Who Started the Great Schism?
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 27 июл 2024
- In this historical documentary the origins of the schism between the Catholic and Orthodox churches is identified by giving the history of the ecclesiastical norms which govern both churches, how the Catholic side installed parallel bishoprics making another church, and what role doctrinal changes, such as Filioque, played.
0:00 Introduction
1:29 Chapter I: What is the Church?
3:09 Chapter II: What is Schism?
8:54 Chapter III: Historic Ecclesial Hierarchy
13:49 Chapter IV: Precipitation of the Great Schism
19:49 Chapter V: The Author of the Schism
22:29 Conclusion
Film writer, Craig Truglia: / @orthodoxchristiantheo...
Did you appreciate this film? Support the Orthodox Churches in Cambodia: www.OrthodoxChristianTheology....
Film producer, the Other Paul: / theotherpaul
Support the Other Paul financially to make more films like this: www.subscribestar.com/the-oth...
____
Music credits
Kevin Macleod songs attribution:
"Desert City", "Tabuk"
Kevin MacLeod (incompetech.com)
Licensed under Creative Commons: By Attribution 3.0
creativecommons.org/licenses/b...
Chant songs:
Eulogitaria of the Resurrection (Greek)
• Evlogitaria of the Res...
God Is With Us (Arabic)
• God Is With Us (Arabic)
Both from Orthodox Christian Chants (RUclips channel) 
Развлечения
Like and Share--NOW!!!
Erick Ybarra found one legitimate error:
The quote ascribed to St Gregory the Great was a letter *to* him, not *from* him: www.newadvent.org/fathers/360214016.htm
The statement as quoted, which indicates that the term "Orthodox" for the Church was common parlance, still stands as it pertains to its relevance to the question at hand. St Gregory repies to the same letter and appears to take no issue with what was said:www.newadvent.org/fathers/360214017.htm
My apologies for the sloppiness on my part! Thankfully, we are not speaking of a more substantive error.
@@OrthodoxChristianTheology Debunking catholicism
I'm more blessed than mary
Proof = Luke 11:27-28
27 And it happened, as He spoke these things, that a certain woman from the crowd raised her voice and said to Him, “Blessed is the womb that bore You, and the breasts which nursed You!”
28 But He said, “More than that, blessed are those who hear the word of God and keep it!”
In Luke 11:27 that random woman LITERALLY said Jesus your mother is Blessed, but are Lord Jesus LITERALLY said Believers are more Blessed than mary. Amen and Amen
_________________________
CHRIST alone
John 14:6 Jesus said to him, “I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me.
Hebrew 9:15 And for this reason He is the Mediator of the new covenant, by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions under the first covenant, that those who are called may receive the promise of the eternal inheritance.
Acts 4:12 Nor is there salvation in any other, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved.”
1 Timothy 2:5 For there is one God and one Mediator between God and men, the Man Christ Jesus
_________________________
Work of God =
John 6:28 Then they said to Him, “What shall we do, that we may work the works of God?”
29 Jesus answered and said to them, “This is the work of God, that you believe in Him whom He sent.”
_________________________
1 Timothy 3:2 A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, temperate, sober-minded, of good behavior, hospitable, able to teach
Paul allows bishops to get marry, but catholic church goes against paul.
Now these catholic will give a Verses from 1 Corinthians7 to say that paul gave the advice to stay unmarried. But they will not tell you that the same chapter they quote says 1 Corinthians 7:28 "even if you do marry, you have not SINNED". The passage literally says "young women, young men" and a bishop is supposed to be a Church ELDER. Mic drop
_________________________
Jesus said Matthew 23:9
9 Do not call anyone on earth your father; for One is your Father, He who is in heaven.
And also said Holy Father to Heavenly Father= John 17:11
11 Now I am no longer in the world, but these are in the world, and I come to You. Holy Father, keep through Your name those whom You have given Me, that they may be one as We are.
Jesus said call no one Father but still catholics call *pope holy father.
Sad
_________________________
Whenever a catholic argue about mary being the mother of God
Use this to defeat the argument.
Luke 8:21 But He answered and said to them, “My mother and My brothers are these who hear the word of God and do it.”
Matthew 12:46-50
46 While He was still talking to the multitudes, behold, His mother and brothers stood outside, seeking to speak with Him. 47 Then one said to Him, “Look, Your mother and Your brothers are standing outside, seeking to speak with You.”
48 But He answered and said to the one who told Him, “Who is My mother and who are My brothers?” 49 And He stretched out His hand toward His disciples and said, “Here are My mother and My brothers! 50 For whoever does the will of My Father in heaven is My brother and sister and mother.”.
Mark 3:35 For whoever does the will of God is My brother and My sister and mother.”
John 19:26-27
26 When Jesus therefore saw His mother, and the disciple whom He loved standing by, He said to His mother, “Woman, behold your son!” 27 Then He said to the disciple, “Behold your mother!” And from that hour that disciple took her to his own home. ( Jesus basically said John is the son of mary, and mary is the mother of John from that time onwards).
By the way sarah is the mother of all proof=Galatians 4:21-26.
_________________________
We should not pray to apostles
Romans 1:25
25 who exchanged the truth of God for the lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen.
Acts 10:25-26
25 As Peter was coming in, Cornelius met him and fell down at his feet and worshiped him. 26 But Peter lifted him up, saying, “Stand up; I myself am also a man.”
Acts 14:15
15 and saying, “Men, why are you doing these things? We also are men with the same nature as you, and preach to you that you should turn from these useless things to the living God, who made the heaven, the earth, the sea, and all things that are in them,
Revelation 19:10
10 And I fell at his feet to worship him. But he said to me, “See that you do not do that! I am your fellow servant, and of your brethren who have the testimony of Jesus. Worship God! For the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy.”
Revelation 22:8-9
8 Now I, John, saw and heard these things. And when I heard and saw, I fell down to worship before the feet of the angel who showed me these things.
9 Then he said to me, “See that you do not do that. For I am your fellow servant, and of your brethren the prophets, and of those who keep the words of this book. Worship God."
Colossians 2:18
18 Let no one cheat you of your reward, taking delight in false humility and worship of angels, intruding into those things which he has not seen, vainly puffed up by his fleshly mind,
You cannot go to Father through saints nor mary, you can only go to the Father through Lord Jesus Christ= John 14:6 Jesus said to him, “I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me.
Ephesians 2:18 For through Him we both have access by one Spirit to the Father.
Holy Spirit intercedes for us=Romans 8:26
26 Likewise the Spirit also helps in our weaknesses. For we do not know what we should pray for as we ought, but the Spirit Himself makes intercession for us with groanings which cannot be uttered.
And CHRIST as well=Romans 8:34
34 Who is he who condemns? It is Christ who died, and furthermore is also risen, who is even at the right hand of God, who also makes intercession for us.
Hebrews 7:25
25 Therefore He is also able to save to the uttermost those who come to God through Him, since He always lives to make intercession for them.
It's Christ and Holy Spirit who intercedes for us not apostles
_________________________
There is only one Mediator between God and men LORD Jesus Christ= 1 Timothy 2:5
For there is one God and one Mediator between God and men, the Man Christ Jesus.
Hebrew 9:15 And for this reason He is the Mediator of the new covenant, by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions under the first covenant, that those who are called may receive the promise of the eternal inheritance.
Hebrew 12:24 to Jesus the Mediator of the new covenant, and to the blood of sprinkling that speaks better things than that of Abel.
Hebrew 8:6 But now He has obtained a more excellent ministry, inasmuch as He is also Mediator of a better covenant, which was established on better promises.
_________________________
Apostles are allowed to marry,
1 Corinthians 9:1-5
1 Am I not an apostle? Am I not free? Have I not seen Jesus Christ our Lord? Are you not my work in the Lord? 2 If I am not an apostle to others, yet doubtless I am to you. For you are the seal of my apostleship in the Lord.
3 My defense to those who examine me is this: 4 Do we have no right to eat and drink? 5 Do we have no right to take along a believing wife, as do also the other apostles, the brothers of the Lord, and Cephas?
If Peter (peter is cephas read John 1:42) the so called "first pope" was married, why does the catholic church doesn't allow "pope" to marry?
_________________________
The so called vicar of christ/ pope/holy father Peter called himself a fellow elder in 1 Peter 5:1, and as per the qualifications of elder in Titus 1:5-9 the elder is allowed to get married; then why does the "pope" is required to be celibate and catholic? ( when Peter was neither celibate nor catholic).
1)Peter was not perfect human nor was he a perfect disciple
2)He sank down while walking on water
3)Our Lord said to peter get behind me satan
4)Peter reject our Lord 3 times
5)Our Lord rebuked Peter for calling fire from heaven
6)Our Lord rebuked Peter when he cut of the soilders ear
7)Paul rebuked Peter for being hypocrite because he was acting different in front of Jews and different in front of gentiles.
8) Moses messed up, and he was a important part of Bible ( that's why he never entered the promised land),
9)David messed up ( and he has the Holy Spirit),
10)King Soloman messed up,
11) Saul messed up and God regretted the decision (1 Samuel 15:10-11).
Hatrick (Saul then David then Soloman back to back messed up)
12)The apostles run away a day before Lord Jesus got locked up.
13)The early church messed up Rev 2:18-20
If these great people could mess up, why do you think the catholic church wouldn't mess up.
