peter was the first Bishop of Rome, but Rome was not the first church he was the bishop of, first he was the bishop of Antioch, therefore the pope is not the only successor of Peter.
Have you read the documents from the Ecumenical councils and how the churches were ranked in the councils? Read the documents from the council of Constantinople 381AD. Peter's successor, as in the one who took his place after he died, was the bishop of Rome. He would've appointed a bishop in Antioch as well, but he himself carried on to the heart of civilization (which was Rome) where both he and Paul were martyred for the faith. Due to this and the significance of the church of Rome- historically Rome was seen as the first among other apostolic churches, and the Bishop of Rome as both the first among bishops and the director successor of Peter.
I'm not Catholic, but something came into my mind the other day. Peter asked to be crucified upsidedown because he didn't feel worthy to die in the same way Jesus died. Like a tree growing next to a lake is reflected in the water, Peter's cross was a reflection of Christ's. Jesus is the Shepherd above Peter, but Peter is sub-shepherd...
I’ve visited the Eastern Orthodox Church and love love love the Divine Liturgy. Contemporary Catholicism should take lessons. However the Papacy is the singular aspect of the faith that keeps me Roman. I found even more genuine love and devotion in the East for the Blessed Mother than in the West!!! The East helped prop my love and devotion the The Most Holy Theotokos. As JPII said “The church must breath with her two lungs.” Union with the East is not far fetched I pray for the unity God wills!
We Orthodox agree with various things that were said in this video. However, the differencew that Roman Catholics don't understand are these: 1 - The Rock is the Faith on Jesus Christ the Son of God, after which Saint Peter was named after. 2 - The promise of Infallibility is given to the Church as a whole, not just to Saint Peter. 3 - All the other Apostles also equally reveived the Power of the Keys, according to Matthew 18 and the Church Fathers. 4 - All the Aposltes had immediate and universal jurisdiction, not just Saint Peter. 5 - The Bishop of Rome is not Saint Peter, no Bishop has equal authority to the Apostles.
“The Master has appointed you [Peter] as director not of tabernacles, but of the Church throughout the whole world. Your disciples, your sheep, the Good Chief Shepherd has put into your hands.” (St. John of Damascus, Homily on the Transfiguration [c. A.D. 675-749]).
@@cruznature7545 1 - The Bishop of Rome is not Saint Peter. He's one of his sucessors (which the Pope of Alexandria and the Bishop of Antioch are too). Although the Bishop of Rome is indeed his main and first sucessor. 2 - How does that entail papal infallibility, and universal and supreme power over the Church and the all the other Bishops?
@matheusmotta1750 ..one first must understand what is meant by infallibility, but also one thinks the Pope has often spoken infallibly which is not the case research and you will find that throughout the 2000 year history very rarely has he spoken ex cathedra (from the seat of Peter) . Ok what does one mean by infallibility. When one speaks an undeniable truth such as Jesus is God as it pertains to our teaching it has to be infallible truth meaning you can't be wrong about it, so when the Pope says Mary is the mother of Christ he is bound to speak infabably about this truth, otherwise it's straight out heresy. When the Pope gives an opinion or statement outside of ex cathedra he is just speaking an opinion. Example, I would hope Hell is empty, that's an opinion not ex cathedra.
Before leaving Jerusalem, Peter designated his own succesor by handing over the leadership to James. If such thing as Peter's primacy exists, which is not true, then the only one who could claim it is the Patriarch of Jerusalem.
Patriarchy of Jerusalem has always been know in tradition as "The Mother Church" it's logic. After all "The Holy Fire" descends there at the Holy Sepulcrum. Not in Vatican, not in Antioch and not in Constantinople!
Those Eastern Orthodox who came back to union with the Roman bishop you are referring to were essentially forced back into union... didn't mention that one though. Anyways, Papists can't name one heresy we believe but on the contrary we can name quite a few Rome has fallen into that was not confessed or believed by the Church for the first 1,000 years. Rome birthed the Reformation and has departed from the ancient faith on many levels it's so evident and obvious and will only get worse and worse as we near toward the end.
Not to mention their atrocities in Balkan region during and after WW2. Their clerics openly supported Nazi's, and later on even secretly transported them to Vatican where they were given fake passports to access the South America. One of them was Alojzije Stepinac who was not so long ago sanctified by them, who is in some cases directly and indirectly responsible for killings of millions Orthodox Christians, not to mention the forceful catholicization of hundreds of thousands of them.
We Orthodox do believe in Papal primacy, but not supremacy and infallibility because they're not supported by Scripture and thus not found in the Early Church. In Acts 15 James is the Bishop of Jerusalem and thus is the one to make the final decision which is also the majority decision. The Apostles' letter to the gentiles states "it seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us" showing that not one single bishop has supreme and infallible authority over the others. And you bring up the catholic church mirroring the kingdom of Israel yet fail to mention that God warned the Israelites against having a monarchy, and He raised several prophets to correct the actions of the kings You also bring up that the Pope is not underneath any earthly authority (in the church) yet also admit that Paul stood up to Peter. How could Paul do this if Peter is the ultimate authority in the church? In regards to the order of Apostles in the Gospels, they're listed in order of faith. Judas Iscariot had the least amount of faith, for he was a deceitful thief, which allowed Satan to enter him when he could enter no other Apostle, who all had greater faith. Peter of course had the most faith since he was the first one to confess Christ as the Son of God
I dont think that everyone agreeing means that everyones approval was necessary. If the pope was fallible like all others, how could his word ever be capable of settling disputes within the church? If your pope is fallible as everyone else is, then you may as well not have a pope. Peter being the first pope and the FOUNDATION of the church from Mat 16:18 makes it pretty obvious that the church would crumble without the foundation. Despite being the foundation of the church the Pope is not infallible as a person, but he is unable to lead the church astray, since the Gates of hell will not prevail against it. So this makes it pretty obvious to me that in order to fulfill his duty he must be infallible in teaching, because god protects him from error.
Peter started the Antiochian church. Peter went to Rome. Rome killed Peter. Rome said: " Look at me, I am Peter now". 1. The pope is not Peter...unless you believe in some sort of reincarnation, Pope Clement is Pope Clement, Pope John II is Pope John the Second and Peter was Peter. 2. Just judge the tree by it`s fruits. The west fails at every point. 3. If you think God made the truth only available to the very smart and educated theologians that would imply an unreasonable god. All of it is very simple. Who changed? Whomever changed from the original teachings must be in the wrong. And look at the catholic Church...they are forever changing. In both doctrine and in practice of the faith. The Catholic church from today has very little to do wit the one from 200 years ago, and that was different from the one from 500 years ago, and that was very different from the one from 1500 years ago.
But Orthodox agree Peter had a first place. We just point out he was never, and never claimed to be Bishop of Rome. He was Martyred there but wasn’t Bishop there, and therefore he wasn’t a pope
I am a Greek Orthodox and I have a question that is not related with the main issue of this video. What will happen in the Vatican City, if the Schism is restored (Reunification of Orthodox and Catholic Churches)
This actually happened when Pope Paul VI met with Patriarch Athenagoras, and they mutually dissolved the anathemas and excommunications. For a brief period of time, they were giving communion to both Roman Catholics and Orthodox. And when they were asked about the schism, they both replied "What schism?"
As a Protestant, I don't see how the church structure of Roman Catholics as well as Eastern Orthodox are nothing more than attempts to dole out salvation piece by piece in order to exercise control over the masses. Jesus is our mediator (1 Timothy 2:5) with God and no priest or church organization can stand between us and our savior. The body of each believer is the temple of the Holy Spirit (1 Cor. 6:19). The Church is simply the collection of believers coming together in fellowship and worship and is not the gatekeeper of salvation.
Roman Catholicism is heresy. Just for starters the Filioque, purgatory, and immaculate conception are all heresies and innovations that didn't exist 1000 years ago.
@Philippe Labonte The bible refutes the filioque John 14: 26 "But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name" Where in the bible does it say that "we are made clean after we die"
When one of the Popes wanted to buy chruch land in Croatia and church figures didnt want to sell it to Vatican, Pope replaced Croatian main chruch figure with the one from Vatican who was close to him, then that one sold the land and after couple of months after the job was done Pope brought back Croatian one back. That story tells me alot.
@@presuntomr Yes they do. Its in their official titles as Bishops from Antioch and Alexandria. Those 2 Sees along with Rome have historically always been known as the 3 Petrine Sees. You never herd of the Holy 3 Petrine Sees?
@@cervantescisneros712 Sure have, but you miss an important point that is recognized by both East and West. Rome is not merely a Petrine See. It is the See where St. Peter ended his life and from whence he held his primacy in his last days. Not only this, but Rome was not founded just by Peter, but was founded by both Sts. Peter and Paul. Rome's origin is both Petrine and Pauline. This is why the fathers speak of Rome as The See of Peter, even though there are other sees he also founded.
@@presuntomr St Peter physically and actually passed on the "keys" by naming his own successor in Antioch, he didnt do that in Rome. In fact St Peter was in house arrest the whole time he was in Rome and didnt realley have the freedom to run a church like he did in Antoich.
@@cervantescisneros712 and yet he abandoned Antioch and headed for Rome. I don't think you'd disagree that his actions had been guided by the Holy Spirit? His martyrdom in Rome was no coincidence, and since than tradition has passed down his authority as leader of the Church to the successors in Rome. Can you point to any Church father who points to the Bishop of antioch as having Petrine authority over the Church? Why were the Bishops of Antioch and Alexendria never considered to be "first among equals"?
Pope prior to 1054 used to be just the head of the roman Patriarchate. He did not have authority over all patriarchates. Papacy does not comply with teaching of church fathers.
yea right thats why sain Ireneaus says Rome presides over all other churches. There is so much evidence from church fathers that this is not the case that comments like this are just ridiculous.
Orthodox have no problems with Peter and what was written of him. He’s the first among Apostles. Orthodox have a problem with what the Bishops of Rome did which wasn’t done by Peter. You changed. You didn’t ask your brothers about those changes. We’ll wait for you to return and discuss it when you’re ready.
The account of Paul going up to Jerusalem to clarify whether or not Gentiles should be circumcised is recorded in Galatians chapter 2 and Acts chapter 15.
Another interesting passage from Scripture is when Jesus and Peter are discussing the temple tax. It is the only time in all the Scriptures when God refers to Himself and another person as "we".
Why? Just because they are politically more conservative than the current pope? Or do you actually object to the papacy? Because in that case, you are a protestant already
Paul bowed to Peter's authority. And of course he corrected Peter when he was wrong. But he always bowed to Peter's rulings. He also headed back to a council when having problems. Who has the authority to call a Council and settle Bishops disputes? I know one who converted from orthodoxy because there was a dispute amoung his bishops...so he went back to Scripture and demanded to know where the Peter was. Idk of the dispute ever got resolved..there was no Pope to make a decree or call a Council.
Well basically the primacy of rome was acknowledged long before orthodoxy happened and even today many orthodox acknowledge the special role of rome, even in this comment section. I could not tell you every detail of it, but if there was alot to doubt about it then there would have been eastern claims to the succession of peter and I have never heared of those. So the basis for Rome seems to be so solid that there is no other line of succession that rivals it. And claiming that peter does not have a successor is ridiciolous, that would leave the church without foundation according to Matthew 16:18. And also, if we want to talk about geography... who was responsible for the spread of christianity more than every other empire? The romans of course, they spread it from african shores all the way to norway. Christianity is for all people, not only the jews. No city could be called capital of the world in the early church except rome. Anyways, the papacy is the main argument that is utterly crippling to orthodox theology
Yeah, people who leave the church - this church or that - over scandal have forgotten that humanity is desperate and wicked, and that's why we pursue the truth of the gospel and need the Savior in the first place.
Or maybe they took the idea that you shall know them by thier fruit seriously. Look at the actual effects of the divide between catholic and orthodox. In catholisism, you see a departure of spirit and tradition. Orthodoxy stays the same, despite being beaten on from all sides.
I’m Orthodox, my wife is RC. The difference in faith almost had us at divorce. My priest, her priest, and ourselves met. Both her and my priest said divorce is not an option. We followed Their mutual advice to attend Orthodox one week, and Catholic the next. Eventually my wife became fond of the Divine Liturgy, so now we attend Orthodox one week and Byzantine Catholic the next. To be clear, I don’t actively participate in the catholic, and she doesn’t actively participate in the Orthodox. But our marriage is better for it.
I was on the same boat without the divorce part, I seriously considered becoming orthodox yet looking at the facts I wasn’t convinced yet my wife who was a cradle orthodox got convinced of Catholicism at an intellectual and spiritual level once we started attending the Latin mass and learning what it does to the soul and how intellectually invigorating it can be.
I happen to be an Orthodox catechuman. I've considered going Roman Catholic, but it's not really a matter of my own choice. I love the Catholic Church, make no mistake about it. Orthodoxy was what brought me into faith after living a very long time in a distorted, inverted and sexually disordered lifestyle. I don't get militant about the technicalities or the politics that are more divisive than helpful, and I don't feel I have to argue about it. I don't agree with papal infallibility, and I admit it's been difficult shaking off my protestant upbringing.
It is a fact that the Catholic Church has spread the Gospel in a meaningful way to the ends of the earth, while Orthodox churches remain insular and are primarily located in specific areas of the world. This is a primary command from the Lord, so it's a legitimate argument for the Catholic Church.
@@ian_snyder I mean it's easy to say that when the Roman Church was not on the front lines against the Muslims and under totalitarian communists. That doesn't change the incorrect theology and innovations made over centuries now either. Even South America which would be one of the best examples is filled with liberation theology.
@@rohan7224 So somehow you still profess that there is some sort of ultimate bishop with supremacy and infallibility while Francis exists? This is literal Papist doctrine that you have to accept under the roman church.
@@rohan7224 I love how you reply to the other guy to confirm your delusions. You understand there is a reason for the issue with the Eastern Patriarch? Not only was it a jurisdiction issue, but he has said plenty of questionable things, not too far off of the things said by Rome's pope.
I was baptized Greek Orthodox in 2003, I love my religion and the teaching it gives,I am proud to be orthodox.. Blessed love to my orthodox brothers and sisters 🙏☦️🙏☦️☦️.
