@@atanas-nikolov I recently saw a video in which an Orthodox priest, Fr Theophan Mackey, describes the Orthodox and Catholic Churches as two brothers with a strained relationship. I thought that was an appropriate take. Ultimately, we were all once in communion. Unfortunately, that is not the case these days. But that doesn't mean we have to be hostile toward each other.
As a catechuman in the EO Church, the problem I have with these questions is that they treat truth like an abstract concept - similar to the Greek Academy, for instance. One Christian doctrine isn't "closer to the truth" than another; rather, one doctrine is true, and the rest are false. I hear people often say things like, "Well, this doctrine is mostly true." What does this even mean? There is truth, and there is falsehood. Even if something is considered to be 99% true, it is still not true. Christ is the full and undivided Truth. If Christ is the Church, then there must exist a Church that is wholly true. I guess I'm just puzzled by conversations like this. We are acting like Christ's Church is esoteric and is only revealed to a hidden few, or that it's abstract and that the Church doesn't really exist in reality - although it most certainly does.
@@guntotinpatriot8873 On this we agree the Protestant or Anglican position is absurd and atheistic in nature. It assumes God does not guide his Church into truth and we are left with the speculation of men.
Seeing things only in black and white terms such as that is pretty limiting. Although it’s not perfectly analogous, imagine you’re solving a more complicated mathematical problem. The person who generally knows what equations to use and what steps take will probably be “closer to the truth” than the person who has no idea about how to go about this type of problem. Sure, they’re both “wrong”, but one person definitely was closer to getting it right. In the same manner, we would probably say a Muslim is “closer to the truth” than an atheist, insofar as they affirm in one God, that he sent down prophets and scriptures, and worked through Abraham. One final analogy is if you’re attempting to diagnose how to solve a problem in your life. Maybe you decide to go talk to someone about it and they tell you “here’s what your problem is” and go on to list about three things. Perhaps two of them hit the nail on the head but one of them definitely seems off point. Their diagnosis in that sense is “mostly true”
@@donhaddix3770 I can literally identify the founder of any Protestant denomination and most lived within 300 years. Can’t do that with RC or EO because both RC and EO have succession back to the apostles.
I respect you’re approaching this from an intellectual standpoint but at some point, at least for me, you just know and feel what’s right for you. Happily enjoying OCIA now.
I live in a catholic country filled with catholic churches and my nearest orthodox church is a 5 hour drive, but I feel at home in the Orthodox church and I'll become a catechumen:)
What I like about the Orthodox theology is their unqiue expression of humility, repentance and love: In Orthodox spirituality, prayer for the whole world is deeply emphasized, especially in the lives of the saints. This broader, universal approach to prayer is grounded in the Church’s theology of love and intercession for all of creation, seen as a manifestation of the divine love that Christians are called to emulate. Glorification is the vision of God in which the equality of all men and the absolute value of each man is experienced. God loves all men equally and indiscriminately, regardless of even their moral status. And the saint is able to love like God loves. An expression of this love, is perfect spiritual compassion, where we can experience the sorrowful cosmic unity with the whole humankind, which is expressed well by Saint Silouan the Athonite: "He who has the Holy Spirit in him, to however slight a degree, sorrows Day and Night for all mankind. His heart is filled with pity for all God’s creatures, more especially for those who do not know God, or who resist Him and therefore are bound for torment. For them, more than for himself, he prays Day and Night, that all may repent and know the Lord." Not even the lamentation of a widow who has lost her only son can be compared with the lamentation of these saintly ascetics. The pain of their soul becomes metaphysical, and the cry of their distress resounds in all the deserts of this world and becomes the most powerful prayer. Thats also the reason why there is no stigmata among orthodox saints.
If you studied church history you would eventually have to read about how the Eastern Orthodox rejected the council of Florence after accepting it and having it declared ecumenical by the Emperor and Mark of Ephesus. Or how all the Eastern fathers taught the filioque. At that point you would learn that after the east accepted Florence and then their laity rejected it they lost the empire on pentecost, the feast of the holy spirit. Then you would have to come to terms with the fact that the ottoman empire appointed rabidly anti western patriarchs to keep the church split apart.
It leads many to Rome. Catholicism has plenty of problems sure and so does Orthodoxy. It’s easier to convert to Orthodoxy for some Protestants rather than Catholicism, because they don’t have as many claims and they do have great liturgies for sure.
It's interesting. I've been trying to decipher between Catholic and EO, and the more of church history I read I'm starting to come to the conclusion that the eastern churches started challenging Rome more after the move to Constantinople - which might be why we see Rome starting to be more overt with their decrees before the schism (when the children are misbehaving). The filioque issue seems consistent with an institution asserting its authority. EO has some wild theology too, such as Toll Houses - whereas the Catholic view of purgatory can at least be backed up with receipts. As far as I can tell, EO don't believe in original sin or the "legal" view of atonement, which is clearly all over scripture - so Idk...
1. Toll houses are not a literal physical booth you go through. We are currently going through the toll houses as we live today. Don't get bogged down in meme theology. 2. We do believe in original sin dogmatically, see the catechism of St. Peter Mogila. Infants are baptized to be washed of original sin. The distinction is that we don't believe in the aspect of original sin in which not only the consequences, but the literal culpability of Adam, is passed on to infants. We bear the sufferings of our fathers, but we aren't on an individual level all guilty of Adam's decision
So basically, humanity has a transgression that must be paid, but each human person is not literally individually guilty of the fall. The human essence has the problem, not each human person. When Rome gradually shifted away from this truth, they needed to invent the immaculate conception in order to preserve a sinless Theotokos.
I would also urge you to honestly evaluate the Papal trinitarian model and theology proper. You will see the Divine, Uncreated Energies all over Scripture and tradition if you look, and they are spoken of distinctly from the essence, and they are necessarily distinct in order to make theosis (the default view of salvation) work. This is why you see soteriology change radically after the schism in the West where talk of theosis is quite muted, as there can be no real participation in God's uncreated energies, and grace becomes merely a supernatural created effect upon the creature. Also observe Lateran IV in which Rome dogmatized there is no distinction between the persons ground on the basis of the thing itself, except for it's "immanent simplicity" which is not a basis for distinction. Papal trinitarianism is not really a Trinity. God is a monad unto Himself, and we only perceive Him as a triad. It's almost worse than Sabellianism and in my opinion is a much more obvious and catastrophic problem than the Filioque, which is already quite bad.
Purgatory is also quite problematic. Keep in mind that if you're in purgatory, you're already headed for heaven. It's a temporal purgation of literal, physical fire (according to Aquinas, the fires of hell/purgation are physical, literal fire) in which you have a set amount of suffering corresponding to your temporal sins, because of the understanding that "nothing imperfect can enter heaven." This is dumb because it retcons salvation yet again and removes the idea of sanctifying, perfecting grace active in our lives while we live. The basis of purgatory is the concept of "toll houses" that is commonly misunderstood. Simply put, that there is a waiting period between death and destination, something even the Jews believed (see: raising Lazarus on the fourth day). However, it's commonly overblown into thinking there are literal physical booths with tickets where you gotta pass all the checkmarks. No, it's just a soul's ascent to heaven overtime as demons fight to steal it.
Don’t forget the Eastern Rites of the Catholic Church, friends. 😊 The Catholic Church actually accepts both understandings of the filoque as theological valid. Also, I do think, as a Catholic, that the position of pope became too centralized during medieval times, but there is a lot of evidence of early Christians seeing the bishop of Rome as having more authority than the other bishops because of the large population of early Christians in Rome. (Plus, there’s Jesus in the Gospel making Peter into a leader figure, and I can’t understand why Jesus would make that leadership position a temporary position…especially since Peter was a man with many flaws, like all of us are. 😅 It seems to me like He wanted that leadership position to be something that would carry His Church forward long after Peter was gone. Christ could have given all the apostles, as the first bishops, equal power, but He simply didn’t. If Jesus set it up that way, I think there’s a good reason, even if it transcends our human understanding.)…Personally, I think that if the EO Church accepts the doctrine of papacy as valid and the Catholic Church works on emphasizing the authority of all bishops more along with the special authority of the pope, maybe unity could one day happen again. Just my uneducated opinion. 😊 Many of the Eastern Catholic Churches were Orthodox until recently in history, but they decided to come back into unity with the Church in Rome while keeping important aspects of their own unique theology and culture.
I spent 18 months in an EO church as a catechumen. I am now enrolled in OCIA at a Latin Catholic church. I found the EO to be beautiful liturgically, but very nationalistic and insular in practice. They were more concerned with keeping the fast then helping the community. More concerned with their ethnic heritage, obsessed with monasticism, and being the one true church. I heard plenty of Catholic bashing while at the EO church, but have not heard one disparaging thing about EO from Catholics yet. I think we will know it by its fruit is appropriate. I'm also pretty convinced about the pope at this point too.
I really understand your perspective. The beauty of Orthodox liturgy and spirituality is something that draws many people in, but I also get how the focus on fasting and monasticism can sometimes feel disconnected from community work. In the Orthodox tradition, seeking spiritual guidance from ascetics and monastics is deeply rooted in our patristic heritage. Some monastics live in constant prayer and asceticism, offering spiritual wisdom that comes from profound communion with God. Regarding community work, I would add that in Orthodox tradition, much of this is often done quietly, out of humility, without drawing attention to it. The focus is on serving God and others without seeking recognition. As for the ethnic identity issue, it can sometimes overshadow the universal nature of Orthodoxy, but I believe it’s a temporary concern that will resolve over time. The Orthodox Church is universal, and these cultural divides are more a product of historical circumstances than a reflection of the true nature of the faith. I’ve also encountered Catholic bashing in some Orthodox circles, and I agree it's unfortunate. Sadly, it's not unique to Orthodoxy; there’s also Roman Catholic bashing against Orthodox Christians, which you can see in some of the comments here as well. However, the Orthodox ethos teaches that, no matter our theological differences, we should always consider others as more spiritual and closer to God than ourselves. It’s about humility and recognizing that God’s grace works in many ways across denominations. Ultimately, I respect your journey and your conclusions, and I pray that you continue to grow in faith and love, wherever that leads you.
I’m a catechumen in the Orthodox Church now for 5 months and a lot of what you said is what I’m beginning to see more and more. And the fact that when it comes to important theological questions you will get different answers from different Orthodox clergy, some times even on big theological issues.
Fair enough, but consider that the TLM isn't really orthodox Catholic worship. Why? Because the CCC says the pope is the final authority on how Catholics worship, and Pope Francis has made it clear that the Novus Ordo is the true form of the Mass. If you accept that, it means attending Novus Ordo Masses with their dollar store homilies, horrible music, and the majority who are only there to get their Mass ticket punched for the week.
I have a hard time with EO because it really refers to a collection of communities some of which are not in communion with each other. So there claim against Rome being schismatic seems pretty weak since they are not really one Church which is seemingly the entire point of being the true Church you can easily tell who is in and who is out at least visibly. Since none of the patriarchs have any type of primacy over each other, they really don’t have the moral means of staying united as one church. I think otherwise I would be sympathetic to their theology and would consider them more seriously.
When the EO say they are united, it is meant united in one faith, one Eucharist; not administratively like the RC, except to the degree that the EO is united synodically with one another. Further, the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople is First Among Equals among the EO and as such is the spiritual leader of the EO, and alone among the EO grant autocephaly to a local church and resolve disputes among autocephalous churches.
@CJ-rk5eg But younare not united in the Eucharist when you are out of communion with each other and teaching your members that it is a sin to have Eucharist in the other. Also, protestants could easily claim to be united in faith as well. This is precisely Gavin Ortlund's case for protestantism being the true "Catholicism".
@ This is what I was gonna say. There are around 25 Churches in communion with the Roman Pontif and parishioners can all take communion with each other at any time and without additional permission. That is being united.
@@EvelynKerubo-s5e We’re out of communion temporarily it’s not schismatic. Second who in the world teaches it’s a sin to teach participate in the Eucharist at the synods were not in communion with? Because it’s certainly a small minority. The break is 1 sided and it doesn’t affect lay people only the clergy.
Presuppositions can't be shaken. Austin I can see you leaning towards EO. Though intellectual & historical I see your respect for the RC. Historical RC with Apostolic Foundation of Peter & Paul is essential to Christendom. This historical foundation included the Eastern Body of Christ Church. The question is who broke from who? To me it is quite clear...note, even the EO speak of Roman's Bishop as one of many, but the preeminent One.
Some arguments about EO not getting along with each other but Catholics do just isn’t a true representation of how EO see our messy situation. Listening to the recent statements from the Pope, he directed corrections, a new dogma and some strong language about what was going wrong in various areas of the Catholic Church. It took a few years to come to this statement. Catholics handle problems from the top down but it can still take time. The EO function like a family sitting around a table. We can have serious differences of opinion. But, we are conciliar and trust the process will work itself out because it always has in the past. To be fair, riffs have happened (even wars, overthrows, killings) have happened in Catholic and Protestant history between factions’ that didn’t/wouldn’t agree. Our Hierarchs are administrators without any power to change dogma. If anyone tries to go beyond what they should do those Anathema’s start flying. I’m actually glad the World can see that it’s all out in the open!
