That's the point I keep making. To use the term "reunification" means that there are no dogmatic differences, which is simply and obviously untrue. If there are, then it's not reunification, it's conversion, and one side has to admit it's wrong, and therefore not the Church. One side can be wrong, both sides can be wrong, but it's simply impossible for both sides to be right.
Not to forget that the Papacy lets the Uniates keep Palamas as a Saint, yet his doctrine and theology is somehow incorrect & heretical. Papists only care about earthly power and influence.
Technically speaking that isn't correct. The Latins have no specific anathema on St. Palamas' theology. You can't be a Thomist while also being a Palamist--due to Aquinas' absolute divine simplicity. Thomism, while being extremely popular among Catholics, is not Catholic dogma (although internet Catholic rad trads certainly act like it is). So, technically speaking, the Uniates aren't contradicting any Catholic dogma by being Palamists, even though they are going against the grain. I love David's content, but I think the fact that most of the Catholics he speaks with are rad-trads that misrepresent their own faith almost as badly as they misrepresent our faith has colored his impressions on what Catholic dogma entails regarding Thomism.
@@duginashley3199 What about Trent's decree on justification and the Orthodox view of uncreated grace? "Of this Justification the causes are these... the alone formal cause is the justice of God, not that whereby He Himself is just, but that whereby He maketh us just."
@OrthodoxyChloroQuine I found Jay Dyer's blgpost and the passage in question in Denzinger 294-296. I don't see anything in that passage which definitively names ADS as dogmatic, at least not in a way that's incompatible with the EE distinction.
@OrthodoxyChloroQuine I just told you I went through the quoted passage from Denzinger in my previous comment. ADS is obviously incompatible with EE, but ADS is also not dogmatic for the Latins.
Not to mention that one of the biggest obstacles to reunification would be the saints. Orthodox would never accept Ignatius of Loyola, Thomas Aquinas or Josaphat Kuntsevich as such. Only reunification would be in the mode of mass conversions at parish level, like what happened at a town in Guatemala.
Excuse my ignorance, but why would these individuals not the acceptable to the Eastern Church as saints? I should add, that if anyone ever asked me who my favorite saint was, I would respond, "those known but to God".
@@loge10 because they taught wrong theology and died outside the Church. Josaphat in particular, since he murdered Orthodox Christians, burned churches, and had Orthodox priests arrested for holding Liturgy. He was "canonized" by Rome as a "martyr for unity"
I am just curious regarding the uniates (Eastern Rite Catholics of the Eastern Orthodox Theology), how do they serve the anathema services, do they skip those lines that condemn Varlaam and the Pope, or are they going to say those regardless and Rome just turn a blind eye toward those, as long as they stay true to the Supreme Pontiff Pachapapa Frankie.
Whatever one says about reunification, one should at the very least hope and pray for it. I get the feeling from some Orthodox that they straight up don't want reunification at all. Is it really so feminine and delusional, stupid, etc, etc to wish as Jesus Christ wished that "they all be one"? When the upper echelons of the Roman hierarchy return to the Catholic faith, it would behoove the Churches of the West and the Orthodox East to work out their differences. With Francis at helm, obviously reunification is a terrible idea. I understand that reunification would be difficult, but to just throw one's hands up in the air in defeat is just wrong.
I believe it was father Josiah Trenham (could be wrong) who said it's a misconception on when Jesus said that, that the Orthodox Church is one, especially on the Orthodox cosmic scope of reality. Also, if the Orthodox Church is the true apostolic faith and fullness of the faith (As I believe it is), what does it mean to "work out our differences?" Does it mean to compromise even one iota of what Christ and the apostles handed down?
I’m a sedevacantist converting to EO and the idea of “just reunifying” is rather frightening. There’s a lot of errors I’ve been researching in Catholicism and it goes back HUNDREDS of years. That means multiple councils, endless dogma, an entire theology, had to be changed. Reunification cannot be had if there are errors.
The Orthodox believe that God alone is infallible and we cannot accept a dogma that elevates a human to the level of God. If they really want reunification, they can start by removing this dogma and returning to the original text of the Creed. Why the Orthodox would compromise to please the Roman Catholics. It was not the Orthodox who created barriers to the reunification, but the Catholics who created them.