If you had any tips what would be the best thing to do to get more into Orthodox since I was raised in a Catholic family but personally don’t feel that spiritual connection with it but Orthodox is just calling me from what I feel
Hello Brian, I was Catholic before converting to Orthodoxy, the Roman Catholic Church were not very nice to my mum, who was devorced and wanted to send her boys to a Catholic boys school,, I met my orthodox partner over 20 years ago, I started to go to an orthodox Church, and fell in love with the whole orthodox ethos, could not wait to get baptized, and now when I think of the holy father, the icons, and the orthodox chanting in the church, my heart is filled with Love, Happiness and Humility. May the holy father bless you and your family 🙏☦️🙏☦️🙏
@@brianquesada1018 Brian Quesada read the scripture and stay in the Catholic church. The problem with our Catholic churches is the lack of Biblical study to help people feel more spirituality and closeness to Jesus. Our churches people go with a disposition of all I need is the Eucharist, confess my sin today and sin tomorrow. I recently return two years ago to Catholicism. I was born a Catholic and left since my mother just quit going all together to any church and as a teenager went to difference churches. I can see the Orthodox community really go to worship in contrary to many of our Catholic churches. I been in homily and people around me talking instead of listening to learn the gospel and scripture and if the mass take too long they complaint. This is a stumbling block for a none convert. I belief more scripture and teaching on sundays should take place for the children on the catholic churches. It still have a long way to go. But the true church and the one Jesus founded is our Catholic Church. God Bless You!
@@amandabula8732 No....the problem with the Roman Catholic Church is that She has left the teachings of the Early Fathers and is a Frankish offshoot of what the Church of Rome was in the first 1000 years of the united Church. See my post above for more information.
@@amandabula8732 dear Amanda thinking of church as a religion is Like puting GOD in a Box for eaiser understanding witch papacy really is , GOD is unpredictable and when you really want to dance with him he can Crush a bone or two , but IT is definitly worth IT - church is not religion , church is life and life is unpredictable Like GOD is , there is no recepy to be divine ! We Are not ALL ready to disperce our fears at once IT Takes time and a lot a lot of praying , praying ALL The time if possible , I was where you Are now and plz Forgive me for this comment i wish that you find peace :) our lord jesus christ son of GOD have mercy on me a sinner
@@livmilesparanormalromanceb6891 ....All Christian Denominations should be kind to one another because we get Much hostility from secular culture and Other religions.
@@PhilAlumb I agree. But, in all reality, Protestants tend to lash out at Catholics before they would a satanist or atheist. That happened at a satanic meeting in Canada. Catholics and Protestants came together to protest the satanists, ending up turning on the Catholic group.
Matt Fradd has the BEST Catholic late night show on RUclips - excellent guests, informed discussion, well selected topics. I actually think, Matt, you could get a mandatum from the bishops, since your work is so good.
Matt I really enjoy your show but I have a question about one of Trent’s comments regarding the establishment of the papacy. If I understood him he seem to say that the kingdom of God established by Christ should mirror the kingdom of Israel. Israel had a king and therefore the church should have someone of a similar position, i.e. the pope. However, when the people of Israel told Samuel they wanted a king, God said that he was to be their king. Israel was not supposed to look like the nations and if they pursued the establishment of a king, he would, unlike God, tyrannize them. Therefore, if I understand the progression of both biblical narrative and Trents argument, couldn’t one draw the conclusion that the way in which the kingdom of God should mirror Israel is the way in which Israel was intended to be, with God as their King, rather than Israel as it became, with a king like the other nations? If so, this would seem to be an argument against the necessity of the papacy rather than a substantiation of it. Again, I love your show and I promise I’m not a troll. Just an honest question.
Hello Charles Humphrey! I in no way speak for Matt or Trent, or the Church, but I did want to discuss some of what you are bringing up based on what I think they were saying (feel free to chime in to comment on any of this!) and my studied (though I am not an expert nor do I have any certification!) understanding on Church teaching. (I’m just repeating a lot of what I have heard from others, at least some of which, who do have qualifications, and most of the others may have been saying things said by others who do.) I think Trent tries to show in the video what he is saying, and it seems clear to me, but here are further elaborations based on my understanding of what he is saying and where he goes with it (then I go on into some of my own personal discussion of the issues.) I believe he was saying that the parallel of the Pope is Eliakim, the “Prime Minister” of Israel, who has the authority of the King and acts with that authority especially while the King is away in any extent. See below, the text he was referring to, but there are a handful of other texts throughout the Old Testament that refer to this position, enough that it is reasonable, even necessary to conclude that what Jesus said to Peter would have been understood as conferring this position upon Peter and upon his successors (this position could be passed on in the Davidic Monarchy just like the Papacy). “In that day I will call my servant Eliakim the son of Hilkiah, and I will clothe him with your robe, and will bind your sash on him, and will commit your authority to his hand. And he shall be a father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem and to the house of Judah. And I will place on his shoulder the key of the house of David. He shall open, and none shall shut; and he shall shut, and none shall open. And I will fasten him like a peg in a secure place, and he will become a throne of honor to his father's house. And they will hang on him the whole honor of his father's house, the offspring and issue, every small vessel, from the cups to all the flagons.” (Isaiah 22:20-24 ESV-CE) So don’t worry! While the language of monarchy has been used to refer to the Papacy, that is not the lens that is being used as Scriptural parallel in this instance. And it doesn’t create “a two-headed beast” either, because the “Prime Minister” does not rule by his own authority or by his own power, but by the power of the King. God in His power can depose any Pope, simply by ending his life. This has happened in history, and St. Robert Bellarmine was sure enough that his understanding on, I believe it was on the relationship between free will and providence, or perhaps it was the relationship between free will and grace, that when he was challenged by one of his theological opponents who mentioned that a Pope had been elected who in the past had personally disagreed with his position and did not show a change from that, St. Robert Bellarmine predicted the Pope’s death, saying, knowing the truth of his position, that God would not let the Pope make that decision, that his time as Pope would end before he gets the chance to decide against his position of Congruism (or at least I think that is what this was about, I could be misremembering), and surely enough that Pope had a relatively short time as Pope and passed before he was able to decide against the position, which many (I don’t know if it’s most) consider to be the more biblical and traditional one. This anecdote was interesting to me coming into the Catholic Church (which I did into a Greek Catholic Church (the UGCC)), which is part of why I say that I was so Calvinist, that I became a Catholic (though of course I have abandoned all vestiges of the errors that the Church condemns in that system). Through history, that the understanding of the Preservation of the Roman Papal office according to the articulations of Vatican I (which is more of a moderate position than many think, but still clear enough to be historically testable-Pope Honorius I was discussed at Vatican I, and the final articulations of that Council did take into account that and similar things that have arisen in Church History)... but that the position is in any way defensible in Church history-people have to actually try to argue against it, whereas there would be no difficulty with all the other major Sees of the early Church, where there were so so many of the Patriarchs of those Sees had fallen into clear and definitive heresy and definitively of their own free will enforced the error pretty strongly, proving that the other Sees had fallen into heresy in an official capacity. There is no getting around it with those Sees. But with the Roman one, yeah, there have been personal errors articulated by Popes or encouraged through organizational means in some ways, but that it is in any way defensible... and it is... that the Roman Papacy never fell... I think that speaks volumes. If it weren’t true, it should have been so much easier historically coming from my Protestant background to prove the Catholic doctrine of the Papacy false. I set out to disprove it, and I found that I couldn’t... and it was in a way that I should have been able to, if the claims were false. I could prove it for all the other Major Patriarchates... but I couldn’t for the Papacy, not as definitively as I wanted to be able to. When seeking to disprove Catholic understanding of the Papacy, you have to understand what you’re actually arguing against. A book I read that I found helpful is “Vatican I and Vatican II: Councils in the Living Tradition” by Kristin M. Colberg, I think published by Liturgical Press, which approaches the two Councils in what I feel is the right way, understanding them as not at odds as if they were opposed and of two different Churches, one legitimate and the other in error, but taking them together as I feel we should as Catholics... but anyway, this gives context and explanation of the actual context of Vatican I and the discussions that happened, what some people were saying before, and what the decision ultimately was... and it shows that its definition of Papal Infallibility is not just a bunch of hot air, but actually means something that can be tested, argued and shown in a way that proves it, but nor is it saying that everything every Pope has ever said or every administrative decision/action/policy of every Pope or their Administration has been infallible. It is more narrow, while at the same time actually saying something. I don’t think it right to disagree with an understanding of the Ordinary Magisterium... but at the same time, I have no trouble with the reality of the problems of the Church regarding Monothelitism or other issues that can be brought up.
Yeah he was saying the pope is like the vizier, not the king (who is Christ). I would highly recommend Steve Ray's talk on Peter and the papacy. I believe it's on RUclips.
We need to focus more on the political reasons for the split. Lets be real: the churches were basically split before 1054. Our present pope and cardinals need to start holding councils with the Orthodox. Please. God be with us.
@P Ciprian Are you sure that the pope is the proud one? In most occasions that I see an orthodox and a catholic engaging in a discussion, the orthodox either is agressive or doesn't listen
@P Ciprian The doctrine does not teach that the pope is a inerrable, absolute man. As you said, "incapable of mistakes". And to say that this doctrine is the sole reason the schism happened is not true.
TheThreatenedSwan The reason he is like that is because he was involved in Sedevacantism and SSPX during his time as a Catholic. He saw the looniest people imaginable and thinks all Catholics fall in those camps. Not excusing him, just explaining why he is like that.
Guys this is a great discussion, we Catholics and Orthadox need these discussions together in order to unite again. If two siblings fight and seperate from one another they must sit and resolve the misunderstandings that have lead to this and strive for unification. Please pray for this cause amd pray for the churches in Lebanon who unite today to pray for the tragedy that has rocked the country to its core. Amen
@@keytube1012 And then you sold indulgencies, devised a teaching of purgatory, even invaded Byzantine Empire and pillaged it thus contributing to the rise of the Ottoman Empire, later on you protected and procured some of the most vicious Nazis who killed millions of Orthodox Christians in Eastern Europe, even sanctified some of the Nazi supporters like bishop Alojzije Stepinac... There will never be unity. Unless all of your officials admit your wrongdoings, make it right and humbly repent. Only then you will be able to come back to one true Church.
I'm officially Roman Catholic but in terms of my view at faith I'm somewhere on the brink between Roman Catholic and Orthodox. This interview really helps making decisions which way to go. Thank you for that!! Further more, where can I get one of those 'Pints with Aquinas' mugs?? Do you sell those??
The other Apostles also received the keys and there have been 2 post-schism Ecumenical Councils. The Orthodox do not deny Papal Primacy. But these arguments do not show how the Bishop of Rome has total control of the church. I recommend you read St Cyprian's Treatises and his "On the Unity of the Catholic Church" he talks about how the church is unified.
@@salty_commuter819 hey brother I was Orthodox and became Roman Catholic due to Catholicism making more sense and having a better foot in church history and the Papal athourity all over History
@Salty_Commuter checkout the videos of explaining the RC faith by Divine Mercy & check the beauty of RC Mass explained ruclips.net/video/oegaylVJdlE/видео.html
This video missed an argument that I've been wrestling with which seemed implied in the title: why not convert to Eastern Orthodox? It could have addressed arguments about EO, but instead it spent the entire time defending the Papacy. For those who don't accept the Papacy, this doesn't do anything. So here's the argument that I've been wrestling with regarding Catholics converting to EO: I always hear Catholics say (specifically when arguing against Protestants) that they have tradition and lineage which can be traced all the way back to the Disciples. I've seen lists of succession of the Pope from Peter to current day, but I've not really seen that list defended (I know that would be a long discussion to do). What instead I want to focus on is this concept of Catholics having tradition from the Disciples, because here's my problem with that claim: the Orthodox Church has the Church of Jerusalem (where Christianity started), the Church of Ethiopia (the first Gentile Church), the Church of Antioch (the first capitol of Christianity where we first got our names "Christians"), and the Church of Nicaea. What does Catholicism have? Only the Church of Rome. What makes Rome so much more special than the place of the early Counsels, or the First Capitol of Christendom, or the First Gentile Church, or especially the place where Jesus' own ministry was? Beyond this argument, there are sub-sects within Orthodox which are far more Jewish than Catholics. I think the Church of Jerusalem and the Church of Ethiopia practice kosher and Saturday Sabbath. Now, I know that the disciples themselves decided in the Counsel of Jerusalem that these things were not necessary, but to me it does show a close link to the Jewish traditions. If the reason Protestants should convert to Catholicism is this claim of history, then how does Catholicism have a better historical claim than Orthodoxy? Why shouldn't Protestants convert to Orthodoxy instead? Or even, why shouldn't Catholics convert to Orthodoxy?
RCC doesn’t have a more legitimate claim to apostolic succession than any other church. Apostolic succession is only one criteria by which to judge. Most of the heretical/schismatic churches have this including Rome, so you have to judge also by the ecumenical councils, the life of the church (lived faith), the catholicism of the worship and tradition across geographies and cultures, and how the grace of the Holy Spirit operates through the church in your life and the lives of believers. Orthodoxy has a richness, a symphony of truth, that transforms the human heart into a throne where the Lord Jesus Christ may be seated and alone reign in you. There is no room for Christ AND the Pope on that throne… you have to choose one or the other.
3:22 I have been pondering on this in like the last 24 hours and it occurred to me that Christ was coming into a Covenant with St. Peter!! This is a great way to explain it to Evangelicals who love the whole "Our God is a Covenant-keeping God!!!" rhetoric. I mean St. Peter gets a name-change like Abraham did. And just as Abraham is the Father of The Old Covenant, St. Peter is the Father of the New Covenant. And I'm sure this understanding has already been covered/discussed somewhere in Church History/by the Church Fathers....nevertheless I thank God for the Revelation.
@@delvaassante5699because they have to in order to uphold the rest of their theology. They disagree with catholics on many things so of course they cannot concede this point. Otherwise they would have to accept the pope telling them that they are wrong about eucharist, mary and sola scriptura. Theyre really grasping on straws on this topic. Whenever im somewhat split on a theological issue like I used to be about mary, i remember that one party is legitimised by christ and the other isnt.
I have been in the Protestant-what I prefer to call Reformed-tradition since the Lord called me. I have been incredibly opposed to Catholic theological distinctives in the past…however, I have been softening recently. The rationalization in Peter’s name change in the reformed tradition has never been completely satisfying. I am starting to become more open to the papal claim because of it. It does not make sense to rename Peter to “rock” if he was not the rock the Lord was referring to in some way. Please pray that the Lord lead me into all truth brothers and sisters. Do NOT pray that I become Catholic, please merely pray that He lead me into all truth. Maybe that is the direction He will lead. Regardless, may He bless and protect you all, and-more importantly-use you mightily to reach the lost for Him. That is the only reason we are here. May we be strong and courageous and warn of the judgement to come.