____________________________________
Galatians 4:21-26
21 Tell me, you who desire to be under the law, do you not hear the law? 22 For it is written that Abraham had two sons: the one by a bondwoman, the other by a freewoman. 23 But he who was of the bondwoman was born according to the flesh, and he of the freewoman through promise, 24 which things are symbolic. For these are the two covenants: the one from Mount Sinai which gives birth to bondage, which is Hagar- 25 for this Hagar is Mount Sinai in Arabia, and corresponds to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children- 26 but the Jerusalem above is free, which is the mother of us all.
Sarah is mother of all, Not mary.
_________________________
Also the Church has many name like Christians, Evangelists, Children of God, Believers, servents of God, bride of Christ, but not once the Church is called catholics.
_________________________
Also, if the apostles didn't wrote it, I don't want it.
@YAJUN YUAN Hey yajun! I see your comments in places here and there, just curious, what denomination/faith are you? Thanks :)
@YAJUN YUAN I'm currently non-denominational, from Calvary Chapel specifically, but definitely have been looking into the cases for all these other traditions. Thanks for the reply, whenever I see regular commentors on all these kinds of videos, I like to see where they're coming from since I still have lots to learn :). God bless!
What is so sad. I LOVED LOVED the Catholic Church. They were the one and only thing I had in this world. This obsession of destruction of Russia and telling anyone who doesn't follow Pope Francis and the Church are going to hell, well, that's not the God I know and love. This retribution started with the crusades by the west. They hate Putin because he's one of them. A Knight of Malta. And he's against the destruction of his Country Russia. All the parishes here in Texas have turned into Jesuit strongholds and now funded by the State. The Jesuits were heavily involved in the Epstein network. The Vatican did fund Adolph. It's all on public records. I pray for us all now.
Reading on the Ancient Church is why I decided on Orthodoxy. I kept tip toeing around Catholicism. A lot made sense, especially coming from a Protestant background. But I couldn't get over the Papacy. Not the office he had, but the power.
So, here I am.
Same. The early church clearly did not have the same idea of the papacy that Vatican 1 claims.
St. John Bosco explains orthodox church : ruclips.net/video/UdnjrUQknCs/видео.htmlsi=VG5D_td5omVMgD2-
Me too. I'd started softening to Rome but couldn't get over the obvious problems. When I found orthodoxy it was like a light bulb went off.
@@showmeanedge St. John Bosco explains orthodox church : ruclips.net/video/UdnjrUQknCs/видео.htmlsi=VG5D_td5omVMgD2-
Had no idea that the Eastern Churches didn’t set up parallel bishops until that far after the schism. Wow.
It really wasn't until the Council of Florence (1431-1449) that the Eastern Church finally and fully realized that the Western Church was no longer its estranged brother but now something altogether different and malicious. For much of that time, Rome had remained in communion with various Eastern patriarchates, and the Eastern Church had been holding out hope for a full reunion one day... but Florence shut that down hard.
Considering how long it still took them to begin ordaining bishops in Western lands, and that only begrudgingly at first, shows how they were still holding onto some vague, distant hope of the West's return to Orthodoxy some day.
@@HickoryDickory86Was the Roman schism Satan in the church?
@@mikebastiat All schisms are, ultimately, satanic in origin. He is the adversary, and he relishes sowing division between brethren.
@@HickoryDickory86 Do you think the RC is Satanic though? Something is always unsettling about it to me.
@@mikebastiat I do think there is undeniable demonic influence operating within the Roman Catholic church. Even its most famous modern exorcist, Fr. Gabriele Amorth, admitted as much himself.
I am also convinced that some of its post-schism saints were either demoniacs themselves or under demonic prelest (delusion). The Stigmata, for example, was unheard of prior to the schism, and only started appearing afterward, beginning with Francis of Assissi (12th century). Then you have the women saints like Catherine of Siena, Teresa of Ávila, and Margaret Mary Alacoque, whose ecstatic experiences and theology are greatly divergent from and antithetical to the traditions of the Church of the first millennium. Teresa is less radical and slightly more in conformity with the practice of hesychasm in the East, but that's a very generous, personal assessment on my part. Her theology of prayer is nevertheless troublesome, because she pressed far to heavily into and relied far too much on ecstatic experiences and imagination, which are vehemently dissuaded by all the Fathers of hesychia, since they are vectors for demonic attack and delusion.
And it comes as no surpise that there were two other women-Magdalena de la Cruz (of the Cross) and Benedetta Carlini-who were roughly contemporary with these others already mentioned, and they had very similar ecstatic experiences to theirs. Magdalena was even widely regarded as a living saint in her own day, but both women were eventually exposed to be demonically possessed and influenced.
But if their admittedly demonic experiences-officially and formally admitted by the Roman Catholic church-are identical in form and substance and theology to those whom the Catholic church receives as saints (i.e., Catherine, Teresa, and Margaret), why are they also not called into question, especially considering they are so divergent from the fifteen hundred year witness of the Church up to that point?
Very well done! Bonus points for keeping it so short; I believe that will definitely increase the amount of people who are willing to check it out.
St. John Bosco explains orthodox church : ruclips.net/video/UdnjrUQknCs/видео.htmlsi=VG5D_td5omVMgD2-
I remember growing up rc and hearing "the Orthodox were right on bread and the filioque." Well if they were right about all of that why not the papacy? Turns out they were also right about that.
@Evan Harte the usage of leavened vs unleavened
@YAJUN YUAN It was leavened - azymite!
@YAJUN YUAN you are correct sir
@YAJUN YUAN The bread was leavened at the last supper and no feast of unleavened bread is mentioned in the gospels. You are a heretic and mis -interpret the gospels
@@jaydyle4800 He is wrong, heretic
It's ridiculous that they changed the creed - and then accused the other side of changing it. It's also sinister. It's similar to accusing someone innocent of stealing something; they have no way of proving their innocence. "For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this age, against spiritual hosts of wickedness in the heavenly places."
That’s how Satan works. Rome is Satan’s church. Nothing more needs to be said
“Art for art's sake is an empty phrase. Art for the sake of truth, art for the sake of the good and the beautiful, that is the faith I am searching for.”
― George Sand
Beautiful quote. Always heard it in civ4
St. John Bosco explains orthodox church : ruclips.net/video/UdnjrUQknCs/видео.htmlsi=VG5D_td5omVMgD2-
St. John Bosco explains orthodox church : ruclips.net/video/UdnjrUQknCs/видео.htmlsi=VG5D_td5omVMgD2-
As a catholic i am grateful for your work. I pray both churches humble and unite. Maybe we can agree to disagree on this issue as it is so difficult to comprehend by the human mind. Is it so divisive we can’t slightly disagree on what almost seems an undefinable mystery? Let’s pray for each other. To love Jesus, his Father the creator, and the gift that is the spirit of god who does work we cannot comprehend. I love the orthodox church and people. As im sure there are plenty of orthodox who love the catholic church as well. Let us pray for and love one another as Christ loves us all.
Great job guys!
And if that had not happened, it seems to me that the kind of doctrinal developments rejected by the reformers would not have occured either. I'd love to hear a theologian or historian explore that in detail though, since I am neither.
St. John Bosco explains orthodox church : ruclips.net/video/UdnjrUQknCs/видео.htmlsi=VG5D_td5omVMgD2-
This is amazing. Thank you for this
St. John Bosco explains orthodox church : ruclips.net/video/UdnjrUQknCs/видео.htmlsi=VG5D_td5omVMgD2-
We need to stop calling it a split as if it was 50/50. 1 holy see split from 4 others.
The one, true Church, which is the Body & Bride of the Lord, can never be split. People can leave it. Others are baptized into Him, into His Body. But His Body is never & cannot be split. It remains one & holy. Our leaving it (anyone's leaving it) does not split the Church.
I can already feel the Catholic cope, framings, distortions, whataboutisms, keys and so forth.
The script is very deliberately worded, that is to say, to put its assertions and conclusions into question will pose major problems for the RC polemicists. The reality is, as a matter of history, this is a pretty straight forward question with an easy answer.
Is it really so importiant in these circles to point to the one "who started it"? Seems a bit pedantic to me. Lutherans would happily admit to having technically split from the apostolic and universal church, not in a desire to distort theology, but purify it. Wouln't Roman catholics use the same argument?
for the record, I'm a firm outsider to these discussions.
@@DeHeld8 That argument doesn't hold. Rome wasn't thinking of "purifying" anything when it introduced its reforms like the filioque and Papal supremacy. Unlike the corruptions of medieval RCism that Luther dealt with, the Orthodox faith of the first 1,000 years needed no Protestant "purifying" Reformation.
@@justanotherlikeyou Fair enough, of course. I just get a sence that this discussion is just more about "who started it", rather then who has the correct line.
@@DeHeld8 Well, the question as to who started it (i.e. the Great Schism) really has everything to do with it. The reason why is because schism has always been wrong, and those who have gone into it have always been in the wrong for it. It shows who has remained faithful to the Apostolic Tradition and who hasn't. And it shows who needs to repent and return to communion with who. So, yes, answering the question of who is responsible for the Great Schism is of the utmost importance. I understand, however, how this may seem counterintuitive to a Protestant, but that's only because Protestants have learned to live with their own schism, so they don't put much, if any, importance on it. But for the ancient catholic Church this is of paramount importance. This is the best video I've seen on the subject. It's relatively short, clear, and concise.