@@iamjacksbelligerentyoutube5250 I’ve been reading recent dialogues. It seems to me that how they are resolving the Filioque is its being modified in doctrine to be from the son through the Father. Essentially saying the original creed with extra steps. They have also agreed to Papal Primacy not supremacy and are working out what that means. Which it sounds like it’s going back to the first among equals that it was. I think the Catholic Church is ultimately admitting fault while Orthodoxy is allowing them to save face.
Not necessarily that one church will admit to being “wrong.” The most logical paradigm for unity is what is already a reality for Eastern Catholic Churches: They keep to their own heritage and liturgy, while in love be in communion with the rest of Christendom (through the Pope). It doesn’t have to be either/or.
Completely agree with 100% of your video. One thing I truly wish is that ALL orthodox churches would follow the same calendar, I understand that we still celebrate Pascha together, but it would feel more complete if we celebrate all the feast days together. I'm Serbian orthodox and sometimes I miss celebrating together at the same time with my revised calendar brethren. Its not a big deal but it would be nice. Just my small wish :)
I think we all should align to the Hebrew calendar regarding of the accuracy of the calendar. It is ridiculous to celebrate Easter before the celebration of the Passover by the Jews
@@ghassanmina This was addressed by the 1st Ecumenical Council of Nicea where it was decided that the calculation of Pascha would NOT rely on the Jewish Passover and be independent of it. The are many reasons one of which is that the Jews calculation of Passover in use since approximately the 3rd century was different to the system used at the time of Jesus (the Jews changed it) and the new system even allowed for Passover to occur twice in a 12 month period. The other reason was to separate Christians (the new Gods Chosen People) from the Jews. Below is the letter Constantine sent following the ecumenical council "Christian Pascha must be celebrated on the same day by everyone; and for the calculation of the date, no reference should be made to the Jews. Such would be humiliating and moreover it is possible for them to have two Passovers in one single year. Consequently, the churches must conform to the practice followed by Rome, Africa, Italy, Egypt, Spain, Gaul, Britain, Libya, Greece, Asia, Pontus, and Cilicia." Keep in mind that Jewish Passover and Pascha did sometimes coincidentally coincide, the Christians still celebrated, they didnt cancel Pascha :). Finally we Christians calls Easter, Pascha (which is the Greek for Passover) because we celebrate the New Passover, the resurrection of Christ was the celebrating of mankind's Exodus from slavery to sin and death to the promise of life everlasting in Gods kingdom through the Church (which is the "new" Israel).
True, but according to the legend of the map, it's more about the jurisdictions of the EO ancient sees (all of which still exist and have continuously operated even in Jerusalem--which has always been EO--and Alexandria since the early days of the Church). Either way, the OO are 99% congruent with the EO and can very well be referred to as Orthodox who are out of communion, who are heretics who erroneously refer to themselves as "Orthodox in communion with Rome."
if most differences between Orthodoxy and catholicism were as small as many people try to make them out to be, then RCC would've conceded on the filioque, immaculate conception, etc for reunification
Although the theological differences are there across different issues. I dont see why a unification is not possible in a weaker sense where they work together to achomplish alligned goals like save Christians from being persecuted, helping each other through health crisises, being in aid with one another in promoting Christ. The fallacy in this video is presenting unification as a all or nothing thing which is simply not true.
Protestant here. I would so love to see unification in the Christian world, but i suppose we will have to settle for an unspoken alliance at this point. I can't imagine our groups' vital doctrine to be caved on, and that's what it would take.
The Orthodox Churches would need to acknowledge that the Fourth Council of Constantinople of 879 was merely a local council. They would need to accept that the Filioque introduced by St Theodore in 680 is here to stay. They would need to acknowledge that people like Thomas Becket, John Fisher and Thomas More received valid sacraments and are valid saints. They would need to stop shooting at each other in the Ukraine. Everybody would need to acknowledge that all the victims of 1182, 1185 and 1204 were all validly baptised.
Unless Rome abandons it’s heresis it’s innovated for that past 1200 years… no. The mother of all heresies, papal supremacy, bred all the other heresies.
Canonically, I do not think that a new Patriarch of Constantinople can be ordained, but I am thinking aloud. I'd have to speak with a canon lawyer, which I don't know any lol.