When considering which Christian tradition, Orthodox or Catholic, is "closer to the truth," a focus on the way of life rather than doctrines provides a perspective rooted in lived faith and the fruits of sanctity and the Holy Spirit.
@@petars4444 of course, not saying that doctrines are not crucial. But sanctity does prove that doctriines are right. Just observing that among seekers there is an overfocus on doctrines, instead they should also ready more the ife of the saints (from different denominations).
Both traditions have incredible saints-Sts. Nektarios and Paisios in Orthodoxy, and Sts. Mother Teresa and Padre Pio in Catholicism-holy, humble, and miracle-working examples of God's grace. Even beyond these traditions, the Holy Spirit works powerfully. I keep an icon of the Coptic martyrs in my prayer corner, and it’s moving to remember that the Sub-Saharan man martyred alongside them may not even have been from the same church-he could have been Protestant. As a Protestant, I believed both traditions produced saints. Now, as a Catholic, I see even more clearly how God raises up saints wherever hearts are open to Him. For me, the turning point was the hesitation I encountered in some Orthodox circles to recognize the baptism of non-Orthodox Christians. The Catholic Church, by contrast, readily acknowledges the work of the Spirit outside the visible bounds of the institutional Church, affirming that Orthodox saints are baptized Christians. As the Catechism of the Catholic Church states, 'Many elements of sanctification and truth are found outside the visible confines of the Catholic Church' (CCC 819). Jesus Himself reminds us, 'The wind blows where it wills' (John 3:8), and the Spirit moves in ways that bring unity and sanctity to all who sincerely seek God. The lives of saints from every tradition testify to this truth.
@@ElijahRexNewcomb Thank you for sharing such a heartfelt reflection. It’s clear that your journey has been deeply shaped by a sincere search for truth and holiness, and I resonate with much of what you’ve expressed. Among the Roman Catholic saints, I have a particular admiration for St. Philip Neri, St. Jean-Marie Vianney, and St. Mother Teresa. Their humility, dedication, and love for God and neighbor are inspiring to people of all Christian traditions. I also agree wholeheartedly with the truth that “the wind blows where it wills” (John 3:8). However, I would gently add that this doesn’t mean that sanctity arises in the same way everywhere or that every path produces saints. There is value in discerning the profound differences among the saints of various traditions, as these differences often reflect distinct theological and spiritual realities. I am sorry to hear that you encountered Orthodox Christians who hesitated to recognize the baptism of non-Orthodox Christians. While some individuals or some monastic communities may hold such views, the official teaching of all Orthodox Churches acknowledges the validity of baptisms performed in the name of the Holy Trinity. It is unfortunate when misunderstandings or personal biases obscure this teaching. At the same time, I have been deeply blessed by the personal testimony of individuals like Fr. Gabriel Bunge and Klaus Kenneth, both of whom have come to Orthodoxy from Catholicism. Their witness is striking, particularly when they describe encountering a spiritual depth and love in Orthodox saints that far surpassed anything they had previously experienced. Fr. Gabriel, for instance, noted that some spiritual figures he met in Orthodoxy were “dimensions (!) above” the most spiritual figures in his Catholic experience. Klaus Kenneth spoke similarly of the immense love of St. Sophrony of Essex, which he described as clearly surpassing that of even Mother Teresa. This is especially significant when we consider that Fr. Gabriel spent over 40 years as a Roman Catholic spiritual father, guiding many monastics and laypeople, and still found the Orthodox saints to possess a spiritual depth and worldview that far exceeded what he encountered in Catholicism. The spiritual quality of modern Orthodox saints has been a profound testament to the richness of the Orthodox tradition. Saints like St. Silouan the Athonite, St. Sophrony, St. Paisios, St. Porphyrios, St. John of Shanghai, St. Nektarios and many more exemplify an extraordinary humility, love, and healing presence that are deeply rooted in the Orthodox ethos. What is especially striking, however, is the sheer quantity of such high-caliber saints within the last 100 years-an abundance that is truly mind-blowing and a testimony to the vibrancy of the Orthodox Church’s spiritual life. I have also some concerns regarding certain Roman Catholic saints whose spiritual experiences might appear questionable through the lens of patristic/apostolic discernment. For example (I could mention also other Roman Catholic saints here), the visions and writings of St. Faustina raise particular questions. Her claim that “My sanctity and perfection is based on the close union of my will with the will of God” (Diary, 1107) is concerning from an Orthodox perspective. Such a statement might suggest a self-directed understanding of sanctity rather than the Orthodox emphasis on kenosis-self-emptying-and the complete surrender of one’s will to God. Additionally, her description of herself as “Jesus’ secretary” could be interpreted as prideful or delusional in the context of Orthodox spiritual discernment. It is also troubling to see that someone like St. Faustina, whose experiences and statements would likely raise significant concerns in the Orthodox tradition, has had such a profound influence on the piety of millions of Roman Catholics. Orthodox spirituality places utmost caution on experiences or claims that could lead to self-exaltation, striving instead for humility and repentance. Similarly, phenomena like stigmata are rare in Orthodoxy and would be approached with deep discernment and caution. Neverthess, finally, I want to emphasize a fundamental Orthodox principle: we are called to regard everyone else, even pagans, as closer to God than ourselves. This attitude of humility and repentance is central to the Orthodox ethos and serves as a foundation for our relationships with others. It reminds us that God’s grace works in mysterious and far-reaching ways, always calling us to deeper love and humility. These differences underscore the richness and diversity of Christian traditions, but they also point to the unique and timeless spiritual inheritance of Orthodoxy.
Ah well, I’m a new convert to um Papism, so it would be imprudent to voice my own opinions. So I’d recommend these two niche channels called ‘Unionist Initiative’ and ‘Distinguo’ instead, run by a certain Christian B. Wagner. Much polemics, great success. If someone has a response, make sure you do go ahead and debunk him, it will be so over for us Papists.
Thank you for this short clip, Austin. I'd like to say a couple things that might serve as points of reflection, though I'm sure you are aware of these things. First, the Catholic case for the Papacy cannot rest solely on its system performance. To say that the Catholic view of Church government stands on the other hand of an artificial process that seeks to make *things work* more efficiently is to already admit the falsity of said theory of Church government. Because if it does not have its essential origin in Christ and the Apostles, then it is false. Therefore, it is vital for a thinking Catholic to be able to find the origin of the Papacy with Christ and the Apostles. And I think Catholicism has an awesome case for the following - Jesus established a Church government with Peter and the person of his successor as the universal president *for all times*. Testimonies to that are found both in Scripture and the Ecumenical Councils. In fact, if I ever were to become a Protestant, I'd still have to admit that fact. And while that claim does not spell out all the details of Vatican 1, there isn't a Church existing anywhere in the world that sustains that basic Petrine claim except Catholicism. And so in that sense, history falls in the neighborhood of Catholicism more than it does Eastern Orthodoxy. Synodality, Conciliarity, and Appellate structures have always existed, and they still exist today. Rome continues to receive appeals and that always continued even after Leo IX , Gregory VII, and Innocent III. Therefore, finding conciliarity, synodality, and appellation in the 1st millennium only serves to be absorbed by the Catholic case rather than retard it. Second, the Filioque is actually one of the clearest evidences that show Eastern Orthodoxy cannot be true. I've been known to say the case for the Papacy wins by milligrams. Well, that is not the case with the Filioque. The evidence for the precise doctrine, as codified at the Councils of Lyons (1274) and Florence (1439), is replete in both the Eastern and Western fathers. And these saints and theologians who defended the Filioque were not rooting their teaching from some philosophical speculation, but on the Gospels and words of Christ. Now, where there is an abrupt innovation is with the introduction of Filioque *into the Creed*. But, as I've argued elsewhere, while the addition of the Filioque clause might have been a canonical crime (at most), the Eastern Orthodox reaction was to condemn the Filioque *theology*. And so of the 2, the Eastern Orthodox ended up doing the worse because they condemned a Biblical doctrine, whereas the Latin West (at most) committed a canonical crime. However, there are good grounds to say that no such criminality exists because creedal constructions had been a development of the 4th century, and thus it can be argued that whatever abuses were done in regard to the Filioque clause, it doesn't penetrate deeply enough to strike at the Apostolic essence of the Church's beliefs. The Eastern Orthodox, however, have penetrated so deeply. Lastly, if someone were to study the historical sources and find that while there is a historical case for the Papacy and Eastern Orthodox, the systematic claims of either have not held up consistently or that they have sufficiently disproven the extent of their ecclesiology via incoherence, then I would say the net gain here serves the Protestant. In other words, the Protestant can sustain Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy being present in Church history, but since the extremity of the ecclesial claims of either have been disproven sufficiently, it only serves to help the Protestant case for a morphing, reforming, and adapting body of Christ.
Hey Erick, to your last point-Isn't there any way in which the protestant system can disprove itself? And how does this "morphing, reforming, and adapting body of Christ" makes sense in light of scripture? For example, the call to unity, and the church being the bulwark and pillar of truth? In other words, which system disproves itself the most?
@@cmac369 Good questions. I'll answer in order (1) Yes, I do think the Protestant system can disprove itself. How it does is part of an answer to your other questions so I'll mention it below. (2) It is precisely because the "morphing, reforming, and adapting" body of Christ does not match with the prophetic utterances of Christ with regard to the Church that Protestantism "disproves" itself. I don't imagine it will be something easily seen. However, it seems to me that classical Protestantism would have to admit that Christianity became largely, if not wholly, heretical by the 4th century until the efforts of Martin Luther. In between you have certain groups crying out for orthodoxy , in some partial sense, but their voices were always squelched until nations could stand behind a new movement such as Luther, Calvin, Cranmer, etc. etc.
Fantastic text, Erick. I agree with everything but the last part. My argument is: to make a case on the alleged extreme route taken by the ecclesiological model in Catholicism, if missing the mark by exaggeration (and, just to be clear, I would not even grant that as far as ecclesiological doctrines and dogmas go, the way I should explain in another post), can never be a case for a the Protestant ecclesiology whatsoever, nor for the Eastern Orthodox one, since their cases should be proven by themselves, not by exclusion or the antagonism built towards ours. First of all, as far as Eastern Orthodoxy goes, the fundamental issue I’ve pointed out in other dialogues - as you greatly do in your book - is more or less related to the congenital assimilation of the Roman/Byzantine Empire with an arbiter for ecclesiological unification and even a margin of tolerance of a sort of ecclesiastical role in action, never a issue related to a supposed exaggeration “per se”. Ethnicity is not their primary problem but one that derives from the political one - a problem that people either fail to see or deliberately push under the carpet, mostly for anti-Catholic urges and premises. You greatly point that out in many parts of your book, like when you analyzed the case of Virgilius and Emperor Justinian’s role in the Second Council of Constantinople (553): that episode wouldn’t favor a more synodal ecclesiology that supposedly fits their self-described ecclesiastical perception, but a version of Imperialism that they fail (because they know it is not biblical, nor traditional with the capital “T”) to associate with their own. It’s NOT a genuine (nor pure) model of synodality, let alone a true conciliar manifestation that is able to achieve the universal dimension of the faith inside the apostolic collegiate (college of bishops worldwide). So it is not the extreme consequences of itself that this model stumbles upon, but the ingrained co-existential fusion between ecclesiastical canon law (like the imperial canon law too), the Empire and the revealed data / normative dimensions of ecclesiology in both Sacred Tradition and the Bible. I should add the lack of a real jurisdictional universality in the Church outside this political (quasi-ecclesiastical) figure of the Emperor, instead of the Successor of Peter as the attributor of the mark of the “Oikouméne”. The acumen of the Photian crisis is insanely accurate in representing that Constantinopolitan tension. In what relates to Protestantism, unfortunately their ecclesiological case should be built on the premise of the division concerning the visible and the invisible dimensions of the Church. That division can be radical, like in Evangelicalism, or softer, like in the more “high church” versions of Anglicanism and Lutheranism in comparison with Reformed Anglicanism and the mainstream global Evangelical Lutheranism. I could develop a lot more here as far as ecclesiology goes, but I really don’t understand- apart from a principle of epistemic doubt and of a priori denial or suspicion of authority, that would be eternally judged by the epistemological “self”, under which the more “low church” versions of Protestantism would be generally favored - how could the thinking of Catholicism supposedly “exaggerating” in its model of ecclesiology would favor Protestant ecclesiology in any quest for truth (instead of personal takes on efficiency, utility or comfort).
Kinda funny when the system in theory is great but you are getting your butt kicked in doctrinal unity against a system of "local and divided churches" as some catholic apologists might say.
