I hope common ground will be met one day and hopefully soon. I put it more as a pride issue from both sides

We may work towards the table of the Eucharist.

@@baoduong2203 I’m ready for the Schism to end, two histories and traditions and I’m expected to pick between them and that’s not including the Oriental Orthodox too.

But catholics cant join you in the eucharist if they decide to visit

Infinite Wisdom All religious groups' rights matter except Catholics'...

The protestants here in brazil arent agressive against catholics, in reality the question of theology is never put in discussion.. People, specially the poor, are converting because the "meetings" in the protestant churches are more like a spectacle or a show and they think the mass is boring... Brazil has a big catholic population but we arr not good catholics few care enough to know the doctrine and follow it, which is sad. Most here are just nominal catholics. We actually used to have a strong church but I think it was mostly due to recent immigrants from countries where catholicism was taken seriously. As of today there is a new movement of true catholics on the rise among the young, I make part of it and hope we can trive and spread the true faith in our land.

presuntomr It’s a good start, pray, be strong in faith and the Holy Spirit will guide you. Your group of faithful can bring great changes to the Church. We had the same issues with the growing number of Pentecostal churches. I’m a Catholic Christian from Kerala South India, years ago a small group of men including couple of Vincentian priests started praying and overtime it has become the biggest Charismatic Movement in India and ever since the Church is growing in India.

lester andes The Charismatic Movement will be a solution- it will teach us about Church and strengthen our relationship and faith in Christ. Talking from the experience of Syro- Malabar Catholic Church in Kerala south India.

@@presuntomr Você está mentindo, isso que falou não é verdade, os protestantes aqui no Brasil são bem agressivos contra a fé católica e os fieis católicos, somos taxados de idólatras marianos sem falar que os protestantes daqui adoram fazer o que o amigo acima disse, gritar versículos bíblicos baseando-se na sola scriptura. É só procurar vídeos no KZfaq que está cheio de protestantes nos atacando e pior ainda ofendendo nossa igreja de prostituta da babilônia. É só ver o que aquela novela ridícula da record chamada apocalipse fez. Por favor não minta.

Eduardo Valentin-Morales Um, no. Perhaps some Byzantines but the ones I’ve been to have been almost indistinguishable from an Orthodox mass.

Eduardo Valentin-Morales I do not share this opinion but reasonable minds can disagree. God bless.

@@eduardovalentin9416 the fact that you insist on using the term “Uniate”, despite its widely being seen as a slur by Eastern Catholics, largely due to Orthodox Christians essentially using it as a slur, negates from whatever point you’re trying to make.

Many find it hard to agree on many topics but yes we should pray because we all have now a common enemy. " The Antichrists"

Outside the Church there is no salvation, there is only unity if all professed so-called christians accept to be under the roman pontiff.

@@ACF1901, I have just one Lord and one God, one faith and one baptism. My Lord and Master is Christ Jesus of Nazareth who was the Word and took on Flesh, and declared his Father, the On True God (John 17:3) to us, and was sent so that we could all be saved from our sins (Citing, the bible as a whole). So I say: Never! I won't be a Catholic! My only mediator is the Lord Jesus Christ who is merciful and will not break and bruised reed, not Mary, and I don't pray to the dead patron deity-like saints all matched up like the Roman pantheon; I refuse to follow the traditions of men and be lead to disobey Christ by doing so. I refuse to sin by worshiping idols when God said clearly not to and going against my conscience. There's no need for a Roman Pontificating Pope trying to take over the world, man; There's only need to all be one in Christ, and under Christ only. We're brothers and sisters in Christ and I hope you take to heart that when Catholicism contradicts the Holy Bible, you should side with the bible before siding with traditions of men like Catholic traditions.

@@silversilk8438 Christ left a Church to teach you. Christ didn't leave you the bible. The bible says to follow tradition. Reading the bible and believing in Christ is not being in the Church. Since you need a visible church to clarify what is the true faith. Obviously your interpretation will be different than some other protestant, so you are not in the same church if you different on faith and morals and the meanings in the bible. Christ didn't leave you the holy spirit to preserve the understanding of scripture, he left that to his apostles. Your mind is corrupted by the modern world. How do you know you have the correct understanding? Being part of the eternal church of christ has preserved those teachings. You'd need prove your beliefs have been consistently supported throughout the ages, and prove your church goes back to the time of Jesus. I'll go with the Jesus' word and the holy spirit, not someone who read the bible based on his modern mindset.

@@ACF1901 Sorry I offended you with my confession of faith. I hope you see that we both care for the scriptures and can have the Holy Ghost teach us all things. (John 14:26 if I recall) I went to scriptures myself, and you'll see that as you read Scripture. The Word is very important. *The Word is...* ...truth, and sanctifies (John 17:17) ...renews the mind (Romans 12:2) ...faith-producing (Romans 10:17) ...Jesus (John 1, he took on flesh, sent from God for our sakes) I'm sorry you despise me for being "modern" (hahaha, but this is the same mindset as the Boreans!! [They searched the scriptures to see if these things were so] Very ancient in that case, is my worldview then... come on man and be honest: For the Immaculate conception or ascension of Mary taught, you cannot prove it was part of the oral traditions references to the Thessalonians or any other early church. You have no proof it was taught then, no way to indicate this supposed teaching was already present, and the lateness at which it was finally asserted makes one wonder why this divine tradition wasn't upheld for so long before _by faith_ if they knew it to be true. [when I say by faith, I mean as a dogma.] After all, the truth does not change, and God does not change. Have a nice day and goodbye; I'm not interested in fighting with strangers on the internet. Recall Matthew 5:44 and Romans 12:18 as good reminders about how we as Christians ought to conduct ourselves. I hope the best for you and I leave you now, fare well in these troubling times.

Why giving out your freedom is great?

I have never changed my "religion." You totally misunderstand what I said. The more I have studied and learned about Christianity, the more I have come to understand how important learning about the history of my faith has been, and that is why I have converted to the Orthodoxy. I know in whom I have believed: Jesus Christ. I would never consider converting to a faith that denies my Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. I urge you to read the book by Timothy Ware called The Orthodox Church: An Introduction to Eastern Christianity, and you will come to understand my journey of faith.

The orthodox churches (there is not only one) are heretical and schismatic. They deny the doctrines of the primacy of the church of Rome, the procession of the Spirit from the Father and the Son, and the Immaculate Conception, all of which were taught by the Church Fathers. They allow for contraception, which is a sin, for divorce and remarriage, which Christ forbade, and communion for divorced and remarried people, which is sacreligious communion.

Terrific post. I find contemporary Catholicism absolutely lacking in spiritual depth as well and have frequently pondered Orthodoxy.

@@anthonypuccetti8779 Divorce is biblically legal when a spouse cheats.

@@zen-sufi We don't live under the bible we live under God's moral law. God said he hates divorce.

Straight White Male What did the Eastern Orthodox 'Church' accomplish since 1054?

@ArabCatholic of Jesus...Indeed! Actually we only need humility to really see and understand the primacy of the Pope. In the gospel Jesus gathered 12 men to be His apostles, but from these men He singled out and called on Simon Peter and infront of the other apostles Jesus proclaimed that on him He will build His Church and handed him the key. That should have been a clear justification of why there is primacy, why there must be a leader that has more of an authority over the others. When Jesus told Peter...."I will give you the key", did the other apostles protested and questioned Jesus as to why He gave the key to only Peter, who could have been the least qualified among them? Did they asked...why did you gather 12 men to follow you and preach and not give us equal rights and authority? The answer is NO, they did not questioned Jesus for His action or His choice, they in their humility and meekness, respected and trusted Jesus' decision. The idea that the Pope being the leader and have supreme authority, does not mean he makes decisions unilaterary, nor does he make rush judgements and proclamations. He collaborates with his brother bishops, he seeks them out to discuss matters. That is I can say is one saving grace that Jesus has given the RCC, He no doubt knew schism will arise after He joined His father in heaven and that He needed to assign someone the exclusivity of being the keeper of the "key". Questioning the Pope's authority is like questioning why do we need a President or a Prime Minister when we have the congress? Can you imagine how it'll be to live in a country who each believe they all have equal authority to make a decision, pass their own laws...heck even the congress have their "speaker of the house" that leads the session. That is why there are way too many protestant denominations out there that exists because they all think leadership of a church is not just for one person.

+Marius - Did you answer my questions from the other video? Is this a good use of your time? Did you meet any of these people that so gallantly fight for? Why you are taking on their pain, all of whom are literally turned back into dust? Is nursing grudges millennia what Christ is calling you to do? Jesus warns again and again of legalism...and here are nothing but posts of mind numbing legalism. Hating Catholics does not improve you as a Christian, nor can I think that going before Our Lord with "but I fought a 1000 year old fight over legalisms" as the best plan ever. Be the best Orthodox you can be..and I guarantee that the best version of yourself is not acting like prosecuting ecclesiastical lawyer on a Catholic channel where someone calmly outlined his reasons to convert to Catholicism, rather than Orthodox.

+ArabCatholic ofJesus Besides NOT having a HUUUUUGE SEX SCANDAL and payout of millions of dollars???? it didn't stick with things like indulgences and papal infallability and purgatory all which have ZERO scriptural support for. Also, the current MARXIST POPE is utterly doing his best to ruin the church. If you look to which church is more like the early church it is without a doubt the Eastern Orthodox...but keep being wrong.

+Marius - "I thought I answered all your questions." You didn't, answer them now. How does this make you a better Christian? How does mind numbing legalism improve your relationship with Christ? Do you want to go to Our Lord with "I hated Catholics in my spare time for You."?

Robert Hammond Couldn’t agree more. The ascetic way of life encouraged in the Orthodox Church is one of the major distinguishing factors that identify it as the true body of Christ.

....but isn't united with Peter......

That's a lot of words in your link to deny reality...

That's the fault of Rome (the West). They have been poor stewards of Christ's Church.

This is all one very sad joke. There is only one church- the body of Christ Himself. We as humans have failed to honour the unity by our stupid sectarianism. Yet it remains. It remains in Him by His authority alone. Only He knows who is truly His church.

Hermes- I don’t share some of your perspective but have no criticism of your charity. Peace to you, brother.

​@@mikelopez8564 Thank you, Mike. That is very kind. No doubt there is much to regret, and to forgive, between "east" and "west". I respect and admire the Catholic Church and the Pope (Ever watch "Upon Friar Review"? Lovely fellows...), and my heart breaks over what the Orthodox have done to themselves and others. I cried at least five times yesterday over this. May peace be with you and may you and yours go with love and be surrounded by kindness.

@@HermesSonofZeus I’ll check it out!

Just a reminder. The 4th crusade is a big mistake and something and the crusaders them selves been excommunicated for said act.

You should've received excellent comments on this post. Excellent post! Well done. 👍 👍

well said

If it has remained steadfast how do you explain the existence of The Most Holy Governing Synod (Святѣйшій Правительствующій Сѵнодъ, Святейший Правительствующий Синод) between 1721 and 1917. Election and Inthronization of patriarch Tichon of 1917 using new made up procedures. How do you explain the appointment of the Ecumenical Patriarchs of Constantinople (Οικουμενικός Πατριάρχης) by a muslim-Ottoman Sultan. There are more examples but all that contradicts orthodoxy. In my opnion the reason why orthodox churches couldn't stay "steadfast/orthodox" was the lack of Investiture Controversy and that resulted with interferring of Kings, Tsars and Sultans in Orthodox Churches.