@@fiveadayproductions987 just like we have no pat of rome we will have no pat of constantinople. Alexandria though would likely join the schism. In that event antioch becomes the first see
There seems to be a similar desire (which many protestants emulate with the literal thousand year reign) to the pharises who wanted a political revolution from the Messiah. As you said, the Orthodox focus should be on converting individuals if salvation is what they are concerned about. Kingdoms on earth fall, they have always fallen and they will continue to fall. Catholics seem to have had an empire, and may appear to have one now. It seems much of this desire comes from a place of reclaiming that empire. It's not even necessarily a bad goal in and of itself, but it's impractical, very very unlikely, and would almost certainly require compromise on one side. If orthodox are willing to compromise, then they will have their good things on this earth, but they will not have good things after this live.
That diagram is so stupid. Has the borders generally right but leaves out Georgia and Bulgaria as autocephalous sees. Cyprus at this time was under Latin control. Why does it call us Greek speaking? Britain at the time was Orthodox as well, so more errors on that end.
Exactly! The Filioque is a distraction. Ultimately they can’t prove it’s wrong and talk a lot of nonsense about the Trinity being heretical in Catholic theology. The arrogance of some Orthodox… may the Lord bring them to be humble or crush their mouth
It was - it had been a practice condemned by Pope Leo III himself and then by Photius. It didn't immediately lead to schism because you wish to wait for a more diplomatic resolution like a Council about it. If there had been still a emperor for all the churches that's probably what would have happened
I want to say, the Roman Emperors are both a great and terrible source as far as the concept of unity goes. The emperors generally speaking didn't care about theology or praxis. What they cared about was unity above all else. Iirc, it was Zeno who attempted to unify the Orthodox and the Arians, not by making one compromise to the other, but by compromising both. Obviously, that didn't work either, and he was hated by everyone, with his reign ending somewhat... barbarically, to keep it PG. Of course, that wasn't the only reason he was deposed, but it was *a* reason, as well as a reason why the people favored an Orthodox emperor after him. He wasn't the first either. You can trace that line of thinking back to the Valentinianic dynasty, at least. Unity of polity over unity of heart and mind. Naturally, Rome still carried that mindset forward, whether it knows it or not.
Your knowledge means nothing if you are angry and hateful toward fellow brothers and sisters, you might read lots of books but one word "LOVE" is way bigger than all those things you spent years of reading, read and learn real life love and respect any human regardless of their race and religion, show the kindly with respect if you know better, not shove down their throat, kindness goes long way calling stupid and idiot is gonna get you very far!
@@mariorizkallah5383 any child of god is brother and sister to me, what are you even doing commenting here if you don’t get the concept of true Christian, just true human feels this way towards other humans, I hope you find the truth one day
@@nuzzi6620 and please teach me if you know what is love but I doubt it from your reply it clearly shows no love but more judgment which is far from love!
The way you people talk it's like you think the pope is constantly being infallible Also to be Catholic you gotta receive the Sacraments and except the dogmas.
Then why does the Byzantine Catholics have opposing dogma? And this is fact. I used to be Byzantine Catholic. Talk to any byzantine priest, they'll tell you.
@@DemetriosLevi Here is a quote from an Eastern Cath "Hi, Since dogma is divinely revealed doctrine, considered essential for salvation, the answer would be: All Catholics, regardless of their liturgical tradition, are obliged to accept all which the Catholic Church teaches to be dogma. Therefore, there is no such thing as Roman Catholic Dogma. Catholic Dogma is simply Catholic (sans the Roman qualifier). The real difference is not about which dogma to accept, rather, it is about which doctrines are actually dogmatic in nature."
Orthodox cant claim that you are one each orthodox bishop is not a p oint of unity you will remain a separate communities not as one church how could you say that you are one church?For the past centurers you as a church never gather as a council for unity .each theologian cant come as one .The Roman Vatholic Church never impose the novos ordo to the eadtern churches.
We are united on theology. Political systems happened all throughout the first millennium. Maybe the fact it doesn't happen in the Roman Church means you aren't that Church?
David you are creating barriers where there shouldn’t be and misrepresenting the Catholic position and effort in trying to dialogue with other churches. This dogmatism and lack of humility can be damning for your soul as the Lord teaches us to be humble and to aim to be reunited. Ultimately, you can’t prove the Filioque is wrong and you have to make a bunch of assumptions to support your faulty philosophy. Be humble and put the good of the church before your silly self righteous presumptions about extremely complex theological issues
The barriers are already set by the Catholic and reinforced by making them dogmas. They believe the Pope is infaillible while the Orthodox will never accept such a dogma. They made the reunion impossible
Whether you realize it or not, that kind of "ecumenism" is really relativism. Look at what Francis did with Pachama or John Paul II did when kissing a Quran. Both actions were hardcore relativism. Anyone agreeing with that are agreeing to a syncretic "one world religion". That's blasphemy.