100%. In my discerning I want Rome to be right as it's much "neater" with its system (quotes as I'm aware when the rubber meets the road there can be confusion on particulars). That said I still lean mostly EO and no matter how much I read on both sides my heart gets drawn right back to the East in a deep way, while Rome is attractive only in that it's Western like me and more neat but that's it. It's mostly the Saints too. The West has good people like Francis of Assisi but there's a palatable difference in the Eastern ones that I can't ignore (without trying to sound insulting to the Rome).
On that topic I wonder how does certain protestants subscribe to Catholic presuppositions especially when it comes to doctrinal developments such as filioque. So much for protesting against Rome and their "man made tradition"
It’s not too hard to understand, we didn’t want to burn the church down and start over. Martin Luther wanted to reform the Catholic Church. So in reality we wanted to keep every tradition that doesn’t run counter to scripture. I hope I’m explaining this well. The filioque is very scripture based and the Holy Spirit is called the Christ spirit plus a bunch of of names that directly links him and Jesus. True Protestantism is closer to RCC than it is to the non denominations that RCC and EO love to attack.
@@kodyoneill497 I can't even criticize your position since protestantism holds to such a wide variaty of opinons. On paper your position look pretty good but once you're pressed on epistemology your paradigm colapses. If you want to hold to filioque you either have to accept that Church was wrong for almost entire first millennium or accept doctrinal developement(most protestants are against it), there is no third option.
@@tymon1928 the reason we reject doctrinal development from the RCC perspective is that either your are infallible and every councils statement is now scripture and should be added after revelation or you are fallible and therefore must go to Gods word to check against. Mans words do not compare to the word God
Trad Anglicans can be almost the same as Orthodox, but this is more of a reflection of how Anglicanism lets you roll your own set of beliefs than anything else.
Most Protestants (including the flavors I was raised in) kept the RC version of sin as a legal problem and the church as a courtroom. The Orthodox view the church as a hospital where our souls, sick with our sins, are healed through a life lived in Christ. This healing allows us to become more like and draw closer to Christ which leads to theosis. All of that is completely insufficient shorthand but I hope it gets the basic idea across.
Probably Anglicans and Lutherans. Before becoming a catechumen in the Orthodox Church I attended a couple of churches of Christ churches and I think their theology on many areas prepared me for Orthodoxy.
What would you think about the Eastern Catholic churches then? They have the catholic system as they are catholic churches, but they practice (or at least the byzantine rite does) eastern orthodox-like liturgy and have similar traditions.
Austin do you have any intention of converting to either Catholicism or Orthodoxy? Or do you intend to compare and contrast until the Parousia? Good grief man pick one already! 🤔😄! The preceding statement was meant as an exercise in tongue in cheek! So everyone calm down! No but seriously Austin? Oops…there it is again!
for me it breaks down at the EO magesterium. In the first millenia of the church, the church had an active and real authority of binding and loosing certain dogmas and practices in the church. In the first Millenia anytime the greeks sided with the emperor they almost always went into heresy and it took the Roman See to put things bag in order. This happened clearly for the first 1k years of the church. The greeks eventually completely went with the emperor and then later muslim sultants. They rejected their own bishop in the west for a secular and even non christian head. Its sounds a bit exaggerated but the patriarch of constantinople was literally dethroned and appointed by the muslim sultan. Rome was also the See which taught the others and this has remained to the present day. The spirituality of the east and practices are all Orthodox but they have become utterly impotent and hence why they have no real authority of teaching. It just doesnt exist no matter how they try to explain it and is why they can never get together and really decide anything and when they do as in the council of Jerusalem in the 1700s its still rejected by most people. I would read Eric Ybarras book on the papacy, is very helpful.
Yeah people really don't understand the history of the eastern church or the council of Florence to be making these historically bad proclamations. The Patriarch of Constantinople was constantly trying to usurp the authority of the pope.
"In the first Millenia anytime the greeks sided with the emperor they almost always went into heresy and it took the Roman See to put things bag in order." This is a very mythical view of history, though. For instance, the Roman patriarchate explicitly refused to condemn certain Nestorian writings ("the Three Chapters") and, when the Emperor rejected them, broke communion with the patriarchs who sided with the Emperor in denying the texts. The Roman bishop (Vigilius) was deposed by the 5th EC over this, then repented, condemned the Nestorian texts, and said he'd been deceived by Satan in the incident. There are other instances like this. It's true the Roman see was 'often' a bastion of orthodoxy, but 'often' is as far as real history allows anyone to say.
Being fair has nothing to do with it. If I take candy away from my child, the child will say that’s not fair but when I do it, I do it for a good reason. By the way, which orthodox church are we talking about? Are they not divided by disagreements. There’s like 22 different types of Catholics, but they’re not divided by disagreements. They are all one.
There's different creeds within those different rites including heresies but they all acknowledge the Pope so the heresy gets ignored. The Papacy only cares about earthly submission by any means necessary.
Ever notice that *women* have near *zero* interest in these theological debates? This may mean that men who are obsessed with theology might be a tad obtuse.
It is quite easy the Catholic Church has the Seat of Peter, my local Catholic Churches even has the Actual Keys of Peter. Besides The Blesses Mother has declared the Eastern Orthodox to be Heresy more than once. The Catholic Church is The Church. Not that you can not go to an EO church, but think about Constantinopel falling on the day of Pentecost. God is Chrystal clear, it is we who stray.
One thing that never seems to be discussed in depth are the reasons east and west developed the way they have. Their are reasons for why the filioque became prominent in the west and why the Papacy developed as it did. This would make for a good discussion, especially since east and west have a differing perspectives about these reasons. As a Catholic my view is Catholic and Orthodox are two sides of the same coin, one church that has suffered from a 1000 year temper tantrum that both sides need to get over. From my view it is the west who has been working diligently and with sincerity to heal these wounds, all I see from most of the east is ugly resistance, and rigidity. Seems like some of the hierarchy in the east say one thing to Rome, and another to their members. The Orthodox are not all singing from the same hymnal on these issues.
Here’s my question: if it is Eastern Orthodox Christians who are just being “ugly”, where was anyone from the west when we were under subjugation from the 14th century to the 20th? Wasn’t that ugly of the west? Because what the Eastern Orthodox Christians have been through and still come out on the other side, is indeed profoundly not ugly, it is what Christ promised: to pick up our cross and follow Him. And doctrine does matter as Christ Himself commanded: Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world. Amen.
@@donhaddix3770who became political?: The Church that was under Ottomans and the Bolsheviks? Or the church that has its own bank and state? Please realise what it is you are saying exactly… And since you want to “unify”, you too can become Eastern Orthodox Christian. The Church belongs to Christ, not mere mortals because no one is infallible. Shrug.
And one more note to you: The Church is the entire body of the Church. It is the faithful in its entirety. It is not the hierarchy only (that is Pharisaical).
I really love the EO tradition, unfortunately there isn’t one EO church - there are ‘nationalistic sects’. Conversely, there’s only one Rome - and like Christ, it’s really interesting how mocked and despised the Catholic faith is by so many ‘Christians’. Grateful to be in OCIA.
This is the same classic argument catholics do. Even Constantinople and Moscow currently in parcial schism share more in common than in a latin mass church and a charismatic church
@@ShawnComposer Uhh and they are all in communion with each other and recognize the primacy of the pope? Sounds like one united church. What exactly is your argument?
@@pianoatthirty Yes, organizationally the RC is more unified by have a universal pontiff, but saying the EO is not unified nor one church because there are various "ethnic" churches does not support your claim. The Russian and Constantinople schism is only as schism between the clergy, the laity are free to commune with each other because they have the same faith. Fortunantly, even the RC recognizes that the EO is a true church with valid sacraments, orders, and has maintained the faith without the pope.
Chillin' on the sidelines as always (except during Chalcedon). Though I went to an Ethiopian Orthodox church and they were using the Orthodox Study Bible as their choice of English translation.
@@danshakuimo Interesting choice, I know the Ethiopian bible is translated from the Greek. Likely the wording matches with what they are familiar with. The E.O Catholic and O.O agree or are neutral on far more than they diagree so its not completely weird. It will take a few more decades for O.O resources to catch up in english.
I wish you had pointed out from the very beginning that the question is deceiving. The correct question is, “which church has the truth?” Once you found the church that is “closer to the truth”, you have implicitly assumed that no church has the truth, which invalidates Christianity all together and makes Christ a false prophet. Christ promised the Holy Spirit would guide his Church *in all truth*, not “in most of the truth”. Either there’s a Church that has that truth in its entirety, or Christianity is false.
But if that’s the case then any Christian that hasn’t been baptized in that church is condemned to hell, which hasn’t been the stance of either the RC or EO in years
Wrong. The Church can indeed err and still remain the Church, just as Israel in the Old Testament-the people of God-fell into error countless times yet remained His covenant people. What, however, has never erred is the Word of God. In the Old Testament, this Word was proclaimed by the Prophets; in the New Testament, it was proclaimed by the Apostles. This divine Word, infallibly inspired by the Holy Spirit (theopneustos), has been faithfully recorded for us in the Scriptures, which stand as the ultimate, unerring authority over the Church in all ages.
@@ugochib you are not baptized in a church. You are baptized in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. Baptism with the correct trinitarian formula is valid, independently of which Christian tradition you are in.
@@pedroguimaraes6094 that’s because you don’t recognize and trust the Church that Christ built. As all Protestants, you are skeptical of Christ’s promise, which is not a nice position to be in as a Christian, if you think about it. Your comparison of Israel with Christ’s Church shows your confusion. You are confusing old with new covenant. The latter is the perfect fulfillment of the former. Not just a variation of it.
Personally, as a Roman Catholic, I obviously have a bias. Given that, one thing that I see that lacks in the Orthodox churches is Peter. They simply have no one that has the authority of Peter. Now I consider the Orthodox Churches to be sister churches to the Catholic Church. But the reason that I stay Catholic is that has the leadership of Peter, which leads the church to a continuity of Truth that the Orthodox Church lacks.
Every Eastern bishop affirmed the Filioque. The Filioque was in use nearly 500 years prior to the council. The "controversy" arose due to the Greek speaking laity in the East didn't translate the -que properly. If you ask an Orthodox to explain the procession of the Holy Spirit, 90% of them use the Sun (father),sun's rays (son), warmth of the suns rays (Holy Spirit) as a visual example. Do you know who uses the same formulation? The Catholic Church. The filioque is NOT saying that there are two sources of generation of the Holy Spirit. It's bizarre to me that this is still held up as an issue. 23 of the 24 Rites in the Catholic Church don't even use the filioque.
I'm Orthodox and I've never heard anyone use that analogy. The fiioque was added to the creed by Rome without calling an ecumenical council first. You cannot do that.
While it's true that the term Filioque ("and the Son") was used by some Western bishops before the Council of Toledo in 589, the controversy over the phrase is not simply due to translation issues or misunderstandings of the Greek language. The Orthodox Church views the Filioque as a matter of substance in its understanding of the Trinity. The central issue is not about whether the Holy Spirit is sent by the Father and the Son, but whether the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father alone or from the Father and the Son. The Orthodox Church holds that the Father is the sole source of the divine persons (the principle of monarchy within the Trinity), and this is not just an issue of semantics or translation. The words of the Nicene Creed, as they were originally formulated in 381 AD, clearly state that the Holy Spirit "proceeds from the Father" - and this is crucial because it preserves the unique relationship of the Father as the origin of the divine essence, which is a cornerstone of Orthodox Trinitarian theology. The analogy of the sun, its rays, and the warmth of those rays is a sometimes used theological image to explain the relationship between the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. However, using this analogy to justify the Filioque does not accurately reflect the depth and nuances of the theological issue. The Holy Spirit’s procession is not simply a matter of physical or metaphysical "emanation" like sunlight. The Orthodox Church emphasizes that the relationship between the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit is not reducible to physical images or analogies - it’s a mystery that transcends human understanding. The analogy is helpful in illustrating the relationship of the divine persons in a general way, but it can mislead when used to justify a theological formulation like the Filioque, which is ultimately a matter of doctrinal precision regarding the eternal procession of the Holy Spirit.
@gregcoogan8270 you were in communion with us for hundreds of years after it was added and all signed off on it at Florence. The Filioque is such a fake excuse. The real reason that you reject it is because the ottomans appointed rabidly anti-latin patriarchs to keep the church split
How about Galileo? He disagreed on Rome's interpretation & he was right, Rome was wrong. This then proves Rome's Magisterium wrong? If Rome is wrong once, how often can its interpretation be trusted? Please correct me if you think my reasoning here is wrong.
Because you are Roman Catholics with a veneer of Eastern litugical practices. You are also descended from former Orthodox who went into schism from the Church by going under the Pope.
That is true but it’s a mark against the papacy not for it. If Peter is the prototype - then the future Pope should be in the image of Peter. Not seeking a greater authority than Peter had, which is what the papacy has done. Peter was subject to the judgement of his fellow apostles in counsel, but the post-medieval pope has thrown off this check against his power. We need to stick with the things that Christ established for us not go seeking after more power and authority than he gave to us.
There's no unity in the Catholic church. Most Catholics are cafeteria Catholics and even the bishops stand opposed to each other. The Pope doesn't even teach Catholic doctrine. It's a nice selling point but it's not reality.