@@AlixPrappas hello Alix, I will include you in my Mass and Rosary intentions. Generally speaking including a person in one's prayer intentions in Catholicism involves simply bringing a person to God The Father (either through Jesus' intercession in The Mass or Mary's intercession in The Rosary) and asking Him to pour out His Graces on the person, removing blockages in their life and putting them on the path He has called them on. So no, I won't be specifically praying that you become Catholic, but do keep it at the back of your mind that God desires that the entire world be Catholic. Finally, I need to leave this on here for you:- Protestantism is not Christianity. I have been talking about this Truth on m y c o m m u n i t y page for almost a year now. I will be making videos discussing it all and calling all Protestants out of Protestantism in the very near future, God willing.. God bless.
@@thekingslady1If you consider me at all in your prayers, I will be much appreciative of your graciousness my friend. Regarding Protestantism, I want to humbly urge you to reconsider. Firstly, the categories of “Protestant,” “Catholic,” and “Orthodox”-though not without important meaning-are intellectual categories that crear unnecessary division. It grieves the Lord to see us divided. We are to be of one mind are we not? An example of this is the term Catholic itself. All traditions that affirm the nicene creed-“Protestants” included-assert that there is one Catholic Church to which they profess allegiance. The term Catholic as it is used now is a title rather than a descriptive word as it was used in the patristic era. I want to again humbly urge you to loosen your category of who your brothers and sisters are, to not unnecessarily reject those that you will share in the Lord’s presence for eternity. Those who profess the Nicene creed, diligently seek the Lord, and to live within His will are your brothers and sisters. They may be in error on doctrine or practice, but they aren’t salvific errors. Please consider this.
This was so insightful and wonderful to listen to! I don't know why, but I could listen to the podcasts with Trent Horn for so many hours and would like to continue without break. It is each time a pleasure to hear about the Catholic Church and its tenet from Trent Horn!
It put me to sleep. From where I sit, Trent is getting "lost in the weeds" about a topic that is easy to google. His delivery is also flat and dry. I was hoping to hear a compare and contrast between Catholocism and Orthodox and some real important reasons why they didn't just join the Orthodox church. The hyper-academic discussion on apostolic succession ... as their reason for not going over to Orthodoxy is not believable. People make most of their decisions based on emotion so unless Trent is one of the few people on Earth who are Uber-intellectual and override their emotions then ... well the listeners are not. The brain is not set up to be that logical, what typically happens is that we create an attachment to an idea via our emotions then our minds look for "reasons" to defend the decision. Eastern Catholics have a form of worship that looks SO MUCH like Orthodoxy that I really wanted to know why they didn't fully embrace Orthodoxy but then we got a big argument about "how many angles dance on the head of a pin."
@@Kevin5279 Keyboard warrior? he has said his opinion that's why comment sanctions exists and if there will be chance trust someone will tell Trent exact same thing
How does Peter being the rock upon whom Christ would build his Church, then lead to him being infallible, and then eventually to a succession of leaders/Popes?
@@coastalcraftsmen9155 Peter being leader and Rock of Church obviously confirms the Tradition of Apostles that there is a leader System.... We should imitate the tradition of Apostles... Philippians 4:9 "Whatever you have learned or received or heard from me, or seen in me, put into practice. And the God of peace will be with you."
pinoy sarisari Are those traditions inspired? Don’t think you can equate Paul’s instruction to imitate his actions, as then becoming traditions. It’s more like live how I’m living, act as I act, love as I love. Not funny hats and gold staffs. The succession of popes doesn’t even follow from building the church upon Peter... ludicrous, no biblical backing to have a succession popes.
Faulty logic. Christ even states his kingdom is not of this world. Isaiah was referencing Christ. And read further down The rock Christ referenced was written in the feminine. Not the masculine. Latin vulgate is a terrible translation. For us Orthodox Christ is the head on earth and in heaven.
But the church is like a sacrament: a physical sign of a spiritual reality. So that kingdom not of this world is made real by the sign of the physical church, with the Rock given the keys just like a prime minister when the king was away, just as the King right now is away until His return.
Faulty logic. Christ stating His kingdom is not of this world means that its power and origin are not of man. God promised to establish the Davidic kingdom forever on earth. (2 Sam. 7:16; Psalm 89:3-4; 1 Chron.17:12,14). Matt. 1:1 - Matthew clearly establishes this tie of David to Jesus. Jesus is the new King of the new House of David, and the King will assign a chief steward to rule over the house while the King is in heaven. Luke 1:32 - the archangel Gabriel announces to Mary that her Son would be given “the throne of His father David. Isaiah 22:22 - In the old Davidic kingdom, there were royal ministers who conducted the liturgical worship and bound the people in teaching and doctrine. But there was also a Prime Minister or chief steward of the kingdom who held the keys. Jesus gives Peter these keys to His earthly kingdom, the Church. The rock Christ referenced was written in the feminine, THAT'S WHY THE GREEK NOUN IS CHANGED TO THE MASCULINE WHEN ADDRESSED DIRECTLY TO SIMEON. Yet, that isn't the only place where Jesus calls Simon "Rock". Read John 1:42, where Jesus calls him Cephas (which is the greek transliteration of the Aramaic word "Kepha". Then in 1 Corinthians 15:5, St Paul also refers to Simon as 'Cephas', just as he does throughout his Epistles. And if Orthodox believe Christ is the head on earth why do you have Bishops? Why do you even need a Church hierarchy?
ultimouomo11 we maintain the clearly established structure that was in place from the time of the apostles. Unlike Catholics we don’t “develop” or add to doctrine and unlike Protestants we don’t strip it down to something cultish and unrecognizable. We preserve the teachings of the apostles whether it be by oral tradition or written word as written in the scriptures.
@@mattbellacotti You maintain the clearly established structure that was in place from the time of the apostles? That's actually only partially true. By their own testimony, the early Eastern Fathers held a different view regarding the Bishop of Rome than Eastern Orthodox do today. ebougis.wordpress.com/my-eastern-papist-florilegium/ And despite your claims to the contrary, the Orthodox Church has changed on contraception, divorce, Primacy of Peter, and certain aspects regarding Mary's sinlessness. So don't tell me you don’t “develop” or add to doctrine or strip it down to something cultish and unrecognizable.
The example of The Office is a very good one for why a man-made institution needs it to be only one chief, but bad example on why a God-made institution would need it to be just one.
The problem with papal superiority is that it isn’t true historically. Even in Acts 15, Peter is subject to James who was the Bishop of Jerusalem. Moreover, to believe in the modern papacy as fact one would have to believe in the progress of dogma - incredibly dangerous and wrong heresy.
I am Catholic. But I do think the problem with sex abuse in the Catholic Church is disproportionately-higher than in other churches or organizations because there is an extremely-high number of homosexual men in the Catholic priesthood due to clerical celebacy, it attracts them
@Francesco Gorbachev also, there no evidence that clerical celibacy causes more homosexuality. There is evidence that many bad people, marxists, infiltrated the church to try and destroy it.
I believe that makes them pedophiles…I don’t for a minute believe every homosexual is inclined to have sex with children. If a normal homo or hetero sexual priest wants sex, there are plenty of men and women that would be more than willing to accommodate. Perhaps it’s pedophiles who are attracted to the church…
None of that is true. The rate of sexual abuse is somewhat lower than it is within all other public institutions, including public school and protestant churches (who have married pastors).
My biggest issue with Orthodoxy is best down by the absolute shitshow the Ukrainian Orthodox Church is going through right now. Essentially, the risk of inter-patriarch conflict bleeding into internecine conflict.
I understand you, but the era of antipopes show that it can happen to anyone. There's countless examples in both of our histories to show things can go south really fast. It just feels disconnected by time. You and I weren't alive the last time something like the EP-MP schism happened.
The Roman Catholic church and the Orthodox church belong together. We were one church for the first thousand years and I think God in his time will bring us back together. It seems in His providence that the two will come back together and mutually re-enrich and balance one another in their unique strengths, excesses and defects and we will be one body healed.
When you said we should mirror the structure of Israel i could not help remembering that when the people of Israel wanted a king, God warned them and said (i paraphrase) that giving them a king was not his intent, but as they did not yield he would give them one anyway, along with the consequences. I'm not sure that having a king beyond Christ is really the template that God has given us.
I recently read: APOSTOLIC LETTER ORIENTALE LUMEN by St. JOHN PAUL II TO THE BISHOPS, CLERGY AND FAITHFUL TO MARK THE CENTENARY OF ORIENTALIUM DIGNITAS OF POPE LEO XIII I found it to be deeply insightful into this issue
I'm a cradle Catholic now an Orthodox inquirer. There is no way i can go to an RC church. Just look at where it has gone. The crazy things the pope has done. My kids can not go to an RC school because here in Canada, they all have to fly the pride flag because they rely on the government.
That’s because Catolicism is more a system of governance, and as such is sometimes quite close to other governing entities…it even has its own state. Orthodoxy is an attitude towards faith and knowledge of God, and is, due to distribution of authority, at least as a whole, protected from the influence of “the times”. Catholicism is made to thrive in “good times”, Orthodoxy is marshaled to resist and survive in the “end times”.
We have had pan orthodox councils since the schism that are dogmatically binding for the whole church. The Hesychast Councils are dogmatically binding. The council of Jerusalem against calvinism is dogmatically binding.
@@TheThreatenedSwan He must have meant the whole "Orthodox" church, and not the whole church, the East and the West. It's problematic anyways, with the schism between the Russian church and the church of Constantinople.
@@bijogeojose7209 You guys are quick to point to the issues between Russia and Constantinople, but the that massive unending schism known as Protestantism is the Catholic West's baby.
jajohnson7809. We don’t gove the OC lessons. I hear orth. Bishop pouring out they hatred against the Catholic Church, calling Her heretic. Never the Catholic authorities have said that towards the orthodox. I wonder if these Orthodox are inspired by the Holy Spirit when they hate Western Christians.
@@jajohnson7809 That's funny. We never call Protestants part of our church. We have one visible body of our own. Your's are scattered and have no union, yet some of y'all claim it to be one. Learn from the Eastern Catholic churches. We prove diversity is divine, it's the division that's diabolic.
This is a low brow argument that I constantly hear from Catholics. It’s completely nonsensical and blatantly avoids the deeper theological problems with Catholicism. Eastern Orthodoxy is the one Holy Catholic Apostolic Church and that’s evident not only by history, but theologically as well.
Eastern ORthodox is a Failed religion...now it is dividing...It's 1000 years of failed experiment by Eastern Orthodox and until now, they Can't fulfill the prophecy of the bible...They Fail in their Missionary work because of Eastern Orthodox divisions... (Psalm 2:8) Ask me, and I will make the nations your inheritance, the ends of the earth your possession. (Malachi 1:11) My name will be great among the nations, from where the sun rises to where it sets. In every place incense and pure offerings will be brought to me, because my name will be great among the nations," says the LORD Almighty.
@@pinoysarisari7374 One of the reasons Catholicism has more adherents is because of Spain and Portugal's colonialism. And even then, in Brazil for example, one of the largest Catholic countries, a LOT of Catholics are becoming either evangelical or agnostic or cultural catholics.
@@Joleyn-Joy not even a good argument...Now In Post Democracy, statistics still show Catholicism continue to Grow in Africa, Asia and Latin America...Eastern ORthodoxy is dying in Eastern Europe as more and more Eastern Europe don't go to Church or profess Atheism...
@@pinoysarisari7374You papists are the losers. You are in total apostasy. You are in a crisis of vocations. In South America the Protestants are overtaking you and Germany is in a state of schism.
bruh all i can say is greek orthodox nothing changed about it all we do is follow Jesus words no one else. and a single man (the pope) should not have that much power
Yet Jesus called only Peter his rock and the vatican is literally built on st.peters body. What you are saying is like saying the Father shouldnt have that much power over his family. This power isnt meant to be some totalitarian power but it is there to keep unity. When all Bishops are arguing one has to keep the unity and that was always the roman Bishop
If I had a choice, I would be Eastern Catholic. It was through Orthodoxy that I discovered the True Faith that is Catholicism. However, the closest Eastern Catholic parish is a mission that’s 2 hours away from me. So for the time being, I am a Roman Catholic. While I love the Roman Rite to the Mass, I do miss quite a lot of elements from the Eastern Rite that was so attractive in Orthodoxy.
Orthodoxy is the truth. Not eastern Catholicism. Although they are closer to the true faith. They still recognize the supremacy and infallibility heresy.
Orthodoxy acknowledges the primacy of the Pope, its just to what extent. The Roman Catholics think the Pope should be an absolute monarchy whereas the Orthodox think that the monarchy has limited powers and those powers are shared among the other patriarchs.
@@richardb263 when you're getting meried your making a vow to god "not to cheat not to abuse and etc." If someone beaks the promise than divorce is justified but it's not like you can just sign documents, your pastor has to break the oath that you as a couple gave to god. English isn't my first language and because of that it's hard to explain, i hope you understood 💚
Both my parents belong to eastern catholic churches. One parent belongs to the greek Melkite Catholic church and the other to the Maronite catholic church, I love both catholic church's. We were raised maronite. In my teens I identify as a Roman Catholic and since then I always went to mass on my own, even Christmas and Easter. My royalty is to Rome.
You canonically belong to the Church of your father. You are not Roman Catholic. If your father is Maronite, you are a Maronite. If your father is Melkite, you are Melkite.
@@davidfigueroa8188 That's a common claim I have seen only in South and South East Asia. Are you from there? (it could look like a Kerala/Goa name). Canonically you belong to the church you were baptized from, that could even be different from your parents'.
bobon123 That’s completely false. This article is written by a canon lawyer. It discusses this question. canonlawmadeeasy.com/2016/12/01/dont-marry-validly-ukrainian-catholic-priest-eastern-churches-part/
For a perspective on the jibberish poor Trent talks here watch 'Should We Become Eastern Orthodox? - Answering Trent Horn' on 'The Orthodox Ethos' channel - I do recommend it.
Trent, you’re a good man, but as an eastern Catholic, you don’t understand the PAIN of Novus Ordo. That liturgy (if you can call it that) is enough to shake anyone’s faith. That might have been the intention of it’s design...
1- Peter never claimed to be the supreme leader of the entire church. 2- The apostles never claimed he was the supreme leader of the church. 3- The papacy (supreme bishop leader of the entire church) is never mentioned as a church office in any of the offices of the church described in the New Testament. See I Corinthians 12:28-29; Ephesians 2:20-21, 3:11; I Timothy 3:1-13 and Titus 1:5-9
Those Orthodox Churches that are in union with the Papacy were forced to do so in order to get protection when Muslims took their lands. Even the Byzantine (Eastern Roman) Emperor John Palaiologos was forced to sign a union as a condition to get Pope's help in fighting Ottomans.