@@Noob-tg6ze This unification already exist and this is done through the baptism. The two churches recognize eachother baptism. The Orthodox will never accept a human as infaillible
![Noob To Max With DRAGON REWORK In Blox Fruits [FULL MOVIE]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/LnBMOinoOvA/mqdefault.jpg)
I covered this back on R&T. In short, reunification with Rome is simply to become another kind of Melkite--which is a slow death into Latinism.
That's the point I keep making. To use the term "reunification" means that there are no dogmatic differences, which is simply and obviously untrue.
If there are, then it's not reunification, it's conversion, and one side has to admit it's wrong, and therefore not the Church.
One side can be wrong, both sides can be wrong, but it's simply impossible for both sides to be right.
I am a catechumen and I want to thank you for teaching from this channel. You are a wealth of knowledge. Keep up the great work, blessings to you.
Not to forget that the Papacy lets the Uniates keep Palamas as a Saint, yet his doctrine and theology is somehow incorrect & heretical. Papists only care about earthly power and influence.
Technically speaking that isn't correct. The Latins have no specific anathema on St. Palamas' theology. You can't be a Thomist while also being a Palamist--due to Aquinas' absolute divine simplicity. Thomism, while being extremely popular among Catholics, is not Catholic dogma (although internet Catholic rad trads certainly act like it is). So, technically speaking, the Uniates aren't contradicting any Catholic dogma by being Palamists, even though they are going against the grain. I love David's content, but I think the fact that most of the Catholics he speaks with are rad-trads that misrepresent their own faith almost as badly as they misrepresent our faith has colored his impressions on what Catholic dogma entails regarding Thomism.
@@duginashley3199 What about Trent's decree on justification and the Orthodox view of uncreated grace? "Of this Justification the causes are these... the alone formal cause is the justice of God, not that whereby He Himself is just, but that whereby He maketh us just."
@OrthodoxyChloroQuine Would you be able to provide specific citation? What you say sounds reasonable but Catholics I talk to claim ADS isn't dogmatic.
@OrthodoxyChloroQuine I found Jay Dyer's blgpost and the passage in question in Denzinger 294-296. I don't see anything in that passage which definitively names ADS as dogmatic, at least not in a way that's incompatible with the EE distinction.
@OrthodoxyChloroQuine I just told you I went through the quoted passage from Denzinger in my previous comment. ADS is obviously incompatible with EE, but ADS is also not dogmatic for the Latins.
Not to mention that one of the biggest obstacles to reunification would be the saints. Orthodox would never accept Ignatius of Loyola, Thomas Aquinas or Josaphat Kuntsevich as such.
Only reunification would be in the mode of mass conversions at parish level, like what happened at a town in Guatemala.
Or "St" Francis of assisi
Excuse my ignorance, but why would these individuals not the acceptable to the Eastern Church as saints?
I should add, that if anyone ever asked me who my favorite saint was, I would respond, "those known but to God".
@@loge10 because they taught wrong theology and died outside the Church. Josaphat in particular, since he murdered Orthodox Christians, burned churches, and had Orthodox priests arrested for holding Liturgy. He was "canonized" by Rome as a "martyr for unity"
Excellent vid. Bluntness is fatherly love.
Pray for Unity.
Pray for the conversion of Roman Catholics.
We are Unified
@damo4293 you're actually not. You excommunicate eachother.
CIA works on reunification and have made some progress by employing some Bishops to work on their cause...
I am just curious regarding the uniates (Eastern Rite Catholics of the Eastern Orthodox Theology), how do they serve the anathema services, do they skip those lines that condemn Varlaam and the Pope, or are they going to say those regardless and Rome just turn a blind eye toward those, as long as they stay true to the Supreme Pontiff Pachapapa Frankie.