Always stay on the fence, so you never have to submit. Then you can say you're searching while still being able to be your own authority. It's the best of no worlds.
On paper, the Catholic Church is incredible. As far as on the ground actual experiences go, it’s a different story. I’ve attended both churches many times over the decades. Nothing comes close to the Divine Liturgy in the Orthodox Church. The Novus Ordo is pathetic in comparison. I’ve been to Protestant churches more reverent than a lot of NO parishes.
I can't imagine calling any Mass where Jesus is made present in the bread and the wine as pathetic. What parts of the mass are pathetic? The readings? The Our Father? The consecration of the Host? The homily? If your only referring to the music than that is an opinion but I don't think you can say the entire mass is pathetic just because the music wasn't good.
I’ve been to some truly awful “masses”. Literal clown shows. Hip hop masses. Alter girls in flip flops giving out the Eucharist. Vatican 2 was a disaster and any Roman Catholic who is honest with themselves can admit that.
@briandelaney9710 well at my parish we have a couple singers, and a piano player, We have a pretty good preacher from the Philippines, and I have never seen anyone dancing and I am 43. So is it fair to say that calling all novus ordo pathetic is a stretch?
ive been to a lot of protestant churches and never once were they even remotely as reverant as a NO mass, stop making up stuff. Also ive been to the divine liturgy numerous times. Felt absoltely normal to me as a Catholic. I wasnt in any way suprised by really anything and im NO attending catholic. People exagerate differences.
The biggest error of Orthodoxy is the rejection of the Filioque. That in and of itself is reason enough no to choose Orthodox. Jesus was born by the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit was the first component of His human embryo, the other being Mary’s ovuum. Jesus is God the Son. The Holy Spirit has been in, by and with Him at His conception as human and before when begotten from eternity. Also Jesus specifically and boldly states that everything the Father has is His also. Therefore the Holy Spirit proceeds from Jesus Christ. Jesus has the power to send forth the Holy Spirit. The Holy Trinity is in perfect harmony with each other. The Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son. That is why Orthodoxy is referred to as a fossil faith, a frozen faith, a museum faith because it froze itself when it did not accept the Filioque. Hope this helps you Austin.
It's clearly that you do not really know what proceeds means in Greek ( εκπόρευση) and why there such confusion. Long story short, the Orthodox Church do believe that the Holy Spirit is sent by Jesus Christ. No doubt about that. Or also you can say through the Son. But if you say AND, then it's confusing for the Orthodox because it implies two causes of the Holy Spirit. This is a linguistic restriction that exists because the English word proceeds cannot describe exactly the Greek word εκπόρευση . Anyway i see Catholics as my brothers and i have a lot of friends that are Catholics. There is no reason to condemn each other.
The Holy Spirit derives from God Father only! Not "..and from the Son.." Eucharisty or Holy Communion is given to all faithful in the form of wine mixed with leavened bread, exactly how Jesus Christ Himself has given it to His disciples at the Last Supper. Mother Mary, the "Theotokos" has passed on, fell into a sleep, exactly as other human beings do. However, her body after its burial had ascended unto heaven unchanged and assumed the form of how it would be after the 2nd coming of the Lord. That is, in an forever unchanged form aged 33. Infallibility of the pope, what a blasphemy. NO ONE ever lived as a human is infallible! The only infallible is the Holy Trinity alone! The Bible consists of 76 books, not less. No one is entitled or authorised to remove any of the books from the Bible. The Latin Church and protestantic denominations have done it against the instruction by the Almighty God. If you still want to adhere to those believes and practices then stay with Roman Latinism. If you decide to follow a true path of worshipping come to Orthodoxy! 🙏🙌 ✝️
Examine the history! Jesus est His One True Church, Mt 16 18-19 with Peter as His first representative or Prime Minister Isa 22:22 which is the pillar & foundation of Truth 1 Tim 3:15 which Ignatius named as Katholikos or Universal in 107AD which codified your bible in 382AD which has existed for 2000 yrs, in spite of sinful men & is the longest existing human institution. Fact check if you don’t believe me.
The gospel is found in each. And each denominational polity has also developed layers of historical and cultural accumulation over the last millennium.
After my conversion I tried to find my tribe. Been both catholic and EO. Neither is closer to the truth. Jesus Christ is the way, the truth and life. No church will ever be closer to anything. You either are walking with Jesus or not. The church who admits this is wise.
If you believe that Jesus built His church on Peter and his confession, then, you are closer to the truth. If you are a protestant, of course you will incline more on the Orthodox Church because you both separated yourselves from the Catholic Church. Both protesting.
@kolokithas7865 The leaders of the Church are not perfect and there are abuses but I believe in Jesus' promise that His church, the Catholic Church, will not be destroyed (Matthew 16:18). From the 1st century to the end of time, It will continue to exist.
With all due love and respect, just knowing the truth won't save you. You have to be part of the truth. If you are still so called Protestant you should get out of heresy ASAP. May God show you His church.
@kodyoneill497 To be honest with you, that's what I believe. I see Protestants like people who read the Bible but live in darkness. There is no greater heresy than rejecting the history and mysteries(sacraments) of the church. Forgive me for using harsh words.
@Wesleydale754 Glory be to his holy and mighty name, we preach Jesus Christ as our Lord and Savior not just in words but also in deeds. We live in the church founded by His precious blood not by a mortal human being.
Answer neither. There both sects that preach and teach her dictator ships. Ever noticed the countris fhaf r tyranny have these churches. Communism is almost purely located near orthodox Which teaches a small social upper class that controls the lower. And the west that teaches ascending episcopal Had kings And empire. These churches mearly reflect the attitude of the social value there set in. The east was always more communal in there take. Less about individual. Where the west always tuaght hierarchical America was a interesting fusion of what baptists. I.e. individual belief and anti institution. And Presbyterian (which has a episcopal structure almost like the American gov. Built as a republic. 😅 Interesting right.😂 Any wonder america is the freest country in the world. Protestants teach individual salvation and individual interpretation. Catholics teach authority of one man. Surrounded by power. Submit and yield your mind to there interpretation. Much like a peasant who yields to king. And ortho teach for the masses to yield mind and heart to a collective. 😅 Anyone else see it.
@ElonMuskrat-my8jy care to define the logical fallacy. And as to spelling errors. I'm typing on a phone. My fingers miss buttons. I had just woken up. And didn't realize this was a spelling b. Lol. I find it amazing that you all throw out the words logical fallacy for things you all disagree with. But fail to describe the fallacy. How is it fallacious to say that the way those churches are governed is similar to how those cultures run there gove. Is it true that america teaches in a more individual focused makes society and bottom-up gov structure. Exactly the way Baptist and Presbyterian work. Who happened to be the majority of Protestants at the time of founding Is it true that the west where the pope was bassically had an upper ruling class. With a peasant class that almost as a mirror reflects Catholic Clergy and laity Is it wrong to say that e.o. having more of a communal of power among a small social elite. When mirrored to a government, it is practically the same as an oligarchy Let's look Monarchy the rule of king over the nobels. Strangely is almost entirely in Catholic countries. Oligarchy communism socialism (Almost entirely where orthodox is) The idea of a small elite control Vs a oligarch in gov. Is small elite control. Care to explain the logic fallacy. My statement was saying that these structures are a product of the society's that hosted them. Every social scientist knows that The east always valued a more communal over individual Europe always valued social classes. Built on land ownership. Catholics came to being in the roman Empire. And was tied to the roman government after constitine made it a state religion. So even after they collapsed... well. Any suprise the way Catholic structure is designed is similar to the roman government from the old empire. Is it any surprise That Americans who traditional disliked large gov. And had an anti institutional view of government. And designed a republic. Any surprise that Baptist and Presbyterian were the two churches with the most culture in America. So, care to explain exactly where there's a logic fallacy to say that the way these churches run is similar to the culture they exist in. Huh? Go ahead, name the fallacy. If you r gonna call foul. Name the foul. If not Your whole point means nothing
@@joshua_wherleyone example: Eucharistic Miracles (when Consecrated Bread turns into human Flesh) - it proves the Catholic teachings that the Consecrated Bread is truly indeed Christ’s Body. It seems the Catholic Mass is the true form of Christian worship. Question: why is there no Eucharistic Miracles in the Orthodox line?
@@endofall12the Orthodox Church does have Eucharistic miracles, and the service books even make provision for what to do in the case of one. Importantly, the Church teaches that Eucharistic miracles happen because of a lack of faith, so they are a cause for repentance, not rejoicing.
@@endofall12 what is meant by "Eucharistic Miracles in the Orthodox line"? Does the Roman Catholic Church not teach that the Orthodox Church has valid sacraments, meaning that the body and blood of Christ is truly in the chalice? Is that somehow not itself a miracle? I could easily turn this around on you. There are many instances of miraculous weeping icons within the Orthodox Church. Yet I rarely hear of a weeping statue in a Catholic Church. Does this somehow "invalidate" Catholicism? By no means.
As a Protestant outsider, This question has always fascinated me. I tend to agree with Catholicism more often than then Orthodox on issues of doctrine, but it also seems like the Orthodox have a better historical claim.
As a Catholic, I see the EO as my brothers 🇵🇷🙏🏼📿
Thank you, brother. Love from an Orthodox Christian ☦
@@joshua_wherley Great attitude. Why let others divide us!
As an EO, I see Catholics as my brothers.
@@atanas-nikolov I recently saw a video in which an Orthodox priest, Fr Theophan Mackey, describes the Orthodox and Catholic Churches as two brothers with a strained relationship. I thought that was an appropriate take. Ultimately, we were all once in communion. Unfortunately, that is not the case these days. But that doesn't mean we have to be hostile toward each other.
Catholic here!
When it comes to certain doctrines I prefer the Eastern approach!
As a catechuman in the EO Church, the problem I have with these questions is that they treat truth like an abstract concept - similar to the Greek Academy, for instance. One Christian doctrine isn't "closer to the truth" than another; rather, one doctrine is true, and the rest are false. I hear people often say things like, "Well, this doctrine is mostly true." What does this even mean? There is truth, and there is falsehood. Even if something is considered to be 99% true, it is still not true.
Christ is the full and undivided Truth. If Christ is the Church, then there must exist a Church that is wholly true. I guess I'm just puzzled by conversations like this. We are acting like Christ's Church is esoteric and is only revealed to a hidden few, or that it's abstract and that the Church doesn't really exist in reality - although it most certainly does.
@@guntotinpatriot8873 On this we agree the Protestant or Anglican position is absurd and atheistic in nature. It assumes God does not guide his Church into truth and we are left with the speculation of men.
@Captain_Autismo orthodox and catholic are manmade
Seeing things only in black and white terms such as that is pretty limiting. Although it’s not perfectly analogous, imagine you’re solving a more complicated mathematical problem. The person who generally knows what equations to use and what steps take will probably be “closer to the truth” than the person who has no idea about how to go about this type of problem. Sure, they’re both “wrong”, but one person definitely was closer to getting it right.
In the same manner, we would probably say a Muslim is “closer to the truth” than an atheist, insofar as they affirm in one God, that he sent down prophets and scriptures, and worked through Abraham.
One final analogy is if you’re attempting to diagnose how to solve a problem in your life. Maybe you decide to go talk to someone about it and they tell you “here’s what your problem is” and go on to list about three things. Perhaps two of them hit the nail on the head but one of them definitely seems off point. Their diagnosis in that sense is “mostly true”
@@donhaddix3770 I can literally identify the founder of any Protestant denomination and most lived within 300 years. Can’t do that with RC or EO because both RC and EO have succession back to the apostles.
Became an EO catechumen recently. The truth stands firm
God bless you on your Journey brother! Congratulations
As traditional Anglican (who leans Anglo-Catholic), I agree with you regarding EO and RC.
I respect you’re approaching this from an intellectual standpoint but at some point, at least for me, you just know and feel what’s right for you. Happily enjoying OCIA now.
truth is not based on feelings
I live in a catholic country filled with catholic churches and my nearest orthodox church is a 5 hour drive, but I feel at home in the Orthodox church and I'll become a catechumen:)
No. Your feelings are not always an indicator of truth. They can be deceiving. Our Beloved Lord gave us the gift of reason to help discern truth.
What I like about the Orthodox theology is their unqiue expression of humility, repentance and love:
In Orthodox spirituality, prayer for the whole world is deeply emphasized, especially in the lives of the saints. This broader, universal approach to prayer is grounded in the Church’s theology of love and intercession for all of creation, seen as a manifestation of the divine love that Christians are called to emulate. Glorification is the vision of God in which the equality of all men and the absolute value of each man is experienced. God loves all men equally and indiscriminately, regardless of even their moral status. And the saint is able to love like God loves. An expression of this love, is perfect spiritual compassion, where we can experience the sorrowful cosmic unity with the whole humankind, which is expressed well by Saint Silouan the Athonite:
"He who has the Holy Spirit in him, to however slight a degree, sorrows Day and Night for all mankind. His heart is filled with pity for all God’s creatures, more especially for those who do not know God, or who resist Him and therefore are bound for torment. For them, more than for himself, he prays Day and Night, that all may repent and know the Lord."