@Filaretos The Zealot guess corona in italy is judgement from god, maybe 9/11, ohh and how many other atrocities. don't make me even start... you're filth beneath my fingers!
Yes and Bizantin orthodox broke that and said that they will prefer the shoes of Muslims over catholic in Constantinopol. That says everything you need. Their pride killed them. Now the Citi is waiting to be rescued.
Ιve spent years in orthodoxy and I really like catholicism and I believe they have valid sacraments but I really cant deal with papal infallibility and immaculate conception of Mary.
"The Papacy is a gift from God"?? That is a hersy and flat out wrong. The Pope was alway meant to be the First Among Equals...not a King. The head of the Eastern Orthodox Church is Jesus Christ. The head of the Roman Catholic Church is a Pope with absolute power. You are very very wrong. I was Romans Catholic for 50 years and became Orthodox in 2008 because of the many many scandals and a Pope refusing to take action. Very happily Eastern Orthodox. The Church is a Synod of Bishops..not a Papal King.
Good talk, thank you! I have a better understanding of the Catholic viewpoint on the Pope. Some counterpoints (hopefully respectful and thank you for your patience): 1) the Vatican also may not have ecumenical councils- the whole church is not included. Furthermore, Ecumenical Councils were designed to keep the church from heresy, not to be the catalyst for growth and change. 2) Early church tradition does not support one bishop above all. 3) When the Lord tells Peter that Satan desired to sift you (all) like wheat but I have prayed for you (singular), this speaks to Peters 3 denials, not that he is the pope of the apostles 4) The first church council in the book of Acts was presided over by James (bishop of Jerusalem) not the Apostle Peter. This suggests strongly that Peter did,not have authority over James 5) The Apostle Peter was a natural choice to speak for the Apostles- he was one of the three closest to Christ (with James and John) and was the most driven to action (lots of examples of this). Thank you
This passage from Luke you see When they apostles argue amongst themselves who is greater and then ask Jesus … Jesus tells them the devil will attack all of them but then he tells Peter that he is praying for him (only Peter) that when he turns back that Peters faith will be enough to strengthen the others. This is another significant statement for Christ. He called Peter alone the rock and he also prayed for him to keep the other apostles together. The keys to the church are a significant reference to royal houses where the steward who had the keys would tend the house while the king was away until the king returned. The apostles knew this which is why they never doubted Peter’s primacy even though he was not perfect. Luke 22:24-32 (RSVCE): 24 A dispute also arose among them, which of them was to be regarded as the greatest. 25 And he said to them, “The kings of the Gentiles exercise lordship over them; and those in authority over them are called benefactors. 26 But not so with you; rather let the greatest among you become as the youngest, and the leader as one who serves. 27 For which is the greater, one who sits at table, or one who serves? Is it not the one who sits at table? But I am among you as one who serves. 28 “You are those who have continued with me in my trials; 29 and I assign to you, as my Father assigned to me, a kingdom, 30 that you may eat and drink at my table in my kingdom, and sit on thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel. 31 “Simon, Simon, behold, Satan demanded to have you, that he might sift you like wheat, 32 but I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail; and when you have turned again, strengthen your brethren.”
Colossians 1:18 "And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all [things] he might have the preeminence."
The Orthodox are all that is left of the first church. The Pope broke for the church when he asserted he was "first among equals" and thus had supreme authority over all faithful Christians. That is all. Responses are welcome.
after the (politically-motivated) unions of brest (1596) and uzhhorod (1646), a lot of eastern catholics in central and eastern europe thought they were still orthodox...right on through the early 20th century.
Really? You think? That's not the point. It's about who is leading the Church on earth. There has to be leadership or we have the "protestant" problem of just going to Jesus ourselves and let the chips fall. We need not be fearful of having a unified Church leader since we can trust the Holy Spirit despite the flaws any leader might have.
Trent, it seems like you describe a sort of two story universe where God dwells on one level and the church needs a pastor on its separate lower level. This pastor or the pope would be the head that provides unity to the church. There are plenty of good inferences you listed to show how special St Peter is. There are also plenty of good arguments he did not have a similar role to the modern pope. Putting those on the back burner for a moment, this sort of ecclesiology of God needing (or wanting) an earthly head for the Church seems so foreign to Christian life where we receive our unity to Christ the Head through the eucharist--this holding together the Church which is the body. Practically a pope may make calling a council easier, but theologically and spiritually centering in a human who is not Jesus deflates the meaning of . The scriptures and fathers, especially St Paul and St Ignatius, speak of a divine-human organism when referring to the Church centered in Jesus Himself in the Eucharist. I feel like it would be hard to reconcile both a practical earthly head and a divine-human head without separating the reality of all believes union with Christ into a purely theoretical future event.
Here's something I gotta say to people you don't have to be Greek orthodox to be Christian orthodox there's many Christian orthodox all over the world Greek is just Greek orthodoxy so to anybody who's confused you can be Eastern orthodox or Christian orthodox any type of Christian orthodox you don't have to be Greek orthodox just saying I was born in Belgrade Serbia we are Christian orthodox I live in Canada now Greek orthodoxy has changed a lot for instance the way they baptise babies now is they throw them in a large pool of water which is very strange usually orthodox priests use dried flowers they dip it in holy water and place it upon the baby's head we do not throw babies in a pool of water they have changed a lot over the years the Greek orthodox I mean.. anyways blessed be my friends
Greek Orthodox church also follows Gregorian calendar for Christmas, which is wrong - they should follow Julian calendar instead. How this came about? Good ole political pressure from the West.
I'm currently looking at roman vs Orthodox Catholic churches. As a Protestant, this Convo helped me make a decision. Orthodox. All your arguments stem from a perspective that your already correct.
"Orthodox haven't had a single ecumenical council since the Schism" Yeah, considering where the councils have led the Catholics I think it's a good thing.
You have to know 2 things: first, my friend, we, the orthodox Cristian, have different view of the church: There is ONE Christ church, and this church is made of people from earth together whith people who passes away and are in heaven with Jesus and al Saints. Who can be the head and leader of this church? Jesus Christ! Therefore, we will never replace Jesus Christ for the pope. And second, what have to do Peter with Rome? He never teach Christianity there, Pavel did. Peter was killed somewhere nearby Rome not even entering the city.
It’s not that Orthodox are not united. They are just not united under the Papacy. They are united in doctrine and church practice. Granted, some are not in communion with one another, but the Orthodox have not changed since the Apostles. More that what we can say about Rome. Papal dogma has changed at least twice. Once Vatican 1, again at Vatican 2. It’s not that Dogma is evolving or revealing itself. Christ has given us all things necessary to live and please God, (2 Peter 1:3). The Orthodox have their issues like all churches, but at least it has not evolved or devolved.
Eastern Orthodoxy is a bit different. There are English speaking Orthodox churches....one parish in Howell Township NJ...the priests speak impeccable English. Upon entering the church, you get your candle and if you aren't RO, they will give you an English handout of Liturgy....be prepared to make the sign of the Cross ✝️ often !
What are your thoughts on the Eastern Orthodoxy and the argument Trent makes for the papacy?
@@marcuswilliams7448 Interestingly, only Peter was given the keys (Mt 16:18-19).
@@marcuswilliams7448 Read Mt 18:15-18 more carefully if you can find them given keys. They're given authority, but not keys. They only have authority insofar as they're united to him to whom the keys were given.
Hey Matt, I really enjoy these short clips from your videos keep up the good work!
God didn’t want there to be a king but the people begged for one so they could look like the world. To me the argument isn’t the most compelling, not to say Papal authority is wrong because it could be right, I’m on a journey right now. However that specific argument was ill stated, but he’s a clever guy!
Search on Google for "Does Isaiah 22 Prove the Papacy Orthodox Reformed Bridge" and read at the first link returned.
The Eastern Orthodox (officially the Orthodox Catholics) do not outright reject the Papacy. The Orthodox believe that the Pope had a historical role as the primus inter pares among the patriarchs and believe this proper role should be restored to the Pope of Rome. However, they reject innovative teachings that have come from Rome with regard to the Papacy, most notably the dogma of Papal Infallibility (from Vatican I) and universal and supreme jurisdiction of the Pope. Both of these have no basis in the teachings of the Fathers, Greek or Latin. Hence, these are the main reasons the Orthodox cannot come into union with Rome.
Wrong. We also have theological differences like the teaching on the immaculate conception, purgatory, indulgences, etc which are ALL FOREIGN to Orthodoxy and on and on
Wrong. We also have theological differences like the teaching on the immaculate conception, purgatory, indulgences, etc which are ALL FOREIGN to Orthodoxy and on and on
@@degamas1 yes those teachings you mentioned are also differences but minor compared to the papacy. Most of what you mentioned have to do with Eastern vs. Latin theology. For instance, the Latin view of original sin necessitates the dogma of the immaculate conception so the Theotokos didn’t inherit Adam’s guilt, but the Orthodox still believe she was all immaculate and sinless. Same with Purgatory. The Latins view of temporal punishment of venial sin after death necessitates a state of purging fire. The Orthodox do view a state of purification after death but do not define it and dogmatise it like the Latins. Often theologians call this the ‘toll houses’ but it’s not official teaching.
Also to mention: Eastern rite Catholics such as the Melkites have the same view on these issues as the Orthodox.
Papal infallibility is not what the Orthodox think it is.
Both Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholics should pray, in true fidelity, that our two Churches can once again become one. Christ’s last prayer to his father is that “they do not fight among each other”.We all give to the evil one when we do not heed Christ’s prayer. May we all get beyond our pride of wanting to say we are right to we are one in Christ. Amen.
Nope. Nobody should pray for or with heretics.
@@CarlFGauss-qn2cq Imagine calling yourself a Christian and saying we shouldn't pray for others. Repent.
@@CarlFGauss-qn2cq You do realize the counsel of Florence wanted to unite the catholic and the orthodox?
And orthodox fucked up.
@@novusrex9809Yeah sure it was basically an ultimatum, either the Orthodox nations accept the Pope and the Western nations help them against the Ottoman Empire or else. Not really 'whole hearted'.
Here’s food for thought. Let’s say Peter is indeed the rock upon which Christ built his church. BUT.... before Peter established the church in Rome, he was the first bishop of Antioch, and the Antiochian church is now a part of the Eastern Orthodox Communion. So why should peter being the rock give the Roman church legitimacy if the Orthodox have the first church Peter founded .
huh
@@belyen6330 Peter was the first Bishop of Rome, but Rome was not the first church he was the bishop of, first he was the bishop of Antioch, therefore the pope is not the only successor of Peter.
@@francescogorbechov4192 bruh rome was pagan there was no bishop or patriarch
I was actually thinking about the same thing lol
Have you read the documents from the Ecumenical councils and how the churches were ranked in the councils? Read the documents from the council of Constantinople 381AD.
Peter's successor, as in the one who took his place after he died, was the bishop of Rome. He would've appointed a bishop in Antioch as well, but he himself carried on to the heart of civilization (which was Rome) where both he and Paul were martyred for the faith. Due to this and the significance of the church of Rome- historically Rome was seen as the first among other apostolic churches, and the Bishop of Rome as both the first among bishops and the director successor of Peter.
I'm not Catholic, but something came into my mind the other day. Peter asked to be crucified upsidedown because he didn't feel worthy to die in the same way Jesus died.
Like a tree growing next to a lake is reflected in the water, Peter's cross was a reflection of Christ's.
Jesus is the Shepherd above Peter, but Peter is sub-shepherd...
And John had a shepherd ministry that Peter was commanded by God in Jesus to have no concern with.
@@mikewilliams6025 what?
What a builtifull though 🤔
Cool image, but i thought Peter was crucified in an X shape cross, could be wrong tho
@@nick.t1243 he was, but upsidedown..so yeah.😅
I’ve visited the Eastern Orthodox Church and love love love the Divine Liturgy. Contemporary Catholicism should take lessons. However the Papacy is the singular aspect of the faith that keeps me Roman. I found even more genuine love and devotion in the East for the Blessed Mother than in the West!!! The East helped prop my love and devotion the The Most Holy Theotokos. As JPII said “The church must breath with her two lungs.” Union with the East is not far fetched I pray for the unity God wills!
@@icxcnika2037 Jay Dyer is toxic and a poor representative for the EO
Pope Francis keeps you in the Church...?
Weak.
@@icxcnika2037 I'm not talking about his intellect
Union? No, thanks. We all know why Catholic Church d-e-s-p-e-r-a-t-e-l-y wants that, but ain't gonna happen.
@2JWilliam Come home to Orthodox. I converted from RC to Orthodox. I am finally home.
We Orthodox agree with various things that were said in this video. However, the differencew that Roman Catholics don't understand are these:
1 - The Rock is the Faith on Jesus Christ the Son of God, after which Saint Peter was named after.
2 - The promise of Infallibility is given to the Church as a whole, not just to Saint Peter.
3 - All the other Apostles also equally reveived the Power of the Keys, according to Matthew 18 and the Church Fathers.
4 - All the Aposltes had immediate and universal jurisdiction, not just Saint Peter.
5 - The Bishop of Rome is not Saint Peter, no Bishop has equal authority to the Apostles.
“The Master has appointed you [Peter] as director not of tabernacles, but of the Church throughout the whole world. Your disciples, your sheep, the Good Chief Shepherd has put into your hands.” (St. John of Damascus, Homily on the Transfiguration [c. A.D. 675-749]).
@@cruznature7545
1 - The Bishop of Rome is not Saint Peter. He's one of his sucessors (which the Pope of Alexandria and the Bishop of Antioch are too). Although the Bishop of Rome is indeed his main and first sucessor.
2 - How does that entail papal infallibility, and universal and supreme power over the Church and the all the other Bishops?
@@matheusmotta1750 ruclips.net/video/6KV6PXSODgE/видео.htmlfeature=shared
@matheusmotta1750 ..one first must understand what is meant by infallibility, but also one thinks the Pope has often spoken infallibly which is not the case research and you will find that throughout the 2000 year history very rarely has he spoken ex cathedra (from the seat of Peter) . Ok what does one mean by infallibility. When one speaks an undeniable truth such as Jesus is God as it pertains to our teaching it has to be infallible truth meaning you can't be wrong about it, so when the Pope says Mary is the mother of Christ he is bound to speak infabably about this truth, otherwise it's straight out heresy. When the Pope gives an opinion or statement outside of ex cathedra he is just speaking an opinion. Example, I would hope Hell is empty, that's an opinion not ex cathedra.