Only way to reunite is to BEGOME ORDODOX :DDD
Whatever one says about reunification, one should at the very least hope and pray for it. I get the feeling from some Orthodox that they straight up don't want reunification at all. Is it really so feminine and delusional, stupid, etc, etc to wish as Jesus Christ wished that "they all be one"? When the upper echelons of the Roman hierarchy return to the Catholic faith, it would behoove the Churches of the West and the Orthodox East to work out their differences. With Francis at helm, obviously reunification is a terrible idea. I understand that reunification would be difficult, but to just throw one's hands up in the air in defeat is just wrong.
I believe it was father Josiah Trenham (could be wrong) who said it's a misconception on when Jesus said that, that the Orthodox Church is one, especially on the Orthodox cosmic scope of reality.
Also, if the Orthodox Church is the true apostolic faith and fullness of the faith (As I believe it is), what does it mean to "work out our differences?" Does it mean to compromise even one iota of what Christ and the apostles handed down?
I’m a sedevacantist converting to EO and the idea of “just reunifying” is rather frightening. There’s a lot of errors I’ve been researching in Catholicism and it goes back HUNDREDS of years. That means multiple councils, endless dogma, an entire theology, had to be changed. Reunification cannot be had if there are errors.
you haven't understood the video.. there is NO reunification - the Church is already ONE
The Orthodox believe that God alone is infallible and we cannot accept a dogma that elevates a human to the level of God. If they really want reunification, they can start by removing this dogma and returning to the original text of the Creed. Why the Orthodox would compromise to please the Roman Catholics. It was not the Orthodox who created barriers to the reunification, but the Catholics who created them.
@@iamjacksbelligerentyoutube5250 I’ve been reading recent dialogues. It seems to me that how they are resolving the Filioque is its being modified in doctrine to be from the son through the Father. Essentially saying the original creed with extra steps.
They have also agreed to Papal Primacy not supremacy and are working out what that means. Which it sounds like it’s going back to the first among equals that it was. I think the Catholic Church is ultimately admitting fault while Orthodoxy is allowing them to save face.
Not necessarily that one church will admit to being “wrong.” The most logical paradigm for unity is what is already a reality for Eastern Catholic Churches: They keep to their own heritage and liturgy, while in love be in communion with the rest of Christendom (through the Pope). It doesn’t have to be either/or.
Someone needs to pretend to be R.C and unify the faith through "papal infallibility"
Completely agree with 100% of your video. One thing I truly wish is that ALL orthodox churches would follow the same calendar, I understand that we still celebrate Pascha together, but it would feel more complete if we celebrate all the feast days together. I'm Serbian orthodox and sometimes I miss celebrating together at the same time with my revised calendar brethren. Its not a big deal but it would be nice. Just my small wish :)
I think we all should align to the Hebrew calendar regarding of the accuracy of the calendar. It is ridiculous to celebrate Easter before the celebration of the Passover by the Jews
@@ghassanmina This was addressed by the 1st Ecumenical Council of Nicea where it was decided that the calculation of Pascha would NOT rely on the Jewish Passover and be independent of it. The are many reasons one of which is that the Jews calculation of Passover in use since approximately the 3rd century was different to the system used at the time of Jesus (the Jews changed it) and the new system even allowed for Passover to occur twice in a 12 month period. The other reason was to separate Christians (the new Gods Chosen People) from the Jews. Below is the letter Constantine sent following the ecumenical council
"Christian Pascha must be celebrated on the same day by everyone; and for the calculation of the date, no reference should be made to the Jews. Such would be humiliating and moreover it is possible for them to have two Passovers in one single year. Consequently, the churches must conform to the practice followed by Rome, Africa, Italy, Egypt, Spain, Gaul, Britain, Libya, Greece, Asia, Pontus, and Cilicia."
Keep in mind that Jewish Passover and Pascha did sometimes coincidentally coincide, the Christians still celebrated, they didnt cancel Pascha :). Finally we Christians calls Easter, Pascha (which is the Greek for Passover) because we celebrate the New Passover, the resurrection of Christ was the celebrating of mankind's Exodus from slavery to sin and death to the promise of life everlasting in Gods kingdom through the Church (which is the "new" Israel).
I started praying for unity this week.
Not all the east was EO like the map lol, EOs were mostly from Syria up, everyone else was OO and a tiny bit in Persia was ACoE
True, but according to the legend of the map, it's more about the jurisdictions of the EO ancient sees (all of which still exist and have continuously operated even in Jerusalem--which has always been EO--and Alexandria since the early days of the Church). Either way, the OO are 99% congruent with the EO and can very well be referred to as Orthodox who are out of communion, who are heretics who erroneously refer to themselves as "Orthodox in communion with Rome."