I am a former Roman Catholic now Orthodox Catechumen. I was so ignorant of the events leading up to and around the schism. I can't believe anyone unironically would argue that the East were responsible for the split in communion.
Thanks for making all this research, scripting and editing public! Makes you wonder if Rome will ever repent about the consequences of the Filioque and the subsequent bishopric "poaching". Without truth, there can not ever be reconciliation. Pre-schism Orthodox Catholics Saints, pray for us.
Modern Rome is more interested in building a perrenialist one world religion.
@@NavelOrangeGazer Sure looks like that, doesn't it?
Through The Power of Christ anything is possible, Pray that The Catholic and Orthodox Churches come back into Communion and back into being a *One* Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church
@@mrmcface713 Just because Rome left doesn't make the Church any less One, Holy, Catholic, or Apostolic. It's up to Rome to repent of their schism and innovations.
Without truth, there can never be reconciliation. This was well put.
As concise as could be done and superbly produced! You guys did a great job on this one.
Many thanks :D
St. John Bosco explains orthodox church : ruclips.net/video/UdnjrUQknCs/видео.htmlsi=VG5D_td5omVMgD2-
Great video bro.
Got here just in time!
Excellent and concise explanation and argument regarding who the real schismatics are. It's truly absurd to think we Orthodox are the schismatics considering that we haven't moved or changed in our doctrine or teaching of the course of over 1,000 years. 1st Constantinople canon 3 and Chalcedon canon 28 proves the East never understood Rome's primacy as a divine institution like Rome did. And this is a fact regardless if the Pope accepted those canons or not. Those canons express the collegial mind of the Eastern Churches of the undivided Church. Period.
Just curious how did you cite those canons so readily? Thank you for those by the way. Reading the Primacy of Peter has been eye opening. Byzantine perspective is refreshing.
@@justrubio3121 I've spent some time with the issue between Rome and Orthodoxy since I'm a convert from Protestantism. I had originally listed canon 6 of the 1st Constantinople Council, but this was in error. It was canon 3, and I've edited my comment to reflect that. Sorry for any confusion.
@@justanotherlikeyou The only book that’s kind of made it clear for me is called the Primacy of Peter. It’s like a Byzantine perspective. Any you recommend? Also have you heard of the donation of Constantine? Allegedly it was a forgery that the Roman Church used for years to usurp land all around the western half of the empire.
>hesychasm
@justanotherlikeyou There is no such thing as "Byzantine". That is a name the West imposed on us, & which, being false, we reject. They slapped it on us because they didn't want to admit who we really are, so they could claim what is ours.
Ours was the Christian (Orthodox) Roman Empire, whose capital was Constantinople (as opposed to the pagan Roman Empire, whose capital was Rome). We are the Romans & ours is the Catholic (a Greek word meaning whole) Church.
Great video!
Amazing work.
Very well done. Matches my studies of the issue as well but presented in a condensed, yet thorough format.
St. John Bosco explains orthodox church : ruclips.net/video/UdnjrUQknCs/видео.htmlsi=VG5D_td5omVMgD2-
Thank you, good information to know and share.
Please share!
Congrats on topping 10K views for this one
Wonderful historical overview with pertinent details, but not to the point of “straining gnats and swallowing camels”. I don’t claim either “side” as my own, but this will help me rebut those individuals who dogmatically claim that the Romish Catholic Church ⛪️ is the “original and only true Church”. Grace and peace in Christ.
✝️🙏🏼😇
lol great video, but it made me think: How in the world can The Other Paul read all of this content regarding councils, canons, bishops, and think what he believes as a Protestant has anything whatsoever to do with the Church that Christ established.
@@utuber6175, how on earth did you conclude that?!
In every situation, remember that you're never alone. God leads the way, stands by your side, and walks behind you. Approach life with confidence, knowing that God is with you every step of the way. Amen! 🙏❤🙌
God has promised to come back for His Bride - The Church. Remember also story of foolish and smart virgins and make sure your lamp is filled with he oil... which is given in His Church only. Many are awaiting Lord having empty lamps. Warning.!
The "crack" in the icon of our Lord at the beginning seemed inappropriate, otherwise it was an awesome production!
I thought so aswell. It could also be misunderstood that our Lord is somehow now split and exists in parts located in two separate churches, which would not be in line with the Orthodox teaching.
I found it also unsettling but much on point as the church is fractured not as two equal parts but an injured relationship not properly healed shows the corruption of decay over time and needs fixed or amputated.
@@Dlee-eo5vv The Church isn't fractured, nor does it need healing. The Church is the Orthodox Church, all other bodies are heretics who have cut themselves off from the one true and undivided Church. The rest are more than welcome to renounce their heresies and rejoin the Church.
@@NoeticInsight yes, your correct. I was too gracious in the event of the schism.
I do hold as you stated that they return to us. Thanks.
@@Dlee-eo5vv, the only true Church is, was, & will always be one. The true Church is Christ's Body and Bride. We can depart from her, but our going our own way does not split the Church, which remains one, holy, catholic (Greek word meaning whole). The Church does not break into equal or unequal parts, when any depart from her. They, of their freewill, depart. She continues on her journey through time until the Lord returns for her, always one & Holy.
In the very end, the Church on earth will be very small (i.e., will consist of very few, the faithful remnant), as many faithful will have been killed by the son of perdition & and all the rest, when He returns, will have apostatized, i.e., departed from the Church to be able to buy & sell... Does their departure mean the Church is split? Does it mean there's a relationship to be healed? No. It simply means they used their freewill to depart.
The same in every generation. People can leave, but the Church remains one, undivided, holy.
The only difference is now & until the very end people can repent & return, while they still live. In the very end, once they take the seal of the son of perdition, they will not be able to do so. No other difference.
Thank you this will be helpful, since im still pretty new to Orthodoxy.
God Bless you.
This will help you big time!
@@OrthodoxChristianTheology Thanks. however i must correct you on one thing; at 14:38 you say Heraclius removed latin from the official language of The Eastern Roman Empire, but this is a misconception. Heraclius never did such a thing. regardless, nice video
Great job
amazing!
That Intro... just rocks.
Excellent! Thank you. 23 minutes? Wow! I was expecting hours but I think it's hours-worth.
St. John Bosco explains orthodox church : ruclips.net/video/UdnjrUQknCs/видео.htmlsi=VG5D_td5omVMgD2-
According to Chalcedon, it was permissible for the Fathers of Constantinople I to include the material on the Holy Spirit in the Creed of Nicaea; they were not adding substance but clarifying what was already there. Yet if this option of making clarifying notations to the creed was permissible for them, it would be permissible for others also. Thus the Council of Florence could add “filioque” legitimately as a clarification of the manner of the Spirit’s procession.
Excellent video. Great work
Outstanding! Very well done!
St. John Bosco explains orthodox church : ruclips.net/video/UdnjrUQknCs/видео.htmlsi=VG5D_td5omVMgD2-
The conclusion says it all
The thumbnail says: the sin that split the church.
But the Church is Christ's Body & cannot be split. People can leave it, people come into it, but the Church is whole, undivided.
Some protestants and catholics have said to me before that a stumbling block is their family for multiples of generations aren't Orthodox. As a convert, who has no Orthodox family and multiples of generations not within the faith, let me offer a few letters from the friends of God, His Saints, on the subject. We should be overjoyed God has given us His mercy to be drawn to His Church (a Mystery, as the Saints say on who is drawn), and be allowed to offer prayer for our ancestors in the orthodox (correct) manner. Glory be to God!
St Ambrose - on prayers for our ancestors...
Just how great this help is even for relatives who lived outside the Church we know from the letters of St. Ambrose of Optina to Count Alexei P. Tolstoy. A mullah was baptized in his house church. The great elder wrote on this occasion, “The baptism of this mullah, the conversion to Christianity of the Lezgin [a nation in the Caucasus Mountains] Assan, the reception into the Church of an Abyssinian, and several similar examples has given us the thought that God also honors various tribes and peoples with various errors relative to the one true Divinity; because although it happens rarely, from almost all existing tribes in different times people have converted to true Christianity… This means that if out of the darkness of impiety one has turned to the Lord, then this is sufficient for the Lord; and for the sake of this one convert, He will honor the whole generation [i.e., lineage] that produced him” (Collected Letters [Moscow, 1995], 7).
“The lot of the departed is not considered decided until the general Last Judgment. Until then, we cannot consider anyone as finally judged; and on the basis of this we pray, convinced in our hope in God’s immeasurable mercy!” (St. Theophan the Recluse, Collected Letters, v. 6, letter 948).
....
St Leo
There was an incident in the life of the Optina Elder Leonid (Leo in schema) who died in 1841. The father of one of his disciples, Paul Tambovtsev, died an unfortunate, violent death - by suicide. The loving son was deeply grieved by the news of this, and so he poured out his sorrow before the Elder: "The unfortunate death of my father is for me a heavy cross. Yes, I am now on the cross, and these pains will go with me to the grave. I imagine eternity, terrible for sinners, in which there is no more repentance, and I am tormented by the prospect of the eternal torments which await my father, who died without repentance. Tell me, Father, how can I console myself in my present grief?"