Not even the lamentation of a widow who has lost her only son can be compared with the lamentation of these saintly ascetics. The pain of their soul becomes metaphysical, and the cry of their distress resounds in all the deserts of this world and becomes the most powerful prayer.
Thats also the reason why there is no stigmata among orthodox saints.
Everything else falls away in the face of Orthodoxy. Studying church history is the clincher for any honest person.
bible is the clincher, not church history
If you studied church history you would eventually have to read about how the Eastern Orthodox rejected the council of Florence after accepting it and having it declared ecumenical by the Emperor and Mark of Ephesus. Or how all the Eastern fathers taught the filioque. At that point you would learn that after the east accepted Florence and then their laity rejected it they lost the empire on pentecost, the feast of the holy spirit. Then you would have to come to terms with the fact that the ottoman empire appointed rabidly anti western patriarchs to keep the church split apart.
It leads many to Rome. Catholicism has plenty of problems sure and so does Orthodoxy. It’s easier to convert to Orthodoxy for some Protestants rather than Catholicism, because they don’t have as many claims and they do have great liturgies for sure.
@@USDebtCrisisSt. Mark of Ephesus rejected the Council of Florence. Constantinople lost their city and empire due to apostasy to Rome.
@@ElonMuskrat-my8jy Didn't know that that singular bishops could just reject councils unilaterally. Why do you accept Chalcedon then?
Catholicism! But EO are right behind
It's interesting. I've been trying to decipher between Catholic and EO, and the more of church history I read I'm starting to come to the conclusion that the eastern churches started challenging Rome more after the move to Constantinople - which might be why we see Rome starting to be more overt with their decrees before the schism (when the children are misbehaving). The filioque issue seems consistent with an institution asserting its authority.
EO has some wild theology too, such as Toll Houses - whereas the Catholic view of purgatory can at least be backed up with receipts. As far as I can tell, EO don't believe in original sin or the "legal" view of atonement, which is clearly all over scripture - so Idk...
I came to the same conclusions. And the toll houses are insanity.
1. Toll houses are not a literal physical booth you go through. We are currently going through the toll houses as we live today. Don't get bogged down in meme theology.
2. We do believe in original sin dogmatically, see the catechism of St. Peter Mogila. Infants are baptized to be washed of original sin. The distinction is that we don't believe in the aspect of original sin in which not only the consequences, but the literal culpability of Adam, is passed on to infants. We bear the sufferings of our fathers, but we aren't on an individual level all guilty of Adam's decision
So basically, humanity has a transgression that must be paid, but each human person is not literally individually guilty of the fall. The human essence has the problem, not each human person. When Rome gradually shifted away from this truth, they needed to invent the immaculate conception in order to preserve a sinless Theotokos.
I would also urge you to honestly evaluate the Papal trinitarian model and theology proper. You will see the Divine, Uncreated Energies all over Scripture and tradition if you look, and they are spoken of distinctly from the essence, and they are necessarily distinct in order to make theosis (the default view of salvation) work. This is why you see soteriology change radically after the schism in the West where talk of theosis is quite muted, as there can be no real participation in God's uncreated energies, and grace becomes merely a supernatural created effect upon the creature.
Also observe Lateran IV in which Rome dogmatized there is no distinction between the persons ground on the basis of the thing itself, except for it's "immanent simplicity" which is not a basis for distinction. Papal trinitarianism is not really a Trinity. God is a monad unto Himself, and we only perceive Him as a triad. It's almost worse than Sabellianism and in my opinion is a much more obvious and catastrophic problem than the Filioque, which is already quite bad.
Purgatory is also quite problematic. Keep in mind that if you're in purgatory, you're already headed for heaven. It's a temporal purgation of literal, physical fire (according to Aquinas, the fires of hell/purgation are physical, literal fire) in which you have a set amount of suffering corresponding to your temporal sins, because of the understanding that "nothing imperfect can enter heaven." This is dumb because it retcons salvation yet again and removes the idea of sanctifying, perfecting grace active in our lives while we live. The basis of purgatory is the concept of "toll houses" that is commonly misunderstood. Simply put, that there is a waiting period between death and destination, something even the Jews believed (see: raising Lazarus on the fourth day). However, it's commonly overblown into thinking there are literal physical booths with tickets where you gotta pass all the checkmarks. No, it's just a soul's ascent to heaven overtime as demons fight to steal it.
Don’t forget the Eastern Rites of the Catholic Church, friends. 😊 The Catholic Church actually accepts both understandings of the filoque as theological valid. Also, I do think, as a Catholic, that the position of pope became too centralized during medieval times, but there is a lot of evidence of early Christians seeing the bishop of Rome as having more authority than the other bishops because of the large population of early Christians in Rome. (Plus, there’s Jesus in the Gospel making Peter into a leader figure, and I can’t understand why Jesus would make that leadership position a temporary position…especially since Peter was a man with many flaws, like all of us are. 😅 It seems to me like He wanted that leadership position to be something that would carry His Church forward long after Peter was gone. Christ could have given all the apostles, as the first bishops, equal power, but He simply didn’t. If Jesus set it up that way, I think there’s a good reason, even if it transcends our human understanding.)…Personally, I think that if the EO Church accepts the doctrine of papacy as valid and the Catholic Church works on emphasizing the authority of all bishops more along with the special authority of the pope, maybe unity could one day happen again. Just my uneducated opinion. 😊 Many of the Eastern Catholic Churches were Orthodox until recently in history, but they decided to come back into unity with the Church in Rome while keeping important aspects of their own unique theology and culture.
Uniatism is a politically formed Trojan horse used to subvert illiterate and simple peasants away from Christ's Church.
I spent 18 months in an EO church as a catechumen. I am now enrolled in OCIA at a Latin Catholic church. I found the EO to be beautiful liturgically, but very nationalistic and insular in practice. They were more concerned with keeping the fast then helping the community. More concerned with their ethnic heritage, obsessed with monasticism, and being the one true church. I heard plenty of Catholic bashing while at the EO church, but have not heard one disparaging thing about EO from Catholics yet. I think we will know it by its fruit is appropriate. I'm also pretty convinced about the pope at this point too.
I really understand your perspective. The beauty of Orthodox liturgy and spirituality is something that draws many people in, but I also get how the focus on fasting and monasticism can sometimes feel disconnected from community work. In the Orthodox tradition, seeking spiritual guidance from ascetics and monastics is deeply rooted in our patristic heritage. Some monastics live in constant prayer and asceticism, offering spiritual wisdom that comes from profound communion with God. Regarding community work, I would add that in Orthodox tradition, much of this is often done quietly, out of humility, without drawing attention to it. The focus is on serving God and others without seeking recognition.
As for the ethnic identity issue, it can sometimes overshadow the universal nature of Orthodoxy, but I believe it’s a temporary concern that will resolve over time. The Orthodox Church is universal, and these cultural divides are more a product of historical circumstances than a reflection of the true nature of the faith.
I’ve also encountered Catholic bashing in some Orthodox circles, and I agree it's unfortunate. Sadly, it's not unique to Orthodoxy; there’s also Roman Catholic bashing against Orthodox Christians, which you can see in some of the comments here as well. However, the Orthodox ethos teaches that, no matter our theological differences, we should always consider others as more spiritual and closer to God than ourselves. It’s about humility and recognizing that God’s grace works in many ways across denominations.
Ultimately, I respect your journey and your conclusions, and I pray that you continue to grow in faith and love, wherever that leads you.
I’m a catechumen in the Orthodox Church now for 5 months and a lot of what you said is what I’m beginning to see more and more. And the fact that when it comes to important theological questions you will get different answers from different Orthodox clergy, some times even on big theological issues.
So you are more concerned with things you like or don't like rather than truth.
Fair enough, but consider that the TLM isn't really orthodox Catholic worship. Why? Because the CCC says the pope is the final authority on how Catholics worship, and Pope Francis has made it clear that the Novus Ordo is the true form of the Mass. If you accept that, it means attending Novus Ordo Masses with their dollar store homilies, horrible music, and the majority who are only there to get their Mass ticket punched for the week.
Dont let your feelings control you brother. And dont let one or two bad apples ruin your experience
The Truth is a person, and His Body is the Orthodox Church.
Which orthodox church
@@USDebtCrisis F-tier rebuttal
@@Apinetree123 A-tier, because Orthodox Churches are not one Church some of them not even in communion with eachother
@@universalflamethrower6342We all have the same faith, genius.
@@universalflamethrower6342 Constantinople and Moscow are in schism right now lol
I have a hard time with EO because it really refers to a collection of communities some of which are not in communion with each other. So there claim against Rome being schismatic seems pretty weak since they are not really one Church which is seemingly the entire point of being the true Church you can easily tell who is in and who is out at least visibly. Since none of the patriarchs have any type of primacy over each other, they really don’t have the moral means of staying united as one church. I think otherwise I would be sympathetic to their theology and would consider them more seriously.
When the EO say they are united, it is meant united in one faith, one Eucharist; not administratively like the RC, except to the degree that the EO is united synodically with one another. Further, the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople is First Among Equals among the EO and as such is the spiritual leader of the EO, and alone among the EO grant autocephaly to a local church and resolve disputes among autocephalous churches.
@CJ-rk5eg But younare not united in the Eucharist when you are out of communion with each other and teaching your members that it is a sin to have Eucharist in the other. Also, protestants could easily claim to be united in faith as well. This is precisely Gavin Ortlund's case for protestantism being the true "Catholicism".
@ This is what I was gonna say. There are around 25 Churches in communion with the Roman Pontif and parishioners can all take communion with each other at any time and without additional permission. That is being united.
@@EvelynKerubo-s5e We’re out of communion temporarily it’s not schismatic. Second who in the world teaches it’s a sin to teach participate in the Eucharist at the synods were not in communion with? Because it’s certainly a small minority. The break is 1 sided and it doesn’t affect lay people only the clergy.
Orthodoxy is one in Faith
Presuppositions can't be shaken. Austin I can see you leaning towards EO. Though intellectual & historical I see your respect for the RC. Historical RC with Apostolic Foundation of Peter & Paul is essential to Christendom. This historical foundation included the Eastern Body of Christ Church. The question is who broke from who? To me it is quite clear...note, even the EO speak of Roman's Bishop as one of many, but the preeminent One.
Some arguments about EO not getting along with each other but Catholics do just isn’t a true representation of how EO see our messy situation.
Listening to the recent statements from the Pope, he directed corrections, a new dogma and some strong language about what was going wrong in various areas of the Catholic Church. It took a few years to come to this statement.
Catholics handle problems from the top down but it can still take time.
The EO function like a family sitting around a table. We can have serious differences of opinion.
But, we are conciliar and trust the process will work itself out because it always has in the past.
To be fair, riffs have happened (even wars, overthrows, killings) have happened in Catholic and Protestant history between factions’ that didn’t/wouldn’t agree.
Our Hierarchs are administrators without any power to change dogma. If anyone tries to go beyond what they should do those Anathema’s start flying.
I’m actually glad the World can see that it’s all out in the open!
I never thought of it that way thanks for your input!
When considering which Christian tradition, Orthodox or Catholic, is "closer to the truth," a focus on the way of life rather than doctrines provides a perspective rooted in lived faith and the fruits of sanctity and the Holy Spirit.
you cannot exclude doctrines that isnt biblical nor apostolic.
@@petars4444 of course, not saying that doctrines are not crucial. But sanctity does prove that doctriines are right. Just observing that among seekers there is an overfocus on doctrines, instead they should also ready more the ife of the saints (from different denominations).
Both traditions have incredible saints-Sts. Nektarios and Paisios in Orthodoxy, and Sts. Mother Teresa and Padre Pio in Catholicism-holy, humble, and miracle-working examples of God's grace. Even beyond these traditions, the Holy Spirit works powerfully. I keep an icon of the Coptic martyrs in my prayer corner, and it’s moving to remember that the Sub-Saharan man martyred alongside them may not even have been from the same church-he could have been Protestant.
As a Protestant, I believed both traditions produced saints. Now, as a Catholic, I see even more clearly how God raises up saints wherever hearts are open to Him. For me, the turning point was the hesitation I encountered in some Orthodox circles to recognize the baptism of non-Orthodox Christians. The Catholic Church, by contrast, readily acknowledges the work of the Spirit outside the visible bounds of the institutional Church, affirming that Orthodox saints are baptized Christians. As the Catechism of the Catholic Church states, 'Many elements of sanctification and truth are found outside the visible confines of the Catholic Church' (CCC 819).
Jesus Himself reminds us, 'The wind blows where it wills' (John 3:8), and the Spirit moves in ways that bring unity and sanctity to all who sincerely seek God. The lives of saints from every tradition testify to this truth.