@@nuzzi6620OO can not be called Orthodox. They are heretics who may very well be worse than Catholics.
if most differences between Orthodoxy and catholicism were as small as many people try to make them out to be, then RCC would've conceded on the filioque, immaculate conception, etc for reunification
I was surprised by the swearing at the end.
Although the theological differences are there across different issues. I dont see why a unification is not possible in a weaker sense where they work together to achomplish alligned goals like save Christians from being persecuted, helping each other through health crisises, being in aid with one another in promoting Christ. The fallacy in this video is presenting unification as a all or nothing thing which is simply not true.
Protestant here. I would so love to see unification in the Christian world, but i suppose we will have to settle for an unspoken alliance at this point. I can't imagine our groups' vital doctrine to be caved on, and that's what it would take.
I heard some RC saying that the only true difference is Divorce
Based
Excellent, as usual. Keep up the good work.
The Orthodox Churches would need to acknowledge that the Fourth Council of Constantinople of 879 was merely a local council. They would need to accept that the Filioque introduced by St Theodore in 680 is here to stay. They would need to acknowledge that people like Thomas Becket, John Fisher and Thomas More received valid sacraments and are valid saints. They would need to stop shooting at each other in the Ukraine. Everybody would need to acknowledge that all the victims of 1182, 1185 and 1204 were all validly baptised.
Can only unit in truth.
A former traditional catholic and Eastern rite now ROCOR. We can be kind and charitable.
In ancient times the purple orthodox on the map would be more to the west, most Slavic catholics were converted basically yesterday
Thanks for publishing the historic facts of the orthodoxy.
Unless Rome abandons it’s heresis it’s innovated for that past 1200 years… no. The mother of all heresies, papal supremacy, bred all the other heresies.
Could you do a video like this on the Coptic Church and other oriental churches?
Canonically, I do not think that a new Patriarch of Constantinople can be ordained, but I am thinking aloud. I'd have to speak with a canon lawyer, which I don't know any lol.
What's gonna happen when eventually the current Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew it seems inevitably goes into some form of Communion with Rome?
@@fiveadayproductions987 just like we have no pat of rome we will have no pat of constantinople. Alexandria though would likely join the schism. In that event antioch becomes the first see
@@OrthodoxChristianTheology
Petrine See FTW.
Antioch Gang
There seems to be a similar desire (which many protestants emulate with the literal thousand year reign) to the pharises who wanted a political revolution from the Messiah. As you said, the Orthodox focus should be on converting individuals if salvation is what they are concerned about. Kingdoms on earth fall, they have always fallen and they will continue to fall. Catholics seem to have had an empire, and may appear to have one now. It seems much of this desire comes from a place of reclaiming that empire. It's not even necessarily a bad goal in and of itself, but it's impractical, very very unlikely, and would almost certainly require compromise on one side. If orthodox are willing to compromise, then they will have their good things on this earth, but they will not have good things after this live.
Why are Sicily and southern Italy purple?
Used to be more Greeks living there
That diagram is so stupid. Has the borders generally right but leaves out Georgia and Bulgaria as autocephalous sees. Cyprus at this time was under Latin control. Why does it call us Greek speaking? Britain at the time was Orthodox as well, so more errors on that end.
Softly sweet asmr
Great Britain was never orthodox.....
Only if the latins admit they’re wrong.
Good video david
But Filioque wasn’t a problem for Eucharist some centuries before the schism, what about that?
I know that it become a dogma in 1215. But Filioque was used in the Mass before the schism and wasn’t an obstacle for Eucharist
Exactly! The Filioque is a distraction. Ultimately they can’t prove it’s wrong and talk a lot of nonsense about the Trinity being heretical in Catholic theology. The arrogance of some Orthodox… may the Lord bring them to be humble or crush their mouth
It was - it had been a practice condemned by Pope Leo III himself and then by Photius. It didn't immediately lead to schism because you wish to wait for a more diplomatic resolution like a Council about it. If there had been still a emperor for all the churches that's probably what would have happened
Obviously not. on some things yes, but on everything, definitely not.