The Elder replied: "Entrust both yourself and the fate of your father to the will of the Lord, which is most wise and almighty. Do not pry into the wonders of the Most High. Strive by humility of wisdom to strengthen yourself within the bounds of moderate sorrow. Pray to the All-good Creator, fulfilling thereby the duty of love and the obligation of a son."
To the question: "In what way should we pray for such ones?" the answer was: "In the spirit of virtuous and wise men, pray thus: Seek out, O Lord, the lost soul of my father, if it be possible, have mercy! Unsearchable are Thy decrees. Do not account this my prayer as a sin; but may Thy holy will be done! Pray simply, without testing, giving your heart over into the right hand of the Most High. Of course it was not God's will that your father should have such a grievous death; but now he is entirely in the will of Him Who can cast both soul and body into the fiery furnace, and Who both humbles and exalts, gives over to death and brings to life, sends down to hell and raises up. And at the same time He is so merciful, almighty, and filled with love that the good qualities of all those born of earth are nothing before His Most High Goodness. Therefore you should not grieve excessively. You will say: 'I love my father, and therefore I grieve inconsolably.' This is just. But God loved and loves him incomparably more than you do. And so it remains for you to leave the eternal fate or your father to the goodness and mercy of God, Who if He wills has mercy, but who can withstand Him?"
St Philaret of NY (1985) - 'will the heterodox be saved'? excerpt from a longer article available online.
The Holy Orthodox Church is the repository of the divinely revealed Truth in all its fullness and fidelity to apostolic Tradition. Hence, he who leaves the Church, who intentionally and consciously falls away from it, joins the ranks of its opponents and becomes a renegade as regards apostolic Tradition. The Church dreadfully anathematized such renegades, in accordance with the words of the Saviour Himself (Matt. 18:17) and of the Apostle Paul (Gal. 1:8-9), threatening them with e ternal damnation and calling them to return to the Orthodox fold. It is self evident, however, that sincere Christians who are Roman Catholics, or Lutherans, or members, of other non-Orthodox confessions, cannot be termed renegades or heretics-i.e. those who knowingly pervert the truth...* They have been born and raised and are living according to the creed which they have inherited, just as do the majority of you who are Orthodox; in their lives there has not been a moment of personal and conscious renunciation of Orthodoxy. The Lord, "Who will have all men to be saved" (I Tim. 2:4) and "Who enlightens every man born into the world" (Jn. 1.43), undoubtedly is leading them also towards salvation In His own way.
With reference to the above question, it is particularly instructive to recall the answer once given to an inquirer by the Blessed Theophan the Recluse. The blessed one replied more or less thus: "You ask, will the heterodox be saved... Why do you worry about them? They have a Saviour Who desires the salvation of every human being. He will take care of them. You and I should not be burdened with such a concern. Study yourself and your own sins... I will tell you one thing, however: should you, being Orthodox and possessing the Truth in its fullness, betray Orthodoxy, and enter a different faith, you will lose your soul forever."
None of those words Jesus taught. You need to stop listening to words of men and read the words of Jesus. Read your bible.
@@letsgococo288 Who compiled the Bible?
Incredible video, well explained. Although I already knew the answer and why, I hope to show this to my dad someday, I come from a Roman Catholic family, but I myself am converting. :)
Show respect to your father and your ancestral religion. May all Roman Catholics come home to the Orthodox Catholic Church.
If you have not seen it already, here is the documentary's sequel: ruclips.net/video/Wfeo6A-5agE/видео.html&
@@OrthodoxChristianTheology I respect my father ofcoarse. But Roman Catholocism as a perversion of the truth I cannot as easily give a great deal of respect.
Energetic Filioque does not contradict Monarchy of the Father, but a hypostatic Filioque would result either in two sources or a compound source in the Godhead and thus contradict the Monarchy of the Father
Further, St. Ambrose, the baptiser and teacher of St. Augustine, also taught Energetic Spirituuque, namely that the Son is sent from the Holy Spirit in the Incarnation. And we do confess this, since we say in the Creed, '...who became Incarnate from the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary...'
So we do confess Energetic Spirituuque and Energetic Filioque, but we condemn both hypostatic Filioque and a notion of hypostatic Spirituuque
hypostatic filioque doesn't violate the monarchy of the Father.
@@Sicilianus
It does since it makes the Son a co-source of the Spirit, thus negating the Father as sole cause and source of the Godhead
So you're just making a blatantly false statement. The Father is the sole source and cause of the Procession of the Holy Spirit. In other word, monarkhe
@@adothariman966 no, you are falsely misrepresenting our position. the Father is the arch, the source, of the entire Godhead. the latin word procedit that we use is used in a way that the greek proienai is used. we do not claim that the Son is another arch, nor do these terms indicate that. this is what Saint Augustine said:
The Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father as principle, and, through the latter’s timeless gift to the Son, from the Father and the Son in communion (St. Augustine, De Trinitate, XV, 25, 47).
@@Sicilianus
If you do not make the Son a principle, source and cause of the Holy Spirit, then we agree with you and indeed we say with you that the Holy Spirit proceeds principaliter from the Father and sent by the Son
And likewise we must profess the Son Himself as being sent by the Holy Spirit, and that the Son is the Word and Sword of the Holy Spirit [even as also the Spirit Himself is the Sword of the Word], as Sts. Ambrose and Nyssa said according to the Holy Scripture
Great.
please say something about the eastern and the oriental orthodox families
orthodoxchristiantheology.com/2022/07/14/the-miaphysite-schisms-inauspicious-origin/
Enquirer seeking Truth. Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on us and our world. Amen.
☦ 🙏 🌍 🙏☦
question: why not re-iterate some of the points you made in the "Is Roman Catholicism Schismatic? The Case for Orthodoxy" article? the quotations from Optatus and all.
Cue the song, there must be a misunderstanding, by Genesis
Down with the Papist schismatics!
>Narrated by Other Paul
Hope he didn't throw in some protestant nonsense into this.
This script was entirely Truglia's creation, I simply voiced and produced the video. So no, there isnt any "Protestant nonsense" here.
@@TheOtherPaul we love you 😎🦧
@@TheOtherPaul are you Protestant? Sir/Mr. ?? And you did the voice on this video.. just asking
I have been in discussions with a friend who is Eastern Orthodox to help me learn about Orthodoxy. It was difficult to hear the speaker over the background music. I don't have a problem with the background music, but it should not overpower the speaker. I will watch this again, without my family present (who complain about the volume!), so I can crank it up and hear the speaker! :)
St. John Bosco explains orthodox church : ruclips.net/video/UdnjrUQknCs/видео.htmlsi=VG5D_td5omVMgD2-
headphones are your friend.
so many informative videos wrecked by obnoxious background music or special effects. 😢
@@k.martin28270 St. John Bosco explains orthodox church : ruclips.net/video/UdnjrUQknCs/видео.htmlsi=VG5D_td5omVMgD2-
This was concise, clear and informative. It Also allows someone to check the sources for themselves.
Thank you.
St. John Bosco explains orthodox church : ruclips.net/video/UdnjrUQknCs/видео.htmlsi=VG5D_td5omVMgD2-
Great video. One thing that caught my attention is that idea that all apostles received their ordination through St Peter. I've heard this before but only in your videos and articles. I know that you quote some ancient writers to prove this however I wonder if such belief was widespread or it was a marginal view. So I'm afraid you are taking a minority view and exposing it as a widespread belief. This idea that all ordination came through St Peter is something that even papists I don't see claiming. Are you sure that such view was the normal/accepted view in the first centuries?
This was the first I heard this so I am also interested.
Ubi has a quote mine on it though there are limits to quote mines so I generally don't recommend those. Nonetheless it comes up repeatedly in the Patristics and pope Gregory ii, who resisted iconoclasm, likewise asserts the idea and I find it also in miaphysite sources.
It's a first for me too. Having read a few books on Church History and about the schism, I've never found one mention of the possibility of all the Apostles being ordained by Peter and I was really disturbed to hear that this is mentioned as a Church tradition.
As far as I know this is a RC position, that all priesthood is derived from the Pope who is the successor of Apostle Peter. Probably this tradition was something accepted in the Western Church, along side other mistaken traditions in order to support the Popes primacy. Never in the Orthodox teaching of the Eastern Church have I ever found anything of the sort being mentioned...
@@panagiotismakris8276 as mentioned previously it is quotes by John of Thessalonica (Greek) and the earliest Greek dormition homily. If you read into the idea something papist, all I can see people that mentioned it conceived nothing of the sort.
@@craigtruglia6796 This can hardly be called a consensus brother. John of Thessalonica lived in the 7th century and neither the Scriptures, nor the earlier tradition support his opinion. Nothing of the sort is written in the earliest Christian writings like the Didache. And as far as I know, never does a Church Father mentions it in his writings about priesthood.
There is a tradition mentioned by some Saints that the Most Holy Mother of God was baptized and even St. Ambrose mentions that she might have died the death of a Martyr. But, neither of those opinions were accepted by the Church.
St. Cyprian does indeed mention that Apostle Peter was the first bishop but that is only one testimony and kinda a late one. Since you mentioned it, the Papists really did use this in a way to support the primacy of the Pope. Since all priesthood derives from Peter, in the same way it derives from his successors. Not, that by itself this opinion supports the Papal primacy, but we should keep in mind that in the West fake traditions about Peter were spread through Rome as early as the 2nd century, as St. Nektarios of Aegina mentions in his book "The causes of the Great Schism" and this one could be one of them.