@@ElijahRexNewcomb Thank you for sharing such a heartfelt reflection. It’s clear that your journey has been deeply shaped by a sincere search for truth and holiness, and I resonate with much of what you’ve expressed. Among the Roman Catholic saints, I have a particular admiration for St. Philip Neri, St. Jean-Marie Vianney, and St. Mother Teresa. Their humility, dedication, and love for God and neighbor are inspiring to people of all Christian traditions. I also agree wholeheartedly with the truth that “the wind blows where it wills” (John 3:8). However, I would gently add that this doesn’t mean that sanctity arises in the same way everywhere or that every path produces saints. There is value in discerning the profound differences among the saints of various traditions, as these differences often reflect distinct theological and spiritual realities.
I am sorry to hear that you encountered Orthodox Christians who hesitated to recognize the baptism of non-Orthodox Christians. While some individuals or some monastic communities may hold such views, the official teaching of all Orthodox Churches acknowledges the validity of baptisms performed in the name of the Holy Trinity. It is unfortunate when misunderstandings or personal biases obscure this teaching.
At the same time, I have been deeply blessed by the personal testimony of individuals like Fr. Gabriel Bunge and Klaus Kenneth, both of whom have come to Orthodoxy from Catholicism. Their witness is striking, particularly when they describe encountering a spiritual depth and love in Orthodox saints that far surpassed anything they had previously experienced. Fr. Gabriel, for instance, noted that some spiritual figures he met in Orthodoxy were “dimensions (!) above” the most spiritual figures in his Catholic experience. Klaus Kenneth spoke similarly of the immense love of St. Sophrony of Essex, which he described as clearly surpassing that of even Mother Teresa. This is especially significant when we consider that Fr. Gabriel spent over 40 years as a Roman Catholic spiritual father, guiding many monastics and laypeople, and still found the Orthodox saints to possess a spiritual depth and worldview that far exceeded what he encountered in Catholicism.
The spiritual quality of modern Orthodox saints has been a profound testament to the richness of the Orthodox tradition. Saints like St. Silouan the Athonite, St. Sophrony, St. Paisios, St. Porphyrios, St. John of Shanghai, St. Nektarios and many more exemplify an extraordinary humility, love, and healing presence that are deeply rooted in the Orthodox ethos. What is especially striking, however, is the sheer quantity of such high-caliber saints within the last 100 years-an abundance that is truly mind-blowing and a testimony to the vibrancy of the Orthodox Church’s spiritual life.
I have also some concerns regarding certain Roman Catholic saints whose spiritual experiences might appear questionable through the lens of patristic/apostolic discernment. For example (I could mention also other Roman Catholic saints here), the visions and writings of St. Faustina raise particular questions. Her claim that “My sanctity and perfection is based on the close union of my will with the will of God” (Diary, 1107) is concerning from an Orthodox perspective. Such a statement might suggest a self-directed understanding of sanctity rather than the Orthodox emphasis on kenosis-self-emptying-and the complete surrender of one’s will to God. Additionally, her description of herself as “Jesus’ secretary” could be interpreted as prideful or delusional in the context of Orthodox spiritual discernment. It is also troubling to see that someone like St. Faustina, whose experiences and statements would likely raise significant concerns in the Orthodox tradition, has had such a profound influence on the piety of millions of Roman Catholics.
Orthodox spirituality places utmost caution on experiences or claims that could lead to self-exaltation, striving instead for humility and repentance. Similarly, phenomena like stigmata are rare in Orthodoxy and would be approached with deep discernment and caution.
Neverthess, finally, I want to emphasize a fundamental Orthodox principle: we are called to regard everyone else, even pagans, as closer to God than ourselves. This attitude of humility and repentance is central to the Orthodox ethos and serves as a foundation for our relationships with others. It reminds us that God’s grace works in mysterious and far-reaching ways, always calling us to deeper love and humility.
These differences underscore the richness and diversity of Christian traditions, but they also point to the unique and timeless spiritual inheritance of Orthodoxy.
@@ElijahRexNewcombMother Teresa was an ecumenist who wanted Hindus to be better Hindus. She's not a saint.
Ah well, I’m a new convert to um Papism, so it would be imprudent to voice my own opinions.
So I’d recommend these two niche channels called ‘Unionist Initiative’ and ‘Distinguo’ instead, run by a certain Christian B. Wagner. Much polemics, great success.
If someone has a response, make sure you do go ahead and debunk him, it will be so over for us Papists.
Many people have responded to them
Thank you for this short clip, Austin.
I'd like to say a couple things that might serve as points of reflection, though I'm sure you are aware of these things.
First, the Catholic case for the Papacy cannot rest solely on its system performance. To say that the Catholic view of Church government stands on the other hand of an artificial process that seeks to make *things work* more efficiently is to already admit the falsity of said theory of Church government. Because if it does not have its essential origin in Christ and the Apostles, then it is false. Therefore, it is vital for a thinking Catholic to be able to find the origin of the Papacy with Christ and the Apostles. And I think Catholicism has an awesome case for the following - Jesus established a Church government with Peter and the person of his successor as the universal president *for all times*. Testimonies to that are found both in Scripture and the Ecumenical Councils. In fact, if I ever were to become a Protestant, I'd still have to admit that fact. And while that claim does not spell out all the details of Vatican 1, there isn't a Church existing anywhere in the world that sustains that basic Petrine claim except Catholicism. And so in that sense, history falls in the neighborhood of Catholicism more than it does Eastern Orthodoxy. Synodality, Conciliarity, and Appellate structures have always existed, and they still exist today. Rome continues to receive appeals and that always continued even after Leo IX , Gregory VII, and Innocent III. Therefore, finding conciliarity, synodality, and appellation in the 1st millennium only serves to be absorbed by the Catholic case rather than retard it.
Second, the Filioque is actually one of the clearest evidences that show Eastern Orthodoxy cannot be true. I've been known to say the case for the Papacy wins by milligrams. Well, that is not the case with the Filioque. The evidence for the precise doctrine, as codified at the Councils of Lyons (1274) and Florence (1439), is replete in both the Eastern and Western fathers. And these saints and theologians who defended the Filioque were not rooting their teaching from some philosophical speculation, but on the Gospels and words of Christ. Now, where there is an abrupt innovation is with the introduction of Filioque *into the Creed*. But, as I've argued elsewhere, while the addition of the Filioque clause might have been a canonical crime (at most), the Eastern Orthodox reaction was to condemn the Filioque *theology*. And so of the 2, the Eastern Orthodox ended up doing the worse because they condemned a Biblical doctrine, whereas the Latin West (at most) committed a canonical crime. However, there are good grounds to say that no such criminality exists because creedal constructions had been a development of the 4th century, and thus it can be argued that whatever abuses were done in regard to the Filioque clause, it doesn't penetrate deeply enough to strike at the Apostolic essence of the Church's beliefs. The Eastern Orthodox, however, have penetrated so deeply.
Lastly, if someone were to study the historical sources and find that while there is a historical case for the Papacy and Eastern Orthodox, the systematic claims of either have not held up consistently or that they have sufficiently disproven the extent of their ecclesiology via incoherence, then I would say the net gain here serves the Protestant. In other words, the Protestant can sustain Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy being present in Church history, but since the extremity of the ecclesial claims of either have been disproven sufficiently, it only serves to help the Protestant case for a morphing, reforming, and adapting body of Christ.
Hey Erick, to your last point-Isn't there any way in which the protestant system can disprove itself? And how does this "morphing, reforming, and adapting body of Christ" makes sense in light of scripture? For example, the call to unity, and the church being the bulwark and pillar of truth? In other words, which system disproves itself the most?
@@cmac369
Good questions. I'll answer in order
(1) Yes, I do think the Protestant system can disprove itself. How it does is part of an answer to your other questions so I'll mention it below.
(2) It is precisely because the "morphing, reforming, and adapting" body of Christ does not match with the prophetic utterances of Christ with regard to the Church that Protestantism "disproves" itself. I don't imagine it will be something easily seen. However, it seems to me that classical Protestantism would have to admit that Christianity became largely, if not wholly, heretical by the 4th century until the efforts of Martin Luther. In between you have certain groups crying out for orthodoxy , in some partial sense, but their voices were always squelched until nations could stand behind a new movement such as Luther, Calvin, Cranmer, etc. etc.
Well said!
Fantastic text, Erick. I agree with everything but the last part. My argument is: to make a case on the alleged extreme route taken by the ecclesiological model in Catholicism, if missing the mark by exaggeration (and, just to be clear, I would not even grant that as far as ecclesiological doctrines and dogmas go, the way I should explain in another post), can never be a case for a the Protestant ecclesiology whatsoever, nor for the Eastern Orthodox one, since their cases should be proven by themselves, not by exclusion or the antagonism built towards ours.
First of all, as far as Eastern Orthodoxy goes, the fundamental issue I’ve pointed out in other dialogues - as you greatly do in your book - is more or less related to the congenital assimilation of the Roman/Byzantine Empire with an arbiter for ecclesiological unification and even a margin of tolerance of a sort of ecclesiastical role in action, never a issue related to a supposed exaggeration “per se”. Ethnicity is not their primary problem but one that derives from the political one - a problem that people either fail to see or deliberately push under the carpet, mostly for anti-Catholic urges and premises. You greatly point that out in many parts of your book, like when you analyzed the case of Virgilius and Emperor Justinian’s role in the Second Council of Constantinople (553): that episode wouldn’t favor a more synodal ecclesiology that supposedly fits their self-described ecclesiastical perception, but a version of Imperialism that they fail (because they know it is not biblical, nor traditional with the capital “T”) to associate with their own. It’s NOT a genuine (nor pure) model of synodality, let alone a true conciliar manifestation that is able to achieve the universal dimension of the faith inside the apostolic collegiate (college of bishops worldwide). So it is not the extreme consequences of itself that this model stumbles upon, but the ingrained co-existential fusion between ecclesiastical canon law (like the imperial canon law too), the Empire and the revealed data / normative dimensions of ecclesiology in both Sacred Tradition and the Bible. I should add the lack of a real jurisdictional universality in the Church outside this political (quasi-ecclesiastical) figure of the Emperor, instead of the Successor of Peter as the attributor of the mark of the “Oikouméne”. The acumen of the Photian crisis is insanely accurate in representing that Constantinopolitan tension.
In what relates to Protestantism, unfortunately their ecclesiological case should be built on the premise of the division concerning the visible and the invisible dimensions of the Church. That division can be radical, like in Evangelicalism, or softer, like in the more “high church” versions of Anglicanism and Lutheranism in comparison with Reformed Anglicanism and the mainstream global Evangelical Lutheranism. I could develop a lot more here as far as ecclesiology goes, but I really don’t understand- apart from a principle of epistemic doubt and of a priori denial or suspicion of authority, that would be eternally judged by the epistemological “self”, under which the more “low church” versions of Protestantism would be generally favored - how could the thinking of Catholicism supposedly “exaggerating” in its model of ecclesiology would favor Protestant ecclesiology in any quest for truth (instead of personal takes on efficiency, utility or comfort).
Kinda funny when the system in theory is great but you are getting your butt kicked in doctrinal unity against a system of "local and divided churches" as some catholic apologists might say.
Orthodox
neither
@donhaddix3770 then go away and watch whatever it is you like, probably elevation church or Christopher hitchens
100%. In my discerning I want Rome to be right as it's much "neater" with its system (quotes as I'm aware when the rubber meets the road there can be confusion on particulars).
That said I still lean mostly EO and no matter how much I read on both sides my heart gets drawn right back to the East in a deep way, while Rome is attractive only in that it's Western like me and more neat but that's it. It's mostly the Saints too. The West has good people like Francis of Assisi but there's a palatable difference in the Eastern ones that I can't ignore (without trying to sound insulting to the Rome).
On that topic I wonder how does certain protestants subscribe to Catholic presuppositions especially when it comes to doctrinal developments such as filioque. So much for protesting against Rome and their "man made tradition"
It’s not too hard to understand, we didn’t want to burn the church down and start over. Martin Luther wanted to reform the Catholic Church. So in reality we wanted to keep every tradition that doesn’t run counter to scripture. I hope I’m explaining this well. The filioque is very scripture based and the Holy Spirit is called the Christ spirit plus a bunch of of names that directly links him and Jesus. True Protestantism is closer to RCC than it is to the non denominations that RCC and EO love to attack.
@@kodyoneill497 I can't even criticize your position since protestantism holds to such a wide variaty of opinons. On paper your position look pretty good but once you're pressed on epistemology your paradigm colapses. If you want to hold to filioque you either have to accept that Church was wrong for almost entire first millennium or accept doctrinal developement(most protestants are against it), there is no third option.
@@tymon1928 the reason we reject doctrinal development from the RCC perspective is that either your are infallible and every councils statement is now scripture and should be added after revelation or you are fallible and therefore must go to Gods word to check against. Mans words do not compare to the word God
If the Vulcans and Romulans can come together, than certainly Rome and EO and reunify too.
Read your bible, find the Truth. Know Christ.