Before leaving Jerusalem, Peter designated his own succesor by handing over the leadership to James. If such thing as Peter's primacy exists, which is not true, then the only one who could claim it is the Patriarch of Jerusalem.
And in the Council of Jerusalem, James presided over the council, not Peter. So... Yeah...
Patriarchy of Jerusalem has always been know in tradition as "The Mother Church" it's logic. After all "The Holy Fire" descends there at the Holy Sepulcrum. Not in Vatican, not in Antioch and not in Constantinople!
@@СаваСтанковић-с7к Presided nothing the first to conclude was peter but he added to what he said
@@СаваСтанковић-с7к Now his successor is the one who succeeded him after his death
@@Sunchrisai False. Apostolic succession is about succession in the office of bishop.
Claims the popes are infallible…. Proceeds to point out Peters mistake. His counter made no sense.
Those Eastern Orthodox who came back to union with the Roman bishop you are referring to were essentially forced back into union... didn't mention that one though. Anyways, Papists can't name one heresy we believe but on the contrary we can name quite a few Rome has fallen into that was not confessed or believed by the Church for the first 1,000 years. Rome birthed the Reformation and has departed from the ancient faith on many levels it's so evident and obvious and will only get worse and worse as we near toward the end.
Not to mention their atrocities in Balkan region during and after WW2. Their clerics openly supported Nazi's, and later on even secretly transported them to Vatican where they were given fake passports to access the South America. One of them was Alojzije Stepinac who was not so long ago sanctified by them, who is in some cases directly and indirectly responsible for killings of millions Orthodox Christians, not to mention the forceful catholicization of hundreds of thousands of them.
We Orthodox do believe in Papal primacy, but not supremacy and infallibility because they're not supported by Scripture and thus not found in the Early Church. In Acts 15 James is the Bishop of Jerusalem and thus is the one to make the final decision which is also the majority decision. The Apostles' letter to the gentiles states "it seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us" showing that not one single bishop has supreme and infallible authority over the others. And you bring up the catholic church mirroring the kingdom of Israel yet fail to mention that God warned the Israelites against having a monarchy, and He raised several prophets to correct the actions of the kings
You also bring up that the Pope is not underneath any earthly authority (in the church) yet also admit that Paul stood up to Peter. How could Paul do this if Peter is the ultimate authority in the church?
In regards to the order of Apostles in the Gospels, they're listed in order of faith. Judas Iscariot had the least amount of faith, for he was a deceitful thief, which allowed Satan to enter him when he could enter no other Apostle, who all had greater faith. Peter of course had the most faith since he was the first one to confess Christ as the Son of God
I dont think that everyone agreeing means that everyones approval was necessary.
If the pope was fallible like all others, how could his word ever be capable of settling disputes within the church? If your pope is fallible as everyone else is, then you may as well not have a pope.
Peter being the first pope and the FOUNDATION of the church from Mat 16:18 makes it pretty obvious that the church would crumble without the foundation.
Despite being the foundation of the church the Pope is not infallible as a person, but he is unable to lead the church astray, since the Gates of hell will not prevail against it.
So this makes it pretty obvious to me that in order to fulfill his duty he must be infallible in teaching, because god protects him from error.
I found the theology much more compelling and closer to Christ than in the Catholic Church. Don't regret anything
Peter started the Antiochian church. Peter went to Rome. Rome killed Peter. Rome said: " Look at me, I am Peter now".
1. The pope is not Peter...unless you believe in some sort of reincarnation, Pope Clement is Pope Clement, Pope John II is Pope John the Second and Peter was Peter.
2. Just judge the tree by it`s fruits. The west fails at every point.
3. If you think God made the truth only available to the very smart and educated theologians that would imply an unreasonable god. All of it is very simple. Who changed? Whomever changed from the original teachings must be in the wrong. And look at the catholic Church...they are forever changing. In both doctrine and in practice of the faith. The Catholic church from today has very little to do wit the one from 200 years ago, and that was different from the one from 500 years ago, and that was very different from the one from 1500 years ago.
But Orthodox agree Peter had a first place. We just point out he was never, and never claimed to be Bishop of Rome. He was Martyred there but wasn’t Bishop there, and therefore he wasn’t a pope
in HONOR only. You need to learn what primacy in honor is versus supremacy.
A ship with no captain at the helm.
A team desparate for guidance.
No guidance, no standards.
No standards, no consistency.
What are our inconsistencies?
I can point out several in the Catholic Church.
@@СаваСтанковић-с7к What do you mean? The church isn't inconsistent.
Michael Lawlor
Except for the heresies of modernism confusing everything
Let's say that the RC has the pope as the captain at its helm. Okay... What now? Are your two last lines soing fine as they were supposed to?
I am a Greek Orthodox and I have a question that is not related with the main issue of this video. What will happen in the Vatican City, if the Schism is restored (Reunification of Orthodox and Catholic Churches)
This actually happened when Pope Paul VI met with Patriarch Athenagoras, and they mutually dissolved the anathemas and excommunications. For a brief period of time, they were giving communion to both Roman Catholics and Orthodox. And when they were asked about the schism, they both replied "What schism?"
As a Protestant, I don't see how the church structure of Roman Catholics as well as Eastern Orthodox are nothing more than attempts to dole out salvation piece by piece in order to exercise control over the masses. Jesus is our mediator (1 Timothy 2:5) with God and no priest or church organization can stand between us and our savior. The body of each believer is the temple of the Holy Spirit (1 Cor. 6:19). The Church is simply the collection of believers coming together in fellowship and worship and is not the gatekeeper of salvation.
Who says Jesus is our mediator? The Church, and don’t say the Bible which came out of the Church
@@RPlavo Paul wrote it in his letter to Timothy.
Roman Catholicism is heresy. Just for starters the Filioque, purgatory, and immaculate conception are all heresies and innovations that didn't exist 1000 years ago.
@Philippe Labonte
The bible refutes the filioque John 14: 26 "But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name"
Where in the bible does it say that "we are made clean after we die"
Philippe Labonte
I agree, Protestants like Roman Catholics are heretics too.
When one of the Popes wanted to buy chruch land in Croatia and church figures didnt want to sell it to Vatican, Pope replaced Croatian main chruch figure with the one from Vatican who was close to him, then that one sold the land and after couple of months after the job was done Pope brought back Croatian one back. That story tells me alot.
When Saul sought to kill David David didn't kill him when he had him in a tight spot.
The Pope is not yours to judge you are under the Pope.
@@koppite9600 David didn't kill Saul, u can't kill the Pope...
But he's a human and u can question his decisions and call his evil acts as evil.
@@judson1623 questioning the pope is ok
@@koppite9600 which actually contradict the whole fiasco and legitimacy when they make Filioque and change the creed.
@@hachibidelta4237 the creed was improved not changed.
Read Revelation 22 and tell me the Filioque is not there
The Orthodox were pissed the Pope made Charlemagne Emperor and never got over it
Very interested that authority of bishop of Rome over other bishops no body recognized except in Western Europe.
You never mention the fact that Peter founded the Holy Sees of Antioch and Alexandria as well as Rome. Ecumenical councils have confirmed this fact
Yet never do the Church Fathers speak of the Bishop in Antioch or Alexandria as being the successors of Peter, they always lay that claim on Rome
@@presuntomr Yes they do. Its in their official titles as Bishops from Antioch and Alexandria. Those 2 Sees along with Rome have historically always been known as the 3 Petrine Sees. You never herd of the Holy 3 Petrine Sees?
@@cervantescisneros712 Sure have, but you miss an important point that is recognized by both East and West. Rome is not merely a Petrine See. It is the See where St. Peter ended his life and from whence he held his primacy in his last days. Not only this, but Rome was not founded just by Peter, but was founded by both Sts. Peter and Paul. Rome's origin is both Petrine and Pauline. This is why the fathers speak of Rome as The See of Peter, even though there are other sees he also founded.
@@presuntomr St Peter physically and actually passed on the "keys" by naming his own successor in Antioch, he didnt do that in Rome. In fact St Peter was in house arrest the whole time he was in Rome and didnt realley have the freedom to run a church like he did in Antoich.
@@cervantescisneros712 and yet he abandoned Antioch and headed for Rome. I don't think you'd disagree that his actions had been guided by the Holy Spirit? His martyrdom in Rome was no coincidence, and since than tradition has passed down his authority as leader of the Church to the successors in Rome. Can you point to any Church father who points to the Bishop of antioch as having Petrine authority over the Church? Why were the Bishops of Antioch and Alexendria never considered to be "first among equals"?
Wow, this is so fascinating! Trent Horn is the man!
Pope prior to 1054 used to be just the head of the roman Patriarchate. He did not have authority over all patriarchates. Papacy does not comply with teaching of church fathers.
yea right thats why sain Ireneaus says Rome presides over all other churches. There is so much evidence from church fathers that this is not the case that comments like this are just ridiculous.
Orthodox have no problems with Peter and what was written of him. He’s the first among Apostles. Orthodox have a problem with what the Bishops of Rome did which wasn’t done by Peter. You changed. You didn’t ask your brothers about those changes. We’ll wait for you to return and discuss it when you’re ready.
Don't need to watch it to say no
The account of Paul going up to Jerusalem to clarify whether or not Gentiles should be circumcised is recorded in Galatians chapter 2 and Acts chapter 15.
Another interesting passage from Scripture is when Jesus and Peter are discussing the temple tax. It is the only time in all the Scriptures when God refers to Himself and another person as "we".
when i became Christian i was Baptized as a Catholic.... But Given the Chance.... I will convert to othrodoxy
Why? Just because they are politically more conservative than the current pope? Or do you actually object to the papacy? Because in that case, you are a protestant already
I’m sorry In the Bible it was always plurality of leaders. Never one human leader.
Paul bowed to Peter's authority.
And of course he corrected Peter when he was wrong.
But he always bowed to Peter's rulings.
He also headed back to a council when having problems.
Who has the authority to call a Council and settle Bishops disputes?
I know one who converted from orthodoxy because there was a dispute amoung his bishops...so he went back to Scripture and demanded to know where the Peter was. Idk of the dispute ever got resolved..there was no Pope to make a decree or call a Council.
Well basically the primacy of rome was acknowledged long before orthodoxy happened and even today many orthodox acknowledge the special role of rome, even in this comment section.
I could not tell you every detail of it, but if there was alot to doubt about it then there would have been eastern claims to the succession of peter and I have never heared of those.
So the basis for Rome seems to be so solid that there is no other line of succession that rivals it.
And claiming that peter does not have a successor is ridiciolous, that would leave the church without foundation according to Matthew 16:18.
And also, if we want to talk about geography... who was responsible for the spread of christianity more than every other empire? The romans of course, they spread it from african shores all the way to norway.
Christianity is for all people, not only the jews. No city could be called capital of the world in the early church except rome.
Anyways, the papacy is the main argument that is utterly crippling to orthodox theology
Moscow is the third Rome! There will be no fourth Rome!.. Fershtein A Catholic monkey?
Yeah, people who leave the church - this church or that - over scandal have forgotten that humanity is desperate and wicked, and that's why we pursue the truth of the gospel and need the Savior in the first place.
Or maybe they took the idea that you shall know them by thier fruit seriously.
Look at the actual effects of the divide between catholic and orthodox. In catholisism, you see a departure of spirit and tradition. Orthodoxy stays the same, despite being beaten on from all sides.
I’m Orthodox, my wife is RC. The difference in faith almost had us at divorce. My priest, her priest, and ourselves met. Both her and my priest said divorce is not an option. We followed Their mutual advice to attend Orthodox one week, and Catholic the next. Eventually my wife became fond of the Divine Liturgy, so now we attend Orthodox one week and Byzantine Catholic the next.
To be clear, I don’t actively participate in the catholic, and she doesn’t actively participate in the Orthodox. But our marriage is better for it.
I was on the same boat without the divorce part, I seriously considered becoming orthodox yet looking at the facts I wasn’t convinced yet my wife who was a cradle orthodox got convinced of Catholicism at an intellectual and spiritual level once we started attending the Latin mass and learning what it does to the soul and how intellectually invigorating it can be.
I hope you come back to God's Church one day my brother! I will be praying for you and your wife, may God bless you!
i thought you are not allowed to marry an non-orthodox?
@@derniemand360 orthodox can marry someone who is not orthodox with the condition that the non orthodox has a trinitarian baptism.
@@rfs103 Thanks
I happen to be an Orthodox catechuman. I've considered going Roman Catholic, but it's not really a matter of my own choice. I love the Catholic Church, make no mistake about it. Orthodoxy was what brought me into faith after living a very long time in a distorted, inverted and sexually disordered lifestyle. I don't get militant about the technicalities or the politics that are more divisive than helpful, and I don't feel I have to argue about it. I don't agree with papal infallibility, and I admit it's been difficult shaking off my protestant upbringing.
Anyone who chooses to be under Francis is delusional
It is a fact that the Catholic Church has spread the Gospel in a meaningful way to the ends of the earth, while Orthodox churches remain insular and are primarily located in specific areas of the world. This is a primary command from the Lord, so it's a legitimate argument for the Catholic Church.
@@ian_snyder I mean it's easy to say that when the Roman Church was not on the front lines against the Muslims and under totalitarian communists. That doesn't change the incorrect theology and innovations made over centuries now either. Even South America which would be one of the best examples is filled with liberation theology.
@@rohan7224 So somehow you still profess that there is some sort of ultimate bishop with supremacy and infallibility while Francis exists? This is literal Papist doctrine that you have to accept under the roman church.
@@rohan7224 I love how you reply to the other guy to confirm your delusions. You understand there is a reason for the issue with the Eastern Patriarch? Not only was it a jurisdiction issue, but he has said plenty of questionable things, not too far off of the things said by Rome's pope.
I was baptized Greek Orthodox in 2003, I love my religion and the teaching it gives,I am proud to be orthodox.. Blessed love to my orthodox brothers and sisters 🙏☦️🙏☦️☦️.
If you had any tips what would be the best thing to do to get more into Orthodox since I was raised in a Catholic family but personally don’t feel that spiritual connection with it but Orthodox is just calling me from what I feel
Hello Brian, I was Catholic before converting to Orthodoxy, the Roman Catholic Church were not very nice to my mum, who was devorced and wanted to send her boys to a Catholic boys school,, I met my orthodox partner over 20 years ago, I started to go to an orthodox Church, and fell in love with the whole orthodox ethos, could not wait to get baptized, and now when I think of the holy father, the icons, and the orthodox chanting in the church, my heart is filled with Love, Happiness and Humility.
