@@drstewartI think you may have misinterpreted what he said because of the inappropriate use of the word ‘converted’. He said he went from being Roman to Eastern Catholic so is still in the barque of Saint Peter.
Switching from the Roman Catholic Church to another Catholic Church of Eastern Rite is NOT a conversion but simply a change of Rite. Each Rite is another expression of the same Apostolic Faith and is equal in dignity with the Roman Catholic Church. The only main difference is that the Roman Catholic is led by the Successor of Peter, hence the Universal Pastor even for all other Eastern Churches. This supposes no superiority for the Roman Church because this was the modus operandi in the first century where Peter's successor has always been the Primus inter pares (or First among equals) and the Eastern Churches govern themselves sui juris or as autocephalous Churches. Only when a local issue in a sui juris Church is the matter referred to the Bishop of Rome for decision.
@@PaulNizinskyj Not really. Rites that don't recognize the primacy of Peter or perhaps give lip service to a weak version thereof are not the same as those that do.
This very interesting - thank you for your good work. I’m sorry if this sounds disrespectful but I say it only in hopes that it could improve even more your podcast: sometimes your presentation is difficult to follow bc you swallow words when you talk too often insert side thoughts - if you talk just a tad slower and enunciate your words more it would help to better understand everything. I apologise it is merely meant as a suggestion for improvement
Derek Taylor Please Discuss Freemasonry in Church from Cardinal Rampolla in Rome to Patriarchs in Constantinople in 1800s who are openly listed on Wikipedia as Freemasons
I have been thinking about this lately, and might do an episode on Freemasonry at some point. Mostly I think it is overblown but not in the 19th century. I have a couple of articles coming out isoon n Crisis Magazine and Inside the Vatican that address this topic as well.
Would Orientalis Dignatus allow for Eastern Catholics communing in Roman churches and the reverse? I was told that this is not really a licit practice....Also priests "con-celebrating" and people transferring without permission from one parish to another? I think that this is simply a modern innovation that has been tolerated or even encouraged in the modern era, but was not the case in the past. I even saw a letter of transfer of a man who wanted to become Easter Catholic (he had been RC). It had to go all the way to Rome. So I really doubt that people on the local level can just do these things on their own or not according to canon law. Even RC taking communion in the Eastern churches - was it only in case of near death when there is no RC church in the local?
The Eastern Rite Catholic Church Bishops need to take a more aggressive stance in regards to the heterodox edicts: FIDUCIA SUPLICANS & AMORIS LATICIA edicts.
The Ukrainian bishops have already rejected it, and I am pretty sure Rome knows full well it will never take in the Eastern Churches. I am not sure they can do anything to stop it more than they already have. If they tried, Rome would just write it off as cultural backwardness, like they have with the Africans.
@@controversiesinchurchhisto4889Did the Ukrainians really reject FS as heterodox, or just say it doesn't really apply to the East given a different "blessing" nomenclature? My understanding is it's the second.
@@FrJohnBrownSJ I don't think it matters what exactly they said. The fact they rejected it publicly is the main thing. No Slavic peoples are ever going to go for blessing anything homosexual, no matter what the pope says.
12:00 I do not think that the Turk thought of himself as an emperor....He was called the Sultan. Minor technicality, but emperor was not something we should give to a tyrant.
20:33 You are still thinking in a very Roman and secular way. The fact that 4 patriarchs signed something (Russia had not patriarch at the time) is neither here nor there. The question is whether something complies with Orthodox Tradition or not. Obviously, the idea of papal infallibility would not. It does not matter if there were 4 patriarchs against it or none....It is simply contrary to the Gospel and to Christ.
As ever since the Romanist Pseudo-Church was formed when it broke away from the other 4 ancient Patriarchates and those in the Patriarchate of the West who opposed their breakaway, in 1054, it seeks to impose complete submission to Rome, the junior third of the see of Peter (and Paul).
@@Melons-vg8dq Exactly, one schismatic and heretical see, Rome, refusing the Authority of the Pentarchy (including all 4 of the other Patriarchates) and the Ecumenical Synods of the Church.
Yeah, this isn't the place for these types of arguments. If you want to discuss theology, you can find another channel. I only do history, not apologetics. Sufficed to say, I don't agree. You are welcome to have your say, but if you are going to deliberately insult me or my faith, I will ban you from the channel, fyi.
@@controversiesinchurchhisto4889 In terms of history what you do is extremely interesting, so I´ll stick to that. Thanks for clarifying your boundaries
I've noticed there's always this unspoken sympathy & respect for the Orthodox. They are wrong and a disaster amongst themselves. An ugly modern trend is a disrespect and unbelief in the supremacy of Rome.
I am a Roman Catholic and I believe the Orthodox are wrong about the pope and the Filioque. They are formally in schism and embrace what amounts to heresy. Having said that, my sympathy and respect for the Orthodox is not unspoken. I very much admire and respect them, even if I think they are in the wrong. My channel is mostly about history not theology or apologetics. I don't engage in polemics here against the Orthodox or anyone else. There are plenty of channels that will satisfy you on that score. But not mine.
I have loved this series, such erudition on such a little covered subject. Thank you so much for your work on this!!
This is excellent. As a former Roman Catholic who converted to an Eastern Catholic Church this answers some of the questions I had. ❤
@@mpkropf5062 Imagine going from the rock of Peter to... yeah lol.
@@drstewartI think you may have misinterpreted what he said because of the inappropriate use of the word ‘converted’. He said he went from being Roman to Eastern Catholic so is still in the barque of Saint Peter.