Thank you for being honest
*Follow up question:* which Protestant denomination is closest to RC and which is closest to EOC?
Great question!
Trad Anglicans can be almost the same as Orthodox, but this is more of a reflection of how Anglicanism lets you roll your own set of beliefs than anything else.
@ thanks!
Most Protestants (including the flavors I was raised in) kept the RC version of sin as a legal problem and the church as a courtroom.
The Orthodox view the church as a hospital where our souls, sick with our sins, are healed through a life lived in Christ. This healing allows us to become more like and draw closer to Christ which leads to theosis.
All of that is completely insufficient shorthand but I hope it gets the basic idea across.
Probably Anglicans and Lutherans. Before becoming a catechumen in the Orthodox Church I attended a couple of churches of Christ churches and I think their theology on many areas prepared me for Orthodoxy.
What would you think about the Eastern Catholic churches then? They have the catholic system as they are catholic churches, but they practice (or at least the byzantine rite does) eastern orthodox-like liturgy and have similar traditions.
Interesting. I disagree but I appreciate your thoughtfulness. Happy Thanksgiving
Austin do you have any intention of converting to either Catholicism or Orthodoxy? Or do you intend to compare and contrast until the Parousia? Good grief man pick one already! 🤔😄! The preceding statement was meant as an exercise in tongue in cheek! So everyone calm down! No but seriously Austin? Oops…there it is again!
for me it breaks down at the EO magesterium. In the first millenia of the church, the church had an active and real authority of binding and loosing certain dogmas and practices in the church. In the first Millenia anytime the greeks sided with the emperor they almost always went into heresy and it took the Roman See to put things bag in order. This happened clearly for the first 1k years of the church. The greeks eventually completely went with the emperor and then later muslim sultants. They rejected their own bishop in the west for a secular and even non christian head. Its sounds a bit exaggerated but the patriarch of constantinople was literally dethroned and appointed by the muslim sultan.
Rome was also the See which taught the others and this has remained to the present day. The spirituality of the east and practices are all Orthodox but they have become utterly impotent and hence why they have no real authority of teaching. It just doesnt exist no matter how they try to explain it and is why they can never get together and really decide anything and when they do as in the council of Jerusalem in the 1700s its still rejected by most people.
I would read Eric Ybarras book on the papacy, is very helpful.
Yeah people really don't understand the history of the eastern church or the council of Florence to be making these historically bad proclamations. The Patriarch of Constantinople was constantly trying to usurp the authority of the pope.
"In the first Millenia anytime the greeks sided with the emperor they almost always went into heresy and it took the Roman See to put things bag in order."
This is a very mythical view of history, though. For instance, the Roman patriarchate explicitly refused to condemn certain Nestorian writings ("the Three Chapters") and, when the Emperor rejected them, broke communion with the patriarchs who sided with the Emperor in denying the texts. The Roman bishop (Vigilius) was deposed by the 5th EC over this, then repented, condemned the Nestorian texts, and said he'd been deceived by Satan in the incident.
There are other instances like this. It's true the Roman see was 'often' a bastion of orthodoxy, but 'often' is as far as real history allows anyone to say.
Being fair has nothing to do with it. If I take candy away from my child, the child will say that’s not fair but when I do it, I do it for a good reason. By the way, which orthodox church are we talking about? Are they not divided by disagreements. There’s like 22 different types of Catholics, but they’re not divided by disagreements. They are all one.
Catholics just paper over the differences the Roman rite has with every other rite
All Orthodox churches in communion with each other all agree on doctrine and practice. You need to get out more.
There's different creeds within those different rites including heresies but they all acknowledge the Pope so the heresy gets ignored. The Papacy only cares about earthly submission by any means necessary.
@@gregcoogan8270 then why don’t they all commune with each other?
If they do, it’s definitely news to me
Ever notice that *women* have near *zero* interest in these theological debates? This may mean that men who are obsessed with theology might be a tad obtuse.
It is quite easy the Catholic Church has the Seat of Peter, my local Catholic Churches even has the Actual Keys of Peter. Besides The Blesses Mother has declared the Eastern Orthodox to be Heresy more than once. The Catholic Church is The Church. Not that you can not go to an EO church, but think about Constantinopel falling on the day of Pentecost. God is Chrystal clear, it is we who stray.
One thing that never seems to be discussed in depth are the reasons east and west developed the way they have. Their are reasons for why the filioque became prominent in the west and why the Papacy developed as it did. This would make for a good discussion, especially since east and west have a differing perspectives about these reasons. As a Catholic my view is Catholic and Orthodox are two sides of the same coin, one church that has suffered from a 1000 year temper tantrum that both sides need to get over. From my view it is the west who has been working diligently and with sincerity to heal these wounds, all I see from most of the east is ugly resistance, and rigidity. Seems like some of the hierarchy in the east say one thing to Rome, and another to their members. The Orthodox are not all singing from the same hymnal on these issues.
became political, not biblical
Here’s my question: if it is Eastern Orthodox Christians who are just being “ugly”, where was anyone from the west when we were under subjugation from the 14th century to the 20th? Wasn’t that ugly of the west? Because what the Eastern Orthodox Christians have been through and still come out on the other side, is indeed profoundly not ugly, it is what Christ promised: to pick up our cross and follow Him.
And doctrine does matter as Christ Himself commanded:
Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:
Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world. Amen.
You can always become Eastern Orthodox Christian and there you are welcome to unify.
@@donhaddix3770who became political?: The Church that was under Ottomans and the Bolsheviks? Or the church that has its own bank and state? Please realise what it is you are saying exactly… And since you want to “unify”, you too can become Eastern Orthodox Christian. The Church belongs to Christ, not mere mortals because no one is infallible. Shrug.
And one more note to you: The Church is the entire body of the Church. It is the faithful in its entirety. It is not the hierarchy only (that is Pharisaical).
I really love the EO tradition, unfortunately there isn’t one EO church - there are ‘nationalistic sects’. Conversely, there’s only one Rome - and like Christ, it’s really interesting how mocked and despised the Catholic faith is by so many ‘Christians’. Grateful to be in OCIA.
That’s a really weak argument. There are also “nationalistic sects” in Catholicism such as the other 23 churches in communion.
@@ShawnComposeryes but they still all submit under Rome. The orthodox take their nationalistic tradition way too far and use it against one another
This is the same classic argument catholics do. Even Constantinople and Moscow currently in parcial schism share more in common than in a latin mass church and a charismatic church
@@ShawnComposer Uhh and they are all in communion with each other and recognize the primacy of the pope? Sounds like one united church. What exactly is your argument?
@@pianoatthirty Yes, organizationally the RC is more unified by have a universal pontiff, but saying the EO is not unified nor one church because there are various "ethnic" churches does not support your claim. The Russian and Constantinople schism is only as schism between the clergy, the laity are free to commune with each other because they have the same faith. Fortunantly, even the RC recognizes that the EO is a true church with valid sacraments, orders, and has maintained the faith without the pope.
To put it mildly, there’s no way Roman Catholicism is true. The actual “Great Schism” was in the 5th Century.
I wish God would just tell us which Church to belong to!!!
He did read Matthew 16:18
O.O has entered the chat
Chillin' on the sidelines as always (except during Chalcedon). Though I went to an Ethiopian Orthodox church and they were using the Orthodox Study Bible as their choice of English translation.
@@danshakuimo Interesting choice, I know the Ethiopian bible is translated from the Greek. Likely the wording matches with what they are familiar with. The E.O Catholic and O.O agree or are neutral on far more than they diagree so its not completely weird. It will take a few more decades for O.O resources to catch up in english.
Would you debate with Sam Shamoun?
I wish you had pointed out from the very beginning that the question is deceiving.
The correct question is, “which church has the truth?”
Once you found the church that is “closer to the truth”, you have implicitly assumed that no church has the truth, which invalidates Christianity all together and makes Christ a false prophet.
Christ promised the Holy Spirit would guide his Church *in all truth*, not “in most of the truth”.
Either there’s a Church that has that truth in its entirety, or Christianity is false.
But if that’s the case then any Christian that hasn’t been baptized in that church is condemned to hell, which hasn’t been the stance of either the RC or EO in years
Wrong. The Church can indeed err and still remain the Church, just as Israel in the Old Testament-the people of God-fell into error countless times yet remained His covenant people. What, however, has never erred is the Word of God. In the Old Testament, this Word was proclaimed by the Prophets; in the New Testament, it was proclaimed by the Apostles. This divine Word, infallibly inspired by the Holy Spirit (theopneustos), has been faithfully recorded for us in the Scriptures, which stand as the ultimate, unerring authority over the Church in all ages.
God will guide us into all truth; human beings can still be wrong sometimes.
@@ugochib you are not baptized in a church. You are baptized in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. Baptism with the correct trinitarian formula is valid, independently of which Christian tradition you are in.
@@pedroguimaraes6094 that’s because you don’t recognize and trust the Church that Christ built. As all Protestants, you are skeptical of Christ’s promise, which is not a nice position to be in as a Christian, if you think about it.
Your comparison of Israel with Christ’s Church shows your confusion. You are confusing old with new covenant. The latter is the perfect fulfillment of the former. Not just a variation of it.
Sibling churches. ✝️☦️
Strange that a Protestant is posing this question...
Personally, as a Roman Catholic, I obviously have a bias. Given that, one thing that I see that lacks in the Orthodox churches is Peter. They simply have no one that has the authority of Peter. Now I consider the Orthodox Churches to be sister churches to the Catholic Church. But the reason that I stay Catholic is that has the leadership of Peter, which leads the church to a continuity of Truth that the Orthodox Church lacks.
All the bishops have the authority of Peter. Look up the article All Bishops Are Successors of Peter (Florilegium) from Ubi Petrus.
Antioch was the see of Peter before Rome. Antioch is Orthodox and Petrine.
@@ElonMuskrat-my8jycan you tell me which bishops can personally nullify canons of an ecumenical council?
@@USDebtCrisis Did you read the article or are you gonna popecope?
@@ElonMuskrat-my8jy read session 1 of Chalcedon
Neither, but definitely not EO. I'm left EO this month. It's too much pagan christianity.
It's impossible that the Body of Christ is pagan. You just were unwilling to understand what we believe and why we believe it.
How much of a "live option" are they for you?
Interesting.
Every Eastern bishop affirmed the Filioque. The Filioque was in use nearly 500 years prior to the council.
The "controversy" arose due to the Greek speaking laity in the East didn't translate the -que properly.
If you ask an Orthodox to explain the procession of the Holy Spirit, 90% of them use the Sun (father),sun's rays (son), warmth of the suns rays (Holy Spirit) as a visual example.
Do you know who uses the same formulation? The Catholic Church.
The filioque is NOT saying that there are two sources of generation of the Holy Spirit.
It's bizarre to me that this is still held up as an issue. 23 of the 24 Rites in the Catholic Church don't even use the filioque.
I'm Orthodox and I've never heard anyone use that analogy. The fiioque was added to the creed by Rome without calling an ecumenical council first. You cannot do that.
While it's true that the term Filioque ("and the Son") was used by some Western bishops before the Council of Toledo in 589, the controversy over the phrase is not simply due to translation issues or misunderstandings of the Greek language. The Orthodox Church views the Filioque as a matter of substance in its understanding of the Trinity. The central issue is not about whether the Holy Spirit is sent by the Father and the Son, but whether the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father alone or from the Father and the Son.
The Orthodox Church holds that the Father is the sole source of the divine persons (the principle of monarchy within the Trinity), and this is not just an issue of semantics or translation. The words of the Nicene Creed, as they were originally formulated in 381 AD, clearly state that the Holy Spirit "proceeds from the Father" - and this is crucial because it preserves the unique relationship of the Father as the origin of the divine essence, which is a cornerstone of Orthodox Trinitarian theology.
The analogy of the sun, its rays, and the warmth of those rays is a sometimes used theological image to explain the relationship between the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. However, using this analogy to justify the Filioque does not accurately reflect the depth and nuances of the theological issue. The Holy Spirit’s procession is not simply a matter of physical or metaphysical "emanation" like sunlight. The Orthodox Church emphasizes that the relationship between the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit is not reducible to physical images or analogies - it’s a mystery that transcends human understanding.
The analogy is helpful in illustrating the relationship of the divine persons in a general way, but it can mislead when used to justify a theological formulation like the Filioque, which is ultimately a matter of doctrinal precision regarding the eternal procession of the Holy Spirit.
@gregcoogan8270 you were in communion with us for hundreds of years after it was added and all signed off on it at Florence. The Filioque is such a fake excuse. The real reason that you reject it is because the ottomans appointed rabidly anti-latin patriarchs to keep the church split
Catholic easily if you deny Filioque you’re silly
So true
How about Galileo? He disagreed on Rome's interpretation & he was right, Rome was wrong. This then proves Rome's Magisterium wrong? If Rome is wrong once, how often can its interpretation be trusted? Please correct me if you think my reasoning here is wrong.
@@richardmcgarvey6919 It’s only infallible on Faith and morals and in limited circumstances.