@@r0ko899 if you would like some examples of investiture within the west I recommend looking up both the byzantine papacy, and the avignon papacy. To argue that this problem is uniquely eastern ignores this occurring in the west many times by different emperors.

@@r0ko899 Despite these changes in personnel/bishops, Orthodox dogma, practices, and church traditions have not changed in 2000 years!

@@helenkamenos8563 Well, you can make the point that in reference to traditions and practices those were changed. How do you otherwise explain the existence of The Most Holy Governing Synod inspired by the reformation in the west. It was governed by an Ober-Procurator. Only lay people had the right to be assigned as an Ober-Procurator among whom Konstantin Petrovich Pobedonostsev is most known. Untill 1917 only the holy synod had the right to canonise saints. Furthermore if practices and traditions haven't changed why does the present inthronisation ritual of the patriarch of moscow differ from the one used in the middleages. And if the traditions haven't changed as you mentoned doesn't the osman Sultan still appoint the patriarch of constantinople?

There was no Orthodox Church before the schism. The Church Fathers, councils and creeds don't mention it. They speak of the Catholic Church. And there is no one Orthodox church but fourteen. They have rejected the doctrine of the primacy of the bishop of Rome, the doctrine that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, the doctrine of purgatory, and the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception, all of which were which were taught by the Church Fathers. They teach hesychasm, which was not a teaching of the Church Fathers. They have allowed for contraception, which is a sin, and divorce and remarriage, which Jesus forbade, and for communion for people who are divorced and remarried, which is sacriligious communion.

There is one Orthodox Church, not several. There are national Orthodox Churches, like the OC of Romania, of Serbia, of Greece or Russia, but in terms of belief they are the same. But because they are in different countries they are called Romanian Orthodox or Greece Orthodox Church. Filioque is anti-sinodal. Not one of the first centuries councils mention the Filioque, nor the Immaculate conception. We belive that The Blessed Virgin Mary , our Lord's Jesus Christ mother lived on earth without sin, be she, like anyone of us was born bearing the original sin, in need for salvation from Our Lord Jesus Christ. Orthodox Church does not allow contraception and it does not encourage it. The use of contraception it is out of the Church hand's nowdays. The Orthodox Church focuses more on saving people rather than taking interest in what they do in bed. If people sin they can confess and repent. Orthodox Church does not encourage divorce, but there are reasons similar to adultery that end the marriage( for example one of the spouses tries tries to take the life of the other one or the children; such a marriage cannot continue because one of the spouses fell from the Grace). I know that the catholic church has similar rules. In the matters of marriage the keyword is:spiritual father. He is the one who takes account.

I have watched the whole video and it does not present corectly the theology of St. Gregory Palama; the author did not understand the position of Gregory, and quotes out of context. First:I find disturbing that the author of the video even compared the Jesus prayer to yoga. Only someone who lacks the habbit of prayer can say that. It is quite insulting, and it shows lack of spiritual experience. For more information about the Jesus prayer I encourage people to search answers in the fathers of the Holy mountain Athos. You will find it has nothing to do with yoga. Same thing could be said about Rosary in CC that it is an oriental practice, but I doubt it is. Now, when it comes to the distinction of essence and energy: -The essence of God is noncommunicabile to men; this means that men can’t understand God by His essence. We cannot say what God is and we do not become God by essence. -although we cannot, we still can communicate with God and can experience Him. -through God’s “energy” like St. Gregory says, or “works” , like the Capadocians Fathers use, we men communicate with God, and God communicates with created beings. These works or energies are for example: God's mercy, God's imortality, God's Goodness. God's essence is beyong Mercy, beyong imortality , beyond goodness, and all other names we attribute to God. -these energies, or works are uncreated because they spring out God’s essence. Grace is uncreated, because it springs out God’s uncreated essence. But, one thing is the essence, another is the Grace, but God is in both. -if the Grace is created how do we men partake in God, as Peter assures us:” Through these He has given us His very great and precious promises, so that through them you may participate in the divine nature, having escaped the corruption in the world caused by evil desires.”2nd Peter 1”. -How can we say “You are gods; you are all sons of the Most High” if the grace is created? Can something created transfigure our bodies and our souls? -St. Gregory’s Palama theology is the theology of experiencing God, not something rational. It is something empirical and practical. We can think about God all we want but what is most important is to go beyond simply knowledge. This is the main difference between East and West; The west has a more rational and non-relational approach towords God, while in the East it is more important to live with God than to understand Him theoretically. The theology of St. Gregory Palamas represents also a solid wall against pantheism and politheism. The orthodox teaching is that we partake in God's energies or attributes by Grace. We become like God, but not by essence but by Grace. Thank you for redirecting me to this video. It is very usefull. I recommend it. kzfaq.info/get/bejne/orOHoMuoktnPkmQ.html

No changes after they broke off and ex communicated the Bishop of Rome. Lol. Makes perfect sense.

It could just be that there has been a lack of councils because: 1) There is no consensus on how to organize one, nor on how to give it binding authority (like the recently failed one in Crete). Whether you like the Pope or not, it allows the Catholic Church to organize councils and to give them authority. Aside the lack of the Pope, the Orthodox also no longer have the Byzantine emperor in Constantinople who had the authority to convoke councils. 2) The Orthodox Church has suffered such intense persecution under Muslim Turkish domination until the early 1900s and then Communist rule until the 1990s. Not much time or opportunity to argue about doctrinal specifics when you are fighting for your lives.

How long did you knee, down for 😅🤔🙂

That’s idolatry. A Christian should never kneel down before any icon or representation of someone in heaven. Especially not the Virgin Mary who is a normal human and not god. She doesn’t have the authority to answer prayers or provide intercession. This goes against the first and second commandments of the lord.

@@mythologicalbeast5926 I am tired of you Protestants taking 1 verse and twisting it to suit your own needs. The church is the pillar of truth (Timothy) NOT your own interpretation. And the Church decreed at the 7th Ecumenical council that icons should be used. Go to the catacombs of Rome or to the caves of Cappadocia and you will see how the first Christians worshipped - with icons all around the walls !!!!!!! God Himself commands many holy images to be placed inside the Holy of Holies. 1 Kings 6 describes how ornate the inside of the Holy of Holies was, replete with images of Cherubim and Seraphim, and of course the Ark itself had two huge, golden Cherubim over its lid. When the Israelites were in the wilderness and were bitten by the serpents, God commanded Moses to make an image of a bronze serpent and put it on a pole and all the Israelites are to look in faith to this image. This is recounted in Numbers 21. Once again, this is clearly a religious image because Jesus explains it as a mystical type of His crucifixion in John 3:14-15. St. Paul, in Colossians 1:15, says that Christ is the image (Greek is “ikon”) of the invisible God Joseph, as a ruler in Egypt, deserves the homage of his brothers and sisters, and thus they “bowed themselves before him with their faces to the ground” (Gen. 42:7). The company of the Lord’s prophets also bow down before Elijah in reverence in 2 Kings 2:15. Surely, if it were inherently wrong to bow before a created thing (and Joseph and Elijah were created), they would have rebuked others for so doing. There are numerous such examples of this in Scripture. St. Paul says to give “honor to whom honor is due” (Romans 13:7), and if anyone is due honor, it is the Saints and their relics. The patristic view is also very clear: “We do not worship, we do not adore [non colimus, non adoramus], for fear that we should bow down to the creature rather than to the Creator, but we venerate [honoramus] the relics of the martyrs in order the better to adore Him whose martyrs they are.” Against Riparium -St. Jerome “We by no means consider the holy martyrs to be gods, nor are we wont to bow down before them adoringly, but only relatively and reverentially [ou latreutikos alla schetikos kai timetikos].” Against Julian -St. Cyril of Alexandria And Bl. Augustine Against Faustus the Manichaean: “We, the Christian community, assemble to celebrate the memory of the martyrs with ritual solemnity because we want to be inspired to follow their example, share in their merits, and be helped by their prayers. Yet we erect no altars to any of the martyrs, even in the martyrs’ burial chapels themselves.” “No bishop, when celebrating at an altar where these holy bodies rest, has ever said, “Peter, we make this offering to you”, or “Paul, to you”, or “Cyprian, to you”. No, what is offered is offered always to God, who crowned the martyrs. Finally, the Angel Gabriel venerated Mary (Luke 1:29) Hail, Full of Grace and Daniel 2:46 King Nebuchadnezzar bowed down before Daniel. In Job 1-2 we can see the host of angels presenting themselves before God and 'advising' him, this is even more evident in Kings 22:18-23. You clearly lost the translation: idolon means idol (ie. false god, golden calf etc) and NOT image....or even graven image.You attest to sola scriptura yet your scriptura is WRONG !!!! (it never even said "graven image" in the first instance, it says idol and an icon is NOT an idol) Amen

Bin Sam I’m not a Protestant

Michael heart 1.) I am not a Protestant. 2.) I don’t care what the Ecumenical Councils decreed. I don’t consider the decisions of uninspired bishops to be authoritative. You know the table at the center of the alter in Orthodox Churches where they have the image of Christ being crucified? Why don’t you do some research and see where that originated from. My authority is the Holy Scriptures, which you falsely put alongside your man made church traditions. I have no issue with Christians worshiping with icons throughout the walls. Just as long as they’re not worshiping the icons on the walls, which I’ve seen many, MANY Orthodox Christians do. 2.) You are right that God commanded images to be placed inside the Holy of Holies. My issue is not with the images. I love the images and think they’re beautiful. My issue is worshipping the images. God never told the Jews to bow down and kiss the cherubim that were placed in that sacred space. Because He wants all worship to be directed to Him alone. He is the creator and any worship to anything or anyone else is an unspeakable act of idolatry that insults God. The bronze serpent used by Moses was not worshipped by anyone. They were to look at it because of what it represented within the greater context of the Biblical Story. It represented God’s willingness to save them. However they didn’t worship it. Jesus sent the Apostles out into the world to preach the Gospel. He wanted them to be the ones who brought forth this great change in the world. However, when people tried to worship the Apostles, they told them not to. 3.) I agree that Jesus is the image of the invisible God. This is because Jesus is God incarnate. He’s not a material object. And while people did bow to Joseph, there are times in the Bible where people bow down to kings (like King David). There’s nothing wrong with that. But they weren’t praying to Joseph, and they didn’t use him as an intermediary to God. Whereas the Orthodox pray to Mary and the other saints, because they want them to intercede with God. This completely contradicts scripture, where it says we have one intercessor the man - Christ Jesus. 4.) Again, I know that Elijah was bowed down to. But this isn’t the issue. It’s perfectly fine to bow down to someone I reverence. Here’s the thing, Elijah was physically there, and he was a living being. They weren’t praying to him and asking him to provide intercession. 5.) My friend, here’s what you and the church fathers fail to realize. If you have an image of a Saint (whether it be Mary, an angel, or whoever), and you bow down to it, kiss it, and pray to that Saint, that presupposes that they can hear you. If someone (who’s dead) can hear your prayers when they’re in another plane of existence, they would have to be omniscient. Omniscience is an attribute of God, not a human or an angel. By asking for the saints to provide intercession, you are spitting in the face of the God who provided His holy, eternal, and beloved Son to intercede for you. I will never give that type of glory to a human being, where I actually pray to them. This takes you out of the fold of monotheism. If the apostles saw the Orthodox Christians do this, they would be horrified. A lot of this stuff you are talking about, I wasn’t even arguing. 6.) I do believe in sola scripture. Rightfully so. You should too. Instead of placing the scriptures right alongside your heretical Church traditions, you should look to them as your authority. They are what God provided for you to spread his Holy Gospel. An icon is an idol. If you send your prayers to someone who’s not God and physically bow down and kiss an icon, then you’ve made it into an idol. 7.) I’m actually impressed that you quoted from the Bible directly. Most Orthodox Christians I’ve known haven’t even read the Bible. They tend to quote the church fathers more than they quote the scriptures.