May the holy father bless you and your family 🙏☦️🙏☦️🙏
@@brianquesada1018 Brian Quesada read the scripture and stay in the Catholic church. The problem with our Catholic churches is the lack of Biblical study to help people feel more spirituality and closeness to Jesus. Our churches people go with a disposition of all I need is the Eucharist, confess my sin today and sin tomorrow. I recently return two years ago to Catholicism. I was born a Catholic and left since my mother just quit going all together to any church and as a teenager went to difference churches. I can see the Orthodox community really go to worship in contrary to many of our Catholic churches. I been in homily and people around me talking instead of listening to learn the gospel and scripture and if the mass take too long they complaint. This is a stumbling block for a none convert. I belief more scripture and teaching on sundays should take place for the children on the catholic churches. It still have a long way to go. But the true church and the one Jesus founded is our Catholic Church. God Bless You!
@@amandabula8732 No....the problem with the Roman Catholic Church is that She has left the teachings of the Early Fathers and is a Frankish offshoot of what the Church of Rome was in the first 1000 years of the united Church. See my post above for more information.
@@amandabula8732 dear Amanda thinking of church as a religion is Like puting GOD in a Box for eaiser understanding witch papacy really is , GOD is unpredictable and when you really want to dance with him he can Crush a bone or two , but IT is definitly worth IT - church is not religion , church is life and life is unpredictable Like GOD is , there is no recepy to be divine ! We Are not ALL ready to disperce our fears at once IT Takes time and a lot a lot of praying , praying ALL The time if possible , I was where you Are now and plz Forgive me for this comment i wish that you find peace :) our lord jesus christ son of GOD have mercy on me a sinner
Alternate title: Should we BEGOME ORDODOX?? :DDDD
Fug :-DDD
BEGOME ORDODOX :DDDDDDDDDDD
FUGG, NO GADOLIG ALLOWD ONLY ORDODOGGS :D
No because it’s a false religion
@@noelyanes2455 Says who?
this discussion would have been more interesting if you had an Eastern Orthodox convert as part of the discussion
He had Steve Ray on before. He went from Protestantism to Eastern Orthodoxy to Catholicism.
Whatever fits their narrative :)
I’m Orthodox Christian but I love Catholics. I view them as brothers in arms during these tumultuous times. God bless you all 🙏
@@livmilesparanormalromanceb6891 ....All Christian Denominations should be kind to one another because we get Much hostility from secular culture and Other religions.
@@PhilAlumb I agree. But, in all reality, Protestants tend to lash out at Catholics before they would a satanist or atheist. That happened at a satanic meeting in Canada. Catholics and Protestants came together to protest the satanists, ending up turning on the Catholic group.
Matt Fradd has the BEST Catholic late night show on RUclips - excellent guests, informed discussion, well selected topics. I actually think, Matt, you could get a mandatum from the bishops, since your work is so good.
Matt I really enjoy your show but I have a question about one of Trent’s comments regarding the establishment of the papacy. If I understood him he seem to say that the kingdom of God established by Christ should mirror the kingdom of Israel. Israel had a king and therefore the church should have someone of a similar position, i.e. the pope. However, when the people of Israel told Samuel they wanted a king, God said that he was to be their king. Israel was not supposed to look like the nations and if they pursued the establishment of a king, he would, unlike God, tyrannize them. Therefore, if I understand the progression of both biblical narrative and Trents argument, couldn’t one draw the conclusion that the way in which the kingdom of God should mirror Israel is the way in which Israel was intended to be, with God as their King, rather than Israel as it became, with a king like the other nations? If so, this would seem to be an argument against the necessity of the papacy rather than a substantiation of it. Again, I love your show and I promise I’m not a troll. Just an honest question.
Hello Charles Humphrey! I in no way speak for Matt or Trent, or the Church, but I did want to discuss some of what you are bringing up based on what I think they were saying (feel free to chime in to comment on any of this!) and my studied (though I am not an expert nor do I have any certification!) understanding on Church teaching. (I’m just repeating a lot of what I have heard from others, at least some of which, who do have qualifications, and most of the others may have been saying things said by others who do.)
I think Trent tries to show in the video what he is saying, and it seems clear to me, but here are further elaborations based on my understanding of what he is saying and where he goes with it (then I go on into some of my own personal discussion of the issues.)
I believe he was saying that the parallel of the Pope is Eliakim, the “Prime Minister” of Israel, who has the authority of the King and acts with that authority especially while the King is away in any extent. See below, the text he was referring to, but there are a handful of other texts throughout the Old Testament that refer to this position, enough that it is reasonable, even necessary to conclude that what Jesus said to Peter would have been understood as conferring this position upon Peter and upon his successors (this position could be passed on in the Davidic Monarchy just like the Papacy).
“In that day I will call my servant Eliakim the son of Hilkiah, and I will clothe him with your robe, and will bind your sash on him, and will commit your authority to his hand. And he shall be a father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem and to the house of Judah. And I will place on his shoulder the key of the house of David. He shall open, and none shall shut; and he shall shut, and none shall open. And I will fasten him like a peg in a secure place, and he will become a throne of honor to his father's house. And they will hang on him the whole honor of his father's house, the offspring and issue, every small vessel, from the cups to all the flagons.” (Isaiah 22:20-24 ESV-CE)
So don’t worry! While the language of monarchy has been used to refer to the Papacy, that is not the lens that is being used as Scriptural parallel in this instance. And it doesn’t create “a two-headed beast” either, because the “Prime Minister” does not rule by his own authority or by his own power, but by the power of the King. God in His power can depose any Pope, simply by ending his life. This has happened in history, and St. Robert Bellarmine was sure enough that his understanding on, I believe it was on the relationship between free will and providence, or perhaps it was the relationship between free will and grace, that when he was challenged by one of his theological opponents who mentioned that a Pope had been elected who in the past had personally disagreed with his position and did not show a change from that, St. Robert Bellarmine predicted the Pope’s death, saying, knowing the truth of his position, that God would not let the Pope make that decision, that his time as Pope would end before he gets the chance to decide against his position of Congruism (or at least I think that is what this was about, I could be misremembering), and surely enough that Pope had a relatively short time as Pope and passed before he was able to decide against the position, which many (I don’t know if it’s most) consider to be the more biblical and traditional one. This anecdote was interesting to me coming into the Catholic Church (which I did into a Greek Catholic Church (the UGCC)), which is part of why I say that I was so Calvinist, that I became a Catholic (though of course I have abandoned all vestiges of the errors that the Church condemns in that system).
Through history, that the understanding of the Preservation of the Roman Papal office according to the articulations of Vatican I (which is more of a moderate position than many think, but still clear enough to be historically testable-Pope Honorius I was discussed at Vatican I, and the final articulations of that Council did take into account that and similar things that have arisen in Church History)... but that the position is in any way defensible in Church history-people have to actually try to argue against it, whereas there would be no difficulty with all the other major Sees of the early Church, where there were so so many of the Patriarchs of those Sees had fallen into clear and definitive heresy and definitively of their own free will enforced the error pretty strongly, proving that the other Sees had fallen into heresy in an official capacity. There is no getting around it with those Sees.
But with the Roman one, yeah, there have been personal errors articulated by Popes or encouraged through organizational means in some ways, but that it is in any way defensible... and it is... that the Roman Papacy never fell... I think that speaks volumes. If it weren’t true, it should have been so much easier historically coming from my Protestant background to prove the Catholic doctrine of the Papacy false. I set out to disprove it, and I found that I couldn’t... and it was in a way that I should have been able to, if the claims were false. I could prove it for all the other Major Patriarchates... but I couldn’t for the Papacy, not as definitively as I wanted to be able to.
When seeking to disprove Catholic understanding of the Papacy, you have to understand what you’re actually arguing against. A book I read that I found helpful is “Vatican I and Vatican II: Councils in the Living Tradition” by Kristin M. Colberg, I think published by Liturgical Press, which approaches the two Councils in what I feel is the right way, understanding them as not at odds as if they were opposed and of two different Churches, one legitimate and the other in error, but taking them together as I feel we should as Catholics... but anyway, this gives context and explanation of the actual context of Vatican I and the discussions that happened, what some people were saying before, and what the decision ultimately was... and it shows that its definition of Papal Infallibility is not just a bunch of hot air, but actually means something that can be tested, argued and shown in a way that proves it, but nor is it saying that everything every Pope has ever said or every administrative decision/action/policy of every Pope or their Administration has been infallible. It is more narrow, while at the same time actually saying something. I don’t think it right to disagree with an understanding of the Ordinary Magisterium... but at the same time, I have no trouble with the reality of the problems of the Church regarding Monothelitism or other issues that can be brought up.
Great points. I definitely would like to see a response to this.
Yeah he was saying the pope is like the vizier, not the king (who is Christ). I would highly recommend Steve Ray's talk on Peter and the papacy. I believe it's on RUclips.
We need to focus more on the political reasons for the split. Lets be real: the churches were basically split before 1054. Our present pope and cardinals need to start holding councils with the Orthodox. Please. God be with us.
@P Ciprian Reunion council, not doctrinal. It happened at Florence, though not long lasting.
@P Ciprian To seek for reunion.
@P Ciprian Are you sure that the pope is the proud one? In most occasions that I see an orthodox and a catholic engaging in a discussion, the orthodox either is agressive or doesn't listen
@P Ciprian That's not what the doctrine teaches, and you know that
@P Ciprian The doctrine does not teach that the pope is a inerrable, absolute man. As you said, "incapable of mistakes".
And to say that this doctrine is the sole reason the schism happened is not true.
Trent horn should debate Jay Dyer. Orthodox vs Roman Catholicism.
It's funny to see that's the first comment. I was about to comment that same thing
Yeah, Jay Dyer is merciless (in a good way). If it's a Catholic priest vs. an Orthodox priest, I nominate Fr. Josiah Trenham for the Orthodox side.
There are many apologist that can debate him, but what I have seen is that the Roman Catholic side usually refuses the debate.
TheThreatenedSwan The reason he is like that is because he was involved in Sedevacantism and SSPX during his time as a Catholic. He saw the looniest people imaginable and thinks all Catholics fall in those camps. Not excusing him, just explaining why he is like that.
@@southernstoic8279that or Father Peter Heers
I'm Maronite and we never left baby!
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maronite_Church
Amen brother Pray for Libnen
Tiger priestly celibacy wasn’t required until the 12th century.
I sometimes attend Maronite liturgy - beautiful and majestic.
Maronites are the best
Guys this is a great discussion, we Catholics and Orthadox need these discussions together in order to unite again. If two siblings fight and seperate from one another they must sit and resolve the misunderstandings that have lead to this and strive for unification. Please pray for this cause amd pray for the churches in Lebanon who unite today to pray for the tragedy that has rocked the country to its core. Amen
As long as the Pope is in power, there will be no unity. Jesus Christ is the head of the Church and all bishops are equal
@@vmxoxo5436 but there was unity before 1054, thats the goal
@@keytube1012 …and then you came up with the idea of papal infallibility and supremacy…
@@keytube1012 And then you sold indulgencies, devised a teaching of purgatory, even invaded Byzantine Empire and pillaged it thus contributing to the rise of the Ottoman Empire, later on you protected and procured some of the most vicious Nazis who killed millions of Orthodox Christians in Eastern Europe, even sanctified some of the Nazi supporters like bishop Alojzije Stepinac... There will never be unity. Unless all of your officials admit your wrongdoings, make it right and humbly repent. Only then you will be able to come back to one true Church.
@@GreekOrthodox7 papal infallibility what not what the Great Schism was about
I'm officially Roman Catholic but in terms of my view at faith I'm somewhere on the brink between Roman Catholic and Orthodox. This interview really helps making decisions which way to go. Thank you for that!!
Further more, where can I get one of those 'Pints with Aquinas' mugs?? Do you sell those??
The other Apostles also received the keys and there have been 2 post-schism Ecumenical Councils. The Orthodox do not deny Papal Primacy. But these arguments do not show how the Bishop of Rome has total control of the church. I recommend you read St Cyprian's Treatises and his "On the Unity of the Catholic Church" he talks about how the church is unified.
@@MS-dc1iu Thank you for the advise. I certainly will look in to that.
Happy and blessed Passover and God bless.
@@salty_commuter819 hey brother I was Orthodox and became Roman Catholic due to Catholicism making more sense and having a better foot in church history and the Papal athourity all over History
Try easterm Catholic churches. They are catholics with eastern orthdox traditions.
@Salty_Commuter checkout the videos of explaining the RC faith by Divine Mercy & check the beauty of RC Mass explained ruclips.net/video/oegaylVJdlE/видео.html
This video missed an argument that I've been wrestling with which seemed implied in the title: why not convert to Eastern Orthodox? It could have addressed arguments about EO, but instead it spent the entire time defending the Papacy. For those who don't accept the Papacy, this doesn't do anything. So here's the argument that I've been wrestling with regarding Catholics converting to EO:
I always hear Catholics say (specifically when arguing against Protestants) that they have tradition and lineage which can be traced all the way back to the Disciples. I've seen lists of succession of the Pope from Peter to current day, but I've not really seen that list defended (I know that would be a long discussion to do). What instead I want to focus on is this concept of Catholics having tradition from the Disciples, because here's my problem with that claim: the Orthodox Church has the Church of Jerusalem (where Christianity started), the Church of Ethiopia (the first Gentile Church), the Church of Antioch (the first capitol of Christianity where we first got our names "Christians"), and the Church of Nicaea. What does Catholicism have? Only the Church of Rome. What makes Rome so much more special than the place of the early Counsels, or the First Capitol of Christendom, or the First Gentile Church, or especially the place where Jesus' own ministry was?
Beyond this argument, there are sub-sects within Orthodox which are far more Jewish than Catholics. I think the Church of Jerusalem and the Church of Ethiopia practice kosher and Saturday Sabbath. Now, I know that the disciples themselves decided in the Counsel of Jerusalem that these things were not necessary, but to me it does show a close link to the Jewish traditions.
If the reason Protestants should convert to Catholicism is this claim of history, then how does Catholicism have a better historical claim than Orthodoxy? Why shouldn't Protestants convert to Orthodoxy instead? Or even, why shouldn't Catholics convert to Orthodoxy?
RCC doesn’t have a more legitimate claim to apostolic succession than any other church. Apostolic succession is only one criteria by which to judge. Most of the heretical/schismatic churches have this including Rome, so you have to judge also by the ecumenical councils, the life of the church (lived faith), the catholicism of the worship and tradition across geographies and cultures, and how the grace of the Holy Spirit operates through the church in your life and the lives of believers. Orthodoxy has a richness, a symphony of truth, that transforms the human heart into a throne where the Lord Jesus Christ may be seated and alone reign in you. There is no room for Christ AND the Pope on that throne… you have to choose one or the other.