Switching from the Roman Catholic Church to another Catholic Church of Eastern Rite is NOT a conversion but simply a change of Rite. Each Rite is another expression of the same Apostolic Faith and is equal in dignity with the Roman Catholic Church. The only main difference is that the Roman Catholic is led by the Successor of Peter, hence the Universal Pastor even for all other Eastern Churches. This supposes no superiority for the Roman Church because this was the modus operandi in the first century where Peter's successor has always been the Primus inter pares (or First among equals) and the Eastern Churches govern themselves sui juris or as autocephalous Churches. Only when a local issue in a sui juris Church is the matter referred to the Bishop of Rome for decision.
@@PaulNizinskyj Not really. Rites that don't recognize the primacy of Peter or perhaps give lip service to a weak version thereof are not the same as those that do.
@@drstewart ??? Such as?
Hi, I was raised in the Protestant faith, this is interesting. Thank you for posting this video.
Thank you! I am glad you got something out of it.
Hard video boss I fw it heavy
Thank you
This very interesting - thank you for your good work. I’m sorry if this sounds disrespectful but I say it only in hopes that it could improve even more your podcast: sometimes your presentation is difficult to follow bc you swallow words when you talk too often insert side thoughts - if you talk just a tad slower and enunciate your words more it would help to better understand everything. I apologise it is merely meant as a suggestion for improvement
Thank you. I tried to do the podcast without breathing once, but I didn't get very far. You will have to live with some occasional noises I am afraid.
@@controversiesinchurchhisto4889 pity
Derek Taylor Please Discuss Freemasonry in Church from Cardinal Rampolla in Rome to Patriarchs in Constantinople in 1800s who are openly listed on Wikipedia as Freemasons
I have been thinking about this lately, and might do an episode on Freemasonry at some point. Mostly I think it is overblown but not in the 19th century. I have a couple of articles coming out isoon n Crisis Magazine and Inside the Vatican that address this topic as well.
27:50 Also sounds like Leo is putting himself in the crib of Christ (appart from the Easterners being the magi).
Would Orientalis Dignatus allow for Eastern Catholics communing in Roman churches and the reverse? I was told that this is not really a licit practice....Also priests "con-celebrating" and people transferring without permission from one parish to another? I think that this is simply a modern innovation that has been tolerated or even encouraged in the modern era, but was not the case in the past. I even saw a letter of transfer of a man who wanted to become Easter Catholic (he had been RC). It had to go all the way to Rome. So I really doubt that people on the local level can just do these things on their own or not according to canon law. Even RC taking communion in the Eastern churches - was it only in case of near death when there is no RC church in the local?
Merci.🗡️⏺️🎯🎭⌚✔️✔️✔️.
The Eastern Rite Catholic Church Bishops need to take a more aggressive stance in regards to the heterodox edicts: FIDUCIA SUPLICANS & AMORIS LATICIA edicts.
The Ukrainian bishops have already rejected it, and I am pretty sure Rome knows full well it will never take in the Eastern Churches. I am not sure they can do anything to stop it more than they already have. If they tried, Rome would just write it off as cultural backwardness, like they have with the Africans.
@@controversiesinchurchhisto4889Did the Ukrainians really reject FS as heterodox, or just say it doesn't really apply to the East given a different "blessing" nomenclature? My understanding is it's the second.
@@FrJohnBrownSJ I don't think it matters what exactly they said. The fact they rejected it publicly is the main thing. No Slavic peoples are ever going to go for blessing anything homosexual, no matter what the pope says.
12:00 I do not think that the Turk thought of himself as an emperor....He was called the Sultan. Minor technicality, but emperor was not something we should give to a tyrant.
Being sincere as in the case of Pius IX (if that was the case) is not an excuse for being a megalomaniac.
20:33 You are still thinking in a very Roman and secular way. The fact that 4 patriarchs signed something (Russia had not patriarch at the time) is neither here nor there. The question is whether something complies with Orthodox Tradition or not. Obviously, the idea of papal infallibility would not. It does not matter if there were 4 patriarchs against it or none....It is simply contrary to the Gospel and to Christ.
🙏✝️🇻🇦
CATHOLIC CHURCH seems to have done everything under the SUN except the WORD OF GOD
Okay
As ever since the Romanist Pseudo-Church was formed when it broke away from the other 4 ancient Patriarchates and those in the Patriarchate of the West who opposed their breakaway, in 1054, it seeks to impose complete submission to Rome, the junior third of the see of Peter (and Paul).
Schismatics refusing Authority.
@@Melons-vg8dq Exactly, one schismatic and heretical see, Rome, refusing the Authority of the Pentarchy (including all 4 of the other Patriarchates) and the Ecumenical Synods of the Church.
Yeah, this isn't the place for these types of arguments. If you want to discuss theology, you can find another channel. I only do history, not apologetics. Sufficed to say, I don't agree. You are welcome to have your say, but if you are going to deliberately insult me or my faith, I will ban you from the channel, fyi.
@@controversiesinchurchhisto4889 In terms of history what you do is extremely interesting, so I´ll stick to that. Thanks for clarifying your boundaries
@@controversiesinchurchhisto4889 I´m happy just to stick to the history, which you do very well.
I've noticed there's always this unspoken sympathy & respect for the Orthodox. They are wrong and a disaster amongst themselves. An ugly modern trend is a disrespect and unbelief in the supremacy of Rome.
I am a Roman Catholic and I believe the Orthodox are wrong about the pope and the Filioque. They are formally in schism and embrace what amounts to heresy. Having said that, my sympathy and respect for the Orthodox is not unspoken. I very much admire and respect them, even if I think they are in the wrong. My channel is mostly about history not theology or apologetics. I don't engage in polemics here against the Orthodox or anyone else. There are plenty of channels that will satisfy you on that score. But not mine.