I'm not saying that this opinion has something heretical to it but we can't say that it is an accepted Church tradition.
The split originated over A Cappella singing in worship to God!
Here is one error....The Lombards were not Franks. They were actually enemies.
They were not called Frank's in the film.
That’s what the video said. Rome went with the franks against the lombards.
To be steeped in history is to cease to be Roman Catholic.
Such an empty, vague statement.
It was the Prophet of Truth when he decided to hand the Covenant's fleets over to the Brutes.
Goated Comment
The Sephardi Jews fled the inquisition in Europe to it’s descendants become catholics in Brazil. Ain’t that ironic?!
Thanks a good theological and Church Historical presentation. The sad thing that Rome teaches the other way around.
It is lamentable that the foundation of the Roman church is in defiance of Canon 2 of Constantinople I.
@@OrthodoxChristianTheology Love is not Canon...
Orthodoxy was founded under nationalistic principles, just read the fathers of the church, the Roman bishop has always been considered the one Who has primacy. The ethnic aspect of the orthodoxy has caused only problems to their church. Just take a look at the war on Russia, the Orthodox church is completely divided, without communion. Now look at the catholics, not even WWI or WWII were able to divide it. Is the only church that has accomplished the mission of evangelization that God mandates. There is basically no Orthodoxy outside the eastern Europe countries. And if there are a few churches outside, they are always fighting to see which ethnic flavor of the religion is the one with the right to rule an specific geographic area.
Are you sure of that ? Founded on nationalistic principles, remember for your information the Holy fathers are Orthodox. Yes Rome through the Ecumenical council was given the tittle primacy but also among equals. Primacy does not mean authority over other jurisdictions but just only a seniority amongst equal. How did rome do the evangelization and are you sure on your info that there is no Orthodox Mission outside Europe? read properly the Church History. What happened to Russia and Ukraine is not because of the Church, I don't know of you know the history about it. You are just feed the wrong info on bias western medias. Orthodoxy is not about the big population it is about the Faith live rightly, and Orthodoxy is not for all but for those who are called by God through the Holy Spirit to come home. @@J.R2023
@@J.R2023Catholicism has 23 sui iuris churches largely tied to ethnicity, that's not the best argument.
Peter didn't ordain the other apostoles. Christ said Peter is the rock that founds the church because he was the first mortal to recognize Jesus as Messiah. Only a few chapters later in Matthew, the apostles collectively already have the authority to bind and loose. Peter's single-pointed authority lasted literally a few weeks at most, likely much less, while Jesus still lived.
Peter is not founder of the Church. Please read your Bible: "For no other foundation can anyone lay than that which is laid, which is Jesus Christ." (1 Cor 3, 11)
@@johnnyd2383 the twelve apostles were the next stratum
@@loganstrait7503 That is much better... your original words "Christ said Peter is the rock that founds the church" are thus heretical as Lord is founder of His Church. One small step in your understanding that Papal claims are false.
@@johnnyd2383 I'm Orthodox, not Roman Catholic. Christ DID say that Peter is the rock on which He founds his Church. Open your Bible and read it.
An excellent summary of everything...
The church is understood as one, holy, catholic and apostolic, founded by Jesus through the apostles like Peter and Paul.
Schism was defined by early church fathers as breaking communion and setting up parallel jurisdictions.
Bishops historically had hierarchical roles tied to geography. Disputes over jurisdiction were settled by consensus.
Cultural estrangement grew between Greek East and Latin West. Border changes led to disputes but no schism initially.
Filioque addition to the Creed by the West raised concerns but did not immediately cause a schism. A truce was made.
In 11th century, Rome unilaterally added the filioque to the Creed, violating the truce. They also replaced Greek bishops.
During the Crusades, Rome installed parallel Latin bishops and churches in the East without consent, consummating the schism.
Eastern churches never reciprocally set up parallel jurisdictions in the West.
Based on early church criteria for schism, Roman church is blamed for starting the Great Schism by creating a parallel church.
But the denials presist and may never get settled till advent.
This is why I only listen to the Biblical Paul, the Apostle Paul! The office of sole key holder is one of succession Biblically! Was Moses one of many equals too? Peace always in Jesus Christ our Great and Kind God and Savior, He whose Flesh is true food and Blood true drink
@Nathaniel J. Franco I was just going to say the same to the other Paul! Just wondering, was Moses was one of many equals too? Peace always in Jesus Christ our Great and Kind God and Savior, He whose Flesh is true food and Blood true drink
Well, I'm 2:30 seconds in and the claim that Peter literally ordained the other apostles was made. 4 references were give. Matt. 16 clearly doesn't say this, the Eusibios quote also didn't say anything like that. I couldn't find the Optatus quote or the one from John of Thessalonica, but its from the 7th century anyway. Am I missing something, or did you guys just throw on a bunch of references hoping no one would check them?
Only the erudite will know God with Us is Christian Arab song, and a banger
I was raised Pentacostal and am trying to decide whether to be Orthodox or Catholic, as I now fully understand the importance of apostolic succession. Can any Catholics explain to me why this video is wrong, if it indeed is? Because, if it isn't, this seems to have made up my mind on the matter.
I’m Pentecostal. I’m in both RCC and Orthodox seminary. Anglican could be best for you. I believe they have apostolic succession. Rome accepts the charismata. You could join a charismatic Catholic Church. Orthodox do not.
@@ntlearning I don't think Anglican would be a good fit for me, solely because of how it started. I see it as Henry VIII attempting to lead the elect astray like how Jesus talked about. To me it's very important how a church started, as that determines, in my eyes, how legitimate it is.
@@IsaiahINRI Hmmm ok. Many Anglican scholars would disagree with your assessment here. KH8 might have had a hand in the Church of England, but not Anglicanism. The Roman Catholic Church is open to the charismata. Pentecostalism has roots in Catholicism through Wesley. He was Anglo-Catholic. Of course, Rome also claims to hold the chair of Peter - which I agree they do. Apostolic Succession is not the only thing that defines legitimacy. You need to do more research. This is why I am attending these universities doing my Masters with them. God is bigger than that bro. Muslims are having visions of Jesus and converting - and Jesus isn't saying to them - go to an Orthodox Church.
Catholic here. Its hard to put it simple in YT comment, but this vide show strongly anty-West interpretation of Schism, which even not all Eastern Orthodox peoples share.
To put ist oversimplified:
1) the first form of christian organization was Pentarchry, where patriartch of Rome (pope) was nominal leader as ,,princeps inter pares" (first amoung equals). There was was dispute how much real authority he has and how much authority belong to sinod, but from historical point of view saying that Church has no leader in the begining is wrong. There are evidences where pope acted as high judge and settled debates amongs other patriarchs is early christianity. Also it is clearly written in the Bible that Jesus designated Saint Peter as leader of the Church on Earth. Peter traveled across all Roman Empire and finally settled and stay until end of his life in Rome, so apostolic sucession bishops of Rome come from Peter, where apostolic sucession of others patriarchs come from others apostols.
2) This movie seems to show narration in one point where Frankish kings had convinced popes to break with ,,True" Orthodox Church which is very misleading. First, there is no such thing like One Eastern Orthodox Church, there are few Eastern Churches lead by local Patriarchs. Second, since Rome was not the only seat of Church leader but also the only apostolic seat which was not under rule of Bizantine Emperors, popes alway put heavy pressure on independence Church form secular power (papocesarism). Meanwhile, others patriarch stayed under rule of Eastern Emperors, so they developed idea of cesaropapism, where emperor has authority over Church. And since popes of Rome rejected to accept authority of Byzantine emperors, they (emperors) tried to reduce meaning of papacy and even tried to proclaim Patriarch of Constatinopole as ,,princeps inter pares". Even if it is some true in the story where Franks encouraged popes to be more resiliant agains Byzantine Emperors, they never had such control over Church, like Byzantine Emperors had. After all Pope had his own land granted by Franks (Papal State), what was never the case for other patriarch living under greek or muslim rulership. So from our perpective - this schism was very heavy caused by politicial reasons, where teological diffrences was secondary and not so relevant from the catholic point. Catholic (Universal) Church is more open than most Eastern Churches so we are ready to accept most of their traditions even if we dont agree with them because they are not against main principles of Christianity.
3) About Filique. It is true that Pope added it to the Nicene Creede. But Popes added this BECAUSE it is corecct with the Bible where in many places we can read directly or indirectly tha Holy Spirit proceeded from the Father and Son. The only point where I can agree with author of movie is form of this change. Since it was (for peoples at this time) important change, is would be better to implement it by sinod. But despite of form of implementation this is correct wiht the Bible. And at this point i want show some hipocrisy of some Eastern Orthodox teachers. They claim that popes illegaly changed original Credo, but problem is no one today use original Credo. Eastern Churches also using changed version of Creed, it is just less developed than Catholic version. Here I want to explain, that Catholc Church has doctine of developing the faith, where Church can investigate the Bible and other sources of faith (like revelation) or using science/philosophy to better understand the God. But this should be done very carefully. Opposite, many Eastern Churches like to claim that this is wrong and all what we must just keep tradition of first christian like they do. But problem is that they also developed their doctrine, just in slightly diffrent direction than Roman Catholic Church. For example, there was no veneration of icons in first ages of Christianity in the form which exist today in Eastern Orhodoxy (or Roman Catholicism).