Any true believer who goes to an Orthodox Divine Liturgy after a modern mass will convert on the spot :)
I don't understand what you mean?
didnt happen for me
@@commissary4196 Don't expect a sudden revelation. This guy is being hyperbolic. Just keep going and keep asking asking questions.
@@whitedragon9731 Thats exactly what I did. Was not moved to say the least
Good thing Catholicism offers both.
3:22 I have been pondering on this in like the last 24 hours and it occurred to me that Christ was coming into a Covenant with St. Peter!!
This is a great way to explain it to Evangelicals who love the whole "Our God is a Covenant-keeping God!!!" rhetoric.
I mean St. Peter gets a name-change like Abraham did. And just as Abraham is the Father of The Old Covenant, St. Peter is the Father of the New Covenant.
And I'm sure this understanding has already been covered/discussed somewhere in Church History/by the Church Fathers....nevertheless I thank God for the Revelation.
It’s a no brainer, in my opinion! He named Peter “Rock”? How do the Protestants pass by this so easily?
@@delvaassante5699because they have to in order to uphold the rest of their theology. They disagree with catholics on many things so of course they cannot concede this point.
Otherwise they would have to accept the pope telling them that they are wrong about eucharist, mary and sola scriptura.
Theyre really grasping on straws on this topic.
Whenever im somewhat split on a theological issue like I used to be about mary, i remember that one party is legitimised by christ and the other isnt.
I have been in the Protestant-what I prefer to call Reformed-tradition since the Lord called me. I have been incredibly opposed to Catholic theological distinctives in the past…however, I have been softening recently. The rationalization in Peter’s name change in the reformed tradition has never been completely satisfying. I am starting to become more open to the papal claim because of it.
It does not make sense to rename Peter to “rock” if he was not the rock the Lord was referring to in some way.
Please pray that the Lord lead me into all truth brothers and sisters. Do NOT pray that I become Catholic, please merely pray that He lead me into all truth. Maybe that is the direction He will lead.
Regardless, may He bless and protect you all, and-more importantly-use you mightily to reach the lost for Him. That is the only reason we are here. May we be strong and courageous and warn of the judgement to come.
@@AlixPrappas hello Alix, I will include you in my Mass and Rosary intentions. Generally speaking including a person in one's prayer intentions in Catholicism involves simply bringing a person to God The Father (either through Jesus' intercession in The Mass or Mary's intercession in The Rosary) and asking Him to pour out His Graces on the person, removing blockages in their life and putting them on the path He has called them on. So no, I won't be specifically praying that you become Catholic, but do keep it at the back of your mind that God desires that the entire world be Catholic.
Finally, I need to leave this on here for you:- Protestantism is not Christianity. I have been talking about this Truth on m y c o m m u n i t y page for almost a year now. I will be making videos discussing it all and calling all Protestants out of Protestantism in the very near future, God willing..
God bless.
@@thekingslady1If you consider me at all in your prayers, I will be much appreciative of your graciousness my friend.
Regarding Protestantism, I want to humbly urge you to reconsider. Firstly, the categories of “Protestant,” “Catholic,” and “Orthodox”-though not without important meaning-are intellectual categories that crear unnecessary division. It grieves the Lord to see us divided. We are to be of one mind are we not? An example of this is the term Catholic itself. All traditions that affirm the nicene creed-“Protestants” included-assert that there is one Catholic Church to which they profess allegiance. The term Catholic as it is used now is a title rather than a descriptive word as it was used in the patristic era.
I want to again humbly urge you to loosen your category of who your brothers and sisters are, to not unnecessarily reject those that you will share in the Lord’s presence for eternity. Those who profess the Nicene creed, diligently seek the Lord, and to live within His will are your brothers and sisters. They may be in error on doctrine or practice, but they aren’t salvific errors.
Please consider this.
This was so insightful and wonderful to listen to!
I don't know why, but I could listen to the podcasts with Trent Horn for so many hours and would like to continue without break. It is each time a pleasure to hear about the Catholic Church and its tenet from Trent Horn!
Trent has an excellent way of conveying his message
It put me to sleep. From where I sit, Trent is getting "lost in the weeds" about a topic that is easy to google. His delivery is also flat and dry. I was hoping to hear a compare and contrast between Catholocism and Orthodox and some real important reasons why they didn't just join the Orthodox church. The hyper-academic discussion on apostolic succession ... as their reason for not going over to Orthodoxy is not believable. People make most of their decisions based on emotion so unless Trent is one of the few people on Earth who are Uber-intellectual and override their emotions then ... well the listeners are not. The brain is not set up to be that logical, what typically happens is that we create an attachment to an idea via our emotions then our minds look for "reasons" to defend the decision. Eastern Catholics have a form of worship that looks SO MUCH like Orthodoxy that I really wanted to know why they didn't fully embrace Orthodoxy but then we got a big argument about "how many angles dance on the head of a pin."
@@npickard4218
Lol go and call him on Catholic Answers instead of being a braveheart keyboard warrior here
His stupidly wrong message
@@Kevin5279 Keyboard warrior? he has said his opinion that's why comment sanctions exists and if there will be chance trust someone will tell Trent exact same thing
He’s educated.
How does Peter being the rock upon whom Christ would build his Church, then lead to him being infallible, and then eventually to a succession of leaders/Popes?
Jesus building his church on Peter!
John Yang ? That’s a nothing answer. Would have been better to have written nothing.
@@coastalcraftsmen9155 Peter being leader and Rock of Church obviously confirms the Tradition of Apostles that there is a leader System....
We should imitate the tradition of Apostles...
Philippians 4:9
"Whatever you have learned or received or heard from me, or seen in me, put into practice. And the God of peace will be with you."
pinoy sarisari Are those traditions inspired? Don’t think you can equate Paul’s instruction to imitate his actions, as then becoming traditions. It’s more like live how I’m living, act as I act, love as I love. Not funny hats and gold staffs. The succession of popes doesn’t even follow from building the church upon Peter... ludicrous, no biblical backing to have a succession popes.
Why would Jesus church lead people into error?
Faulty logic. Christ even states his kingdom is not of this world. Isaiah was referencing Christ. And read further down The rock Christ referenced was written in the feminine. Not the masculine. Latin vulgate is a terrible translation. For us Orthodox Christ is the head on earth and in heaven.
But the church is like a sacrament: a physical sign of a spiritual reality. So that kingdom not of this world is made real by the sign of the physical church, with the Rock given the keys just like a prime minister when the king was away, just as the King right now is away until His return.
Faulty logic. Christ stating His kingdom is not of this world means that its power and origin are not of man. God promised to establish the Davidic kingdom forever on earth. (2 Sam. 7:16; Psalm 89:3-4; 1 Chron.17:12,14).
Matt. 1:1 - Matthew clearly establishes this tie of David to Jesus. Jesus is the new King of the new House of David, and the King will assign a chief steward to rule over the house while the King is in heaven. Luke 1:32 - the archangel Gabriel announces to Mary that her Son would be given “the throne of His father David.
Isaiah 22:22 - In the old Davidic kingdom, there were royal ministers who conducted the liturgical worship and bound the people in teaching and doctrine. But there was also a Prime Minister or chief steward of the kingdom who held the keys. Jesus gives Peter these keys to His earthly kingdom, the Church.
The rock Christ referenced was written in the feminine, THAT'S WHY THE GREEK NOUN IS CHANGED TO THE MASCULINE WHEN ADDRESSED DIRECTLY TO SIMEON. Yet, that isn't the only place where Jesus calls Simon "Rock". Read John 1:42, where Jesus calls him Cephas (which is the greek transliteration of the Aramaic word "Kepha". Then in 1 Corinthians 15:5, St Paul also refers to Simon as 'Cephas', just as he does throughout his Epistles.
And if Orthodox believe Christ is the head on earth why do you have Bishops? Why do you even need a Church hierarchy?
ultimouomo11 we maintain the clearly established structure that was in place from the time of the apostles. Unlike Catholics we don’t “develop” or add to doctrine and unlike Protestants we don’t strip it down to something cultish and unrecognizable. We preserve the teachings of the apostles whether it be by oral tradition or written word as written in the scriptures.
@@mattbellacotti You maintain the clearly established structure that was in place from the time of the apostles? That's actually only partially true. By their own testimony, the early Eastern Fathers held a different view regarding the Bishop of Rome than Eastern Orthodox do today. ebougis.wordpress.com/my-eastern-papist-florilegium/
And despite your claims to the contrary, the Orthodox Church has changed on contraception, divorce, Primacy of Peter, and certain aspects regarding Mary's sinlessness.
So don't tell me you don’t “develop” or add to doctrine or strip it down to something cultish and unrecognizable.
Well said Mikhail!
The example of The Office is a very good one for why a man-made institution needs it to be only one chief, but bad example on why a God-made institution would need it to be just one.
The problem with papal superiority is that it isn’t true historically. Even in Acts 15, Peter is subject to James who was the Bishop of Jerusalem. Moreover, to believe in the modern papacy as fact one would have to believe in the progress of dogma - incredibly dangerous and wrong heresy.
I am Catholic. But I do think the problem with sex abuse in the Catholic Church is disproportionately-higher than in other churches or organizations because there is an extremely-high number of homosexual men in the Catholic priesthood due to clerical celebacy, it attracts them
@Francesco Gorbachev also, there no evidence that clerical celibacy causes more homosexuality. There is evidence that many bad people, marxists, infiltrated the church to try and destroy it.
I believe that makes them pedophiles…I don’t for a minute believe every homosexual is inclined to have sex with children. If a normal homo or hetero sexual priest wants sex, there are plenty of men and women that would be more than willing to accommodate. Perhaps it’s pedophiles who are attracted to the church…
You want to back that up with a source?
None of that is true. The rate of sexual abuse is somewhat lower than it is within all other public institutions, including public school and protestant churches (who have married pastors).
Does we have an official teachings that priests should be a sex abusers. No we do not have that teaching.
My biggest issue with Orthodoxy is best down by the absolute shitshow the Ukrainian Orthodox Church is going through right now. Essentially, the risk of inter-patriarch conflict bleeding into internecine conflict.
I understand you, but the era of antipopes show that it can happen to anyone. There's countless examples in both of our histories to show things can go south really fast. It just feels disconnected by time. You and I weren't alive the last time something like the EP-MP schism happened.
Thank God I'm an Christian Orthodox 😉 ☦️☦️☦️❤❤❤
I'm with you!
Agreed!! ☦️☦️☦️
Best decision I’ve made.
Interested in finding more information. Any resources? Thanks!
Thank God I am a catholic :)
The Roman Catholic church and the Orthodox church belong together. We were one church for the first thousand years and I think God in his time will bring us back together. It seems in His providence that the two will come back together and mutually re-enrich and balance one another in their unique strengths, excesses and defects and we will be one body healed.
Repent and come back to the sound Orthodox doctrines. Leave your heresies behind and Heavens will rejoice if Roman church repents.
As a Protestant I find it "cute" that Trent Horn calls the Eastern Orthodox "fragmented" lololol Lord help us all.....
🤣🤣🤣🤣
😂😂😂😂
Yeah. Fragmented would be the term to describe the federation of Protestant churches
@@jonathansoko1085 40 000 and counting
Lord really help us all
When you said we should mirror the structure of Israel i could not help remembering that when the people of Israel wanted a king, God warned them and said (i paraphrase) that giving them a king was not his intent, but as they did not yield he would give them one anyway, along with the consequences.
I'm not sure that having a king beyond Christ is really the template that God has given us.
He’s a pastor, not a king.
@@delvaassante5699Trent made the analogy bro
It doesn’t matter if you are orthodox or not
At least you’re Christian
I recently read: APOSTOLIC LETTER ORIENTALE LUMEN by St. JOHN PAUL II
TO THE BISHOPS, CLERGY AND FAITHFUL TO MARK THE CENTENARY
OF ORIENTALIUM DIGNITAS
OF POPE LEO XIII
I found it to be deeply insightful into this issue
I'm a cradle Catholic now an Orthodox inquirer. There is no way i can go to an RC church. Just look at where it has gone. The crazy things the pope has done. My kids can not go to an RC school because here in Canada, they all have to fly the pride flag because they rely on the government.
That’s because Catolicism is more a system of governance, and as such is sometimes quite close to other governing entities…it even has its own state. Orthodoxy is an attitude towards faith and knowledge of God, and is, due to distribution of authority, at least as a whole, protected from the influence of “the times”. Catholicism is made to thrive in “good times”, Orthodoxy is marshaled to resist and survive in the “end times”.
We have had pan orthodox councils since the schism that are dogmatically binding for the whole church. The Hesychast Councils are dogmatically binding. The council of Jerusalem against calvinism is dogmatically binding.
@@TheThreatenedSwan He must have meant the whole "Orthodox" church, and not the whole church, the East and the West. It's problematic anyways, with the schism between the Russian church and the church of Constantinople.
@@bijogeojose7209 You guys are quick to point to the issues between Russia and Constantinople, but the that massive unending schism known as Protestantism is the Catholic West's baby.
jajohnson7809. Sure. But at least we don’t give lessons
jajohnson7809. We don’t gove the OC lessons. I hear orth. Bishop pouring out they hatred against the Catholic Church, calling Her heretic. Never the Catholic authorities have said that towards the orthodox. I wonder if these Orthodox are inspired by the Holy Spirit when they hate Western Christians.
@@jajohnson7809 That's funny. We never call Protestants part of our church. We have one visible body of our own. Your's are scattered and have no union, yet some of y'all claim it to be one. Learn from the Eastern Catholic churches. We prove diversity is divine, it's the division that's diabolic.
Where do you get the cool "Pints with Aquinas" mugs?
You have to become a patron I think it's the $20 a month tier
This is a low brow argument that I constantly hear from Catholics. It’s completely nonsensical and blatantly avoids the deeper theological problems with Catholicism. Eastern Orthodoxy is the one Holy Catholic Apostolic Church and that’s evident not only by history, but theologically as well.
Eastern ORthodox is a Failed religion...now it is dividing...It's 1000 years of failed experiment by Eastern Orthodox and until now, they Can't fulfill the prophecy of the bible...They Fail in their Missionary work because of Eastern Orthodox divisions...
(Psalm 2:8)
Ask me, and I will make the nations your inheritance, the ends of the earth your possession.