I want to say, the Roman Emperors are both a great and terrible source as far as the concept of unity goes. The emperors generally speaking didn't care about theology or praxis. What they cared about was unity above all else. Iirc, it was Zeno who attempted to unify the Orthodox and the Arians, not by making one compromise to the other, but by compromising both. Obviously, that didn't work either, and he was hated by everyone, with his reign ending somewhat... barbarically, to keep it PG. Of course, that wasn't the only reason he was deposed, but it was *a* reason, as well as a reason why the people favored an Orthodox emperor after him. He wasn't the first either. You can trace that line of thinking back to the Valentinianic dynasty, at least. Unity of polity over unity of heart and mind. Naturally, Rome still carried that mindset forward, whether it knows it or not.
YO, I wants ta be talkin' 'bout...
I didn't know southern Italy was orthodox
It used to be until the end of the High Middle Ages, as it was part of the Eastern Roman Empire. Now only a few small Greco-Catholic churches remain.
Really good video, definitely sharing with my Roman Catholic friends.
Your knowledge means nothing if you are angry and hateful toward fellow brothers and sisters, you might read lots of books but one word "LOVE" is way bigger than all those things you spent years of reading, read and learn real life love and respect any human regardless of their race and religion, show the kindly with respect if you know better, not shove down their throat, kindness goes long way calling stupid and idiot is gonna get you very far!
You don’t understand what love is.
Orthodox are not brothers and sisters with non orthodox
@@mariorizkallah5383 any child of god is brother and sister to me, what are you even doing commenting here if you don’t get the concept of true Christian, just true human feels this way towards other humans, I hope you find the truth one day
@@nuzzi6620 and please teach me if you know what is love but I doubt it from your reply it clearly shows no love but more judgment which is far from love!
@@nuzzi6620 we understand very clear. This guy isnt a good Christian
algo push
David is a terrible representative for Christians and unification
The way you people talk it's like you think the pope is constantly being infallible
Also to be Catholic you gotta receive the Sacraments and except the dogmas.
Then why does the Byzantine Catholics have opposing dogma? And this is fact. I used to be Byzantine Catholic. Talk to any byzantine priest, they'll tell you.
@@DemetriosLevi
Here is a quote from an Eastern Cath
"Hi,
Since dogma is divinely revealed doctrine, considered essential for salvation, the answer would be:
All Catholics, regardless of their liturgical tradition, are obliged to accept all which the Catholic Church teaches to be dogma.
Therefore, there is no such thing as Roman Catholic Dogma. Catholic Dogma is simply Catholic (sans the Roman qualifier).
The real difference is not about which dogma to accept, rather, it is about which doctrines are actually dogmatic in nature."
Orthodox cant claim that you are one each orthodox bishop is not a p oint of unity you will remain a separate communities not as one church how could you say that you are one church?For the past centurers you as a church never gather as a council for unity .each theologian cant come as one .The Roman Vatholic Church never impose the novos ordo to the eadtern churches.
1442, 1642, 1672, 1667, 1872
Norvus ordo is still a false liturgy and from the mouth of Satan
We are united on theology. Political systems happened all throughout the first millennium. Maybe the fact it doesn't happen in the Roman Church means you aren't that Church?
David you are creating barriers where there shouldn’t be and misrepresenting the Catholic position and effort in trying to dialogue with other churches. This dogmatism and lack of humility can be damning for your soul as the Lord teaches us to be humble and to aim to be reunited.
Ultimately, you can’t prove the Filioque is wrong and you have to make a bunch of assumptions to support your faulty philosophy. Be humble and put the good of the church before your silly self righteous presumptions about extremely complex theological issues
The barriers are already set by the Catholic and reinforced by making them dogmas. They believe the Pope is infaillible while the Orthodox will never accept such a dogma. They made the reunion impossible
We can unite while still having our own ideas, the east listens to the patriarchs and the west to the pope
In your dreams Christians are jealous people thinking they're true while in reality it's all a bunch of myths
Whether you realize it or not, that kind of "ecumenism" is really relativism. Look at what Francis did with Pachama or John Paul II did when kissing a Quran. Both actions were hardcore relativism. Anyone agreeing with that are agreeing to a syncretic "one world religion". That's blasphemy.
@@Noob-tg6ze This unification already exist and this is done through the baptism. The two churches recognize eachother baptism. The Orthodox will never accept a human as infaillible