When it comes to topics such as this I think it all eventually boils down to convictions. I personally was not raised Orthodox. I am a convert to orthodoxy from a protestant back ground. that might have something to do with my disagreement with the role of the Papacy in the Roman catholic tradition. But I don't think that is the only reason. As for my historical analysis most historians would agree that the fall of Rome had a influence in the great schism. And the fact the Pope had gained considerable influence in western Europe during the middle ages, marking him as the head of the western church.

Although it is true that the early Church was in some way "synodal", as you have described it, the Pope (or better the bishop of Rome) has always had a special role. Already the very first Church Fathers attest that, whenever there were doctrinal or disciplinary difficulties, they would call to the bishop of Rome, since everyone acknowledged that Rome had the pure faith and could never err. The Pope thus always had this role, which made him the quasi "primate" of all other bishops; also among the Patriarchs, he was the first. Before any such thing as the Papal Primacy was established, the Pope was the supreme judge in many questions. Even the Emperor of the East (Byzantium) was interested in having the Pope on his side in doctrinal matters.

The late Vladika Metropolitan Vitaly told me that the Church's disorganization was "oour secret weapon to prevent the rapid spread of false ideas."

" since everyone acknowledged that Rome had the pure faith and could never err." Could you backup this statement with proof? Who said this?

Irenaeus. To wit: But since it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the succession of all the churches, we shall confound all those who, in whatever manner, whether through self-satisfaction or vainglory, or through blindness and wicked opinion, assemble other than where it is proper, by pointing out here the successions of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles. Peter and Paul, that church which has the tradition and the faith which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the apostles. With that church, because of its superior origin, all the churches must agree, that is, all the faithful in the whole world, and it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the apostolic tradition (Against Heresies 3:3:2 [A.D. 189]).

Great text Phil. Hristos Anesti!

@@beskow1500 Thanks!!!

I can relate to this, what helped me understand its importance was reading David Bentley hart and Laurent cleenewerck. Basically you are changing the nature of the trinity, from its true definition to something different. Which is problematic.

Peter and Paul were the first ones that started arguing... And even before Paul, the twelve apostles, the issue having been who was the greatest... They haven’t yet decided :)

So Christians aren't allowed to argue? What a moronic sentiment

Accuracy matters

EXACTLY !! it IS NOT all about "attraction" (even though E Orthodox Church IS attractive ) : It's all about what Christ wanted and wants : He often wants his followers on a path that is not attractive at all !!

@@theresemartin3920 Does Christ want a Vatican that honors heretics and oagan idols (re: Pachamama paganism)?

Well said said. Attraction is a form of seduction in a sense...

On October 4, Pope Francis attended an act of idolatrous worship of the pagan goddess Pachamama. He allowed this worship to take place in the Vatican Gardens, thus desecrating the vicinity of the graves of the martyrs and of the church of the Apostle Peter. He participated in this act of idolatrous worship by blessing a wooden image of Pachamama. On October 7, the idol of Pachamama was placed in front of the main altar at St. Peter’s and then carried in procession to the Synod Hall. Pope Francis said prayers in a ceremony involving this image and then joined in this procession. When wooden images of this pagan deity were removed from the church of Santa Maria in Traspontina, where they had been sacrilegiously placed, and thrown into the Tiber by Catholics outraged by this profanation of the church, Pope Francis, on October 25, apologized for their removal and another wooden image of Pachamama was returned to the church. Thus, a new profanation was initiated. On October 27, in the closing Mass for the synod, he accepted a bowl used in the idolatrous worship of Pachamama and placed it on the altar.

Also, it's a lie that the decisions from Lyon and Ferrara-Florence felt down because of the political pressure on the Orthodox bishops who signed the unions. It's exactly viceversa. The Emperor from Constantinople pushed some of the bishops under the Patriarch of Constantinople to go and sign the heretical unions, but when they came back the Orthodox population strongly opposed to the unions, even if the Emperor and de unionist Patriach harshly persecuted the popular opposition. And the other Orthodox Patriarchates opposed to Constantinople.

+Dusan Grujicic Hello. You said: 'in my view (probably very uninformed), protestants did a good job of putting emphasis on the scripture, rather than on some man made institution prone to pursuing a political agenda on the side.'' But the sola fide concept contradicts Scripture and so contradicts the Holy Spirit because He is the Spirit of Truth (John 15:26). That shows the grace of the Holy Spirit is not received by believers just by faith but is received only through the prayer of the priesthood with apostolic succession, after baptism: (Now when the apostles which were at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent unto them Peter and John: 15 Who, when they were come down, prayed for them, that they might receive the Holy Ghost: 16 (For as yet he was fallen upon none of them: only they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.)'' 17 Then laid they their hands on them, and they received the Holy Ghost.“ Acts 8:14-17, KJV). The sola fide concept contradicts the Holy Scripture because, for example, it rejects the necessity of the baptism for salvation, together with faith. Baptism is for the remission of sins:,,Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.’’ (Acts 2:38, KJV). That baptism is in the Name of Jesus Christ (2:38) does not mean that it is only in the Name of Jesus Christ but this is a short way to refer to the the Three Person of the Holy Trinity because otherwise the commandment of Jesus that baptism should be done in the Three Persons, would be violated:,,Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:’’ (Matthew 28:19, KJV). Baptism is for the true remision of sins:''And now why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord.'' (Acts 22:16). That does not mean that baptism substitutes faith or the Sacrifice of our Lord Jesus Christ by which we are redeeemed of our sins but means that the Redemption of our sins on the Cross comes into effect in the baptism in the Name of the Father and of the Son, and the Holy Spirit( Matthew 28:19, KJV). Baptism is for the true remission of sins (Acts 22:16) for all members of the Church without exception:,,Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it; 26That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word, 27 That he might present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish.’’ (Ephesians 5:25-27, KJV). The cleansing here refers to the cleansing of sins and not to cleansing of the heart because the heart of the believers is cleansed before baptism - when they have come to believe:''And put no difference between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith.'' (Acts 15:9, KJV). Since the remission of sins occurs in baptism regarding all members of the Church without exception, baptism for the remission of sins is necessary for salvation for all members of the Church. Therefore the salvation through faith only concept is not true. There was the one case of the Gentiles (in the case Romans) who received the Holy Spirit before being baptized:,,Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we? 48 And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord. Then prayed they him to tarry certain days.’’ (Acts 10:47-48, KJV). But it was a sign for the Jewish Christians that the Gentiles could receive the Holy Spirit, too. After that case the Holy Spirit continued to be received through the laying on of hands of the priesthood, after baptism:,,And it came to pass, that, while Apollos was at Corinth, Paul having passed through the upper coasts came to Ephesus: and finding certain disciples, 2 He said unto them, Have ye received the Holy Ghost since ye believed? And they said unto him, We have not so much as heard whether there be any Holy Ghost. 3And he said unto them, Unto what then were ye baptized? And they said, Unto John's baptism. 4Then said Paul, John verily baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people, that they should believe on him which should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus. 5 When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. 6 And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Ghost came on them; and they spake with tongues, and prophesied.’’ (Acts 19:1-6, KJV). Please stay in the Orthodox Church which is the True Church of Christ.

This is an old comment, but, well, it's only now that I see it :P So: you are right but also wrong :) I mean, the role of the Church is not to have power over kings, but to teach what Christ taught us. It's like saying BMW is a good car, but it doesn't cut grass - it doesn't, but it's not supposed to. The first duty of the Church is to keep the teachings of Christ intact. And while kings could "push" the clergy, they could never change the teachings, because of the fact that the Church was not centralized - you can't make changes in the Orthodox Church unless all churches agree, and no king had influence over all the Patriarchs and clergy from all of the Orthodox countries. It is why the Orthodox Church didn't make that many changes so, as far as we know, it remains closest to how Christianity was taught and practiced in the early centuries. It's also what the Protestants get completely wrong, as you notice yourself: if you rely only on the text, anybody can interpret anything in any way they like. I mean, first of all, they got rid of parts of the Bible - so, ok, emphasis on Scripture, but it's not exactly the same Scripture. And, on one hand, there were protestants who were using interpretations of the Bible to justify ill treatment of African people, who were supposed to be morally and intellectually inferior, ignoring the fact that the Church had African saints (so, no, no moral inferiority). On the other hand, I recently saw a guy who has some popularity, who says literally that Satan was telling the truth and God was lying in the Adam and Eve story, that Jesus was kind of racist but made to apologize by a person of color He had insulted etc. I mean .... you can literally interpret things any way you want. Which is what the Orthodox and Catholic Churches manage to avoid by emphasis on not only Scripture, but also tradition - and I would say the Orthodox Church is better at it, because of it's decentralized organization.

​@@Yasen.Dobrev I agree with you, my understanding back when I wrote that comment was very superficial (much more than today, hopefully). Thanks for taking the time to outline everything so nicely :)

@@cristinac196 thanks for the comment, i was probably closer to being completely wrong than right. It has been a long time since I wrote that, and today I have a different opinion and kindof cringe at what I used to think back then. I agree that the papal power and centralized nature of the roman catholic church has probably been much more damaging to the core teachings than the political weakness and disunity of the eastern orthodox churches. and I definitely agree about the protestants and how they neglected or even denounced the church tradition in favor of focusing on the scripture. I feel like if you asked the protestants about the origin of the scripture, by reflex, many would say that it was sent to us directly from the heavens, kindof the same way the muslims believe the quran was never created by humans (as opposed to coming from the church, under the guidance of the holy spirit, but not by direct divine intervention). today i feel like a lot of the hardships and political problems that the orthodox church had to go through might have actually been blessings in disguise