Im not theologist, just regular men so I m suggest to listen some profesional catholic teacher like Breaking the Habit about such things like Great Schism. From my personal experience this will be more educational for you because catholics priests has less tendency to show one-sided version of Schism unlike Eastern Orthodox.
To the end, I must say that like most of Catholics I respect Eastern Orthodox traditions, even if i dont agree with few of them. I hope it will come a day when our eastern brothers will also start to love us in the same degree we love them.
May God be with you!
Thanks for the video! One of the questions I have about the proposition that Christ first ordained Peter and then Peter ordained all the other apostles is: wouldn’t this bolster papal claims in that it would make Peter the source of the episcopate and provide him a unique role among the bishops that would be maintained by his own successors to this role (the Popes)?
All bishops are successors of Peter. The Fathers understood Peter as the icon of the episcipate. The ecumenical councils, including Rome, affirmed autocepholous (independent) churches governed by a bishop, a honeycomb of catholicity.
@@RobertTaylor87 but if Peter took on a leadership/source role among the other apostles/bishops, that’s a unique role is it not? The papists claim to simply continue this role.
@@Gruenders he did have a unique role as the icon of the bishopric, no Orthodox denies this. This, however, does not justify papal infallibility and universal jurisdiction as Vatican 1 states, since before the schism the church was governed in the Orthodox model. Additionally, both Peter and Paul founded the Roman church, something Rome admitted for centuries then later dropped in the 1500s. Petrine primacy has always been one of honor and status, not of imperial monarchy.
@@RobertTaylor87 I gotcha but I’m focusing on the idea that Peter himself had a unique role among the apostles. If that’s posited then I feel like that lends credence to the papal point of view. However, I suppose you could argue that Peter was merely the first bishop and then ordained the other apostles, and from that point on they were all equal. He was just simply first. If that’s the case, then perhaps Rome would have no argument for being superior.
@@Gruenders thats true, it definitely requires a lot of nuance and discernment.
Question for orthodox: would you consider full communion with Catholics if the pope dropped papal infallibility and returned to being first among equals with Constantinople being second?
That doesn’t make any sense. Since Jesus started the church with the office of the Primacy of Peter just like the Old Testament did, Jesus alluded to.
@@CPATuttle Maybe Peter was the leader and above the other apostles but that was 2000 years ago. Who knows if the current pope after all those successions is still fit for that role? And first among equals does give extra power in discussions as they are generally first to speak.
@@CPATuttle Sorry but that just isn't true nor how the Church was ran for hundreds of years after the fall of Rome.
Why would Jesus chose an even number of Apostles to give them equal authority. Does that make any sense? That’s like the US Supreme Court having an even number of judges. There’s nothing logical about that. There’s no where written Jesus structures the church this way.
Read the gospel in plain text. Jesus give Peter the keys to loose and bind. It’s that clear.
The more you research. The more it supports that. For example. There was a recent discovery last year of a Byzantine style church from the 5th century built over ancient Bethsiada, where Peter was from. And it’s inscription says “chief and commander of the apostles” look that up
@@CPATuttle If you read the majority patristic interpretation of Matthew 16:19 it's that all the apostles received the keys and not just Peter. But keep quote mining, LOL
22:45
What a surprise...
2:20 You say that it is the patristic consensus that the apostles were ordained through St. Peter. In an earlier comment, you wrote that Ubi Petrus has a quote-mine on the subject. I know his website was revamped and some early posts are gone, but I only found a florilegium on all bishops being successors of St. Peter. Not the same thing.
The only quote you show here is a seventh-century quote of a conversation during the funeral of the Theotokos, where St. John calls St. Peter his bishop? He was a "bishop" or overseer of sorts. He oversaw their meetings, like a chairman. See Acts,1:12-26. But in the same chapter, it does not say that he single-handedly chose or ordained St. Matthias. It doesn't say how St. Matthias was ultimately added to the twelve.
However, concerning St. James Brother of the Lord ("St. James the Less" to RCs), Eusebius writes that he was ordained Bishop of Jerusalem by Sts. Peter, James Son of Zebedee, and John. Since these three are often mentioned together in the Gospels, and only they saw things like the Transfiguration, its just as likely that all three had a hand in St. Matthias' ordination as well. Or perhaps all eleven placed their hands on him to ordain him.
The miaphysites have as their most important sees, their versions of the Pope of Alexandria and Patriarch of Antioch, both "Petrine Sees". So, they have reason to add to St. Peter's authority.
You answered your own question. If all the bishops are successors to Peter, we are not Protestants, succession is something literal. Peter would have had to played a role in the succession of the original bishop. When that original bishop was an Apostle, then Peter played a role in ordaining that Apostle. You even cite St James, as Eusebius preserves, was ordained by John and Peter.
Ordinations happen *five* ways:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. CHRIST [Obviously owning the keys]
Christ Himself gave St. Peter the keys (leadership of the apostles), and the authority to bind and loose, assuming he teaches correctly (Orthodox) (Mt 16:17-23; Lk 22:31-34), which he could only do through loving Christ (not automatically based on his office) (Jn 21:15-19)
Christ then gave the same authority to all the apostles, minus the keys, and commanded them to gather in synods for all the church's judgements (Mt 18:17-20). St. Peter, having the keys, would be the leader. But he could only ratify or veto their common decision. If vetoed, they would pray some more and vote again. He could not override them and impose his will (v. 19-20).
*So Christ set up the structure of the synod with its leader.*
Christ later ordained all 11 Apostles (minus Judas) (Jn 20:21-23). St. Thomas was also affected, even though he wasn't present.
*So* *Christ* *made* *the* *first* *ordinations*.
Christ, finally, sent them out to the world (Mt 28:19-20). Now, they ALL WERE GIVEN THE KEYS, the leadership and teaching authority, each in his own mission area (v. 20). Now, they were ALL successors of St. Peter.
*So* *Christ* *also* *set* *up* *the* *succession* *to* *St.* *Peter*.
The bishops inherited this succession.
2.THE APOSTLES GATHERED TOGETHER [With St. Peter as leader, having the keys]
Some or all of the apostles, including St. Peter, probably ordained St. Matthias to replace Judas (Acts 1:12-26).
Three apostles, Sts. Peter, James rhe Greater (Son of Zebedee), and John ordained St. James the lesser (Brother of the Lord) as bishop of Jerusalem (Eusebius).
Three apostles, Sts. Peter, James the lesser, and John, ordained St. Paul (Gal 2:9).
Some or all of the apostles ordained the first seven deacons (Acts 6:5-6).
--------------
3. EACH APOSTLE IN HIS MISSION AREA [With the keys]
Each apostle single-handedly ordained bishops and other clergy in his mission area.
4. BISHOPS GATHERED TOGETHER [With a primate-bishop as leader, having the keys]
Three or more bishops are needed to ordain a new bishop (Apostolic Canon I).
-------------
5. EACH BISHOP IN HIS DIOCESE [With the keys]
Except for ordaining new bishops single-handed.
NOT THOSE LOWER IN RANK THAN BISHOPS
They don't have the keys, or authority to ordain, but can be honored with other spiritual gifts.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
@@geogabegalan We have passages that say all the bishops have "keys."
I agree. All the apostles and bishops have the keys. I edited my long reply above to reflect that.
The narrator sounds like The Other Paul lol
ohhh, it is him! haha, no wonder. my bad
Charlemagne and his court theologians started the Great Schism
The Bread of the Eucharist at the Lord's Supper was Leavened, not unleavened. St. Epiphanius tells us that Christ and the Apostles ate Jewish Passover [lamb, unleavened bread, bitter herbs], and then they celebrated the Eucharist with Leavened Bread
And as taught by St. Cyril in his Paschal Letters:
The Jewish lamb symbolized the Eucharistic Bread, and for this reason we call it Arnon [Lamb] and Hostia [Sacrifice]
The Jewish unleavened bread symbolized the faultless life by which one ought to approach the Eucharist
The Jewish bitter herbs symbolized the struggle by which we must achieve virtue to approach the Eucharist
The Eucharistic Bread is Leavened, since Leaven symbolizes Divine Nature, but Wheat represents human nature. It is the Union of two natures in the One Person of Jesus Christ
Interesting that he said that leaven symbolizes the divine nature. Do you have any other Fathers on leavened bread?
@@diegobarragan4904
It was St. Gregory of Nyssa that called the Divine Nature the Leaven
It was also by Divine Nature that Christ was resurrected after three days in the tomb
@@adothariman966 are you saying st Gregory did also or that this quote was from st Gregory instead of St Cyril?
@@diegobarragan4904
The quote was from St. Nyssa. St. Cyril talked about the Jewish passover lamb as the type of the Eucharistic Bread and the Jewish unleavened bread as the type of a life free from sin in order to approach the Eucharist
Except everything in the Bible shows that Leaven represents sin. Why would Jesus warn the disciples to stay away from the Pharisees leaven if it represented divine nature and not sin? Jesus is our passover lamb which is represented by unleavened bread which means he is our sinless lamb. Not leavened lamb or a sinful lamb.
Could St. Peter ordaining the other apostles be used as a supporting evidence for the papacy?
How?
@@FirstnameLastname-py3bc Well, I'm not sure tbh, but I think it would go like so the Pope of Rome has the authority to appoint the other patriarchs and bishops.