Galileo was told to acquire more evidence and he responded by trashing the person supporting him.
Byzantine Catholics always get left out of these conversations.
Glory to Jesus Christ, and hello from Saint Nicholas of Myra in New Orleans.
Because no one really takes them serious if we’re being honest
Because you are Roman Catholics with a veneer of Eastern litugical practices. You are also descended from former Orthodox who went into schism from the Church by going under the Pope.
neither
There's only one Universal Church and Jesus picked her first pope
No
@@goaway7163 Mt 16:18-19
That is true but it’s a mark against the papacy not for it.
If Peter is the prototype - then the future Pope should be in the image of Peter. Not seeking a greater authority than Peter had, which is what the papacy has done. Peter was subject to the judgement of his fellow apostles in counsel, but the post-medieval pope has thrown off this check against his power.
We need to stick with the things that Christ established for us not go seeking after more power and authority than he gave to us.
In the age of the internet, the Orthodox Church is flourishing because Truth is Truth. While the others are being exposed.
No Pope, no unity.
There's no unity in the Catholic church. Most Catholics are cafeteria Catholics and even the bishops stand opposed to each other. The Pope doesn't even teach Catholic doctrine. It's a nice selling point but it's not reality.
Always stay on the fence, so you never have to submit. Then you can say you're searching while still being able to be your own authority. It's the best of no worlds.
Doesn’t work like that
Either of them.
Among protestants, However, it is difficult to say who is closer to Blasphemy.
On paper, the Catholic Church is incredible. As far as on the ground actual experiences go, it’s a different story. I’ve attended both churches many times over the decades. Nothing comes close to the Divine Liturgy in the Orthodox Church. The Novus Ordo is pathetic in comparison. I’ve been to Protestant churches more reverent than a lot of NO parishes.
I can't imagine calling any Mass where Jesus is made present in the bread and the wine as pathetic. What parts of the mass are pathetic? The readings? The Our Father? The consecration of the Host? The homily? If your only referring to the music than that is an opinion but I don't think you can say the entire mass is pathetic just because the music wasn't good.
I’ve been to some truly awful “masses”. Literal clown shows. Hip hop masses. Alter girls in flip flops giving out the Eucharist. Vatican 2 was a disaster and any Roman Catholic who is honest with themselves can admit that.
@@MrPeach1I think he’s saying is how the Liturgy is presented (ie with pounding guitar music , blasé sermons , liturgical dancers etc
@briandelaney9710 well at my parish we have a couple singers, and a piano player, We have a pretty good preacher from the Philippines, and I have never seen anyone dancing and I am 43. So is it fair to say that calling all novus ordo pathetic is a stretch?
ive been to a lot of protestant churches and never once were they even remotely as reverant as a NO mass, stop making up stuff. Also ive been to the divine liturgy numerous times. Felt absoltely normal to me as a Catholic. I wasnt in any way suprised by really anything and im NO attending catholic. People exagerate differences.
No wonder Atheism is on the rise. Only need to look at the comments. "my club is better than yours"
Sadly, yes. We need more Jesus-people and less church-people.
Yup, I'm a protestant on team Orthodox as well 😊
That's not something to be proud of.
You should visit an Orthodox church and talk to the priest.
“My button’s bigger than yours.”
EO.
The biggest error of Orthodoxy is the rejection of the Filioque. That in and of itself is reason enough no to choose Orthodox. Jesus was born by the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit was the first component of His human embryo, the other being Mary’s ovuum. Jesus is God the Son. The Holy Spirit has been in, by and with Him at His conception as human and before when begotten from eternity. Also Jesus specifically and boldly states that everything the Father has is His also. Therefore the Holy Spirit proceeds from Jesus Christ. Jesus has the power to send forth the Holy Spirit. The Holy Trinity is in perfect harmony with each other. The Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son. That is why Orthodoxy is referred to as a fossil faith, a frozen faith, a museum faith because it froze itself when it did not accept the Filioque. Hope this helps you Austin.
But the Filoque is an addition of Charlemagne. That in and of itself is reason enough to stick with the Orthodox.
It's clearly that you do not really know what proceeds means in Greek ( εκπόρευση) and why there such confusion. Long story short, the Orthodox Church do believe that the Holy Spirit is sent by Jesus Christ. No doubt about that. Or also you can say through the Son. But if you say AND, then it's confusing for the Orthodox because it implies two causes of the Holy Spirit. This is a linguistic restriction that exists because the English word proceeds cannot describe exactly the Greek word εκπόρευση . Anyway i see Catholics as my brothers and i have a lot of friends that are Catholics. There is no reason to condemn each other.
@@goaway7163 🙄
@@daglasan4285 🙄
@@jesuslovesyoue great response
The Holy Spirit derives from God Father only! Not "..and from the Son.."
Eucharisty or Holy Communion is given to all faithful in the form of wine mixed with leavened bread, exactly how Jesus Christ Himself has given it to His disciples at the Last Supper.
Mother Mary, the "Theotokos" has passed on, fell into a sleep, exactly as other human beings do. However, her body after its burial had ascended unto heaven unchanged and assumed the form of how it would be after the 2nd coming of the Lord. That is, in an forever unchanged form aged 33. Infallibility of the pope, what a blasphemy. NO ONE ever lived as a human is infallible! The only infallible is the Holy Trinity alone!
The Bible consists of 76 books, not less. No one is entitled or authorised to remove any of the books from the Bible. The Latin Church and protestantic denominations have done it against the instruction by the Almighty God.
If you still want to adhere to those believes and practices then stay with Roman Latinism. If you decide to follow a true path of worshipping come to Orthodoxy! 🙏🙌 ✝️
Litany of grievances. The theological equivalent of My Big Fat Greek Wedding.
Examine the history!
Jesus est His One True Church, Mt 16 18-19 with Peter as His first representative or Prime Minister Isa 22:22 which is the pillar & foundation of Truth 1 Tim 3:15 which Ignatius named as Katholikos or Universal in 107AD which codified your bible in 382AD which has existed for 2000 yrs, in spite of sinful men & is the longest existing human institution. Fact check if you don’t believe me.
The gospel is found in each. And each denominational polity has also developed layers of historical and cultural accumulation over the last millennium.
After my conversion I tried to find my tribe. Been both catholic and EO. Neither is closer to the truth.
Jesus Christ is the way, the truth and life.
No church will ever be closer to anything. You either are walking with Jesus or not. The church who admits this is wise.
Catholicsm is the fullness of the indivisible truth ❤
says who?
@@donhaddix3770the Eastern Orthodox for one, read the council of Florence.
If you believe that Jesus built His church on Peter and his confession, then, you are closer to the truth. If you are a protestant, of course you will incline more on the Orthodox Church because you both separated yourselves from the Catholic Church. Both protesting.
Protestants got kicked out and were labeled Protester’s. Read your history.
If you want please read the life of Saint John the Chrysostom, the long version.
@kolokithas7865 The leaders of the Church are not perfect and there are abuses but I believe in Jesus' promise that His church, the Catholic Church, will not be destroyed (Matthew 16:18). From the 1st century to the end of time, It will continue to exist.
@@Mandzky but if you want read the life of this Saint
got it backwards the pope is the first protestant
With all due love and respect, just knowing the truth won't save you. You have to be part of the truth. If you are still so called Protestant you should get out of heresy ASAP. May God show you His church.
That’s quite a claim that we are all heretics. Any specific heresy you want to accuse us of or are you just having an emotional response?
@kodyoneill497 To be honest with you, that's what I believe. I see Protestants like people who read the Bible but live in darkness. There is no greater heresy than rejecting the history and mysteries(sacraments) of the church. Forgive me for using harsh words.
@@biniam_hailuthere’s no greater Hersey than rejecting Jesus Christ. Please check your heart.
@Wesleydale754 Glory be to his holy and mighty name, we preach Jesus Christ as our Lord and Savior not just in words but also in deeds. We live in the church founded by His precious blood not by a mortal human being.
Christ only will save you, not Romanism Or Pope Francis.
Answer neither.
There both sects that preach and teach her dictator ships.
Ever noticed the countris fhaf r tyranny have these churches.
Communism is almost purely located near orthodox
Which teaches a small social upper class that controls the lower.
And the west that teaches ascending episcopal
Had kings
And empire.
These churches mearly reflect the attitude of the social value there set in.
The east was always more communal in there take.
Less about individual.
Where the west always tuaght hierarchical
America was a interesting fusion of what baptists. I.e. individual belief and anti institution.
And Presbyterian (which has a episcopal structure almost like the American gov. Built as a republic.
😅
Interesting right.😂
Any wonder america is the freest country in the world.
Protestants teach individual salvation and individual interpretation.
Catholics teach authority of one man. Surrounded by power.
Submit and yield your mind to there interpretation.
Much like a peasant who yields to king.
And ortho teach for the masses to yield mind and heart to a collective.
😅
Anyone else see it.
🤡
@ElonMuskrat-my8jy what's your emoji symbolize
?? Fraid I don't know why it was used
@@r.a.panimefan2109 Horrible logical fallacies and spelling errors.
@ElonMuskrat-my8jy care to define the logical fallacy.
And as to spelling errors.
I'm typing on a phone. My fingers miss buttons.
I had just woken up.
And didn't realize this was a spelling b.
Lol.
I find it amazing that you all throw out the words logical fallacy for things you all disagree with. But fail to describe the fallacy.
How is it fallacious to say that the way those churches are governed is similar to how those cultures run there gove.
Is it true that america teaches in a more individual focused makes society and bottom-up gov structure.
Exactly the way Baptist and Presbyterian work. Who happened to be the majority of Protestants at the time of founding
Is it true that the west where the pope was bassically had an upper ruling class. With a peasant class that almost as a mirror reflects Catholic
Clergy and laity
Is it wrong to say that e.o. having more of a communal of power among a small social elite. When mirrored to a government, it is practically the same as an oligarchy
Let's look
Monarchy the rule of king over the nobels.
Strangely is almost entirely in Catholic countries.
Oligarchy communism socialism
(Almost entirely where orthodox is)
The idea of a small elite control
Vs a oligarch in gov. Is small elite control.
Care to explain the logic fallacy.
My statement was saying that these structures are a product of the society's that hosted them.
Every social scientist knows that
The east always valued a more communal over individual
Europe always valued social classes. Built on land ownership.
Catholics came to being in the roman Empire.
And was tied to the roman government after constitine made it a state religion.
So even after they collapsed... well.
Any suprise the way Catholic structure is designed is similar to the roman government from the old empire.
Is it any surprise
That Americans who traditional disliked large gov. And had an anti institutional view of government.
And designed a republic.
Any surprise that Baptist and Presbyterian were the two churches with the most culture in America.
So, care to explain exactly where there's a logic fallacy to say that the way these churches run is similar to the culture they exist in.
Huh?
Go ahead, name the fallacy.
If you r gonna call foul. Name the foul. If not
Your whole point means nothing
Tell me you’re phlegmatic, without telling me you’re phlegmatic:
Considering Catholics don't have a pope idk how they take the papal system serious anymore.
We have a pope. He is francis.
@USDebtCrisis no previous pope would accept that anti christ.
@@LoftOfTheUniverseit's a good thing it's not your personal opinions that run the church
Follow the Holy Spirit: the Catholic Church has more profound Miracles throughout Her history than the Orthodox line.
What do you mean by that?
@@joshua_wherleyone example: Eucharistic Miracles (when Consecrated Bread turns into human Flesh) - it proves the Catholic teachings that the Consecrated Bread is truly indeed Christ’s Body. It seems the Catholic Mass is the true form of Christian worship.
Question: why is there no Eucharistic Miracles in the Orthodox line?
@@endofall12the Orthodox Church does have Eucharistic miracles, and the service books even make provision for what to do in the case of one. Importantly, the Church teaches that Eucharistic miracles happen because of a lack of faith, so they are a cause for repentance, not rejoicing.
@@ancientz7547true , and there are many examples
@@endofall12 what is meant by "Eucharistic Miracles in the Orthodox line"? Does the Roman Catholic Church not teach that the Orthodox Church has valid sacraments, meaning that the body and blood of Christ is truly in the chalice? Is that somehow not itself a miracle?
I could easily turn this around on you. There are many instances of miraculous weeping icons within the Orthodox Church. Yet I rarely hear of a weeping statue in a Catholic Church. Does this somehow "invalidate" Catholicism? By no means.
As a Protestant outsider, This question has always fascinated me. I tend to agree with Catholicism more often than then Orthodox on issues of doctrine, but it also seems like the Orthodox have a better historical claim.
Dude catholics have a lineage running straight back to Peter. They maintained the list for over 2k years.
Recall that no apostle ever was in the town of Byzantion - later Constantinople. There is no authentic claim to a 'patriarch'.
@MrPeach1 Peter starts the Antiochian church
Peter goes to rome
Rome kills Peter
Rome: "look at me im Peter now"
@@grizzly_8917 dude, what?
@@MrPeach1So does Orthodox
Orthodox