Hello. Unfortuneately modernistic theology attacks the original Orthodox theology. Orthodox modernism understands the PSA only in the sense of Christ dying instead of us and that way saving us from death. But there is a tendency of Orthodox modernism to reject the penal subsitutionary atonement in the aspect that refers to Christ fulfilling God's justice, saving us from God's wrath and the second death - the eternal punishment for the sinners through substituting it with the penalty of the Cross. That aspect is considered by modernism to be a supposed late Western legal error and claims that where it is met in the Orthodox theology, this is a result of a Western influence. Yes, God’s wrath is not a passion because the divine nature is passionless. But the wrath must be understood as a fulfillment of God's justice. If we go through the history of the Orthodox polemics with the West regarding the Western deviations of the ancient faith, we will see nowhere a rejection by the Orthodox theologians of the penal subsitutionary atonement in its legal aspect, nor of leagal understanding of the consequences of the original sin as a Western error. If the penal substitutionary atonement in its legal aspect was a Western heresy, it would have been condemned as such exactly in the polemics of the Orthodox with the West, for example during the attempts for a union between Rome and the Eastern Orthodox Church because during those attempts there clearly arose the dogmatic differences between the East and the West. So the theory about the Latin captivity of Orthodox theology is a myth. In the Encyclical letter of St.Photius (867) to the Eastern patriarchs (when Rome had not yet fallen into a schism but had already embraced heresies), St.Photious mentions the heresies of Rome. (churchmotherofgod.org/salvation-history/new-life-church-history/6257-encyclical-letter-of-saint-photius-867.html). He mentions the heresies of Rome - the celibacy of the priesthood, the rejection of the validity of the chrismation made by priests, the fasting on Saturdays, the heretical Filioque addition in the Creed. But he does not mention the penal subsitutionary atonement. The Definition of faith of the Local Council of Blachernae, in Constantinople ( 1157 CE) says that God was offended when His commandment was violated by the first man: ,,…The God-man Word during the Lord's Sufferings, brought the Salvific Sacrifice to the Father, to Himself and to the Spirit, from Whom (plural - the Three Persons) man was summoned from nothingness to being, Whom (pl.) he offended, violating the commandment, and with Whom (pl.) the reconciliation was made through the sufferings of Christ. ...‘‘ After the acceptance by emperor Michael VIII Paleologos of an union with Rome which was, however, short-lived, the Athonite monks of the Bulgarian Zographou monastery sent a letter to the emperor in which they pointed out the major heretical teachings of the Roman Catholic Church and the penal subsitutionry atonement in the aspect of Christ taking the penalty of the Cross as a replacement of the everlasting punishement of the hell fire that we would otherwise undergo, thus saving us from that everlasting punishment, was not among them: ''26 Monkmartyrs of the Zographou Monastery on Mount Athos In the year 1274 at the Council of Lyons (in France), the Byzantine emperor Michael VIII Paleologos decided to buttress his waning power by forming a union with Catholic Rome. This step evoked universal discontent. In 1278, the emperor issued a decree to introduce the Union at Constantinople by forceful measures, if necessary. Mt. Athos stood in firm opposition to the Union. The Athonite monks sent a letter to Michael pointing out that the primacy of the Pope, his commemoration in the churches, celebrating the Eucharist with unleavened bread, the insertion of the “filioque” [“and from the Son”] into the Creed, could not be accepted by Orthodox, and they asked the emperor to change his mind. “We clearly see,” the letter said, “that you are becoming a heretic, but we implore you to forsake all this and abide in the teachings that were handed down to you.... Reject the unholy and novel teachings of a false knowledge, speculations, and additions to the Faith. (www.oca.org/saints/lives/2016/10/10/108024-26-martyrs-of-the-zographou-monastery-on-mount-athos-at-the-hand). They mention celebrating the claim for the primacy of the pope, celebrating the Eucharist with unleavened bread, the Filioque. But they do not mention the penal substitutionary atonement and the satisfaction of God’s wrath as a Roman heresy. But they do not mention the penal substitutionary atonement as a Roman Catholic heresy. The differences between the East and West were discussed also during the negotiations at the Councils of Ferrara 1438-1439) and Florence (1439-1449) that led to the setting of the Ferraro-Florentine union of Rome and the Patriarchate of Constantinople in 1452. In his 1444 Encyclical letter (orthodoxethos.com/post/the-encyclical-letter-of-saint-mark-of-ephesus) St.Mark of Ephesus who opposed the establishing of the union, mentions among the fundamental heresies of the Roman Church the Filoque, the addition to the Creed, the claim for the supremacy of the pope, the celebrating of the Eucharist with an unleavened bread, the purgatory, the moment of the consecration of the Blessed Sacrament. But he does not mention among the fundamental heresies of the Roman Church the penal substitutionary atonement. In his 1570s' letters to the Lutheran theologians of Tubingen, Patriarch Jeremias of Constantinople (1572-1595) does not mention, especially in his commentaries on the Augsburg confession of faith, the mentioned aspect of the penal substitutionary atonement as a false teaching of the Lutherans. The Pan-Orthodox Council of Constantinople of 1672 which condemned Calvinism and the total depravity of the unregenerate man, and affirmed the eternal procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father alone, also does not mention as a heresy of Western Christianity the penal subsitutionary atonement in the aspect that was referred to above. The Encyclical of the Eastern Patriarchs of 1848 to Pope Pius IX summarizes the main heretical deviations of the Papacy - the Filioque, the papal claim of supremacy over the Church by jurisdiction but does not mention the penal subsitutionary atonement among the biggest heretical deviations of Rome. The Patriarchal encyclical from 1895 by the Constantinopolitan Patriarch Anthimus VII (1895-1896) from 1895 which is a reply to the Papal encyclical of Pope Leo XIII (1853-1903) Praeclara Gratulationis publicae (On the Reunion of Christendom) summarizes the heretical deviations of the Papacy but does not mention the penal subsitutionary atonement: , ,VI. And indeed for the holy purpose of union, the Eastern orthodox and catholic Church of Christ is ready heartily to accept all that which both the Eastern and Western Churches unanimously professed before the ninth century, if she has perchance perverted or does not hold it. And if the Westerns prove from the teaching of the holy Fathers and the divinely assembled Ecumenical Councils that the then orthodox Roman Church, which was throughout the West, even before the ninth century read the Creed with the addition, or used unleavened bread, or accepted the doctrine of a purgatorial fire, or sprinkling instead of baptism, or the immaculate conception of the ever-Virgin, or the temporal power, or the infallibility and absolutism of the Bishop of Rome, we have no more to say. But if, on the contrary, it is plainly demonstrated, as those of the Latins themselves, who love the truth, also acknowledge, that the Eastern and orthodox catholic Church of Christ holds fast the anciently transmitted doctrines which were at that time professed in common both in the East and the West, and that the Western Church perverted them by divers innovations, then it is clear, even to children, that the more natural way to union is the return of the Western Church to the ancient doctrinal and administrative condition of things; for the faith does not change in any way with time or circumstances, but remains the same always and everywhere, for 'there is one body and one Spirit,' it is said, 'even as ye are called in one hope of your calling; one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all." (orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenism/encyc_1895.aspx). The Patriarch mentions the biggest heretical deviations of Rome - the Filioque addition to the Creed, the use of unleavened bread in the Eucharist, the purgatory, the practice of sprinkling instead of immersion in baptism, immaculate conception of the Most Holy Virgin Mary, the teaching of the created grace, the infallibility and the claim for supremacy of the Pope. But he does not mention among them the penal subsitutionary atonement in the above-mentioned aspect. It is evident that throughout the whole history of the Orthodox Church the leagal aspect of the penal subsitutionary atonment was never refuted and so was not considered an non-Orthodox teaching which is a Western influence. So the theory that it is a Western influence on Orthodox theology is a 20th century modernistic myth.

There is something important that must be added in relation with the rejection of the PSA. The matter of the rejection of the PSA is directly related to the ongoing crisis within the Orthodox Church regarding the internal schism that occurred in 2018. The schism within Orthodoxy today is rooted exactly in the ongoing modernistic anti-PSA theology (at least that is one of the major reasons for the schism) because the Churches that fell inito schism had been gradually embracing it since the late 1950s. But significant Orthodox theologians (some of them saints) have clearly defined the anti-PSA understanding of the Redemption as a heresy. St.Theophan of Poltava (1875-1940) calls it a ,,cross-fighting heresy'' because it fight against the Cross as a tool of the Redemtion of our sins. It is also refuted by St.Seraphim Sobolev (1881-1950). The first major source of the cross-fighting heresy is Metpolitan Anthony Khrapovitsky (1863-1936) with his work ''The dogma of Redemption'' (1917) which rejects the patristic Orthodox understanding of Redemption. Metropolitan Anthony gave the name ,,moral monism‘‘ to his anti-legalistic teaching. What characterizes moral monism is the rejection of the traditional Patristic teaching of the Redemption, Retribution and Judgment. Metropolitan Anthony expressed his anti-legalistic teaching also in his Cathehism (1926). He explicitly rejected the penal substitutionary atonement on the Cross and claimed that Christ redeemed humanity with His tears in the Garden of Gethsemane and not through His Suffering and Death on the Cross. A follower of his ideas and another major modernist of the 20th century is Protopresbyter John Romanides (1927-2001) with his fundamental modernistic work ,,The Ancestral Sin'' (1957). Another fundamental modernistic work is ,,The River of Fire'' (1980) by Alexandre Kalomiros (1931-1990). There are four significant moments that refer to the events in Orthodoxy in the recent few years and that must be mentioned. First, it is the conducting, most notably by the Constantinopolitan Patriarchate of a policy of ecumenism which attempts to unify all Christian denominations. Second, the decade-lengthy process (starting more severely in the late 1950s) of spreading anti-PSA modernistic theology by some modernistic Orthodox theologians, unfortunately gave bitter fruits to the point that the Constantinopolitan Patriarchate embraced the modernistic claim that the teaching of the penal subsitutionary atonement which is an Orthodox teaching and a teaching of the ancient Church, is a late Western teaching like the modernists claim and today rejects it. (www.goarch.org/-/btb-173?inheritRedirect=true). (As it was said, the Orthodox modernistic theologians recognize the term PSA only in the sense of Christ saving us from death by subsitututing it with His Death on the Cross but reject the term in the legal aspect of Christ fulfilling God's justice and saving us from God's wrath and the eternal punishment by substituting with the penalty of the Cross the the penalty awaiting the unrepented sinners.) Third, the Constantinopolitan Patriarchate has embraced an eastern form of papism. Here is what Patriarch Bartholomew says:,,The beginning of the Orthodox Church is the Ecumenical Patriarchate; “in this is life, and the life is the light of the Churches.” The late Metropolitan Kyrillos of Gortyna and Arcadia, a beloved Hierarch of the Mother Church and personal friend, was right to underline that “Orthodoxy cannot exist without the Ecumenical Patriarchate.” (www.uocofusa.org/news_180901_1). This is a indirect claim for infallibility. Fourth, there are the non-canonical actions of Constantinople in Ukraine. These actions caused an arising internal schism within the Eastern Orthodox Church. This is an English translation of the 2019 letter of the Bulgarian Metropolitan Daniil of Vidin to and eparchial metropolitan bishops of the Patriarchate of Alexandria, Patriarchate of Jerusalem, Church of Cyprus, Church of Greece, Albanian Orthodox Church and the Romanian Orthodox Church: new.sliven.net/res/news/292888/___________________.pdf. He explains the issue of the 2018 Moscow-Constantinopolitan schism entirely from a canonical perspective. This is a link to a famous 1995 Letter from Patriarch Bartholomew to Patriarch Alexey of the Moscow Patriarchate on the Ukrainian Diaspora: orthodoxsynaxis.org/2018/10/10/1995-letter-bartholomew-alexey/. In the letter the Patriarch clearly refers to the groups that were later included by the Patriarchate of Constantinople in the recently formed Orthodox Church of Ukraine (2018) by issuing of a Tomos of autocephaly, as schismatic groups. The Patriarchate of Constantinople openly entered communion with the newly formed church of Ukraine that consists of those schismatic groups. But the communion with excommunicated persons, leads to excommunication of those who have communed with them:,,And, if any one of the bishops, presbyters, or deacons, or any one in the Canon shall be found communicating with excommunicated persons, let him also be excommunicated, as one who brings confusion on the order of the Church.'' (canon 2, Council of Antioch, 341). That is why it is argued by some Orthodox theologians and priests that the Patriarchate of Constaninople is no longer a part of the Eastern Orthodox Church since 2018. In other words it fell from the Church like the non-Chalcedonians in 451 and Rome in 1054. Unfortunately there is a danger that the internal schism could grow bigger. The Alexandrian Patriarchate supported the schismatic OCU in 2019 and as a result the Moscow Patriarchate ceased Eucharistic Communion with it like with the Constantinopolitan Patriarchate in 2018. That way the Alexandrian Patriarchate also fell from the Body of the Church. Nowadays the Constantinopolitan Patriarchate and the Alexandrian Patriarchate and the Churches which took the side of the schismatics and recognized them are not part of the Eastern Orthodox Church. Those other Churches are partially the Churches of Greece and Cyprus - partially because some of the bishops of their holy Synods did not and still do not recognize the new OCU. Things can change if they can become again part of the Orthodox Church but right now they are in a schism, thus being out of the divine grace. There are modernists within all Orthodox Churches but the Constantinopolitan Patriarchate and the other Local Churches that supported Constantinople and fell into schism, too, have embraced the anti-PSA modernistic theology as a doctrine, whence they fell into schism. Schism is a result of embracing a heresy. That has always been the case in the history of the Church. That was the case with the non-Chalcedonians in 451 and with Rome in 1054. In that sense the statement that it is the Constantinopolitan Patriarchate and respectively the other Churches that recognized the actions of Constantinople, that fell into schism, is not political but refers to dogma. Unfortunately there are traces of anti-legalism in the explanatory notes in the Orthodox Study Bible - p.3555:,,...Rather than justification as a legal acquittal before God, Orthodox believers see justification by faith as a covenant relationship with Him, centered in union with Christ (Rom 6:1-6)...''; p.3558:...Our relationship with God is not something static, a legal fiction given to us by a Divine Judge...''