(Malachi 1:11)
My name will be great among the nations, from where the sun rises to where it sets. In every place incense and pure offerings will be brought to me, because my name will be great among the nations," says the LORD Almighty.
@@pinoysarisari7374 One of the reasons Catholicism has more adherents is because of Spain and Portugal's colonialism. And even then, in Brazil for example, one of the largest Catholic countries, a LOT of Catholics are becoming either evangelical or agnostic or cultural catholics.
@@Joleyn-Joy not even a good argument...Now In Post Democracy, statistics still show Catholicism continue to Grow in Africa, Asia and Latin America...Eastern ORthodoxy is dying in Eastern Europe as more and more Eastern Europe don't go to Church or profess Atheism...
@@pinoysarisari7374You papists are the losers. You are in total apostasy. You are in a crisis of vocations. In South America the Protestants are overtaking you and Germany is in a state of schism.
@@pinoysarisari7374
"Every other tradition has scandals of abuse" is not the most compelling reason to stay or not to leave a tradition.
I think what he was trying to say is that there isn't necessarily light at the end of the tunnel.
@@RollTide1987 He's making excuses for the Papist church.
No you
@@RollTide1987 Roll Tide!
@@whitedragon9731Whatever you say schismatic. You and your many orthodox churches that might or might not have Apostlic succession
You should become western orthodox.
IC XC
NI KA
bruh all i can say is greek orthodox nothing changed about it all we do is follow Jesus words no one else. and a single man (the pope) should not have that much power
@Aliens r real nope our priests can be traced back to the disciples of Jesus meaning that we have the original teachings
@@pianopano4140 Botho Romans and Orthodox could trace back to Jesus and his disciples... this is more political then teachings...
Yet Jesus called only Peter his rock and the vatican is literally built on st.peters body. What you are saying is like saying the Father shouldnt have that much power over his family. This power isnt meant to be some totalitarian power but it is there to keep unity. When all Bishops are arguing one has to keep the unity and that was always the roman Bishop
If I had a choice, I would be Eastern Catholic. It was through Orthodoxy that I discovered the True Faith that is Catholicism. However, the closest Eastern Catholic parish is a mission that’s 2 hours away from me. So for the time being, I am a Roman Catholic. While I love the Roman Rite to the Mass, I do miss quite a lot of elements from the Eastern Rite that was so attractive in Orthodoxy.
Try to find some extraordinary form of Roman Rite then! I bet you´ll find many (if not all) these elements there, too.
Orthodoxy is the truth. Not eastern Catholicism. Although they are closer to the true faith. They still recognize the supremacy and infallibility heresy.
Orthodoxy acknowledges the primacy of the Pope, its just to what extent. The Roman Catholics think the Pope should be an absolute monarchy whereas the Orthodox think that the monarchy has limited powers and those powers are shared among the other patriarchs.
Many orthodox speak of a "primacy of honor" of little to no practical consequence. "First among equals".
Thank you so much.
Limited powers,Jesus forbids divorce yet the orthodox permit divorce, no pope has ever given themselves that much authority and change God's laws.
@@richardb263 when you're getting meried your making a vow to god "not to cheat not to abuse and etc." If someone beaks the promise than divorce is justified but it's not like you can just sign documents, your pastor has to break the oath that you as a couple gave to god. English isn't my first language and because of that it's hard to explain, i hope you understood 💚
@@richardb263 Unless for sexual promiscuity. The Bible is clear on that one.
Both my parents belong to eastern catholic churches.
One parent belongs to the greek Melkite
Catholic church and the other to the Maronite catholic church, I love both catholic church's. We were raised maronite. In my teens I identify as a Roman Catholic and since then I always went to mass on my own, even Christmas and Easter. My royalty is to Rome.
Who’s Church did they get married in?
You canonically belong to the Church of your father. You are not Roman Catholic. If your father is Maronite, you are a Maronite. If your father is Melkite, you are Melkite.
@@davidfigueroa8188 That's a common claim I have seen only in South and South East Asia. Are you from there? (it could look like a Kerala/Goa name). Canonically you belong to the church you were baptized from, that could even be different from your parents'.
bobon123 That’s completely false. This article is written by a canon lawyer. It discusses this question.
canonlawmadeeasy.com/2016/12/01/dont-marry-validly-ukrainian-catholic-priest-eastern-churches-part/
@@210SAi maronite catholic church
Leaving the Church because of the scandals is like leaving Jesus because of Judas.
lol true
For a perspective on the jibberish poor Trent talks here watch 'Should We Become Eastern Orthodox? - Answering Trent Horn' on 'The Orthodox Ethos' channel - I do recommend it.
Trent, you’re a good man, but as an eastern Catholic, you don’t understand the PAIN of Novus Ordo. That liturgy (if you can call it that) is enough to shake anyone’s faith. That might have been the intention of it’s design...
That's why you should stay and change the culture from within. My parish is slowly returning to traditional practices. Its takes time.
agreed - it's the elephant in the room he ignores
In Luke 22:31-32, the King James translation makes this 'you' and 'y'all' distinction clear, with you(plural) and thee/thou (singular):
Im orthodox period. I will not badmouth the roman catholics, but the bishop of rome is out of line.
1- Peter never claimed to be the supreme leader of the entire church.
2- The apostles never claimed he was the supreme leader of the church.
3- The papacy (supreme bishop leader of the entire church) is never mentioned as a church office in any of the offices of the church described in the New Testament. See I Corinthians 12:28-29; Ephesians 2:20-21, 3:11; I Timothy 3:1-13 and Titus 1:5-9
You appear to be a proponent of Sola Scriptura!
Al Hilford what is that?
Those Orthodox Churches that are in union with the Papacy were forced to do so in order to get protection when Muslims took their lands. Even the Byzantine (Eastern Roman) Emperor John Palaiologos was forced to sign a union as a condition to get Pope's help in fighting Ottomans.
You're outside the home, there are wolves, you can come back for safety or love, love is better but in a storm any port will do
@Filaretos The Zealot guess corona in italy is judgement from god, maybe 9/11, ohh and how many other atrocities. don't make me even start... you're filth beneath my fingers!
@Filaretos The Zealot bravo i think lord abondond them becouse they have Melted ALL crosses to money to pay for The mercanery and pope army !!
Yes and Bizantin orthodox broke that and said that they will prefer the shoes of Muslims over catholic in Constantinopol. That says everything you need. Their pride killed them. Now the Citi is waiting to be rescued.
@@hudebnilidlprodukce5137 It's better than to commit a sin, isn't it?
Ιve spent years in orthodoxy and I really like catholicism and I believe they have valid sacraments but I really cant deal with papal infallibility and immaculate conception of Mary.
Because it isn't part of Holy Tradition
No Orthodox saint ever held that the Catholics have valid sacraments.
They say the opposite, friend.
Because it’s false and heresy. Stay Orthodox forever.
"The Papacy is a gift from God"?? That is a hersy and flat out wrong. The Pope was alway meant to be the First Among Equals...not a King. The head of the Eastern Orthodox Church is Jesus Christ. The head of the Roman Catholic Church is a Pope with absolute power. You are very very wrong. I was Romans Catholic for 50 years and became Orthodox in 2008 because of the many many scandals and a Pope refusing to take action. Very happily Eastern Orthodox. The Church is a Synod of Bishops..not a Papal King.
7:18 interesting how you left out an important detail about Paul going to Jerusalem. To talk to Peter..... AND JAMES. Come on
Good talk, thank you! I have a better understanding of the Catholic viewpoint on the Pope.
Some counterpoints (hopefully respectful and thank you for your patience):
1) the Vatican also may not have ecumenical councils- the whole church is not included. Furthermore, Ecumenical Councils were designed to keep the church from heresy, not to be the catalyst for growth and change.
2) Early church tradition does not support one bishop above all.
3) When the Lord tells Peter that Satan desired to sift you (all) like wheat but I have prayed for you (singular), this speaks to Peters 3 denials, not that he is the pope of the apostles
4) The first church council in the book of Acts was presided over by James (bishop of Jerusalem) not the Apostle Peter. This suggests strongly that Peter did,not have authority over James
5) The Apostle Peter was a natural choice to speak for the Apostles- he was one of the three closest to Christ (with James and John) and was the most driven to action (lots of examples of this).
Thank you
Amen!
Read up on saint Ignatius of antioch. He is an apostolic church and his views on the papacy were not criticized whatsoever at his time.
This passage from Luke you see When they apostles argue amongst themselves who is greater and then ask Jesus … Jesus tells them the devil will attack all of them but then he tells Peter that he is praying for him (only Peter) that when he turns back that Peters faith will be enough to strengthen the others. This is another significant statement for Christ. He called Peter alone the rock and he also prayed for him to keep the other apostles together. The keys to the church are a significant reference to royal houses where the steward who had the keys would tend the house while the king was away until the king returned. The apostles knew this which is why they never doubted Peter’s primacy even though he was not perfect.
Luke 22:24-32 (RSVCE): 24 A dispute also arose among them, which of them was to be regarded as the greatest. 25 And he said to them, “The kings of the Gentiles exercise lordship over them; and those in authority over them are called benefactors. 26 But not so with you; rather let the greatest among you become as the youngest, and the leader as one who serves. 27 For which is the greater, one who sits at table, or one who serves? Is it not the one who sits at table? But I am among you as one who serves.
28 “You are those who have continued with me in my trials; 29 and I assign to you, as my Father assigned to me, a kingdom, 30 that you may eat and drink at my table in my kingdom, and sit on thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel.
31 “Simon, Simon, behold, Satan demanded to have you, that he might sift you like wheat, 32 but I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail; and when you have turned again, strengthen your brethren.”
Colossians 1:18 "And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all [things] he might have the preeminence."
The Christ is head of Church, so this is not argument against papacy
The Orthodox are all that is left of the first church.
The Pope broke for the church when he asserted he was "first among equals" and thus had supreme authority over all faithful Christians.
That is all. Responses are welcome.
after the (politically-motivated) unions of brest (1596) and uzhhorod (1646), a lot of eastern catholics in central and eastern europe thought they were still orthodox...right on through the early 20th century.
I thought Christ is the head of the church.
He is
Not according to Roman catholics.. Antichrist Francis is. The man who wants to unite Muslims, jews and catholics.
UltraAar in the Orthodox Church Christ is the head. That’s why we don’t believe in the pope.
Really? You think? That's not the point. It's about who is leading the Church on earth. There has to be leadership or we have the "protestant" problem of just going to Jesus ourselves and let the chips fall. We need not be fearful of having a unified Church leader since we can trust the Holy Spirit despite the flaws any leader might have.
@@larrymac50 I think its the main point. Jesus is the head in heaven and on earth. He is Lord over all afterall
Trent, it seems like you describe a sort of two story universe where God dwells on one level and the church needs a pastor on its separate lower level. This pastor or the pope would be the head that provides unity to the church. There are plenty of good inferences you listed to show how special St Peter is. There are also plenty of good arguments he did not have a similar role to the modern pope. Putting those on the back burner for a moment, this sort of ecclesiology of God needing (or wanting) an earthly head for the Church seems so foreign to Christian life where we receive our unity to Christ the Head through the eucharist--this holding together the Church which is the body. Practically a pope may make calling a council easier, but theologically and spiritually centering in a human who is not Jesus deflates the meaning of . The scriptures and fathers, especially St Paul and St Ignatius, speak of a divine-human organism when referring to the Church centered in Jesus Himself in the Eucharist. I feel like it would be hard to reconcile both a practical earthly head and a divine-human head without separating the reality of all believes union with Christ into a purely theoretical future event.
This all sounds great in theory until you find out some of the characters that have served as Pope over the centuries, including the current one
I am Roman Catholic, should I become Eastern Orthodox? ABSOLUTELY NOT!
No one is forcing you Lol
Hey crazy, calm down. You can have your religion
Here's something I gotta say to people you don't have to be Greek orthodox to be Christian orthodox there's many Christian orthodox all over the world Greek is just Greek orthodoxy so to anybody who's confused you can be Eastern orthodox or Christian orthodox any type of Christian orthodox you don't have to be Greek orthodox just saying I was born in Belgrade Serbia we are Christian orthodox I live in Canada now Greek orthodoxy has changed a lot for instance the way they baptise babies now is they throw them in a large pool of water which is very strange usually orthodox priests use dried flowers they dip it in holy water and place it upon the baby's head we do not throw babies in a pool of water they have changed a lot over the years the Greek orthodox I mean.. anyways blessed be my friends
Greek Orthodox church also follows Gregorian calendar for Christmas, which is wrong - they should follow Julian calendar instead.
How this came about? Good ole political pressure from the West.
I'm currently looking at roman vs Orthodox Catholic churches. As a Protestant, this Convo helped me make a decision. Orthodox. All your arguments stem from a perspective that your already correct.
We are, orthodox and thier schism ia dead end.
A 10 minute discussion won’t solve a 2000 year debate
Read a book by Klaus Kenneth "Born to Hate, Reborn to Love".
Yes! Come home to Orthodox.
I'm starting to notice what Catholics do - they open a theological "possibility" and then create a whole Marvel universe around it. haha
"Orthodox haven't had a single ecumenical council since the Schism"
Yeah, considering where the councils have led the Catholics I think it's a good thing.
LOL
Orthodoxy is literally built on originality. Why would an ecumenical council be needed if nothing must change
You have to know 2 things: first, my friend, we, the orthodox Cristian, have different view of the church: There is ONE Christ church, and this church is made of people from earth together whith people who passes away and are in heaven with Jesus and al Saints. Who can be the head and leader of this church? Jesus Christ! Therefore, we will never replace Jesus Christ for the pope. And second, what have to do Peter with Rome? He never teach Christianity there, Pavel did. Peter was killed somewhere nearby Rome not even entering the city.
Yes. Yes you should become Orthodox
So basically, the argument is the pope can lead the entire church into heresy, but it’s ok, because popes make mistakes.
I get it.
It’s not that Orthodox are not united. They are just not united under the Papacy. They are united in doctrine and church practice. Granted, some are not in communion with one another, but the Orthodox have not changed since the Apostles. More that what we can say about Rome. Papal dogma has changed at least twice. Once Vatican 1, again at Vatican 2. It’s not that Dogma is evolving or revealing itself. Christ has given us all things necessary to live and please God, (2 Peter 1:3). The Orthodox have their issues like all churches, but at least it has not evolved or devolved.
Eastern Orthodoxy is a bit different. There are English speaking Orthodox churches....one parish in Howell Township NJ...the priests speak impeccable English. Upon entering the church, you get your candle and if you aren't RO, they will give you an English handout of Liturgy....be prepared to make the sign of the Cross ✝️ often !