@@tomkunnel411 and where would they get Pope in particular!
@@FirstnameLastname-py3bc From the line from St. Peter
@@tomkunnel411 That line continues through all bishops if St Peter ordained them...
The roman catholic church is mystery babylon in revelation.
What is the Ceacilianus ?
I wish the music background was not there, it was a serious distraction.
Are you autistic?
Ok, so could someone please explain to this ignorant atheist why the filioque clause is so importiant? To me it seems so inconsequential to me. What were the the practical consequences of believing or not believing this? To me it still seems like a theological tool in order to fight a real-world battle over power and influence.
@JL-XrtaMayoNoCheese It was clear, but it makes it seem even more derranged and mad. You're saying that not holding to this one piece of dogma is the cause of most of the ills in the world. Not because of anyting the filioque clause practically teaches, but because it's just not following earlier dogma. As if life in regions were Orthodoxy has been dominant has been so much better then anywhere else. As if atheism and materialism (wich, for the record, I think are good things) are not also hugely popular in traditionally orthodox regions.
You even claim that the Russian revolution was ultimately a result of Rome deviating from this percieved pervious orthodox dogma with the filioque clause? Even though Roman catholicism and Lutheranism were very much minority tendencies in the Russian empire... I've studied the Russian revolutions in quite some depth, and stating that it was fincanced with westen money is quite unhinged. The Russian workers and peasants were simply sick and tired of being trampled on by the capitalists and the aristocracy. Same with the French bourgeois and peasants in the French revolution. No need for any filioque clause to rise up against your oppressors.
What I'm saying is that I was hoping for an explanation of the practical consequences of believing that the holy spirit preceeds from both the father and the son, in stead of just the father on it's own merits, rather then it only being bad just because it deviates from so-called orthodox dogma.
@JL-XrtaMayoNoCheese Holy, shit. You're absolutely badshit insane. I certianly hope the rest of the Orthodox christians are a bit more well-adjusted, and have a better grasp on reality.
@@DeHeld8 Learning more about this topic could save your life! Please, read up on this issue. Check out Ubi Petrus, Jay Dyer, Frs Trenham, Spyridon, Tryphon, and read Fr Seraphim Rose. They cover a lot of important intellectual history alongside their theological lecturing. God bless you!
@@cyriljorge986 Why? hasn't christianity become totally obselete when God revealed the holy Qur'an to the prophet trough the archangel Gabriel?
@@DeHeld8
Orthodoxy cannot become irrelevant because it's the true philosophy.
The Muhammadan philosophy is false. It's ad hoc and is a product of a Saracen who synthesize rabbinic slander, Nestorianism, manecheanism and the poetic commentaries of Saint Ephraim the Syrian into a distorted and violent deity he imagined after an encounter with a Djinn that called itself "Gabriel."
Apart from this, one of many possible arguments against Muhammadanism, Muhammad satisfies all the criteria in Deuteronomy 18:15-22 for a false prophet given by Saint Moses the GodSeer.
Other massive points of departure of Muhammad:
1. Conversion by the sword
2. Breaking of the commandments
3. Incongruent teaching with previous revelation
4. The messiah (Christ) had come. Muhammad is not a prophet de facto.
5. Warlord
6. Iconoclasism
7. Not sainthood in Islam
8. Confused Christology/Genealogy/Triadology in Qu'ran
The list goes on. Saint John Damascus refuted Islam.
Catholic=Universal. Orthodox=Right Thinking-Believing. Schism and Heresy. Latin and Greek. Geek Orthodox, Russian Orthodox, Ukrainian Orthodox.Romanian schism. Filoque and the son! From my study of history schools are common if not inevitable!
Fr. Meyendorff's book "Imperial Unity & Christian Divisions" is a very good book showing how the vatican I retcon of first millenia Church history is laughable.
and yet no orthodox has issue with the adding words to the creed at Constantinople 1
That's another ecumenical council doing it, though, not a single jurisdiction or bishop.
In the English language, “papist” is a word that is used to indicate your hatred of Catholics like myself. Interesting to see how often it is used here.
Papist is used because catholic also applies to orthodox. Papists need the pope for salvation. Ask your priest if it’s possible to be a catholic, deny the pope and be saved. Maybe in the novus ordo things are different and they don’t care, but traditionally if you’re catholic and you deny the pope, you cannot be saved.
Interesting that you’d jump to hatred. Maybe it’s others who aren’t catholic that you hate and you assume the worst from the rest of us.
@@Val.Kyrie. So any coloured people who become Orthodox are all happy with the use of a word like "papist"?
Orthodox use arguments to illustrate their distaste for the heresy Rome has taught for nearly 1000 years. What do the Papists do?
Saint Hieromartyr Georgije Bogić (Đorđe Bogić) was martyred by Croatian fascists in 1941.
Josaphat Kuntsevych was a uniate who oppressed peaceful orthodox and stole church property with the aid of the police force.
The only Catholics are Eastern Orthodox. New Martyr Peter the Aleut is another of numerous examples of Papist hatred of the Orthodox Faith.
@@JL-XrtaMayoNoCheese Well I wasn't around in 1941. My godfather was in the British Army fighting the Japanese in Burma, on the other side from Croatian fascists. I endorse his actions.
I can only warn you that in English, using a word like "papist" will mark you out as a hate-filled fanatic. Most English people will assume that you are a certain type of Protestant. Don't expect to make many English converts to what you call Orthodoxy.
@@david_porthouse
Your grandfather fought in a war to destory the british Empire and the Germany ecomony to allow the Americans to become the world hegemonic body. Your British history is filled atheism, deism, Masonry and the degenerate Victorian aristocracy which led to the horrendous geopolitical affairs: Milner group and WW1, British aid to stop Tzarist Russia from retaking Constantinople from Muhammadans, WW2, Opium wars, British east India company, mass migration, international usury, et cetera. This is a tangent.
Papist is simply the truth of the matter. Muhammadanism is a heresy of following Muhammad. Papism is a heresy of following the Pope: a manifest heretic who bows to idols, prays with Muslims, kisses Qu'rans, endorses usury, enjoys pagan dancing in the Vatican, allows Muslim calls to prayer in church, restricts the "traditional" Latin mass, endorses Hinduism, et cetera. There are many other words for Papists chuch are Latins, Filioquists, Gregorians, but none are a clear as Papism.
The entire world calls orthodoxy orthodox. In fact England was Orthodox under Eastern Orthodox Saint Edward the Confessor. The Papist Norman invasion of William the Bastrdd changed Englands faith and history. The Protestants are Childern of Rome: the original Protestants who broke away from the other 4 patriarch to teach the filioque, ultramontanism, priestly celibacy and unleavened bread in a protest of the conciliar church. They follow in Cardinal Hubberts footsteps.
The Frankish dominated Papists of course !
I’m interested in the nuances of the approximately 100 year process in which the Carolingian Bishops gradually took control of the Vatican, and how they contradict Rome’s immediate forbearers just prior to it. This could be valuable apologetic fodder in arguing with Modern Romans.
@@eldermillennial8330 Fr John Romanides wrote on the topic !
@@eldermillennial8330 Fr. John Strickland's books the Age of Utopia and Age of Division are good reading on the topic.
@@NavelOrangeGazer
I second this.
@@eldermillennial8330
Hildebrand of Sovana
Is this the other Paul narrating? Sounds just like him… I’m surprised he agreed to narrate this 😂 …. Given that he is an Anglican….
Background music way too loud. Overpowers the speaking.
Is there any hope of unification and reconciliation?
Not really, but there is hope of reconversion and repentance from Roman Catholics, like what I did, now a perfectly happy Orthodox. Arians, Apollinarians, Donatists, Montanist, Sabellians, and now Papists are broken from the Body. It's a tragedy, and it requires conversion. There is no salvation outside of the church.
@@cyriljorge986 faith in Christ is sufficient, whether heterodox or orthodox. Orthodox are weak in missionary work, unfortunately.
I’d say there’s always hope.
@@kingattila506 You don't know the first thing about Orthodox missionary work. Luckily, Ubi Petrus made a pretty neat series to get started. Also, faith in Christ means faith in Christ, not faith in a false construction of Him. Those who have faith tend to pursue the real church, not a false one.
@@kingattila506 who is Christ?
You discussed in your lead up the Meletian schism and that through the Ecumenical Council of Constantinople the disagreements were settled and the schism ended. You said this was the criteria on how to end a schism. Why then did you not mention the Second Council of Lyon? It had participation of both East and West, the Patriarch of Constantinople and the Emperor approved of it as well as the Greek clergy summoned (those who had taken issue w/ the Filioque in the first place). The council recognized the Filioque as theologically legitimate but did not require the East to add it in their recitation of the Creed. Communion with the Greeks was re-established. Schism ended. By the required criteria no less. That is until the Emperor’s heir Andronicus II called the council of Blachernae (no western clergy in attendance) to repudiate Lyons and the eastern citizens then refused to accept Lyons. Andronicous II then deposed of the Patriarch of Constantinople who was still trying to hold onto the union of the east and west and forced him into house arrest until he died. I think a closer look at history shows that Lyons should be Ecumenical, that the schism ended then and there, and that Andronicous II actually created the schism.