Hello. The Filioque is important because it is related to the understanding of papal claim primacy for a primacy by jurisdiction over the Church. If the Pope had a primacy in the Church by jurisdiction, i.e. if he is an earthly Head of the Church, then he cannot be fallible on the matters of faith because if he was, that would make the whole Church fall into a heresy. The Cathechism of the Roman Catholic Church says:,,248.At the outset the Eastern tradition expresses the Father's character as first origin of the Spirit. By confessing the Spirit as he "who proceeds from the Father", it affirms that he comes from the Father through the Son.77 The Western tradition expresses first the consubstantial communion between Father and Son, by saying that the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son (filioque). It says this, "legitimately and with good reason",78 for the eternal order of the divine persons in their consubstantial communion implies that the Father, as "the principle without principle",79 is the first origin of the Spirit, but also that as Father of the only Son, he is, with the Son, the single principle from which the Holy Spirit proceeds.80 This legitimate complementarity, provided it does not become rigid, does not affect the identity of faith in the reality of the same mystery confessed. … 77 Jn 15:26; cf. AG 2.; 78 Council of Florence (1439): DS 1302; 79 Council of Florence (1442): DS 1331; 80 Cf. Council of Lyons II (1274): DS 850. (www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p1s2c1p2.htm)‘‘. It must be noted that in Greek the verb that is used to define the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father, is ἐκπορευόμενον. Anthony C. Thiselton says:,,The Greek word ἐκπορευόμενον (ekporeuomenon) refers to the ultimate source from which the proceeding occurs, but the Latin verb procedere (and the corresponding terms used to translate it into other languages) can apply also to proceeding through a mediate channel.‘‘(Anthony C. Thiselton, The Holy Spirit: in biblical teaching, through the centuries and today, 2013, p.400). So, technically it is possible that ,,procedere‘‘ in Latin can apply through a mediate channel. But there is another issue. The suggestion that the Holy Spirit proceeds eternally directly from the Father as from an ultimate source and from the Father through the Son, i.e. from the Son but not as from an ultimate source, introduces the category time in the procession of the Holy Spirit through the Son in comparison both with the eternal generation of the Son from the Father and the Spirit’s eternal direct procession from the Father, thus leading to two Spirits. This is because the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father through the mediation of the Son is possible only if the procession of the Spirit through the Son follows the generation of the Son through Whom the Spirit proceeds because otherwise the Son cannot be a mediator of the indeirect procession of the Spirit from the Father. Therefore, in the hyposthesis of the procession of the Spirit from the Father through the mediation of the Son, the procession of the Spirit has a beginning in time in comparison with the eternal generation of the Son from the Father and with the eternal procession of the Spirit from the Father, wherefore by His procession through the Son the Holy Spirit would be a creation. So the suggestion of a procession of the Spirit from the Father through the Son, except the direct procesion of the Holy Spirit from the Father, would mean that the procession of the Spirit through the Son has a beginning in time and is not eternal which would introduce a fourth Person in the Holy Trinity - a second Spirit Whose procession through the Son has a beginning in time, i.e. a second Spirit Who is a creation. The conclusion of the introduction a fourth person in the Holy Trinity is inevitable because the Holy Spirit cannot be uncreated and created at the same time. The Cathechism says about the Eastern tradition:,,By confessing the Spirit as he "who proceeds from the Father", it affirms that he comes from the Father through the Son.‘‘, i.e. according to the Catechism the ancient Eastern established belief was that the Holy Spirit proceeds only from the Father but through the Son. But that would mean that the East has come to believe at some point in time that the Holy Spirit is created because, as it was said, the suggestion of a procession of the Holy Spirit through the Son introduces the category ,,time‘‘ regarding the procession of the Spirit through the Son in comparison with the eternal generation of the Son from the Father. In other words, the suggestion of a procession of the Spirit only directly from the Father but through the Son, makes the Spirit created which means a rejection of His divinity. The rejection of His divinity is the heresy of the bishop of Constantinople Macedonius I (342-346; 351-360) who rejected the Godhead of the Holy Spirit. It was condemned at the Second Ecumenical Council (381 CE). It was condemned at the Second Ecumenical Council (381 CE). In the hypothesis of the Holy Spirit proceeding only from the Father but through the Son, since the procession of the Holy Spirit follows the eternal generation of the Son from the Father because of the Son being a mediator of the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father, the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father through the Son would have a beginning in time in comparison with the Son’s eternal generation from the Father, thus making the Holy Spirit a creation which is a monstrous heresy. So both suggestions - first, that the Holy Spirit proceeds directly from the Father and indirectly through the Son, and second - that He proceeds directly only from the Father but through the Son, are untrue. Therefore, as the Papacy has fallen into a heresy, the Popes are fallable regarding the faith. Since the Papacy is fallible regarding the faith and has fallen into a heresy, the Popes do not have primacy by jurisdiction over the Church.

www.journeytoorthodoxy.com

I agree! That book is amazing

exactly as I said before, THE EAST WAS EXCOMMUNICATED FROM THE POPE BUT THE WEST WAS EXCOMMUNICATED FROM THE TRUTH!!!!!

@@1985LISS WEST WAS EXCOMMUNICATED FROM THE TRUTH of photius the usurper whom cerularios followed

1- In fact no, after being excommunicate the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople excommunicate the Pope, 2- Who excommunicated the Patriarch was a cardinal not the Pope, so was the East that threw away the Pope, not the Pope who threw away the East

+cabellero1120 But there are attemts of modernistic theologians in the orthodox countries to usurp Orthodox truth. There is a more frightening tendency going on nowadays and it is the rejection of the penal substitutionary atonement as a supposedly Romans Catholic and Protestant invntion that supposedly entered the Orthodox theology in the 18th century. This movement is called anti-legalism in the writings of the conseravtive Orthodox writers from the 20th century who have refuted it. But the one who began the anti-legalistic teaching teaching was Metropolitan Anthony Khrapovitsky (1861 - 1936) with his fundamental work ''The Dogma of Redemption'' (1917). He calls his own teaching ''moral monism''. Ethical monism rejects the original patristic teaching of the Redemption, Retribution and Judgment. Metropolitan Anthony rejected the penal substitutionary atonement. Metropolitan Anthony thought that Christ redeemed humankind with His tears shed in the Garden of Gethsemane. The rejection of the penal substitutionary atonement is a heresy. It is known as the cross-fighting heresy among anti-modernists because it rejects the act of Redemption of our sins on the Cross. It is refuted by Bishop St.Viktor Ostrovidov (1875-1927), Archbishop St.Theophan of Poltava (1875-1940) and by St.Seraphim Sobolev (1881-1950). The cross-fighting heresy has many variations. There are also many variontions of anti-legalism nowadays. The term ''anti-legalism'' is used to note the main characteristic of anti-legalism which is the undermining and rejection of all term that have a legal character - Judgment, reconciliation, propitiation, condemnation, justification, punishment (referring to the eternal punishment in hell) etc. As I mentioned eternal punishment, that is the rejection of the eternal punishment in the hellfire is very important ascpect of anti-legalism because the humanistic and liberal theology cannot stand the thought of a eternal punishment. Actually, the idea that the PSA is not Orthodox ascribes the teaching to Anselm of Canterbury (1033-1109). The attacks against Anselm go together with attacks against St.Augustine who was an influence to Anselm. The attacks of the Orthodox modernists blaim St.Augustine for the supposed deviations of the Roman Church that supposedly influenced the Eastern Orthodox Churches at a later point. I say ''supposed deviations'' because there are real deviations on the West that St.Augustine has nothing to do with. He is a venerated saint in the Orthodox Church and a great Holy Father. He is accused by the Orthodox modernists and anti-legalists for supposedly having introduced the teaching of the original sin according to which when Adam fell, all humankind fell with him because it was contained in Adam, wherefore we all inherit the guilt of his sin and that original sin is cleansed in baptism. This has been the understanding of the original sin before Augustine. St. Irenaeus of Lyon (130-202) writes in ,,Against Heresies‘‘ (c.180): ,,...Indeed, through the first Adam, we offended God by not observing His command. Through the second Adam, however, we are reconciled, and are made obedient even unto death. For we were debtors to none other except to Him, whose commandment we transgressed at the beginning.‘‘ (Against Heresies, Book 5, Chapter 16, 3); St.Cyprian of Carthage (200-256) says "If, in the case of the worst sinners and those who formerly sinned much against God, when afterwards they believe, the remission of their sins is granted and no one is held back from baptism and grace, how much more, then, should an infant not be held back, who, having but recently been born, has done no sin, except that, born of the flesh according to Adam, he has contracted the contagion of that old death from his first being born. For this very reason does he [an infant] approach more easily to receive the remission of sins: because the sins forgiven him are not his own but those of another" (Letters, 64:5, c.253 CE); St.Macarius the Great (300-391) of Egypt, Homily 5:,,… The word spoken to Cain by the Creator, that sentence pronounced upon him with an outward meaning, Groaning and trembling and tossed shall thou be upon the earth (Genesis 4:12) is a type and likeness of what all sinners undergo in secret. After falling from the commandment and entering the sinful state, the race of Adam has acquired that likeness in secret;…‘‘ ; St.Ambrose of Milan(c.340-397), On the Mysteries, Chapter 6:''Why they who come forth from the laver of baptism are anointed on the head; why, too, after baptism, their feet are washed, and what sins are remitted in each case. … 32. Peter was clean, but he must wash his feet, for he had sin by succession from the first man, when the serpent overthrew him and persuaded him to sin. His feet were therefore washed, that hereditary sins might be done away, for our own sins are remitted through baptism. ''; St. Jerome of Stridon (347-420), says about Christ:,,He hung on a tree so that by means of a tree He might erase the sin we had committed through the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.‘‘ (cf. Genesis 2:9,17; 3:11).‘‘ (Commentary on Galatians). The rejection of the inheritance by all humans of Adam's guilt for his sin, is a revival of the Pelagian heresy, condemned at the Council of Carthage (419). Anti-legalism, mostly in the form of the cross-fihghting heresy, is dangerously spread among people on the West who who who would like to turn to Orthodoxy.

Another significant aspect of anti-legalism is the so-called recapitulation theory of atonement which is another form of rejection of the penal substituionary atonement. According to that theory, the main purpose of Christ’s Incarnation was not to die instead of us as an act of redemption of our sins and reconciliation with the Father, but was the unification of His Divinity and Humanity, the theosis of His human nature as a foundation for our reaching of theosis (deification), i.e. the reaching of our human nature of the likeness of God by God’s grace. Significant proponents of that theory were Protopresbyter John Meyendorff (1926-1992) and Protopresbyter Georges Florovsky (1893-1979). A radical form of that theory is found in the Official Documents of the Holy and Great Council of the Orthodox Church (which was held in Crete in June 2016), issued on the 28th of January 2016 (www.holycouncil.org/-/mission-orthodox-church-todays-world), The Mission of the Orthodox Church in Today’s world, A.The Dignity of the Human Person: ,,The human person’s unique dignity, which stems from being created in the image and likeness of God and from our role in God’s plan for humanity and the world, was the source of inspiration for the Church Fathers, who entered deeply into the mystery of divine oikonomia. Regarding the human being, St. Gregory the Theologian characteristically emphasizes that:,,The Creator sets a sort of second world upon the earth, great in its smallness, another angel, a worshipper of composite nature, contemplator of visible creation, and initiate of intelligible creation, a king over all that is on earth… a living being, prepared here and transported elsewhere and (which is the culmination of the mystery) deified through attraction towards God‘‘ (Homily 45, On Holy Pascha, 7. PG 36, 632AB). The purpose of the incarnation of the Word of God is the deification of the human being. Christ, having renewed within himself the old Adam (cf. Eph 2:15), made the human person divine like himself, the beginning of our hope (Eusebius of Caesarea, Demonstrations on the Gospel, Book 4, 14. PG 22, 289A). For just as the entire human race was contained in the old Adam, so too, the entire human race is now gathered in the new Adam:,,The Only-begotten One became man in order to gather into one and return to its original condition the fallen human race‘‘ (Cyril of Alexandria, Commentary on the Gospel of John, Book 9, PG 74, 273D-275A). This teaching of the Church is the endless source of all Christian efforts to safeguard the dignity and majesty of the human person.‘‘ Here the idea is revealed in way that differs from the way it is revealed in the works of Protopresbyter John Meyendorff and Protopresbyter Georges Florovsky. Here it is developed as it goes further to state that with the deification of the human nature of Christ due the Incarnation, there was completed the theosis of the human nature as a whole, of the human nature of all humans, since the whole human race is gathered in Christ like it was gathered in Adam. But the gathering of all in Christ is not something that was made complete with the Incarnation of Christ but it is a purpose of Christ’s Incarnation and that purpose is fulfilled in the Holy Eucharist and is preceded by joining the Church of those who become one with and in Christ in the Holy Eucharist. And St.Cyril clearly says that:,,...For how could it be disputed, or what right-minded man could deny, that Christ is the Vine in this relation? And we, as being branches after a figure, receive into ourselves life out of and proceeding from Him, as Paul says: For we are all one body in Christ, seeing that we who are many are one bread: for we all partake of the one bread. And let any one account for this and give us an interpretation of it without reference to the power of the blessed mystery. Why do we receive it within us? Is it not that it may make Christ to dwell in us corporeally also by participation and communion of His Holy Flesh? Rightly would he answer, I deem. For Paul writes, that the Gentiles have become fellow-members of the body, and fellow-partakers, and fellow-heirs of Christ. How are they shown to be "embodied"? Because, being admitted to share the Holy Eucharist, they become one body with Him, just as each one of the holy Apostles. For why did he (S. Paul) call his own, yea, the members of all as well as his own, the members of Christ? For he writes thus: Know ye not that your members are members of Christ? Shall I then take away the members of Christ, and make them members of a harlot? God forbid. And the Saviour Himself says: He that eateth My Flesh and drinketh My Blood, abideth in Me, and I in him. For here it is especially to be observed that Christ saith that He shall be in us, not by a certain relation only, as entertained through the affections, but also by a natural participation. For as, if one entwineth wax with other wax and melteth them by the fire there resulteth of both one, so THROUGH THE PARTICIPATION OF THE BODY OF CHRIST AND HIS PRECIOUS BLOOD, HE IN US, AND WE AGAIN IN HIM, ARE CO-UNITED. For in no other way could that which is by nature corruptible be made alive, unless it were bodily entwined with the Body of That Which is by nature Life, the Only-begotten. And if any be not persuaded by my words, give credence to Christ Himself, crying aloud: Verily, verily, I say unto you, except ye eat the Flesh of the Son of Man and drink His Blood, ye have not life in yourselves. He that eateth My Flesh and drinketh My Blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up in the last day. Thou nearest now Himself plainly declaring that, unless we "eat His Flesh, and drink His Blood," we "have not in ourselves," that is, in our flesh, "Eternal Life." But Eternal Life may be conceived to be, and most justly, the Flesh of that which is Life, that is, the Only-begotten. ...‘‘ (St. Cyril, Archbishop of Alexandria, On the Gospel according to John, Book 10, Chapter II. That the Son is Consubstantial with God the Father, and not of an alien or foreign nature, as some of the perverse assert, XV. 1 I am the true Vine, and My Father is the Husbandman.). Also, idea that Christ has become the Head of all humanity with His Incarnation, contradicts the Holy Scripture where it is said that He is the Head of the Church and not of all humanity:,,For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the Head of the church: and he is the Savior of the body.‘‘ (Ephesians 5:23, KJV). If He was a Head of the whole humanity, He would be a Savior of all humanity and not only of the Church, i.e. of the members of the Church.

Exactly. Sounds extreme but actually a great analogy if you know the history

Acts 15 proves the Orthodox case.

Matthew 18:18

Every Bishop is Peter

Squid Nig No! Just like there is only ONE Rome. Not “a new Rome” or the “the New Rome” just as the Patriarch of Constantinople and the one of Moscow state now. All the apostles were not Peter. There is only ONE St. Peter. There is only ONE Rome and there is only ONE Church founded by Jesus Christ Himself and entrusted to St. Peter. ONE---not many national or ethnic churches with their own leaders. HOLY--founded by Jesus Christ Himself-God the Son. CATHOLIC--Universal, found in all corners of the World, not it a single region. With One hierarchy, not many bishops in one city representing different ethnic groups, doing different things. APOSTOLIC--based on the Holy tradition of the Apostles and Church Fathers. Traced back to the Apostles, with St. Peter leading it with the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. He has the seat and the keys, our Pope. CHURCH

Roca005 Third Canon of the second Ecumenical council: “The Bishop of Constantinople, however, shall have the prerogative of honour after the Bishop of Rome because Constantinople is New Rome.” The Roman Catholic Church accepts this council so you’re bound to its teaching that Constantinople is new Rome. Your fundamental lack of understanding of how jurisdictions function in the Catholic Church is why you reject Orthodoxy. Separate, autocephalous churches does NOT mean we are separated or belong to a different Church. We affirm the same teachings, we worship the same way, and are all in communion with one another. Not like in Roman Catholicism. You guys have quite the theological mess on your hands. 23 different rites of the church and almost none of you can agree on anything. The Uniates don’t accept the doctrine of Absolute divine simplicity, the filioque, or purgatory. How is that being in communion with one another?

Catholics claim saints in Orthodox as Catholic saints as well

kzfaq.info/get/bejne/ibN2msaXqsvdqIk.html

De-centralization breeds national churches who excommunicate each others over local disputes

​@@Phantom-xp2co there has to be a balance and WE need to look at The Church as how it was before 1054, East and West both need each other which is why I am a Melkite Greek Catholic...

Are you going to share what those errors are for the benefit of the rest of us who aren't Eastern Orthodox?

​@@levisando, sure, if you wish. Here's one to start with: Holdsworth presumes that there exists "one final authority like we have in the Pope." This idea is a fabrication of the Roman Patriarchate, and was part of what CAUSED the schism which Holdsworth blames on the Orthodox. He then says that the Catholic Church has continued to have "ecumenical councils." That is impossible, since a truly ecumenical council is one which involves the ENTIRE Church. Catholic councils after the Great Schism (and really all councils going back to Chalcedon) have not been ecumenical, no matter what label is applied to them. Holdsworth simply presumes that the Bishop of Rome is beyond criticism, but the early (and actual) ecumenical councils are clear that a patriarch's authority is limited to the geography of that patriarchate. It was the very invention of Papal Supremacy and attempts to impose this upon the rest of the Church which has caused and perpetuated multiple schisms for centuries. The irony and error, of course, is blaming the rest of the Church for schisms which the Bishop of Rome basically caused, himself, by attempting to impose authority that he didn't really have upon the rest of the Church. The apostles often argued among themselves about who was the greatest. Jesus chastised them for this, but the "tradition" continues to this day, and has caused great distress and division in the Church.

@@philoalethia your argument against Rome's Ecumenical Councils is very weak....and you used it to kind of kill two birds with one stone. To explain away why the CC's ECs have not been valid for 1,000 years; and to explain away why....there have been no ECs among the Orthodox Patriarchates for the same 1,000 years...?? Both birds are still well and alive....

@@thekingslady1, you can call it whatever you want, but it happens to be true. By definition an ecumenical council includes all of the existing church. No such council has occurred for centuries. You may not like these facts, you might call them weak or opine about birds, but they are still the facts.

On the contrary, it doesn’t look simple at all.

Straight White Male Hmmm. Happy Pascha to you. Please pray for us. May God grant you more of his grace each single day. I hope you’re enjoying bright week and The Sunday of Thomas.

Straight White Male Your 'Church' was "changing" before the Great Schism. But when they broke off, they stopped "changing". Where did you get the doctrine of Mary Mother of God? This belief was announced at some point during the Church's history. Same thing with Catholic doctrines. But you're stopped its activity when it broke off and you remained the same, because you left the Church and the Work of the Spirit stopped within you. You're a dead chruch with no fruits.

Brett, just because you copy paste quotes of the fathers without context, that does not make it true. That way you can "prove" almost any theological point. You must look in to the history, the life of the Church and see if the Pope of Rome had the role it has today. Vatican it-self admitted in a theological dialogue with the Orthodox Church in 2016 that there was no papal supremacy in the first millenium, in other words Orthodox Church is right all along.

You can keep your stupid olive branch as long as you don't give up your innovations, and as long as you don't break up your twisted centralized church structure. Keep waving with that branch, we are not buying it. We remember when you were powerful and were bullying us, now that you are dying, you are all nice and slimy and are willing to admit you were wrong, but still not willing to correct your wrongs.

Brett Yes, I’ve read parts of the Fathers Know Best from Jimmy Akin. I was torn between Orthodoxy and Catholicism for a long time. Figured I would read Catholic and orthodox resources. Jimmy addressed many concerns on so many topics in that book. Loved it.

🤦‍♂️

What do you think of this argument that proves the papacy ? Are you convinced ? What would be your opinion ? Thank you kzfaq.info/get/bejne/bLGGabOJuLWol3k.html

#Alissa Gates Couldn't have been explained better

@@chamberlainsexquisiteobjec2541 I actually found it surprisingly convincing. I was not aware of the paralells in Chronicles and Isaiah that he explained. I left a comment on the video you might like to respond to some or all of.

@Prasanth Thomas I find the Orthodox pray to the trinity and invoke the holy spirit more than other denominations, not less.