Lyons is not ecumenical. It lacked participation of all the members of the Pentarchy and their respective synods and thereby violates the definition of an Ecumenical Council given in Session 6 of Nicea 2. For more info on what makes an ecumenical council: orthodoxchristiantheology.com/2021/10/16/the-roles-for-rome-and-the-rest-of-the-pentarchy-in-ecumenical-councils/
@@OrthodoxChristianTheology I understand it’s not I’m just arguing it should have been accepted as Ecumenical by Antioch and Alexandria much like Constantinople I and II were afterwards by Rome. I do not see the definition of Ecumenical as requiring the East + Rome’s passive cooperation. Constantinople II shows the pretzel you have to twist yourself into to adopt that definition. I argue Ecumenical as universal acceptance. More pointedly and more importantly Lyon should have ended the schism since the three or four factions disputing the Filioque in the Latin Creed settled their differences: the Latins, Greeks, Patriarch of Constantinople and Emperor of Constantinople. These were the combatants in the issue dating all the way back to Photian. Even if not involving Antioch and Alexandria, Lyon did involve those who had the theological gripe with Rome. But that only assumes the Filioque is the reason for the schism…
@@CatholicChatsYour reasoning would be persuasive to 90 IQ Latins who are grossly ignorant of history and the councils.
Rome accepted the 8th Ecumenical Council for 200 years before denying the faith with the Gregorian reform.
That destroys your ENTIRE claim that there are bad patriarchates that didn't accept Lyon as an "ecumenical council because doing so would have meant the actual church was wrong for 200 years on the creed which was the same teaching as previous ecumenical councils.
You essentially suffer from a kind of Vatican 2 syphilitic phronema.
Pray to St Mark of Ephesus for your conversion to Holy Orthodoxy 😁
@@CatholicChatsAlso, Lyon 1472 was followed by Latins going to Mount Athos where they burned down the monasteries and murdered the monks.
Every time I hear some Latin gets murdered I think "they had it coming".
Great explanation by Dr. Nochols, but needing some Catholic, objective response.
1. Before 400 A.D., the Catholic Church was orthodox to the teaching in the Bible and Church Tradition.
2. The process of theological understanding is maturing, growing, expanding, unfolding, unrolling and enlarging, without fundamentally changing anything.
One could say that, given that the understanding of the Blessed Trinity is a Mystery, then the Filioque could be true.
Christ gave the Keys to Peter, Cephas to resolve inevitable differences of understanding arising within His Church.
I see evolution as fundamental change. With this definition, Christian Theology cannot evolve.
"But you say, Matthew 16, 18 the Church was founded upon Peter: although elsewhere the same is attributed to all the Apostles, and they all receive the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and the strength of the Church depends upon them all alike..." (Jerome, Against Jovinian, Book I, 4th century)
Based on the above citation, Jerome wrote refutation of heretic Jovinian who obviously claimed "...the Church was founded upon Peter..." by witnessing principle as we know it was practiced in the ancient Church - "they all receive the keys of the kingdom of heaven". Enjoy THE TRUTH.!
Check this verse please
Revelation 14:12
12 Here is the patience of the saints: here are they that keep the commandments of God, and the faith of Jesus.
Wow - some parts were painful to listen and get through....a long list iof issues over time. A sad lack of proper respect for other fellow Christians will ultimalately cause divisions.
Not me.
In its eastern rites, the Catholic Church still omits the Filioque from the Creed.
In the 1960s, the Catholic and Orthodox Churches removed the excommunications and anathemas that had been declared against each other many centuries before.
The doctrinal differences were more of an excuse than a reason. The motivation for the split, on both sides, was the territorial disputes between the Byzantine empire and the Frankish "Holy Roman" empire, which are now irrelevant. The theological differences could be resolved by faithful and loving discussions and understanding.
Both sides have historical grievances against each other. Both sides must forget them. Both sides must change. Each side could enrich the other theologically, mystically, spiritually and corporately, by reuniting. Nothing, absolutely nothing, will ever be gained from trying to find out who was to blame at any particular time, because the truth is that we are ALL to blame. By sinfulness on both sides of the schism, we Christians have allowed Satan to draw a knife though the Mystical Body of Christ and divide it from itself. The most urgent task of the Orthodox and Catholic Churches is to find ways of healing the wounds and ending the divisions. NOW.
It wasn't until the 20th century until the eastern RC rites removed the Filioque.
@@OrthodoxChristianTheology Do you want to argue about detail or to achieve full, glorious unity?
@@Kevin_Beach there is no unity without unity of faith
^^^
What he said above me
As a former eastern catholic, from the maronite church we did not omit the filioque. Omitting the filioque clause is strictly for byzantine rite catholic churches. You must have unity of profession of the creed or else you have no unity
Just looking at history we can tell which church was favor by God and which church was chosen to evangelize the unknown world at the time. while one church was moving and evangelizing in new territories, the other was taken over by one religious group. while one church is the one persecuted by the secular world, the other one is still struggling to get people to know them due to their lack of missionaries work hence the low amount of parishes in the west.
that church had one last chance at the council of florence and they blew it.
I've heard Muslims make similar arguments
@@Bakamojo but catholics and orthodox recognize that islam is a fake religion...
Evangelizing by force, yes, just like Satan commands
The Lord will vindicate His Body & Bride, the one, true Church quite soon. After the forthcoming general war (ww3). papalism will be exposed, seen for what it truly is. Many of us who are alive now will not be around then. I hope you will be. May the Lord guide you into all truth.
What a superficial argument, just admit that orthodoxy is not built for spreading the Word, it is to busy fighting an internal war due to the ethnic aspect of your religion, therefore making it "not universal".
Corn 1:10I appeal to you, brothers, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree with one another so that there may be no divisions among you and that you may be perfectly united in mind and thought. Apparently, this appeal is not being heeded.
There can be no unity without Truth.
I sent you a message in your WordPress account
most of this seems to be political bickering and a lot of large egos. Surely the saints of the church of Jesus Christ can deal with differences better than this. Just like our brother Paul in 1 Corinthians 6:3 rebukes the church "Don't you know you will judge angel" We will always have differences but what makes us different from the world is how we deal with these differences. In some ways it is irrelevant who started it
Perhaps you did not watch the video or in the video not all details were presented but... theological fall of the Rome started with Ambrose and Augustine and East patiently waited until 11th century for falling Rome to repent.
@@johnnyd2383 and... I do not think you being honest with yourself
AGAINST MARCION
EPIPHANIUS OF SALAMIS
Scholion LX
[f] And don’t tell me that He was naming beforehand the Mystery [Eucharist] He was about to celebrate when He said, “I desire to eat the Passover with you.”176 To shame you in every way the Truth does not place the Mystery [Eucharist] at the beginning, or you might deny it. It says, “After supper He took certain things and said, This is such and such,”177 and left no room for tampering. FOR IT MADE IT PLAIN THAT HE WENT ON TO THE MYSTERY [EUCHARIST] AFTER EATING THE JEWISH PASSOVER, THAT IS, “AFTER SUPPER.”
That is, having eaten and fulfilled the Jewish Passover which consisted of lamb, azymos [unleavened bread], and bitter herbs, He took arton [leavened bread], that is, that which shewed His Divine Nature [Leaven] and human nature [wheat] in one Bread
GREAT CATECHISM
GREGORY OF NYSSA
Chapter XXXVII
‘…What, then, is this remedy to be? Nothing else than that very Body which has been shown to be superior to death, and has been the First-fruits of our life. FOR, IN THE MANNER THAT, AS THE APOSTLE SAYS2038, A LITTLE LEAVEN ASSIMILATES TO ITSELF THE WHOLE LUMP, SO IN LIKE MANNER THAT BODY TO WHICH IMMORTALITY HAS BEEN GIVEN IT BY GOD, WHEN IT IS IN OURS, 503TRANSLATES AND TRANSMUTES THE WHOLE INTO ITSELF… AND SINCE THAT BODY ONLY WHICH WAS THE RECEPTACLE OF THE DEITY RECEIVED THIS GRACE OF IMMORTALITY, and since it has been shown that in no other way was it possible for our body to become immortal, but by participating in incorruption through its fellowship with that immortal Body…’
The Eucharist is that Leaven that leavens us to Immortality, since it transmits that Divine Nature or Leaven united with human nature or wheat in itself to whoever partakes of it
What about Oriental and estrn
orthodoxchristiantheology.com/2022/07/14/the-miaphysite-schisms-inauspicious-origin/
At the time of the Great Schism, Christianity was lead by Rome, the Patriarch (Bishop) of Rome was the first among equals. The "orthodox" did not believe in Papal Authority and split off to create their own Churches, only to recognize the Pope as "first among equals" again in the 20th century. Was it worth splitting Christianity?
Yeah that’s because papal primacy and supremacy are very different…
Someone forgot to watch the video before commenting…
Orthodox did NOT recognize heretic in Rome in such capacity back in 20th century. That is a blatant lie.
Glory to God ❤
Too much info being given too quickly, and in too short a time, making this very hard to follow and keep up with this important topic.
Slow it down, play it again, etc :)
@@OrthodoxChristianTheology lol
Same for me.
You are off course incorrect - there have been many instances of forced conversion to the Greek heresy even before Stalin.
nah
Even if conversions took place it was never official practice of the Orthodox Church. Sporadic cases do not count. In a case of Roman heresy, it was official politic of the heretic in Rome and he dictated it to the entire Roman heretical group.