@Prasanth Thomas lol Saint Peter canot have authority over other apostols

I agree which is why I didn't make that argument if that's the insinuation.

@@BrianHoldsworth, did you not make it, at least in your first part? You pointed to the intense persecution of the Muslims against the East, while showing the West's physical "prosperity" (ignoring their sacking of Constantinople and other rampant violence and corruption throughout the Middle Ages), and including that in your arguments of why you're Roman and not Eastern, did you not?

@@barelyprotestant5365 No, that's not the point I was making. I was referring to the fact that the autocephalies of the East, in many cases, no longer exist. They were utterly destroyed (Antioch, Alexandria, Constantinople, etc.). It's not that they were persecuted (Rome has faced its trials) but that they are now gone altogether.

@@BrianHoldsworth how...is that even an argument against the East in the least bit? I think you're imposing Roman views onto the East. Because otherwise you just look like you're arguing, "we're not persecuted, therefore we're right." The East has never claimed that any of their autocephalous groups are eternal, only that the Church is. It makes no sense to demand they have a Roman understanding, and then show that they fail the Roman understanding as evidence that they aren't the true Church. That's arguing with the presumption that you're right, to begin with. It's not as bad an argument as what I first understood it to be, but it's still pretty bad. This is a constant problem I see with Roman theology: they enforce their own unique theilogy onto others, then declare that those others fail because they are inconsistent with said theology when that has never been the theology of the others in the first place. I recommend reading Meyendorff's The Orthodox Church (and I'm not even Eastern Orthodox; I'm Anglo-Catholic).

@@BrianHoldsworth as an Anglo-Catholic, I sincerely appreciate a LOT of what you do. I just think that this comes across as an incredibly offensive argument, and the clarification you gave makes it less offensive but does not redeem it as an argument otherwise.

Metanoia! The radical recasting of your "nous" ...soul level knowledge.

Dude, you forgot a question mark. You are a child of the dumbed down educational system. Quit nitpicking over a simple phrase.

Catholicism changed through centuries so much.

Excellent point on why we have not convened an Ecumenical Council in a thousand years. It's a mournful reality. The next one hopefully will be inclusive of the Bishop of Rome with the acknowledgment that a unity that did exist in the first millennium indeed is our model and that because it did exist we are without excuse to be accountable to this minimal and simultaneously difficult standard. Reconciliation with the Patriarch of Alexandria should occur as well. Since the gospel is comprised of repentance and reconciliation, without substitute, it's striking to see the resistance this message receives. Instead, we all pick a position and defend it.

So, that would be 22nd Ecumenical council. Looking forward to it 😊✝️☦️

no, What happened is the holy light never lit for any one else but the Greek Orthodox and not even for other Orthodox. IT was GOD'S way in showing the world that these people " The Greeks" were his chosen because he had said this when he was alive and saw the Greeks coming towards him/ " now came the hour that my name will be glorified to man through these people" This is why the world demons hates Orthodoxy and is the first one in their list to be destroyed. Look at what Soros is doing to Greece, trying to destroy our history giving it to those slaves there who came down in the 9th centruy Ad , that is why they are trying to rip our faith out of schools in Greece and they feel that if they can do that, then to rip out corrupted churches the rest are easy a joke to them. Don't matter if your fanatic, Eventually they will accomplish it, but they fear Orthodox although its a minority because Christ lives in it!!!!!!! So just as the devil fears Christ that is how they see Orthodoxy..

@Dave: My point exactly!

Dave Wygonowski Well this is Just classic RCC apologetical litterature. This is nothing new. So of course that kind of video start again the classic eternal debat with the classic over used arguments from each sides.

Dear Nani, I think I can help you. The word orthodox means straight, right, traditional. Think of the word orthodontist whose job is to help his patients' teeth grow healthy and straight. A person might be an orthodox communist who believes in a form of communism without any revisions. Another might be be an orthodox Catholic who follows the traditional teachings of the Church. The word Orthodox refers to that branch of Christianity that has been separate from the Catholic Church since 1054 and is the dominant form of Christianity in eastern and southeastern Europe. I do not think there is such a thing as an Orthodox Catholic. So do you see how capitalizing the first letter of orthodox changes the meaning? That though is not apparent when a word is spoken. (By the way, the most traditional branch of Judaism is called Orthodox Judaism.) I hope I helped you.

So it’s not another rite. Up until 1054 there was one church (there were some minor schisms before that but nothing to compete with the breadth and depth of ‘the church’. It mimicked a politics system as it does today and had several bishops in charge of major metropolitan centers of worship. One of these was Rome and as it grew in influence and status it threatened to eclipse the power of the others. For that and a whole bunch of other theological reasons the ‘east west’ schism happened in 1054 officially establishing the Roman Catholic Church as a separate entity (or all of Western Europe) and Eastern Orthodoxy. So as an Irish Catholic American I don’t blame you for not knowing this fully. I didn’t either until relatively recently (in my 20’s now). But yeah the entire eastern part of the Christian world are Orthodox (Russia, Antioch, Greece, Eastern Europe, also all of the original Christian communities in the Middle East- Syria Lebanon etc.) And since Christianity began in Jerusalem with the apostles and early church figures, the eastern church traces their tradition back to the apostles- and Christ himself. I still don’t know what I’m going to do long term, but I’ve been attending Divine Liturgy since November and my impression of orthodoxy is it’s altogether a much more impassioned and mystical Christianity. They know their theology deeply - and while Catholicism is also an ancient and beautiful tradition- I can’t say that was my experience with it growing up (as evidence by modern American Catholics not even knowing what orthodoxy is. Pretty huge event in Christian history.) There’s a great quote from someone at the orthodox parish I’ve been visiting. He said: ‘After the schism, Orthodoxy lost its mind (Catholicism. Scholasticism. The great western Christian theologians,) and Catholicism lost its heart (orthodoxy. Christian esotericism, mysticism, the cultivation of the personal experience of god.)

Get your news up to date: In 1964 Paul VI met with the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople, Athenagoras I, in Jerusalem. There, both leaders lifted the mutual Bulls of Excommunication that resulted in the Great Schism of 1054.

The Eastern Orthodox can't agree on the canon of the O.T. Bible (but we love you anyway... you're brilliant in so many different ways... although you do seem to need a central authority... which you did look up to before the lamentable filioque translation debacle). kzfaq.info/get/bejne/sMqkktOQlbXchKM.html

That is the farce of the "Ecumenical dialogue". Eastern Orthodox Churches can't lift the Bull of Excommunication, until the Bishop of Rome fully accepts the Eastern Orthodox Church doctrine. The Patriarch of Constantinople can't decide alone for the entire Eastern Orthodox Church, and that is the beauty of our Church, that we can't have a dictator. He is also seen as a traitor to Eastern Orthodoxy by most of the believers. Our only central authority are God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit. A Bishop is just a Bishop, equal to all other Bishops. What Jesus said to Peter were his personal remarks to him, it has nothing to do with the Bishop of Rome.

That was a very authoritative of you to say. I'm honored to be in such distinguished presence. Milos, you would be the bishop or patriarch of what diocese, to speak with such authority above the patriarch of Constantinople no less?

I belong to the Serbian Orthodox Church, so the Patriarch of Constantinople doesn't have much authority over me. But speaking of that, even our current Serbian Patriarch is seen as a traitor, because of being controlled by the Jesuits, as most of the Serbian Bishops anyway. But Jesus will preserve Orthodoxy. Also, as an Eastern Orthodox believer, I am not allowed to pray together with the people who don't share exactly the same faith with me, and you know that fact very well.

It wasn't about the order about the excommunications. It was about the fact that the Orthodox bishops claimed to not have any authority over the bishop of Rome, but then excommunicated him. It is a contradiction to say that and then change it based on what the bishop of Rome does to you. The pope, however, claimed from the start to have that authority, so it wasn't a contradiction to excommunicate the other bishops.

@@maxrice6990 Bishop of rome excommunicated himself by falling into heresy. PS - he never claimed from the start to have that authority, the false tradition developed later.

@@maxrice6990 TL;DR: Brian sadly reduces complex historical events to suit a narrative that favors a Roman history, but is in fact pretty wrong on a number of things. Plus the issue of Papal authority has less to do with his jurisdiction (an issue that only arises further as the west continues its innovations [sorry, not sure what else to call them]) and more to do with its insistence that the filioque clause is necessary to be in the creed I will preface this absolute wall of text with my personal bias. I am an Orthodox Christian who converted from protestantism. However, I was in the process of converting to Roman Catholicism for a long time (about a year and I was enrolled in RCIA for several months totally anticipating becoming Catholic) only to be totally disillusioned by the doctrines of Rome. Throughout the process I struggled super hard over becoming RC or EO, so I dug deep into history and theology to try and get to the bottom of it, and this is some of what I came up with. I think you and brian both misunderstand exactly how excommunications actually work. An excommunication is something that in the Roman Church now is thought of as a Bishop saying that a specific parishioner can no longer receive the Eucharist until he or she repents of whatever serious public sin they have committed, i.e. out of communion which is effectively out of the Church. Which is definitely true for Orthodoxy in modernity as well, but excommunications between Bishops is something quite different than that and it deals in the rather tricky business of diptychs and commemoration. For starters the diptychs are a set of the names of the canonical sees that a certain patriarchate recognizes as being part of the Church Catholic. These names are then sung and prayed for during any Liturgy which involves a Hierarch, whether it be a simple diocesan bishop, or the Patriarch himself. It is an important part of the Liturgy as it reinforces the visible unity that is seen within the Church and reminds the faithful what sees are part of the Church Catholic and are canonical sees with which they are in communion with. The excommunication that occurred during 1054 bears a resemblance to this form of excommunication. It was the Bishop of Rome saying that the Constantinopolitan patriarchate was doing something wrong and that they would henceforth be in an ecclesiastical schism (something which had happened many times before 1054 and were often remedied when the bishops themselves died). The Patriarch of Constantinople then returned by blotting out the name of the Roman Patriarch's name. It is important to remember, that at this time post the council of Chalcedon, all of the patriarchs of jerusalem, antioch, and alexandria were greeks living in constantinople (which is a very nasty business and more complicated and deserves its very own post). Needless to say, the state of affairs in constantinople was that if the CP removed someone from the diptychs pretty much the other patriarchs of the remaining pentarchy would also do it. So this led to an ecclesiastical schism, which while it sounds bad actually ended up not really affecting anyone, and most Christians in the east didn't really care or know much about it. And this was how things went down. In reality it should have been resolved, but Rome persisted in its delusion that the filioque clause was actually part of the original creed, an idea that came not from Rome but rather from frankish theologians seeking to discredit the east. Moreover, the real date of official communion being broken with the East and West is at a date 200 years after the supposed "Great Schism" in 1204 during the fourth crusade aka the sacking of Constantinople. This, was the final straw for the Eastern Patriarchs and made permanent what was still fixable from some 200 years up until this point. For eastern christians it was an absolute betrayal from the west, and to add insult to injury, the reigning Patriarch was forcibly removed and a Latin Bishop set up in his stead. Furthermore, the emperor of byzantium (which at this point was mostly just constantinople and some surrounding lands because the Ottomans were savages) was also deposed and in his stead a venician doge was placed as "emperor". So the great city of christendom was raped and pillaged by westerners and the two most important offices for the people of the region were forcibely vacated to make room for people who cared little for the cultural, theological, or liturgical practices of those who lived there. It was the West, in 1204 that made permanent what it had begun in 1054. And if you made it this far, thanks so much for reading.

As for the Eastern Orthodox Church, what we believe about salvation is that this can not be "earned" by means of any good work, since salvation is an Uncreated reality and as such can not be "earned" through our created works. However our good works are necessary in order for us to proove our love to God [John 14:15] and the fact that we accept the gift of salvation. Our good works spring from our good faith and our good faith is proven by our good works. An Orthodox quote says: "Do good works as if there wasn't God's Grace and hope in God's Grace as if you had done no good works".

But the Filioque clause and the papal claim for supremacy by jurisdiction over the Church, are theologically not true and are not just inoffensive differences. If the Pope had a primacy in the Church by jurisdiction and not just by honour , i.e. if he is an earthly Head of the Church, then he cannot be fallible on the matters of faith because if he was, that would make the whole Church fall into a heresy. The Cathechism of the Roman Catholic Church says:,,248.At the outset the Eastern tradition expresses the Father's character as first origin of the Spirit. By confessing the Spirit as he "who proceeds from the Father", it affirms that he comes from the Father through the Son.77 The Western tradition expresses first the consubstantial communion between Father and Son, by saying that the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son (filioque). It says this, "legitimately and with good reason",78 for the eternal order of the divine persons in their consubstantial communion implies that the Father, as "the principle without principle",79 is the first origin of the Spirit, but also that as Father of the only Son, he is, with the Son, the single principle from which the Holy Spirit proceeds.80 This legitimate complementarity, provided it does not become rigid, does not affect the identity of faith in the reality of the same mystery confessed. … 77 Jn 15:26; cf. AG 2.; 78 Council of Florence (1439): DS 1302; 79 Council of Florence (1442): DS 1331; 80 Cf. Council of Lyons II (1274): DS 850. (www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p1s2c1p2.htm)‘‘. It must be noted that in Greek the verb that is used to define the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father, is ἐκπορευόμενον. Anthony C. Thiselton says:,,The Greek word ἐκπορευόμενον (ekporeuomenon) refers to the ultimate source from which the proceeding occurs, but the Latin verb procedere (and the corresponding terms used to translate it into other languages) can apply also to proceeding through a mediate channel.‘‘(Anthony C. Thiselton, The Holy Spirit: in biblical teaching, through the centuries and today, 2013, p.400). So, technically it is possible that ,,procedere‘‘ in Latin can apply through a mediate channel. But there is another issue. The suggestion that the Holy Spirit proceeds eternally directly from the Father as from an ultimate source and from the Father through the Son, i.e. from the Son but not as from an ultimate source, introduces the category time in the procession of the Holy Spirit through the Son in comparison both with the eternal generation of the Son from the Father and the Spirit’s eternal direct procession from the Father, thus introducing to two Spirits. This is because the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father through the mediation of the Son is possible only if the procession of the Spirit through the Son follows the generation of the Son through Whom the Spirit proceeds because otherwise the Son cannot be a mediator of the indeirect procession of the Spirit from the Father. Therefore, in the hypothesis of the procession of the Spirit from the Father through the mediation of the Son, the procession of the Spirit has a beginning in time in comparison with the eternal generation of the Son from the Father and with the eternal procession of the Spirit from the Father, wherefore by His procession through the Son the Holy Spirit would be a creation. So the suggestion of a procession of the Spirit from the Father through the Son, except the direct procesion of the Holy Spirit from the Father, would mean that the procession of the Spirit through the Son has a beginning in time and is not eternal which would introduce a fourth Person in the Holy Trinity - a second Spirit Whose procession through the Son has a beginning in time, i.e. a second Spirit Who is a creation. The conclusion of the introduction a fourth person in the Holy Trinity is inevitable because the Holy Spirit cannot be uncreated and created at the same time. The Cathechism says about the Eastern tradition:,,By confessing the Spirit as he "who proceeds from the Father", it affirms that he comes from the Father through the Son.‘‘, i.e. according to the Catechism the ancient Eastern established belief was that the Holy Spirit proceeds only from the Father but through the Son. But that would mean that the East has come to believe at some point in time that the Holy Spirit is created because, as it was said, the suggestion of a procession of the Holy Spirit through the Son introduces the category ,,time‘‘ regarding the procession of the Spirit through the Son in comparison with the eternal generation of the Son from the Father. In other words, the suggestion of a procession of the Spirit only directly from the Father but through the Son, makes the Spirit created which means a rejection of His divinity. The rejection of His divinity is the heresy of the bishop of Constantinople Macedonius I (342-346; 351-360) who rejected the Godhead of the Holy Spirit. It was condemned at the Second Ecumenical Council (381 CE). It was condemned at the Second Ecumenical Council (381 CE). In the hypothesis of the Holy Spirit proceeding only from the Father but through the Son, since the procession of the Holy Spirit follows the eternal generation of the Son from the Father because of the Son being a mediator of the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father, the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father through the Son would have a beginning in time in comparison with the Son’s eternal generation from the Father, thus making the Holy Spirit a creation which is a monstrous heresy. So both suggestions - first, that the Holy Spirit proceeds directly from the Father and indirectly through the Son, and second - that He proceeds directly only from the Father but through the Son, are untrue. Therefore, as the Papacy has fallen into a heresy, the Popes are fallable regarding the faith. Since the Papacy is fallible regarding the faith and has fallen into a heresy, the Popes do not have primacy by jurisdiction over the Church.

Good explanation.. btw, the ultimate authorithy in Orthodoxy is Jesus Christ and the Lord Himself, so there is no need to have any other supreme head of the Church.. orthodox Patriarchs are just servants to Him...

That CAN'T be a legitimate reason.

@@blade7506 I see broken communion as an issue in Orthodoxy though I do admire it. I’ve considered conversion but hold off until I research more.

……seriously? …….that’s the reason? *deep sigh* *shakes head*

Hello brother in Christ! Who founded your Pentecostal church?

wow couldnt have said it better!!!I am a Greek orthodox and understand exactly what you mean..unfortunately not many have knowledge of ancient Greek philosophers so they dont understand

Sabrina Tserkanou Hello, I am a former Catholic. My path to Orthodoxy is a true reconciliation to Christianity. Without the Orthodox Church I would be an atheist today. The legacy of Greek philosophy is extremely important for understanding Christianity, since it is precisely with its vocabulary that the foundations of Christian theology are written. It is impossible to understand Christianity by reading the Roman Catholic apologetic literature. It is impossible to understand the absolute goodness of God with the prism of Augustinian theology. Christian theology through Western tradition is full of contradiction and makes argumentation extremely difficult with atheists. Western theology and Roman Catholic theology endanger the survival of our religion. I hope one day another Catholics will open their eyes like me.

Right now, I am in position as you were many years ago. And I don't know what to study exactly, I am wandering, but I have no idea where exactly to seek for answer. And while I don't know what is true, I continue to go to Catholic church. And there is no traditional mass near by, only Novus Ordo. I dislike it, but go there in hope that there are others who also dislike it, but have strong faith. But yesterday happened something. I realised, as never before, that they are lying during mass. I knew it before, but it didn't bother me so much. Until yesterday. Lying in mass, I can not comprehend it. Priest knowingly says that Jesus said something that he didn't. It seems blasphemous. Please, tell me what did you read and study when you were in similar position.

Lucija Marić Hello, I would be happy to tell you a little about my spiritual journey. Like many young people in the West I had to free myself one day from my cultural determinism to learn to think. I quickly realized that Roman Catholicism today had little to do with what it once was, so I realized how neglected the teaching of the Christian Faith was on the part of of the Catholic Church. I was one day tempted by Protestantism, but I ran out after two months. Today it makes me laugh. I then returned to attend the Catholic liturgies, but the problem was not solved and all the studies I had done during my spiritual journey made me more and more uncomfortable with the Catholic Church . I then took refuge at Blaise Pascal's, whose philosophy I devoured. Subsequently I discovered Master Eckart, a German Catholic theologian who was at that time condemned for heresy. It was a revelation for me. His theology was centered on spirituality and was completely free from religious fundamentalism. I read everything, even if honestly I did not understand much. I compensated by listening to reports of specialists on his thought. And one day I'm this show kzfaq.info/get/bejne/jN1znaZqmLOvj4k.html (It's in French, but I suggest you find a way to listen to it, with subtitles for example) This man Jean-Yves Leloup, is theologian and French Orthodox priest. I am not French, but French is my mother tongue. From that moment I knew that I wanted to become Orthodox, it was too late, the conversion was fried in my heart and from then on there is no return possible for me to Roman Catholicism. I entered the Coptic Orthodox Church, being aware of all its differences with the rest of the Orthodox community. For me it did not really matter, the Copts greeted me with joy, much more than the Greeks or the Russians would have done. I have since undertaken a thorough study of the Fathers of the Church and Orthodox theology to compensate for my cultural determinism and not to be orthodox in appearance but actually continue to think like a Catholic. But I warn you if you wish to become Orthodox. It must really come from your heart. We are all aware of the hypocrisy of the Roman Catholic Church, but that is not a sufficient reason to become Orthodox. If what fascinates me in Orthodoxy is the importance given to the Eucharist. For the Orthodox to drink the wine of the Eucharist is like going to drink at the source of life. To eat the body of Christ is to feed on the tree of life. For us the Eucharist is an invisible spiritual passage between earthly life and the infinite transcendence of God. If I can summarize my readings as well: Blaise Pascal, Master Eckart, Jean-Yves Leloup and Placide Deseilles. If you have other questions do not hesitate. You can also join me in private message.

Thank you very much. When I started searching about Orthodoxy, I fell in love. But then I was afraid, what if Catholicism is right, and I am too dumb to understand it, so what if I make wrong decision because I fell in love. Just like entering relationship with wrong person because of falling in love. So I do wish to become Orthodox, but then again, I am afraid that I will maybe do something wrong because I should not do what I wish, I should do what is right. And I mentioned Sunday's experience on Novus Ordo mass, because it gave me strong feeling that it is completely wrong, that I should search more fervently. So my plan is to read and study more, so I can be sure that I am doing right thing. I read a lot about history and dogma, but there are still many things I have to learn and read.

and After this, the Patriarch excommunicated the Pope, How can you maje such a huge historical error?

@@Dr.Oppenheimer-a Not the Pope excomunicated the Patriarch off Constantinopole because the pope Gregory IX was allready death and the next pope Victor II was not allready chosen thath time the cardinal Humberto did it personaly and the schism was thath time allready a fact since september off the year 1052

A miracle is a sign or wonder that proves God's active presence. it is by definition something that a human could not do without supernatural aid. For example there is no way to make a paralyzed person walk by announcing a word or by simply touching them. But the so-called miracle of the holy fire is something that has been shown to be possible through tricks or technology which makes it very suspect.

@@BrianHoldsworth dont people check first yo see of anything is in the place to light a fire before sealing the place shut?

@@BrianHoldsworth government official check the place before shutting the doors to the church. The fire is a miracle. Jesus truly is risen!

@@BrianHoldsworth kzfaq.info/get/bejne/qs-BnquV1NmniaM.html

@@BrianHoldsworth God bless you my borther in Christ!

@Shahan Garabet I'm sure the C Church will weather this huge storm ; she has overcome many others in the past ; this one is particularly painful for all catholics ; and in this storm we can see who are friendly (and support us) and who are not ; CC will raise again more splendid and regenerated than ever (moreover there are many prophetcies about these trials and the regeneration to come)

Francis has done more to discredit Catholicism than any anti-Catholic opponent could ever hope to accomplish.